Things to Read

Lyssa wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

incorrect in so many ways

hǣþen wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

incorrect in so many ways

Are you a Wagnerian or a Gnostic?

what is a wagnerian?

Lyssa wrote:

hǣþen wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

incorrect in so many ways

Are you a Wagnerian or a Gnostic?

I appreciate his works(Wagner) but his ring cycle is based off of christian sources, namely the poetic edda. Its heavily based on a xtian world view. Hence the author of that article can draw such incorrect conclusions being selective of his/her sources.

To answer your question I would need more of an elaboration of the context you mean it in.

hǣþen wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

hǣþen wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

incorrect in so many ways

Are you a Wagnerian or a Gnostic?

I appreciate his works(Wagner) but his ring cycle is based off of christian sources, namely the poetic edda. Its heavily based on a xtian world view. Hence the author of that article can draw such incorrect conclusions being selective of his/her sources.

Then we agree.

I have not ventured into how the eddas themselves might contain Xt. elements; that for another day. If you have something to offer in that regard, would be glad to hear.

For instance, here's another one:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Guest wrote:

what is a wagnerian?

In this context, I meant someone who believes in a world-redeemer, an Aryan-Christ and such.

I will post some interesting books for you

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

especially the part where it talks of the clerical mind.

Wrt to the eddas I'll post something when recall the correct source. Here is some food for though though, the eddas were written down roughly 270 years after the conversion of Iceland. Said another way almost 300 years after the close of the heathen period in that area. Snorri was educated in Paris and exposed to plenty of classical literature, ever wondered why some of the deities and myths are so similar to the Greek? The trend in europe at that time was to claim origin from Troy and you'll find that right in the intro of his work. Classical literature such as the Illiad had prestige.

Thanks for the suggestions; I have the first one, just haven't gotten to it.

The second is new to me, will look into it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by George K. Simon

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Knowing Yourself Better

            Any manipulator’s real leverage is in knowing the character of his victim well enough to know how that person will likely respond to the tactics he uses.  He may know the victim will give him the benefit of the doubt, buy his excuses, be hesitant to ascribe evil intention, etc.  He may know how conscientious the individual is and how effective shame and guilt will be in getting him or her to back down.  Manipulators generally take the time to scope out the characteristics and weaknesses of their victims.
            If manipulators gain leverage by what they know about you, it only stands to reason that the more you know about yourself and the more you work to overcome your own vulnerabilities, the more leverage you gain in your dealings with them.  When examining your own character, here are some important things to look for:

            1.  NAIVETÉ.  You may be one of those individuals who finds it too hard to accept the notion that there really are people as cunning, devious, and ruthless as your gut tells you the manipulator in your life is.  That is, you may even be prone to engage in “neurotic” denial.  If you are, even when you’re confronted with abundant evidence you’re dealing with a ruthless conniver, you may refuse to believe it, reluctantly accepting reality only after being victimized too often.

            2.  OVER-CONSCIENTIOUSNESS.  Ask yourself if you’re one of those people who is much harder on themselves than anybody else.  You might be the kind of person who is too willing to give a would-be manipulator the benefit of the doubt.  When they do something to hurt you, you may be too ready to see their side of things and too willing to blame yourself when they go on the attack and throw you on the defensive.

            3.  LOW SELF-CONFIDENCE.  You may be one of those persons who is overly self-doubting, or chronically unsure of your right to pursue your legitimate wants and needs.  You may lack confidence about your ability to face conflicts directly and resolve them effectively.  If so, you’re likely to quit asserting yourself prematurely and also likely to go on the defensive too easily when challenged by an aggressive personality.

            4.  OVER-INTELLECTUALIZATION.  You may be one of those persons who tries too hard to understand.  If you’re also one who assumes that people only do hurtful things when there’s some legitimate, understandable reason, you might delude yourself into believing that uncovering and understanding all the reasons for your manipulator’s behavior will be sufficient to make things different.  Sometimes, by being overly focused on the possible reasons for a behavior, you may inadvertently excuse it.  Other times, you might get so wrapped-up in trying to understand what’s going on that you forget that someone is merely fighting to gain advantage over you and that you should be devoting your time and energy to taking necessary steps to protect and empower yourself.  If you over-intellectualize, you’ll likely have trouble accepting the simple philosophy that there are people in this world who fight too much, fight underhandedly, and for no other purpose than to get what they want.

5. EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY.  You may have submissive personality characteristics rooted in deep fears of independence and autonomy.  If so, you might be attracted to the more confident-appearing, independent, and aggressive personalities in the first place.  After becoming involved in a relationship with them, you may also tend to let such people run over you out of fear that if you stand up to them you may be “abandoned” altogether.  The more emotionally dependent you are on someone, the more vulnerable you are to being exploited and manipulated by them.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

in the introduction to his book Professor Orchard explains much about Snorri.

hǣþen wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

in the introduction to his book Professor Orchard explains much about Snorri.

Thank you.

"It does not explain why Christian scribes went to the trouble and expense of copying heathen mythological poetry. It seems hard to believe that it survived only for the instruction of would-be skalds. Equally, if mythological poems were designed to embody and perpetuate heathen belief, why did they not become the object of ecclesiastical hostility after the Conversion?
Until quite recently,most critics regarded the mythology in the Poetic Edda as a single system that was accepted as ‘truth’ by the poets and most of their society. They therefore assumed that most mythological poems are the work of heathen poets. A few poems are still usually accepted as genuinely heathen (for example, the stanzas describing the hanging of Óðinn in Hávamál), and one (Võluspá) may be a thoughtful heathen’s response to the approach of Christianity. But poems such as Skírnismál, Lokasenna and Hymiskviða, which were generally accepted as heathen compositions until the mid-twentieth century, have more recently been seen as the work of twelfth- or thirteenth-century poets who must have been Christian in their everyday lives. Poets of this period cannot have intended to promote heathen belief, and it is embarrassing, to say the least, that it remains difficult to distinguish objectively between pre- and post-Conversion poems. Having assumed that the ‘canonical’ poems represented a single, genuinely heathen system, the tradition of scholarship initiated by Jacob Grimm then asserted, on the basis of comparisons with other Indo-European languages and mythologies, that this system was very ancient. This supposition has led to many attempts to discover the structures of a common Indo-European mythological system – a project which has often diverted scholarly attention away from the surviving sources themselves." [McKinnell, Meeting the Other in Norse Myth]

This is a huge topic and I am unfamiliar with any work critiquing Grimm.

Quote :

Perhaps it is time to develop a new theory of history, one which sees our present stage of belief in “radical self-determination” as a necessary stage we must go through. And it promises only to get worse. What stage will succeed it? No one can say with certainty, but what it might be is a stage where, standing in the midst of a civilization ruined by liberalism, we recognize that we must consciously accept and affirm our determination by nature and by history. This means that we would affirm all those things taken for granted by our ancestors: the biological determination of masculinity and femininity, the necessity of the traditional family, the superiority of ethnically homogeneous societies, the inescapable realities of racial differences, and more.

The world of our ancestors was destroyed because they took all of this for granted and could not intellectually defend their world against the onslaught of moralizing Christian egalitarians and pseudo-scientific left-wing sophists. But we are in a position to possibly — just possibly — recover what was lost and to place it on firmer ground. Having seen the consequences of denying reality, we will affirm and defend reality with a wisdom, realism, and ferocity our ancestors were incapable of.

And then we will be all right (again).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There is still hope.

A symphony in words; moving.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual ...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mankind Quarterly:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Some interesting articles:

Human Populations and the Indo-European Problem
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Evolution of the Spartan Social System
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Family and Social Structure in Early Rome
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ancient Eugenics
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Duchesne's book on Western Civilization is gold if anyone still hasn't read it.

Pinker's book How The Mind Works has a good chapter "Family Values" with some interesting stuff.

The Subversive Family by Ferdinand Mount - Mount argues that the family is inherently subversive to the State (or Church or Cult etc.) and that at first, new establishments try to undermine it viciously, but always end up having to compromise. There is also heavy criticism of both Marxism and Christianity.

General System Theory by Ludwig von Bertalanffy - a novel yet very ancient Aryan way of looking at things, potentially a new Spenglerian "nature-feeling"

Evo and Proud - Peter Frost's blog (Anthropologist, HBD perspective)

Thanks Advocatus.

I've linked the whole of the last book in the Palaistra already if you are interested.

Very, thank you.

Thomas Sowell stares into the abyss of racial reality: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All things considered he's probably my favorite negro; aside from Malcolm X.

“Our Civilization is Disappearing”
Interview with Jean Raspail


What do you feel about the current situation?

You know, I’ve no wish to join the big group of intellectuals who spend their time debating immigration . . . I have the impression that these talks serve no purpose. The people already know it all, intuitively: that France, as our ancestors fashioned it centuries ago, is disappearing. And that we keep the gallery amused by talking ceaselessly of immigration without ever saying the final truth. A truth that is moreover unsayable, as my friend Jean Cau noted, because whoever says it is immediately hounded, condemned then rejected. Richard Millet came close to it, look what happened to him!

Is the seriousness of the problem being kept from the French people?

Yes. Starting with the politicians in charge first of all! Publicly “everything’s going well, Madame Marquessa.” But behind closed doors, they acknowledge that “yes, you’re right: there is a real problem.” I have several edifying letters on this subject from prominent leftist politicians, from those on the right too, to whom I sent The Camp of the Saints. “But you understand: we can’t say it …” These people have a double language, a double conscience. I don’t know how they do it! I think the distress comes from there: the people know that things are being hidden from them. Today, tens of millions of people don’t buy into the official discourse on immigration. Not one of them believes that it is an opportunity for France “une chance pour la France.” Because reality imposes itself on them, every day. All of these ideas boil in their heads and don’t come out.

You don’t believe it’s possible to assimilate the foreigners welcomed into France?

No. The model of integration isn’t working. Even if a few more illegals are escorted to the border and we succeed in integrating foreigners a bit more than today, their numbers will not stop growing and that will change nothing in the fundamental problem: the progressive invasion of France and Europe by a numberless third-world. I’m not a prophet, but you see clearly the fragility of these countries, where an unbearable poverty is established and grows ceaselessly alongside indecent wealth. Those people don’t turn to their governments to protest. They expect nothing of them.

They turn to us and arrive in Europe in boats, ever more numerous, today in Lampedusa, tomorrow elsewhere. Nothing discourages them. And thanks to the demography game, by the 2050s, there will be as many young indigenous French as there are young foreigners in France.

Many will be naturalised.

Which doesn’t mean they’ll have become French. I don’t say these are bad people, but “naturalisations on paper” aren’t naturalisations of the heart. I cannot consider them my compatriots. We need to drastically toughen the law, as a matter of urgency.

How can Europe deal with these migrations?

There are only two solutions. Either we accommodate them and France — its culture, its civilisation — will be erased without even a funeral. In my view, that’s what’s going to happen. Or we don’t accommodate them at all — that means stop sacralising the Other and rediscover your neighbour, that means those next to you. Which means that we stop giving a damn sometime about these “Christian ideas gone mad,” as Chesterton said, or these depraved human rights, and that we take the indispensable measures to distance ourselves, without appeal, to avoid the dissolution of our country into a general métissage [literally race-mixing but used as a sort of equivalent of the English diversity]. I don’t see any other solution. I travelled a lot in my youth. All peoples are fascinating but when you mix them too much, it is much more animosity that develops than sympathy. Métissage is never peaceful. It is a dangerous utopia. Look at South Africa!

At the point where we are now, the measures we would have to take would necessarily be very coercive. I don’t believe it will happen and I don’t see anyone who has the courage to do it. They would need to put their soul in the balance, but who is ready for that? That said, I don’t believe for an instant that the supporters of immigration are more charitable than me: there probably isn’t a single one of them who intends to welcome one of these unfortunates into his home . . . all of that’s just an emotional pretence, an irresponsible maelstrom that will engulf us.

Is there therefore no solution other than submission or coercion?

There could perhaps be one, but it will only have one chance: isolates where a population that is ethnically and culturally threatened by other communitarianisms could find refuge. Besides, it’s already happening: we can see already that the French “de souche” [indigenous] are fleeing the so-called “sensitive” districts. The demonstrations against homosexual marriage are also a form of communitarianism: they testify to the rejection by millions of French people to the “change of civilisations” promised by the Left and by Christiane Taubira. Today, everyone condemns communitarianism, but it could be a solution, at least temporarily. These opposed communitarianisms will reinforce themselves mutually by the animosity they will convey and that will end, finally, in extremely severe confrontations. Even if we don’t need to wish that adversity occurs.

You don’t believe in a sudden new beginning, as has occurred many times in the history of France?

No. It would require an epic spirit, an appreciation of an elevated destiny for a sudden new beginning to be possible in France. It would require people to still believe in their country. I don’t see many of them left. At least reforming from top to bottom the national education system and the audio-visual media, taking away the platform from the teachers and the journalists who are participating in the disinformation . . . We have desacralised the idea of the nation, the exercise of power, the past of the country. We have put cracks in the statue of France, we have disfigured it (expecially the Left!) to the point where nothing inspires respect any more. The power of the false ideas disseminated by the national education system and the media is boundless. But as for me, I have lived in France for 1500 years, I’m OK with what is mine, and I’ve no desire for it to change . . .

Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


"This cultural history explains the European settlement of the United States as voluntary migrations from four English cultural centers.

Families of zealous, literate Puritan yeomen and artisans from urbanized East Anglia established a religious community in Massachusetts (1629-40);

royalist cavaliers headed by Sir William Berkeley and young, male indentured servants from the south and west of England built a highly stratified agrarian way of life in Virginia (1640-70);

egalitarian Quakers of modest social standing from the North Midlands resettled in the Delaware Valley and promoted a social pluralism (1675-1715);

and, in by far the largest migration (1717-75), poor borderland families of English, Scots, and Irish fled a violent environment to seek a better life in a similarly uncertain American backcountry.

These four cultures, reflected in regional patterns of language, architecture, literacy, dress, sport, social structure, religious beliefs, and familial ways, persisted in the American settlements. The final chapter shows the significance of these regional cultures for American history up to the present. Insightful, fresh, interesting, and well-written, this synthesis of traditional and more current historical scholarship provides a model for interpretations of the American character. Subsequent volumes of this promised multivolume work will be eagerly awaited. Highly recommended for the general reader and the scholar."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Looks good... has anyone read this by any chance?

Neo-Nihilism​ by Peter Sjöstedt-H

Link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This came to my attention recently, Ontologistics book.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Liberal (Marxist, Socialist, Human Secular...) nihilistic twang is noticing a shift in awareness.