For those of us on the alternative or far right – the fascists, reactionaries, imperialists, racially aware socialists and European nationalists of all inclinations – there is a divisive hurdle we must address soberly: the crises of faith. It must be examined from all perspectives, in a relativistic way that can be applied functionally, absorbing as many different groups and opinions as possible within our race, while creating a broad acceptance for any ideology that is racially fortifying.

We do not have the numbers to fall prey to petty to infighting, and if we take a positive perspective, these kinds of factions could be the right kind of diversity (diversity within European groups) required to keep things lively. It will in the end become an issue that is decided by whatever leadership we wind up with, providing we are not exterminated or permanently mongrelized via liberal democracy. Although I think we are all in agreement that whomever does wind up at the top will deserve strict observance of hierarchical obedience, even if certain decisions are not to our personal liking. The issue of faith will be one of the most important considerations, but will need to encompass a wide selection of popular European beliefs, including the resurgence of Neo-Paganism and Aryanism. Atheism, I believe, though frowned upon, needs to be broadly permitted, rationally debated and avowed, providing it does not lead to nihilism or sentimental libertarianism.

To begin with, we must outlay that the religion issue is a three part question. Atheists amongst us will say we do not need faith at all, the currently faithful will hold fast to their Christian tradition, and the hopefully pagan will say we need something new (inspired by the old). Then there are agnostics like myself who have passed from a youthful Christianity, through a ‘raving atheist’ stage, to a mature realization that religion is a unifying, societal necessity that the average man absolutely needs for guidance. I am personally now a bizarre mishmash religiously as I adore the pagan beliefs and myths, and would aspire to a pagan morality, while never being completely free of my Catholic upbringing, which must be acknowledged as my moral root. I am at the same time being sympathetic with certain aspects of atheism, such as the truth at all cost aspect. For me, at the moment, all exist at once, within the grand mystery, which is all and none of them and infinitely more inexplicable.

All things being relative, the very existence of our lives and the universe suggest perhaps a hidden underlying meaning or purpose. While religion can seem superficially harmful, and a sometimes dangerously absorbing irrational belief, it is also a cultural bedrock. When properly applied, it levies all the strength needed for a flourishing, healthy civilization.

The needed moral codes are laid out, or they are interpreted from a natural feeling derived from what some would call God. Men and women’s roles are codified according to their biological strengths and imperatives, and the details of how we should live are devised and thus evolve. Indeed this questions of how we should live should always follow our basic natural instincts, where possible encouraging the broadly good, or the long-term good, and discouraging the broadly bad. This aspect of religion has no doubt been a core principle from the age of the Sumeria onward: the organization of people as a coherent group.

The first question in regards our case must be this: do we need religion, and is it harmful or helpful? Though a great many of us can exist and strive for strength and self-determination as a spiritual pursuit without following a specific religion, it seems much easier, faster and more effective to be born with and die believing a specific regional religion as the traditional keystone to meaning. This remains a truth, for a healthy individual or society, regardless of the objective “truth” of a given religious doctrine. If you take God from the common man he creates a thousand new gods in His place.

Since the true big questions (what is our purpose, what happens when we die) are and shall remain a mystery, then spiritual answers in the shape of a cultural metaphysic are in the majority absolutely necessary. It seems historically Aryan, purposeful and Faustian to maintain the importance of religion. Religion also keeps women upon the path of virtue, promoting community, family and health, in a time when so many are led astray by modernism’s illusory gender war and the subsequent temptation of ‘independence from men,’ which is suicide for all. Religion keeps this tendency on the path of strength for the family and the race, as well as men and women’s own well-being. If Christianity and classical Paganism are historically patriarchal upon their surface, but worship at their root motherhood, chastity and female beauty, it is with good reason.

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

If we can then agree, even those of us who have discarded religion, that is seems a strange necessity, and if so, then the larger and most immediately troubling question remains.

Which Faith Should We Follow?

Firstly there are the last remnants of a living faith, being the various forms of Christianity, which is perhaps currently best personified (in terms of strength of self-determination and resistance to post-modernism) in the form of Orthodox Catholicism. Whether we can redirect Christian faith through some kind of funnel into one specific strain seems dubious, and it is likely that should it see a revitalization, all the variations of Christianity that currently exist would continue with perhaps some new amalgamations thrown in, albeit with a more fundamentalist root and a vivid return of racial focus.

Thus, this revitalizing of Christianity would seem the obvious choice, and as I’ve said I have the bias of the remnants of an Irish catholic upbringing that can never entirely be cast off, and it would be very easy for me to resume going through the motions, even purposefully bringing myself back to a certain kind of literal belief. However at this juncture, I can’t say I truly believe, wholly, the events of the new testament and the revelation, and in daylight hours must honestly admit to a deep reserve about condoning the religion. Often at night, before bed, I can revert to a Catholic with Catholic fears. This is a controversial topic amongst Christians, yet we should not fear honest discussion. Christianity remains the only real option as a living faith.

Occasionally, in times of vigour and courage, I get a feeling like maybe there is a God, but that he is much more like an Odin, not offering me security so much as hoping or goading me on to feats of great glory or audacity. I have felt that feeling with great clarity in fleeting moments of triumph or occasionally tremendous drunkenness.

Paganism as a faith is enjoying a youthful renaissance, and comes with an intrinsic European slant that evokes heritage, environmentalism, history, aggression, tribalism, agriculture, hegemony, artfulness and craft, along with many other positive elements. There are variations within that resurgence that many modern Christians must admire. There are the black and Viking metal kids, who encapsulate that angry youth and vitality that we so dearly need, there are the young girls who venture into paganism seeking elvish, woodland spirituality after losing their Christian faith, having a desire to abandon disposable plastic lives and live closer to a healthy nature worship.

I have noticed more and more overlapping between groups of young whites who are acutely aware of our racial problems, who also share or dabble in these proto-pagan views. They do not seem to require a hardness of belief like the monotheists, and can almost be worshipped ‘for fun,’ as it were, the gods representing the seasons and human foibles, abilities, desires.

Just how real is their understanding of ancient European Paganism is the average nipster or Burzum fan? It seems hard to determine, but amongst some there is a genuine attempt at bringing back this faith. The problem remains that it is just that, an attempt – it has been a dead religion for a long time, and I don’t know that anybody alive truly believes in the existence of Thor or Zues, nor would shout his name meaningfully as they parachute from a bomber or charge out of a trench. However, when you read ancient classics and manuscripts, even Plato, it seems obvious that historically Pagan belief, though mutable, had a strength. It remains the Pagan Romans who had a thousand year Reich, not the post-classical Christians. Quite the opposite of the Abrahamic sense, pagan gods were worshipped out of societal duty, and literal belief was intangible, the gods were as real as the sun and the ocean and the forest.

While this idea of reigniting Paganism is very appealing for several reasons, a truly Pagan outlook is something quite alien to modern perspective. It can involve quite a different morality in relation to sex for instance, or compassion towards others, and the core seems elusive to modern minds. Think of a people that would congregate on a weekend to watch convicts get eaten alive by bears and lions, or leave exposed babies on a hillside. There is a strength there, but also a bizarre or confusing sense of compassion.

I must say I find pagan art much more interesting than Christian art, and the myths enthralling (where the Bible largely bores). However, how serious will these youthful White Neo-Pagans feel about their new religion as things get more desperate and dystopian? I doubt, in their current embodiment, that they have the same courage as a believing Christian.

Atheists I cannot begrudge (providing they are not annoying atheists) as I have experienced their dismay, losing faith and embracing hard reality was an initial step to breaking my ‘programming’ and shirking liberalism. They must be shown the importance of religion as a cultural bond, and obey their traditional customs and not mock or dissuade their comrades. Alternatively one should not be shouted down or disavowed for observing the purely rational view, even materialistic view, providing it is tempered with this understanding. This is the root of social Darwinism, eugenics, and long-term racial goals.

So! The way forward? How to find a way to unite Neo-Pagansim, Christianity, and atheism – to exist and not be at odds, not squabbling, but fighting together, in unison. I think the route taken thus far by the Daily Stormer might show part of the answer. What I recommend, for a start, would be that faith is encouraged but not made too much of a collective focus. As with the Third Reich, Christianity was observed, as a given, but not imposed, nor even too often spoken of. Alongside it, National Socialists encouraged esotericism, Pagan views, mysticism and Aryan mythology. Could we go a step further, and break the current movement into slightly competing but friendly factions along religious lines? Could we encourage corps of people belonging to each faith, united under their own banners (the cross, the triskele, the sun wheel, and…whatever it is atheists use) to march alongside each other, each focusing on individual strengths, each with mutual respect? The Pagan division, the Catholic division, the Atheist and Protestant and Druidic division? Could they not see each other as brothers and one compete against the other in scoring defeats against a common enemy?

There are excellent fighters, scholars, patriots and idealists in all three corners that we can and must not do without. I think soon, as cultural Marxists eat themselves alive, the main existential problem facing whites is the uniting of these three faiths in a kind of truce, at least until we have dealt with our enemies. And hopefully thereafter, though I have no illusions about the necessities of the concept of struggle, at this stage we will be lucky to make it out alive.

Hail victory.

The Dread Buffalo Jenkins

The first and most sweeping swindle perpetrated upon the west by its enemies was the obfuscation of the definition of Art. Starting with Kandinsky’s ‘Expressionism’ and bolstered by Clement Greenburg’s ‘Artspeak’ criticism, this new abstract creativity overwhelmed all tradition in art. Swept away in this nihilist flood were traditional art tutelage,inherited skills dating back to prehistory, high culture, good taste, standards or hierarchy in art, naturalism, symmetry, decoration, technical merit, self-determination and ‘becoming’ in art. Styles in painting, sculpture, architecture that had evolved from European antiquity came to a crashing halt on the pages of Judaic ‘art theory’ criticism – a ridiculous construct of universalism that tried (successfully!) to embrace pure abstraction as progressivism in art.

Irony became in vogue. Random splatters of paint, intentionally awkward and ugly forms, childish primitivism became intellectual culture, via reams of this irrational wordsmithing. True progress was hijacked and perverted by cultural Marxism. This later would be the same brand of relativism they found could be successfully applied to all aspects of western tradition and taste, beyond just the false edifying of abstraction as intellectualism, but as a means of attacking every aspect of European culture. The self-eating snake, wracked with guilt, wallowing in weakness and trembling with pity. Their success in art criticism and art theory not only paved the way for total degradation, but the ongoing artlessness of our western world remains and enormous obstacle in allowing us to rediscover our true self-becoming.

Today we have ‘conceptualism’ and ‘abstract expressionism’ ruling our art academies – one may take a lazy preamble into any ‘modern art’ gallery to see what kind of mindless, indefinable childishness this results in. Literal piles of garbage, arranged sex dolls, people standing in animal suits, you may find pretty much anything other than, ironically, actual art. Many voluminous rants about the imagined merits of this perpetual stream of anti-art are printed and spoken of in modern art academies and critical literature. But not a word of it amounts to anything more than liberal guilt, juvenile self-hate, and profuse obsession with human failings and perversions.

Nothing that smacks of beauty, positivity or self-affirmation can fall under this new modernist art definition. All serves to remind us that grandeur is an illusion, human affairs are nihilistically limited, and we are not worth saving. We deserve ugly, lascivious paintings rendered childishly – they are an attack against elitism! But this view is a construct, relying upon egalitarian tropes that are as evil and false as a lie can be. True art is not the all-encompassing cloud of pure creativity where permissiveness enshrines the freedom to announce anything you desire as art. Modernity exists upon a platform of hating true art, or all art before modernism, which they couch in snide blanket terms like ‘realism.’

There is no foundation for modern art abstraction other than proving that the public will accept whatever you tell them to accept. After all the long years of Pollock’s and Picasso’s and Duchamp’s, a cursory Googling of contemporary art definitions lays bare this bizarre and poisonous foundation. A definition of abstract expressionism reveals its basis is ‘A school of painting that flourished after World War II until the early 1960’s, characterized by the view that art is nonrepresentational and chiefly improvisational.’ If this revelation about art is true, that means that Michelangelo, Raphael, Phidias, Sargeant, Turner, Reubens, Titian, DaVinci, and every artist before this movement were completely wasting their time actually learning the craft of painting or sculpture or architecture. They should have been practicing random improvisation, freeing themselves of talent and technical prowess. They should have been splashing paint about like the moronic Pollock, or painting three stripes endlessly like the Judaic con Rothko. The average person assumes that public art comes to them courtesy of respected, talented academics and institutions devoted to furthering and bettering society. They can not fathom or assume that our art ethos is an enormous lie eroding western civilization with hubris and hatred.

Modern art cannot exist in the same world as traditional art. Modern art can exist only as a hate-filled backlash against the superiority of that which came before it. If something appears to have no point should one dig deeper until a point manifests? Does it not remain ultimately pointless?

Modern art criticism, from the likes of Clement Greenburg, is the only truly creative aspect of modern art. He pioneered the style of criticism that found praise in the willfully ‘nonrepresentational’. This opened the floodgates to endless reams of eloquent bloviate about ‘redefining art preconceptions’ and all the typical modernist buzz words we’ve come to associate with generic attacks on western values. Vagaries about progressiveness and old ways that are tired and ready for the dustbin of history. Thus, over time, the idea of craftsmanship becomes denigrated – as the painter becomes the illustrator, the true architect a restorer, a traditional fashionista a set designer, and naturalism becomes pastiche. There is a reason that during the Renaissance you didn’t have celebrated artists making random splatters of paint on a canvas in the Uffizi – that is because it is stupid. It is patently on it’s face idiotic. Because a child really could do it. Turner or Rembrandt did not have to compete in the creative arena with a Tracy Emin type character who traipses around confidently arranging mannequins or unmade beds and touting it as art because it is ‘pushing boundaries.’ That is because it takes a society existing, as we do, at a sustained level of luxurious stupidity to even imagine philosophizing such obvious lies.

This confusion, this morass of universalism, was the cultural Bolshevik victory that opened the door to all the others, and right up to the present remains their strongest stranglehold upon the mass mind. Very few people care about art any more because it is so nonsensical, generations come and go just flippantly saying they don’t ‘get it.’ And all because the concept of moving art is difficult to define, and therefore easy to hijack. The day Marcel Duchamp succeeded in bringing a urinal into an art gallery was the day up became down. What seems an innocent trifle morphs into a tremendous evil: Modern Art. All of modern art, and thus modernism (including post-modernism), is based upon the flimsy concept of being willfully bad, to prove ‘anything is art.’ Even now, it persists, when we have grown accustomed and actually expect art galleries to be awful and pointless.

Today not just our galleries but every aspect of western society has been poisoned with this relativist dogma. A willful anti-æstheticism is the furtherance of ugliness for it’s own sake. From music, to fashion, to furniture and architecture, we have been tricked into making our world unseemly. Our cityscapes (save for a few untouched historic city centres such as Paris) are a ruinous, mocking tribute to a lack of defining style They are purposefully disjointed and asymmetric, or woefully boring tower blocks: testimonies of straight lines, undecorated concrete, and plastics. Occasionally where decorative, stylish historic buildings exist they insist upon ruining them with modernist growths (such as the Toronto art gallery). These monolithic monstrosities serve to remind us of the inescapable horror of modernism, as an entity encompassing those values of ugliness and vapidity. No beauty can prevail in the vacuum. No organic shapes, no natural materials, classical motifs, no traditional sculpture, relief, or Euclidean perfection are permitted to exist.

Misshapen and exploitative, we scurry about this landscape of misery feeling deep down we are part of something that has gone wrong, which does not deserve to survive. We escape the confines of drab office cubicles to walk in a courtyard of pointless and garish corporate sculpture. Under the shadow of cheaply made buildings of cyclopean drabness. Unnatural, uninspiring. If in our hearts we come close to the realization that modernism at it’s core is a trick or a joke, we are pushed back into complacency by the all-powerful tyranny of the modern art definition, which hides behind a supposed inclusiveness, where everything is potentially art and every one an artist. Except, again, real art or artists.

And where modern architecture fails to dissuade, we have modern fashion. This incredible bulwark of stupidity and laziness seems to endlessly combine themes of leisure wear and graphic-designed sweatshop fabrics. Gone are the mens suit, leather boots, fine tailored hats and coats, detailed dresses for women, or sartorial standards of any kind. The youth are half naked and in a perpetual cycle of hippy revolution against an unseen sexually conservative oppressor that does not exist. Prevailing cyclical modern themes are garish colors, sweat pants, t-shirts, oft inspired by an endlessly repeating phenomenon of slutty pop stars based upon the model of the careless, free-wheeling whore perpetually giving the finger to a patriarchal history.

All of modernism is a pit, into which beauty must be eradicated. Tragedy must not exist. Art is a kind of self-mocking joke. Judgementalism is the only true crime and is not permitted. The moderns are incapable of seeing that to like something is to pass judgment, and requires the disliking of something else. Perfect egalitarianism does not exist in the universe, and is impossible in the art world, in nature, or in human affairs. The galleries will never again discover genius like Leonardo or Breker so long as they contain trouts nailed to walls and televisions playing static. They exist within that vacuum of intellectual nihilism, from which there is no escape. Perpetually pushing invisible boundaries like hamsters on a wheel.

If, as I believe, we are not actually doomed to this abstraction as part of a long-suffering demise, as Spengler would have us believe, then a revision of style is possible. There are still those that might break through this obscurity, rediscover beauty and the perfection of idea that comes from the mind of a single man, acting on instinct. Cut away the useless fat of a hundred years and start again from where Art Nouveau and to some degree Art Deco left off. But at this late stage it involves a courageous negation of hubris. Those lone warriors must strive for those ideas that can be retrieved from the perpetual wellspring of true creativity, that flowed about the great minds of antiquity like a raging river. Ideas and work that is not abstract or indefinable, but natural, primordial, and the product of intense labor and a devotion to an orderly æsthetic.

The existence or nonexistence of God seems to be a core issue in regards the existential crisis facing the entirety of Western civilization, therefore a crux issue for nationalists. While our Western scientific pursuit of truth leads us further and further away from religion, we are only just coming to terms with a dawning realization that this increasing self-awareness, or world-awareness, comes at the expense of our very primal motivations.

Atheism in practice (at least amongst the mob) appears to lead to a vacuous moral nihilism: robbing impulse, increasing fearfulness, destroying pride and Faustian enterprise. The argument goes that our moral foundation and core beliefs are the result of underpinning historical religious viewpoints, in every sense from our compassion to our curiosity. There are inherent inescapable moral differences in world view between say, an Irishman and a Chinaman, and these distinct world views are the product of culture that is the product of religion. Many argue that the very cultural drive that made the West great to begin with is owed entirely to the Christian view of man as above and apart from nature. When we, individually or as a society, determine human religion is not true, and do away with God, it seems we cannot do so without tearing out our ‘soul’ and leaving behind our ‘humanity.’ Powerless, viewless, adrift upon seas of relativism.

To those of us who accept this, but also can no longer believe in Christianity, this leaves a particular ethical conundrum. While I am deeply interested in pagan morality and myth, I can no more will myself to literally believe it than I could the Tooth Fairy. How then, in good faith, can I promote religion in any sense, pagan or christian or otherwise, while at the same time knowing the alternative is nihilism and doom? I believe the answer is twofold, and lies within. There are rational reasons to reject nihilism and affirm a cyclical life-everlasting. While I can no longer literally believe the Jesus myth I was taught as a child, I am perfectly happy to step over agnosticism and embrace deism. I have no evidence-based reason for this, save for one simple observation. And this observation is, while rational, largely based on feeling or instinct. And I have learned to trust my instincts.

If one does fully embrace atheism and the finality of death, and conquers the fear associated, a new conundrum arises in the brain. If existence is seemingly so futile, why does it bother existing in the first place? If you expand this beyond the personal or human sense and view it macro-cosmically and micro-cosmically, a man can compare his own life to the life of the universe itself. In a universe that follows various rational laws, and appears to have a kind of flow and cycle, how does it make sense for the cosmos to exist for a limited, finite time, only to follow that with an infinity of nonexistence? Would it not be more parsimonious to remain nonexistent to begin with? Why disrupt an eternity of perfect nothing with a pesky, temporary blip of existence, and how or why would it come about, and to what end? What is a finite period followed and preceded by an infinity, how can it exist at all? It strikes one then that the existence of the universe is itself evidence that it is part of an infinite cycle, and therefore my own existence evidence that the material universe, and me as part of it, are potentially part of an everlasting cycle of beauty and brutality. That even if the universe does die, that death could not be infinite.

So where does that leave us? It does not de facto describe an existing god, but it does describe meaning, and affirms life. And in the absence of an anthropomorphic deity motivating these cycles and natural laws, why not place one (or many)? Edify the Universe in representation. Create an Odin, as needed, assume it is preordained by natural law and use that strength to save our culture and remotivate the present. Morality needs a framework, and the world itself is evidence of God.

The second point upon which to reject nihilism in absence of religion is the reality that primal moral motivations have an ancient, race-based basis. The Chinaman and the Irishman are inherently morally different because of the blood, and the DNA, and not religious history. The Chinese would be much the same without Confucianism or Taoism or Buddhism, and Europeans the same with or without Paganism and Christianity and atheism.

The answer is always to follow one’s nature, and if existence itself disproves the nihilist worldview, then nihilism is against nature. And thus a nationalist and a pagan and a true European works backwards from what is natural and what is real.