Featured Articles

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan.

The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke by a Serb nationalist in June, 1914, is the perfect example of an event which occasioned events which followed, but did not cause them; the men of Europe’s great powers did not slaughter one another for four years over a political assassination in the Balkans. Rather, the assassination occurred in the context of Russian guarantees to Serbia and German guarantees to Austria, which inevitably brought the Triple Entente into play. A diplomatic game of ‘chicken’ ensued, in which no side was willing to be the first to back down.

When Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th, the Russian Tsar, conscious of his Empire’s military backwardness, ordered a partial mobilization. This action was intended merely as a precaution in case of a war that still seemed unlikely. But for the Germans, with their Schlieffen plan requiring utmost speed, the Tsar’s order had the effect of an electric shock. Germany felt it had to mobilize as well. Russia responded two days later by ordering full mobilization. Germany gave Russia an ultimatum; and the Tsar, unwilling to knuckle under, allowed the deadline to pass. Within hours, everyone was involved in a war that none of the parties had originally wanted or intended.

German historians call such a series of events a Betriebsunfall: a quasi-mechanical accident such as might occur in the machinery of a factory. Men were drawn into the gear work and crushed when no one was able to throw the emergency switch in time. It was a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word—a disaster brought on by well-intentioned but flawed men acting rationally under conditions of imperfect knowledge. The consequences are well-known: ten million dead, twenty-eight million more wounded or missing, Communism established in Russia, the Balfour Declaration setting the stage for today’s ongoing Middle East conflict, and the whole crowned by a shameful ‘peace’ treaty that all but guaranteed a future war of German revenge.

Yet, as we can see from newsreel footage of August 1st, the popular reaction to the outbreak was war fever on a scale not seen since the crusades. Europe had been enjoying forty-three years of peace and unprecedented material prosperity, and the young greeted the war as a romantic adventure.

The planned rapid German advance through the Low Countries into Northeast France was unexpectedly halted  in early September—the “Miracle of the Marne”—foiling the Schlieffen plan. On the 13th, the German Army responded by attempting a flanking action around the French lines; the French then rapidly extended their own defensive lines in what became known as the “race to the sea.” Since neither side could dislodge the other, and neither was willing to retreat, soldiers began digging themselves in to their positions—the beginning of trench warfare. By the time winter set in, the pattern of the next four years had been clearly established: a war of attrition involving trivial advances and retreats across a few acres of mud.

But as Christmas approached that year, something unexpected began unfolding. On the frontline sector south of Ypres, Belgium, German troops began decorating the area around their trenches for Christmas Eve. As Wikipedia describes it:

The Germans began by placing candles on their trenches and on Christmas trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols. The British responded by singing carols of their own. The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were excursions across No Man’s Land, where small gifts were exchanged, such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as buttons and hats. The artillery in the region fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently killed soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Joint [religious] services were held.

The ceasefire spread to other sectors of the front, with as many as 100,000 men eventually participating. In some areas, soccer games between the belligerents replaced combat.

joyeux-noel

By December 26th, it was over. The authorities got word of the breakdown in discipline and intervened vigorously.

In 2005, an international consortium from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Romania produced a film about the Christmas Truce: Joyeux Noёl. The film opens with scenes of children in French, British and German grade schools reciting rhymed curses they had been taught against the opposing side: the British child’s curse calls for the complete extermination of Germans.

The scene switches to Scotland, where an enthusiastic young man, William, rushes into his local Catholic church breathlessly to announce to his younger brother Jonathan that war has been declared; they are to begin basic training in two days. “At last, something’s happening in our lives,” he rejoices. The priest, Fr. Palmer, looks notably less enthusiastic.

At the Berlin Opera, a performance is interrupted by an officer walking on stage to announce that war has been declared. The lead tenor, Sprink, is quickly called up.

In a French trench, Lieutenant Audebert wistfully looks at a photograph of his pregnant wife moments before being called to lead an assault on the German lines. In the ensuing action, Scottish William is mortally wounded; his brother Jonathan is forced to leave him behind, a psychological trauma from which he never recovers. Audebert’s men pour into a German trench, but as they turn a corner, some one-third of them are mown down by a German machine gun.

Meanwhile, Sprink’s lover, the Danish soprano Anna, receives permission to sing before the Crown Prince of Prussia. Sprink is called back from the front to perform with her, and is impressed with the luxurious comfort in which the German commanders are living. When he returns to the front, Anna insists on accompanying him, determined to sing for the ordinary frontline soldiers as well as the officers at headquarters. (The presence of a woman at the front is poetic license on the filmmakers’ part.)

The German soldiers begin setting up Christmas trees along their trenches, to the bewildered suspicion of the French soldiery. After the singers conclude their first number, a cheer goes up from the Scottish trenches. Fr. Palmer plays the first few bars of another Christmas song on the bagpipes, and Sprink responds by performing the song, climbing out into No Man’s Land. Lieutenant Audebert motions to his men to hold fire. Soon, men are pouring out of the trenches on both sides, sharing food and drinks. Fr. Palmer holds a Christmas Eve Mass for all the men.

On Christmas morning, the officers renew the truce and arrange for exchanging their dead. Dozens of men are buried between the lines. A soccer match ensues. The officers realize the situation is untenable and attempt to restore discipline, but by this time the men are refusing to fire upon each other.

A bundle of soldiers’ letters is intercepted by the French authorities, alerting them to the situation. Fearful of having their war spoiled, they dissolve the division and repost its members to various unaffected sectors of the front. The Germans are transferred to the Eastern front to face the Russians. Fr. Palmer is replaced by a Bishop who preaches a sermon urging new recruits to exterminate German men, women and children.

A major theme of the film is music. Sprink’s superior officer begins by telling him that, being a singer, he is useless as a soldier. Then it is the incongruous presence of music that leads to the unplanned ceasefire. At the end, as the Crown Prince of Prussia informs his men of their punishment, he catches sight of a harmonica. He snatches it away and crushes it beneath his boot heel.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 did not change the course of the war very much. In future years, commanders were successful in suppressing similar occurrences. As the war progressed and especially after poison gas was introduced, soldiers gradually came to see their enemies as less than human, as was the intention of the higher officers on all sides. But it has continued to spark the popular imagination in the near-century since it took place. A Canadian historian has written:

It [was] the last expression of that 19th-century world of manners and morals, where the opponent was a gentleman. The ones who survived, who lived to see other Christmases in the war, themselves expressed amazement that this had occurred. The emotions had changed to such a degree that the sort of humanity seen in Christmas 1914 seemed inconceivable.

Joyeux Noёl lost money at the box office, and critics have complained of its “sentimentality.” I suggest seeing it for oneself this Christmas season.

The Music of the Moon: Re-Enchantment and the Biggest Crime in History

More money, more sex, more status, more possessions, more gratification. That’s how too many people in the modern world would answer one simple question: “What would you like in your life?” When I asked myself that question, I was surprised by speed and naturalness with which the answer came to me: I’d like more stars and more butterflies.

Stealing the sky

To put it another way, I’d like more enchantment. Stars and butterflies are beautiful, mysterious, spirit-lifting, thought-provoking, and seemingly oblivious to human beings. They exist for their own sake. And yet what would they be without us? One summer I saw a bright rainbow across a field of horses. The rainbow was beautiful, heart-lifting, awe-inspiring. But the horses had their heads down, grazing. Horses don’t gaze at rainbows. Or follow the flight of a butterfly. And when night falls, horses don’t lift their heads in awe to a clear, star-jewelled sky. Nothing in the animal kingdom does, except for human beings.

Stars and trees seen from Luhasoo bog in Estonia (image from Wikipedia)

But fewer and fewer humans gaze at the stars and watch butterflies today, because light pollution drowns the night sky and butterflies have collapsed in numbers. I would say that light pollution has been the biggest crime in history. After all, it has stolen the sky from millions of people across whole continents. Reversing that enormous theft should be a priority of any serious and sane government. A clear sight of the night sky wouldn’t just restore to us the awe and majesty of the stars and moon: it would re-connect us with those long generations of our ancestors who watched and wondered and worshiped. There’s wisdom in the night. And brain-shaking power. Ancient Greek had the beautiful adverb ἀστέροθεν, asterothen, meaning “from the stars.” It also had the awesome adjective ἀστροβρόντης, astrobrontēs, meaning “star-thundering” and used of the god Mithras.

Poisoned by modernity

Modernity has stolen those ancient astral awes and inspirations from us, staining the night with light. And it’s stripped the day of another ancient source of beauty and otherness: those winged wonders known as butterflies. Reading A Curious Boy (2021), the autobiography of the British scientist Richard Fortey (born 1946), I was lost in wonder and envy at this description: “Small tortoiseshell butterflies, whose caterpillars feed on the common nettle, made orange clouds at the edges of fields.” (p. 65) He’s writing about the 1950s and goes on to say that, because nettles are now common: “Small tortoiseshells should be everywhere. Instead, [their] population has fallen by three-quarters in thirty years. The word ‘baffling’ has been used in official reports.” (p. 66)

Small tortoiseshell butterfly on the concrete of a car-park, Dorset, England (image from Wikipedia)

More nettles, fewer butterflies — baffling! But it isn’t truly baffling. It’s a poisonous by-product of modernity, of the industrialization of farming and the countryside. And it’s an excellent example of what the great German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) called die Entzauberung der Welt — “the disenchantment of the world” that accompanied the industrial revolution and the rise of modern science. Ironically enough, the very word “disenchantment” is an example of what you might call the disenchantment of the English language. Entzauberung is pure German, but English lost its native ways of talking about magic and now uses French. And to my ear “dis-” is an ugly, bureaucratic prefix.

Re-enchant the familiar

So “disenchantment” is disenchanted. Which is appropriate enough. But if we had a native way of expressing the concept — “untivering” uses the same roots as the German — we wouldn’t know what we were missing. As John Lennon once sang: “You don’t know what you’ve got till you lose it.” When Richard Fortey was a boy in the 1950s, he perhaps wasn’t as enchanted by the actual sight of “orange clouds” of tortoiseshells as some of us, in the butterfly-bereft 2020s, can be by the mere thought of them. Similarly, do native speakers of German rejoice in the richness and rootedness of words like Entzauberung? No. Most of them don’t. It’s simply the word for that concept in German. And are they delighted by the consonant cluster that begins the word Zauber, pronounced tsow-ber and meaning “magic”? Again, no. But I’m not a native speaker of German and I love the ts- of Zauber, zeitig, zierlich, meaning “magic,” “timely,” “delicate.” It sounds to me like a little bell tinkling.

If you call that twee, then fine: I love the consonant cluster tw- in English too. Or I’ve learned to love it: we can re-enchant the familiar and learn to delight in what we once took for granted. If you don’t know the adjective twee, it means “excessively sentimental, pretty or coy.” It may come from a childish pronunciation of “sweet” (I like the consonant cluster sw- too). Winnie the Pooh (1924) is twee. You could even say it’s toxically twee, in the case of the Disney adaptation. But that book by Kenneth Graham (1859–1932) was an attempt at the re-enchantment of the world, at the reversal of the industrialization and urbanization that began to trample on the world in the Victorian era. Here’s another attempt at re-enchantment by a greater writer:

But where a passion yet unborn perhaps
Lay hidden as the music of the moon
Sleeps in the plain eggs of the nightingale. (“Aylmer’s Field” [1864])

That’s Tennyson (1809-92), who could conjure more with ten words than lesser writers can with ten thousand. I think Tolkien was a lesser writer. But a greater maker. And, born later, he saw even more clearly the harm done by the iron hooves of modernity. And by its glaring, glowing eyes. That’s why two things were so important to Tolkien: the trees trampled by the hooves and the stars banished by the eyes. Trees and stars are central to Lord of the Rings (1954–55), Tolkien’s flawed but literally fabulous attempt at the re-enchantment of literature:

Away high in the East swung Remmirath, the Netted Stars, and slowly above the mists red Borgil rose, glowing like a jewel of fire. Then by some shift of airs all the mist was drawn away like a veil, and there leaned up, as he climbed over the rim of the world, the Swordsman of the Sky, Menelvagor with his shining belt. The Elves all burst into song. Suddenly under the trees a fire sprang up with a red light.

‘Come!’ the Elves called to the hobbits. ‘Come! Now is the time for speech and merriment!’ (The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring [1954], Book 1, chapter 3, “Three Is Company”)

Menelvagor is the real constellation Orion, perhaps the most easily recognizable star-shape and surely the most awesome. Tolkien has sharpened my appreciation of Orion with that singing phrase “Swordsman of the Sky.” But Tolkien was a Christian and also knew the power of a single star. When the magi came from the east in the Gospel of Matthew, they were following one astera, one star. And when it brought them to the birthplace of Jesus, “they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.” Was that Christian star an inspiration for a later passage in Lord of the Rings, when the overlooked and despised hobbits Frodo and Sam are starved and despairing amid the thorns and rocks of Mordor, poisoned realm of the Dark Lord Sauron? I think it must have been:

The land seemed full of creaking and cracking and sly noises, but there was no sound of voice or of foot. Far above the Ephel Dúath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. (The Lord Of The Rings: The Return of the King [1955], Book 2, chapter 6, “Mount Doom”)

We can say the same of Clown World: it’s a small and passing thing. Its ugliness and evil will not endure. Starlight and the music of the moon will outshine and outsing the cacophoty and cacophony of modernity.

Ed Dutton Goes Back to School (With Evolutionary Psychology in his Satchel)

The Naked Classroom: The Evolutionary Psychology of Your Time at School
Edward Dutton
Jolly Heretic Publications, 2023

As a schoolboy, Ed Dutton decided he was a “humanities person.” He felt an immediate interest in the lives of his ancestors and the people around him, and so enjoyed learning about history and literature, which spoke to him of such things. Memories of eighth-grade lessons on stamens and pistils, on the other hand, still summon up feelings of “ennui and despair.” He couldn’t wait to turn sixteen so he would never have to take another science lesson again. How did such a child morph into a dissident evolutionary psychologist?

By discovering the relevance of science to all the things he was already interested in. History, for example, can be understood as Darwinian evolution in action:

Individuals and groups compete for power and resources under harsh Darwinian conditions and those who are best adapted to their environment survive. Computer models have shown that groups highest in “positive ethnocentrism” (in-group cooperation) and “negative ethnocentrism” (out-group hostility) dominate all other groups, all else being equal. Not only that, but people can pass on their genes indirectly and tend to favour people the more genetically similar they are to themselves. [This] makes sense of soldiers dying for their country or one ethnic group persecuting another. Why didn‘t we learn about this when we learnt about World War II?

Come to think of it, I have a pretty good notion why White British schoolchildren are not taught how outgroup hostility can help them prevail in the struggle for survival. But Dutton is certainly correct that teaching such things would make science lessons a whole lot more interesting—for all concerned.

Religion was another matter that excited the young Dutton’s curiosity. Churches were all over the place, and students prayed and sang hymns at school assemblies.

“Why are people religious?” I recall wondering, aged about 11. “Why do they tell us that Father Christmas isn‘t real, yet believe in a kind of invisible Father Christmas, who created the world?” Yes, I was that kind of child. Science classes could have explained to me that, in Darwinian terms, something is an adaptation if it is partly genetic, found in all cultures, [and] associated with mental and physical health and fertility. Religion is, therefore, an adaptation, and that is why otherwise perfectly rational people will believe it and engage in it. It is, in effect, an instinct, whereby a number of other instincts — following the leader, over-detecting agency [and] causation, the feeling of being watched (which makes you more pro-social), the feeling of being looked after (which guards against anxiety and despair) — are all selected for and, so, become bundled together.

Even math has aspects that make it relevant to the practicalities of our lives today; it teaches the student

to think logically, and this is vital to understanding the world and as a force against those who value power over reason. If somebody is forced to assert as true something which they know to be wrong — if they must assert that 2 + 2 = 5, for example — then they are humiliated; they have submitted to someone else‘s power. If Algebra and Trigonometry had been taught with these factors in mind, I would have had far more time for them.

In short, “Science is badly taught because it is not taught in a ‘based’ way, [i.e.,] with reference to fascinating, controversial yet accurate knowledge of the world, the kind of knowledge certain influential figures try to suppress.”

Dutton sees these powerful antiscientific authorities as driven by four psycho-social forces which amount to a version of Francis Bacon’s Four Idols of the Mind updated for the age of social media:

  • Low Decoupling Ability, or the inability to distinguish questions of fact from questions about what ought to be. A recent illustration is the furor which ensued when Richard Dawkins made the elementary point that practical objections to eugenic breeding do not mean such breeding would be ineffective.
  • Motivated Social Cognition, or the adoption of beliefs because they satisfy a psychological need.
  • Concept Creep, such as the expansion of the idea of what is harmful or violent (“silence is violence”). Also applies to the expansion of a concept such as “racism” to encompass the entire universe.
  • Catastrophization, or the extrapolation of disastrous conclusions from limited observations: e.g., the Third Reich will be reborn if “antiracist” activists suffer the slightest setback. (For some amusing recent examples of catastrophization in American politics, see here: link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjYOddl-CCA)

It does not matter how “progressive” the political preferences of a scientist may be: he will be viciously attacked by the anti-science brigade if he reports a finding contrary to their cherished world view. A recent illustration is the attack on

left-wing behavioural geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden who, in 2021, published The Genetic Lottery (Harden, 2021), a book that denounced all the “right” people, such as Charles Murray, and insisted that there was “zero evidence” for hereditarianism. Yet merely for talking about mainstream behavioural genetics, Harden was described in the Daily Beast as legitimizing “crypto-race science.” Behavioural genetics was described as “ethically abhorrent,” with the author suggesting that publishers “should refuse to participate” and need to recognize that the field is “actively harming people.”

But back to the classroom: every schoolboy notices that most of his teachers, especially in primary school, are women (in Dutton’s native Britain the figure is 85%). Evolutionary psychology could explain to them that

boys are attracted to jobs that involve systems and the manipulation of objects, and also status, because — being higher in testosterone — they are highly competitive: car mechanic, pilot, computer programmer and scientist. Girls massively migrate towards caring professions: general practitioners, social workers, nurses and, of course, primary school teachers. Even with academic subjects, you find this divide. Male doctors will be attracted by surgery; female doctors by psychiatry and paediatrics, in other words, caring about children or helping people talk through their psychological problems. When a profession becomes dominated by females, as has occurred with teaching [like academic psychology these days], it starts to be regarded as “women’s work” and, thus, of low status. This further repels men and the profession’s wages start to fall, making it even less prestigious.

In secondary school, the imbalance in favor of women teachers diminishes somewhat (27% of secondary teachers in Britain are men), but male teachers are heavily concentrated in certain subject areas such as math and science. Here, an evolutionary psychologist could explain to curious pupils that “the essence of science is systematizing and this is more attractive to the male mind,” and that “males are higher in spatial and mathematical intelligence,” which is necessary to the successful pursuit of science. Females, presumably because they are the ones who teach their children to speak, are higher in verbal intelligence.

And, of course, science had plenty to say (where permitted) about why East Asian students do so well in math, while Black students rarely excel outside of Phys Ed.

Even social class dynamics visible in the schoolroom can be illuminated, since there is an extent to which social classes are genetic clusters: “Experiments have found that people can correctly assess other people’s social class from facial clues to a greater degree than would be possible by chance.” The tendency for friendships to form within social classes rather than across them is an expression of inclusive fitness.

Playground bullying is a type of behavior that “can be found among non-human animals and in all human societies, and it is highly resistant to attempts to stamp it out. Accordingly, [it] may be an adaptation.” If so, “bullying must be partly heritable, it must elevate fertility and it must be associated with health.”

If bullying aided survival (and thus fertility) it would be elevated at times of want and this has been found in anthropological accounts of hunter-gatherer societies. Bullies are less likely to be picked on, less likely to be stressed and more likely to be healthy, and studies note direct evidence that bullies are healthier than those who are bullied, both physically and mentally.

Moreover, chicks dig bullies: male bullying implies status and dominance, physical prowess, social skill (not being the outcast oneself) and even intelligence (in the context of verbal bullying). For such reasons, Dutton is contemptuous of today’s anti-bullying campaigns, which are most likely to elevate the campaigners themselves into bullies over the rest of us.

Decades of pro-homosexualist propaganda seems to have had no effect on male adolescents, among whom “gay” remains the worst of insults: even math can be “gay” if a boy dislikes it enough. Might it not interest such youngsters to know why they have such strong negative feelings about homosexuality? Once again, evolutionary psychology has explanations. Here are just a few: homosexuality is maladaptive because no amount of homosexual behavior can ever have a reproductive payoff; it is an expression of developmental instability, indicating high mutational load and increased risk of mental instability; effeminate males may well be unreliable as defenders of the tribe; and homosexuals may be vectors of disease due to risky sexual practices.

Evolutionary psychology can also explain differences in male and female social behavior that are obvious even to children:

Males develop friendships in the context of a male band which fights other bands, and as a means of alliances to ascend the hierarchy of their own band. Female friendships are based around finding potential “alloparents” for their children or potential children. Such relationships must be close, as you are trusting these women with your babies; so females will cultivate a small number of intense, one-to-one friendships. The result of this system is that “new women on the scene” are not novel and interesting alliances in a large band that fights another band. They are dangerous rivals that may poach one’s carefully cultivated alloparent. As such, there is a degree to which all females that are not one of your potential alloparents are rivals and enemies, which can explain why bullying can be so nasty and spiteful among females.

While nasty, female bullying is less overt and physical than male bullying since females are both weaker and higher in anxiety. This is also why girls “play for status via covert methods. They virtue-signal, or attack the virtue of others, stressing their interest in ‘equality’ and ‘harm avoidance.’”

These are, of course, precisely the tactics of today’s “woke” left. If it has ever occurred to you that its methods are unmanly, you are onto something: the female (or effeminate male) bully avoids direct confrontation, engaging instead in “the adult equivalent of ‘telling the teacher’: complaining about a video online, calling the police, or some other act of brazen cowardice.” Dutton shares an illustrative personal anecdote:

In November 2021, I was in a bar in northern Finland [with some] members of Finland’s “Young Green League.” One was manifestly a man dressed as a woman. He hadn’t even made that much effort: he had stubble and extremely hairy arms. Nevertheless, he confidently used the women’s loo. Eventually, as he seemed quite friendly, I explained that my experience of people like them — the Greens, the Woke — was that they were unreasonable, aggressive, dogmatic, and could never brook any kind of disagreement.

“No, we’re not like that,” he chirpily replied.

“You mean you can have a calm, reasonable conversation about anything?”

“Yes, of course.”

“Okay, let’s talk about your autogynophilous transsexuality . . .”

At this, he recoiled, like a vampire presented with a crucifix, and hissed with a barely-suppressed glint of animal rage. I was then physically mobbed. They brought over their fat, tall, bearded friend to intimidate me into leaving the dance floor I was on.

“You have to go!” he declared.

No, I don’t,” I said. “This is a public bar.”

So he “told the teacher” – the landlord. I knew the landlord personally and he calmly appealed to me to please just stop talking to these people.

Of course, these are (disproportionately) the sort of people in charge of educating the rising generation in the West today, and making science class more interesting to the young Ed Duttons of the world is far down their list of priorities. If they do not adopt the program he suggests in The Naked Classroom, it is not for pedagogical reasons, but because they know they would soon have a revolution on their hands.

Blacks Unleashed: It’s Black Rapists All the Way Down

Got Blacks? Then you’ve also got bestial behavior. As the late great Larry Auster once said: “To import a black population into a previously all-white country is to consign a large number of whites in that country, year after year, generation after generation, to violent death at the hands of blacks.” Faced with that irrefutable truth, leftists across the West have worked tirelessly to import Blacks, privilege Blacks, and prevent effective policing of Black crime. In short, they’ve unleashed beasts on ordinary Whites.

Some women don’t matter

They’ve also worked to deny the reality of Black crime and to censor those who speak the truth about it. That’s why British Whites need to put leftists like Tony Blair and Barbara Roche on trial for crimes against humanity. Leftists like those knew exactly what would happen when they opened our borders to Blacks. And it has duly happened, year after year, generation after generation. In “Precious Jews, Worthless Whites,” I wrote about one bestial Black crime among many thousands: the torture, murder, and probable rape of an elderly and isolated White woman called Susan Hawkey by a Black male called Xyaire Howard.

There was no anguished commentary in the leftist media about Susan Hawkey’s death. Although leftists pretend to care about vulnerable women and male violence, in reality most of them care only about themselves and their own advantage. And it’s because they care about themselves that another bestial Black crime has slipped through the cordon sanitaire and provoked anguished commentary in the leftist media. Feminists at the Guardian don’t identify with elderly working-class White women in London any more than they identify with working-class White girls in Rotherham. But they do identify with the woman who was brazenly raped on the London underground by a “depraved” Black called Ryan Johnson. For example, as you read Gaby Hinsliff’s article about the rape in the Guardian, you can almost hear her saying to herself: “My God, this is serious — it could have been me!”

It was broad daylight, and there were other people in the tube carriage. She should have been safe.

She’d fallen asleep, missed her stop, and ended up at the end of the Piccadilly line. But still, on a weekend morning in a bustling city, she should have been safe. And yet, hauntingly, she wasn’t.

Last week, Ryan Johnston was sentenced to nine years in prison for raping a 20-year-old woman on the tube in front of a horrified French tourist and his young son, in a case the detective leading the investigation described as one of the most disturbing of his career. …

Something about this story, which unfolded in the space of just two tube stops, punches through all women’s comforting illusions about when and how we are safe. It has spread like wildfire through female WhatsApp groups, prompting questions about how on earth it could have happened: how could anyone not intervene in a rape unfolding in front of them? (If a woman can be raped in broad daylight on a train, there are tough questions for all of us, The Guardian, 15th December 2023)

Bestial Black Rapist #1: Ryan Johnson

The headline of the article claims that the rape raises “tough questions for all of us.” But the Guardian isn’t genuinely interested in raising tough questions, let alone in answering them. It would never allow a frank and honest discussion of Black criminality and its roots in Black genetics. Given a choice between admitting the uncomfortable reality of racial difference and maintaining the virtue-signaling fantasy of egalitarianism, no good leftist hesitates for a second. It’s fantasy every time. Gaby Hinsliff asks “how on earth” the rape could have happened, but she doesn’t want to hear the truth. And the truth is that it happened because leftists like her have imported Blacks and other non-Whites by the million while demonizing and censoring all those who warned about the inevitable consequences.

Bestial Black Rapist #2: Fiston Ngoy

The further truth is that crimes like that will continue to happen until leftists are removed from power and their non-White pets are sent back where they belong. But there’s also something sickly ironic in the leftist response to this rape. Even as they refuse to admit the truth about Black bestiality and their own collaboration with it, they’re providing further examples of both. Hinsliff says that “The whole thing stirs memories of a notorious attack on a woman on a train in Philadelphia in 2021. … a slowly unfolding horror that began with the attacker trying to strike up an unwanted conversation, then groping his victim, before finally progressing to rape.” Guess what? The rape was carried out by a Black called Fiston Ngoy, an illegal Congolese migrant who’d already committed sex crimes in America and who should have been deported in 2015.

A chain of bestial rapes

The Guardian didn’t mention Mr Ngoy’s Congolese origins, previous crimes or failed deportation in its own coverage of that rape in Philadelphia. But it did mention what it coyly called “the Kitty Genovese case.” Kitty Genovese was a White woman who was brutally raped and murdered in a public space in New York in 1964. That crime is still famous because it allegedly demonstrated the “bystander effect” and how city-life makes us reluctant to intervene in crimes.

Bestial Black Rapist #3: Winston Moseley

In fact, it didn’t show that at all. But it did show something else that the leftist media never want to talk about: the bestiality of Blackness. Surprise, surprise — that public rape was committed by a Black called Winston Moseley, who did so while his victim was dying from the stab-wounds he’d inflicted on her. So there’s a chain of bestial rapes in public spaces: London, Philadelphia, New York. And the rapes were all committed by Blacks. I’m reminded of a story about the great White psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910), who was supposedly told by a little old lady that the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle:

“If your theory is correct, madam,” he asked, “what does this turtle stand on?”

“You’re a very clever man, Mr. James, and that’s a very good question,” replied the little old lady, “but I have an answer to it. And it is this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him.”

“But what does this second turtle stand on?” persisted James patiently.

To this the little old lady crowed triumphantly: “It’s no use, Mr. James — it’s turtles all the way down.” (See “Turtles all the way down” at Infogalactic)

In the three bestial rapes, it’s Blacks all the way down. And super soaraway sub-Saharans like those will continue to plumb the depths of depravity in White nations until they become sub-Saharan not only in genetics but in geography too. In other words, Blacks have to go back to sub-Saharan Africa. They’ll continue to commit bestial crimes in the Motherland, of course, but that’s a problem Blacks have to fix for themselves.

Cheer words and boo words

It is useful when considering politics, including racial politics and sexual politics, to be aware of cheer words and boo words. As an example of a cheer word, the philosopher Jamie Whyte gives “justice”, where “what it means is not perfectly clear but, whatever someone takes it to mean, he will think it’s a good thing”.[1] Boo words are the opposite of cheer words, an example being “racism”. What this means is not entirely clear, but whatever it is, it’s bad.[2]

The sort of meaning that is unclear in cheer words and boo words is what the linguist Geoffrey Leech calls conceptual meaning, which is meaning as we normally think of it: that which tells us what a word denotes. It contrasts with various other sorts of meaning, including what Leech calls affective meaning, which expresses the speaker’s attitude to what is being talked about.[3] It is characteristic of cheer words and boo words that while their conceptual meanings are elusive and weak, their affective meanings — positive for cheer words and negative for boo words — are evident and strong, so strong in many cases as to overwhelm their conceptual meanings. Thus even if one were to specify, no matter how carefully and laboriously, a concept of racism that made racism excusable, one would not get far using the word in this sense, which would be defeated by the word’s negative affective meaning. This is as certain as it is that no matter how one defined justice, any argument saying that this was something a society could have too much of would fail because of the word’s positive affective meaning. The tendency of cheer words and boo words to elicit a cheer or a boo is built into them, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

It follows that cheer and boo words are of little use in rational conversation unless their conceptual meanings are specified — and, for practical purposes, specified in such a way as to line up with their affective meanings. Otherwise it will be impossible for anyone to be sure, or at least for everyone to agree, what is being discussed, while their affective meanings will arouse emotions not necessarily grounded in any conceptual material that might have been conveyed. If you want to be understood, it is better to use words with known and accepted conceptual meanings. If you do not want to be understood, on the other hand, but wish to befuddle and mislead, perhaps because you are a politician or a demagogue, you will find cheer words and boo words just the ticket. They enable you to gain support without saying anything or to get your audience to cry out against things you have not identified.

As Geoffrey Leech puts it: “the greatest dangers to intelligent communication come with cases where the affective meaning becomes a major part of, if not the whole of, the message”.[4] Therefore statements such as that one intends to promote justice or stands firm against racism in all its forms, which we hear all the time, are not in the business of intelligent communication. They are in effect tautologies, saying little more than that the speaker favours the good and is against the bad.[5]

Cheer words and boo words do not necessarily just exist but can be created. This involves minimising a word’s conceptual meaning and maximising its affective meaning, but it can only be done by a meaning maker, such as a parent vis à vis a child or the mass media vis à vis a society. We can trace the process whereby the media, over a period of fifty years, turned the word “racism” from denoting a degree of aversion to people of other races, which is pretty much a human universal, into the worst of sins, which can ruin a person’s life if detected in them while being hard or impossible to define.

Minimising the word’s conceptual meaning occurred almost automatically, by a process known as concept creep.[6] If it is bad to be averse to people purely because of their race, as might be generally accepted, and if one sees oneself as the nation’s moral legislator, as the media see themselves, one will be tempted to apply the word to anything that can be done regarding race of which one disapproves, from where one will proceed to apply it to anything else regarding race that one wants to stop people doing. Eventually the word will denote so many different things, some the opposites of others, such as treating people differently by race and failing to do so, that it might as well mean nothing.

Maximising a word’s affective meaning is accomplished by modelling the desired reaction to it. Thus commentators, when mentioning something they want people to deplore, act as though anyone would be scandalised that such a thing might be done, thereby telling their audience that it would be wrong to do it. When people start being punished for offending, as when a White character in a soap opera is shunned for mocking something said by a Black character, or when a White contributor to a discussion is hissed at by the rest of the studio audience for expressing concerns about the behaviour of Black youth, the viewing audience sees that the offence is serious. This goes on without the media needing at any point to explain what is supposed to be wrong with the behaviour being condemned. Reason doesn’t come into it as they shepherd the public into the desired moral position.

To sum up the process of making a word a cheer or boo word, it is essentially a matter of creating a conditioned reflex. By multiplying the word’s conceptual meanings to the point of disappearance and making its affective meaning massively predominant, the meaning maker causes us to associate its mere sound with the idea of goodness or badness, and so we feel joyful anticipation or disapproval and revulsion as the case may be. In doing these things the meaning maker follows Ivan Pavlov, who conditioned his dogs to associate the sound of a bell with the idea of being fed, which made them salivate. We end up reacting to the stimulus automatically, our thinking minds playing no part.

The case of an expression like “anti-Semitism” is slightly different in that this has a determinate conceptual meaning, which it wears on its face. As long as we ignore the fact that Arabs are Semites too, we can see that it means being against or disliking Jews. To make “anti-Semitism” a boo word it was therefore necessary to concentrate mainly on maximising its affective meaning, which is to say conditioning us to see disliking Jews as bad, in contrast to disliking the French or Germans, say, which we could continue to do with impunity. This again was accomplished by modelling, not by reason, as can be confirmed by reflecting that we have never heard an argument to say why disliking Jews is bad: that is, unless you call it an argument to suggest should this sentiment arise in us it would mean that we wanted to exterminate the race, for having misgivings about the behaviour of Jews, we have been encouraged to believe, would be equivalent to commissioning the construction of gas chambers.

Thus the media place Jews in a special class simply by acting as though they were in one, and we pick the idea up. It is the same back-to-front process as with “racism”, whereby we accept that something is bad because we see it disapproved of rather than disapproving of it because we think it is bad: a process that can occur because we accept the authority of the media or other meaning maker. Once “anti-Semitism” is established as a boo word, it is too late to enquire what Jews have done to deserve their special status. How dare one ask the question when Jews are such special people?

According to a count of all the words used in books published between 1960 and 2019, “anti-Semitism” is top dog among racial boo words, coming far ahead even of “racism”, let alone such comparatively paltry failings as xenophobia and White supremacy.[7] So while racism in general is bad, this particular variety of it is gigantically bad, which might have something to do with the fact that the mass media and publishing industry are largely owned by Jews.

As the gold standard of racial badness, and indeed of all possible badness, anti-Semitism acts as the measure of other offences, so that it is asked, for example, whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. People have gone on demonstrations holding placards saying that it is not. If they are mistaken, then anti-Zionism is a no-no, whereas if they are correct it is OK. What can never be doubted is that anti-Semitism is as bad as bad can be.

Since the expression has a determinate conceptual meaning, it behooves Jews to make this as comprehensive as possible. The more it covers, the more we can be condemned for doing and hence the more we can be controlled, not just by Jews but by others on their behalf. Thus in 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) produced a document defining the offence. This document, which shows that it is not for nothing that Jews are known for being clever with words, justifies a digression.[8]

It starts by quoting the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, which presupposed that humanity was still scarred by anti-Semitism and stated that the international community had a solemn responsibility to fight this evil. The scars presumably still existing 44 years later, or seventy-odd years after the event the IHRA exists to remember, the suggestion is that the countries of the world still have this responsibility. Thus the IHRA seeks to get the rest of the world to side with Jews against their enemies.

The document describes its definition of anti-Semitism as only a working one, yet its authors wanted governments and other bodies to sign up to it in its presumably provisional form. The bodies duly complied, including the British government, which adopted the definition promptly, followed eventually by the Labour party, both of which therefore committed themselves to a form of words that might avowedly change at a later date.[9]

According to the oft-cited definition, anti-Semitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. What perception this might be the document does not say. What does it mean by hatred? Again it doesn’t say, so we can suppose that hatred could be a strong aversion, such as some people feel for cabbage, or perhaps a tendency to disagree with Jews, as when those who disagree with transgender activists are said to hate transgenders. Then again it could be the sort of thing that makes one embark on a programme of genocide. All the definition really says is that anti-Semitism is an unspecified perception.

To fill out this rather minimal concept, the document provides examples of anti-Semitism, the first being “the targeting of the state of Israel”. It concedes, however, that criticising Israel isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic. If the criticism is “similar to that levelled against any other country”, it can be legitimate. In other words, as long as Israel behaves no worse than other countries, it can be criticised, but if it goes further, the excess must pass without comment.

Rather than considering whether anti-Semitism might be provoked by things Jews do, the document describes it as a tool used by presumably appalling people to accomplish further ends, such as charging Jews with conspiring to harm humanity. Anti-Semitism is also, according to the document, “often used to blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong’”. The implication that one has a perception or emotion for a purpose, intending to “use” it, rather than perceptions and emotions just arising, supports the idea that having them can make one guilty.

The document reifies anti-Semitism, seeing it as something that goes round doing things. For example, anti-Semitism “employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits”. Naughty anti-Semitism! How could it employ negative character traits when the Jewish character, as is well known, has no flaws?

Other examples include alleging that Jews control the media, which is a “mendacious”, “dehumanising” and “demonising” idea and moreover a “myth” and “stereotype”. This verbal outburst rather suggests that Jews do control the media, or why would the IHRA protest so excessively that they do not? To see how excessive the protest is, one might ask how it can be mendacious, dehumanising or demonising to say that somebody controls something.

It would also be anti-Semitic, according to the document, to deny the fact, scope or mechanisms of the holocaust, which again might raise the question of how well the official version of this event could withstand impartial investigation. Otherwise, why try to deter such investigation? Also we know that in practice not only denying these aspects of the holocaust would be regarded as anti-Semitic but also merely questioning them. On top of this it would be anti-Semitic, says the IHRA, to accuse Jews of exaggerating the holocaust, which means that it can be anti-Semitic to state what appears to be a plain fact, for Jews still make their six-million claim more than thirty years after the number killed at Auschwitz alone was officially reduced by almost three million.[10]

Nor must we say that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the other countries in which they may live. American Jews, that is, are no more loyal to Israel than they are to America, which may be doubted in view of the passionate comments made by such American Jews as Ben Shapiro about Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians.

Scrutiny of the IHRA’s document thus perhaps reveals more about Jews than it does about their critics, making one wonder whether Joseph Sobran was not right to say that an anti-Semite is not someone who dislikes Jews so much as it is someone Jews don’t like.

Especially notable about the document is the fact that at no point does it explain in any reasonable fashion what is wrong with disliking Jews. For example, if it is anti-Semitic to say that Jews control the media, so what? What is wrong with saying that Jews control the media? Attempting to justify the idea that this is bad in terms of dehumanisation and so forth is silly. The document defines a boo word purely on the strength of the fact that it is already a boo word, relying on our existing conditioning to make us accept that we mustn’t do whatever it describes as anti-Semitic.

Coming out of the digression, we can note that when a word has enough conceptual meaning for different opinions to be possible as to whether what it denotes is good or bad, it can be a cheer or boo word for some but not for others. Thus “equality” is a cheer word for many. No one who advocates something in the name of equality needs to say equality in what respect or even necessarily equality between what or whom to raise a cheer from such people. The mere word, with no referent attached to it, is enough. But those who find variety the spice of life or are aware of the horrors that have been wrought by history’s equalisers have less time for equality. This difference of opinion is possible because when all is said and done we know what “equality” means conceptually, namely sameness, and opinions differ as to whether this is desirable. The difference of opinion is also made possible by the fact that the media have yet to complete the process of making “equality” a universal cheer word, at which point every last person will be a mindless devotee of this supposedly glorious ideal.

The power of cheer words and boo words to affect our thinking is illustrated by the word “freedom”. Being a cheer word, this is used in the most preposterous ways, which we unthinkingly accept. Rousseau’s statement that man is born free yet everywhere is in chains strikes many people as a profound truth, yet what could possibly be less free than a new-born baby, which is utterly dependent on its mother? “Free at last!” is something everyone wants to be able to cry, yet who really wants to be free? About the most appealing thing a woman can say to a man is that she is his, to do with as he wills. She doesn’t want to be free but will be only too happy if he takes her on, makes all the difficult decisions and takes responsibility for all the disasters. Every day we see how women value freedom less than security, nor are men necessarily that fond of it. Who wants to go to work and be allowed to do as he likes? One wants a boss to deprive one of that freedom and tell one what to do. Yet another fact that shows how limited can be the attractions of freedom is that in America many emancipated slaves returned to their erstwhile owners asking to be taken back.[11] The idea that we innately and always love freedom is a delusion, created in part by the word’s cheer factor.

The conclusion of this discussion must be that it is good to be aware of how we have been conditioned to react in certain ways to certain words. This awareness is needed if we are to undo the conditioning and think. We should also be aware that the media and other meaning makers are at this moment trying to condition us or to intensify our existing conditioning. Their goal is to put our minds out of action. We shouldn’t let them.


[1] Jamie Whyte, 2005, A Load of Blair, London: Corvo, p. 48. Jamie Whyte calls cheer words hooray words.

[2] The categories of cheer words and boo words overlap with those called purr words and snarl words by S. I. Hayakawa in Language in Thought and Action (1949). “Democratic”, for example, is both a cheer word and a purr word. “Fascist” is both a boo word and a snarl word.

[3] Geoffrey Leech, 1981 (1974), Semantics: the Study of Meaning, 2nd. ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin, p. 15.

[4] Ibid., p. 45.

[5] Note incidentally that the formulation “racism in all its forms” seeks to evade not one but many tasks of definition.

[6] Nick Haslam et al, 2020, “Harm inflation: making sense of concept creep”, European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1.

[7] American Renaissance, Dec. 1st 2023, “Words the Left Uses Against Us”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/jCgn8FVzkN29/.

[8] The original document no longer seems to be available online. The text and some illustrative examples can be found at https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antiSemitism.

[9] The Labour party adopted the definition two years after the Conservatives “after a long struggle against a fierce campaign in its favour” (Morgan Jones, Sept. 4th 2019, “Labour’s Fictitious Anti-Semitism Problem”, https://www.unz.com/article/labours-fictitious-anti-Semitism-problem/).

[10] In 1990 a plaque at Auschwitz stating that four million people were killed there was replaced by one reducing the figure to 1.1 million.

[11] In “The day freedom came” (1901), Booker T. Washington described the gloom that descended on many former slaves when they realised that they would now have to provide for themselves. Gradually, he reported, the older ones began to go back to the “big house” to have whispered conversations as to their future (included by Christopher Ricks and William A. Vance in The Faber Book of America, 1994, London: Faber and Faber, pp. 198-99).

The Day of the Extinguisher

During this year’s Hanukkah celebrations in the Polish Sejm, the image of a known Jewish supremacist rabbi was put on display, eliciting an intervention from the country’s most famous monarchist MP.

Polish MP thwarts Hanukkah celebration in Parliament

For nearly two decades, the Polish Sejm has been host to Hanukkah celebrations. The country has a small Jewish minority, with roughly two thousand individuals declaring adherence to the Jewish faith. This year, the celebration featured a portrait of former Chabad Lubavitch leader Menachem Mendel Schneerson, an infamous rabbi known for the following statements:
  • “Slavs, and among them Russians, are the most unbending people in the world. Slavs are unbending as a result of their psychological and intellectual abilities, created by many generations of ancestors. It is impossible to alter these genes. Slav, Russian, can be destroyed, but never conquered. That is why this seed is subject to liquidation, and, at first, a sharp reduction in their numbers.”
  • “A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity… the entire creation of a non-Jew is only for the sake of the Jew.”
  • “Souls of non-Jews come entirely from the female part of the Satanic sphere. For this reason souls of non-Jews are called evil, not good, and are created without [divine] knowledge.”

A response to this travesty came in the form of an intervention from Konfederacja MP Grzegorz Braun, leader of the monarchist party Konfederacja Korony Polskiej (Confederation of the Polish Crown). Using a fire extinguisher, he interrupted the ceremony by extinguishing all the candles in a spectacular fashion.

Video of the action:

 

More Video:

https://x.com/UltraPatriot44/status/1734737673477071307?s=20

https://x.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1734728257277165852?s=20

While performing this action, he was assaulted by a Jewish woman, later revealed to be Magdalena Gudzińska-Adamczyk — an epidemiologist involved in the promotion of the COVID vaccine. It bears mentioning that such an attack on a Member of Parliament is a criminal offense.

Braun then elaborated on his reasoning before his fellow MPs, explaining that there could be no place for “racist, wild, Talmudic cults” in the Sejm of the Republic of Poland. He pointed out that he was merely restoring normality and balance in the face of “Satanic, Talmudic racist triumphalism” and challenged all those gathered to a theological debate in order to prove the validity of his claim. It was at this time that Speaker Szymon Hołownia responded to this statement by accusing Braun of “insulting followers of other religions.” After a brief response from the MP, who repeated his challenge, Hołownia chose to have Braun removed from the room rather than address his arguments and informed him that he would face prosecution.

Up until this moment, the monarchist leader has been attacked by politicians of all factions with the exception of his own. Hołownia is threatening to attempt to deprive Konfederacja MP Krzysztof Bosak of his position as Deputy Speaker of the Sejm if the party does not throw Braun out, effectively holding the nationalist MP’s seat hostage until the party pays a ransom in the form of acquiescence to the narrative and will of the country’s oikophobic liberal elites. The Presidium of the Sejm has additionally chosen to deprive Braun of his parliamentary salary for six months and half his parliamentary allowance for three months — the maximum punishment they were able to impose.

An unofficial fundraiser in support of the MP gathered over 12,000 zł within less than an hour, followed by another one by Korona which gathered 90,000 zł in just a few short hours. Due to pressure from left-wing activists, fundraising website zrzutka.pl shut the initiative down.

Przemysław Wipler, rumored to be the de facto puppet master in Konfederacja’s leadership, has condemned his fellow MP’s actions, followed by Konfederacja co-leader Sławomir Mentzen declaring much the same. The party’s leadership also chose to ban Braun from delivering speeches in the Sejm for an indefinite period — a punishment all of his fellow Korona MPs voted against.

If you want to support the activities of Grzegorz Braun, please make a donation directly to the account of the Osuchowa Foundation:

ACCOUNT NO.: 21 1020 1664 0000 3702 0669 4675

PAYMENT TITLE: “darowizna na cele statutowe, działalność  Grzegorza Brauna”

Sources

https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/inne-opracowania/wyznania-religijne/wyznania-religijne-w-polsce-2019-2021,5,3.html

https://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm9.nsf/komunikat.xsp?documentId=41EC637A334362C1C125891D00595351

https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/janusz-korwin-mikke-nowa-partia-nie-bede-jeszcze-podawal-nazwy/gzj9ngd

https://muslimskeptic.com/2023/10/23/spiritual-mentor-ben-shapiro/

https://twitter.com/KONFEDERACJA_/status/1734629552930885831

https://twitter.com/Wlodek_Skalik/status/1734700819461681457

https://twitter.com/Wlodek_Skalik/status/1734643448475533451

https://twitter.com/Wlodek_Skalik/status/1734634371879969276

https://twitter.com/GrzegorzBraun_/status/1734609103992053910

Subscribe to Arktos Journal

Monotheism vs. Polytheism

Translated from the French and with the introduction by Tom Sunic

This article was first published in April 1996, in Chronicles; A magazine of American Culture Given the ongoing armed conflict between Israeli troops and Hamas-led Palestinian militants in the Gaza strip, it may be useful to reexamine the Biblical origins of total wars and the nature of modern totalitarianism.

Tom Sunic

Can we still conceive of the revival of pagan sensibility in an age so profoundly saturated by Judeo-Christian monotheism and so ardently adhering to the tenets of liberal democracy? In popular parlance the very word ‘paganism’ may incite some to derision and laughter. Who, after all, wants to be associated with witches and witchcraft, with sorcery and black magic? Worshiping animals or plants, or chanting hymns to Wotan or Zeus, in an epoch of cable television and “smart weapons,” does not augur well for serious intellectual and academic inquiry. Yet, before we begin to heap scorn on paganism, we should pause for a moment. Paganism is not just witches and witches’ brew; paganism also means a mix of highly speculative theories and philosophies. Paganism is Seneca and Tacitus; it is an artistic and cultural movement that swept over Italy under the banner of the Renaissance. Paganism also means Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Charles Darwin, and a host of other thinkers associated with the Western cultural heritage. Two thousand years of Judeo-Christianity have not obscured the fact that pagan thought has not yet disappeared, even though it has often been blurred, stifled, or persecuted by monotheistic religions and their secular offshoots. Undoubtedly, many would claim that in the realm of ethics all men and women of the world are the children of Abraham. Indeed, even the bolder ones who somewhat self-righteously claim to have rejected the Christian or Jewish theologies, and who claim to have replaced them with “secular humanism,” frequently ignore that their self-styled secular beliefs are firmly grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics. Abraham and Moses may be dethroned today, but their moral edicts and spiritual ordinances are much alive. The global and disenchanted world, accompanied by the litany of human rights, ecumenical society, and the rule of law—are these not principles that can be traced directly to the Judeo-Christian messianism that resurfaces today in its secular version under the elegant garb of modern “progressive” ideologies?

And yet, we should not forget that the Western world did not begin with the birth of Christ. Neither did the religions of ancient Europeans see the first light of day with Moses—in the desert. Nor did our much-vaunted democracy begin with the period of Enlightenment or with the proclamation of American independence. Democracy and independence—all of this existed in ancient Greece, albeit in its own unique social and religious context. Our Greco-Roman ancestors, our predecessors who roamed the woods of central and northern Europe, also believed in honor, justice, and virtue, although they attached to these notions a radically different meaning. Attempting to judge, therefore, ancient European political and religious manifestations through the lens of our ethnocentric and reductionist glasses could mean losing sight of how much we have departed from our ancient heritage, as well as forgetting that modern intellectual epistemology and methodology have been greatly influenced by the Bible. Just because we profess historical optimism—or believe in the progress of the modern “therapeutic state”—does not necessarily mean that our society is indeed the “best of all worlds.” Who knows, with the death of communism, with the exhaustion of liberalism, with the visible depletion of the congregations in churches and synagogues, we may be witnessing the dawn of neopaganism, a new blossoming of old cultures, a return to the roots that are directly tied to our ancient European precursors. Who can dispute the fact that Athens was the homeland of Europeans before Jerusalem became their frequently painful edifice?

Great lamenting is heard from all quarters of our disenchanted and barren world today. Gods seem to have departed, as Nietzsche predicted a century ago, ideologies are dead, and liberalism hardly seems capable of providing man with enduring spiritual support. Maybe the time has come to search for other paradigms? Perhaps the moment is ripe, as Alain de Benoist would argue, to envision another cultural and spiritual revolution—a revolution that might well embody our pre-Christian European pagan heritage?

 *    *    *

Alain de Benoist

Nietzsche well understood the meaning of “Athens against Jerusalem.” Referring to ancient paganism, which he called “the greatest utility of polytheism,” he wrote in The Joyful Wisdom:

There was then only one norm, the man and every people believed that it had this one and ultimate norm. But, above himself, and outside of himself, in a distant overworld a person could see a multitude of norms: the one God was not the denial or blasphemy of the other Gods! It was here that the right of individuals was first respected. The inventing of Gods, heroes, and supermen of all kinds, as well as co-ordinate men and undermen— dwarfs, fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, devils—was the inestimable preliminary to the justification of the selfishness and sovereignty of the individual; the freedom which was granted to one God in respect to other Gods, was at last given to the individual himself in respect to laws, customs, and neighbors. Monotheism, on the contrary, the rigid consequence of one normal human being —consequently, the belief in a normal God, beside whom there are only false spurious Gods—has perhaps been the greatest danger of mankind in the past.

Jehovah is not only a “jealous” god, but he can also show hatred: “Yet, I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau” (Malachi 1:3). He recommends hatred to all those who call out his name: “Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies” (Psalm 139: 21-22). “Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God” (Psalm 139:19). Jeremiah cries out: “Render unto them a recompense, O Lord, according to the work of their hands. . . . Persecute and destroy them in anger from under the heavens of the Lord” (Lamentations 5:64-66). The book of Jeremiah is a long series of maledictions and curses buried against peoples and nations. His contemplation of future punishments fills him with gloomy delight. “Let them be confounded that persecute me, but let not me be confounded: … bring upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction” (Lam. 17:18). “Therefore, deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death” (Lam. 18:21).

Further, Jehovah promises the Hebrews that he will support them in their war efforts: “When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land” (Deuteronomy 12:29). “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (Deut. 20:16). Jehovah himself gave an example of a genocide by provoking the Deluge against the humanity that sinned against him. While he resided with the Philistine King Achish, David also practiced genocide (1 Samuel 27:9). Moses organized the extermination of the Midian people (Numbers 31:7). Joshua massacred the inhabitants of Hazor and Anakim. “And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire” (Joshua 11:10-11, 20-21). The messianic king extolled by Solomon was also known for his reign of terror: “May he purify Jerusalem for all gentiles who trample on it miserably, may he exterminate by his wisdom, justice the sinners of this country. . . . May he destroy the impious nations with the words from his mouth.” Hatred against pagans is also visible in the books of Esther, Judith, etc.

“No ancient religion, except that of the Hebrew people has known such a degree of intolerance,” says Emile Gillabert in Moise et le phénomène judéo-chrétien (1976). Renan had written in similar terms: “The intolerance of the Semitic peoples is the inevitable consequence of their monotheism. The Indo-European peoples, before they converted to Semitic ideas, had never considered their religion an absolute truth. Rather, they conceived of it as a heritage of the family, or the caste, and in this way they remained foreign to intolerance and proselytism. This is why we find among these peoples the liberty of thought, the spirit of inquiry and individual research.” Of course, one should not look at this problem in a black and white manner, or for instance compare and contrast one platitude to another platitude. There have always been, at all times, and everywhere, massacres and exterminations. But it would be difficult to find in the pagan texts, be they of sacred or profane nature, the equivalent of what one so frequently encounters in the Bible: the idea that these massacres could be morally justified, that they could be deliberately authorized and ordained by one god, “as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded” (Joshua 11:12). Thus, for the perpetrators of these crimes, good consciousness continues to rule, not despite these massacres, but entirely for the sake of the massacres.

A lot of ink has been spilled over this tradition of intolerance. Particularly contentious are the words of Jesus as recorded by Luke: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Some claim to perceive in the word “hate” a certain form of Hebraism; apparently, these words suggest that Jesus had to be absolutely preferred to all other human beings. Some claim to see in it traces of Gnostic contamination that suggest renouncement, despoliation of goods, and the refusal of procreation. In this context, the obligation to “hate” one’s parents is to be viewed as a corollary of not wishing to have children.

These interpretations remain pure conjecture. What is certain is that Christian intolerance began to manifest itself very early. In the course of history this intolerance was directed against “infidels” as well as against pagans, Jews, and heretics. It accompanied the extermination of all aspects of ancient culture —the murder of Hypatia, the interdiction of pagan cults, the destruction of temples and statues, the suppression of the Olympic Games, and the arson, at the instigation of the town’s Bishop Theophilus of Serapeum, of Alexandria in A.D. 389, whose immense library of 700,000 volumes had been collected by the Ptolomeys. Then came the forced conversions, the extinction of positive science, persecution, and pyres. Ammianus Marcellinus said: “The wild beasts are less hostile to people than Christians are among themselves.” Sulpicius Severus wrote: “Now everything has gone astray as the result of discords among bishops. Everywhere, one can see hatred, favours, fear, jealousy, ambition, debauchery, avarice, arrogance, sloth: there is general corruption everywhere.”

The Jewish people were the first to suffer from Christian monotheism. The causes of Christian anti-Semitism, which found its first “justification” in the Gospel of John (probably written under the influence of Gnosticism, and to which many studies have been devoted) lie in the proximity of the Jewish and Christian faiths. As Jacques Solé notes: “One persecutes only his neighbors.” Only a “small gap” separates Jews from Christians, but as Nietzsche says, “the smallest gap is also the least bridgeable.” During the first centuries of the Christian era anti-Semitism grew out of the Christian claim to be the successor of Judaism, and bestowing on it its “truthful” meaning. For Christians, “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), but it is only Christianity that can be verus Israel. Hence the expression perfidi, applied to the Jews until recently by the Church in prayers during Holy Friday—an expression meaning “without faith,” and whose meaning is different from the modern word “perfidious.”

Saint Paul was the first to formulate this distinction. With his replacement of the Law by Grace, Paul distinguished between the “Israel of God” and the “Israel after the flesh” (I Corinthians 10:18), which also led him to oppose circumcision: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Romans 2:28-29). Conclusion: “For we are the circumcision” (Philippians 3:3). This argument has, from the Christian point of view, a certain coherence. As Claude Trestmontant says, if the last of the nabis from Israel, the rabbi Yohushua of Nazareth, that is to say Jesus, is really a Messiah, then the vocation of Israel to become the “beacon of nations” must be fully accomplished, and the universalism implied in this vocation must be put entirely into practice. Just as the Law that has come to an end with Christ (in a double sense of the word) is no longer necessary, so has the distinction between Israel and other nations become futile as well: “There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28). Consequently, universal Christianity must become verus Israel.

This process, which originated in the Pauline reform, has had a double consequence. On the one hand, it has resulted in the persecution of Jews who, by virtue of their “genealogical” proximity, are represented as the worst enemies of Christianity. They are the adversaries who refuse to “convert,” who refuse to recognize Christianity as the “true Israel.” As Shmuel Trigano notes, “by projecting itself as the new Israel, the West has given to Judaism a de facto jurisdiction, albeit not the right to be itself.” This means that the West can become “Israelite” to the extent that it denies Jews the right to be Israelites. Henceforth, the very notion of “Judeo-Christianity” can be defined as a double incarceration. It imprisons “the Christian West,” which by its own deliberate act has subordinated itself to an alien “jurisdiction,” and which by doing so denies this very same jurisdiction to its legitimate (Jewish) owners. Furthermore, it imprisons the Jews who, by virtue of a religion different from their own, are now undeservedly caught in the would-be place of their “accomplishment” by means of a religion which is not their own. Trigano further adds: “If Judeo-Christianity laid the foundations of the West, then the very place of Israel is also the West.” Subsequently, the requisites of “Westernization” must also become the requisites of assimilation and “normalization,” and the denial of identity. “The crisis of Jewish normality is the crisis of the westernization of Judaism. Therefore, to exit from the West means for the Jews to turn their back to their ‘normality,’ that is, to open themselves up to their otherness.” This seems to be why Jewish communities today criticize the “Western model,” only after they first adopt their own specific history of a semi-amnesiac and semi-critical attitude.

In view of this. Christian anti-Semitism can be rightly described as neurosis. As Jean Blot writes, it is because of its “predisposition toward alienation” that the West is incapable of “fulfilling itself or rediscovering itself.” And from this source arises anti-Semitic neurosis. “Anti-semitism allows the anti-Semite to project onto the Jew his own neuroses. He calls him a stranger, because he himself is a stranger, a crook, a powerful man, a parvenu; he calls him a Jew, because he himself is this Jew in the deepest depth of his soul, always on the move, permanently alienated, a stranger to his own religion and to God who incarnates him.” By replacing his original myth with the myth of biblical monotheism, the West has turned Hebraism into its own superego. As an inevitable consequence, the West had to turn itself against the Jewish people by accusing them of not pursuing the “conversion” in terms of the “logical” evolution proceeding from Sinai to Christianity. In addition, the West also accused the Jewish people of attempting, in an apparent “deicide,” to obstruct this evolution.

Many, even today, assume that if Jews were to renounce their distinct identity, “the Jewish problem” would disappear. At best, this is a naive proposition, and at worst, it masks a conscious or unconscious form of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, this proposition, which is inherent in the racism of assimilation and the denial of identity, represents the reverse side of the racism of exclusion and persecution. In the West, notes Shmuel Trigano, when the Jews were not persecuted, they “were recognized as Jews only on the condition that they first ceased to be Jews.” Put another way, in order to be accepted, they had to reject themselves; they had to renounce their own Other in order to be reduced to the Same. In another type of racism, Jews are accepted but denied; in the first, they are accepted but are not recognized. The Church ordered Jews to choose between exclusion (or physical death) or self-denial (spiritual and historical death). Only through conversion could they become “Christians, as others.”

The French Revolution emancipated Jews as individuals, but it condemned them to disappear as a “nation”; in this sense, they were forced to become “citizens as others.” Marxism, too, attempted to ensure the “liberation” of the Jewish people by imposing on them a class division, from which their dispersion inevitably resulted.

The origins of modern totalitarianism are not difficult to trace. In a secular form, they are tied to the same radical strains of intolerance whose religious causes we have just examined. The organization of totalitarianism is patterned after the organization of the Christian Church, and in a similar manner totalitarianisms exploit the themes of the “masses”—the themes inherent in contemporary mass democracy. This secularization of the system has, in fact, rendered totalitarianism more dangerous—independently of the fact that religious intolerance often triggers, in return, an equally destructive revolutionary intolerance. “Totalitarianism,” writes Gilbert Durand, “is further strengthened, in so far as the powers of monotheist theology (which at least left the game of transcendence intact) have been transferred to a human institution, to the Grand Inquisitor.”

It is a serious error to assume that totalitarianism manifests its real character only when it employs crushing coercion. Historical experience has demonstrated—and continues to demonstrate—that there can exist a “clean” totalitarianism, which, in a “soft” manner, yields the same consequences as the classic kinds of totalitarianism. “Happy robots” of 1984 or of Brave New World have no more enviable conditions than prisoners of the camps. In essence, totalitarianism did not originate with Saint-Just, Stalin, Hegel, or Fichte. Rather, as Michel Maffesoli says, totalitarianism emerges “when a subtle form of plural, polytheistic, and contradictory totality, that is inherent in organic interdependency” is superseded by a monotheistic one. Totalitarianism grows out of a desire to establish social and human unity by reducing the diversity of individuals and peoples to a single model. In this sense, he argues, it is legitimate to speak of a “polytheist social arena, referring to multiple and complementary gods” versus a “monotheistic political arena founded on the illusion of unity.” Once the polytheism of values “disappears, we face totalitarianism.” Pagan thought, on the other hand, which fundamentally remains attached to rootedness and to the place, and which is a preferential center of the crystallization of human identity, rejects all religious and philosophical forms of universalism.