All political movements need a history, and such histories, if well-constructed, almost always coalesce into myth. Once mythologized, a movement’s past can inform its present members about its reason for being, its need for continuing, and its plans for the future. And this can be accomplished quickly – and without the need for study or research – in the form of what Edmund Burke called “prejudice.” “Prejudice,” Burke says, “is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved.”
Prejudice is a time-saver, in other words, and it puts everyone on the same page. These are two invaluable things for any movement which aims to effect political change. For those who wish to participate in any of the various factions of the Alt Right and learn its history and myth, they do not need to go much farther than The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement.
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”—Lewis Carroll, the White Queen, Through the Looking Glass
“Modern life’s absurdities render the satirist’s role redundant.”—Anon.
“Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other”—Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”—H. L. Mencken
Kevin Beary’s dystopian novel about mid twenty-first century America is one of the better latter-day efforts directed at white nationalists, and it is surprising to me that it is not more popular with its target audience. Beary is a natural-born fiction writer; he has the uncanny ability to paint with words as all of the memorable novelists have been able to do.
Perón and Perónism is an excellent resource on the political thought of Argentina’s three-time president Juan Domingo Perón. It places him firmly among the elite ranks of Third Position thinkers. His doctrine of Justicalism and his geopolitical agenda of resistance to both American and Soviet domination of Latin America have demonstrated enduring relevance. Influenced by Aristotle’s conception of man as a social being and the social teachings of the Catholic Church, Perón proved to be an insightful political philosopher, developing a unique interpretation of National Syndicalism that guided his Justicalist Party. While his career was marked by turmoil, he pursued an agenda of the social justice, seeking the empowerment of the nation’s working classes as a necessary step towards the spiritual transformation of the country. Perón’s example stands as a beacon to those who seek the liberation of man from the bondage of materialism, and the liberation of the nation from foreign domination.
Boy, was I excited to get this for review! According to Amazon, this book is ‘’to be enjoyed by fans of dark fantasy” and a “stunningly original collection of short stories, featuring tales of terror and horror’” in fact, “acclaimed Occult author Philip Cooper describes this book as ‘great stuff, and a chilling candlelight read!’” Yes, it’s “a wonderfully twisted collection of horror short stories, featuring weird and disturbing tales, which make up the world of Dark Albion.”
Well, of course, I’m just being silly. Searching Amazon for some information about David Abbot’s book, and lazily typing “dark albion david” I found two recent books by that title, by authors named David. That the other David writes fantasy — dark, disturbing fantasy, it would seem; horror, if you will — may prove, I think, more than a coincidence.
So anyhoo, this past Sunday I finished off an early morning plate of huevos rancheros, delivered from the nearby Mexican place, took a seat by a sunny window with a cheese tamale, and began to dive into Dark Albion.
The following essay is my Editor’s Introduction to Collin Cleary’s new anthology What is a Rune? and Other Essays, forthcoming from Counter-Currents.
This volume is Collin Cleary’s eagerly-anticipated follow up to Summoning the Gods, his first collection of essays, published in 2011. As one might expect, the present collection develops the ideas encountered in Summoning the Gods, but these new essays (all of which have been written in just the last three years) give evidence of genuine intellectual growth. In my opinion, and that of the author, they are more philosophically sophisticated than Cleary’s earlier work. And they form more of a unity than the essays of the previous collection. Indeed, in this new volume we see the outlines of a coherent philosophy—something approaching what used to be called, in bygone days, a “philosophical system.” Whereas there were only hints of this in Summoning the Gods. This introduction attempts to provide readers with a brief guide to this “system,” weaving together the different strands that one finds in these nine unique essays.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, the second movie in the rebooted Planet of the Apes series, establishes this as a superior franchise inviting comparisons with Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy.
The movie begins exactly where Rise of the Planet of the Apes left off, with a tracker plotting flights around the globe showing the spread of “simian flu.” An accompanying news montage informs us that ten years have passed since the outbreak began and that almost all humans have been wiped out. The apes, who at the end of Risehad crossed the Golden Gate Bridge and founded a new order in the forest, have now established a settled community.
On the other side of the bridge a group of human survivors, who appear to be immune to the virus, have created a makeshift but well-armed fortress. When a small group of these survivors unwittingly trespasses into the ape territory intending to restart a hydroelectric dam, the stage is set for a fascinating examination of how two neighboring, but utterly distinct communities, might relate to each other.
Color Revolutions have once again returned to the forefront of world politics, in Ukraine and Venezuela. There is a playbook that they are all following, available for free download in dozens of languages. It is called From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp.
Gene Sharp is a lifelong Christian pacifist who was jailed by the American authorities during the Korean War for his beliefs. He has dedicated his life to proving that nonviolent means are preferable to violent means for achieving political goals. His works have facilitated political leaders in choosing a path of exclusive nonviolence, particularly since he has teamed up with Special Forces Officer Col. Bob Helvey (ret.). The government that once jailed him has found an alignment of interests.
The Albert Einstein Institution is their townhouse in Boston that exports revolutionary theory through the National Endowment for Democracy and its franchises, such as SOTPOR in Serbia. They promote “Color Revolutions,” or as Hugo Chavez jokingly called them, “The Revolutions of Fruits and Flowers.” The majority of groups who adopt Sharp’s methods have not been successful, but their success rate is clearly better than groups employing terrorist violence.
In his commentaries on the Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar claimed the ancient Celts were ruled by two principles: to fight well and to speak well. By this standard, the now famous essayist, historian, and former insurgent, Dominique Venner, who frequently identified with his Gallic ancestors, was the epitome of Caesar’s Celt—for with arms and eloquence, he fought a life-long war against the enemies of Europe.
Like much else about him (especially his self-sacrifice on Notre Dame’s high altar, which, as Alain de Benoist writes, made him un personage de l’histoire de France), Venner’s posthumously published Un Samuraï d’Occident bears testament not just to his rebellion against the anti-European forces, but to his faith in the Continent’s tradition and the restorative powers this tradition holds out to a Europe threatened by the ethnocidal forces of the present American-centric system of global usury. Continue reading “A Breviary for the Unvanquished”→
Reviewing Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium, Steve Sailer emphasizes the dystopian future resulting from non-White immigration. That’s certainly there. The bleak, run-down buildings (filmed, appropriately, in Mexico City), the garbage-strewn streets teeming with poor non-Whites. There’s the everyday violence and the brutal robot police.
Along with the hordes of Brown people there are a few conspicuous Whites, including Max, the hero, played by Matt Damon. (In an interview, Blomkamp says there would have been more Blacks but they were hard to find in Mexico City. The camera work clearly emphasizes the few Blacks, and at the end of the movie when everyone receives citizenship in Elysium, Blomkamp throws in a scene filmed in Africa where Blacks are seen storming the spaceships that will take them to the promised land. One might say that Blacks were in Blomkamp’s future LA, at least in spirit.)
Unfortunately, the emotional core of the movie is that the teeming non-White masses have moral claims on the overwhelmingly White folks living in Elysium, the space station that slowly orbits above the future Los Angeles. Elysium is everything that the future LA is not: uncrowded, populated by well-dressed, well-mannered, civilized (overwhelmingly White) people with refined tastes, excellent health care, and large mansions with robots waiting on women reclining next to gorgeous swimming pools. And no tattoos in Elysium, unlike pretty much everyone
Everyone on Earth wants to get to Elysium, and who can blame them?
While Elysium is a paradise of wealth and refinement, it lives off the wealth created by the mainly Brown masses back in LA. The White owner of the robot factory where Max works has created a brutal work environment where Max is forced to endure a lethal dose of radiation in order to keep the production line going. The factory owner then gets in his space shuttle and commutes back to the idyllic world of Elysium—an image that conjures up rich capitalists helicoptering to work and then going home behind thick walls in gated communities in Beverly Hills. These Elysium capitalists are doubtless advocates for open borders because with the glut of low-skill labor, their employees have no choice but to work for slave wages, while the owners can easily escape the horrors they have created down below.
This is a very close-to-home metaphor for the role of business interests in destroying America. (Short history of immigration: The business lobby was held in check by popular demand for immigration restriction until ethnic lobbying led by the organized Jewish community resulted in the sea change in immigration law in 1965.) As Sailer points out, conservative commentators have blasted the film as socialist propaganda.
But the real message for conservatives should be that if you champion open borders and create this horrific version of the future Los Angeles, it will only work if you detach yourself from any moral feelings toward those left behind.
In the movie, some of the citizens of Elysium have no moral concerns about those living in the hellhole below. Jodie Foster plays the hard-nosed Secretary of Defense Jessica Delacourt who is perfectly willing to shoot down the spaceships of the proles attempting to get to Elysium. But the president of Elysium, played by a Pakistani-American actor (thereby showing that Elysium is not exclusively White—thank God for that!) is soft on the invaders, provoking a coup attempt by Foster. Nevertheless, even the present regime deports invaders. A scene shows them as a howling, dark-skinned mob crammed like sardines into cages as they wait for the ships that will take them back to Earth.
From the standpoint of immigration patriotism, the film certainly could have been better. Delacourt does indeed talk about the need to preserve Elysium for her children, which could be construed as a racialist message given the overwhelmingly White population of Elysium. But there are clearly non-Whites among Elysium’s elite—I noticed a few East Asians, and the Pakistani-looking president stood out. One must of course hope that these were enough to bring a little vibrancy to the staid Elysians.
But it’s like all those movies where the White nationalist characters who spout this sort of thing but are portrayed as heartless and out of touch. Delacourt’s appearance is severe—short hair and very angular, harsh facial features, no emotional life. It’s hard to see her caring for anyone.
If there is supposed to be a moral message coming from Delacourt, it certainly didn’t get through to me. We never see Delacourt’s children, so there is no empathy for them or what their future will be like when the gates are torn down and Elysium is overrun by non-Whites.
On the other hand, the film’s emotional core is the love relationship between Max and Frey Santiago, a Latino nurse with a daughter who is dying of leukemia. The emotional core of the movie, therefore, is the moral claim that people like Max, Frey and her daughter Matilda have on Elysium. Max (because of his radiation overdose) and Matilda are in desperate need of medical care that can only be obtained in Elysium. Both Frey and Max are presented as intelligent and hard-working.
The implication is that huge numbers of those suffering in the Los Angeles of 2154 are good, honest, hard-working people who deserve to have the comforts and medical resources available on Elysium.
The film ends without saying what the long-term effects of granting Elysium citizenship to everyone would be. I suppose that the utopian Hollywood ending would be that multiculturalism would triumph and everyone would be happy and economically well off. They would be living in safe environments, and they would have great medical care. Matt Damon, the real life über-liberal probably sees it that way.
But the hordes of desperate non-Whites boarding the shuttles to Elysium are far more suggestive of a Camp of the Saints future where everyone will be miserable. Dividing Elysium’s wealth among the teeming, overpopulated masses would leave everyone impoverished. Can Elysium even afford to give medical care to the millions who would need it? And why would they want to go back to LA after seeing the luxuries of Elysium?
Given the moral framework of the movie, I found myself out of sympathy with the image of Brown people asking for stuff from rich White people. The little Brown girl and her mother reminded me too much of all those pro-amnesty rallies and other demonstrations geared at pulling the heartstrings of White Americans in order to leave failed states like Mexico and get access to the economic benefits of American society. It reminded me too much of all those LATimes articles portraying poor, super-competent striving Latino immigrants who would thrive except for White racism.
So I couldn’t root for Frey and Matilda. But I couldn’t root for the White overlords who created the situation in the first place either. The only ones we get to know are the cold, unemotional, ruthless Delacourt and the factory owner who brutalizes his employees while working hand-in-glove with Delacourt. Then there’s the sociopathic Agent Kruger, a White male who is also an ally of Delacourt and greatly enjoys killing the proles. The Whites of Elysium are not a sympathetic bunch.
Without any emotionally compelling characters on either side, the film was a flop for me.
But in a larger sense, there is a profound moral here: the moral imperative of preventing the world depicted in Elysium from developing in the first place. In an interview, Blomkamp says he is “painting this realistic image of a future Earth…which meant the borders being erased entirely and having this fluid population group that basically moves from Chile all the way up to Canada. It just flows, because it can.…The numbers of people that are Latin are going to overwhelm the numbers of people that aren’t.
The world depicted by Elysium is exactly the world we are headed toward. The vast majority of the immigrants allowed in under current U.S. immigration policy and even more so as envisioned in the Schumer-Rubio bill are uneducated and poor; and they will be able to bring in their relatives, for a grand total of at least 30 million in the next 10 years. Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing. But it’s great for the elites who run things now. It will be even better for them in the future, and much worse for everyone else.
Blomkamp missed a great opportunity to present a morally compelling account of the plight of White, middle-and working class people who are in the process of being displaced by the non-White invasion. The movie is set in the future 140 years from now, when Whites have all but disappeared except for the relatively few among the Elysium elite. The disaster for the great bulk of the White population has already happened. They are nowhere to be found apart from a few relics like Max.
What we need is a film that shows middle- and working-class White people being displaced and disempowered at the behest of elites who control the media and finance the political system. Unfortunately, such a film would not be sci-fi fiction. It could be set in the present or the near future. The story of White dispossession as a result of the actions of our hostile elites is far more morally compelling than anything presented in Elysium.
What we are living through now are the early stages of the development of the brutal, horrendous world depicted in Elysium. Most Whites still aren’t aware of what the present trends portend, and a great many live far away from the clear signs of what the non-White future will be like, oblivious to the long-term consequences of current policies. The good news is that perhaps some of the Whites viewing Elysium might, at least implicitly, be getting the message that the horrifying future depicted in Elysium, would be a disaster for them and their children and do all they can to prevent it.
This is a commentary on a review-essay, “Reorienting the Discovery Machine: Perspectives from China and Islamdom on Toby Huff’s Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective,” published in the Journal of World History (June 2012), by Ting Xu and Khodadad Rezakhani. The aim is to offer a sample of the way Europe’s history is being re-written in a globalist Trotskyite direction consistent with the normative requirements of multiculturalism and mass immigration. The historical profession in the West has been moving in this direction for some decades now, and hundreds of other publications could have served as well or even better to illustrate this point. But this publication works well for my purposes; it is sufficiently short for a thorough examination of the way this re-orientation operates in its handling of scholarly sources and empirical evidence; and it also happens to be written by two upcoming researchers who completed their PhDs at the London School of Economics, which houses the Global Economic History Network (GEHN), the product of cooperation across five partner institutions (LSE, the University of California at Irvine, UCLA, Leiden and Osaka Universities), and one of the major promoters of England as a cosmopolitan place ideal for the mixing of cultures and races against the “parochial” identity of the past.