The Yearling, 10

“Hey, Ma, Flag’ll soon be a yearlin’. Won’t he be purty, Ma, with leetle ol’ horns? Won’t his horns be purty?”

“He’d not look purty to me did he have a crown on. And angel’s wings.”

He followed her to cajole her. She sat down to look over the dried cow-peas in the pan. He rubbed his nose over the down of her cheek. He liked the furry feel of it.

“Ma, you smell like a roastin’ ear. A roastin’ ear in the sun.”

“Oh git along. I been mixin’ cornbread.”

“‘Tain’t that. Listen, Ma, you don’t keer do Flag have horns or no. Do you?”

“Hit’ll be that much more to butt and bother.”

He did not press the point. Flag was in increasing disgrace, at best. He had learned to slip free from the halter about his neck. When it was tightened so that he could not get out of it, he used the same tactics that a calf used against restraint. He strained against it until his eyes bulged and his breathing choked, and to save his perverse life, it was necessary to release him. Then when he was free, he raised havoc. There was no holding him in the shed. He would have razed it to the ground. He was wild and impudent. He was allowed in the house only when Jody was on hand to keep up with him. But the closed door seemed to make him possessed to enter. If it was not barred, he butted it open. He watched his chance and slipped in to cause some minor damage whenever Ma Baxter’s back was turned.

♣ ♣ ♣


Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings
I don’t want to add more excerpts. But I must say that an incident narrated in the rest of the tale, which I read this year, shocked me. I could easily write a long, detailed entry for my blog on Alice Miller, but child abuse is a subject that does not interest the readers of WDH.

A couple of days ago I caught my father telling his grandson that instead of watching TV for hours he should be reading the beautiful literature for young people, and he mentioned the beauty of a Julius Verne novel. But he’s a hypocrite, since his grandson does exactly what my father does: watching TV for hours everyday and, even in his late eighties, still going to the theater to watch Hollywood filth.

With classics like The Yearling I find it almost a sacrilege that adults are allowing their kids to watch TV. Although I only read The Yearling as an adult, I must say that as a child Wyeth’s illustrations provided some homely zest and a sense of trust in life and in one’s own parents that is difficult to transmit in words.

If anyone actually read the whole novel and is curious about why the culmination of the story surprised me so much, let me know and we can discuss it here.

Spoilers for those who haven’t read it!

Published in: on June 30, 2013 at 8:48 pm  Comments (2)  

The Satyricon

Educated homosexuals like to pull out the old Ancient Greco-Roman card that the liberals use. They project their values onto an idealized past that never existed in order to legitimize their lifestyles today.

Judge it by yourself. What could be more decadent in the Greco-Roman world than the homoerotic adventures recounted in a novel written in times of Nero or Caligula? However, classic pederasty was not meant for coeval adults, as is the LGBT movement of today.

Below I include my translation of the prologue by Jacinto Leon Ignacio to one of the Spanish translations of Petronius’ novel (ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages):

jefferson_petronius


Rome,
centuries ago

In the vast and important Greek and Roman literature from which we still live, there are just a few novelists. Maybe for an overwhelming majority of illiterates it would had been much more affordable the theater, which is enough to listen, that the written narrative which must be read. The same was true of poetry and the rhapsodies recited in public.

The fact is that in Greece there are only a few examples of novels, apart of Longus, and from the Romans only Apuleius and Petronius, whose work we offer here.

It appears that, at the time, the Satyricon enjoyed considerable popular success, for both Tacitus and Quintilian commented it in their manuscripts, although it is apparent that neither knew it directly, only from hearsay. It is likely that they did not grant it much literary value because its style and form collided with all the concepts in vogue.

However, the Satyricon was not lost and copies were kept in the Middle Ages, while jealously concealed because of its subject matter [pederasty] and for being the work of a pagan. The work continued to be ignored by the public to the point that only scholars knew its title, but believed it was lost.

Therefore, a scandal broke when, in 1664, appeared the first edition of Pierre Petit.

Soon after, the Satyricon was translated into several languages, including ours, with such success that has made it one of the great bestsellers in history. There were those who sought to take advantage that the work is incomplete, rewriting it to their liking. It was easy nevertheless to expose them.

Presumably, however, the author would not work at top speed like if we should go to a literary prize. He seems to have devoted years to this task. Do not forget that what is now known are only fragments of the original, estimated in twenty books. The author might have started writing when Caligula reigned and Nero followed, to see the publication during the reign of the next emperor. It can be no coincidence that the book mentions contemporary events known to all, or that the author considered worth mentioning many names.

This is a job too conscientious not to be the work of a professional. Moreover, the action does not take place in Rome, but in the provinces and almost none of the men are Latins. It seems as if the author had had an interest in showing the reality of the empire, a reality ignored in the capital.

The novel consists merely of the travel story of [Encolpius] and his servant Gitone through different locations. The incidents, sometimes unrelated, their adventures and the people they encounter are the text of the Satyricon, which lacks a plot as was the style of the epoch. We could actually say that it consists of countless short stories of the two protagonists. This technique influenced many centuries later the books of chivalry, the picaresque and even Don Quixote. Throughout many incidents the author reveals us an extraordinary real view of the life in the Roman provinces, although tinged with irony.

Petronius simply tells us what he saw. In a way, his novel was an approach to realism, leaving aside the epic tone of the tragedies to focus on current issues, as Aristophanes did in Greece. And that was the pattern followed by Petronius. There is a huge difference between his style and that of other contemporary writers.

Poets, despite their undoubted genius, are pompous and in the tragedies the dialogues are extremely emphatic. Petronius by contrast, remains accessible to everyone. He expressed himself in a conversational tone, which justifies the use of a first person that conveys the feeling that someone is telling us a live tale. That’s why today we can read his Satyricon with the same interest of his times and nothing of its freshness is lost.

Writing is, in a sense, a childbirth with the same joys and suffering. Both things must have accompanied Petronius in this trip with [Encolpius] and Gitone through the decline of Rome.

Greg Johnson’s

“The gay marriage controversy

by blogger “M”

GregJohnsonMysteryManWithQuestionMarkGreg Johnson states that homosexuality is not unnatural because it exists in nature. This is a very simplistic naturalism, and one that avoids the issue of morality inherent in human action.

First, not every “thing” that exists is natural, nor can every thing be said to exist “in nature.” If it were so, then the word “natural” would not have significant meaning. Nature, or natural things, necessarily excludes artifacts, and abstractions such as universals and mathematics (compare De Anima 402a 4-10). In this context, sexual activity is not a thing, such as a plant or a rock, but rather exists as a drive or inclination toward an end that can be meaningfully said to be either natural, or unnatural. Sexual activity can be deemed natural inasmuch as the act participates in achieving its inherent or essential end, or purpose. It is unnatural to the degree that it deviates from this natural end.

The question to ask, then, is what is the natural end of sex? Johnson himself understands that its principal end is procreation. Therefore, he acknowledges that the principal end (or nature) of sexual activity is necessarily heterosexual. If so, then we must conclude that homosexual activity is most certainly unnatural or, to use another word, perverted. It is so because to use sexual organs in the act of homosexual activity is a perversion, i.e. an unnatural use, of the organ’s natural function.

(As an aside, to state that an act is natural because someone may at some time exhibit the act is to therefore argue that any conceivable act is, or could be, natural. Some men are pedophiles, and some men have sex with sheep. To state that bestiality, or sexual attraction to young girls, is natural is to completely deny the idea of nature.)

In any discussion of sexual function one can discern a hierarchy of manifestations. A normal sexual act leads to the possibility of procreation. Even if one or both of the heterosexual partners is unable to produce offspring (for instance, because of infertility), the heterosexual coupling is still normal because the union of the male and female is consistent with the natural end and function of the sex organs. On the other hand, auto-eroticism is not consistent with this end, and is therefore judged to be unnatural, in spite of the fact that most men, and some say that many women, engage in the practice. Democracy is not the arbiter of nature.

Morality, or right behavior, is action consistent with natural law, and known through the natural light of reason. We find this codified through tradition. Johnson sidesteps the issue of morality, and argues that the “real” issue is reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. He states that that is “all there is to it.” But it is not all there is. There remains the moral question of why homosexuality has been condemned from tradition.

While he does not address this, it is nevertheless of the most importance. Spiritual tradition always understood the interplay of the active male and passive female soul (or animating principle). In order for the social dynamic to work in harmony these two “forces” must maintain equilibrium. They must maintain what is natural, or proper for them. Symbolism shows this in, for example, the Taoist figures of the spinning Yin/Yang conjunction. Whenever the balance becomes upset, degeneration manifests. We can see many examples of this resulting disjunction, for instance within our feminized educational system. Our military will soon be destroyed in the same way.

Through traditional social orders in both the East and West, orders that were adapted to the natures of those respective civilized peoples, the active male principle has for the most part been adequately checked, and channeled through the social institution of marriage. In this context it should not have to be said that from tradition, marriage has always been between male and female.

Here we must unequivocally state that unchecked male sexuality is always destructive to whatever discipline is imposed by traditional social restraints, and homosexuality represents a hyper instance of unrestrained male sexual degeneration. Anyone who has had the misfortune to live in a city where homosexuality is “celebrated” as an official event can understand. Parades with men on floats wearing only their underwear, gyrating to Negro inspired music, and other acts of uncivility are common. Disease follows the homosexual “community.” And so on and so forth.

Johnson is correct to cite the breakdown of traditional marriage as a problem for society, and his solutions for the maintenance of heterosexual relations are sound. He lists eight principles that should be supported by government. But in the realm of sexual morality and mores, he should also cite the criminalization of public shows of homosexuality, because homosexuality is at its core anti-family. And law should always support the family as the principal foundation or means of propagating the race.

His talk of affirming the real as the ideal, and the integrity of one’s values as the highest value, etc., are for the most part simply words that may sound good, but lack much substance within his context. Here, we must face the fact that most people cannot become moral by or through themselves. Tradition demonstrates that external force is always necessary, and discipline in both personal and societal matters can only be maintained through coercion. Johnson is correct that homosexuals ought to fully support the natural heterosexual order. But the way they must do it is to renounce their public homosexual demands, and to move their aberrant behavior back into the privacy of the closet. There, home alone, they can be left alone.

If they do not, they are guilty of assisting in the destruction of civilization.

Published in: on June 29, 2013 at 8:03 pm  Comments (28)  

“Honor”

Hyouth







From Faith and Action (1938) by Helmut Stellrecht for the Hitler Youth:


You live by honor, not by bread. Slaves believe that they only need food and drink to live. The free man knows that he needs honor first of all.

§ Your honor is your standing with your comrades and fellow citizens. It is just as much your standing with yourself.

§ To be honorable is to be courageous. To be honorable is to be selfless and loyal. To be honorable is to be in control of oneself. He who does great things for his fatherland is honorable.

§ Honor comes not from money and possessions. But he who creates new values or gives other work through his spirit or the work of his hands can thereby win honor.

§ It is also honorable to be the son of someone noble, someone who has done much for his people and his state. But the son is unworthy of his honor if he does not win it anew.

§ Inherited honor does not last forever, but always demands work and struggle. Honor is like a crown. He who ceases to live and act like a king loses it—and has lost it, even if he still wears it on his head.

§ Not everyone can take honor from another. The insult of a boy cannot harm one’s honor. But he who accepts an insult in a cowardly way loses honor before others.

§ We do not reply to an insult ourselves at first. That is why superior leaders and judges are there. But if someone hits you, hit back, and if someone strikes your face, strike him back. For we National Socialists in Germany today, there is only one honor, one concept of honor. There is no particular concept of honor for particular classes any longer. National Socialism has given us all a new common sense of honor. We know it. He who does not have it is not free, but a slave. The least important worker today can be free and honorable, the prosperous businessman a slave and a serf.

§ That is the new law, which gives honor only to the brave, the selfless, the loyal, the self controlled, those who do everything for Germany that they can.

§ The way to honor is open for every German.

Published in: on June 29, 2013 at 7:31 pm  Comments (2)  

Lefty River

Or:

On the Supreme Court & homo marriage


This is my response to Mr. Deutsch’s comment in the previous post:

Yes: at midnight I glanced thru it and the one that Matt Parrott wrote on Sebastian Ronin, and also Andrew Hamilton’s take on the Nazi film “Victory of Faith,” so I didn’t pay special attention to Greg Johnson’s article on homo marriage. He doesn’t want to say that the Supreme Court decision is a marker of how corrupt, evil and degenerate Western culture has become. He even uses Newspeak words like “gay” that I would never dare to use.

Let me put it this way:

Since the 1960s the whole Western culture, and I mean the whole Western culture including so-called conservatives, started to shift to the Left.

lefty river

Imagine a river that took a very wrong turn to the Left. Those who fancy themselves “white nationalists” are deceiving themselves, for in some way or other they are navigating that river too.

In the previous entry that features the painting about the Horatii family I stated that I would like to be a revolutionary, and that most “white nationalists” are mere reactionaries. But sometimes they’re not even genuine reactionaries who want to change the course of the river toward the Right: they simply navigate the Lefty River as many other liberals and conservatives do.

I even stopped listening to Harold Covington’s revolutionary radio shows when he introduced two women as co-speakers. You can imagine how diluted Hitler’s voice would have appeared in the 1930s had he added the voices of women during his inflammatory speeches… In other words, nowadays even revolutionaries are, in some ways, navigating that Lefty River.

To be perfectly honest, I feel uncomfortable with the female voices in the “white nationalist” blogosphere. There are some subjects (cf. the entry “Lycanthropy” in this blog) about which you cannot speak out with brutal honesty if a cute Little Red Riding Hood, however intelligent or committed to the 14 words, is present. I actually believe that a genuine white or ethno-nationalist movement should be a Boys only Club, with Little Reds in a completely separate location, as in National Socialist Germany.

Going back to Greg Johnson’s article on the recent Supreme Court ruling. I don’t see it as a specific Johnson problem. I see the big picture from above, like a pic on the river taken from the air. What Johnson did is fairly common in the “white nationalist” movement. In this Lefty River that every nationalist navigates in some ways, may I remind you that Robert Stark and Tom Sunic didn’t ask tough questions to James O’Meara during their respective interviews of this homosexualist.

No, you cannot deliver a speech like the one that Himmler delivered about faggotry if Little Reds or non-Lycanthrope males are present. Their Aryan female pity completely overwhelms their sense of morality and not even “nationalists” would tolerate sending the fags to the concentration camps. In our Empire of Yin, as Takuan Seiyo called today’s West, even pro-white activists—think of the site Alternative Right—have become so feminized, that their sense of pity is undistinguishable from that of our Fair Ladies. Compared to Commander Rockwell all of them are, in one way or another, navigating the Lefty River, increasingly distancing themselves from the Yang side of the Aryan psyche.

That’s why, as implied in my previous entries, our only hope is the convergence of currency and energy catastrophes that will wipe out both the current anti-white System and the feminized males in the movement.

My pedagogy is hard. What is weak must be hammered away. In my fortresses of the Teutonic Order a young generation will grow up before which the world will tremble. I want the young to be violent, domineering, undismayed, cruel. The young must be all these things. They must be able to bear pain. There must be nothing weak or gentle about them. The free, splendid beast of prey must once again flash from their eyes. I want my young people strong and beautiful.

That way I can create something new.

—H.V.

Martenson interview

Nationalists don’t want to do their homework and research peak oil objectively, for example, how Chris Martenson answers to the abiotic theories of oil:

Instead of debating here on WDH, nationalists are beginning to discuss the subject of my previous posts at Occidental Dissent, where Sebastian Ronin is dismissed by one of them as “a deracinated conspiracy doomer” and others are posting comments like: “I am increasingly skeptical in light of rising oil production due to fracking,” and also “I told you so. Technology. Never leave it out of your equations on predicting the future. There will be no ‘energy devolution.’”

There will be no energy devolution—a flat statement that ignores that mere tech cannot create energy out of thin air!

There’s nothing to do with those who don’t want to do their homework. It reminds me somewhat my experience with the counter-jihad gentiles that didn’t want to read literature on the Jewish problem, not even literature written by well-respected academic Jews!

I am afraid that those who, like Ronin and I, want to show the pro-white movement that energy devolution will tremendously impact racial politics, will be talking to a different audience.

Published in: on June 28, 2013 at 9:48 pm  Comments (13)  

Ostriches

In Sebastian Ronin’s recent retort to some comments by Matt Parrott here at WDH, this paragraph caught my attention:

Nothing is “free”, not even “virtually free”, especially not energy. No one, absolutely no one, gets to dodge the bullet of Post-Peak Oil energy devolution. A global civilization, to which Murka is the metaphorical Rome, collapses; it comes to an end… In historically relative terms, the current century will make the Black Death seem like a nose bleed.

Why most Murkan White Nationalists cannot see, will not see, or refuse to see how this most devastating of historical events will impact racial politics is simply mind-boggling. Wait! No, it’s not all that mind-boggling at all, but that is another matter, another day.

The reason why most white nationalists don’t want to look at the evidence of both, the coming collapse of the dollar and the apocalyptic energy devolution is easily explained when considering several posts in this blog where I have said that, unlike William Pierce, today’s nationalists still subscribe Christian axiology, even those who claim to be anti-Christian. See for example my extremely provocative entries, “Dies Irae” and its postscript “The depth of evil” linked at the sidebar.

Moderately edited, I would like to repost below a substantial part of what I said in an entry of almost a year ago, “On ostriches and real men”:

I must take issue with Greg Johnson’s “We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers.” Besides the fact that lots of Jews were very probably murdered in the Second World War the following is what, like the ostriches, most nationalists are still unwilling to see:

1. The dollar will crash soon

2. With all probability the crash will cause high-rocketing unemployment, riots, and looting in the largest western cities

3. Unlike New Orleans after Katrina, the bullet won’t be dodged after the crash. On the contrary: racial tension in ethnically “enriched” cities will escalate throughout the West, insofar as presently all western currencies are fiat currencies

4. Later these socio-political crises will converge with a peak-oil devolution that, by the end of the century, will kill the surplus of worldwide population created as a result of quixotic Christian ethics (as Søren Renner put it, “Billions will die—we will win!”)

White nationalists’ reactionary, non-revolutionary stance hides the head in the sand. In the coming tribulation very few will care about “totalitarianism, imperialism or genocide” as Greg Johnson, editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, cares. With all probability, during the convergence of catastrophes nationalists will be ruthless survivors á la Turner Diaries committed to the fourteen words and no more to Christian ethics. As I put it elsewhere, “the future belongs to the bloodthirsty, not to the Alt Righters.”

Granted: Johnson’s piece is otherwise excellent, a must-read for conservative nationalists who are still struggling with guilt and anti-white sentiments inculcated by the tribe. But unlike Johnson and the other ostriches I agree with Mark that the situation for whites is so dire that, with the help of Mother Nature, only a scorched-Earth policy has any chance of success.

Even those nationalists who very strongly disagree with me on moral grounds, like Franklin Ryckaert, ought to open their minds. You must open your minds about the coming collapse of the dollar and the subsequent energy devolution. Pull your heads off the sand! The convergence of catastrophes will mark “the metamorphic rebirth of Europe or its disappearance and transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.”

The blogger whose “Red Giant” article is linked above in my words about quixotic Christian ethics once said that the white nationalist movement “is weak.” With the exception of William Pierce’s legacy I tend to agree with that statement. Virtually all of them are like the tender-hearted women who lie weeping and mourning, awaiting the results of the coming bloodshedding in Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii:

We on the other hand are like the three brothers expressing loyalty and solidarity with their father and willing to sacrifice our lives, and billions of other lives if necessary, to fulfill the fourteen words.

Passion for sincerity

der_kampf_mit_dem_daemon

Early in his career Nietzsche had planned to write a work entitled Passio nuovo, or the Passion for Sincerity. The book was never written; but, what was perhaps better, it was lived in Nietzsche’s own person. For throughout the philosopher’s years of growth and change, a fanatical passion for truthfulness remained as the primitive and fecundating element of all he undertook. For such reasons the sincerity of a man like Nietzsche has nothing akin to the trite honesty of a carefully trained gentleman. His love of truth is a flame, a demon of veracity, a demon of lucidity, is a hunting beast ever on the prow.

Such an attitude of mind accounts for Nietzsche’s detestation of those who, through slackness or cowardice in the realm of thought, neglect the sacred task of straightforwardness; hence his anger against Kant, because that philosopher, while turning his blind eye to the postern, allowed the concept of the godhead to slip back into his system. Lacking sincerity, we cannot hope to attain to knowledge; lacking resoluteness, we cannot hope to be sincere. “I become blind from the moment when I cease to be sincere. If I wish to know, I must be sincere, that is to say, I must be hard, severe, narrow-minded, cruel, inexorable.”

Like all fanatics, he sacrificed even those he loved (as in the case of Richard Wagner, whose friendship had been for Nietzsche one of the most hallowed). He allowed himself to become penurious, solitary, detested, an anchorite and miserable, solely with a view to remaining true to himself, in order to fulfill his mission as apostle of sincerity. This passion for sincerity became, as time elapsed, a monomania in which the good things of life were absorbed.

Nietzsche practised philosophy as a fine art; and, as an artist, he was not concerned with results, with definitive things, with cold calculations. What he sought was style, “morality in the grand style,” and as an artist he experienced and enjoyed the pleasures of unexpected inspiration. It may be a mistake to apply the word philosopher to such a man, for a philosopher is “the lover of wisdom.”

Passion can never be wise. More appropriate to him would be the appellation, “philaleth,” a passionate lover of Aletheia, of truth, of the virginal and cruelly seductive goddess who never tires of luring her admirers into an unending chase, and finally remains inaccessible behind her tattered veils. Nietzsche, as the slave and servant of the daimon, sought excitement and movement pushed to an extreme. Such a fight for the inaccessible has a heroic quality, and heroism almost invariably ends in the destruction of the hero.

Excessive claims for truth come into conflict with mundane affairs, for truth is implacable and dangerous. In the end, so fanatical an urge for truth kills itself. Life is, fundamentally, a perpetual compromise. How well Goethe, in whose character the essence of nature was so exquisitely poised, recognized this fact and applied it to all his understandings! If nature is to keep its balance, its needs, just as mankind needs, to take up an average position, to yield when necessary, to concede points, to form pacts.

He who presumes the right of non-participation, who refuses to compromise with the world around him, who breaks off relationships and conventions which have been slowly built up in the course of many centuries, becomes unnatural and anthropomorphic in his demands, and enters into opposition against society and against nature. The more such an individual “aspires to attain absolute integrity,” the more hostile are the forces of his epoch. If, like Hölderlin, he persists in an endeavor to give a purely poetical twist to an essentially prosaic existence, or if, following Nietzsche’s example, he aims at penetrating into the infinitude of terrestrial vicissitudes, in either case such an unwise desire constitutes a revolt against the customs and rules of society, separates the presumptuous being from his fellow-mortals, and condemns him to perpetual warfare which, splendid though it may be, is foredoomed to failure.

What Nietzsche named the “tragic mentality,” the resolve to probe any and every feeling to the uttermost, transcends spirit and invades the realm of fate, thereby creating tragedy. He who wishes to impose one single law upon life, who hopes, amid the chaos of passions, to make one passion (his own peculiar passion) supreme, becomes a solitary and in isolation suffers annihilation.

Nietzsche recognized the peril. But, as a hero in the realm of thought, he loved life precisely because it was dangerous and annihilated his personal existence. “Build your cities on the flanks of Vesuvius!” he exclaimed, addressing the philosophers in the endeavour to goad them into a more lofty consciousness of destiny; for the only measure of grandeur is, according to Nietzsche, “the degree of danger at which a man lives in relation to himself.” He only who takes his all upon the hazard has the possibility of winning the infinite; he only who risks his life is capable of endowing his earthly span with everlasting value. “Fiat veritas, pereat vita”; what does it matter if life be sacrificed so long as truth is realized? Passion is greater than existence, the meaning of life is of more worth than life itself.

The last few steps he took into this sphere were the most unforgettable and the most impressive in the gamut of his destiny. Never before had his mind been more lucid, his soul more impassioned, his words more tipped with joyful music, than when he hurled himself in full consciousness and wholeheartedly from the altitudes of life into the abyss of annihilation.

Weigel on the Ronin controversy

My Full Support for the RPN [Renaissance Party of North America], by Erick Weigel, Co-Chair, RPN (USA) Steering Committee

RPN-SA-Protest

I am not interested in getting into an online pissing match with anyone, but since I have a stake and role in the future and successful development of the Renaissance Party of North America (USA) as one of two Co-Chairs of the RPN (USA) Steering Committee, I will make some statements.

All of the concerns put forth in the recent criticisms of Sebastian E. Ronin and the RPN can be alleviated by simply reviewing the Renaissance Vanguard website and the Renaissance Party of North America website. The Three Pillars (Peak Oil, Secession, Ethno Nationalism), the Ten Principles of Ethno Nationalism, the RPN Constitution, and the RPN Policy Positions in particular, will address all concerns and criticisms. All of them:  Ethno Nationalism, Peak Oil, race, religion, left/right or otherwise, White Nationalism and so on.

Read it there. Either you get it, or you don’t (or won’t). Either you jump onto the program, or you don’t.

Regarding Ethno Nationalism:

The Renaissance Vanguard and the RPN have reached out to nearly every potentially friendly North Amerikan White Nationalist personality and organization at one point or another over the last three years regarding mission, policies, and positions. The concept of Ethno Nationalism has always been met with a degree of contempt and/or ridicule by most Amerikan White Nationalists, up to and including a total black-balling by the WN community of the RV [Renaissance Vanguard] and the RPN.

That is until recently. Now it is the “new thing” among the so-called elite of Our Cause, several being those who have ridiculed, that we are all supposed to rally behind as the next great concept to save our race (and get page hits).

From my observations this recent jumping onto the Ethno Nationalist bandwagon by White Nationalists is either one of two things.  It is either that there has been suppression of egos coupled with a very uncanny instance of synchronicity where everyone concerned had a moment of clarity on the subject…or…they finally realized that Mr. Ronin may be onto something and feel they can run with it as their own.

The former is quite unlikely. So that leaves a greater possibility of the latter. Naturally, one would take extreme offense to such blatant attempts to re-package and peddle their position as belonging to one of our own WN “great thinkers.”

Would it not be more honourable and respectful to simply give credit where credit is due? I mean so many personalities and activities are cross-promoted in certain circles, why not in this case? It comes down to egg on the face, personality conflicts, online pissing matches, and that most arrogant and suicidal of Amerikan cultural poisons, imperialist exceptionalism.

Regarding left/right/libertarian or whatever:

None of that matters. It’s all bullshit. The tags of leftist, ring-winger, liberal, and conservative no longer hold any meaning. They are all potentially, i.e. more than likely, the problem.

“No enemies on the Right” as adopted by the New Orleans Protocol no longer applies, as pointed out by Mr. Ronin, because the Right is every bit of an enemy as the Left. Over the years I have met people that have come to Our Cause from all over the political map. Some of the most ardent have been former “lefties” (or worse).

The RV appeals to all factions at a point of overlap. This is the gist of our philosophical Vesica Piscis. We don’t want everyone, just the ones in each sphere that “get it.”

Regarding Heathens and Christians:

This fight has been a long standing one. It has nothing to do with peak oil, Ethno Nationalism, RV, the RPN, or Sebastian Ronin. Unless, of course, pointing out some really poorly thought out public statements by certain people is considered instigating.

Actually, some of these poorly thought out public statements re-opened the Pandora’s Box of religion once again, just when it was quietly drifting towards a non-issue.

It just so happens that most RV participants have a non-Christian view of things. The only people that it seems to bother are the Christian zealots who insist that faith (theirs, of course) be a firm basis for any organizational statement of principles.

In conclusion, I would simply like to make it public that Mr. Ronin has my full support in the ongoing attempts at character assassination and theft of ideological breakthroughs tossed in his direction by cowardly and unprincipled detractors. No one stuck a gun to my head to force me to come over to the RPN from the American Third Position for which I was Northeast Regional Director. I came over of my own free will, as will others in time. I came over because I am convinced, as has been pointed out by Mr. Ronin, that the RPN is the future.

Published in: on June 27, 2013 at 12:40 pm  Comments (2)  

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:


• Archaeological investigations have revealed how Nordic the Macedonians were—particularly in contrast to the peoples who, by the time of the first Macedonian expeditions, made up the majority of the inhabitants in Southern Greece.

• Despite having easily overcome the entire mixed-race populations of the Middle East, Alexander publicly declared himself to be in favor of racial integration. He ordered that all his generals should take wives from the conquered peoples. Alexander himself took a nonwhite wife, a Persian princess who was of mixed race.

He also started dressing like the peoples he had conquered, and in 324 BC at a city called Susa he personally officiated at an arranged mass wedding of nine thousand of his senior army officers to Middle Eastern wives—the famous “marriage of East and West” meant to symbolize the new racial unity he was hoping to create.


_______________

Not long ago, a commenter on Occidental Dissent insulted me because I dared to bash the sacred icon of Alex “The Great.” Why white nationalists should take down this historical figure from the pedestal is explained: here.