eriacta ingredients

Politics Archive


Why Independence:
An Open Address to the Undecided

A re-orienting perspective for undecided voters on why they must support Scottish independence.

Today we Scots may well alter the course of our national destiny. In less than three hours, the polling will close and only the votes of those already in line at the time of closing will have their votes counted thereafter. There will be no more second chances. It can only be hoped that we make the most of it.

In the interests of early disclosure, I will say now and in no uncertain terms that I support Scottish independence — all the way to the hilt. The aim of this article is to address intelligent Scots who are undecided and have yet to vote, but who also remain willing to vote. It is of primary relevance to them and only secondarily offers something for anyone who has already voted or for interested non-Scots. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t for one minute think this article will be a make-or-break influence on the polls; I presume no such influence, so you may expect no such megalomania on my part. However, if you are open to the possibility, you can take this chance to think about the risks and stakes involved in this referendum from a different perspective, which may decide something more important than your vote alone: your engagement with your country, from this day onward, whatever happens.

For this writer, Scottish independence is the only chance to renovate Scotland’s political fortunes. Risky, yes, but necessary also; the alternative may be more certain, but it’s also more certainly stagnant, pernicious and wrong for Scotland. When our choice is recognised as being between continuing to flounder in the United Kingdom or the chance of making it on our own, it puts things into perspective. Constitutional repatriation is the one clear solution for a viable national existence — the only possibility of actually achieving something and raising ourselves out of the malaise perpetuated by the Westminster regime. It’s proper and right for us at this point in our history, even if it includes the possibility of failure; the alternative precludes the possibility of success.

Now, when I write ‘a viable national existence’, I’m not speaking (like most commentators seem to do) in a primarily economic sense. I’m talking about the prospects we have for continuing to exist. Any human community which doesn’t even try because it’s too scared of failing, has already failed.

In this case, the community of which I speak — Scotland — is composed of smaller, subsidiary communities in layers, all the way down to the local level on which it is all built, the smaller being the ones in which we live out our everyday existence. These are the ones we feel most immediately, because they are, of course, immediate. They matter to us, we who live in them, and must matter in a viable nation. As a corollary, the larger communities — from counties to the nation itself — are those through which we secure that everyday existence of the community and perpetuate our way of life. We Scots — whether Gallovidians or Aberdonians, Orcadians or Hebrideans, Borderers or Invernessians — matter not a click of the fingers to the career shill in Westminster or the compassionless manager of human traffic in Whitehall; that far South, we matter only to the electoral nose-counter and then only as noses to be counted — presumably, that is, noses to be counted generally in favour of the Labour Party, to whom we are a vast reserve of anti-Tory electoral fodder. In an independent Scotland, the farmer in the South of Scotland and the crofter up North can matter.

Within the bland multicultural nightmare of the United Kingdom, our local communities are regarded with attitudes spanning a narrow spectrum from abstract indifference to cosmopolitan contempt. In Scotland, they are by necessity regarded with keen interest. Each and every community is vital for Scotland to flourish in the aftermath of independence. By contrast, the Southeast and the Home Counties are the only support needed for the continuation of the Westminster regime, as true for them today as it was all the way back in the time of the Tudors and has remained so for the entire duration between then and now.

Politicians listen to their interests, not ours, unless it is in their interest to take heed. I say this as someone who, on a personal level, is deeply doubtful about the viability and merits of democracy itself, but in this particular case, I think that it’s worth employing whatever means get the job done. In this case it’s a vote, so vote. Supposing you want more accountability, then take your courage in your hand and make them accountable. A ‘Yes’ vote today is the way to achieve that, if it’s what you want.

A newly independent Scotland will be more sensitive to our needs and more willing to move heaven and earth in everything from the national budget, to healthcare and energy policies. Scottish politicians, with a smaller electorate where each vote is ten times as valuable, find themselves closer to our communities and are more compelled to act in the interests of those communities, with no-one but themselves to blame for any blunders which result.

In the aftermath of independence, their success will depend on being more pragmatic than ideological; more practical than airy-fairy. We will have a chance to see the flourishing of that canniness for which we Scots are so well-known, alongside the sense of responsibility proper to statecraft. Independence will bring out the best in us, our institutions and our nation as a whole.

What it all comes down to, though, is confidence our own worth and ability. Are we willing to assert ourselves in the world and maintain our relevance? Or are we willing to drift into complete irrelevance and apathy, within the suffocating framework of broken Britain? We can’t escape the wreckage until we break it all the way. That’s exactly what a ‘Yes’ vote will do.


[Marquis de Grey’s Selections] Socialism: A Means to an End? [PART I]

Socialism is often a dirty word for many proud conservatives, myself included in the not-so-distant past, conjuring images of revolution and the destruction of various old regimes, or of simply […]

Socialism is often a dirty word for many proud conservatives, myself included in the not-so-distant past, conjuring images of revolution and the destruction of various old regimes, or of simply rewarding the lazy. Often, we tend to prop up Socialism as a sort of bogeyman, along with the frequently misused and abused phrase, “Cultural Marxism”. To further complicate issues, within even the truest conservative circles, one can scarcely discuss economics without the over-bearing presence of both capitalism and socialism dominating the conversation, aside from the peculiar presence of those ever eccentric distributists.

I will be very quick to state that I, like the editors here, believe in a hereditary, Aristocratic elite. Spiritually speaking, socialism is very much opposed to this, even if these states often “collapse” into a sort of dynastic rule.  However, there can be no doubt that socialism is most often the ‘loser’ in these discussions, as most conservatives would wish to continue living with the devil they ‘know’ than the devil they do not.

One of the tenets of modern conservatism is to let individuals control every aspect of their own lives, to let a man rule in “in his own domain”, so to speak. Very quickly, however, one must realise this is an almost liberal sentiment, suggesting all men should be free to dictate their own lives, especially in regards to his economic station. Regardless of the liberal roots, this is the reason most conservatives would lean to the “capitalist” side of this discussion; the very fact it is ‘ideal’ to them is because we have grown up for successive generations believing in this very ideal, liberal and conservative alike. This makes the concept seem conservative to many of us, which has led us down a dangerous road indeed, particularly as so few wish to explore the possibilities a more ‘socialist’ mindset could bring.

In fact, if one must take a stance on either of these two economic systems, socialism inevitably shares much more with the old regimes than capitalism ever can, due to the very fact that it indeed does create a culture of servility. For my example below, I will be using basic tenets of actual socialism and the similarities shared in an Aristocratic society.

  1. The state provides housing for the citizen.
  2. The state ensures or provides work for the citizen.
  3. The state expects loyalty, military service, production and taxes from the citizen as a result, thus creating a sort of indentured servant.

These three points are simplifying what the socialist state seeks to provide the citizen, but let’s look at what feudalism would typically provide its subjects.

  1. The lord provides land for the subject
  2. The lord provides work in the way of farming or other tasks for the subject, which the subject uses to sustain himself and his family
  3. The lord in return expects service (militarily when needed) and taxes for compensation, as well as a share of the subjects crops.

In effect, ‘the State’, i.e. the lord, provides these with the assumption that in return he will receive payment, though the pecuniary portion of the payment is arguably the least important, depending on the individual lord/state. The difference between these two, however, is in the principle and what it seeks to achieve and I need not explain that part. Another difference, which most will overlook, is that the lord is primarily a man more at home with a sword in his hand than politicking; the bourgeois statesman, conversely, is more inclined towards politicking than personally defending his realm.

When one examines how the capitalist views the function of a government, one would arrive at a vastly different conclusion. The state exists to ‘protect’, although it’s debatable if this is to protect the citizens of the nation, or the economic interests of the plutocrats running said nation. There are many times when the two things are considered one in the same, that all matters of humanity, especially the governing of individuals, can be reduced to mere economics.

At this point, I’d like to return to a previous term that I italicized above so you’d hopefully remember it (it can never be said that I don’t enjoy playing mind games), that phrase being ‘servility’. As stated above, the modern conservative movement does indeed tend to promote this idea that we’re all capable of ‘pulling up the bootstraps’ and ‘making something of ourselves — without handouts’. A fine sentiment when applied to the right group of people, to be sure! The issue is that these people want it to apply to everyone, very much a notion that we all have a right to be a landowner , that we have a right to be without a master, that we have a right to be a lord. That, my friends, is liberalism; it shares absolutely nothing in common with true conservatism, for it rejects hierarchy based on heredity, but instead proclaims that with ‘hard work’, we may all be a lord, of course defined by our monetary wealth rather than blood!

Socialism may seek equality among all as a stated end-goal, but capitalism itself does this as well and, unlike socialism, creates absolutely none of the material conditions required to promote servility.  Do we believe in an egalitarian society? Absolutely not, but hopefully at some point conservatives may wake up and realise that capitalism can never and will never lead them to the traditional society they seek, at least when the idea of ‘Independence for all!’ is applied to even the lowest common denominator.

A master may do as he wish and a subject may not. Make no mistake, socialism is not the answer, but “socialistic” (dare I say traditional!) elements of society may very well hold the key towards re-establishing a culture of servility. When the common man relies upon the superior man to provide him his land, housing, healthcare, protection and livelihood itself, the common man becomes intimately indebted to the superior man — and this is, of course, a salutary state of affairs.

If from this we are to accept the obligation of providing for our subjects, so as to create a society that is much alike a well-oiled machine, are we to do so as an organized body (a state), or is this an individual responsibility of each lord? In my next article, I will answer this question and explain the distinctions clearly. Until then, good sirs, I wish you well.

Charles, Marquis de Grey



Mitt Romney: Say ‘No’ in 2012

The presidential race is on and the upcoming election date is grinding ever closer, with November only a couple of weeks away. President Obama looks to be re-elected after a somewhat […]

The presidential race is on and the upcoming election date is grinding ever closer, with November only a couple of weeks away. President Obama looks to be re-elected after a somewhat disappointing first term and Mitt Romney wants to capitalize on Obama’s downturn and seeks to take the White House for himself. As usual the smearing, slandering and negative publicity tactics have been under way for months — which is no surprise in American politics — and as the campaign of blame continues, the populace of this once great nation is watching and waiting to see which scandal will rise from the mire of political battle and be fed into the media grinder next. Mitt Romney has been under heavy scrutiny from the aimless Democrats and his own uptight GOP rivals alike for months on various issues concerning his character and his background. What with all the controversy surrounding his campaign, it has become more and more painfully clear that Mitt Romney, with his underhanded business ventures, sinister associates, uncommon and damaging religious beliefs, and constantly changing viewpoints, would be a horrible choice for president in 2012.

The first negative Romney association which makes him a poor presidential choice is his involvement with Bain Capital, a buyout firm that deals in the restructuring of companies in order to promote investor profit along with the profit of those creating the purchases. Established in 1984, co-founder William Bain chose a 37-year-old Romney recently out of Harvard to helm his company. We can see how Romney chose to turn a profit for Bain Capital with the closing of SCM Office Supplies Inc. in 1995 which put over 200 people out of work. After being acquired by Bain the entire staff was laid off directly following the 4th of July and then treated to a giant smack in the face when they were optionally allowed to re-apply for their jobs at reduced wages and benefits. The workers of course went on strike soon after, and Bain called their bluff and coldly and in the name of investor profit closed the plant. Mitt Romney became a multi-millionaire during his time with Bain by living off the backs of the US workers he has put out on the street. With such a ruthless and heartless business mind set along with his underhanded business history Romney is clearly not fit to be the leader of the free world or any world in existence for that matter.

Another decidedly good reason Romney should not be considered for president is his political associations. Every good politician needs his friends much like a mafia don Romney needs his consigliere to support him and see that the little people of the political world don’t make waves and to ensure the success of all ventures undertaken, and in the political realm Mitt Romney has Bob White, a 56-year-old lifelong “friend” is an unscrupulous, ball-busting slug-for-hire and one of Romney’s original acquisitions from the Bain Capital days and he has been at Romney’s side the whole way since, much like a dark shadow in the background yanking the puppet strings of his favorite toy bitch. White loves advising from the darkness and making sure Romney stays on the campaign trail. When Romney ran for governor, White was there organizing and keeping it all on track. When Romney put in his bid for the presidency, White was appointed, as a surprise to no one, to chair his campaign. A man is a reflection of the company he keeps, and Ben Coes, a Romney campaign manager, describes White as “the kind of guy who could be urinating on your shoes while talking to you, and you’d thank him afterward.” This description gives a clear picture of this man, who will do anything it takes to win and explains how Romney has gotten as far as he has. (Scheiber 5) With a man like White in his corner some of Romney’s major missteps were reduced to lost face and allowed him to stay in the presidential race when he should have been out on his uptight thieving ass months ago. While a potential presidential candidate needs excellent backing to achieve his goals; who they surround him or herself with will determine the atmosphere for their time in the Oval Office. And as we can see from Romney’s close ties to Bob White and White’s sinister way of keeping Romney on track, the type of dealings that would be sliding through the White House door immediately makes the words “rotten” and ‘unsavory’ come to mind along with other more colorful ones that will not be mentioned. You would think that America would rather avoid that kind of trouble on Capitol Hill, and Romney along with White should be kept out of office and politics in general and it demonstrates that he is unfit to be the Commander-In-Chief.

Next we have an important realm in which Romney is a poor choice, his personal religious beliefs. Mitt Romney, as a member of the Mormon faith, has had his views questioned repeatedly in the past and also currently. As a member of what some would consider a cult religion hell bent on corporate profit and the subjugation of followers it is no surprise that some wonder what Romney would do if he was ever in a position of authority? In 2007 during a speech at the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University, Romney was quoted as saying “I do not define my candidacy by my religion.” In order to dodge attention on his upbringing and of course maintained that personal religion should not determine whether a person is elected or not. He went on to say “let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.” To further attempt to reduce any heat he might have taken on his alternative religious choice. But where his statements lose their weight is the fact that he is most certainly a devout Mormon, and as anyone call tell you concerning the Mormon faith, the elders of the church most certainly have an influence on what a follower does especially a prominent member such as Romney. (Wallace 9) Not only would there be influence on his decisions but Romney lives his life by the Mormon tenets of non-tolerance of all non-Mormons along with the direct and tyrannical control of every aspect of a follower’s life and would most certainly attempt to shape the US into that image during his time in office. Not everyone is Mormon in America nor would they want to be forced to live like one in a country where religious views are supposed to be free and supported by liberty. This potentially forced religious disaster would cause nation-wide unrest along with the potential for public protests which could lead to religious revolts which clearly demonstrates to any logical and thinking human being another viable reason why Romney should be kept out of the White House.

Lastly and very importantly a huge reason Romney is unfit to be president is what he says, and how he blatantly and with feverish abandon contradicts his own statements. Often in an election debate the dialogue, albeit dripping with bullshit and tactless mud- slinging, is the relative lifeblood or the destruction of a campaign especially concerning standpoints on important political issues such as federal finance and debt, along with abortion laws and other sensitive American concerns. A candidate’s view on paramount issues is what their campaign is built on as he or she attempts to sway voters based on what they believe on the current situations being presented. Romney follows this blueprint like many others, but with the somewhat dangerous (and not all that surprising) shallow addition of constantly changing his position. And so it is not all that shocking that some of his statements are coming back to bite him in his lying, plutocratic ass and have had a direct and immediate negative effect on his already shady credibility as he has recently been accused of flip-flopping from one standpoint to another on every hot button topic since the inception of the current political race.

As John Maynard Keynes once said “When circumstances change, I change my mind. And what do you do, sir?” Romney has taken such tactics to heart and perfected his talent at misdirection and spineless statements as he spews meaningless drivel about his standpoints and then changes them from one debate to another. Also Romney has been jumping to the other side of the spectrum on the extreme views he has taken in the past to defeat his Republican rivals. To beat out Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich he became an anti-immigration hard-liner and agreed to slash the federal budget, although since he has flipped his position and said he will not agree to deep cuts during the ‘current’ recession, as if the plunging American economy ever had a change to recover under the watchful eyes of recent corporate handling much like Romney’s Bain days. This of course resulting in the shooting of the rich one percent into the stratosphere atop a champagne cork of corrupt profits as they ride the brackish spray of the sewage the rest of the populace is forced to swallow. To defeat Rick Santorum, Romney opposed abortion and even contraception, but now has backed off the issue since acquiring the primary Republican ticket even though his Mormon beliefs are clearly opposed to any and all abortion or contraception with the church’s standpoint being the absolute control over all female members for breeding purposes. This has been demonstrated in American media as the Mormon norm as seen in the all too public legal actions against so called Mormon “breeding strongholds”. Romney seems to go whatever way the voters do, and he is all too happy to please the mob. He will pick up a viewpoint based on how many new votes it will potentially get him, and drop it just as fast if the crowd seems to be changing their minds. This display shows that Romney has no morality and has no spine and is weak willed when it comes to his viewpoints, or perhaps he is utilizing a more devious way to gain ground and gain points in the polls for the upcoming elections in November. Either way this shows that the character and tactics he uses in his speeches reek of flaws and that his words are feeble and worthless and at his core he is not the kind of man America needs as a president now or ever.

When shown all of these various examples of his many undesirable qualities combined with the public evidence records to back the statements of detriment to his character and his political views it is not only a valid opinion but a painfully obvious one that Mitt Romney would only be a bad choice, and a potentially destructive one for America. With him at the head of our floundering nation the US would certainly only see more social and economic hardships and continue the downward trend of recent years. Romney’s own thoughts and ideas seem to be erratic at best and his views often do not concern what the American populace think and only serve his personal agenda which make him a poor choice as a leader of anything from an ice cream shop to any substantial office, political or otherwise. His past dealings in finance can only be described as blatantly underhanded and greedy and when combined with Romney’s various “friends” who he has hand-picked to continue the corporate slaughter in the name of investor profit we have the makings of a portrait of a man that deserves to be shoved off a cliff and who is entitled to nothing from America let alone the chair of the man in charge. Add to this mix his stern and imposing cult religion which could lead to stringent and unwanted laws that would make Big Brother look like Little Sister and his trampoline level flip-flopping in the political arena and what you have is a recipe for four years of economic and political disaster that would push this country to the breaking point. It is imperative that in November all Americans that can vote do so and it is paramount that Romney not be allowed to take the presidency. When faced with the lesser of two evils at the polls the people can become disillusioned about what choice to make; but it is far better to have another term with a semblance of stability than to allow a man like Mitt Romney to take the White House and drive our country straight into the gaping maw of utter destruction, which he most certainly will.


CPAC 2012: "The Horror, the Horror!"

Recently, this author left his ancestral New England abode and journeyed south to America’s ‘Great Wen’ in order to attend this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Organized by the American […]

Recently, this author left his ancestral New England abode and journeyed south to America’s ‘Great Wen’ in order to attend this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Organized by the American Conservative Union since 1973, this conclave serves as an annual powwow for America’s much-vilified conservative movement. Steeped in paleoconservative theory, sympathetic to Continental Neue Rechte positions, fascinated by the Jewish Question and deeply distrustful of the Beltway Right, I nevertheless sought to put aside my own prejudices and enter the conference with an open mind. I emerged at its conclusion fully contemptuous of American conservatism and confirmed in my own traditionalist, rightist beliefs. Sam Francis was too kind when he referred to Beltway conservatives as ‘beautiful losers’; they were distinctly neither that weekend! Woefully inadequate on intellectual, ideological and aesthetic grounds, they represented the best that Middle America offers against Judeo-liberal, New Class elites. It proves small wonder that American whites face increasing political and social dispossession with such mediocrities resisting our alien masters! If rightist whites desire to build a viable future for themselves, they must abandon their necrophilic adoration of a Brylcreemed, B-movie actor and advance distinctly identitarian politics for the twenty-first century. This necessarily entails the recognition of serious flaws and a committed desire to rectify them.

Firstly, the conference attendees displayed a distinct lack of serious education and vulgarly demonstrated their own provincialism and class limitations. Being in my twenties, I conversed with many other young people and was unimpressed. The attendees displayed a conspicuous lack of awareness and serious reflection on the issues of the day. Raised by Republican parents, they seem to have absorbed political theory in the form of easy soundbites from such Murdoch shills as Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. When asked about their political beliefs, they responded with such vagaries as ‘liberty’, ‘democracy’ and ‘religious freedom’. One wonders if they could be persuaded to adopt the slogan ‘Truth, Justice and the American Way’ and thus regress into puerile assurances provided by childhood fantasy heroes. Certainly, Ronald Reagan appeared to be their ‘Man of Steel’ and one of the most popular attractions on the conference floor proved a booth where you could have your photograph taken with a cardboard cut-out of the Teflon President. Bemused and desiring entertainment, I did so and the resultant image is no doubt now floating in cyberspace and waiting to embarrass me later in life.

None of these people present displayed any real grasp of rightist political theory and seemed to blindly follow neoconservative propaganda. In fact, in a earlier age, they would easily be classified as Cold War Democrats along the lines of Scoop Jackson. Their lack of serious intellectual qualifications and political awareness proved to be alarmingly sophomoric and convinced me of their ovine natures. Awakening them is a Herculean task and one which authentic rightists must devote themselves while fully aware of the exertion involved. This will not be easily considering the steady stream of pap fed to these attendees by Republican pied pipers who run direct-mail campaigns to scare old ladies and live richly off the resulting proceeds!

So engorged with this poison of false conservatism supplied by the Beltway Right, those present proved incapable of differentiating authentic right-wing ideology from what they’ve known since childhood. Desiring to be little briefcase-toting Alex P. Keatons and save America from the ‘Demmy-crats’, and ‘Islamofascism’ they have unknowingly accepted much of the Left’s shibboleths to the extent that a copy of National Review circa 1963 would genuinely frighten them. At that point, Buckley actually ran articles discussing human biodiversity and stated the obvious fact that any doctor in Africa can identify a Caucasoid from a Negroid skull by simply looking at them! In our degenerate times, these evident truths are denounced as ‘racism‘ and considered unpalatable in polite society. In my examination of the conference’s display booths, I came across the Human Events table, which confirmed the degeneracy of today’s right-wing politics. Currently the managing editor of this magazine is a young Puerto Rican, who appeared to delight in alienating his fellow countrymen by favoring welfare reform. Additionally, since David Keene’s tumultuous departure from the chairmanship of the ACU, his position is currently occupied by a Cuban! While certainly anti-communist, this Hispanic gentleman cannot by his essential nature represent the legitimate group interests of white Americans. By promoting such affirmative action individuals into positions of authority, the conservative movement ceases even to pretend it cares about the continued viability of European-Americans as a distinct population.

Regrettably, this repression of legitimate identitarian politics by conference organizers expressed itself in the treatment meted out to two friends of mine. Mr. Robert Vandervoort is a fine gentlemen of Midwestern stock who serves as the executive director of a PAC called ProEnglish. This excellent organization seeks to make English the only official language throughout all of the states and preserve its primacy as the lingua franca of America. In repeated polls, this position resonates with ordinary Americans who are tired of having to press 1 for Spanish or of watching their children turned down for service jobs because they are not bilingual. Mr. Vandervoort served as the moderator of a CPAC panel discussion on the deleterious effects of multiculturalism. One of the discussants was another friend and stalwart rightist named Peter Brimelow. A former senior editor of Forbes and National Review who currently edits the website VDARE, Mr Brimelow forthrightly denounced the absurdity of multiculturalism and argued for immigration restrictions and a strong English-only policy adopted into law. The Left offered its predictable riposte and just as predictably, the ACU distanced themselves from the sensible views presented at the panel. Chairman Cardenas meekly responded that he was completely unaware of Mr. Brimelow’s existence prior to the uproar! This comment demonstrated either his cowardice or his complete ignorance of the conservative movement’s history since the Eighties.

What proved most disturbing to me was the unwillingness to support political views that are far more important than flat tax schemes or prayer in schools. The preservation of American’s historic majority is by its essence a fundamentally conservative goal and yet CPAC couldn’t lift a finger in support of either gentleman! The Beltway Right is by no means static and does change its positions. However, any change is always to the left and towards neoconservative sirens, who inwardly despise the goyim Babbits whom they influence. By defending the ‘Dispossessed Majority’, both Vandervoort and Brimelow are marginalized despite being two of the few genuine rightists actually attending the conference.

While walking through the conference, I found it relatively easy to spot members of the far-right. Firstly, we’re a distinct fraternity who know and work with each other all the time. Secondly, we display faster response times, less prominent brow ridges and superior sartorial sensibilities. I was amazed at the lack of fashion sense among the other attendees. For men, suits were obviously off-the-rack and baggy with occasional loud houndstooth patterns. One man walked by in a dated, Eighties double-breasted suit with enormous shoulder pads, huge peak lapels and a loose fit. The effect was of a Gordon Gekko type circa 1986 but the pattern was far too loud for Wall Street. The young people favored loosely fitting shirts and unflattering baggy trousers. One of the popular accessories displayed were Adam Smith neckties with repeated images of the economist across them. These were incredibly vulgar and an example of the sort of unreflective bourgeois triumphalism found among College Republicans. As a test to amuse myself, I remarked to a young ginger-haired man at the Heritage Foundation booth that I liked the side vents on his suit jacket. He stared uncomprehendingly back at me and I believe that if I’d said I liked the side castratos or the side tarantellas on his jacket, he would have thanked me just the same!

This ignorance of tailoring also applied to the women present. Fortunately, there were few noticeable pantsuits and most women appeared to understand the proper application of makeup instead of laying it on with a trowel. Despite this, the uniform appeared drab with mauve being the dominant color of many outfits. I longed for Mrs. Thatcher’s Aquascutum demi-couture and instead found J.C. Penney’s women’s department. Bizarrely, an attendee named Melissa Clouthier wrote that the women attendees appeared ‘whoreish’ in their dress and behavior. I found them to be Peoria’s finest, with a distinctly American aesthetic that could never compare to the glacial beauty of Catherine Deneuve. Perhaps there’s a PTA, Young Republican sexual appeal to them but it’s one from which I would flee in horror! Provincial, unaware and ripe for seduction by false leaders, these people are not going to serve as leaders of America’s dwindling white population.

Essentially, it proved the lack of anyone with an IQ over 115 among the majority of the attendees, which most concerned me. This became apparent at a Saturday night event with the dubious name of ‘Reaganpalooza’ held at a Dupont Circle nightclub. It proved to be just as ghastly as the moniker initially suggested. Drunken low-level Republican staffers drank cheap beer, ate dreadful hors d’oeuvres and danced/ground with each other while bad remixes of Eighties light rock songs wafted through the air. I left the nightclub several times because I couldn’t stand the ‘bad air’ stifling any creative impulse. Catching a taxi back to a friend’s house, I felt glad to escape such an environment that reminded me of the Bratpack movie St. Elmo’s Fire.

It is this fascination with the popular culture and political obsessions of the Reagan years that effectively demonstrates the conservative movement’s sterility. Bereft of ideas and careening from the arms of one political mediocrity to another in search of a leader, they do not recognize their own political, cultural and ethnic dispossession. Beltway conservatism simply cannot be changed and redirected towards a distinctly racialist and Judeocritical position. The only alternative is to halt any association with it and refocus all efforts on building up the far-right with new ideologues, European connections and a resolute defense of adamantine principles.

Currently, the American authentic right found in small organizations constitutes the only mental firepower against forces which oppose our continued existence. Our task now must be to free those few CPAC attendees capable of comprehending the higher principles which animate us. If we do so, we could extricate ourselves from the absurd carnival funhouse of Beltway conservatism, where floors shifts and angled mirrors distort realities. Stepping out of this demented environment and onto reality’s solid ground, we can built an ordered house for ourselves and our children to defend in an increasing alien nation.

Edward Gilman
Bangor, Maine 2012


The Political Anthropology of the Divine Beast (Part IV)


We have witnessed the imagery and concepts of sacrifice throughout this article. This is not entirely accidental. Even so, if this were not altogether deliberate (and where, in particular, it was definitely not consciously intended), it is even more apt. This only exposes the necessity.

In the most blessed ages, men understand that sacrifice — including literally the ritual shedding of blood — is necessary. In fact, it is not merely the preserve of recalcitrant savages, but the precondition of higher culture. Only severity is profound; pity is only prosaic and pernicious. No, it is severity we treasure. A cosmic balance is observed, the stability of long, painstaking setting-aright, by generation after generation. So, for everything there is a price, which is taken most seriously. Supposing the scales have been upset, only an earnest effort returns them to balance, harmony and order. Naturally, this means an act of terrible and excruciating significance.

Perhaps it was Kierkegaard who plumbed this terrible thing most clearly, to its most overwhelming depths. At this point, it is better to merely refer to his account of the Binding of Isaac here en passant, rather than vainly attempt to reproduce it here, with the excellence of the original. Suffice it to say, that Kierkegaard understands most clearly what is at stake in sacrifice and the profound courage of the sacrificial act.

We too must face this like men. However, we must go beyond Kierkegaard. We must find the most extreme — that is to say, supreme — form of devotion that is actually carried out.

Sacrifices must be made.

The sword of vengeance expresses the principle most clearly. An avenger expiates the wrong which lingers over his kin; for it is his kinsmen who are avenged, his ancestors who are honoured, his gods who are appeased. He himself is vindicated, as the very blade of his blood. It is blood, after all, which matters. Everything carries the weight of blood. The lex talionis is the real lex sanguinis.

So, this shall be the whole of the law: all matters are ultimately reckoned in blood. This is the Law of the World. Every line of this law-code is a line coloured by blood.

By contrast, we have the reactionary ‘justice’ system of the courts, which only exists (outwardly) to protect sentimental abstractions like present-day private property, ‘social justice’ and the other ‘Rights of Man’ — and now there are courts to protect nothing more than ‘human rights’ as such!

The law of the courtroom loses its vital connection to its natural jurisdiction, precisely when it normalizes and mechanizes its procedures. When ‘targets’ are more important than upholding the law which binds the nation in an orderly body politic, decisions are no longer judicial, but purely technical rationalizations. The advent of private prisons, the transformation of the penitentiary (which is expiatory) from an exaction of the public debt to an enterprise for the extraction of private profit (i.e. a wholesale transubstantiation of a public function into a private one) is an accompaniment and guarantor of this development. The courtroom thus becomes a sanctimonious playground for rarified moral phantasies and insidiously fallacious excuses.

“The known way is an impasse”, Heraclitus cryptically tells us, in a fragment; this is especially accurate in the institutions of Law. Thus, when the law of the court hollows out and abolishes itself, the laws return home to the nation, as if beasts unfettered, returning to their habitat. So, when the necrotic court ‘justice’-system is purged and utterly destroyed, the path of tradition opens up once more and the Law of Blood bursts through.

The Law of Blood, in which the terrible price is known, demanded and paid in full, often with interest, is the mode of this principle which is clearest in actual practice.

However, the principle is present in every sort of sacrifice. (Vengeance is simply the most understandable.)

Sacrifice is not merely an act of atonement, but one of gratitude. Indeed, it is not only a positive deed, but an affirmative one. It confirms everything. This is why, as a religious ritual, it is a totalizing act, exemplifying and embodying the totality of the mythological worldview. The ritual in which the sacrifice is performed is a mysterium tremendum et fascinans, which reveals — even while still in a meaningful way concealing — the irreducible richness of life. It seems on the face of it, to the faithless apostates of our own day, to be an irrational and negative act. It is irrational, perhaps, but not negative. Even if we do not believe that the gods actually partake of the offering (and so the sacrifice is ‘wasted’), the whole communal life of men is reaffirmed and underlined in the most decisive way. It is affirmative in nature. In this sense, it is not even mostly destructive. The destruction of the sacrificial animal or object is of only marginal importance.

The Nordic pagan’s offerings made on the winter solstice — even today — are of a similar nature. The edible and imbibable portion of the offering is not left so as to perish, but to be absorbed again into the natural world. We have, to symbolically represent this, the story of Odin’s wolves devouring what men offer up.

Only in the moment of slaughter — and the reaffirmation of all that to which one belongs — is it that the principle is seen (albeit obscured) at its highest. In the terrible seconds preceding the lethal bloodshed, with the dagger held aloft, one anxiously comes to grips with oneself. Doubts must be reckoned with in the anticipatory moment, if at all. Nevertheless, the principle ascends to its zenith, precisely in the fateful instant when the blade descends, meeting its mark — and cleaving its way through cleanly. In that instant, one knows one’s heart. The terror of the moment before is maddening; the horror which follows, merely sobering. It is the curtain-call which brings to a close the absurdist play of the binding. The deed must be done. Only the faithless and the ungrateful can turn from this.

O, dira necessitas!

One must not wait for all Neptune’s oceans to wash one’s hands; one must be the equal of one’s deeds. Only the convinced can kill honestly, even if they are wrong.

We must become lion-hearted, like the narrator-protagonist of the song ‘Rabbit Heart‘ by Florence + The Machine. At long last, we consumate the tremendum fascinosum. The eternal mystery unfolds and exposes itself in the instant, only to the Initiate:

This is a gift,
It comes with a price!
Who is the lamb
And who is the knife?

It is the great paradox of human nature, that we must not be unwilling to suffer or die; or, for that matter, to cause suffering and death. We do not question or posit any hereafter (for that is not gratitude), but merely offer up to the gods their due. Hesitation is ungrateful and — naturally — the highest crime against one’s gods, one’s race and oneself.

What, then, can we infer from this? Surely, we can rediscover the wisdom which was old when the greatest civilizations on our planet were young.

Gratitude is the most genuinely telling human feeling. When presented with a boon, it is the obligation of the grateful to seize it. This is their joyful right but also their sorrowful responsibility.

“We raise it up, this offering”, the bridge of ‘Rabbit Heart’ reiterates. This is sacrifice — honourable, holy and open-handed. It must ever be thus.

Notice how the hunter who lives off his kills respects his prey. He is careful with how their lives are taken, he thanks his gods and goes through many unannounced rituals with which he does himself no dishonour. When his quarry is obtained, he must only kill them thus, skin them thus and gut them thus. It must be so. Surely, too, however, his duty must be to kill them in the first place, when they are sent to him by the cosmic winds.

The great mystery yields, then, an even greater clarity.

No norm can exist within chaos, Schmitt rightly observes (in Political Theology). There can be nothing apprehensible within the indescribable, inexplicable, unfathomable tempest of anarchy. There is nothing normal, let alone normative, so all is permitted — and the distance between man and man is not only unknown, but unravels, expands and returns to its ‘original position’, where it has become infinitely remote and hostile. All proximity is done with and finished. Approximation is gone as if it never was. Sacrifice is again loosed from its customary bounds and begins the offering-up of the not-I, the not-we, the sacrificial Other; even sacrifice within is permitted. In short, human sacrifice.

There are the obvious examples when we think of societies which practice this kind of sacrifice — the excesses of the Aztecs, Incas and Mayas — and in Europe we had the Druids. However, this is not where it ends. Even peoples not widely known for human sacrifice practised it; with some, like the Germanic and Nordic pagans, we get to see all the more clearly how important the sacrifice of a human being is. They understand it in precisely the political-mystical terms I have described. Our loosely Schmittian framework can therefore remain.

Within the context of a prevailing order, we can have the auguries, offerings of goats, rams, oxen and even the slaughter of horses. (The Celts even threw away old and battered weaponry, so that their new weaponry would be stronger and favoured by the gods.) In ordinary times, this is proper — and it is enough. However, more desperate times require more desperate measures; more extreme circumstances demand more extreme offerings. The hecatombs, bringing together great numbers of offerings, might also lead to more singular sacrifical offerings of  greater import: people. The intensification brings about a change in the ritual.

The Germanics were largely against this most extreme form of ritual killing. We should nevertheless not allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that this is because the sanctity of life prevents this. Rather, the sanctity of life inheres in human sacrifice and precisely what makes this practice coherent. The instinctual (and, as Hume points out, not at all rational) perception of cause-and-effect is a natural and necessary superstition. The offering is both (1) the grateful acknowledgement after-the-fact (propitiation-as-effect) and (2) the anticipatory entreaty for continued propserity — or even just continuity itself (oblation-as-cause). The relation goes both ways and is, of course, murky, because its relation is intuitive but not strictly rational.

The ritual slaughter of humans may be the great taboo now, but it was ubiquitous. Indeed, offerings seem to have been treated similarly by all Indo-European peoples.

The Aryans in India practised this same kind of oblation. Their priests can truly be called sanguinary, for they consumed the blood of sacrificial animals. What power or worth lies in the blood, they consumed. This entered into the reckoning of sacrifice.

One of the most important, but also rarest, Vedic rituals was the purushamedha — literally, Man-sacrifice. Despite being rarely discussed, it is also highly and contextually necessary. In this ritual, the man is ritually slaughtered much in the same way as the horse in the ashvamedha. Notice that there must be something distinctly human in the former ritual, just as there is something distinctly equestrian in the latter; in the same way that, during the latter, the gilt and adorned chariot is drawn in with the horse, to symbolize the military strength (specifically horsemanship and charioteering) which allowed the Aryans to prevail everywhere. So, the blood can be surmised to carry the distinctly human divinity.

Why make such extreme offerings? Because it is portentous and necessary.

Now that the words have been spoken — that the very sacrifice of human beings is carried out — we must look beyond our shock. What makes this necessary? Life makes this necessary. Life and Death are not truly opposites; the final fact of a life is Death, but Death is merely a Part of Life. Sacrifice, moreover, is a much more intelligible form of death. Today, we see this reversed. Sacrifice makes very little sense to us, for the same reason that maintaining order makes very little sense to us.

Sacrifice is the renewal of order.

What the Finnish ecological philosopher Pentti Linkola advocates, for example, is really just a recent (and ecological) variant of this primitive worldview. ‘Can life prevail?’ he asks, even making this the title of one of his books. A re-formulation is in order — and so we ask: ‘Can we prevail?’

Humans are sacrificed for the human order. Blood is met with blood, force with force, terror with terror and the man capable of the most terrible things prevents the most terrible plagues by comparably terrible treatments. It is like a physician excising a tumour, that the ascendant, dominant man removes threats which are inimical to the legal, social and political order. This is how he keeps his throne and why he deserves it.

The metaphor can be made literal: medicine itself is of roughly the same nature. Cures work because they are ruthlessly effective, not because they are pleasant. Clearly, the discipline we call medicine is as unspeakably morbid as the maladies which it cures — but it is so largely by necessity.

It was supposedly the Ksatriya, not the Brahmin, who performed the solemn purushamedha. This, of course, makes sense, since the Ksatriya caste is the class of the warriors, also that class from which the kings are drawn — namely, the caste which maintains order. Human blood propitiates the human political order.

Invariably, that which one is willing to subdue and sacrifice determines one’s existential reward.

In decadent times like our own, when nothing reigns but anarchy; in places where the blind automaton of the managerial state rolls endlessly on into eternity, punishing impotently, discouraging not a single crime, while encouraging all kinds; when we are in that topsy-turvy void which Sam Francis called ‘anarcho-tyranny’. The arbitrary confidence required to make distinctions and determinations of justice must again be infused into the system, by a temperament like that of the Lawgiver and Sovereign, through deeds like his. When the gavel of justice has been cast aside, the sword of justice may be taken up again.

So, the challenge of the exception must be addressed. We put a stop to our material, physical, existential destruction in its own terms. For the answer to force must be force; it is with fire that we must answer fire-bringers; the murderer must be slain; we destroy the destroyer. A single drop of the best blood shed, das heiligste Blut, must be avenged with torrents of common blood. This is simply how men in concreto are. Supposing we were not this way, we would not be at all.

In pain, we find not only the answers but the affirmations of great questions. Nietzsche is correct on the wisdom found in pain. “There is as much wisdom in pain as in pleasure: like pleasure, pain is one of the prime species-preserving forces. If it weren’t, it would have perished long ago: that it hurts is no argument against it — it is its essence. In pain I hear the captain’s command: ‘Pull in the sails!’ The hardy seafarer ‘Man’ must have learned to adjust the sails a thousand ways; otherwise he would have gone under too quickly and the ocean would have swallowed him too soon. We have to know how to live with reduced energy, too: as soon as pain sounds its safety signal, it is time for such a reduction — some great danger, some storm is approaching, and we do well to ‘inflate ourselves’ as little as possible.” (Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Cambridge: CUP, 318.) There is a conservatism in this, which applies to most men, at most times.

Still, we have the colloquial expression ‘No pain, no gain’. So, what do we gain from pain? Simply, by its operation, pain imparts instruction. It teaches us about the differences between men — and it even teaches us about ourselves. What kind of man am I? What will I endure? What am I willing to inflict on myself and others? Who am I — and what is this ‘I’?

Pain is the determiner of whether men rise or fall. Indeed, we see that pain is a great separator in this way, also. Nietzsche continues — and we must let him speak the greater part of pain’s wisdom: “True, there are people who hear exactly the opposite command when great pain approaches and who never look as proud, bellicose, and happy as when a storm is nearing — yes, pain itself gives them their greatest moments! They are the heroic human beings, the great pain-bringers of humanity, those few or rare ones who who need the same apology as pain itself — and truly, they should not be denied this! They are eminently species-preserving and species-enhancing forces, if only because they resist comfort and do not hide their nausea at this type of happiness.” (Nietzsche, The Gay Scienceibid.)

Pain is no objection whatsoever to the most needful and sacred pursuit of order. Rather, in fact, pain can be indicative of a life-affirming, life-preserving, life-enriching experience — hence it is associated with sacred necessity.

The greatest of men not only know how to endure pain, but how to use it to achieve the most invaluable effects. The men who meet pain with laughter, who can thank their torment and are grateful for the brutal vividness of life, these are the men without whom our conquests, our riches and even our civilizations could not be, even as these men may themselves be retainers of the most joyously barbarous or savage temperaments.

One can see throughout Jünger’s writing that he understands pain, sacrifice and exile. This is, in some way, shape or form, present throughout Jünger’s entire oeuvre. It matters not whether the evolving beast is called the Frontsoldat, Arbeiter, Waldgänger or Anarch — a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. We see him draw taut like a bowstring, between the typical and exceptional. What emphasizes the grateful yet forlorn longing for belonging more than painful affirmation, more than the anonymous (or perhaps anomalous) sacrifice?

The individualist does not understand this, for individualism is an abstraction and active theoretization of the fearful, over-weaning instinct for hoarding, retreating, reasoning and bargaining one’s way out of danger. The individualists (of all stripes) abuse the strands of sensible non-interventionism and pragmatic allowances to fabricate a fanatical creed out of whole cloth and call it a rational plan for history. There is more than a touch of strychnine in this. The axis from themselves to ‘the individual’ is the umbilical cord — that is to say, we can trace their ‘individuality’ through their longing for the womb. In this dried out womb of denial, we find that the injunction ‘Laissez-faire!’ really necessitates the laisser-aller! The crawling, snivelling, conceptual retreat of these invertebrates shows their visceral commitment to cowardice and indecision. Even the Sadean wish to throw open our prisons to prove our virtue is really the puss that oozes from the burst boil of bourgeois morality, that now-festering sore of soft-stomached, soft-hearted, suburban sponge-life society, whose intermittent secretions up until the point of bursting were senseless flashings of violence in a decadent world. It is the end not only of Man, but of men — and we are thenceforth ‘individuals’ and die letzten Menschen.

It is for this reason that gratitude is to be restored. We must be existentially grateful for materially manifest gifts — but not all gifts are pleasant. Indeed, even (and perhaps especially) the best among them are bittersweet, are they not? Even les fleurs de mal can be beautiful — and they are.

The sacred and the profane are present in the same world. They are consubstantial. In our world, specifically our place within it, we find the unity of the natural and supernatural. It is a similar thing Maistre addresses when he speaks of the perfect parallelism of the physical and moral worlds, albeit he speaks as both Catholic and illuminist and that of which he speaks is two worlds and not one. The nuance for a thinker like Xunzi is much more apparent, so it is to him that we turn. Concretely, man is the completion of a triad with Heaven and earth, says he. To this Chinese, however, Heaven is rather more immanent — the governing principle in natural affairs, existing as the principle of order does to the principiate of order; the latter being the earth in its proper relation to Heaven. Man is always the inaugurator of the conjunction of principle-principiate. It is his mindful good conduct which holds Heaven and earth in their proper position and keeps all aright.

So, the man who finds his place and is thankful for it, is blessed. Again, we find that centre around which the wheel turns is—gratitude! It is the ungrateful who are truly forsaken. They damn themselves to their own hells. Gratitude is the compensation and correction of all deficiencies in life. Rather, it is the fierce who make prosperity possible. What is authentic and affirmative to life? We can answer: Pain is preservative! Sacrifice is salutary! Adversity is enriching!

Kierkegaard says that the man who loves himself becomes great in himself and he who loves others becomes great through his devotion to them, but the man who loves God becomes great than all others. Why is this? It’s because we find self-overcoming in what we love. What the Dane is really saying is that the man who loves himself overcomes himself; who loves others, overcomes his society; and — which he completely forgets to say and, in fact, lets fall away altogether — he who loves God, overcomes the Divine itself, to become divine himself.

Can we subscribe to this more extreme view? In some form, yes.

The man who overcomes himself, not only finds himself, but earns himself. “I am done with my graceless heart / So, tonight I’m gonna cut it out and then restart!” the singer resolves in Florence + the Machine’s ‘Shake It Out‘.

The highest castes of the divine beasts maintain order. Holding firm the sacred circle in which each nation is invisibly bound and blessed, policing the frontiers of our awareness like stallions protecting a herd of horses; their unhesitating hands raining thunderbolts on the forces of chaos without hesitation, these are honestly the best men. He who strikes is rightly called blessed before all others; he who strikes as the gods strike, is called sovereign. Here we see the impenetrable, yet profoundly palpable, order of rank, the pathos of distance contained and made approximal in quality, in the gradation of the Divine Beast from highest to lowest and vice versa.

The lotus unfurls its petals and the riddle unfolds. Authenticity is found, then, not in some static Truth, set apart from its bloody roots, but rather in ἀλήθεια (‘ālétheia’ or unconcealedness) and the alethetic process of sacrifice as disconcealment and utter, illimitable affirmation. Only the brave among us will stare into the beating heart of human life! In all honest heroes — and specifically all primal heroes — we find the anima naturaliter religiosa.

Simply, we are left once more with the bloodied but brilliant figure of our political anthropology: the divine beast, made whole in the sacrificial act. He has gained himself — and the world — through his gratitude.

Page 1 of 212