Featured Articles

Monotheism vs. Polytheism

/46 Comments/in , /by

This piece below was first published in Chronicles (A Magazine of American Culture), April 1996.

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 admit 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? Read more

Christianity and the Ethnic Suicide of the West

/85 Comments/in , , , /by

Several comments on my post “What’s wrong with the Swedes?” mention Christianity as a problem in the dispossession of Whites. I agree that Christianity is part of the problem, but I think there are several difficulties with supposing that it is a root cause of the problem.

  • First and foremost, Christianity was the religion of the West during its expansion around the world. A century ago, with the exception of China, Japan, Siam, Korea, Ethiopia, and Liberia, the rest of the planet was dominated by Christian Europeans. Christianity was at least consistent with this incredible expansion and with the very large increase in the European population that occurred during this period of expansion. If anything, the decline of the West has co-occurred with the decline of religion among Western elites. If the world had stayed the way it was in 1960, no one would be talking about the suicide of the West.
  • Christianity has been many things throughout the centuries—an ideology of ethnic defense during the Iberian Reconquista, a pillar of exploitative monarchies and aristocracies in Europe and Latin America, a force for ethnic defense against usurious exploitation of peasants by ethnic outsiders at times during the Middle Ages, supporting slavery and segregation in the American South and apartheid in South Africa. Christianity has not had a consistent message of ethnic suicide or moral universalism. People on both sides of the slave trade in 17th–18th-century Britain were Christian. Both sides of the American Civil War were Christian.
  • Throughout history, Christianity has been quite adept at rendering unto Caesar—accommodating to the powers that be. In the U.S. and I suppose elsewhere in the West, Christians had much more influence on culture prior to the 1960s and the rise of the secular left — e.g., spearheading the successful drive to rein in Hollywood depictions of sex and Christianity beginning in the 1920s. But all that ended with the cultural revolution of the 1960s which was certainly not Christian in inspiration. Right now, the powers that be are the secular, multi-cultural, pro-non-White-immigration left, and one of their main goals is the eradication of public displays of Christianity and traditional Christian views on marriage and the family. Christianity itself has been corrupted by the secular left, most obviously in the case of the Second Vatican Council but also including the mainline Protestant sects. The Church had stood for cultural conservatism and had been a bulwark against Jewish influence for centuries.

Read more

The Friends of Greville Janner

/21 Comments/in , /by

See also Francis Carr Begbie’s “The Silence of Greville Janner”

With the clamour of protest over the decision not to prosecute one of Britain’s most senior Jewish politicians over child rape allegations showing no sign of abating, it is worthwhile looking back at the career of the man at the centre.

Even without these lurid claims, Greville Janner must rank as one of the most unpopular specimens to ooze his way onto Parliament’s famous green benches.

With his pink carnation, clammy handshake and faint after burn of eau-de-cologne, his grinning approach was guaranteed to send a shiver down the spines of the toughest parliamentarians, even in his own Labour Party.

Nevertheless, this ingratiating, limp-wristed flatterer has prospered over the decades of his slithering along the corridors of power, not least due to his astute playing of the Jewish ethnic card.

His modus operandi was as a backroom operator, a Mr Fixit, a dispenser of favours and passer-on of messages. He was one of those types who would insist on doing someone a favour whether it was wanted or not. In his autobiography he says it was his mother who taught him his most important political lesson — there are few problems that could not be solved with a quiet word in the right ear. Read more

The silence of Greville Janner

/35 Comments/in /by

If Britain’s leading law officer thought she was putting an unfortunate episode to rest when she tried to quietly drop her most difficult case then she was in for a rude shock — people are in no mood to let the child rape charges against Lord Greville Janner go unanswered.

The explosion of outrage at this inexplicable decision has ensured that, for once, it will not go unchallenged. The injustice is too overwhelming, the double standard too glaring and the incompetence is too blatant.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecution, admitted that there was evidence to charge the former President of the British Board of Jewish Deputies  on 22 counts of indecent assault and buggery over decades dating back to 1969 but that her department had botched the case. She said dementia — diagnosed by four doctors — meant that a fair trial could not go ahead.

The scale of the — alleged — depravity takes the breath away. It is said that Janner was at the center of an organised child sex ring that passed around  dozens of children from council care homes. And that he used his position as a prominent politician to give him indemnity. Read more

“Good War . . . Better Peace”

/97 Comments/in /by

To help celebrate the upcoming 70th Anniversary of the end of the “Good War” and the beginning of the “Good Peace,” I offer the following from my books, Hellstorm—The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947, and Rape Hate—Sex & Violence in War & Peace.

And so, with the once mighty German Army now disarmed and enslaved in May, 1945, and with their leaders either dead or awaiting trial for so-called “war crimes,” the old men, women and children who remained in the dismembered Reich found themselves utterly at the mercy of the victors. Unfortunately for these survivors, never in the history of the world was mercy in shorter supply.

Soon after the Allied victory in Europe, the purge of Nazi Party members from government, business, industry, science, education, and all other walks of German life commenced. While a surprising number of Nazis were allowed—even compelled—to man their posts temporarily to enable a smooth transition, all party members, high and low, were sooner or later excised from German daily life. In theory, “de-Nazification” was a simple transplanting of Nazi officials with those of democratic, socialist or communist underpinnings. In practice, the purge became little more than a cloak for an orgy of rape, torture and death.

De-Nazification

De-Nazification

Because their knowledge of the language and culture was superb, most of the intelligence officers accompanying US and British forces into the Reich were Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in the late 1930s. Although their American and English “aides” were hardly better, the fact that many of these “39ers” became interrogators, examiners and screeners, with old scores to settle, insured that Nazis— or any German, for that matter—would be shown no mercy. Read more

Reasons why Ukip will underperform in the upcoming election

/56 Comments/in /by
Editor’s note: Robert Henderson recently sent me a link to his article, “British Future report says 25% of British adults want all immigrants repatriated” which discusses a survey showing a great deal of hostility toward immigration in the U.K. The question then is why are we reading that Ukip is losing ground in the polls and not expected to get more than a handful of MPs. The most recent poll, published in the Telegraph, has Ukip at 13% and 3 MPs for the May 7 election. Given that Ukip ranks highest of all the parties in the popularity of their immigration proposals, the question is why. Many of his points apply also in the United States and  elsewhere.
1. Political inertia.  The first past the post system makes it  immensely  difficult for new parties to get established as a real political force because most British constituencies have large in-built majorities for either the Labour or Conservative Parties.  This is because the nature of the populations in those constituencies are such as to make a winning vote for the  Conservatives or Labour  candidate very likely, for example, Labour safe seats will lie at the centre of major cities and towns and old industrial centres  where thy continue to capture the White working-class vote and those of ethnic/racial minorities. Safe Conservative seats will  tend to be in the suburbs and countryside.   In many constituencies people will think there is no point in voting for anyone but the almost certain winner and often will not bother to vote if they do not support the party of the probable winner.
In the years since the Restoration in 1660 and the formation of the Whigs and Tories only one entirely new party (Labour)  has every formed a government in the UK , although the Whigs transmuted into the liberals and the Tories mutated into Conservatives  during the 19th century.  The fate of the Social Democratic Party formed by four dissident leading members of the Labour Party  in the early 1980s is instructive.  It managed to win by-elections and in alliance with the then Liberal Party managed to gain 25% of the vote at the 1983 General Election. That gained the alliance a paltry  23 seats out of 650.     By the next general election the SDP was a dead duck.   The problem for the alliance was that their vote was spread much more evenly across the country than the vote of Conservative and Labour  parties.  The same applies to Ukip.

Read more

The Toxicity of Truth: Honesty as a Handicap for White Nationalists

/90 Comments/in /by

For me, the most important question in the world is this: What is truth? The question underlies every attempt to understand the world and to act therein. In a biological sense, the problem of formulating true representations of the world existed long before humans and language. Animals seek accurate information about the world: what is edible, what is not; what is dangerous, what is not.

This means that deception also existed long before human beings. Animals are in competition and although they want accurate information for themselves, they often want to deny it to their competitors. Think of camouflage. The truth about a stick-insect is that it is good food for birds or lizards. It conceals that truth by its appearance. The truth about a cuckoo-chick in a reed warbler’s nest is that it is a parasitic interloper. It conceals that truth by its behaviour.

Wasps and monarch butterflies do the opposite: they broadcast the truth about themselves as clearly as possible. “We sting!” “We taste bad!” But their clear warnings can then be stolen by deceivers. Some harmless moths mimic wasps; some edible butterflies mimic monarchs. To understand biology, you have to investigate not just flows of energy, but also flows of information. When you do, it’s clear that control over information is an essential part of biological competition. Deception is a very common evolutionary strategy both between and within species.

These biological realities also apply to human beings, but there are extra layers in the human world. We have language, and our psychology is far more complex. However, this does not alter one essential fact: Truth is often toxic. Revealing it can be very harmful. It’s easy to see how this applies in personal life, but I want to examine how it applies in politics too. The naïve assumption might be that it is good for a political movement to have the truth on its side. But is it? For example, are White nationalists, who recognize the truth about racial differences, actually handicapped by being in the right?

I would suggest that they are. And I’m not simply referring to the hostile media, which celebrate charlatans like Stephen Jay Gould and persecute truthful men like James Watson. We have to ask: why has a strategy of lies and deceit been so successful in politics? Read more