A Tale of Two Islands: Castaway (1986) and Swept Away (1974)

“Flirtatiousness is fundamental to a woman’s nature, but not all put it into practice because some are restrained by fear or by good sense.” – La Rouchefoucauld

The ‘desert island’ film Castaway (1986), directed by Nicolas Roeg and starring a dipsomaniacal Oliver Reed and a hot young “Ms. Robinson”; Amanda Donohoe, is based on the memoirs of Lucy Irvine. Irvine had responded to an advert placed by writer Gerald Kingsland seeking a mate for a ‘survivor experiment’ to last the duration of a year on a desert island. I was reminded of another film with the same theme of a man and a woman alone together on an island; Swept Away (1974) (Italian: Travolti da un insolito destino nell’azzurro mare d’agosto The full English title is Swept Away… by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August), directed by Lina Wertmuller and starring Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato.

Donohoe and Reed

Both films are really truly vehicles about the sexes and not really about the individuals themselves who in their isolated environments lose track of ‘who they are’ – Donohoe asks Reed in one scene “who am I?” having lost contact with the world in which their identities were built and reflected back to them by their relationships with other people and their social roles. While in Swept Away, the prior identities of the two characters function also as a Marxist critique of capitalist society; Melato as Raffaella the high society capitalist snob and Giannini as Gennarino the proletariat deckhand who works on her yacht despising her, but these political identities are also washed away on the island isolation and also in their physical union with each other. Without the contingencies that ground social identities individuals just become the primordial man and the primordial woman, the necessities of survival account for time spent in cultural and individual attributions.

As Castaway was based on real occurrences in which both participants wrote accounts, the subjects abilities to transcend their identities were limited – that is knowing they were involved in a sort of publicity stunt their behaviors were somewhat kept in line by the knowledge of a mutual Hawthorne effect and the limitations of the experiment. Now of the two Swept Away is the more radical endeavor because it is a work of pure fantasy and the relationship between the sexes is to be read as one of Weberian Ideal Types. There is no expectation for the conditions of their isolation to end they are truly free to lose the vestiges of their social conditioning and return to the primordial garden. Roger Ebert wrote that the film “resists the director’s most determined attempts to make it a fable about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and persists in being about a man and a woman. On that level, it’s a great success.” I agree with Ebert who mentions that the film is a “kinky” updated variation on the desert island theme of films like Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957) in which a nun and a US solider become trapped on together.

MV5BOTE5NzkzYWUtOWM2My00Nzc0LTg2MmQtM2Y5YzMyY2EwMjZiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjUxODE0MDY@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1268,1000_AL_.jpgThe same sexual tensions run through all three ‘scenario’ films but with varying results; in the earliest incarnation Heaven Knows; God, chastity and honour win out. In Swept Away, vital “toxic” masculinity wins. in Castaway it is womanly manipulation triumphant. Now it would be interesting to account for these differences in a comparative treatment. While Heaven Knows certainly reflects the time period in which the Hollywood production code was being enforced and the relative constrained morality of 1950s America, which make it easy to write off as a kind of tamed examination of the ‘Adam and Eve scenario.’ While Swept Away, being a product of the 1970s, European and directed by a woman may help explain its overt patriarchal message, Ebert again:

“that woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male… The more the woman submits, the more ecstasy she finds – until finally she’s offending the hapless Sicilian by suggesting practices he can’t even pronounce.”

The violent culmination is a sadistic sodomy rape that makes the woman the man’s bitch. Wertmuller’s handling of the subject invokes the bestial remnants of centuries of non-consensual sex; when men got women as a prize for victory over a vanished tribe or foe – the film is a misogynistic rape-fantasy and is regarded by feminists and liberals as an abomination. In sharp contrast, in Castaway, Donohoe’s character Lucy refuses to ‘put out,’ and although starving for sexual communion, Reed’s Gerald acquiesces to her sudden frigidity, feigning indignation, again this is tempered by the circumstances; based on real events, an experiment meant to last a year, being the subject of one another’s published chronicles, but  also they are visited multiple times by other groups of people who help them survive (not truly deserted!) – Gerald then in some sense couldn’t just rape her. The transgressions were mitigated. Therefore, this American 1980s turn towards a kind of Lysistrata revolt cannot be said to be without contingent factors within the text itself – (Lucy implies it is because Gerald is not working hard enough at some point, but often uses muddled reasoning). The twelve year period between the two films cannot be said to constitute different epochs of feminism, both being within the confines of the so-called ‘second wave,’ although Castaway seemed to embody the radical feminism of the later period of Andrea Dworkin who argued famously in her 1987 Book Intercourse that “all heterosexual sex is rape.” However, the real account of difference must be one in which the ‘Real scenario’ of Ideal Types is allowed to play out because it is less contingent on mediating factors and the one in which the ‘System’ of mediation cannot interfere to ensure some sense of civil propriety is maintained. Perhaps Dworkin was partially correct, in so far as the primordial sexual communion may well be the forced rape of the female – Lilith be damned.

Now the idea of man and woman alone on an island may also be looked at metaphorically. The monogamous relationship and the globe of psychic, emotional and physical bond between lovers can create a kind of separation between their love and the rest of the world – the idea that love is an island. Curiously in the three films after the ‘island adventure’ all three couples relate their love for one another but ultimately go their separate ways – this is always due to the woman’s decision. Here the ‘island of love’ is revealed to be merely another kind of illusion dependent on contingent circumstances, like that of their identities – Lucy’s “who am I?” and Raffaella and Gennarino’s “class.” Of the three women the only one who remains true throughout is the nun because of her love for God (which should be read as kind of refusal to play the game or her inability to be true to her human nature), the lesson of the other two ‘islands,’ whether radical feminist or patriarchal misogynistic, both agree on one thing; the precariousness of woman – she is an evil thing. Evola, Weininger and the whole of Patriarchal Traditionalism agree that woman is by nature chthonic, devious and ultimately heartless – incapable of spiritual ascent and great works – she is too readily conditioned by exterior contingencies. Recall that when Zeus decided to give humanity a punishing gift Hephaestus molds from the earth the first woman, whom Hesiod calls a “beautiful evil thing” whose descendants would go forth to torment the human race. The lesson with woman then is to sodomize her while you can.

“fucking cunt”

Jordan Peterson part 2: JP On Hitler and The JQ

Just a couple of days after I published my blog post criticizing Jordan Peterson’s individual reductionist approach to the social problems alienating and detracting from the life expectations of European men, his professional discipline, for his hypocrisy in regards to free speech, and for superficial and vague dodging of the JQ Peterson gets called out by a Jew about the JQ. Times like these it seems Reality herself literally follows my blog. The story was brought to my attention via the Daily Stormer’s write up.


Years ago I read what was available online of Solzhenityn’s 200 Years Together, the book is mentioned and given to Peterson as a gift in the above clip. The book is about the history of the Jews in Russia – and there is certainly a reason this account written by a gulag survivor and world renowned noble prize winning author has not been translated and available in English; because Solzhenityn crushes the myths of Jewish prosecution. That is to say and I am working on memory here; the Jews, like the very one in the video questioning Peterson on the Jewish role in the Holodomor and subsequent control of US media narratives, have long attested to hatred between Gentiles and Jews as arising because of Gentile reprisals for Jewish success. There were many pogroms against the Jews in Ukraine and Russia and all over Eastern Europe and only in the sense that Jewish success was largely based on exploitative practices fueled by their tribal ethnic hatred of the goyim could one make the case for resentment and jealousy. What happens is Jews say they were persecuted by illiterate peasants out of jealousy through no real faults of their own, this is the same line of specious argument that Peterson uses. 


You can see in this clip on the JRE that Peterson tries to sheepishly avoid the topic, by saying he might say the wrong thing. If that isn’t an indication of Voltaire’s dictum “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” I don’t know what is.

In the video when discussing the Hitler Question, the Jew Bret Weinstein preambles his position by asking JP, “If I’m cornered will you, (stuttering) come bail me out?” Peterson’s response is “No way man, the knives are coming out.” Weinstein’s ‘controversial’ opinion: “Hitler was a monster (OMG WHAT A REBEL!), as we all know, but he was a rational monster…” Weinstein goes on to say that when austerity hits a society because of loss of opportunity the society looks for some weaker group to blame for its ills. This kind of psychoanalyzing of mass psychology is the same as what I criticized in Peterson’s approach to individual psychology. The question is not raised why did austerity hit? Are there groups who are responsible? and who should be blamed? – that is the question of culpability of problems is not handled rather the symptoms seem to be the products of magical forces worthy of reprieve.

Onto Hitler; the Germans were an upstart nation and within their field of continental thought they had become giants, the new inheritors of the Greeks as Hegel would have put it. But also industrially and scientifically they had begun to displace and replace the British as the major economic power in the world. The theory that the Americans got involved in the war due to a ‘special relationship’ (a more integrated global usury system with leading branches in New York and London) with their one time parent nation, is also mitigated by many other historical factors. But the Balfour Declaration granting Lord Rothschild the two-centuries-longed-for-Jewish-homeland in Palestine surely tipped Jewish support totally in favor of the Anglo-Americans. The Dolchstoßlegende the stab in the back “myth” along with economic warfare perfected against Germany during the Second Moroccan Crisis (the Agadir Crisis) meant that the German nation could not count on even nationally grown Jewish favor and the credit lines to the war backers suddenly dried up.


Keep killing each other Goyim, my cousin Bleichroder financed the nation – WE OWN YOU

Now hardly anyone ever mentions any of these factors or looks at them critically, but everyone knows what happened next in the Treaty of Versailles (austerity). (Likewise the 2011 financial crisis just happened Goyim, no one’s to blame, ‘too big to fail’ we just happened to give foreign people our money and jobs while importing millions of them into our countries – that’s just the “market” and the “invisible hand,” no identifiable groups are pulling strings or stabbing backs – we’re all in this together – we are the world, kumbuya).


Now ask yourself did the German nation and people have multiple reasons for “disliking” Jews? (not merely the racial Darwinian one of muh blonde hair, muh blue eyes kin – and this is just the tip of the iceberg off the top of my head and the tip of my tongue). Or was it all according to Weinstein and Peterson; “Hitler was a monster and hard times make people look for scapegoats and they’re just jealous of Jewish success?” – massive psychobabble!

Back to Germany; while at the same time that the nation is brought to financial ruin largely by Jews, Jewish communists in Russia are slaughtering the White Russians, peasants and the Christian clerics and clergy, enforcing a genocide on Ukrainians and centralizing power to turn the nation into a bleak nihilistic dystopia. Making the native Russians obedient workers to a slave run materialist doctrine with Jews as the drivers. In Berlin the Jew Rosa Luxemberg and in Munich the Jew Eisner are fermenting the same Red takeover in Germany. But Hitler was a monster. 

This is not the sort of historical nuance you learn in school and my quest to discover the “Why?” ultimately makes one angry at being taught half-truths and distortions, but they say the winners write the history books. But for Weinstein “the opportunity has all been absorbed” as in “it just happened nobody benefited or orchestrated it goys.” The Treaty of Versailles and the harsh austerity doled out to Germany meant that the Allies were able to pay back their (((Money Lenders))) of which the Anglo-French Financial Commission had been arranged through Rothschild agent JP Morgan Jr. But according to Peterson his disagreement with Weinstein over the Hitler Question are not due to any of these historical facts that give the “Why?” meaning, no his “disagreement” is that “Hitler is even more evil than we thought he was.” That’s clinical psychology for you.

Apparently Adolf just didn’t want to clean his room. JP through did have one caveat for Old Uncle and did say he did wonders for the German economy (well that’s what happens when you nationalize the bank, print your own monetary notes backed by public trust in the government, control inflation and kick out the usurious Jews who undermine the nation for tribalist profit). But never mind the tribalism, the nepotism, the usury, the media lies, the manipulation of Gentile society to fit their ‘open society’ curriculum, the quest to degenerate and replace Europeans due to the two thousand years of tribal animus, and the murder of the God of universal love… You’re all just jelly. 






Jordan Peterson: Psychologists are really just Bad Sociologists

Jordan Peterson’s “solutions” are ultimately solipsistic and incredibly specious despite the word salads he brackets them in. That being said lunatic progressives make him look eminently “reasonable” (which I think is his whole socially conservative brand). 26904090_168521640542808_1647420769384827059_n

I do not much enjoy watching people like Jordan Peterson, I frankly and flat out do not find his perspective interesting or unique or especially insightful or intelligent. But despite my personal reservations Peterson has kind of become the Tony Robins of the Alt-Lite: the boomer parent, telling his kid to clean up his room, while his social habitat is being invaded by foreigners. Or rather the boomer parent talking about how great western values like free speech are and then supporting banning someone who gave that cherished right to marginal viewpoints from attending a free speech event. There is a solipsism present within Peterson and his advice to adopt personal responsibility which does come off like the boomer parent making a mess out of Western Civilization, squandering centuries of inheritable wealth and then telling his kids to “deal with it.” Peterson, champions free speech or speech without deceit, and “adoption of responsibility for the conditions of existence and some attempt on your part to rectify them,” – but would Peterson support someone that views the Jews as responsible for the conditions of existence and makes an attempt to rectify it? – no that would be an avoidance of “personal responsibility” and what clinical psychologists would call “scapegoating.” He is not concerned about your right to “speak your truth” or any of the empty platitudes he preaches, but is acting as an establishment stooge meant to divert your interest of the world wit large into your own petty problems.

Every so often I’ll catch a clip that will make me think I might be turning a corner with Peterson, a little bit; such as this one. There are a couple of things that struck me about the interview; firstly; his apparent sincerity. Secondly; that he knows young white men (he largely avoids the word “white,” but given that a male PoC is interviewing him and the language used “the West,” etc are euphemisms we know who they are talking about) are taking a ‘hit’ so to speak.


I may be more open to the kinds of empty pragmatic thinking that Peterson preaches, more than ever before, because I have usually been able to critique from a relatively stable position; but in recent months my more or less secure but low status demeaning job and support network has crumbled, I now find myself close to homeless, broke, hopeless, filled with anger, resentment, regret, bitterness and socially isolated and estranged. I feel these strains, which were always present, more acutely than ever before and I admit to myself and to you as a matter of full disclosure. But where Jordan Peterson seems in my opinion to be ‘wrong’ or less developed is in a sociological critique of our and my own predicament. For a clinical psychologist his primary concern is with the individual and for this reason alone he seems unwilling to conceive of collectivist modes of improvement or solutions to complex problems, despite the fact that he is discussing a particular demographic or group.

safe_imageThis failure of Peterson rests on an overemphasis on personal responsibility and ideological explanations, i.e. toxic feminism and post-colonial discourses and their psychological effects on individual white men subjected to them, and less on the structural changes to our societies – i.e. the importation of mass non-white immigration, the change from assimilation to multiculturalism, the globalization of the world market and the ascendancy of Other groups, internal forces that seek to weaken Western identity and resolve for personal tribalist gain and objectives, impersonal institutional structures spreading anomie and apathy etc. These sorts of things would enrich Peterson’s psychological approach to these issues, but they would make him a real persona non grata, instead of the controlled opposition he in fact represents. In effect he is dealing largely with symptoms instead of with the actual roots of problems. The ethics of boiling things down to “personal responsibility” betrays a larger understanding of the human being as a social and political animal. This is one of the reasons why Ezra Pound considered psychology to be bunk. Pound was concerned with societies, with civilizations, with economics, with races, he was not concerned with theories put forth about Nazism stemming from Adolf Hitler’s ‘single testicle complex’. This is why Pound largely considered psychology to be Jewish in nature; because it socially isolates the individual and treats him as an island to be dissected, obscuring the wider picture to deal with the individual neurosis – such “internal states” cannot ever be conceived comprehensively without the “external” macrocosm as in the feedback loop of the hermeneutic circle.

Hermeneutic Circle

Psychologists are really just bad sociologists, who focus on the parts instead of the whole, and that also makes them ideological liberals, who despise wholeness and “totalitarianisms” in favor of radical individualism and existential self-creationisms – they are philosophical nihilists who prefer pragmatic solutions to petty problems than full solutions to major ones. The nearly complete atomization (part of what I call Total Gesellschaft); this demanding and lecturing about “personal responsibility,” allows for collective responsibility, for community, to fall by the wayside. The refrain is always “never mind about them, what have you done?” This is the sneer of the selfish individualist whose only concern is to fill his belly – to stabilize himself. As an anecdotal expression of the sorts of cultural hegemony and psychological gesellschaft involved in such thinking take for example the film Limitless, in which the protagonist takes a drug that allows him to perform at optimal superhuman capabilities – does he change the world? No. Does he help his fellow man? No. He uses his gifts to maximize his self-interest becoming a Soros-like investor like his mentor. Peterson and those who champion the notion of individualism ultimately utilize a fundamental desire of the individual to attain personal mastery, to become a hero and while the egotism and the nobility of such yearning might be irrevocably intertwined Peterson has shown by his actions and philosophy a preference for the baser expression. While this type may give idle consideration to “ideas” his principle concern is the satisfaction he gets from personal gain, wheeling and dealing in “ideas” – not “truth” only attained in the gutter of realpolitik (Christ/Socrates). Peterson solutions are only slightly better than the  “Do something” that is the call of the nihilistic ignoramus, any activity is better than no activity; they despise real spiritual struggle, repose and contemplation or any activity for which there is not a demonstrable gain attached: Bleistein with a cigar. Peterson’s personal philosophy, his advice, does not go much further than that.


A Note: Global Cosmopolitanism and it’s Discontents

One of the perennial problems within the Western mind is the embedded notion of ‘fairness.’ This notion of ‘fairness’ has been a catalyst for revolutions and wars. Applied to society the task of statesmanship becomes one of maintaining a system in which everyone agrees to operate within the boundaries set forth on equal terms. Viewed from this pragmatic positionality; even within Catholic Europe, the notion of ‘fair play’ is rendered as equality before the homogenizing edifice of faith – thus economic and class inequalities may be prevalent but at least we are all equal within Christ – rendering unto Caesar. This notion of fairness cannot be reduced or separated from the power politics of institutional control (Foucault), or the hegemonic interplay between the base and the superstructure (Marx-Gramsci), it is an essential component to keep one from going mad, without it life is merely reduced to the Nietzschean struggle of wills and groups. The homogenizing edifice then is always present as a principle of grounding meaning, which simply must exist, thus even within a liberal framework in which for example multiculturalism and other forms of disunity are championed, the homogenizing edifice presents itself in the guise of tolerance and is no less totalitarian than other earlier forms – to be intolerant is to be outside, is to be a pariah. Also the idea is expressed as equality before the impersonal mechanisms of the market, of the law and of the land. Such ideas are no more true than the notion of equality before Christ, but they do placate just as well.

Globalization propaganda

In fact such modern notions of ‘fairness’ are demonstrably less true. The net effect of viewing society in such terms is to determine who ‘wins’ and who ‘loses’ by this game theory approach. Who is put outside by the supreme values of the homogenizing edifice and who is brought within? Hence within a nation operating under the homogenizing edifice of Christian universalism, the Jews are potential losers by being potentially marginalized for their particularity. While under the contemporary edifice of liberal-democratic-laissez-faire-multiculturalism-mass-immigration-globalism, the lower classes of the old stock are potential losers by being subsumed under progressive waves of competition into an economy and country built by and for them – invasive species into a habitat. The big winners are those upstart immigrants and PoC and the global elites who own stocks in factories in China and who own real estate in cities like Vancouver and Toronto. Furthermore, those groups who are more adept at operating as collectives will have comparative advantages over the native stock which has been fostered under notions of individualism. In effect multiculturalism is a betrayal of the Enlightenment ethos, by promoting cultures instead of individuals. As the market becomes globalized, immigrants from major economically booming nations, like China and India, will have the comparative advantage of potentially easier access to those markets and prospects as bridges between cultures and markets and often immigrate with more capital than the lower working class native whites themselves. In effect, the recent phenomenon of mass rich non-white immigration is a fundamental betrayal of (mostly) working class white ethnics, who built the infrastructure. Old Stock immigrants who were brought up under the values of explicit or illicit assimilation, in contrast will find themselves at a comparative disadvantage as cosmopolitanism goes full global. People who are easily able to navigate between cultures and languages, not only non-Europeans, but even peripheral groups within Europe, mostly in the ex-communist East, will also attain this advantage; not merely due to the upward mobility so desired by members of marginal groups, as a means to status and wealth, but also in their relatively higher rates of transnational outlook. Global cosmopolitanites, will be less ideological or concretely patriotic, their home is where the bread is, the values they espouse will be the values that make them triumph they will be the most loyal and devote subjects of the homogenizing edifice.

Loyal member of the Church of Global Cosmopolitanism and a cuck

At the height of Empire, whether Roman, or English or French, the idea of a foreign office with a transnational diplomatic class, meant that the West was creating these hybrid creatures within herself, able to transcend cultural particularity, but never losing their sense of self and loyalty to their people (Kipling comes to mind). These men were to open up markets and roads between Hispania and Rome, or the Indian subcontinent and England – this meant that the nation still maintained a sense of its own in-group preference to a point. But the numbers  of foreign students coming to the West along with non-Western immigrants and labourers has created a reverse tendency in the healthy expansion of a people. Viewed as it was during the process of Empire and colonialism, one must infer from these trends of globalized cosmopolitanism that non-Western groups are in the ascendant. Turks in Germany. Algerians in France. Chinese in Canada. All this points to the West and Europe as in decline as a cultural organism and the ascendancy of Other groups. The big losers in such a complex scenario are the displaced classes of Westerners who are facing a globalized form of (reverse)colonization – their grievances are legitimate and yet they are told that they are privileged? 

maxresdefault (7).jpg
Globalist Elite and his House Nigger


Originally Published on: https://alternative-right.blogspot.com 2016

“I Sing the Disembodied Electric”


I traveled with three companions, part of a Pan-European nationalist student group to Richard Spencer’s NPI conference by car from Toronto Canada.

I had not visited our Southern Neighbor since I was a little boy and my father would take me to Buffalo to visit his uncle. On this occasion I observed marked differences between the two countries, some of which I was only conceptually aware of; namely the ubiquitous presence of the military in people’s lives, something that is so foregrounded in American society as to be institutionalized in a way Canadians cannot understand in our post-bellum, soft, socialist, multiculturalist dystopia. And, yes, Americans are significantly fatter on average. But there was also a marked religious element pervading their worldview, something altogether transcendent and not always rooted in institutions.

The last salient difference was the prevalence of an especially black underclass, who worked most of the menial jobs, even at SWPL establishments like artisan coffee shops and the like; American blacks also exhibited a pronounced ghetto character. In Toronto, the majority of these types of jobs are done by a medley of South East Asians and brown people, as well as displaced whites, blacks, and students.

We arrived at a rented townhouse, and were greeted by an affable, but simple-looking, tall, middle-aged, blue-eyed man, who was drinking beer and laughing at the end of every sentence. Those who had arrived earlier were out getting food, we were informed. I was ill at ease, and, after awkward introductions, my group decided we would go up the road for dinner as well. Everyone wanted fast-food, but I pressured the group to try an upscale Balkan tapas restaurant instead. The trip down had already meant two fast-food pit stops, and my sense of propriety forbade another one – we are civilized men are we not?

When we got back into the flophouse-turned-frat-house, it was chock full of young men drinking. A stocky guy, introducing himself as Timothy James, made the introductions, and Hugh jumped up onto the stairs to announce the arrival of the Canadians! Tim wore a khaki-coloured trench coat over a dress shirt and necktie, like spooks in old Hollywood films, and began gregariously chatting away, dropping TRS lingo every which way. I held my back against the wall and was mostly silent, studying rather than engaging, repeatedly rejecting the beer that was offered to me, that was until I decided that it might help calm my nerves.

The world being put to rights with the aid of alcohol.

As I made my way through a packed corridor to get to the fridge a big pasty man with a mawkish face dominated by feminine eyelashes stopped to question me.

“Are you Egyptian?” he asked.
“Would I be here if I was?”
“I don’t know. What are you?” he said, sizing me up.
“I’m Italian.” I got the beer. Unfortunately it was hoppy, and I hate hoppy beer.
“Where are you from?” I asked.

I walked back to the wall to put my back against it once more. My Serbian friend Brajan, who has a Byzantine-Dinaric look, asked if I wanted to take a walk. I did. When we got back, sleeping arrangements were settled, but the yahoos were up almost all night drinking and babbling making sleep nearly impossible. I flipped though the half dozen channels available on the TV and settled on a Twilight Zone episode, entitled “I Sing the Body Electric,” later discovering that it was the centennial episode written by Ray Bradbury, the acclaimed author of Fahrenheit 451. This produced some synchronistic irony.

It was not until we left on the final day that I discovered that the big pasty guy from California had insisted to Hugh and Rob that both Brajan and I were “not white” and questioned Hugh as to why he brought us. The irony here is that this is essentially a form of book burning. Despite Nordic revisionism, the Ancient cultures of Greece and Rome, which are the birthplaces of Western Civilization, were and are predominantly peopled by a Mediterranean type. Nordics claim that these civilizations fell because of racial miscegenation, and degenerated and declined thereafter. However Plato’s Republic, a book that deals specifically with the decline of civilization much closer to the actual period involved, makes no reference to race or ethnicity as a factor. Instead, the morphology of ideological types was described as the principle reason for civilizational decline or rise.

Edward Gibbon, who wrote the monumental The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, relates that Christian ideology and decadence were the prevailing factors. The ability to discern in-group vs. out-group based upon physiognomy may have desirable applications – “one face, one race” – however, it is essentially an illiterate form of discrimination that is pre-lingua in its tribal homogeneity. One of the reasons I was attracted to the New or Alt-Right was the emphasis on Western Civilization as a composite of European peoples, rather than a strictly whiter-than-thou approach.

Hegel may have been the first to discriminate against Latin Nations in his Philosophy of History:

“They are the product of Roman and German blood, and still retain the heterogeneity thence resulting.”

He called this the principle of Disharmony within the Latin soul. This Disharmony was the reason why Latin nations had retained Catholicism and not accepted the Protestant Reformation, according to Hegel. Max Weber’s thesis on the Protestant work ethic essentially meant that Protestantism aligned its ethos with a bourgeois meritocracy, as opposed to an Aristocratic order founded in Catholicism. This coalesced with the ideas of Francis Galton, who applied Darwinism to social positioning in a free market. Along with Malthus’ theorizing of population growth outstripping resources, this meant that that races could be measured based on economic positioning. With the dominant economic bases at the time being in Northern Europe, principally England, this led to inflating the egos of a rising national consciousness based upon ethnicity.

Racially this was taken up by Arthur de Gobineau, who accredited the fall of Rome to racial admixture – ironically much of that admixture came from German, Celtic, and Slavic slaves. Gobineau’s formulation meant shifting the focus of antagonism from an economic to a racial one, the Third Estate was supposedly comprised of inferior Gauls, while the Ancien Regime was supposedly of Frankish blood. Race acted as a “meta-narrative” that could describe and justify all of society’s aliments. This fueled Nazi purity doctrines and simplistic one-size-fits-all explanations for the historical big picture. Essentialism loomed large – burn the books!

Romans managing to decline on their own
without too much help from their menials.

The Twilight Zone episode was interesting, though, as it foreshadowed the advancements in cosmetics and biological engineering that could foster a breed of designer babies, all identical with blue eyes and blonde hair, even if the parents were Negroes or Asians. In the episode some children were taken to a robot factory called Facsimile Ltd, in which they could choose the eye color, hair, nose, ears, etc. of their robotic replacement grandmother. If the robotic grandmother did her duty faithfully and the children loved her, she could be rewarded with the gift of life and humanity. Perhaps if I continue writing and advocating for White Nationalism I could become a real Nord or an honorary Aryan – Pinocchio exclaims, “Look, I’m a real…” Ah fuck this!


I awoke early and showered, and met with my group to get breakfast. Hugh, the de factoleader of the group, had to go set up cameras for the conference, and Rob wanted to go to the Mormon Temple to prospect for wives. That left Brajan and I with the day to wander around Capitol Hill, named after the Capitoline Hill of Rome, and dominated as it is by neoclassical and belle epoch architecture, and the ubiquitous Red, White and Blue.

Capitol Hill is magnificent, imperial, and impressive; Congress, the Smithsonian, the sculpture garden, the obelisks, the White House. But it was the Jefferson Memorial, with its palliative beauty and its walls chiseled with his famous words, that made an indelible impression. That poised and restrained Palladian monument, its classical form resting by the boring murky waters of the Tidal Basin like some Roman apparition. Inside the statesmen’s giant statue loomed over the sanctuary, its bronzed form given greater density against the white marble. The crisp air blew through the ionic columns and soporific birdsong intensified the ancient exquisiteness of the open-to-the-elements concept.

The Jefferson Memorial’s open door policy.

Here was the truly European statesman, who fought the bankers’ upstart Hamilton over creation of the central bank. Here this Odysseus-like revolutionary of high learning, noble feeling, and many refined talents, subsumed in industriousness and elected purpose, was venerated.

Reading his words and being in that shrine, I felt a kind of peace or the presence of historical greatness. The Jeffersonian democratic ideal, with its small independent farmers, constitutional divisions as a safeguard against tyranny, combined with a willingness to experiment, meant a great deal to me when I was an undergrad. But it was this naïve dawn of American experimentation, this unparalleled optimism that once mirrored my own political and historical understanding, that cast a beatific glow over that post-Enlightenment Renaissance man in that moment. Jefferson had achieved that fine balance between the individual and the collective, the federal and the local, the private citizen and the political. But those elevated Enlightenment principles would come to undermine the very material foundations of the fragile Republic.

The grand principle of “Equality” led to civil war and multiculturalism. “Secularization” led to further fragmentation and civic abstraction. “Federalism” became tyranny, while the tone of moral superiority that tied all this together became a rationalization of empire – as Kipling wrote, of the “White Man’s Burden” in his poem about American involvement in the Philippines. Those inherent tensions between the principle of equality and the individual would create a new synthesis of the individual, wholly material and atomized as de Tocqueville noted – ruled by rational selfishness and economics.

Pressing onwards from Jefferson, we came, in the same way that America came, to the monuments to FDR and his wife Eleanor. The sentiments inscribed on the walls of their memorial became more specious, more abstracted and idealized, and further removed from the material facts of government and historical movement.

FDR was an appeaser of economic interests. Rather than abolish the Fed, which had caused the Great Depression by pursuing a policy of inflation before abruptly cutting back the money supply, Roosevelt left the banking system unchanged, and instead borrowed from those same bankers to fund his New Deal, leading enviably as it did to the Military Industrial Complex and the Cold War. Or, as Ezra Pound pointed out:

“There is no reason the Federal Reserve Board shd. be a private instrument of the executive… That effectively bitches the Jeffersonian system. Destroys balance between execut. Judic. and legislature.”

Then we moved on to MLK Jr. Walking through Washington DC, if you choose your direction “correctly,” can serve as a progressive narrative: all men being self-evidently equal leading to the abolition of ignorance and intolerance, and slavery and war, and then out of this mountain of despair a stone of hope – an ideological journey that weaves through and in-between the pillars of Empire and power.

Apparently the sculptor
gave up half-way through.

In such a journey you get a sense of two principally conflicting elements converging as the essence of Americanism: high moral grounding to advance sordid political aims.

This concoction was identified by Francis Parker Yockey as “the technic of cant” first developed by the Anglo-Jewish alliance of the British Empire. Cant, of course, is the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments, especially the insincere use of pious words. Our most “beloved” politicians – Trudeau and Obama, for example – are experts in cant, inspiring “hope” in the masses through this usage of cant.

The American narrative is strong and alluring, and everywhere in Washington the symbols of empire clash with egalitarian principles; the imperial eagle, the fasces, and neoclassical architecture combine to reconstruct a new Rome. The Lincoln Memorial was still to come, and the narrative of American equality finds its medium with Abraham the Emancipator (and war monger) resting his arms upon the fasces. “I am large, I contain multitudes, I am the man,” this monument to federalism seems to say. These liberal ideals seem prescient, but beyond that and beneath them lies something else as Yockey observed, “The world of violence, of cunning, of sin, while maintaining before itself the attitude of selfless morality.”


When we arrived at the NPI conference on the eighth-floor rotunda of the federal government’s Ronald Reagan Building, I had not eaten since early noon and was famished running solely on coffee and cigarettes, two vices that I normally control.

Almost as soon as we entered the room, a reporter with an obviously Jewish name from a major news magazine pounced upon us, asking if we would like to be interviewed. At first I said sure, but when the line of questioning became increasingly probing and personal I got uncomfortable and declined. That’s when Hugh jumped in saying, “I’ll do it.” I listened.

Emboldened by my comrade’s explanations I began to offer my own explanations. I described the power law of the Pareto efficiency as applied to global economics and the shifting of power from the West to the Rest. “A zero-sum game?” quizzed our interlocutor. “Yes,” I said, and added that Donald Trump, with his anti-immigrant and anti-China rhetoric, represents the resentment of Western people who have been sold out by their own profit-driven corporations. Even if he becomes a tyrant as the liberal media portray him, I suggested that this was a necessary historical movement, springing from the decadence of democracy. “After all, Plato said that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny.”

I conceded that Trump’s pro-military and pro-police rhetoric is scary in an era of the total security state, but that maybe America deserves a tyrant. But, I said, it’s not about race, just because the media likes to portray Trump and his supporters as racists. It’s much more about the cyclical law of decay.

Briefly I talked about how American blacks have always represented an historical fissure in American identity, which was supposed to be based on a European melting pot idea. The existence of Blacks “in the mix” pushed the principles of America’s founding fathers too fare from the concrete to the abstract – out of necessity! Jews were part of that too, I said, surmising that the journalist, as suggested by his name, employment, and demeanor was “of that persuasion.”

“One of your people Zangwill wrote the melting pot play.”
“One of my people?” he quizzed in mock coyness.
“Yeh, a Jew.”
“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” said Hugh, “How do you know he’s a Jew?”
“His name tag,” I said gesturing to his press pass.
“I am Jewish,” he said.
“See,” I said to Hugh.
“How do you feel about the Jews?” he asked me.
I put on my broadest smile and said, “Lovely people, the best.”
“I can’t tell if you’re being honest,” he said.
I laughed. “How come you don’t cover AIPAC this way?”
“We do cover AIPAC. You should read us.”
Hugh tried to break this off by steering the reporter towards Professor Kevin MacDonald.
“What do you consider yourself?” I asked.
“I’m an American,” the journalist said.
“You can’t be anything other than what you are,” I said.
“Anyways,” he said, sensing essentialism creeping in, “it was Aristotle who said that thing about democracy and tyranny.”
“Really?” said Hugh.
“Yes, it was in the Nicomachean Ethics.”
“Doesn’t matter,” I said. “Spengler said it too,” still smiling.

I was feeling slightly ungrounded and Brajan shook my hand, saying, “That was awesome.” I got food, mashed potatoes and roast beef, but I did not even taste it, as I stood chatting at a table with an old white guy with a confederate flag tie and his younger Filipino wife. All the waiting staff were Black and many of us contemplated, like Kerouac had, what was going on inside their heads.

Last minute advertising for the Conference.

Hugh asked me to work one of the recording cameras for the event, which is how I got the free ticket and ride. The proceedings began with Richard Spencer introducing the event and then Ramzpaul gave a slideshow presentation. Ramzpaul’s presentation was part comedy and part pep talk and went on a little long, with a video presentation at the end about not wasting your life, directed at the many young people in attendance.

Next was Professor MacDonald, whose talk was largely focused on Donald Trump, followed by Spencer, who delivered an oration on the same subject. Nothing particularly salient emerged from the talking points, just a general consensus that Trump’s stance on immigration was a movement in the Alt-Right’s direction and that identity matters.

That night, out at a bar, a bunch of us were drinking. At some point Hugh introduced me to a fellow Canadian, a lawyer from British Columbia. I asked him if he was Irish, but then he began wailing away about how he hated the Irish. I told him I liked the Irish. He was saying how he supported the Ulster Ascendency and how the IRA were “a bunch of sucks.”

“Yea man, how dare they want their own country,” I said mockingly, “I mean the Potato Famine was the planned genocide of one third of their population because of English landowners. What a bunch of fucking sucks.”

When we went outside to smoke, the group of guys fell silent. The Anglo lawyer eyed me suspiciously. “You can talk about me to my face. It’s OK,” I said. They stood around peevishly. Then I went into a sarcastic monologue about how Rome fell due to miscegenation and that we were inferior stock and so on. The lawyer left and Timothy James confided in me that he was quarter Sicilian and suggested I should introduce myself to the others as Alex Fontana.

They all left and I stood around, smoking my last ‘friend’ down to the filter. Some black guy who had been listening and trying to sell a scrappy newspaper came up to me.

“You Italian, man?” he asked in ghetto patois.
“I love Italians, man. Fuck those guys. They’re pussies,” he said, giving me a fist bump. “Wanna buy this paper, man?”