The eschaton

Or:

How WNsts who say that they don’t believe the media,
they actually believe the media




The End of The Road documentary (YouTube clips here) that I have been advertizing on how the world as we know it will end soon—what I’m starting to call the eschaton—was released last year. People should take heed that Edgar Steele advised all of us to storage food for at least a year, before the System put him in jail.

On May 28, 2012 I posted an expanded entry of the below post. That’s why the first threaded comments date from those times. I am just editing and relocating it to August 1, 2013 for further context to what I said yesterday about my fundraising thermometer. Pay special attention to what the commenters in the entry itself say about the psychology of normalcy bias, and how white nationalists who say that they don’t believe in the media, they actually believe in the media.

Below, a miscellaneous collection of what can be read in several blogsites about the coming eschaton:



End of The Road portrays eleven influential commentators within the finance and investment communities, as they share their knowledge of our current financial structure. Through each of their narratives, a story is built which chronicles the current economic dilemma and paints a picture of the world’s financial future.

Cast:

Eric Sprott,
James Turk,
Jim Puplava,
Peter Schiff,
Bill Murphy,
Dimitri Speck,
Mike Maloney,
James Rickards,
Edward Griffin,
Adam Fergusson,
Alasdair Macleod

These gentlemen have an intimate understanding of the ongoing policies—read manipulation—central bankers have utilized in order to keep currencies and markets from imploding. If you are familiar with central banking you will have come to understand that all fiat currencies have gone to zero (see the Mike Maloney clip in the comments section). This time it will be vastly different because it is occurring simultaneously, in the context of a macro-level, around the entire world.


From 100th Monkey Films:

In 2008 the world experienced one of the greatest financial turmoils in modern history. Markets around the world started crashing, stock prices plummeted, and major financial institutions, once thought to be invincible, started showing signs of collapse. Governments responded quickly, issuing massive bailouts and stimulus packages in an effort to keep the world economy afloat.

While we’re told that these drastic measures prevented a total collapse of our system, a growing sense of unease has spread throughout the population. In the world of finance, indeed in all facets of modern life, cracks have started to appear. What lies ahead as a result of these bold “money printing” measures? Was the financial crisis solved, or were the problems merely kicked down the road?

B. Paul said…

It looks interesting but I’m not sure that it [End of the Road documentary] will have anything new for regular Collapsenet users. Perhaps it will be a good tool for friends/family, if it doesn’t come out too late. However, some Zombies will never get it, no matter what evidence they are presented with or how clearly, concisely and urgently it is presented.

Lydian Mode said…

I’m starting to wonder if some people aren’t supposed to get it. Maybe they’re the ones who are supposed to die off. Maybe they are missing a vital evolutionary gene or something that’s keeping them from realizing that they are living in a very dangerous time and should think about some options to help them survive. Who knows? I just hate thinking about all the innocent children who are dependent upon their Zombie parents for their survival. This is the part of collapse I really, really dread to see happening.

James Beckmeyer said…

Most people are far too busy and wrapped up with their lives to “get it.” What we want them to “get” sounds outright loony to them, and since few people want to believe in loony shit, they will never get it. This is a perfect set-up for a very hard fall—much harder than the Soviet Union whose citizenry, for the most part, had a belief system much more rooted in reality than the US.

Businessman said…

This discussion reminds me of a quote I saw on video given by a late historian and political activist, which I’m paraphrasing here: “These people who tell you that they don’t believe the media… they believe the media.”

Only Zeus saves

Statue-of-Zeus-at-Olympia

Can the white race be spared from extinction? If I was a billionaire, yes.

With billions I would reconstruct the temple of Zeus, probably in Greece or somewhere in Italy, or maybe in Germany since the ancient Greeks and Etruscans, as well as the original Latins and Sabines, were far more Nordish than the mongrelized whites you find closest to the Mediterranean Sea.

Just as the immigrant Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries misleadingly described themselves as “people of the Jewish faith” to the gentile Americans who accepted them, in these times of hate-speech laws throughout Europe building a movement under the umbrella of an ancient religion could grant us plausible denial that our purpose was not “racist,” but cultural.

Think a minute about it. You can only imagine the awe and wonder that a pagan temple as magnificent as St Peter’s Basilica, the legacy of Michelangelo Buonarroti, would cause in the deracinated eyes of contemporary westerners. Would it remind them of their lost heritage and true roots? As Manu Rodríguez told me in his letter:

In short, we need to create the Aryan community (ecclesia), which, for the above circumstances, we never had. The Aryan ecclesias need to thrive in our towns and cities. Our “priests” (for lack of a better word) are not experts in theology but in history, anthropology and Indo-European linguistics… They must be skilled in the various Indo-European traditions.

These days that I have been mentioning Rodríguez’s articles, the following phrase in the article I translated yesterday caught my attention:

We’ll have to start from the beginning. We have to ask ourselves who we are.

For those who have not read Pierce’s Who We Are, it’s high time to take a good look at it and see what would be taught in our temples.

If you already have read it but not any of Rodríguez’s articles, you may start with his article, “The God who Unleashes and Liberates.”

On Kenneth Clark’s “Civilisation”

Kenneth Clark may have been clueless about the fact that race matters. Yet, that our rot goes much deeper than what white nationalists realize is all too obvious once we leave, for a while, the ghetto of nationalism and take a look at the classics, just as Clark showed us through his 1969 TV series Civilisation.

Compared to the other famous series, Clark’s was unsurpassed in the sense that, as I have implied elsewhere, only genuine art—not science—has a chance to fulfill David Lane’s fourteen words.

By “art” I mean an evolved sense of beauty which is almost completely absent in today’s nationalists. Most of them are quite a product of Jewish modernity whether with their music, lifestyles or Hollywood tastes, to a much greater degree than what they think. For nationalism to succeed an evolved sense of female beauty has to be the starting point to see the divine nature of the white race. In Clark’s own words, “For all these reasons I think it is permissible to associate the cult of ideal love with the ravishing beauty and delicacy that one finds in the madonnas of the thirteenth century. Were there ever more delicate creatures than the ladies on Gothic ivories? How gross, compared to them, are the great beauties of other woman-worshiping epochs.”

Below, links to excerpts of most of the chapters of the 1969 series, where Clark followed the ups and downs of our civilisation historically:

“The Skin of our Teeth”

“The Great Thaw”

“Romance and Reality”

“Man—the Measure of all Things”

“The Hero as Artist”

“Protest and Communication”

“Grandeur and Obedience”

“The Light of Experience”

“Heroic Materialism”

Civilisation’s “Grandeur and Obedience”

For an introduction to these series, see here.

Below, some indented excerpts of “Grandeur and Obedience,” the seventh chapter of Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, and my brief comment.

Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages:


In my previous post criticizing Erasmus I mentioned how the modern mind is too coward to approach the main psychosis of Christendom, the doctrine of hell. Unlike the previous entries on Civilisation, of the episode about the Counter-Reformation I’ll barely quote the essentials to annotate what I have just said in that post. Clark said:

The first thing that strikes one is that those who say that the Renaissance had exhausted the Italian genius are wide off the mark. After 1527 there was a failure of confidence; and no wonder. Historians may say that the Sack of Rome was more a symbol than a historically significant event: well, symbols sometimes feed the imagination more than facts—anyway the Sack was real enough to anyone who witnessed it.

If you compare the lower part of Michelangelo’s Last Judgement, which was commissioned by Clement VII as a kind of atonement for the Sack, with a group in Raphael’s Disputa or with the Creation of Adam, you can see that something very drastic has happened to the imagination of Christendom.

Michelangelo had been reluctant to undertake the Last Judgement; under Clement’s successor, Pope Paul II, he was persuaded to continue it although with a rather different purpose. It ceased to be an act of atonement, or an attempt to externalise a bad dream, and became the first and greatest assertion of the Church’s power, and of the fate that would befall heretics and schismatics. It belongs to a period of severity, when the Catholic Church was approaching its problems in rather the same puritanical spirit as the Protestants.

Paul III took the two decisions that were successfully to counter the Reformation: he sanctioned the Jesuit order and instituted the Council of Trent. [The Counter-Reformation] was also a period of austerity and restraint, typified by the leading spirit of the period, St Carlo Borromeo, whose legendary asceticism is commemorated in this picture.

How had that victory been achieved? In England most of us were brought up to believe that it depended on The Inquisition, the Index, and the Society of Jesus. I don’t believe that a great outburst of creative energy such as took place in Rome between 1620 and 1660 can be the result of negative factors, but I admit that the civilization of these years depended on certain assumptions that are out of favour in England and America today. The first of these, of course, was belief in authority, the absolute authority of the Catholic Church. This belief was extended to sections of society which we now assume to be naturally rebellious. It comes as something of a shock to find that, with a single exception (Caravaggio), the great artists of the time were all sincere, conforming Christians.

And so what most repulsed Nietzsche, the restoration of Christianity after the Italian Renaissance, was consolidated.

Civilisation’s “The Hero as Artist”

For an introduction to these series, see here.

Below, some indented excerpts of “The Hero as Artist,” the fifth chapter of Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, after which I offer my comments.

Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages:

In the Middle Ages men had been crushed by this [ancient Roman] gigantic scale. They said that these buildings must be the work of demons, or at best they treated them simply as natural phenomena—like mountains—and built their huts in them.

But by 1500 the Romans had begun to realise that they had been built by men. The lively and intelligent individuals who created the Renaissance, bursting with vitality and confidence, were not in a mood to be crushed by antiquity. They meant to absorb it, to equal it, to master it. They were going to produce their own race of giants and heroes.

In what is commonly described as the decadence of the papacy, the Popes were men of unusual ability who used their international contacts, their great civil service and their increasing wealth in the interests of civilisation. Nicholas V, the friend of Alberti and the humanists, was the first man who saw that papal Rome could revive the grandeurs of pagan Rome.

Pius II, a poet, a lover of nature and of beauty in all its forms, yet gave up his life in an attempt to save Christendom from the Turks. Even Sixtus IV, who was as brutal and cunning as he looks in the wall-painting by Melozzo da Forlo, founded the Vatican library and made the great humanist, Platina, its first prefect. Pope Julius II was able by magnanimity and strength of will to inspire and bully three men of genius—Bramante, Michelangelo and Raphael. Without him Michelangelo would not have painted the Sistine Ceiling, nor Raphael decorated the papal apartments, and so we should have been without two of the greatest visible expressions of spiritual power and humanist philosophy.

The above paragraphs remind me what Nietzsche said almost at the end of his Antichrist: that without the Reformation and Counter-Reformation these rather pagan popes would have brought Christianity down. Clark continues:

The old St Peter’s was one of the largest and most ancient churches in the western world, and certainly the most venerable. Julius decided to pull it down and put something far more splendid in its place. The first step in this visible alliance between Christianity and antiquity was taken when Julius decided to pull down the old basilica.

The men of fifteenth-century Florence had looked back eagerly to the civilisation of Greece and Rome. They sought for ancient authors and read them with passion, and wrote to each other in Latin. Their greatest source of pride was to write prose like Cicero. But the man who really assimilated antique art and recreated it, with all its expressive power made more vital and more intense, was Michelangelo.

Seen by itself the David’s body might be some unusually taut and vivid work of antiquity; it is only when we come to the head that we are aware of a spiritual force that the ancient world never knew. I suppose that this quality, which I may call heroic, is not part of most people’s idea of civilisation. It involves a contempt for convenience and a sacrifice of all those pleasures that contribute to what we call civilised life. It is the enemy of happiness.

And this of course can only remind me of Harold Covington’s extreme contempt for those so-called “nationalists” who watch TV while eating so tasty Nachos that only grow their bellies; always reluctant to come home and fight for the creation of a new nation. Clark continues:

And yet we recognise that to despise material obstacles, and even to defy the blind forces of fate, is man’s supreme achievement; and since, in the end, civilisation depends of man extending his powers of mind and spirit to the utmost, we must reckon the emergence of Michelangelo as one of the great events in the history of western man.

[His drawing of Battle of Cascina] was the first authoritative statement that the human body—that body which, in Gothic times, had been the subject of shame and concealment, that body which Alberti has praised so extravagantly—could be made the means of expressing noble sentiments, life-giving energy and God-like perfection. It was an idea that was to have an incalculable influence on the human mind for four hundred years.

And this brings us back to Rome, and to the terrible Pope. Julius II was not only ambitious for the Catholic Church: he was ambitious for Julius II, and in his new temple he planned to erect the greatest tomb of any ruler since the time of Hadrian. It was a staggering example of superbia; and Michelangelo at that time was not without the same characteristic. I need not go into the question of why the tomb was never built. There was a quarrel—heroes do not easily tolerate the company of other heroes. Nor does it matter to us what the tomb was going to look like. All that matters is that some of the figures made for it survive, and they add something new to the European spirit—something that neither antiquity nor the great civilisations of India and China had ever dreamed of. As a matter of fact the two most finished of them were derived from antiques, but Michelangelo has turned them from athletes to captives, one of them struggling to be free—freedom from mortality?—and the other sensuously resigned.

People sometimes wonder why the Renaissance Italians, with their intelligent curiosity, didn’t make more of a contribution to the history of thought. The reason is that the most profound thought of the time was not expressed in words, but in visual imagery.

For centuries writers on Michelangelo have criticised Julius for taking him off the tomb, on which he had set his heart, and putting him to work on the painting of the Sistine Ceiling, although he always said he hated the act of painting.

Michelangelo’s power of prophetic insight gives one the feeling that he belongs to every epoch, and most of all, perhaps, to the epoch of the great Romantics, of which we are still the most bankrupt heirs. It is the attribute that distinguishes him most sharply from his brilliant rival, Raphael. Michelangelo took no interest in the opposite sex; Leonardo thought of women solely as reproductive mechanisms. But Raphael loved girls as much as any Venetian.

The convention by which great events in biblical or secular history could be enacted only by magnificent physical specimens, handsome and well-groomed, went on for a long time—till the middle of the nineteenth century. Only a very few artists—perhaps only Rembrandt and Caravaggio in the first rank—were independent enough to stand against it. And I think that this convention, which was an element in the so-called grand manner, became a deadening influence on the European mind. It deadened our sense of truth, even our sense of moral responsibility; and led, as we now see, to a hideous reaction.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers