Featured Articles

What to read, Part 1

/64 Comments/in , /by

 

There is no such thing as rightwing vs. leftwing literature. There is only bad literature vs. good literature, with the definition of goodness vs. badness resulting from one’s own implicit cultural and racial baggage. For more than a half century, teachers and scholars have used public and academic discourse quite in line with the egalitarian White-hating dogmas, and reading lists for their students were constructed on the basis of those dogmas. Important novelists, key social scientists, and authors   suspected of writing prose that goes against the stream of dominant political ideas, have either been swept aside or removed from the reading list. Their books, if ever mentioned, receive a critical, criminalizing, downgrading, or caricatured interpretation. Worse, if some of them trespass over the historiographic lines of self-censored behavior, as is the case with historical revisionists in Europe and the USA, they may lose a job or land in prison.

1. Literature: Homer and the Tragic

One can tell the author’s identity by his style and narrative. At the beginning of his autodidactic voyage, a young student should avoid authors whose style and syntax are boring, or whose main theme is difficult to grasp. A White student in the humanities should start with easy-reading classics first, such as Homer and the equally easy texts of fairy tales. Great writers love clarity of expression and do not hide their towering egos behind dangling sentences and obscure lingo. This is unfortunately not always the case with some prominent racialist and traditionalist scholars, especially in the field of social science. Many good social scientists often do not know how to frame their important ideas into simple language. Hence, it’s necessary for a student to read the classics first. Read more

How to read

/106 Comments/in , /by

It is far easier to reflect on the art of dating than on the art of reading. For a student in humanities the main concern must not be which author he needs to read and which one he needs to discard, but rather how to read and how to interpret the text. Before he flips open a book he must ask himself a question: Who will interpret this text? Over the last several decades the focus in the humanities has not been so much the substance of the author’s work, but rather the biased interpretation of his work. The egalitarian-multicultural “paradigm” in higher education still determines how an author is studied — and hence how he is being interpreted. Here is an example: Johan W. Goethe, the German classic writer of the late 18th and early 19th century had a glowing reception in literary circles in National–Socialist Germany, a glowing reception in the postwar Allied-occupied West Germany, and a glowing one during the same period of time in the Soviet-occupied East Germany. Each political regime interpreted Goethe’s texts in accordance with the dominant political ideas of the time. The same rule of (re)interpretation applies to all authors, regardless whether they are novelists, social scientists or legal scholars.

The Frankfurt School Program in Applied Brainwashing

For many White activists, or would-be college students in humanities, it is still hard to comprehend that since the fateful 1945 the academic program in the West has been subject to a drastic methodological overhaul, which in turn resulted in gigantic brainwashing of students. The steady removal of hundreds of politically incorrect titles from library shelves on the one hand and a radically new interpretation of the classics on the other, only added insult to injury. The notion of just vs. unjust, of beauty vs. ugliness, of crook vs. hero, of truth vs. lie, has been reversed, or rather, the meaning of those words changed in accordance with the dominant leftist-liberal aka “multicultural” teaching philosophy. Very early on, largely as a result of the Frankfurt School Program in Applied Brainwashing, the System managed to conflate the notion of academic integrity with the notion of “humanism.” Any attempt by critically minded professors to examine authors lying beyond the pale of the standard curriculum, was immediately branded as a criminal, fascist enterprise, worthy of penal sanctions, loss of tenure, and academic ostracism. Read more

Advice from my grandmother

/89 Comments/in , /by

There is a lot of talk about ‘the talk’ in the media, in all shapes and colors. And it got me thinking. See, I never got any talk from my parents, but after reading several articles on the recent John Derbyshire affair, I suddenly recalled some things my grandmother had taught me when I was very young—so young in fact that I don’t even remember being told this or that for the first time. For example, that I should never talk to a stranger.

My grandmother was born well before the Russian Revolution, and as an adult, she managed to survive the major historical upheavals such as the WWI, the change of the regime, the collectivization, the siege of Leningrad, the Red terror, the Stalinist terror before and after the war, the Cold War period, and the rest of the Soviet reality, until her death at the venerable age of 90. I still remember her as a good old grandma but, being a kid, I could hardly appreciated the considerable survival skills that kept her and her family alive, out of prison as well as could be expected all through the troubled years of modern Russian history. Although she was poisonously contemptuous towards all things Soviet (her favorite nickname for V. I. Lenin was “the Antichrist”), she had realistic attitudes through her entire life. What she tried to instill in me also, ever since I was three years old, was certain norms of behavior that, as I realize now, were the basic rules of survival. How well they served me later in life! Obviously, those rules were survival strategies in an age of anarchy, wars, a totalitarian regime and finally multiculturalism with its abundance of crime, dirt and diseases. So here it is — some advice from my grandmother. And since her wisdom was simple and commonsensical, I didn’t even need Bill Ayers’ help in writing it.

Who would’ve thought her advice would be so painfully applicable in contemporary multicultural, PC-vigilant US of America? Read more

Valentin Rasputin’s Crusade

/28 Comments/in , , /by

Valentin Rasputin

With the passing of the great Solzhenitsyn (1918–2008), the no less great, though in a different genre, Valentin Rasputin (b. 1937), assumed the mantle of doyen of the Russian literary scene. Whereas Solzhenitsyn wrote monumental tomes about festering political issues in Russia (Gulag, Revolution, Jews) and gained international fame thereby, Rasputin, a son and guardian of Siberia, gained his initial recognition mostly from his finely executed, almost precious novellas about life in his homeland and the ruin the Communist government was inflicting on it.

While the differences in style and subject matter between Solzhenitsyn and Rasputin are obvious, the bonds of similarity that immediately identify them as Russian writers are less so. Russian literary figures have religiously followed the tradition of earlier Russian literary figures like Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and Bunin in seeing the role of the writer not as an entertainer or propagandist but as a kind of culture-bearer, a teacher, a conscience, and always a patriot — not in the sense of a chauvinist but rather as one who loves his country and its people. Such literary giants therefore help forge “a spiritual commonality” with their readers and give them “moral direction.” To fail to do this would be considered a betrayal of a sacred trust.[1]

The principles of Orthodox Christianity are most evident in the lives of both Solzhenitsyn and Rasputin. Rasputin, for example, was baptized by an Orthodox priest in 1980, when the Communist government was still in power. Both the writings of Solzhenitsyn and Rasputin are suffused with not only a sense of civic responsibility but with an overriding moral concern as well. Just as the Orthodox Church keeps alive and treasures everything in its past history, both Solzhenitsyn and Rasputin reach into older Russian writings to retrieve and reuse words and expressions that might have fallen into disuse. Both writers also studied ancient Russian folklore. Both were literary crusaders. Read more

Evil Genius: Constructing Wagner as Moral Pariah, Part 2

/33 Comments/in , , , /by

 

Part 2: Jewish Responses to Wagner’s Ideas

Basically ignoring whether Wagner’s views on Jewish influence on German art and culture had any validity, a long line of Jewish music writers and intellectuals have furiously attacked the composer for having expressed them. In his essay “Know Thyself” Wagner writes of the fierce backlash that followed his drawing “notice to the Jews’ inaptitude for taking a productive share in our Art,” which was “met by the utmost indignation of Jews and Germans alike; it became quite dangerous to breathe the word ‘Jew’ with a doubtful accent.” Wagner’s critique of Jewish influence on German art and culture could not be dismissed as the ravings of an unintelligent and ignorant fool. Richard Wagner was, by common consent, one of the most brilliant human beings to have ever lived, and his views on the Jewish Question were cogent and rational. Accordingly, Jewish critics soon settled on the response of ascribing psychiatric disorders to Wagner, and this has been a stock approach ever since. As early as 1872 the German Jewish psychiatrist Theodor Puschmann, offered a psychological assessment of Wagner which was widely reported in the German press. He claimed that Wagner was suffering from “chronic megalomania, paranoia… and moral derangement.”

The long-time music critic for the New York Times, Harold Schonberg (who was a Jew), described Wagner in his Lives of the Great Composers (1997) as “amoral, hedonistic, selfish, virulently racist, arrogant, filled with gospels of the superman … and the superiority of the German race, he stands for all that is unpleasant in human character.” In 1968 the Jewish writer Robert Gutman published a biography of Wagner (Richard Wagner: the Man, his Mind and his Music) in which he portrayed his subject as a racist, psychopathic, proto-Nazi monster. Gutman’s scholarship was questioned at the time, but this did not prevent his book from becoming a best-seller, and as one source notes: “An entire generation of students has been encouraged to accept Gutman’s caricature of Richard Wagner. Even intelligent people, who have either never read Wagner’s writings or tried to penetrate them and failed … have read Gutman’s book and accepted his opinions as facts.” Read more

Evil Genius: Constructing Wagner as Moral Pariah, Part 1

/79 Comments/in , , , /by

PART 1

In the 2010 feature-length documentary Wagner and Me the British celebrity Stephen Fry explored his love affair with the music of Richard Wagner. Fry, who is Jewish, homosexual, and bipolar, enjoys a multi-pronged “victim” status that has made his identity politics credentials the aesthetic equivalent of a nuclear warhead. The inevitable consequence of this (and his Leftist politics) is his constant presence in the British media. Indeed, Stephen Fry is possibly the most overrated and overexposed individual in the history of British entertainment, and has benefited enormously from the intellectual elite’s construction of Jewish genius to the point where he is routinely hailed in sections of this fawning media as a “genius” and a “national treasure.”

As well as providing another celebrity vehicle for the overrated Stephen Fry, Wagner and Me offered another platform for exploring the life, work and thinking of one of the world’s most famous “anti-Semites.” While acknowledging Wagner’s undoubted genius, Fry reminds us in portentous tones that “a shadow falls across the sublime music. It’s not only the fact that it was later appropriated by Hitler which makes some people think of Wagner’s art as tainted. It’s also because Wagner himself was outspokenly anti-Semitic.” Read more

The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Affair: Previewed by Hollywood

/152 Comments/in , , , /by

Well, I’m waiting. I’m waiting for something to wake up White people all over the world, especially in America. I’ve thought before there was enough out there to do the job, but people’s survival instincts have yet to kick in. And now we have the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman affair.

I really thought this anti-White media propaganda campaign was a no-brainer, but my brother surprised me by piping up about how terrible it was that a White guy had shot this innocent black boy in cold blood. In other words, my brother had swallowed the media line hook, line and sinker.

What is so discouraging about this is that I’ve kept him informed over the years about racial realism and the real state of crime in America. Further, I’ve situated it in the context of a “culture of critique” explanation showing how ethnic warfare on Whites is being carried out in education, the government, courts, and most explicitly in the mass media. Read more