Saturday, July 25, 2015

Whence Cometh New Law…

So, from where, and why, does new law and new interpretations of the law originate?

There is an in-depth consideration of the subject from both the ideological motivations of the elite and the reaction of the average consumer.

For brevity’s sake lets take a thumbnail sketch of the consumer reaction side.

Why did the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

Because they weren’t afraid of the reaction of the White folk anymore.

Simple as that.

Same thing with the Confederate Flag. Abortion. Open Borders. Etc.

The elite steer the ship, but the people are the tumultuous waves upon which it must set course.

And the fact is White people are, for the moment, docile and wish simply to “be left alone”, adopting the pretence of “as long as they don’t bother me.”

But this attitude is new, and as with most fads, likely temporary.

It’s like the problem with invasive species in Florida. Giant snakes have become an established species in the everglades and are wiping out native, sometimes endangered, animals. How did they get there? To a large extent, former “pet” owners who released them introduced them into the wild.

Now go back 80 to 100 years and imagine the reaction of the average man who found out his neighbor kept an apex predator as a “pet”. Back then the men of the neighborhood would have gone to such a “pet” owner and beat the hell out of him after killing the “pet”.

Because such a "pet" owner was endangering their family, their home and their territory. 

Today though, when a man finds out that next door to his family his neighbor is keeping a giant man-eating predator, his pitiful reaction is; “as long as they don’t bother me.”

Of course if and when they do “bother him” it will involve one of his children being killed by the animal.

The fact is, you can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

It’s out there waiting whether you want to deal with it or not.

Like Trotsky said, “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

So the applications of new law and new ways of society are fostered by the apathy of people in their own immediate environment.

But there are very, very few new truths or ways of being. Truth, like reality, is established with deep roots. 

Inevitably it will become apparent that the newly grafted on truths are killing the tree.

And when that truth finally sinks in…

It’s been posted here before, but it’s relevant for this post, so here, once more, is Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Wrath of the Awakened Saxon’

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.


Thursday, July 2, 2015

The Delusional Wail Of The Culture Warrior…

The great “Culture War” is over.

In the very same week that the Confederate Flag was taken down across the country the Gay Flag was hoisted up.

At the same time the Confederacy and the Old South were repeatedly attacked and denounced, the White House was bathed in the colors of the rainbow flag.

What a cosmic coincidence, huh?

Of course the evangelical Christians are all beside themselves over the legalization of gay marriage. Apparently, it will, any second now, bring about the apocalypse: as did banning prayer in schools in the 1960’s and abortion in the 1970’s, etc, etc.

Poor Christians. They continually wait for both blessings and curses from above, while neither materialize. Like unwanted dogs that have been left in the middle of nowhere, they set staring down the road thinking, “this is all just a crazy mix-up; any second now he’s coming back for me…..any second now….any second…”

Of course the culture war was never about culture. After all there is a reason why the conservative side was predominantly White and male while the liberal side was a mixture of blacks, jews, Asians, Whites, Hispanics, men and women.

The “culture war” was always about race, not culture. Particular culture, after all, is born of a particular race, not the other way around.

But this reality was never able to penetrate the suet ensconced thought processors which pass for the White conservative Christian’s brains.

Even now they’re unable to reckon with the fact that the “godless”, pro-gay, pro-abortion, “throw god out of the class rooms” hard-core Marxists are facilitating and celebrating the flooding of the U.S. with tens of millions of Christians...that just, coincidentally, happen to be non-White.

Hell, the White conservative Christians are still stuck trying to contend with the fact that African-Americans are 99% Christian and vote overwhelmingly for radical leftist politicians who work to dismantle traditional values and norms.

And now they are crying that gay marriage is an attack upon Christian values, yet are unable to admit that the vast majority of the world is both non-Christian and opposed to gay marriage.

Because to admit to that would be to face the fact that their culture and identity are NOT bound up in Christianity –that this war is about destroying the physical, material civilization that is their birthright, as physical, material European-Americans.

Black, Hispanic, Asian and other non-White Christians will be, as they have been all along, left alone and even encouraged and empowered to privately and publicly celebrate their Christian faith.

White Christians are simply unwilling to see this, even though the truth of it is all around them.

And the truly frightening thing is that this “culture war” was merely the preliminary battle moves for the high ground.

The actual war on European-Americans is about to begin.


Friday, June 26, 2015

Hobbes vs. Eden…

Following the thought from the last post,

The “golden rule” is conceived of in opposition to the “golden age”.

Hobbes rejected natural law on the premise that it was primitive and that primitive man was, like nature, crude and violent.

Yet the Garden of Eden narrative (aka, the golden age premise of history) implies otherwise.

The reason for the parallel to the biblical story is to contextualize the explicit “spiritual” aspect of the concept of “progress”.

That society (mankind) is progressing politically/socially is sacrosanct to the narrative of the current, residing, ruling class...obviously.

To suggest that mankind is not progressing is blasphemy. To suggest that the past was better is heresy and leads to calls for excommunication.

Thus we see the calls to ban flags, historical figures, names, place-names, statues, buildings, institutions, etc, etc, that in any way stand as a testament to the past…ANY PART OF THE PAST.

And the reason for that is because the past does indeed testify to its moral, social and political superiority to the present and presumed future. 

But the past also shows us a steady decline from one century to the next. History robs progress of its claims.

And so history must no be simply rewritten, but attacked and, ultimately, denied. 

The Confederate flag today, the American flag tomorrow. Jefferson Davis today, George Washington tomorrow. And on and on it will go.

It is not a particular part of the past that is a threat to the narrative of “progress”, but the entirety of the past.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Progress vs. The Golden Age…

A fundamental difference in worldviews can be seen in contrast between those who hold to a belief in the concept of the “golden age” and those who adhere to the concept of progress.
The Golden Age premise is that there was, in the past, an ideal civilization from which human society has continuously declined.

“Progress” is the premise that human society is continuously moving towards an ideal civilization.

One concept of ‘the ideal’ is in the past. The other is in the future.

Whichever one a person subscribes to will shape much of their social/political/economic/religious/etc, worldview.

Are we surrounded by building blocks, or by ruins?

Among those who held to the progressiveist, future-positive, conception of human history were Stalin, Lennin, Marx, Hitler, Moa, Pol Pot, Jefferson, Robespierre, Locke, Smith and Cromwell, just to name a few.

Even the Puritans who settled in the new world held to a progressive outlook in their conception of the “city on a hill” motif.

At the root of the “progressive” view is a mad man’s hubris centered on the individual, at any given moment in that person’s time.

It is the belief that a single person has the power, and right, to “change the world” to fit their own preference.

Which is astounding in its arrogance and ignorance, when you consider the breadth of history against a single finite lifetime.

The Golden Age conception of history is the sanest, because it places the individual in perspective against the awesome, immeasurable and unperceivable scope of history.

We are each one among billions, all of who are caught up in the tidal wave of a continually unfolding story.

No one individual can see the whole from the beginning to the end. And yet there are some who presume to take it upon themselves to “change the world”.

We could laugh at them for being such asses if it weren’t for the fact that they also tend to become history’s greatest monsters.


Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Psychoanalysis of psychoanalysis...

When you actually look deep into the history of the concept of psychoanalysis you find it a very shallow theory, both ideologically and historically.

It’s sort of, no exactly, like religion.

You see, in the theory of psychoanalysis you have these…let’s call them, problems (guilt), brought about through “repressed feelings” (sins), and by confessing these sins to a trained expert in the art of psychological analysis (priests), you can, with his help, attain catharsis and be cured (redeemed)!

Of course, the question most likely to pop into your mind is, who determines what is “repressed” and what is “problem” and what is “cured”?


Therein is the man behind the curtain.

And he is arbitrary and capricious.

He one day declares it wrong to wear socks on Tuesday and that those who do need to be cured of the habit. He even creates a word for the malady: Tuesockism.

Are you a Tuesockist? If so, you might want to ask yourself what past trauma, prejudice or repressed memory might have triggered the condition.

Thus a problem is created out of thin air, and promulgated with hot air. And, of course, every problem needs a remedy.

Which is the astounding, and utterly magical, power of psychoanalysis: it creates problems out of thin air and then conjures the corresponding cure.

Sound ridiculous?

Then consider racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism and xenophobia.

These are, we are told, all problems today.

Strangely enough, they were not problems until very, VERY recently.

That’s because, like Tuesockism, they don’t actually exist.

They are made-up problems/offences/sins that have been given a name and then used as rhetorical currency.

Which in and of itself is hardly a novelty in the post-enlightenment era of Republicanism and democracy, where rhetorical currency has been liberally printed out of thin air to both advocate for one novel political ideology or group and to slander and delegitimize competing ones; or even your immediate ideological predecessors.  You can never have just one revolution, now can you.

Funny enough, beneath the surface of these political/ideological struggles one finds an ethnic and racial foundation.

Freud was a jew who, surprisingly, found very few problems among his people but all kinds of “issues” among European peoples, with whom his people were, coincidentally, in a constant historical power struggle.

Or look at the Cold War. It’s amazing how much the Soviet Union came to look, feel, sound and think just like the old Russian Empire. In the end the “soviets” became Russian, not the other way around.
That’s because the Cold War was not ultimately about communism vs. capitalism but simply Russia vs. Great Britain and America. It was Moscow vs. Washington, just as WWII was really Berlin vs. London: Germans vs. English.

And so today we find that those most commonly diagnosed with the problems of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc, tend to be overwhelmingly male and of European descent.

The accusers? Well, generally they tend to be not so European in descent. No, they do tend to be predominantly jewish.

Yes, certainly there are genuine ideological converts from among Whites. And none are more zealous than the convert.
 Which is why when you have a jewish leftist and a gentile leftist together the gentile always comes across as more wild eyed and fanatical than the jew. That’s because the jew shouts racism and anti-semitism as merely a weapon to win a war, whereas the White is a true believer.

Never-the-less, the majority of those who incessantly declare their contempt and hatred of European peoples and champion their demise, are jews.

Thus the made up sins of “racism”, “anti-semitism”, “homophobia” etc are merely the current weapons in an asymmetrical war for power and dominance.

After all, why go out and fight the enemy in battle when you can just get them to sit around and feel bad about themselves?

Yet, if European peoples are to be completely destroyed then Asians will come to be the next competitor.
And Asians lack the sort of altruistic tendencies that make Europeans vulnerable to attack through reflective “psychoanalysis”.

Which is to say, if Europeans were to disappear today and China were to rise to power tomorrow and conquer and enslave neighboring countries, concepts such as “racism”, “misogyny”, “anti-semitism” and the like would never be uttered again.

Because they never represented genuine wrongs or problems to begin with. They were only ever used as weapons designed specifically to attack and overthrow Europeans and their civilization.

The Chinese would require a whole new strategy.


Thursday, May 14, 2015

One Ring or One God?…

Tolkien was, ostensibly, a christian. However the ‘Lord of The Rings’ is undeniably “pagan” in its worldview: especially in its embrace of fate. To say nothing of Tom Bombadil, whose very nature is an overt refutation of fundamental Christian teleology and ontology.

It’s interesting to consider ‘The Lord of The Rings’ in light of Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious and archetypes. Which is to say that what Tolkien may or may not have intended with the narrative is not necessarily what he ended up with.

An artist may, unintentionally, express thousands of years of the cultural and mythical struggles of his people, though his art…theoretically.

In fact the first time I saw a depiction of Aragorn leading his armies against Mordor, with Mt Doom in the background, the parallel narrative that came to mind was of Satan leading his armies of men to surround and attack Christ in Jerusalem.

 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city (Jerusalem), and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
-Revelation 20: 7-9

So Satan is bound for a thousand years, after which he assembles an army and attacks Jerusalem.

Aragorn is the line of kings returned after a thousand years in exile; and leads his armies against Mordor.

There are actually several passages in LOTR’s that create a striking parallel between Yahweh and the Dark Lord.

And it’s an interesting coincidence that, as The Shire is representative of England: when you look at the Middle Earth map, Mordor is south/east of The Shire, and the “Holy Land” is south/east of England.

But, to get to the point here,

There are numerous interpretations of what the ‘One Ring’ represents. That can be debated. What can’t be debated is its purpose, which is to dominate, singularly.

And so it is hard not to notice a parallel to the concept of the ‘One God’, with it’s adherents in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and their secular offspring, Marxists, Progressives and the SJWs) insisting that the one god (or ideology) is the only god and all life must, and will, acquiesce to it.

One god to rule them all, one god to find them,
One god to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

What then would that say about the inability to wield it and thus the need to destroy it? Or the quest to return it to the land from which it was forged?

Again, the parallel: where was the one god, Yahweh, forged? Yep, in the “Holy Land”, aka, Mordor.

Naturally this can all lead to speculation about who or what is Frodo? How would an Englishman come into possession of a concept? And how would he set about to destroy it? Debate? It’s a rather pointless discussion as the overall context is of archetypes.

Otherwise we could wonder who, or what then, is paralleled by Gollum? That ugly, murderous, mischievous and unwelcome fellow traveler, whose lust to once again attain that ultimate power leads to his own destruction and that of the one ring(god).

In fact therein lies the great reveal/mystery: it’s not the ordinary Englishman who causes the destruction of the ring(god), but rather a servant of the enemy.

And I don’t think that is meant to be ironic, but rather illustrative. Power seeks to devour all things. And thus, inevitably, that includes itself.


Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Is Race A Social Construct?...

When true believers spout that nugget of wisdom it always seems to be under the pretext that a social construct is a thing without merit or legitimacy. Which is…strange, to say the least.

So whenever I hear someone say, “race is a social construct,” I always reply, “so are rights.”

Yep. Rights are a social construct. So is law, justice, equality, etc. The list is endless.

Really, I have no idea what-so-ever about what those who say “race is a social construct” are trying to imply or suggest. And it’s rather obvious that they don’t either. It’s just a slogan with not an ounce of thought behind it.

Such are the times we live in.

On the one hand there is no such thing as race. On the other hand there is racism.

Go figure!

There’s no such thing as White people, and yet, somehow, there is White privilege.

Racial profiling is bad, but please support racial quotas, affirmative action, the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the NAACP, the ADL, the United Negro College Fund, Black Entertainment Television, Latino Entertainment Awards, La Raza and hundreds of other such organizations and institutions which receive government subsidies.

Minorities? Native Americans? Anti-Semitism? Apparently, none of these things exist since race is a social construct.

Come to think of it, the mere act of accusing someone of anti-semitism is racist, since it requires an acknowledgement that one person is a semite and the other person is not!

Let that sink in. The charge of racism is, itself, an acknowledgement of the existence of race.

In fact the pursuit of “equality” betrays the belief in differences to begin with, now doesn’t it.

As to the question of the reality of race,

  1. Skulls of Whites, Blacks and Asians are identifiable as White, black and asian. As are hair samples.

      b. ‘At the same time evidence is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA.’
-New York Times, Nov. 11, 2007 ‘In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice’

There are mountains of evidence of the reality of race and racial differences.
The Archeological, Forensic, Scientific, sociological, anthropological and Historical evidences reach into the Heavens.

It takes a certain kind of ideological zealotry to deny it.

And a special kind of thoughtless stupidity to utter inane phrases like “race is a social construct.”