Saturday, October 2, 2021

Cult City: Melbourne and Sydney, Covidians, and Biderman's Chart of Coercion


The brutality of the Victorian police in crushing the anti-mandate protests and the police's harassment, detention, beatings, etc., of Melbournians going about their everyday business has shocked the world: it is here that the power of the Covidian police state displays itself naked, unconcealed, unashamed. But, if we are to look past spectacle, we are confronted by a Covidian state at work in a less overt and perhaps more insidious manner: Covidianism has gotten inside the heads of Melbournians and Sydneysiders, which is to say that the residents of these cities have internalised the dogma of the Covidians and made it part of their personalities. I saw that one weekend when I was walking, on a sunny Saturday afternoon, through an inner-city suburb: while strolling by a cobble-stoned laneway in a quiet and lonely street, I spied a young man washing his car and wearing a Covid face mask; I wanted to stop to talk to the man and tell him that he had nothing to fear - that he could take off his mask, the police would not find out: for the police were more likely to be concentrated in the city center; they rarely appeared in this part of town, which is one of the reasons why I had decided to take a walk there. Why, then, should he be wearing a mask? It was because he had achieved a state that cults aim to induce in their members: a state of self-surveillance, self-monitoring. I strongly doubted that he was wearing the mask for reasons of health: the 'coof' would not be blowing down that laneway, and even if it were, it would have been undeterred by flimsy cloth. 

I consider that man to be a prisoner - like millions of Melbournians and Sydneysiders - and I believe that he has been damaged psychologically by his internment. As part of what has been the greatest social experiment in Australia's history, his psyche has been taken apart and rebuilt by the Covidians, and by doing so, the Covidians have warped his mind. But such turning of the mind inside out, and consequent psychological disruption, is quite common in cults. According to this 1982 article from the New York Times, 'the experiences described by cult members resemble personality changes regularly associated with disorders of the temporal lobe of the brain': 

''The symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy,'' said Dr. Clark, ''are similar to those seen or reported as resulting from cult conversions: increased irritability, loss of libido or altered sexual interest; ritualism, compulsive attention to detail, mystical states, humorlessness and sobriety, heightened paranoia.''

Nothing indicates the cultishness of Covidianism more than the ubiquitous Covid mask, which serves the purposes of the cult in a number of ways:

Firstly, the mask destroys a person's individuality: if we cannot see a person's face, we cannot know them to be an individual. For that reason, members of the Synergon cult in California in the 1960s and 1970s had their heads shaved (as can be seen in the photo above). Other cults avail themselves of similar methods. In a chapter on Reverend Jim Jones' People's Temple cult, Colin Wilson writes, 

In 1972, Jones began to institute an even more authoritarian regime. All church members were ordered to cut their hair short, and a squad of barbers enforced this' [Rogue Messiahs: Tales of Self-Proclaimed Saviours (2000)]. 

Secondly, the mask denotes submission. Worn virtually all the time, under threat of shunning, shaming, fines, imprisonment, even a beating at the hands of the police (as we have seen in Melbourne), the mask signals the acquiescence of the wearer. Significantly, the mask covers the mouth, and resembles nothing more (and here I apologise in advance for the vulgarity of the comparison) than a BDSM 'cuck' or 'gimp' mask or a BDSM 'ball gag'. I think that the analogy is perfectly apt, as cults are not about religion, they are about power; they aim at nothing more than breaking the individual and forcing him to submit to the cult leader's will. Which is another reason why cults demand uniformity of clothing, hair styles, speech, thought, etc., from their members: the cult only wants members who have been 'broken in'.

Thirdly, the mask looks absurd - and this is quite intentional. People labouring under mask mandates have become so accustomed to wearing surgical masks (well, pseudo-surgical - these masks do not come up to the standards of those worn in hospitals) that they have forgotten how ridiculous they look. (This why during the disturbances in Melbourne, the riot police presented us with this jarring sight: the same men who were wearing Judge Dredd-style helmets and battle armour wore surgical masks). In contrast, one can find throughout history plenty of examples of face coverings which are both smart-looking and functional. Think of the Tuareg's facial and head coverings, which protect him from the sand and the heat; think of - in popular culture and folklore - the English highwayman's face scarf, the Wild Western cattle rustler's bandanna, the Japanese ninja's face mask and cowl... The Covid mask does not possess nearly as much elan; to put it plainly, it looks stupid. But once again, this is deliberate. A cult works at breaking a member's will through degradation, and it will use public ridicule, humiliation, etc., to that end. 

All this brings us back to the mandates for the injections of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson, Moderna. In my view, the pro-choice advocates concentrate far too much on what is in these concoctions and not enough on the fact that these are being forced upon people. Even if the injections were vaccines (they aren't), were effective (they aren't), were harmless (they aren't), they would still be detrimental to our well-being, as they are being introduced into our bloodstreams through compulsion for the sake of compulsion. The man who has taken one, two, three injections, and then six-monthly, monthly, bimonthly 'booster shots' - he has submitted, and submitted thoroughly. And, as a mark of his submission, he will proudly display the band-aid over the puncture on his arm or even have a tattoo engraved upon it... 

Such submission brings with it benefits. It shows that he is acceptable, as a person, to his community, and it differentiates him from those who will not abide by the standards of the community - those who do not take the injection. The latter group, in his eyes, are not only wrong but downright irrational, mad; and like all mad dogs, they must be put down: 

[Cults] generate an elitist mentality whereby members see themselves as lone evangelists struggling to bring enlightenment to the hostile forces surrounding them. There is only truth - that espoused by the cult. Competing explanations are not merely inaccurate but degenerate. Cults do not have opponents. They have enemies and frequently dream about their ultimate destruction. [On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left (2000), Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth]

In late 2021, our society is clearly heading in the above direction. And this is quite an abnormal development: what we are seeing is not politics as usual. And in order to understand what has happened, we need to look beyond politics and into the meta-political. Which is why I will here be discussing cults, and an esoteric subject - the attempted brainwashing of American POWs by the Communist Chinese during the Korean War. 

This is necessary because those who are opposed to the mask mandates, the lockdowns, the injection mandates, are looking at it all in the wrong way: they have developed the bad habit of using inappropriate historical analogies. They scratch around the past, dig up ideologies a hundred years old (fascism, for instance, or communism) and use them as a reference point or framework in which our current predicament can be viewed correctly. But in Australia, the lockdowns, the coming injections of children, etc., can be only be properly understood if we are to consider the recent history of cults in this country: the Australian Covidians have more in common with the members of notorious Australian cults such as, for instance, the Family and the Universal Brotherhood. Indeed, the former can be used as a guide to the present and anticipated strategies of the Covidians: the Family abducted children, concealed their original identities, disguised them, made them wear peculiar costumes and adopt unusual hairstyles, indoctrinated them, and plied them with enough drugs to kill a horse: the reader will agree, I think, that Australia is heading down the same path, or at least its widespread acceptance.  


This year I came across the following chart, entitled '"Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance": The Biderman Report of 1956 and COVID-19': 

This graphic used Biderman's famous Chart of Coercion. When I first saw it, I was impressed by how it correlates with the treatment of Australians under the Covidian regime. 

The chart comes from a 1956 paper by the American academic Albert J. Biderman, 'Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions from Air Force Prisoners of War'. During the Korean War, Chinese interrogators, skilled and experienced in what Mao called 'the washing of the brain', used manipulative techniques to break down the resistance of captured US airman so as to persuade them to admit 'guilt' and sign 'confessions' to 'crimes'. But Biderman was not writing a polemic against Chinese Communism: he was outlining general principles which be applied outside of the unfortunate circumstances these airmen found themselves in. Anyone familiar with the history of cults in the 20th century will see the similarities between the points on Biderman's chart and the methods of cult indoctrination.  

I have read Biderman's paper (which is a fascinating historical document in itself) and found an expanded version of the chart, which I shall reproduce here: 

The 'Variants' column, I think, bears a great deal on our present quandary. I will go through some items. 

1) ISOLATION: Complete solitary confinement, complete isolation, semi-isolation, group isolation.

2) MONOPOLISATION OF PERCEPTION: Physical isolation, barren environment, restricted movement.

4) THREATS: Threats of Death, threats of non-repatriation, threats of endless isolation, vague threats, threats against family, mysterious changes of treatment.

5) OCCASIONAL INDULGENCES: Occasional favours, fluctuations of interrogators' attitudes, promises, rewards for partial compliance, tantalising.

6) DEMONSTRATING "OMNIPOTENCE" AND "OMNISCIENCE": Confrontations, pretending co-operation [is to be] taken for granted, demonstrating complete control over victim's fate.

7)  DEGRADATION: Personal hygiene prevented, demeaning punishments, insults and taunts, denial of privacy.

8)  ENFORCEMENT OF TRIVIAL DEMANDS: Enforcement of minute rules. 

We can see the above at work every day, not only in Melbourne, Australia, but in New York, USA: there the governor Kathy Hochul has announced the mass firing of thousands of health care workers who refused to be injected - and the stripping of welfare benefits from these workers. That certainly accords with what Biderman calls 'threats' and 'demonstrating "omnipotence" and "omniscience"'. 

(It should come as no surprise that Hochul is a religious maniac

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul stood at a Brooklyn pulpit on Sunday and preached to the congregation about how the Covid-19 vaccines “are from God to us" and asked those present to be her “apostles.”

Instead of wearing a cross to deliver her Covid "sermon," Hochul donned a “vaxed” necklace. 

If you read Hochul's sermon, you'll see that she states, quite plainly, that the 'vaccinated' can catch Covid from the 'unvaccinated' - one of the now-typical absurdities spouted by the Covidian regime).

I found, in the Variants column, 'Personal hygiene prevented' intriguing. A few weeks ago I happened across an televised interview with Noam Chomsky, who had grown long hair and a rather unkempt beard during a lockdown. (On a side note: do you think that Chomsky, a self-professed 'anarchist', was in favour of the injection mandates? Of course he was - he is a leftist, and leftists are a 100% in favour of them). I marveled at Chomsky's dishevelment and recalled to myself other instances of people 'letting themselves go' during lockdowns. Now, after reading Biderman, I now see that our captors - for Australia is now a big prison - sought that result. They wanted people to 'let themselves go', become disheveled, because a prisoner who is unkempt is more likely than not to lack self-respect and is thereby more susceptible to conditioning. This explains why it is that hairdressers, barbershops, beauty salons were among the first businesses to be closed during the recent crisis, and why it is that shopping for new clothes and shoes has been made extremely difficult. 


Normal political paradigms do not help us in understanding our current predicament; only the above will. Once you realise that Melbournians and Sydneysiders have been catapulted into a Korean POW camp (or perhaps Jonestown 2.0), then everything becomes clearer. 

How, then, to resist? Biderman's chart tells us that degradation 'reduces [the] prisoner to "animal level" concerns' - and unfortunately, we in our present captivity do need to start paying more attention to animal level. In order to resist, anyone under lockdown ought to be focusing upon domestic minutia, part of which is the looking after one's clothes and shoes (as these cannot be easily replaced) and making sure that one's house (which at the moment is a prison cell for millions of Australians) is clean, bright, well-ordered and uncluttered. As well as the care of one's clothes, the care of one's skin and hair should take priority as well. Even if one lacks the services of a drycleaner or a hairdresser, one can still look reasonably smart - and thereby retain some self-respect. 

Related to this is the subject of vice, which has exploded under the lockdowns. One really should avoid as much as possible alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, pornography, distracting as all these can be: you need to keep your wits about you, and conserve your energies and not dissipate them.

One should cut down on one's consumption of the news as well. Many have developed the habit of scouring the news for the latest government communique on 'plans' for 'easing restrictions' (that is, what Biderman calls 'occasional indulgences'). But the government uses the media as a platform for the 'demonstration of "omnipotence" and "omniscience"'; and the government uses it as a means of uttering 'threats', of achieving the 'monopolisation of perception', of inducing 'debilitation, exhaustion'. Through 'insults and taunts' disseminated through the media (including social media (e.g., platforms such as Twitter) the government and its accomplices effect 'degradation'. The media can be compared to a loudspeaker in a Korean POW camp, through which Chinese propaganda is blared at all hours. 

Perhaps, when all of this is over, studies will show that individuals who had consumed less media fared better psychologically than those who had consumed more. I am at the moment uncertain as to the value of news even from sites which are opposed to the mask mandates, lockdowns, injection mandates, etc., and which report daily on abuses by the Victorian and New South Wales police. Does this reporting - even though it intends not - lead to a growing sense of helplessness, powerlessness, fear, demoralisation, despair? Should one not direct one's attention to other things? 

To put it another way. Three groups of people who are responsible for our present predicament: politicians (especially regional ones), journalists and health officials. These groups want to shun those of us who 'won't get with the program' - should we not in turn shun them? And that would entail our not listening to anything they have to say. 

One can object, 'But not all journalists...'. True enough, but what, at present, is the value of any reporting on Covid, lockdowns, mandates, etc.? If by now you do not know by now of the adverse affects of the injections, then you will never know. And while it may seem a good idea to tune into news bulletins to keep track of the ever-shifting and arbitrary rules changes, I think one can negotiate one's way through life without knowing the rules in great detail. One knows enough by now to wear a mask in public; one knows enough to be careful around the police. 


A study of the history of cults will reveal that cults often function as a state within a state: they will have their own courts, judiciary, police, informants - and in the case of Jones' People's Temple, executioners. Cults will use their state apparatus to punish rule-breakers within the cult often for the most innocuous things - e.g., expressing a desire to see one's family again, or evincing doubts and misgivings towards the cult's doctrine. In the early years of Mao's China, a student was put on 'trial' for masturbating in the privacy of his room. 

All this helps us understand the pivotal part of Biderman's essay - that dealing with forced confessions and the degrees of resistance towards this Chinese demand. (The attribution of 'guilt' for alleged 'crimes', the admission of 'guilt' under tremendous pressure, and the cleansing, cathartic nature of the 'confession', occupy a central place in Chinese Communist ideology; we can glean from Frank Dikötter's The Tragedy of Liberation: A History of the Chinese Revolution 1945-1957 (2013) that the number of 'defendants' in 'trials' for ideological 'crimes' in that period must have run into the hundreds of thousands). 

This section of Biderman is pertinent because many residents of Melbourne and Sydney since the lockdowns began have committed crimes which are not crimes. Here is a partial list: 

- Travelling outside the 5 kilometre (or whatever the arbitrary and ever-shifting distance is) radius outside one's home; 
- Travelling across state lines, e.g., from New South Wales to Queensland;
- Not wearing a mask, or not wearing at the right time (for instance, in Queensland there is a rule that says one must, at a workplace, wear a mask when standing, but one has the freedom to take it off while sitting);
- Taking one's mask off to drink alcohol in the street (yes, this is a rule in Melbourne);
- Not scanning a QR code or 'checking in' when entering a store; 
- Failing to respect the one and a half metre 'social distancing' rule while shopping in a supermarket aisle;
- Attending a funeral, wedding, religious service or celebration, etc., or attending one of these where the number of those present exceeds the prescribed limit; 
- Attending or organising a demonstration against the lockdown measures; 
- Showing up to work when you are not an 'authorised' worker;
- Leaving one's house without a 'valid reason'; 
- Staying outdoors for more than the time allotted for 'recreational activity'; 

Etc., etc. 

Soon, no doubt, spreading 'misinformation' ('Covid denial', for instance) will be criminalised, as will reluctance to take the 'vaccine' and refusal to divulge one's 'vaccination' status. 

All of these laws were introduced piece by piece, in what Tourish and Wohlforth call a 'spiral of escalating commitment': 

Prospective members adopt what are at first small behaviours in line with the group's belief system, and which do not require the formal endorsement of its ideology. An example would be the act of attending a group meeting. In the first instance, the new behaviours are not perceived as challenging the prospective recruit's preexisting belief systems. However, the new behaviours are slowly escalated. Attendance at a meeting might be followed by a forceful "request" to participate in a weekend conference, followed by voting for the group's proposals at other public forums, leading to asking others to do likewise, resulting in the selling of group literature on the streets and climaxing in a public identification with the group's goals. 

The gradual nature of what is involved enables the recruit's belief system to slowly adjust to the new behaviours they have adopted. By the time the full impact of the changes is apparent, they have become for all practical purposes a new and permanent identity. [On the Edge-.]

The result produced by the above 'spiral' is that many Australians have lost sight of normality; they are unable to see how absurd the pettifogging rules introduced by the Covidians are. We need, then - in order to grasp Biderman's point on the crime which is not a crime - a fresh pair of eyes. Suppose that, in a science fiction scenario, a time-travelling battalion of Victorian police 'arrest' a number of Melbournians from 1956, the year of publication of Biderman's essay, and proceed to detain them and interrogate them, seeking to force an admission of 'guilt' for the above anti-Covidian 'crimes'. The captive Melbournians would see, at once, that they are being held hostage by madmen. Here is our fresh pair of eyes...

Biderman sketches out, in a chart, an exhaustive list of 'Responses to demands for false confessions; [degrees of] resistance and compliance'. Now, in our above science-fiction scenario, the captive Melbournians would after a time realise that the Victorian policeman are deadly serious; some of them would, in order to avoid detention, decide to 'be smart' and play a game with their captors. Perhaps they would acquiesce - or pretend to acquiesce - to the statements of identity that 'not wearing a mask' = 'crime', 'travelling 5 kilometres outside one's home' = 'crime', etc. They may 'confess' that yes, indeed, they did drink beer in public while not wearing a mask, or they did attend a large wedding - but they may ask, was that a crime? Or perhaps they would agree with the policeman that from a 'certain perspective', yes, not signing one's name and giving one's phone number when entering a public building could be considered a 'crime'. Such equivocations belong in Biderman's categories of 'defensive compliance' and 'active compliance', both of which are perhaps the two most interesting. 

What is the appropriate response to the captor's demand for a 'confession'? Too many of those opposed to Covidianism respond with what Biderman calls 'defensive resistance' (see below); they respectfully disagree with the Covidians, and list their reasons for that disagreement in bullet points. But arguing one's case with the Covidians does not work. I remember seeing footage of an unfortunate man in Melbourne who, while crossing the road, blundered straight into a group of police, who went and arrested him for not wearing a mask. He attempted to argue his way out of the arrest by reciting Covid facts and statistics (which were probably true) but the police wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him anyway while a policewoman soothingly intoned 'It's for your own good'. 

The only response to a demand for a 'confession' or admission of 'guilt' is what Biderman calls 'complete resistance' (see below). No compliance, only defiance. 

Tuesday, August 24, 2021

The Italian Job: Europe in 2021, and do Covidians = 'Nazis'?



I recently watched a review of Resistenza! (2021), a board game which deals with the communist partisan war against the German National Socialists and Italian Fascists in northern Italy during the last years of WWII. The reviewer, Marco, lives in the north of Italy, and his family comes from there, and so he feels a connection with the subject. And the game holds significance for him politically as well as personally: while he holds no strong political opinions, it seems, he as a modern-day liberal Italian evidently regards the partisan struggle as a noble cause, and thinks that the game is important as it shines a light on an oft-neglected episode of Italian history. 

Most gamers like to play their games with others; Marco maintains a special wing of his house stocked with hundreds of games, and it is set aside for when his gamer friends come to visit and play games with him. Unfortunately, Marco, living in the north of Italy, has been under house arrest for a year and a half because of the edicts of the Covidians; so he has been unable to receive visitors, he has been made to home school his children, he has deteriorated (as can be seen, I think, from his videos) psychologically under the government-imposed isolation. But Marco can be counted among the lucky ones, as the the Italian lockdown would have damaged more the northern Italians living in single-person households, that is, those who are unmarried or widowed and without children: these men and women have been sentenced to solitary confinement for nearly two years, and solitary confinement, as we know, is a form of punishment for prisoners, reputedly one of the worst a jailer can inflict. 

I sympathise with Marco because, at the time of writing, at least 12 million Australians are now under house arrest, many of them in solitary confinement. This is an extraordinary moment in Australian history, considering that the 12 million figure approaches 50% of the population. (The jibe now is that Australia has returned to being a penal colony). How did Australia - and the other locked-down nations (Italy, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, etc.) - fall into this lamentable state? 

Covidianism has been foisted upon us by three groups: journalists, politicians and 'white coats' (that is, medical professionals and health officials). But what are the underlying causes which allowed the imposition of the Covidian Great Reset upon us? In the case of Italy, there are two: the apathy of the 'normies' and the triumph of the partisans - or at least, the Allies - in WWII. 


The partisans, after the Allied 'liberation' of Italy, killed tens of thousands of Italians; mainstream historians, who are liberal and anti-fascist, put the death toll as high as 80,000. 

This fact is unremarked upon today - it simply does not suit the politically correct narrative - and were you to bring it to the attention of an apolitical man such as Marco, he would exclaim that it is a terrible thing, to be sure, but: 'What about Auschwitz'? 

Even if you were to disabuse Marco of the notion that Italian Jews were carted off to Auschwitz to be gassed (perhaps he could be persuaded to read the work of the great Italian Revisionist Carlo Mattogno), the conversation would, after a point, tail off, as Marco would lose interest in the subject; after a point, he would shrug his shoulders and evince a desire to go back to his gaming. In the last analysis, 'normies' really are not that interested in history, or at least not in the implications that history holds for the present.

But he ought to be interested, because the partisan victory and subsequent massacre of all conservative and Fascist-leaning Italians ensured that Masonry was unchecked and unimpeded; and it is Masonry which begat Covidianism. 

I will define what it is I mean by Masonry

1) An occult secret society which is hundreds of years old, and which borrows in its symbolism from Near Eastern cultures; 

2) A doctrine of liberalism, internationalism, cosmopolitanism, egalitarianism, republicanism, anti-traditionalism, individualism, rationalism; its Enlightenment values informed the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century so much so that whenever an American conservative speaks of 'Judeo-Christian', he really means 'Judeo-Masonic'; 

3) The political rule by a shadowy, technocratic elite, which views the populace instrumentally, i.e., something to be manipulated, used, shaped, by those possessed of a higher rationality. 

To sum up: Masonry is a brand of liberalism (hyper-liberalism, even), differentiated from other liberalisms by its esoteric, occult and secretive qualities. 

To understand the politics of Masonry, the reader would be best advised to read Dieter Schwarz' excellent pamphlet, Freemasonry - Ideology, Organisation and Policy (1944). A summary reads: 

This book was printed by the SchutzStaffel ϟϟ and issued to Waffen SS, Ghestapo and German command, it was also available to the general population. This short book summarizes and exposes the subversive, anti-western nature of Freemasonry and how they have conspired and were conspiring against the traditional Europe. It also goes into the Jewish dominance and influence over Freemasonry. Arguably Freemasonry is the Jewish revolutionary spirit in action. The book also goes into how Freemason Richard Von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder and president of the Pan-Europa movement that would become the European Union received Jewish funding.

If we are to trace the political fortunes of Masonry, we will see that they reached their peak some time around WWII; after that, Masonry stagnated. No longer centers of political intrigue, the Masonic lodges today serve as social clubs for old men - such are the consequences of modern day individualisation and atomisation. 

Given the highly visible decline of Masonry in the present age, why, then, do I consider Covidianism to be 'Masonic'? Why does the British musician Ian Brown sing of the 'Masonic Lockdown' in his anti-Covidian song Little Tree Big Seed (2020)? 

The answer is that certain prominent individuals have acquired massive political power in the past two years, and the spectacular careers of these individuals embody some of the key tenets of Masonry, in particular, 2) and 3) above. These men are Schwab, Fauci, Gates, and the legion of faceless and nameless technocrats and experts who set the UK, USA, Australia, Spain, Italy, on the dark path towards Covidianism. And, perhaps, for all we know, 1) above applies to these men as well - that is, that the Faucis and Schwabs actually belong to an occult international, an occult secret society which transcends borders. Speculation on the Internet as to these occult links is rife, at present, and such speculation is understandable, given that we are faced with a dearth of information on the ideological motivations and affiliations of these men, who were two years ago largely unknown to us before they were jockeyed into positions of enormous power. In a vacuum of information, conspiracy theories flourish. 


In the 20th century, German and Italian fascism fought relentlessly against Masonry of any kind. From this it follows that if you were to terminate fascism (and it was terminated, with extreme prejudice), you are to terminate one of the bulwarks against Masonry - perhaps the only bulwark. I will make this argument later. For the moment, I want to examine the accusation - from the 'normie' conservatives - that Covidianism is somehow 'Nazi' and 'fascist'. 

You only need to watch a few newsreels to prove the falsity of this charge; the Germans, in the 1930s and 1940s, did not wear masks and did not practice social distancing. And the Germans of this era did not sequester people in doors, close down businesses, force people into unemployment; all throughout the war, for example, they wanted people to work - and go outdoors. The Germans of this period would have regarded today's house arrests, solitary confinements, sequestrations, social distancing, forced idleness, 'working remotely', etc., as akin to a crime against nature - and Life itself. 

As can be seen from the conservative news, some 'normie' conservatives have drawn a comparison between the forcible wearing of masks (and adoption of 'vaccine' passports) and the Star of David. They are making another inappropriate historical analogy, and one which we can easily recognise as inappropriate with a little thought. According to the conservative narrative, the 'vaxxed' are the new 'Nazis', the 'unvaxxed', the new 'Jews'. The latter shall be marked out and segregated from normal society, like the wartime European Jews forced to wear the Star of David. But the analogy makes no sense. Why would a new 'Nazi' elite inject themselves with a substance which could make them sick and die? Why would they inject their own public sector workers - and soldiers and police! - with that substance? How could self-poisoning denote social distinction? (I suppose the People's Temple in Jonestown through their act of mass suicide distinguished themselves from the rest of humanity - and perhaps a comparison between the 'vaxxed' and the suicides of the People's Temple could be extended further by pointing out that the latter killed themselves through injecting as well as drinking poison). 

Another comparison between the Covidians and the WWII Germans: the police in the locked-down nations regularly badger people - and often arrest them - for not wearing masks, they will stop people in the street and demand proof of 'vaccination', and so forth; this, to our 'normie' conservative, calls to mind the German soldiers in occupied Europe in WWII, who, as we know from Hollywood movies, are always stopping civilians and asking for papers. 'Papers, where are your papers!' ('Ihren Papieren, Bitte' - your papers, please). The Covidian police = the 'Nazis' for this reason in the mind of the 'normie' conservative, because to him, WWII - in German-occupied Europe - was the only time in history that soldiers stopped civilians in the street and asked for identification... 

That brings us to another association between Covidianism and 'Nazism' - and one which is more difficult to avoid. This is the analogy that the 'normie' conservatives are prone to make between the Covid 'vaccination' and the German wartime compulsory euthanasia program. 

To recite some history for the reader: allegedly, during WWII, the Germans killed - through gassing or lethal injection - tens of thousands of retarded or incurably insane people, with the permission of their families; this was done ostensibly to free up hospital beds for wounded German soldiers. Now, the comparison between the 'Nazis' and the Covidians here seems appropriate, insofar as that lethal injections in both instances are a weapon of choice, and one used to accomplish a feat of mass murder: for the Covid 'vaccine' has so far killed (if reports of its 'adverse effects' are anything to go by) thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, depending on whose figures you believe.

I contend that further investigation of the German euthanasia program is required before we can pass final judgment. For the interim, I will not here take the path - one which is taken by most sympathisers with National Socialist Germany when discussing this subject - of arguing that such eugenic programs were only in keeping with the standards and practices of the time. Such an assertion is true enough, but it avoids the fact that eugenics formed one of the cornerstones of the National Socialist ideology and made that ideology distinctive. German National Socialism, unlike Italian Fascism, championed eugenics (the breeding of better human beings) and dysgenics (the weeding out of undesirable human beings). This is one side of the National Socialist doctrine that rival ideologies (such as Catholicism) found to be particularly gross and immoral. 

But even if one is inclined to agree with the Catholics, one must concede that the motive force behind eugenics differs from that of Covidianism. For the neo-Masons who have enforced house arrest, solitary confinement, 'vaccinations' with lethal consequences, and the like, do what they do with the intention of denying life. It is anti-natalism and population reduction which seem to animate them, and the values behind both those goals run counter to those of the National Socialists - and the Catholics as well. Catholicism wants all people - regardless of race or colour or creed - to reproduce as much as possible, and holds all life to be sacred; National Socialism wants only those of sound racial stock to reproduce as much as possible, and holds only ascendant life to be sacred; neo-Masonic Covidianism wants no-one (regardless of their racial fitness or lack thereof) to reproduce, and does not hold any form of life to be sacred. Catholicism wants an increase in the population, unfit or unfit; National Socialism, an increase in the population of the fit and a reduction in that of the unfit; Covidianism, a reduction in the entire population, fit or unfit. 

National Socialism, Catholicism and Covidianism find themselves incompatible. But Covidianism is compatible with Masonry, and it can be made compatible with the two other political forces which were the enemies of National Socialism - Judaism and Bolshevism. 

This is despite the fact that there incidences of 'friendly fire' all around. To explain. In the first years of the Soviet Union, Masonry was outlawed by the Bolsheviks and lambasted by Marxist luminaries such as Trotsky, but even so, in the first half of the twentieth century, Masonry used its not inconsiderable powers to help Bolshevism. Liberalism here recognised socialism as a cousin. As for Judaism, Schwarz chronicles the 18th century Jewish practice of joining Masonic lodges and cultivating powerful Freemasons; from the time of the Enlightenment on, Judaism utilised Masonry as a means of breaking down the barriers which prevented Jews from entering Gentile society. Historically, Jews have felt sympathy for the Freemasons. But, seventy-five years after the publication of Schwarz' book, the neo-Masonic Covidians, being opposed to all religious services (and all religion on principle), aroused the wrath of American Jewry by forcing the closure of synagogues in New York during one of the lockdowns in that city; the egalitarian ideology of Covidian neo-Masonry does not recognise Jews as 'The Chosen', hence the Jewish denunciations of the closures as 'anti-Semitic'. 

This may confuse the observer, but it all can be understood once we take into account the fact that Bolshevism, Masonry and Judaism are a troika in which one of the three will always enjoy a temporary dominance over the other two. At the moment, the Masonic faction is riding high. But not for long! Sooner or later, the Masons will be cut down to size...


Many commentators have remarked that since 2020, we have been living in a dream world - or a nightmare world. The most extraordinary thing about it is that misanthropy, life denial and nihilism have been made a policy of state. 

Around a 150 years ago, that philosophy of life - or anti-life - was represented by Schopenhauer; and around twenty to thirty years ago, by certain nihilistic tendencies within the subcultures of the West - such as, for instance, the black metal music genre. And, astoundingly enough, that philosophy has now become policy. To someone looking in from the outside, all this must seem absurd - as though some Satanic black metal musician, or some devotee of Atomwaffen and the Order of Nine Angles, has overnight become world dictator. 

On a personal note, all this runs contrary to my nature. I will admit that like many, in my youth, I was attracted to the philosophy of Schopenhauer, and even now, many years later, I still regard Nietzsche's first book, The Birth of the Tragedy (1872) (written in his youth, during his Schopenhaurian phase) as his finest. But in my own defence, an attraction to a philosophy of nihilism is not uncommon among free thinking young men (of which I was one): many of them are attracted to the misanthropy, pessimism and darkness of black metal, for example. But I can state that now that I am older, I do not understand Covidianism and its associated doctrines of nihilism, life-denial and the rest. I do not want to see a cessation of births or a culling of the population. I certainly do not want to live the rest of my life sequestered, or wearing a piece of cloth tied to my face, and I deplore the tragedies which have occurred since the onset of Covidianism - for example, the epidemic of teen suicides in the UK following Johnson's lockdown. 

How, then, can we avert further tragedies and recover our lost freedom? It is: stamp out Covidianism, and in doing so, show the Covidians the same ruthlessness to them that they have shown to others - to (for example) the grandmothers and pregnant women barred by the Australian police from resting on park benches, the teenage girls pepper-sprayed by that same police for not wearing masks... 

For inspiration, we ought to cast our eyes to the Europe of eighty years ago, when the old Masonry (paleo-Masonry?) was terminated and with extreme prejudice. In the October 15 1940 edition of Foreign Policy Reports, we find the essay 'Europe Under Nazi Rule' by Vera Micheles Dean; here are some of the passages which pertain to Masonry: 

Whatever may be Hitler’s ultimate plans for the political reorganization of Europe, it is already clear that many of the practices familiar in Germany have been introduced in conquered countries, at least for the duration of the war—either directly by the Nazis, or by native administrators under Nazi pressure. Among such measures are... the spread of anti-Semitism, and abolition of secret societies, notably Free Masonry. 

Relations between the German occupying authorities and the Dutch population, at first marked by extreme civility on the one side, and stunned resignation on the other, have shown signs of increasing strain as the Dutch began to realize the consequences of conquest... Free Masonry was abolished on September 5.

Meanwhile, the French social and economic system was rapidly being adapted to “new conditions"... Republican legislation banning anti-Semitic activities was repealed, and a number of demonstrations against Jews were reported in both occupied and unoccupied France. Free Masonry, long denounced for its political influence by the Right and by the Church, was abolished, and all French government officials and employees were required to take on oath that they had no connection with Free Masonry.


In 2021, the fight for freedom for Europe rests in the hands of the European people, the masses; no political leaders, certainly not those seeking a revival of the politics of 80 years ago, are coming over the horizon to save Europe. And a survey of the terrain reveals that Europeans cannot expect relief from the conservatives: after all, some of the worst Covidians in Europe (Johnson of the UK, Mitsotakis of Greece, Macron of France, et al.) are 'conservative'. 

But then, in the 1930s and 1940s, Churchill was considered a 'conservative'; and Roosevelt would be considered by today's standards to be well to the Right of anyone in the today's Democratic Party. And we can trace a line of development from the politics of these men - and De Gaulle, Weizmann and the others of that circle - to the politics of today's neo-Masons and Covidians. Johnson = Churchill, Macron = De Gaulle, Biden = Roosevelt... 

Now, some may object that the politicians of eighty to ninety years ago would never have countenanced Covidianism, which is true enough but only for the reason that these men had not thought of it at that juncture. In much the same way, the communists of Italy in the 1940s and 1950s would never have supported the idea of the Great Replacement for Italy (and Europe), but that is not because the 'old' Italian Left lacked the malice of the 'new'; no, it is because the idea had not occurred to them. Furthermore they would have recognised that such a misanthropic idea would not have caught on. They would have been politically astute enough to recognise that the Great Replacement, along with Greta Thunberg environmentalism, Social Justice Warrior cancel culture, etc., would have seemed a bridge too far for Italians in the 1950s. But now, seventy years later, the Italians are more than ready - and this is 'progress'. 


I began drafting this essay at the start of July, and revisiting the draft at the end of August, I find little to nothing has changed for Australia - it remains in its Covidian rut. A resolution to the crisis seems as far as away as ever. One of the reasons why I held off completing and posting the essay was that I wanted to be seen as 'positive', not 'negative', and my thinking was that if I could not say something 'positive', well, better not say it at all - and truth to tell, I could think of nothing 'positive' to say. I still cannot, and I do not think anyone with any intellectual honesty can assert that salvation lies just around the corner... 

At present, it will take a miracle to extricate ourselves from our plight - a miracle much like that occurred in a Central European nation nearly ninety years ago (in what Yockey called the 'European Revolution of 1933'). Until then, I advise readers: escape! If you cannot leave present Australia - or Europe - materially, leave it spiritually. Send your mind back, through time, to the past if need be.

Saturday, May 22, 2021

A Racialist and a Gentleman: Elitism on the 1990s American Far Right



I have been meaning to compose an article on the American dissident Right for some time, but I have been hesitating, as the old adage 'If you don't have anything positive to say, don't say it' has been lurking in the back of my mind. I have become somewhat alienated from the Americans over the course of the past ten years, and if I were to write anything on them, I would be writing a condemnation, but I am reluctant to do so, as I do not want to appear to be 'negative'. 

Why the alienation? See the recent events in Gaza. We find lamentations for the Palestinians - from white nationalists, race realists, neo-Nazis, immigration restrictionists and so forth; they call the Israeli bombing 'butchery', 'genocide'. But I do not recall any bemoaning the fate of the civilians who were being bombed and shelled by Russia and Syria in Idlib; these relentless and malicious attacks on civilian targets - marketplaces, hospitals, etc. - were not denounced by the dissident Right, which showed little to no awareness that these were taking place. The one or two commentators who were aware dismissed the actions of Putin and Assad as taking care of the 'terrorists' in the region. In the past ten years I have learned, from the dissident Right, that there are good terrorists and bad, good jihadis and bad. Hamas and Hezbollah stand on the 'good terrorist' and 'good jihadi' side of the ledger, the rebels in Idlib on the 'bad'; and also, every Arab civilian death in Gaza is a tragedy, every Arab civilian death in Syria, a non-event. But I myself cannot understand the basis of this evaluation, as it is never been explained to me successfully, and it is one of the reasons why  I stopped comprehending the dissident Right. 

Likewise, events in Ukraine after 2014 added to my confusion and alienation. The question I ask, nearly ten years later, is: what was it, precisely, that made the Ukrainians deserve to lose Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and what made the Russians worthy enough to annex them? The corrupt and incompentent Yanukovych was toppled and fled the country after Maidan - which most on the American dissident Right seem to regard as a crime for the ages - but it has never been explained how Yanukovych's policies differed from his successors; that is, why it was that Yanukovych was so good and Poroshenko and Zelensky so bad. Would Yanukovych's return to power make life better for Ukrainians, and if so, how? Inquiring minds want to know. 

I would sum up the 2010s as the decade in which the movement was taken in by Russian propaganda; the movement made a large investment in it. But that Russian propaganda shall one day be exposed in the same way that Soviet propaganda (on Katyn, for instance) was. Putin will not live forever and eventually the internal Russian documents on Syria and Ukraine will be declassified. And then we shall discover, lo and behold, that Russia knew all along that flight MH17 was shot down by Russians in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, that chemical weapons were used by Assad in Douma in 2017. Will, I wonder, the dissident Right then express its shame over being taken in? The answer is no. I think shame presupposes conscience, and many of today's luminaries on the dissident Right lack it; they are an unprincipled bunch. 

More and more people in the movement are beginning to see through 'based' Putin, but the old attitudes, and the old lies, persist. But I could be here reproached for judging the dissident Right unfairly: why deprecate it for Ukraine and Syria, both of which are peripheral to the cause of white survival? And it is true that Ukraine and Syria should not occupy our attentions overly much. The reason why the dissident Right has taken up Russia's cause is that the Right has navigated off-course; it has waded into unfamiliar territory; it should have stuck to what it was good at. 

As what is the American dissident Right's metier, we have to look at what was a better, purer time - the 1990s. (That decade began on the 1st of January, 1990 and ended (in my view) on the 11th of September, 2001: after the terrorist attack of 9/11, America and the world entered the 2000s, the decade of Bush's War on Terror). 


I ask: was life for Americans better in the 1990s? That is impossible to judge. So I will rephrase: was life for those on the American dissident Right better? 

The answer is yes. America, in 2021, since the Biden coup, is ruled by three political actors: Big Tech, Hollywood and the Media. The ideology that animates this terrible trio is extreme leftism. In order to understand that ideology, we must recognise that the modern Left can be divided up to six different factions. The past of twenty to thirty years ago was an improvement on the present insofar as that none of the  factions had political power. Someone on the Center or Far Right, were they travel in a time machine back to America in the 1990s would discover that the country was blessedly free of Marxism. 

Here I will go through each of the six and explain where each stood in the 1990s: 

- Old school Marxism / communism: Marxism had been discredited with the fall of the Soviet Union and the backsliding of communist China into capitalism. Communist parties in the Anglosphere (e.g., the United Kingdom and Australia) dissolved themselves. In America, traditional Marxist stalwarts the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) and the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) were relegated to obscurity, as were their Trotskyite and New Communist Communist Movement (NCM) offshoots; many of the NCM groups had dissolved themselves by the time of the fall of the Eastern European communist bloc and the scandal of the Tianamen Square massacre. In the 1990s, for the first time in over a hundred years, conservatism did not have contend with Marxism, which had ceased to exist. 

- Antifa and anarchism: these could be found only at the fringes of society - along with the goth, skinhead, 'black' heavy metal subcultures - and did not possess a fraction of the political power that they possess in 2021. 

- Woke capital: corporations paid lip service to liberal causes such as environmentalism, but only lip service. In 2021, companies such as Facebook (which recently prevented its users from posting news articles on race riots in Minneapolis) seek to actively control their customers, which is unprecedented. In the 1990s, or any foregoing decade for that matter, corporations did not behave in this way. The profit motive came first. 

- Social Justice Warriors / SJWs: Popular culture was not as corrupted by the Left in the 1990s; it was bereft of overt demands for 'representation', 'equity', 'social justice' and the like, and it did not engage (for example) in the practice of race-swapping white characters for black. And, furthermore, the infrastructure which supports SJWs - social media, especially Twitter - did not exist in the 1990s. 

- Black Lives Matter (BLM): like SJWism, this did not exist in the 1990s.

- Queer Studies, Women's Studies, Black Studies, Post-colonial Theory, Critical Race Theory: like a serpent in the garden of Eden, this brand of  academic neo-communism marred what would otherwise have been a perfectly post-leftist and post-political decade. Troublesome as it was when it first appeared, postmodernist and post-structuralist academic theory did not involve itself overly much politics, but its children - in particular, Critical Race Theory - did, with consequences we all know too well. Academic neo-Marxism (or Cultural Marxism) was conceived in the 1990s, was born in the 2000s, and grew to maturity (and attained, we hope, what was the full extent of its power) in the 2010s. Every silver lining has its cloud, and in the 1990s, postmodern academic 'pozzedness' was it, and I think that it gradually seeped into the popular culture of the time. This phenomenon explains, for instance, the 'pozzedness' of Kurt Cobain, the first politically correct rock star in history (Cobain, it should be remembered, named his daughter after a runaway negro slave). 

I made mention of the post-political, and this is important. One common argument in political theory is that the Right only defines itself in relation to the Left: conservatism, as we know it, only came into being after the advent of leftism, which was sometime a few hundred years ago, in the 18th century: see Edmund Burke, who wrote the founding text of conservatism in reaction to the French Revolution, which was the culmination of the rationalist, egalitarian, democratic French ideas of that period. If it were not for the Left, the Right would not exist; so what happens when the Left disappears? The answer is, the Right disappears with it. In the 1990s, Thatcherism, Reaganism, and all the 'New Right' ideology became passé: after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was no ideology enemy for the Right to fight against, Russians and Eastern Europeans all agreed with Thatcher and Reagan that capitalism was a good thing, so, what was the point of Thatcherism and Reaganism? But, so the argument goes, with the termination of the Left came the termination of the Right: so, no more politics. And this respite from the political raised serious questions. For the first time in over a hundred years, conservatives lived in a world which was free of Marxism; socialism no longer dangled over their heads like a sword of Damocles. Did that mean that they had ceased to be conservatives? Did that entail the end of politics? The American sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a famous work, The End of Ideology: on the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the 1950s (1960), on that subject: after 1945, he argued, the appeal of socialism and class war had diminished and both sides of politics in Western life had settled into a consensus. In the 1990s, Bell's ideas were dusted off and revived. As a Swedish academic, Daniel Strand, wrote


In the 1950s, scholars in Europe and the United States announced the end of political ideology in the West. With the rise of affluent welfare states, they argued, ideological movements which sought to overthrow prevailing liberal democracy would disappear. While these arguments were questioned in the 1960s, similar ideas were presented after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scholars now claimed that the end of the Cold War meant the end of mankind’s “ideological development,” that globalization would undermine the left/right distinction and that politics would be shaped by cultural affiliations rather than ideological alignments. In the 1950s, scholars in Europe and the United States announced the end of political ideology in the West. With the rise of affluent welfare states, they argued, ideological movements which sought to overthrow prevailing liberal democracy would disappear. While these arguments were questioned in the 1960s, similar ideas were presented after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scholars now claimed that the end of the Cold War meant the end of mankind’s “ideological development,” that globalization would undermine the left/right distinction and that politics would be shaped by cultural affiliations rather than ideological alignments.

Hence, we saw Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man (1993), which encapsulated the spirit of the age - or the decade - perfectly; and then Carl Boggs' The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere (2000), which is one of the best books that summed up the political developments - or lack of them - in that decade. 

One might think that in the 1990s, the Far Right would have sunk into oblivion, given that the West, in the post-Cold War, post-political era, had fallen into somnolence, complacency and self-satisfaction. But the end of politics, the end of ideology, the end of history, liberated the Far Right, and for the first time since the end of WWII, it came into its own. In its way, the 1990s were insurrectionist from a political and cultural standpoint; as Boggs documents, the decade saw a proliferation of cults, gangs, militias, terrorists, all with a decidedly apocalyptic and millenarian bent; these were extremist and radical, but not of course left-extremist and left-radical; they were inclined to conspiracy theories and anti-government paranoia (both of which abounded in the great TV series of that time, The X-Files, which like Fukuyama's book, was representative of the zeitgeist). Did anything unite these disparate tendencies? Yes: I would argue it was the desire to retrieve a lost spiritual essence and state of purity. It is this, I feel, that marks the ideology of the groups as reactionary, even right-wing. The Right wants such a retrieval or recovery; the Left, a redistribution of wealth and resources. Given that in the 1990s, the odds were stacked more in favour of the Right than the Left, naturally, 'extremists' of the William Pierce or Richard Butler sort flourished - and the more apocalyptic and millenarian their beliefs were, the larger their audience. 

This leads to the question of how it was that these 'extremists' got their message across. In the 1990s, old-school forms of entertainment (movies, TV shows, comic books, popular music on AM and FM radio) drew audiences numbering in the millions, as did old school forms of media (newspapers and other journals, radio, TV). The American Far Right, at the start of the nineties, used print media - books, magazines, newsletters, journals - to disseminate propaganda, and also other forms of old media. William Pierce read his incendiary polemics on radio, and even, for a time, appeared on his own cable TV channel; we moderns live in a comparatively unfree time, and we find it remarkable that the likes of Pierce were able to make his message heard in forums now unavailable to us.

Pierce saw a great potential in radio. He says: 

And we can do it. Three years ago there was no one willing to say publicly what we are saying now. Everyone was letting himself be intimidated into going along with the controlled media and the government. Then we started broadcasting on one radio station - just one broadcast a week. A year ago we had grown to seven stations. Now we're broadcasting on 15 stations each week. We have been able to grow like that because the people who listened to us on our first station three years ago told other people about us, and they began listening too, and then they told their friends. And our support grew, so that we could add more stations to our network. 

And we can keep growing. The 100,000 of us who now gather each week can grow to a million and then to ten million. All we have to do is keep spreading the word to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers, and to strangers too. We can spread the word by telephone, by letter, by spray-painting the time and frequency of this broadcast on fences and walls, by taking out advertising, by handing out leaflets. We can have 100 stations in our network by the end of this year. 

And we really must do that. Not just because it'll feel good to have a million of us together each week instead of only 100,000. We have to do it because we need to be able to speak with a big enough voice to prevent the enemies of America, the enemies of our people, from silencing us. [From the radio talk, 'Freedom: Use It or Lose It', February 1995.]

Pierce evidently saw himself as a rebel, a resistant, and that is the reason why his radio program was titled American Dissident Voices, his journal Free Speech. He operated outside the accepted American culture, and like the anti-hero of Dostoyevsky's famous novel, he wrote missives which were notes from the underground. Being under ground means being in the dark, and that made up one of the themes of nineties. One could find that theme - of a life lived in darkness and shadow - in the popular culture of the period. Compare the dim lighting and dark colours of the nineties TV show the X-Files to the bright lighting and pastel colours of the eighties TV show Miami Vice

The underground man theme was also embodied in the work of Art Bell, the late-night radio host who broadcast to millions of listeners from his studio in the Mojave Desert; Bell was obsessed by UFOs, the paranormal and anti-government conspiracy theories - many of the favourite preoccupations of Americans in that period. It is appropriate that in one of his famous broadcasts Bell clashed with Pierce, another titan of the airwaves; Bell and Pierce could be seen as two competing brothers. 

Wilmot Robertson sums up the feeling of being an underground man, an outsider, in a January 1995 issue of his journal Instauration

Instauration is a small journal, known to only a thin number of Americans. It cannot be bought on any newsstand. You will never see it hawked by the corner paperboy. Whenever it is mentioned in the mainstream press, the words are couched in tones of fear and loathing. The handful of public figures who have suggested that the world's most controversial magazine might have some slight merit have been treated as if they were advance agents of the Anti-Christ. 

Despite these rather lethal drawbacks, it is comforting to know that even if we are undersized, underfinanced and furiously ignored, Instauration is more perceptive, perspicacious and prescient than Time, Newsweek, the New Republic, the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

The simple truth is that what has been predicted on Instauration's pages is relentlessly coming true. The political, social, cultural and racial policies the magazine generally espouses are unquestionably coming to the fore. Nothing can stop this process and our enemies know it. Thus their frenzied hatred. The bell tolls for them, not us. ['Things are coming together']


Robertson gives us an example of an American persona - both a literary and political - I call the gentleman scholar as racialist, the racialist as patrician. The great racialist authors Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard represent the type in the first half of twentieth century, and Wilmot Robertson, Jared Taylor and the anonymous author of the Ron Paul newsletters in the second. They are distinguished from the more crude type of racialist by their learning, culture, refinement, literary skill, and above all, class. As one letter writer to Instauration (February 1995) puts it: 

I never met an Instaurationist and often tried to visualize one. I pictured an older gentleman of Anglo-Saxon background, but not too old, mind you. Are you familiar with the TV show, Magnum PI? If so, the delightful older chap, Higgans or Higgins, fits the bill. He is the fellow with the aristocratic English accent.

At first sight, Pierce - an erudite and cultured man - would belong in this category, but on further examination, he does not; his radicalism precludes it. Even though he finds himself mostly in agreement with Robertson, he presents his ideas in a different manner: his incendiary radio broadcasts recall those Father Coughlin, the Depression-era 'radio priest', and the political strategy of his hero of the Turner Diaries - a book written in the seventies - that of the urban guerrilla left-wing groups of that decade. It is this violent and radical streak which separates him from the genteel Grant and Stoddard. 

Pierce's journal National Vanguard (the official organ of his National Alliance) differs in its tone from three of the patrician-racialist journals of the 1990s: Instauration, the American Renaissance newsletter and the Ron Paul Survival Report: these three sounded conservative, National Vanguard sounded radical. Ron Paul's newsletter - which may or may have not been written by him - spoke of African-Americans, homosexuals, immigrants and Jews in what Pierce would have called euphemistically a 'political incorrect' manner, but all the same, the newsletters were grounded in American conservatism, Paul being a free-market libertarian. Likewise, two of the American Renaissance circle - Joe Sobran and Sam Francis - began their careers as op-ed writers for conservative journals (which they were later blacklisted from). Conceivably, Robertson and the other contributors could have written for conservative journals (providing that they kept well away from 'politically incorrect' subjects). But Pierce, an affiliate of George Lincoln Rockwell and a contributor to National Socialist World in the 1960s, would have never been allowed near a conservative publication; his reputation would have preceded him. The same could be said of other white nationalist luminaries of the decade David Duke, Don Black, Tom Metzger, Ben Klassen. A distinction which I am inclined to call a class distinction existed. 

But what united all these men, patricians and non-patricians? First and foremost, a concentration upon the negro question, which in the 1990s was thrust to the forefront of the American national consciousness by the spectacle of the 1992 Los Angeles race riots - the first race riots (at least, the first which attained prominence) since the 1960s. The Los Angeles riots demonstrated that the negro question could not be ignored, and set the pattern for the race riots to follow, including those that took place in 2020. 

Here is one account of a race riot in Cincinnati - all italics are mine:

Everyone in America knows about Cincinnati. That is, everyone at least has seen the sanitized images of the Cincinnati race riot that have appeared on television screens across the country. In that regard the Cincinnati riot is different from the Seattle race riot of nearly two months ago. News of the Seattle riot was successfully suppressed by the controlled media outside the Seattle area. 

In other ways, however, the riots were very similar. Although the controlled media decided not to try to suppress the news from Cincinnati, it is clear that the sympathies of the media bosses were as much with the Blacks in Cincinnati as they were in Seattle. Here's one small example of that: The 19-year-old Black thug whose shooting by a White policeman was the Blacks' excuse for rioting in Cincinnati had a long arrest record. There were 14 more arrest warrants outstanding for him at the time he was shot. 

The policeman who shot him, in other words, realized that he was dealing with a habitual criminal, and he responded to what he believed was an attempt by the Black to draw a weapon from his waistband by shooting him. 

None of this was mentioned on the television news coverage of events in Cincinnati, of course. The Black who was shot was described by the media as "an unarmed Black youth" - or, in the case of Cincinnati's Channel 9 television news program, as "an unarmed African American teenager." And here's the clincher: Instead of using one of the readily available police mug shots of the Black, the media managed to dig up a photo of him in a formal suit with a big, innocent smile on his face, presumably taken at some high-school dance - and that is the photograph shown repeatedly to Americans on their television screens: not the police mug shots of a hardened, 19-year-old Black criminal, but a photograph of smiling, well-dressed, teenaged Black innocence. You can be sure that some Jewish news director got a bonus from a Jewish network boss for digging up that photograph. 

At the Black's funeral last Saturday the White governor of Ohio and the White mayor of Cincinnati both appeared among the mourners. That's a symbolic thing. You can be certain that they wouldn't have attended the funeral of some White street thug shot by a Black cop. They attended the funeral, alongside Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam people, Kweisi Mfume of the NAACP, and members of the New Black Panther Party, and they looked appropriately contrite and said nice things about the deceased for one reason only: they were frightened to death that the Blacks would continue rioting. 

And why were they afraid of that? They could have stopped the riot dead in its tracks any time they wanted. That is, physically they could have stopped the riot. Even though 43 per cent of the population of Cincinnati is Black, the police could have wound up the riot within half an hour, and the Blacks who survived the gunfire would have been trembling behind closed doors, afraid to show their faces. Militarily it would have been a trivial matter. 

But both Mayor Charles Luken and Governor Bob Taft understood that politically they were at the mercy of the Black rioters. They knew which side the Jewish media were on. They knew that if they took strong measures against the rioters they would be crucified by the media. So just as in Seattle the cops, under orders from the politicians, simply let the riot run its course. They arrested 200 or so Blacks they caught looting stores or setting fires when they could do so without danger of any real conflict, but it was more a matter of picking off stragglers than it was any real attempt at riot control. For the most part the police just watched. They watched while Blacks stopped cars with White drivers, pulled the drivers out of their cars, and stomped and beat them mercilessly. They stood by and watched the Blacks beat a White woman "to a pulp." Those words - "to a pulp" - aren't mine; they came from the April 12 edition of the Cincinnati Post. The rule governing the cops was: don't provoke the Blacks. 

The reader may be surprised to learn that the above excerpt was taken from a May 2001 talk by William Pierce, 'Riot and Revolution', as the riot it describes could have taken place yesterday. African-American riots did not begin with the advent of Black Lives Matter. 

What is significant is that the race riots of 1992 and 2001 could not be blamed on communism - i.e., the African-American rioters, looters and arsonists had not been stirred up by communist agitators; neither could be blamed on economic misery and hardship, as America in the 1990s was the most prosperous it had been since the 1960s. No, any honest commentator, after the riots of 1992, needed to face (and face squarely) certain immutable racial realities and this is what Pierce and Taylor did. What divided the two men was their approach. 


Patrician racialism is still with us, but it was dealt a blow by the decline of the print media and the rise of the Internet. Instauration, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the American Renaissance newsletter ceased publication. The Internet became the primary means of disseminating racialist ideas and perspectives, and this development worked against the genteel and literary brand of racialism, as discourse became open to all - democratised. The quality of thought diminished. In the 1990s, readers of Instauration and the American Renaissance journal needed to master the art of composition if they wanted their comments to appear in the letters pages; nowadays, those who post their comments on any white nationalist site do not bother.  

The decline of 'gentleman racialism' helps explains why it is that so much of the American dissident Right has veered into what is not American. Robertson wrote extensively on the Jewish question and Holocaust and WWII revisionism (although you would never know from this recent American Renaissance post); even Taylor looked at these subjects (albeit in passing) in the 1990s newsletters. But articles on these controversies were outweighed by those on the subject of race and the 'colour of crime'. One advantage of writing for a print journal is that you can weight your articles; you can bring articles on the more important subjects close to the front pages and consign the less important to the back; using a website, you cannot direct your reader's attention the same way, as you are forced to give all the articles equal billing. Their format was one of the reasons why the gentlemanly journals stayed focused. In contrast, very little in the way of a unifying American theme can be found in most of today's white nationalist or dissident Right sites. We see posts on Celtic myth; on 19th century Romantic art; on Ukraine and Syria (of course written from a pro-Russian perspective); on Israel and Zionism; on Holocaust Revisionism. Posts of speeches and articles by German National Socialists written over 75 years ago sit incongruously alongside current American news stories. A melange, a chaos, arises as a result of this lack of a theme - the Renegade Tribune being the best example. 

Once a site deviates away from the 'dispossession of the majority' and the 'colour of crime', the quality of its comments deteriorates. Sites which tackle Israel, Zionism and Middle East politics (such as Unz.Org) attract some of the worst people in the comments, and sites which stay grounded (such as American Renaissance and Stuff Black People Don't Like) some of the best. This is because decent, ordinary Americans from all walks of life can relate to the 'colour of crime', for it is omnipresent in their lives; whereas the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria, are not. Paul Kersey's Stuff Black People Don't Like only deals with the negro question - nothing else! - and Jared Taylor's American Renaissance only deals with race; neither will touch the Jewish question with a barge pole, as evidently Taylor and Kersey are of the opinion that it will go over the heads of most Americans. There is something to be said for this empiricism and pragmatism. 

Here an objection may be raised and Pierce pointed to as an example of an activist who, his writing and speaking, shifted between a number of subjects and at the same time stayed coherent. It is true, I will concede, that Pierce achieved this feat; but I will observe that Pierce, who died in 2002, did not write for the new media but for the old - print and radio - in which a certain amount of craft and skill was required. 


Speaking of Pierce, an examination of his speeches from the nineties show that he would disagree with me that the decade was 'conservative' in any shape or form; Pierce saw the America of the time as a multi-racial dystopia, in which the political system and the culture was hopelessly Judaised, and in which leftism ran amok. I will qualify my earlier remarks by stating that in the nineties liberalism (or leftism) was prevalent, but this was a 'soft' leftism, unconnected to the 'hard' leftism of the Marxist-Leninist variety. The latter has come back into a fashion, in a big way, and its revival can be attributed to increased non-immigration: Third World immigration brings with it Third World Marxism - something 'race-blind' conservatives are unwilling to acknowledge.

As for Judaisation, the 2010s have seen a slight diminution of Jewish power - on the Left, at least. In the 1990s and 2000s, any criticism of Israel by any politician, either of the Left or Right, was equated with anti-Semitism and discouraged - the African-American Democratic Party Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was ousted because of a perceived 'anti-Semitism' - but in the Left today, anti-Semites are more than welcome. During the recent bombing of Gaza, we were treated to headlines (in the conservative media) such as 'Pro-Hamas mobs are hounding Jews coast to coast'; left-wing activists (who more often than not people of colour) were insulting, harassing and attacking Jews in what the pro-Israel conservative media saw as a pogrom. This 'left' anti-Semitism has been furthered by non-white immigration, in particular, immigration from the Islamic world; it does not (as Pierce would have hoped) represent any anti-Semitic 'racial awakening' on the part of whites. 

Pierce, in his radio talks, was always documenting instances of some of the bad behaviour of African-Americans, including some of the grisly black-on-white murders which took place in that period, and he was always pointing out that these had been hushed up by a complaisant media. One development - and this is one he would have approved of - is that since the Black Lives Matter riots, the conservative media, while holding to its usual anti-racist line, is posting pictures and videos of African-American public nuisances and criminals, and is even reporting on some black-on-white murders. It does so in a passive-aggressive manner; it understands that it is still beholden to what Paul Kersey calls 'Black Run America' and it does not want to openly acknowledge the 'colour of crime'. But it is reflecting, I think, the mood of its audience: there is a new impatience on the part of white Americans with African-Americans. Some of the commenters at American Renaissance have declared that they were ordinary Americans who were led on the path to 'race realism' by mainstream news stories chronicling African-American misbehaviour. 

One has to ask what Pierce of the 1990s would have made of today's America. I think it would have been beyond his comprehension; he would not have understood it. And such is the disconnect between his time and ours, if you were to travel back in time and tell him that the 2020s would be much worse by way of comparison to the 1990s, he would have regarded you as insane.