“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Übermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarī, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

World War II - German Sniper Training Film

Academic ‘left’ opposes free speech, academic freedom

Academic ‘left’ opposes free speech, academic freedom
By Kevin MacDonald
Published: Monday, February 22, 2010

For nearly four years the Cal State Long Beach community has seen repeated attacks on me. Powerful activist organizations — the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League — have come to campus to condemn me. Several departments at the university have issued public denunciations, and I have been harassed and condemned by individual professors on faculty e-mail lists. Beginning with the current semester, several students have disrupted my classes; they have campaigned to get me fired and have written inflammatory articles in the Daily 49er.

Why all this hostility? Fundamentally, I am attacked because I advocate ideas that fly in the face of the conventional wisdom as seen by the academic left that has come to dominate the university.

First and foremost, I am an evolutionary psychologist. On the basis of my understanding of the theory and research in this field, my view is that everyone has ethnic interests — including people of European descent. A great many other identifiable groups in multicultural America have a strong sense of ethnic identity and interest. Quite a few departments on this campus are devoted to strengthening the ethnic identity of non-whites and articulating their interests. But explicit expressions of white European-American identity and interests are condemned as indicating moral turpitude or even psychiatric impairment.

This is a completely unnatural state of affairs — the result of a prolonged assault on the legitimacy of these concepts by politically and ethnically motivated elites that have dominated public discourse on issues of race and ethnicity since before World War II and especially since the 1960s.

I reject labels such as “white supremacist” or “racist” that are routinely bestowed on assertions of white identity and interests as a means of muzzling their expression. Non-Western peoples throughout the world continue to seek political power, and they attempt to control their borders, establish their own cultures and defend their perceived interests. No one would claim that Korea, say, has a moral obligation to import millions of non-Koreans or to change their culture so that the traditional people and culture are pushed aside. Many countries, including Mexico, have excluded immigrants and dealt with them harshly. Israel not only has an identity as a Jewish state, it also rigorously enforces a biological conception of Jewishness as the basis of its immigration policy. Israel has erected an apartheid society on the West Bank and has discriminatory policies against its Palestinian minority within Israel.

Nevertheless, as Joel Kotkin points out in his recent book “The Next Hundred Million”, the U.S. stands poised to add 100 million non-whites by 2050, making the current white majority into a minority and implying a dramatic decline in their political and cultural influence.

Whether explicitly or implicitly, ethnostates are the norm throughout the world. Societies in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand that have been controlled by whites for hundreds of years are the only ones to accept the idea that the ethnic majority has a moral imperative to cede power and become a minority. I view this outcome as the result of competition over the construction of culture in which the legitimate interests of Whites have been compromised. My scholarly book, “The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements” (1998), and much of my subsequent writing, are an attempt to determine how this unnatural state of affairs came about.

The big picture is that the left championed the interests of the working and middle classes of pre-1965 America. Since that time, the left has been strongly identified with massive non-white immigration and multiculturalism — policies that have compromised the interests of the working and middle classes of traditional America, black and white alike.

My main concern is that this upheaval opposes the legitimate interests of the European-descended peoples of the U.S. It’s not about hatred. It’s about seeing legitimate conflicts of interest among different ethnic groups. I was a staunch leftist as a young person. But it’s obvious that the left now stands for policies that are radically opposed to the interests of people like me.

As part of this revolution against pre-1965 America, the left has erected a culture of political correctness in which expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans are proscribed. Organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL seek to stifle free speech by condemning any hint of ethnocentrism by Europeans — and only Europeans.

Because their point of view is intellectually bankrupt and cannot be rationally defended, the left has repeatedly resorted to force to accomplish its goals. Many European countries and Canada have savage legal penalties that enforce intellectual conformity on these issues. In America the sanctions are more informal — but nevertheless similarly effective. The condemnations of my writing and my affiliations by academic departments, professors and students at Cal State Long Beach are a part of this campaign to shut down free speech on these issues and to make my life as difficult as possible.

America and other Western societies stand to lose much as a result of these transformations. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has shown that increasing ethnic diversity lowers the willingness to contribute to charity or to public goods such as, apropos the current national debate, public health care. Ethnic diversity also increases social isolation and lowers trust both within and between races; it also lowers political participation and lessens confidence in political leaders.

Throughout the world, ethnically diverse societies are marked by ethnic conflict. The bottom line is that no one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. None seems on the horizon. My vision of the future of Western societies is that they are well on the road to becoming cauldrons of competing ethnic groups, with chronic divisions over issues like affirmative action, redistribution of wealth and the establishment of public goods like health care — any issue that may be seen as benefiting one ethnic group more than another. In the long run, democratic forms of government and the rule of law are threatened.

An early sign of this dystopian future is that American politics have become increasingly racialized. The Republican Party routinely receives roughly 90 percent of its votes from whites, while overwhelming majorities of non-whites identify with the Democratic Party. There is a palpable rage building in America among the tea partiers and working and middle-class white Americans who want something like the America they grew up in. These people are being pushed out economically and politically. They are less able to avoid the costs of multiculturalism: They can’t move to gated communities or send their children to all-white private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.

Despite what some of my critics have claimed, I have never advocated violence as a solution to the rapidly diminishing prospects of non-elite white Americans. But we are clearly headed into very dangerous times.

FROM: http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/academic-left-opposes-free-speech-academic-freedom-1.2164761

Kevin MacDonald is a psychology professor at CSULB and a member of the American Third Option party.

Fascism: We have the Best Skulls...

Narasimha, half lion and half man.

Narasimha, one of my favorite figures in Vedic iconography and, as pictured at left, one of my favorite pieces of Hare Krishna artwork.

Srimad Bhagavatam, Chapter 8: Lord Nrisimhadeva Slays the King of the Demons.

Summary:

As described in this chapter, Hiranyakasipu was ready to kill his own son Prahlada Maharaja, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared in front of the demon as Sri Nrikesari, half lion and half man, and killed him.

Following the instructions of Prahlada Maharaja, all the sons of the demons became attached to Lord Vishnu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When this attachment became pronounced, their teachers, Shanda and Amarka, were very much afraid that the boys would become more and more devoted to the Lord. In a helpless condition, they approached Hiranyakasipu and described in detail the effect of Prahlada's preaching. After hearing of this, Hiranyakasipu decided to kill his son Prahlada. Hiranyakasipu was so angry that Prahlada Maharaja fell down at his feet and said many things just to pacify him, but he was unsuccessful in satisfying his demoniac father. Hiranyakasipu, as a typical demon, began to advertise himself as being greater than the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but Prahlada Maharaja challenged him, saying that Hiranyakasipu was not God, and began to glorify the Supreme Personality of Godhead, declaring that the Lord is all-pervading, that everything is under Him, and that no one is equal to or greater than Him. Thus he requested his father to be submissive to the omnipotent Supreme Lord.

The more Prahlada Maharaja glorified the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the more angry and agitated the demon became. Hiranyakasipu asked his Vaishnava son whether his God existed within the columns of the palace, and Prahlada Maharaja immediately accepted that since the Lord is present everywhere, He was also present within the columns. When Hiranyakasipu heard this philosophy from his young son, he derided the boy's statement as just the talk of a child and forcefully struck the pillar with his fist.

As soon as Hiranyakasipu struck the column, there issued forth a tumultuous sound. At first Hiranyakasipu, the King of the demons, could not see anything but the pillar, but to substantiate Prahlada's statements, the Lord came out of the pillar in His wonderful incarnation as Narasimha, half lion and half man. Hiranyakasipu could immediately understand that the extraordinarily wonderful form of the Lord was surely meant for his death, and thus he prepared to fight with the form of half lion and half man. The Lord performed His pastimes by fighting with the demon for some time, and in the evening, on the border between day and night, the Lord captured the demon, threw him on His lap, and killed him by piercing his abdomen with His nails. The Lord not only killed Hiranyakasipu, the King of the demons, but also killed many of his followers. When there was no one else to fight, the Lord, roaring with anger, sat down on Hiranyakasipu's throne.

The entire universe was thus relieved of the rule of Hiranyakasipu, and everyone was jubilant in transcendental bliss. Then all the demigods, headed by Lord Brahma, approached the Lord. These included the great saintly persons, the Pitas, the Siddhas, the Vidyadharas, the Nagas, the Manus, the prajapatis, the Gandharvas, the Caranas, the Yakshas, the Kimpurushas, the Vaitalikas, the Kinnaras and also many other varieties of beings in human form. All of them stood not far from the Supreme Personality of Godhead and began offering their prayers unto the Lord, whose spiritual effulgence was brilliant as He sat on the throne.

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/7/8/summary/en1

Saturday, February 27, 2010

NATION'S PRIDE / STOLZ DER NATION

The film within the film was better than the film (Inglorious Basterds):

Friday, February 26, 2010

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Redneck Rousseau: A review of Jim Goad's Shit Magnet by J.P. Nash

This review pretty much sums up my opinions about Jim Goad. Not with the program. Not my program anyway.
JDS

From: http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/books15.htm

Redneck Rousseau
A review of Shit Magnet: One Man's Miraculous Ability to Absorb the World's Guilt by Jim Goad
Los Angeles: Feral House, 2002 $16.95
by J.P. Nash

Jim Goad is a brilliant stylist, satirist, and social commentator. His first book, The Redneck Manifesto (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997) not only contains more insights about society and politics than a dozen dry academic tomes, it is compulsively readable and downright hilarious. Goad seems to know the score on race and the Jews, but refuses to identify himself as a White racist. Ultimately, I think that he is too self-centered, too irresponsible, and too alienated from any community, much less a racial one. And for all his transgressive posturing, he is just too conventional to cross that line. This is a major disappointment, because it would be great to have a satirist of Goad's talent on our side. But The Redneck Manifesto still has much to offer to White nationalists.

Goad's new book Shit Magnet is disappointing. The style, as usual, is brilliant, and the satire is cutting. But Goad is in a rut, and that rut is named Jim Goad. The book is all about Jim Goad, Jim Goad, Jim Goad. We learn about Jim's abusive parents, the abusive nuns at Catholic school, his teenage cocksucking, his nose job, his hair implants, his every fist-fight and black eye, the birth of his infamous 'zine ANSWER Me! and the associated controversies. He shares all the details of his twelve hellish years with Debbie, a neurotic Jewish bitch with an IQ of 86, now mercifully dead of cancer, and his one hellish year with Ann, the psychotic White trash who sent him to prison, including every scratch he received and every black eye he inflicted in his fights with both women. His tiresome rants addressed to both women (Debbie is dead, Jim) indicate, amazingly, that he still has not gotten over the bitches. Goad shares every little detail of his arrest, his plea-bargain, and his two-and-a-half years in prison. We learn that prisoners always suffer more than their victims. That apparently applies to the various serial killers he met behind bars. We also get to share every little tear Jim cried along the way. And for all his skills at satire, he's deadly serious.

Why does Jim insist on sharing all this with us? Has he no shame? Is he not embarrassed to share episodes like the following with perfect strangers?

Some skinny black kid with glasses paid me five bucks for the privilege of letting him suck my cock on the concrete stairwell to a fluorescent-lit Norristown subterranean parking lot, and he had his eyes closed all worshipfully slobbering all over it and said I could fuck him if I wanted to but I said no, and the way he fawned over my bone was the same way Ardea that fat clothing-industry fag hag knelt down and prayed to it and said it tastes great when she swallowed and she'd be cute if she lost a hundred pounds, and I've never had a steady girlfriend or anyone tell me they love me and thinking about all this makes me want to put a bullet in my head. Or someone else's." (p. 46) (Goad also writes about fucking she-coon prostitutes in his puerile, pornographic online 'zine Exotic.)
Jim may well have some shame, but he has another motive that always overwhelms it: the desire to justify himself. To whom? Why, to any and all of us. To the vast, anonymous herd of strangers he pretends to despise. To the morons he insists he is so superior to. We have to like him, you see, or he cannot like himself.

Goad's strategies of self-justification change as the book plods on. At first, he takes a standard Jean-Jacques Rousseau/Karl Marx/Oprah Winfrey line: All men are naturally good. Every baby is naturally innocent. There is a little rosebud of sweetness in every heart. What makes us bad? Why, other people make us bad. Society makes us bad. This is why we have to hear about Jim's abuse at the hands of his parents, teachers, and peers. The only reason he grew up violent with others is that others were violent with him first. The only reason he made such rotten romantic choices is that other people didn't give him the right kind of love.

Near the end of the book, however, he changes his tune. However innocent he once was, he is thoroughly fucked-up now. It is not his fault of course. But fucked up as he is, he is better than the rest of us. Why? Because we are all fucked up too. We are all guilty. We all deserve to go to prison. But we are in denial about it, and Jim is honest about it, so Jim is better than us. He has no illusions, and we do. That is why Jim was sent to prison: not for his crimes, but for ours. He is no more deserving of prison than the rest of us. We sent him to prison to silence his brutal honesty and avoid facing the fact that we are just as bad as he is (and, presumably, the child rapists and serial killers he was incarcerated with).

Well, Jim, it does not wash. I do not believe in original sin, but I do not believe in Rousseau's "natural goodness of man" either. I do believe that character is destiny, and that more of our characters than we like to admit is shaped by purely genetic factors. And Jim, from your own description of your family, you really are White trash. That means that you are from the shallow, stupid, violent, alcoholic, emotionally unstable end of the White gene pool. You were not just from a bad seed, you were from a bad egg and a bad sperm. Through some genetic kink, you are smart White trash, but White trash nonetheless. And in my book that pretty much explains everything about you. Like attracts like, Jim. That's why you're a Shit Magnet.

And as for this "we're all guilty but I have the guts to admit it" crap: I know a lot of people, and not one of them is as fucked up as you are. For all my faults, I'm better than you, and for all their faults, so are all my friends. You went to prison for repeatedly punching the psychotic bitch you insisted on returning to again and again. You went because of your deeds, not your words. For your brutality, not your honesty. For your guilt, not mine.

If I had to describe my political philosophy, I would say: "Libertarianism now, fascism later." We need to preserve our civil liberties now in order to take them away from the morons later, when we create a healthy White society: an organic state with no parties, no elections, no demagoguery, and no politicians -- a society where the best rule for the good of all -- a society that takes eugenic measures to drain the Goad end of the gene pool forever -- a society where the degrading filth of Judeo-Afro-Homo-Chomo-Pomo popular culture is rolled up by a giant dung beetle and plopped into the bottomless pit of oblivion. (Thanks for that last image Mr. Tsun.) And when that day comes, I am afraid that ANSWER Me!, with its special issues on suicide and serial killers and rape, and Exotic will be kindling for the fire.

Thus I feel conflicted when I read Goad's chapters on the controversies surrounding ANSWER Me!: the obscenity trial in Washington state because some dizzy broad somehow imagined that "Let's Hear It for Violence Against Women" might promote violence against women, the unwelcome publicity he received when White House shooter Martin Duran was "linked" to ANSWER Me! like Tim McVeigh to The Turner Diaries by a quote scrawled on a sheet of paper, and the further unwanted publicity when three depressed and impressionable English neo-Nazis killed themselves under the influence of the suicide issue of ANSWER Me! On the one hand, I want to maintain civil liberties. But on the other hand, I applaud the healthy instincts of my fellow citizens and think that maybe we should speed up the clock and let the cleansing begin.

It is amusing to see the hard, transgressive, Devil-may-care Jim Goad ducking and weaving to maintain his innocence amid all the 'zine scandals. After all, gulp, some stranger might think ill of him. It is amusing to see the brutally frank Jim Goad hide behind the pretense that he bears no responsibility when he markets magazines glorifying rape, serial murder, and suicide to mentally unstable, marginalized people, and then those same mentally unstable, marginalized people leave a trail of broken, violated, dead bodies in their wake. Perhaps the most repulsive episode in Shit Magnet is when Jim tells us of the tears he cried over Jane Greenhow, the gifted but depressed English neo-Nazi who put a bullet in her brain after mailing all of her money to Jim with a note saying that he only writes about suicide, but she is going him one better by actually killing herself. In my book, Schopenhauer ranks as a greater psychologist than Freud for proving that every tear we cry is a tear of self-pity. So I'm sorry Jim, but your tears do not absolve you of your guilt, they convict you. You obviously nudged her over the edge. Perhaps if you had recommended pumping depressed brains with Prozac instead of lead, Jane Greenhow would be alive and loving Hitler and playing her cello today.

Shit Magnet is the most repulsive exercise in self-pity and self-justification by a narcissistic, borderline personality since Rousseau's Confessions, and from a literary standpoint it is almost as brilliant. Much as I loathe Christianity, books like Shit Magnet demonstrate that it is still far better than its secular replacements. There is something infinitely more manly and psychologically realistic about Augustine's Confessions. The man believes in original sin. He believes he is guilty and rotten by nature. He believes that he deserves hell, not heaven. He believes that forgiveness is a gift of God, not an entitlement. This is a lot of metaphysical cant, but it is far more conducive to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility and genuine repentance for one's crimes than Rousseau's (or Goad's) aggrieved sense of innocence and pouting sense of entitlement to the good opinion, not of someone exalted like God, but of the perfect strangers who read his books.

Most artists are narcissistic. And, as Alex Linder pointed out to me, there seems to be a law that when an artist receives attention for his work, he begins to fixate on himself as well. The narcissism takes over, and he ceases to develop as an artist. This is exactly what happened to Goad. Shit Magnet was written in prison. Since his parole, even his best essays have been marred by a juvenile smuttiness that seems positively Jewish. Work on your scat jokes Jim and you could be writing for Hollywitz as well as Hustler.

For all its flaws, Shit Magnet does have something noble about it. It is a secular search for the redemption of a failed life. But you don't cleanse yourself by crawling inside your own colon then turning it inside out for all the world to see. You cleanse yourself by dedicating your life to something bigger and better than yourself in the hope that some of that bigness and goodness will rub off. Until then Jim, you'll not be just a Shit Magnet. You'll be a shit factory.

J.P. NASH

Mussolini sei immortale!

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Rare Charles Manson Interview with Charlie Rose













On the Secret of Degeneration by Baron Julius Evola (from Deutsches Volkstum, Nr. 11, 1938)

On the Secret of Degeneration
By Baron Julius Evola (from Deutsches Volkstum, Nr. 11, 1938)

Anyone who has come to reject the rationalist myth of "progress" and the interpretation of history as an unbroken positive development of mankind will find himself gradually drawn towards the world-view that was common to all the great traditional cultures, and which had at its centre the memory of a process of degeneration, slow obscuration, or collapse of a higher preceding world. As we penetrate deeper into this new (and old) interpretation, we encounter various problems, foremost among which is the question of the secret of degeneration.

In its literal sense, this question is by no means a novel one. While contemplating the magnificent remains of cultures whose very name has not even come down to us, but which seem to have conveyed, even in their physical material, a greatness and power that is more than earthly, scarcely anyone has failed to ask themselves questions about the death of cultures, and sensed the inadequacy of the reasons that are usually given to explain it.

We can thank the Comte de Gobineau for the best and best-known summary of this problem, and also for a masterly criticism of the main hypotheses about it. His solution on the basis of racial thought and racial purity also has a lot of truth in it, but it needs to be expanded by a few observations concerning a higher order of things. For there have been many cases in which a culture has collapsed even when its race has remained pure, as is especially clear in certain groups that have suffered slow, inexorable extinction despite remaining as racially isolated as if they were islands. An example quite close at hand is the case of the Swedes and the Dutch. These people are in the same racial condition today as they were two centuries ago, but there is little to be found now of the heroic disposition and the racial awareness that they once possessed. Other great cultures seem merely to have remained standing in the condition of mummies: they have long been inwardly dead, so that it takes only the slightest push to knock them down. This was the case, for example, with ancient Peru, that giant solar empire which was annihilated by a few adventurers drawn from the worst rabble of Europe.

If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to "history." On the other hand there is "modern culture," which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the "higher world."

From the standpoint of the latter, the whole of history is degeneration, because it shows the universal decline of earlier cultures of the traditional type, and the decisive and violent rise of a new universal civilization of the "modern" type.

A double question arises from this.

First, how was it ever possible for this to come to pass? There is a logical error underlying the whole doctrine of evolution: it is impossible that the higher can emerge from the lower, and the greater from the less. But doesn't a similar difficulty face us in the solution of the doctrine of involution? How is it ever possible for the higher to fall? If we could make do with simple analogies, it would be easy to deal with this question. A healthy man can become sick; a virtuous one can turn to vice. There is a natural law that everyone takes from granted: that every living being starts with birth, growth, and strength, then come old age, weakening, and disintegration. And so forth. But this is just making statements, not explaining, even if we allow that such analogies actually relate to the question posed here.

Secondly, it is not only a matter of explaining the possibility of the degeneration of a particular cultural world, but also the possibility that the degeneration of one cultural cycle may pass to other peoples and take them down with it. For example, we have not only to explain how the ancient Western reality collapsed, but also have to show the reason why it was possible for "modern" culture to conquer practically the whole world, and why it possessed the power to divert so many peoples from any other type of culture, and to hold sway even where states of a traditional kind seemed to be alive (one need only recall the Aryan East).

In this respect, it is not enough to say that we are dealing with a purely material and economic conquest. That view seems very superficial, for two reasons. In the first place, a land that is conquered on the material level also experiences, in the long run, influences of a higher kind corresponding to the cultural type of its conqueror. We can state, in fact, that European conquest almost everywhere sows the seeds of "Europeanization," i.e., the "modern" rationalist, tradition-hostile, individualistic way of thinking. Secondly, the traditional conception of culture and the state is hierarchical, not dualistic. Its bearers could never subscribe, without severe reservations, to the principles of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and "My kingdom is not of this world." For us, "Tradition" is the victorious and creative presence in the world of that which is "not of this world," i.e., of the Spirit, understood as a power that is mightier than any merely human or material one.

This is a basic idea of the authentically traditional view of life, which does not permit us to speak with contempt of merely material conquests. On the contrary, the material conquest is the sign, if not of a spiritual victory, at least of a spiritual weakness or a kind of spiritual "retreat" in the cultures that are conquered and lose their independence. Everywhere that the Spirit, regarded as the stronger power, was truly present, it never lacked for means - visible or otherwise - to enable all the opponent's technical and material superiority to be resisted. But this has not happened. It must be concluded, then, that degeneracy was lurking behind the traditional facade of every people that the "modern" world has been able to conquer. The West must then have been the culture in which a crisis that was already universal assumed its acutest form. There the degeneration amounted, so to speak, to a knockout blow, and as it took effect, it brought down with more or less ease other peoples in whom the involution had certainly not "progressed" as far, but whose tradition had already lost its original power, so that these peoples were no longer able to protect themselves from an outside assault.

With these considerations, the second aspect of our problem is traced back to the first one. It is mainly a question of explicating the meaning and the possibility of degeneracy, without reference to other circumstances.

For this we must be clear about one thing: it is an error to assume that the hierarchy of the traditional world is based on a tyranny of the upper classes. That is merely a "modern" conception, completely alien to the traditional way of thinking. The traditional doctrine in fact conceived of spiritual action as an "action without acting"; it spoke of the "unmoved mover"; everywhere it used the symbolism of the "pole," the unalterable axis around which every ordered movement takes place (and elsewhere we have shown that this is the meaning of the swastika, the "arctic cross"); it always stressed the "Olympian," spirituality, and genuine authority, as well as its way of acting directly on its subordinates, not through violence but through "presence"; finally, it used the simile of the magnet, wherein lies the key to our question, as we shall now see.

Only today could anyone imagine that the authentic bearers of the Spirit, or of Tradition, pursue people so as to seize them and put them in their places - in short, that they "manage" people, or have any personal interest in setting up and maintaining those hierarchical relationships by virtue of which they can appear visibly as the rulers. This would be ridiculous and senseless. It is much more the recognition on the part of the lower ones that is the true basis of any traditional ranking. It is not the higher that needs the lower, but the other way round. The essence of hierarchy is that there is something living as a reality in certain people, which in the rest is only present in the condition of an ideal, a premonition, an unfocused effort. Thus the latter are fatefully attracted to the former, and their lower condition is one of subordination less to something foreign, than to their own true "self." Herein lies the secret, in the traditional world, of all readiness for sacrifice, all heroism, all loyalty; and, on the other side, of a prestige, an authority, and a calm power which the most heavily-armed tyrant can never count upon.

With these considerations, we have come very close to solving not only the problem of degeneration, but also the possibility of a particular fall. Are we perhaps not tired of hearing that the success of every revolution indicates the weakness and degeneracy of the previous rulers? An understanding of this kind is very one-sided. This would indeed be the case if wild dogs were tied up, and suddenly broke loose: that would be proof that the hands holding their leashes had become impotent or weak. But things are arranged very differently in the framework of spiritual ranking, whose real basis we have explained above. This hierarchy degenerates and is able to be overthrown in one case only: when the individual degenerates, when he uses his fundamental freedom to deny the Spirit, to cut his life loose from any higher reference-point, and to exist "only for himself." Then the contacts are fatefully broken, the metaphysical tension, to which the traditional organism owes its unity, gives way, every force wavers in its path and finally breaks free. The peaks, of course, remain pure and inviolable in their heights, but the rest, which depended on them, now becomes an avalanche, a mass that has lost its equilibrium and falls, at first imperceptibly but with ever accelerating movement down to the depths and lowest levels of the valley. This is the secret of every degeneration and revolution. The European had first slain the hierarchy in himself by extirpating his own inner possibilities, to which corresponded the basis of the order that he would then destroy externally.

If Christian mythology attributes the Fall of Man and the Rebellion of the Angels to the freedom of the will, then it comes to much the same significance. It concerns the frightening potential that dwells in man of using freedom to destroy spiritually and to banish everything that could ensure him a supra-natural value. This is a metaphysical decision: the stream that traverses history in the most varied forms of the traditional-hating, revolutionary, individualistic, and humanistic spirit, or in short, the "modern" spirit. This decision is the only positive and decisive cause in the secret of degeneration, the destruction of Tradition.

If we understand this, we can perhaps also grasp the sense of those legends that speak of mysterious rulers who "always" exist and have never died (shades of the Emperor sleeping beneath the Kyffhäuser mountain!). Such rulers can be rediscovered only when one achieves spiritual completeness and awakens a quality in oneself like that of a metal that suddenly feels "the magnet", finds the magnet and irresistibly orients itself and moves towards it. For now, we must restrict ourselves to this hint. A comprehensive explanation of legends of that sort, which come to us from the most ancient Aryan source, would take us too far. At another opportunity we will perhaps return to the secret of reconstruction, to the "magic" that is capable of restoring the fallen mass to the unalterable, lonely, and invisible peaks that are still there in the heights.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1404/degeneration.html

Julius Evola on American “Civilisation” (1945)

American “Civilisation”
Julius Evola

The recently deceased John Dewey was applauded by the American press as the most representative figure of American civilisation. This is quite right. His theories are entirely representative of the vision of man and life which is the premise of Americanism and its ‘democracy’.

The essence of such theories is this: that everyone can become what he wants to, within the limits of the technological means at his disposal. Equally, a person is not what he is from his true nature and there is no real difference between people, only differences in qualifications. According to this theory anyone can be anyone he wants to be if he knows how to train himself.

This is obviously the case with the ‘self-made man’; in a society which has lost all sense of tradition the notion of personal aggrandisement will extend into every aspect of human existence, reinforcing the egalitarian doctrine of pure democracy. If the basis of such ideas is accepted, then all natural diversity has to be abandoned. Each person can presume to possess the potential of everyone else and the terms ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ lose their meaning; every notion of distance and respect loses meaning; all life-styles are open to all. To all organic conceptions of life Americans oppose a mechanistic conception. In a society which has ‘started from scratch’, everything has the characteristic of being fabricated. In American society appearances are masks not faces. At the same time, proponents of the American way of life are hostile to personality.

The Americans’ ‘open-mindedness’, which is sometimes cited in their favour, is the other side of their interior formlessness. The same goes for their ‘individualism’. Individualism and personality are not the same: the one belongs to the formless world of quantity, the other to the world of quality and hierarchy. The Americans are the living refutation of the Cartesian axiom, “I think, therefore I am”: Americans do not think, yet they are. The American ‘mind’, puerile and primitive, lacks characteristic form and is therefore open to every kind of standardisation.

In a superior civilisation, as, for example, that of the Indo-Aryans, the being who is without a characteristic form or caste (in the original meaning of the word), not even that of servant or shudra, would emerge as a pariah. In this respect America is a society of pariahs. There is a role for pariahs. It is to be subjected to beings whose form and internal laws are precisely defined. Instead the modern pariahs seek to become dominant themselves and to exercise their dominion over all the world.

There is a popular notion about the United States that it is a ‘young nation’ with a ‘great future before it’. Apparent American defects are then described as the ‘faults of youth’ or ‘growing pains’. It is not difficult to see that the myth of ‘progress’ plays a large part in this judgement. According to the idea that everything new is good, America has a privileged role to play among civilised nations. In the First World War the United States intervened in the role of ‘the civilised world’ par excellence. The ‘most evolved’ nation had not only a right but a duty to interfere in the destinies of other peoples.

The structure of history is, however, cyclical not evolutionary. It is far from being the case that the most recent civilisations are necessarily ‘superior’. They may be, in fact, senile and decadent. There is a necessary correspondence between the most advanced stages of a historical cycle and the most primitive. America is the final stage of modern Europe. Guenon called the United States ‘the far West’, in the novel sense that the United States represents the reductio ad absurdum of the negative and the most senile aspects of Western civilisation. What in Europe exist in diluted form are magnified and concentrated in the United States whereby they are revealed as the symptoms of disintegration and cultural and human regression. The American mentality can only be interpreted as an example of regression, which shows itself in the mental atrophy towards all higher interests and incomprehension of higher sensibility. The American mind has limited horizons, one conscribed to e! veryth ing which is immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal, basic and levelled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. Life itself in American terms is entirely mechanistic. The sense of ‘I’ in America belongs entirely to the physical level of existence. The typical American neither has spiritual dilemmas nor complications: he is a ‘natural’ joiner and conformist.

The primitive American mind can only superficially be compared to a young mind. The American mind is a feature of the regressive society to which I have already referred.

American Morality

The much-vaunted sex appeal of American women is drawn from films, reviews and pin-ups, and is in large print fictitious. A recent medical survey in the United States showed that 75 per cent of young American women are without strong sexual feeling and instead of satisfying their libido they seek pleasure narcissistically in exhibitionism, vanity and the cult of fitness and health in a sterile sense. American girls have ‘no hang-ups about sex’; they are ‘easy going’ for the man who sees the whole sexual process as something in isolation thereby making it uninteresting and matter-of-fact, which, at such a level, it is meant to be. Thus, after she has been taken to the cinema or a dance, it is something like American good manners for the girl to let herself be kissed - this doesn’t mean anything. American women are characteristically frigid and materialistic. The man who ‘has his way’ with an American girl is under a material obligation to her. The woman has granted a material favour. In cases of divorce American law overwhelmingly favours the woman. American women will divorce readily enough when they see a better bargain. It is frequently the case in America that a woman will be married to one man but already ‘engaged’ to a future husband, the man she plans to marry after a profitable divorce.

“Our” American Media

Americanisation in Europe is widespread and evident. In Italy it is a phenomenon which is rapidly developing in these post-war years and is considered by most people, if not enthusiastically, at least as something natural. Some time ago I wrote that of the two great dangers confronting Europe - Americanism and Communism - the first is the more insidious. Communism cannot be a danger other than in the brutal and catastrophic form of a direct seizure of power by communists. On the other hand Americanisation gains ground by a process of gradual infiltration, effecting modifications of mentalities and customs which seem inoffensive in themselves but which end in a fundamental perversion and degradation against which it is impossible to fight other than within oneself.

It is precisely with respect to such internal opposition that most Italians seem weak. Forgetting their own cultural inheritance they readily turn to the United States as something akin to the parent guide of the world. Whoever wants to be modern has to measure himself according to the American standard. It is pitiable to witness a European country so debase itself. Veneration for America has nothing to do with a cultured interest in the way other people live. On the contrary, servility towards the United States leads one to think that there is no other way of life worth considering on the same level as the American one.

Our radio service is Americanised. Without any criterion of superior and inferior it just follows the fashionable themes of the moment and markets what is considered ‘acceptable’ - acceptable, that is, to the most Americanised section of the public, which is to say the most degenerate. The rest of us are dragged along in its wake. Even the style of presentation on radio has become Americanised. “Who, after listening to an American radio programme, can suppress a shudder when he considers that the only way of escaping communism is by becoming Americanised?” Those are not the words of an outsider but of an American sociologist, James Burnham, professor at the University of Princeton. Such a judgement from an American should make Italian radio programmers blush for shame.

The consequence of the ‘do your own thing’ democracy is the intoxication of the greater part of the population which is not capable of discriminating for itself, which, when not guided by a power and an ideal, all too easily loses sense of its own identity.

The Industrial Order in America

In his classic study of capitalism Werner Sombart summarised the late capitalist phase in the adage Fiat producto, pareat homo. In its extreme form capitalism is a system in which a man’s value is estimated solely in terms of the production of merchandise and the invention of the means of production. Socialist doctrines grew out of a reaction to the lack of human consideration in this system.

A new phase has begun in the United States where there has been an upsurge of interest in so-called labor relations. In appearance it would seem to signify an improvement: in reality this is a deleterious phenomenon. The entrepreneurs and employers have come to realise the importance of the ‘human factor’ in a productive economy, and that it is a mistake to ignore the individual involved in industry: his motives, his feelings, his working day life. Thus, a whole school of study of human relations in industry has grown up, based on behaviourism. Studies like Human Relations in Industry by B. Gardner and G. Moore have supplied a minute analysis of the behaviour of employees and their motivations with the precise aim of defining the best means to obviate all factors that can hinder the maximisation of production. Some studies certainly don’t come from the shop floor but from the management, abetted by specialists from various colleges. The sociological investigations go as far! as analysing the employee’s social ambience. This kind of study has a practical purpose: the maintenance of the psychological contentment of the employee is as important as the physical. In cases in which a worker is tied to a monotonous job which doesn’t demand a great deal of concentration, the studies will draw attention to the ‘danger’ that his mind may tend to wander in a way that may eventually reflect badly on his attitude towards the job.

The private lives of employees are not forgotten - hence the increase in so-called personnel counselling. Specialists are called in to dispel anxiety, psychological disturbances and non-adaptation ‘complexes’, even to the point of giving advice in relation to the most personal matters. A frankly psycho-analytic technique and one much used is to make the subject ‘talk freely’ and put the results obtainable by this ‘catharsis’ into relief.

None of this is concerned with the spiritual betterment of human beings or any real human problems, such as a European would understand them in this “age of economics”. On the other side of the Iron Curtain man is treated as a beast of burden and his obedience is maintained by terror and famine. In the United States man is also seen as just a factor of labour and consumption, and no aspect of his interior life is neglected and every factor of his existence is drawn to the same end. In the ‘Land of the Free’, through every medium, man is told he has reached a degree of happiness hitherto undreamed of. He forgets who he is, where he came from, and basks in the present.

American “Democracy” in Industry

There is a significant and growing discrepancy in the United States between the shibboleths of the prevailing political ideology and the effective economic structures of the nation. A large part of studies of the subject is played by the ‘morphology of business’. Studies corroborate the impression that American business is a long way from the type of organisation which corresponds to the democratic ideal of U.S. propaganda. American businesses have a ‘pyramid’ structure. They constitute at the top an articulate hierarchy. The big businesses are run in the same way as government ministries and are organised along similar lines. They have co-ordinating and controlling bodies which separate the business leaders from the mass of employees. Rather than becoming more flexible in a social sense the “managerial elite” (Burnham) is becoming more autocratic than ever - something not unrelated to American foreign policy.

This is the end of yet another American illusion. America: the ‘land of opportunity’, where every possibility is there for the person who can grasp it, a land where anyone can rise from rags to riches. At first there was the ‘open frontier’ for all to ride out across. That closed and the new ‘open frontier’ was the sky, the limitless potential of industry and commerce. As Gardner, Moore and many others have shown, this too is no longer limitless, and the opportunities are thinning out. Given the ever increasing specialisation of labour in the productive process and the increasing emphasis on ‘qualifications’, what used to seem obvious to Americans - that their children would ‘go further’ than they would - is for many people no longer obvious at all. Thus it is that in the so-called political democracy of the United States, the force and the power in the land, that is to say the industry and the economy, are becoming ever more self-evidently undemocratic. The problem then is! : should reality be made to fit ideology or vice-versa? Until recently the overwhelming demand has been for the former course of action; the cry goes out for a return to the ‘real America’ of unfettered enterprise and the individual free of central government control. Nevertheless, there are also those who would prefer to limit democracy in order to adapt political theory to commercial reality. If the mask of American ‘democracy’ were thereby removed, it would become clear to what extent ‘democracy’ in America (and elsewhere) is only the instrument of an oligarchy which pursues a method of ‘indirect action’, assuring the possibility of abuse and deception on a large scale of those many who accept a hierarchical system because they think it is justly such. This dilemma of ‘democracy’ in the United States may one day give place to some interesting developments.

From: http://www.juliusevola.com/julius_evola/writings.html

Monday, February 22, 2010

Custom Taxidermy Goat Gaida/Gajda

I definitely want one of these!!!



Risto Todoroski playing gaida (goatskin bagpipe) that he made himself.

Risto's style of playing is from Ohrid, Macedonia - but he now lives in Sydney.

The gaida is fitted with an extra high brchalo (drone) to immitate the sound of 2 gaidas playing.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaida

Death to the World

I'll be posting more blog entries on unusual religious and esoteric websites, groups and publications in circulation. DEATH TO THE WORLD is definitely one of the more interesting Orthodox religious publications out there: http://www.deathtotheworld.com/

IN THE WILDERNESS of Northern California, Monks John and Damascene searched in hopes of finding a way to reach out to the Punk scene, which John had escaped. Seeing that the scene was full of kids that were sick of themselves and crippled by nihilism and despair, the Monks set out to give them the same hope that they found in Ancient Christianity. To do this, they decided to submit an article about Father Seraphim Rose in the popular magazine, Maximum Rock and Roll. When Father Damascene read over the magazine, he knew that they would never publish something like it. Struggling to show truth to the darkened subcultures, they tried again, but this time only placing an ad for Saint Hermans Brotherhood. They got a response from the editor, saying “What the @#*% is a Brotherhood?" and the Monks were told “We only run ads for music and 'zines*.” A light bulb went on and thus, Death to the World was born. The first issue was printed in the December of ’94 featuring a Monk holding a skull on cover. The hand-drawn bold letters across the top read “DEATH TO THE WORLD, The Last True Rebellion” and the back cover held the caption: “they hated me without a cause.” “These kids are sick of themselves," says Fr. Damascene, "and they feel out of place in this world. We try to open up to them the beauty of God's creation, and invite them to put to death ‘the passions,’ which is what we mean by ‘the world.’ God takes despair and turns it around to something positive. Selfish passions can then be redirected into love for God, as Mary Magdalene did. We talk about the idea of suffering because that is what the kids feel most strongly. We show that there can be meaning in suffering.” The first issue, decorated with ancient icons and lives of martyrs inside, was advertised in Maximum Rock and Roll and brought letters from all around the world. People from Japan, Lithuania, and Ireland wanted to get their hands on this new radical magazine. The mailing list grew and grew and the ‘zine was distributed at punks shows and underground hangouts. It was photocopied and passed around by hundreds who wanted to read about the radical lives of the lovers of truth and the mystery of monasticism. It was estimated that at one time, there were 50,000 in circulation. Father Paisius, who is a Monk at the monastery, said, "This subculture is raucous and deeply disturbed because of their own pain. They see life as worthless. We want to show them an ideal that is worth their life. These are marginalized youth who are wounded, and Death to the World is meant to touch with a healing hand that wound." Writing and putting together issues 1-12, the Monks lived in the forests of Northern California in the midst of deer, bears, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes, translating and publishing wisdom from the holy fathers and mothers of ages past. The Monks and friends of the monastery also went to rock concerts and festivals, distributing Death to the World 'zines and t-shirts, together with icons and other books that the monastery published. The Monks did not put out any issues after issue 12, but they continued to share and hand out back orders of Death to the World. Then, eight years later, in the gloomy cities of Southern California a group of kids, coming out of the remnants of a dying Protestant Punk scene were looking for some answers. Desiring something otherworldly, and seeing the efforts of Protestant bands crash in flames before them, they looked away from the churches they grew up in and were curious about the ascetic ways of their ancient Christian Fathers. In hope of finding answers, they looked to the Monks of Saint Herman Brotherhood. The monastery's Abbot, Father Gerasim, sent them copies of each issue of the 'zine that had inspired so many over the years, together with seven of the last copies of the book Youth of the Apocalypse. Reading through the pages of these ‘zines one by one, they found what they were looking for, a radical Christianity, one very different from what they grew up in. “Something had always kept me looking for the 'hardcore', no compromising Christianity, because I knew down inside that, if Jesus Christ is God, then Christianity had to be the most radical belief in the world.” All of a sudden a small Parish in the midst of Orange County was populated with punk-rockers adorned with tattoos and piercings. The Parish of Saint Barnabas quickly became known as a “repentant rock ‘n’ roll hospital.” John Valadez, a new writer, looking back explained, “We kept seeing more people come. People that we never thought would show up stood in line with us to receive Holy Baptism. We were greatly inspired by Death to the World. It was what we were missing, something far from the emptiness of the world, and it spoke to us on our level, in a way we could understand.” Making numerous pilgrimages to the wilderness of Northern California to live with the Monks for days at a time, the group would take back boxes of old ‘zines to pass out at punk shows and to give out to friends. On one of these pilgrimages Father Damascene, one of the original writers, said, “Maybe Saint Barnabas should start it up again.” On the drive back into Southern California, passing the billboards and skyscrapers, the need for a new Death to the World became more graphic in our minds. The punk scene, if anything, has gotten worse and the search for truth in these woeful times seems almost impossible. The group, in hopes of bringing back the truth to the youth of the apocalypse, compiled issue 13 and sent it back into the forest of Platina to be edited. With the blessing of Father Damascene and Abbot Gerasim, the new generation of Death to the World was born, and the first issue after 9 years was printed and sent out to people across the United States and Europe. To this day, we continue to write a ‘zine to inspire Truth-seeking and soul-searching amidst the modern age of nihilism and despair, promoting the ancient principles of the last true rebellion -- being dead to this world and alive to the other world.


 

"On the Chewing Dead" – DE MASTICATIONE MORTUORUM

De Masticatione Mortuorum, translated from Latin as “On the Chewing Dead,” is an aged manuscript written in 1679 by Philip Rohr. The 330-year-old text discusses a common fear of the time: that some human corpses were capable of rising from the dead and feasting on the flesh of the living.


The creatures described in Rohr’s book consume the bodies of live humans, not only the blood, differing slightly from the modern conception of the vampire. Nevertheless, De Masticatione Mortuorum has played a vital role in the evolution of the vast vampire mythology canon.

Below, a manuscript excerpt is translated from its original Latin to English.

De Masticatione Mortuorum

[Last line of second page:] Our Common People attempt to avert the danger of chewing by placing under the chins of the dead a portion of recently excavated earth, lest they perhaps open their mouths and chew on the attached bands...

De Masticatione Mortuorum
[Continued – full first page:] Others, who do not consider this a sufficiently safe measure, before the mouth of the dead is closed, also place a stone and a coin in the mouth, so that in the event that it begins to chew within the grave, it would find the stone and coin and would abstain from chewing. Which fact was witnessed in its time in a multitude of places in Saxonia by Gabriel Rollenhagen: Book IV Mirab. Peregrinat chapter 20, n. 5 in Kornmann. Among the first to bring to light the latter custom of the people is the Excell. Garm. (de Mirac. Mort. manuscript page 28.). Saying How well these follow Ethnic customs, for the Greeks (δανακήν) used to put a coin in the mouth of the dead, thereby paying Charon on behalf of those who were to cross the Stygian swamp. At this point you might say that these are prophylactic remedies of the common people, by which they think to prevent the evil before it falls upon them. For if they truly chew by the action itself of the dead, someone among us might try to drive a pin into them, but it would be a most unfortunate attempt. For they want the exhumed chewing cadavers to be punished by severing the heads, and for them to be transfixed through the middle of the body with stakes driven into the earth. Such was the fate that befell the above cadavers in the year 1345 and 1603, and lastly in the place mentioned. For such a remedy is indeed least approved by the intelligent, for it is morally, physically and politically evil. Morally inasmuch as one sins against God, who forbids [us] to act prejudicially against the dead; for it is indeed a kind of harm wrought to the dead, when they are exhumed, [avoiding which] the pestilential fluid might be prevented from spreading; one sins against the neighbor, whose reputation begins to decline when, having been dug up out of the grave, he is decapitated and transfixed with a stake. One falls into error, for none can benefit by this exhumation of the cadaver; inasmuch as (which are physical disadvantages) the nearby places may be filled with noxious vapors, and there takes place an increase of pestilence fomented by the Devil itself, who without doubt intends to achieve this end by means of the mastication. For which reason also the Theologians consulted by other experts regarding this evil gave their answers, lest anyone should presume to violate graves, and wanted them preserved intact and the cadavers to be unmolested. See Dunt. Cas.

Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/4816/Overview#tab-chewing-dead-manuscript#ixzz0gG5HU7Uy

Friday, February 12, 2010

The Angel of Death and the seven dwarfs

Tired of those pesky Holocaust Revisionists poking around all the bizarre contradictions and phantasmagorical exaggerations in your "stories"? .... just redefine "memory" and pull the rug right out from under them!

The Angel of Death and the seven dwarfs
Israeli authors launch Danish version of English book ‘In our hearts we were giants’ documenting the incredible survival of a family of dwarfs in Auschwitz

The horrors and stories of survival of the Holocaust reverberated around the world last week on the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

But one story that has gradually begun seeping into the public psyche is that of the Ovitz family a family of dwarf entertainers who were one of the few complete families to make it out of the concentration camps alive.

Authors Yehuda Koren and Eilat Negev were in Copenhagen last week for the launch of the Danish edition of their incredible book 'I hjertet var vi kæmper' (In Our Hearts We Were Giants) documenting the story of the Ovitz family.

And Koren is the first to agree that the story sounds fantastical in itself. When the book was first published in German and then in English a few years ago, there were many sceptics who thought it had to be a work of fiction.

An entire family leaves Auswitz alive? And they manage to help save some of their friends in the process? Oh and they happened to be seven dwarfs?
But the truth of the Ovitz family was tracked down through years of research by the two Israeli authors, with much of their original source material coming from interviews conducted with the last surviving dwarf sibling, Perla, shortly before her death in 2001.

The Jewish family was originally from Romania and with seven of the 12 family members less than 1 metre tall, they turned their fortunes to entertainment and travelled under the name of the ‘Lilliput Troupe’.

The Ovitz family were eventually captured in 1944 in Hungary and sent to Auschwitz. There they managed to convince guards that a number of family friends and neighbours were also members of the Ovitz family and were allowed to stay together.

But while they were spared the horrors of the gas chambers and given better accommodation and food than other inmates it a came at a price – Dr. Josef Mengele.

The Angel of Death was fascinated with the family and provided them with better conditions in order to keep them alive for his own experiments. At times they were even forced to entertain SS troops at the camp, but surviving family members had no recollection of the event, probably just own of many disasssocation techniques developed by them in order to survive.

It was this stumbling block that encouraged Koren and Negev to take a critical view of the case of their incarceration. Not as Koren says, because they didn’t believe the story, but because the premise was so fantastical to begin with that the authors wanted irrefutable proof to document the true account.

‘How can you criticise their memories? So we looked for testimonies of other witnesses who had been in the camp with them, we examined hundreds of Nazi documents, we spoke to people who knew them before and after their time at Auschwitz.’

Koren says that during their research that they uncovered contradicting evidence to the stories of the victims.

‘So we tried to explain and show why survivors told their version that way. It shows the incredible power and weakness of memory’.

It is this approach of multiple source research that the authors believe will become a more common technique when approaching holocaust testimonies in the future as ‘you can give more credit in the war against the Holocaust deniers, because there’s no other way than the truth’.

http://www.cphpost.dk/culture/culture/48168--the-angel-of-death-and-the-seven-dwarfs.html

Monday, February 8, 2010

Share this with your "Tea Partier" friends.

I have zero faith in mainstream politics in the USA, and zero faith in the likelihood of so-called "Conservatives" to get their act together any way relevant to me, but since they are still (barely) better than the mainstream left, and since discussion of the nature and future of true American Conservatism seems to be on the table with all the brouhaha about the Tea Party movement, this article outlines issues that should be in the mix, especially after the flagrant Zionist-driven nature of the Bush administration and its repercussions to the Right: http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm

September 18, 2003

Thinking About Neoconservatism
By Kevin MacDonald

Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so?

The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.

Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that

“the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

“[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

If the US is an “ideological” nation, this can only mean that the motivations of neoconservative ideology are a legitimate subject of intellectual inquiry.

For example, it is certainly true that the neocons’ foreign policy fits well with a plausible version of Jewish interests, but is arguably only tenuously related to the interests of the U.S. Also, neocons oppose the isolationism of important sections of traditional American conservatism. And neocon attitudes on issues like race and immigration differ profoundly from those of traditional mainstream conservatives — but resemble closely the common attitudes of the wider American Jewish community.

Count me among those who accept that the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community. In my opinion, this conclusion is based on solid data and reasonable inferences. But like any other theory, of course, it is subject to reasoned discussion and disproof.

We shouldn’t be surprised by the importance of ethnicity in human affairs. Nor should we be intimidated by charges of anti-Semitism. We should be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly. This is a practical matter, not a moral one.

Ethnic politics in the U.S. are certainly not limited to Jewish activism. They are an absolutely normal phenomenon throughout history and around the world.

But for well over half a century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence has been off-limits for rational discussion. Now, however, as the U.S. acquires an empire in the Middle East, this ban must inevitably fall away.

My views on these issues are shaped by my research on several other influential Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements, including the Boasian school of anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, Marxism and several other movements of the radical left, as well as the movement to change the ethnic balance of the United States by allowing mass, non-traditional immigration.

My conclusion: Contemporary neoconservatism fits into the general pattern of Jewish intellectual and political activism I have identified in my work.

I am not, of course, saying that all Jews, or even most Jews, supported these movements. Nor did these movements work in concert: some were intensely hostile to one another. I am saying, however, that the key figures in these movements identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests.

In all of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied, there is a strong Jewish identity among the core figures. All center on charismatic Jewish leaders—people such as Boas, Trotsky and Freud— who are revered as messianic, god-like figures.

Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee). In the case of neoconservatives, their early identity as radical leftist disciples shifted as there began to be evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. Key figures in leading them out of the political left were philosopher Sidney Hook and Elliot Cohen, editor of Commentary. Such men as Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer and Seymour Martin Lipset, were deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other Jewish issues. Many of them worked closely with Jewish activist organizations. After the 1950s, they became increasingly disenchanted with leftism. Their overriding concern was the welfare of Israel.

By the 1970s, the neocons were taking an aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, which they saw as a bastion of anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel. Richard Perle was the prime organizer of Congressional support for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment which angered the Soviet Union by linking bilateral trade issues to freedom of emigration, primarily of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel and the United States.

Current key leaders include an astonishing number of individuals well placed to influence the Bush Administration: (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Abram Shulsky), interlocking media and thinktankdom (Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes), and the academic world (Richard Pipes, Donald Kagan).

As the neoconservatives lost faith in radical leftism, several key neocons became attracted to the writings of Leo Strauss, a classicist and political philosopher at the University of Chicago. Strauss had a very strong Jewish identity and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. As he put it in a 1962 Hillel House lecture, later republished in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker:

“I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish ‘Question’.”

Strauss has become a cult figure—the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples.

While Strauss and his followers have come to be known as neoconservatives — and have even claimed to be simply “conservatives”— there is nothing conservative about their goals. This is most obviously the case in foreign policy, where they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel. But it is also the case with domestic policy, where acceptance of rule by an aristocratic elite would require a complete political transformation. Strauss believed that this aristocracy would be compatible with Jewish interests.

Strauss notoriously described the need for an external exoteric language directed at outsiders, and an internal esoteric language directed at ingroup members. In other words, the masses had to be deceived.

But actually this is a general feature of the movements I have studied. They invariably frame issues in language that appeals to non-Jews, rather than explicitly in terms of Jewish interests. The most common rhetoric used by Jewish intellectual and political movements has been the language of moral universalism and the language of science—languages that appeal to the educated elites of the modern Western world. But beneath the rhetoric it is easy to find statements expressing the Jewish agendas of the principal actors.

For example, anthropologists under the leadership of Boas viewed their crusade against the concept of “race” as, in turn, combating anti-Semitism. They also saw their theories as promoting the ideology of cultural pluralism, which served perceived Jewish interests because the U.S. would be seen as consisting of many co-equal cultures rather than as a European Christian society.

Similarly, psychoanalysts commonly used their theories to portray anti-Jewish attitudes as symptoms of psychiatric disorder.

Conversely, the earlier generation of American Jewish Trotskyites ignored the horrors of the Soviet Union until the emergence there of state-sponsored anti-Semitism.

Neoconservatives have certainly appealed to American patriotic platitudes in advocating war throughout the Middle East—gushing about spreading American democracy and freedom to the area, while leaving unmentioned their own strong ethnic ties and family links to Israel.

Michael Lind has called attention to the neoconservatives’ “odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for ‘democracy’”— odd because these calls for democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East are also coupled with support for the Likud Party and other like-minded groups in Israel that are driven by a vision of an ethnocentric, expansionist Israel that, to outside observers at least, bears an unmistakable (albeit unmentionable) resemblance to apartheid South Africa.

These inconsistencies of the neoconservatives are not odd or surprising. The Straussian idea is to achieve the aims of the elite ingroup by using language designed for mass appeal. War for “democracy and freedom” sells much better than a war explicitly aimed at achieving the foreign policy goals of Israel.

Neoconservatives have responded to charges that their foreign policy has a Jewish agenda by labeling any such analysis as “anti-Semitic.” Similar charges have been echoed by powerful activist Jewish organizations like the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

But at the very least, Jewish neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, who were deeply involved in pushing for the war in Iraq, should frankly discuss how their close family and personal ties to Israel have affected their attitudes on US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Wolfowitz, however, has refused to discuss this issue beyond terming such suggestions “disgraceful.”

A common argument is that neoconservatism is not Jewish because of the presence of various non-Jews amongst their ranks.

But in fact, the ability to recruit prominent non-Jews, while nevertheless maintaining a Jewish core and a commitment to Jewish interests, has been a hallmark—perhaps the key hallmark—of influential Jewish intellectual and political movements throughout the 20th century. Freud commented famously on the need for a non-Jew to represent psychoanalysis, a role played by Ernest Jones and C. G. Jung. Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were the public face of Boasian anthropology. And, although Jews represented over half the membership of both the Socialist Party and the Communist Party USA at various times, neither party ever had Jews as presidential candidates and no Jew held the top position in the Communist Party USA after 1929.

In all the Jewish intellectual and political movements I reviewed, non-Jews have been accepted and given highly-visible roles. Today, those roles are played most prominently by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld whose ties with neoconservatives go back many years. It makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespeople for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince.

In fact, neoconservatism is rather unusual in the degree to which policy formulation — as opposed to implementation — is so predominantly Jewish. Perhaps this reflects U.S. conditions in the late 20th century.

All the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied were typified by a deep sense of orthodoxy—a sense of “us versus them.” Dissenters are expelled, usually amid character assassination and other recriminations.

This has certainly been a feature of the neocon movement. The classic recent example of this “We vs. They” world is David Frum’s attack on “unpatriotic conservatives” as anti-Semites. Any conservative who opposes the Iraq war as contrary to U.S. interests and who notes the pro-Israeli motivation of many of the important players, is not to be argued with, but eradicated. “We turn our backs on them.” This is not the spirit out of which the Anglo-American parliamentary tradition was developed, and in fact was not endorsed by other non-Jewish pro-war conservatives.

Jewish intellectual and political movements have typically had ready access to prestigious mainstream media channels, and this is certainly true for the neocons. The anchoring by the Washington Post of the columns of Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan and by the New York Times of William Safire's illustrates this. But probably more important recently has been the invariable summoning of neoconservatives to represent the “conservative” line on the TV Networks. Is it unreasonable to suppose that this may be somewhat influenced by the famously heavy Jewish role in these operations?

Immigration policy provides a valuable acid test for the proposition that neoconservatism is actually a vehicle for perceived Jewish ethnic interests. I believe I have been able to demonstrate that pro-immigration elements in American public life have, for over a century, been largely led, funded, energized and organized by the Jewish community [PDF file]. American Jews have taken this line, with a few isolated exceptions, because they have believed, as Leonard S. Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, has bluntly stated, “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.” Having run out of Russian Jews, the HIAS is now deeply involved in recruiting refugees from Africa.

When, in the middle 1990s an immigration reform movement arose amongst American conservatives, the reaction of the neoconservatives ranged from cold to hostile. No positive voice was permitted on the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal, by then a neoconservative domain. (Perhaps significantly, a more recent exception has been a relatively favorable review of the anti-illegal immigration book Mexifornia— whose author, the military historian Victor Davis Hanson, has distinguished himself by the extreme hawkishness of his views on the Middle East.) The main vehicle of immigration reform sentiment, National Review, once a bastion of traditional conservative thought, was quite quickly captured by neoconservatives and its opposition to immigration reduced to nominal.

Prior to the post-9/11 U.S. invasion of the Middle East, this suppression of the immigration reform impulse among conservatives was probably the single most important contribution of the neoconservatives to the course of U.S. history.

It may yet prove to be the most disastrous.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Korla Pandit (September 16, 1921 – October 2, 1998)

Most will recognize Korla Pandit from his brief but impressive cameo appearance in Tim Burton's ED WOOD:



I've been having fun learning to play some of his material. Also fun to discover we share the same birthday (different year of course).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korla_Pandit

Korla Pandit (September 16, 1921 – October 2, 1998), born John Roland Redd in St. Louis, Missouri, was a musician, composer, pianist, organist and television pioneer. He was known as the Godfather of Exotica.

His first work for radio was in 1938 with the Central Broadcasting Company in Des Moines, Iowa. Arriving in Los Angeles, California by 1939, John Roland Redd donned a turban and performed under the name Juan Rolando. His sister, Frances Redd, was an actress in the film Midnight Shadow (1939), and his turban resembled the one worn by John Criner's character, Prince Alihabad, in Midnight Shadow.[1]

During the mid-1940s, as Juan Rolando, he played the organ on the Los Angeles radio station KMPC, and he performed in various supper clubs and lounges.[1] He also was heard on Jubilee, the program of black jazz and swing bands transcribed by the Special Services of the War Department for airing to WWII servicemen overseas.

In 1944, he married Disney artist Beryl June DeBeeson, and the two reinvented his image, eventually replacing "Juan Rolando" with "Korla Pandit" and fabricating a romantic history for him as a baby born in New Delhi, India to a Brahmin priest and a French opera singer, who traveled from India via England, finally arriving in the United States.

In 1948 he created eerie background music for the revival of radio's occult adventure series, Chandu the Magician, achieving atmospheric effects on the Nova Chord Organ and the Hammond C-3 Electronic Organ.[2] In 1949, he was heard on Hollywood Holiday, broadcast from a Los Angeles restaurant.

In 1948, while performing in Hollywood at a furrier's fashion show in Tom Breneman's Restaurant, Korla and Beryl met television pioneer Klaus Landsberg who offered Korla his own 15-minute daily television show with the stipulation that he would also provide musical accompaniment for Time for Beany, Bob Clampett's popular puppet show which featured Stan Freberg and Daws Butler as puppeteers and voices. Korla and Beryl's son, Shari Pandit, was born August 5, 1948.

Korla Pandit's Adventures In Music was first telecast on Los Angeles station KTLA in February 1949, and viewers soon became familiar with the musical opening, "The Magnetic Theme." Landsberg insisted that Korla not speak but instead simply gaze dreamily into the camera as he played the Hammond organ and Steinway grand piano, often simultaneously. Following Klaus's directorial and contractual stipulations, Pandit became an overnight star and one of early television's pioneering musical artists.[1]

In 1951, Pandit left KTLA in a deal with Louis D. Snader of Snader Telescriptions, resulting in short films which gave Pandit a national TV audience. However, problems with contract negotiations prompted Snader to replace Pandit with Liberace by 1953, which launched the pianist to fame. Pandit then did a show on KGO in San Francisco.

In the 1970s, when his television popularity waned, Pandit supplemented his income with increased personal appearances at supper clubs, supermarket openings, car agencies, music and department stores, pizza restaurants, lectures, music seminars, private lessons and the theater organ circuit. He made a cameo appearance in Tim Burton's biographical film, Ed Wood (1994), playing himself.[3]

Pandit's audio works number over two dozen albums on 78 and 45rpm records, LP vinyl albums and CD labels. The back of his LP Hypnotique (Fantasy 8075) lists eight other Fantasy Records LPs by Pandit, and he eventually recorded 13 albums for Fantasy. His Christmas album, Merry Xmas (CD reissue 2007, Deja Vu), has been highlighted by Nick DiFonzo in The WORST Album Covers in the World... EVER! (New Holland Publishers, 2004).The album cover may be viewed at All Music.[4]

Pandit died in Petaluma, California of a myocardial infarction. Two years following his death, it was revealed in an article by Los Angeles magazine editor RJ Smith that Pandit was actually an African-American who had been born in the United States.[5]







References
1. ^ a b c Korla Pandit biography: David Marshall-Rutledge deClue
2. ^ Dunning, John. On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio. Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-19-507678-8
3. ^ IMDb: Korla Pandit
4. ^ Allmusic: Merry Xmas: Korla Pandit
5. ^ Smith, RJ. "The Many Faces of Korla Pandit," Los Angeles, June 2001.

http://www.vintageradioplace.com/broadcast/arcsametime0801.html
http://www.korlapandit.com/
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:4t9sa9rgy23f~T0
http://dejavu-record-co.com/