Saturday, January 17, 2009
I'm going to dust off my crystal ball and make a prediction for the immediate future of Gaza: Obama will bring peace to Palestine. Now, don't take this as an endorsement of the man or his policies. Rather, it's likely such a strategem was developed well in advance of the first Palestinian child to be showered with white phosphorus.
I believe Israel cut a deal with the US some time ago, a deal to the effect of: "sure, sacrifice as many Palestinians as your Jewish wargod / Zionist supremacism demands, but get your licks in while Bush is still in office. The world detests the Texan, so his rep can't fall any lower. Once Obama takes office though, you'll be required to let him "solve" whatever crisis you create. And hey, we'll get the door for you on your way out, seeing as it's Saturday and all."
See, this way the Israelis get what they want; lots of dead Arabs, and the US gets what it wants; at least partly restored international relations. The foreign policy capital Obama will earn from "bringing" peace to the region will then be spent on securing allies for the next big push... Most likely Iran.
The Gaza massacre (13 to 1100 casualties is no "war") has been cynically timed to the end of year media lull as well as the presidential changeover, that much is obvious. I believe "peacebringer" Obama is the immediate surprise in store however. Sing his praises, ye faithful.
Assuming the war doesn't immediately escalate and spread through the region, give this claim a month or three.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
After apartheid was run out of town on the points of a pitchfork, good excuses to form a rampaging mob have been scarce. Sure, there’ve been recurring black-outs, stratospheric crime rates and abysmal living standards to piss and moan about, but all these problems lack a human face. To get properly riled-up and riotous takes a suitably villainous caricature, and the bald, bespectacled Potato Head of Afrikaner authority is long gone. Luckily though, there’s a convenient new source for the hated other - all the hopeful immigrants pouring into the country through its unpatrolled borders.
Mid-2008, South Africa was convulsed by “xenophobic violence,” the Rainbow Nation way to say “localised genocide.” Shanty-town residents ganged up to bash and burn the foreigners they accused of stealing their jobs. A handy excuse for carnage but, with unemployment around 42%, they probably didn’t even have jobs in the first place... Whatever, the locals flipped out en-masse, and at least 62 xenos died clicking their heels together and wishing they were back in Kansas.
As even the notoriously aloof Mbeki government eventually noticed the pervasive odour of roasting Zimbabwean, the army were sent in to pacify the chaotic “informal settlements.” Seems the police just couldn’t hack it, figuring that to stand up to a crowd you need to be a crowd - not an untrained, demoralised rag-tag. So, in scenes reminiscent of the final days of apartheid, the world was treated to soldiers firing teargas and rubber bullets into the teeming township throng. Of course, they were mostly black soldiers this time around, so that was okay.
Nasty violence quelled and investor confidence neatly castrated, sprawling “internal refugee shelters” mushroomed around the country. As the country went into its bitterest winter in recent memory, these camps accommodated the traumatised immigrants, the bulk of whom took to cowering in dark corners, whimpering and shivering like raped dogs. The country sniffed the clean air, heaved a collective sigh of relief, and went back to pretending it was Africa’s democratic miracle of peace and unity.
Of course, until everyone finally keels over from the sewage ‘n’ cholera concoction the government’s brewing in the national water supply, the madness of crowds will keep disrupting the Rainbow fantasy like news of a butt-plug clearance sale going through a Pride Rally. The latest, grim proof of this is a particularly horrifying incident that took place January 8th in Durban.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one - a Zimbabwean, a Tanzanian and a Mozambican are eking out their lives in a high-rise refugee shelter. Late one night, they spot an enraged, machete-wielding mob heading their way, excitedly blowing vuvizelas (trumpets) and screeching “shaya amakwerekwere” (“hit the foreigners”). Some of their friends and family hide under beds, even in toilets, but the Zimbabwean, Tanzanian and Mozambican find themselves trapped on the apartment’s top floor.
As the 50-odd bloodthirsty locals pound up the stairs, the three migrants decide that, rather than be hacked limb from limb, they’ll jump out the sixth story window. The Zimbabwean and the Tanzanian die instantly from the bone-splintering fall but, get this, the Mozambican survives. He’s in critical care right now, having apparently found his happy thought on the way down - and the smart money’s on “no more life in South Africa!”
The real punch-line? The “Venture Africa” complex, that Cape Canaveral of the immigrant community, was just two doors down from the local cop shop. Several witnesses have come forward, puzzled as to how the Broad Street S.A. Police Services missed the horns, chanting, breaking glass and screams, to say nothing of the footfalls across the roof. Somehow, the cops even failed to notice the armed mob streaming past their windows. Streaming past not once, mark you, but twice, as the killers marched home in triumph, suffused with the warm, communal spirit of mob violence. Of course, before declaring the pigs inept cowards and calling for the baby-killers, you’ve gotta consider that maybe there was a really good soccer match on TV.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Thursday, December 04, 2008
JOE: ...Go to the mattresses.
JOE: It's from The Godfather. It means you have to go to war.
KATHLEEN: The Godfather? What is it with men and The Godfather?
JOE: The Godfather is the I Ching. The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom. The Godfather is the answer to any question. What should I pack for my summer vacation? “Leave the gun, take the cannoli.” What day of the week is it? “Maunday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday.”
And the answer to your question is “Go to the mattresses.”
You're at war. “It's not personal, it's business. It's not personal, it's business.” Recite that to yourself every time you feel you're losing your nerve. I know you worry about being brave, this is your chance. Fight. Fight to the death.
- You've Got Mail (1998)
Anyone who hasn’t seen the Godfather series needs to do so immediately. Best trilogy ever, just like Lord of the Rings. And just like Lord of the Rings, the book’s even better. The best in their respective genres, if not the definition thereof. Such was Godfather’s power that it not only redefined Mafia fiction, but the very Mafia itself. Life imitating art, the Mafia strove to emulate their most loyal, honourable aspects as portrayed in The Godfather. While I don’t suggest we of the New Right in turn mimic the Mafia, there is much to be learned from the(ir) story.
Similar to Tolkien’s tale as interpreted by Jackson, there are slight discrepancies between Puzo’s novel and Coppola’s film. Michael Corleone’s line above; “It’s not personal, it’s business,” is in direct contrast to the secret of the Family’s success as revealed in the novel: “It’s all personal.” A minor rewrite to some, perhaps even to Puzo whose screenplay it was, but a profound difference as it reflects the divided nature of mind.
Thought and feeling, as closely linked yet vastly separate as written dialogue and spoken words. This duality, so integral to man, paradoxically divides him from himself. It’s in this abyss between conscious thought and subconscious feeling, rationality and irrationality, that all the devils of man reside. And it’s into this Hell we venture. Soon we shall confront the Morningstar, whose angelic appearance and honeyed words of equality and liberty, so mask his dark truth. Not lightly do I invoke such metaphorical allusions but if, as my intuition tells me, that philosophy which opposes the logic, empiricism and morality of the New Right is borne of occult mysticism, I do so aptly. If some scholar of philosophy and occultism were to prove this linkage, it may do our opponent’s considerable political damage. But enough of the arch devils behind the Beast’s empire, back to the one founded upon Darwinism and Christianity.
The Godfather’s crux, around which so much reason and unreason swirl, is sudden, high-level change which threatens a dominant criminal empire. Some “black kettles” have, entertainingly if rather superficially, likened this violent shift in the balance of power to September 11th, and the resultant developments to American foreign policy thereafter. This reading of Puzo’s I Ching, or I Wop if you want to be a prick about it, is based on the following hexagram:
The great Don Corleone, like Pope Jean Paul II, is shot down in his own territory by the brutal Turk. Like the Pope, the Godfather survives the assassination attempt. But while Jean Paul II, either a good man or a great fool (assuming some inequality), forgave Mehmet Ali Ağca, the Don never has such an opportunity. Before Don Corleone emerges from coma, his son, Michael, murders the Turk and his co-conspirator, a corrupt police “capo.” In convincing his brothers of the rightness of his course, Michael assures them “It’s just business.” Though Michael loves his father dearly and is filled with righteous hatred for his would-be assassin, this assurance is not quite a lie, but a half-truth. In a rare confluence of thought and feeling all too familiar to our movement, eliminating the Turk is the strategically-correct course though it follows the pull of a loyal heart.
Realistically, it can never be “just business” when the lives of family are threatened. As race is best defined as “extended family,” this heartfelt truth is a damning indictment of modernity. Race-replacement, for the most part economically-motivated, threatens the very existence of our descendants. This, in addition to the direct threat it presents our generation’s standard of living, social cohesion, employment prospects and so on. Can we dispassionately dismiss this reality? Can we afford to? No! We must reveal our assailant, form a battle-line and declare war.
The entity responsible for this assault on our family - our Turk, if you will - is primarily of American provenance though, like the diminishing majority of Americans, of distant European extraction. It is the worldview which sees humans chiefly in economic terms, as self-interested commercial agents without racial or cultural affiliation. Until recently, capitalism was held in check by that morality which stems from adaptive behaviour - family values, if not the values of the Family... However, as the proverbial They - in this instance coyly(?) defined as transnational elites - grew more rapacious, such basic values (to say nothing of lofty Constitutional ideals) impeded their ascent to ever greater heights of power. Something had to give, and sadly it was our side in the resultant culture war.
Greatest of our weapons were the tight bonds between family, friends and kind. Capitalism may be the most cunning economic system yet devised, but it remains the monetary equivalent of natural selection, morally neutral. It can never replace love for one’s own as our highest value, a morality worthy of the human heart. We of good conscience must not, cannot, coldly weigh our fellows against coin. To us, such treason remains the gravest of offences, an affront to the trust and loyalty with which we underwrite our social contract. The innermost circle of Hell, named Judecca, is reserved for those who violate this sacred bond. Something beyond material temptation was required to undermine our society. And so rises, finally, the Deceiver.
Loosed upon us by the prideful lords of this world, comes our nemesis, Social Constructionism. A hallucinogenic lightshow, a quasi-mystical dogma, a delusion deadlier than any Mohammedan assassin. It is emotion wholly substituted for thought, the codification of understanding reality only as we want to see it. Interpretable only in terms of itself (the pretentious Latin term for which currently escapes me), this fundamentally irrational doctrine seeks to reframe all opposition to its shadowy agenda as arbitrary cultural preference. The most humane or intrinsically human of resistance is recast as a trivial relic and, more often than not, a shameful, backwards evil. As a rather poor but close to hand example, a recent National Geographic special featured a Boas-spawned anthropologist who smugly dismissed war in humans and chimps as “a cultural artefact.” If life processes as fundamental as the competition for resources, leading to in-group cooperation and out-group aggression, can be explained away as a mere memetic bagatelle by Social Constructionism, what hope is there for the genuine memes of Western high culture?
Very little, judging by the aesthetic devolution presented by a stroll through any gallery by way of Renaissance to Conceptual Art. I present as Exhibit A the crowning glory of the YBAs, conceptualists so sophisticated that they’re against concepts. Beyond such as messy bedspreads and bisected animals, the greatest tragedy is that many youngsters enter the world of leftier-than-thou academe as talented artists. Once capable of gracing us with sublime Beauty, they emerge indoctrinated sophists dedicated to the destruction of such parochial notions.
Insidiously, as an ageing woman losing her looks, Social Constructionism has become the public face of society. A raddled ortho-doxy, defining human nature (as “non-existent”), at least for all those unwilling to court controversy and disaster, her shrill condemnations. Her mind a solipsistic refutation of objective reality, diminished by its own flawed rationale as just another arbitrary cultural preference, this Scarlet Harlot clouds the wisdom and warps the loyalty of Homo sapiens europeaus. Subverted, he becomes Homo economicus, a tame beast of burden to free-riding elites.
The means by which these trans - indeed, post - nationalist exploiters expand their influence are complex, but as undeniable as the ever-widening gulf between rich and poor. Even in 1st world nations, this process continues apace despite the political centre having increasingly shifted towards the egalitarianism of the left. Technology has advanced such that this effect, at least as manifested in the civilized world, cannot be blamed on scarcity of resources alone. Rather, the blame rests on such parasites as callously orchestrate wars or plunge the world into financial turmoil.
These bloated, globalist ticks, who even now use our desperation and disarray to consolidate their position, would suck the very lifeblood from our veins. Their infestation spreads by first altering the cultural environment of the collective human body. Gramscian in method, they sour the body’s pH balance with pollutants of varying causticity, from Orwellian neo-liberalism to internationalist neo-marxism. Concomitant with the dispersal of these noxious poisons is the release of a sedative, capitalist hyper-consumption, from the tick’s hindquarters. A secular opiate to lull the adipose middle-class even as they’re slowly consumed.
The system thus destabilised, its constituent parts succumb to opportunistic infection. Perhaps the feminist womb, perhaps the minority skin, any organ suitably debilitated by resentment - whether instilled or justified - is all it takes for a single rogue cell to trigger carcinogenesis. The metastasising cancer leaves a body wracked with discord, as rapidly-multiplying, tumorous (pressure) groupings expand throughout any remaining healthy tissue. Finally, all adaptive social structures which form the body’s immune defences are compromised, resistance collapses and the rot sets in. The parasites gorge unchecked on the spoils, society rendered to a noxious pablum before collapsing inwards upon itself. The parasitic-saprophytic cycle begins anew as the creatures creep to their next host.
From one rather torturous metaphor to another, it should now be clear why slaves have been “freed” from inadequacy to become taxpaying workers, why women have been “freed” from reproduction to become taxpaying drones, and why deviants have been “freed” from pariahdom to become taxpaying queens. I cannot resist reiteration of pre-eminent sociobiologist and expert myrmecologist (my word for the day), Edward O. Wilson’s critique of communism, “Wonderful theory. Wrong species.”
Though we don’t have communism steamrolling along class lines in the West, we have it’s bastard hybrid, social / liberal democracy, steamrolling along racial and cultural lines instead. The bourgeois are being steadily displaced by Leviathan’s invisible hand, only the neo-bourgeois need be actively dismantled - and as any straight white male (and increasingly, female) can attest, this is happening at a rapid pace.
Now, having traversed the scenic route through whimsical woods of metaphor, our common enemy has been described. The question of what must be done presents itself. To cast a backwards glance, what religious icon to ward off this devil? What appropriate immune response? What bug spray?
Well, rejoining the original path, I have several suggestions, drawn from The Godfather. Puzo sketches sufficient Sicilian history for us to draw certain parallels with our current predicament, and he relates how survival-minded Sicilians adapted the Mafia in possibly instructive way. I want to emphasise that I’m using parts in isolation to make a point, not endorsing the Mafia. Well, beyond gifting The Godfather my coveted “Worth a Squirt” award anyway.
Some background: the Mafia was the secret organisation which arose “publically” in the 19th century, possibly long before. It was a backlash against centuries of injustice and tyranny, a harrowing history of hegemony. In Puzo’s words, “Sicily was a land that had been more cruelly raped than any other in history.” (As an aside, The Godfather was written in 1969, well before the emergence of a Bantu-ruled South Africa.) Puzo goes on to mention Corleone, Sicily’s “small poverty-stricken town [which] had the highest murder rate of any place in the world.” (And again...)
Further horrors are recounted in the form of Inquisitorial torture of nobleman and commoner alike and, a recurring theme, oppression via distant governments. One regime in particular so brutalised the Sicilians with their blunt instruments that, among the islanders, “policeman” became the most vile of insults. Even Mussolini, that socialist militarist so erroneously conflated with the right-wing, gets a mention as the most recent to cast his considerable shadow over the pastoral beauty of Sicily.
Besides toughness, Sicily’s “record” of brutal injustice by outsiders clearly selected for cunning and tribalism. Long-suffering Sicilians learned to protect themselves by never openly displaying defiance, as this always brought crushing reprisal. And they learned to protect each other by covertly extracting themselves from the society imposed upon them, and covertly joining themselves together to form a clandestine alliance. “They learned that society was their enemy and so when they sought redress for their wrongs they went to the rebel underground, the Mafia.” And here I pause to glance significantly at your mental screen. “And the Mafia cemented its power by originating the law of silence, the omertà.”
Ah, yes. Omertà: “The categorical prohibition of cooperation with state authorities or reliance on its services, even when one has been victim of a crime,” according to the Akashic records.
So what am I proposing? Well, as the modern state takes from our race though our race gives to the modern state, I reject its legitimacy. Beyond supporting foreigners who’d never return the favour, our governments commit the unforgivable treason of breeding us out of existence. Barring almost unimaginable change, our seduced “leaders” are irrevocably set on the course of domesticating, deracinating and demographically diminishing Homo sapiens europeaus. This last, as far as I’m concerned, is reason enough to break out the rope and rifle, axe and pike. Violent revolution
is not what I’m proposing however. We are still Sicily to their Papal Empire and, as their soft totalitarianism grows ever harder, we’re forced to conceal our mounting defiance for fear of crushing reprisal. Instead, we must set to creating a state within a state or, if you prefer, a self-interested, “illegitimate” Cosa Nostra within a larger, oppositionary Kosher Nostra whose power is so vast it has long since “gone legit.” And I use “kosher” mostly in the sense of an irrational orthodoxy... To the point, what lawful authority can the predatory Leviathan lay claim?
For what is taxation at the point of a shiv (or worse) in the showers but a protection racket? What is the stock market but a numbers game? What are police but enforcers? What are soldiers but button men? What is bureaucracy but cronyism? What is electioneering but bribery and the putting of the squeeze? What is the auction of political power to corporations but a system of graft and kickbacks? What is political correctness but an intimidatory code of silence?
To hell with them.
Though the disorganised and fragmentary herd of cats I rather hopefully refer to as “we,” are making great efforts at working within this broken system to change it, our efforts require coordination and powerful backing, perhaps even a little muscle. Whether inadvertently or otherwise, scientists of the harder disciplines such as genetics, neuro/evolutionary-science/psychology, etc. are making great strides in winning the minds of our people. Philosophers and metapoliticans, particularly of the European New Right, are similarly influencing a broad spectrum of intellectuals. In less rarefied climes, the quotidian realities of misrule, suppression and race-replacement are contributing to the growth of nationalist parties, who strive for the hearts of our people. Even the internet, for as long as it remains free, is serving a vast selection of hyper-caffeinated wake-the-fuck-up to those growing restless under the thrall of the soporific mainstream media.
And that’s all very well, but more than the intra-systemic is called for. I don’t suggest we work outside any legal boundaries, that can be left in the prison-yard, where demonised skinheads ink each other with crude and hateful sigils as they collude against the sanctified gangstas whose supremacist hatred seemingly dictates fashion and music trends. Rather I suggest we clandestine business networks, both local and international webs of influence with the financial clout to, for example:
- Ensure favourable coverage of existing and emerging scientific findings which corroborate our case. Whether these findings are by pa(rt)isans or not, good men of science deserve better than to languish in obscurity for daring to challenge the zeitgeist. This is comparable to how the Corleone family plucks the brilliant young surgeon, Dr. Segal, from the dead-end posting to which the medical establishment consigned him for performing abortions. Segal is raised to a position of prominence as the head of a medical team, from where he can apply his intelligence and expertise.
- Exert influence to get members and member’s children into any job, university or office which they merit. Just like the Don got his godson, the celebrated Johnny Fontane, into the lead role of a hit movie. Johnny, perfect for the role, had been spitefully denied the opportunity for petty political reasons. All it took was a horse to d8 to change the mind of Moe Greene, the arrogant, perverted studio head.
- Contribute to the political campaigns of those sympathetic to the perfectly moral desire for genetic continuity on behalf of their people. This is akin to how the Godfather, as an act of patronage to Enzo the baker, taps his tame politico to ensure an illegal immigrant from Sicily can stay on in the country. Presumably the laxness of the strings that ground an alien could be tightened, yanked them back in the opposite direction.
- Buy or influence those authorities not sympathetic to the perfectly moral desire for genetic continuity on behalf of their people. Rather like in the movie: Senator Pat Geary demands an exorbitant (for the time) $¼M to facilitate the Las Vegas ambitions of the Family. Referring to Italians as “oily-haired“ and “dirty,“ he soon changes his tune when the Don's Consigliere smooths over a rather embarrassing dead hooker situation for him.
- F(o)und educational institutions not held back by demoralising agitprop or the less studious races. Like in the movie when... Though The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom, I am clearly not the sum of all wisdom on The Godfather and so can't locate the relevant example. But it's there...
- Bring to international prominence the plight of persecuted white minorities, for example the genocide of whites, particularly farmers, in South Africa. Just like rival Families forming protective alliances and dividing profits for the greater good.
- Collaborate to provide legal assistance to those wronged by anti-white policies and practices. In much the same way the Consigliere, proficient in criminal law, deals with all such matters arising.
- Provide extra-legal assistance to those who accept our version of the omertà. Rather like Bonasera the undertaker refuses to cooperate with his fellow Sicilians, choosing instead to “believe in America.” When his beautiful young daughter's jaw is broken and virginity nearly stolen by two yobs, Bonasera seeks justice from the courts. In vain, as the thugs are well-connected. Disillusioned, Bonasera and goes cap in hand to The Godfather, who gives him justice in the form of two made-to-order beatings and a lesson in loyalty to ethny. Though I've yet to read it, a Swedish political scientist kindly provides us greater detail on this “Causal Mechanism between Trust in Authorities and Trust in Others.”
- And of course, cooperate to maximise our profits from whichever legal enterprise(s) we make our core business. Gambling's legal in Las Vegas, right? Plenty of ways to dip a beak... I'm thinking clone or designer babies carried to term in the wombs of illegal immigrants, but that's just me. And while that might not be legal in Las Vegas, it could become so in a place that's willing to pay good money to boost it's indigenous population...
So there you have it, a conspiratorial network of business interests, branching out into all other spheres in furtherance of our aims. “Just business,” united by the “all-personal” goal of the 14 words. Whatever their derivation, a “Don Black” being far less useful to us than a true Godfather personality, only a genocidal madman could object to the following mission statement: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
In conclusion, an extract to inspire, revealing the character that allowed the rise of the Don (Corleone in Italian meaning “Lionheart”) to greatness:
“He had long ago learned that society imposes insults that must be borne, comforted by the knowledge that in this world there comes a time when the most humble of men, if he keeps his eyes open, can take his revenge on the most powerful. It was this knowledge that prevented the Don from losing the humility all his friends admired in him. ”
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”
- Ragnar Redbeard.
Ragnar Redbeard was the nom de guerre of a mysterious Social Darwinist who, some 110 years ago, authored “Might is Right.” Described in its day as “a vitriolic, racist hymn to the doctrine of force," and "... surely one of the most incendiary works ever to be published anywhere," Ragnar’s screed retains its power to induce menstrual and rectal haemorrhaging in all but the hardiest of men. In our hyper-individualistic, post-modern day, the words of this self-styled Viking reaver are about as welcome as the jaws of Fenris. I’d suggest the religious avoid Ragnar’s words as they would anything endorsed by Anton Szandor LaVey - much less plagiarised for his Satanic Bible.
Ming the Merciless and Anton LaVey...)
Ragnar’s philosophy is brutally pragmatic. The world belongs to the powerful, who draft laws to keep the herd servile and craft lies to enslave their weak minds. Through strength, a man might rise from the herd to dominance, his ambition rewarded with wealth, women and power. Life is struggle and those who reject this principle will themselves be rejected by life.
As his berserker rage wanes, Ragnar makes way for Darwin’s charge: "Inferior organisms succumb and perish or are enslaved. Superior organisms survive, propagate and possess." Undeniably, this is the way of nature. Only the naïve or deluded will deny it to be the way of the world. The only question is whether it should be.
I’d say the answer, inevitably bound in slave-morality when negative, makes little difference. Whether a Christian king, Marxist dictator or egalitarian president rules, the laws of nature remain unchanged. The only worthwhile measure of governance is the degree to which it adheres to reality. Even the most noble, or apparently noble, deviation therefrom leads only to greater suffering. The oft-cruel ways of Mother Nature, that occasional cackling crone, must be acknowledged just as her fairer aspects are admired.
But we have forgotten such lore. Modern technology has partially repealed the “red in tooth and claw” tyranny of the natural world, particularly in Western societies where even slaves possess slave-machines. Advancing beyond machinery, genetic science might soon provide us all manner of crudely-illustrated marvels:
Q: What do you get if you cross an octopus with a gentleman of Negroid extraction?
A: Dunno, but it sure picks cotton like a motherfucker!
However, all such present and future technologies, and by extension the “liberated” societies thereby enabled, are predicated on a single thing: cheap oil. One 42 gallon barrel of crude oil contains the equivalent of 25000 man-hours of hard, physical labour. Really. When the oil runs out, as all finite resources do, we’ll have to start putting the man back into man-hour. It remains to be seen exactly when the oil dries up, and whether we can develop a replacement energy source.
Anyone who believes existing energy “alternatives” can prevent the energy crisis, likely also believes alternative medicine can cure epidemical AIDS. Thus the tenets on which modern urban, industrial civilization is based, infinite progress and limitless growth, are revealed as mere assumptions, not reality. This is heartening to those of us who value our EGI; our ancestors, contemporaries and descendents, above pleasure-seeking.
The easy life is a product, often literally, of an unsustainable system based on consumption. Ultimately, self-indulgence is the morality of this order, hyper-individualism the philosophy. No longer needing slaves to live as sybaritic lordlings, the elites spread the lie of equality and invite dysgenics. No longer needing to band together to survive a hostile world, the elites outlaw our ties of blood and invite race-replacement. The inferior “survive, propagate and possess” in defiance of Darwinian law, as the elites conspire to breed an ever more docile, domesticated herd.
Already showing warning-signs of instability, if not outright collapse, this disintegrating, Leviathanesque superstructure can’t endure indefinitely. Whether through dysgenics, immigration or both, an increasingly idiotic and immoral population are its rotting shorings. To say nothing of the changing environment and depleting resources which are its foundations; a system built by intelligent, altruistic whites cannot be maintained in their abscence. The hideous hag will have the last laugh on all of us. In the words of Ayn Rand, “One can evade reality, but one cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”
I expect these consequences to be tumultuous, likely a resurgence of tyrannical, autocratic rule. According to Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West, capital replaces faith, and Caesar follows capital. Interestingly, South Africa has seen an extremely accelerated version of this model: from the multi-cult of Mandela, to the capitalism of Mbeki to... Well, I’ll reserve my Ave to the coming Imperator, who hardly deserves to be spoken of in the same paragraph, or indeed article, as Julius Caesar.
Violent totalitarian regimes, when led by a charismatic, strategic genius, have much to recommend them. They inevitably unify the populace, usually by emphasising racial solidarity. Racial struggle always supersedes class struggle, according to Spengler. Next, the nation is enriched through cannibalisation of foreign elements. Yay for power, loot and expansion! Boo for inherently unstable, hyper-masculine, aggressively-thrusting Rapocracies though. The weakness of such tyrannies is that they tend to die when the tyrant does, and depend largely on his character. Brilliant leaders who can achieve lasting victory are rare, almost invariable is the power-mad tinpot,
overreaching himself to brings ruin and humiliation upon his people. From such ashes, the nation eventually arises anew on the wings of faith: the only strength to which the poor and powerless can lay claim, and no less a strength for that.
Returning to the greater Western context before I trigger a mass exodus of whites from South Africa;
democracy’s fatal flaw is it’s susceptibility to corruption. This inevitably brings down the prosperity its earlier purity creates, the ensuing poverty and power vacuum giving rise to authoritarian rule. If Western economies crash, we’ll likely see a resurgence of Fascism, or even Nazism... Which, like a particularly tacky prostitute who fails to swallow her chewing gum before fellatio, would only half-suck. While such systems provide in abundance for love of people, they’re poison to love of freedom. A notional Axis victory might be heaven for German, Italian and Japanese EGI but it’d be hell for free speech, free association, free market values, scientific freedom... And, yes, the freedom to (occasionally) indulge in illicit sex, harmful drugs or decadent rock ‘n’ roll - preferably all three at once with some donkey-on-midget porn thrown in for good measure. In other words, a victorious Axis would usher in an era as imbalanced as the one resulting from the Allied and, more specifically, Soviet victory.
Now, why have I raised such matters of Social Darwinism and Fascism? Well, because they relate to the quote so kindly provided by our esteemed, shield-biting
Mr. Redbeard. And why did I choose such an inflammatory emcee to introduce me? Well, because his particular words:
“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”
are not only sound common sense but the unassailable moral high-ground, Satanist associations be damned. Why then, when I repeat them to the more pallid of my white brethren, perhaps accompanied by a call to resistance against such threatening menaces, am I denounced as an evil Fascist or devilish Social Darwinist? Because fuck them, perhaps? Quite likely, but let’s examine the causes more thoughtfully.
The Social Darwinist charge is easiest to answer, with a simple admission: I am a Social Darwinist. Not exclusively in the manner prescribed by old Red Rag though. After all, his views were based, among other things, on a version of Darwinian theory since greatly improved by such luminaries as Watson-Crick, Hamilton, the Wilsons, Dawkins and Salter, to name but several. R.R.’s teachings extend to the singular, competitive alpha male and little further. For example, cooperation is just as crucial as competition to survival. Admittedly it doesn’t make for the same high drama as war for survival, waged by all on all. The point is - “Biopolitics” being taken - my “Politics of Science,” complete with a more evolved species of ethics than dog-eat-dog, represents a practical, workable framework for human society. How can humanity organise without knowledge of humanity?
Of course, there’s no shortage of idealistic, unrealistic frameworks out there. I consider all such, from Feminist penis-envy to Marxist success-envy, to be contemptible denials of reality. Their proponents get butt-hurt by their inferiority in some regard, then ascribe the associated aspect of the universe to some great evil, be it Chauvinism or Capitalism. And just so no one thinks I’m cheating, I’ll include ze Juden as another “great evil.” But don’t take my word for it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If anyone can mention a consistently successful matriarchal or Marxist society, I’ll accept them as solid ideologies. The converse applies. Feel free to reject Social Darwinism if largely homogenous societies which organise themselves meritocratically, in accordance with human nature, are shown to be consistent failures.
I stress homogeneity as it is vital to social cooperation, as liberal scholar Scott Putnam was dismayed to discover, officially. I can’t resist adding that Putnam was a political science professor at Harvard, whose “diversity dean” has just flounced off in an indignant huff over lack of diversity. Apparently academic racism and chauvinism, in the form of entrance exams and the like, were restricting the influx of ethnic exotica.
And I stress a “may the best man win” ethos of economic competition, with perennial losers provided social welfare in the form of exile, as the only way to regain the strength and virtue of my people. Ahem. Our people... So, any takers? One Communist utopia or one “Realist” dystopia and I’ll pack it all in.
At this point, some clever dick will likely shoot up his hand for Nazi Germany. Nice try. The Nazis didn’t come close to organising themselves meritocratically - or else why were Jews, who have the positive stereotype of being smart businessmen, excluded from commerce? Why did Hitler make refugees of top-notch Jewish scientists, not least of whom Einstein, who denounced relativism and offered relativity? Put your hand down, Rabbi Lapin, I’m speaking rhetorically.
As for Nazi compliance to race-realism and that bone I just won’t drop, Salterian EGI, well... Hard to know where to begin. Aryan Superman’s nemesis was the black athlete, Jesse Owens, who egged his face at the Berlin Olympics. Aryan Superman’s Kryptonite the IQ test, which Hitler banned as clearly biased toward the sinister Jewish intellect in some diabolically subtle way.
The truth is that Aryanman wasn’t a serendipitous scientific superhero like Spiderman or Hulk but rather a mythical superhero, like Thor or Conan. Aryanman’s implausible origin story concerns Jungian racial archetypes, occultism, the lost lands of Hyperborea and Ultima Thule, folklore and so on, ad nauseum. He was a social construct just as transparent as post-modernity’s Egalitarian Social Justice League. If Aryan pride were grounded in science, its claim wouldn’t be absolute superiority but rather a healthy balance of intellect and athleticism, aggression and caution. Unparalleled martial prowess and a history of cultural achievement represent similarly factual claims.
Sadly, Nazi Germany understood Darwinian evolution little better than many today. They based their claim to racial superiority on anything but scientific fact, then applied scientific theory, crudely, to their society as an excuse for genocide. In so doing, they set evolutionary thought further back than any amount of blatantly manipulative, anti-science propaganda. The indiscriminate backlash to all things Hitler served as a kind of Heimlich (Himmler?) manoeuvre to the egalitarianism which so beguiles us with its charms today, even as we choke on the masticated remnants of Stalinism.
And don’t even get me started - too late! - on the effects of violent hostility between Teutons, Slavs, Anglo-Saxons to Caucasian EGI... What a tragic fucking loss for Europe. And I’m not sure how close native Germans and German Jews are genetically, but I’m betting on “quite.” As Hitler’s positive reforms drastically increased Germany’s carrying capacity, the Holocaust was definitely overkill. And yes, that was flippant but what of it? I’m disrespectful on matters of race, religion, politics, sex and death. The Holocaust gets no special treatment from me, at least until the Jewish lobby start clicking my Amazon book links.
Finally, does anyone believe the Nazis were in favour of a free-market economy? I’ll give the clueless a nudge: “Nazi” is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialist, whether it suffixes nationalism or prefixes democracy, defines the kind of bloated, meddling government which constipates trade.
All this ranting about Nazism and I still haven’t addressed the Fascist charge. Well, this is perhaps left to Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. (2) This book is a godsend for anyone even remotely conservative and weary of being labelled a Fascist or Nazi as a result. His discussion of the book, available in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 parts on Youtube, is well-worth watching - if only for his dismissal of common liberal arguments as “bone-snapping stupidity.”
Modern liberals, by and large a green, sticky bunch aloof to mere fact, have no clue that Fascism is a form of revolutionary Socialism (indeed, Hitler wanted to call his party the Social Revolutionary Party) which ends in Totalitarianism. Frequently, modern liberals have no clue that their own ideology is increasingly influenced by and tending towards Socialism, not to mention “totalitarian” oppression of free speech and free market principles in the furtherance of its broken ideals.
Let’s take a few notable points from the book, and elsewhere:
- The archetypal Fascist, Benito Mussolini, was a card-carrying Socialist from at least the age of 18. As an amusing aside, Mussolini had this to say in 1933: “Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.”
- Mussolini remained a member of the Socialist Party until 1914, when pro-war sympathies led him to left-wing militarism. Along with other revolutionary syndicalists and former Marxists, Mussolini founded the synthesis of these ideals in 1919 as Fascism. Fascist policy was a mixture of radical left, moderate left, democratic, and liberal measures.
- Stalin famously said: “Fascism and social democracy are not opposites, but twins.” Of course, that was before the end of the war... During which, Stalin and Hitler were allies, at least until syphilitic madness perhaps took hold of Hitler's mind. Sorry about the syphilis thing, Neo-Nazis! And before I offend any modern liberals, by “social democracy” Stalin meant “reformed socialism,” which... Well, which is modern social democracy, so be offended equally to the goose-steppers, I guess.
- Long before allying with him, Hitler was inspired by Mussolini. Fascism dovetailed nicely with Hitler’s Aryanism, giving us National Socialism. It’s even said Hitler stole the Nazi salute from Mussolini, who in turn lifted it from the Romans.
- Hitler’s rival, Gregor Strasser, spelled out the Nazi position quite plainly: “We National Socialists are socialists, genuine national, German socialists.” Gregor gave his name to the Strasserism, the leftist, mass-action, arbeiter-based strain of German National Socialism. Which was Socialism... Socialist fucking Socialism, capiche?
A limited rundown of some of the things Nazis believed in:
- gun control
- free health care
- guaranteed jobs
- banning smoking
- alternative medicine
- organic farming
- vegetarianism (Hitler)
- animal rights activism (Himmler)
- pagan spirituality
- purging the church from public policy
- generous pensions for the elderly
- confiscation of inherited wealth
- spending vast sums on public education
- strict racial quota systems in universities
- campus speech codes
- government authority infiltrating every orifice of daily life
- the undesirability of free markets
Now, the above is not to claim that modern liberals are Nazis. We can’t rightly call them Fascists either, even though they’re closer to Mussolini ideologically than are modern conservatives. And they’re certainly not Socialists - in contrast to Socialism, Liberalism upholds private ownership. The divergence from Conservatism is that Classical Liberalism believed government should intervene to relieve market externalities, as described by The Tragedy of the Commons.
The classic example is a lighthouse, from which many benefit, but for which few have to pay. According to Classical Liberalism, the government would need to take over operation of the lighthouse in order to ensure an important service continues to be provided. Not unreasonable, at least when you put it like that. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal (over-)extended this idea of liberalism however, and Jonah Goldberg has much to say on the Fascist tendencies of Roosevelt, as well as the past and present institution of smiley, friendly American Fascism.
The New Deal types believed that governmental power could alleviate not only economic but social problems. To understand how this widely-criticised ideological jump to Fascism was made, consider that poverty could be misconstrued as a failure of the market by those who don’t understand economics. And so arose the Beast; what we now see as Modern Liberalism, characterised by: State intervention in industry, price controls, wage controls, welfare and social security, affirmative action and so on, perpetually... The Modern Liberal State soon grows into Leviathan, creating more problems as it does so - which then become reasons for further growth.
Still, bloated and oppressive government is no reason to call even Modern Liberals Fascists or Nazis. All political systems share certain aspects and handpicking the commonalities to conflate your opposition with history’s despised non-victors is, quite simply, a cheap tactic. Next time someone throws such a thought-blocking slur at you, humiliate them for their historical ignorance and underhanded tactics accordingly.
We’ll get to ignorance and thought blocks in a minute, but first some pictures. Besides Mussolini and the Romans, here’s another possible source of Hitler’s “White Power” salute:
The American Pledge of Allegiance, circa the early 1900s. Kein Witz, Mein Herr.
And of course there’s the American eagle, I trust everyone who’s read their Asterix knows the origin of that particular bird.
And hey, brother, can you spare a dime (or a Senate Seal)? Yeah, that’s the Fasces on there, the Roman symbol for which Mussolini named his party... Confused, disturbed, shaken?
Fret not. “Blak” paranoid schizophrenic, Suzar, is here to explain everything, with some comforting, ignorant thought-blocking. Marvel at her divers alarums and wise pronouncements on everything up to and including “What Cosmic Principle causes hair (antennae) to be Nappy?” Feel your antennae stand on end as Suzar's trenchant philosophy defines slave morality. "Slave" in the Nietzschean sense, that is.
Of course, Stalin dealt in similarly deluded, or at least underhanded, tactics when he conflated Capitalism with Fascism, which has led to all manner of modern confusion. As we’ve seen, Marxism and Fascism are far from diametrically opposed. They’re bedfellows, if miscegenating ones. Following the Axis defeat, anyone with an even slightly Socialist bent set to putting the maximum spin on this ideological relationship. Further, even the left-wing / right-wing dichotomy in conventional political understanding is a false one, borne of Marxist propaganda and prophesying (faith, remember?). Though far from ideal, a better representation might be:
with Hitler and Stalin firmly in place at the lower left. And in case you failed Propaganda 101, this diagram was drawn up by a Libertarian; David Nolan. He founded the American Libertarian Party, whose key tenets I enthusiastically approve... Perhaps with the exception of abortion and sexual freedom as it applies to non-reproduction. These tenets I approve only grudgingly as, in my opinion, the ideal representation of a political system has a third, ahem, axis for EGI. A system that promotes freedom, wealth and folk, that’s my winning ticket.
Which brings me to Norman Lowell and Imperium Europa, after this quick word from our sponsor:
“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”
So, does my directing that statement particularly to white South Africans constitute racism, Fascism or Social Darwinism in the Nazi sense? Of course not. With the quick assertion that EGI is “genetic property,” it constitutes: libertarian race-realism. With that assertion made, we’re good to go:
Imperium Europa is the charismatic Norman Lowell’s vision of an alliance of White nations. As expressed in the aims of his local, "Dominion side" party, Viva Malta, individual countries govern their own economies and societies in accordance with libertarian principles. This has clear advantages over centralised governance, as in a dictatorial Brussels handing down procrustean, one-size-fits-all policies. We might extend the idea to America’s states and the federal government in Washington. The continental, "Imperium side," defender of allied white interests, protects the EGI, spirituality, high culture, high politics and territory of all.
I consider this a pretty damn good idea, though I disagree with much else Lowell has to say. His thinking is largely informed by philosophers such as Julius Evola and Friedrich Nietzsche, and he slips from race-realism into racial supremacy on occasion. Now Evola and Nietzsche, master-moralists both, are great as far as they go:
“The Americans' 'open-mindedness', which is
sometimes cited in their favour, is the other side
of their interior formlessness. The same goes for
their 'individualism'. Individualism and personality
are not the same: the one belongs to the formless
world of quantity, the other to the world of quality
and hierarchy. The Americans are the living refutation
of the Cartesian axiom,
"I think, therefore I am":
Americans do not think, yet they are. The American 'mind', puerile and primitive, lacks characteristic form and is
therefore open to every kind of standardisation.”
“We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means "liberal"; we do not work for "progress"; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about "equal rights," "a free society," "no more masters and no servants" has no allure for us. We are delighted with all who love, as we do, danger, war, and adventures, who refuse to compromise, to be captured, reconciled, and castrated; we count ourselves among conquerors; we think about the necessity for new orders… Is it not clear that with all this we are bound to feel ill at ease in an age that likes to claim the distinction of being the most humane, the mildest, and the most righteous age that the sun has ever seen? We are too open-minded, too malicious, also too well informed, too well travelled…”
but I don’t buy into all Lowell’s talk of pagan spirituality and aristocracy. Or anti-Zionism for that matter. Scientific scepticism, meritocracy and bringing the Jews onboard are where it’s at, baby. No disrespect to Lowell though, as a martial artist and expressionist painter, he’s a man of strength and conviction. He thinks big and doesn’t back down, even from his President, and I salute that. I don’t raise him just for an “Ave!”* or high five though, but rather because the idea of Imperium he proposes has the potential of uniting freedom, prosperity and people-loving Whites around the world. And also because of his ideas on food.
Lowell believes food production to be the key weapon at the Imperium’s disposal. Far from threatening sanctions or deploying troops in fractious Third World nations, Lowell suggests that Whites should simply withhold their surplus food from the Mugabes of the world. As an “old-hand in Africa,” Lowell rather cheekily suggests while outlining the geography of the Imperium, from around 4:50, that taking control of Southern Africa, from the Zambesi downwards, would be “easy.” He also slips in the K-word so, for those of you who haven't been BEE-you-double-tee-fucked yet, don’t watch it at work.
According to Lowell, it’s simply a matter of controlling agriculture: handing out free food (and bottles of gin) to encourage Bantu emigration northwards. Of course, that’s all terribly racist and naughty and I would never publically condone such a thing. Lowell might suggest however, that those Boers who can’t leave the country take careful note of his strategy. If they’ve no other recourse, they might consider, ahem, banding together in solidarity and threatening a farmer’s strike. Starvation is quite the bargaining chip - no more puns, Lowell promises - when it comes to convincing people... Particularly in times of economic instability and rising food prices. And government transition. Of course, such active disobedience could only occur if Whites in general, and Boers in particular, harbour some objection to their ethnic and cultural genocide.
“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”
You know, if they feel morally obliged to defy the footpads, assassins and statesmen in defence of their life, liberty and property. Not to mention their family's life, liberty and property. Of course, defending their own interests would be quite a moral leap for some Whites. But never mind such types right now...
Lowell continues: if a worst-case scenario unfolds in South Africa with regard to farm murders, land expropriation and (Black National) Socialism, perhaps the Boers will remember they’re far from powerless slaves. Their position as the food producers makes them, in fact, a masterful power-elite. And should a threatened strike not produce a desired result, reinstating the Commando perhaps, then a few accidental chemical spills might. He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
* Believe it or not, my blog’s name and art direction were conceived before my introduction to Imperium Europa. Morphic resonance and racial archetypes, man.
Friday, September 12, 2008
"There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush."
- Scriptoris Munificantus.
If there’s one thing that pisses on my battery, it’s this spineless, flop-wristed notion that no objective truth exists, only opinion. Snivelry! I consider such postmodern relativism to be sheer intellectual cowardice, and a symptom of the egalitarian pathology. Not only are we to accept all men as equal, but also their relative levels of understanding? Sewerage!
Liberal individualism propounds that every human conciousness is a precious snowflake, and to impose thereupon a meta-conciousness, say God, morality or Fatherland, is oppressive. Thus, we have no acceptable criteria by which to judge humanity, apart from their acceptance of... What is itself is a meta-narrative. A brutally oppressive one at that as, in the name of human freedom, it stamps on the face of human nature. There is to be no tolerance for European solidarity, no right granted them to live as their ancestors. Where in this tyrannical hypocrisy is all its vaunted freedom, the individual liberation it claims? Its freedom is slavery, for freedom without love for others is but self-indulgent degeneracy... But we’ll get to love, and others, later. For now, the tirade continues.
Just as moral relativism seeks to corrupt justice by replacing good and evil with cause and effect,
That one approach should be based on logical reasoning and the other superstition and mimicry is irrelevant; we’re to accept all viewpoints as comparatively valid. That one such “viewpoint” can put men on the moon whereas the other can’t explain gravity is - what? Perhaps a quirk of fate that such ideas landed where they did when culture first fell from the sky... Here’s a reality check for blind adherents of cultural relativism and egalitarians alike: we can judge a culture by its effects and a people by the culture they create.
Of course, such logic is unlikely to sway those whose thinking eschews the modelling of reality for the protection of vested interest. To that end, they wage war on truth, be it scientific, historic or journalistic. Such truths become merest opinion, to be dismissed as easily. If natural law is infinitely malleable and events endlessly interpretive, if no fixed reality exists, then nothing can be empirically proven or refuted. Even the most blatantly false and destructive ideologies are safe in such an environment, for as long as they retain popular support.
Barring great upheaval, we can expect the persistence of such support into the foreseeable future. Setting aside the declared allegiances of the body politic, the sensory organs of media are teeming with ideological infestation, to say nothing of the malignancy riddling the learning centres. Hence the farcical situation whereby politically-motivated laymen sit in judgement on the great minds of our age. These shapers of idiot opinion are given a veneer of authority by their sheer ubiquity. Feel-good appeals to equality and progress, those perennial buzzwords of Communism, are repeated unceasingly to condition the productive to their cannibalisation by the useless.
The cycle is perpetuated as each new generation is indoctrinated into the civic religion of soft, sanitised thought. A liberal arts degree might propel a career in media or education with the requisite degree of topspin, but it provides little in the way of real-world knowledge. How ironic when such types accuse the informed truth-seekers of ignorant bias. And how desperate the accusations when emotional outrage must serve as substantiation!
Adherents of “dangerous” truths too apparent or well-established to be refuted by shallow sophistry and philosophical razzle-dazzle, soon find themselves subject to vicious ad hominem attacks. Their words are labelled with the relevant ‘ism, be it racism, sexism or, my personal favourite, scientism. Espousing a provable position is apparently the latest discrimination, and those who put forward such positions are demonised as claiming meaning can only be derived from science. As science claims no such thing, the term itself is laughably self-defeating.
Ultimately, Western rational thought, with its implicit assertion of the superiority of right over wrong and the desirability of advancement, is offensive to the politically correct incorrect. Quickly, a moratorium on critical thought lest feelings, those all-important guiding principles, be hurt...
Sensing the weakness of their position, knowing they cannot defend the egalitarian fiction in a fair public debate, our opponents devote themselves to cultural hegemony. Gramsci’s long march through the institutions has brought us here, to the precipice of racial extinction. It is our duty to dig in our heels, shout the demographic cliff and push back with all our power against the driving force.
If that means institutions, society itself, must be smashed to prevent our soft genocide, then so be it. We who have no future left to lose might laugh as we open the very gates of Hell.
Having temporarily soothed my savage breast of its rage at the insidious campaign against reality and logic, let me turn to a more specific source of irritation: over 50% of Americans dispute the theory of evolution. Whatever their motivation for doing so, be it religious, political or simple mortification over their mammalian mortality, the figure suggests no amount of logical argument or real-world evidence can displace the irrationality of a large majority of our population. This presents a bleak prospect to those of us who would purge egalitarianism from the collective mindset. Or does it? To reframe religion within the scientific context, it has existed since the dawn of man and so might hold significant survival value. We can take heart in the fact that egalitarianism is an extremely recent experiment in social organisation, a shallow concept of only dubious survival value both as a meme and for those who entertain it.
Let’s tour the evolutionary psychology of religion, before taking the scenic route back to political thought via way of human evolution.
Upon closer examination, the psychological core of religious belief is revealed to be deeply rooted in human neurology. While I mentioned its survival value, I doubt the existence of genes for religion per se. Far more likely, faith in the supernatural arises from the interplay of the following adaptive cognitive processes:
1) Agent detection, which evolved primarily for self-preservation. If you’ve ever been menaced by a half-glimpsed shadow or green mamba that turned out to be a hosepipe, you’ll have an intuitive grasp of this faculty. It was selected for because our more paranoid ancestors had a higher survival rate than the laidback ones. Those who reacted to every snapping twig as if broken by a tiger tended to lead longer lives. This faculty led to imaginative power and symbolic understanding.
2) Theory of mind, which is the recognition that others possess a mind alike to one’s own, with comparable motivations and knowledge. Without this feature, we would be incapable of social interaction on all but the most basic level. Of course, recognition of external mentation opens the door to dualism. If we can gauge minds as a separate entities, the frequent conclusion is that minds are separate entities. Hence the belief they survive death in some disembodied, essential form. That contemplating non-existence presents an insoluble paradox to our minds certainly has a finger in this same pie.
Theory of mind develops in late infancy, prior to which we are unaware of the separation between our and other minds. As tiddlers, we swim in a sea of boundless information, and if that harkens back to omniscient deities or collective conciousness we are of one mind.
3) Causal attribution, to which we are particularly prone. Our curiosity demands an explanation for events. This is a “design feature” in the human model simply because learning promotes survival. Events without apparent cause represent a great source of anxiety to the human brain. This uncertainty serves as a negative motivator for the invention of notional best-fits, or what we today call myths and superstitions. Thus, a javelin-throwing god soothed the ancient’s fear of lightning-bolts.
Today we have practical understanding of such natural processes, so deities are usually only invoked to explain the “why” questions. Of course, those whose deities are bound by doctrine to “how” questions, do tend to come into conflict with proponents of practicality. Inevitably, they will use the unanswerable nature of the “why” question to attack the established “how” or, acceptably, to defend their faith.
My personal philosophy is that the existential “why” necessitates detachment from the very process of life from which flows the answer. That is to say: who fucking cares, the show must go on... But I’ll save such profound insights for my acolytes.
4) Pattern-recognition, towards which our brain is primarily geared. Correlating the above modular functions to each other and the cultural environment leads many to religious belief... And of course, I’ve only rimmed the rabbit-hole by stating triggers above conscious awareness. Mental complexity is a multi-dimensional fractal labyrinth.
For the religious: the above is not an arrogant dismissal of religion as a by-product of intellectual evolution. Certainly (he says magnanimously, if rather patronisingly), God could have designed the human mind in precisely such a fashion so as to comprehend His superlative Godliness. I trust we are in agreement that any such design took place through evolutionary processes however? If not, it’s best we part company for what follows is intensely “evolutionist.” I would say, however, that I value religion insofar as it is adaptive to racial survival. Conservative religious morality is excellent for this purpose and, as the Jews will attest, religious faith is excellent for in-group cohesion. It is only the substance of religion I reject, not the form. Specific to Christianity, I repudiate its universalist and masochistic elements.
Time to play God by meddling with the engine of creation. Isn’t braving such mysteries incredibly satisfying? Intellectual pride has ever been our emotional reward for solving problems of survival. In evolutionary terms, promoting survival is the only purpose of emotion. Don’t despair though, ladies, there’s room for romance in such an outlook. After all, romance results in reproductive behaviour and genetic replication - but enough meandering off-topic.
I pray at least half of you are familiar with Darwinian natural selection. This is the simple process by which random changes are purposefully selected, either for or against. Slight variations occur which affect the lives of organisms and, provided these changes are heritable, a difference with positive effect becomes the norm. As an illustration, a caveman population varies in intelligence. Dumb ones are inept farmers so they frequently starve, whereas smart ones do better at securing food resources. The really smart ones realise they can withhold the fruit of their labours from the feckless idiocracy and so gain dominion over them, but here I stray from science into politics. To resume, the intelligent have better odds of surviving, of having more children like themselves. Thus, over time the entire population gradually becomes infused with the trait of higher intelligence unless of course they exist in a disgusting, degraded, dysgenic dystopia. But again, let me constrain myself to the immediate point: evolution. This blind, mechanistic process, iterated over countless aeons, is largely responsible for the profuse biodiversity we see around us, if your imagination can but stretch to encompass it.
Evolution is an absolutely huge idea, delineating the process by which Life achieves its high purpose of transmitting itself through time. Darwin’s genius was to reveal how, in a very real sense, Life passes as genetic baton from generation to generation in an eternal process of change and rebirth. Life, so fragile yet so tenacious, charts a course so sublime in its subtle harmony that it deserves no lower description than sacred. Though inspiring, it is perhaps more helpful to precise understanding to consider how natural selection applies to us as individuals. It is only through the self that we connect to the greater whole that is Life, and more importantly, it is through the self that Life connects to us. To look within is to note this systematic organisation of adaptations, which sifts organic matter so finely that it can produce such a wonder as a sentient being.
In ourselves, we note the survival instincts, the passion, the identity, all that gives rise to self-awareness and self-respect. I see no shame in proclaiming this love of self. I actively secure my own survival that I may spread my ideas, my passion and yes, my unique genetic identity, through Life. Further, I delight to find this spirit in those I call brothers, for it brings strength and integrity. It is truly the only healthy, natural attitude an individual can take. Those without love for themselves are those who wish no part of Life, but wretched, pitiful suicides. To truly live as men is to be Promethean in the fight for all that we love, to defy all obstacles and by force of will, project ourselves into the world. Finally, through command of the evolutionary programming that defines us as men, we give ourselves the gift of honour.
There is far more to Life however than the self and the challenge of its victorious expression, that we might be rewarded by natural selection. There are finer, nobler even, processes happening within evolution that have direct consequence for racial survival:
That right there is Hamilton’s Rule. And to my right, is W. D. Hamilton (1936 08 01 - 2000 03 07) himself. Looking like a better choice for Indy’s dad than Sean Connery, Hamilton was not just a jungle explorer, AIDS researcher and iconoclast. He also revolutionised the way we think about Life today, winning ten international awards, by my count, for his contributions to biology. In the words of Richard Dawkins, who conducted Hamilton’s eulogy, “a good candidate for the title of most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin.” We have Hamilton to thank for our best explanation of why sexual reproduction evolved, the less than erotically titillating answer being: parasites.
Not only that, Hamilton’s theory of gene selection revolutionised our understanding of evolution by neatly solving Darwin’s difficulty of animal altruism. Concisely stated as: “what matters in evolution is not the survival of an individual but the survival of its genes,” this solution led to terms like “the selfish gene,” brought to public attention in the eponymous book.
Though widely accepted as a cornerstone of evolution, Hamilton’s theory remains less than obvious to many. Let’s shed some light on it through an exploration of his rule for the evolution of social behaviours. These are actions viewed from the perspective of their fitness cost, measured in terms of reproductive success, which they entail for their actor(s) and recipient(s). Such behaviours can be mutually beneficial if actor and recipient benefit, or selfish if actor benefits and recipient suffers a loss. It’s apparent how mutualistic or selfish behaviour advantages one or both parties, and hence why such behaviour evolved. However, the rule also explains the following, formerly perplexing behaviours: the altruistic, in which the fitness of the actor is reduced to the recipient’s benefit, and the spiteful, in which actor and the recipient both suffer a loss.
Formally, Hamilton’s rule states altruistic behaviour is adaptive if:
C = the reproductive cost to the individual of performing the act.R = the genetic relatedness of actor and recipient, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.
R = the genetic relatedness of actor and recipient, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.
B = the additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient of the altruistic act.
The average percentage of shared DNA, R, is calculated in the following manner:
1/2 for siblings and offspring, 1/4 for grandchildren and nephews or nieces, 1/8 for cousins. Not pictured are the values: 1/32 for second cousins, 1/128 for third cousins, and so on. The benefits of kin-altruism, that is sacrificing for family, should be abudantly clear. A gene mediating for the lowering of “personal” fitness to raise that of relatives can become widespread as such relatives are likely to carry the gene themselves.
Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, among many such amusing quips, famously remarked that he’d lay down his life for two brothers or eight cousins. He neglected to mention that two children or four nephews represent an even better “exchange rate” for the genes, at least in scenarios where infant / child mortality is low. As an interesting aside, and one with obvious parallels to current society, Haldane was a card-carrying Communist - at least until the advent of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union in which geneticists and other scientists got it in the neck from the ideologues. For more about Lysenkoism, see the post on my blog in which I indulge my raging hate boner for Marixsm to its fullest extent.
Right. Before Communism triggered such tumescence, I was considering a Wikipedia article on egalitarianism, and its ignorant mention of a primitive band of hunters who share meat without obvious benefit. I intended discussion of Hamilton’s rule as it applied to this group of hippy, happy hunters, as a means to explain the likely still-opaque C(ost) and B(enfit) ratio.
It would be fascinating to know exactly which tribe of “modern hunter-gatherers” the Triki Wiki passage references, though I project their numbers will likely range below one hundred. This is because the net benefits of altruism returned by Hamilton’s rule drop off precipitously when applied beyond close relatives.
Now, as mentioned, I’d planned to do a little mathematic song and dance at this point, encouraged by the relative ease by which J.B.S. Haldane, who so distracted me by flashing his Party Card, could calculate the suitability of self-sacrifice. It turns out that determining the cost / benefit ratio conveyed to reproductive fitness by meat-gifting is a little more complex. Self-sacrifice returns a simple maximum value for C(ost), where loss of food does not. Still, given several evenings of caffeine-fuelled skullbreaking, an estimate value is achievable.
More tricky is calculating the average R of a tribe of 100 individuals. This can nonetheless be accomplished over the course of several hours, albeit with much head-scratching. Despair creeps in when the fact emerges that a significant degree of in-group breeding will have occurred within such a tiny popultation. Such “inbreeding” completely skews the R figure, placing it beyond the reckoning of decidely amateurish mathematics. As the B(enefit) values likewise continue to shimmer tauntingly out of reach like a desert mirage, the complexites becomes overwheliming. Pens, paper and toys are thrown a great distance, many oaths and imprecations are bellowed and a passage from The Selfish Gene is plagiarised, sans formal apology to the ingenious Mr. Dawkins:
"I am an animal [and here Mrs. Dawkins smiles knowingly] who has found a clump of eight mushrooms. After taking account of their nutritional value, and subtracting something for the slight risk that they might be poisonous, I estimate that they are worth +6 units each (the units are arbitrary pay-offs...). The mushrooms are so big I could eat only three of them. Should I inform anybody else about my find, by giving a 'food call'? Who is within earshot? Brother B (his relatedness to me is 1/2), cousin C (relatedness to me = 1/8), and D (no particular relation: his relatedness to me is some small number which can be treated as zero for practical purposes). The net benefit score to me if I keep quiet about my find will be +6 for each of the three mushrooms I eat, that is +18 in all. My net benefit score if I give the food call needs a bit of figuring. The eight mushrooms will be shared equally between the four of us. The pay-off to me from the two that I eat myself will be the full +6 units each, that is +12 in all. But I shall also get some pay-off when my brother and cousin eat their two mushrooms each, because of our shared genes. The actual score comes to (1 x 12) + (1/2 x 12) +(1/8 X 12) + (0 x 12) = +19 1/2. The corresponding net benefit for the selfish behaviour was +18: it is a close-run thing, but the verdict is clear. I should give the food call; altruism on my part would in this case pay my selfish genes.”
Dawkins goes on (brilliantly, up until his own acquisition of a hate-boner for religion, and corresponding fall from pure science to earthly demagogy) that animals do not actually cogitate their various behavioural options in accord with Hamilton’s rule. Instead, their genes have evolved in such a way that they act as if they had made such calculations. Dawkins does not further explore this mechanism but, to my relatively pedestrian thinking, that type of processing occurs within the complex neural circuitry which we call emotion.
Love, for instance, is arguably the strongest of emotions, and I fully expect it’s what motivates animal pair-bonding, rearing and protective behaviour. For us to assume animals act only on “instinct” is to ignore the obvious fact that we do too - or can you remember the last time you consciously decided to fall in love? When you calculated that you should nurture your children, protect your brother or care for your parents? By the end of this article, I hope you will rediscover love for your race...
Feelings simply well up unbidden from within, every conceivable emotion fulfilling an evolutionary purpose, as selfish, little molecules compell you to big, selfless actions conducive to their replication. As an all-too familiar example of this, consider how the autopilot light blinks on when a pleasing bosom-to-waist-hip ratio, suggestive of fecundity, crosses one’s path. The reaction ideally leads to offspring, towards whom our protective, nurturing behaviour is just as pre-programmed. That those who ignore such powerful instincts towards the young, to the extent of neglecting or even harming them, are considered by society to be the very worst kinds of scoundrels and deviants serves to underline how core these feelings of kin altruism are to most humans.
And that’s all very well but, as we’ve established (or at least as I’ve told you, go do the bloody calculations yourself if you don’t believe me), kin altruism generally only goes so far as nepotism towards nephews when it comes to costly behaviour. How then does it apply to my racist, fascist, ultra-rightwing, Nazi, Satanic, una-bombing, puppy-killing agenda that causes me to agitate for a meritocratic society in which freedom of speech, association and the press are mandated, ethnicity is protected and immigration is restricted to the useful? Well. This is where multi-level selection comes in.
Multi-level selection comes to us largely courtesy of David Sloan Wilson, who seems intent on courting controversy by thumbing his nose at the more popular science nerds. I won’t be saying too much about this theory, recently resurrected from the grave of “group selection.” Its previous incarnation was derided during the 60’s and the recurrent form remains a matter of heated debate. Which is great really, as science flourishes and evolves when ideas compete.
Briefly, Wilson’s theory, insofar as I understand it, explains the evolution of altruistic behaviour by examining the effect of natural selection on not only an individual genetic but also a group level. We would expect, given the diminishing returns of Hamilton’s rule in orbits further from nuclear family, that altruism to greater tribe would be maladaptive. All altruism comes at the cost of immediate fitness measured in terms of reproductive potential after all.
Looking at evolution as a multi-level process, with higher-level selection often taking precedence over lower-level selection, makes things profoundly messy for certain Neo-Darwinists. The gene-centred view of evolution has been common currency since the 70’s. Is viewing evolution from Wilson’s multiple angles a retrograde, “devolutionary” theory, a throwback to Darwin’s earliest notions? After all, how could such a process reliably serve those tyrannical replicators, our selfish genes? Given that traits opposed to genetic interests fade from existence, isn’t it logical to ascribe the further reaches of altruism to such as reciprocal altruism?
Wilson’s response is along the following lines. Say we have two competing tribes, violently contesting the same territory and resources. Selection, under the pre-mentioned guidelines, would continue to play out within each group - but selection would also take place between them. If the collective fitness of one group was raised by altruistic behaviour, it would come to outperform the more selfish one, the one in which individual and kin selection held greater sway. Genes which promote such altruism, so the theory goes, would increase their frequency.
As an example, which I hope does not stray too far from his argument, we might think of a group which forms its strong, healthy men into a military machine. Diverting such men from breeding, rearing and business appears to be contrary to the group’s immediate interests. Not only that, but there is grave potential cost to those husbands, fathers, sons and brothers. All are placed in danger, tasked to dutifully perform the highest level of altruistic service, if need be sacrificing their lives for strangers.
However, the benefits to the group’s collective fitness are frequently high enough make it a risk worth taking. Any group that defeats its enemies and comes to claim their territory and control their resources has benefitted tremendously in the long term, even if in the short-term it suffers reduced fitness. The genes for cooperative aggression will experience a geometric increase in replicative fitness, as competing genes for selfish pacifism are removed from the symphonic struggle for survival we call life.
Frequently in the modern world, we see such group selection struggles played out not between nations but between competing groups within the same nation. Conquest need not take place only through war; demographic trends decide the issue with as much finality as total nuclear obliteration. In this our 21st century, former imperial superpowers face their imminent demise not from the armed warriors of lesser nations, but from their helpless, squalling babies.
This grim national perspective brings me finally to Dr. Frank Salter’s Ethnic Genetic Interests. The famous biologist Edward O. Wilson (no relation to David Sloan), a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism and the originator of the entire field of sociobiology, hailed Salter’s work as a “fresh and deep contribution to the sociobiology of humans.”
E. O. Wilson is particularly significant in this context as his work Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, opened the door to the application of evolutionary theory to the behaviour of creatures diverse as ants and apes. A scholarly tour de force, it was only the final chapter, inspecting humanity in the same light, which drew heavy fire. Genetic determinism is apparently perfectly acceptable for all other species, though some delightful, rainbow-farting elf prevents its application to humanity. More specifically, political prejudice deems it anathema in relation to cultural anthropology, psychology, economics, political science, sociology, literature, history, religion, music, art history and so on, ad nauseum.
Let me return from what was E.O. Wilson’s blurb and became my own burbling. Frank Salter’s book
expounds the grand concept, ripe for Western reification, of the scientific legitimacy of promoting and preserving our biological race. Far too long, such issues have pivoted on subjective values. As a Westerner, I’m naturally inclined to the assertion that Western culture and people deserve to maintain their own territory and identity. Many disagree however, citing my vested interest as inherently discriminatory towards other races (who, strikingly, are encouraged in the brazen pursuit of their interests). To lay this thorny issue to rest, Dr. Salter’s Ethnic Genetic Interests (EGI) offers objective vindication for the natural desire of a people to cleave together, and so ensure their genetic continuation.
Salter shows that, in just the same way adaptive behaviour by an individual or altruism between kin boosts fitness, so it is raised by such behaviour towards one’s race. This is because the racial gene pool is a repository for the distinctive genes of all its members. While direct family represents a concentrated cache of such genes, racial family represent a diluted, but enormous, reserve. Given the size of racial groups, even shrinking ones such as ours, protecting them can convey an even greater benefit than protecting one’s own children. Put another way, successfully raising children benefits the group as its genetic nature is perpetuated through pureblood offspring. When the ethnic group successfully defends its interests, your children also succeed as the genetic material they share with the group is assured a better chance of survival. Not only cultural, but genetic success is predicated on your group’s success. The disappearance of your group, however, would represent a far greater loss to your EGI than even the loss of your entire family. Even if your children survive to miscegenate, your unique genes will be watered out of existence.
Of course, all the above only applies in the presence of competing ethnic groups. If we were a single race with an equal proportion of shared DNA, nothing short of the complete destruction of life on earth could permanently compromise our EGI. As it however, our EGI becomes increasingly important to the degree of variation between ours and other ethnic groups. This difference can be as great as the degree of kinship between grandparent and grandchild. The following table from an Italian study illustrates this degree of difference, not in terms of kinship (R) but of genetic variance (FST):
About what we’d expect, with the possible exception of the largest degrees of difference existing between Australian aborigines and African tribes like the Bantu and Mbuti pygmies. Though unfamiliar with such prehistoric events, I assume the reason is in aborigines and negroes having the earliest common ancestor.
Genetic kinship is not only measured positively, as between relations or groups who share more genetic material than is typical of a population, but also negatively. If groups share less genetic material than is typical, their kinship is measured negatively. This kinship figure can be derived mathematically from the variation table shown above. I’m not about to put all those numbers into Excel and average them, but correcting for my laziness factor (Z), one might arrive at an average around 1000. Taking that as our base-level, we can see that anything below it, eg. the variance figure of 21 separating the English and Danes, represents a very high degree of positive kinship, about as high as between grandparent and grandchild. The 4287 between Mbutis and Aborigines represents a massive proportion of negative kinship however. So much so that all Mbutis are almost identical clones in comparison with all Aborigines. If a member from each group “hooked up,” as the trendier evolutionary biologists say, they would be less related to their own child than to a random member of their race!
Indeed, Salter puts the impact of immigration into units of lost “child-equivalents” as a way of calculating its harmful effect on native EGI. As each nation on earth has a carrying capacity, or maximum amount of people it can support, there inevitably comes a tipping point at which every immigrant means one less baby the native populace can support. Anyone who's paid a visit to Japan or England would likely agree that such nations have reached their carrying capacity. In fact, my view is that a nation which must import food has exceeded it.
Salter explains it thus: if 10 000 Danish immigrants replaced 10 000 English natives, the English gene pool, or collective EGI, would suffer a small loss, equivalent to removing 167 children from England. This loss is relatively minor as a result of the genetic similarity between the two ethnic groups or “ethnies,” as Salter insists on calling them.
The loss in "children" is far greater if the English are replaced by more distant ethnies. If, instead of Danes, the infernal-powers-that-be invite 10 000 Bantus to replace 10 000 Englishmen, it would be the genetic equivalent of the loss of 10,854 children. Dr. Salter explains, “Some ethnies are so different genetically that they amount to negative stores of those distinctive genes.”
Dr. Salter concludes:
“[A]n act of charity or heroism by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 English would be adaptive even if the act cost the altruist his or her life and with it all prospects of raising a family (at least a family of less than 167 children), since this would save the equivalent of 167 of the altruist’s children. Preventing replacement by 10,000 Bantu would warrant a much larger sacrifice because the genetic benefit is about 65 times larger; random Englishmen are almost as related as parent and child compared to the relationship between Englishmen and Bantu.
The genetic distance between English and Bantus is so great that, on the face of it, competition between them would make within-group altruism among random English (or among random Bantu) almost as adaptive as parent-child altruism… Thus it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning…”