Offerte vobis pacem

That’s the title and a line in the refrain of the 1986 performance shown just below, “Let us offer each other a sign of peace.” Original: “Przekażmy sobie znak pokoju.” The video features a group of one country’s pop music artists, apparently inspired by – ahem – Englishman Bob Geldof’s similar assembly two years earlier called Band Aid, and USA For Africa the year after that. The Communist world behind Europe’s iron curtain was an imitator, not innovator, in the field of popular entertainment. It was backward, its bureaucrats allegedly wore ill-fitting tweed jackets and no deodorant, and it was not cool.

It had no fancy black people, no Cindy Lauper with her rainbow hair. It sang not of feeding Ethiopia but of giving one’s estranged friends an offering of peace, a Cold War metaphor. With such meekness on display, it’s no wonder that the Berlin Wall fell and the superiority of free markets was affirmed unto the end of history. The unfree-market Eastern Europe of the 1980s:

A man and a woman singing together into the same mic has its frisson. Just a passing observation.

I only recognize two artists in that video. The blondish woman who gets several solo parts, and is also shown in the video still image above, that’s the legendary Edyta Geppert. I once featured her performance in a blog post that led off with Greg Eliot’s great comment, his endeavor to justifie the ways of God to men as John Milton did three hundred years earlier.

The other artist I recognize is the short man with the dark mustache, wearing a black tuxedo. That’s Andrzej Zaucha. He will have died five years later, in 1991. French film director Yves Goulais shot and killed him, along with Goulais’s ex-wife, over an affair that the two of them were having. Zaucha’s signature song is the meditation “C’est la vie, Paris in a Postcard.”

Moving on — in 1979 the greatest-pop-band-ever rang in the Eighties with Happy New Year:

It’s the end of a decade
In another ten years time
Who can say what we’ll find
What lies waiting down the line
In the end of Eighty-Nine

What if Agnetha, Björn, Benny, and Anni-Frid of four decades ago could see the Sweden of 2019 from back then? They would have been horrified, I’m certain. But they are alive in 2019 and each of them probably thinks that everything is fine. It’s not good for the individual human mind to bend this much over its arc of life…

Tonight it’s the end of the decade. Who can say what we’ll find at the end of Twenty-Nine? For now, let’s just offer our each other, and our friends and family, a sign of peace.

The customary style-template says “now link to a contemporary song to tie it all together.” Eh, no. What’s above is perfect. But there is this portal swirling in the air. It’s the year 2020 with its trumpets. See you all on the other side.

Idle Thoughts On “Little Drummer Boy”

The power of that song is the theme of innocence set to protective military cadence.

The American Boomer version. There is of course the David Bowie with Bing Cro… — No. The Bob Seger version is excellent musically, though. Lyrically, this version replaces references to Mary and Jesus with generic language. [Link]

The American Millennial version. Millennials as such don’t get many flattering reviews but people forget that as teenagers, they rushed to enlist in the armed forces after 9/11. In their late twenties and thirties they took to the streets in support of Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign and kicked ass. Tragically, it turns out that 9/11 was done by the US government and AFG/IRQ are imperial globohomo wars against the good guys of that region. And then when elected, Trump ceded street activism to Antifa. In both instances, Millennials answered the call and both times they were betrayed by their leaders. Is it any wonder?

But it’s not over. The mountains in this excellent video might be in California, it’s hard to tell. The “Little Drummer Boy” performance below is quintessentially of that generation. It’s in the contemporary style of Country music. Not my favorite expression of the genre but halfway through, the song becomes intense. The signature quality of this style of vocal performance is meekness. It’s up to the viewer’s interpretation whether this meekness is the generation’s defeated spirit or whether what you’re seeing is the humility that comes with the feeling in your bones that things are getting serious. The pitch of malice toward us across the Western world is heightening, in Virginia particularly.

The male artist reminds me of the timeless truth that humble men are tougher than meets the eye. The female artist grew on me, with her adoring attitude toward him. Always bet on humble men and women who are willing to take it to the mat once the course of human events reaches escape velocity.

Continental Europe: German. This version is even more true to the spirit of the song than the famous 1958 recording by the Harry Simeone. German lyrics, such as “Liebes Christuskind,” have a different effect than “Baby Jesu” in the original English. [Link]

Continental Europe: Greek and French. The performance is in French. The legendary Nana Mouskouri is Greek. [Link]

A cross-cultural anachronism. The Afro-Caribbean ladies of vintage Boney M are Nubian hieroglyphs-come-to-life. The past decade killed the fiction of amity across races, therefore seeing that European boy among them has the effect of watching a child play with three well behaved pit bulls. [Link]

At the edge of civilization: Norway. How do you reignite the faltering light of your culture in a song? One way would be what this group of Norwegian university students did: a brilliant ode to their country. I don’t know if such symbolism was intended, but at 2:50 the strings create a warlike, Middle Eastern-like sound which then gets silenced by the chorus. [Link]

The European man at the antipodes. New Zealand children’s performance. The magic moment that begins at 1:50 defines our destiny. The two young White boys against the world. The martial drum and bagpipe, the girl chorus backing them faithfully. [Link]

Merry Christmas.

Diversity Is… Alien Microbiota

“White supremacy is repulsive. There’s nothing worse.” – Taylor Swift

The Enlightenment started out as an agreement among a certain class of Europeans that things which can’t be measured aren’t real. One of the benefits of this agreement, to that class of people, was the marginalization of wholesome human instincts that pose barriers to commerce. The Enlightenment has been a smashing success from that perspective, which is why the class of people that benefits the most from it compels pretty starlets to propagate Enlightenment rhetoric. In this case, its anti-racist strain. Yet as shown in the collage below, Taylor’s actions belie “her” words.

(Diversity is also a mockery of the beautiful and the true. The two photos at the top are pure joy. One drop of Diversity would vandalize that.)

There is no moral or evolutionary basis for there being even a single occurrence of a White woman touching a nonwhite individual. The instinctive human disgust with such skin-to-skin contact, or any interracial contact, has biological basis in cutaneous microbiota. Kids who trust their gut call it “cooties.”


“F* the free market”

Will it be our big government or their big government? That’s the reality-based question. Free market capitalism triumphed in 1989 and it’s been “as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” Nick Fuentes nails this one:

Visualizing the 21st Century

A graph of population numbers in Germany. See the under-10 age bracket. Whatever your nationality, it portends a challenging 21st century for all of the West.


At first glance, you might misread the graph as showing migrants (in red) outnumbering native Germans under the age of twenty, but it’s not quite that bad. Actual Germans, in light blue which is partly covered by red, outnumber migrant-descended youth. It’s a relief to realize that.

The graph, like rings in a tree, tells a history. A collapse in births in the aftermath of WWII. Then steady population increase up through the spectacular baby boom in 1970. And despite psychological conditions in parts of Western Europe today resembling those under the Soviet occupation of Berlin in ’45, you see a slight increase in native births over the past few years: there appear to be more German three-year-olds than four-year-olds.

In theory, reclaiming Germany for Germans is easy. A change in national leadership, starting locally perhaps, must and almost certainly will take place. Then make individual women economically dependent on individual men, which they crave but they don’t know how to constructively express that desire. Remove all aliens, including ones born in Germany and those who are of partial European ancestry; start this in late autumn by turning off their heat. Sending x-million people back to their ancestral continents is as doable as it was to bring them in. Garbage in, garbage out.

But first, visualize victory. For an outside-the-box example with another ethnic group in this case, see several timeless thing in this video:

  • A genetically coherent nation.
  • Männerbund.
  • Those guys look friendly but also capable of whacking unwanted guests.
  • Love of fatherland.
  • Fondness of national dances.
  • Affection for domesticated animals recalls our agrarian roots.
  • Expressing the transcendent through silly songs that little children find delightful.
  • The four seasons of our sacred homelands.
  • And much, much more.


The things we don’t know about WWII

Fascinating comment at It doesn’t contradict my incomplete knowledge of the subject:

Very few people (for obvious reasons!) now know that for quite a long time before WWI (and during the war itself) most Jewish political activists pinned their hopes for the creation of a Jewish “homeland” on … Germany!

120 years ago, the Zionist colonization of Palestine was still Plan B. What was then seen as being a more realistic project was the creation of “Judeo-Polonia” — a new buffer state that would be carved out of “inevitable” German territorial gains in Eastern Europe following a future military conflict with Russia.

By September 1914, all the details had been worked out by a joint German-Jewish Committee — the Deutsches Komitee zur Befreiung der Russischen Juden — working in liaison with the German ministry for foreign affairs. The Committee also regularly warned about the dangers posed by Polish attempts to bring about the restoration of the Polish State, which over a century earlier had been partitioned by Prussia, Austria and Russia.

Judeo-Polonia would be a German protectorate (ruled by a German prince) and — given that it would be inhabited by the 6 million Jews of that part of the world — would, of course, be conveniently run by German- and/or Yiddish-speaking Jews. The population of Judeo-Polonia would also comprise 8 million Poles, 2 million Germans, 6 million Ukrainians, 4 million Byelorussians and 4 million assorted Lithuanians and Latvians. Its capital would be the city of Lublin, which is now in eastern Poland.

Unfortunately — notwithstanding the support that she had received from worldwide Jewry — Germany lost the war and — worse still — in 1920 the Red Army (Plan C) failed to defeat the army of the newly resurrected Polish Republic, whose government was at that time regularly being accused of tolerating and/or organizing anti-Jewish pogroms (for which, as the American ambassador in Warsaw Hugh Simons Gibson confirmed, there was actually no evidence at all).

Although Jewish demands for the creation of autonomous Jewish districts (i.e. ghettos) in every Polish town were rejected by the Polish parliament in the same year (1920), Polish citizenship was granted (in 1926) to the 600 000 illegal Jewish immigrants who had fled the new Workers’ Paradise of Soviet Russia.

Between the two World Wars, most (but not all) Jewish political activists in Poland still dreamt of setting up some kind of Jewish homeland in the eastern part of the country and so — remembering the Judeo-Polonia project — they continued to place their hopes in Germany. Even the Polish Communist Party (most of whose members happened to be Jews) then supported German territorial claims against Poland!

This, of course, would explain the willingness of Jewish elites to co-operate with the Nazi German invaders of Poland in 1939. By contrast, Polish (i.e. Christian) elites consistently refused to collaborate with the Germans and Russians who had invaded and re-partitioned their country, preferring instead to set up a government-in-exile and an extensive Resistance movement (known as the Home Army).

Hitler cleverly lulled the vigilance of the Jews by granting them (a cruel parody of) the “autonomous Jewish districts” that the Poles had refused them in 1920. In September 1939, crowds of Jews actually came out into the streets of various Polish towns in order to welcome the victorious German troops, while in that part of Poland which had been invaded and occupied by the Soviets they also actively collaborated with Stalin’s secret police (on a truly massive scale).

Initially, the Nazi plan — dropped in the second half of 1941 — was to gradually herd all the Jews of Europe into one part of eastern Poland, thus creating a Jewish region that might eventually become some kind of Jewish entity. At that time — i.e. during the first half of the war (before Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union) — most of the people who were being butchered in Poland were not Jews, but Poles. If they were very rich, Jews were then more likely to be murdered by their fellow Jews in the ghettos (often with the connivance of the Jewish ghetto police).

Writing in Britain in 1940, the Jewish political activist Jabotinsky saw this concentration of Jews in the Lublin region as a great opportunity for a future Jewish homeland once Germany had been defeated. Indeed, maps of the future Jewish “Lublinland” began to appear in various other publications of the time.

It was only in the middle of WWII that Hitler suddenly decided on the mass extermination of his Jewish subjects and it was only then that the leaders of Poland’s Jews finally realized that there was going to be no Judeopolonia after all. Most of the leaders of the Jewish ghettos (who had earlier steadfastly refused to cooperate with the Polish Resistance) then committed suicide, seeing that the long-standing loyalty of the greater part of European Jewry towards the German cause had been unrequited.

One explanation for Hitler’s callous decision could be that — having observed the behaviour of many Jews in that part of Poland which had been occupied by the Soviets in 1939 — he wrote them all off as incorrigible communist agents and fifth-columnists. However, Feliks Koneczny — a Polish historian who experienced the German occupation at first hand — offered a different explanation: writing in 1942, he argued that the Germans were so convinced that they had finally gained eternal possession of all Polish lands that they simply no longer saw any need to accept the Jewish offer of collaboration — and so proceeded with the next stage of their plan for them. Poles were next on the list, of course, though Polish elites in both occupied zones had already been decimated at the very beginning of the war.

During the first half of the twentieth century, Jewish propaganda in Europe and America consistently denigrated all things Polish (even in Hollywood films produced during WWII!), mainly in order to further the cause of the Judeo-Polonia project. Since the early 1970s it has been doing exactly the same thing — but this time in order to lend credibility to the new “Holocaust” narrative, which would quite simply collapse if the American public ever found out what really happened in Poland during the Second World War.

Who won World War II? One answer is that there were no winners. As Amon Ra said in the comments here, “World War 2 killed between 50 to 80 million, mainly huwhyte people, Imagine how many potential huwhyte babies were lost.” A different answer was suggested by me in a recent post:

In a way, Poland did. Though the victory came with a price, not in the least the ten years of Judeo-Stalinist terror after the war. Yet post-war Poland’s borders were restored very closely to what they were at the country’s founding in 966 AD; her population went from as low as only about 65% ethnically Polish in some regions before the war to entirely homogeneous and it almost doubled from 1945 to 1990. Poland was spared the Cultural Marxist indoctrination that the “free world” got soaked in, along with the mass immigration. Faith was strengthened, rather than weakened.

The more you know, the more you see how little you know. There is infinite regression to this phenomenon. One way to understand the unknowable is to accept that what’s been happening over the past one hundred years involves more than just the will of mortal men.

Police Mentality

This is a new one: French collaborator police are attacking… not the patriotic Gilets Jaunes protesters this time but… the firemen. Twitter user @BasedPoland regularly posts short videos of French police brutality toward their own people. I understand that policemen behave like mindless obedient animals but even so, how can they live with themselves.

This is why they do what they do. Uniform, gear, small unit tactics turn you into a different person while in character. This goes a long way toward understanding police mentality. Someone once explained how early on during the Yellow Vests uprising, one group of riot police would block protesters on one end of the street while, unbeknownst to that squad of cops, another police unit would block them at the other end. The two units would, by design, not know about each other. Therefore, each group of cops would become frustrated with the protesters that were prevented from moving in either direction. There are also other methods of whipping up anger in well-disciplined cops. For example, order them to stand in one spot for several hours on a hot or a cold day.

When left-wing hippies of yesteryear protested, the cops’ disgust with them needed no explanation. But when the protesters are of similar right wing, patriotic alignment as the police, the cops’ antagonism toward them needs to be stoked more creatively by their superiors. Yet same principles apply. Uniformed, disciplined men — who are warriors by nature — feel contempt for the disorganized men around them. None in uniform, many with unruly hair, women among them, each moving and shouting of his own volition. The uniformed man starts to hate what he sees as an affectation of higher intelligence, higher status, higher moral standing in the protester. Unlike the hippies, whom law-and-order cops saw as upper-class subversives, patriotic protesters trigger the cop’s defensiveness about his own image.

The cop doesn’t want to be there. But then he sees an earnest, tragic countryman looking right back him in the protest standoff. He sees this earnest patriotic protester judging him, the cop, to be a mindless obedient animal. The protesters won’t move back. They shout insults instead. They play martyr (in the cop’s ego-protective interpretation) and this infuriates the cop. The hand itches, the police phalanx is released to move at will and he starts smashing the protester’s head with his baton.

Collaborator police have no excuse of ignorance.

A word on blogs

It’s said, correctly, that the blog format was popular ten years ago. Pioneer blogs with open comments format came on the scene around 2002. A comments section was not common before that unless it was more of a chat forum. Steve Sailer, who has been blogging since the 1990s, went for a long time without comments. You had to email him to communicate.

“Two Blowhards” was one of the pioneer blogs. It was a group blog whose main host Michael was uniquely gifted at what he did. That’s where I learned of CH, merely a month or so after the Chateau opened. Whatever you think of the direction he took, Mencius Moldbug started there a commenter and was encouraged by others to start his own blog. 2BH was one of the earliest forums where you could intelligently read & discuss arts, architecture, politics without having to rely on the “Boston Globe Book Review” and such. In other words, no gatekeepers.

From 2007-2009 AltRight blogs were the front line in the war for the Western soul. Heartiste would write something brilliant and there’d be:

  • Outraged feminist swarming over from Jezebel, some of whom saw the light of truth once exposed to it.
  • Sceptical men and women of traditionalist instincts (this stuff was new!)
  • Nonwhite commenters enjoying our hospitality, whose comments were always one or fewer degrees removed from their lust for White women. And the subsequent race thread foodfights.
  • Liberal males who accepted the sex-realism red pill but not the emergent nationalist politics.
  • Clear thinking readers/commenters who also took in these ancient-yet-new revelations about the nature of the sexes, and contributed as well.

After 2010, blogs polarized along ideological lines. Hostile commenters were driven out as distractions. Whites and nonwhites saw that our respective destinies diverge. The new ideological front line for the soul of the Western world was on Twitter. Supernova of memes in 2016 that culminated with the Presidential election victory.

There is no ideological (identitarian, really) front line now. Pro-Western and anti-Western camps are dug in. One is sane but encamped in icy hinterlands. The other revels in its power but is spiraling into insanity.

Meanwhile, blogs now partly play the role of universities, partly the role of mead halls.

There is a real war on real ground in real flesh and blood on the line out there. Gilets Jaunes in France, for one. But on the ideological front, our side is sort of just standing-down right now to see which way Trump’s second term goes.

The Generation X Split

Posted by me on Gab with minor changes here:

There is a split within GenX that I noticed back in 1991, had in-real-life people confirm it over the years, and then recently commenters on blogs said that this matches their observations.

The split is between ~1960-1972 and 1973-1980 births. After that, Millennials start.

The shorthand for that early vs. late GenX split is “surfer/redneck youth culture vs. emo/black youth culture.” Those born c.1970 have said that they feel like they have more in common with people ten years older than three years younger than them.

The reasons for that split include MTV promoting black aesthetic starting in 1990, when latter-half GenXers were coming of age. Phasing out the earlier-half GenX muscle cars, long hair, guitar rock youth culture.

What makes the combined 1960-1980 generation GenX rather than late Boomers and early Millennials is that we missed the boat on Boomers’ macroeconomy while being too old to be imprinted by Millennials’ defining events, which are Columbine and 9/11.

GenX (early and late halves) is a generation in its own right but we’re a transitional generation. We’re like Boomers except cognizant of the present cataclysm; we’re like Millennials except that we remember pre-cataclysm America.

Psychologically we’re defined by this maxim: “We saw evil, we flinched, we never forgave ourselves for that.” That evil was the early ’90s and the Presidency of Bill Clinton.

Boomers feel no guilt. Millennials know nothing but evil.

Greg replies:

Class of 1990 was regarded as nothing unusual. Class of 1992 was regarded as thugs n ho’s.

There was a split. We all knew each other, but we also knew that we were different. Two years apart, in the same High School. Lots in common. Different belief systems and life paths.

I saw it as rap culture, but it was largely all of Hollywood. In summary: Hollywood began pushing White Men = Weak Cowards by the end of the 80’s.

I’ll give an example with the Dukes of Hazard. With the original TV show, two fearless white men race around having a good time, helping those in need, and always being the best men on the scene. By the time the movie came out, they were shown visibly cowering in their car when they drove the Confederate flag past some ghetto blacks. No longer the best men on the scene.

That’s not reality, that’s just a Hollywood creation. A story. Hollywood tells stories. But as a culture we’d come to see Hollywood as the guiding voice in our lives (past tense: those days are long gone).

The difference between those two stories happened in the late 80’s. White Men could never be the best men on the scene if there were blacks present. That’s Hollywood’s message.

Class of 1992 heard that message loud and clear. If you want to be the best, you’ve got to be thugs n hos.

[Aside: This analysis is specific to North America. I’m not that familiar with, say, Western European particulars. Although Westerners worldwide consumed the products of Hollywood and the like, the circumstances of their countries were different. Several Eastern European countries were blessed with a baby boom around 1980. Western Europeans and Australians got acquainted with weaponized racial minorities a generation or two after Americans. South Africans got hit with open genocide twenty years ahead of the rest of us and they responded to it differently than I think we’re starting to handle it.]

The intra-Generation X split was particular to its time and lingered for another decade. Teenagers were taking their cues from corporate entertainment and over time that stuff loses its hold on culture. Not many youthful, middle class whiggers of the Nineties are that way now. The ~1960-1980 White, North American demographic came to be distinct from Boomers and Millenials.