via Wrath of Gnon.
via Wrath of Gnon.
“In the New World Order, there will be neither national sovereignty nor national identity, and just as the population of the nation is to be replaced by Third World immigrants, so the culture of the nation is to be replaced by one suitable only for rootless and deracinated people—a people that can be deluded that what it is told to think and believe is really ‘universal’ and ‘culture-neutral’ because it has long since ceased to have any real culture of its own.” – Sam Francis
Quote via Wrath of Gnon.
I suppose that for many Americans and other Westerners, individual ‘autonomy’ or ‘freedom’ is paramount, and this, I’d say, is part of our predicament. Do we see ourselves as ‘rugged individuals’, or part of an unbroken chain, going back through the generations? Do we think of ourselves as self-created, self-determined individuals, beholden to no previous generations and no traditions?
It seems that ‘Austria’s richest man’ has spoken out, in an interview with Kleine Zeitung, against mass immigration to Europe and has denounced Political Correctness. According to Breitbart London:
“In the interview, Mateschitz took a stand against the “destabilisation of Europe”, which he said threatens the “uniqueness of [the continent’s] diversity and individuality with its different cultures and languages”.
“I hope I’m not the only one who’s worried that one of the highest officials in Brussels said that countries which aren’t multicultural should be wiped off the map”, Mateschitz told the newspaper, possibly alluding to comments made by European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans in 2015.”
How is it, I wonder, that Mateschitz is not spouting the same politically correct mantras we hear from most European public figures? What has enabled him to escape the straitjacket of political correctness?
The information I’ve read about him indicates that he is of Croatian origin, though born in Austria. (I half-expect someone to say that he is a Jew, though there is nothing to that effect in what I’ve read. Still, one never knows; name origins are often confusing. But if he were in fact of Jewish origin that would make his statements even more anomalous, given the fact that the default Jewish position seems to be for open borders and multiculturalism.)
Maybe the difference is that he is of an older generation, having been born in 1944 before ‘political correctness’ spread its poison throughout the West. Only those who remember things as they once were can truly know what has been lost.
Mateschitz alludes to remarks by the European Commission VP Timmermans, indicating that ‘any society, anywhere in the world, will be diverse in the future’, because ‘that’s the future of the world.’ The implication seems to be “or else.” There is to be no choice. That’s already been made clear, even though we’ve seldom heard it expressed so bluntly, and with such seeming finality, before. It’s more than clear that the European officials are totalitarians.
”Of political correctness, Mateschitz said: “It seems that no one dares to tell the truth, even if everyone knows what the truth is.”
“The elites want citizens to be frightened, and easily manipulated,” he added.”
Despite the fact that the occasional brave soul speaks up and says these things, it seems that most people in Europe (and too many here) are unwilling to break out of the mental prison. Are they frightened, or are they just unaware of reality? Surely there has to be an awakening to reality someday — surely?
Some of us have been saying this for years and have we come any closer to that day?
Still, every voice of truth and sanity is welcome, and the cumulative effect may one day be felt, even if it appears that the mass delusion is as strong as ever.
“There is something the matter with the morale of the more polished nations – they need a little more brutality of the old Teutonic sort. No army can win without a certain savage lust of combat, and this spirit is being undermined with the current cant about democracy, idealism, and all that sort of rot. The issues should be made clearer – the first fight is not in the interests of a coming millennium of social reform; it is for the hearth and home — for existing institutions against a perilous invasion of an unnatural culture.
Racial factors are also united against us. For all our Roman civilization, the enemy has a preponderance of superior blood. If all the Allied nations were as thoroughly Teutonic as Prussia, the end would be nearer and happier. Nothing can withstand the might of the Teuton — he is the logical successor of the Roman in power. Teutonic blood snatched Britain from the Celt and made England the greatest force in all civilization. Teutonic blood conquered the Western wilderness and gave America an instant place amongst the great nations of the globe. But this blood has become so extensively and tragically diluted, that the non-German Teutons may well look with concern to their future.
The grotesque fallacy of the “Great American Melting Pot” may yet be brought home to the people in one of the most tear-stained pages of their history. Germany herself has set a truer valuation on the importance of unmixed blood, but may yet come to grief through the absorption of Slavic elements. The course of Germany during the last half-century has been one of curiously mixed merit. Certain scientific and philosophical developments have been marvellous, yet they have been conjoined to a brutality and narrowness of vision which threaten the development of civilization. The pan-Teutonic ideal, attainable only by a complete and amicable co-operation between Anglo-Saxon and Germanic races, has been fallaciously subordinated to a petty pan-Germanic ideal which is bringing about the virtual suicide of the Teutonic race, and driving the Anglo-Saxons and Germans into equally unnatural alliances with alien races. The Saxon has his Hindoos and Moors, and the German his Turks. Progress is at a standstill, and everything human is lost in a mad scramble for a material victory. Even a recurrence of the Dark Ages is not impossible – a recurrence which will leave the Teutonic race so depleted numerically that the world’s future is seriously threatened. Wilhelm, Wilhelm! What has thou wrought?”
— H.P. Lovecraft, from a letter dated December 23, 1917
Via Wrath of Gnon.
It seems self-evident to me, but apparently not to many people, as the correlation between the decline of the West and the pervasive influence of the psychological establishment is seldom discussed. Christianity is blamed far more often, despite the fact that it has been a central part of Western culture for centuries, whereas psychology’s rise seems to coincide with the decline of our society, and also the subverting and weakening of Christianity.Coincidence?
The subject certainly deserves to be noticed and examined more widely.
[Quote from Wrath of Gnon]
Today I was reading a discussion on a blog in which the question was raised: is it more useful to our cause to be ‘forward-thinking’ and future-oriented, rather than take a reactionary tone, focusing on recovering our traditions?
The question, I thought, was loaded in favor of the ‘future-oriented’ option; the way it’s put, of course it makes more sense to try to envision a better future — and given our dystopian present situation, almost any change for the better is preferable.
However — and it will surprise no one that I’m in favor of trying to reclaim as much of tradition as possible — how can we focus on a future which exists only in imagination? And how can we even imagine, much less create from whole cloth something which has never before been, without becoming like the would-be utopian leftists, who have succeeded in creating a nightmare in their quest to make real their bizarre visions of the future?
The Jacobins, like all their leftist/progressivist ideological progeny, thought they could raze everything and build something new and perfect from the ground up. How is that working out so far? Unfortunately some on the ‘new right’ under whatever label they call themselves, are so soured on the past, and on all the works of their forebears, that they are essentially adopting the Jacobin attitude toward junking the past altogether because “it didn’t work”. Why didn’t it work? “It was imperfect.” Why was it imperfect?
The gist of their answer seems to be that the past generations were to blame; they were flawed in a unique and irremediable way, a peculiar kind of original sin, unique only to certain past generations — but absent in the present generation of young people. No; they are exempt from this particular taint; it was confined to certain time periods and generations. Once those uniquely guilty sinners are dead and gone, the present generation of young people, freed of their toxic presence, will then proceed to build their own Future, unimpeded. Many of the younger rightists share this way of thinking with the ‘mad-dog left’ of their age group.
In my early blogging days I wrote a piece asking what happened to the old optimistic America of the 1950s? Does anyone remember how the 1950s vision of the future, as seen in Sci-Fi movies and Disney cartoons, showed triumphant science and technology solving all the world’s problems: we would conquer disease and hunger; Science would show us all how to live together in peace and plenty. The problem was ignorance and want, and Science had the answers. By the 21st century we’d live in ‘Jetsons’-style cities with our own personal sky-cars to fly around in. There’d be colonies on the Moon and Mars, if not in outer space. And on and on. I think many people assumed that given the recent successes of science and technology, this was all guaranteed. Onward and upward; the human race always progresses, and progress is always good, always for the better. We are all ‘evolving’ toward a higher, more enlightened state of being, growing up as a species. So they said. And so some people still say.
But surely most of us are seeing Science (capital-S) as hardly the savior of mankind. Science is, as the character ‘Shane’ said in the 1953 movie of that name said of guns:
“…a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything..as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”
Science is flawed human understanding and reason. It’s served us well in many cases but it cannot save us. The human element alone makes it imperfect, and its discoveries susceptible to being misused or corrupted. Think of the ‘global warming/climate change’ scam, as well as the mountain of lies surrounding the issue of race/HBD.
What then, imparts an aura of ‘magic’ to any of our visions of the future as enlightened by Science? Do we really think that we can conjure up this shiny, antiseptic future world as gleaming utopia, just by thinking positively?
And what good will adopting this as a tactic or strategy for pragmatic purposes (“to appeal to the young”) do? Isn’t such a strategy cynical? Would it not be better to work from what is true — as in tried-and-true — and workable as we know from real experience?
Guido Bruno, writing in 1916, said this:
“It will not do to say that all the ways of old were the only good ways, and that those of to-day are turning us from paths that were good enough for our forefathers, to those that lead, we known not where; but on the other hand we can say, that many of the old ways have been discarded only because they were old, and not because we found something better.
What we call up-to-dateness and modernism is, in the analysis, a product born of excitement, a restless desire for change, a going from one thing to another, and although there is a measured tendency in some directions for a return to some of the ways of old, the fear of being called old-fashioned is the tyrant that speeds us on to seek new activities and novelty in entertainment.”
I’ve lately wondered if some of the obsession with ‘diversity’ and the desire to outmarry is nothing more complicated or profound than just this juvenile seeking for change-for-change’s-sake, coupled with the desire to repudiate one’s old fogy elders. Forget pathological altruism and all the rest; what if it’s just novelty-seeking?
To return to Guido Bruno’s remarks:
“All things up to date have their places, and by invention do we measure progress, but on the other hand a change is often times a going back, rather than a moving forward.”