This previously unpublished essay will appear in my collection Green Nazis in Space! which Counter-Currents will be publishing in September. Unlike the other essays therein, which look at popular culture from a Traditionalist and White Nationalist perspective, this essay takes a more general look at Judaic culture-distortion, and suggests that its roots may be deeper, and its implications broader, than most conservatives may realize. For more on Judaic culture-distortion, look for my next book, The End of an Era: Mad Men and the Ordeal of Civility, which Counter-Currents will release in July.
“‘How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 16:11—12).
Having, for a number of years now, used the archetypes of the Homo and the Negro in performing what some have been kind enough to dub “cultural criticism,” it is perhaps time to remember that behind the Negro, hidden away, as always, is the darker, more sinister figure of the Judeo. The Negro is the shock troop; the Judeo is the ultimate beneficiary.
Sometimes, the Judeo hides in plain sight: you can hear him when the Christian speaks, and not only the really nutty ones that claim to be the “real Israelites” or want to enact Deuteronomy into positive law in their new kingdom.
Speaking of creating new kingdoms (while making sure that Judeos feel comfortable) you can hardly peruse the Comments sections of White Nationalist websites without eventually coming across something like:
Once our homeland has been set up, without any homos, then we can . . .
I confess I find the mentality hard to understand. Now, I’ll admit that in the context, “no Jews” and “no negroes” go without saying, so, yes, literally, they aren’t said. But homos? Really, that’s your biggest concern as you look over your imaginary Whitopia?
This sort of thing always reminds me of Alan Watts’ great insight that the Christian church had become first moralistic to the exclusion of any concern with spirituality (hence, the well-known “spiritual hunger” among the young); then obsessed specifically with sex:
What can you get kicked out of the church for? Any church—Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, and the synagogue I think too. What’s the real thing for which people get kicked out, excommunicated?
For “envy, hatred, malice, and all un-charitableness”? “Pride, vainglory, and hardness of heart”? Owning shares in munitions factories? Profiting off slums? No sir. You can be a bishop and live in all those sins openly. [Or live in a White Nationalist homeland] But if you go to bed with the wrong person, you’re out.
So one has to conclude that, for all practical purposes, the church is a sexual regulation society; and it really isn’t interested in anything else. Christianity is more preoccupied with sex than even Priapism or Tantric Yoga [are]. Because that’s the thing that counts, that’s the sin, the really important sin.
The parallel here is between elevating sexual etiquette into the sine qua non of being a good Christian as well as being a good White citizen. Just as the all-too eager decline of Christianity into Protestantism and then into moralism is a tribute, or backhanded compliment, to Judaic subversion—Judaism itself being hardly a religion itself, being empty of all spiritual content; nor even a moralism, being, as Gilad Atzmon has pointed out, dedicated to the anti-universalism of “Jews ueber alles,” but simply a form of obsessive compulsive disorder inculcated in the Jewish masses to facilitate the domination of the rabbis—so is the decline of what we might call “cultural building” among White Nationalists, having, like the political Right and the Neo-cons, swallowed a whole lot of Judiac ideas—such as “No Homo!”—under the illusion that they represent “tough talk” and “serious thinking.”
Since Jews and culture, in the context of delineating how to compose the ideal society, have come up, we might profitably look who T. S. Eliot, no mean traditionalist himself, thought should be excluded. As the Forward describes it:
During a 1933 lecture in Virginia, published in 1934 as “After Strange Gods,” (which he later refused to reprint) Eliot, following Maurras, stressed the importance of social “unity of religious background. . . . Reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable,” Eliot declared.
Now the phrase in question is certainly more than enough to brand Eliot an “anti-Semite” by today’s hair-trigger standards (as the Forward article attests), which amount to nothing more than what Steve Sailer calls “noticing things.”
But looked at closely, as Eliot would advise us to read any poet’s work, the phrase is rather restrictive: “any large number” and “free-thinking Jews.” Eliot seems to be insinuating that a small number of Orthodox Jews would not be a problem, perhaps would lend a little color to drab London.
The ideas seems to be the old saw about the role of the Jew as cultural “outsider,” providing a needed, indeed a necessary, “objective” and “critical” perspective. Needless to say, it’s a popular idea . . . among Jews.
To suggest what might have been in the back of Eliot’s mind, preventing him from just calling for the summary expulsion of “the Jews,” consider one of his greatest epigones, Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan, though born on the Canadian prairie, developed, after attending Oxford, a loathing for the Puritan provinciality he saw all around him, even—or especially—in Canada’s grand metropolis, Toronto—then a bastion of Presbyterian righteousness known semi-ironically as “Toronto the Good.”
To deal with this cultural atrophy, McLuhan proposed a simple, sweeping remedy: the immediate importation of a couple million Jews.
In an unpublished article titled “Canada Needs More Jews,” he put forth a notion he had picked up from Wyndham Lewis that the importation of two million Jews might liven the place up.
Now, in this, I think Eliot and McLuhan were quite wrong. One might only call their attention to the Elizabethan Golden Age, when writers not merely equal to Shakespeare but the man himself, flourished with not one Jewish foot trodding upon England’s green and pleasant land. And one also needs to add, if one is adding up the cultural accounts, the deficit produced by the deliberate subversion of Aryan culture by the Judaic elites; to say nothing of their other impudent and vicious distortions of politics, religion, etc.
But there is another, broader, sense in which they were quite right. To put it in terms the Right understands, all societies have elites; moreover, all societies need elites, to set standards of culture and even decorum. This is what McLuhan sensed was lacking is Canadian society of the 1950s, as did de Tocqueville when observing America a century before; as did Henry James, and Eliot, who pulled up stakes to rejoin the British homeland, and H. P. Lovecraft, who lived in the 18th-century England of his dreams.
But why the Jews, of all people? A glance at the complete lack of any development, to say nothing of dominance, in the arts, sciences or technology, from Biblical times to their post-Napoleonic civil emancipation, would make them an odd choice to be our elite. But was it a “choice”?
In fact, evidence that our “elite” is basically devoted to the doctrine of “Kill Whitey” should give us a clue as to the problem — and the cause.
Watts, I think, was onto more than he seems to be; not just a diagnosis of Western religion but of Western, particularly American, society itself.
The lack of a natural elite, requiring the import of Jews, is itself a product of the same “family values” regime imposed—via Christianity—by the Jew.
We see, in all this, the hand of the Jew. First, replace the authentic initiatic Traditions of paganism with the pseudo-Tradition of Christianity, with its fake, phony initiatic substitute, the so-called “Eucharist”— thus robbing the West of its culture-creating abilities. Then, having knocked out the esoteric props, reduce the exoteric shell to moralism, and ultimately, to the Judaic obsession, sex. And a large part of that obsession, coincidentally or not, is what’s come to be known as homophobia. As a result, the natural elite of the Aryan peoples is rendered into un-persons, and waiting to fill the vacuum is . . . the Jew.
Now, before everyone starts hootin’ and hollerin’, let me just make it, as William Burroughs would say, country-simple for ya’ll. The origin and the handing down (traditio) of culture, at least in the Aryan world, lies not in the family (the subject of the “family values” so dear to the Jews and their Neocon contingent, including the Christian Right), essential though it may be in itself, but in those who have broken from it and established their own groups for those purposes: the various Männerbünde of warriors, priests, scholars, vigilantes, etc.
As Wulf Grimmson outlines it:
The Männerbund is a system of social ties found in traditional Indo European societies which is very difficult for men living in a modernist (and/or monotheistic) society to understand . . .
Among our Germanic ancestors these groups were composed of sexually mature male youths who under guidance of an elder formed a closed cult or society. They were dedicated to Odin, had special rites of pedagogical training, initiation and esoteric practice and combined the functions of a sorcerer or shaman and a warrior. . . .
[T]he role of the blood brother and the Männerbund was seen as the foundation of Germanic society with the family unit of far less significance. This changes the whole structure of how we see archaic society when we realize that these societies held a virile warrior ethic based in male-male affection superior to family life.
The Männerbund was a unique social and initiatory institution, it stood at the centre of the hierarchy of archaic society offering a path to initiation into the esoteric Mysteries and providing stability to the tribe below it. In comparison to the Third Function of the tribe and family the Männerbund was certainly an outsider institution yet it was this outsidernesss that allowed it to take such a significant role within the traditional hierarchy. It was not swayed by nepotism or by tribal or familial pressures; it was a separate, distinct and unique structure. It had a warrior ethic yet also trained scribes, shamans, rune masters and many others; it combined the First and Second Functions in a very special and profound way.
As Evola says,
It was this Männerbund, in which the qualification of “man” had simultaneously an initiatory (i.e. sacred) and a warrior meaning, that wielded the power in the social group or clan. This Männerbund was characterized by special tasks and responsibilities; it was different from all other societies to which members of the tribe belonged. In this primordial scheme we find the fundamental ‘categories’ differentiating the political order from the ‘social’ order. First among these is a special chrism — namely, that proper to ‘man’ in the highest sense of the word (vir was the term employed in Roman times) and not merely a generic homo: this condition is marked by a spiritual breakthrough and by detachment from the naturalistic and vegetative plane. Its integration is power, the principle of command belonging to the Männerbund. We could rightfully see in this one of the ‘constants’ (i.e. basic ideas) that in very different applications, formulations and derivations are uniformly found in theory or, better, in the metaphysics of the State that was professed even by the greatest civilizations of the past.
Elsewhere, Evola is a little more explicit on the role of sexuality, like drugs, in the rites, rituals and mysteries designed to produce the desired “breakthrough”:
The defining trait of all sexuality is a kind of hyper-physical excitement not dissimilar from all the conditions that the ancient world regarded as potential paths leading to the direct experience of the super-sensible (as Plato himself clearly acknowledged).
Physical procreation weakens the impulse to pursue the highest aim of sexuality: the insignificant physical community of the species through the succession of perishable individuals [the essentially Judaic idea of “family values,” immortality through the survival of the race, etc.] here replaces the conception of a being capable of transcending the cycle of confined existence, and mere moral life.
In sum, we see that in Aryan societies the family is superseded by (though not denigrated, in fact supported by) male groups formed by sexual and esoteric rites (the “mysteries” which undoubtedly involved entheogenic substances) that, living as outsiders, nevertheless created and sustained the cultural superstructure of each society.
And here we see the evil genius of the Judaic subversion; is it any surprise to see all this—basically, drugs and sex, both employed to escape the ties of family— is on the Judeo-Christian hit list?
Having ensured that Aryans would only be able to form basic social groupings based on families (mere “societies” as Evola calls them) but not true, hierarchical States, who then stands to benefit by stepping forward into the vacuum?
It’s important to realize that Jews make themselves all warm and snuggly within Western culture by a strategy of not only distortion but also deception or disguise. For example, take “open borders.” This policy both distorts the public life of the United States (over 90% native born White before the 1965 Immigration “Reform” Act) and disguises the Jew (just another one of dozens of loyal, patriotic immigrant groups).
In the same way, the Judiac acts to not only short-circuit the natural elite of Aryan society by imposing religiously based “family values,” but also positions himself (one is tempted to say, “pushes himself forward”) as the “real “or at least “new” elite, while actually being a foreign, hostile elite.
Thus is Athens transformed into Jerusalem, via Salt Lake City; we might call it the “Cuckoo Strategy.”
During the Cold War, man-in-the-street conservatives of the Archie Bunker variety were wont to sneer at their com-symp opponents that if Russia was so great, “why don’t you go live there?” Later, this would be extended to Cuba, Viet Nam, or whatever the latest Leftist Utopia was located.
In the same spirit, we might suggest to those who make “no homos” the knee jerking, word-association answering, Pavlovian responding sine qua non of their Whitopia, that it already exists; why don’t you move to Salt Lake City? Or perhaps a nice ultra-Orthodox settlement in Eretz Israel?
So our problem is not that we have no elite, but that we have the wrong one. Rather than a natural elite we have an alien elite that means us harm.
Natural? Formed from the non-procreative—an evolutionary tactic essential to the evolutionary survival of homo sapiens—Homos indeed form a natural elite, being of the same race as the rest of (White) society, and even can show up in any family—spouse, child, cousin, etc.—thus giving every clan a tie to the elite, or at least a better chance than winning the lottery.
Thus, when the people ask for the true bread of the entheogenic Mysteries, the Judeo gives them the stone of the Eucharist; when they ask for an elite, the Judeo gives them . . . himself.
The point here is not to idolize or “liberate” the poor, downtrodden homosexual, but rather, that having made non-reproductive sexuality the Ultimate Sin, a process (not unlike what the rabbis call “building a fence around the Torah) ensues in which all “taint” of it must be avoided by manly men. Thus, the male societies that comprise the culture-creating institutions of White society — from the Boy Scouts to the priesthood, from athletics to the arts to the military — are enveloped in a cloud of cultural sniggering, and any self-respecting White male looks to the promiscuous Negro for his self-validation. One thing you can say about Detroit: it may not have any culture, but there’s no homos!Of course, it’s perfectly understandable that anyone would want to exclude and dissociate from the kind of people put forward by the Left and the Liberal Media as representatives of this minority. But this, as I’ve argued elsewhere, is precisely because of the fake “gay” identity, manufactured by the Left in order to corral the homosexual into their Rainbow Coalition of culture-wreckers. The real interests of both homosexuals and White society in general are elsewhere:
The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable—and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children . . . This would be the rational thing to do.
I would suggest that here is another case where the alt-Right would learn from the New Left, rather than from the Old Left or the Old Right. To paraphrase Eliot, no White society could thrive without a small number of—tradition-minded—Homos.
 Published mostly here on Counter-Currents and periodically issued in such collections as The Homo and the Negro (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012), The Eldritch Evola … & Others (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2014), and the forthcoming Green Nazis in Space!
 Jack Donovan figures that “the percentage of exclusive male homosexuals within the mainstream male population [is probably lessthan 3-5 . . . So everyone is talking about “expanding” the institution of marriage to benefit 50% of 5% of the male population. With some insanely generous rounding, that’s what — maybe 200,000 dudes, including male children and senior citizens;” hardly the biggest “problem” facing White America, especially since “Every day American culture is a little more like a Black Mass against nature and manhood and anything decent or beautiful or noble or worth saving. Western Civilization has become a Black Mass for Western Civilization. Everything our better fathers believed in has been spit on and placed like a tainted Host between the yeasty thighs of a giggling whore.” See “Gay Marriage: ‘What-The-Fuck-Ever’” by Jack Donovan, April 9, 2013, here: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/04/gay-marriage-what-the-fuck-ever/.
 Here, if nowhere else, Watts agrees with Evola: “Some people have sought to favor a watered-down idea of Tradition, marked by moralizing and religious [i.e., exoteric dogmas and ritualism] concerns” (The Path of Cinnabar [London: Arktos, 2013], p. 234); “As for the character of official Catholicism today—a parochial, moralistic, socialistic, politicizing, and frankly paternalistic Catholicism which abhors all ‘medieval-isms’ in its attempt to prove itself up-to-date—there is little to be said” (op. cit., p.133). And of course, there was nothing to be said about Protestantism. See, for example, Guénon’s “The Origins of Mormonism” in Miscellanea (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004), and then try and take Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck seriously. While Guénon, for example, spent decades trying—rather like Breton with psychoanalysis, Marxism, occultism, etc.—to create a rapprochement with Catholicism, Evola simply dismissed Christianity as having been a pseudo-tradition from the get-go.
 Audio lecture, “Beyond Theology.”
 While Atzmon is no more than a pseudo-ally, Greg Johnson notes that “Atzmon’s first argument, of course, is correct: Jews are guilty of deception when they preach universalism to us and practice partiality among themselves.” See Greg Johnson’s review “The Self-Exterminating Jew: Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who?” here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/the-self-exterminating-jew-gilad-atzmons-the-wandering-who/
 Atzmon writes: “Israel has always been the Jewish State, it has never been a liberal place nor has it been committed to justice or equality. The deepest truth is that universal humanism and ethical culture is [sic] foreign to Judaic thinking that is tribal and legalistic.”—“I Support Israel’s National Bill,” November 25, 2014; here: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2014/11/25/i-support-israels-national-bill
 “Rabbis quite literally rule the life of their congregants (this is particularly true in the case of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Judaism) as halakhah literally has thousands of rules based off of the 613 Mitzvot (‘Commandments’) derived from the (Written) Torah. Thus it is necessary for the rabbi’s congregation to materially support him so that he can provide ‘expert guidance’ at a moment’s notice for his flock in all matters of religious law (halakhah) and custom (minhag).” See “Blogging the Jerusalem Talmud: Tractate Bikkurim,” here: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/11/blogging-jerusalem-talmud-tractate.html
 As well as “our proud Viking heritage”—MST3k Episode 810: The Giant Spider Invasion.
 It should be remembered that Eliot, Anglo-Catholic that he was, played a not inconsiderable role in the presentation of Traditionalism to the Anglosphere. His publishing house, Faber & Faber, produced both the first English translation of Schuon, The Transcendent Unity of Religion; trans. Peter Townsend (London: Faber and Faber, 1953), with a cover blurb from Eliot, and Watts’ The Supreme Identity: An Essay on Oriental Metaphysic and the Christian Religion (London: Faber and Faber, 1950); as well as Josef Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture, trans/ Alexander Dru, with an introduction by T. S. Eliot (London: Faber & Faber, 1952), which just happened to be the text of my Intro Philosophy class at Assumption.
 Though of course it’s on the internet, such as at archive.org.
 “T.S. Eliot’s On-Again, Off-Again Anti-Semitism: Letters to Friends and Colleagues Repeatedly Denigrate Jews” by Benjamin Ivry, September 23, 2011, here: http://forward.com/articles/142722/ts-eliots-on-again-off-again-anti-semitism/#ixzz3Kf6Jzua7
 As someone has said, “anti-Semite” no longer means “someone who hates all Jews” but “someone some Jew dislikes.”
 After writing this, I discovered (through idly searching new Kindle releases on Amazon) a similar reading: “The notorious passage in After Strange Gods is capable of the interpretation that a community of orthodox Jews would be socially desirable because of the strong social bonds established by Jewish solidarity.” Roger Kojecky, T. S. Eliot’s Social Criticism (London: Faber, 1971; Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing, 2014), “Introduction.” Of course, it all depends on what the aims of that “solidarity” (i.e., “ethnic networking”) are. Michael A. Hoffman, II—whose otherwise invaluable researches into Judaic subversion are vitiated by a typically Protestant insistence on stubbornly distinguishing evil Talmud Jews from God’s Chosen Ones of the Old Testament—would insist that Eliot “naively” accepts the claims of Rabbinic Judaism to be kosher.
 Similarly, editor Leslie Klinger seems puzzled by H. P. Lovecraft’s virulent antipathy to “the Jews” and other swarthy foreigners, while nevertheless enjoying trips to Chinatown and the Lower East Side and admiring the colorful native dress. See my “Notes on The New Edited Lovecraft,” here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/notes-on-the-new-annotated-h-p-lovecraft/
 I discussed this before in “The Eternal Outsider: Veblen on the Gentleman & the Jew,” reprinted in The Eldritch Evola, op. cit.
 I’ve frequently described this “culture of critique” (Kevin MacDonald) as producing “cockroach literature” due to the iconic role Kafka plays in it; however, recent a biography has led me to think the icon of Kafka himself, ironically, has been faked; see my review “Kafka, Our Folk-Comrade,” Chapter Four, below.
 “The graying professor from Canada’s western hinterlands . . .”—From “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan,” Playboy Magazine, March 1969, here: http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan/
 While avoiding the excesses of Prohibition—though Quebequois Jews like Joseph Seagram were happy to sell whisky to Irish gangsters like Joe Kennedy—Canada, like England, enjoyed the restriction of drinking through a network of arcane rules and regulations (government-run stores, separate rooms for men without women, curtains on all windows to prevent ladies fainting after catching a sight of the debauchery, etc.). To see, in cultural terms, what McLuhan was up against, see Wyndham Lewis’ fictionalized memoir of the same period in the same cities, Toronto and Windsor, Self Condemned (Methuen, 1954; Voyageur Classics, Toronto: Dundurn, 2010). A generation later, Joyce Carol Oates wrote a series of inter-connected stories satirizing the desperate lives of her colleagues at the fictionalized “Hilberry College” where “everyone felt superior to the college, even to the country, Canada itself!” See Crossing the Border (New York: Vanguard Press, 1976) and The Hungry Ghosts: Seven Allusive Comedies (San Francisco: Black Sparrow, 1974). Significantly, two stories were published in Playboy Magazine and never collected by Oates, despite award-winning acclaim: “Saul Bird Says: Relate! Communicate! Liberate!” (Oct., 1971; Playboy Editorial Award, 1971; O Henry Award, 197; reprinted in Playboy Stories: The Best of Forty Years of Short Fiction 2, New York: Dutton, 1991), which portrays the destructive influence of what Kevin MacDonald would call a typical Jewish guru-type; and “Gay” (Playboy, Dec. 1976, reprinted only in The Best American Short Stories 1977) which details the self-destructive career arc of an English professor who seems to be the only person who “doesn’t realized he’s gay:” “Harvard, Oxford . . . somewhere in Canada? Impossible!” Both stories are relevant to our concerns here, of course.
 Marshall McLuhan: The Medium and the Messenger: A Biography by Philip Marchand (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998), p. 82.
 De Tocqueville already noted that behind the much vaunted “individualism.” the lack of social stratification actually produced socially sanctioned conformity. In Kafka’s novel (usually known as) America, “What seems like popular democracy merely disguises the authoritarian rule of the political and economic elite.” Ritchie Robertson, “Introduction” to The Man Who Disappeared (America) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
 “How odd of God/To choose the Jews” wrote William Norman Ewer; interestingly, though he began as a Chestertonian sort of “guild socialist” he eventually became a Communist and a Soviet spy, according to Wikipedia (http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan/)
 Documented by Israel Shahak, in his Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994). Shahak notes that Jews have simply recently colonized arts and sciences establish by non-Jews: “Except for a purely religious learning, which was itself in a debased and degenerate state, the Jews of Europe (and to a somewhat lesser extent also of the Arab countries) were dominated, before about 1780, by a supreme contempt and hate for all learning (excluding the Talmud and Jewish mysticism). . . . Study of all languages was strictly forbidden, as was the study of mathematics and science. Geography, history — even Jewish history — were completely unknown. The critical sense, which is supposedly so characteristic of Jews, was totally absent, and nothing was so forbidden, feared and therefore persecuted as the most modest innovation or the most innocent criticism.” Even the much vaunted “Jewish sense of humor” is an even more recent construct; there are no jokes anywhere in classical Jewish writings: “Not only is humor very rare in Hebrew literature before the 19th century . . . but humor and jokes are strictly forbidden by the Jewish religion — except, significantly, jokes against other religions. Satire against rabbis and leaders of the community was never internalized by Judaism, not even to a small extent, as it was in Latin Christianity. There were no Jewish comedies, just as there were no comedies in Sparta, and for a similar reason.” Op. cit., Chapter Two: “Prejudice and Prevarication.”
 On the role of entheogens in culture, see the extensive research of Michael Hoffman (not Michael A. Hoffman, II, though the fact that two Hoffmans, one of which is “II,” are involved in these areas is rather amusing) collected at his website, egodeath.com; for the role of drugs and drug-inspired Mysteries in creating classical culture, see D. C. A. Hillman, The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2008); for the Germanic tradition, see Christian Rätsch on “The Sacred Plants of our Ancestors,” TYR II.
 Yes, I know, the Right complains about “all our disagreements with the Left get pathologized and tagged with a diagnostic term” but here at least the virulence and single-mindedness does suggest something of a syndrome rather than an opinion.
 A similar process of cultural decapitation occurred under the name of “Denazification,” (to say nothing of the atrocities and deprivations visited upon Germany in the postwar years: see Thomas Goodrich: Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944—1947 (Sheridan, Colorado: Aberdeen Books, 2010) as well as in the wake of the Iraq War II. The latter purge was explicitly called, half-jokingly, “De-Ba’athification,” and it’s interesting to note that cultural destruction was an explicit element of it. When asked about the destruction of not just Iraq’s cultural heritage but that of the “cradle of Western civilization,” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld shrugged and mused that “ ‘Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things[‘] … Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. ‘Stuff happens,’ Rumsfeld said.”“Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq: ‘Stuff happens’; Administration asking countries for help with security” by Sean Loughlin, CNN Washington Bureau, April 12, 2003, here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/
 See generally the work of Wulf Grimmson, and my discussion of it in “A Band Apart: Wulf Grimsson’s Loki’s Way” and my use of it in “‘God, I’m with a heathen.’ The Rebirth of the Männerbund in Brian De Palma’s The Untouchables;” both are reprinted in The Homo and the Negro.
 And by “monotheist” read “Judeo-Christian”; however “anti-modernist” the White Nationalist may be, he tends, as we have seen, to remain a Judeo-Christian at heart; his conversion is only partial and inadequate.
 See Wulf Grimsson, Loki’s Way: The Path of the Sorcerer in Age of Iron, 2nd. ed. (Lulu.com, 2011), p. 7 and p. 89.
 See Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2002).
 Op. cit, p. 208. This is the usual displacement of verticality (transcendence) with horizontality (dispersion among the physical states of the world) that is the essential feature of modernity, “progress,” Lebensraum, etc., and is even lauded by propagandists of science or the Renaissance.
 See Erik Davis’s discussion of teenage drug use as a means of escape in his Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica (Portland, Or.: Yeti Publishing, 2010), which I reviewed on Counter-Currents here: http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/nomad-codes/
 Thus the Judaic fury directed against the SS Order State that was to be the ultimate goal of Himmler; this was the only element of National Socialism that maintained Evola’s interest; see his Notes on the Third Reich, trans. E. Christian Kopff (London: Arktos, 2013). Needless to say, the whole National Socialist project was vitiated from the start by a crypto-Judaic (and downright creepy) obsession with Master Races and “births”—“prole” notions whose “vulgarity” Evola appropriately scorned (see Evola, op. cit., Chapter III); paralleling in miniature the cultural distortion of Western society that we’ve been discussing here.
 Using the patented one-two, heads I win tail you lose Judaic strategy of rigging the debate to include only the false alternative of homophobia vs. gold lamé hot pants.
 See these articles posted at Occidental Observer: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/category/jews-as-a-hostile-elite/
 And, by contrast, an actual Whitopia, if based on historical knowledge rather than Judaic-approved fantasies, would more closely resemble the camps of the eponymous warriors of Burroughs’ The Wild Boys: A Book of the Dead. (New York: Grove, 1971); and before anyone mentions it, let me point out that Burroughs’ Boys make full use of “modern technology” when useful and appropriate (including cloning and time machines).
 Contrary to man-in-the-street biology favored by bloggers of the Right, see James Neill’s The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2009) and my review/essay thereon (Amazon Kindle Single, 2013).
 After all, a race is, as Steve Sailer puts it, a partially inbred extended family. “A race is a family, and families tend to behave alike. In Ferguson, we’re seeing one kind of behavior—the same kind Darren Wilson faced when he met Michael Brown walking down the middle of the street.”—“Ferguson Fallout—Red Is Not The New Black” by James Fulford, November 27, 2014 (http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-ferguson-fallout-red-is-not-the-new-black)
 “There is every reason to believe that “stone” is the code-word [in Biblical literature] for beast-man, ape.”—Dr. Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels, Theozoology, or the Science of the Sodomite Apelings and the Divine Electron (originally published 1905; Europa-House, 2004), and available for free online here: http://www.american-buddha.com/cult.theozoology.htm
 Jack Donovan, I believe, has observed that if most homosexuals weren’t annoying twerps, “‘fag’ wouldn’t be an insult in the first place.”
 See, of course, the title essay of my collection The Homo and the Negro as well as the late Alisdair Clarke’s seminal essay “Paris Shockwaves,” here: “the blandishments of the Gay-Liberationist-hucksters led us away from our Western civilization, our antecedents; Plato, Hadrian, Michelangelo and Tchaikovsky, turned our folk community into strangers, and deposited us in the heart of the enemy camp.”
 “Psychopathology and Racial Self-Hate Among Whites” by Kevin MacDonald; Occidental Observer, October 7, 2014, here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/10/psychopathology-and-racial-self-hate-among-Whites/
 Just as, self-styled “radical” Leftists, who have learned how to recognize what Chomsky, Parenti or Petras have called “institutional analysis,” are more useful to our cause than “official” Rightists or “conservatives’ who have been taught (by Who?) that they must eschew what they call “conspiracy theories.”