When black folks drive white folks out of their neighborhoods, it is called "white flight" and it is prejudiced and bad of the white people to do that and we should be angry at them for it.
The two bucks in an hour long debate (minus commercials) on the Laura Ingraham show. There is a point in this recorded debate where Hitchens makes a ridiculous statement about a Christian prohibition against astronomy that passed sentence of death on anyone that "looked through a telescope." Ignore it.
Adler was a controversial figure in some circles who saw Adler's Great Books of the Western World project as Eurocentric and racially exclusive. Asked in a 1990 interview why his Great Books of the Western World list did not include any black authors, he said simply, "They didn't write any good books."
This is something I wrote a great while ago. Not sure how much of it I agree with but I saw it unpublished and figured I'd put it out there. [I've read it and did some slight editing. I pretty much feel like it accurately sums up - in an extremely limited fashion - my feelings on the matter]
Which Side Are You on?
Come all of you good workers,
Good news to you I'll tell,
Of how that good old union
Has come in here to dwell.
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
My daddy was a miner,
And I'm a miner's son,
And I'll stick with the union,
Till every battle's won.
They say in Harlan County,
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a union man,
Or a thug for J.H. Blair.
Oh, workers can you stand it?
Oh, tell me how you can.
Will you be a lousy scab,
Or will you be a man ?
Don't scab for the bosses,
Don't listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven't got a chance,
Unless we organize.
Which Side Are You On?
Growing up in the eighties and nineties has made it hard for me to fathom working conditions that can precipitate sentiments like Mrs. Reece's. Nor can I understand sending children down chimneys as sweeps or working them in factories for twelve hour shifts.
There is something inside of men - all men - that is brutal, evil and very close to surfacing at all times. Blacks are constantly accused of the possibility of "going native" in Christianized Western Civilizations (rip) with nary a remembrance of just how "native" whites in these civilizations used to behave toward one another in the complete absence of the Negro. Capitalism is extremely dangerous because men are extremely dangerous and it appears that it is unable to achieve anything except a further expansion of the power of the material and materialism over the cultural and religious and unable to soften the harshness of the "hidden hand" in troubled and trying times.
Sometimes men can be pushed so far down the hierarchy of need that the overbearing cry emanating from their collective soul is one composed only of pain and want, one that cries for temporal relief; a reprieve from hunger, thirst and wage enslavement. A just society - staying within its proper boundary, so far as is possible from there - prevents the mass of men from entering this ungodly state. A culture - an economic, spiritual and political entity that encompasses, delineates, circumscribes and dictates and informs a national man - is an organizing force that when healthy and robust enables men to focus on that which is invaluable and residing in a realm unrelated to simple household management. Neither does a righteous culture divide men upon lines of battle that are intraracial for the sole purpose of redistribution of trinkets. The real struggle started in paradise and is between the snake and our Lord and those are the two sides we must choose from. A sin stained society draws our attention away from the real war and although there is power in a union it is only a weak and earthly power incapable of burning away the dross of the soul.
A union can never correct the wicked. Usurious and injurious men are stronger than collective bargaining. The union is merely an attempt to equalize an unrighteous imbalance of power in situations where capital has grown fat and abusive in its power and seeks to oppress men from this vantage.
What is a fair wage? I suppose if a man is toiling full time he deserves a living wage, a wage with which he can support a family. Are all men able to perform the same day's work? Perhaps not. Do all men deserve the same wage? Perhaps not. Do all men deserve to support a family through wage? Perhaps not. The union can not address these questions, but neither should we allow the boss to do so.
The main problem with unions is that they too, like corporations, are run by wicked men and the more democratic they become the more evil they seem to become - just like governments. In the case of my particular union and its local manifestation the evil expresses itself in spiritual and cultural apathy; it regards the worker as mere labor, and labor as mere means to engage in boundless consumption. The boss man puts profits over people and the union feels the same way; they just disagree about how to divvy up the exploits. Perhaps it is time to ask the union which side are you on?
I have found no one who writes today about the demise of the American family has explored the negative impact of hospital birth. I believe that the decision to have an institutional hospital birth is at the heart of the destruction of American family life. The family starts with birth, and home birth traditionally was a cornerstone of strength in a family's life. Hospital birth deprives the new family of this most primal and strengthening experience.
In 1920, when birth was leaving the home and entering the hospitals in the U.S., there was an outcry. People didn't like it. There was a rise in infant and maternal mortality in the hospital. But control of birth, medical schools and hospitals were in the hands of powerful and wealthy families like the Rockefellers and the Morgans. It was in the best interest of their financial empires to influence the move of laboring women to hospitals. A major study as early as 1933 showed that hospital births were not as safe as home births.
It seems inevitable that if families are strong in a society, then the institutions are weak; and if the institutions are strong, then families are weak. Our American institutional way of life is firmly implanted. Our families have been weakened by powerful economic and political forces most interested in perpetuating themselves.
You don't find people these days who will tell you that they were happy with the hospital births of their children. They may be pleased to leave the hospital with their new babies but at best describe the hospital experience as necessary if one wants a baby.
It is never described as an emotionally uplifting moment, not as the greatest day in their lives, not as the happening that brought them closer than ever before, but as a necessary experience if you want to have a baby. Hospital birth is something new mothers try to forget quickly. A mother who wants to have another hospital birth in the future has to block the experience from her mind in order to have the courage to go through the experience another time. The hospital is a necessary experience only if one knows of no other way of having a baby.
Institutional childbirth will never be a joyous experience because institutions do not aim to please any of the families they serve. They aim to perpetuate their own existence. In the U.S. the goal of hospitals is to ensure that you feel dependent on them. This dependent feeling guarantees that you will call on the institution again and again. The hospital will step in to weaken your family's strength. They will deliver your baby, direct the care and feeding of your baby, cure your illnesses, take care of your elderly family members for you and manage your death. And they extract a great price, personal and financial, for their services.
If an institution can control the beginnings of your family life, the birth of your first child, then they can control everything else in your life. They "help" you decide on institutional formula feedings for your baby; institutional day care, maybe even from birth; institutional schooling beginning at a very early age; institutional careers to which your children may aspire; even the institutional care of anyone in your family who is sick or dying.
In contrast, "family thinking" brings questions and problems back to the family to solve rather than taking them to the institution. Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, on of America's leading pediatricians, used to say that one grandmother was worth two pediatricians. Families can provide their own "in-house" birthing rooms, child care systems, educational opportunities and care of the sick and dying.
Fully to appreciate this shift in institutional purpose, let's imagine a young man just entering the contemporary academy, at great cost to immigrant parents of simple religious faith, who fled foreign tyranny to find in the United States the political liberty and economic opportunity that have always been its hallmark. Their ambitions for him are: that he comes to love his new country as much as they do and makes the most of the freedoms it offers him; that he thanks God continually for the great blessing He has provided in making that freedom possible; and that he strives to live his faith in a way that is worthy of that freedom -- a way that will make of him an asset to his country and to his fellow citizens, and that will bring honor to his family. In short, they dream of him returning from school an educated gentleman, whose piety and patriotism have been enhanced by an exposure to learning and high culture. Yet what remains after four years at the contemporary university, after the professors have had a chance to mold him according to their own vision of New Progressive Man? A dope-smoking, Che-Guevara-T-shirt-wearing foul-mouthed serial fornicator, whose conception of the higher moral life comprises recycling and voting a straight Green Party ticket, and whose idea of "spirituality" is hanging out with other New Age flakes at a Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert. He has been taught nothing about his religion except that it is a repressive sham, nothing about sexual morality except that there isn't any, nothing about his country and its history except that it is "racist," "sexist," "homophobic," and insensitive to people in wheelchairs, and would be much better if only if it was more like the country his parents had crawled under barbed wire to escape from.Extracted from an article titled Opium of the Professors.
As a term in civics it implies that there is no formal authority whatsoever, not even a commonly accepted view of anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force − might makes right, but only in a very local and temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision. It is often associated with demagoguery and the rule of passion over reason. It may be considered an ad hoc democracy
“I can see little consistency in a type of Christian activity which preaches the Gospel on the street corners and at the ends of the Earth, but neglects the children of the covenant by abandoning them to a cold and unbelieving secularism. If indeed the Christian school were in any sort of competition with the Christian family, if it were trying to do what the home ought to do, then I could never favor it. But one of its marked characteristics, in sharp distinction from the secular education of today, is that it exalts the family as a blessed divine institution and treats the scholars in its classes as children of the covenant to be brought up above all things in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”
J. Gresham Machen
Education, Christianity, and the State
“The reason I am opposed to (creating a Federal Department of Education) is that it represents a very ancient principle in the field of education which, it seems to me, has been one of the chief enemies of liberty for several thousand years – the principle, namely, that education is an affair essentially of the State, that education must be standardized for the welfare of the whole people and put under control of the government, that personal idiosyncrasies should be avoided….It is a very ancient thing this notion that the children belong to the State and that their education must be provided for by the State in a way that makes for the States welfare. But that principle, I think you will find if you examine human history, is inimical at every step to liberty; and if there is any principle that is contrary to the whole genius of the Anglo-Saxon idea in government, it seems to me that it is in the principle of thorough going State contol in education….
That great aim of education – that personal, free, truly human aspect of education – can never have justice done to it under federal control. And that is the reason why the standardization of education that has already been carried on through the federal bureaus is deleterious. I have observed this in general: that when people talk about uniformity in education what they are really producing is not something uniformly high, but something uniformly low; they are producing a kind of education which reduces all to a dead level, which fails to understand the man who loves the high things that most of his fellowmen do not love. This degrading tendency is furthered, I fear, by the present federal activities in education, and it will be given stupendous impetus if this federal Department is formed….
I, for my part, think that the functions of the public school ought to be diminished rather than broadened; and I believe the public school ought to pay just a little bit of attention, perhaps, to that limited by not unimportant function which it is now almost wholly neglecting – namely, the impartation of knowledge….
So it is with the federal control of education. The better it works the worse it suits me; and if these people had their way everything could be reduced to a dead level, if everybody came to agree with everybody else because nobody would be doing any thinking at all for himself, if all could be reduced to this harmony – do you think that the world would be a good place under those circumstances? No, my friends. It would be drab and miserable with creature comforts in it and nothing else, with men reduced to the level of beasts, with all the higher elements of human life destroyed….
If liberty is not maintained with regard to education, there is no use trying to maintain it in any other sphere. If you give the bureaucrats the children, you might as well give them everything else…. No we do not want a federal Department of Education; and we do not want, in any form whatever, the slavery that a federal department of Education would bring.”
J. Gresham Machen
Education, Christianity, and the State
It is also a strange thing that it should not be counted in England a trifling observation to say that one nation can never have a right to govern another; and that such a government could have no foundation but that of force, upon which also are supported robbery and tyranny. That the tyranny of a people is, of all known in the world, the most cruel and intolerable, leaving no remedy for the oppressed; whereas a single despot is at length stopped in his career by self-interest; he has the check of remorse, or that of public opinion; but a multitude makes no calculations, feels no remorse, and decrees to itself glory, when, in fact, it deserves the utmost disgrace.
In brief, there exists in Britain a kind of corruption infinitely more subtle and far more insidious than that for which the United States are famed.It was the weirdest thing I've seen in print in a long time. I had to re-read the sentence twice to figure it out.
Extracted from William Joyce's Twilight Over England.
Section I & II: Historical Background and Economic Development
I earned my living as a tutor and was fortunate enough to have a good employer.Joyce now, on Cromwell:
In 1933, however, I joined Sir Oswald Mosley's new movement, the British Union of Fascists. In that movement I became one of the chief speakers and writers: and for three years, I was Sir Oswald's Director of Propaganda. We had some fine times in that movement - days which I shall never forget. What influence I had I used to promote a thoroughly anti-Jewish policy: and, in this respect I succeeded. Moreover, I did everything possible to stress the philosophical community of German and British National-Socialism. To anybody who could see, in the years 1934 and 1935, it was only a specially successful effort to spread National-Socialism widely in England that could avert the tragedy which has come to pass.
Here I should explain that in the course of years and experience the basis of my patriotism had changed. It was no longer the collection of sentimental abstractions that had satisfied me in my youth. Having seen how the poor lived and how they suffered, I had realized the impossibility of a patriotism which excluded them. On the one hand, the Tory politicians were ruining the Empire for the sake of international finance: on the other hand, the mere fact that the Conservatives claimed a monopoly of patriotism made millions of the working people to detest it. It became clear to me that it was vain presumption to talk about patriotism until the masses of the people were given some real reason to love their country: and the only real reason conceivable was that a new and scientific economic system should abolish unemployment, poverty, and social injustice. The more I investigated the facts, the more convinced I became that the old stereotyped patriotism was a hollow sham, designed to conceal the operations of financiers and preserve the privileges of an effete plutocratic caste. From the outset of my political career, I was always told how unwise it was to mention the Jews. One could condemn the King in public without any fear as to the consequences: but to mention the Jew was sacrilege. For some years I worked to break this evil superstition and I believe that I succeeded.
How much can be learnt from history has long been a matter speculation. Much depends on the capacity of the pupil. There is probably no branch of learning, except economics, in which conjecture plays so large a part. Almost any set of facts can be selected, in a partial fashion, to prove any theory, however absurd. In this chapter, no attempt will be made at philosophical generalization. Our only purpose is to show how England's historical development contributed to the fateful and fatal action which her Government took on September 3rd, 1939.Joyce on interest:
There is a certain dramatic irony in Mr. Chamberlain's choice of the date. For, September 3rd was the date of Oliver Cromwell's birth and also of his death. And how much the England of today owes to Cromwell is appreciated by very few. That crude, tough, ugly, self-righteous figure still has its admirers. Even scholars so discerning and so essentially honest as Thomas Carlyle have paid tribute to it. And most of the English Liberals, who eschew dictatorship, have worshiped at the shrine of this military autocrat because he was the first Englishman to achieve a complete metaphysical unity between Bible, cash, and sword.
If only statesmen had been compelled to study the laws of Compound Interest, the fate of the whole human race might have been very different. Even a knowledge of simple interest would have helped in the this case. But the gentlemen of the eighteenth century eschewed mathematics that had no application to the card table. Certain persons, who were not gentlemen, profited by their simplicity.Joyce on party politics:
Now with the recession of the monarchy into the realms of the obscure, [note: with the ascension of George I and the de facto reign of Robert Walpole] where it pathetically lingers today, party politics began to play a predominant role in English life. Whist the Whigs ruled England throughout almost the whole of the eighteenth century, they had to contend with opposition: and this opposition was often based on the grounds of ambition rather than policy. I doubt if anybody can really say what Bolingbroke wanted: but he certainly hated the Whigs. Long after the old Tories had been buried, a new Tory party sprang up in 1770 under Lord North, this time in support of the House of Hanover. It did not get very far: but it served to provide the prerequisite of Party Politics, namely that there should be more than one party. The more parties, the more opportunities for individuals. Politics came to be regarded as a lucrative profession, thanks to the system of patronage, whereby gentlemen who knew somebody in authority could secure command of a Regiment in the West Indies for colleagues upon whose wives they had definite if not honourable designs.On the absurdities of what Joyce calls "liberal capitalism":
As there approached, during the last century [note: the 19th], the final struggle to eliminate everything that did not reek of materialism, it was only natural that the Liberal Industrialists should found a college of Propaganda. This was the Manchester School of Economics. Tenth rate philosophical hacks were bought and assembled with instructions to invent the science of economics and justify the abominations which the craw-thumping Radical plutocrats were each day practicing on the masses of the people. The doctrines of this so-called school were very simple. The great and eternal verity of economics was announced in the golden words: "Buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest." This commandment being devoutly accepted, every other grace necessary to salvation would follow of its own accord. Hallelujah! How Jewish it all sounds. It followed, of course, that human flesh and blood must also be purchased in the cheapest market and its products sold in the dearest - for the benefit of the dear kindly old employer who erected outside his sweat-shops a tin tabernacle to which his workers must, under pain of dismissal, go every Sunday to thank God they were poor and hear sermons on the blessedness of their simple condition and "station in life". Then, of course, another grand precept was that of Free Trade. England had a start of almost 50 years ahead of the Continental countries in the matter of this Industrial Revolution.Section III: Political Development
And one of her cardinal misfortunes is that she should have based so many of her calculations on this preliminary and transient advantage. For half a century she was practically without a rival in the manufacturing industries. Napoleon, despite his attempt to blockade England - an attempt as foolish as the English attempt to blockade Germany today - shaved with Sheffield razors at a couple of guineas a pair, his armies were clad in Yorkshire wool, and many thousands of his troops marched on English leather. It is indeed a matter for wonder that he was permitted to obtain these supplies: but the wonder vanishes when one asks whether the new plutocrats put their profits or their country first. As it is today; so it was then, and so it ever will be, whilst Liberal Capitalism lasts.
(Covering The Smiths)
All men have secrets and here is mine
So let it be known
For we have been through hell and high tide
I think I can rely on you ...
And yet you start to recoil
Heavy words are so lightly thrown
But still I'd leap in front of a flying bullet for you
So, what difference does it make?
So, what difference does it make?
It makes none
But now you have gone
And you must be looking very old tonight
The devil will find work for idle hands to do
I stole and I lied, and why?
Because you asked me to!
But now you make me feel so ashamed
Because I've only got two hands
Well, I'm still fond of you, oh-ho-oh
So, what difference does it make?
Oh, what difference does it make?
Oh, it makes none
But now you have gone
And your prejudice won't keep you warm tonight
But no more apologies
No more, no more apologies
Oh, I'm too tired
I'm so sick and tired
And I'm feeling very sick and ill today
But I'm still fond of you, oh-ho-oh
Why do I hate all of the beautiful people?
Why am I always in pain?
Why do I hate all that I can not have
is it my nature or am I insane?
Why can't I get a face of beauty?
Why am I always in pain?
Why can't I look upon your beautiful face
Why do I hate all the beautiful people?
Why am I always in pain?
Why do I hate all that I'll never have
is it my nature or am I insane?
Why can't I get a face of beauty?
Why am I always in pain?
Why can't I look upon your beautiful face
Someday never comes
Why can't I get a face of beauty?
Why am I always in pain?
Why can't I look upon your beautiful face
Why do I hate all of the beautiful people?
Why am I always in pain?
Why do I hate all that I'll never have
is it my nature or am I insane?
Someday never comes
Extracted entirely from an Occidental Quarterly Online post here: Wyndham Lewis by Kerry Bolton.
-Here is the root of all romanticism: that man, the individual, is an infinite reservoir of possibilities, and if you can so rearrange society by the destruction of oppressive order then these possibilities will have a chance and you will get progress. One can define the classical quite clearly as the exact opposite to this. Man is an extraordinarily fixed and limited animal whose nature is absolutely constant. It is only by tradition and organization that anything decent can be got out of him. [Quoting T.E. Hulme]
-Your flabby potion is a mixture of the lees of Liberalism, the poor froth blown off the decadent Nineties, the wardrobe-leavings of a vulgar bohemianism . . . . You are concentrated, highly-organized barley water; there is nothing in the universe to be said for you: any efficient state would confiscate your property, burn your wardrobe-that old hat and the rest-as infectious, and prohibit you from propagating.
A breed of mild pervasive cabbages has set up a wide and creeping rot in the West . . . that any resolute power will be able to wipe up over night with its eyes shut. Your kind meantime make it indirectly a period of tribulation for live things to remain in your neighborhood. You are systematizing the vulgarizing the individual: you are the advance copy of communism, a false millennial middle-class communism. You are not an individual: you have. I repeat, no right to that hair and to that hat: you are trying to have the apple and eat it too You should be in uniform and at work. NOT uniformly OUT OF UNIFORM and libeling the Artist by your idleness. Are you idle? The only justification of your slovenly appearance it is true is that it’s perfectly emblematic.
-In accusing yourself, stick to the Code of the Mountain. But crime is alien to a Herdsman’s nature. Yourself must be your Caste.
Cherish and develop side by side, your six most constant indications of different personalities. You will then acquire the potentiality of six men . . . Each trench must have another one behind it.
Spend some of your time every day in hunting your weaknesses caught from commerce with the herd, as methodically, solemnly and vindictively as a monkey his fleas. You will find yourself swarming with them while you are surrounded by humanity. But you must not bring them up on the mountain . . .
Do not play with political notions, aristocratisms or the reverse, for that is a compromise with the herd. Do not allow yourself to imagine a fine herd though still a herd. There is no fine herd. The cattle that call themselves ‘gentlemen’ you will observe to be a little cleaner. It is merely cunning and produced by a product called soap . . .
Be on your guard with the small herd of gentlemen. There are very stringent regulations about the herd keeping off the sides of the mountain In fact your chief function is to prevent their encroaching. Some in moment of boredom or vindictiveness are apt to make rushes for the higher regions. Their instinct fortunately keeps them in crowds or bands, and their trespassing is soon noted Contradict yourself. In order to live you must remain broken up.
Above this sad commerce with the herd, let something veritably remain “un peu sur la montagne” Always come down with masks and thick clothing to the valley where we work. Stagnant gasses form these Yahooesque and rotten herds are more dangerous than the wandering cylinders that emit them . . . Our sacred hill is a volcanic heaven. But the result of the violence is peace. The unfortunate surge below, even, has moments of peace.”
-That Russian communism is not a war to the knife of the Rich against the Poor is only too plainly demonstrated by the fact that internationally all the Rich are on its side. All the magnates among the nations are for it; all the impoverished communities, all the small peasant states, dread and oppose it.
-You as a Fascist stand for the small trader against the chain store; for the peasant against the usurer: for the nation, great or small, against the super-state; for personal business against Big Business; for the craftsman against the Machine; for the creator against the middleman; for all that prospers by individual effort and creative toil, against all that prospers in the abstract air of High Finance or of the theoretic ballyhoo of internationalisms.
-The intellect is more removed from the crowd than is anything: but it is not a snobbish withdrawal, but a going aside for the purposes of work, of work not without its utility for the crowd . . . More than the prophet or the religious teacher, (the leader) represents . . . the great unworldly element in the world, and that is the guarantee of his usefulness. And he should be relieved of the futile competition in all sorts of minor fields, so that his purest faculties could be free for the major tasks of intelligent creation.
-I would rather have an ounce of human consciousness than a universe full of ‘abdominal’ afflatus and hot, unconscious, ’soulless’ mystical throbbing
-We by birth the natural leaders of the white European, are people of no political or public consequence any more . . . We, the natural leaders of the world we live in, are now private citizens in the fullest sense, and that world is, as far as the administration of its traditional law of life is concerned, leaderless. Under these circumstances, its soul, in a generation or so, will be extinct.
-I believe they could with advantage be compelled to remain absolutely alone for several hours every day and a week’s solitary confinement, under pleasant conditions (say in mountain scenery), every two months would be an excellent provision. That and other coercive measures of a similar kind, I think, would make them much better people.
-This is the capital of a dying empire–not crashing down in flames and smoke but expiring in a peculiar muffled way.
by: Philip Rieff
Excerpts and thoughts of mine on the preface and introduction.
From the Preface is Rieff quoting two historians summary of his work:
"If the dominant character type of the twentieth century is really what Rieff calls 'psychological man,' the consequences for western society are quite incalculable."This is certainly true. If man is a psychological creature than we must use the weapons of psychology to turn him to toward the defensive weaponry of Christianity, ethnic solidarity, epistemology, etc. Simply concentrating on VanTillian presuppositionalism will do no good when men are no longer motivated by philosophies, but by psychologies.
From the Introduction:
Literature and sociology have long supplied eloquent and knowing professional mourners at the wake for Christian culture. After Matthew Arnold, much of modern poetry [he quotes Yeats in the very beginning of the Intoduction] constitutes an elegiac farewell... ...to the religious culture of the West. After Auguste Comte, much of modern sociology has struggled for diagnostic ideas refined and yet wide enough to encompass the spectacle of a death so great in magnitude and subtlety. Now the dissolution of a unitary system of common belief, accompanied, as it must be, by a certain disorganization of personality, may have run its course.Rieff seems to be stating in this passage that the central crisis of our time - this dissolution of personhood and entropy of personality - is a culture war where the combatants are fighting to "organize" (this has the faint smell of technocratic and bureaucratic totalitarianism parading itself as scientific management with disinterested and rationalized dispassionate concern only for the psychological well being of mankind) the human psyche.
He goes on to state that the:
...long period of deconversion, which first broke the surface of political history at the time of the French Revolution, appears all but ended.and that:
several systems of belief (are) competing for primacy in the task of organizing personality in the West.Hence, the "culture war." The "cult" is the cult of personality.
On the preservation of culture:
A culture survives principally, I think, by the power of its institutions to bind and loose men in the conduct of their affairs with reasons which sink so deep into the self that they become commonly and implicitly understood -- with that understanding of which explicit belief and precise knowledge of externals would show outwardly like the tip of an iceberg... binding even the ignorants of a culture in a great chain of meaning.This idea of Rieff's, in my opinion, eventually germinated and sprouted into his idea that if a man is aware of his repressions, they aren't. The iceberg itself isn't cognizant of what is underneath itself under the water; it only sees its own reflection which is, in Rieff's words the directed and outward projection "toward those communal purposes in which alone the self can be realized and satisfied."
A reorganization of those dialectical expressions of Yes and No the interplay of which constitutes culture, transforming motive into conduct, is occurring throughout the West, particularly in the United States and England. It is to be expected that some instruments appropriate to our inherited organization of permissions and restraints upon action [monogamy, fidelity, obeying the spirit of the law, etc] will not survive the tension of fundamental reorganization. But, suppose the tension is driven deeper--so deep that all communications of ideals come under permanent and easy suspicion? The question is no longer as Dostoevsky put it: Can civilized men believe?" But rather: Can unbelieving men be civilized?Rieff goes on to state that restoration of a past faith will inevitably bring on the reliving of the nightmare of the first half of the twentieth century and that the great poets all wished for what those of us know is a radically un-Christian idea of a return to initial, or original innocence, which is a concept that is fundamentally at odds with our espoused Calvinism.
In our recovered innocence, to be entertained would become the highest good and boredom the most common evil.I'm all for restoring the "sense of play" in acts of creation and invention at the loom, till, craft and trades in the Laschian sense, but Rieff seems to suggest something different here. I can't quite put my finger on it. Rieff scandalously suggests that this inversion of the doctrines of Total Depravity and Original Sin is the longed for "centre" of Yeats and is capable of holding the self together in these psychologically trying times.
He recklessly, foolishly and Judaically abandons psychology to the express purpose of
(reconstructing) culture so... that faith--some compelling symbolic of self-integrating communal purpose--need no longer superintend the organization of personality.I think perhaps this is at odds with some of his later work and ideas where he expressly calls for the re-imposition of a massive and constrictive super-ego that is essentially Calvinistic in outlook but lacks the Christ. He wants all the benefits of Christianity but none of the Christ!
Rieff takes a bit of a turn toward the fascistic elitism of the neo-Pagans and others here: [quote]
Never before has there been such a general shifting of sides as now among intellectuals in the United States and England. Many have gone over to the enemy... and ...have become spokesmen for what Freud called the instinctual "mass." Much of modern literature constitutes a symbolic act of going over to the side of the latest, and most original, individualist. This represents the complete democratization of our culture.He goes on to elaborate on what could be considered a healthy and properly conservative, cultural dynamic here:
It was in order to combat just such talented hostility to culture that Freud emphasized coercion and the renunciation of instinct as indispensable elements in all culture... "It is just as impossible," he writes, "to do without control of the mass by a minority as it is to dispense with coercion in the work of civilization."... ...That such large numbers of the cultivated and intelligent have identified themselves deliberately with those who are supposed to have no love for instinctual renunciation, suggests to me the most elaborate act of suicide that Western intellectuals have ever staged... ...I suspect the children of Israel did not spend much time elaborating a doctrine of the golden calf; they naively danced around it, until Moses, their first intellectual, put a stop to the plain fun and insisted on civilizing them, by submerging their individualities within a communal purpose... ...Confronted thus with a picture gallery as the new center of self-worship, civilized men must become again anti-art, in the hope of shifting attention toward modalities of worship wholly other than that of self.
Every culture must establish itself as a system of moralizing demands, images that mark the trail of each man's memory; thus to distinguish right actions from wrong the inner ordinances are set, by which men are guided in their conduct so as to assure a mutual security of contact. Culture is, indeed, the higher learning, But, this higher learning is not acquired at universities; rather, it is assimilated continuously from earliest infancy when human beings first begin to trust in those familiar responses others make to their overtures. In every culture, there stands a censor, governing the opportunity of recognizing and responding to novel stimuli. That governor, inclined always to be censorious about novelty, we may call "faith." Faith is the compulsive dynamic of culture, channeling obedience to, trust in, and dependence upon authority.A strong and healthy conservative culture will fight against the injection of novelty into the social landscape instinctively and with great vigor. This is a basic principle articulated most thoroughly and most competently by many, but initially by men like de Maistre and Burke.
This is also a place where Hannah Arendt's concept of historical "break" comes into play in my opinion. What we have now is an entirely new phenomenon under the sun, it is a group of cultural creators who are indifferent and they express this through the rigorous defense of pluralism, relativism and nihilism. They contradict all faith by contradicting the very idea of faith. Hence, the push to glorify homosexuals, pederasts, and all other forms of psychological and sexual perversion. They are the welcoming hosts of all things exotic and as Rieff stated before, the most eloquent defenders of the teeming mass of the diverse everyman; an everyman who is his own king, prophet, priest and lawyer completely atomized and disconnected from any greater fabric than that of the cloak of his own ego.
Hence the "No person is illegal" slogan. It reveals much more about the psyche of the individuals repeating this platitudinal mantra than they themselves realize since it is a moral judgment and not simply political sloganeering. They've internalized the "anti-culture" and are exporting it from the abundance of their hearts.
Rieff begins, at this point, to despair:
The culture to which I was first habituated grows progressively different in its symbolic nature and in its human product; that double difference and how ordained augments our ambivalence as professional mourners. There seems little likelihood of a great rebirth of the old corporate ideals. The "proletariat" was the most recent notable corporate identity, the latest failed god. By this time men may have gone too far, beyond the old deception of good and evil, to specialize at last, wittingly, in techniques that are to be called, in the present volume, "therapeutic," with nothing at stake beyond a manipulatable sense of well-being.Dwell on that last sentence for a while. That is directly where erudite, Godless, idolatry leads.
Rieff finally lets on as to what the stone masons and architects of our Babylon are really undertaking to build:
What the ignorant have always felt, the knowing now know, after millennial distractions by stratagems that did not heighten [or pan out at all, ever] the more immediate pleasures. The systematic hunting down of all settled convictions represents the anti-cultural predicate upon which modern personality is being reorganized, now not in the West only but, more slowly, in the non-West. The Orient and Africa are thus being acculturated in a dynamism that has already grown substantial enough to torment its progenitors with nightmares of revenge for having so unsettled the world. It is a terrible error to see the West as conservative and the East as revolutionary. We are the true revolutionaries. The East is swiftly learning to act as we do, which is anti-conservative in a way non-Western peoples have only recently begun to fully to realize for themselves.With what, at first glance, seems like stunning prescience and foresight, Rieff predicts the decade of the 70's (although from the vantage point of the late 60's, I'm not that impressed) with particular acumen as a response to hyper-critical elitism:
Each culture is its own order of therapy--a system of moralizing demand, including remissions that ease the pressures of communal purposes. Therapeutic elites before our own were predominately supportive rather than critical of cultures as a moral demand system. Admonitions were the expectable predicates of consolations; that is what is meant, nowadays, by "guilt" culture. Whenever therapeutic elites grow predominately critical then a cultural revolution may be said to be in progress. Ours is such a time. The Occident has long been such a place.With a little luck, our counter-revolution may be underway, precipitated in our era by the election of Obama combined with rapid demographic transformation and the economic stagnation we are experiencing. People scapegoat. It is a theological necessity, inescapable concept and imperative inherent in the human psyche and soul, placed there as a part of the very image of God that He burned into our souls. We seek absolution through the death and destruction of substitutes. The current crop of hyper-critical elites scapegoat us poor and simple White folk without realizing that it is a two way street and without understanding the great power this process can stimulate in the masses.
I will refrain from making a judgment about the actual level of Jewish culpability for the standard charges against them, but the typical historical European reaction against the Jews - whether completely justified or not - is a fitting and appropriate example of this phenomenon. Expulsion of the other, the placing of them outside the camp to symbolize their guilt.
Really, the process of cultural revolution, in my opinion, is a Christophony of sorts. The revolutionaries transfer their guilt onto their substitutes and are atoned. Once cleansed, they begin to rebuild the torn down temples of the guilty parties. This is why Christ goes alone to His death; we all killed Him and we repeat this "cyclically" in the Spenglerian sense throughout our history.
Rieff goes on to quote Max Scheler in describing what I think is a Scriptural definition of the underlying purpose for the Christian drive to denounce sin and repent:
Christian asceticism--at least so far as it was not influenced by decadent Hellenistic philosophy--had as its purpose not the suppression or even extirpation of natural drives, but rather their control and complete spiritualization. It is positive, not negative, asceticism--aimed fundamentally at a liberation of the highest powers of personality from blockage by the automatism of the lower drives.The real and ugly head of atheistic existentialism has finally reared itself violently upward, defiant and unwavering in its mission to be unruled and unorganized. Rieff again:
Our cultural revolution does not aim, like its predecessors, at victory for some rival commitment, but rather at a way of using all commitments, which amounts to loyalty toward none. By psychologizing about themselves interminably, Western men are learning to use their internality against the primacy of any particular organization of personality.Indeed, Western men are learning how to use their internality to do battle against all. Bellum unus contra omnes!
This is the egalitarian fantasy unmasked.
It is every man woman and child for themselves in social warfare of epic proportions with no safe port, harbor, trench or fort. The home, the marriage, the school and the church have become a war zone. Rieff states that if this final cultural transformation takes root, if this
restructuring of the Western imagination succeeds in establishing itself, complete with institutional regimens, then human autonomy from the compulsions of culture may follow the freedoms already won from the compulsions of nature. With such a victory, culture, as previously understood, need suffer no further defeats. it is conceivable that millennial distinctions between inner and outer experience, private and public life, will become trivial. The individual heart need have no reasons of its own that the corporate head cannot understand and exploit for some augmentation of the individual's sense of well-being. Thinking need not produce nausea or despair as its final answer to the assessment of communal purpose because men well have ceased to seek any salvation other than amplitude in living itself.Rieff predicts the astonishingly brisk rise of reality television, social networking (i.e. Facebook, Myspace) and the internet persona:
There will be more theater, not less, and no Puritan will denounce the stage and draw its curtains. On the contrary, I expect that modern society will mount psychodramas far more frequently than its ancestors mounted miracle plays, with patient-analysts acting out their inner lives, after which they could extemporize the final act as interpretation. We shall even institutionalize the hospital-theater the Verfremdungseffekt, with the therapeutic triumphantly enacting his own discovered will.Interestingly, LaVey believed that emotionally evocative psychodrama had a place within Satanism.
Finally, Rieff concludes the introduction thusly:
The wisdom of the next social order... ...would not reside in right doctrine, administered by the right men, who must be found, but rather in doctrines amounting to permission for each man to live an experimental life. Thus, once again culture will give back what it has taken away. All governments will be just, so long as they secure that consoling plenitude of option in which modern satisfaction really consists. In this way the emergent culture could drive the value problem clean out of the social system and, limiting it to a form of philosophical entertainment in lieu of edifying preachment, could successfully conclude the exercise for which politics is the name. Problems of democracy need no longer prove so difficult as they have been. Psychological man is likely to be indifferent to the ancient question of legitimate authority, of sharing in government, so long as the powers that be preserve social order and manage an economy of abundance. The danger of politics lies more in the ancient straining to create those symbols or support those institutions that narrow the range of virtues or too narrowly define the sense of well-being; for the latter seems to be the real beatitude toward which men have always strained. Psychological man, in his independence from all gods, can feel free to use all god-terms; I imagine he will be a hedger against his own bets, a user of any faith that lends itself to therapeutic use.
Culture as therapy becomes realizable in part because of the increasing automaticity of the productive system... ...The rules of health indicate activity; psychologocial man can exploit older cultural precepts, ritual struggle no less than play therapy, in order to maintain the dynamism of his culture. Of course, the newest Adam cannot be expected to limit himself to the use of old constraints. If "immoral" materials, rejected under earlier cultural criteria, are therapeutically effective, enhancing somebody's sense of well-being, then they are useful. The "end" or "goal" is to keep going. Americans, as F. Scott Fitzgerald concluded, believe in the green light.
I am aware that these speculations may be thought to contain some parodies of an apocalypse. But what apocalypse has ever been so kindly? What culture has ever attempted to see to it that no ego is hurt? Perhaps the elimination of the tragic sense--which is tantamount to the elimination of irreconcilable moral principles--is no tragedy. Civilization could be, for the first time in history, the expression of human contents rather than the consolatory control of discontents. Then and only then would the religious question receive a markedly different answer from those dominant until recently in our cultural history.
From her comes the damnable race of women,
No help to men in poverty; only to the rich
Are they helpful; and they cause great trouble.
As in the thatched hives the honeybees
Feed the drones who are always up to their tricks-
The bees work all day, laying their white combs,
While the drones laze in their covered skeps,
Reaping the toil of others in their bellies-
So in the same way did Zeus the Thunderer
Make women to be an evil curse on men,Being by nature evil...Theogony, 591-602
Frank Smith is a band, not a man. This is a song called Liar and a Thief. Yuh dig?
LIAR AND A THIEF
O, the secrets I keep
I'm only two steps in but I'm knee deep
O, I'm a liar and a thief
I cheat and sneak, I'm shallow and weak
Passing through the shipyard
The good times are killing me
You've got a way with words
When fossil fuels are depleted, as eventually they must be, the illusion will be dispelled: the lumberjack will again know himself stronger than the owner of the bulldozer, the engineer will again know that he is smarter than the corporate manager who once bossed him, and the banker will understand, at long last, that he is worthless. When fossil fuels are depleted, nature will present mankind with the bill for his accumulation of genetic defects, which temporarily had been put on the credit card of technology, and many hereditary lines will suddenly discover that they are not really fit to live in this world.This excerpt comes from a LiveJournal user jenab6 who describes himself thusly:
I'm Jerry Abbott. I go by other names, including David Wayne Sims. I live about two miles north of Hillsboro, West Virginia USA in a small off-the-road cabin in a hardwood deciduous forest in the Allegheny hills. I have a cat named Father Wiggly and a goat named Sevdi Baa. I'm sort of a hillbilly astrophysicist, with celestial mechanics being my favorite kind of math. I read lots of fantasy novels...over 50 of them in 2007. I'm growing an orchard (fruit and nuts), but the trees aren't very big yet.The entry is titled What is Your Opinion on Karl Marx's Theories and is located here. You should definitely check out the rest of his writing as well. It is always provocative and very vast in its scope.
Language and its SymbolsLanguage employs four important kinds of symbols to represent reality: two to symbolize the individual, two to symbolize the essence which is common to all the individual members of a class.
Language can symbolize an individual or an aggregate by either a proper name or a particular or empirical description. A particular empirical description is a common name to which is joined a definitive which limits its application to a particular individual or group. Empirical means founded on experience. Since only individuals exist, our experience is directly concerned with them. Throughout this book the word empirical is used with reference to our knowledge of individuals as such.
If language could not symbolize the individual, one could not designate particular persons, places, our times. This would be extremely inconvenient. for example, people could not direct emergency vehicles to their houses.
On the other hand, if language could symbolize only the individual, people would be in a worse plight. Every word would be a proper name, and it would therefore be necessary to give a different proper name to ever object spoken of - not only to people and places but to everything - to every tree, blade of grass, chair, hawk, potato, coat, shoe, pencil, etc.
No one would understand except those who had shared through simultaneous sense experience acquaintance with the identical individual objects described. Hence, the language of every town, even of every home, would be different and unintelligible to outsiders. The reader may have had a similar experience when three or four friends were reminiscing about an earlier time not known to the reader. The outsider would take little or no interest in the conversation because even though the words could be understood, the proper names of the absentees sprinkled plentifully through the conversation would have no meaning. But if every word were a proper name, unless the listener had personal experience of the very objects being spoken of, he would be not only bored but completely baffled by the conversation.
Words, being all proper names, would become meaningless at the time of the destruction of the objects they symbolized. They could not even be explained the way proper names are now explained by means of common names (for example, William Caxton 1422?-1491, first English printer; translator), for there would be no common names. Therefore, there could be no history, no literature. What authors wrote would be as dead as their voices in their graves.
General or universal ideas could not be expressed in language. Therefore, there could be no books on science or philosophy.
This can be applied to extreme individualism or extreme universalism in the political sphere. A well written warning, although it was not intended as such.
More Like a Dream
All the problems haven't been resolved
And my headache's grown
It's not hell on earth
It's more like a dream
It's not like a nightmare anymore
Look at my cloven hooves
Look at my paraplegic strut
I wish you'd do me in
I wish you'd snuff me out
So I'd awake with a gun in my mouth
Wide eyed for the first time
It's more like a dream
It's more like a dream to me
A splash of cold water
A welcome slap to the face
Never ending progress
Don't brush your shoulder with your ear
And if I second guess
The actions that have brought me here
I'd awake with a gun in my mouth
Wide eyed for the first time
It's more like a dream
It's more like a dream to me
It's not hell on earth
It's more like a dream
It's not like a nightmare anymore
It's more like a dream
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do. Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the moneymaking industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."
One Shot, Two Kills
We should definitely be outraged about waterboarding because if we weren't we might get mad at the Jews.
Perhaps the most shocking design shows a Palestinian mother weeping next to her dead baby's grave, also in the crosshairs of a rifle. It suggests it would have been better if the child had never been born, with the slogan "Better use Durex".
Then they came for Commander Rockwell and I didn't speak up since I wasn't a neo-Nazi.
Then they came for Randy Weaver and I didn't speak up since I wasn't a member of the Aryan Nations or a white separatist.
Then they came for the Branch Davidians and I didn't speak up because I wasn't religious.
Then they came for Jay Severin for violating the sensibilities of our Mexican colonizers and I didn't speak up because I'm not a fan of talk radio.
Now, I'm a religious, gun owning, white nationalist who plans to homeschool his children and they are probably coming for me.
But the inference did not stop there. People of conservative ideology were also identified in the State Police report as being potentially dangerous. People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.One can only hope...
- Chuck "Constitution Party" Baldwin
"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
-Lord John Maynard Keynes
As printed in The Washington Post, p. A26
Monday, February 18, 1974
Following is the full text of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's essay ``Live Not By Lies.'' It is perhaps the last thing he wrote on his native soil [before the collapse of the Soviet Union] and circulated among Moscow's intellectuals [at that time]. The essay is dated Feb. 12, the day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany.
At one time we dared not even to whisper. Now we write and read samizdat, and sometimes when we gather in the smoking room at the Science Institute we complain frankly to one another: What kind of tricks are they playing on us, and where are they dragging us? gratuitous boasting of cosmic achievements while there is poverty and destruction at home. Propping up remote, uncivilized regimes. Fanning up civil war. And we recklessly fostered Mao Tse-tung at our expense-- and it will be we who are sent to war against him, and will have to go. Is there any way out? And they put on trial anybody they want and they put sane people in asylums--always they, and we are powerless.
Things have almost reached rock bottom. A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume us both and our children--but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tounges tied. But what can we do to stop it? We haven't the strength?
We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today's modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants--but just don't disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don't even fear universal nuclear death, and we don't fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.
We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.
We have been indoctrinated in political courses, and in just the same way was fostered the idea to live comfortably, and all will be well for the rest of our lives. You can't escape your environment and social conditions. Everyday life defines consciousness. What does it have to do with us? We can't do anything about it?
But we can--everything. But we lie to ourselves for assurance. And it is not they who are to blame for everything-we ourselves, only we. One can object: But actually toy can think anything you like. Gags have been stuffed into our mouths. Nobody wants to listen to us and nobody asks us. How can we force them to listen? It is impossible to change their minds.
It would be natural to vote them out of office-but there are not elections in our country. In the West people know about strikes and protest demonstrations-but we are too oppressed, and it is a horrible prospect for us: How can one suddenly renounce a job and take to the streets? Yet the other fatal paths probed during the past century by our bitter Russian history are, nevertheless, not for us, and truly we don't need them.
Now that the axes have done their work, when everything which was sown has sprouted anew, we can see that the young and presumptuous people who thought they would make out country just and happy through terror, bloody rebellion and civil war were themselves misled. No thanks, fathers of education! Now we know that infamous methods breed infamous results. Let our hands be clean!
The circle--is it closed? And is there really no way out? And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action? Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen--and do not sever ourselves from--the most perceptible of its aspects: Lies.
When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: ``I am violence. Run away, make way for me--I will crush you.'' But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally--since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies--all loyalty lies in that.
And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.
This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.
We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It's not necessary.
It's dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.
This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier--it's dangerous even to say this--than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.
Our path is to talk away fro the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.
That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.
So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood--of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one's family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies--or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one's children and contemporaries.
And from that day onward he:
- Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
- Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
- Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
- Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
- Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
- Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
- Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
- Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
- Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.
Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.
No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.
But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.
And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don't let him be proud of his ``progressive'' views,a dn don't let him boast that he is an academician or a people's artist, a merited figure, or a general--let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It's all the same to me as long as I'm fed and warm.
Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.
A great people of Europe, the Czhechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven't they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?
You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.
So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.
If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and out brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.
And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:
``Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?
``Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.''
©1974 Alexander Solzhenitsyn
From Vdare blog post Spiritual Wickedness in High Places:
Still, this politicization did have its occasional advantages, if you knew the right people. When I was a teenager, for example, I remember nervously informing my parents that, unlike my peers, I would not be receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation that spring because I had blown off the required two years of catechetical instruction.
But a few phone calls were made and I was soon confirmed by Cardinal Bernard Law at a parish I had never even visited before.
In the Archdiocese of Boston, it was all about who you knew.
Such a political fix might sound terribly immoral—if you’ve never had to sit through a modern-day catechism class. But you have to understand that for my generation, religious education never included learning about the Mass, or the Sacraments, or the saints.
Instead, we were taught that being Catholic simply meant being sensitive toward those who were not like us—especially blacks, homosexuals, and immigrants.
Did we believe any of it? Not really, since there wasn’t much of substance to believe in. But that’s the thing about propaganda. It’s almost always extremely boring, but when your elders spend years spoon-feeding it to you, you often end up accepting some of it anyway.
Pablo Picasso, 1952
A joke via Iron Ink:
In a press conference Thursday, Obama administration spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to an inquiry seeking to clear up the reasoning behind a 40% tax increase on Aspirin.
Gibbs’ response was
“We believe that as Aspirin is White and it works it should be taxed accordingly.”
2009: Year of Crisis
“Prepare to fight to the finish, or your kind will vanish.”
By Michael O’Meara
In the last year, one crisis has followed another. First there was a housing mortgage crisis, then a liquidity crisis that led to a banking crisis, then a dollar crisis, then a credit crisis, then a geopolitical crisis, then an energy crisis, then a crisis of consumer confidence, and finally a political crisis at the highest level of the state, involving a crisis of meaning that brought a negro to power—a negro symbolizing everything against which the American once defined himself, and thus symbolizing a transvaluation of the very basis of the American’s original being.
The burning question today is: are these cascading crises “conjunctural” (i.e., due to a combination of circumstances) or are they “structural” (inherent to the system’s nature)? If the latter, then the “American System,” which has governed the world since 1945 and which has programmed the end of European man, faces a potentially systemic rupture whose implications are catastrophic. If only conjunctural, the news is still good, for it cannot but highlight the system’s anti-white nature, of which most white Americans are still clueless.
A crisis, it needs stressing, is always a turning point, “a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or worse, is determined.” Though most commentators tend to emphasize the economic origins of the crisis, almost all of them recognize its system-disrupting potential. Hence the current obsession with the Great Depression of 1933 and, in more radical quarters, the Soviet crisis of 1985 that brought Gorbachev to power. But whatever its exact nature—and time alone will tell—the crisis is likely to put increased demands on the welfare and security of the white middle class and thus advance the cause of the ethnostate favored by white nationalists. Lacking an organizational structure and a popular following in the real world, the white nationalist project is, in fact, predicated on just such a crisis.
As we enter the new year, the one clear thing is that the crisis is going to get worse. Since the mortgage meltdown of December 2006, the crisis has mainly affected Wall Street, commercial and investment banks, insurance companies, and several government-sponsored enterprises (like Fannie May and Freddie Mac). The new year is likely to take the crisis to Main Street, in the form of retail bankruptcies and unemployment. Auto and related industries will also be hit hard. At the same time, many local and some state governments (like California or Michigan) may collapse because of insolvency. It’s “the worse economic crisis in 70 years” most agree, but no one quite knows exactly what it forebodes. Indeed, the pervasive uncertainty surrounding the crisis, threatening as it does the capitalist system, the prevailing model of globalization, and America’s standing in the world order, lends it a certain apocalyptic quality.
1. The Crisis
Americans like to think that their country is “number one,” though they know almost nothing about “the rest of the world.” Compared to the black and brown nations that comprise the Third World, America may indeed be a paradise (even if most white Americans are lonely, isolated, and lacking any sense of who they are as a people). But compared to Western and Central Europe, or to Japan, Hong Kong, and certain of the other Asian Tigers, it shapes up badly.
The great industries that once made America the world’s foremost economic power and provided working people a decent standard of living have been shipped overseas, along with the technologies and know-how that made them such powerhouses. Trade imbalances have correspondingly grown, just as the US has shifted from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation. At the same time, the national infrastructure has been neglected, household debt has become as unmanageable as the national debt, and American-pioneered technologies are being applied more often abroad than at home.
In 2005, James Fallow, one of the few to predict the current crisis, wrote that: “A year in a private college now costs $83,000, a day in a hospital $1,350, a year in a nursing home $150,000. . . . Eighty percent of the public [has been] priced out of a chance for future opportunity”—that is, they have been priced out of participating in what our ideologues call the “American Dream.” Other mainstream observers are claiming that the US “no longer controls its economic fundamentals” and that “compared with the rest of the world, it’s on the way down.”
Even Thomas Friedman, the oily globalist cheerleader at the New York Times, has, after a recent trip to the Far East, begun to complain that America is becoming “decrepit”—somewhat in the way the Stalinist achievements of the old Soviet Union were becoming decrepit in the 1980s. Friedman nevertheless continues to celebrate the openness and creativity of the American people, though he fails to note that unrestricted Third-World immigration has changed not simply the population’s composition, but its character, and that discriminatory practices against white males, based on disproportional taxation, affirmative action in education, hiring, and contracting, and anti-free speech laws and denial of due process, are hardly sign of America’s alleged openness and creativity.
The dominant mantra, which endeavors to portray the above as signs of progress, remains, accordingly, to “consume,” not “produce.” It seems hardly coincidental that America’s principal export is now the junk culture fabricated in Hollywood, a “culture” which celebrates behaviors and values historically-considered pathological.
De-industrialization and “financialization” (i.e., the hegemony of financial economics over equity and industrial economics), which were to make the United States the leading edge of the new postmodern global market, are obviously implicated in the current crisis, but few establishment commentators have cared to explore these implications. At the most basic level, it might be noted that the new interdependence of a world market based on financial exchanges means that problems in one sector inevitably become problems in another, that disturbances in one country are likely to set off corresponding disturbances in other countries, and that local crises have the potential of becoming system-wide crises. Added to the inherent instability of this compromising dependence on exterior forces is the “Ponzi” dynamics of the U.S. financial sector, which is based on speculative confidence, not wealth creation.
Just to pay the interest on its limitless credit card debt, the country in the last decade has been obliged to borrow two to three billion dollars a day from foreigners, mainly Chinese and Japanese, who are acquiring in the process ownership of large swaths of the economy, while American speculators accumulated vast (and, as it turns out, largely meaningless) ciphers of wealth in the virtual world of cyber space.
America’s human capital is also in decline. Literacy rates are among the lowest in the industrial world, its once prestigious graduate schools of science and engineering are now filled mainly with foreigners, and its public schools are less and less concerned with mastering the rudiments of reading and writing than with dispensing contraceptives to fourteen-year-olds and preventing the use of hand guns on its premises.
Geopolitically, the situation is even worse, as other countries begin lecturing the formerly self-righteous schoolmarm on how to conduct her bungled affairs and as regions traditionally subservient to the US (like Latin America) defiantly assert their autonomy.
But most consequential, the dollar is losing its status as the world’s reserved currency—which means no more credit cards and no more free rides.
Relatedly, both American and foreign academics, some with very distinguished credentials, have begun predicting “an economic and moral collapse [which] will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the United States.”
There have also been warnings from several former high-ranking Bush officials of a “secret coup,” as the higher reaches of the state fall increasing under military control. What began in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the Army became a colonial administrator, is apparently “coming home.” In violation of the Constitution, the Army is now planning to deploy 20,000 troops within the US to respond to any possible “civil unrest.”
Though the military’s “mission creep” began under Bush, Obama has already appointed three high-ranking officers to his Cabinet, promised not to cut the Pentagon’s astronomical budget, and plans to augment US ground troops by another 100,000.
The Pentagon has also, according to a recent US Army War College publication, prepared its own “transition” in case the crisis provokes social struggles that will need to be quelled at home. What’s most significant here is the expectation, among numerous establishment authorities, that the crisis could lead to violent class struggle, military dictatorship, or even social revolution.
The American System that must be held responsible for this situation has, against all traditional precept, made “the rapacious business-dominated state the embodiment of every cherished human value.” Unlike the 19th and early 20th-century European nation-state, the American System is not, and never has been, a national-state system committed to the defense and well-being of the nation; instead, its principal function has always been to defend those liberal democratic practices that facilitate market transactions. Uncommitted, thus, to the embryonic white nation that made up the American people before 1965, governmental elites have been free to pursue policies that foster their specific institutional interests or those of the dominant economic interests, while policies favoring the interests of the country’s white majority have only rarely been adopted and then usually only under threat of electoral retaliation. More scandalously still, this system, in true liberal form, has “privatized profit and socialized loss,” so that now middle-class tax payers will be expected to pick up the tab for the reckless policies of billionaire CEOs.
The distant lineage of this American System can be traced back to the liberal modern principles born in 1789. More immediately, its foundations were laid by the architects who designed the National Security State and its phony Cold War. When, in the course of the 1970s, this postwar system went into crisis, its social democratic components, which favored a social security net and regulation of important industries and utilities, were jettisoned by the free-market fundamentalism of the neo-liberal Reagan Administration and then given a new armature with the “globalist revolution” carried out by the Clinton Administration.
As globalists proceeded to remove those national barriers preventing the free movement of capital, goods, and labor (which meant, among other things, eliminating borders and “old-fashioned” obstacles representative of any lingering sense of national interest and national identity), they sought a complete deregulation of financial practices, based on the capitalist fiction that markets are self-correcting. At the same time, the globalization of American capital severed whatever remaining ties it may have had to the American nation and its culture.
The folly and stupidity of this system, whose ramifications are now going to be paid for with a good deal of popular misery, assumed fantastic—and, as it turns out, unbearable—proportions under the present outbound Bush Administration. Thus it was that the neo-liberal, globalist tenets that ideologically undergird the American System and reduce every question to a matter of individual economic interest gave way under Bush’s neocon cabal to the boundless vanity identified with its Judeo-Evangelical “faith-based community”—which held that anything the American state does is right, that the US always triumphs in the end, and, contrary to traditional Christian stricture, that the US is identified with God’s purpose in the world. As a result, Washington for the last eight years has been unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy.
A four-hundred-billion-dollar-a-year war, with no strategic goal, except perhaps to support Israeli interests, was launched simply on the basis of a neocon hallucination (non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction). Then, as the government entered this theater of illusion, its vast military machine bogged down before a few lightly armed insurgents (who were eventually bought off with great dollar sums during the so-called “surge”); lies and deception then became the basis of US policy; incompetents and schemers willing to kowtow to the reigning illusions were put in control of policy-making; billions and billions of US loans and aid somehow went missing; those who questioned the Administration’s aims and practices were deemed un-American, as historic liberties were compromised or destroyed; and, all the while, aliens, at the top and at the bottom of the American polity, were allowed the full run of things—from dictating foreign policy to allowing Mexicans to challenge American sovereignty on American streets.
When George W. was asked recently who should be held accountable for the present economic crisis, he answered that no one person or group was actually responsible. “The whole system,” he explained, “became inebriated.” To the degree that the crisis is indeed systemic, he, better than most commentators, has designated the real culprit. But what he didn’t mention is that the system wasn’t just temporarily inebriated: It was plastered from the start. And like the mind-numbing incoherence of any serious drunk, the destabilizing, destructuring, and disordering power of the American System of the last sixty years—despite the wealth and prosperity it created for some—is about to provoke the most massive civilizational hangover in history.
2. The Man of Destiny
There has been no better example of the bankruptcy of the American System, based as it is on liberal ideological abstractions and certain well-meaning but illusory tenets, than the presidency of George W. Bush. That this third-rate individual, lacking an understanding of the most basic things, including English syntax, was put at the helm of the most powerful state in history testifies better than anything else to the system’s unfathomable corruption. Though different from his predecessor, “a self-indulgent bubba with the morals of an alley cat,” he too was another example of the system’s want of character. Bush’s mediocrity, his lack of vision, his small stature as a man—have all consequently taken a terrible toll on both the nation and the state. His presidency, as even many Republican commentators acknowledge, bears responsibility for squandering the vast power and legitimacy that was bequeathed to the United States in the wake of the Soviet collapse.
Obama’s programmed election was specifically designed to restore something of the power lost by Bush’s neocon administration. In the highest reaches of the American establishment (and this is evident less in written documents than in the innuendos and asides of its representatives), it became apparent in the last two or three years that a restoration of American power and prestige in the world would require a make-over of unprecedented proportions. Hillary, who was previously the leading establishment candidate, was thus abandoned, for she was simply too closely associated with the establishment to create the impression of a major turn-around in American politics.
Hence, the entrance of the black knight, who was provided the money, the advisers, and the media frenzy to make his candidacy not only a shoo-in, but a god-send. Obama has not disappointed his handlers, for he was an ideal candidate: he was inexperienced, undistinguished, and possessed the seemingly “populist” credentials to appeal to an electorate fed up with the neocon mania of the Bush Administration; he naturally took to the tiresome rhetoric of stirring but vacuous campaign promises; and, above all, he knew how to appeal to MTV-educated white youth and feminist-influenced white women who saw his campaign as some sort of rehash of the Great Awakening (with “racism” replacing the older Calvinist notion of sin), which had entranced earlier generations of Americans. He was also, of course, guaranteed the vote of the hundred million non-whites who now occupy our lands. The prominent British historian, Niall Ferguson (who has been dubbed “the Leni Riefensthal of Bush’s new imperial order”), could thus trumpet, once the formality of the vote was over, that “American world leadership is [now] back in business.”
Obama may, however, turn out to be the last president of the United States. For those who care to look, scandal and fraud seem to lurk everywhere behind his media-constructed image. His past has thus been carefully erased from the public record; he may not even be a native-born American and thus not constitutionally eligible to be president. But this cover-up won’t last forever. The strident anti-white racism of his wife and many of his close negro associates, as well as his numerous dubious connections to the corrupt Daly machine of Chicago and the scandal-ridden governor of Illinois (Blagojevich) will also eventually surface. Finally, given the nature of the economy, he probably won’t even be able to deliver the goods to the black masses, who see him as some sort of cargo-cult Messiah, and this will undoubtedly become a source of further unrest. But most of all, Obama is thick with the Jews, whose wealth and power controls the Democratic party (even more than the neocon-led Republican party) and whose interests, as already evident, will be foremost among his Administration’s concerns. The gap between the governing elites and a white middle class wary of further social experimentation may thus widen and become more unbridgeable, as blacks, Jews, and raceless whites join the crusade to “change” America.
Obama’s failure, though, will not come through an exposure of the smoke and mirrors surrounding his fabricated persona. There is a deeper, structural problem that confronts this first post-American US government. As William Lind points out, “the heart of our inability to reform is the crisis of the state itself. Reform endangers the money and power of the New Class, which controls the state and feeds off it.” Though there will be a qualitative expansion of the state under the new regime, as money is thrown at the crisis and new projects are undertaken to root out the “racism” of white Americans, the anti-national impetus of the American System, which wars on the forces of history, culture, and nature, is almost certainly to remain untouched, just as the parasitic economic system, so crucial to the elites who support him, will go unreformed. If the crisis is conjunctural and short-lived, this, of course, may not matter; but if it is structural, it will mean the collapse of order and authority, and ultimately of the state’s legitimacy.
Against this backdrop of impending “change” and uncertainty, the controlled media (to the obvious delight of the immodest African) has endeavored to portray Obama as a man of destiny, another FDR or Lincoln, who will lead us through the valley of shadows to the Promised Land. This may, perhaps, occur, for anything today is possible. But I tend to agree with Philippe Grasset at dedefensa.com that our postmodern global age, which destablizes and disorders everything that has meaning for us, is being shaped not by our putative leaders, but by the accelerating force of events, whose “maistrian” effects simply sweep up and carry along all who try to control them.
The man of destiny may turn out, then, to be the man manipulated by destiny. Given that he represents the refutation of America’s European being, it would be ever so fitting if he should preside over the demise of the failed experiment known as “the United States,” opening thus the way to the founding of another, more organic expression of European America.
3. The Knife
As we enter the new year, white Americans once again face a despotic threat to their way of life, as they did in 1776. They have fallen under a regime that cannot control the dysgenic economic forces it has unleashed; a regime ruled by incompetents, thieves, and cosmopolitans; one that never considers the interests of those it rules; that is contemptuous of the history, culture, and tradition of the majority; that refuses to uphold laws and defend the border; that is influenced by foreign lobbies; that relentlessly attacks Christianity; that establishes “hate” laws and restrains free speech to muzzle whites opposing its anti-national policies.
This regime is not, however, some modern variant of old George III’s venal monarchy, but the American System founded on the same liberal modern principles that inspired the Communist system. Native to both systems is the primacy of “reason,” understood mainly in quantitative economic terms. Liberal reason consequently believes in nothing, for belief (which stems from religion, culture, tradition, and tribe) is the opposite of reason. Such economically-anchored systems of “consummate meaninglessness” may therefore function smoothly as long as they deliver the goods, but once things begin to break down and become dysfunctional, they lose all legitimacy.
A half dozen years ago, “Yggdrasill,” one of the pioneers of American white-nationalist thought, argued that the United States would likely go the way of the former Soviet Union if its system of financial rewards and punishments should ever cease to benefit the white majority. For though US elites have not the slightest interest in the welfare and security of the white majority, the majority was willing to be bought off as longs as the elites provided the material benefits to ensure its allegiance. Today, we are entering an era when that ability to deliver the goods may be rapidly diminishing.
For this reason, I believe catastrophe alone will cause white Americans to abandon their allegiance to the existing system and to see the elites controlling it as their real enemies. Such a transfer of loyalties away from the state is thus likely to entail less a racial awakening than an understanding how to live in a hostile reality, once the virtual realities that are at the heart of the American System have collapsed. Nevertheless, at that point when whites abandon the status quo, the possibility of an emerging white national movement will quicken.
Our role as nationalists ought thus to be subversive and revolutionary, not conservative. For there is nothing worth conserving in the existing anti-white system. Instead, we need to forge a spirit that opposes it at its root, that defines America as a nativist variant of European civilization, and that prepares a new Declaration of Independence.
“But our numbers are too small!” it will be argued. This, however, is always the case. For “history is made not by majorities who vote but by minorities who fight.” The great Belgium revolutionary, Jean Thiriat, once pointed out that a man skilled with a butcher knife can reduce a five ton whale to steak slices. The knife is the revolutionary sect and the whale the completely flabby society preoccupied with economic matters and devoted to the pursuit of pleasure. Such a society is extremely vulnerable to the action of a determined and organized political minority, especially in times of crisis.
Where, today, are such minorities to be found?
Every generation of Europeans has produced men ready for the heroic life. When the opportunity arises, they will appear.
The important thing to remember, as we enter this year of crisis, is that the future belongs to us—if we will it!
Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and modern European history at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2004).