Archive | March 2015

christfags = cuckfags lol

ask a Christfag, if God exists, why do niggers happen?

While he’s busy explaining with a mixture of retarded bullshit and heresy, rape his wife and impregnate her. He will tell her not to abort, because according to Aristotle and Aquinas, every blastocyst has a soul. Instead, he will ensure that your rapebaby is raised as well as if it was his own son, because, after all, it is his brother in Christ. But he might get sad. Perhaps he will go do missionary work for the Lᴏʀᴅ, and help his brothers in Christ in Nigeria build a sewer system for Lagos. Maybe he can even hook up with one of his equals there. Then he can go to a priest to clean his slate, if not his dick of herpes, and take his lovechild home to his wife, and teach it to read and write and hate the White man, and get a job as an educator, and a White wife, and a family of quadroons, who are all brothers in Christ and equal before the Lᴏʀᴅ.  Amen.

Christfags = cuckfags lol

Nick B. Steves will probably say, lol, good luck getting near my wife.  After all, Christianity does help White communities be communities and defend themselves, until the wives get bored and want some pets


But that can happen to anyone, christfag or not, right?

Who paid for abolitionism, prohibition, and other nanny state degeneracy and faggotry?  Christfags.  When Margaret Mead was lying about Samoan cultural norms about sexuality, who was she cucking?  A christfag.  But a Lutheran christfag.  So maybe Catholicism is safe from cucking?  After all, it’s not Catholicism’s fault that Hitler lost WWII and Spain and Italy ended up like France and Germany but poorer, right?  It’s not Catholicism’s fault that the Pope is forced to wash the feet of the


and entertain the notion of transsexuality along with a bunch of trannies.

E. Michael Jones wrote a book, Degenerate Moderns, (which, by the way, is not the first book Alex Linder has told me about) which I have to like from the title, and have to dislike from about page 31 when he starts with the christfaggotry.

The book ends with Freeman espousing a mechanistic philosophy that confuses human nature with biology and is full of all sorts of incantations and evolutionary mumbo-jumbo.

Cultural adaptations, [Freeman tells us] are made possible by the evolutionary emergence of what Ernst Mayr has terms open programs of behavior, resulting from a gradual opening up of a genetic program to permit the incorporation of personally acquired information to an ever-greater extent…

Within an open program of behavior, then, a choice is made by the brain or in other parts of the nervous system between two or more responses to produce what Bonner calls “multiple-choice behavior.”

The appearance of culture is thus to be viewed as a “new niche that arose from the experimentation of animals with multiple-choice behavior…” With all due respect to Professor Freeman andthe service he has done in exposing Margaret Mead, this is simply mechanistic nonsense, little better than the cultural determinist nonsense that Mead propagated.  The brain is about as capable of choosing as it is of playing tennis.  Only the mind can make choices, and to say that the brain and the mind are the same thing is the crudest type of materialism.  It is like saying that radios can predict the weather.  Freeman’s nosedive at the end of his book is a sad denouement to a sound piece of anthropology.  It is also a pretty good indication of the general poverty of intellectual discourse in the twentieth century.  The anthopological pendulum swings from racist mumbo-jumbo to cultural relativism and then can find nowhere else to go but back again to a hopefully more benign form of the type of mechanism it left in the first place.

In the midst of this, the crucial question about human nature continues to go unanswered.  Is it a mere function of superego or culture, as Mead claimed?  Or is it to be discovered by ever more meticulous dissection of DNA?  The answer is that it is neither.  Neither alternative is anything more than a blind alley that has already been tried more than once and been found wanting.

Beyond that, Freeman’s myopia about human nature prevents him from answering probably the most important question of his study…

E. Michael Jones published this book in 1993.  He hangs out at , which is unknown for having accomplished absolutely nothing.  Hey Jones, why don’t you call me when you’re ready to take things a little more seriously.

Spandrell still thinks that human souls make all humans the same.  That calling a deer a horse story applies to the insectoid riceniggers, not humans.  Spandrell needs some han sanitizer (as do Vancouver and Tibet).  Whites have a deep-seated need to know the truth and do useful work, which, being harder to explain than gook behavior, lead muddleheaded men like E. Michael Jones to believe that Whites have these ‘souls’, after which, well, their accomplishments stand for themselves.

Opus Dei has great people, doesn’t it.  So did and do the Jesuits.  Why do the Jesuits spend more time promoting degeneracy than fighting it?  Do they know something we don’t?


Anyway, the Gnon compromise has collapsed (hey Spandrell, I’m social signaling to the other atheist NRxers to revoke that compromise, smash the Christians, and rape their wives), and NRx is wondering whether to be the smart and honest segment of the alt right, or the autistic lesswronger segment, or whatever.  I mean, Andrew Anglin would never post something like this, because he’s too busy trying to keep people from arguing about religion on his website and claims to believe in Jesus because his ancestors did and they are not stupid.  There’s a niche for exploratory alt-right content that would be problematic for Andrew Anglin to post.  But there’s also a niche to talk about social signaling, to social signal to each other about who’s the leader, or to just hang out and bitch about not being allowed to say the word nigger at work.  I’m mostly here for the bitching anyway.


30 years later

In The Slums of Academe

According to a despatch from the United Press, published in the Portland Oregonian on 16 April and doubtless other newspapers, a jury in Atlanta awarded $2,500,000 to a young woman, formerly an instructress in the University of Georgia, who was fired from her untenured position because she objected to the almost universal practice of diploma-mills, which hire big hunks fo muscle, chifly Black bucks, to advectise the joint by winning athletic contests, although the animals are functionally or entirely illiterate, and then forge academic records to make them seem eligible for what is called “amateur sport” in a bad joke at which some members of the public are too naive to laugh.

The verdict against the University brought to public attention some interesting details about such slums and the vending of fraudulent diplomas, which is one of the largest and crookedest businesses in the United States.  One little shyster on the faculty denounced poor Miss Kamp for being so “provincial” as to think that there was any place for honesty in the pseudo-academic racket.  It is quite true that if she had not been a young teacher, holding the lowest rank in a university, she would have had sufficient experience to see that there was no such place, except in the reactionary minds of a few old fogeys and of stupid romantics who still believe in learning and culture, although they live in a modern Judaized world.

Although Miss Kamp made twenty-three calls and wrote two letters before taking action, she was never admitted to the august presence of the head goon, who has now been forced to resign.  He is reported in the press as having defended the University by saying, with childish solemnity, “If the ‘athletes’ leave us being able to read, write, communicate better, we have done them no harm.”!  Years ago, I new an attorney who had acquired a reputation and fortune by defending persons accused of crime.  He once told me, “You cannot believe, you could not imagine, just how God-damned dumb those moral idiots are.”

It is pleasant to see the University of Georgia get a small bit of what it deserves, but we must not lose our perspective.  It has been decades since any intelligent observer could have illusions about the very expensive publicity stunts staged by the big diploma-manufacturers and called ‘athletics,’ appropriating a name given such contests when they were carried on by undergraduates for their own amusement and at their own expense, without interference or meddling by the college, which in those far-off days was an educational institution, privately endowed, and not a bleeding cancer on the treasury and tax-payers of a state or other political unit.

The real corruption of the universities is not in their dishonest advertising stunts, but in their dishonest and fraudulent classes, in which putrid propaganda is purveyed as “science” and “scholarship”.  But that is an entirely different subject.

Commentig on the scandal in Atlasta, Dr. Robert Kreiser of the American Association of University Professors suggested that “the enormity of the situation at the University of Georgia is only the tip of the iceberg,” and there are rumors of investigations of the many institutions that are equally corrupt.  If the investigations take place, they will probably produce tons of spoiled paper, endless gabbling, and limitless lying, but no real result.

This particular aspect of the ‘educational” slums that tax-payers finance is likely to be corrected soon, but not by a sudden outbreak of honesty.  One only has to project the probably ineluctable future of a bankrupt, demoralize, and besotted nation, now occupied by its implacable enemies.

The academic goons had better make haste to profit as much as they can for the fatuity of the populace while the boobs still think they are prosperous.  The Ice Man cometh.

That isn’t me writing now.  That’s Revilo Oliver writing in Liberty Bell magazine, October, 1986

The boobs have continued to think they are prosperous up until the present.  The classes for athletes have been exposed time and again, in particular last year they were shown to in some cases not even be held.  The justification that people passing through the universities could maybe learn to read, write or communicate better has extended to every single student, including and especially the ones with student loans. But, athletics isn’t just about advertising any more – now it brings in money and niggers.  It is hard to determine which is more important to the modern university.

Well anyway, after 30 years, there are a lot of things different.  I’m hoping that one of them is the Internet, and that it’s here to stay and constantly remind people of the past.  But, progressives are beginning to notice hatespeech on the Internet, and it won’t be long before they claim that Internet companies that knowing host hatespeech are violating the civil rights of either their redguard employees or any redguards with any business relationship with them or just anyone.  Twitter has only been banning people who directly harass people of color (who get Whites arrested for calling names), and YouTube has mostly restricted itself to talking about deleting David Duke’s channel over some bullshit copyright infringement.  But when it comes time to accuse hatespeech hosters of civil rights violations, CloudFlare won’t protect Andrew Anglin from DDoSes, and if that’s not enough, the hosting companies that are willing to host hateful content are the most obviously guilty.

When this becomes an issue, we need to hope that Republicans do their job of blocking, bullshitting, stalling, lying, and delaying, instead of making it a bipartisan thing by banning porn at the same time.  Or, you know, since it’s not ten years ago any more, whatever culture war nonsense that they’re supposed to be pretending to care about now.

In a sense, I’m glad the Internet came around as late as it did.  It would have been much easier to censor it in the name of protecting people from porn and hatespeech if it had appeared any sooner.

Zippy for Racists: Usury is bad k

As Jim keeps saying, progressives believe that all religions are progressivism when interpreted correctly.  They also believe that all current hominids, from Australoids to Pygmies, are really northern european Whites when raised correctly.  If it was true, the residual sentimental white skin prejudice would melt away when white-skinned people met other people who aren’t actually different except for how they look, and racism would be seen as a pathetic gambit to temporarily retain some white skin privilege.  As Moldbug says, this was not totally excluded in the literature in the middle of the last century, and, of course, at the beginning of the last century, Spengler wrote some history of the world stuff that totally ignored race and the Jews.

Well anyway, Jim also told me that the universities aren’t going to just melt away and all the professors of creative writing and calculus to be reduced to begging for hot dogs outside 7-11, he thinks it will take some kind of forceful military thing or whatever.  But I should really prefer to use Wendys as my example fast food, because it’s the only national chain that uses a White woman in its advertising material 14/88 o/


fig. 1.  the progressive theory of governance and war in action

I’m a racist.  Racism is so obvious, it takes a particularly mendacious clever silly to claim not to believe it.  Bob Whitaker calls all alternatives to racism ‘wordism’.  Zippy is a Catholic, and it’s possible to be a racist Catholic in the same sense that it’s possible to be a progressive Catholic.  The bottom line is that while Catholics recognize that Blacks have souls, racists recognize that Blacks are less soulful than the elephants they are exterminating.

But we all know all of this.  That’s why all the old guard neoreactionaries have fallen silent, everyone pretty much already knows everything.  But then Free Northerner had some trouble reading Zippy on the topic of usury, because Zippy is a Catholic.

The biggest mistake Free Northerner makes is inventing a distinction between consumption and investment.  Probably the best example here is when Jacob jewed Esau out of his birthright.  Esau was sick, Jacob named his price; if you think this has nothing to do with investment, consider what normal people mean when they talk about investments in components for their gaming and porn viewing PC.  Or, if you don’t like talking about what normal people say as if they know what they’re talking about, consider Free Northerner’s example of consumptive loans, the student loans that are obviously a bad investment for most people who take them.  A bad investment is still an investment.  Time is the coin of our lives and we should invest in the future of our race, etc, hail victory.

The reason Free Northerner needs to do this is that he doesn’t take Zippy’s definition of usury seriously, because he does take the time value of money seriously, presumably because he was made to calculate it over and over in calculus 2.

Zippy doesn’t talk much about the time value of money besides saying that expecting interest on a loan is like if a gambler were to expect payment for the risk he incurs.

There are two issues here.  It is true that a dollar in 2010 would buy a double cheeseburger, while a McDouble in 2015 costs $1.29 (at Wendys, however, a coffee is still under a buck, and comes with real cream).  I don’t think Zippy would disagree about returning the same amount of money regardless of what the government does.  Talking about time value of money conflates inflation with opportunity cost.

As a Catholic, Zippy is doing the usual physicist thing of deriving equations that predict observations, and he expects you to acknowledge Aristotle and Aquinas.  Catholics believe in natural and divine law, and stuff.

The historically usual case of usury was for a farmer to need a loan and the Jew to end up owning the farm.  Incidentally, in Shakespeare’s story, Shylock’s loan isn’t usurious because a pound of flesh is the collateral.  If the debtor signs everything he owns as collateral, I’m not sure what Zippy would say about it except that people have a wide moral latitude to permit themselves to be victimized (and if a Catholic woman gets knocked up after being raped, it’s a mortal sin for her to abort).  Unless we want to specify that the value of collateral must be less than or equal to the value of the loan, and furthermore, Antonio’s ass is worth 3000 ducats (that’s not actually what happened in the play, of course; Shylock was offered his money back).

In Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, the White family comes up with the money to pay the Jew who demands the rest of the mortgaged principal all at once or he forecloses on their farm and they’re back to serfdom.  However, due to the United States Constitution, the Jew has to accept the money, and the family is saved.  Well, I guess books you read in middle school should support the Constitution.

Okay, I’ve gone on long enough.  The point is predatory lending.  Not consumptive lending, whatever that means, not non-collateralized lending which tries to reify opportunity costs or as Aristotle said make money reproduce or whatever.  Non-collateralized lending is a decent rubric to decide when lending is predatory, and if you care about mortal sins being well-defined, I guess you want that.  I mean, I want mortal sins to be well defined too.  Formalism is a good idea.

Predatory lending is bad for the community because it gives resources to predators, who are greasy short-armed characters who rub their hands together incessantly and have noses like cat’s claws.

Free Northerner might have gotten his idea of consumptive loans from reading Crime and Punishment, in which this NEET funds his worthless lifestyle by selling everything he owns to a pawnbroker.  Also in that book, some drunk gets an advance on his salary, drinks it away, and then gets run over by a car.  The point Dostoyevsky was trying to make is that Russia needs a Communist government to control vice, for which the Tsar almost shot him.

Unlike Dostoyevsky, I don’t think we need Communism to control vice, I think private government is a better solution.  Put the people who would take predatory loans under the control of people who know better.  But Dostoyevsky is worth reading because his descriptions of his world are brilliant.  He makes you feel sorry for all those r-selected types and their K-selected family members who try to look after them.  It’s actually the comment of Free Northerner’s commenter that I wanted to address here.  Do the r-selected need pressure like payday loans to keep them in their place?  Or can they be controlled by other means?  I mean, obviously, that’s a rhetorical question.

It would be weird of me to end an article without insulting Henry Dampier, so, hey Henry, you’re still a moron.

Endgame news

(1) Hungarian prime minister explicitly rejects the consensus:

As I see the the light of European political life, not only do I sense the lack of reassuring answers, I am not even sure they understand the questions at all.

We therefore let go of neoliberal economic policy, and perhaps we did so as late as we possibly could have; we let go of the policy of austerity, just before we were about to share the fate of Greece; we let go of the delusion of the multicultural society before it turned Hungary into a refugee camp, and we let go of liberal social policy which does not acknowledge the common good and denies Christian culture as the natural foundation – and perhaps the only natural foundation – for the organization of European societies. We decided to face the barrage of unfair attacks and accusations, and also let go of the dogma of political correctness.

And as far as I see it, Hungarian people are by nature politically incorrect – in other words, they have not yet lost their common sense.

(2) Greek Communists promised not to sign the Troika memorandum.  They signed the loan agreement with the international partners.  Who exactly do they think they’re fooling?  The Cathedral bought itself a year by running an explicitly communist party.  In that year, they did not suicide the Golden Dawn leadership in prison and offer plata o plomo to the rest.  The 18 months that they are allowed to hold the Golden Dawn leadership in prison before trial is up, they will have to go forward with a trial now, which is going to be even more of a farce than the George Zimmerman trial.

Maybe the best option for Greece is for the government to go bankrupt, the country to be bought by Karl von Habsburg, who would presumably assign Constantine II to manage it.  A more likely option is Golden Dawn.  The Greek media is apparently hoping that their new political party, staffed by journalists, might be able to get enough votes to coalition with some other parties and avoid a Golden Dawn government.

(3) Jesse Jackson suggests that businesses not be permitted to leave the ghettoes.  Which means even he has given up on more federal loans to for minority-owned businesses.

Let’s talk about short stories I read in middle school.  I read Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, in which Vonnegut, an Old Leftist, makes fun of the New Left.  He also wrote Player Piano, in which he predicts the end of the Old Left when automation takes over; he could not have imagined that insourcing and outsourcing would have also contributed because most people back then didn’t really think much of race for some reason lol.  I thought Harrison Bergeron was a little over the top.  Another short story I read in middle school was The Lottery, in which a town needs to sacrifice a human every year for some reason lol.  I thought it was also over the top.

So what just happened at the University of Oklahoma is some students sang a blatantly illegal song and their frat was shut down as expeditiously as possible.  The song that was sung make the frat blatantly illegal, and the University would have been illegal if it didn’t dissociate itself from the frat immediately, so what the University did was really measured and reasonable within the prevailing assumptions, and, after all, it’s illegal to question those assumptions.  The only way the University can control what frat houses people live in is to threaten to expel them, so that’s what it did.

It was still disgusting and horrifying.  I realize that this isn’t the place for maudlin bluster like any system that needs to be maintained by nauseating threats will eventually need to carry out those threats, but, any system that needs to be maintained by nauseating threats will eventually need to carry out those threats.

In America, ten men drive around the mountains in ten cars, one of them with bad brakes.  The next day nine visit the one in the hospital.  In France, ten men court ten beautiful women, one of whom has AIDS, make love to them all night, and the next day nine of them visit the one in the hospital.  In Russia, ten men get drunk and tell political jokes all night, one of whom is a KGB informer.  The next day, one of them visits the nine in jail.

This movie that somehow got produced recently, The Purge, was basically the kind of short story that the kids in my class were assigned to write after reading those short stories.  Even so, it puts to us a poignant question.  It shows us a worthless nigger, and asks us if he should be killed for being a worthless nigger.  Give a dog a bad name and you can hang him by it, right?  The White answer is, no, we do not mistreat animals.

The extent to which people believe in the system of anti-racism is the extent to which they believe that if they stop believing in anti-racism, animals will be mistreated.

It’s just not a progressive world anymore.  Maybe NRx isn’t needed anymore because we’re not living in a progressive world anymore.

The news that it’s not a blue world anymore has reached by xbf, who has thus retreated from politics confused.  I selfishly don’t want to argue with him, because I value his perspective.  I was hanging out with him, being a shabbos goy and making hamentashen for purim, and he recited this factoid that there were no Christian dark ages.  It’s not consistent with the other things he thinks, of course, but it sounds smart, and that’s enough for someone with an 1-2σ IQ; at least he isn’t gay enough to pass off these factoids as his own insights and blog about them, unlike Henry Dampier.

One thing I like to do with him is go outside and look at the stars.  All the planets have Roman names, but many of the stars, such as Altair and Aldebaran, Deneb and Denebola, have these durka durka names.  Rigel, for example, is dune coon for left shoe of the suicide bomber.  Betelgeuse is towelhead for bloody hand of the beheader.  The ancient Greeks, of course, not only knew about all the stars of magnitude class 5 and above, they charted the movements of the planets, using this technique called epicycles that’s less insane than the Father being consubstantial and begetting but not making the Son (genitum non factum.  (This song is reverently sung, it’s beautiful, and…)), in Ptolemy’s Almagest.  The reason it’s the Almagest is that this magesterial tome was read through translation from sandniggerese by the Renaissance.

The things that ISIS blows up, people have already taken pictures of.  Monks copying the Bible over and over would erase and write over other books that were deemed less important.  Who knows what they burned?  What could possibly be more important than the salvation of souls?

Perhaps they were spiritually crushed by the inexplicable collapse of the Empire and sought solace in a religion that told them they could trust that the invisible empire of God was watching, that their sins could be forgiven, that they should trust God and do the right thing.  The Empire proved mortal, but they could be personally immortal.  At any rate, White people sure love killing each other over millennial cults offering personal immortality in exchange for their future and the future of their people.

Newton wanted to calculate how long the universe had existed.  He was stuck with a garbage metaphysics, so his painstaking calculations are worthless, but at least he calculated something, unlike his contemporary Leibniz who commented on why if God exists do bad things happen (incidentally, when believers want to tell other people to believe, they ask why if God doesn’t exist do good things happen).  Newton also came up with good optics and solved a problem people were having with lenses.  He also decided that there were 7 colors in a rainbow to match the 7 laws that God gave in his covenant after the flood, thus forcing every schoolboy to learn that indigo means dark blue and fits between blue and purple somehow.

Newton and Leibniz were in the 16th century.  In the 13th century, the smartest thing anyone could talk about is the properties of angels.  That’s not to say that Christianity is entirely useless to civilization.  Charles Martel, John Sobiesky, and the Reconquista aren’t nothing.  God can’t tell cannons to accept larger loads without exploding, you need metallurgy for that, but God can tell the Holy League to set aside their differences and defeat a materially superior Turkish fleet.  Thus – and these battle lines were set long before any of us were born – some people want religion to fight degeneracy and to serve the race, and are suspected of not taking religion seriously, and others who are muddle-headed enough to believe in anything discuss whether religion implies that degeneracy is great.  But anyway.  I’m not qualified to comment on whether a dark age was necessary after the Fall of Rome, how long it had to take, and whether the form it took was more or less destructive than whatever else might have happened.

So let’s talk about anime.  There’s this anime, The Devil is a Part-Timer, in which Satan and a hero, the daughter of an angel by a human, end up in Japan, and get jobs and don’t want to go back.  The hero is, of course, like the Greek heroes; just as we don’t understand how the Japanese can acknowledge both Shinto and Buddhism, they probably don’t understand the distinction between Greek paganism and Christianity, especially considering that so many Western artists have used both.  Anyway, they would rather be Japanese part-timers.  I mean, who wouldn’t rather be a Japanese part-timer, besides a few White supremacists sitting on the third floor, if that, or a creaky old building, scratching the turdlets from his butthole with paper because he hasn’t invented a bidet, dreaming of the old days when Western cities were the envy of the world, waiting for gas the kikes race war now?

The alternative right aren’t the only people who know why we can’t have subways and skyscrapers.  Jesse Jackson just admitted it, and after over 50 years of being told the IQ gap and more importantly the civilized behavior gap are going to close in the next 15 years, well, communism started in the USSR in the ’20s and stopped in the ’90s, so if antiracism collapses within the next ten years, it will be right on schedule.

But this is really the endgame, because the legitimacy of the Cathedralist consensus has utterly collapsed, and it is being openly defied.

Anyway, Twitter is for shouting slogans.  But that’s enough, because the analytical work of NRx was finished long ago, NRx is not needed by people who are already prepared to question the things Moldbug slowly brings up in his Open Letter, and it seems that the only thing left to do is argue about who’s the leader or bitch about not being allowed to say the word nigger at work or whatever.

The Dual Telos

For some reason, I thought the racism in my last post would be the most interesting thing, but at any other time or place racism is obvious and not even worth saying.  Well anyway, when you think the dual telos of sex is orgasm and bragging rights, it’s only logical, and, of course, women are interested in men who do things that other men don’t like, especially when it’s things that other men can’t explain why or are next to prohibited from saying why.  It’s not the best strategy.  The PUAs can certainly say that they’ve “had sex with” more and hotter women.

Someone somewhere once said, we’re a bunch of brainless zombies who wish we were heartless vampires.  On some level, being honest with men is more comfortable.

Here’s an argument that made sense to me five years ago.  Thesis: find a life-partner of the opposite sex.  Antithesis: find a life-partner who understands you by choosing same sex.  Synthesis: choose your partner without choosing their gender first.

What’s wrong with it, other than being automatist? (cf. Moldbug, Reservationist Epistomology; an automatist argument is one that is designed to make the conclusion look official, instead of be correct.)  When you understand that no one cares about life-partners, you will also understand why “PUA rhymes with gay” (– Moldbug).  The first hint is that no one had a word for life-partner before recently.

Also, the Romans didn’t have a word for homosexual, but all kinds of words for various sex acts.  Which people now, including me five years ago, want to interpret as implying nondiscrimination.  It’s laughable, and it’s the kind of thing that no one who has any real familiarity with Rome, or human nature, would believe.  But when you’re raised with a studiously warped view of human nature and history, well, you know.

No one cares about love or life-partners or whatever.  As Jim ably points out, the dual telos of sex is reproduction and unity to preserve the family unit over the two decades it takes to raise children to adulthood.

Not that that’s saying very much.  The Alabama Supreme Court just pointed out that the government doesn’t care about love with respect to marriage.  I’m not here to rehash old arguments for the millionth time.  Here’s something you might not have heard of:

In all of the world’s history, so far as I know, there has been just one Socialist state that did operate for the welfare of its population rather than the profit and amusement of its rulers. And I have yet to meet a Socialist who has even heard, however vaguely, of that state.
That state was located in a region which is now divided between Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. It was the product of an exceptional combination of factors that is not likely ever to recur. It is, however, the only known instance of a Socialism that could be described as humane; and, as such, should command the attention of everyone interested in Socialism as a form of social organization rather than as a means of undermining and destroying Western civilization. What is now the small province of Missiones in Argentina, together with strips of adjacent territory in Paraguay and Brazil, has fertile soil and a temperate climate. In this region, from 1638 to 1750, existed the optimum conditions for the operation of a successful Socialism, viz. a large and docile population of a physically distinct and obviously inferior race, and a small body of capable administrators of a physically distinct and obviously superior race – and what makes the combination absolutely unique, those administrators were genuinely self-sacrificing.
(1) The Guarani Indians were by no means at the bottom of the scale of human races: they were superior to the inhabitants of many “independent states” that are members of the ‘” United Nations.” They were innately lazy, shiftless, and somewhat stupid. They were savages, with no permanent family relationships and no conception of private property, other than in the bits of clothing they were wearing or the spear they held in their hand. They were completely feckless: if provided with seed and taught to cultivate the soil, they would, if left to themselves, consume the entire harvest, for their primitive minds would not think of saving seed for next year’s planting. But they seem not to have been innately vicious. They were easily domesticated and, in the hands of the Jesuits, became docile. They were brave, and, when trained and commanded by the Jesuits, 333made excellent soldiers, to the astonishment of the whole world.
(2) The Jesuit Fathers were not only members of a superior race, but belonged to a small minority within that race. As a body, they were drawn from the most intelligent part of the European population, and they had received a rigorous and thorough education. That education reflected, in large part, the Renaissance ideal of the uomo universale. ‘They were good Latinists and swordsmen; they knew the essentials of architecture and music; they were acquainted with the etiquette of polite society and military tactics; and, above all, they knew how to learn whatever they might need to know for the task to which they were assigned. And, naturally, the Jesuits who were sent, by the General of their Order, to Paraguay understood the task before them.
There was no idiotic twaddle about “equality.” As Julius Cordara, who was certainly the most learned and acute of the Jesuits of the Eighteenth Century, put it, the Guaranis were feris bestiis quam hominibus similiores. The Jesuits, however, firmly believed that those subhumans had divinely created souls, which were to be saved by religious rites and the imposition of moral conduct. That was the task to which the Jesuits sent to Paraguay were assigned, and, with remarkable efficiency and unassuming heroism, they, armed with authority from the King of Spain, proceeded to carry it out.
The Jesuits, furthermore, were disinterested men, of a kind that the world is not likely to see again. Vowed to celibacy, they could have no thought of establishing and advancing families. Vowed to absolute obedience to their General, the only personal ambition open to them was to rise in the Order, and since the General might any day send any or all of them to the other end of the earth, no one of them could think of establishing a personal power. And each firmly believed that the sacrifice of his own life, whether in a moment of martyrdom at the hands of savages or in years of humble labor for the benefit of his inferiors, was in obedience to the inscrutable decrees of God.
With amazing self-sacrifice, with courage and humility, with just the right combination of persuasion and coercion, the Jesuits settled the Guaranis in villages, set them to work cultivating fields and building churches and houses, and regulated their whole lives. They baptized them, married them to well selected mates, and told them what to do each day. The Jesuits sent their wards to work in the morning, called them in in the afternoon, set them to singing, dancing, and playing approved games, and then sent them to bed at the proper hour. The products of the fields and the workshops went to community warehouses, to be dispensed to the population as the Fathers thought best or to be exported and traded for whatever the community needed and could not yet manufacture for itself. Twice each year, the males who had reached the age of seventeen and the females who were fifteen were assembled and mated. The Jesuits permitted no other white men to enter their territory, except a few inconvenient but privileged visitors who carried letters from the King of Spain.
It is beyond question that the Jesuits gave the Guaranis a life far happier than any they had known before or were to know afterwards.
In 1750, the stupid King of Spain, as part of a treaty devised (as usual) by “experts,” gave the Jesuit territory to Portugal. The Jesuits, unwilling to see the liquidation of the little state they had established and made to function so well, resisted, and they had trained their native troops with such efficiency that it required the combined armies of Spain and Portugal to defeat them. And that victory cost so much that the pertinent part of the Treaty of 1750 was abrogated. In 1767, on orders from Madrid, the Jesuits were arrested by treachery and deported with the utmost inhumanity. (That was only a few years before the whole Order was suppressed and outlawed by the Pope.) The aborigines, of course, reverted to barbarism. Families disappeared; alcohol was imported; and a large part of the population either killed one another or drank themselves to death.

Revilo Oliver, America’s Decline, pages 333 to 335

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call the Jesuits the flower of European manhood.  What did they accomplish?  They stood around circlejerking over a bunch of savages.  Great job guys.  It’s only logical when you believe in souls, isn’t it.  Caesar is said to have commented on how it might improve morale if his troops believed in souls.  Would it?  Or would it improve morale to know what they are and what they are doing?  I mean, not to second-guess Caesar or anything.

Individuals also have a dual telos; it is possible for a man to do something for his family and race other than reproduce.  The medieval priests who supported their communities, they supported their communities.  Legend has it, King Arthur put up with Lancelot sleeping with Guinevere behind his back for reasons of state: that’s the way of a White man, not to act on immediate passions but to think first and endure an insult if necessary.  Mendel did more for the White race than if he had sired six children or sixteen PUAs.

Well anyway.  Spandrell’s latest argues that people disagree with authorities for the social signaling.  I mean, it’s true, as far as it goes, but it’s not Aryan; and we academics must also coordinate our efforts to develop an Aryan NRx.  Maybe the rice-niggers Spandrell hangs out will only agree or disagree based on social signaling, that’s probably how their hive mind functions, but Aryans have a deep-seated yearning for the truth, as when the All-father tore out his eye for knowledge.

Whites really do care about the truth.  They really are disturbed by stories about mistreatment of women, animals, Jews, and niggers.  They really do want fairness even if they need to pay for it.  After the fall of the USSR, and now that everyone knows the Venezuelan experiment is a disappointment, it’s harder to get Whites to lie for communism.  But they’ll still lie for the retarded milennial cult of transhumanism, and tell five year olds who don’t figure out gender fast enough that they’re super cool transpeople.

Spandrell’s latest is probably the best statement of one side of neoreaction, I call it the textbook side to dismiss it, that I suppose the best name for is neoreaction, since it lacks another name – the side in which social signaling is great and ethnic differences don’t matter except that diversity + proximity = war.  You want the word neoreaction?  Fine, take the word.  I’m not a neoreactionary then.  You don’t need to care specifically about the interests of the Aryan race to understand how important race is to history.  Have fun with your activism that no one cares about based on halfway politically correct claims about the world.  You think you’ve solved Seneca and Spengler’s problem with social signaling, but… race is real.

And another thing.  The logical conclusion of Spandrell’s argument is burning the books and burying the scholars.  That may well be what rice-niggers need.  Their emperors, after all, did that sort of thing repeatedly.  That’s not what Whites need.  Whites consider burning books and burying scholars to be horrible crimes, that are only committed by milennialist fanatics such as Christians and Communists.  What Whites need more than anything is to see through hoaxes, especially now.  We need academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Spandrell is, of course, the chair of the department of East Asian studies, and he says lots of interesting things.  I’m criticizing his writing because it’s good.

Some day I’d like to read a good history of Byzantium.  Constantine XI Paiaologos said

But you are men, men of stout heart, and you will hold at bay these dumb brutes, thrusting your spears and swords into them, so that they will know that they are fighting not against their own kind but against the masters of animals.

which, apparently, was empty bluster.  What happened?  Whatever it was took longer than and so probably wasn’t the same as what happened to Rome.  Did it take that long for Christianity to destroy their sense of the world?

God can tell people to copy the Bible another ten thousand times by hand and comment on the theological problem of evil or how to reconcile divine intervention in everyone’s daily life with God’s world that He ordered at the beginning of time in every detail, but, God can’t tell cannons to accept bigger loads without exploding.  The West had semi-autonomous domains and almost constant warfare, so there was always a need for technological improvements.

Well, whatever happened, I don’t know if I can trust Golden Dawn to write it.  They probably don’t want to talk about the mongrelization of the Greeks, or the pernicious effects of Christianity, or whatever else.  They would prefer to say that the West refused to help and even sacked Constantinople, and then Mehmet came to the ancient walls of Constantinople with cannons, and everyone knows that walls can’t survive against cannons.  They should want to know.  They should want every Greek to know.  But they’re activists, and, you know,

David Duke is one of the world’s leading activists.  He says we’re not getting the whole truth.  Of course not, and I suppose no enemies to the right means I shouldn’t call him disingenuous, tl;dr, and infused with a salubrious Christianity.  He also says he’s not a holocaust denier.  His chapter of Jewish Supremacy about the holocaust is excellent.  He knows what he’s doing – his book isn’t considered anti-Semitic in Russia.  I laugh every time he says ‘thus I discovered….’ ‘then I realized…’, obviously he’s using fiction to express what he thinks other people should do.  The book isn’t written for me.  He’s reaching lots of people with it.

Henry Dampier thinks he’s an activist too.  Any day now people will flock to his blog and read about how great it’s going to be when his blog gets censored (come on man worse is better for communists).   Or like, whatever, maybe his personal reflections help him in his activism and I can help by ignoring him.  I wish I knew how to quit blogging, it seems to be the only way to get these thoughts out of my head so I can think about other things.  So come on man.  Say something of consequence.  Anissimov wrote up a history of the Habsburg monarchy, which was timely and useful.

There’s a dual telos to historical and political writing as well; no matter how academic your writing is, it also functions to bolster and encourage activists.  So the distiction between the Aniversity and the riffraff at DailyStormer (link is to their best analytical article ever) can’t really be that strict, but it’s still useful to make.  If you’re saying interesting things, like Spandrell, then you’re an analyst.  If you’re repeating yourself and saying disingenuous things, you’re an activist.  Well, everyone knows about this distinction.  That’s kind of what I wanted to use the word ‘neoreactionary’ to mean, but, whatever.

At the same time, if neoreaction means talking about social signaling and not race, it will motivate no activists, because it’s wrong and autistic, and pretty much everything has already been said.  So neoreaction is dead.

And if you’re not saying something true or of consequence, what exactly do you think you’re doing?


Something for Nick Land: The International Jew

This is my last post, I promise. I really have other things to do, I just wanted to post some images that I haven’t found anywhere else to post.

So. I view Nick Land as a crank.  His attempt to reduce NRx to E > V, for example: a bizarre, anti-civilizational slogan, best interpreted as a rhetorical gambit.  Exit from what?  You can’t leave, you can only die. But some day, in his flights of fancy, he will find something interesting. Better to be a crank than to be boring.

Nick Land is, of course, the department chair of horrorism.  There are things that may be too horrible for him to contemplate.  So something lighter that he’d be interested in (this is irrelevant to my argument, but is nice and Lovecraftian, so whatever):

The “religion” of the majority of the inhabitants of Haiti is undoubtedly represented by the voodoo-cults, which me all weird conglomerations of savage superstitions and sub-human rites derived from many parts of Africa. Voodoo is certainly the strongest – and possibly the only really powerful – force in Haiti today.
For an introduction to the complex and confusing mass of superstitions and practices, we must refer the reader to such standard works as JJ Williams’ Voodoos and Obcahs (London, 1933) and Z N Hurston’s Voodoo Gods (1939). And we may particularly recommend the candid work of a highly talented Haitian writer, Milo Rigaud, whose Jésus ou Legba? (Paris, 1933) is disguised as a “novel” for reasons which will become apparent as you read it. We can offer only a few general comments:
(1) You will find it impossible to understand Voodoo until you realize – as many careful investigators failed to do – that you are dealing with a mentality fundamentally and generically different from your own. It is a mentality to which logic is simply incomprehensible, and to which, therefore, the processes of reasoning that you must use when you think are alien and meaningless; it is a consciousness that can hold, in quick succession or even simultaneously, contradictory and antithetical feelings about the same subject without perceiving the slightest conflict between those feelings. The Western mind, which can understand only in terms of logical and definite relationships, automatically tries to define, classify, and systematize, and so it often defeats itself when it tries to comprehend the productions of a radically different mentality. Investigators usually begin by trying to identify the Voodoo “gods” often without realizing that they have risked misleading themselves by applying the word “god” to a vague supernatural entity that is both amorphous and polymorphous. They anxiously inquire concerning the attributes of such spirits as Baron Samedi, Legba,and Damballa, and they try to ascertain what functions each has, which is superior to the others, and how they are related. Since they are asking questions which are really meaningless to their informants, they naturally obtain a wide variety of answers and either try to decide which informants were lying or conclude that there are a great many different cults. (Note, for example, the dismay of investigators who, having correctly ascertained that obeah and myal are rival and mutually antagonistic forms of primitive magic, discover that the same individuals practice both.) When we try to impose logic where there is none, we simply delude ourselves.
(2) Believers in Voodoo take toward Christianity the attitude that the white man has to his own spirits and witch-doctors, who, although inferior, have some power in certain areas. When you have to deal with whites or Christian mulattoes, it is a good idea to conciliate their supernatural allies. And if you can buy or purloin some of the enemy’s fetishes, such as a cross or a picture of the Virgin, and put them in a Voodoo-shrine, that neutralizes the enemy’s magic. It is, at least, a precaution that can do no harm.
(3) Voodoo rites are secret. In the back country, the shrines, most commonly called hounforts, are undisguised and open huts, usually equipped with at least one grotesque and obscene wooden idol, as mis-shapen and repulsive as the sculpture that is awarded first prizes in our more barbaric museums of “contemporary art”. (For an indication of what these idols mean to their worshippers, see the report, somewhat veiled with euphemism, in Richard A Loederer’s Voodoo Fire, New York, 1935, pp. 158 ff.) In the smaller towns, the shrines are in houses, but readily identified by the designs painted on the exterior. In Port-au-Prince, the cult-rooms have a status somewhat resembling that of ‘speakeasies’ during our Prohibition Era: they are unmarked, but you may be sure that you are never very far from one, if you can find it. But only members of the cult are admitted to the shrines, and only rarely does a student have an opportunity for surreptitious observation of what goes on inside.
(4) Communal rites normally take place out-of-doors at night in isolated spots to which the votaries will gladly travel long distances. Here, again, observation must be surreptitious, and the more important the rite, the greater the precautions taken to make sure that there are no outsiders in the vicinity. There is no fixed ritual, and hence the reported differences between arada, legba, and petro rites, which some writers suppose to represent different cults, is largely nugatory; the difference, at most, is of the same order as the difference between our words “dance” and “ball” as applied to social occasions. The rites are led by a male or female witch-doctor, papa-loi or mama-loi, and always involve orgiastic dances that soon induce in all the participants a state of emotional frenzy. What happens next depends on the whims and impulsesof the hysterical leader and her (or/ less commonly, his) hysterical followers. Commonly, however, as the emotions become paroxysmal, the votaries twist off the heads of chickens and, placing the neck in their mouths, suck out the blood. If goats are available, their throats are slashed open and the blood is both lapped-up as a stimulating beverage and smeared over the body as a refreshing ointment. The most potent rite calls for the use of a “hornless goat,” ie human being. The eating of adults is said to have been discontinued, but it is believed that some cults on certain very special occasions still serve babies, either raw or stewed. Since the victims are always the children of participants in the celebration, the chances of discovery are slight, if precautions have been taken to prevent observation by outsiders.
(5) We should not be supercilious about black magic. The papa-lois and mama-lois undoubtedly practice hypnosis and are acquainted with the use of many locally available narcotics and poisons, including cocaine (from the leaves of the coca), mancenilles (mancineel apples), roiry (a leguminous seed which contains cyanidic acid), and, it is believed, the kingo or kingolo, which is said to paralyse certain areas in the brain and thus produce real zombies guédés). We cannot really blame the followers of these witch-doctors when we remember that many Europeans have been convinced that the witch-doctors do, in fact, possess supernatural powers, and report having observed phenomena for which it is difficult to suggest a natural explanation.

The U.S. Marines, during the nineteen years in which they kept order in Haiti, sought to repress the practice of voodoo, and, despite the yapping of American ‘liberals’ accomplished a great deal, not so much by breaking up celebrations as by hunting down and destroying bandits who were also papa-lois. (On the best known of these, who called himself Charlemagne, see J D Kuser, Haiti, Boston, 1921.) Repeated demonstrations that even high-grade ouangas, anointed with grease obtained by boiling human brains, did not inhibit the action of either a Springfield rifle or the Marine who was carrying it shook the faith of some of the faithful and discouraged others.
Since the departure of the Marines, the voodoo-cults have steadily revived. Mr Loederer (op. cit., p. 257) quotes a long-time resident of Haiti who appears to have had unique opportunities for observation and who reports that he can “say with certainty that ninety-five percent of the black population are in varying degrees adherents, active or passive, of the cult.”

And everyone will see that it was politically necessary for Duvalier to expel Bishop Paul Robert from Haiti in November, 1962, whatever Duvalier may have felt personally about the matter. The papalois and mamalois of Haiti no more mind denunciations of voodoo than American Communists mind denunciations of Marxism as a “doctrine”; but if anyone tries to do anything about the practice of voodoo, they become as excited as our “liberals” at the mention of Senator McCarthy. And the Bishop, instead of thundering away in his cathedral about the wickedness of voodoo, tried to incite his congregations to do something about it by interfering with voodoo-rites and demanding the enforcement of certain laws that are on the books because they look good to foreigners.

That’s page 318 to 323 of America’s Decline. As a side note, AIDS reached Haiti in one nigger, and infected many more through those voodoo blood rituals, before spreading to the US through faggot sex tourism. Incidentally, the first hominid to die of AIDS in the US was an underage nigger boy, who had presumably been used by international sex tourist faggots as a cum dumpster.

Anyway. There’s more where that came from, so Nick Land should read Oliver. But, namefags like Nick Land, the Anarchopapist, and Anissimov, are stuck with neoreaction the textbook, which is just inoffensive enough.

Speaking of neoreaction the textbook, here’s the part where Oliver dismisses Moldbug.

But Mr Brown’s absolute dichotomy between Classical and Western has consequences. If one accepts it, one must follow him in seeing “the Renaissance and Reformation as two manifestations of the same retreat from the exacting moral and intellectual responsibilities of Western civilization.” And we must further follow him in the sweeping generalization that “Eighteenth-Century liberalism was in fact the direct intellectual and moral ancestor of modem leftism.” This statement does not mean that Mr, Brown is thinking only of e obvious fact that there must have been some fatal mental flaw in an age that could tolerate such mountebanks as Cagliostro or take seriously a half-educated, half-crazed chatterer like Rousseau. I Ie has not forgotten such writers as Montesquieu, whom Emile Faguet, for example, identifies as the real liberal and as the very opposite of Rousseau, whom Faguet classifies as a democrat. Mr Brown thinks that the difference doesn’t matter.

True? False? I don’t really know. If only Oliver had lived for another fifteen years and been able to comment on Moldbug. Well anyway, there’s something outside our school of thought that might be apparent to a humanist… er…

A very large part of our present plight is the work of linguistic sneakthieves… Let us consider, as briefly as may be, the theft of one important word. Humanism, properly speaking, designates the cultural system introduced by the scholars who initiated the Renaissance, thus ending the Middle Ages and making possible most of modern civilization. That meaning was derived from Cicero, who did not invent, but did use and give authority to, the terms stadium humanitatis and artes humanitatis (or, in clear contexts, simply humanitas) to designate the cultivation of the human mind through the historical, philosophical, literary, and rhetorical studies which, it was believed, gave men of ability the perception and wisdom requisite for a high civilization, and thereby enabled them most fully to realize their potentiality as human beings. Those studies, naturally, were conducted in Greek and Latin…. The strictly correct definition of humanism is that given by the eminent American scholar and former President of Oberlin College, Ernest H. Wilkins:Humanism is a scholarly lind initially reactive enthusiasm for classic culture, accompanied by creative writing in Latin on classic lines

It seems at times that NRx is designed to tell us to accept an Egyptian or a Paraguayan socialism while being told that it’s actually the glory days of feudalism or Aryan nations. How are we supposed to know anything if we don’t know Cicero?

In 2010, strange as it sounds, people were asking what a Jew is. The Jews were known to the Romans. Their behavioral characteristics have not changed.

There are four kinds of writing in the hard sciences: monographs, in which a dude says what he wants to say about a thing, textbooks, written to tell a particular kind of person some particular things, popular books, written to make someone some money, and reference books, which are full of information for whenever you care to read them.

Neoreaction is a textbook introducing conservative thought to people raised with anti-history.

It’s amazing the kind of things that I literally believed.

Male homosexuality was as disgusting to the Romans as it is to us, and it is likely that most of them were amazed and perhaps incredulous when investigation of the Bacchanalian cult showed that a majority of the physiologically male members were homosexuals, although the cult made available to them a copious supply of young and libidinous women ready and eager for anything…

The Lex Scantinia, which provided a heavy penalty for perversion, remained on the books; there were prosecutions under it as late as the Second Century after Christ and perhaps later. But the feeling that had inspired it was gradually eroded, and although perversion was never officially legalized, as has now been done in the State of Illinois and will probably be done in the entire nation as soon as Earl Warren gets around to it, the law became virtually useless. Before the end of the Republic, Roman writers who wanted to be thought “intellectual” and “sophisticated”, imitating the literary fashions of Alexandria, which was the New York of the ancient world, did not hesitate to confess – perhaps falsely in some cases – that they were paederasts. And, paralleling what happens in the United States today, one of Cicero’s correspondents thought it a delightful joke when a homosexual pervert was prosecuted under the Lex Scantinia before a presiding judge who was himself a pervert. (page 355)

Of course male homosexuals have young and libidinous women, that’s the point of being a male homosexual. And I’m not “unsophisticated”. I’ve sucked a few cocks in my attempt to live out what I truly believed, but, of the young and libidinous women, when offered v-cards, I refused to take them. A man needs to have standards, or he is not a man. And my standards have improved: cocksucking to inciting racial hatred. Perhaps one day I can be executed for cocksucking, or for saying “our civilization has yids, and is unable to resist the burgeoning socialist bureaucratic carcinomas and colonization of third-world fungus”.

History is bunk, says Henry Ford. (Historical note: the word bunk comes from Buncombe, a town from which a particularly mendacious congressional representative was elected on the strength of his speeches. I learned that from reading Oliver, of course.) Since Henry Ford said it, it must have been true even then, but around that time, Revilo Oliver was able to start being a classics professor.

The International Jew is a reference on the early days of the 20th century when it was still possible to write such a series of articles. As such, it is incredibly valuable to anyone who would understand where the trends we deal with now first show up. For example, here’s an image that has been popular on 4chan


Compare with articles 47: Jewish Jazz Becomes out National Music and 48: How the Jewish Song Trust Makes us Sing of The International Jew.

Revilo Oliver is obscure. The International Jew is not. Neoreactionaries have commented on many things to which The International Jew gives context without mentioning that context. Why? Because neoreaction is just a textbook, and doesn’t want to scare or mislead people by mentioning the Jew. Neoreactionaries would sooner rehabilitate phrenology.


But the textbook is almost inoffensive enough for a somewhat responsible man to maybe sign his name to – just ask Moldbug. Or don’t. He’s probably quite terrified enough.

There’s maybe still a market for this textbook, though GamerGate is turning people against SJWs now without needing to explicitly provide arguments. Perhaps there any chapters that still need to be written.

But there’s still neoreaction the antiversity, to spit in the faces of the cowardly university professors and seek out the truth behind their backs, and to avoid the repetitiousness and disingenuity of the activists.

But the major cause of the academic silence is the fact that the men whose interests are most directly affected are the least willing to speak. For the true scholar the keenest of all intellectual pleasures is that provided by the study and research which he regards as his true function in life. By instinct and tradition he withdraws from politics, whether national or academic, and, knowing that his life will not be long enough for him to learn all that he wishes to know or even for him to complete the investigations that he has undertaken, he feels an imperative need for peace and tranquillity, and is ready to purchase them at almost any price. If he is to attend to his real life’s work, he must not dissipate his time and energy in controversy, whether in public or within the precincts of his own college.
The reasons for the academician’s withdrawal from contemporary debate were unexceptionable in a time of social stability, but that lime has passed. Reticence and tact are no longer feasible for the scholar, who must now – however reluctantly and fretfully – see that his very existence is menaced. He may still be willing, for the sake of peace in his own little cell of the ivory tower, to ignore the skeletons that have been accumulating in the closets and the corridors for more than half a century, but the choice is no longer his. (pages 160-161)

So anyway. Nick Land, there is plenty of horrible things outside of the purview of the textbook Henry Dampier and Anarchopapist are writing notes for the next edition of. They may even horrify you. But truth is truth, and not truth is falsehood, and falsehood without an army isn’t even falsehood with an army. If any neoreactionaries after Moldbug and maybe Radish want to have any impact at all on the world, let alone on their own conception of the world, they must read and think, and read and think thouse words and thoughts that everyone in the latter half of the 20th century is taught to disregard with extreme prejudice.

History and the Historians

I’m posting another post because my last post had too much of my writing in it, and that I didn’t even proofread. It’s embarrassing. So I’m going to fill this one with Oliver in the hopes that no one notices the previous posts.

My theme today is Things Money Can’t Buy. Apple has most of the profits in the smartphone industry, and Microsoft has had tons of profits for over a decade. But you can’t just hire a bunch of programmers and tell them to make you an operating system. I mean, you can, but it’s going to suck.

Communists, and by communists I mean idiots who say things that other idiots want to hear, talk as if everyone is exactly the same, and anyone can be paid to do anything that someone has once done. Communism is cancer, the result of memetic mutations introduced by mattoid intellectuals, that spreads and develops the traits of communism because evolution.

Anyway. Here’s a story about the fall of Rome that you haven’t heard before. The reason you haven’t heard it before is that most historians before 1900 haven’t understood the importance of race, and most successful historians say what people want to hear, and no one wants to hear that this is how Rome fell.

       Professor Frank C Bourne contributes to the volume a concise account of the” alimentary program” of the Roman Empire. This interesting institution had its inception in private benefactions comparable to the endowments that founded most of the colleges and universities in the United States, but in this case intended to provide for the children of poor parents food and clothing until they came of age, thus assuring the children of an opportunity to attend local schools instead of going to work, and indirectly encouraging the lower middle class and wage-earners to have large families. (If the Latin that you read in high school or college included letters of the younger Pliny, you may remember that he set up a foundation of this kind.)

Under Nerva (96-98 AD) the Welfare State assumed responsibility for children throughout Italy, intending at first, merely to supplement private benefactions, but soon and inevitably the imperial treasury took over the entire operation and converted it into a “program” far more ingenious and practical than anything thus far devised by our professional parasites in Washington. The governmental system not only (a) provided the sustenance of poor children, but also (b) tried to solve the Roman “farm problem” by making available to reputable cultivators loans at low interest for the improvement of their lands, especially lands of the kind now called “marginal,” thus (c) reducing unemployment in, and stimulating the economic life of, towns in “depressed” agricultural areas, and thereby (d) restoring prosperity to many municipalities and large parts of the countryside, and so (e) creating the conditions in which responsible people are willing to beget children. And the objectives of (e) are further fostered by (a), since the children are guaranteed sustenance and education in the event of the financial failure or death of their parents. The plan that combined these various pur- poses was not only ingenious but feasible. It was, furthermore, well administered by a judicious division of responsibility between the central government and local authorities, evidently designed to hold to a minimum the number of administrators; and Roman bureaucrats, unlike our own, appear to have been, on the whole, both honest and diligent. The plan worked for a hundred and seventy- five years, and the institutions thus established survived, despite occasional difficulties, until the revolving funds were extinguished by the great monetary inflation and concomitant catastrophes of the Third Century.
But the plan failed from the beginning – was doomed to failure by ineluctable forces which the Romans, who had before them so much less history than we, may be pardoned for not seeing. And Professor Bourne, although well disposed toward bureaucracies and economic planning (which he regards as the mark of a “mature civilization”), shows why the plan’s apparent success merely masked for a time a profound and inevitable failure. “While the alimentary institution, to judge from its hearty acceptance by land-owners, was a success in respect to the agrarian problem, and while it undoubtedly fed and clothed many children” it was essentially an extension of the Welfare State. “Generations of governmental support for hundreds of thousands of Italians, without requiring from them any tangible service, made it clear to them that they had rights on which they could insist, but taught nothing of commensurate duties.” Paternalistic government merely created “a social and political irresponsibility based on an arrogant and childish belief in ‘rights’ and confidence in immunity to danger.” The net result was a population whose “lack of vigor, and irresponsibility” doomed it to extinction at the hands of the barbarians.
This is a clear illustration of the operations of forces inherent in the very nature of society. As every student of politics (including, I suspect, our more intelligent “liberals” despite their artful verbiage) well knows, a Welfare State necessarily entails a totalitarian despotism – and despotisms, for obvious purposes of their own, foster “lack of vigor and irresponsibility” in their subjects. The economic price of a Welfare State is crushing taxation. The social price is national suicide.

In the Second Century a freeborn Roman citizen named C Sergius Alcimus buried his son and recorded the following facts – and only these facts – on the marble tombstone: the boy (1) died at the age of three years, three months, and three days; (2) got his handout from the public treasury on the tenth day of each month; and (3) got his handouts from Wicket No. 49. This particular inscription is No. 10,224-b in Volume VI of the great Corpus inscripiionum Latinarum, and you will find many other inscriptions of identical form on the same and adjacent pages of this volume and in other volumes of the Corpus – all proudly recording for posterity the unconscious debasement of their authors. But perhaps you will not find these inscriptions as significant as I do; I shiver when I read them.

An easy and superficial answer could be made in terms of contemporary persons and events. With few and brief exceptions, the empire was ruled by despots who ranged from ruthless pirates to mutton-headed fops, including such figures as the well-read and pious Theodosius II, who professed and probably felt, “Love of man-kind”, but, in the words of the contemporary historian, “lived in cowardice” and was “under the control of his eunuchs in everything … They beguiled him, to put it briefly, as children are beguiled with toys.” One can draw up a long list of battles lost by folly or treason, and ask why supreme command of the greatest naval effort of the century, equipped at a cost that had strained to the utmost the resources of a declining nation, was entrusted to Basiliscus, who appears to have been both a fool and a traitor.
But even in the first chapter an attentive reader will see a deeper cause as he notices with increasing wonder that most of the prominent figures on the Roman side are not really natives of the Empire. Strike out the names of mercenaries imported from across the border, or superficially naturalized barbarians, and of first-generation Romans: the pages of history are left almost vacant. You cannot read far without confronting the appalling fact that that vast empire is one in which irresponsibility and torpor have become virtually universal; it has a multitudinous population, great cities, a noble culture, a new and elevating religion, wheat, gold, iron… But it has to import the one thing that no nation can really buy – men.
When the Romans finally destroyed Carthage in 146 BC, they destroyed a powerful nation that had combined a high degree of civilization (in commerce, industry, scientific agriculture, navigation, and politics) with the terrible religious savagery evident in such institutions as the great bronze machine that was used on ceremonial occasions to shovel living children by the hundreds – including sons and daughters of the Carthaginian aristocracy – into the furnace that burned within the colossal idol of Baal. To the Roman mind, as to ours, the masochistic sadism of the Carthaginians was incomprehensibly alien and horribly inhuman. Yet before long – in less time than has elapsed since our Constitution was ratified – the Romans had set up a socio-political machine that was far more deadly – a machine, adorned with specious phrases and built, in part, with good intentions, for the sacrifice of their own children.
The machine devoured the Romans – almost all of the great families of the Republic were extinct by the time of Nero. It devoured the other peoples of Italy. It devoured the hardy provincials who had been brought into the imperium Romanum. It devoured whatever was virile and valuable in the descendants of the innumerable slaves that the Romans had recklessly brought into Italy and then set free with indiscriminate generosity. And when the machine had devoured the last manhood of an exhausted world, its work was done – and the empty husk of a dead nation collapsed of its own weight. (America’s Decline, page 214-219, Men and Dinosaurs, December 1961)

The other thing to note about this passage

(卐つ◕ل◕)つ·︻┻═━一   ᕕ(✡ᐛ )ᕗ

is that today, people say that those statues of the Carthaginians sacrificed children in did not exist, but the gas chambers with wooden doors that Germans put Jews in for a few minutes with pellets of slow-release insecticide did. The reason they claim that the statues didn’t exist is that they don’t exist now, even though Rome destroyed Carthage and sowed salt in the fields; while the homicidal gas chambers would presumably have been preserved as evidence, and the Red Cross was snooping around Auschwitz in 1944 to look for evidence of gassings.

But, lack of evidence is lack of evidence. So let’s look for inconsistencies in a growing narrative to find out which atrocity stories are hoaxes. For example, the crematoria are said to have produced oily black smoke, which does not happen with functioning crematoria; and there were not enough crematoria to burn all the corpses. Auschwitz had a hospital with a maternity ward, despite the talk of daily ‘selektions’ in which the sick were forwarded to the gas chambers. Rudolph Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, signed a confession in English to having murdered three millions of Jews; the plaque at Auschwitz claims that one and a half million were killed there. There are no such inconsistencies regarding the Baal stories, and there was no law against questioning the Baal stories.


Anyway.  I said I wasn’t going to put my unproofread words here.  Back to Oliver.  I agree with him regarding

In the spring of 1963, I planned, in agreement with the editor of American Opinion, a long article, to be published in six installments, designed both to raise the intellectual level of the journal, by suggesting to all readers the need to consider contemporary events in the perspectives of history and ethnology, and to relieve the growing monotony of the standard phrase “International Communist Conspiracy” that was used, more or less indiscriminately, to designate the effects of Jewish activity and influence throughout the world, whether direct or indirect.

Really, Oliver is my idol.  He says the things that I want to say, and does it better than I could; in a sense, every minute that I spend reading him is a sacrifice, but maybe I can find something bigger to sacrifice to him so he will save us all.  Okay, my real name: James Russell of Ashtabula, OH.  In the name of Hitler Thorsson and His prophet. Let’s see if this works.

(It is also possible that if our race recovers its lost vigor and ascendency, a future religion may recognize Adolf Hitler as a semidivine figure. The potentiality of such a religion may be seen in the works of a highly intelligent and learned lady of Greek ancestry, Dr. Savitri Devi, especially her Pilgrimage (Calcutta, 1958). Dr. Eberhardt Cheyn in Los Neo-nazis en Sudamerica (Liverpool, West Virginia, 1978) reports that National Socialism, having attracted the devotion of many women, has become the New Evangel, preached in modern “catacombs” as is made necessary by Jewish terrorism, observing the birthday of Hitler with ceremonies that are distinctly pious, and computing dates in the New Era that began with his birth. The veneration of Hitler as a heros[ed. this appears to be the Greek word for a lamb sandwich with mint sauce] is not surprising, but worship, I think, would require the elaboration of a notion that he was an avatar of some superhuman being – a development that would require a century or more.) (page 120)

So.  Let’s raise the intellectual level of the neoreactionaries by quoting Oliver’s History and the Historians, sort of like the way Anissimov posted all those retarded Evola quotes, but different because Oliver is smarter than Evola, and also doesn’t say stupid things in the proven-vain hope of convincing apes to smash other apes. Also, instead of serializing, I’ll just copypaste parts that I think are interesting, because Nick B. Steves has expressed interest in Spengler, and because the entire thing spans 100 pages of America’s Decline from 228 to 328.

Part 1
A conservative is essentially a man who is willing to learn from the accumulated experience of mankind. He must strive to observe dispassionately and objectively, and he must reason from his observations with a full awareness of the limitations of reason. And he must, above all, have the courage to confront the unpleasant realities of human nature and the world in which we live. That is why history, the vast record of human trial and error, is a discipline for conservatives. It necessarily lies beyond the emotional and intellectual capacities of children, savages, and “liberal intellectuals” who instinctively flee from reality to live in a dream-world in which the laws of nature can be suspended by the intervention of fairies, Witch-doctors, or “social scientists”.
History is a high and arduous discipline in which it is always necessary to collect and weigh complex and often elusive data, and in which, as in so many other fields of research, we must frequently content ourselves with a calculation of probabilities rather than a certainty. And when we try to extract from history the laws of historical development we find ourselves calculating the probability of probabilities – as difficult and delicate a task as the human mind can set for itself.
Fortunately for us, in the practical affairs of this world prudence and common sense (though somewhat uncommon qualities) are an adequate guide and do not depend on answers to the great questions of philosophy. A man may learn not to buy a pig in a poke without finding a solution to the epistemological problem that Hume posed so clearly and that yet remains unsolved. We can learn much from history without answering the ultimate questions.
Our minds, however, by their very nature desire a coherent philosophy that will account for the whole of perceived reality. And we live in a time in which we are constantly confronted by claims – some obviously mere propaganda but others seriously and sincerely put forward – that this or that development must take place in the future because it is “historically necessary.” Furthermore, we live in a time in which all but the most thoughtless sense that our very civilization is being eroded by vast and obscure forces which, if unchecked, will soon destroy it utterly – forces that we can identify and understand only if we can ascertain how and why they are shaping our history. And here again we are often told that those forces represent a destiny inherent in civilization itself and therefore irresistible and inescapable.
That is why the development of a working philosophy of history is the most urgent, as well as the most difficult, task of Twentieth Century thought.
It will be obvious that in this brief article I can do no more than offer a few comments on the nature of the problem and on some books that deal with it.

…long digression that is not politically sensitive ellided…


It is not at all astonishing that the two Egyptian writers, with no precedent or record of comparable human experience to guide them, did not see in the cataclysm an intellectual problem. Nefer-rohu was right when he said, “What has never happened has happened”. But it seems that at no time in their long existence as a nation did the Egyptians think in terms of historical cause and effect. They compiled chronologies, but they never wrote history. They kept careful record of the sequence of events, but did not try to explain them. Some years brought national misfortune, just as the Nile in some years did not rise to its normal height and the fields consequently bore but a scanty harvest. Such things happened; if they had a cause, that cause lay in the mysterious and perhaps capricious will of the gods, far beyond human understanding.
History as the reasoned reporting of political and social change was the product of the Greek mind. Indeed, it could be argued that the capacity for history in that sense is the exclusive property of the Western culture that the Greeks created and we inherited – but it would be a fairly long argument. We cannot indulge ourselves in it here, any more than we can undertake a survey of ancient historians. But we should observe that the two basic conceptions of the historical process between which the modern mind must choose were both formed in Classical antiquity. I merely mention two historians who illustrate the contrast.
If we consider his almost superhuman dispassion and objectivity, the intellectual power that enables him to extract the essential from great masses of detail and so write concisely of highly complex events, and his lucid presentation of the evidence unclouded by theory or thesis, we must regard Thucydides as the great historian of all time. With perfect precision he tells us what happened and how it happened; he sees reality with an eye that is never blurred by a tear for his country’s fate; and the implacable lucidity of his intellect is no more perturbed by a theory to be demonstrated than it was perturbed by the temptation, which no other writer could have resisted, to add at least a few words to explain or defend his own conduct as a general or to mention his own misfortunes. We cannot read Thucydides without deep emotion, but the emotion is ours, not his; we cannot read him without pondering the lessons of history, but they are lessons that we must draw from the facts, not accept ready-made from the writer.
The future will always resemble the past because human nature does not change; men will always be actuated by the same basic desires and motives; the limitations of human reason and of human willingness to reason constitute a kind of fatality, but the events of history are always the result of human decisions, of wisdom or folly, in dealing with matters that can never be calculated with certainty in advance because the result will to some extent depend on chance – on factors that cannot be predicted. Nations, like men, must suffer the consequences of their own acts – consequences often unforeseen and sometimes unforeseeable – but there is no historical force which compels them to decide how they will act: they are subject, therefore, to no fate, other than that inherent in the limitations of their physical, mental, and moral resources. History is tragic, but it is tragedy in the strict sense of the word, the result of human blindness. That conception of history contrasts strongly with another, which may be described as either more cowardly, since it does shift responsibility, or more profound, since it tries to account for decisions. The elder Seneca, writing his history of the Civil Wars after the fall of the Roman Republic and the establishment of the Principate, was certainly influenced by the Stoic conception of a universe that operates by a strict mechanical necessity in vast cycles from one ecpyrosis to another, endlessly repeating itself. Seneca saw in the Roman people an organism comparable to a man and under- going, like men, a kind of biological development. Rome spent her infancy under the early kings; adolescent, the nation established a republic and, with the indefatigable vigor of a growing organism, extended its rule over the adjacent parts of Italy; with the strength and resolution of maturity (iuventus), Rome conquered virtually all of the world that was worth taking; and then at last, weary and feeling the decline of her powers, unable to muster the strength and resolution to govern herself, she in her old age (senectus) resigned herself and her affairs into the hands of a guardian, closing her career as she began it, under the tutelage and governance of a monarch.
Unfortunately, the surviving fragment of Seneca’s history does not tell us how soon he thought decrepitude would be followed by death. We cannot even be certain how strictly he applied the fatalism implicit in the analogy; he seems to have believed that nations, like men, could in their maturity a little hasten or retard the onset of senility by the care that they took of themselves. But at best, human will and wisdom can but little affect the biological necessity that carries all living things to the inexorable grave. Seneca was thinking of Rome, rather than of Classical civilization as a whole, but his analogy anticipates the essentials of what we now call the organic, or cyclic, conception of history.


Modern history begins with the Renaissance, an age which thought of itself, as the name indicates, as a “rebirth” of Classical antiquity. For a long time, men’s energies were concentrated in an effort to ascend to the level of high civilization represented by the great ages of Greece and Rome. The most common metaphor described cultural change in terms of day and night: Civilization had reached high noon in the age of Cicero and Vergil; the decadence of the Roman Empire was the gloaming that preceded the long night of the Dark Ages; and the revival of literature and the arts that began with Petrarch was the dawn of a new day – the return of the sun to illumine the earth and rouse the minds of men. This metaphor was intended to mark contrasts, not to draw an analogy. Culture did not come to the world as the sun rises and sets, independently of human effort; on the contrary, literature, philosophy (including what we now call science), and the arts were the products of the highest and most intense creativity of the human mind. It followed, therefore, that civilization was essentially the body of knowledge accumulated and maintained by the intellect and will of men. This sense of constant striving precluded a cyclic or deterministic conception of history, while the awareness that the thread of civilization had been all but broken during the Dark Ages precluded a facile and unthinking optimism. From the dawn of the Renaissance to the early years of the Twentieth Century men thought of the history of civilization as a continuum that could be reduced to a line on a graph. The line began at the bottom somewhere in pre-history before the time of Homer, rose steadily to a peak in the great age of Athens, dipped a little and then rose again to the Golden Age of Rome, fell steadily towards zero, which it almost reached in the Dark Ages, rose a little in the later Middle Age, and with the Revival of Learning climbed sharply toward a new peak. History thus conceived divided itself into three periods: Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern. That linear conception of history was simply taken for granted by historians. Guicciardini, Juan de Mariana, Thuanus, Gibbon, and Macaulay differ greatly from one another in outlook, but they all regard the linear conception as apodictic.
That conception of history has an implication that we should not overlook: The history of civilization is the history of the West. What had happened in Egypt, Assyria, China, India, and Islam might be picturesque and interesting, but was not really significant except at the points at which the Orient had impinged on the Occident. The history of the Oriental empires was alien to our history. Furthermore, those empires, however wealthy and powerful, were barbaric. That was the only adjective available to describe them, for “civilization” was not a word that could be used in the plural: it was a word that specifically meant the culture of the West. And we should note that that use of the word, although it implies a fundamental difference in quality, did not spring from an assumption of superiority. Europe was long inferior in both numbers and resources to the adjacent Mohammedan nations, and down to the Eighteenth Century there was a real and ever present danger that the multitudinous armies of Islam might overwhelm and capture the whole of the Christian West. And for many years after 1683, the West stood in awe of the wealth of –

Ormus and of Ind,
Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand
Showers on her kings barbaric pearl and gold.

The Nineteenth Century brought to the West the assurance of military superiority over all the other peoples of the world. It seemed certain that the white man, thanks to his technology, would forever rule the globe and its teeming populations. And from this confidence sprang a mad-cap euphoria – a bizarre notion that progress was inevitable and automatic; that civilization, instead of being a precious and fragile creation that men must work very hard to maintain and even harder to improve, had become self-perpetuating and self-augmenting; and that the line on the graph, having risen higher than the highest point attained in antiquity, was destined to move upward forever and forever. That childish fancy, to be sure, did not impose on the best minds of the century (eg Burckhardt), but like a heady wine it intoxicated many writers (eg Herbert Spencer) who passed for serious thinkers in their day. And it did serve to suggest to reflective minds the question whether or not there was a destiny inherent in the nature of the historical process itself as distinct from the wisdom or folly of decisions made by men.
Toward the end of the century, deep misgivings that could no longer be repressed found expression in such works as Theodore Funck Brentano’s La civilisation et ses lois, Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay, and Henry Adams’ The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma. No one thought of doubting the supremacy of the West or its perpetuity, but men began to wonder whether civilization was not falling to a lower level. And to find an answer, they sought to establish a “science of history” – what is now called historionomy in English and metahistoire in French – which would ascertain the natural laws that govern the development of civilization.
On the eve of the First World War, a few remarkable minds, prescient of the coming catastrophe, formulated the historical question in more drastic and fundamental terms: Was the civilization of the West mortal and already growing old? Would a traveller of some future and alien civilization meditate among the mouldering ruins of New York and London and Paris as Volney had meditated among the ruins of Babylon, Baalbec,and Persepolis – and perhaps, like Volney, soothe himself with illusions that his civilization could endure, although all its predecessors had left but heaps of broken stone to attest that they had once existed?


We must understand that the grim question thus posed was at that time, and remains even today, entirely a question of internal decay – of a sickness or debility of the Western mind and will. It was not then, and has not yet become, a question of strength relative to the rest of the world. The power of the nations of the West was, and is, simply overwhelming.
In 1914, men debated whether or not Russia was part of the Western world. Assuming that it was not, it was obvious that there were only two non-Western nations on earth that possessed the military and industrial capacity to offer serious resistance to even a medium-sized nation of the West. And neither Russia nor Japan could have hoped to defeat a major Western power except by forming an alliance with another major power of Europe or America. And despite all the efforts of the West to destroy itself in fratricidal wars and by exporting its technology and its wealth to other peoples, that remains in large part true today.
The retreat of the West has been self-imposed, and we must not permit the screeching of “liberals” to distract our attention from that obvious and fundamental fact. Great Britain, for example, was in no sense compelled to relinquish India as a colony. During the great Indian Mutiny of 1857, fifty thousand British troops cut their way through the whole of the Indian sub-continent, and in little more than a year reduced to complete submission its population of more than one hundred million. And this, nota bene, was done at a time when the only basic weapon of warfare was the rifle, so that a man with a rifle on one side was the match of a man with a rifle on the other side, except insofar as discipline and individual intelligence might make some difference in the use of the common and universally obtainable weapon. In 1946, Great Britain, with all the weapons of modern warfare at her disposal, including tanks, airplanes, high-explosive and incendiary bombs, poison gas, and other weapons that are by their very nature a monopoly of great nations, could have snuffed out in a few weeks the most formidable revolt that Nehru and his gang could conceivably have instigated and organized.
The power is still ours. The greater part of the globe lies open for our taking, if we as a nation resolve to take it. Despite all the frenzied efforts in Washington to sabotage the United States for the past thirty years, it is still beyond doubt that if we were so minded, we could, for example, simply take the whole continent of Africa, exterminate the native population; and make the vast and rich area a new frontier for the expansion of our own people. No power on earth – certainly not the Soviet that we have so diligently nurtured and built up with our resources – would dare to oppose us. To be sure, there are good reasons for not annexing Africa, but if we are to think clearly about our place in the world, we must understand that lack of power is not one of them.
That the Western world, with its virtual monopoly of the instruments of power, should slavishly cringe before the hordes for which it felt only contempt when it was less strong than it now is, is obvious proof that our civilization is suffering from some potentially fatal disease or decay that has deprived us – temporarily or permanently – of the intelligence and the will to live. Every philosophy of history, or, if you prefer, every system of historionomy, is simply an effort to diagnose our malady – to tell us, in effect, whether the debility and enervation of the West is the result of a curable disease or of an irreversible deterioration.
We should also note that the historical question can, except in its most immediate aspects, be partly separated from the problem posed by the International Communist Conspiracy. That band of criminals was so well hidden in 1914 that no one suspected the extent of its secret strength or anticipated the almost incredible growth of that strength in subsequent decades. Many philosophies of history simply ignore, and others barely notice the existence of the conspiracy whose capture of governments and the organs of public opinion in the West is the obvious cause of the paralysis from which we are now suffering.
There is nothing new about the Bolsheviks except the scale on which they operate. History provides many examples of criminal conspiracies to capture entire nations: the Catilinarian Conspiracy is an obvious example and many others could be cited. Every race and nation has produced throughout its history depraved creatures animated by a blood-lust that we regard as inhuman, and these fearful animals have sometimes formed conspiracies whose motivation was simply the joy of killing, with no thought of profit or political power: One of the clearest examples is provided by the biped beasts described by Louis Zoul in his excellent Thugs and Communists (Public Opinion, Long Island City: cf. American Opinion, January, 1962, pp. 29-36). The only innovation that the Communists have made is their success in organizing the depraved and the degenerate throughout the world, and their determination to capture the entire globe instead of a part of it.
But the members of the Communist Conspiracy are never more than a tiny fraction of the populations they subjugate; they are a small gang that could in any country be handled by the local police force in a merely routine operation. The terrible power of the unhumans is entirely obtained by their ability to deceive and manipulate human beings.
So the historical question remains. What sickness of our civilization has so paralyzed us that we permit the vermin to swarm over us? What stupor prevented us for so long from recognizing them? What has palsied our hands so that we make no move to rid ourselves of the infestation?
Many of the criminals are almost impenetrably disguised as “liberal intellectuals”. The nature of the “liberal” has been clearly and brilliantly analyzed by S E D Brown and Taylor Caldwell (see American Opinion, October, 1961, pp. 35-44: March, 1963, pp. 29-41), and we can only marvel that such weak, ignorant, and irrational little men, bearing a secret and morbid animus against the civilization that nurtured them, should have been able to occupy the positions of intellectual prestige and influence in our society. How does it happen that we have the herds of “liberal intellectuals” among whom the members of the Criminal Conspiracy can so easily and effortlessly conceal themselves?
The Communist Conspiracy is therefore a proof that there is something seriously wrong with our civilization. If that were not so, the Conspiracy would be helpless. As we all know, everyone is daily exposed to tuberculosis and many other potentially lethal infections, but healthy bodies simply throw off those infections automatically. All societies will always have criminals in their midst, but a healthy society will automatically keep those ever-present germs of evil and death under control, partly by the exercise of police-powers, but mostly by the social pressures that are generated by the refusal of individuals to countenance subversion and crime.
If God in His Mercy were to remove from our globe tonight every member of the International Communist Conspiracy, we would rejoice wildly in our liberation. But within a century – perhaps in half a century – we should find ourselves in our present plight once again, unless we developed powers of resistance to infection that we obviously have not yet developed.

None of that isn’t already known to us


Before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, three important theories of historical development were formulated by their authors, although they were not published in book-form until later. C H von Méray’s Weltmutation (Zürich, 1918) is an elaborate system that subsequent events have made largely obsolete, but it is still worth the attention of the student who wishes to explore the intellectual ambience represented by it.
One of the most lucid and penetrating of all analyses of the historical problem was made by the American scholar and economist, Correa Moylan Walsh, in a work which was published both as a unit of three volumes and as separate books, of which the first was entitled The Climax of Civilisation, the second, Socialism, and the last, Feminism (New York, 1917). For decades I have been discussing the numerous modern philosophies of history with anyone who seemed interested in the subject, but in all that time I have encountered only one man who had read or even heard of Walsh’s unique formulation of a cyclic theory that is not fatalistic. Americans, I suppose, just take it for granted that Europeans are brighter than they. I hope to discuss Walsh’s interpretation in some future issue, but I can here do no more than remark that the three volumes, published on the wrong side of the Atlantic, seem to have had no influence whatsoever on later writers.
The third and magisterial work conceived before the War was, of course, Oswald Spengler’s Der Untergang des Abendlandes (Munich, 1918). Read in this country chiefly in the brilliantly faithful translation by Charles Francis Atkinson, The Decline of the West (New York, two volumes, 1926-28), Spengler’s morphology of history was the great intellectual achievement of our century. Whatever our opinion of his methods or concl usions, we cannot deny that he was the Copernicus of historionomy. All subsequent writings on the philosophy of history may fairly be described as criticism of the Decline af the West. Spengler, having formulated a universal history, undertook an analysis of the forces operating in the immediately contemporary world. This he set forth in a masterly work, Die Jahre der Entscheidung, of which only the first volume could be published in Germany (Munich, 1933) and translated into English (The Hour of Decision, New York, 1934). One has only to read this brilliant work, with its lucid analysis of forces that even acute observers did not perceive until twenty-five or thirty years later, and with its prevision that subsequent events have now shown to have been absolutely correct, to recognize that its au thor was one of the great political and philosophical minds of the West. One should remember, however, that the amazing accuracy of his analysis of the contemporary situation does not necessarily prove the validity of his historical morphology.
I should, perhaps, explain why the work is incomplete. As we all know by experience, when cats see a dog they spit and arch their backs; when “liberals” see an inconvenient fact, they spit and devise a lie. Our “liberals” have so assiduously peddled the story that Spengler was “the philosopher of National Socialism” that even some Americans who should know better have come to believe it. The facts of the matter are that the Hitlerian regime soon after it came to power in Germany quietly forbade its captive press to mention Spengler, saw to it that the first volume of Die Jahre der Entscheidung was suddenly “out of print,” and declared that the second volume must never be published. Even Spengler’s great Untergang des Abendlandes, which had been in print since 1918, suddenly disappeared from the market and new copies were not again available in Germany until 1950. It is not clear whether Spengler, confronted by the Hitlerian prohibition, did not finish the second volume of his last work or the completed manuscript was destroyed. Spengler devoted the few remaining years of his life to a study of the second millenium BC, of which he completed a few chapters.
These facts are well known, and are admitted by cautious “liberals” (eg H Stuart Holmes, in his covertly hostile Oswald Spengler, New York, 1952), but our journalistic lie-machines operate on the assumption that the general public can be made to believe anything. And in the case of Spengler, they have generally succeeded, by constant repetition, in conveying the impression that the great philosopher was somehow the favorite or ally of the little tyrant who silenced him. One effect of this denigration of Spengler was the exaltation of Toynbee, whose work we shall consider in a future article.


The publication of Spengler’s first volume in 1918 released a spate of controversy that continues to the present day. Manfred Schroeter in Der Streit urn Spengler (Munich, 1922) was able to give a précis of the critiques that had appeared in a little more than three years; today, a mere bibliography, if reasonably complete, would take years to compile and would probably run to eight hundred or a thousand printed pages.
Spengler naturally stirred up swarms of nit-wits, who were particularly incensed by his immoral and preposterous suggestion that there could be another war in Europe, when everybody knew that there just couldn’t be anything but World Peace after 1918, ’cause Santa had just brought a nice, new, shiny “League of Nations.” Such “liberal” chatterboxes are always making a noise, but no one with the slightest knowledge of human history pays any attention to them, except as symptoms.
Unfortunately, much more intelligent criticism of Spengler was motivated by emotional dissatisfaction with his conclusions. In an article in Antiquity for 1927, the learned R S Collingwood of Oxford went so far as to claim that Spengler’s two volumes had not given him “a single genuinely new idea,” and that he had “long ago carried out for himself” – and, of course, rejected – even Spengler’s detailed analyses of individual cultures. As a cursory glance at Spengler’s work will suffice to show, that assertion is less plausible than a claim to know everything contained in the Twelfth Edition of the Britannica. Collingwood, the author of the Speculum mentis and other philosophical works, must have been bedeviled with emotional resentments so strong that he could not see how conceited, arrogant and improbable his vaunt would seem to most readers.
It is now a truism that Spengler’s “pessimism” and “fatalism” was an unbearable shock to minds nurtured in the Nineteenth Century illusion that everything would get better and better forever and ever. Spengler’s cyclic interpretation of history stated that a civilization was an organism having a definite and fixed life-span and moving from infancy to senescence and death by an internal necessity comparable to the biological necessity that decrees the development of the human organism from infantile imbecility to senile decrepitude. Napoleon, for example, was the counterpart of Alexander in the ancient world. We were now, therefore! in the phase of civilizational life in which constitutional forms are supplanted by the prestige of individuals. By 2000, we shall be “contemporary” with the Rome of Sulla, the Egypt of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and China at the time when the “Contending States” were welded into an empire. That means that we face an age of world wars and what is worse, civil wars and proscriptions, and that around 2060 the West (if not destroyed by its alien enemies) will be united under the personal rule of a Caesar or Augustus. That is not a pleasant prospect.
The only question before us, however, is whether Spengler is correct in his analysis. Rational men will regard as irrelevant the fact that his conclusions are not charming. If a physician informs you that you have symptoms of arteriosclerosis, he mayor may not be right in his diagnosis, but it is absolutely certain that you cannot rejuvenate yourself by slapping his face.
Every detached observer of our times, I think, will agree that Spengler’s “pessimism” aroused emotions that precluded rational consideration. I am inclined to believe that the moral level of his thinking was a greater obstacle. His “fatalism” was not the comforting kind that permits men to throw up their hands and eschew responsibilities. Consider, for example, the concluding lines of his
Men and Technics (New York, 1932):
“Already the danger is so great, for every individual, every class, every people, that to cherish any illusion whatever is deplorable. Time does not suffer itself to be halted; there is no question of prudent retreat or wise renunciation. Only dreamers believe that there is a way out. Optimism is cowardice.
“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.”
Now, whether or not the stern prognostication that lies back of that conclusion is correct, no man fit to live in the present can read those lines without feeling his heart lifted by the great ethos of a noble culture – the spiritual strength of the West that can know tragedy and be unafraid. And simultaneously, that pronouncement will affright to hysteria the epicene homunculi among us, the puling cowards who hope only to scuttle about safely in the darkness and to batten on the decay of a culture infinitely beyond their comprehension.
That contrast is in itself a very significant datum for an estimate of the present condition of our civilization. When a student of history undertakes an objective examination of Spengler’s great architectonic construction, he finds that, as he expected, it would be possible to argue almost endlessly over details. To begin with, an ordinary book of history, which purports to do no more than tell us what happened in a given country within a stated period, is, as we all know, necessarily like a map, which can show only as much detail as is indispensable for its purpose and proportional to its scale. A useful map of a state cannot record the curves in highways or the streets of towns. A useful map of the United States must omit most of the towns and rivers. Even in orthodox narrative history, the same kind of drastic selection must be made, but the difficulty of selecting is much greater; only an extraordinary genius, such as Thucydides, can keep everything in perfect proportion to its importance. To this must be added, of course, the difficulty that there is so much in history, both remote and recent, that we cannot ascertain for want of adequate records. It is unlikely that we shall ever be able to decide whether or not the founders of the First Dynasty in Egypt were native Egyptians, or to identify positively the persons who arranged for the assassination of Lincoln (cf. Otto Eisenschimi, Why Was Lincoln Murdered?, Boston, 1937). There is in both cases a possibility, of course, that new evidence may come to light, but in the meantime, at least, there will be blank spots on the historical map.
Spengler, in his great analytic and synthetic work, has to start from the narrative histories of the many nations that were parts of the civilizations that he studies. He assumes, so to speak, that we have a world-atlas before us to which we can refer, if any point in his discussion seems obscure to us. Hence more opportunities for argument. Spengler’s dating of the early dynasties of Egypt, for example, differs from both the so-called “longer” chronology of Professor W M Flinders Petrie (who was, by the way, himself the author of a very interesting theory of civilization) and the “shorter” chronology which I, following the more recent computations of Professor Wilson and others, used when I wrote the phrase, “approximately five thousand years ago” near the beginning of this article. Neither chronology is certain; it would take twenty pages to summarize the reasons for the disagreement; an Egyptologist could write a fairly long book on this one question; and if, in the end, he was able to prove that one computation was necessarily correct, that conclusion would not really affect, one way or the other, the validity of Spengler’s morphology.
Criticism of Spengler, therefore, if it is not to seem mere quibbling about details, must deal with major premises. Now, so far as I can see, Spengler’s thesis can be challenged at three really fundamental points, viz.:
(1) Spengler regards each civilization as a closed and isolated entity animated by a dominant idea, or Weltanschaaung, that is its “soul”. Why should ideas, or concepts, the impalpable creations of the human mind, undergo an organic evolution as though they were living protoplasm, which, as a material substance, is understandably subject to chemical change and hence biological laws? This logical objection is not conclusive: Men may observe the tides, for example, and even predict them, without being able to explain what causes them. But when we must deduce historical laws from the four or five civilizations of which we have some fairly accurate knowledge, we do not have enough repetitions of a phenomenon to calculate its periodicity with assurance, if we do not know why it happens.
(2) A far graver difficulty arises from the historical fact that we have already mentioned. For five centuries, at least, the men of the West regarded modern civilization as a revival or prolongation of Graeco-Roman antiquity. Spengler, as the very basis of his hypothesis, regards the Classical world as a civilization distinct from, and alien to, our own – a civilization that, like the Egyptian, lived, died, and is now gone. It was dominated by an entirely different Weltanschaaung, and consequently the educated men of Europe and America, who for five centuries believed in continuity, were merely suffering from an illusion or hallucination.
Even if we grant that, however, we are still confronted by a unique historical phenomenon. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Hindu, and Arabian (“Magian”), civilizations are all regarded by Spengler (and other proponents of an organic structure of culture) as single and unrelated organisms: Each came into being without deriving its concepts from another civilization (or, alternatively, seeing its own concepts in the records of an earlier civilization), and each died leaving no offpsring (or, alternatively, no subsequent civilization thought to see in them its own concepts). There is simply no parallel or precedent for the relationship (real or imaginary) which links Graeco-Roman culture to our own.
Since Spengler wrote, a great historical discovery has further complicated the question. We now know that the Mycenaean peoples were Greeks, and it is virtually certain that the essentials of their culture survived the disintegration caused by the Dorian invasion, and were the basis of later Greek culture. (For a good summary, see Leonard R. Palmer, Mycenaeans and Minoans, London, 1961). We therefore have a sequence that is, so far as we know, unique: Mycenaean ⑧ Dark Ages ⑧ Graeco-Roman ⑧ Dark Ages ⑧ Modern. If this is one civilization, it has had a creative life-span far longer than that of any other that has thus far appeared in the world. If it is more than one, the interrelations form an exception to Spengler’s general law, and suggest the possibility that a civilization, if it dies by some kind of quasi-biological process, may in some cases have a quasi-biological power of reproduction.
The exception becomes even more remarkable if we, unlike Spengler, regard as fundamentally important the concept of self-government, which may have been present even in Mycenaean times (cf. Palmer, op. cit., p. 97). Democracies and constitutional republics are found only in the Graeco-Roman world and our own; such institutions seem to have been incomprehensible to other cultures (see American Opinion, April, 1961, pp. 21-29).
(3) For all practical purposes, Spengler ignores hereditary and racial differences. He even uses the word “race” to represent a qualitative difference between members of what we should call the same race, and he denies that that difference is to any significant extent mused by heredity. He regards biological races as plastic and mutable, even in their physical characteristics, under the influence of geographical factors (including the soil, which is said to affect the physical organism through food) and of what Spengler terms “a mysterious cosmic force” that has nothing to do with biology. The only real unity is cultural, ie the fundamental ideas and beliefs shared by the peoples who form a civilization. Thus Spengler, who makes those ideas subject to quasi-biological growth and decay, oddly rejects as insignificant the findings of biological science concerning living organisms.
It is true, of course, that man is in part a spiritual being. Of that, persons who have a religious faith need no assurance. Others, unless they are determined blindly to deny the evidence before us, must admit the existence of phenomena of the kind described by Franz F Winkler, MD, in Man, the Bridge Between Two Worlds (New York, Harper, 1960), and, of course, by many other writers. And every historian knows that no one of the higher cultures could conceivably have come into being, if human beings are merely animals.
But it is also true that the science of genetics, founded by Father Mendel only a century ago and almost totally neglected down to the early years of the Twentieth Century, has ascertained biological laws that can be denied only by denying the reality of the physical world. Every educated person knows that the color of a man’s eyes, the shape of the lobes of his ears, and every one of his other physiological characteristics is determined by hereditary factors. It is virtually certain that intellectual capacity is likewise produced by inheritance, and there is a fair amount of evidence that indicates that even moral capacities are likewise innate. Man’s power of intervention in the development of inherited qualities appears to be entirely negative, thus affording another melancholy proof that human ingenuity can easily destroy what it can never create. Any fool with a knife can in three minutes make the most beautiful woman forever hideous, and one of our “mental health experts,” even without using a knife, can as quickly and as permanently destroy the finest intellect. And it appears that less drastic interventions, through education and other control of environment, may temporarily or even permanently pervert and deform, but are powerless to create capacities that an individual did not inherit from near or more remote ancestors.
The facts are beyond question, although the Secret Police in Russia and “liberal” spitting-squads in the United States have largely succeeded in keeping these facts from the general public in the areas they control, But no amount of terrorism can alter the laws of nature. For a readable exposition of genetics, see Garrett Hardin’s Nature and Man’s Fate (New York, Rinehart, 1959), which is subject only to the reservation that the laws of genetics, like the laws of chemistry, are verified by observation every day, whereas the doctrine of biological evolution is necessarily an hypothesis that cannot be verified by experiment.
It is also beyond question that the races of mankind differ greatly in physical appearance, in susceptibility to specific diseases, and in average intellectual capacity. There are indications that they differ also in nervous organization, and possibly, in moral instincts. It would be a miracle if that were not so, for, as is well known, the three primary races were distinct and separate at the time that intelligent men first appeared on this planet, and have so remained ever since. The differences are so pronounced and stable that the proponents of biological evolution are finding it more and more necessary to postulate that the differences go back to species that preceded the appearance of the homo sapiens. (See the new and revised edition of Dr Carleton S Coon’s The Story of Man, New York, Knopf, 1962)
That such differences exist is doubtless deplorable. It is certainly deplorable that all men must die, and there are persons who think it deplorable that there are differences, both anatomical and spiritual between men and women. However, no amount of concerted lying by “liberals,” and no amount of decreeing by the Warren Gang, will in the least change the laws of nature.
Now there is a great deal that we do not know about genetics, both individual and racial, and these uncertainties permit widely differing estimates of the relative importance of biologically determined factors and cultural concepts in the development of a civilization. Our only point here is that it is highly improbable that biological factors have no influence at all on the origin and course of civilizations. And to the extent that they do have an influence, Spengler’s theory is defective and probably misleading.
One could add a few minor points to the three objections stated above, but these will suffice to show that the Spenglerian historionomy cannot be accepted as a certainty. It is, however, a great philosophical formulation that poses questions of the utmost importance and deepens our perception of historical causality. No student of history needed Spengler to tell him that a decline of religious faith necessarily weakens the moral bonds that make civilized society possible. But Spengler’s showing that such a decline seems to have occurred at a definite point in the development of a number of fundamentally different civilizations with, of course, radically different religions provides us with data that we must take into account when we try to ascertain the true causes of the decline. And his further observation that the decline was eventually followed by a sweeping revival of religious belief is equally significant.
However wrong he may have been about some things, Spengler has given us profound insights into the nature of our own culture. But for him, we might have gone on believing that our great technology was merely a matter of economics – of trying to make more things more cheaply. But he has shown us, I think, that our technology has a deeper significance – that for us, the men of Western civilization, it answers a certain spiritual need inherent in us, and that we derive from its triumphs a satisfaction analogous to that which is derived from great music or great art.
And Spengler, above all, has forced us to inquire into the nature of civilization and to ask ourselves by what means – if any – we can repair and preserve the long and narrow dykes that alone protect us from the vast and turbulent ocean of eternal barbarism. For that, we must always honor him.

So there you have it. Rejected by Hitler, rejected by the West. Bizarre cyclic view of history instead of giving the laws of psychohistory as Asimov wanted. So what’s the point? I’m not convinced to read Spengler, far from it.  Back to Instauration for me.

Part II: Arnold Toynbee
The most fashionable and widely publicized philosophy of history today is undoubtedly that of Arnold J Toynbee, whose massive and imposing Study of History was only recently brought to completion with the publication of His twelfth and final volume, Reconsiderations (Oxford University Press, New York, 1961; 740 pages). Mr Toynbee has enjoyed a success perhaps never before attained by a writer on a subject that is necessarily complex and, in some of its aspects, abstruse. Thirty years ago he was virtually unknown. No one remembered a book which, although widely circulated many years before, had quickly become obsolete and had, by general consent, been completely forgotten. A few persons in England knew that a man named Toynbee was somehow connected with an umbratile Institute of some kind and with its even more obscure periodical. That was all.


When the first volume of A Study of History was published in 1934, Mr. Toynbee, like Byron, awoke to find himself famous; unlike Byron, he also found himself universally respected. The learned journals reviewed his work with scrupulous attention; periodicals of mass circulation, such as Time, quickly made his name a household word. And for a quarter of a century his fame increased with each new volume that came from the press of the world’s most venerated university. The twelve volumes have sold widely. An abridgement of the first ten volumes stood high on “best seller” lists. And the Oxford Press’s republication of the whole work in paperback form, now in progress, will bring Toynbee into the hands of many thousands who previously knew him only by reputation.
Mr Toynbee, unlike other writers on the subject, was not content to formulate just one philosophy of history. He has given us, of his abundance, at least two. With the publication of Volume I in 1934, he embarked on the presentation of a cyclic theory of history that could fairly be described as a revision of Spengler’s. He adopted the Spenglerian conception of world history as the record of several different civilizations, each a discrete entity fundamentally different from all others and having a Weltanschauung, or conception of reality, irreconcilable with theirs. These diverse civilizations were similar, however, in that they all naturally passed through the same stages of growth and decline; and Mr. Toynbee, adopting the Spenglerian term, undertook to study their morphology.
By drastically lowering the standards for determining what constitutes a civilization, MrToynbee increased the number of cultures to be compared and studied to the astonishing total of twenty-one, but he undertook to examine each of these as an essentially closed system in conformity with the Spenglerian model, although in terms of his own conception of historical causality.
Along the course thus charted, Mr Toynbee sailed steadily enough, secundis ventis, through four volumes. In the fifth, his more attentive readers noticed an odd vacillation, as though the hand on the wheel had become unsteady. And then, at the mid-point in his voyage, the skipper suddenly threw his helm hard-a-port and veered away on a study of “universal” religions. Before long, it became apparent to his astonished passengers that he was heading back toward some notion of universal progress. He was in fact, steering with ever increasing excitement and exaltation toward the “One World” of contemporary anti-Western propaganda.

nothing we haven’t seen before…

We could examine such points as the claim that Alexander the Great had a “vision” of the “Unity of Mankind,” and we could review in thirty-five or forty pages the evidence that shows that Toynbee (and Sir William W Tarn) were dreaming when they saw that vision in Alexander’s mind. But even if we proved our case to everyone’s satisfaction, we should have dealt with a detail that is insignificant when one considers the scale of the Study as a whole. If we examine Mr Toynbee’s discussions of historical causes, our objections at many points will deal not so much with what he says as with what he does not say, the alternatives that he does not consider. It is as though we were reading the first part of a detective story in which the victim dies after drinking a cocktail, but the sleuth does not think of questioning the butler. To correct the omission, however, we have to rewrite the story.

Okay, Spengler isn’t racist, but Toynbee is anti-racist, which is even less racist, and so he’s chosen. Spengler accused of being Hitler’s historian. No one likes a moderate, Spengler.
Toynbee is still writing in the 1950s:

 When Mr Toynbee’s The World and the West was published in 1953, readers who respected him could not believe that he really thought that the budding civilization of Soviet Russia had been affrighted in its tender soul by the ruthless aggressiveness of Europeans and Americans. They accordingly assumed that the book was merely a journalistic tour de force designed to tickle “liberal” reviewers in the proper places and so win a wider audience and better income for Mr Toynbee.
Few who made that charitable assumption in 1953 knew that Mr Toynbee had for the past thirty years been a senior member of the salaried staff of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and that Mrs Toynbee had been on the same payroll for an even longer time. In fact, according to the information that Mr Toynbee has volunteered (Vol. X, p. 241), the Study was written “under the auspices” of the Royal Institute, which paid for much, if not all, of the time that was devoted to its composition. That is worth noting, for the Royal Institute of International Affairs is the British counterpart of our tenebrous and recently exposed Council on Foreign Relations, having been established by the same international clique at the same time for the same purpose (d. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government, p. iv).
And unfortunately, few who read Mr Toynbee’s silly little book also read an important work by Paul W Shafer and John Howland Snow, The Turning of the Tides (The Long House, New Canaan, Connecticut, 1953; new edition, 1962). They could have learned from that book that the Rockefeller Foundation – which is virtually a subsidiary of the Council on Foreign Relations (see Dan Smoot, op. cit., pp.161-8) – had, according to its annual reports, subsidized Mr Toynbee’s work to the extent of $200,000.00 in 1946,and of $50,625.00 in 1947. An examination of later reports would probably show that the Rockefeller Foundation did not abate its eagerness to help Mr. Toynbee study history. And the Foundation’s cheque-writing affection for Mr Toynbee is particularly significant when we note that, according to Messrs Shafer and Snow (pp. 116.), the Foundation simultaneously subsidized a publication designed to counteract “prejudice” in favor of the continued existence of the United States – a project also described by Mr. Smoot op.cit., pp. 164f.), who observes that its express purpose, thinly veiled in a little double-talk, was so to falsify the historical record that Americans would go on believing the sleazy lies fabricated by the Roosevelt gang and its criminal allies before and during the Second World War.
Since those facts were generally unknown, many reader continued to respect Mr. Toynbee until he produced a combined travel-book and supplement to the Study entitled East to West (Oxford Press, 1959). Even readers who had been thus far dazzled by Mr Toynbee’s erudition and affectations had to reconsider after perusing that screed. In the Study, the author had with fair consistency appeared in the role of an historian engaged in expounding the meaning of ancient and recent events, and his admirers could always point out that it was not his fault, any more than it was Spengler’s, if his prognosis of our future seemed dismal to us. But in East to West, Mr. Toynbee injudiciously spoke in propria persona and thus disclosed what was either a strange tropism of his own mind or a conscious intent to impose on his readers.
Toynbee, for example, visited Australia; his comments show that he perceived and appreciated the many admirable qualities of the Australians and especially of those who live in the regions that correspond to the American frontier of a century ago. But he speaks of them with the melancholy resignation with which we speak of a friend who is suffering from an incurable and fatal disease. The pullulant mass of barbarians commanded by Sukarno wants Australia, so, as a matter of course, the Australians will have to be butchered and liquidated to make way for that avid and feral horde. So far as we can tell, it never occurred to Mr. Toynbee that the British or Americans could or should help Australia resist, the coming invasion – or, at least, desist from financing Sukarno and supplying him with the weapons that he and his savages will use to exterminate the Australians. Now, had Toynbee considered that possibility and come to the conclusion that cowards or degenerates or traitors in London and Washington would permit or contrive massacre of the Australians, we should have to regard him as either a congenital pessimist or an observer who shrewdly foresaw in 1958 the policies Macmillan and Kennedy are obviously, and almost admittedly, pursuing in 1963. But there is no slightest hint that such a consideration ever presented itself to the Toynbean intellect, which evidently just found it unthinkable that white men and Occidental civilization should not be abolished whenever and wherever a horde of prolific bipeds from the jungle covets land that generations of Western men, by their sweat and blood, redeemed from wilderness and desert.

That was but one of many indications that there were short-circuits in the high-voltage mind. In Burma, Mr. Toynbee was delighted to find that at any moment “a mob of [Buddhist] monks may suddenly fling off the yellow toga and start fighting with staves, swords, revolvers, or even hand-grenades.” If I remember correctly, every military man who has reported on guerrilla operations in Southeast Asia has remarked that the garb of Buddhist mendicants is the favorite disguise of Communist agents; and many detectors from the Communist Conspiracy (most recently, Aleksandr Kaznacheev in Inside a Soviet Embassy, which we reviewed last November) have made it clear that the international criminals have penetrated Buddhism as deeply as they have penetrated the National Council of Churches in the United States. Now if Mr Toynbee, perhaps out of consideration for the Rockefeller Foundation (which was, of course, standing by with its cheque-book and financing his globe-trotting) had simply clapped his hands over his eyes and ears with a resolve to see no Communists and hear no Communists (whatever he might think), we could understand and even forgive him. But he was enraptured by what he saw. He perfervidly assured us that the monks’ high-jinks with revolvers and hand-grenades were evidence of “the spiritual light that is radiating from Burman minds” – and that these effulgent minds were determined “to give something precious to the World.”

kung fu is cool lol

The earlier books, though very significant, left us unprepared for Mr. Toynbee’s latest, America and the World Revolution (Oxford University Press, New York; 231 pages). This brings us to the end of the story, and much that was obscure has now become clear.
For one thing, we learn at last exactly how Mr Toynbee, as a superhistorian, evaluates historical sources. He repeatedly quotes as “authoritative” the blatant propaganda about Latin America manufactured by the notorious Herbert L Matthews, who lied so brazenly on behalf of his pal, Fidel Castro, that even the New York Times felt obliged to suspend him from its staff – an event as noteworthy as the expulsion of a man for creating an unpleasant odor in a glue factory. Other authorities on eternal truth invoked by our macrocephalic historian are Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy’s speech-writers, and the like.
It is not remarkable that Mr. Toynbee once again rebukes the crass and crude Americans, who are all so rich and so corrupted by their wealth that they want to own whatever property their masters in Washington permit them temporarily to retain. We boors have long known that if only we were properly irradiated with” spiritual light,” we would be ashamed of ourselves for wanting to keep some part of the fruit of our labor when the world is full of cannibals, pygmies, and other superior beings, who want to be given Lincoln Continentals, goldplated beds, and similar civil rights.
What is noteworthy is that the book at last discloses the full perspective of world history, as seen by Mr Toynbee, and we can now see to the end of the vista. For the philosopher explains our own history to us, and exhorts us to be true to the ideals of our great forefathers. And here, for your information, is our history in a nut-shell.
As we all know, it was at Concord Bridge that the embattled proletarians fired “the shot heard round the world.” And the sound of that shot has been rolling around the world ever since. It inspired the exhilarating massacre known as the French Revolution. And then it went on rolling round and round until it inspired the true successors of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson – Lenin and Trotsky – to raise Hell in Russia. And the sound went on rolling until it roused true American Ideals in the noble breast of Mao Tse-tung in China. And now the sound has come rolling back to us, for it has exalted the heart of the new George Washington, who made Cuba a base for Soviet missiles, submarines, and troops.
Mr Toynbee admits that there are a few minor details that disturb the beautiful simplicity of that historical panorama. There were some Americans, such as John Adams, who were so bigoted that they disapproved of the French Revolution. (That, I know, is hard to understand. Prudhomme, who witnessed a good part of it, calculated that during the Reign of Terror, which was but one phase of the Revolution, the French idealists butchered 1,022,351 human beings; and one would suppose that the odor of that much blood would suffice to set any true ‘liberal’ slavering for social reform.) Adams, Mr Toynbee concedes, would have disapproved of even the Bolshevik take-over of Russia. And even today there are Americans so benighted that they disapprove of Castro, despite the fact that, as Mr Toynbee wistfully remarks, “Fidel is really a rather beautiful name if American lips could pronounce it dispassionately.”
As a fair-minded man, Mr Toynbee grants that even Bolsheviks have some shortcomings. Although he does not bring up the question, I feel certain he would not deny that Khrushchev, when he murdered millions of people in the Ukraine and elsewhere, was guilty of a certain gaucherie – was, in fact, downright rude. I am sure Mr Toynbee would not deny it, because he does admit – reluctantly – that the “generous-minded vein in Communism” is marred by something much worse, a tendency toward “nationalism.” But even that is no excuse for failing to see that Communism “does stand in principle for winning social justice for the great majority of mankind.” If our gross and earth-bound minds had not become insensitive to spiritual light, we piggish Americans would all see this – and we would not be troubled by a bit of indecorum with machine-guns now and then.
It is true, however, that there is some friction between the United States and the Soviet. You see, we have let the Bolsheviks get ahead of us and take over “America’s historic role as the revolutionary leader of the depressed majority of mankind.” But there is still hope for us, provided we heed the Voice of History. We can take the lead again by just becoming more Communist than the Soviet. It’s as simple as all that.
Mr Toynbee might have told us more about the spiritual aspects of killing and looting, had he not been distracted. But he remembered the Atomic Bomb and so, of course, he started yammering. “If we are to avoid mass-suicide, we must have our world state quickly,” he cries. But he is more frank than most of the One-Worlders who plant boob-bait on behalf of the ” United Nations.” Mr Toynbee says that “parliamentary institutions” just won’t work in One World – there isn’t time. So, if we do not want to be frizzled with sizzling neutrons, “we have to start building a world-slate NOW on the best design practicable at the moment.” Why say more? Even earth-bound minds may be able to figure out that the only alternative to parliamentary institutions is a dictatorship. And the world’s most experienced and successful technician is fortunately available for the job. You will find him in his office in the Kremlin – unless, by the time this appears in print, he is back in the United States with his arm around an elected President and his eye on us.

And so, after thirty years of coy cavorting, Mr Toynbee has brought his Dance of Ishtar to a climax, and the last of the Seven Veils has fallen. What is disclosed will, I trust, charm no one.
It is now obvious that:
(1) To absorb Mr. Toynbee’s wisdom, you need not trouble your head about what happened in history. Just toss the twelve volumes of the Study in the waste-basket and go around to the nearest church in which a crypto-Communist is administering the “social gospel” to the drowsy members of his Sunday Morning Club. Or, if you prefer a little less hypocrisy, read the Worker or the People’s World.
(2) The vistas of American history disclosed in Mr Toynbee’s latest book are, as we can now see in retrospect, the port towards which he has been steering on a calculated course ever since he executed the hard-a-port maneuver mid-way in his Study of History. To be sure, if we go back to Volume I, we find no hintof his ultimate destination. I cannot help reflecting, however, that if Mr Toynbee had not begun as a scholar engaged in a revision of Spengler, he would never have been taken seriously as a philosopher of history. Had he begun as an irradiator of his brand of “spiritual light,” his audience would have been limited to the little coteries of would-be Illuminati who frequent “Temples of Understanding” and play religious charades.
It is a rule of our basically kind and generous society that a man’s early lapses must be ignored and unmentioned, if he seems to be “going straight”. But a recidivist is another matter. I deem it proper, therefore, to point out that Mr Toynbee began his public career as an intellectual prostitute. According to H C Peterson (Propaganda for War, Norman, Oklahoma, 1939), Toynbee was a member of the original staff of Lord Bryce’s famous lie-factory, and served in the division that specialized in duping Americans.It was in this capacity that he produced his first widely-circulated book, The German Terror in France, An Historical Record, “by Arnold J Toynbee, Late Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford,” published in New York in 1917. Our great historian’s “historical record” was a tissue of malodorous mendacity couched in the language of scholarship. It was, in the words of S L Mock, “especially crass and unreliable propaganda.” It belongs with the famous photograph of loaded coal cars on railway sidings outside a German foundry which, when Lord Bryce’s experts got through with it, showed cars loaded with dead soldiers outside a soap factory. It was a job done by an expert to deceive the people whom his employers wished to manipulate.
With that accomplishment to his credit, Mr Toynbee became the highest ranking employee of the British half of the organization that operates in our country as the Council on Foreign Relations. In this capacity he was, by his own admission, paid to work on his Study of History, and there are rumors that he was provided with a staff of busy bees to collect erudition for him. He received munificent subventions from various subsidiaries and affiliates of our Council on Foreign Relations. And I venture to suggest that in the forty-five years since 1917 the aging leopard did not change a single spot.

Every good neoreactionary already knows about the CFR, and knows that, as Henry Ford said, history is bull, but hasn’t read Oliver, because Oliver is anti-Semitic and almost comically racist.  Neoreactionaries commenting on American cultural history also ignore the data in The International Jew.  Why?  Parochialism, I must assume, in every sense of the word.

Well anyway, I’m bored, and copying and pasting is hard.  Oliver’s Section III is about some writer who thinks the West is one unit marching towards its destiny under God, and then some orientalist who sounds kinda like Spandrell in saying weird stuff about how the oriental mind is incomprehensible, and then he gets to Yockey, who he thinks is pretty cool, and has written some other essays about but doesn’t matter because his passport was confiscated and when he snuck into the US anyway he was suicided in a jail, and his book was only printed by Noontide Press, which also published The International Jew. and Onward Christian Soldiers, two of the other most important books of the 20th century.

Section 4, History and Biology, is already on the Internet, and there’s really no cutting to be done to it.  It’s pretty short, and racist enough to keep my attention.

Sections 5 and 6 were never written.

Iff you made it to this point, your intellectual level has been raised 🙂