This Is All Grimly Soviet

°°°°°

England, April 2020. The other day, I was in a long queue at my local ‘supermarket’ store waiting to be allowed in. The footway where we queued was helpfully marked every 2 metres (around six feet, six inches) reminding us to obey the government diktat of “social distancing”. Once inside, after a long wait, the same markings, the same reminders, with staff observing whether or not we meekly obeyed the rules. Some old gentleman – who looked like an archetypal English eccentric – did not and was immediately told by a security guard to observe the rules and “be patient”. So the slow moving people in the queue – fenced in by barriers which dictated how we moved around the store – make their steady way to gather the necessary essentials. Essentials selected, they had to queue again, six feet six inches apart, before being directed by staff to a particular checkout.

Such docility; such people to watch over us and ensure we complied to various government diktats. It was as if we were part of some nation-wide experiment.

Once back home and indulging in a welcome alcoholic beverage, the television presented another half-hour of government propaganda disguised as “news” with government politicians, and “experts”, reminding us about “staying safe” and about “social distancing” and about the gravity of the situation, and with members of the public – from their homes of course and as “talking heads” – spouting about how they were following government demands to “stay safe”, remain at home, and observe the diktat about “social distancing”. Several of these “talking heads” offered advice about how we and our family could cheerfully endure “staying at home” amid the government-imposed lockdown.

There followed a normal television programme, but interspersed (this was a commercial television channel, with ads) with government “shorts” (propaganda) containing the new mantras of government: about staying safe and “protect the NHS”. One commercial television channel even had, in the top left corner of the screen, the government message to “stay at home”.

Outside, on the streets, normal social life has been suspended, with no date set for when the normal life of Western society will be resumed. There are regular police patrols to ensure that there are no public gatherings of three or more people and that the diktat about “social distancing” is being obeyed.

This is all very dystopian. All very Nineteen Eighty-Four. All grimly Soviet. With docile citizens obeying government dicktats because they have, apparently, been brainwashed into believing it is for their own good and for the good and the safety of their society.

Now it has emerged that the social media platform Facebook has – following government pressure – banned posts and messages from people and groups who were organizing or trying to organize or who were promoting protests against government diktats such as “social distancing”, lockdown, and the ban regarding public gatherings. This is censorship by any other name.

Meanwhile, in Britain, it seems the government driven social experiment to make its citizens docile, compliant, and test its power and the effectiveness of its propaganda, has succeeded. No politicians, of whatever flavour – Liberal or Labour or Tory – have spoken out about the tyrannical government dicktats and about its pervasive propaganda. No mainstream newspaper, no television news channel, no independent journalist, has questioned or dissented from those dicktats and the now all-pervasive government propaganda.

No one – no politician, no newspaper, no television news channel, no independent journalist – has pointed out the utter hypocrisy of those who lead the government and who now regale us with propaganda. Those politicians, being wealthy and privileged, do not have to queue outside shops. They and their families do not have to choose between paying rent and eating sufficient to sustain them. They have not had their livelihood – their income from work – taken away. They do not have to live in some small inner-city flat with young, bored, restless children.

On the aforementioned “news” programme I watched and heard some politician tell us what we should be doing and why. Yet the politician had never done a day of real work in his life. He was never a First Responder; never a manual labourer; never an artist or artisan struggling to make ends meet; never in the armed forces; never in a war zone.

He was never, as an adult, short of money, because he was a journalist and then a professional politician spouting rhetoric and is now a wealthy man, and of course like his leader Boris Johnson (the mischling) declares that he is a “proud Zionist” and a friend of media tycoon, and Zionist, Rupert Murdoch.

It seems only a few of us – a few of we, the people – comprehend the situation and are spreading our dissent – of rebellion, of revolution, now or in the future, and our message of a different government-free way of life – person to person, in real time, in real life; or via messages such as this.

What does all this mean for our future, for the civilization of the West, and for we as a folk?

Haereticus
April 21, 2020

°°°°°

Editorial Note: This article was first published in the latest edition of Das Reich, the internal bulletin of Reichsfolk.

°°°°°


The Harsh Reality

odal3

°°°°°°°

In regard to the Covid-19 pandemic, I have six concerns about current government policy in the UK, in the US, and elsewhere in the lands of the West.

The first is that the UK government, like many States in the US, have issued decrees which almost overnight have taken away our basic freedoms, our right to make our own decisions and act on those decisions.

The second concern is that other decrees have, again almost overnight, forced businesses to close and taken away the livelihood of many people. The result has been the unprecedented loss of our social lives and thus of the type of society we in the West have known for centuries, such as going to the Pub, going to and taking part in sporting and other outdoor events, going on holiday in our land, playing games – such as football – on a beach. Not even during two world wars was our social life curtailed in such a way, with those wars resulting in millions more deaths than are predicted from the current pandemic.

My third concern is that we as a species have survived worse pandemics in the past, like The Black Death and the 1918 pandemic, with The Black death – which was 90% fatal, unlike the relatively low 5% mortality rate of Covid-19 – being one of the causes that led to the European Renaissance and positive changes in Western society. We survived such pandemics because of three things: what is known as “community immunity”, genetics, and because such adversity aids our evolution: Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.

In terms of genetics and community immunity, some people – only a few in the case of The Black Death for example – are naturally immune, with many who are infected surviving and becoming immune and passing on their immunity to others through social contact.

My fourth concern is that the tyrannical-like decrees by Western governments and the meek compliance to such decrees by most of our folk shows how passive we as folk seem to have become, and how powerful and tyrannical our so-called “democratic” governments can be, which perhaps does not bode well for our future.

My fifth concern is that current data shows a relatively low mortality rate from Covid-19 with most who die being elderly or having underlying health problems. This data does not – at least to me – justify the panic, the constant propaganda, the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) by the government and the media, and the tyrannical “lock down” imposed on us.

My sixth concern is that most of our folk – and even some National Socialists – seem to have forgotten or neglect the fact we have created the most civilized society ever known not by “staying safe”, not by “staying home”, but by accepting and overcoming challenges and disasters, by being defiant, and by accepting that death is a fact of life and even in some cases is or may be necessary. Every year in the UK, for example, there are around 600,000 deaths from various causes. Will there be an additional 600,000 deaths from Covid-19 in the UK? Not even the worse case scenario suggests such high mortality.

Which brings me to my final point, which is that in respect of Covid-19 governments rely on scenarios which are the result of computer models and inputted data. The accuracy of the models is unproven, and the data which is fed into the models has been selected based on certain criteria and may be inaccurate or selected on the basis of fallible assumptions. In other words, the predicted mortality rate for Covid-19 is only a current “best guess”.

Thus my answer to what might be done instead of panic, lock down, and “best guesses” is to help the sick and the dying, but allow Nature to take its course and develop community immunity, accept there will be deaths, continue with our Western, social, way of life, and move on, learning from the tragedy, and thus change, adapt, evolve. To me, this would be the National Socialist thing to do.

The harsh, the stark, reality of our human history, a reality we as a folk once accepted and was part of our ancestral tradition, is – as I noted in a previous article – “that many of us die or will die from disease, viral or otherwise; that elderly people are more prone to die from infections – viral or otherwise; that epidemics and pandemics and disease – from the Black Death to the Spanish 1918 pandemic to malaria – are a fact of Nature and a means whereby we have changed, evolved; that we can either accept the power of Nature, and who and what we are, or we can try to struggle against Nature and try to conquer Nature and believe we are fighting a war against epidemics and pandemics and disease.” {1}

It is sheer arrogance – hubris – for us to believe we can fight Nature and win. Our ancestral wisdom informs us that we should work in balance with Nature, not against it.

This working in balance with Nature is, I believe, enshrined in National Socialism and implies an acceptance of the stark, the harsh, reality of civilizations and especially the stark reality of the birth, growth, evolution of our Western civilization. If we do not accept this stark reality how can we hope to even maintain, to defend, our civilization?

The current crises has revealed how tyrannical our governments can be and now are, and how many of our folk do not know or cannot accept the harsh reality behind our Western civilization and the harsh reality needed for us to defend it, and develop it, and ourselves, further.

For my view is that it is tyranny for the government – any government – to confine most people to what is in all but name “house arrest” and to take away our centuries old liberty to, for example, go to the Pub or watch or take part in outdoor sports or other events, or travel somewhere in our land for a holiday, or play a game of football on a beach.

Our governments have now shown that they have total power – they command what we do and where we go, ultimately on pain of imprisonment if we don’t pay the fines imposed by the police for breaking what the government has commanded. Their commands have totally disrupted our Western societies in an unprecedented way.

It has also shown just how meek and tame we as a folk seem to have become. That there is a meek compliance to such government decrees by most of our folk shows how passive we as folk have become. Would Vikings, would the Anglo-Saxons, would the Kelts, would Germanic tribes, have embraced such a message as “stay safe at home” and obeyed their tyrannical overlords? Would they have been bothered by deaths from disease, viral or otherwise, to the extent of staying meekly in their dwellings? Or would they have accepted that death – from disease or from war or from other causes – is a natural and necessary fact of human life and thus continue to live, and to fight, according to ancestral custom?

Thus, the question really is: what have we, as a folk, now become or are becoming?

D.L.
April 2020 ev

{1} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2020/03/24/covid-19-update/

°°°°°°°


Covid-19: The Propaganda Continues

odal3

°°°°°°°


Covid-19:
Government Tyranny And Propaganda Continue

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed three things. First, the sweeping powers that all Western so-called democratic governments have to introduce draconian restrictions on the lives of ordinary people. Second, how those governments can launch and continue with massive propaganda campaigns to persuade the majority of citizens that the draconian restrictions are necessary; and third, how the majority of citizens not only believe the government propaganda but meekly accept the restrictions.

In effect, Western governments have created tyrannical societies where there is constant unopposed government propaganda and where the draconian restrictions on the lives of ordinary people are enforced by the police, with no end-date set for the lifting of such restrictions.

All of which do not bode well for the future of Western societies and the future of the peoples of Western lands. In just over a month Western societies have gone from vibrant, outgoing, bustling places to grim, almost Soviet-like, drab places where the people are told to “stay at home” and bombarded with slogans such as that those who break the government imposed “lockdown” are irresponsible and will be responsible for killing people. In its latest propaganda initiative, the British government – via politicone Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care – announced that it will introduce “immunity certificates” which allow selected, government approved, citizens to resume life beyond the confines of their homes.

There is little public dissent to all this. No organized resistance. Few dissidents who dare to publicly contradict government propaganda and government generated hysteria.

For instance, and to place government propaganda into perspective, the British government and its propagandists talk and write about “saving lives” when so far (2 April, 2020) the Covid-19 pandemic has caused only around 3,000 deaths in Britain, most of whom were elderly or had underlying health problems. Yet in the past, before this pandemic, around 600,000 people in Britain died every year, many of them elderly, with over 90% of people who contract the Covid-19 virus surviving and suffering only mild symptoms with the mortality rate from Covid-19 thus being only a few percent greater than that of yearly influenza epidemics.

In regard to those yearly 600,000 deaths did a British government panic and introduce tyrannical measures which severely disrupted normal life and our society? No. Because of those 600,000 yearly deaths did the government and the media try to brainwash we the people with messages about “staying safe” and about staying at home? No.

Even if, as the government and its well-paid advisers and its well-paid sycophantic “experts” claim – in contradiction to the actual survival rate – there might be around 250,000 deaths from Covid-19, then do such extra deaths justify an unprecedented tyrannical regime, an unprecedented disruption of our societies, of our ordinary lives? No.

For death – from natural, from unnatural, causes, from disease, and from epidemics and pandemics – is a fact of human life, of human history. As is the fact that Western governments and their policies and through war have, in the past, killed far far more people than could ever be killed by the recent pandemic: at least 50 million people killed, for example, in the two world wars between 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

During those wars, when people were dying at a far greater rate than are being killed by Covid-19, did the Western governments of the time disrupt our societies in the way they have now disrupted our societies? No. For they did not close pubs, bars, cafes, restaurants, cinemas; they did not forbid outdoor sporting events; they did not ban public concerts and events. They did not tell people to “stay at home”.

The fact of the matter is that the Covid-19 pandemic is not a new Black Death, not a plague in which the morality rate is over 90%. It is – with its survival rate of over 90% – just one more pandemic which as our history reveals we human beings are occasionally subject to and suffer from. In other words, it is a fact of Nature; a reality of our biological nature.

For millennia, we have survived such occurrences without nationwide propaganda campaigns and without the government or the potentates of the time severely disrupting our societies, our ordinary lives. As Nietzsche wrote: Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.

That the majority of our peoples seem to not know, or ignore, this natural and necessary truth – such wisdom as created and maintained our current Western societies – I find astonishing.

D.L.
Reichsfolk
2 April, 2020

°°°°°°°


Police State?

odal3

°°°°°°°

As a supporter of the anarchist Occult movement – the sub-culture – known as the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) {1} and skeptical as I am about the draconian government measures in the UK that have led to an unprecedented disruption of society, {2} I was pleased to learn that the former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption had criticized the enforcement of these measures by the police. {3}

Among other things, the police have been setting up roadblocks to check on what people traveling by road are doing and turning people back if they deemed their journey was “not essential”; they dyed the usually turquoise water of a lagoon black in a beauty spot to deter tourists from visiting {3} and they stopped and questioned people who were outdoors telling them that they could only exercise outdoors once a day for one hour only. The police even told a shop to stop selling Easter eggs as they were not “essential” supplies, and used a drone to spy on a couple walking with their dog in the countryside and then posted images of the couple on Twitter to warn people against undertaking “non-essential” travel.

Lord Sumption said that “this is what a police state is like, it is a state in which a government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers’ wishes,” that the measures taken by the government were based on hysteria; that “anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria,” and asked if the viral pandemic was serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment.

I and the minority like me who have studied both the data and human history have concluded it is not serious enough because most people who contract the virus will have mild symptoms and recover. Currently, the data shows that over 90% of people have recovered.

The criticism of Lord Sumption focused on the fact that the emergency laws introduced by the government do not give police the legal power to do what they have been doing.

Having studied history, I expect that the UK government will now give the police the legal power to tyrannically restrict the rights and freedoms of individuals and to enforce the policies which have created a society “in lockdown” based on the tyrannical Big Brother slogan that we the people should “stay at home”. Such legal power will deepen the rift between ordinary people, and the wealthy and the privileged political oligarchy. For instance, the wealthy and the politicos do not have to join long queues to buy “essential supplies” – they have assistants and flunkies to do that for them or they have the wealth and the privilege, the contacts, to make a deal with suppliers to supply them direct. They also have access to private medical care and assistance so that they, unlike ordinary folk, can always speedily contact a doctor and, if they become ill, they can go to a private clinic or have a private room in the private wing of a hospital.

           Maybe I’m wrong about the government now giving the police the legal power to enforce the restrictions that have created our current “lockdown” society. But history backs my judgment, especially as there is no sign by the people of active dissent, for, according to a spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs Council, the “vast majority of people are fully complying with the guidance and advice” and that “we will use enforcement” by issuing fines to those who do not obey and that those fines are “legally enforceable and non-payment will result in prosecution.” In other words, the police already have the power to arrest dissenters, prosecute them, and have them imprisoned for “non-payment of fines”.

D.L.
March 2020 ev

{1} For the anarchic nature of the O9A, see The Physis Of The O9A section of Insight Rôles, The Seven Fold Way, And The O9A, included in https://omega9alpha.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/o9a-trilogy-print.pdf
{2} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2020/03/24/covid-19-update/
See also https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2020/03/19/covid-19-a-dissenting-and-pagan-view
{3} https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/covid-19-ex-supreme-court-judge-lambasts-disgraceful-policing

°°°°°°°

Editorial Note: As reported in our declaration titled About This Blog – https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/about/ – “given the rumors and allegations about Myatt and the occult group the order of nine angles we also publish some articles about the ONA/O9A, from a variety of sources.” The above, written by a self-declared supporter of the anarchist O9A movement, is one such article.

°°°°°°°


Covid-19 Update

odal3

°°°°°°°

Today, Monday 23 March 2020, the Prime Minister of Britain – grandson of a Russian Jew, and great-grandson of a Turkish Muslim – sits like a dictator in a plush room flanked by the national flag, and by means of a live televised broadcast announced to the nation that even more tyrannical measures will be introduced which will severely restrict the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens. All the name of “public safety” and “protecting life”.

For now – today – “public safety”, protecting life, and the fight – the war – against the new viral enemy has replaced slogans about the fight – the war – against terrorism and replaced even older slogans about the so-called “evil” of Nazi Germany and the need to fight a “total war” in order to protect and save democracy. The rhetoric is the same: only the name of the enemy, and the means to fight this new war, have changed.

Meanwhile, the social fabric of our British society – going to the pub, to bars, to restaurants, going to concerts and events, playing or spectating at outdoor sports, sending our children to school, and so on – slowly breaks down. There is no time-scale for when life will return to normal. If, after this, it can ever return to normal.

What is happening is dystopian. The powerful politicians, like the Prime Minister, the wealthy and the well-connected, continue with their lavish lifestyles in their mansions or in their large residences with their manicured gardens, while ordinary folk have to endure shortages of food and domestic essentials, lose their jobs because their places of work have been shut down, and are told to stay indoors or risk fines or risk being taken away and forcibly placed in isolation. Gatherings in public of more than two people who do not live together have been declared illegal.

That there is no vocal or organized dissent – in the media, from politicians, even from anarchists and nationalists – about the severe and unprecedented and tyrannical restrictions of the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens is extraordinary. It is as if the majority of people uncritically believe what the government and the media tell them. Which belief and lack of active dissent allows tyranny to survive and propser.

Yet the government policy of (i) isolating ourselves – for up to 12 weeks in the case of those considered to be most at risk in terms of health – and (ii) of “social distancing” and (iii) of “lockdown”, of closing pubs, bar, restaurants, and other aspects of our social society, is not based on fact but on speculation.

The speculation is that hundreds of thousands of people will die if government policy is not followed and enforced. That we would be selfish and irresponsible if we did not do what the government demanded. There is currently no data, no verifiable research, which supports such speculation.

What the latest data – March 21-23, 2020 – does reveal is that worldwide there have been 332,935 confirmed cases and have been 14,510 deaths. {1} In Britain there have been 5,683 confirmed cases and 281 deaths.

This means that the survival rate – even in the worst affected areas, such as Italy and Spain – is greater than 90%. In other words, Covid-19 is not a new Black Death; not a pandemic like the Spanish influenza of 1918. And thus does not require such draconian, such tyrannical, measures.

In addition, the policy of isolation, of social distancing and of “lockdown” does not allow for community – herd – immunity, which for millennia has been Nature’s way of protecting us, en masse, from pandemics. This is the immunity that develops in the general population because those who have been infected and survived pass on such immunity to others as a result of social contact. This is what occurred, for example, during the 1968-1969 Hong Kong influenza pandemic the death toll from which was reduced because a significant portion of people had some immunity to the virus as a result of community immunity.

What the government and their vocal supporters in the media and elsewhere also do not want to acknowledge is that it is a fact of life, part of our nature as mortal biological beings, that many of us die from disease, viral or otherwise; that elderly people are more prone to die from infections – viral or otherwise; that epidemics and pandemics and disease – from the Black Death to the Spanish 1918 pandemic to malaria – are a fact of Nature and a means whereby we have changed, evolved; that we can either accept the power of Nature, and who and what we are, or we can try to struggle against Nature and try to conquer Nature and believe we are fighting a war against epidemics and pandemics and disease.

The government and others have chosen to struggle against Nature since it seems that they want to be seen as “saviours” in a much hyped “new war” against Nature, and because they fear that the option of working with Nature – through community immunity, and allowing our societies to carry on almost as normal – may mean they will be somehow blamed for inaction when people die during the new pandemic.

In other words, they have taken the short-term, short-sighed, political option, disrupting society in an unprecedented way, rather than the option that ancestral wisdom, that an understanding of Nature reveals: of community immunity; of ourselves as biological beings prone to illness and accidents, and of how epidemics and pandemics can be a means whereby we as a species change and evolve. As The Black Death – which unlike Covid-19 was almost always fatal – brought about positive social, religious, and political changes and the European Renaissance itself; for as Nietzsche wrote, Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.

That such ancestral wisdom is enshrined in the modern political philosophy of National Socialism {2} is, of course, one more reason why modern Western politicians and the media have chosen the short-term, short-sighed, political option of disrupting society in an unprecedented way. For they have so demonized National Socialism and the folk society of The Third Reich for so many decades – made it a modern heresy – that the majority of our folk have no conception of how that political philosophy enshrines our native, our European, ancestral wisdom.

Which ancestral wisdom does not mean the heartless way of being indifferent to suffering and letting people die, as politicians and many others mistakenly believe. Rather it means caring for the sick and the dying; letting society function almost as normal; allowing for the development of community immunity, and introducing measures which encourage the benefits of outdoor exercise. There is only one country in the world which, so far, has taken this route: Russia, where its leader Vladimir Putin has not imposed “lockdown” and who recently was out and about in Crimea, meeting crowds and shaking hands, and not socially-distancing himself. {3} This natural approach by President Putin – this ray of hope – may, however, change. If it does change {4} then we who are of European descent face a bleak future, our only hope – it seems to me – to carry within our hearts the truth about National Socialism and personally pass on this truth to others.

D.L.
March 2020 ev

{1} https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
{2} Refer, for example, to Myatt’s 1990s essay The Meaning of National-Socialism, and his Esoteric Hitlerism: Idealism, the Third Reich and the Essence of National-Socialism which are included in https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/myatt-selected-ns-writings1.pdf
{3} https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51972974
{4} Update, 31 March 2020. It has changed, to “lockdown”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52109892

°°°°°°°


Covid-19: A Dissenting And Pagan View

odal3

°°°°°°°

March 18, 2020. The new pandemic caused by a new virus – Covid-19, commonly called Coronavirus – has led politicians in Western societies to panic, to act on the basis of speculation rather than on the basis of verifiable data; to introduce radical restrictions on people – such as severely restricting foreign travel and closing schools, cancelling sporting events, shutting down theaters, restricting public gatherings, closing Underground Stations in London, and telling people to stay indoors on pain of arrest {1} – and to declare things such as “we are in a war against an invisible killer,” {2} and Nous sommes en guerre {3}.

The result has been the greatest disruption in Western societies since World War Two, with the attitude among politicians and many others amounting to declaring that “we are at war with Nature” amid the scramble to try and contain the spread of the virus.

The disruption and restrictions and draconian legislation are based on speculation that the new virus will have a severe mortality rate; a rate much greater than the 1% to 2% of influenza pandemics such as the one between 1968 and 1969. Hence the claim – unsupported by actual data – that there will be at least 250,000 deaths from Covid-19 in Britain alone.

Yet a study of the data currently available reveals a mortality rate of around 2% in places such as Italy and America and Britain, with many of those who died being elderly and having underlying and often serious health problems. In addition, many of those who have been infected – such as Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, and David and Sally Abel, whose cases were widely reported in the media – suffered mild symptoms and recovered within a few weeks. Which recovery by so many is what a mortality rate of around 2% indicates. {4}{5}

The formulation and implementation of government policy on the basis of speculation and on the basis of a “worst case scenario”, the lack of dissent especially among politicians and journalists, and the scramble to try and contain the spread of the virus through restrictive and draconian measures, are indicative of the fact that we humans – even after a century of scientific and technological advances based on reason, scientific experimentation, and verifiable research – can still react in an irrational and fearful way and still uphold the hubriatic belief that “we are in a war” with – or should be at war with – a natural occurrence.

Which arrogant, hubriatic, belief – based on the assumptions that we are, could be, should be, masters of Earth, of Nature, and can solve all problems, environmental, political, social while remaining as we are – has led to us causing the climate change which our planet is now undergoing. It has also led to us forgetting a fundamental principle of biological life: which is that all biological beings die, and that there are natural causes over which we have no control despite what we in our hubris and egoism like to believe.

In effect, our politicians and many others have neglected or forgotten or never known certain truths, a certain wisdom. Truths, a wisdom, known for example by those with long-experience of the oceans, of the Sea: of its raw power, its unpredictability, and of how we humans can be and often are powerless when confronted with that power, that unpredictability.

Truths, a wisdom, known when some new or old disease afflicts us, and when we – or our relatives or our friends or loved ones – die from such a disease or from natural causes or from some accident of life.

That prideful, hubriatic, attitude – which overestimates our abilities and our power as biological beings who are doomed sometime, somewhere, somehow, to die – is enshrined in such slogans as “Cancer: we’re coming to get you” since we are in effect saying “Death: we’re coming to get you,” as if we can, should, somehow forestall the inevitable.

What, thus, has been and is being neglected or forgotten or never known is a simple truth known to most if not all ancestral traditions and which truth formed one of the foundations of ancient Western paganism. A truth which a modern pagan mystic expressed by quoting an expression originally in Ancient Greek: “Our ending arrives whenever wherever the Moirai [the Fates] decide.” {6}

In practical terms this truth means a rather laissez-faire – stoical – attitude to life, an attitude exemplified by the reality behind the now much maligned British phrase “stiff upper lip” and the now much satirized slogan “Keep Calm And Carry On”.

For myself, and in respect of this manufactured Covid-19 crisis, I intend to live as normal; ignoring the panic and the waffle and the fear-mongering of politicians and others.

As a pagan I am content to die when and how the Fates – the gods, the Kosmos, Nature herself – decree. Until that moment there is life, living, to be savoured and enjoyed in a life-affirming pagan way.

Richard Stirling
March 2020

{1} In France people have to have an official permit which permits them to go outside, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/europe/paris-coronavirus-lockdown.html

In Britain, the government has introduced legislation allowing the Police and immigration officials to arrest and place people in “appropriate isolation facilities”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51938879

{2} British Health Secretary Matt Hancock, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51917562

{3} President Macron of France, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-16/france-to-put-all-reforms-on-hold-to-focus-on-virus-macron-says

{4} Update: according to a report – March 18, 2020, 8:56 AM EDT – 99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

{5} Regarding the 2% mortality rare, see also Radiological findings from 81 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, in the medical journal The Lancet, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30086-4/fulltext

{6} θάνατος δὲ τότ ̓ ἔσσεται ὁππότε κεν δὴ Μοῖραι ἐπικλώσωσ ̓. Attributed to Καλλίνου, as recorded by Ἰωάννης Στοβαῖος in Ἀνθολόγιον, c. 5th century CE.

The mystic in question is David Myatt who quotes the expression in several of his post-2011 writings, and whose philosophy of pathei-mathos, and his monographs Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos and Tu Es Diaboli Ianua, express the essence of ancient Western paganism. See also Western Paganism And Hermeticism: Myatt And The Renaissance of Western Culture

Myatt’s mystical philosophy is outlined in https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/myatt-mystic-philosophy-second-edition.pdf

°°°°°°°


Magian Foundations Of Anti-O9A Propaganda

odal3

°°°°°°°

Foundations Of Anti-O9A Propaganda
(pdf)

Extract:

The recent and, as of 15 March 2020 ongoing, campaign by an antifascist political interest group to have the Order of Nine Angles (O9A, ONA) banned by the British government not only required two things in particular but also implies something important about our epoch – about the societies of the modern West – and about what has become, since World War Two, its shared ethos and its orthodoxy.

One requirement was that the campaign be based on the Big Lie (große Lüge) technique of propaganda where a lie – or several lies – is or are repeated so often by so many and by various means that a large proportion of people accept the lie or lies as fact even though nothing probative – no evidence based on primary sources – is ever presented. The second requirement is that the enemy or enemies – in this case the O9A and Mr Myatt – are demonized by many and various means, which in this epoch means through social media platforms, through the mainstream media such as newspapers and pseudo-documentaries, via the medium of websites and forums, and by the leaders and activists of an antifascist political interest group meeting with mainstream politicians, and the police, and spinning their yarns and their lies in the hope of influencing or persuading those politicians and the police.

What is implied by this antifascist campaign is that both the campaign itself and the antifascist political interest group represent the orthodoxy, the ethos, of our epoch with the O9A and Mr Myatt perceived as enemies who seek to undermine and replace that orthodoxy with a new ethos. In other words, they are perceived as heretics although the anti-O9A campaign, the antifascist political interest group, and their supporters, are careful not to use the word heretic in respect of the O9A and Mr Myatt since if they do use that word some people may discover the truth about the current orthodoxy. Instead, they use expressions such as “promoting hate speech” and “promoting extremism” and “encouraging terrorism”.

°°°°°°°

Article source:
https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2020/03/16/magian-foundations-of-anti-o9a-propaganda/

°°°°°°°


Redefining Anti-Semitism

odal3

°°°°°°°

Editorial Note: The following article about redefining anti-Semitism, written in 2018, we regard as notable given the intervention by the current Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis in the November/December 2019 UK election campaign and which intervention lambastes the Labour party for its “anti-Semitism” and seems to imply that “a Labour victory in that campaign would be a catastrophe”. {1}

In other words, British Jews should support the Conservatives leader Boris Johnson whose Jewish ancestry {2} has, apparently, never been mentioned by the mainstream Media during this 2019 UK election campaign.

Is this intervention by the current Chief Rabbi one more example of the “social engineering” mentioned in the following article?

We believe it is, and which “social engineering” Myatt – in an appendix to his Mythos of Vindex {3} – described as “the manipulation and control of people by abstract social/political ideas. Our modern lifeless, multi-racial societies are the direct product of decades of social engineering, of social/political ideas and abstract doctrines made law.”

The modern re-definition of so-called “anti-Semitism” certainly seems to be an “abstract social/political idea”.

RDM Crew
2019

{1} https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/26/british-jews-corbyn-emigrate
{2} https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/boris-johnson-his-jewish-credentials/
{3} https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/myatt-mythos-of-vindex-v1.pdf

°°°°°°°

Redefining Anti-Semitism
A Tale For Our Times

The current political row about so-called “anti-Semitism” in the British Labour party is a relevant tale of our times for several reasons.

I. It is a relevant tale, firstly, because the term “anti-Semitism” is a fairly recent invention, dating from the 1870’s but only becoming common in English due to the anti-German propaganda that proliferated before and during the Second World War. {1} As defined in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary (Second edition, 1989) it means “hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people, and the theory, action, or practice resulting from this.”

II. It is a relevant tale, secondly, because it reveals how influential and powerful certain Jewish advocacy groups are since they have for years lobbied the British government – and police forces and other official bodies – to accept the new definition of “anti-Semitism” invented by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

The IHRA’s definition is: “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.”

However, as well of this definition, the IHRA helpfully provide examples of what according to their definition constitute the “crime” of “anti-Semitism”. Among their examples are the following:

° Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

° 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.

° Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

° Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Since this IHRA definition – and its examples – define things which it advocates and supporters consider to be “wrong”, morally reprehensible, it should be obvious that it enshrines an ideology; that is, it is a scheme of ideas relating to ethics, politics and society, and forms the basis of action and policy.

Furthermore, since this ideology, enshrined in the IHRA definition and its examples, is now increasingly being used by police forces, councils, and other official bodies, to determine if a “hate crime” has been committed, it is clear that there is a movement, not yet written in law but continually agitated for, to make things such as a “certain perception of Jews”, “holocaust denial” and criticism of Zionists and of the Zionist entity itself, punishable crimes in the modern West.

That this ideology – whose advocates and supporters seek to criminalise “a certain perception” that some other people do not like or approve of – is an assault on freedom of expression and freedom of belief should be obvious. That this assault is still not obvious to many is tribute to just how effective the propaganda of the Zionist lobbies and of “holocaust remembrance” lobbies is and has been, for such propaganda – repeated almost every day, every week, every year, since 1945 – is that “anti-Semitism led to the horrors, the inhumanity, of the holocaust and such horrors must never be allowed to happen again.”

Yet if – as those who write and speak in favour of historical revisionism claim and believe – the holocaust did not happen as portrayed in the holocaust literature then persecuting and criminalizing those who question or doubt it is repressive and intolerant. This intolerance was summed up following the criminal conviction in May 2018 in a British court of law of a singer – Alison Chabloz – just for singing songs questioning the veracity of the holocaust, with the leader of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism declaring that “in Britain Holocaust denial […] will not be tolerated.”

In other words, advocates and supporters of a particular ideology demand that their zealous intolerance becomes official policy and is enshrined in the law of the land, just as they rejoice when someone is convicted in a court of law on the basis of the intolerant ideology they advocate and support.

It really does seem as if we in the West have not learned much from the religious intolerance of former centuries when those who did not believe in certain things – and who perhaps had “a certain perception” that differed from what was then the accepted, the non-heretical, norm – were persecuted and criminalized.

III. It is a relevant tale, thirdly, because it reveals just how intertwined the modern legend of the holocaust is (i) with re-defining “anti-Semitism”, (ii) with intolerant attempts to criminalize “a certain perception”, (iii) with support for and the survival of the Zionist entity that currently occupies Palestine, and (iv) with the religious belief that the Jews were and are the “chosen people of God” and that therefore they have a God-given right and duty to create and then to live in the Zionist entity. Hence, of course, the Zionist “law of return”.

For without the legend of the holocaust the Zionist entity would either not exist or would not be supported as it is and has been – economically, financially, militarily, propagandistically and otherwise – by the wealthy nations of the modern West.

It should therefore come as no surprise that, in an unguarded moment, the then Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Dr. Jakobovits, declared in 1982 that “The Jews were chosen to act as pathfinders for the world, and Israel has a special place as an instrument to effect the Jew’s social engineering upon the world.” {2}

Where by the term “social engineering” he meant and implied both (i) government and State efforts (through laws, propaganda and other means) to influence the attitudes and ideas of people and the structure of society, and (ii) efforts by the Media and special interest groups to bring about certain changes in society.

For re-defining the term “anti-Semitism”, criminalizing questioning or doubting the legend of the holocaust, and – among things – demanding that a certain ideology becomes official policy and is enshrined in the law of the land, most certainly amounts to social engineering.

Haereticus
23 July 2018 ev

{1} An example of such propaganda occurred in The Economist magazine dated 24th August 1935: “The Nazi Party stalwarts […] have all been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant crusade.”

{2} The Guardian newspaper (London), 7th August 1982.

°°°°°°°


Hypocrisy, Politicians, And Probative Value

odal3

°°°°°°°

Amesbury Incident Update
Hypocrisy, Politicians, And Probative Value

 

Hypocrisy And Politicians

As predicted by the sagacious – by those whose guides are reason, fairness, and evidence which has probative value – the death of the woman involved in the Amesbury incident has led to politicians and others to express hypocritical outrage. Thus the British Prime Minister said she was “appalled and shocked by the death.”

Why is such outrage hypocritical? Because there is a political agenda behind it and because it ignores the fact that on average, around 3 women a day are killed in Britain {1} while between 2009 and 2015, 936 women were killed by men they knew {2} and which number of murders is far more than those who in Britain lost their lives due to acts of terrorism during the same period.

Did the current Prime Minister and former Prime Ministers publicly state that they were “appalled and shocked” by the death of each of those women? Did they send their “thoughts and condolences” to the families of each victim? Did they state that their government was “committed to providing full support to the local community” as it dealt with each such tragedy? No of course not.

Did the local police involved in such murders, as is now the case with Amesbury incident, have a squad of over 100 detectives from outside their area assist them? No of course not.

Why not? Because such deaths did not serve the political agendas of the government of the day while the death of the woman in the Amesbury incident does serve the political agenda of the government of the day. To wit, their propaganda campaign against Russia and especially against Vladimir Putin.

Probative Value

As also predicted by the sagacious, the British Home Secretary – following the death of the woman involved in the Amesbury incident – propagandistically stated, without providing or citing any evidence, that “we know back in March that it was the Russians. We know it was a barbaric, inhuman act by the Russian state.”

We are thus entitled to ask obvious questions such as: “Where is the evidence for such accusations? Where is or was it published and made available to we the people?” Available to we the people – the supposed basis for their government – so that we may make our own, individual, and informed, opinion based on evidence which has probative value.

Until there is such publicly available evidence “we the people” are supposed to trust the politicians who make such accusations, and – when pressed on the matter of evidence (as they seldom if ever are by journalists) – are supposed to trust their vague statements about “intelligence” gathered by the security services “proving” such accusations, although such “intelligence” is never published at the time and when on the few occasions that it is (years later after its propaganda value is no longer relevant) it is often “redacted” and as in the case of purported Iraqi weapons of mass destruction often shown to be false and propagandistic.

Thus instead of treating “we the people” with respect, as intelligent beings, modern politicians of modern democracies condescendingly expect us to trust them, believe their propaganda, and ignore their utter hypocrisy.

For such politicians, the death of one women in one incident provides them with political opportunities, while the murder of thousands of other women – often in more barbaric circumstances – is not even a footnote in the history of modern British democracy.

Is such modern democracy still fit for purpose? Or does it, as we are inclined to believe, need reforming, so that in the words of one perspicacious commentator,

                  “leaders and politicians must have such personal character-revealing experience as qualifies them to lead and to govern, with that personal experience consisting of proven and years-long ‘front line’ service to their country and to their people such as in the armed forces or serving as a ‘first responder’ in such occupations as paramedic, a police officer, and in the Fire & Rescue service.” {3}

Three Wyrd Sisters
9th July 2018 ev

{1} The Guardian, One woman dead every three days, 14 December 2017.

{2} Helen Pidd, The Guardian, 7 December 2016.

{3} https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/the-moment-of-my-reading/

°°°°°°°

Related:
https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2018/07/04/the-amesbury-incident/


Article source: https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2018/07/09/amesbury-incident-update/


Some Problems With Modern Democracy

David Myatt

Editorial Note: Although this 2010 essay by Myatt pre-dates his philosophy of pathei mathos and may therefore fall into the category of writings disowned by him, we republish it here as in our view it offers some interesting insights into modern democracy.

RDM Crew
May 2018 ev

Article source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/the-moment-of-my-reading/

°°°°°°°°°

A Moment Among My Reading

Some Problems With Modern Democracy

For the past few weeks I have been re-reading classical authors such as Thucydides, Herodotus, Pliny, and Tacitus. Which reading led to me to reflect upon the histories of the nations of the modern West and the form of government – the modern democracy – that they have developed and whether such problems as I, personally, perceive that such a form of government has may be detrimental to Western societies in the future.

Some Basic Problems

1. The first problem I perceive with modern democracy is that a country generally gets the leaders – presidents, prime ministers – and the government who and which tend to reflect, in their words, promises, and policies, the often changeable fears, hopes, and emotions of a majority of people at election time or at least of the percentage necessary to win an election; with such fears, hopes, and emotions often engendered by the Media, by a specific political party, by a ‘social movement’, and by ‘special interest’ (advocacy) groups or individuals with their own agendas, all of whom seek to influence ‘public opinion’ and the policies of politicians and governments. Such ‘special interest’ groups invariably include those with particular business and political concerns who have the financial resources to employ professional lobbyists, Media consultants, and propagandists.

The result is that the political party and/or particular advocacy groups who have the most money during elections campaigns, and who have the support of a substantial part of the Media, and/or who have a candidate for high office who is a persuasive public speaker, influence the result of elections, having persuaded or influenced the percentage of people necessary to win an election.

In other words, modern elections have become an often cynical process of targeting, persuading, and influencing, people (or specific types of people) by appealing to their fears, their hopes, their emotions, based on specific – and supra-personal – political, social, and business, agendas and interests.

In practical terms this means that the leaders tend to represent their own personal (sometimes emotive) and/or political agenda and/or the agendas of whatever ‘special interest’ groups have helped them get elected. Naturally they deny this, since they invariably and cynically declare that their policies and actions represent “the will of the people” – and thus that they have a mandate for those policies and actions – or they rather naively do believe that they have a mandate having a personality or the personal vanity which has made them a mere figurehead for ‘special interest’ groups and/or the political magnates of their own political party who themselves have their own agendas.

Over decades, the cynical process of targeting, persuading, and influencing, people results in changing governments, for with each new election a majority of people are persuaded or believe that “it will be better, different, next time” and that their hopes will be realized by electing a different president or a different political party or even by electing the same political party but with a different prime minister and some different politicians. Meanwhile, very little of substance changes for the majority. There may be some cosmetic changes, but public services often get worse, crime increases, with the poor staying poor, and the rich staying rich or becoming richer, immune or indifferent as the majority of the rich are to declining public services, to social problems, and to increasing crime.

2. The second problem with modern democracy is that politicians in general and candidates for leadership positions in government do not have to have – and in these modern times are not expected by the public to have – practical character-revealing life-experiences; and thus to have undertaken deeds which have revealed that they are courageous individuals who in dangerous or difficult situations have placed the life of others and of their country before their own. Life-experience such as serving in the armed forces of one’s country and being awarded a medal or medals for gallantry; or serving as a ‘first responder’ – such as a paramedic, or a police officer, or in the Fire & Rescue service – and thus having faced difficult, trying, and life-threatening circumstances.

Instead, all individuals have to do to qualify as a politician is to have powerful and influential friends, and/or have the support of a substantial part of the Media, and/or have the support of influential advocacy groups, and/or have adroitly played ‘the political game’ and thus have been selected by the political magnates of their own political party, and/or have personal wealth sufficient to buy their way into the Media or – through (sometimes secret) donations or other means – gain the support of influential advocacy groups.

The result is that in a modern democracy there is a leader, and a government composed of a majority of politicians, who have no courageous deeds to their name, who have no experience of ‘front line’ service to their country and to their people, but who send people to fight wars, who make and enforce policy for the ‘front line’ services of their own land, and who can and who do, and based on some supra-personal political agenda, impose sanctions on other countries and who thus cause suffering to the ordinary people of those other countries.

In other words, you have career politicians who have never proved their mettle – never been tested – in dangerous or difficult situations lauding it over those who have.

3. The third problem with modern democracy is that modern politicians – with only a few exceptions – have mastered and use the art of propaganda, evident in their inability to be open and honest about their own failings and culpability while in public office, and in their inability to be honest about the failure of the policies of their government. Instead, they are adroit at manufacturing excuses, or shifting the blame away from themselves and government policies, or are disingenuous when answering questions or when addressing concerns about their culpability or that of their government.

4. The fourth problem with modern democracy is that, as a consequence of the aforementioned three problems, there is not “government by the people for the people” but instead government by a generally self-serving or advocacy-driven clique. Which political clique is generally wealthier – for politicians are paid well and often have other sources of income – than the majority of the electorate they were elected to serve.

Consequences

Since modern democracy is today still considered by the majority to function reasonably well in terms of maintaining society, it will remain for that majority the only viable option. For its inherent cynical process of targeting, persuading, and influencing, people will work so long as a majority can be persuaded that, after the next election, “it will be better, different,” with the self-serving or advocacy-driven political clique well-understanding the Psychologie des Foules.

Thus, the always well-off political clique will continue to laud it over the poor and those whose ‘front-line’ public service keeps society functioning. The self-perpetuating political clique will continue to makes excuses for their own failures, for declining public services, for government failure to solve social problems, and for increasing poverty, homelessness, and crime.

Mass discontent, as for example in the anti-war protests before and after the invasion of Iraq, strikes, scandals about corrupt politicians, even occasional riots, have not impacted significantly on the self-perpetuating political cliques: a change of leadership, some new policies, the dismissal or the resignation of a few politicians, propaganda by the Media, perhaps the election of a new government, are usually all that is required to maintain the democratic ‘status quo’.

A study of history, ancient and modern, indicates – at least to me – that such manipulation of the many by the few for the benefit of the few cannot, given human nature en masse, continue indefinitely. That there may well arise such a breakdown of basic services, such perceived inequality, such perceived injustices, such widespread discontent, that revolution, somewhere – peaceful or otherwise – seems almost inevitable, with the attendant suffering that revolutions often cause. Thus will the cyclical nature of human history repeat itself, for we humans apparently have not changed, en masse, significantly enough so that we are personally guided by such virtues as honesty, reason, and εὐταξία to thus be immune to the propagandistic machinations of politicians, demagogues, ideologues, and special interest groups. Instead, it seems that the same fears, hopes, and emotions, still guide us, just as the negative traits of old seem to still guide so many of those few who have, by whatever means, acquired power and authority over the majority.

Can this apparently inevitable suffering-causing cyclicity – such as that of governing cliques and their overthrow, and of the decline of societies – be avoided? My own personal – and admittedly fallible – answer is to reform modern democracy so that leaders and politicians must have such personal character-revealing experience as qualifies them to lead and to govern, with that personal experience consisting of proven and years-long ‘front line’ service to their country and to their people such as in the armed forces or serving as a ‘first responder’ in such occupations as paramedic, a police officer, and in the Fire & Rescue service.

However, such a reform by having character-revealing experience as a qualification for political office is unlikely to occur, given vested interests and – dare I say it – an education system which has neglected study in their original language of authors such as Thucydides, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Aristotle, Pliny, Tacitus, and Cicero.

So many times, in the past somewhat turbulent decade of my life, I have reflected upon a particular verse by Sophocles:

πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ κοὐδὲν ἀνθρώπου δεινότερον πέλει [1]

For this seems to me to capture something of our rather strange human nature – of our ability, our potential, our capacity, to be honourable, self-restrained, rational human beings, and our seemingly equal capacity (or often, greater capacity) to be unsympathetic, insensitive, selfish, dishonourable, untrustworthy, or just plain barbaric.

David Myatt
2010

[1] Antigone, 334. My translation: “There exists much that is strange, but nothing has more strangeness than we human beings.”