Every age has had a foundational legend, an underlying mythos reflecting the zeitgeist of the era. Those of us who live in the contemporary West live in the shadow of the Myth of Equality. Our political and social institutions operate on the assumption that humans are fundamentally equal and that any real world inequalities are therefore aberrant and in need of coercive redress. Hiring, firing, entrance into insitutions of higher learning, even our speech patterns, all are dictated by egalitarian principles. We deify the champions of equality as saints of rationality and demonize its opponents as backwoods mouthbreathers or jackbooted thugs. What then are the roots and results of the Myth of Equality?

Equality: Origins of a Myth Given the way in which the Myth of Equality is packaged and marketed, its origins are rather surprising. Despite being trumpeted as the product of Enlightenment rationalism, and the “logical” choice for the thinking human, egalitarianism is rooted not in scientific evidence or rational inquiry, but rather in Christian theology and metaphysics. Indeed, empirical reality and science remain key stumbling blocks for egalitarian thinkers, for they reveal that human beings are NOT equal, but instead possess widely varying aptitudes and abilities. The simple reality is that some humans are vastly more capable than others, and thus, in a practical sense, are vastly superior to those who are less well endowed. As a result, egalitarians are forced to resort to an essentially metaphysical argument, that humans have equal “moral” or “spiritual” worth and essence, and thus deserve equal treatment. This assumption is, of course, rooted not in rational observation, but in Christian scripture, and derives ultimately from the notion that all humans are equal before God (cf. Galatians 3:26-29, Acts 10:34-35-17:26). Obviously, this gives lie to the rationalist veil in which egalitarians like to cloak themselves (and explains why egalitarians are curiously reluctant to introduce empirical evidence for their positions, while racialists, ethnic nationalists, anti-feminists and other non-egalitarians are able to back their positions up with copious statistical and empirical fact).
more…

Yule, or more precisely ‘Jul’ is a Nordic name for the heathen feast that was celebrated in the middle of January. There were at least two such feasts or offerings every year in Scandinavia, one in midsummer and one in midwinter.

While the English and Americans have their “Christmas” (‘The Mass of Jesus Christ’) and the Germans their “Weihnachten” (‘Holy Night’) the Nordic countries still have the original ancient word ‘jul’. Since the word occurs in different variations in other Germanic languages, it is likely to believe that the ‘jul’ celebration was a common Germanic feast.

The use of the word ‘Xmas’ is of cause due to the Americans’ love for simplifications, Xmas is Christmas and the ‘X’ is also a symbol for the cross. The word is close to a pictorial word.

Yule – or more correctly ‘jul’ utmost origin and actual meaning is still somehow unclear since it is truly very ancient, but we can concrete trace the word back about 2000 years, even though it’s older than that. Today the Nordic people (Sweden, Denmark and Norway) all say ‘jul’, and they use the word in plural, and that indicates that there have been several feasts, a festival period.

The first time we hear about the word is in the poem by the Norwegian ‘skald’ (poet) Torbjørn Hornklove, ‘Haraldskvadet’ (The poetry for Harold’), from about 900. He writes about ‘drikke jul’ (‘drinking jul’). The saga tells us that people were gathering and brewing beer to be drink in memory of the gods. The beer drinking in honour of the gods was to increase the growth and to make peace.

“This memorial drinking was not to go away from the heathen tradition. The expression “at drekka jol”, to drink Christmas, was the common expression for Christmas celebrations even in the 16th century. The god of jul had the name Jolne, and that was Odin. We can find this name in a poem called ‘Jolna sumbl’. It means intoxicant of Odin. The beer drinking gave people courage to turn to the gods.” (source – the Viking Network)

In the wild and mythical landscape of Norway survived the old Indo-European word for the midwinter feast: Jul. (Extract from J.C. Dahl – Fra Stalheim, 1842. Norway National Gallery)
A few centuries later we find the word in Old-English “geohul”, but this word does not survive and in modern times the English looks north and borrow “yule” from Scandinavian languages. The same is story behind the Germans’ “Jul”.
more…

Reductionism and extremism both try to keep things simple. Reductionism attempts to reduce the complex to the simple, both in matters of type, kind or form, and causality. Where there are many types or forms, differing in both minor and major degrees, reductionism — unable or unwilling to make distinctions — claims there is only one type or form. Where there are many different causes combining to produce an effect, reductionism insists there is only one cause.

Extremism, the other product of simplistic thinking, defines an issue only in terms of its two extreme positions, denying the possible existence of alternative positions between the two extremes. For the extremist there is no middle ground, only one extreme or the other. Non-support for one extreme position is equated with support of the opposite extreme position. The problem with simplistic thinking, whether reductionism or extremism, is that in a world of almost infinite complexity and variety it rarely provides an accurate or truthful portrayal of reality.

This problem is particularly acute in the fields of definition and categorization. For example, racism — the subject of this chapter — is a term that is frequently subject to simplistic definitions. It is common to define racism as having only one cause and existing in only one form, or being of a uniform type. Definitions that describe a wide variation in types of racism, and a great diversity in causes or motives for racism, are conspicuous by their absence. Furthermore, the single uniform type that racism is usually reduced to in these simplistic definitions is almost always of an extremist character. In the hope of correcting the distortions, misconceptions and inaccuracies inherent in simplistic definitions, a more complete definition of racism, in its variety of forms, kinds and types, causes and motives, will be presented here.
more…

During the past, the System used significant concepts like the idea of the homeland and of the nation as a mask in order to face public demands for social justice, thus striking out at the healthiest elements of the people. The System continues this attack today, but has changed its mask and now uses human rights and civil freedoms as a facade to justify its crimes. We do not demonise the values that the System uses today, as in the past with the values of the homeland and the nation.

We are racialists. We believe, however, that the migratory wave that is promoted by the System aims to create racial destruction rather than preserve race through segregation.The System knows that the only way to exterminate the white race and every race more generally is the Western way of life (consumerism, low birthrate, urban diastrophy). Look around you. The mixed marriages in Western societies can occur in only two cases: when the immigrant has been urbanised and acquired at least a sense of economic equality among the indigenous people, or when the indigenous people find themselves in the same sordid economic and educative situation to that of the immigrant.The System is exploiting the reality of racial differentiation. It promotes multi-racial societies because these are created within racial ghettos which have an intense opposition towards their immediate neighbourhood. Thus the System defuses the rage of the masses and because of the exploitation that people suffer at the hands of the System, it channels this oppositional conflict and thus avoids every united struggle against it.The left-wingers that have not realised that the loss of national conscience from the masses involves also the loss of class conscience are stupidly supporting and promoting this “multicultural” levelling, and the nationalists that stupidly demand the expulsion of the immigrants are thus accentuating the already existing opposition. They do nothing other than play a role that the System has aleady drawn up for them. The tyrants survive thanks to their old game of divide and rule.
more…

IN recent years something has grown out of the original Socialist and Anarchist Left. This being has been termed the anti-globalization movement. But is this really the correct term? When we look at the “anti-globalization movement” we find that it only stands in opposition to certain forms of globalization. In the words of many of its own members it opposes only globalization from above while it supports globalization from below. It is necessary to understand that while the anti-globalization movement opposes the free movement of money and companies across borders, it also allows businesses to exploit people in poor countries without consequence and supports the voluntary movement of people across the world.

Thus in reality we see that the anti-globalization movement does not rightfully deserve its name, because it opposes only some forms of globalization and supports others.

The thing is, globalization is a many-headed beast that takes on a number of forms. Globalization springs from the idea of empire that arose with the Roman Empire. Since the days of Julius Caesar the idea of a large-flung empire has haunted Europe. During the middle-ages it was passed on to the Catholic Church and then onto the bureaucracy of the great nation-states and finally to the new nobility carried to power on the wave of industrialization. As one can thus see, many different institutions have heralded this idea of empire during history and many of them still remain living side by side today, even battling each other over which incarnations of the idea shall reign. Be not fooled: In the core essence each these incarnations are the same and carry the death of cultural, religious and political diversity. The dream in the end bases itself upon the formation of humanity into a grey mass without a cultural, religious or political identity. Indeed, many of these versions of the ‘empire-idea’ try to sell themselves as a decentralized imperium; although in reality they are just a defensive frame for a flowery garden of diversity. On paper, at least, some of these imperial dreams do actually allow for a great deal of diversity in some areas. Even the most tolerant of them, however, do demand conformity and obedience in at least one area. The religious empires proposed by the Christian Church and globalist Islam may grant political and national freedom but they do not allow for religious diversity.
more…

Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, a leading Scottish opponent of the Treaty of Union with England in 1707, provided us with a most perceptive definition of nationalism:

“Show me a true patriot, and I will show you a lover not merely of his own country, but of all mankind. Show me a spurious patriot, a bombastic fire-eater, and I will show you a rascal. Show me a man who loves other countries equally with his own and I will show you a man entirely deficient in a sense of proportion. But show me a man who respects the rights of all nations, while ready to defend the rights of his own against them all, and I will show you a man who is both a nationalist and an internationalist.”

From that, it is easy enough to see where the confusion has arisen today between “patriotism” and “nationalism”. The saying about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel is often indeed the truth, by the latter-day definition of patriotism as being loyalty to the existing State (in whatever form) and its institutions… Thus “patriotism” on its own is really just a commitment to the maintenance of the status quo. We have seen too many profiteering wars, too many acts against the interests of the nations and their people disguised and justified in fervent flag-waving, to doubt the accuracy of the statement. A good nationalist will reject the institutions of the State and the system, if they no longer serve the interests of the Nation. Yet nowadays it is “nationalism” which is the vilified concept, smeared in negative connotations, despite its true definition being that given by Fletcher of Saltoun; while “patriotism” is of course permissable…. since it effectively endorses the existing power structure, economic system, and Establishment.