web analytics
Categories
James Mason

Siege, 47

When to shoot


Talk of weapons aside, this has to do with shooting the enemy. You don’t need an arsenal for that. All you need is a zip gun and, most of all, the balls to use it. As I said earlier, if you’re thinking about going on the war path in the literal sense, you’d better take the time and planning to quietly drop underground first. Get yourself as comfortable and secure as you can and only then start taking your actions against the System. Your chances of success and survival will go way up as opposed to those who shoot first and try to think afterward.
But now we’re talking future tense. Our revolution will depend on someone or something else kicking events off the edge and into general chaos so as to loosen up some elbow room for the rest of us. It could be the Blacks, it could be anything from a sudden depression to an earthquake. Just anything to get the Pigs of the Big Brother System tied down and off balance. But just as we can’t expect to accept the full brunt of a System counter-attack starting things off by ourselves, neither can we expect, as avowed revolutionaries, to be left alone by the System once somebody else has started the ball rolling. We must assume they are going to take certain measures to guard their rear.
Those already underground or in prison will find this one to be a moot issue, but the rest of us still at liberty and particularly those maintaining homes, etc., will probably have a unique set of difficulties to face when the time comes for general action. It’s a matter best given a lot of thought now, as there’ll be no time for thought when it presents itself.
Three contingencies we can look for will be the following: (a) once major and widespread revolutionary violence starts—no matter from what quarter—the System can be expected to detain all known revolutionists as a matter of precaution; (b) once the economy starts to fall rapidly, the System can be expected to begin mass foreclosures and confiscations while it feels it still can; (c) just like what’s predicted to happen when the sun itself is about to burn out, the System, when it senses its time is about up, can be expected to begin taking a great many extraordinary steps and, in general to really begin overstepping its bounds as they are vaguely defined today. Or hadn’t you thought of any of this?
The whole point to our being constrained to taking a backseat to someone else’s opening gambit with regard to violent revolution is that we simply cannot stand to take on the full weight of the System’s Pigs, now or in the foreseeable future. It will be rather a judgment call for the individual, once large-scale actions have begun, as to whether he thinks he can get away with his own line of extraordinary measures when confronted by the System in a threatening manner. How much you think you’re worth to them or just how many back-ups they have to send after you will be something that each in his own area will have to decide, and decide intelligently, before he acts.
You must remember that they are still used to having people—especially Whites “drop over dead” at their mere approach. Unfortunately—but quite likely—they’ll still be thinking that way when they come after us once someone else has started the shooting. Otherwise, they’d either not come at all or else come with a small army behind them. This unquestionably would then leave the ball in our half of the court as to how to react when only a few of them show up for what they expect to be a routine “roust”.
Your choice will be either to let them take you into custody, away from your family, and possibly take your home and possessions too, or to take a chance on stopping them at that point and burying their bodies in the hills or being killed yourself. As I said, it’ll be a judgment call but one that takes some consideration, if not a considerable bit of preparation, in the present.

Vol. XV, #2 – February, 1986

_____________
Why we are reproducing articles from Siege can be surmised: here.

Categories
James Mason

Siege, 46

Fury unfelt

Through a former associate’s job contacts, I once wound up invited to a meeting of the Revolutionary Communist Party. This particular cell was organized in a major factory here in Ohio and this special meeting was being called as a result of one RCP member having been shot after the RCP had abandoned labor union discipline in fighting management rip-offs. They wanted to try and decide “what to do” and they broke down and invited us, two known Nazis, to their gathering.
It was convened in the home of the local organizer, Seth Goldberg. Included were Goldberg’s Jewish girlfriend—showing plenty of thigh throughout—plus a handful of Blacks and a handful of washed-out Whites. The history leading up to the shooting as well as the details of the shooting itself were duly gone over for the sake of newcomers. My partner at the time, an old Right Wing organizer who worked at the same plant, gave the young Reds some sound advice on how to get their act together but nothing was actually resolved.
Flabbergasted, I had to speak up and tell Goldberg that, were Trotsky present at this meeting, he’d puke his guts out. A general strike would go for openers. Then the bosses would be shot and the plant itself blown up. Seth had no comment. (Ironically, and by accident, within the week my partner, who had been illicitly using the company Xerox [photocopy machine], left an original copy of Joseph Tommasi’s famous Political Terror leaflet in the machine. The next day there were double armed guards at all factory gates.)
Point being that everybody is just blowing smoke, just pussy-footing around— even the Communists! The riots of the Sixties barely scratched the surface in the amount of direct coordinated violence and terror that’s going to be required to intimidate and melt the System.

Vol. XV, #1 – January, 1986

_____________
Why we are reproducing articles from Siege can be surmised: here.

Categories
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Communism / Bolshevism Free speech / Free press Red terror Two Hundred Years Together (book)

Totalitarian Anglosphere

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn published two non-fictional books: The Gulag Archipelago and Two Hundred Years Together: a historical study of Jewry in Russia. Why has his second non-fictional book been de facto censored in English-speaking countries?
Because it would redpill those nations which share common roots in British culture and history.
Judge it by yourself. Not only was the early Soviet Union dominated by Jewish terrorists: it was actually set up and for the most part constituted by Jewry:

The Council of The Commissaries of The People, 22 members, 17 Jews, 77.2% Jewish.
Commissariat of War, 43 members, 33 Jews, 76.7% Jewish
Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, 16 members, 13 Jews, 81.2% Jewish
Commissariat of Finance, 30 members, 24 Jews, 80.0% Jewish
Commissariat of Justice, 21 members, 20 Jews, 95.2% Jewish
Commissariat of Public Instruction, 53 members, 42 Jews, 79.2% Jewish
Commissariat of Social Assistance, 6 members, 6 Jews, 100% Jewish
Commissariat of Work, 8 members, 7 Jews, 87.5% Jewish
Delegates of The Bolshevik Red Cross to Berlin, Vienna, Warsaw, Bucharest and Copenhagen, 8 members, 8 Jews, 100% Jewish
Commissariat of The Provinces, 23 members, 21 Jews, 91.3% Jewish
Commissariat of Journalists, 41 members, 41 Jews, 100% Jewish.

Source: Henry Ford, The International Jew, pages 176-185 of Book 1, Article 19: ‘The All Jewish Mark on Red Russia’, in The Dearborn Independent, September 25th 1920.
Jewish makeup of The Central Committee of the Communist Party of The Soviet Union in 1918-1919:

Trotsky (Bronstein), Jew
Zinoviev, Jew
Larine, Jew
Juritsky, Jew
Volodarsky, Jew
Kamenev, Jew
Smidovitj, Jew
Jankel, Jew
Steklov, Jew
Lenin, married to a Jewess
Krylenko, Jew
Lunacharsky, Russian.

Jewish makeup of The Council of People’s Commissars in 1918-1919:

Lenin, married to a Jewess
Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Chichherin, Russian
Commissar of Nationalities, Stalin, Georgian
Commissar of Agriculture, Protian, Armenian
Commissar of Public Education, Lunacharsky, Russian
Council Financial Adviser, Larine, Jew
Commissar of Food, Schlichter, Jew
Commissar of Army & Navy, Trotsky (Bronstein), Jew
Commissar of State Control, Lander, Jew
Commissar of Public Land, Kauffman, Jew
Commissar of Work, Schmidt, Jew
Commissar of Social Aid, Lelina, Jew
Commissar of Religion, Spitzberg, Jew
Commissar of Interior Affairs, Zinoviev, Jew
Commissar of Hygiene, Anvelt, Jew
Commissar of Finance Goukovsky, Jew
Commissar of Press, Volodrasky, Jew
Commissar of Elections, Uritsky, Jew
Commissar of Justice, Steinberg, Jew
Commissar of Refugees, Fenigstein, Jew
Assistant in The Regugees Commissariate, Savitj, Jew
Assistant in The Regugees Commissariate, Zaslovsky, Jew.

Jewish makeup of the leadership of The Extraordinary Commission (‘The Checka’) in 1918/1919:

Members: 36
Non-Jewish 12, (1 Pole, 2 Russians, 1 German, 1 Armenian, 7 Lithuanian).
Jewish 24.

Source: Behind Communism, Frank Britton, Chapter 18: ‘The London Times Correspondence List of Jews Behind Communism’, page 86; Robert Wilton, distinguished correspondent of The London Times (The Last Days of The Romanovs 1920).
Since the number of people practicing as Jews in the Russian Empire prior to the revolution was 4.15%, had the Jews been proportionately represented in the Cheka’s leadership for 1918/1919 there would have been only 1-2 Jews out of 36, not 24.
Therefore, Bolshevism was Jewish.

Categories
James Mason

Siege, 45

In reverse, again


Not long ago I took a close look at the way the Movement has been in the habit of doing things, everything, from the lowliest task to the most critical one, and discovered that they tended to do it in a “bass ackwards” way every time. As I said, this can be applied to just about all aspects of activity but it is still necessary to take a look at each one, individually, in order to see the significance of this.
One of the areas is that of the overtly illegal, violent attacks against the System. “Hit and run”, so to speak. Wouldn’t it make better sense to turn that concept around to “run and hit”? It only means that you should first drop out of sight, go underground, and stay that way for however long is required for you to learn to exist comfortably at it. At that point you can go ahead and do—and probably get away with—any damned thing you’d choose to pull.
Striking in hot passion and then running blindly is no more than glorified suicide.

Vol. XV, #1 – January, 1986

_____________
Why we are reproducing articles from Siege can be surmised: here.

Categories
Christendom Judaism

Judaism’s bastard sons

Categories
Christendom Islam Judaism

Judaism's bastard sons

Categories
Ancient Greece Child abuse Civilisation (TV series) Day of Wrath (book) Emigration / immigration Human sacrifice Infanticide Psychohistory Wikipedia

Day of Wrath, 18

What is redeemable in psychohistory?

The best introduction to the sane side of the deMausean thought available on the internet appears in the third part of the book The Emotional Life of Nations, especially in the final chapters: “The Evolution of Childrearing” and “The Evolution of Psyche and Society.” However, even in the following pages, where I would like to spare the salvageable part of deMause’s legacy, I will continue the criticism of his psychohistory.
 
Pseudoscientific charts
DeMause likes to interpolate ever-ascending charts on the historical treatment of children in his books, and even once he wrote that primitive humans treated their children better than our ape ancestors. I do not think that is true. The most terrible form of interactions between parents and children is the ritual sacrifice and cannibalism of one’s own children: a level of cruelty that has not been observed in primates other than man. Also, deMause assumes a gradual improvement in child treatment from 460 AD to approximately 1100 AD: an impossibility if we consider that we have no childrearing data around 8th century Europe. This mistake does not invalidate the salvageable part of deMause’s model: only the dogmatic idea that the treatment of children was always from worst to least bad.
In The History of Childhood deMause writes: “The image of Medea hovers over childhood in antiquity.” But in post-Homeric Greece it was already unusual to kill grown-up children as Medea did. The insistence on denigrating the Classical World is derived from the deMause’s dogma that childcare has always gone from worse to less bad, from major to minor abuse: the eternal upward charts in deMausean psychohistory. The prolific Jewish psychohistorian Robert Godwin, for example, emphatically dispatches the Greco-Roman world as barbarian in terms of upbringing. Once again: regarding the Jewish narrative versus the Aryan, in the next chapters we will see who were really the most barbaric.
One of the things that piqued my interest when I first encountered psychohistory was the secularized Judeo-Christian spirit breathed in it. DeMause and Godwin seem to reject the vision of the Enlightenment: to consider the Middle Ages darker than the most lucid moments of Greece and Rome. In contrast to deMause’s claims it does not seem likely at all that the Middle Ages was better as childrearing methods are concerned, or that Christendom was better compared to Pericles’ Athens or Republican Rome. In my own version of psychohistory, the Athenians should have treated the children well enough to allow the explosion of arts, philosophies and politics that we have inherited. However, due to the tenet that “the further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care,” deMause has blinded himself to see the obvious. True, an archaic ritual performed at Knossos by the non-Aryan natives included the cooking and eating of children as part of the fertility celebration (see the history on the white race by William Pierce in Who We Are). But as Ramón Xirau writes at the beginning of his Introducción a la Historia de la Filosofía, the Greece that we know is great precisely because it gave up such practices: something I’ve always related to the Hebrew story of Abraham, who at the last moment changed his mind as to sacrifice his child. The veracity of Xirau’s opening paragraph can be substantiated in the final chapter of the most erudite contemporary study on the subject, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece by Dennis Hughes. To the Greeks of the time of Plato and Theophrastus, says Hughes, human sacrifice was a thing of the past; what was left in their time were isolated cases “and the custom is particularly associated with non-Greeks.”
Not only does the classical world refutes deMause. Julian Jaynes, the author of the book that could be classified as a different kind of psychohistory, implied that the cruel Assyrian law contrasted sharply with the Code of Hammurabi, written six centuries earlier. However, deMause might not err in his assessment of the West from the 12th century AD onward. One of my most memorable readings, based on the captivating television series by Kenneth Clark, was the second chapter of Civilisation about the “The Great Thaw” of Europe at the beginning of the 12th century, as well as the next chapter on courtly love: the West had invented love. The thaw was nothing other than the beginning to treat European women better than what non-westerners did in the rest of the world; hence the treatment of these women to their children changed. From the late 13th century begins the historical record of the death penalty in cases of voluntary infanticide. In addition to their relatively high IQ, psychogenically speaking the people of Europe would evolve more than the rest of the world.
But the white man of the present is suffering the worst psychosis in the history of the West. When by the end of 2008 I called deMause’s attention on the issue of the betrayal that the white man inflicts on himself with mass migration, I realized he knew nothing about the subject. This has led me to think that his chart that appears in his texts about the evolving historic personalities is flawed. DeMause puts there as inferior the psychoclass that has as its model the “patriotic” man compared to the “activist.” The truth is that patriots are precisely the ones who defend their nations against the greatest evil of our times: race replacement. Unlike the ivory tower where both deMause and the academics live, it appears that the recent Western self-treason represents the most serious, plummeting drop in psychogenesis since prehistory.
The case of deMause is aggravated by his Jewish colleagues who abhor not only the Classical World but the West in general: a position that has infected and corrupted his school of psychohistory since its inception. I have not been able to corroborate that deMause himself comes from a Jewish family, although the names he gave to his children, as well as his extreme aversion for the Third Reich, would seem to suggest it.
 
Shoddy scholarship
DeMause’s mistakes do not end with the discussion in previous pages. Since he sometimes uses his sources very loosely, the possibility exists that his psychohistory could consist of assumptions based on little, if any, evidence. I have found that occasionally deMause takes his data out of context, and that some of his pronouncements on subjects I know better contain serious errors. (For example, instead of the Mexica patron god, Huitzilopochtli, in his books he writes of him as an “Aztec goddess.”) Although such errors do not invalidate his theory, deMause could have used his sources more carefully.
So far the only interesting discussion about psychohistory I am aware of can be read in several discussion pages of Wikipedia. After Ark insulted the editors of the article mentioned above, he returned for a brief time to edit and discuss in the article “Infanticide.” In the discussion page Julie Hofmann Kemp, the editor whom Ark had insulted, responded to him and the other Wikipedia editors in a reasonable manner:

Problems with this. You’re using shoddy scholarship to try to back up an unprovable claim. DeMause provides no analysis or discussion of his sources, merely a catalog of horrific quotes. We cannot tell the context, nor can we take them as representative.

What Julie told Ark next is more substantial:

Anybody can go through books and pick out quotes to make an argument. Since deMause’s work is criminally lax in scholarship, I suggest you try to use better sources. I just reread “A Modest Proposal,” and could see absolutely nothing that referred to rotting corpses of babies in the streets. The only reference was to children accompanying their mothers begging. This certainly makes me question the veracity of other statements in this article.

Ark angrily replied that she could not accept the reality of infanticide because it was very uncomfortable for her. Julie responded:

No, Ark—I am fully aware that we live in a society where people do horrible things to children. I am also aware that this has long been the case. There are plenty of records out there for at least the Victorian area on things like the treatment of children in workhouses, and they clearly indicate widespread abuse of minors and women. I removed what I did [from the Wikipedia article] because I reread Swift and the deMause article you used as sources. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a lot of stuff quoted out of context. Some of the sources, like Philippe Ariès, I’ve read. If you want things to stay unchallenged, you’ve got to make sure they have recognizable merit. This is why I think we need to look beyond deMause. DeMause is only one of thousands of people writing on child abuse and infanticide. As a historian, I can see great gaping holes in deMause’s use of sources. It doesn’t make him wrong, but it certainly sets off warning bells—if the scholarship doesn’t stand up, then are the conclusions he draws really proven?

After further critical responses from other editors, quite reasonable and civic, Ark quit editing Wikipedia, and this time definitely, on my birthday of 2002. I agree that the way deMause has used the sources lacks academic rigor. However, if as Julie and others advised, it could be possible to source deMause’s model with non-deMausean references, the psychohistorical structure would be supported upon a new sort of column.
That is exactly what I did. In March and April of 2008 I massively edited “Infanticide,” the same article where years before Julie and Ark had discussed, adding a hundred references that I did not read in deMausean texts, but in a voluminous treatise of Larry S. Milner published in 2000. The model of the breakdown of the bicameral mind by surpassing the infanticidal psychoclass, is the cornerstone on which rests what remained of the psychohistorical building after my critique. Therefore, I will reproduce here what I added to that article, which I also translated for Wikipedia in Spanish. In my second book the critique of psychiatry contained such incredible facts that, unlike the other books, I was forced to include bibliographical notes. For the same reasons here I will do the same.
 
___________
The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next month I will reproduce another chapter. Day of Wrath is available: here.

Voters have elected a new president

Andrés Manuel López Obrador has won the presidential election in Mexico.
Yesterday evening, the day before the election, my mother talked to him over the phone for about five minutes. She tried to call his wife and, surprise surprise, López Obrador himself answered the telephone!

Categories
Julian (novel) Literature

Julian, 34

Julian presiding at a conference of Sectarians
(Edward Armitage, 1875)

 
Julian Augustus
After Aetius’s visit to me, I met Maximus only in secret. I arranged this by seeing to it that the guards who accompanied me were brothers in Mithras. I don’t think I was once betrayed during the three years I lived with Oribasius at Pergamon. I also made a point of becoming a friend of the bishop of the city. With him, I observed every Galilean festival. I hated myself for this deception, but I had no choice.
During these years, I was free to travel wherever I pleased in the East. I could even visit Constantinople, though the Chamberlain’s office suggested tactfully that I not live there since it was, after all, the imperial capital without, at present, an emperor in residence, which meant that any visit I chose to make could be construed as… I understood perfectly and stayed away.
My request for permission to go to Athens was rejected. I don’t know why. Gallus sent me several invitations to come to Antioch, but I was always able to avoid accepting them. I think he was relieved not to have me near him. However, he was most conscientious in his role as older brother and guardian, not to mention ruler. I received weekly bulletins from him asking about my spiritual health. He was eager, he said, for me to be a devout and good man, like himself. I think he was perfectly sincere in his exhortations. His fault was a common one. He simply did not know what he was; he saw no flaw in himself, a not unusual blindness and preferable, on the whole, to being unable to find any virtue in oneself.
My friendship with Oribasius is the only intimate one I have ever had—the result, I suppose, of having never known the ordinary life of a family. Oribasius is both friend and brother, even though we are not much alike in disposition. He is skeptical and experimental, interested only in the material world. I am the opposite. He balances me. Or tries to. And I think at times I give him some inkling of what the metaphysical is like. For nearly four years we lived together, traveled together, studied together. We even shared a mistress for a time, though this caused some disturbance since I found, to my surprise, that I have a jealous nature.
I had never forgiven the Antiochene at Macellum for preferring Gallus to me. Yet I should have. After all, Gallus was older and handsomer than I. Even so, I had been resentful. I did not realize to what extent, until I was again put in exactly the same situation. One afternoon I overheard Oribasius and our mutual mistress—a blue-eyed Gaul—making love. I heard their heavy breathing. I beard the leather thongs of the bed creak. Suddenly I wanted to murder them both. I knew then exactly what it was like to be Gallus, and I almost fainted at the violence of my own response. But the moment quickly passed and I was filled with shame.
During those years, Maximus taught me many things. He showed me mysteries. He made it possible for me to contemplate the One. He was the perfect teacher. Also, contrary to legend, he did not in any way try to excite my ambition. We never spoke of my becoming emperor. It was the one forbidden subject.