Greeks Bearing Gifts (and songs) – Part 2

Part 1.

“Boss, I have so much to tell you. I never loved a man, more than you.” – Zorba

Syrtaki Flash Mob. That line is from the original Syrtaki, in the final scene of the 1964 film “Zorba The Greek.” Plot synopsis: an earnest young Englishman ventures on a pie-in-the-sky moneymaking scheme in Crete, with Zorba (Anthony Quinn) as his assistant and unlikely mentor. The business venture goes to ruin, and when he loses it all in a most spectacular way, the young man is ready to learn how to dance.

More recently, a group of young Greeks performs Mikis Theodorakis’ Zorba’s Dance in Birmingham, England:

0:36 – It’s about to start. The portly fellow who kicks things off looks like an introvert, yet he thinks nothing of starting a flash mob. I know guys like him, including his physical type. “Superdelta” might well be a sociosexual subcategory of ordinary men with rock-solid frame. He steals the show.

1:02 – Fancy blacks hanging out. Everyone knows that they have to go back.

1:12 – The hottest of the female conspirators joins the so-called portly fellow. What’s “smokeshow” in Greek?

1:28 – A niqab floats by in the background. They have to go back.

1:50 – The girl in grey tights and white sweater is exactly how I’ve imagined Penelope. Notice the glow of pride on her face. That look is only possible when you are doing something with your own people.

4:32 – The world’s ugliest female, a streetshitter among the spectators. They have to go back.

3:56 – Winston Smith in the orange shirt… the face of the British working class. He’s smiling as though he’s unsure he has the licence to smile. Like he’s secretively watching something that’s too good to be legal. Like a resident of Moscow in 1950, who doesn’t laugh loudly on his own street because the secret police can do anything they want.

4:23 – I can watch those ponytails bounce all day.

***

“It’s been known for quite some time that in situations where males compete, the outcome produces persistent changes in testosterone vs cortisol. It’s been known, and repeatedly validated, to the point that I find it rather suspicious when people elide the human ecological impact of obviously foreign males in the environment that are not forcefully challenged by the native males.” – James Bowery

“Human ecology means simply the health of the population in question. The study he is referring to is probably saying that when foreign males are around and unchecked, the native males grow pussies. Either that or get depressed. Or both.” – Suburban_elk

The video is a repudiation of multiculturalism. It should be the English dancing on their own streets. But until that happens and when every guest is gone, sincere thanks are due to the young Greeks for sharing a few minutes of cheer in a time of paper-tyranny.

Ώπα!

Advertisements

Greeks Bearing Gifts (and songs) – Part 1

“Girls we love for what they are; young men for what they promise to be.”
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Vicky Leandros, Après toi. Boys have to earn their value, girls have to preserve theirs. This Eurovision classic is about the Alpha Widow, a new name for the old term “damaged goods” — a woman whose sexual experience leaves her incapable of loving any man who’d give her his commitment. Vicky Leandros (born Vassiliki Papathanasiou) won the 1972 competition with that song, representing Luxembourg; it’s in French, the video has English subtitles:

With you, I had learnt to laugh
And my laughter only comes from you
After you, I will be only the shadow
Of your shadow, after you

Even one day if I go on with my life
If I keep the promise
That joins two being together, after you
I will be able maybe to give my affection
But none of my love

Be the guy who makes her laugh, as goes the Red Pill counsel, but Dionysian ethos alone will burn through the capital of a civilization:

All matriarchies have one thing in common: over time the women become ugly, inside and out. They become that way in part as a defense against being bombarded by endless unwanted advances. They become corrupted by their adventures with to the most vulgar expressions of masculinity. But the kicker is, part of them also loves all that attention along with the lowered expectations on their behavior, and they become complacent, having lost the incentive to bring anything to the table besides their gash.

Every civilization strikes a balance between license and repression. Whites have done well in relying on female self-restraint (modesty) and male honor, both enforced by law and habit. Slut-shaming for women, “You Break It, You Buy It” for men. Anything less would be uncivilized:

So under Patriarchy, girls get to relax a little. The bitch-shields are lowered because the first-tier girls aren’t pestered by presumptuous Betas’ clumsy fumbling and the second-tier girls by Alphas’ nakedly mercenary interest in them. And paradoxically, this collective self-restraint does not create a sexless or repressed environment. Quite to the contrary: Betas are charming without being creepy, while the Alphas lay on the charisma without triggering a lower-tier girl’s anti-slut defenses. And the girls can then let down their guard and actually be pleasant to everyone.

So I referenced modesty. Before geographic mobility weakened our social bonds, grandmothers told girls that modesty is the path to happiness. You can apply the word to a woman’s dress and demeanor. On another level, observe a good woman’s behavior: she’s not going to try to parry a man’s flirtation if she’s single and he’s out of her league, or if she’s married. She knows that she’s weak, that appearances matter, and that a stranger’s lewd interest is gross. She’ll walk away, not letting things escalate to where she’s being gamed.

Nana Mouskouri and Demis Roussos, To Gelakaki. Those of us from small nations, we don’t erect our flag when our brave men and women in uniform murder Middle Eastern civilians with an air strike. Chances are, if you relate to the small world of your grandparents, you don’t relate to Tomahawk missiles. The meek shall inherit the Earth, keeps me going. Maybe you relate to this dialogue between Nana and the (outlandishly hirsute) Demis:

NANA: Can we sing a song together?
DEMIS: It’s a nice idea.
NANA: Yes, do you remember an old Greek song, saying: “The underlining of your jacket I weaved with all my tears and my sighs…”
DEMIS: Oh, you mean To Gelekaki [trails off in Greek]
NANA: [Laughing like a little girl] Yes, yes…
DEMIS: Oh, that was my grandmother’s song!
BOTH: [Laughing together]
NANA: Do you mind if we sing it together now?
DEMIS: Not at all.

See her move when she catches her native rhythm!

Eleni Tzoka (née Milopoulou). She was born in Poland to Greek parents and she has a lovely voice, especially on her Polish-language Christmas recordings. She publicly forgave the killer of her only child, 17-year-old Afrodyta. This was in 1994. When police informed her that the girl’s boyfriend was arrested as the suspect, she phoned the boyfriend’s mother and told her that they both had just lost their children.

On forgiveness… here it feels different than when some churchian cuck in America forgives a black murderer, or a European liberal forgives a Muslim truck driver for killing his son or daughter. It really is different with your own folk… even given Eleni’s different ethnic origin. Among Christians of the same culture — in the family, so to speak — there is no vanity incentive to make a political show of faux-Christian “forgiveness.”

A war atrocity (such as interracial murder) demands collective retribution. It’s a profoundly impersonal crime in which the victim is a stand-in for his national group and is dehumanized by his very association with his killer because his life and death amounts to a scoreboard loss. Here, individual forgiveness is misplaced because war is not between individuals, and acts of war continue to claim new victims until the enemy is stopped. Here, forgiveness is treason.

In contrast, forgiveness for an “in the family” crime of passion, given the killer’s remorse and just punishment, in a way gives a greater dimension to the humanity of the victim and the murderer. Eleni’s daughter Afrodyta had dated Piotr G. since she was 13, and he shot her after they started drifting apart when she was accepted to an art college while he had dropped out of trade school. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, Poland’s most severe criminal penalty at the time, so he will be out two years from now. From a newspaper clipping of the sentencing, the photo inset:

When the judge read the sentence, a cry was heard. Tears ran down Eleni’s face, and Piotr’s — the girl’s killer.

Eleni1.jpg

Maria Athanasopoulou, “Golden Dawn Song.” Greeks created an identitarian movement that owns the streets before any other country in the West did. The song is good, has English subtitles, and the video has well-chosen images to go with the lyrics. Another things that makes listening to Greek enjoyable is picking up the words that are at the root of our own languages. Examples of ones I recognized in the song:

  • patrida: country
  • agoni: struggle
  • pioni: pawn (“pionek” in Polish)
  • antropi: people
  • hellines: Greeks
  • mega alexandro: Alexander the Great
  • philli: race

There is a powerful moment early in the song where the lyrics go on about the depredation of globalists and their homegrown lackeys, and then there is the verse, with photos of Golden Dawn leaders:

But I know there are people
– Allá xéro óti ypárchoun ánthropoi
[The phonetic Greek is from an online translation, not actual lyrics]

Who really love this land
– Poios pragmatiká agapá aftí ti gi
And when we line up like soldiers
– Kai ótan katatássoume san stratiótes
Pains and woe to the traitors, we will find you!
 – Pónoi kai alímono stous prodótes, tha sas vroúme!

(Part 2)

Nationalism: Amateurs, Criminals, Leaders

“Somehow (((they))) managed to subvert the far-right Jobbik party, and to turn it against the nationalist Fidesz government.” — comment at Chateau Heartiste

Radical political parties draw not only visionaries and idealists, but also untrustworthy marginal and mercenary personalities to their leadership ranks. A question came up earlier: where is the IRA, now that they are needed to take back Irish schools and streets?

Apparently, nowhere; I don’t know anything about the IRA but it is not a stretch to speculate that its heyday leaders were more criminal than patriot. There was profit incentive, for example, in sectarian conflict where property transfer was the prize. There is no such economic opportunity under present conditions in hypothetical hits on propertyless migrants muhdikking around Belfast, so there is no native criminal syndicate doing action.

Effective national movements are run by talented Alpha men who have many avenues of success open to them. Most such types will steer clear of crime or radical politics for obvious reasons: too risky, too downmarket. Note that Fidesz was a moderate party, which grew into a revolutionary force because someone of Viktor Orban’s caliber took helm of it.

You see a similar dynamic on the AltRight, where sometimes it’s difficult to tell where the nationalists end and clowns begin. I’m not criticizing: amateurism is the provenance of destiny. Conditions have created a demand for leadership. Cream is already rising to the top.

A Magic Wand

“Trump is doing his part for the benefit of the alt-right, now we have to do ours. The idea of the President as some omnipotent messiah/savior/mentor/benefactor who waves a magic wand and gives you everything you want is best left to the blacks and liberals.” — Camlost

I’ll fess up to a touch of “magic wand” optimism when Trump was elected:

If you’re tempted to be magnanimous with [the cracked Obama coalition], stop. First, they are still dangerous. Secondly, think two weeks ahead to all the empty place settings at Thanksgiving tables for the people taken from us by Social Justice scum. Let the libs twist in the wilderness. Reflection will do the misguided liberals good and the SJWs are dead to us anyway.

This is not a time to come together. This is a time to break the anti-Whites into submission and uncuck the culture. A president can do a lot — defund programs and smash the student loan racket, trust-bust the media monopolies, and above all, build the wall — but he needs creative volunteers who aren’t afraid of getting dirty. The Alt-Right has a talent for mass-persuasion and the game just got bigger. It’s not low-energy Jeb or crooked Hillary we’re up against this time, but the entire cultural agenda that had been set in motion decades ago.

Winning the election was euphoric. My notion of magic wand was that there would be this watershed moment of normal people seeing the light on liberalism, with AltRight at the vanguard of articulating the aspirations of a humiliated nation.

Events showed that it’ll be a much tougher slough. With regards to the public, there is the intractable Boomer anti-racism even among conservatives, along with the Stockholm Syndrome among Millennials.

If there were two sober-up moments from the election euphoria, the first one was the March 2017 missile lob at a Syrian air strip. That was my moment of doubt with Trump. I did a cartoon-post, showing the scorpion stinging the MAGA frog. Since then, I vowed to hold off on casting rash and definitive judgment about Trump’s moves on grounds that we see only a scintilla of a fraction of the war behind the scenes.

A year later, it’s become clear that The Swamp is not going away quietly. When it comes to fascinating speculation and analysis, Anonymous Conservative’s blog is where you appreciate what Trump’s up against, and you also get the feeling that the enemy is going down tough, but they’re going down.

And my second sober-up moment was the aftermath of the Charlottesville march last summer. The Swamp used the occasion to drum up panic among normies about the AltRight. And to carry on as though Hillary had won the election, with all the deplatforming of right wing bloggers. We may have been unwitting witnesses to a failed coup against Trump that summer. One liberal drunkenly confronted me (he sort of knows I’m involved in AltRight blogging) and made an overwrought case about Spencer and “Jew will not replace us” being a horrible thing to say. I corrected him: “They chanted ‘You will not replace us’” — the guy said “bullshit.” I replied: “Well, being replaced is a bad thing.” He just veered off into some other incoherence and I bailed from the convo. Point being, that should the AltRight take up arms or do some other decisive act, some of the idiot normies would cheer if government goons opened fire us.

However — those people are FOLLOWERS. Which means that it doesn’t matter what they think. They will think as they are told told. The AltRight and the spirit of Trump populism from the election campaign, with or without Trump, is the future.

Reacting To Trump And Syria

A lot of over-the-top harsh words from our side on Gab. I posted the following this morning:

Control your emotions and wait. Trump hasn’t DONE anything in Syria yet. Only words so far. Could be jewing, could be bluffing. We don’t know.

Excessive black pill emoting puts you in a psychological position where on some level you WANT Trump to cuck:

Your human ego plays by its own rules and it hates to eat crow when things turn out well after all.

Here are ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ replies to my post:

***

latest Trump tweets encourage hope

it’s interesting to see a confident President after a lifetime of powerless men – Nixon to Obama – it’s a joy to have lived long enough to see the wheel turn

***

Blackpilling is bad for us.  And Trump is the master of Bluffing, so who knows.  On the other side I read some normie (leftish) rags recently and the anti-Trumpness was garish to the point of it being poor writing.  Interesting part is it can’t be mentally healthy to be on the left right now.  Correction, less mentally healthy than before.

***

His yowling and thumping and posturing is still profoundly stupid. At best, it’s clownish, and at worst, it’s dangerous. He’s antagonizing the Russians and encouraging Israeli aggression for nothing.

Also, if this is all posturing, then probably everything he does is posturing. “We’re going to build a big beautiful Wall!” Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Sick of him.

***

With luck TRUMP will only missile the moslem areas Soros wants to build a pipeline in.

When TRUMP last missile attacked Syria he warned the Russians ahead of time & they invited all the non moslems to a BBQ cookout at the local Piggly Wiggly

***

I was saying this a couple of days ago. Now it looks like he can’t back off after the moronic tweet telling everyone the missiles were coming. This guy I’m sorry to say, is all over the place. Can’t trust him.

***

Plus, if his past has told us anything, Trump himself would call it stupid to publicly TELL his enemies when and what he’s doing militarily. And if anything it’s an appeasement to the GOP chicken-hawks and warmongers. At worst, he may fire some missiles at an unimportant target. At best, nothing really happens at all.

***

At absolute worst he’ll lob a couple of missiles at another empty airbase and call it a day. WWIII isn’t coming. Everybody calm the hell down.

***

Tucker Carlson’s clear and forceful denounciation of war:

The Two Speeches

The value of blogging: you get perspectives in the comments that expand your understanding of a given subject. I had drafted my own commentary on the two speeches months ago. But given the fact that I still wanted to understand more about the place of those two orations in the scheme of modern Western civilization’s trade-off on competing values, I decided to forgo my own analysis, and instead give others an opportunity to read Martin Luther King’s 1963 “I Have A Dream” and Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard commencement, both featured under the previous two posts.

I never liked the “I Have a Dream” speech. It was never Blues to me. It sounded like a salesman’s pitch. I grew up in Solzhenitsyn’s world. The things that weighed on adults’ minds when I was a kid ranged from frivolous to profound, but Negro histrionics were no part of that reality, save the occasional levity from a disco record. I knew that Negroes exist; I’ve read a lot as a kid, and every boy of my generation had read “In The Desert And Wilderness.” Everybody knew that Africans in their natural state are cannibals, but as Christians we believed that it’s not their fault, that’s how God made them. I thought of them, in the rare instance when the subject would cross my mind, as something that lacks the privilege of our full humanity, therefore it ought to be treated firmly but humanely. You baptize it so that God has mercy on its puny soul. You command it to not be a cannibal. All of that, of course, being purely hypothetical. But the notion of equality with them, had the proposition come up, would have been taken as absurd.

My encounter with America was a culture shock. Not so much when it came to Baseball and Apple Pie — those things I adapted to enthusiastically. What baffled me, though, was that Joseph McCarthy was excoriated in an instructional film played at our school assembly. The Current Year was 1983; why so much vitriol from National Ministry of Education toward an anti-Communist? And then there was Martin Luther King. I’ve seen, now in my several decades in America, a few black faces that shine with honesty and kindness. MKL’s was not one of them. He looked to me like a fat-lipped charlatan.

And from my adult’s present perspective of re-reading the “I Have A Dream” speech, two passages stand out to me as blatantly evil. First, this invocation of Justice. That word appears ten times in the speech:

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice.

Instantly, I contrasted it with Zbigniew Herbert’s eerily similar addressing of Justice that comes up in his poem about disgust, in translation here:

but what hell they made instead
a wet pit the murderers’ alley the barrack
called the palace of justice

(Aside: If you want your thoughts to lead you closer to sunlight, read Herbert). Secondly, MLK’s speech cribs from the Book of Isaiah:

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight

Herbert’s counterpoint about universal equality in his poem about Leftism:

I longed to abolish the difference between what is high and what is low
to humanity disgustingly diverse I longed to give one shape
I ceased not in my efforts to level mankind

Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard address also has a reference to the flattening of humanity:

socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.

Many historic public addresses are timeless but MLK’s, fifty years later, is an anachronism. Just look around you. How’s that Palace of Justice? All the drama was Deep State’s crafting of a cult of personality to displace America’s founding mythology. You can’t rule out events such as the Birmingham church bombing and the assassination of ML King being false flags to shock the public into complying with the myth of black martyrology for the sake of cracking Whites’ resistance to this AstroTurf redemption-narrative.

And it worked. Somewhat, and solely for one generation because nobody younger than a Boomer cares about “I Have A Dream” or about the actor who delivered that speech. (Much less the millions of newcomers). We comply with its demands under duress. Read the speech now and try to tell yourself that it’s more than cacophony and that liberalism isn’t a hallucination. Then, read Solzhenitsyn’s speech, including this passage:

But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

Below is rhetoric that comes from a place of Truth, and not from MLK’s swinishness. You as an American be the judge: is what you see and hear clean flowing water like Solzhenitsyn’s words, or is the message distorted by the fiction of civic nationalism?

Two Iconic Speeches Of The 20th Century (Part 2)

ML King’s “I Have a Dream” was posted yesterday. The speech posted here also expresses a vision of man’s proper place in the world. 

***

“A World Split Apart,” Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard Commencement, 1978

I am sincerely happy to be here with you on the occasion of the 327th commencement of this old and illustrious university. My congratulations and best wishes to all of today’s graduates.

Harvard’s motto is “VERITAS.” Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us as soon as our concentration begins to flag, all the while leaving the illusion that we are continuing to pursue it. This is the source of much discord. Also, truth seldom is sweet; it is almost invariably bitter. A measure of truth is included in my speech today, but I offer it as a friend, not as an adversary.

Three years ago in the United States I said certain things that were rejected and appeared unacceptable. Today, however, many people agree with what I said.

The split in today’s world is perceptible even to a hasty glance. Any of our contemporaries readily identifies two world powers, each of them already capable of destroying each other. However, the understanding of the split too often is limited to this political conception: the illusion according to which danger may be abolished through successful diplomatic negotiations or by achieving a balance of armed forces. The truth is that the split is both more profound and more alienating, that the rifts are more numerous than one can see at first glance. These deep manifold splits bear the danger of equally manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a kingdom — in this case, our Earth — divided against itself cannot stand.

There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Every ancient and deeply rooted self-contained culture, especially if it is spread over a wide part of the earth’s surface, constitutes a self-contained world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this China, India, the Muslim world, and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as uniform.

For one thousand years Russia belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its special character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in Communist captivity. And while it may be that in past years Japan has increasingly become, in effect, a Far West, drawing ever closer to Western ways (I am no judge here), Israel, I think, should not be reckoned as part of the West, if only because of the decisive circumstance that its state system is fundamentally linked to its religion.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small world of modern Europe was easily seizing colonies all over the globe, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but usually with contempt for any possible values in the conquered people’s approach to life. It all seemed an overwhelming success, with no geographic limits. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden the twentieth century brought the clear realization of this society’s fragility.

We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious (and this, in turn, points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests). Relations with the former colonial world now have switched to the opposite extreme and the Western world often exhibits an excess of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns, will be sufficient for the West to clear this account.

But the persisting blindness of superiority continues to hold the belief that all the vast regions of our planet should develop and mature to the level of contemporary Western systems, the best in theory and the most attractive in practice; that all those other worlds are but temporarily prevented (by wicked leaders or by severe crises or by their own barbarity and incomprehension) from pursuing Western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in that direction. But in fact such a conception is a fruit of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, a result of mistakenly measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet’s development bears little resemblance to all this.

The anguish of a divided world gave birth to the theory of convergence between the leading Western countries and the Soviet Union. It is a soothing theory which overlooks the fact that these worlds are not evolving toward each other and that neither one can be transformed into the other without violence. Besides, convergence inevitably means acceptance of the other side’s defects, too. and this can hardly suit anyone.

If I were today addressing an audience in my country, in my examination of the overall pattern of the world’s rifts I would have concentrated on the calamities of the East. But since my forced exile in the West has now lasted four years and since my audience is a Western one, I think it may be of greater interest to concentrate on certain aspects of the contemporary West, such as I see them.

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.

Political and intellectual functionaries exhibit this depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and in their statements, and even more so in their self-serving rationales as to how realistic, reasonable, and intellectually and even morally justified it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And the decline in courage, at times attaining what could be termed a lack of manhood, is ironically emphasized by occasional outbursts and inflexibility on the part of those same functionaries when dealing with weak governments and with countries that lack support, or with doomed currents which clearly cannot offer resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?

When the modern Western states were being formed, it was proclaimed as a principle that governments are meant to serve man and that man lives in order to be free and pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration of Independence.) Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state.

Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and in such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the debased sense of the word which has come into being during those same decades. (In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to this end imprint many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to carefully conceal such feelings. This active and tense competition comes to dominate all human thought and does not in the least open a way to free spiritual development.)

The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of the people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, preparing them for and summoning them toward physical bloom, happiness, and leisure, the possession of material goods, money, and leisure, toward an almost unlimited freedom in the choice of pleasures. So who should now renounce all this, why and for the sake of what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of the common good and particularly in the nebulous case when the security of one’s nation must be defended in an as yet distant land?

Even biology tells us that a high degree of habitual well-being is not advantageous to a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to take off its pernicious mask.

Western society has chosen for itself the organization best suited to its purposes and one I might call legalistic. The limits of human rights and rightness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting, and manipulating law (though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert). Every conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the ultimate solution.

If one is risen from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be right, and urge self-restraint or a renunciation of these rights, call for sacrifice and selfless risk: this would simply sound absurd. Voluntary self-restraint is almost unheard of: everybody strives toward further expansion to the extreme limit of the legal frames. (An oil company is legally blameless when it buys up an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to purchase it.)

I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society based on the letter of the law and never reaching any higher fails to take full advantage of the full range of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relationships, this creates an atmosphere of spiritual mediocrity that paralyzes man’s noblest impulses.

And it will be simply impossible to bear up to the trials of this threatening century with nothing but the supports of a legalistic structure.

Today’s Western society has revealed the inequality between the freedom for good deeds and the freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; thousands of hasty (and irresponsible) critics cling to him at all times; he is constantly rebuffed by parliament and the press. He has to prove that his every step is well founded and absolutely flawless. Indeed, an outstanding, truly great person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind does not get any chance to assert himself; dozens of traps will be set for him from the beginning. Thus mediocrity triumphs under the guise of democratic restraints.

It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and it has in fact been drastically weakened in all Western countries. The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

And what shall we say about the dark realms of overt criminality? Legal limits (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also some misuse of such freedom. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency — all with the support of thousands of defenders in the society. When a government earnestly undertakes to root out terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorist’s civil rights. There is quite a number of such cases.

This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man — the master of the world — does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected. Yet strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still remains a great deal of crime; there even is considerably more of it than in the destitute and lawless Soviet society. (There is a multitude of prisoners in our camps who are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state by resorting to means outside the legal framework.)

The press, too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word “press” to include all the media.) But what use does it make of it?

Here again, the overriding concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no true moral responsibility for distortion or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to the readership or to history? If they have misled public opinion by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, even if they have contributed to mistakes on a state level, do we know of any case of open regret voiced by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No; this would damage sales. A nation may be the worse for such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. It is most likely that he will start writing the exact opposite to his previous statements with renewed aplomb.

Because instant and credible information is required, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors, and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be refuted; they settle into the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed everyday, confusing readers, and then left hanging?

The press can act the role of public opinion or miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to the nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion into the privacy of well-known people according to the slogan “Everyone is entitled to know everything.” (But this is a false slogan of a false era; far greater in value is the forfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.)

Hastiness and superficiality — these are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century and more than anywhere else this is manifested in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press; it is contrary to its nature. The press merely picks out sensational formulas.

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Yet one would like to ask: According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the Communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has voted Western journalists into their positions of power, for how long a time, and with what prerogatives?

There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the totalitarian East with its rigorously unified press: One discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole (the spirit of the time), generally accepted patterns of judgment, and maybe common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Unrestrained freedom exists for the press, but not for readership, because newspapers mostly transmit in a forceful and emphatic way those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and that general trend.

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons — maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. An example is the self-deluding interpretation of the state of affairs in the contemporary world that functions as a sort of petrified armor around people’s minds, to such a degree that human voices from seventeen countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will be broken only by the inexorable crowbar of events.

I have mentioned a few traits of Western life which surprise and shock a new arrival to this world . The purpose and scope of this speech will not allow me to continue such a survey, in particular to look into the impact of these characteristics on important aspects of a nation’s life, such as elementary education, advanced education in the humanities, and art.

It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world the way to successful economic development, even though in past years it has been sharply offset by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of no longer being up to the level of maturity by mankind. And this causes many to sway toward socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.

I hope that no one present will suspect me of expressing my partial criticism of the Western system in order to suggest socialism as an alternative. No; with the experience of a country where socialism has been realized, I shall not speak for such an alternative. The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliantly argued book entitled Socialism; this is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the U.S.

But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just enumerated are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human personality in the West while in the East it has become firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. The complex and deadly crush of life has produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting personalities than those generated by standardized Western well-being. Therefore, if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant points.

Of course, a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to stay on such a soulless and smooth plane of legalism, as is the case in yours. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced as by a calling card by the revolting invasion of commercial advertising, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to numerous observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are telltale symptoms by which history gives warning to a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, a decline of the arts or a lack of great statesmen. Indeed, sometimes the warnings are quite explicit and concrete. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing steadily in accordance with its proclaimed social intentions, hand in hand with a dazzling progress in technology. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the pro-claimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of all.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance was probably inevitable historically: the Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, having become an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. But then we recoiled from the spirit and embraced all that is material, excessively and incommensurately. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.

Everything beyond physical well-being and the accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtle and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any higher meaning. Thus gaps were left open for evil, and its drafts blow freely today. Mere freedom per se does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and even adds a number of new ones.

And yet in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century’s moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that “communism is naturalized humanism.”

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism’s rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism’s crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President’s performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward.

***

The speech was given in Russian and delivered through an interpreter.