A call for a spiritual elite

The formerly white nationalist site Occidental Dissent, now much closer to a conservative blog, got it all wrong. The nationalists are not to be blamed that the masses of whites are not supporting their own interests. It is the fault of the masses and the conservatives. The following article by Dr. William Pierce (photo below), “A Call for a Spiritual Elite: Conservatism or Radicalism?” was originally published in Attack! (no. 51, 1977):

Conservative and right-wing political groups are concerned with a number of problems these days: forced school busing, taxes, gun control, street crime, inflation. They oppose these things in various ways: through public demonstrations; through propaganda efforts with leaflets, magazines, or newspapers; through lobbying; and through election campaigns. And they gain members and supporters from those elements of the population who are also opposed to these things.

In general, the more concrete, specific, and immediate a problem is, the larger and more enthusiastic will be the public response to right-wing efforts. Some of the ad hoc organizations opposed to forced school busing claimed more than a million members at one time. The National Rifle Association, which is certainly the principal group opposed to gun control, has more than a million members now, I believe.

The people who joined the anti-busing groups did so, generally, because they felt immediately threatened by a specific and concrete menace. The people who support the NRA because of its opposition to gun-registration and gun-confiscation laws feel—and rightly so—that their fundamental right of self-defense is in immediate danger of being taken away from them.

When the issue becomes less immediate or more abstract, right-wing groups can still gain support—but not so much. American foreign policy in the Middle East and in Rhodesia is horrendous, but there is far less organized opposition to it than to busing or gun control.

Even more abstract issues, such as miscegenation and non-White immigration, still bring forth a good bit of right-wing rhetoric, but there is almost no public response to this rhetoric.

Now, everyone has observed this, and the consequence is that people or groups who want to win public support for themselves, for whatever reason, honest or dishonest, concentrate their propaganda on immediate, concrete, specific problems. That wins elections. And it brings the contributions rolling in to the money-hungry, “conservative,” fundraising outfits.

But, interestingly enough, the immediate, concrete, specific problems remain with us and continue to grow worse. Why is that?

Why is it that with so many people belonging to or supporting organizations opposed to forced busing, we have every year more and more school districts being ordered by the Federal courts to bus White children into Black schools?

Why, with all the rhetoric against taxes and with so many conservatives and right wingers supporting anti-tax organizations, do income taxes and social security taxes and property taxes become worse practically every year?

Actually, there are two ways of approaching the question. We can say we have more and more busing every year, despite all the opposition to it, because the enemies of White America want to mongrelize the country, and they are stronger, with all their money and their control of the media, than the busing opponents, and they have slipped their allies into the Federal judiciary over the years, and they have brainwashed the public, and conservatives won’t work together, and so on. And we can answer the questions about taxes and gun control the same way.

But answers of that sort, about the mechanics of the struggle, are not what I’m interested in tonight. We have a general and fundamental question before us, which is: Why do the enemies of White America keep on winning? Why are they stronger than their opponents? How is it that they have been able to slip the sack over our heads so easily? Why does the White majority always lose?

The answer we want to understand tonight is this: Right wingers, and conservatives, and the White majority generally, have been losing battle after battle—and are obviously losing the whole war as well—simply because all they are really willing to fight for are immediate, concrete, and specific things—and, in particular, things which affect them personally. That is the answer we must understand.

I was talking to our guest, Ed Fields, after our last meeting, and he told me about a speech he gave at an anti-busing rally in Louisville, Kentucky, last year. He had been talking for about 10 minutes, he said, about the importance of preserving the White race and saving White culture and stopping non-White immigration and halting intermarriage, when he was interrupted by a shout from someone in the crowd who yelled, “We don’t care about all that crap! Tell us how to stop this busing!”

Now, I believe that was an extreme case. Most opponents of busing and certainly most ordinary, decent White people do care about the things Ed Fields was talking about. They just don’t care enough about them to leave their TV sets and go to rallies and risk being labeled “racists” by a yapping pack of Jewish media hounds and their liberal camp followers. They’ll only put out that effort and take that risk to oppose something which they see as an immediate and personal threat.

So, the big conservative and right-wing groups concentrate on those things—the immediate, concrete, and personal things—and the White race keeps losing the war.

The problem is a matter of motivation, of priorities, of values.

The great majority of our people who are not liberals—that is, who have not joined the enemy—are not really concerned with winning the war. They just want to avoid becoming personal casualties. No army in history with that sort of motivation has ever won a war. And we won’t either.

When a man has a personal problem to solve—a truly personal problem—then self-interest is a proper motivation. But when a whole race is faced with a major problem, self-interest is no longer a proper motivation, and it will no more solve the problem for the race than an attitude of “every man for himself” will win a war—or even a battle—for an army.

And yet self-interest is what the conservative and right-wing organizations keep appealing to, because that is what gets an immediate response.

The essence of the problem is this: The man who is against busing is generally a man who is fairly well satisfied with the other things around him. Let’s solve this busing problem, he thinks, and then I can go back to my TV. Or let’s defeat this gun-control law, and then I can go back to what I was doing before.

If you read conservative publications, you are overcome by the stench of this attitude. American Opinion, the magazine of the John Birch Society, reeks of it. And so does the weekly tabloid published by Liberty Lobby.

They are outraged about the Federal bureaucracy because of the way it interferes in their lives. They don’t want the government meddling with their property rights. They want to be left alone so they can continue making money and spending money the way they want and doing what they want without interference.

And about the last thing they want to do is have a revolution. Why, that would be even more of a nuisance than busing, gun control, and all the Federal meddlers put together. That would really keep them away from their TV.

Remember, there are literally tens of millions of people out there, a substantial portion of them conservative, patriotic Americans, who really care whether Liz will leave John and go back to Dick again and whether the Dodgers will win the World Series.

I said it’s a problem of values. Let me give you a couple of specific examples. In American Opinion a few months back there was an article complaining about Federal forced-housing efforts. The author didn’t want anyone to think he was a racist, and he said that no true conservative has any objection to Black neighbors, so long as they are good, quiet, middle-class Blacks. He said conservatives would rather have hardworking, middle-class Blacks for neighbors than poor Whites, or, as he put it, welfare-class Whites.

The conservative objection to forced housing, he said, is only that it is forced, that conservatives don’t want to be told they have to have Blacks for neighbors, especially dirty, disorderly, welfare-class Blacks, whom they regard in exactly the same light as poor Whites.

Well, we certainly must admit that there are some Blacks who would make quieter, cleaner, more orderly neighbors than some Whites. And if that’s all we care about—that and not having the government tell us what to do—then we have to agree with the Birch Society.

But we believe—all of us here believe, I hope—that there is much, much more at stake in the forced-housing issue than property values and freedom from government interference. We have a set of values and a motivation which are fundamentally different from those of the Birch Society. And yet so many people can see only the superficial resemblance between us and the Birchers that comes from our having similar stands on certain issues.

Let me give you another example. In this week’s issue of Newsweek magazine there is a guest editorial by a White conservative complaining about the ridiculous extent to which the courts and the Federal bureaucracy—especially the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have gone to assure minorities a better-than-even break. Reverse discrimination, he says, is un-American.

Of course, we’ve all heard the Jews yelling the same thing, as soon as Blacks started demanding their share of jobs in those occupations in which Jews are overrepresented, such as journalism and university teaching. With the Jews it’s clearly selfishness, pure and simple, because they’re all for reverse discrimination when it’s the White plumber or electrician or sheet-metal worker who has to give up his job to a Black or a Chicano or an Asiatic.

But I don’t believe the White conservative writing for Newsweek is worried that some Negro is going to get his job. His worry is simply that the Jews and the guilt-ridden liberals and the corrupt politicians who cater to the minority vote are overdoing the “equality” racket and are generating a backlash among Whites which is undoing what the Federal equality laws were supposed to do, namely, to create a society without discrimination of any kind, a color-blind society.

He sees the EEOC fanatics stirring up a hornet’s nest of hostility, of racial conflict, of divisiveness. Forcing equality on people, he says, is disuniting the United States and unmelting the melting pot. And that means trouble and unrest ahead. And, like conservatives in general, he doesn’t want trouble. He wants unity and prosperity and peace at any price.

Now, perhaps we should try to be charitable and not accuse such conservatives of being motivated by nothing but egoism and materialism. Perhaps the fellow writing in Newsweek is basically a patriot who simply wants a strong and peaceful and united United States above all else, completely aside from what these things will mean to his own income and safety and living standard. And perhaps he really believes that a truly color-blind government, which discriminates neither in favor of Blacks nor Whites, will make America strong and peaceful. Maybe he really believes that. I am sure a lot of conservatives do.

But even if they were right—and, in the long run, they certainly cannot be—their values and their priorities are totally wrong.

Prosperity and harmony are nice. Peace is nice—but not peace at any price, certainly not peace at the price of racial mongrelization.

And, in fact, our values are so totally different from conservative values that I say we would not even be interested in peace if we could be guaranteed that it would not lead to mongrelization. Not even if the country or the world could be divided up into little enclaves for Blacks and Whites and Chicanos and Jews and so on, every one respecting the rights of his neighbors and staying inside his own boundaries. That, again, is the dream of a conservative soul, and it is a false dream.

Our dream is a progressive dream, a dream of unlimited progress over the centuries and the millennia and the eons which lie ahead of us. It is no conservative dream of peace, no sheeplike dream of ease and consumption and safety, but a dream of the achievement of our Destiny, which is Godhood. It is the only dream fitting for men and women of our race; it is the spirit of the Creator, it is the Universal Urge within us, expressing itself through our race-soul.

You know that is true; you know that is the only dream for us, that what I am telling you is right. Yet, when you leave here tonight it will be all too easy, I am afraid, for you to slip back into old ways of thinking, into wrong ways.

I’m afraid of that because I receive letters all the time from our members, who’ve been paying their dues and receiving their bulletins regularly, who apparently do not understand what is written in those bulletins. They are teachers and policemen and lawyers—people for whom our message certainly should not be too abstract or too complicated to grasp—but they are also people thoroughly enmeshed in contemporary society, thoroughly involved, every day, with other people whose values and ideas all come from their TV sets.

And because our values are so different from the TV values, it may be hard for some of our people to make the transition, to clear the conservative cobwebs out of their minds, so that our dream, the dream of the White race-soul, comes through loud and clear.

It is easier for us, here in our little community, to understand our Truth, and it may be necessary for many of our other members, scattered all across the continent—all across the world now, in fact—to also have the moral reinforcement which comes from living and working together with others who have the same dream before they can achieve the same degree of understanding we have.

I am sure that will be necessary for some, but not for all. For some the dream is strong enough so that it is sufficient for them to receive our publications and listen to our meeting tapes—that is, to be members of our community in spirit, even if they cannot be here in the flesh.

But the problem that remains for us is this: our dream is a radical dream, and the dream of the masses is a conservative dream.

We want a revolution which brings about a permanent transformation of the values and priorities and goals of our society and lays the groundwork for the building of a whole new world. They want a quick and easy end to certain concrete and specific annoyances, so that they can go back to their TV.

Even the least selfish and most thoughtful of the conservatives base their programs entirely on the TV values, the TV philosophy, the TV religion. At most, they want to annul the social and racial changes of the last few decades and restore what existed before the last war.

So this great gulf lies between us and them, between our Truth and the materialist-conservative view of life. And yet, they are our people. It is from them, from the great masses, that we must recruit the new members upon which the growth and even the continued existence of our community depend.

We certainly have not reached the point where we can afford to wall ourselves and our families off from the rest of society, where we can isolate our community from the Jewish Babylon around us and depend upon our own reproductive powers to continue building our community. We may never reach that point. So we must bridge the gulf.

How? Do we put on a conservative mask and continue putting out leaflets and publishing a newspaper which talk about busing and gun control and racial job quotas and the media monopolies and the other things conservatives are interested in—as we have been doing—but without the radical overtones which frighten or confuse or bore them?

That is, do we deradicalize our public image? Do we become a sort of conservative front group?

Remember, we talked a couple of meetings ago about making it easier and less frightening for prospective recruits to join us. We talked about the necessity of growing faster than we are growing now.

But there is also something else to remember. And that is that there are dozens of conservative groups already out there, experienced, well-financed, well-organized conservative groups. And at least some of them are run by real conservatives, men who think and feel the same way those do they are trying to recruit.

Should we imagine that we, outsiders who think and feel on an entirely different wavelength, can be more successful at that game? I think not.

And even if we were more successful, by being cleverer or more energetic or more ruthless than the others, would we have a real success?

We would have a structure without a foundation, a structure held together by pretense. Is that what we want for the long haul ahead? I think not.

Now, I am certainly not ruling out the use of front groups and ad hoc organizations. They are perfectly good and useful tools, and we expect to use them at a certain stage of our development.

But for the achievement of our long-range goals, for the principal vehicle for our revolution, for the organization which embodies the fundamental Truth expressed in our Affirmation, we must have a foundation of the hardest stone, not of sand. And that stone must be cemented together with truth, not pretense.

We do not bridge the gulf between our community and the masses of our people by pretending to be something we are not. If we have made a mistake in the past, it has been trying to sit on two stools at the same time, trying to be both conservative and radical. And if we are to correct that mistake in the future, it must be to abandon conservative pretenses. It must be to become completely truthful in our recruiting efforts.

So, let us light a beacon of truth and let us always hold out a friendly hand of understanding to the masses of our people who do not yet share our outlook. But let us make no compromises with the falsehoods which now govern their lives. Let us make no pretense that we believe that busing or taxes or racial quotas are really fundamental issues. Let us make it clear to everyone that these things are only symptoms of the disease, and one does not cure a disease by treating its symptoms.

What this means for us now and in the near future—that is, as long as we are working through one organization and are not yet ready to use fronts—is this: We will concentrate our resources on fundamentals and will be obliged to a very large extent to let other groups attack the symptoms. We will concentrate on reaching the masses of our people with our Truth in its most fundamental form, and we will let the National Rifle Association fight gun control and the National States Rights Party fight busing, and we wish them well.

Another way of saying this is that we will be uncompromisingly radical rather than conservative. Of course, if the word “radical” still frightens you, you may substitute “fundamental”—which means exactly the same thing—for it.

And does this make sense when we so desperately need to grow faster than we have been? Does it make sense to try to reach people ruled by materialism with a message which is essentially spiritual? Does it make sense to be more radical when some of our own members even now are still thinking in conservative terms?

Well, let’s concede first that, although we will be preaching to the masses, we understand that only a minority, only a spiritual elite, will be capable of responding to our message. We want to light a beacon and we want to make it burn as brightly as we can, so that it will cast its rays over all our people, but we know that only a few will actually see our light, will actually understand and respond to our Truth. We concede that.

But this is the way it has always been. Every great and positive revolution of human history, every conscious step upward on the never-ending Path of Life symbolized by our Rune, has been the work of a minority, of an elite. Masses don’t make revolutions—determined and committed minorities do.

We don’t hope to make revolutionary idealists out of the egoistic and materialistic masses, but we do hope to awaken and inspire and recruit that minority of our people in which the Divine Spark already burns brightly enough to illuminate their souls and their minds so that they can grasp our Truth. And the way to do that is to present our Truth to them as purely and as plainly and as clearly as we possibly can—not to dress it in a conservative disguise, which leads only to confusion.

We want everyone to know that we understand that what’s really important is not whether we can elect a government which won’t try to impose racial quotas on us or whether we can achieve domestic tranquility but whether the Truth that is in the race-soul of our people shall overcome the alien falsehoods which rule us now, so that that Truth can guide us once again to the upward Path, to the Path of the Creator’s Self-Realization, and so that we can once again become agents of the Universal Will—except this time fully conscious agents—and resume our never-ending ascent toward our ordained Destiny.

That’s what’s important, and that is what must be achieved. Then everything else—all the conservative goals—will either have been taken care of automatically or they will have become irrelevant.

So, once again, the immediate question before us is not whether to be more radical or more conservative in order to grow faster, but how to present our radicalism—our Truth—in the best, in the clearest, in the most appealing way, how to avoid confusion, how to minimize negativism, how to reassure those who are timid and hesitant.

We understand that we are casting our net very wide and expecting to catch only a few. But we want to be sure that we do catch all those who are fit for catching. And the way to catch those who are fit is with the pure and unadulterated Truth.

Roger Devlin’s “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide”

What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream. But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime? The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.

___________________

An address given at The Occidental Quarterly Editor’s Dinner on October 30, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia, I read this article in Counter-Currents.

Feminized western males

Earlier this day I wrote in a previous post: “I confess I’ve just re-watched Pride and Prejudice for the Nth time. There’s no question about it. Mores must be forcefully reverted back to the Austen world, where women were kept in their place. Only the feminized western males cannot get it. Women belong to us; not to themselves. They’re Nature’s most precious gift.”

This is a brief exchange between a typical liberal, the atheist Richard Dawkins (doctored photo, above) and a religious conservative, a smart Palestinian Muslim:

Muslim: Fix your women.

Dawkins. Fix your women! That’s not my business; that’s my women’s business.

Muslim: No, no! It is your business. When you take your women and dress them like whores in…

Dawkins: I don’t dress women! They dress themselves!

Muslim: I know but you allow it as a norm to let women on the street dressed like this. What’s wrong on with your society? What’s wrong with the…?

Dawkins could not tolerate more cognitive dissonance and in his video he simply faded out the audio of what the Muslim was trying to tell him.

Fortunately, in an Islamized Europe the Muslims will teach the feminized male how to grow their gonads again…

“Modern day Left and Right are the exact same”

Excerpted from a longer, 14-17 February exchange from The Political Cesspool (TPC), “Jamie Kelso gets run out of CPAC”. James Edwards, who hosts the TPC, wrote:

You’re in favor of two men being allowed to get married? CPAC thinks you’re just swell, and will even let you be an official sponsor of the event. But don’t you dare suggest that it’s best if white people marry other whites, or that white people have interests just like blacks and Hispanics do, or you’ll be treated like a pariah.

Notice the Ron Paul supporters who grow increasingly hostile because Jamie is wearing a Campaign for Liberty button. At the end several of them physically confront him and make it clear that if he doesn’t remove the button, they will. At which point Jamie decided it would be best to leave.

Jamie gets an A for effort, but this video makes it clear that the “let’s just infiltrate the GOP and conservative organizations” approach isn’t viable. These days, “conservatives” are even more anti-White than liberals are. And more and more of them actually believe the nonsense they spout about Equality and there’s only one race, the human race, blah blah blah. So I don’t think we’ll be “taking over” the Republican party in this lifetime.

Still don’t think the CPAC attendees embarrassed themselves enough? Read the stories below.



Selected responses to “Jamie Kelso gets run out of CPAC”:

JB says: Look at all the young whites here who are completely eaten up with guilt and self-hate. How embarrassing! God help us if these dweebs represent the modern-day “conservative” movement. They’re about as conservative as Tim Wise.

Jim says: LOL. That valley girl accent is hilarious! You can tell that chick spends a great deal of time wrapped up in serious thought.

Kievsky says: JB, My thoughts exactly. What’s the difference between them and Tim Wise? None. These are establishment types who plan to make comfy careers out of politics. They don’t represent the conservatism of the man on the street.

Had enough yet? says: White people don’t need enemies when our own people have learned through self-hate, white guilt and false history being taught to them by the media establishment blessed by the “Gods” in Government. The enemy is within. And until that is corrected we are all doomed to a slow painful extinction and not just within America either.

Jerry says: These are privileged whites who have never lived in mixed communities opining about how great diversity is. I once had a conversation with a fellow who claimed that he “loved” diversity. When I pointed out to him that he lived in a town that was 98% white and upper-middle class, he claimed that he and his wife had “always wanted” to move to a more diverse area, but the “schools” prevented this. Yeah, right.

Vic says: Just reconfirms my opinion that it’s too late in the game for this. It’s like trying to patchwork a ship with its bow completely submerged and stern straight up towards the sky. Do whatever you can to save yourselves and stay out of the way of these fools and their folly. They won’t learn until it’s too late… just like the Rhodesians and South Africans.

Joe says: Watching this video is the equivalent of having your teeth pulled out. Unfortunately, it’s not these kids who get bussed to gang-ridden schools. It’s not these kids who have to watch their once thriving neighborhoods self-destruct right in front of them. And it’s not these kids who will be future polar-bear victims. Hey CPAC, for your next convention, why don’t you hold it in downtown Detroit? Or even better, why not make it an international affair and host it in South Africa? Seeing these little punks get a taste of their own medicine would be sweet poetic justice.

Jerry says: Couple more points: The facial expressions of the airhead blonde to the left are priceless. It simply drips of self-hatred and self-righteousness. Also, the tall, thin, effeminate fellow is your standard, run-of-the-mill president of his college’s Young Republican Club. These people wouldn’t be caught dead on “Martin Luther King Blvd” at night, and when they get married and live in D.C., they will send their kids to private, mostly white/yellow schools. They are zombies, the walking dead. Thankfully, they will probably have only 0-1 kids. If we can’t convert them, we need to outbreed them.

Shocked says: The Frankfurt School has certainly worked on the young White mind in this country.

Ken says: Wow, that was painful to watch! That should be preserved for future generations because that is a prime example of how completely and totally brainwashed and defeated many whites have become. Just the slightest hint that whites might have something worth preserving and it’s time to burn the heretic at the stake! Unbelievable!

Clint says: Jamie did a great job debating with that hostile crowd. It just shows how dear the sheeple hold onto the “diversity” mantra. I highly doubt they would be so animated on any other topic of conversation. I agree with the other fellow that Jamie’s message would have been better heard had he a few more supporters chiming in. However, he has a very non-threatening style and did great in my opinion; anyone else would have been thrown out much earlier. Could you see the smoke coming out of the pretty brunette’s head, forced to think for a few nano-seconds?
The side-burned guy was playing tough in front of the cameras, dropping r-bombs on everyone. How lame.

Junghans says: These young White “conservative” wimps are pathetic victims of their inculcated intellectual illusions. A Negro racial reality check may eventually make them a little more explicitly aware, we hope. Talk about being their own worst enemies, these White bunnies certainly are…

Greg says: OMG, these people are supposed to be “conservatives”? Yikes, they sound more like liberals, and in fact I can respect the liberals more so because at least they don’t take one thing and call it another.

Louise says: This completely turned my stomach. For we older folks, this is the generation that is going to be taking care of us. That is downright scary.

Jeff says: Ever notice how effeminate young white men are these days? If they are not gay, they are metro-sexual. Or maybe masculine white men are too preoccupied with sports and don’t attend these types of conferences. Let me know what you all think.

Randall says: It’s really hard to believe that our young Americans are that stupid.

johnson says: We are witnessing the largest genocide in the history of the world, the genocide of white people through control of the financial systems, the media, and learning institutions. Time to turn the tide.

Political Optimist says: Okay, after watching that video, I’ve now reconsidered my previous comment [not included in this collection—Chechar]. I still believe we must work within the mainstream. But man, are you sure he wasn’t at a Daily Kos gathering?

Von Riemann says: This is why the right-wing are losers, and always have-been and will be and fail…

I have always been against that Jewish Freemason, Ron Paul, and exposed him from day one since Stormfront was promoting this bastard, and predicted what Ron Paul is doing today against Whites who supported him—was going to happening, and it is. This is only further proof, how Ron Paul acted against Jamie Kelso, why he is our worst enemy.

icr says: The masses follow elites—that’s always been the case and always will be the case. Read Sam Francis and James Burnham. Trying to destroy the hegemony of Cultural Marxism by recruiting typical white American conformists at bars and football games (or even Ron Paul rallies) is strictly the stuff of satire. Before you can get anywhere you need roughly a hundred or so guys like Jared Taylor and James Edwards. Try to remember that 99+% of media, academia, business and government (including the military) is either hostile or cowed into silence.

Jeff says: I actually commend those kids for listening and engaging with Kelso. It was the Campaign for Liberty guys who kept pestering him about being a racist. I thought those people were for freedom.

Yankee born Southerner says: Here’s a perfect example of public education at its finest. We have guilt because of slavery. Let’s review: nobody alive today was a slave. Likewise, nobody alive today was a slave owner. We fought an unjust war supposedly to end slavery. Which is a blatant lie. But the truth wasn’t taught when I attended high school and that’s over 40 years ago. So, it doesn’t matter as much if you’re Republican or Democrat. What matters is you know your own history. And don’t be afraid to take a little heat when somebody tells you to take your button off. Mr. Kelso, thank you for your example!

icr says: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream” [wrote above another commenter]. The USG is currently fanatically devoted to a world-view that can best be described in shorthand as a mix between the Wall St Journal pro-global business and open borders stance, and the ideology one would find in the Office for Multi-Cultural Affairs at a major liberal arts university. This view has hardened into an ideology and has intertwined itself so thoroughly in the popular mind with what it means to be “American” that nothing short of an intense crisis or a complete breakdown will bring about any change. Certainly, electing this or that Republican makes no difference.

Duane says: Is this country completely finished? Did you notice how wimpy and faggy these white males were? Do you really feel bad when reading in the newspaper when this type meets a brutal bloody end at the hands of the savages they are insanely defending? Would any normal White male with any normal attitudes feel any normal protective instincts toward these female psychos? The USA and the West are completely finished…

Von Riemann says: I knew it was just a matter of time before the Republicans exposed themselves, not just against the whites who put them into power from day 1, but against our very unalienable rights/constitution that they toted as their foundation—and show their true Orwellian tyrannical faces. In these peoples minds, the only ones who are Americans and can have a voice are the (PC).

It’s time to build our race into a political machine, and not an economic one like the two Kosher parties. The mainstream parties are not about our preservation, but our genocide and money/getting-rich—which is why they are selling us out bit-by-bit to the one-world-order.

Jamie Kelso, in my opinion wasn’t defeated and ran-off like these Capital-Marxist right-wing thugs claim with glee happened. Rather Jamie Kelso brought forth invaluable information to our struggle and proved the points visually of what we are trying to make to our people about the system.

Edgardus de la Vega says: Yes indeed folks: undoing their deracinated mindsets will be quite a challenge for us. Nevertheless, our communication on the issue of white preservation will make gains as our race continues to shrink. The apparent evidence of our gradual demise will itself do much of the talking.

Adam FreeMan says: These sheltered brain-washed children need our patience and understanding even though we all want to take them to the woodshed and beat the crap out of them. They have been taught that if they want to succeed and get ahead, they must walk the multicultural line. Many of them have eaten the poisoned apple and really believe what they are saying. We must be ready when reality opens their eyes (muggings, rapes, no jobs for whites) to get them to see that we are their friends. So teach them what they are ready to learn when they are ready to learn it and don’t get personal.

Dedalus says: Great comments. In fact, they are the perfect tonic to this depressing video. At the very beginning, when that blonde guy sitting down asked “What if she wanted to reproduce with a Black guy…”

Blockheads with just enough brains to know how to make money and that’s enough for them.

Von Riemann says: Anyone who continues with the failed right-wing supports these people and what they stand-for against us and our country, and supports/agrees-with our white-genocide and as corrupt as they are... You are not going to infiltrate the Republican party—Jamie Kelso just tried respectfully and legally and look what they did to him the first minute he didn’t tote the party lines and defended his people and told the truth about what is going on.

John St.C. says: First off, we need to recognize the exact nature of that whole CPAC/Human Events/neocon/YAF/Buckleyite crowd. As was pointed out, these are nothing but yuppies whose “conservatism” centers solely around their worries over daddy’s money. Secondly, their embarrassing ignorance concerning all matters racial defines their overall mentality. After all, if you don’t care about the survival of your own race, who gives the tiniest particle of a damn about tax programs?

2ndAmdMan says: This just goes to prove how hard (if not impossible) it is to have a conversation with liberal minded people. Those rich snobby (never worked a day in their lives) “conservative brats” really seem to just be “liberals” at heart. If they have any muscle—they bought it at a gym. If they have any brains—they got it from their ancestors who they are now “throwing under the bus”. They more afraid of being called a “racist” than they are of the “boogie man”.

Denise says: Jamie did a really good job—but he did not answer the most glaring error: the Ottoman Empire [actually] created nothing.

wn girl says: Good job, Jamie! It is sad to see young whites who are so ignorant about their issues and history, but Jamie did a great job with the conversation.

JB says: Did y’all notice the older guy who made the silly “Harry Truman was a Klansman” comment?

Bruce in Vancouver says: That was very bad. Some of the comments from these people are incredible. Did you hear that guy saying that the blacks arrived here the same time Whites did and then they went about building the country with their bare hands? LOL. What an idiot. Where do they get this from? I already knew we’re in trouble, but that was just depressing to hear.

Larry says: Trying to “infiltrate” the GOP in hopes of using it to advance the causes of white people is ridiculous [Larry responds to an Occidental Dissent fan]. It’s time to abandon all notions of conventional “right” and “left.” They are essentially the same ideology wrapped in a different package. Both want universal democracy, both support multiculturalism, both believe it is wrong for the government to step in and promote traditional values, both are completely worthless. The interests of our people rise above all else. Everything else pales in comparison.

The way I see it, we are so far gone as a nation that only outright white nationalism/traditionalism can save us. Therefore, any attempt at infiltrating a decaying political party in order to get it to be slightly less degenerate is insufficient and a waste of time.

Go ahead and keep reading the nonsense at Occidental Dissent and donating your hard-earned money to libertarian organizations and GOP candidates, you might as well be pissing it down a toilet. Here is my New Year’s resolution in regards to politics: If a group or cause or candidate is not 100% pro-white, I will not donate my time or money to it. A candidate who agrees with us on most issues but who states publicly that he abhors “racism” does more harm to our cause than good.

Vick says: Kelso did an excellent job, and even though those kids all appeared to reject his message, they were listening, and they were probably hearing what he had to say for the first time. As they get older they will remember their encounter with him and start to see the truth of what he’s saying. I do have to criticize Kelso for not having a good answer to the tall kid who kept saying that “America was also built by blacks and hispanics” and so on. (And by the way, it’s far too easy to criticize someone for how they do in live, personal debates like this—doing well in these situations is a talent, really.)

My response to the tall kid would have been to point out that up until recently (1964), this country was over 80% white. Yes, blacks and hispanics etc. can lay a certain claim to having built America, but the truth is that this country historically was predominantly a white country, and the white majority, such as it still exists, still has the right to democratically determine its future in a racially conscious way, if they so desire.

Tom says: Ron Paul owes Kelso an apology. It was Paul’s man who had Kelso thrown out.

Horace Blossom says: If there is anyone so deluded as to think that the Republican types have a genuine interest in defending and advancing Western Civilization and the racial group responsible for it, this video should disabuse him of that piece of brain-sick lunacy. Perhaps most alarmingly revealed in this video is that these “right-thinking” young people have only thread-bare, outworn arguments to support their lunatic, self-annihilating vagaries. It apparently has never occurred to them that their empty slogans and vapid catch-phrases need examining. Usually, I find myself lamenting that my life has extended into its seventh decade, but this exhibition at least enables me to feel some gratitude that I made it without having been infected with such lunacy as theirs.

Larry says: [Responding to an Occidental Observer fan whose post I omitted in this collection]: Modern day “left” and “right” are the exact same. They have the same end goal in mind. Both envision an America with universal democracy, “equality,” no racial identity, etc. They only disagree on how to get there and whether that America will be ruled by bureaucrats or corporations. A new law that will serve as a minor headache to illegals here and a symbolic ban against Affirmative Action there are not anywhere close to what it will take to restore this nation.

If all immigration—legal and illegal—were to end tomorrow, this would only delay America’s descent into a third-world, majority non-white nation. You will never, not in a million years, see the GOP advocate what is needed to turn back the tide. If you want to pursue conventional party politics, go for it. I admire your efforts. I just think it is a hopeless waste of time and think our efforts are best directed at building up explicitly white nationalist organizations.

The real path to power is to put together networks that can step in to fill the void that will be left when the current system inevitably collapses.

By the way, defeating amnesty is another non-issue. Amnesty will have virtually no long-term demographic impact. The children of illegals are already citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status. If anything, amnesty will be a good thing because it will instantly flood the voting booths with millions of Hispanics rather than spreading out the inevitable over the next several decades. It might be the shock that mainstream conservatives need to wake them to the reality that they cannot maintain their way of life if they become a demographic minority.

Charles says: I have enormous respect for Jamie Kelso for going down to CPAC to advance a racial awareness. This is probably the very first time these people have been exposed to ideas like the ones Jamie is espousing.

At best all they have read or heard are vulgar caricatures about Klansmen and neo-Nazis trying to exterminate other races. The fact that these people listened to Jamie so long is the only encouraging thing in this video. Let’s hope as they grow older and these people will grow wiser they will learn to seek political opinions that didn’t come to them from talk radio, their television set, NPR, or any other MSM outlet.

Until the internet came along there were no real dissenting opinions available to most people. That’s changing thanks to blogs and radio shows like this one and the one Jamie Kelso has.

Matt says: Oh my God! These young people! Take a look at them—they all look like punch drunk boxers as they reel off their PC mantras! How tragic! How terribly tragic! Perhaps T. S. Eliot was quite right after all: “This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Eurobeing says: I will admit that he didn’t exactly have them out of his hand. However, if you look at them closing in you will notice that they were actually listening to Jamie. The young fellow who listened to Michael Savage said that he is aware of white fear and suppression.

When the big goon jumped in and took Jamie’s badges he was doing what he was told. Which tells me that someone is paying a lot of money to keep a lid on all of the truth tellers.

I bet a lot of these people went home and really thought about what Kelso said. My guess his comments have their own half life and will exist in the minds of these young dweebs for quite some time.

Also Kelso was just beginning to address the issue of white guilt for slavery when he was so rudely interrupted. If he would have had a few more minutes I think he would have made some real progress. He may have already.

more of same says: I sent money a few times to C4L. I’m glad I stopped. The mailers I get from them will go right into the recycling bin after this. I’ll send my money to TPC instead.

Joanne Dee says: The first message is: Jamie is a brave and honorable man. The second message is: liberty, with this crowd, is as much about free speech as Stalin’s Russia. The third message is: trying to persuade this group that white self-interests should be paramount is an unwinnable battle. They truly never experienced the real White America and they believe everything they’ve been told. My final thought is: wow, these kids are brainwashed! The only thing positive I found is: they will realize, one day too late, what Jamie was saying. As for the comment about Michael Savage, he sure is right. White men (especially the younger ones) are totally emasculated.

Steve Elkin says: These kids need to spend some time in the “Homeboys turf”, at night and see how they feel then!

mike says: O my gosh, James, these brainwashed youths make conservatives look bad, i.e. “we all came from Africa”. These are your typical republican brats, they truly don’t respect the paleo-cons. Like Buchanan, Edwards, Duke, and the rest.

Joanne Dee says: The more I watch this clip, the more entertaining it becomes. I went from nausea to hysterics in the blink of an eye. My favorite line by Jamie responding to one of these idiots: “We went from free speech to free land.” Priceless. They don’t have a clue about primal “blood and soil.” Not one iota. They truly are clueless. Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: this man does not represent the Campaign for Liberty.

Good. And the Campaign for Liberty does not represent me nor liberty! Fake conservatives and fake libertarians.

Anonymous says: Did you catch what the brunette said in response to Jamie discussing how whites are indifferent toward protecting their homelands in comparison to other races? She stated, “That’s why we’re superior to the rest of them.” She is a genuine white supremacist. Why does she want to import people into the country who she believes are “inferior” to her? The answer, of course, is because she is one of those whites who loves to use nonwhites as pawns in a pathetic contest to prove who is the ultimate “antiracist” person alive. This is truly a mental pathology that must be cured. I hope that she and rest of the group will soon come around.

Bryan says: Are we surprised? Considering the twisted history that has been taught to people in the last forty years, really, are we surprised? I felt this way as a twelve year-old child but when I was about fourteen I started getting information from a lot of different sources to correct the history. Today, I don’t believe the nonsense and clearly recognize the threat against White America.

One big difference for me is that I have not watched a lot of TV nor have I done so since I was about thirteen (almost twenty-three years ago, so I miss out on the media indoctrination through music, TV and movies: and that makes a big difference let me assure you). The more your news and ideas about the world are derived from TV and movies the more you seem to fall for this nonsense.

I work in an office in a liberal city for a fortune 500 corporation. All around me daily I hear how important it is for us to celebrate diversity. I know people in the U.S. seem to think that everyone with our “Neanderthal” views are uneducated poor white trash who live in Southern neighborhoods or in Nazi Idaho. However, this is clearly not the case.

That's Not My Name says: Note how these privileged youngsters lack the mental acuity to identify the logical fallacies inherent in their “politically correct” positions. For example, one expresses the view that it does not matter if a person race-mixes.

In reality, a white reproducing with a black will yield, with overwhelming likelihood, offspring with lower IQs than those of children conceived by two whites. Clearly, the future state of humanity does matter, and human success is strongly linked to IQ. Thus, race-mixing and the associated likelihood of a lower IQ citizenry is to be avoided.

anon says: Of course they were outraged, they’ve been lied to their whole lives. These young people are probably either college students or recent grads. Every day of their lives they’ve been subjected to the most sadistic “scientific” brainwashing devised. Of course they’re not going to calmly sit there and nod in passive agreement when a prophet of truth, Jamie Kelso, unexpectedly stands before them and challenges their sacred cows. This video of Kelso just strengthens my admiration of him.

Wild Bill says: Perhaps Mr. Kelso could have opened the conversation like this: How do you people feel about the genocide of the white people in South Africa and the former Rhodesia? Does CPAC have a position on this?

Big Ugly, Wyoming says: We are truly lost—the government indoctrination in schools has had more effect than I had ever imagined.

Joanne Dee says: Courtney, We vote to make a difference. We all value our votes (at least the intelligent ones). But if the vote will never—ever—get the intended consequences, whether it is third party or main party, the vote is wasted. However, if we continue to eat away at the corrupt parties by deflecting our votes to Third Party candidates whom we agree with (are there any)? The main thing which is so elusive to us patriots, yet seldom mentioned, is that we basically have crap to vote for. We need a new government, not just another political party. We’re in a horrible dilemma with no clear way out.

Paul Hausser says: Notice how they never let Jamie finish. As soon he was ready to make the point about stuffing the USA with 1.5 billion Chinese and 300 million Mexicans they all jumped in. These kids sense that what they say is not really true but they can’t allow it to be said to their faces in such a straightforward logical way.

Reality says: Political Optimist writes: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream.” That’s like saying Christians need become porn stars to reach out to the porn industry. You’re just going to make a fool out of yourself.

_______________

My comment:

Wasn’t Srđa Trifković right in the video I embedded last week, that he was “less free in the US than in Tito’s Yugoslavia”?

“I’m less free in the US than in Tito’s Yugoslavia”

Update of February 25:

Trifkovic was barred from entering Canada. Robert Spencer explains: “The ‘hate speech’ weapon is increasingly used by the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist axis to silence its opponents” (here).

Two metaphors

Hunter Wallace (not his real name) has been harping on for months against the vanguards. But what is exactly the difference between the two competing currents in American white nationalism? In Occidental Dissent Wallace recently wrote:

“Mainstreamers” believe the White majority is sympathetic to our beliefs and that we should work through the system to connect with a mass audience and confront our enemies in a lawful manner.

“Vanguardists” believe that the White majority are “lemmings” who dance to whatever tune is played by an elite cabal of string pullers in the mass media. They believe in rejecting the system and forming a “hardcore nucleus” of true believers who will rise to power in the aftermath of the collapse.

I don’t see the white majority exactly as lemmings. I myself was a liberal as early as 2008 and did not metamorphose from lemming to vanguardist miraculously. It was the right sort of information what changed my mind.

Just one example. Before I became familiar with nationalist literature, the media and the academia had brainwashed me by omitting the fact that, in the century when I was born, the Jew Yagoda murdered more innocent civilians than Himmler himself. It goes without saying that, if the man I was before 2009 had gotten the historical facts straight, I would have never embraced liberalism in the first place. My educated guess is that the same could be said about the masses, as Hitler himself had pointed out about the treasonous press before his troops invaded Yagoda’s lands.

I must confess that, before my 2009/2010 transformation, I had written against Hitler and the Nazis in Spanish. Had a fortune-teller told the person I was that he would be posting entries of Mein Kampf my old self would surely have responded that the teller must be nuts. But if I woke up from the matrix of political correctness other Caucasians can do the same (I am no Übermensch). That’s why I don’t see every non-awakened white necessarily as a lemming. Like my previous self, they have been thoroughly brainwashed as well.

I would respond to the commenters at Occidental Dissent by means of a metaphor. The apparent failure of the American nationalist movement is not the fault of the “vanguardists,” as Wallace claims. It’s basically due to the primordial stage of the movement (well: strictly speaking, it’s not a movement yet). Like a tiny gaseous sphere already leaving the cradle of the nebulae, white nationalism is accumulating more and more mass that is forming a center of higher density to form a protostar. When enough pressure in the interior rises—when a considerable mass of whites wake up and work together—, it will increase the density and temperature until the gas turns to plasma. Only then a nuclear fusion will be initiated at the core—whether a vanguardist revolution or a legal pro-white election—and the new star of white nationalism will be born in the Occidental heavens.

Bok globules look like a placental stage previous to actual existence of the baby star. What prevents nationalists from attracting, by the sheer force of their gravity, increasingly more spiraling mass (see linked image), without which no revolution or pro-white election is possible?

Many years ago my (now late) uncle Julius gave me a gift: a translation of The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher. The author, Lewis Thomas, shows how a particular medusa and snail in the Sea of Naples interact with each other in a pretty disturbing way. The medusa is affixed to the mouth of the snail and apparently gets a free lunch. But there is no free lunch. When the slug produces larvae, they become entrapped in the tentacles of the medusa. At first it looks like the medusa is a parasite. But no. The slug larvae eats away the medusa’s tentacles and with time the medusa shrinks and shrinks in size. The slug grows until a new equilibrium is reached, attached with what remains of the medusa: a motionless, though alive, degenerate entity.

This extremely bizarre cycle reminds me the words of the Brussels Journal’s founder in an interview about what he believes is the etiology of the Europeans’ nihilism before the Islamization and Africanization of Europe. Paul Beliën places the blame on the welfare state, which motto for the white population seems to be: “Vote for us and you’ll get free lunches.”

Are the westerners lemmings? Perhaps they’re better depicted as medusas of the Sea of Naples, both Europeans and Americans alike. They have tragically lost their awesome majesty in the sea by selling their souls and bodies to a system that provides them with an unending flow of panem et circenses like no civilization had done before. And as long as the flow of goods continues unabated, the westerners won’t wake up and save what remains of their extremities that once made them so beautifully free in the marine world.

No wonder why, in his novel, William Pierce had its revolutionary vanguardists sabotaging the flow of goods in the United States as a desperate measure to tear the degenerate men and women out of the snail’s devouring mouth.

The nefarious influence of the East in the West

My recent reading of Michael O’Meara’s “Evola’s Anti-Semitism” brought my mind back to a book I had read fifteen years ago. In 1996 The Story of Philosophy made me think about the nefarious influence of the East in the West. Specifically, I have in mind what Will Durant says at the beginning of the chapter “From Aristotle to the Renaissance” (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

Sparta blockaded and defeated Athens towards the close of the fifth century b. c, political supremacy passed from the mother of Greek philosophy and art, and the vigor and independence of the Athenian mind decayed.

When, in 399 b. c, Socrates was put to death, the soul of Athens died with him, lingering only in his proud pupil, Plato. And when Philip of Macedon defeated the Athenians at Chaeronea in 338 b. c, and Alexander burned the great city of Thebes to the ground three years later, even the ostentatious sparing of Pindar's home could not cover up the fact that Athenian independence, in government and in thought, was irrevocably destroyed.

The domination of Greek philosophy by the Macedonian Aristotle mirrored the political subjection of Greece by the virile and younger peoples of the north. The death of Alexander (323 b. c.) quickened this process of decay. The boy-emperor, barbarian though he remained after all of Aristotle's tutoring, had yet learned to revere the rich culture of Greece, and had dreamed of spreading that culture through the Orient in the wake of his victorious armies. The development of Greek commerce, and the multiplication of Greek trading posts throughout Asia Minor, had provided an economic basis for the unification of this region as part of an Hellenic empire; and Alexander hoped that from these busy stations Greek thought, as well as Greek goods, would radiate and conquer.

But he had underrated the inertia and resistance of the Oriental mind, and the mass and depth of Oriental culture. It was only a youthful fancy, after all, to suppose that so immature and unstable a civilization as that of Greece could be imposed upon a civilization immeasurably more widespread, and rooted in the most venerable traditions.

The quantity of Asia proved too much for the quality of Greece. Alexander himself, in the hour of his triumph, was conquered by the soul of the East; he married (among several ladies) the daughter of Darius; he adopted the Persian diadem and robe of state; he introduced into Europe the Oriental notion of the divine right of kings; and at last he astonished a sceptic Greece by announcing, in magnificent Eastern style, that he was a god. Greece laughed; and Alexander drank himself to death.

This subtle infusion of an Asiatic soul into the wearied body of the master Greek was followed rapidly by the pouring of Oriental cults and faiths into Greece along those very lines of communication which the young conqueror had opened up; the broken dykes let in the ocean of Eastern thought upon the lowlands of the still adolescent European mind. The mystic and superstitious faiths which had taken root among the poorer people of Hellas were reinforced and spread about; and the Oriental spirit of apathy and resignation found a ready soil in decadent and despondent Greece.

The introduction of the Stoic philosophy into Athens by the Phoenician merchant Zeno (about 310 b. c.) was but one of a multitude of Oriental infiltrations. Both Stoicism and Epicureanism—the apathetic acceptance of defeat, and the effort to forget defeat in the arms of pleasure—were theories as to how one might yet be happy though subjugated or enslaved; precisely as the pessimistic Oriental stoicism of Schopenhauer and the despondent epicureanism of Renan were in the nineteenth century the symbols of a shattered Revolution and a broken France. Not that these natural antitheses of ethical theory were quite new to Greece. One finds them in the gloomy Heraclitus and the “laughing philosopher” Democritus; and one sees the pupils of Socrates dividing into Cynics and Cyrenaics under the lead of Antisthenes and Aristippus, and extolling, the one school apathy, the other happiness.

Yet these were even then almost exotic modes of thought: imperial Athens did not take to them. But when Greece had seen Chaeronea in blood and Thebes in ashes, it listened to Diogenes; and when the glory had departed from Athens she was ripe for Zeno and Epicurus.

Zeno built his philosophy of apatheia on a determinism which a later Stoic, Chrysippus, found it hard to distinguish from Oriental fatalism. As Schopenhauer deemed it useless for the individual will to fight the universal will, so the Stoic argued that philosophic indifference was the only reasonable attitude to a life in which the struggle for existence is so unfairly doomed to inevitable defeat. If victory is quite impossible it should be scorned. The secret of peace is not to make our achievements equal to our desires, but to lower our desires to the level of our achievements. “If what you have seems insufficient to you,” said the Roman Stoic Seneca (d. 65 a. d.), “then, though you possess the world, you will yet be miserable.” Such a principle cried out to heaven for its opposite, and Epicurus, though himself as Stoic in life as Zeno, supplied it. Epicurus, says Fenelon, “bought a fair garden, which he tilled himself. There it was he set up his school, and there he lived a gentle and agreeable life with his disciples, whom he taught as he walked and worked. He was gentle and affable to all men. He held there was nothing nobler than to apply one’s self to philosophy.” His starting point of conviction that apathy is impossible, and that pleasure—though not necessarily sensual pleasure—is the only conceivable, and quite legitimate, end of life and action.

Epicurus, then, is no epicurean; he exalts the joys of intellect rather than those of sense; he warns against pleasures that excite and disturb the soul which they should rather quiet and appease. In the end he proposes to seek not pleasure in its usual sense, but ataraxia—tranquillity, equanimity, repose of mind; all of which trembles on the verge of Zeno’s “apathy.”

The Romans, coming to despoil Hellas in 146 b. c, found these rival schools dividing the philosophic field; and having neither leisure nor subtlety for speculation themselves, brought back these philosophies with their other spoils to Rome. Great organizers, as much as inevitable slaves, tend to stoic moods: it is difficult to be either master or servant if one is sensitive. So such philosophy as Rome had was mostly of Zeno’s school, whether in Marcus Aurelius the emperor or in Epictetus the slave; and even Lucretius talked epicureanism stoically (like Heine's Englishman taking his pleasures sadly), and concluded his stern gospel of pleasure by committing suicide. His noble epic “On the Nature of Things,” follows Epicurus in damning pleasure with faint praise.

* * *
Nations, too, like individuals, slowly grow and surely die. In the face of warfare and inevitable death, there is no wisdom but in ataraxia, —“to look on all things with a mind at peace.” Here, clearly, the old pagan joy of life is gone, and an almost exotic spirit touches a broken lyre.

Imagine the exhilarating optimism of explicit Stoics like Aurelius or Epictetus. Nothing in all literature is so depressing as the Dissertations of the Slave, unless it be the Meditations of the emperor. “Seek not to have things happen as you choose them, but rather choose that they should happen as they do; and you shall live prosperously.” No doubt one can in this manner dictate the future, and play royal highness to the universe.

Story has it that Epictetus’ master, who treated him with consistent cruelty, one day took to twisting Epictetus’ leg to pass the time away. “If you go on,” said Epictetus calmly, “you will break my leg.” The master went on, and the leg was broken. “Did I not tell you,” Epictetus observed mildly, “that you would break my leg?” Yet there is a certain mystic nobility in this philosophy, as in the quiet courage of some Dostoievskian pacifist. “Never in any case say, I have lost such a thing; but, I have returned it. Is thy child dead?—it is returned. Is thy wife dead?—she is returned. Art thou deprived of thy estate?— is not this also returned?”

In such passages we feel the proximity of Christianity and its dauntless martyrs. In Epictetus the Greco-Roman soul has lost its paganism, and is ready for a new faith. His book had the distinction of being adopted as a religious manual by the early Christian Church. From these Dissertations and Aurelius’ Meditations there is but a step to The Imitation of Christ.

Meanwhile the historical background was melting into newer scenes. There is a remarkable passage in Lucretius which describes the decay of agriculture in the Roman state, and attributes it to the exhaustion of the soil. Whatever the cause, the wealth of Rome passed into poverty, the organization into disintegration, the power and pride into decadence and apathy. Cities faded back into the undistinguished hinterland; the roads fell into disrepair and no longer hummed with trade; the small families of the educated Romans were outbred by the vigorous and untutored German stocks that crept, year after year, across the frontier; pagan culture yielded to Oriental cults; and almost imperceptibly the Empire passed into the Papacy.

The Church, supported in its earlier centuries by the emperors whose powers it gradually absorbed, grew rapidly in numbers, wealth, and range of influence. By the thirteenth century it owned one-third of the soil of Europe, and its coffers bulged with donations of rich and poor. For a thousand years it united, with the magic of an unvarying creed, most of the peoples of a continent; never before or since was organization so widespread or so pacific.

But this unity demanded, as the Church thought, a common faith exalted by supernatural sanctions beyond the changes and corrosions of time; therefore dogma, definite and defined, was cast like a shell over the adolescent mind of medieval Europe. It was within this shell that Scholastic philosophy moved narrowly from faith to reason and back again, in a baffling circuit of uncriticized assumptions and pre-ordained conclusions.

In the thirteenth century all Christendom was startled and stimulated by Arabic and Jewish translations of Aristotle; but the power of the Church was still adequate to secure, through Thomas Aquinas and others, the transmogrification of Aristotle into a medieval theologian. The result was subtlety, but not wisdom. “The wit and mind of man,” as Bacon put it, “if it work upon the matter, worketh according to the stuff , and is limited thereby; but if it work upon itself, as the spider worketh his web, then it is endless, and bringeth forth indeed cobwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit.” Sooner or later the intellect of Europe would burst out of this shell.

* * *
After a thousand years of tillage, the soil bloomed again; goods were multiplied into a surplus that compelled trade; and trade at its cross-roads built again great cities wherein men might cooperate to nourish culture and rebuild civilization. The Crusades opened the routes to the East, and let in a stream of luxuries and heresies that doomed asceticism and dogma. Paper now came cheaply from Egypt, replacing the costly parchment that had made learning the monopoly of priests; printing, which had long awaited an inexpensive medium, broke out like a liberated explosive, and spread its destructive and clarifying influence everywhere. Brave mariners armed now with compasses, ventured out into the wilderness of the sea, and conquered man’s ignorance of the earth; patient observers, armed with telescopes, ventured out beyond the confines of dogma, and conquered man’s ignorance of the sky. Here and there, in universities and monasteries and hidden retreats, men ceased to dispute and began to search; deviously, out of the effort to change baser metal into gold, alchemy was transmuted into chemistry; out of astrology men groped their way with timid boldness to astronomy; and out of the fables of speaking animals came the science of zoology.

The awakening began with Roger Bacon (d. 1294); it grew with the limitless Leonardo (1452-1519); it reached its fullness in the astronomy of Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1642), in the researches of Gilbert (1544-1603) in magnetism and electricity, of Vesalius (1514-1564) in anatomy, and of Harvey (1578-1657) on the circulation of the blood. As knowledge grew, fear decreased; men thought less of worshiping the unknown, and more of overcoming it. Every vital spirit was lifted up with a new confidence; barriers were broken down; there was no bound now to what man might do. It was an age of achievement, hope and vigor; of new beginnings and enterprises in every field; an age that waited for a voice, some synthetic soul to sum up its spirit and resolve.

It was Francis Bacon, “the most powerful mind of modern times,” who “rang the bell that called the wits together,” and announced that Europe had come of age.

When a crisis of the Aryan spirit brought a Negro to power...

...the Northwest Front was founded.

The most distinguishing feature of the rest of the White racial resistance movement is its lack of any plan whatsoever for the actual assumption of state power.

If we are in fact to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, then we must accept that the Northwest Migration is it. There simply isn’t anything else. This book [The Northwest Front Handbook—full introduction here] will be your first step toward your acceptance of the racial duty that history has imposed on you.

White man—it is time to Come Home!

Rome vs. Jerusalem

Today I discovered “Evola’s Anti-Semitism” by Michael O’Meara originally published in April 28, 2009 at The Occidental Quarterly Online: the profoundest article I have ever read about the struggle of Jewry versus Aryanity. It is articles such as this one what makes me feel that, presently, the best minds in the nationalist movement have indeed a magnificent grasp of what has happened to our civilization.

When Julius Evola, one of the leading twentieth-century critics of Judeo-liberal civilization, worked out his racial theory during the 1930s, the principal inspiration for anti-Semitic thought was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Purportedly stolen from an occult Lodge, the Protocols were a report of twenty-four secret meetings held by the leaders of international Jewry, as they attempted to devise a plan for world domination.

Jewish organizations quite naturally went to considerable lengths to discredit the Protocols. Their most famous effort resulted in a judicial action taken by a Berne court in 1933 against a Swiss nationalist who had distributed the document.

The court’s decision that the Protocols were a libelous forgery, Evola thought, was besides the point. For in his eyes the issue of the Protocols’ authenticity was “secondary to the far more serious and essential problem of their veracity”—for even if not actually written by the “Elders” or based on an existing plan, the document in his view was of unparalleled significance in drawing attention, first, to the Jewish Question, and, more importantly, to the subversive forces at work in recent history.

In this spirit, he claimed the Protocols shed new light on the Jews’ campaign against Europe’s traditions, aristocracies, symbols, and transcendent values, especially as this campaign promoted ideologies subverting the white man’s sense of order—ideologies such as capitalism, cosmopolitanism, egalitarianism, materialism, feminism, etc.

Inspired by the subversive import of these ideologies, the Jews allegedly “stress the negative aspects, abuses, and injustices” of traditional Europe. To this end, they “spread the germs of a critical and rationalistic mentality meant to corrupt the innermost ethical cement” of organically established hierarchies; they endeavor to dominate the principal centers of official teaching, to control public opinion through their monopoly of the media, to undermine family life, to provoke both social and moral defeatism by “stirring up mistrust and discreditable rumors regarding the clergy” and other representatives of white society. And, not least, they reduce all interests to economic-financial ones, replacing former authorities with mathematical calculations and materialist imperatives.

The course of modern European history, Evola claimed, seemed “to meet the objectives set out in the Protocols.” For once the “Elders’” campaign succeeded in reducing whites to “a mush of beings without tradition and inner strength,” “the ancient promise of the regnum of the Chosen People” became realizable.

But if Jews for Evola were one of the principal forces for subversion in the modern world, he parted company with those “vulgar anti-Semites” who saw the Jews everywhere, a sort of deus ex machina, responsible for all the world’s ills. This type of reductionism, he thought, was self-discrediting. One can acknowledge “the pernicious role the Jew has played in the history of civilization,” he writes, but this “must not prejudice a deeper investigation which can make us become aware of forces for which Judaism may have been... only the instrument.”

Thus, while the European encounter with Judah goes back more than two millennia, it was, he stressed, only in recent times, with the advent of liberal-capitalist societies and particularly with the rise of America to world power, that Jews actually began to dominate the white homelands.

Though Evola affirmed both the legitimacy and necessity of anti-Semitism, at the same time he rejected its “parochialism,” its often arbitrary principles, and its lack of “a truly general standpoint.”

The vulgar anti-Semitism that makes the Jews responsible for every form of subversion was, from his perspective, a humiliating admission of inferiority. The Jews were stronger and more capable, he argued, only when the white man degenerated. That is, only he was no longer himself and thus weakened did he become vulnerable to them, for their power came from their exploitation of the degenerate forces already assaulting white life.

For this reason, Evola thought the subversive forces empowered by liberal capitalism and exploited by the Jews were “only the last links in a chain of causes which are unthinkable without antecedents such as, for instance, [Renaissance] humanism, the [Protestant] Reformation, and the French Revolution, all of which are phenomena that no one would seriously think of ascribing to a Jewish conspiracy.”

Jewish power, in a word, followed a larger historical process of “decomposition and involution,” which had de-Aryanized the white man and prepared the way for the Jews’ regnum.

Anti-Semitism, as a consequence, not only tends to make the Jews a scapegoat for the failings of modern civilization, it also conceals a more general struggle against its de-Aryanizing forces—against its “mechanizing rationalism, secular illuminism, and world-outlook based on numbers and quantity.”

Though emphasizing that the Jews were not the sole cause for modernity’s anti-white impetus, Evola nevertheless accepted that it was easier to fight personal forces (Jews) than abstractions (modernity) and that the figure of the omnipotent Jew was an effective symbol in mobilizing resistance to the anti-Aryanizing forces.

Because Evola believed it was the destruction of “our former imperial, aristocratic, and spiritual Europe” that made Jewish domination possible, it was only in returning to the principles of this Europe that he saw any prospect of effectively resisting the demonic order born of their domination.

The struggle against the de-Aryanizing forces entails, then, not merely a racial struggle against alien domination, but also a spiritual struggle to reclaim the white man’s original identity—a spiritual struggle having nothing to do with woolly abstractions or mystic escapes, but one engaged as a heroic action faithful to the white man’s Aryan essence.

What is this essence?

Virtually every historical stage in the white man’s encounter with Judah has unleashed the forces of anti-Semitism. For the Jew this is sign of the inherently pathological character of gentile society; for Evola it suggested that everything “connected with Semitism, and, above all, with Jews, appears as peculiarly repulsive to the peoples of the white race.” This is the case not simply because Jewish interests clash with white ones, but because they, as a people defined by Talmudic Law, offend the animating spirit of that “common primordial civilization” from which all the various historical and more recent white civilizations arose.

It was this primal spiritual opposition between Jew and Aryan, Evola argued, that was at the root of anti-Semitism.

Borrowing terms taken from J. J. Bachofen, Evola characterized the Aryan spirit as solar and virile, the Jewish spirit as lunar and feminine.

“Arya,” the root of “Aryan,” Evola noted, comes from a Sanskrit word designating “noblemen,” for “out of the mass of common and mediocre beings rise men ‘of race’ in the sense of higher, ‘noble’ beings.”

The highest expression of the Aryan’s aristocratic racial spirit took the form of the warrior’s “affirmative attitude to the divine”—spirit being that “which in better times was called ‘race’ by well-born persons: that is, straightforwardness, inner unity, character, dignity, manliness, immediate sensitivity for all values that are at the core of all human greatness and which, since they are situated far above fortuitous reality, govern this same reality.”

Behind the numerous mythological and symbolic references to the bright sky found in the various Indo-European cultures, all of which upheld value systems oriented to the transcendent heavens, there prevailed a sense of the “incorporeal virility of light.”

The solar is indeed light itself, unlike the lunar which brightens only when it reflects and absorbs light outside it.

Relatedly, the Europeans’ ancient pagan cults all believed in a race of divine heroes. In this spirit, they saw themselves as the “eminent bearers” of the universal forces associated with these heroes’ “solar glory”—as expressed in principles of freedom and personality, loyalty and honor.

Similarly, the Aryan spirit was realized not in the works of monks and rabbis—but in action, preeminently in the struggles the warrior waged against the enemies he had to fight, in himself and in his world.

From this, Evola claimed the Aryan’s “characteristic ideal was more royal than sacerdotal, more the ideal of a transfiguring affirmation than the priestly idea of religious abandon.”

Unlike the “devout and imploring servility” characteristic of the Abrahamic religions, the Aryan relation to the divine was active and affirmative.

“It was the heroes, more than the saints” that the Aryan saw as reaching “the highest and the most privileged places of immortality.” His quest for knowledge and understanding, it followed, was engaged as a virile, heroic conquest—not something “sinful” like the biblical Adam’s attempt to eat from the divine tree.

In contrast to Aryan solarity, Evola claimed the Jews’ lunar spirit negates the synthesis of spirituality and virility, emphasizing both that which is coarsely materialist and sensualist on the one side, and escapist and contemplative on the other. Mammonism and rationalism accordingly dominate their relationship to the world, just as the body for them is not an instrument of the spirit, but simply flesh and matter, something to be stimulated and pleased.

The dualistic conception of body and soul born of the Jewish spirit, whose abstract and fatalistic contemplativeness is “devoid of any interest in the heroic and supranatural affirmation of the personality,” cannot, as a result, but level the higher values associated with the Aryan’s Olympian spirituality.

In the cultural realm this leads the Jews “to falsify, make ridiculous, render illusory and unjust” that which is distinct to peoples of Aryan origin and which resists the “animal, low, or dirty aspects of things.” “To degrade, to soil, and to debase all that [which the white man considers] great and noble, and to unleash at the same time obscure, instinctive, sexual, pre-personal tendencies” that undermine his values are all, in fact, second nature to them.

The Jews’ critical assault on white values is also the key to their dominion, for through the opportunistic infiltrations that enable them to control the governing institutions, they seek (usually in the name of democracy, humanity, and science) to tear down all the historically established principles and orders obstructing their designs.

Wherever, then, “the virile, heroic, triumphant assumption of the Divine vanishes, to give way to the exaltation of the pathos of a slavish, depersonalizing, turbidly and Messianic attitude toward spirit,” there Jewry inevitably triumphs over Aryanity.

To fight the forces denaturing the white man, it is not enough, therefore, to take half-measures infused with the alien Semitic spirit of the modern world.

A great many anti-Semites, though, do just this, seeing Aryanity as an inverse Semitism and not a true anti-Semitism. To be fully anti-Semitic, Evola argued, cannot be compromised by the ideas and principles against which whites struggle. They need to fight as Aryans.

[They] need to be radical. Values must be evoked once again which can be seriously called Aryan, and not merely on the basis of vague and one-sided concepts suffused with biological materialism. Values of a solar Olympian spirituality, of a classicism of clarity and controlled force, of a new love for difference and free personality, and, at the same time, for hierarchy and universality that a stock newly possessed of a virile ability to rise from “life” to “more-than-life” can create as against a world torn to shreds, without true principles and peace.

Evola’s anti-Semitism was largely an offshoot of his “Traditionalist” opposition to liberal modernity and its assault on the Aryan spirit, just as his support for racial nationalism in the Thirties and Forties was based less on his belief in its various ideological manifestations than in its resistance to the materialist and Judaifying impulses of the Third Estate.

Yet not long after 1945, once the forces of the Third Estate had crushed the last remnants of Traditional Europe, the Jews ceased to be a target of Evola’s traditionalist critique. At the very point, then, when the lunar forces became triumphant, Evola seemed to abandon his anti-Semitism.

Why?

Part of the reason had to do with the impossibility of mounting an effective political resistance to the Judeo-liberal order of the postwar period. For once Europe fell under the yoke of the extra-European powers and every vestige of its historic past fell into ruin, all that could be done in this new dark age was to make certain that those few men left standing were able to keep the dimming embers of the Aryan spirit from being entirely extinguished.

As he wrote in 1948, “I see nothing but a world of ruins, where a kind of front line is possible only in the catacombs.” To sustain this underground resistance, it was henceforth necessary to adopt a stoic—an indifferent—attitude to the frenzied antics of what had become a totally Hebraicized world.

But there was another reason for his waning interest in the Jewish Question.

In his “spiritual autobiography,” The Road of Cinnabar (1972), Evola writes that following the Second World War he thought it “absurd” to continue stressing the white man’s superiority over the Jew “because the negative behavior [traditionally] attributed to Jews had now become that of the majority of ‘Aryans.’” That is, in an age where the Jewish spirit of liberal modernity prevailed and most whites had succumbed to it, it was futile to exalt Aryan values, for whites, the Aryans’ alleged heirs, now behaved no differently than Jews.

For this reason, I think his postwar stance was less an abandonment of his earlier anti-Semitic critique than a recognition that the subversive forces (of which the Jews were the most conspicuous embodiment) had become hegemonic and that those few white men who had not succumbed had no choice but to “ride the tiger” until it dropped of exhaustion—the tiger being the perverted powers that had come to rule the world.

Insofar as the twenty-first century announces a new order of battle, Evola’s apolitical stoicism can no longer be our position today.

But it is nevertheless one that points to what is at stake in the wars we’ll have to fight if whites are to have a future—for the white man’s blood will not survive if he defiles the spirit that makes him who he is.


Bibliographical Note:

Ten of Evola’s twenty-five books have now been translated into English, though not his racialist and fascist ones (with the exception of the pamphlet “Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem”). The interested reader should probably begin not with his magnum opus, Revolt against the Modern World, which demands a good deal of familiarity with his thought, but rather with Men among the Ruins, beautifully edited by Michael Moynihan and introduced with a long biographical essay by the Austrian scholar H. T. Hanson.

There are also several English-language websites devoted to him. The one with the best collection of his articles is Evola As He Is (here).

For those who read Italian, an excellent introduction is Adriano Romualdi, Julius Evola: L’uoma e l’opera (Rome: Volpe, 1968). For those who read French, see Christophe Boutin, Politique et tradition: Julius Evola dans le siècle (Paris: Kimé, 1992). On Evola’s “problematic” metaphysics, see my “The Primordial and the Perennial: Tradition in the Thought of Martin Heidegger and Julius Evola,” Tyr: Myth—Culture—Tradition 3 (2007).