An Introspective of White Ethnocentrism

An Introspective of White Ethnocentrism

January 16, 2020/82 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy /by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

 

 

“The fiendlike skill we display in the invention of all manner of death-dealing engines, the vindictiveness with which we carry on our wars, and the misery and desolation that follow in their train, are enough of themselves to distinguish the white civilized man as the most ferocious animal on the face of the earth.”
           Herman Melville, Typee, 1846

Inert in the face of mass migration, and entranced by the foreign policy objectives of hostile elites, today’s “white civilized man” appear far removed from the ferocious animal perceived by Herman Melville. 
While still capable of inventing all manner of war machines, and retaining the ability to engage in vindictive and devastating conflicts, we seem uniquely incapable of doing any of it in our own interests. 
Instead, the “ferocious animal” of today is tame, on a leash, and obedient to obscure masters. 
One of the biggest problems for the Dissident Right, and perhaps the most serious, is the seeming collapse of White ethnocentrism in the second half of the twentieth century. 

The “liquid” nature of modernity, economic developments, the mass dissemination of guilt propaganda, the assault on the family, and, in some cases, the criminalization of aspects of White advocacy have all conspired to undermine, stigmatize, and destroy both national-cultural White identities (English, French, German etc.) and confluent “New World” White identities (American, Canadian, Australian etc.). These assaults from multiple angles have been so profound that by far the most prominent focus of Dissident Right activism has been to identify these external threats and then to attempt forms of rhetorical counter-attack. 
As such, the broad trajectory of pro-White literature, my own included, involves material on the hostility of Jews, globalism, neocon wars, Black crime, the mechanics of White guilt, and how we are censored or otherwise exiled from the mainstream.

Discussion of these subjects is absolutely essential, even if the argument could be made that we too often neglect the great White elephant in the room  —  the problem that both surrounds us and confounds us: the majority of Whites who simply fail to act in their interests, and even collaborate with outsiders against their ethnic interests. 

Probably no thinker in our circles has done more to move beyond neglect of ethnically pathological behaviors among Whites than Kevin MacDonald who, in a number of essays (e.g. see here, here and here) and his 2019 Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, has almost single-handedly attempted to improve our understanding of what’s happening and to suggest possible remedies. 
With the election of Donald Trump, and the evolution of European populism, White identity and political interests are also coming into increasing prominence as academic and media talking points, the work of Matthew Goodwin and Eric Kaufmann being the most obvious examples. 
The methodologies of such studies involve group psychology, voting patterns, and economic analyses; their findings deserve careful study.
 
In the following essay, however, I propose a different way of looking at White ethnocentrism. Rather than turning a lens towards elections, the economy, group psychology, or the impacts of globalism, I want to do something quintessentially European — to turn the lens inwards. 
By examining the origins and nature of my own sense of ethnocentrism, I hope to understand more about the ethnocentrism, or lack of ethnocentrism, in other Whites. I do so in the understanding that my sense of ethnic identity might be radically different from others. 
In fact, I suspect that there is a multiplicity of ethnocentrisms at work among Europeans, each as unique as a fingerprint, and that this is one of the reasons for our predicament. 
Nevertheless, the following essay has been written in the hope that, even given the differences of White ethnocentrisms, something valuable might be learned, or that an interesting and productive debate might be started.

*****

I honestly can’t remember a point at which I first regarded myself as possessing a heightened, or above average, ethnocentrism. 
I certainly can’t recall instances before the age of 18 where I was not only conscious of being White, but proud of that fact and conceiving of myself as having interests as a White man. 
Looking back on my childhood, it’s clear to me that I was raised in an overwhelmingly White environment, and ethnic outsiders, such as they existed in my world, were found almost exclusively on television or in the realm of pop music. 
In other words, I was raised in an environment where being White was simply the default state, and ethnics were merely presented at the fringes of that environment as something safe, entertaining, even attractive. 

One jarring exception to this state of affairs occurred in my late teens, when the 2001 Oldham Riots, and later riots in Bradford, Burnley, and Leeds, broke out in the north of England. 
These riots were explicitly racial in nature, and had been prompted to a large extent by an increase in violent crime by Pakistanis and other South Asians against Whites. 
The most savage, and most publicised, of these attacks was the assault of Walter Chamberlain, a 76-year-old war veteran who was so badly beaten by three Pakistanis on his way home from a rugby match that he required surgery to rebuild his face. He had walked through “their area.”

The assault on Mr Chamberlain lit the match in the racial tinderbox, and Oldham erupted in mutual petrol bomb attacks, assaults, and arsons. It was through the blanket coverage of these race riots that I learned not only that there were growing ethnic enclaves throughout the West, but also that these brought in their wake “no-go areas,” rampant crime, and vicious anti-White hostility. 

The riots in Oldham coincided with the fact I had begun to study politics at high school, part of which involved looking at race relations. In fact, just a few weeks prior to the Oldham Riots, I’d been asked to watch Mississippi Burning (1988), a crime thriller loosely based on the 1964 murder investigation concerning three civil rights workers (two Jews and a Black) by the Ku Klux Klan. Looking back on it from my current vantage point, the film is exceptional multicultural propaganda. It’s extremely well-made from a technical standpoint, boasts tremendous acting talent in the form of Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe, and is utterly relentless in demonising the population of the American South while eulogising Blacks. 
Nevertheless, if memory serves me right, it had only a middling effect on my opinion of race relations, and any embryonic feelings of White guilt were swiftly destroyed one afternoon by my first encounter with the face of Mr Chamberlain, adorning the front pages of multiple newspapers as I made my way to buy lunch.

Walter Chamberlain

I followed the Oldham Riots with great interest, and recall thinking of myself as White for the first time because of the violence. Looking back over some old news articles covering those events, it’s really stunning how open some Oldham residents were about the racial realities they were forced to live with. 
Take, for example, the following remark from the landlord of a local pub, the Fytton Arms: “The Asians make you racist. You’re not brought up to hate them, they make you hate them.” 
Another man told reporters: “They won’t live like us. They won’t work. I don’t believe for a minute they can’t get a job because they are discriminated against. They don’t want jobs.” 
On the assault on Walter Chamberlain, another added: “That’s how sick and low they are, three lads knocking 10 bells out of an old bloke. What’s he going to do back?”  
In retrospect, I believe the Oldham Riots woke up a lot of White people, both near the epicenter and far from it. The riots marked the beginning of what would eventually be a remarkable rise in support for the British National Party. For those of us further afield, even if we didn’t hate Asians, to paraphrase the landlord of the Fytton Arms, “we weren’t brought up ethnocentric, but the Asians made us ethnocentric.”

Once the riots were suppressed, the government invested millions in “race relations” measures designed to bribe the Asians and gag the Whites. 
The years since 2001 have witnessed endless official exhortations to “celebrate diversity” in the town, while clampdowns were announced “on anything which might be deemed offensive,” including the flying of St. George’s flag. 
The town is still largely segregated, and an uneasy peace prevails. 
White ethnocentrism probably remains strong in Oldham but, for now, it’s shackled and dormant. 
Reflecting back on those years, after the riots my own ethnocentrism entered a short period of dormancy until, prompted by a history class that required me to watch Schindler’s List (1993) — how strange the role films have played thus far!— I was sent down another, more convoluted, path to White ethnocentrism.

*****

Until doing a short high school course of study on the rise of National Socialist Germany, part of which required coursework on Schindler’s List, my knowledge of Jews was limited to the highly philo-Semitic teachings of a Presbyterian Sunday school I attended between the ages of 5 and 10. 
It’s quite a leap to go from purportedly heroic Israelites parting seas and surviving the dens of lions to yellow stars on clothing and, in the narrative I was given, mass death on an industrial scale. 
It was probably the sheer scale of this gap — the contradictory exposure to extremes of philosemitism and antisemitism — that sparked a greater than average curiosity about what exactly had happened in Europe between 1933 and 1945, and why. 
Truth be told, that same curiosity is still there, and I have to say that while readers sometimes write to me saying that my essays have helped them understand certain topics, the essays are primarily a method of improving my own understanding — a kind of “thinking on paper.”

I started examining Jewish interactions with European populations, on a serious and advanced level, in my early 20s, around the same time I became a father. In terms of my own life history, these two events are connected in more senses than mere timing, since both contributed to heightened ethnocentrism. 
I found Ed Dutton’s recent J. Philippe Rushton: A Life History Perspective (2018) fascinating not just because of the analysis of Rushton’s work but what Dutton had to say about Rushton’s early life, especially:

All the behaviors which Rushton has displayed—dropping out of school, marrying young, having a child young, having an affair—are predicted by low IQ. But he manifestly had a very high IQ, so, instead, these reflect a fast Life History Strategy, and specifically low Conscientiousness. Rushton was ‘living for the now’, following his impulses, with little regard for the future.

Like Rushton, by my early 20s I exhibited behavior reflective of a fast Life History Strategy — I hadn’t dropped out of school but had at times been very “disruptive.” 
Despite excelling academically, I was frequently in fights and spent many hours in detention, I married young (20), and had a child young (age 21 to Rushton’s 19). 
I never had an affair or touched drugs (or even alcohol), but I did “live for the now,” following my impulses, with little regard for the future. 
Even now, I have a higher than average number of children (4), something more typical today of lower-IQ, risk-prone populations. 
And yet I also, like Rushton, continued my education alongside being a father, and graduated from university (also like Rushton) with First Class Honours, later proceeding (again like Rushton) to a PhD. 
In some ways, I regard my own experience of fatherhood as slowing my Life History Strategy, something I’m sure I’m not alone in experiencing.
For me, becoming a father wasn’t just a fact of biology, but also something spiritual. 
I remember holding my first child for the first time, and hearing in my mind the final words of Dante’s Paradiso: “But my will now and my desire were turned, like a wheel rotated evenly, by a love that moves the sun and the other stars.” 
This dramatic shift in my personality and sense of responsibility contributed in the longer term to a slower Life History Strategy, more conscientiousness (especially regarding my children), more caution, more deliberation on risk, and greater awareness not only of my own mortality but of the threat of death more generally. 
I became very protective, and began to be concerned with things like finding safe places to raise children, and safe people they could associate with. 
As they grew older, I became interested in what my children were being taught, and by whom. 
I began to think of myself, and my children, as part of a biological and spiritual continuum. Fatherhood had fathered a sense of ethnocentrism.

*****

This life-shift occurred around the same time I encountered troubling incongruities in historical and contemporary representations of Jewish-European relations. 
It also coincided with the fact I was travelling more with my young family, spending time not only in cities across Europe but also the United States. 
There were alarming instances of ethnic crime, like the sexual assault of a family friend by a Black in Florida, an attempted break-in by Blacks in North Carolina, street harassment by gangs of Africans (twice) and Arabs (once) in Paris and Spain, attempted thefts by gypsies in Rome, but more insidiously alarming was my general sense that the White world was shrinking, becoming tragically and despondently peppered with “Oldhams.”

As my investigations of Jewish-European interactions deepened and expanded, I began to confront the Jewish role in promoting notions of tolerance and ethnic pluralism in White countries, and then encountered the work of Kevin MacDonald. 
MacDonald’s own personal account of the journey to White ethnocentrism had quite a profound effect on me, since it mirrored mine (and maybe even the landlord of the Fytton Arms) in a small but important number of ways, the most important of which was that White ethnocentrism really wasn’t something we were raised with, but that environmentally impressed itself upon us. 
It seemed to me that White ethnocentrism can do this either in dramatic and inescapable ways, by taking the form of a surface-level, instinctive reaction to the open and immediate violent hostility of ethnic outsiders, or it can be the result of a very broad and deep reflection on one’s immediate environment, circumstances, and group history. 
The latter path would appear to require above average intelligence, as well as exposure to certain stimulating factors and an ability to assimilate a range of historical, philosophical issues. 
Of course, it can also result from a combination of both — a violent ethnic confrontation that prompts deeper reflection and more intensified feelings of ethnocentrism. Actually expressing this newfound sense of ethnocentrism would then require a new set of traits altogether, including low conscientiousness (worrying less about what others would think), a greater tendency to risk-taking behaviors, and perhaps even higher than average levels of aggression. 
In other words, in attempting to define an ideal type of ethnocentric White, we are back to what we might be termed the “Rushton combination” of r and K traits and strategies, with enough IQ to grasp the problem at hand, and enough recklessness to push through a wall of social stigma in order to do something about it. 
This combination is, in all probability, quite rare in the population at large which would go some way towards explaining the relatively stagnant nature of White ethnocentrism at present.
In any event, it occurs to me that high levels of ethnocentrism don’t appear natural to Europeans. I think we lack the innate and instinctive forms of ethnocentrism we perceive in others, like the Jews, Arabs, and South Asians. 
Even in my early exploration of Jewish matters, I think I was angered more by a sense that certain aspects of Jewish behavior (usury, nepotism, monopoly, cultural hostility) appeared, quite frankly, as “unfair” rather than being a direct attack on my interests as a White person, and those of my family or people. 
Even today, some critics of my essays have mentioned that I seem to be motivated by a sense of unfairness rather than something more coldly rational, and perhaps they aren’t completely wrong. 
I’m sure that, like most quintessentially European types, I haven’t entirely escaped from preoccupations with questions of fairness and morality, even if I think that to lose these traits entirely (as some Nietzscheans have advocated) would be to tragically lose something that makes us who we are. 
We are preoccupied with fairness. 
We are caught up with ideas of morality. 
We’ve evolved that way, and it will be the challenge of our time to adapt these traits in a way that helps rather than hinders the development of ethnocentrism — something that is necessary if we are to  survive as a group and remain dominant in our homelands and historically-held territories.

*****

What I find very difficult to understand and explain are those Whites who experience utterly catastrophic inter-ethnic encounters and yet fail to develop an ethnocentric response. 
Search the media and it won’t be long until you find stories of Whites who have been raped by non-Whites and find some way to blame White people for it. 
Similarly, it won’t take long to find stories about fathers of murdered daughters who urge tolerance for ethnic minorities and utter non-sequiturs about what the daughter “would have wanted.” 
Such stories should be compared and contrasted with John Derbyshire’s now infamous 2012 article “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” which more or less makes the case that every good White parent should educate their children about the dangers posed by non-Whites. 
The reaction to Derbyshire’s piece was ferocious, but I ask a single, simple question: How many kids getting Derbyshire’s talk would go on to die at the hands of violent ethnic minorities? 
I think it would rather drastically reduce the number of inter-ethnic deaths.
Every time I hear about a young White woman murdered by ethnics, either in her home country or while travelling in some remote part of the world, I think of Derbyshire’s piece and say to myself, “Well, I bet her parents aren’t ‘racists’.” 
It’s really very simple — the daughters of ‘racists’ don’t think it’s a great idea to go travelling in remote India or in Muslim countries, and as such, they don’t get raped and beheaded in places like Morocco. 
The standout moment of 2019’s Joker comes in the penultimate act when the punchline to Arthur Fleck’s only real joke of the film is: “You get what you fucking deserve,” and, in the cruelest of senses, this applies to those who fail to “evolve” into ethnocentrism despite the environment demanding it. 
Ethnocentric Whites will manage to avoid the worst of ethnic violence, by moving away from non-Whites, by keeping their children away from them, by imparting knowledge about them, and by planning for a future in which racial realities will play an important role. 
Ethnically blind Whites will continue to bear the brunt of multiculturalism. 
They will be used as pawns by hostile elites, their children will be murdered, and their future will be bleak and utterly without hope.

*****

How should I characterise my sense of ethnocentrism? 
This is more difficult than I initially thought. 
Our movement has adopted a few new labels of late, including White advocacy and even “White Wellbeing.” 
 There’s something about the latter that makes me cringe, despite the obvious good intent behind it. 
I sometimes listen to podcasts and hear a lot about “our people” and their achievements, and things to that effect. 
Again, I think this is very well-meaning, and I think we should absolutely try to encourage a sense of group pride. 
But, ironically, and for me personally, despite all the demonization of the Dissident Right as a hotbed of racial supremacism and ethnic chauvinism, my sense of White ethnocentrism is quite frankly a lot more personal and humble than that. 
My sense of White ethnocentrism is rooted in a desire to protect my family and to, as Bob Matthews once put it, “continue the flow” of my lineage. 
In regards to how my ethnocentrism, and the ethnocentrism of other Whites, might impact ethnic minorities, it should suffice to state that the problem began with them. They’re in my homeland; I’m not in theirs. 
Their presence and “racism” (which is really just White existence forced into conflict with an opposing force) are a mutual or dependent arising. 
One does not exist without the other. 
The presence of outsiders will provoke White ethnocentrism, at least among the healthy and adaptive. 
If “anti-racist” ethnic aliens are sincere in their desire to end White racism they should take the only authentic measure guaranteed to achieve that end — they should leave, and leave quickly.
More than pride in being White, more than any sense of historical achievements by the European peoples, I simply thank whatever gods may be that I possess a sense of ethnic identity.
====================

Humbug, Hypocrisy, and the Dismantling of White Western Identity

Humbug, Hypocrisy, and the Dismantling of White Western Identity

January 26, 2020/36 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Tobias Langdon

 

 

None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949–2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.

“Read off the result in prejudons”

The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Wharton (né Michael Nathan) (1913–2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical “Peter Simple” column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:

THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a “racist incident” as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).
Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of “racism”, press the easy-to-find “action” button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple Column, The Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)

It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing “the race relations industry” (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and “hate” can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase “internationally recognised,” which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is “recognised.”

Adopt the definition, already!

Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is “internationally recognised.” Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:

Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism
Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.
Marie said: “This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.
“The IHRA Definition makes it easier for authorities to identify and understand the nature of contemporary antisemitism. If universities are serious about addressing antisemitism and making Jews feel welcome at their institution, they should follow KCL’s example and adopt the definition.” (Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, The Board of Deputies website, 30th May 2018)

The phrase “internationally recognised” is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is ludicrously vague and elastic:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:

One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium

One Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena

Note the slogan “One Nation. One Siyum.” A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity — the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).

Murder of a poet

But what is the “One Nation” that has just completed “One Siyum”? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, “One Nation” obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means “Union of Israel,” that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for “divine intervention.”

Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesmen, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become “non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,” and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.

A Jewish supremacist party

And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called “far right” and condemned with labels like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and “extremist.” Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.
The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far “more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide” than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.

Inbreeding and ethnocentrism

And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say “countries” advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as “One Nation,” it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. “Nation” ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.
This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes “the best job in the world.”

The Fine Line

The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of “Who decides who is British?” It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and “lazy assumptions” make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of “Welcoming the Stranger”:

Jewniversity: Sarah Fine
Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity
I usually ask the subjects of this column – “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response.
But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.
Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?
To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?
Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.
On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.
But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?
But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.
Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.
Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?
Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.
She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (Who decides who is British?, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)

There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British — and who is American, German, French, Swedish, Australian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his “vote” outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, “[w]hether he was granted entry … was hugely important to him.”

And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.

The core of mendacity

Meanwhile, Jews in America, Germany, France, Sweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. 
The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors. 
The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. 
As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. 
Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidèle Mutwarasibo, who has “a PhD in Sociology,” and Salome Mbugua, who has “a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.” 
And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:

A Big Black Lie: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish”

The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” You might as well say that “Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united” or “Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.” And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.

Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites

Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: “Jews can, goys can’t.” Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning “Union of Israel,” remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.

Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter

And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidèle Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. 
It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as “Our Man in the Dáil” (Irish government). 
Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. 
The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s “definition of anti-Semitism” is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. 
Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?
======================

The “New Dark Ages” in Western Europe and North America: Comparisons with the Fall of Rome

The “New Dark Ages” in Western Europe and North America: Comparisons with the Fall of Rome

February 1, 2020/69 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Ferdinand Bardamu

 

 

What is a Dark Age?

In historiography, the term “Dark Age” may describe intervening centuries for which we have little or no documentary evidence. Accordingly, the time period between the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization to the birth of the polis is known as the Greek Dark Ages by historians, simply because there are no contemporary written sources. 
In this essay, the term Dark Age will be used to designate a period of civilizational decline, with particular reference to Western Europe’s Dark Ages (c. 500—1000 AD). This was quite possibly the worst period of civilizational decline in Western history, but is important because it shows us that civilization is separated from the worst bestial depravity by a thin line. What George Santayana wrote is instructive: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Although this adage has become a cliché, it bears repeating since it’s well-supported by past experience. If we must focus on the Old Dark Ages, it is because we risk forgetting how fragile civilization really is. 
If this is the case, we are in danger of rushing heedlessly into a New Dark Age—if we have not already entered one—since we have failed to internalize the lessons of the past.
The causes of the Dark Ages in Western Europe are considered complex and multifaceted by modern historians. The barbarian successor states that replaced the Imperium Romanorum lacked the ability and competence of the Imperial government. The result was inevitable. Under barbarian rule, there were “very substantial simplifications in post-Roman material culture in the fifth to seventh centuries.”[1] 
Among these “simplifications” were the collapse of the empire’s infrastructure, the decline in the production of manufactured goods and use of coinage, widespread depopulation and de-urbanization and, most devastating of all, the loss of much of the ancient world’s cultural and intellectual patrimony. Although some contemporary historians stress continuity between Rome and the barbarian kingdoms, this is contradicted by the extensive archaeological record. From 500—700 AD, there was a massive decline in European living standards since Roman times, when the Dark Ages had reached their lowest point.
As terrible as these Dark Ages were, it is not the only dark period in Western history, nor will it be the last. A New Dark Age has returned, more terrible than the first. We are its passive witnesses, confident that nothing can be done to stop it. The West is crumbling because the White race has collectively decided—at the instigation of a hostile Jewish-dominated globalist elite—that White racial suicide is a moral imperative. The visible signs of this deterioration are so obvious they can no longer be ignored, at least by those who can see beyond the smoldering ruins of this decaying civilization.

A New Dark Age?

  
The signs of an emerging New Dark Age are fourfold, affecting the biological, intellectual, demographic and economic spheres of Western man’s existence. 

This decline is apparently unstoppable; as time goes by, the darkness over Europe will only become darker. 
In the biological and intellectual sphere, we have seen IQs steadily decline since mid-19th century. 
This has no doubt been masked to a considerable extent by improvements in nutrition and healthcare, resulting in longer lifespans. 
On the other hand, feminism and women’s sexual liberation have aggravated the decline: Low-IQ women breed prolifically, while high-IQ women influenced by feminism delay marriage for the sake of careers and education. 
It does not take a fertile imagination to realize the kind of dysgenic effect this has on society. 

In the largest North American and Western European urban centers, we see the crumbling infrastructure and growing social decay that comes with overcrowding and mass Third World immigration. 
More non-Whites shoveled into Western cities by globalist elites, many with anti-White ethnic agendas, means lower average population IQ, followed by a corresponding decline in quality of life as low-IQ people become an ever-increasing burden on society in terms of homelessness, drug addiction, lack of education, lack of work ethic, etc. 

In the absence of a technologically sophisticated elite able churn out inexpensive consumer goods, this would result in increasing “simplification” of post-Western material culture, analogous to the kind of “simplifications” archaeologists say occurred during the Old Dark Ages. 
Given declining IQs and racial hygienic standards, life will inevitably become a much simpler, but more brutal Darwinian struggle for survival, just as it was over a thousand years ago.

The West’s declining IQs have led to declining educational standards. The universities are no longer bastions of intellectual inquiry, like they were during their heyday, i.e., La Belle Époque, but liberal indoctrination centers with little intellectual content. In this respect, they are similar to the late medieval universities that once policed orthodoxy and discouraged freedom of thought (i.e. the Catholic Aristotelians of the medieval arts and theology faculties who opposed the new astronomy of Galileo). 
The people who run them, far from being interested in knowledge for its own sake, are there to reap the rewards of an easy, well-paying job where they are able to spew leftist propaganda—at the expense of their students, who still believe—albeit naively—that degrees are needed for good jobs. 
 Mass education, far from being a benefit to anyone except the system’s architects, has lowered curricular quality and increased prevalence of grade inflation across the board.

On a side note, Western philosophy—the most important intellectual endeavor beside theoretical physics—has been particularly hard hit by PoMo relativism. From the empyrean heights of Plato and Aristotle, it has descended to the low level of a feces-encrusted cesspit. The writings of Martin Heidegger—liberal academia’s biggest superstar—are considered holy writ by his legions of adoring fans, even though they are pretentious, rambling, jargon-laced diatribes only famous because they can be interpreted to mean anything to anyone. Far from being a means of defining terms and refining methods to achieve greater clarity and understanding—the way Socrates intended—modern (especially continental) philosophy seeks to feign profundity through an unnecessarily turgid and obscure prose. 
Meanwhile, impenetrable jargon has become the trademark of the rest of the humanities, personified by academic superstars like Judith Butler.
White populations worldwide are hurtling toward demographic free fall. The declining birth rates in virtually all White Western Hemispheric nations are symptomatic of the collapse of the monogamous family, the result of decades of indoctrination in feminist ideology and women’s sexual liberation. 
Since women are no longer expected to settle down and marry, the worst aspects of female nature are now on full display. 
Student debt incurred by buying largely worthless (for many) college degrees is affecting the decision to marry.  If there are no traditional values—and Western society has done its best to jettison these in the name of fatuous “human rights”— society will not adequately replenish itself, eventually withering away and dying.
Finally, Western economies are being undermined from within by their own elites. Outsourcing by multinationals has decimated manufacturing sectors in all White Western countries, worsening the lives and prospects of the White middle- and working-class majority populations. 

Chinese goods have been allowed to flood Western markets, often with the collusion of domestic manufacturers who are able to outsource their labor costs. 
Real wages have stagnated and affordable housing has become increasingly scarce, as excess Third World immigrant demand places home ownership beyond reach of the ordinary citizen, particularly in the large urban centers.

Moreover, the importation of this cheap, non-White labor has a contraceptive effect, putting downward pressure on real wages which, in turn, put downward pressure on White fertility rates; working-class wages have stagnated since the 1970s.  
In the West, the growing reserve army of labor disincentivizes industry from rationalizing production and channeling surplus profits into research and development. Far from getting better, the economy worsens as wealth accrues to the top 1 percent of the population; meanwhile, the middle class shrinks and poverty becomes more widespread.

Because of all of these factors, life in most of the White Western countries has progressively worsened, only made tolerable—but just barely—by the superabundance of inexpensive Chinese-made goods. That the majority of Whites and their globalist elites interpret these signs of deterioration as “progress” and “improvement” is just more evidence we really are in a Dark Age. 

Old and New Dark Ages Compared

The similarities and differences between New and Old Dark Ages may be grouped under the following headings: 
(a) the reasons for demographic decline; 
(b) Western man’s conscious decision to abandon his own civilization vs. Roman decline due to internal civilizational weaknesses, and; 
(c) the role of Christian ideology in the decline of Rome and Jewish ideology in modern Western culture.
First, we begin with Rome’s decline, which had a demographic dimension. After Hadrian had abandoned the territories conquered by Trajan—for administrative and fiscal reasons, the quest for new land and new bodies to rule over ground to a halt. This precipitated a crisis. The number of bodies left to till the fields and man the auxiliary forces along the frontiers declined as the vices of civilization took root. Because of the dearth of bodies and taxable wealth, the empire lacked the capacity to control its vast territories. To remedy this, the Romans recruited barbarians from burgeoning migrant populations along the frontiers or from the armies of the defeated. The historian Cassius Dio says Marcus Aurelius, after defeating the barbarians in the Marcomannic Wars, would either send them on military campaigns or settle them on land in Dacia, Pannonia and elsewhere.[2]
By the fourth century, barbarian recruitment into the armies had increased; by the mid-5th century, the ranks of the army were largely occupied by Germanic and Hunnish mercenaries, at which point even the military chain of command was thoroughly barbarized. 
The magister militum, the most important position in the empire after the emperor himself, was occupied by Romanized Germans for most of the fifth century. 
These men were more powerful than the succession of weak emperors they could make or break with a single utterance. 
According to the “barbarization thesis”: “Rome was fatally weakened when, in the fourth and fifth centuries, her army largely made up of foreigners no longer represented the people.”[3]
The Imperial administration’s need for barbarians was in some ways similar to Western elite demand for non-White immigrants. Like immigrants, the barbarians were cheap and expendable. 
Non-Whites are imported by globalists to do the work “White men don’t want to do.” 
 Similarly, the barbarians were recruited into the armies and allowed to settle Imperial lands because fourth- and fifth-century Romans had become the “soyboys” of antiquity—soft, effeminate, milquetoast, peace-loving and totally lacking in all of the warrior virtues. 
Finally, like Western elites, the Imperial administration was a tax-hungry beast; but Roman justification for taxation was pragmatic, not ideological. 
This difference is best illustrated by the Western neoliberal economic model; predicated on perpetual growth, it serves as pretext for the White majority’s suicidally impulsive need for never-ending supplies of non-White “fresh meat.” 

In the Roman case, a constant stream of bodies was needed to maintain an empire overextended beyond its logistical and financial capacities. By late antiquity, this state of affairs had become militarily and financially unsustainable. The barbarian invaders were simply kicking in the doors of an old house that was rotten to the foundation.

The inevitable result of Imperial greed for taxes and manpower was ethnic demographic replacement of the Roman population across wide swathes of Imperial land. 
This wasn’t a conscious decision on the part of the Roman aristocracy. Given the empire’s multi-ethnic character, the Imperial administration could not refuse entrance to barbarian migrants on ethnic grounds. 
The problems that afflicted the Imperium during late antiquity were the outcome of earlier expansionist policies that overextended the boundaries of empire, making it difficult to maintain and control without a constant supply of warm bodies and a steady flow of taxes. 
Population replacement by large numbers of foreigners, the end result of failed Imperial expansionist policies and Volkerwanderung, led to the alienation of the citizenry from the institutions from their own government. 
The more Germanized the empire became, the less people identified with it. In time, too much Germanization meant very little patriotism; no loyalty to Rome meant no desire to prevent the barbarian invasions from overrunning much of the Imperial territories. 
When Africa was lost to the Vandals, there was hardly any will to recapture the territory, despite its status as breadbasket of the empire. 
It even meant Roman contempt—and sometimes outright ethno-racial hatred—for the Germanic and Hunnish invaders. 
The second time Rome was sacked in a millennium—by Alaric’s Goths in 410 AD—the underlying reason was contemptuous treatment of her barbarian auxiliaries and their sacrifices by the Romans, the outcome of reliance on cheap and expendable foreign labor.

The Volkerwanderung is not the cause of the empire’s collapse, as its internal weaknesses date from the civil wars, natural disasters and barbarian invasions of the third century; however, Germanization, combined with lack of identification with Romanitas, played a role in hastening its decline. 

The barbarian successor states that replaced the Imperial administration lacked the know-how to run a civilization as sophisticated and as advanced as Rome, resulting in barbarism replacing civilization in most of Western Europe.
Even though the causes of the Dark Ages in Rome and the modern West are different, it is instructive to note the final outcome in both cases was ethnic replacement by hostile foreigners, none of whom possessed the ability to maintain the civilizations they acquired either through force or by invitation.

Among the main differences, the barbarians who terrorized Rome were mostly White, whereas the ones being imported by Whites into their own Western countries are overwhelmingly non-White. 

Unlike Rome, which at least valued Romanitas to the bitter end, the contemporary “West” aggressively pursues its own racial demise at the hands of its non-White colonizers. 
While Rome’s decline was the outcome of events rotting the Imperium from within, the collapse of modern Western societies and their descent into the New Dark Ages is entirely the fault of Whites being dominated by a hostile ruling elite.
Many Whites, under the influence of an alien Jewish-dominated media elite, encourage their own women to prostitute themselves to non-White foreigners, while making it harder for men of their own race to reproduce by implementing aggressively feminist, women’s liberationist and multicultural policies. 
This is a reason why fertility has declined to below replacement levels since the beginning of the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. 

Homosexuality, transgenderism and miscegenation have become the new Western values of the emerging post-Western cultures of Western Europe and North America, thanks to elite manipulation of White racial consciousness. 

As a result, the traditional values embodied by the institutions of monogamous marriage and the nuclear family unit are no longer influential. The image of the White woman in the minds of the non-White males encouraged by globalists to invade White-majority countries, is of a promiscuous and nymphomaniacal slut who will bed any man who desires her. 
This image has been exported abroad by Hollywood, but it is far from the truth, since women everywhere are biologically hypergamous. But there is no doubt this is a powerful draw for the Third World’s oversupply of single males, who cannot afford wives for themselves in their own native countries. 
These policies are prudishly justified as much needed “civil rights legislation” and “multiculturalism,” but more appropriate labels would be pathological ethnomasochism and delusional racial self-hatred.

Lastly, the state religion of Rome had become Christianity in the fourth century. This deprived the Imperium of her ablest and most talented men. This late classical “brain drain” further hastened a process begun during the crisis of the third century, when the Roman empire was divided between warring factions.
Italian historian Arnaldo Momigliano writes:

“The Church attracted the most creative minds—St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, Hilarius of Poitiers, St. Augustine in the West; Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea in the East: almost all born rulers, rulers of a type which, with exception of the scholarly emperor Julian, it was hard to find on the imperial throne. …
Gibbon was simplifying a very complicated issue when he insinuated that Christianity was responsible for the fall of the empire, but he perceived that the church attracted many men who in the past would have become excellent generals, governors of provinces, advisers to the emperors. …
People escaped from the state into the Church and weakened that state by giving their best to the Church. This is a situation which in its turn requires analysis and explanation. But its primary importance cannot be overlooked. The best men were working for the Church, not for the state.”[4]

The rise of Christianity did not cause the Dark Ages—an event without any single underlying cause—but it did not help matters either. 
As the Christian church increased in wealth and power, more people took an active interest in pursuing clerical careers. 
Under the pagan emperors, familiarity with the classics was mandatory for those who wanted to work for the state, but it wasn’t necessary for those who worked for the church. 
There was a “reduction in the number of administrative posts in the Roman empire’s Western successor kingdoms because taxation was simplified and some administrative levels … disappeared entirely. 
This rendered classical culture less attractive, because the effort and investment necessary to master it became less socially profitable.”[5] 
As a result, the classical curriculum declined in importance, becoming no longer necessary for secular advancement. 
In the early medieval period, the “clericalization of the culture became the sociological norm after 550.”[6] 
In the late sixth to seventh centuries, the classical education system was either replaced by monastic training or the study of patristics. This development negatively affected the survival of the ancient world’s secular knowledge. Dirk Rohmann writes:

Many early Christian clerics and ecclesiastical authors felt that the pagan texts of the past were completely unnecessary to lead a Christian life-style. … As classical education came to be less and less important for worldly career paths, and clerical career paths became more and more attractive, the preservation of the works of old was endangered.”[7]

Somehow these writings had become so “endangered” that almost none of them survived the sixth and seventh centuries, when Western man had sunk to the lowest depths. How could such an enormous loss occur in so brief a period of time (relatively speaking)? In the standard work on classical and medieval textual transmission, scholars Reynolds and Wilson write:

There can be little doubt that one of the major reasons for the loss of classical texts is that most Christians were not interested in reading them, and hence not enough new copies of the texts were made to ensure their survival in an age of war and destruction.[8]     

The growth of the Christian church meant loss of interest in the ancient world’s greatest achievements. Works of secular poetry, philosophy, science, and mathematics were left to rot on Western Europe’s bookshelves. 
Reynolds and Marshall write: 
“The copying of classical texts tapered off to such an extent during the Dark Ages that the continuity of pagan culture came close to being severed.”[9] 
The monks who dominated the medieval apparatus of textual transmission made sure to preserve thousands of copies of Greek and Vulgate New Testaments, but rarely copied the classics. According to Rudolf Blum:

Of the Greek literature created before 250 B.C. we have only a small, even though very valuable, part. We do not even have the complete works of those authors who were included in the lists of classics compiled by the Alexandrian philologists. Of all the works of pagan Greek literature perhaps only one percent has come down to us.[10]

Rohmann wrotes: “It is estimated that for Latin literature less than one per cent of titles survive in total.”[11] Because of its indifference to the achievements of the past, the Christian church had inadvertently prolonged the Dark Ages for centuries. It wasn’t until the rediscovery of classical literature—Aristotle, Plato, Euclid and so on—beginning in the twelfth century, that Western man was able to free himself from the brutal indifference and crass superstitions of the Christian church.

Like Christianity, cultural Marxism has played a similar role in the New Dark Ages, but with an important difference. Christianity did not cause the empire’s disintegration, but only hastened its decline, whereas cultural Marxism is a central causal factor in Western decline. 
Under Cultural Marxist influence, globalist elites have aggressively promoted feminism, multiculturalism and mass immigration. Homosexuality, transgenderism and miscegenation have become enshrined as the new values of a decaying post-modern civilization. 

The church did not need to suppress classical culture to ensure Christian hegemony in Western Europe; there were a few skirmishes here and there, but indifference was more than enough. 
Cultural Marxists, unlike Christians, actively suppress knowledge of racial and sexual differences using social pressures, i.e., ostracism and shaming language (“You racist! You sexist!”); economic pressures, i.e., depriving right-wing dissidents of their livelihoods, and; legal pressures, i.e., hate speech and anti-Holocaust denial legislation. 

On top of this, the globalist elites even have the power to shape the consciousness of the masses. By altering human perception of objective reality through control of mass media, such as newspapers, television, radio and billboards, they seek to neutralize the opposition, while proclaiming their new religion of liberal egalitarianism.

Like Christianity, cultural Marxism has its own belief system. “There is no such thing as race or sex,” proclaims the new religion, “all cultures are the same.” These beliefs are impervious to reason, just like the beliefs of the devout Christian. Like Christian religious epistemology, cultural Marxist epistemology is faith-based. This does not bode well for the survival of our current, albeit degenerate post-Western civilization. As Edmund Burke pithily observed: “A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation.”

Christian indifference prolonged the Dark Ages and the suffering of the people of Europe, until what remained of ancient secular knowledge was recovered between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, giving Europeans a solid foundation upon which to build. Without the rediscovery of the writings of Aristotle and others, the modern world would have taken much longer to emerge, assuming it would have emerged at all. 

The cultural Marxists, far from being indifferent to the Western intellectual tradition, draw much of their inspiration from the liberal Enlightenment, especially Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and various Marxist heterodoxies, like the Frankfurt School. Unlike the church, which has never actively suppressed any branch of human knowledge, cultural Marxist fanatics go out of their way to suppress the West’s accumulated knowledge of race and sex differences, including the role of evolutionary biology in their origin and development. Although cultural Marxism is not an attack on all Western knowledge, its attempt to eliminate knowledge of racial and sexual differences will have the same effect as centuries of Christian indifference to the intellectual achievements of antiquity.
Because of the diligent efforts of cultural Marxists, few Westerners are aware of the size and extent of racial and sexual differences between populations, or even that such differences exist. 
This is not unlike the Christian theologians of the Old Dark Ages who hoarded what little remained of ancient philosophy, science and mathematics among themselves, while the populace remained totally ignorant of the intellectual achievements of classical antiquity. 
Cultural Marxism, unlike the Christian church, has not yet resulted in the loss of almost all branches of human knowledge, but its willful suppression of knowledge of race and sex differences is just as devastating, if not more so. 
At least there were still men of ability after the long, dark night of Christian indifference, able to rebuild on the wisdom of the past after the recovery of Aristotle in the twelfth century. 
With the abandonment of all knowledge of race and sex differences, the West’s vast storehouse of knowledge will be lost because of the biological degeneration and extinction of the original populations of Western Europe and North America. 

Whites will always be able to abandon crass superstitions—even if it takes centuries—but a gene pool, once contaminated by an inferior population’s low-quality genes, may never recover.

Will Western Man Survive The New Dark Ages?

 
The Romans of late antiquity were oblivious to the fact their now moribund Western empire was slipping into the Dark Ages, although a few were prescient enough to notice the extent of the rot before it was too late. One such prescient Roman was the fourth-century pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote:

At the time when Rome first began to rise into a position of world-wide splendour, in order that she might grow to a towering stature, Virtue and Fortune, ordinarily at variance, formed a pact of eternal peace; for if either one of them had failed her, Rome had not come to complete supremacy. Her people, from the very cradle to the end of their childhood, a period of about three hundred years, carried on wars about her walls. Then, entering adult life, after many toilsome wars, they crossed the Alps and the sea. Grown to youth and manhood, from every region which the vast globe includes, they brought back laurels and triumphs. And now, declining into old age, and often owing victory to its name alone, it has come to a quieter period of life.[12]

Only Ammianus’s belief in an eternal Rome prevented him from swallowing the ultimate blackpill and taking his observations to their logical conclusion: Rome’s days as a civilization were numbered. The Christians and the Germanic barbarians would be more interested in wielding their swords and chanting Christian hymns than rescuing the decaying Imperium Romanorum from oblivion.
Even a few late-ancient Christians were not oblivious to the impending collapse of Rome. In a letter of 396, St. Jerome wrote:

My heart sickens when I go over the catastrophes that have happened in our time. For more than twenty years, not a day has gone past between Constantinople and the Julian Alps without the shedding of Roman blood. How many matrons, how many virgins dedicated to God, how many free-born women of noble blood, have fallen into the hands of those wild beasts, … bishops imprisoned, priests slaughtered, churches defiled, horses tethered to altars. … The world of Rome is falling to pieces.”[13]  

The pattern is the same with the New Dark Ages that have blanketed all of Western Europe and North America. Few notice what has happened before voices of protest are silenced indefinitely. As always, the masses carry on as if nothing has changed. 
No one ever knows they have really gone through a Dark Age until it has been pointed out to them centuries after the fact. 
It was over 300 years after the “official” end of the Old Dark Ages when the fourteenth-century humanist Petrarch first noticed the lights had entirely gone out in Western Europe for over a thousand years, beginning with the crisis of the third century and continuing until his own day. 
He had a special term for these intervening centuries: aetas tenebrae or “age of darkness.”[14]

Ages of darkness, like the one first recognized and described by Petrarch, are necessarily characterized by regnant ideologies that reflect the general ignorance and stupidity of the masses. 

Medieval man fervently believed in this child-like superstition despite the pointless suffering it caused all around him. Our own day is no different; in our New Dark Age, race and sex are believed to be illusions invented by racists and sexists to oppress and marginalize what cultural Marxists believe are “disadvantaged minorities.” 
These beliefs are just as silly, but potentially more destructive than simple Christian beliefs. 

As religious or quasi-religious beliefs, they are impervious to reason because they are derived from faith-based epistemologies, which do not allow for the revision of the belief-system itself in light of new evidence.
There are no real solutions to the problems that confront what’s left of Western societies. Only seismic shocks like what led to the Renaissance and Reformation were able to awaken medieval man from his “dogmatic slumbers,” to use Kant’s phrase. 

With the end of ecclesiastical authority in Europe, medieval man was able to wean himself from his crass superstitions and singlehandedly create the modern world. On the other hand, it seems unlikely a new Renaissance will be enough to jolt Western man—if indeed we can even call him that—from his own “dogmatic slumbers,” given his newfound faith entails mental and biological degeneration of his own subspecies.

Our only hope lies, not with any White awakening—a totally unrealistic fantasy at this point—but with natural selection. If even a few Whites can resist the poison of cultural Marxism, by breeding selectively among themselves and preserving their own bloodlines from non-White intermixture, they may be able to give future Whites the opportunity to rebuild a society of their very own upon the ashes of post-Western degeneracy.

---

[1] Wickham, Chris. The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000. London ; Penguin, Allen Lane, 2010, p. 7. ‌
[2] “Cassius Dio’s Roman History.” LacusCurtius, Uchicago.Edu, 2019, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html. Accessed 2 June 2019, LXXII.11. ‌
[3] Speidel, Michael P. Riding For Caesar: The Roman Emperor’s Horseguard. Routledge, 2011, p. 65. ‌
[4]Momigliano, Arnaldo, ed. “Judeo-Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire.” The Conflict Between Paganism and Judeo-Christianity in the Fourth Century, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99.
[5]Inglebert, Hervé. “Introduction: Late Antique Conceptions of Late Antiquity” in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, Oxford University Press, 11 Oct. 2012, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336931.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195336931. Accessed 2 Nov. 2019, p. 11 (PDF version). ‌
[6]Ibid., p. 12.
[7]Rohmann, Dirk. Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity: Studies in Text Transmission. Waco, Baylor University Press, 2017, p. 198. ‌
[8]Reynolds, L. D., and N. G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars a Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013, p. 34. ‌
[9]Reynolds, L. D., et al. Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983, p. xvii. ‌
[10]Blum, Rudolf. Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography. Madison, Wis., The University Of Wisconsin Press, 2011, p. 8. ‌
[11]Rohman, Christianity, p.8.
[12]“The Roman Antiquities of Ammianus Marcellinus.” LacusCurtius, Uchicago.edu, 2011, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/14. Accessed 18 Jan. 2020, Book XIV.6.3-4. ‌
[13]Letters, 60, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 22, p. 600. Quoted by Lidia Storoni Mazzolani, The Idea of the City in Roman Thought, trans. S. O’Donnell (London:1970), p. 235.
[14]Lynch, Jack, and John T. Lynch. The Age of Elizabeth in the Age of Johnson. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010, p. 21. ‌