Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Violence

Who Will Swing the Blade?

When the state puts a man to death, it is only because he decided to go to court and wait to be murdered on schedule instead of making a run for it and being gunned down in the street. For some reason, we don’t call that “execution,” and there are only protesters, riots, looting, and moral showboating when the color combination of cops and executed civilians can be whipped up by media race hustlers into something beyond nervous cops going Judge Dredd on uncooperative suspects.

In a dissenting opinion, U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski recently wrote, “If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf.” After musing about the reliability and effectiveness of the guillotine, he added, “If we as a society cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by a firing squad, then we shouldn’t be carrying out executions at all.”

After several torturously botched lethal injections made the news, Americans have been talking about the death penalty again. Kozinski’s call for firing squads will get a “Damn right!” response from couch-riding cowboys everywhere.

There’s something Johnny Cash about a good old fashioned firing squad or a hanging. And Kozinski is probably right — a firing squad would be quicker, surer and at the same time remind the public that the state is killing on their behalf, and not just “putting someone to sleep” like a benevolent bureaucracy of merciful veterinarians.

I don’t object to the idea of men killing other men, especially if they’re doing it to protect their loved ones or weaker members of their tribe from harm. Violence is golden. If you aren’t willing to use violence to show that you mean business, you deserve to be ruled by a group of men who will. Laws are meaningless without the threat of violence, up to and including murder, and when the police “escort” a criminal to jail, he only goes because they are threatening to murder him if he doesn’t. When it comes right down to it, everyone in prison is being threatened with murder, every day. When the state puts a man to death, it is only because he decided to go to court and wait to be murdered on schedule instead of making a run for it and being gunned down in the street. For some reason, we don’t call that “execution,” and there are only protesters, riots, looting, and moral showboating when the color combination of cops and executed civilians can be whipped up by media race hustlers into something beyond nervous cops going Judge Dredd on uncooperative suspects.

Two things do bother me about state executions, and state violence generally.

The first is the legitimacy of state “justice.”

America has the largest per capita prison population in the world. Some of it is even run for profit, which obviously incentivizes incarceration and gets palms greased in some way at every level. Prosecutors advance their careers by demonstrating high conviction rates. Prosecutorial misconduct has been described even by the New York Times as “rampant” and studies have shown that misconduct is almost never punished — even when the accused are later exonerated in part or wholly because the prosecutors had been caught lying or withholding important information from defense lawyers. Harsh mandatory sentences mean plea deals have become the norm in most places, with the accused confessing to crimes they may or may not have committed simply because they know that if they lose a trial they’ll be locked away for decades. Losing or winning a trial may well come down to how good of a defense you can afford — or how much the prosecution is willing to lie or manipulate evidence to get a conviction.

“Justice” may have nothing to do with it.

It’s not that justice never happens, that police never catch true “bad guys,” or that people whose actions are absolutely impossible to defend — serial rapists and psychopaths — aren’t better off behind bars or dead.

It’s just that in America’s increasingly byzantine and often arbitrary system of laws, hundreds of thousands of people who aren’t serial rapists or murderers — perpetrators of victimless crimes who aren’t any worse than the rest of us — often end up in jail with them. Supposedly, 86% of the people doing time in Federal prisons are there for victimless crimes.

It’s easy to say, “let’s get tough on criminals,” but as one author wrote, the average person commits “three felonies a day.” People aren’t necessarily going to jail for being “bad people,” so much that they are going to jail for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It’s like we’re on the old Spartan agoge system where you’re expected to steal, but beaten for getting caught.

All those times you were speeding but didn’t get a ticket, the time you drove after two drinks instead of one, that season of Game of Thrones you torrented, the income you didn’t report, the girl who agreed that you didn’t “rape” her after her hangover wore off, the fistfight no one prosecuted, that illegal drug you bought in college, that time you did something you were supposed to have a license to do even though you didn’t know it. Maybe you did something I didn’t list, but you know what you did. You’re guilty. You could have been prosecuted and possibly convicted as a felon, but you weren’t. Because you were lucky. Because you didn’t get caught.

You’re a “free range” criminal. For now.

Sure, none of those things are death penalty offenses. But the fact that everyone is breaking laws every single day while people are being selectively prosecuted and punished by “luck of the draw” because there are so many petty laws and no way to punish everyone undermines the credibility of the whole system. And, if you got snatched up by the kiddie claw crane of the police state and found yourself doing a 10-15 year stretch in a prison run by gangs, maybe you’d end up a murderer, too.

Encouraging formal state execution assumes that the American legal system is credible, just, and expresses the will of the American people. Americans are no longer a “people,” but a sprawling population of different people with different races, cultures, and values inhabiting an oversized economic territory. America’s legal system is, at least generally speaking, broken and corrupt from street cop to senator. Cheerleading for formal state executions under these circumstances is lunacy. The “sanctity of life” has nothing to do with it. The American government simply does not deserve that kind of trust. It has the physical authority to do what it wants because it has the largest, most well-armed and well-coordinated group of enforcers within its territory, but I’m certainly not going to give it my mandate, allegiance or moral blessing.

Speaking of cheerleading and madness, mulling over the idea of state execution got me thinking about proxy violence in general.

It’s a little perverse, isn’t it?

Again, not because violence itself is perverse. I can’t think of anything that seems more just or natural than, say, a father killing — even torturing — a man who molested or murdered his child. And, if he’s not physically able to do it, asking a good man with a talent for violence to act in his place seems reasonable. A coalition of men acting together to right some injustice and enforce tribal order — that sounds healthy and right.

But people demanding the blood of strangers? It’s vulgar, low, and weak. Civilized in the worst possible way, like picnicking at a beheading or showing up early to see someone disemboweled at the coliseum. Saying “we ought to be tough on crime” isn’t the same as doing the dirty work yourself. It doesn’t make you a tough guy. It’s like yelling at quarterbacks on TV, only in this case it’s yelling at miserable low-level government functionaries to push the button. It’s vicarious bloodlust.

“Get him! Kill him! Yeah, you show him!”

I agree with Kozinski that if people can’t stomach the bloody reality of what they are doing, then they shouldn’t be demanding it or supporting it.

If they televised executions, though, I wonder how many people would develop a taste for it. It’s happened before, and while they are often denied even the real-life violence of a schoolyard fistfight, Americans love vicarious violence in entertainment. It’s the only violence they’re allowed. As they progressively relinquish power over their own lives, this illusory power by proxy may seem even more attractive, and their handlers may see it as a cheap circus. Dystopian novels and movies come to mind. Death Race 2000. Running Man.

When it comes to tribally authorized execution, I prefer the Ned Stark way.

Not the people passing it off to some jury of “peers” — who somehow have nothing to do for weeks on end — recommending it to some fat, self-righteous gavel-banger who passes it off to some corrections officer.

No, “The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.”

It’s not exactly practical, but ways that seem right are rarely practical in the mess of modernity.

No Comments on Who Will Swing the Blade?

Militarized Status Quo

Accept it or not, but what America is currently seeing in Missouri is the new phenomenon of militarized status quo. With rapidly shifting demographics, a changing economy that jeopardizes the jobs of millions of low-skilled workers, and a declining willpower to deal with crime long-term, this is the only thing that can keep majority non-White areas in check.

As the Ferguson riots rage on into another week, America is faced with the knowledge that we can only control non-White violence with uncompromising force. That the current status quo that bourgeois Whites enjoy is only ensured by this is an uncomfortable fact for many Americans to accept.

Accept it or not, but what America is currently seeing in Missouri is the new phenomenon of militarized status quo. With rapidly shifting demographics, a changing economy that jeopardizes the jobs of millions of low-skilled workers, and a declining willpower to deal with crime long-term, this is the only thing that can keep majority non-White areas in check.

Except America’s elite doesn’t want to hear that, and this attitude is reflected in the most middling response to rioting in American history. Many within the government and nearly the entire media has come out publicly on the side of the rioters—while at the same time, the System ist still reverting to tear gas and rubber bullets to quell further violence. Deeds speak louder than words, and in this case, the strong-arm response to the protesters reveals that the System is more than willing to do what is needed to be done to keep the violence contained, even if it might not like the fact it’s firing upon Blacks. Going off Aethelwulf’s brilliant article on the Euromaidan protests, the state in this situation seems more than willing to use sufficient power to maintain its status quo—unlike the government of Viktor Yanukovych. They don’t need to use deadly force in this situation and they don’t need to up the ante because this outbreak of violence does not really threaten the general order of things. This is not prime territory for business and they are no urban elves or government headquarters nearby. They’re content with the response so far.

Local police, decked out in military gear and boasting armored vehicles, were able to deter looting and keep the destruction to a minimum. You would expect the Ferguson Police Department to receive some recognition for this feat, but they have only been recognized for their similarity with Bull Connor’s dreaded Birmingham Public Safety force. It’s worth repeating my earlier assertion that the System is uninterested and unwilling in curbing non-White aggression in the long run, and we’re seeing this mentality play out in the farce that is the national response to this episode.

The prevailing narrative is that Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood while he was trying to surrender to police. After peaceful protests got under way, the all-White police detachment started firing tear gas from their hi-tech tanks and suppressed the non-violent demonstrators with brute force.

We all know that this is entirely bogus and Brown was shot after he stole cigars from a local store, attacked the attending clerk, and then likely assaulted an officer. We also know that the “protests” were mostly characterized by looting until the police showed up in equipment that Bashar al-Assad could envy. And the rioters promptly went back to pillage mode when the riot squads were replaced by the hugs of the highway patrol.

But the center of attention has already passed from the riots to the militarized police and their strong-arm tactics. Sympathy for the looters and calls for the demilitarization of police departments have come from all sides of the political aisle—with Rand Paul being the loudest voice. Due to this convergence, the left has taken the time to pat their conservative bedfellows on the head for their progress on racial issues.

What Rand Paul and others choose to not realize is that the fully-armed police force is the only thing ensuring that business stays in the area and that Republican voters are left unharmed by the rioters. The riot squads perfectly represent militarized status quo. The only way for the town of Ferguson and its surrounding areas to continue to function in modern America is to deploy militarized groups to coerce the hordes back into relative docility. The Blacks that comprise the ghetto only respond to one thing in this situation—force. That is why you need armored vehicles that were intended for Iraq if you want to ensure your community doesn’t get overrun by Black mobs. Safe, lily-white suburbs aren’t ensured by the Constitution—they’re ensured by battle-ready cops. The status quo for conservatives are these suburbs that were created by White flight and protected by well-funded and well-equipped police.

Ferguson used to be one of these suburbs before the “Black Undertow” caught up with it and turned it into a majority Black town.

Law and order has traditionally been the GOP’s calling card as it sided with the interests of their suburban voters and kept the status quo in place. Business could resume in places like New York and communities could ensure that non-White criminals would have little chance of invading their neighborhoods.

In the wake of Ferguson, many Republicans seem eager to drop their association with law and order in another moronic attempt to appeal to non-White voters. Like past attempts, it won’t work. But more importantly, if they sign onto legislation that eliminates mandatory sentencing and cracks down on tough police measures, they jeopardize the ideal status quo they cherish. Crime will take an upturn and businesses may find it harder to operate in some areas of the country. More Ferguson-style riots will break out and more racial wealth redistribution will occur to sate the evergrowing hordes. Whites who can’t afford to live in urban elf enclaves will be driven further out into the recesses of suburbia and more city areas will be inhospitable for occasional visits. The cost of living in an urban elf enclave will increase and the chances of going into debt will skyrocket for those Whites eager to cling to a postmodern lifestyle.

This must be a worthwhile trade off for Al Sharpton’s praise.

However, the new militarized status quo will protect society enough to ensure that the System can keep going and not risk too much chaos. Enough Whites will accept the extra cost the gated community or the longer commute if they know they can still can come home to eight different channels of ESPN. A couple of Whites might be outraged now by the newly, militarized police but most will accept it as the price they must pay for comfort and security.

Even the reasoning behind the displeasure with militarized police reveals what the left and the right think about the problem long-term. The left views it as just another tool to oppress minorities, the right views it as an extension of big government. In the end, both sides will accept it because it guarantees something for each. It guarantees the order of the modern society that the left dominates and it guarantees the security of the Republican-voting suburbs. Neither side will get serious about demilitarization unless they are willing to address the deeper problems plaguing America’s inhabitants. You can rest assured they will never do that.

When America saw itself as a White country, we didn’t need police officers armed to the teeth and tanks parked in the station. We knew we’d have safe streets and riots weren’t tolerated. We no longer consider ourselves a White country though, and militarized police is now a fact of life.

The System’s severe reaction to the riots—albeit reluctantly—contradicts the notion that I gave credence to that the System doesn’t want to use, and won’t use brutal coercion in dealing with race riots. They might not want to, but they have, and they will use it again in the future. Some may cheer the police response as some kind of White backlash against black criminality when it’s not—it’s just the System’s natural reaction to threats against America’s multiracial status quo.

Ignore the initial disgust to these harsh measures from members of our elite class. They were only repulsed that it was done by White bumpkins against lovable Negroes. The Department of Justice and the White House can theoretically stop these officers from stomping the crowd at any time, and they pressured the Missouri Governor to replace them with the more diverse and softer Highway Patrol. And that group continues to fire rubber bullets and turn up the crowd control. They have no problem with the militarized status quo—even when they have to fight their own base to maintain it.

I wondered previously how many more LA-style race riots can the System afford. After witnessing the response to Ferguson, they certainly can afford a lot more.

We will see more advanced noise sirens, more tanks, more police looking like Army Rangers in Afghanistan, and more totalitarian measures to keep anarchy limited to our culture. The police officer who killed Brown is screwed and his trial (I don’t see how they won’t indict him) will be one long, drawn out inquisition of the sins of White people. The criminalization of White self-defense is real and done in order to appease the low-impulse control Black underclass. But that doesn’t mean they’re going to take away the tanks and crowd control sirens—those are here to stay. That’s anarcho-tyranny. This is the reality of the multiracial, continental strip mall we live in.

The fact that the state has to use this show of force to maintain the status quo should wake up a few Whites to the grim reality of this new order. Not many, but a few. When they see images of feral Blacks robbing liquor stores in pants all the way down to their knees, a few will realize that the dogma of racial equality is an utter sham. When they see protests all across the country in honor of a hulking black thug, a few will see the cultural narrative as utterly corrupt. And when they see a White officer who could easily pass for Middle America’s poster boy get run down for protecting his life, a few will realize that the justice system doesn’t serve the interests of Whites.

Incidents like Ferguson are bound to produce an awakening of racial consciousness for a few Whites. We are only going to see more events like this in the future and more Whites will wake up to the living nightmare that is the American Dream.

All the while, the rest of society will grow to accept militarized status quo.

No Comments on Militarized Status Quo

Christopher Priest’s Fugue for a Darkening Island

Originally published in 1971, Fugue for a Darkening Island was Christopher Priest’s second novel. The scenario is similar to that explored by Jean Raspail in The Camp of the Saints,…

Originally published in 1971, Fugue for a Darkening Island was Christopher Priest’s second novel. The scenario is similar to that explored by Jean Raspail in The Camp of the Saints, and the outcome nearly identical, but the arguments and point of view are markedly different.

Africa has been ravaged by all manner of natural and man-made disasters. With the emergence of a number of nuclear states, and the inevitable nuclear exchange, the Dark Continent has become uninhabitable. There are survivors, however, and great multitudes of starving, poor, desperate Africans set sail for the north. Over a period, dilapidated boats loaded with thousands run aground on British shores, some going as far as the River Thames, in London. The government at first seems baffled, unable to stop them, or take decisive action to prevent the boats from coming ashore. The Africans land and quickly disappear into the cities. This, incidentally, is exactly what has been happening lately in Spain’s southern border, where African migrants have changed tactics and, instead of attempting to slip into Europe in small numbers, now organise nocturnal raiding parties, climbing fences several thousand at a time, thus making it impossible for the border authorities to stop them. In the Priest’s novel, the landings carry on until eventually the island ends up with two million invaders, which in the novel are referred to as ‘refugees’. A ‘Right-wing’ government—by which we must understand not fascism, but something along the lines of Enoch Powell’s brand of conservatism—takes strong measures to protect British subjects, aiming to contain and eventually expel the invaders. The invaders, however, organise into ‘Afrim’ militias, which soon begin raiding English towns and forcing people out of their homes. The country descends into a civil war: on the one hand, there are the Nationalists, who are with the government; on the other are the Secessionists, who want to restore order and give full citizenship and rights to the ‘refugees’.

Against this background we follow the story of one Alan Whitman, a university lecturer. Whitman’s marriage is a shambles: his wife, Isobel, seems sexually frigid (though it later transpires that she feels neglected), and his response is to philander serially and indiscriminately, driven purely by his sexual urge. The Whitmans have a daughter, Sally, who is the ostensible reason the marriage still holds—ostensible, because both adult parties are a state of avoidance and denial. In due course, the Whitmans lose their home and are forced into the countryside, where Alan has his wife and their daughter living like animals, without a decisive plan of action, and without the wherewithal to do what is necessary to get them to a safe destination. This unchains a series of events. First, Isobel leaves him, and, though they are later on reunited, he then loses her again when Afrim militiamen take her and their daughter away from him at gunpoint, to be shuttled away who knows where. By this time Alan has ended up with a group of British refugees, led by one Rafiq, of indeterminate origin. Initially, the group avoids committing to any faction. When the gang finds a cargo of firearms amid the ruins of a Nationalist convoy, however, Rafiq decides to organise the group into a militia, but Alan, a pacifist, walks away, averse to committing himself politically or to violence. Whitman is, indeed, thoroughly unheroic: weak, spineless, indecisive, and liberal. Predictably, he is detached when the crisis first develops—a gape-mouthed witness, predominantly preoccupied with his numerous love affairs, when a boatful of invaders wedges itself against the London Bridge, right under his nose; he then sides with the invaders, presumably speaking up for their human rights (though about the specifics we are not told); he subsequently loses his job when the university is closed down, forcing into manual labour; and even then he is in denial, acting only as and when circumstances leave him without options. His actions, on such occasions, are invariably prissy and limp-wristed. He steadfastly refuses to support the Nationalist cause, thinking it racist. It is a miracle he survives as long as he does.

From the narrative, the author’s sympathies seem to lean in one direction: the Nationalists are spoken of or portrayed as extremists, their measures as repressive and counter-productive, and their supporters as creepy Neanderthals in suits; the Secessionists, by contrast, tend to give Whitman fairer treatment, and he, of course, deems their vision for a resolution the superior one. Nevertheless, Priest does not make any effort to humanise the Africans: they are like shadows in the landscape, emotionless, and utterly ruthless throughout; from the most part they are a distant menace. Priest also seems to view avoiders and deniers with amazement and contempt, for avoidance and denial afflicts not only Whitman; they are, indeed, a theme throughout the novel.

In the end, and as always, events force Whitman to commit himself against his liberal judgment. Afrim militiamen had used the white women abducted by them to set up brothels and thereby establish a method for procuring supplies. Rumour has it that his wife and daughter were likely taken to one of the brothels along the Southern coast. He finds the brothel and the family is reunited, except that his wife and daughter are now two out of a score of female bodies rotting on the beach. That same evening, we are told, Whitman murders a young African, steals his gun, and goes back into the countryside. That’s where the story ends.

The 2011 edition of this novel offers a revised version of the original. In his preface, Priest explains that, at the time, he had simply set out to write a disaster story, against the background of events in post-colonial Britain such as Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, but that the language of race relations had changed in the intervening time, causing a novel that was initially praised for anti-racism to be condemned for racism. He deemed this too much of a distraction, so he updated the text to substitute nowadays troublesome words like ‘Negro’ and ‘coloured’ with politically correct terms, in an effort to leave the text ‘politically neutral’. I don’t think it is, and this impression is accentuated by the veering into speechification towards the end of the novel, when Whitman realises his own uselessness and his wasted life on the periphery. And yet, though I suppose the intention is for the reader to view Whitman’s conversion to militiadom as a tragedy, an unintended and yet equally possible reading is that the effete Whitman finally discovers his manhood and goes out to earn his right to be called a citizen, reality’s repeated bites having finally instigated the growth of a spine.

No Comments on Christopher Priest’s Fugue for a Darkening Island

‘Rape Culture Isn’t About Sex, It’s About Power’

Rape culture is a lot like racism. Maybe they should just call it “rapism.” It’s an abstract “evil” that a certain group, in this case women, reserves the right to identify and use to manipulate another group, in this case men, into increasingly defensive and impotent positions. As long as they can keep men apologizing, they can keep controlling them.

Our forefathers understood the truth about women.

The truth is that women actually like sex. Without the coercive discipline of patriarchs, women would have sex all the time–like the frisky matriarchs of the Bonobo world.

Men have always known that women like to feel good, too.

As Nietzsche observed, man is only a means for women and the end is always a child. However, this is an ultimate, often subconscious cause. More proximate causes include pleasure and affirmation.

If females had ever really run things, I’m not sure what their version of female “honor” would be, or if there would even be one. Always and everywhere, female honor has meant chastity–and female chastity was clearly a male invention.

Before modern contraception, the control of female sexuality was necessary to maintain order between men. If men are to be expected to care for children, they want to know which kids are theirs. A woman who cheats on a man undermines him and makes him look like a fool in front of other men. The virtue of female chastity–the ridiculous idea that a woman waits for and only wants intercourse with the man she’s been courted by or assigned to–was essentially constructed to protect the honor of men. The expectation of female chastity probably kept a lot of jealous men from killing other members of their own tribes. Men have always known that they wanted to have sex with many women, but they constructed social and legal institutions that forced them to control their own sexual urges, too. To maintain order and create stability in increasingly complex societies, men around the world dreamed up different versions of monogamous, or occasionally polygamous, marriage.

Women were trained to protect their honor–their chastity–above all things. They were scolded for lustful or adulterous thoughts that, it was rightly feared, might lead to misbehavior. In rigidly religious and socially complex bourgeois societies, they were discouraged from thinking of themselves as sexual creatures at all. Sex was something women were expected to simply “grin and bear” as a punishment for being born female.

Modern contraception, industrialization, globalism, and women’s suffrage changed the whole game. The lie of female chastity was exposed, and the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family collapsed. Male investment in civilization and order continues to decrease, and women–who are far better consumers and sedentary employees–have collectively reached a position which offers them the means to exert their own influence and tell their own lies about sex.

So they tell us about “rape culture.”

The violent rape of a woman is a brutal and visceral image that fills every man who loves his mother or his sisters with vengeful rage. Men may joke darkly about rape in the abstract, just as they may joke about murder or dismemberment in the abstract, but the actuality of violent rape is infuriating and repulsive to the majority of them. Men want to conquer the hearts and minds of women, but raping a woman of your own tribe is the act of a spurned, desperate man. A rapist is something that no right-minded man wants to be.

When anti-rape activists tell men they simply want to “teach men not to rape,” that sounds reasonable enough. When they say that there is a “culture of rape” that perpetuates rape, men are hesitant to disagree because they don’t want to be regarded as forgiving of rape or accessories to rape. It is precisely because most men are already against rape that women are able to use rape as a kind of personal holocaust. Anti-“rape culture” advocates are exploiting male disgust for rape and using it as a tool to silence criticism of women and exert control over men’s sexual behavior and conceptions of their own masculinity.

The women who claim that there is a culture of rape in America, as if there are somehow more rapes and rape is somehow more acceptable today than in the past or elsewhere, are not solely interested in preventing rape.

They surely know that the most brutal rapes–the nasty, violent rapes everyone imagines when they think of rape–are for the most part perpetrated by psychopaths and serial rapists who are immune to the influence of their college campus shaming sessions. Feminists also aren’t going to prevent Steel Reserve and Hot Pocket fueled trailer park rapes or underpass Joose rapes, because they have no more influence in these derelict zones than the mores of Victorian church ladies had in the backalleys of London. Given that the well-behaved college boys who make up their captive audience and potential mate selection are already against brutal rape, the ability of educational and Twitter campaigns aimed at ending “rape culture” to actually prevent violent rape will always be relatively minimal. A few frat boys will wait to make sure they got a clear “yes,” and the smart ones will record it for their own protection. But, for the most part, they weren’t the ones giving nice girls black eyes or broken jaws to begin with.

It is when feminists are asked how to end “rape culture” that they truly tip their hand. In a widely cited article in The Nation, the number one and number two ways to “empower men and women to change the status quo” were more concerned with changing masculinity, male identity and male sexuality than they were with preventing rape.

At the top of the list, the first “real problem” identified was “violent masculinity,” which is also known as “masculinity.” Violence has been a defining part of the male sex role and masculine identity throughout human evolution and for all of recorded history. The idea that violent masculinity is somehow a novel product of American society or even Western Civilization is one of the biggest lies feminists tell. If there truly are or have been cultures–not merely priesthoods or religious sects, but whole cultures–where the majority of men were not considered more violent than women, and I have never seen convincing evidence of this, then they are or have been exceedingly rare and anomalous. Male violence is a human norm and a human universal. Male violence is a central feature of both histories and myths concerning men all around the world, and the forms of entertainment that men and even very young boys choose freely continue to feature violent fantasy or simulated tribal warfare–as with team sports.

Just as men have always known or suspected that women also experienced carnal lust, women have always known or suspected that, for men, sex and violence are linked. The rush of dominating another man, or a beast, or the forces of nature is not so far away in the mind from the rush of sexually dominating a woman. All of our language about sex hints at the connection between sex and violence. There is no escaping the reality that the physical act of intercourse itself, as it is most often performed, involves a man violently pushing himself inside a woman in a wild, heightened, animalistic state of mind he rarely achieves in civilized life.

It’s not too much to ask to require men to make sure they have permission to engage in this ancient, ecstatic power play, since both men and women are having far more casual sex with far more partners than they were 100 years ago. But you don’t have to redefine masculinity to do that, since, as we all know, rape is already taboo.

Women are not stupid. They see this primal violence in male sexuality. They perceive their role it in it and it both excites and terrifies them, because they know that the delicate spirit of “equality” is exorcised in the frenzy of fornication.

Feminists taught the slogan that “rape is not about sex, it’s about power,” but only a few of them were willing to admit that sex is almost always about power, too.

Women are uncomfortable admitting that they enjoy the violent, dominant nature of male sexuality, especially in a political context. That they enjoy being dominated by men–at least in the bedroom, if only in the bedroom–is so politically volatile that it’s become an unspeakably dirty little secret for the new church ladies.

While it is true that women enjoy sex, they are also pragmatic and especially interested in safety and security. If there has been a “war of the sexes” raging throughout human history, men have almost always been the victors, precisely because they are bigger and stronger, more willing to take risks, and more inclined to be violent. Women see the potential for violence in men and they recognize that it is the greatest threat to the new order of society–their order. A majority of women in the developed world now have more political and economic power now than they ever have in human history, and this increase in status is utterly dependent on the continued pacification of men.

So they lie. They lie about male sexuality the way men lied about female sexuality.

They’re willing to trade satisfying sex for quasi-coital man-milking if it means holding on to their newfound political and economic power. They’re willing to use the tragedy of rape as a tool to cow men morally–to make normal, decent men prostrate themselves to prove they are not rapists or enablers of rape. As with “privilege,” men will always be guilty until proven innocent, and no matter what they do, no matter how they dishonor themselves, they will never be innocent enough. To release men from guilt is to relinquish power over them, and this power has already corrupted the hearts of the women who revel in it and gain from it.

Rape culture is a lot like racism. Maybe they should just call it “rapism.” It’s an abstract “evil” that a certain group, in this case women, reserves the right to identify and use to manipulate another group, in this case men, into increasingly defensive and impotent positions. As long as they can keep men apologizing, they can keep controlling them.

The continued success of feminism requires the ongoing construction of guilt cultures designed to mould men into a safer and more passive population. Corporate and banking interests want this, because ornery, violent groups of men unsupervised by women are a threat to established interests, property and supply chains. Pacified men also make better employees and consumers.

Feminists may merely be useful idiots to these bigger interests, but they are getting what they want out of the bargain for the time being. They want, as they have wanted for decades, to eliminate proscribed female gender roles and the ability of men to limit female behavior. They want men to “reimagine” a masculinity without violence or dominance. Masculinity without themes of violence or dominance may have no precedent, no history, and it may be completely at odds with physiology and human evolution, but male pacification is the key to female political and economic power.

These women are willing to do whatever they have to do to retain and gain that power, even if it means exploiting victims of rape to do it.

No Comments on ‘Rape Culture Isn’t About Sex, It’s About Power’

This Is Europa

Martial industrial might just be the sole genre specifically created for right-wingers. I have a hard time conceiving leftists listening to music that praises war, violence and authoritarianism without a massive amount of cognitive dissonance in play.

Martial industrial might just be the sole genre specifically created for right-wingers. I have a hard time conceiving leftists listening to music that praises war, violence and authoritarianism without a massive amount of cognitive dissonance in play.

Some of martial industrial strikes me as a tad degenerate and simply playing with fascist imagery for its shock value and an attraction to its less savory aspects.

Triarii is one of the better acts in the genre and makes music that I’m certain any of our readers can enjoy. Hailing from Germany, Triarii’s sound is triumphant and hearkens back to an era where man did not need to heed the code of turning the other cheek. There’s a heavy classical influence on the German act and their music could easily be turned into a fantastic soundtrack for a epic film that should exist.

The music project certainly plays with provocative imagery and influence. They’ve composed a song dedicated to the memory Arno Breker, the famed Third Reich sculptor, and have another song inspired by the works of Savitri Devi. Their compositions are also known to feature sound clips from fascist speakers and the lyrical topics typically center on values and traditions that are well outside of liberal ideology.

A good example of this is “Europa,” which is an ode to the noble continent as his “mother” and “kingdom.”

If Black Metal represents the feral side of European man, then Triarii and the other great acts of martial industrial represent his pursuit of technological achievement and ordered society.

There’s little of the harshness and nihilism that some other acts in the genre parlay in Triarii’s latest work, Exile, from 2011.

Featuring top-notch production and songwriting with a strong taste for melody, Triarii are able to capture a sound that expresses a gripping narrative and setting without the need to conjure up contrived lyrics to describe it. Their music eschews pop song structure to follow a more unique form that better allows them to generate the emotional context of their songs and weave a storyline within their sound.

Triarii’s work can be enjoyed at any time, whether at the gym or reading a book, and is highly recommended for those who are seeking music that is in line with both their aesthetic and metapolitical views.

No Comments on This Is Europa

The Victims Of American-Backed Revolutions

The Revolution ends by devouring its own children.

”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

There might be no truer words ever spoken than that by the French royalist who managed to escape the carnage wrought by the Reign of Terror. Revolutions release an incredible amount of violence and anarchy pent up in a nation and these forces are hard to tame once they are released from their black pit. They linger on after the blood of the old lords have been cleansed from the scaffolds and the bestial lust of the revolution continues to desire for more to die in order to create a new society.

After the initial wave of violence that sweeps away most of the old order, it’s bound to happen that some of the staunchest supporters will eventually find themselves headless after the next rounds of bloodshed. In past revolutions, such as in France and Russia, it was the moderates who found themselves devoured by the violence that was unleashed by the political upheaval. The Girondins were killed off by the Jacobins and the Mensheviks were killed off by the Bolsheviks.

But when the US State Department sponsors your revolution, it seems to be the extremists who get devoured by their creation instead.

Revolutions, state department-sponsored or not, require mass support to succeed and they have to rely on a large swath of interest groups to achieve their goals of overthrowing the previous regime. The ones with the most discipline, the most fervor, and the most fanatical followers typically gain the edge. The moderates attempt to peacefully navigate the treacherous waters of the new realignment, while the extremists offer the masses red meat and radical solutions to the problems besetting their nation.

When you throw in American involvement into the mix though, the moderates are favored with international aid, promises of greater integration into the global economy, and military advisers for the country’s armed forces. That’s also including the fact that the US helped form and support the forces that took part in the initial stages of the unrest.

And they didn’t do that in order to create a fascist order – they did it to spread American economic and cultural power. They are not keen on allowing traditionally-minded radicals to sow the seeds they gave and our state department will do everything they can to further their goals and the original purpose of the revolution they planted.

The two obvious examples that are testing this hypothesis right now are Ukraine and Egypt. While the blood spilled in these two cases haven’t matched the abattoir levels of the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks, they have made it clear that no longer useful extremists will be dumped and removed from avenues of power.

Last week, the interim government in Ukraine demanded that all armed groups disarm immediately and seized Right Sector’s headquarters in Kiev. This development comes after the police killed Oleksandr Muzychko, a notorious leader of the nationalist paramilitary group, and Right Sector stormed Ukriane’s parliament in response to the slaying.

Russian state media has reported that Ukrainian officials are planning on arresting many leaders of the paramilitary groups that popped up all over the country in response to the increasing violence and instability.

And it’s not just Right Sector and other paramilitary groups who are feeling the clampdown. The Svoboda party member who was originally appointed as defense minister stepped down after elements in the government pressured him to do so. Another Svoboda party member and journalist was tortured, murdered and dumped in a forest outside of Kiev by unknown assailants last weekend.

Needless to say, it looks like the new government in Kiev has had their share of the nationalist groups that were at the forefront in toppling Yanukovych and fighting his riot police. With billions of dollars from the US at stake and international disapproval of “neo-fascist” elements in the government, this is an obvious move on the part of Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his cabinet to placate their Western backers.

This is occurring in spite of the major role nationalist groups played in toppling Yanukovych. It was the nationalists who fought the police, took the bullets and baton swings, and occupied government buildings to create the conditions to delegitimize Yanukovych’s rule. The pro-EU crowd, liberals, and other “peaceful” marchers posed no threat to the existing order and were easily smashed by the Berkut. Enter in the right-wing elements to fight back against the state and things quickly change to favor the Euromaidan side.

While the Western media did its best to portray the protests as an outpouring of a desire to be Westernized — with the protestors representing a diverse spectrum of society — the fact is the men in balaclavas were not throwing Molotov cocktails on behalf of same-sex marriage and mass immigration.

But now the US needs fighters in the Ukrainian army and not on the street. They also want politicians who will quickly sign onto integration with the EU and won’t hassle them about the stipulations that comes with accepting a bailout from the IMF. The nationalists are not those people — now they are simply a nuisance to US interests. And with Washington controlling the purse strings, there’s little that the paramilitary groups and right-wing parties can do.

A similar situation has occurred when the “Arab Spring” swept over Egypt. Like the Maidan protests, a diverse spectrum of Egyptian society took to the streets of Cairo in 2011 to protest the corruption and incompetence of the ruling regime. Once again, the police and military attacked the protestors in an attempt to suppress the unrest. That was largely due to the fact that a militant, well-organized, and highly devoted segment within the protests was there and was willing to fight back against both the police and the pro-Mubarak counter-protestors.

That segment was the Muslim Brotherhood and they eventually toppled Mubarak through cutting a deal with the military and was able to assume authority over Egypt.

There was just one problem – this didn’t go according to state department plans. While our media portrayed the protests as composed of brown-skinned hipsters and enthusiastic liberals, the real winners of the revolution were anti-Western Mohammedans who were intent on turning Egypt into a theocratic state. That wasn’t the future that the US had in mind for the Mediterranean land where economic liberalism could swoop in and the leadership would cause no problems for Israel.

As the Arab Spring spread and turned into an embarrassment for American foreign policy by empowering Islamic radicals, Egypt looked like it could be chalked up as another failure of America’s naivety. But since Egypt was heavily dependent on aid provided by the West and the military was growing weary of the new government that imperiled that flow, America saw an opportunity to eliminate the radical element that came to dominate the revolution. Turning a blind eye as the military launched a coup amidst new protests, Egypt’s armed forces swiftly deposed Mohammed Morsi and violently crushed the opposition of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The crackdown in Ukraine looks far tamer when compared with the way Egypt’s new military junta brutally put down the Muslim Brotherhood.

Over 600 people were killed when the military toppled Morsi’s Islamic regime and cracked down on protestors who dispute the takeover in 2013. This was despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, the primary victims of the violence, were largely responsible for the successful revolution in 2011 that overthrew the previous Hosni Mubarak’s government that had fallen out of favor with the West.

Like the right-wing militants in Kiev, the Muslim Brotherhood was the key factor in toppling Mubarak’s government. They were willing to give back the violence that the police and military were giving them in spades and had the discipline and fervor to maintain their opposition through brutal suppression and times of doubt.

Unlike the Ukrainian nationalists, they were able to assume power, for a short time at least, immediately after the downfall of Mubarak. But their policies of implementing Islamic law, cracking down on Western dress and culture, belligerence in the face of international requests, and hostile relations with Israel made them unwanted rulers in the eyes of the State department.

Thus, when mass protests assembled again in Cairo, the US saw a chance to rectify their mistake in letting the Brotherhood attain power and quietly backed the military coup that deposed Morsi and slaughtered hundreds of Brotherhood supporters all across Egypt. The Brotherhood was no longer useful to American interests and were becoming a nuisance. Thus, they were taken down with brute force.

What both of these cases articulate is how the US government uses radical forces to dispose of foreign governments they don’t like – and then later dumps the radicals when they serve no more useful purpose.

The US is capable of keeping the new governments in their pockets with money and promises of assistance and the new holders of power are more than willing to sell out their previous comrades to keep the cash flowing. Ukraine is now dependent on an International Monetary Fund loan to avoid bankruptcy and Egypt was dependent on Western aid to support its population. Having Nationalists and Islamic extremists in charge jeopardizes that stream when both groups want to maintain traditionalism and reject the cultural liberalism that the revolutionary benefactors seek to transmit to their respective country.

Previously, revolutionaries killed their brothers-in-arms over ideological disputes and a desire for purge the state of traces of the ancien regime. Now the stamping out is done simply over American dollars.

This is troubling in Ukraine where individuals with our mindset and with good intentions participated in the Euromaidan protests to free their country of foreign influence and promote identitarian goals. Several of these nationalists were appointed to prominent positions in the government and looked poised to gain even more power. Many within our sphere saw an opportunity in the growing power of far-right, nationalist elements in Ukraine, myself included.

But as the weeks pass by, this promise is beginning to look like a false hope.

If the cases of Egypt and Ukraine can teach us one thing, it is that the rules of revolutions are changing. It is increasingly difficult for countries to make their own path in their world independent of the old powers in their quest to free themselves. When US dollars and intelligence assistance come into play, that possibility becomes impossible. There is no way that America will invest millions of dollars and place a stake in their geopolitical scheme into a country, and then let that country be overtaken by anti-liberal forces.

They will do everything in their power to prevent that occurrence and when they control the money and the military, it becomes easier for them to eliminate nuisances.

The US has a solid footing in Ukraine and it does not want Svoboda or Right Sector taking power. Believing that these groups can take over and forge a “third position” is an unrealistic view of the situation on the ground.

America supports revolutions to further their own interests – not the interests of groups hostile to liberal ideas.

And that is why the new victims of revolution are the hard-line extremists who engineered the revolution’s success. Washington has no problem with manipulating these elements when they are useful for their cause, but once that usefulness is gone, then they are eliminated.

That is why identitarians should always be skeptical of any revolution that Western governments support. We should not be taken in by protestors draped in runes and shouting slogans that appeal to our sensibilities if they are earning the support of the European Union and other bodies we despise.

For the real enemy to identitarianism is American global hegemony. It wants to eliminate tradition and force man into the monoculture. Anything it backs is done to further this agenda and it will crack down on any elements that would hinder that achievement.

If the nationalists in Ukraine accept this fact, they could one day forge a new paradigm for whites to emulate and embrace. But that is unlikely to happen in the short-term with Russia threatening Ukraine’s border and the only ally the country has is America (however piss poor of an ally that is).

For it is now true, to paraphrase du Pan, that the Revolution that’s backed by America ends by devouring its own radicals.

No Comments on The Victims Of American-Backed Revolutions

Emanations of Wotan

Surely as Wotan/Odin personifies the warrior god amongst many of his emanations, Wotan also epitomizes the mystic priest, as well, as the All-father is unbound to simplistic distillations. The emanations of Wotan, as suggested by Jung in his essay, change, evolve, and adapt to the time at hand.

The Spirit of White Consciousness WWII to the Present

Much has been written about Carl Jung’s 1936 essay entitled “Wotan,” where Jung provides an esoteric traditionalist criticism of contemporary events during this precarious era of European history, focusing specifically on the rising atavistic Teutonic ethos embodied by the Nazis and the German people. However, the following paragraphs will not focus on the coming renaissance of Odinism, nor will it focus on erroneous rationalizations for RAHOWA, or any other spurious exegeses the essay has inspired.

Surely as Wotan/Odin personifies the warrior god amongst many of his emanations, Wotan also epitomizes the mystic priest, as well, as the All-father is unbound to simplistic distillations. The emanations of Wotan, as suggested by Jung in his essay, change, evolve, and adapt to the time at hand. In this manner, the ethos and Zeitgeist of modern White consciousness in all the major European theaters of the world (North America, Europe, Australia, etc…) no longer exhibits the ethos and characteristics of Wotan, the war god; instead, the contemporary White, Occidental world reflects Wotan, the master of words, language, and mysticism, as our world moves away from mass violence and mass warfare as the most effective and efficient means of communication both literal and symbolic.

The most important, and often quoted, metaphor extracted from Jung’s essay concerns Jung’s metaphor of the river bed. Through this image, Jung asserts that the gods of our ancestors, as archetypal mechanisms of the psyche, have existed as long as we have existed as a race. The subconscious archetypal gods of the Teutonic peoples are the innate creations of our earliest ancestors. The trough of their riverbed, or the subconscious erosion made by these archetypes over such a great period of time, extends the deepest and remains most readily to be filled when the flood of mystic waters flows over this subconscious topography once more. This explains how these ancient gods continue with us. Even if the river bed is dry for a time and the gods seemingly dead, the riverbed remains waiting to be filled by the spirit of these same gods. More often than not, the gods never die; rather, their aspects and nomenclature change and shift.

Jung’s riverbed metaphor explains the power that this Teutonic ethos wielded during the Nazi era. Even though the pagan period had all but lied dormant for a thousand years, this atavistic Zeitgeist remerged in the mid-20th century, irrevocably altering the landscape of the time and the people who survived the period. Viewing the Nazi period objectively, without moralism, their return to ancient ideologies, symbols, perspectives, and philosophies at least lends empirical credence to the idea of racial memory, how there is a narrative unfurling in every racial culture and spirituality, and how these aspects endure and adapt overtime.

Considering the occultic phase “As above, so below,” in other words “the macrocosm will reflect the microcosm and vice-versa,” archetypal gods such as Wotan and the Aesir macrocosmically reflect the microcosm of the Teutonic soul. In Germanic metaphysics of the soul, there existed the idea of the soul complex made up of different, yet complimentary parts, much unlike the unified soul idea of Christianity. One particular aspect of the soul complex is the fetch. On this concept, Esoteric Germanic Scholar Stephen Flowers asserts,

The fetch can be understood in the traditional sense as an entity separate from the individual, but which is attached to him for the duration of his life. It is the conduit through which the gods communicate to him, and the embodiment of all that he has ever been. It is a storehouse of images and powers from beyond this life and from beyond Midgard. (…) In this is housed all of the echoes of all of the deeds ever done by the bodies to which the fetch has ever been bound (58-59).

In other words, the fetch represents the racial collective unconscious that Jung himself introduce as a concept. On the macrocosmic level, Wotan reflects the mechanism of the fetch to the whole race instead of the mere individual. If one ponders about this archetypal role of the gods in connection with Oswald Spengler’s view of civilization as reflecting the microcosmic cycle of birth, life, and death of the human individual on the macrocosmic level, then the notion that the spiritual, that which is immaterial yet ever-present, must function on the macrocosmic level, as well. Therefore, the body of the civilization must die; however, the ancestral spirit and ethos is eternal in some sense.

The spirit of the civilization lives long after the corporeal civilization. Both the spiritual and residual physical legacy continues. The spirit of Wotan, operating as the fetch on the macrocosmic level, detaches from the dead civilization and reattaches to a nascent civilization of the same racial stock. The physical legacy is more obvious. The best example of physical legacy would be in the consideration of how important classicism (the legacy of Greek and Rome) is still to the present day. Wotan and the Aesir still linger in our subconscious though Germanic and Scandinavian practice ended a thousand years earlier. Plato’s Republic or Artistole’s Treatise on Rhetoric still reach from beyond the ancient grave to influence modern thought. In turn, the runes and the gods lied mostly dormant, much like the One Ring of Tolkien’s epic, until both the runes and the gods revealed themselves once more during the German Romantic period of the late 19th century.

It is my assertion that Wotan, the War god, reared his ugly head during this period of turmoil as the most effective means of communication and action. Unexhausted by the First World War, nations and principalities on both sides of the Ally and the Axis powers malevolently postured in the perilous geopolitical situation. The goals of these various parties and their globalist banker “philanthropists” could only be achieved through mass warfare. The most effective means of communication to fight the growth of Marxism in the Soviet Union, the Fascism of Mussolini’s Italy, or the National Socialism of Germany was to forego intellectual debates of merit and dive head strong in a measure of brute force. Though “mass” media of the period could reach and influence great numbers over great distances of geographic locations, its distribution was far too slow to keep apace with the escalating situation of World War II. The metaphysical semiotics of War, whether Ally or Axis, were far more powerful statements than the written word. Only the mass blood shed of Dresden, Nazi and Soviet Death Camps, post-war German civilian concentration camps, and last, but hardly least, the atomic bombs dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima both provided the shock-and-awe military leaders, politicians, and globalist bankers wanted while also sobering the frenzied bloodlust of the world’s population for a time.

Today, Occidental denizens, White or otherwise, have reached our threshold for wanton and mass violence. There is no longer a fervor, no longer a romanticism of war. Vietnam and the War on Terror shattered the last vestiges of the idea of noble warfare. Hardly 10 years since the beginning of the War on Terror, ordinary Americans and our ordinary global counterparts no longer call for blood against nebulous, barely-identifiable groups. I feel even a true, authentic sense of shame in America for our initial reaction to 9/11 and the exponential mess originating therefrom. Not even the rednecks of my home state have the gall nor the want to wish ill-fates upon “towel heads” any longer. Too many pictures of dead women and children. Too many destroyed lives. Too many raw, uncensored videos. Even the toughest, most cynical vanguardist would be hard pressed not to be affected by an Arab father losing his daughter, wife, son, etc. Though the signs of degradation surround us, we still understand on some level that we are blessed.

The rise of global communications, the Internet, alternative journalism, and the like have begun to decimate the globalists’ logos and rationale for the continuation of purposeless wars that benefit none but the globalists themselves. Blind faith in politics, political leaders, and their agendas is seemingly less and less tolerated or fashionable on either the left or the right. We are now so much unlike the Great Generation willing to die for God and Country, a generation whose members sometimes committed suicide if unable to fight for freedom and liberty. Even the poorest of the cracker proletariats are hardly that naïve in 2014. Military service is a means-to-an-end, not a service of valor, honor, and courage. There is no authentic ethos that guides the passions of youthful combatants, only the promise of a paycheck, skills specialization, and a means of going to college. I surely do not mean this as a slight to service men and women, but they must be willing to accept the vast difference in what it means to be a part of the military now as opposed to then.

The priestly avatar of Wotan, that archetypal spinal column of the Teutons, emerges once more. No longer does the god of the Wild Hunt scorch the land. The Valkyrie no longer trails behind in such great force to lift up the 60 million slain Einherjar as the result of fratricidal World War II. Now Wotan, the god of poetry, mysticism, and language wanders the information superhighway. Wotan is present at every church, every community, every group within instinctually/inherently white cultures and subcultures. Is there any doubt there is a correlation between Odin the wanderer and the migratory nature of White “racism”? At White cultures most pacifist, our ethnic migratory trends and patterns reflect the desires of White Americans at large whether they are conscious of the fact or are completely unawares. If White culture has been rendered mute by the established hierarchy and artificial structures that reinforce cultural Marxist norms, then Whites silently congregate. Whether this is the White churches, from the “mega” to the bible study at home, or at concerts/festivals of inherently White music, or certain particular geographically insular wWhite communities, we still seek those like us. Hysterically, few Whites who engage in the latter activities would be galled to admit this is true. Yet when Christians “fight for Christmas,” they fight for Wotan. When yuppies and hipsters converge for music where they lift up their voices in one accord comfortable in the safety of familiar demographics, they sing for Wotan in their transcendent groupthink. And one day, when the place between that which is hard and the rock closes in, the spirit of Wotan will guide our voices once more.

Communication now vastly outweighs war as the most effective means of transfiguring cultural and societal landscapes. Now is the age of the “Info War,” a term Alex Jones poignantly coined. He is correct in this affair. In the First World still, battles of words and intellect have mostly replaced military or crusader tactics of submit-or-die type conversion techniques. We can take the skirmish to Twitter or Facebook instead of bloodletting on the battlefield. As such, a new spirit of Wotan now emerges. Some readers may be offended that I have reduce Wotan to the role of some beta male who is somehow emasculated; however, I would argue that Wotan is not an unlearned, uninitiated, lowly warrior. The modern world is now far too complex to apply brute strength as a means of change. The modern world is far more like a vast and complicated game of chess than a game of Battleship. The oversoul of the Teutonic, Scandinavian, Slav, and Celtic peoples must adapt to this new paradigm of warfare. A long-game strategy must be deployed. We may be forced to into defensive stance at present, but being on the defensive in the chess analogy does not mean we will lose. It means we must, we have to, play a serious, committed, and smart game for the win.

No Comments on Emanations of Wotan

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search