Sunday, August 28, 2016
Voxday has a list up on his blog of his definitions of the Alt-right. As I’ve pointed out here numerous times the alt-right, for all the good it can do, is far too broad a gateway for its own good. Or maybe it would be best described as inviting the undecided to boldly sit on the fence. In the early days of the Alternative Right blog (now called Radix) there were articles by everything from jewish “transhumanists” and jewish “intellectuals” to robe wearing neo-pagans, to, I believe, an injun.
This was asinine. There is so little White advocacy that to invite non-Whites into one of the few fortifications is contra reason to the nth degree.
Vox himself likes to say that he is part indian and mexican. I’m guessing that though that may be technically correct (a small percentage of Mexicans are White and “Indian Princess Syndrome” is notorious) it is done mainly to troll/deflect accusations of racism. Which itself is unwise. As I’ve pointed out before, there is literally no such thing as racism, and that is the best tact to deal with those who sling the word. But that’s another topic.
Back to the list,
Number 4 on Vox’s list is fundamentally problematic, and contradicts some of his other points. It states, ‘The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.’
Problem 1: “Western Civilization”. Now I’ve used the expression myself, but the fact is that Western Civilization is hard to define. Most east-Europeans (historically Orthodox) don’t think of themselves as Western. Most of us in the U.S. use the phrase as synonymous with White people, but Russians, for example, certainly do not. Catholics like to claim that catholic christianity created Western Civilization and yet the vast majority of Protestants don’t see catholicism as christian.
Another problem with “Western Civilization is that it connotes a phase of the White man’s history, not its totality. Europeans have been around for tens of thousands of years. What historians usually classify as Western Civilization didn’t begin to come into existence until around 7th and 8th centuries A.D., and then slowly moved north and north-east over the next 500 years (the Northern Crusades). And many would argue that it ended with WWI, while others claim it ended with the onset of the Enlightenment.
Referring to ‘The West’, as in the direction -the western part of the old world, is fine, but confuses many.
Western Civilization, as it is thought of historically and culturally, is more like bell-bottoms or the mullet: a fad. The better expression is ‘European Civilization’ -that which is inherently created by Europeans wherever they are, in place or in time, be it 2000 A.D., or 20,000 B.C.
Problem 2: “Pinnacle of Human Achievement”. No! Absolutely bad understanding. If you want to argue it was the pinnacle of European achievement, fine. But Africans, Asians, jews, hispanics, Arabs, etc, have their own conception of accomplishment and civilization. Their idea of family, community, order, law, form & function is fundamentally different from Whites. It's valid for them, but we have our own. Our pinnacle is not their pinnacle. What Polar Bears consider paradise is hell for alligators.
As for the Three Pillars,
Christianity is a toxic mix of three of the worst elements of antiquity: Roman politics, Greek Philosophy and west-Asian Monotheism.
Rome was a blight on Europe -a cartel king-pen’s mansion surrounded by favela-level slums, filled with garbage, disease and crime. It was a manifestation of the same globalist multi-cultural gulag/slum that we are fighting against today. But it did promise the potential for the conquered to become citizens of the kingdom.
Greek Philosophy was nothing more than an attempt to conceptualize distinctly European traits, such as altruism, as some sort of universal virtue/imperative. Once articulated and written down it could be ‘preached to every creature under heaven’. Behind every cuck there is an Aristotle.
Oriental Monotheism is the inevitable outgrowth of natural Asiatic despotism and west-Asia’s historically complex sexual socio-politics. Which, to thumbnail, is: Yahweh/Jesus is the Sheik and the “Brides of Christ” are his harem.
Once again, Jesus would have been a brown, Asiatic midget from the deserts of west Asia. He was a jew -jews are Asians. He wasn’t a god and he sure as hell wasn’t one of us.
Put the three elements together and you get anti-Europe. Europe has survived in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Just as it survived in spite of Rome and the bullshit that came out of Greece(1).
The 2nd pillar, European Nations, is obvious, as nation means ethnic group. It’s Europeans, not “western civilization” that we are fighting to protect and preserve.
The 3rd pillar, Rule of Law, needs to be further understood as the rule of law as Europeans know and experience it. The other races have their own inherent understandings of law, order and morality. And each is valid to each race.
In other words, beneath the surface of Vox’s number 4 is the beast of universalism. I suspect point 4 was conceived of as an attempt to save and rehabilitate christianity. And in so doing it contradicted some of his other points (such as 6,7 & 9) and undermines the whole project.
Remove 4 and the list is okay.
Note (1): Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and the rest of those Greek philosophers did not represent Greek thinking. They represented the pontifications of a small clique. We really don’t know much about what the average Greek (or Roman, for that matter) thought or believed about the world about them. We only know what the George Soros and Angela Merkel-types of their day thought.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Or ‘Why You and Everything You Love Is Under Constant Assault’
Nature is not passive
Individuals, Groups, Tribes & Nations are not passive
The Inquisition was not force used against something passive. It was force used against force.
The Jewish-Arab-North African alliance attacked Europe. Europe fought back and eventually won. It was a war and one side won and one side lost. Simple as that.
This is history. This is life.
Be it Rome vs. Germania, France vs. England, WW I, WW II, etc, there are no passive peoples. There are only opposing forces.
Liberals grasp this in a way conservatives do not.
This is why conservatives can never grasp liberal’s hatred for something like the artwork of Norman Rockwell. Liberals see his paintings as propagating for one group (Whites) and their traditional way of life. Which it is. It is a use of force to affirm and celebrate a specific people and their culture in opposition to other peoples and their cultures.
Thus Norman Rockwell’s paintings are indeed a form of Inquisition.
To exist and to be is to exert force against others and the world about you.
If you live what you believe to be a good and decent life, respectful of others, you are, in fact, attacking other peoples and their values. And if you are in close proximity to them, naturally they are going to fight back.
Those who espouse passivity (tolerance) are indeed exerting force upon others. In fact those who espouse passivity (tolerance) have wrecked more havoc upon the earth than natural disasters have.
Tolerance requires a police-state and the use of force to enforce it: Schools forced to integrate at gunpoint. Bakers forced to make gay wedding cakes or be imprisoned. Countries bombed into oblivion to liberate (democratize) peoples -which means forcing consumerism, abortion and gay marriage upon them, etc.
To simply live out your life in a quiet country cottage is an inquisition against many who see such an existence as an affront to their sensibilities as cosmopolitans.
Conservatives and christians who bemoan “liberal oppression” and attacks upon their values don’t truly seem to grasp that their own values are oppressive and destructive to other people and their values.
This is the reality "cuckservatives" and "churchianity" desperately want to avoid. They want to deny that their own values and ethics are in conflict with other peoples and their values and ethics.
And naturally the left love that. Any resistance to leftist totalitarianism is decried as an Inquisition, or racist or anti-semetic, prejudice, intolerant, reactionary, etc.
Sorry conservatives, aka, White people, but to simply live and breathe is to inflict an Inquisition on the left.
They are never going to "live and let live".
So you and your families can either march off to the gulags and certain death, or you can organize culturally, politically and economically to fight back.
Presidential elections are a circus for oligarchs. But town, county and state elections are still potentially solid starting points.
It won't be easy. It will take decades, if not centuries. But as the left has already made clear its intention to make war on you no matter what, you might as well get together, organize, and start trying to take back territory, one election, one town, one county at a time.
I should add that it is not merely about politics (which most people loathe) but more so about celebrating life: your culture, your people’s holidays and customs, etc, are all part of the battle.
The days of being sheepish about your White identity and culture are gone. So celebrate them. Revel in them.
Study and explore your people’s history. You’ll find that many of the traditions, aesthetics, etc that you enjoy have always been a part of your people’s history.
The entirety of European history is your personal treasure of identity, culture and heritage. Know it, live it and pass it on to the next generation.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
If you use reality and objective, material (observable) truth as a baseline, all manner of modern day mysteries can be solved without appeals to the almighty.
Why is there no racial equality? Because the races aren’t equal. There. That was easy enough!
Why is there no gender equality? Because the genders are different and aren’t equal. Problem solved!
Why is there no height equality? Because some people are taller than others. Knowledge is power!
Why is there multi-generational poverty among some groups? Because some people are genetically predisposed to being dumb and incapable of solving their problems. Now you know!
Why does it always rain on you? Because you live in Seattle.
Why do you not float off into space as you walk to your car? Because of gravity!
I could go on. It’s amazing, and fun, what riddles you can answer outside of the goofy, esoteric horseshit of cultural Marxism.
Equality and Progress are completely unsubstantiated presuppositions of contemporary (faddish) ideologues. It’s only when you assume them at the outset that you are all vexed and perturbed at their stubborn refusal to materialize. You create unjustifiable problematic questions where there are already answers.
Let me restate this: the belief in human progress & human equality is completely unjustifiable; lacking even the thinnest of circumstantial evidence to support it.
They simply don’t exist. Never have. Never will.
Thus asking why races aren’t equal is akin to asking why pine trees can’t fly.
The answer to 99.9% of all the questions you will ask throughout your life is simple: Genetics.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
It tells you what everyone else thinks.
I don’t follow politics, but the other day a Trump supporter I know was commenting to some other Trump supporters on how something Trump had said was “dumb” because it was “controversial”.
Me: “Were you actually, personally, outraged by the comment?”
Them: “Not me personally, no.”
Me: “So, then, what’s the problem?”
Them: “It just makes him look bad to everybody else.”
Me: “But you personally are not outraged or offended?”
Me: “Can you name one person, you personally know, who was outraged or offended by the comment?”
Me: "Is it going to change whether or not you vote for him?'
You see, the media doesn’t tell you what to think, it tells you what everyone else is supposedly going to think. And then you are supposed to fret over that. (why you are supposed to care what other people think is a whole other question and subject)
If that sounds vaguely familiar it’s because it is the tactic of mass marketing.
Some commercial tells you, ‘This season, everyone is drinking Pepsi’, and you suddenly regret the 12 pack of Mountain Dew you brought home the other day.
Some TV program shows you how “everyone else” is vacationing abroad this year and suddenly you feel like a stick in the mud for not going in debt up to your ass on the beaches of Maui.
Of course this sort of hypothetical-peer pressure works best on the under 30 crowd, but it is also not without affect on the more seasoned, who should know better.
See, journalists never presume to talk on your behalf. No, they talk to you presumptively on behalf of everybody else.
Do you understand that?
When you read or watch news you are not being asked to form an opinion, you are being told what “everyone else” already thinks, and therefore, you should think that way too.
Hollywood works the same way. It shows you how the cool people think and behave and how the bad/dumb people think and behave.
This is why Hollywood never shows films about people you actually know, or have met, who live in a world that even vaguely resembles the real one.
The same is true with journalism. The kind of people/pundits/spokespersons you see on the news never speak or act like an actual human being you’ve ever come into contact with. Their beliefs and opinions are always extreme and marginal compared to the people you know and meet in the wide world.
The legitimacy of journalism has always been questionable, to say the least. Journalism began after the advent of the printing press and became a sensational bullhorn for merchant oligarchs in need of propaganda for their shady schemes and endeavors.
In the age of the Internet and mass communication, journalism stands on ever thin ice as a legitimate facet of society. It’s kind of like the Catholic Church during the Reformation, insisting that it is a needed intermediary between you and the “higher powers”, when, in truth, it just wants to be that higher power itself.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
“Blood will tell”
Ever heard that expression?
It’s absolutely true. Genetics determines everything.
Ideology, education, belief, faith, experience, etc, none of it fundamentally creates or affects a man.
You believe what you believe because of the blood that flows in your veins. You lead, are led or are mislead because of the blood that flows in your veins.
Your potential (for good and bad -smarts or stupidity) are based on the lineage of your forefathers.
Yes, you may make choices, but the how and why of the choices you will make are predicated on your DNA.
This was once common sense.
But with the advent of platitude-based politics (democracy) and mass media, the appeal to the ego and emotions of the masses has encouraged too many men to not trust their own lying eyes and their own gut instinct.
Race matters. Ethnicity matters. Who your Father and grandfather and great-grandfather were, matters. And I don’t mean generally, I mean who they were specifically (their temperament, personality, proclivities, etc) determines your own qualities, or lack there of.
You ARE NOT a “soul in a body”. You are a flesh and blood man. And even if there is such a thing as a soul or spirit, it would be more coherently, structurally, accurate to say that you have a soul, rather than that you are one.
The caveat on the soul is an acknowledgement that the definition for many is non-specific, non-theological and non-supernatural.
Monday, August 1, 2016
The Alt-Right has some fundamental problems. It’s big tent approach is more of a National Inquirer technique of using controversial subjects (abortion, gay marriage, Jewish ”thinkers”) as a means to open the door as wide as possible.
The idea, I suppose, is that once in, nature will take its course and a self-selection process will weed out the tares.
The other problem is age. These are mostly twenty-somethings, and when you are 25 years old a decade seems like a long time. It ain’t!
And yet, the Alt-Right has a tremendous strength. A strength that neither liberals nor conservatives can recognize, comprehend or contend with. And that is, the willingness to see that Western Civilization has collapsed. It’s gone. As of now there is nothing to replace it. All that is left is a few middle-aged vagabonds who gather together in a cobbled up dystopian Las Vegas in an attempt to re-create and re-live the decadent final years of the old world.
The Alt-Right are like those kids in ‘Beyond Thunderdome’. They were abandoned by their parents, (who, though surviving the apocalypse, could never let go of the material existence they had known and were, apparently, seduced into Bartertown) and so must attempt to piece together society on their own.
These canyon-dwelling kids have recreated a sort of primordial society, pre-decadence. While the adults (who remember the old world) have recreated the final moments of a society based solely on material want and gain: Bartertown, which is ruled, appropriately enough, by a black woman.
There comes a moment when a group of the kids decide to set out to find the civilization of their ancestors -their rightful inheritance.
They abduct the “little man” who represents knowledge and was used in Bartertown to produce methane to keep the retro-disco/Walmart going 24/7.
A climactic chase ensues.
At one point the black female leader of Bartertown struggles directly with the young White female leader of the kids for the little man (knowledge). Quite symbolic. Bartertown wants him to sustain their slum-of-the-present, while the kids want him to help build something better, to reclaim their inheritance to build upon for the future. The young White female wins the struggle.
The ending of ‘Beyond Thunderdome’ could have been written by the Alt-Right. The children have found the remains of the old cities. The final scene of them shows the female leader holding a child in her lap and telling the young ones gathered about her the tale, “so that we remember who we was, and where we came from.”
They light candles in the windows of the hollowed out and crumbling skyscrapers, so that the others will see the light and find their way home.
As you might guess I re-watched the film recently. I was surprised at how good it was, actually. Maybe its because I’m older and action films for the sake of action bore me.
The film was profound in its use of symbolism. What in other movies were used as run-of-the-mill dystopian cliches, were, in ‘Beyond Thunderdome’, used to critique the circumstances that led to the dystopia. The middle-aged adults could move neither forward nor backward in history. They were stuck in the “present of their dreams”. They could not use the ruins about them to build upon, but only to try to re-create an imitation of their moment of self-indulgence and self-gratification -the decadence that was.
The decadence that led to the apocalypse was, for them, the zenith of human accomplishment. They were not only selfish, but completely disconnected from the past of their ancestors (the pre-decadent era) and so gave no thoughts to their future (hence abandoning their children). In fact the people of Bartertown were seemingly childless.
In that, the denizens of Bartertown were representative of both liberals and conservatives. They cannot cope with the reality that we are now living in a dystopian nightmare. They cobble together their pig-shit fueled ghetto-circus and tell themselves that life has never been better.
Meanwhile the young, the final generation of the fallen West, are abandoned and without an inheritance. They are what is now known as the Alt-Right (that title will most likely alter in the years ahead -but the movement will be the same).
They may struggle against Bartertown but they’re not going to fight over Bartertown. F#@k Bartertown!
No, they’ve set out to find their rightful inheritance -to find their home for their people.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
An explanation of the world, as it is currently dominated by the empire ruled from Washington/New York.
It’s pretty basic: Individuals are free. Groups are not.
An individual is free to express his identity as a homosexual. But a business or town is not free to express its identity as heterosexual.
Individuals are free to identify with a specific religion. Communities, towns and states are not.
An individual is free to cross the border and declare a town “his”. But a town is not free to declare who, and what, it is.
So in other words, no one is actually free.
I alway point this sort of thing out when I hear people talk about “our freedoms”. I ask them if they acknowledges gay marriage, and when they say no I ask them why the people in their town don’t outlaw it again and their answer is always, “we’re not allowed.”
Funny, ain’t it.
It’s no longer “Us vs. Them”, but “I vs. Us”.
The isolated, atomized individual is granted infinite freedom by the empire, but if two or more individuals should get together and call themselves, “us”, then the empire declares them an enemy.
Think this might explain why the empire wages war on marriage, the family, borders and nationalism?
Of course! Because those fundamental things are, by nature, discriminatory and exclusive.
United we stand, divided we fall, indeed. Especially when we are not free to define who and what 'we' are.