Toward a New Barbarism, Pt IV

 

On EMJ, Logos, Ethnos, and So on:

I had a past oblique treatment of EMJ which was Against Catholic Reaction. Here I’ll attack some of EMJ’s specific claims.

First, his claim that there have been only two valid theological precepts in human history: that of the Greeks, whose abstract reason led them to logos and the Hebrews (or archaic Jews), who were the sole recipients of divine tutelage (the chosen people to bear His word).

The obvious counter is that this flies in the face of early religious development. I went in that essay on why I don’t particularly like the term religion, but I’ll use it for convenience. Regardless, Judaism at root is basically a fusion of pre-Socratic [Hellenic] philosophers with influences from Zoroastrianism and Hebrew or Levantine or Phoenician folk worship. The Jews turned this root into literal blood worship, that is the reverence of first the Jewish folk and the Jewish folk spirit as embodied by YHWH and Elohim. The manner of worship was obviously influenced by neighboring cult rituals, including Baal and Molech – Baal meaning roughly lord and Molech (rendered MLK without vowel marks) roughly king, but both representing chief or head deities to whom regular sacrifice was rendered and expected – and of course from the common Semitic and Afro-Asiatic root. This is transparently obvious when one hears how a lot of latter-day Jews refer to hashem and early Kabbalists among whom this essentially solipsistic belief is and was common.

I have a huge tract which goes into deconstruction names and words from the OT, along with some of the context in which they’re embedded, and that reveals that the Bible is not in fact some divine revelation but a monument of self-worship and fraudulent victories. The Old Testament Bible is a propaganda work, or really a series of works, which speaks of the glory of the Jewish people and their numerous blessings from God and the consequent windfalls they receive. It also developed quite later than most people believe it did. Most people believe it was orally composed and then written contemporaneously with the Vedas or Avesta. In fact it was written 150-200 BC or thereabouts and orally composed not long before (one can date it by the assimilation of concepts contemporaneous to Ptolemy or historical figures in the Persian Empire). There is controversy over a great number of the historical figures in the OT and I go to the extent of asserting that most of them did not exist, especially the Jewish characters, and the few who did were mythologized beyond all proportion. Events likewise bear this trademark of exaggeration, mythology, and distortion.

There is no evidence of ‘divine tutelage’ or ‘divine inspiration’ of the Jewish people outside of the OT. One could take the Zohar, the source of modern Kabbalah as another piece of evidence I guess. Kabbalah is basically Jewish self-improvement, but again the aim is always betterment of the Jewish specimen critically and specifically. ‘Keter’ or crown, the highest point of enlightenment in Kabbalah, is reserved for a Jew who is learned in the world around them, in the secular and natural law as well as the Torah and Talmud. ‘Keter’ represents the apex rising up from ‘Malkut’ where ‘Malkut’ is the starting point as a mere ordinary man whose only reference is mere sensation and material desire. The only secular evidence is from the ascendance of the Jewish elite between 1700 and 2000 AD, where in 1700 they were mostly middle class merchants and lenders with only a few large prominent houses to their name and by 2000 Jews were the dominant ethnic group in the Post-War International Order and consequently in the world. But this ascendancy was helped by gentile elites who were fueled by Freemasonic which is to say Kabbalah delusions, as well as generally Christian delusions that they were helping G*d’s chosen. (To write the phrase the way the ‘chosenites’ do.) 

The Vedas (to include the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishad) and Avesta are texts for two traditions that are actually quite sophisticated and precede Judaism. Moreover, both of those traditions stem from the Indo-Iranian branch of the Aryan folk. We see similar levels of sophistication in later Dharmic traditions like Buddhism, but also in the East outside of India for instance in Taoism and Shinto. Of course we also see similar levels in the West, in Hellenic civilization and arguably in much of the rest of the Aryan tradition from the Celts to Germans to Balto-Slavics.

Logos means ‘word’ roughly, but obviously has a meaning beyond that. It can mean any thoughtform we associate with words. It also has the connotation of logic, that is the necessary and useful connection between words. So it’s a word which can mean a lot of things, or which can be bent to mean a lot of things. For instance, the word pathology is constructed from pathos, ‘pain’ or ‘disease,’ and logos, ‘word’ or ‘reason/cause.’ In this case, pathology invokes the latter usage of logos where it means ‘reason/cause.’

Ethnos means ‘folk’ or ‘a people who share common birth.’ It is roughly equivalent with the words nation, folk, race, and so forth. Thus EMJ tries to distinguish between ethnos and race when there is no distinction to be made etymologically or actually. Identity is a series of concentric circles which radiate outward from the self, with the self and immediate family strongest and outer groups like continental clusters (colloquially, race), language group, and humanity being weakest. I contend that race (continental clusters or population groups) are the largest order where there is any meaningful bond, and that bond is quite weak. It’s still functional. When one gets to the mere language group or all humanity, one finds that these are great nothings, that these are not at all functional groups. One cannot point collective mere ‘humanity’ to a task and get it to do anything, the same as one cannot point ‘all women’ or the like to a task. The thought is absurd because the notion is absurd.

He grounds the ethnos on mere language. This as well is wrong. The American by this conception is ethnically the same as any other English speaker, regardless of their ancestral lineage. This conception is only partly true of a dominant culture – and only assuming that what is the perceived or nominally dominant culture is in fact dominant. Despite that America and the rest of the English speaking world continue to speak English, they do not practice English or broadly European customs and culture in any number of areas but have begun to practice an odd Jewish-cosmopolitan culture. So we see here a turn from what we could deem the old American identity, which was primarily NW European ethnically and English culturally, to that Jewish-cosmopolitan culture. That Englishness in the older identity stemmed not only from the large numbers of actual English and Scottish settlers and that blood factor, but also to the cultural and legal legacy of England.

The obvious point here is that no dominant culture critiques itself into nonexistence. Even in the waning days of Rome after the Crisis of the Third century and so on, Romans were not bent over their tables and lecterns finding ways of demeaning or demoting the Roman legacy or the various folk groups at the heart of Rome. Indeed, Rome was hailed from its height and its decline down to today. This despite that in many ways Rome was the Globohomo of the day though they were arguably far better simply for having lacked the Jewish control of critical nodes of power and central planning.

To borrow Madison Grant’s phrasing, the passing of the great race already happened. It happened in the Bronze Age and it happened more recently. The question is how do the leftovers or holdouts constitute or define themselves going forward, and what becomes of the strategic position. I’m pessimistic short term and optimistic long term. I think it’s unquestionable that we will win, but there is a question of how much. It’s a different thing if we’re able to retain all of the homelands along with all of the colonial possessions, and if we’re relegated on the other hand to isolated corners of the homelands and the colonial possessions.

Critical theory and the general slide of Western culture and civilization into old age, death, and decay put the lie to that notion of ethnos as pure religious and linguistic construct. Everyone is operating in a Jewish frame imposed by a Jewish theology, and the question is whether one rebukes this frame and looks for its weaknesses or if one seeks to reify the god damn thing. As I’ve stated elsewhere, we live in the rotting remains of the white Western world. One sees everywhere legacies of the West – the basic design of clothing, cars, buildings, tools, furniture, art and theory of art – but the particular forms for the past 50 years or more have twisted increasingly into less Western and less recognizable shapes. Blue jeans and T-shirts were once the wear of laborers primarily in mines and fields, but now they are common wear and replaced the casual and formal slacks and suits worn by most people most of the time in public. Brutalism and post-modernism or related types of architecture were once avant garde but now make the mainstay in most city skylines. And so on and so forth – we could belabor specific examples but I think even a cursory glance primes the mind properly.

He of course contradicts this by invoking historically Catholic ethnic groups within the English-speaking world. He is correct that the three main ethnoreligious groups historically were Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish and that within each of these there were distinct ethnicities. These ethnicities or folk groups were distinguished not merely by which tongue was spoken upon arrival of America but the blood and soil of the people. Someone with a Lithuanian origin who converts to Anglicanism or Lutheranism still retains the blood, which is related to but distinct from English, German, and Nordic blood. The conversion or cultural assimilation process does not drain the blood from the body and replace it with another. Likewise, the Jew who converts to something else retains Jewishness. Few of those converts especially in the last 70 or 80 years are actually sincere, and few adopt a fundamentally alien spirit which is Aryan or even dogmatically Catholic or Protestant in nature.

The critical thing that I note there is ethnoreligious. Excuse the naughty mixture of Greek and Latin roots. There is a correlation between the ethnos and the religio but it is obviously imperfect. Even before the 20^th century collapse of Protestantism, there were Catholic Englishmen and Protestant Frenchmen. This collapse of Protestantism has largely made these people secularists (strong adherents to the prevailing Jewish-cosmopolitan theology) or Catholics or other denominations still allowed as junior partners of power where social and political organization is still viable. Any of these changes in ideology, worldview, or religion do not change the underlying blood of the person in question and usually do not change the spirit.

Jones’s refrain is, “If you are white, you are losing.” Hold on – why does he say this? I think he has a few motivations. The first is he’s trying to appeal to “optics” which is to say PR and marketing tricks which do not work because you do not control the organs of PR and marketing. Second, he’s trying to appeal to elites, that is the mythical “conservative elite” out there in the aether somewhere. We have not confirmed the existence of grays, reptiloids, or conservative elites. Actually, those two classes of aliens are more likely to exist by several orders of magnitude (and impact the world) than conservative elites. Conservatives exist to be unwitting fools used by others while the ground shifts under their feet, and they excuse, justify, or ignore those changes. Third, he hangs on to “Catholic” as a universal identity in distinction to being European or white. The extent of ethnos in the mind of Jones is a linguistic or religious class, not one of blood.

Most aspects of identity are created in distinction to the Other. These lines are drawn not necessarily from impositions on high but usually because of real differences which would have two groups live apart. Jones claims that the notion of ‘white’ as identifying typically and certainly relatively fair-skinned Europeans is ahistorical. It does date to the era of exploration, around 1500-1600. This is when the first notions of white circulated, and every major colonial power basically used their own term for white – whites or los blancos or les blancs and so on as well as a number of caste terms developed in Portuguese and Spanish. This shows that the distinction is rather obvious. Among Europeans, there is really no reason to come up with the notion. Everyone you would see in your lifetime before 1400 would be white themselves unless you were a merchant trader or sailed with such people, in which case you might meet Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and the like (but probably still not Africans or South Asians).

If everyone were Muslim, there would be no distinction on that ground. The line drawn between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb is basically a friend-enemy distinction; it is one based on otherness. The same applies to Jones’ Catholic church, which despite its universal pretenses only has use of terms like Catholic because there are non-Catholics. Else such things would be understood on a purely academic or analytical ground and Catholicism would be taken for granted the way breathing air is taken for granted. Moreover, the idea of race and ethnos in addition to being synonymous are also very old and stretch back to the ancient times, including in the way in which race realists understand it at present as concentric circles. Hellenes would assimilate fellow Greeks from another polis, but would balk at the idea of assimilating a Phoenician or Thracian. Those other people (barbarians or people who can’t speak properly) are meant for slavery or somewhere far away at best, certainly not as citizens of the polis. In modern times, race or sub-species has been meticulously demonstrated in humans and other animals by Linnaeus and his contemporaries and later biologists who specialized in taxonomy. It has been further buttressed by genetic studies.

The word is important, but it is not all. That is a fundamentally post-structuralist view held by people [Jews] like Derrida, where the world is at bottom a subjective Talmudic word game. The world is not that. There are a handful of valid interpretations of phenomena and noumena and that is not one. Mine is that the world is an emanation of the great unity God who is Being and Becoming, the Absolute, and the All-Father. He (or it, the distinction is indifferent) gives the world its shape and we are perhaps part of him or perhaps dreams in the mind of God, and again that distinction ultimately means nothing. This is basically one of the fairly common distillations of Aryan or Indo-European thought for thousands of years.

Race is also a category of the mind according to Jones. This is true – to the extent that all taxonomy is a mental construct, because race amongst humans is merely taxonomy applied to humans. Taxonomy is a mental construct but it is describing real likeness and real otherness in the world among individuals and groups. The Catholic Church is also a mental construct. There is nothing in the world one can point to which actually exists called ‘the Catholic Church.’ It exists in the minds of men, embodied in symbols and icons, and as echoes in physical buildings including the Vatican archives. But notice that unlike dirt, or a chunk of marble, or a piece of iron, this institution (like all institutions) does not really exist in the world. 

Jones is taking this sort of Neo-Platonism and marrying it to Catholicism in a somewhat naïve and somewhat unconvincing way that to me rings of all of the wrong 20^th century influences. He is also stuck in an institution which clearly has moved on to other ways of thought and past his idea of tradition. Because of the Catholic orthodoxy, he is forced to accept the degeneration of the Holy Church and the Holy See particularly. This despite the fact that women will probably be priests within the next five to ten years, bishops five to ten years after that, and cardinals and Maters or (Mopes? Mapes? What’s the feminine equivalent to ‘Pope’?) a few years after that. The Church is bending in a postmodern direction as evidenced by recent Church architecture, sculpture, and rulings on ‘tradition’ and doctrine.

How does a Catholic, Mormon, or frankly anyone in these “based” religions now convince anyone who stands in reaction against the forces of hypermodernity to join them? You can’t. Your order is dead or dying, and it lags ten to thirty years behind the worst trappings of degeneracy of broader Western unkultur at best. That’s no consolation to tell me that I might be spared drag queen story hour and female priests and forced anti-white messaging within the Church for a few years, only for my children to suffer it when they are in their formative years and me to have to grumble through my twilight years wondering where I fucked up and why the world fucked me so cruelly. I stand by everything I said in the article ‘Against Catholic Reaction.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wanted to spitball on organizing. At some point we all have to have a 'fuck it' moment and decide to organize or the future will belong to those who do (namely ethnic rackets and oligarch strongholds). I see a few options for organization. They could be pursued separately or in tandem. One is the party-centric model, where organizations are built up around a central party apparatus. This has its pros as the party is a very good rallying point. It is like a lightning rod for effort and will draw a bunch of people in so long as there is the slightest bit of promise. We don't have to believe in mass politics (I don't) and this could still be worth the effort.

Another is a corporate model, literally forming LLCs. This country loves corporations and if you form some two-bit shell corporation with a handful of assets like a cheap meeting ground to start with, you can use that to snowball. Everyone organizing there can just be unpaid interns or some shit and business law in this country is far more lenient than constitutional or civil rights law. The point of the corporation isn't actually to make money although you could sell nick-knacks or run craft businesses to raise funds for meetings and relocating key members.

The third that I see is broadly the ADL model. Set aside the shittiness of ADL of B'nai Brith which we all know to be true, and focus on what they do for both international Jewry and Israel. This model would involve forming basically a white counterpart which you could call a heritage society or the European Culture Group or whatever. You give it an innocuous name, but its mission is vouching for our ethnic interests first and secondly pushing our Aryan futurist mission. Ideally this would be an international organization like the ADL and its brother organizations, with chapters in every white country and every country with a substantial white/colonial minority.

The US right now is pretty much seen internationally on the decline, with some smaller states on the periphery of the Post-War International Order defecting to China or Russia or at least entertaining the notion to see if they can get better terms. In the past 20 years, America has knocked over some states successfully. Some of the regimes have been replaced with stable puppets. Several have not gone as planned - notably those with substantial internal resistance and foreign backers such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Venezuela and Syria have not been successfully stricken. That's the good news.

The bad news for nrx is that their power analysis is broadly good but their understanding of how you obtain power is completely retarded and wrong. You don't get power by "auditioning." Most of those who eventually get power either obtain it by serving the powerful first and demonstrating loyalty, and then being let into a position of power, or they are born into it; the final option is of course to take it. One of the implications of this, to spell it out, is don't expect any support from billionaires. Things are going quite well for them and probably will continue to be for some time. A billionaire is essentially an avatar of the system. Multimillionaires in the $20-300 million range are about the wealthiest patrons one can hope to snag, and most of them will be too terrified of turning on the system which has enriched them to support us or anyone close to us (even if they sentimentally agree). For now, those people aren't entirely wrong. Most of those people must signal their loyalty to the system ideologically and materially in order to continue drawing their great sums from it.

The rich are also stingy fucks. If you did perchance get $$$ from them, most would give something in the tens to hundreds of thousands range (chump change for a political org, in other words) with massive strings attached. With $100k, a political party could basically go fuck themselves. It’s a start but it’s not really more than that. Thus, most of any genuine dissident support will come from the working class, middle class, or petite bourgeoisie. These are kind of blurry distinctions, but roughly the way we can distinguish them is by family income (<$100k/yr, $100k-270k/yr, $270-700k/yr), net worth (<$150k, $150-499k, $500k-15mil), or trade/type of income (trades/wage work, some passive income + professional work, high passive income + professional/managerial work).

Anyone above the petite bourgeois class is highly unlikely to support radical politics because their class consciousness matters more than anything else. Like this is almost always true, and unfortunately this is where Marx was actually fucking right. To recapitulate, rich fucks in most Western countries would rather hobnob with moneyed Jews than someone of decent stock cast into the modern peasantry. This isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s been more or less true for about 200 years. This is where class consciousness gets you for the wealthy. This is also why nrx fucking dweebs don’t get it; Jews are willing to pour communal resources into one family in order that they might use advantage down the line to drag up the rest of the community. They think like a colony or a collective, like a unitary organism almost, like a hive mind devoted to the power process rather than a collection of lonesome selves.

The obvious thing here is to stop fucking worshiping rich and powerful people. Surprise surprise, most of them care about their self, family, and class interests (things in the concentric circles of identity which are more immediate) and not a whit about national or folk/racial interests. There is no advantage anno Current Year in giving a good god damn about folk/racial interests for a cosmopolitan gentile who is either in the managerial class or god forbid in the power elite. They gain nothing and frankly if they were to suddenly gain folkish/racial awareness the knives of their familial/class buddies and rivals would turn on them instead of the proles and rubes below. One of the ways that rich people become and stay rich is first by being born rich, and secondly by conceiving everything through a hermeneutic of advantage. What good does X do for my bottom line? If your party cannot promise to improve their bottom line, you cannot move these people to do anything substantive.

A lot of people say to organize with your neighbors. This might be great for some people, but for many/most people it will be a non-starter. Unless your neighbors are of like mind, and sound of body and mind, they are going to be leery of speaking with a young (or youngish) white man about communal defense or political organization. Even if they don’t know why, they are going to intuit that it reeks of fascism or those preppers they see on TV. The only time they will want to do it is if there are riots or the like in the city next door. Even then, there are large numbers of people who will be difficult to rouse even in that situation where the threat is potentially right on the horizon.

The American suburbs are intentionally atomistic places. There is not much organizational capacity in one of these places unless one has explicit infrastructure there. Add in the elements of multiracialism, multiculturalism, and social and economic precarity as well as the problems of modern cities and suburbs and the atomization factor has become almost total. Even people who want to get out and do things in a more social setting are finding it increasingly difficult to. Especially if that social setting involves white men in a group larger than two or three getting together outside the purview of the mercenary corps or capital.

I like the idea of reactionary Leninism. Whatever we want to think of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, they won. Period end of story, they fucking won. We need to ditch conservative loser tactics, organize on Bolshevik principles, and try anything and everything with a promise of helping our situation or leading us to victory. That means we need likeminded people closer together. That means we need to pool resources. That means we need relatively fewer people chasing the increasingly unlikely bourgeois pipedream and more people doing the work of internal organization, strategizing, and thought mapping. Yes, the Bolsheviks had Trotsky and his Jew York and Wall Street connections. No, we will probably never get that. Nonetheless, their rough model is better as an organizing principle than conservatives are, as we see over the past 200 years that conservatives have been born to lose. Indeed conservatives may have a longer trend of losing in history, but certainly in recent history conservatives always lose to revolutionary forces.