Esoteric Publishers, Crowley, and the ‘New Right’

Jason Pitzl-Waters —  June 11, 2011 — 229 Comments

At the beginning of June, copies of a new anthology, “Crowley: Thoughts & Perspectives, Volume Two,” started arriving at the homes of individuals who ordered the book. Published by Black Front Press, the volume received generally positive feedback from commenters at the Aleister Crowley Society. On June 10th, well-respected esoteric publishers Scarlet Imprint released a statement regarding Black Front Press, and its head, Troy Southgate.

“We were approached recently to contribute to Troy Southgate’s Black Front Press whose last published work was a Crowley anthology. After a little research, we were disturbed to find their rather murky history hidden beneath the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist and permaculture ideals. Though we are very happy to promote the independent esoteric and occult authors and publishers whose work and dedication invigorate and stimulate our community, it is entirely another matter to contribute our energy to a project which would seem to be attempting to use a multiplicity of voices from the occult scene to promote the ideas of the so-called New-Right.

It seems that Southgate is the leading figurehead for the “National Anarchist” movement, a political extension of the European “New Right” (not to be confused with neoconservativism). National Anarchists endorse a manifesto that defines Zionist Jews as “vampiric parasites intent on carving up the world’s resources in an attempt to create a single, global market,” rejects egalitarianism, and is pro-racial separatism.

“Race defines who we are, it provides us with an identity and exists for a damn good reason. Without maintaining this essential diversity, something you can find throughout nature, the world will become increasingly drab, standardised and monotonous and the only people left on the planet will inevitably form part of a coffee-coloured mush of uniform humanity. National-Anarchists wish to preserve the different races of the earth and believe that multi-racialism ends with the dissolution of all races. Racial separatism is the only way that the organic balance can be restored. We realise that it is impossible to separate people in the large cities and towns, many of whom have racially-mixed children or wish to live among foreign populations, and neither should we attempt to do so. Indeed, we believe that the nation-states of the West are likely to collapse in the next few decades and that our respective countries will begin to fragment along racial and cultural lines. So there is clearly no need to treat people inhumanely by herding them into camps or deporting them in the way that the Nazis and Soviets did in the last century; something which ended disastrously for those concerned. National-Anarchists must form new communities based on their own racial and cultural values. The maxim of the future will be respect for others and unity in diversity.”

Scarlet Imprint noted that they held a “profound” disgust for the views expressed in the National Anarchist manifesto, and stated that “what is clear in magickal history is that racial mixing has been incredibly beneficial.” The well-regarded San Francisco esoteric book-seller Fields Books thanked Scarlet Imprint for their stance, and promises “a longer and more nuanced response to all of our customers soon” on the matter. In response, some Crowley fans instantly went on the defensive, wondering if there was going to be a “blacklist” of contributors, bemoaning the “war of ideologies” that will be raised on the issue. This is exactly the kind of response that National Anarchists like Southgate hope for, since a veneer of an apolitical “pox on both your houses” attitude is what gives these New Right/third positionist groups their oxygen.

“The danger National-Anarchists represent is not in their marginal political strength, but in their potential to show an innovative way that fascist groups can rebrand themselves and reset their project on a new footing. They have abandoned many traditional fascist practices—including the use of overt neo-Nazi references, and recruiting from the violent skinhead culture. In its place they offer a more toned down, sophisticated approach… Their cultural references are the neo-folk and gothic music scene, which puts on an air of sophistication, as opposed to the crude skinhead subculture. National Anarchists abandon any obvious references to the Hitler or Mussolini’s fascist regimes, often claiming not to be “fascist” at all.

Like the European New Right, the National-Anarchists adapt a sophisticated left-wing critique of problems with contemporary society, and draw their symbols and cultural orientation from the Left; then they offer racial separatism as the answer to these problems. They are attempting to use this new form to avoid the stigma of the old discredited fascism, and if they are successful like the National Bolsheviks have been in Russia, they will breathe new life into their movement. Even if the results are modest, this can disrupt left-wing social movements and their focus on social justice and egalitarianism; and instead spread elitist ideas based on racism, homophobia, antisemitism and antifeminism amongst grassroots activists.”

Before Southgate and his apologists muddy the water on the debate that will no doubt gear up, lets be clear that his views are extremist, but always with the added caveat of “we’ll leave them alone if they leave us alone.”

“The most important thing for us is the Natural Order. It is natural for men and women to procreate. Anything which threatens the harmony of Nature must be opposed. Feminism is dangerous and unnatural not because it threatens to leave men with a pile of dirty washing-up and a few smelly nappies (as some of its adherents claim), but because it ignores the complimentary relationship between the sexes and encourages women to rebel against their inherent feminine instincts. Anyone interested in the opposing view should read The Female Woman by Arianna Stassinopoulos (Davis-Poynter, 1973) or Chapter 20 of Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World (Inner Traditions, 1995). Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Order because sodomy is quite undeniably an unnatural act. Groups such as Outrage are not campaigning for love between males – which has always existed in a brotherly or fatherly form – but have created a vast cult which has led to a rise in cottaging, male-rape and child sex attacks. Nature is about life and health, not death and AIDS. One of the most eye-opening pamphlets produced on this issue is Alexander Baron’s truly excellent Guide to Gay Sex: A Primer For Young People (Infotext Manuscripts, 1994). But we are not trying to stop homosexuals engaging in this kind of activity like the Christian moralists or bigoted denizens of censorship are doing, on the contrary, as long as this behaviour does not affect the forthcoming National-Anarchist communities then we have no interest in what people get up to elsewhere. I just hope these people respect our own right to live in the way we choose. As far as abortion is concerned, this process violates the sanctity of life and once again the killing of an unborn child is flying in the face of Nature and one could do far worse than read Abortion: Yes Or No? by John L. Grady (Tan Books, 1979).”

Amazingly, the “we’ll let you live in peace apart from us come the revolution” defense seems to often work. Allowing views that would get them painted as neo-fascists to get lost in a constructed apolitical fog. However, any direct contact with self-proclaimed National Anarchists makes plain what they are, and apologists end up having to twist themselves into pretzels in order to insulate figures like Southgate from the odious effects of their pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.

I don’t think there should be a “blacklist” for those duped into thinking Black Front Press was truly apolitical in orientation, but once enlightened, it will become increasingly hard to erect a firewall between Southgate’s publishing arm and the views he and his followers espouse. Just because this book on Crowley avoided becoming a pamphlet for neo-fascist views doesn’t mean the publishing house that produced it should be given a free pass. Ultimately, there’s an expectation that intelligent people will consider who is funding and distributing a project. If your work is helping to bolster the image of a company that endorses the philosophy of the National Anarchists, if your work helps these groups further insinuate themselves within Pagan and esoteric communities, then the fig leaf of apoliticism must be challenged.

Send to Kindle

Jason Pitzl-Waters

Posts

  • Lillitu Shahar Kunning

    "National Anarchist" is an oxymoron, and it is disturbing to me that these folks claim to belong to two of my important communities: the magickal and the political. As an anarchist Witch who believes in social justice and diversity, I applaud Scarlet Imprint and Fields for their stance.

    • Rhett

      This anarchist occultist agrees.

      • NeverBookeyToday

        People are not always operating at peak candlepower.

        Love would seem to be a tad bigger, if we let it be.

        • Nsilver

          One can certainly see that there is a serious problem incompatibility between the African sorcery traditions that Scarlet Imprint are promoting and the ideas of Juius Evola which seem to be based on racial doctrines of ‘Aryanism’. In his 1968 essays published as ‘L’Arco e la Clava’ Evola identifies Afro-diasporic religions such as :

          ‘the macumba and in the candomble practised by Black Americans, with forms of demonism and trance, with obscure possession, far removed from any openness to a superior world.’

    • Guest

      No it isn’t. “State Anarchist” would be but “National” can simply denote an ethnic or cultural identity, no contradiction there whatsoever and I’m not a member of the group.

  • http://www.thehighwayhermit.com highway_hermit

    Racism is an ugly trap to fall into; I once had a close friend but lost contact with him after he went on a few deployments to Iraq. When he came back he was a different person and had taken up not just with the Christian Identity / Dominionism crowd but also with the KKK. I thought I was wise enough to talk him out of his new friendships, but the conversation quickly devolved. He had learned a few speaking points and some very slippery arguments; in the end, the only way I could find forward was to put him out of my life. It's difficult to carry on a conversation with this crowd because they have a way dividing everything into splitters and fractures that defy logical debate and refuse to be "solved" by any manner of rational discourse. This isn't the first time the dark horse of racism has appeared in the occult community (some Asatru and Odinist groups are accused of the same), but that doesn't make it any less repulsive. Hell knows what Aleister Crowley would have to say on this matter?

    • R.M. McGrath

      Crowley would have been immensely amused that people were still talking about him. He pretty much loved any attention in the press he could get, though he didn't like being misunderstood.

      I doubt he would have supported these fascist/nationalist groups but you can find plenty of examples of racism and anti-Semitism in his writing, he generally believed and taught that "Every man and every woman is a star", regardless of race.

      Any sensible Thelemite would disavow any connection to fascism or racism.

  • http://erynn999.livejournal.com Erynn

    Thanks for publicizing Scarlet Imprint's statement, Jason. I don't like seeing this kind of shit in our communities. Reminds me of the sort of crap Akins was about.

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    Let's see, we love diversity so we're going to hunker down in our separate communities. Heh???

  • http://www.facebook.com/kargach Rob Henderson

    As I've said many times before and will probably hve to say many times again, anyone who thinks males having sex with males, or females with females, is "unnatural" has clearly never lived on a farm.

    • Rhett

      Don't let the bow tie fool you. I'm a good ol' boy from rural Florida, and I have a veterinarian in my family, and every time I hear someone say this, I laugh myself hoarse, because it hits the nail right on the head.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    What is the point here? Is the point to correctly identify a few worthless individuals and groups for the racist and anti-Semitic scumbags that they are? Fine.

    But what is the justification for smearing the whole "New Right", which is a very broad phenomenon??

    • Jason Pitzl-Waters

      There are two very different "New Rights". I'm referring to one specific UK/European phenomenon.

      • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

        Yes, I know. But that "New Right" is also what I am talking about. That term is often used to cover a pretty wide swathe that includes Evolians and/or Traditionalists and/or anti-modernists.

        • R.M. McGrath

          Wasn't Evola a Fascist?

          • Bogomil

            That depends upon your definition. He often wrote critically about the Fascist movement in Italy. Notably, he argued against the biological racism adopted by the Fascists in the 1930's (previously the Fascists had not been officially racist). When he was in Germany during the war the SS kept a dossier on him claiming he was "a reactionary Roman," which meant in their terms he was aristocratically minded and thus anti-Nazi (National Socialism being a mass movement that, among other things, was for the abolition of class differences).

            However, he did attempt to work within the system of Fascist Italy and, when that failed, Nazi Germany to influence things in a direction he considered traditional. Traditional in this case means plenty of things people reading this web site probably won't like (anti-modernism, anti-egalitarianism, anti-feminism, anti-pacifism, etc.) but he only is really a Fascist in a very loose sense, and all of his attempts to influence Fascist or Nazi politics failed pretty spectacularly.

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            yep. He also advocated racial separation; an aristocracy based on a number of traits but race was certainly among them; and was vocally against equal rights for all.

            He wrote profusely for a return to a caste system, where the warriors and priests would rule the craftsmen and workers. Where have we seen this? Oh, that's right, the Dark Ages – that's a great idea, lets certainly return to that [/sarcasm].

            I mean, seriously, he wrote an intro to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Why on earth would anyone take him any more seriously than David Duke or David Barton?

          • Bogomil

            Perhaps because he also wrote some pretty brilliant books about Hermeticism, Yoga, Buddhism, and numerous other topics.

          • Tuna Ghost

            …so I should trust him when he tells me he should have more rights, opportunities, money and property than me because his skin is lighter than mine?

          • Bogomil

            He doesn't say he should have more money than anybody, since he thinks the money economy and its replacement of any sense of true human value by the idea of monetary value is a result of the regression of the castes and, thus, a symptom of our degenerate age and by no means something to be encouraged. His idea of race is also much more complex than having to do with mere skin color, as his respect for Islamic and Indian traditional ideas should indicate. In any case, you shouldn't just accept what any author says about anything. You should read things critically, as I would hope you were already aware. Are there authors whose words you just trust without evaluating them critically?

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Bogomil: "Perhaps because he also wrote some pretty brilliant books about Hermeticism, Yoga, Buddhism, and numerous other topics."

            Indeed. His book "The Hermetic Tradition: Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art" is a true masterpiece.

            Also, many important contemporary Esoteric scholars have recognized the value of Evola's work. Three in particular that people might be familiar with are Jocelyn Godwin, Stephen Flowers and Antoine Faivre. I mention them to emphasize how dangerous it is to blindly go down this "guilt by association" path (a path that "progressives" self-righteously decry to defend their allies-of-the-moment, but which they merrily skip down when their own arbitrary sensitivities are offended).

          • Amy Hale

            Godwin and Flowers are actually not objective scholars in this regard.

          • Bogomil

            No one is objective, as much as scholars might like to pretend otherwise. The point is not whether they are objective. The point is that they are "important contemporary esoteric scholars" and they recognize the value of Evola's work.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Amy Hale: "Godwin and Flowers are actually not objective scholars in this regard."

            Godwin and Flowers have both produced scholarship "in this regard" that is extremely valuable, but admittedly this is only true for those who have the knowledge base and skill set for making use of Hermetic scholarship in the first place. Much of their output blurs the distinction between popular and scholarly literature, but that is emphatically also the case with Ronald Hutton's most well known writings, especially Triumph of the Moon, but also his other major book-length studies.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            "Wasn't Evola a Fascist?"

            In a word, no.

            Any relationship Evola had with the fascist movements of the time is very tenuous. Saying Evola was a fascist is about as meaningful as saying that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists. And speaking of "socialists", whenever anyone wants to starting making accusations about so-and-so being a "fascist" during the 20s, 30s and 40s, I always think about the liberals during that time who were playing footsie (or worse) with goold old Joe Stalin. Mistakes were made, as the saying goes.

            After the war Evola decided (this is my own personal interpretation) that to be consistently anti-modernist means you have to reject all modern political ideologies as intrinsically worthless.

            Another important consideration is that Evola despised Christianity, and both the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis were allied with the Church (both Protestant and Catholic). For Mussolini this appears to have been a purely opportunistic alliance, but in the case of Hitler and the Nazis generally, their embrace of Christianity was quite sincere, and mutual.

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            "We are not afraid to invert the thesis of a certain antifascism, and assert that it was not
            Fascism that had negative effects on the Italian people, but rather the other way round: it
            was this people, this `race,' that negatively affected Fascism, i.e., the Fascist experiment,
            because it showed that it did not have enough men on the necessary plane of certain higher
            qualifications and symbols . . . capable of further developing the positive possibilities
            that could have been contained in this system."

            -Julius Evola, Fascism Viewed from the Right with an Appendix: `Notes on the
            Third Reich,' Rome, 1970

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Evola wrote that as an outsider who had never been a participant in the fascist movement, and who, at the time he wrote it (1970), was adamantly apolitical.

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            He was an outsider? Really? How do you justify that with his work 1943-1945 for the SS?

            " I wish to uphold the following fundamental principle: if the "Fascist ideas" still deserve to be defended, they should not be defended simply insofar as they are "Fascist," but rather insofar as they have represented a particular form of the apparition and affirmation of ideas that were older and more elevated than Fascism, ideas that have the character of "constants," so that they may found again as integral parts of a great European political tradition." (Evola, Men Among the Ruins, ss. Revolution, Counter Revolution Tradition, pg 121.)

            "Therefore, it is better to let the word totalitarianism designate what the representatives of democracy mean by it, applying instead to the idea of "organic State" whatever positive meaning may be found, despite everything, in totalitarianism (understood in a general fashion)." (ibid. pg 148)
            (In other words, people I don't like say that something I like is negative, so I'm going to redefine it using other words so that I don't look like a total tool.)

          • Bogomil

            It's fun quoting things out of context, thus making things look more black and white than they really are. Here's a little context from Men Among the Ruins, p 121:

            "I will end this series of considerations with a particular application for them. Since, as I have said, Italy lacks an authentic "traditional" past, there are some who, in their attempt to organize themselves against the avant-garde of world subversion, and in order to claim some concrete and historical basis, have found a reference point in the principles and institutions of the Fascist era."

            [what Eran Rathan quoted immediately follows, then Evola continues as follows]

            "To cherish these ideas not according to this spirit, but solely because they are "revolutionary," original, and proper only to Fascism, would amount to belittling them, adopting a limiting perspective, and making difficult a much needed task of clarification. To those for whom everything begins and ends with Fascism, including those whose political horizons are defined by the mere polemics between Fascism and antifascism and who have no other reference point beside these two poles – these people would hardly be able to distinguish the best potential of the Italian world of the past from some of its aspects that were affected by the same evils that it is necessary to fight against today."

            The point, if you would bother to read, is clearly that in his opinion there were some aspects of Fascism that were good, but that Fascism itself is not good, that these ideas do not gain their value from the association with Fascism but that what value Fascism had came from these values, not the reverse. This already makes him something different from a real Fascist, for whom there is "Nothing above the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." For Evola, Traditional priniples are clearly "Above the state" and, if the state fails to live up to them, as Evola thought the Fascist state did to large degree, then they are clearly outside the state and Evola's position with regard to the state much be against the state.

            Calling Evola a Fascist is like calling Obama a socialist. There are some points of commonality and overlap, but there are enough differences that neither monicker is appropriate.

            As for your second quote, it is clear your characterization is unfair if you read the previous paragraph, which I am not going to quote because I feel I've typed enough on this.

            As for his work with the SS (specifically studying Freemasonry under the auspices of the SS Ahnenerbe), in his own words, "As a foreigner in an allied country, I enjoyed a kind of immunity: I could say things which would have been more or less unacceptable for a German to say under Nazi rule, and which would possibly have caused him to be interned in a concentration camp. I argued in favour of the rectification of the political movement that had recently come to power, of the strengthening of its positive aspects and the curbing of its negative traits." (The Path of Cinnabar, p. 154). He mentions the Nazi ideology of rule by an elite as the positive, and Nazi racism as a negative trait needing addressing. Working on Freemasonry in some obscure corner of the Ahnenerbe is hardly the center of Nazi power, and his criticisms of the regime (and one of the central doctrines of National Socialist ideology) hardly makes him a good Nazi. He still may not be someone whose politics we want to imitate, but to merely write him off as "a Nazi" or "a Fascist" without another word obscures the truth of the matter.

          • Sercalunna

            Pardon me but I consider quite hard to define Evola as "not fascist". As a lot of italian intellectual he could have been critical of what the ideology was but he was also receiving a vitalitium on Mussolini's request. A lot of people was acting in the same way but things changed after the war began.
            Evola never change neither had any repentement or change of mind

            Maybe that being italian force me to see thing under a different light but Evola was not one of those intellectuals that took side during Fascism. He was collaborating, he was writing articles on race even if under a different light.

            And the neo-fascism list him under their sources.
            He raised some critics to the ideology but he was supported by the regime.

          • Bogomil

            If your definition of Fascist is "anyone who is neither a democrat nor a leftist," as it seems to be for many Europeans and leftists, then I suppose Evola is a Fascist, but then identifying someone as a Fascist does not mean much.

            Being listed by someone as a source hardly indicates that that person is an adherent of the ideology in question. If that principle held, Schopenhauer would be a Nazi, Martin Luther King Jr. a Glenn Beck fan, Jack London a supporter of White Aryan Resistance, and Aleister Crowley a National Anarchist.

            In any case, although I continue to agree with Apuleius that Evola was an outsider who was trying to push Fascism in his own direction, none of this has any relevance to my initial point, which was that when writing on certain esoteric topics, Evola was really quite brilliant, and I'll add he writes about these things in a way that is unmatched anywhere and the value of which is completely independent of his politics.

          • http://dominaeludum.blogspot.com/ sercalunna

            It is quite hard to define Evola as "adamantly apolitical" as he was always considered an inspiration by italian radical right. On the other side, what quoted by Eran Rathan even if written by Evola definetly reflects Mussolini's idea on italian as a race.

          • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

            Just because a particular group of people with certain politics doesn't mean that the original works or author had much of anything to do with those people or their politics.

            By your logic, the Bible, Eddas, Myths, Legends, and all other sacred teachings out there that are beloved by people of certain political leanings, are the same as every other Material. The bible written by racists, the Eddas by supremacists, etc. Nietzsche was a Nazi because the Nazi's liked his work, despite that he despised everything the Nazi's stood for.

      • http://www.thehighwayhermit.com highway_hermit

        Jason, the New Right (as it exists in the UK and Europe) is remarkably a lot like the Knights Party http://www.kkk.bz , the most prominent face of the KKK in America today. More, it's figure-head David Duke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke travels extensively in the UK and Europe to promote his particular brand of racism. I wouldn't at all be surprised to hear if he has connections with these folks. It's just like the relationship between the FARC and the NRA – they're in different parts of the world, but they cooperate on common interests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#Conferenc… . I researched the Knights Party as part of my effort to get my friend to change his mind – it didn't work, but comparing what I know about the KKK to the New Right their speaking points are nearly identical. Speaking only for myself I find it disturbing that this hydra has sprouted heads in so many corners of the world.

    • Baruch Dreamstalker

      Is the Tea Party part of the New Right? Operation Rescue?

      • Falcc

        I recently took a class on fundamentalism with a prominent professor (Jeffery Kaplan if anyone has heard of him) in the field who actually interviewed almost everyone arrested due to Operation Rescue nuttiness. According to him after being in the movement for awhile they all took an interesting turn politically. While they were nutty, and some to the point of murder, about abortion they weren't hypocrites about it, and they started viewing everything through the lens of the movement. Apparently almost to a person they believed that the government should be paying for anything and everything that would reduce the economic necessity of abortion. They were all very pro-subsidized day-care, education, healthcare, basically anything that could make it a drain on a family to have another baby in it they wanted the government to pay for.

        Not to say they were progressive in other areas. The son of the Operation Rescue founder leads regular anti-gay protests on my campus (one of which I've had the pleasure of counter-protesting), they felt that condoms and artificial birth control were wrong and shouldn't be available (though they did support such defunct ideas as the rhythm method and pulling out, so they never crossed over into Quiverful territory somehow), and in most ways they're still fairly typical of fundamentalists (although Professor Kaplan stuck them solidly in "cultic milieu").

        As a progressive socialist I'm disgusted by the lot of them, but they're as far from the New Right and Anarchism as you can get.

        • Bookhousegal

          Sad bit, Falc, is that their Fundamentalism, among many other thins, is based on some false premises. among many other cancers the Christians have spread, even as they try to stir hate, the very crops they sold in Uganda and Kenya ….(Wheat) are sufffering root rust from their monoculture. There will be a horrible purge as their Dominionist American sponsors try to claim it's not *they* but 'witches and gays' that brought that 'plague' and famine upon them, but… The truth is far sadder.

          Our own monocultures among all those hates and bigotries and deflections will doom us because our grain crop is *corporate monocuture.*

          Shit. Speaking of prophecy, I'm very sorry.

      • Bogomil

        No.

      • caraschulz

        We are so not part of the New Right.

        • Bookhousegal

          Apparently the Tea Party refuses to agree with what *you* say the Tea Party is about, though, Cara. I did try to warn you there.

          What *are* you part of?

          Would you like to be part of whatever *we* are, or are you still defined by some marketing pitch about the Tea Party, which if you haven't noticed, has behaved *nothing* like you insisted.

          As for Pagans, we may need your point of view for something, but somehow I doubt it has *squat* to do with your labels matching reality.

          People disappoint us sometimes, but would you like to be part of the rest of the world, particularly the Pagan one?

          Trying to claim what you said was true about this 'party' all along won't work. Cause it was *immediately* contravened.

          Sadly, I think you just can't accept that. Can you accept *us?*

          • Bogomil

            What does this have to do with Cara's statement that the Tea Party is not part of the European New Right?

          • Bookhousegal

            A great deal, uness she's caiming some kind of revelatory ignorance, or thinks covering up for false promises and insistences represents the 'old honor' of *any* ethnicity. Or that it's a worthy purusit to try and claim 'The Tea party' or the GOP have *any* love for *any* Old Pagan values, even if they fed you the footnotes.

            But, no, the Tea Party is not *part* of that. I't s part of *nothing* but a marketing campaign and desires some can't recognize with courage while seeing the real situation and *the effects of what these people do.*

            What do *you* want?

          • Bogomil

            If the Tea Party really is anti-Pagan, then that alone is a sign that it has nothing to do with the European New Right, given that many of the main figures of the European New RIght, most importantly perhaps Alain De Benoist, are avowedly Pagan.

            The European New Right is anti-bourgeois while the Tea Party seems to appeal primarily to the bourgeoisie. The Tea Party is at least economically libertarian, while the European New Right is not. The Tea Party refers back to the ideas of several of the founders of the US while the European New Right tends to despise the US. I could go on. The two movements are ideologically quite disparate and do not have any kind of genetic relationship.

          • Bookhousegal

            Let's put it this way, if you can whine about the Tea Party as if it hasn't done and said what it's done, to defend some interpretation of some 'vision' about how 'Everyone needs their home river,' well, Gods smack me upside the head fif I ever *asked* to be in politics, but can't you see the double standard someone wants you to accept and defend on 'faith?'

            Can't you?

            This goes back to prophets. Or, if you believe *any* of our ancestors weren't *(out of their freaking minds to begin with,* that's mean there are *seers.* And as one of those, I tell you, being a 'seer' and justifying some politics are some great distance away, and though some may tell you different,* 'Seer'* does *not* necessarily mean 'Right.' Never mind by ideologically.

            But we *should* try, and I'm not seeing that tryin g here, if someone saw so much.

          • Bookhousegal

            You want a prophecy, diversify the freaking food crops. Gods. I'm tired of looking at some things. Diversify. The. Food. Crops. No one learned nothing from An Gorta Mor, or was there just too much money in not? You want prophecy? No one cares what guns you have. Food. Water. Some kind of social cohesion that does not lead to Rwanda. Work on it.

          • cigfran

            This is descending into word salad.

          • caraschulz

            And the asterisks are the croutons.

          • Bookhousegal

            Crunch all you like, we'll make more. Does this make anything you promised about this 'Tea Party' of yours *true?*

            Nothing you promised was.

            I'm not the one who said it was your life.

          • Bookhousegal

            Am I wronging you, Cara? Cause if I am, contrary to what you may impugn, honor is of dear importance to me. Therefore,

            Tell me how your 'Tea Party' has, instead of doing exactly what all of us warned you about, been really acting for our very authentic Pagan benefit, despite al the obvious hostility and acutal performance of what you *insisted* would not be so.

            Speak it.

            Tell us.

          • Bookhousegal

            cause if you want' some 'word salad,' I am capable of obliging, but you still haven't explained your 'Tea Party' that you've whined about, even as they do *exaclty* as I told you they would.

            Speak. Tell me *how* I'm wrong, here Go for it.

          • Bookhousegal

            I mean, seriously, Cara, if you believe what you profess to believe, have you ever ddressed me as more thatn you illusion 'of 'You liberals?' If you believe in the ancestral tales you swear by, do you not think…. there's more to them than *you* dictate?

            Speak to me the deeds of your 'Tea party.'

            I'm *from* Boston, you know.

            Is there some one you can try to hurt that will make you 'right?' Interesting.

            What then?

          • Bookhousegal

            I'm also gonna suggest that since we're Pagans and all, beoing 'wrong' once in a while isn't synonymous with 'Damned.' ?

            I kinda like you, you know, cara, but Gods know what you think you're doing, here.

            You try and elect people who *hate* us.*

            Maybe you're *wrong.* there, about me, *ad* yourself. Do you think I give two turds what you think of Obama?

            I want to live. And I'm *tired* of losing my home to one conservative excuse or another.

            Didn't say it was about *you.* But since you mention, what *about* you? Do you see the effects of what you advocate?

            Do you see?

            And if you insult me for pointing it out, Cara…. Whatever you think *you* will be permitted, if you hurt enough people, was never a condition for *me.*

            By my heart's bloood: if *any* of our ancestors knew hat they were doing, it *sure* wasn't about me fighing over freaing Sarah Palin.

            No, you know?

            We're here cause we say *no.*

            You've done me wrong, but you can also say *no* to that.

            And *then,* maybe we'll see what we're made of. Not before.

            *extending hand.* My word-salad's better than Rand Paul's. (Might even be a little thing we Gaels call 'Peotery,' ) ….. Bet's open.

            *offerring hand. *

            I'm very tired.

            Wanna?

            I thought we were all *about* Door #3.

          • caraschulz

            It's all fun and games until you start to seriously think your internet stalker has gone off her medication.

          • elnigma

            I have no idea what brought on this comment , but it's hilarious

          • Cept humusdomusrus

            If that's really what you think, how about the people you accused us odf some bifgotry for not giving way to many benefits of way too thin of doubts, Cara?

            Who am I?

            Suppose I don't exist…

            What about *you?

          • http://twitter.com/PCPPodcast @PCPPodcast

            How does this relate to the topic at hand?

          • elnigma

            I'm digging this image.I like croutons

          • caraschulz

            Why you feel the need to do a shit job of pseudo-psychoanalysis on me, my beliefs, or my affiliations is beyond me. You follow my comments closely and comment right after I do. It appears I can add your name to my list of internet stalkers. I don't know why you, like a few others in the Pagan community, have made it your mission to stalk and harass those in our community who are politically Conservative in an attempt to marginalize us and silence us – but you picked the wrong woman to try that crap on.

            We ARE part of the Pagan community and we belong. We contribute to our religious communities in concrete, powerful and positive ways. And we won't go away, or be ashamed of who we are, or step back into the closet to make people like you feel more comfortable.

            Can *you* accept *that?*

          • Bookhousegal

            Actually, I'm just wondering why you have to attack the idea there's any sanity in me after you spent *so* much time claiming things about the Tea Party that *immediately* proved to be untrue. :)

            That's before I get anywhere near outside my body, but what if…. There's better in you anyway?

            If you're not able to be *wrong,* once in a while, Cara….

            Well, it gets ugly sometimes.

            Actually, I dodn't psychoanalyze you, I asked how the politics you promised met up with your demands… I ain't seen it.

            Any of it.

            So.

            After saying 'Word salad' at me, who parses better?

            You're the one who I ask to face what you said before and say 'Speak it.'

            So, Speak it.

          • Bookhousegal

            Seriously, Cara: It's not about any claim *I* have on sanity, I'm just asking how ywhat you keep insisting has measured up to the people you insisted we should *vote* for have done.*

        • Bookhousegal

          Btew, Cara. I think we *do* need you, but not like this. You sound to me like you're trying to defend this 'Tea Party' that you *refused* to believe was doing the exact opposite and has proven to do so, of what you claimed all along. Tried to make us believe.

          Again.

          I'm sorry.

          But *who* is standing up for our mutual principles, here?

          *Who?*

          How's this working out?

          Looks pretty bloody Charlie Foxtrot to me. And if you believed that, I pity. If you believe *me,* conseider I'm not as 'Democrat' as you have said, either.

          Suppose we're *something else.* How will that be?

          • Bookhousegal

            You *insisted' this 'Tea Party' would do … and not do… A lot of things. This is not the case.

            Look at it.

            And if there's one thing we polytheists *believe,* it's that we can do better than doube down on being *wrong.*

            You may be right in some ways, and if so *we need you.* But you were *wrong* about all this politics. Look at the results. Look at your own claims. The whole Godsforsaken narrative ou were pushing. Wrong.

            But that's *them,* not *us.*

            How bout *you?*

            You're not a Tea Party Republican, you've got an Irish first name, a German last name, swear by Hellenic Gods and *just* might have something to offer beyond defending past mistakes.

            You believe there's something old we can reclaim? Well, believe it in the form of that the torch of LIbertas has been relit, very nearly Phyrgian cap and all… And that… This is the only America we've got, and I know of no authenticated paradigm in which believing liars pays *off.*

            You still talk this 'Tea Party' ike it has anything but hate and sellout for *any* of us.

            You still talk ike this is a matter of footnotes or something.

            All I know is you may be my sister, you've been lied to same as us, and if you are sincere, I may need you to help keep me honest, at the *very* least.*

            You argue as though you *are* the 'Tea Party.' You are *not.* They stole the name in the first place.

            You are not the Tea Party and the Tea Party is *not* what you have told us it is.

            Who *are* you?

            *offering hand.*

            Maybe, sis, we're something else than *all* of this. Or being Pagan would have been as quiet as I expected.

          • Jason Pitzl-Waters

            Bookhousegal, I appreciate your participation here, but I think you should take a cooling off period. Your focus on Cara is bordering on inappropriate.

          • Bookhousegal

            Nah, Jason. You may well be right.

            I'm actually pretty tired, but I'm sure you'll tell us all how *appropriate* this is.

            You know what *I* am?

            Tired.

            You betcha.

            It's not that I think 'cara' is worth 'stalking, either, but you know what?

            She's been inisting on things that haven't proven to be true for a long time ….

            How bout, to avoid confusion,, I son't say much? Will that make what she's said all this time more true?

            You make the call.

            O, my people. You, make the call.

            Show me.

          • Bookhousegal

            and this is fory ou, Jason: know this: I am *dog* tired. Capital D Dog tired.

            You want to whine, *you* figure it out.

            On you. Thanks.

          • Bookhousegal

            What you think, Jaon> Alll *I* want is to go some kind of home. How much you think that affexts all this Teabagger stuff? Any? Maybe not.

            Maybe it's not about *me.* Who t. f. do you think *I* am? I don't even have a patch to ground and center on. I wasn't *talking* to you, thougk, I was talking to *Cara. * Watch my name implode.

            She has that 'authority' right?'

            I think she has more *soul.*

            So hey.

            Why should it be about if I never speak another word?

            What if…….

          • http://twitter.com/PCPPodcast @PCPPodcast

            Normally, I would not stop for a second to avoid making snarky remarks to diminish the ego of an internet troll. However, I think there is serious concern to be had here.

            Creating a thread on a threaded discussion and then replying to it is a sign of unhealthy debate, perhaps a lack of health whether it be an undiagnosed medical condition that can influence brain function (e.g. Diabetes) or something best diagnosed by a Psychologist.

            I've worked (and continue to work) around many people with mental health issues, so this is not an allegation I toss around lightly. Take a deep breath, get a physical with lab tests (even horrible health insurance will cover most of this a couple times a year) and if nothing turns up, hook up with a Pagan psychologist.

            Mental health issues are a PITA because they will sneak up on you and make you act in ways you don't consciously realize. Please, heed this sincere advice.

          • cigfran

            I think that 'mental health issues' may even be too easy a gloss. If I'm reading her right, Bookhousegal may be homeless right now… which also can mean angry, desperate, emotionally exhausted, etc.

            I could be wrong, of course, or her representations may just be confusing. But in any case, yes… I think more care is called for here, than snark.

          • caraschulz

            If anyone knows her IRL – reaching out to her right now would be a very good idea. Can anyone provide some assistance?

          • Star Foster

            I've e-mailed her but no response yet. I hope she's ok.

          • Bookhousegal

            Tough part, by the way.

            Hardest thing in the world to admit if you style yourself clever and *really* believe in order and truth somehow.

            "They lied."

            Last possibility you want to have to account for, when subjectivity is confusing enough. in an honest universe. (People underestimate how subjective experience is, but.)

            They lied.

            They told you to promise the opposite of what they have done.

            I did try to warn you.

            But you can't 'un-lie' by trying to force something to be true.

            and it's not even about blame,, but if you believe in as direct a universe as you claim to, you *must* accept that what you have claimed did not pan out.

            Christians will say this makes you a 'Wrong person.' …all I see is you needed to believe something and were a little blind.

            If I didn't know what *that's* like I'd be a hypocrite, but I'll also say, *you']re trying to make wrong things you said right by doubling down on the con.*

            You told us things about this Tea Party that are *bullshit* because their *actions and words always said so.*

            You got a Paganism that doesn't involve me or half the nation being 'enemies?'

            Ante up. Sis.

          • caraschulz

            *My* question to *you.* *Who* is standing up for the abused asterisks?
            Not *you,* it appears.

            Again.

            I'm sorry.

            But *who* will take a pledge right now to stand for common decency in asterisks use?

            *Who?*

            Because the Gods kill a kitten every time an asterisk is abused.

            Think of the kittens!

          • http://vermillionrush.wordpress.com Vermillion

            I will never look at an asterisk the same way again, ye Gods.

          • http://castwidethecircle.blogspot.com grimmorrigan

            "Remember back in the day when asterisks were still cool? YOu know before everyone started using them. Asterisks sold out man, so mainstream. I'm just going to keep up with Pitchfork's grammar section to see whats still underground…..ooooo semicolons." ~ Some freaking hipster.

            Seriously though, I'm a touch concerned for Bookhouegal, we might not always agree but this level of behavior is not normal for her. Any updates?

          • http://vermillionrush.wordpress.com Vermillion

            "Seriously though, I'm a touch concerned for Bookhouegal, we might not always agree but this level of behavior is not normal for her. Any updates? "

            Agreed :/

          • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

            Yes. If you're reading this, BHG, please know that you have friends here, people who often agree with you and who really respect you, who have a sense that you're struggling with more than politics just now. Can't know what it is, but we're hoping things turn around soon, and that you have some folks IRL you can turn to if our fears for you are correct.

            I'll be holding you in the Light (to use the Quaker phrase) regardless. And I'd love to hear back from you with an all's well if/when life is on an even keel. (As opposed to when politics are–that will certainly take longer.)

            Be well, friend.

          • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

            idk, considering how rabid and mean BHG has been towards those that don't share her viewpoints, I'm not sure she's got that many friends. Few people can hold onto that level of hate (especially the amount she's thrown out in this sub-section alone) without cracking. I think this was inevitable.

          • Souris Optique

            I think you're projecting. Her posting in this thread has been wildly out of character for her.

          • caraschulz

            Star Foster was able to contact her: She's got some medical issues and stress giving her a hard time, but she's fine. She's trying to relax and de-stress.

          • http://vermillionrush.wordpress.com Vermillion

            Thanks for the update Cara!

  • http://nihhus.jimdo.com/ Malaz

    I don't believe in countries. I believe in cultures. A while ago I was divining on the issue of racial separatism and it was taught to me that the human race will eventually "return to their rivers" by this, I am positive what was meant that there is a culturo-racial separation that, like our misguided friends from Black Front have suggested is both natural and necessary to the perpetuation of diversity. This was also not a metaphor. I asked the Spirits to tell me more about it and they taught that it was literally the rivers of our respective ancestors upon which we should focus.
    Germanic peoples should gather at the Rhein, Northern Chinese, the Yangtze, NE African peoples, the Nile etc…

    In America, there are some ideals which, as "forward thinking" as they might sound, infringe on many other cultures right to exist as they see fit. the "P.C." era has brought about a mindset that "there is only one way to think…and that is total political correctness, total 'equality' and total disregard for anything which disagrees"
    This worldview sounds great, right?
    The problem, however, is that it denies cultures which live otherwise. The caste system in India, for example, seems outdated and ridiculous when we hear stories of "untouchtables" (the use of which has been since outlawed) but it's based on a spiritual practice.
    In the Middle East, many wymin feel that part of their cultural heritage is wearing the traditional Burka, yet there are wymins groups in America trying to have the practice banned…does that make sense? (Like…it's really none of their business…you know?)

    As "forward thinking" Americans, we tend to view terms like "racial separation" in extreme contexts like Americas historic Supreme Court cases involving much drama. When a group like Black Front starts ranting anti-gay and then says they support "racial separation" we also tend to think about former fascist regimes enforcing their worldview on others.

    What if, however, an ideal like racial separation (or any other ideal for that matter) could be accepted as something beneficial?
    What if, instead of knee-jerking against it, we could simply contemplate it as a possibility which may be the next socially acceptable construct.
    Like recycling (an idea which was met with a lot of friction at its inception but which is now a common global practice) 'racial separation' need not be enforced, legislated or even a "bad thing"

    In a global mindset, one has to contemplate a very real possibility that the "world diversity" to which many aspire
    will eventually be the very thing that kills world diversity.

    Cultures have the right to exist independently from each other.

    I believe that the return to the rivers will be humanity's effort to save its own cultural and racial diversity.

    While we should certainly move to avoid racial segregation (I qualify by mandated separation and a mindset which views any race as inferior) it is not unthinkable that humans will eventually have to return to their rivers to avoid being assimilated into some pseudo "world culture."

    • Baruch Dreamstalker

      Malaz, there are two ideas here I'd like to address. One is the benefits of racial separation. What are these supposed benefits? The same genes are in circulation in the human genetic pool as there were when geography separated the races. They manifiest in new mixtures but the genes are still there. When I look at the beauty of some of our mixed-race entertainers of both sexes I wonder what would be the benefit of making it difficult for more such being born?

      The other is that cultures have the right to exist independently from each other. "Rights" are not an idea that exists in all cultures, so already this is some kind of intellectually imperialistic meta-cultural imposition. And saying cultures have the right of mutual non-dependence is like saying they have the right not to be adversely affected by volcano, tsunami or glacier (advancing or retreating). May be, but that's not the way the world works.

      • Henry Buchy

        I may be wrong but I didn't read Malaz as advocating this 'New Right' idea of racial segregation or seperation, nor mutual non dependence as much as maintaining cultural identity and integrity, when he wrote cultures have a right to exist independently.
        Are you saying that because a culture doesn't have the idea of 'rights', it doesn't have the right to maintain it's integrity and identity in regards to intrusions by another culture?

        • cigfran

          Yeah, you're wrong. Malaz's entry was practically boilerplate New Right rhetoric, with its slippery slopes built right into the intellectual chassis.

          • Henry Buchy

            ah okay, so then any culture need to accept intrusions from another as a 'force of nature', and accept appropriation of their culture by others, because that's just how the world works.

          • cigfran

            Yes, Henry. That's just *exactly* what I said.
            Right.

        • Baruch Dreamstalker

          I agree with cidfran, I read Malaz exactly at face value.

          About cultural rights, I'm saying that what Malaz wrote has no meaning because it's already an outside imposition on the culture in questions.

          • Crystal7431

            This sort of rhetoric assumes there is some original culture, or original groups of people. When we talk about the old days and old ways, what old days and old ways are we talking about? The people of Earth have been changing, intermingling both their cultures and genetic material since they crept out of the primordial ooze- well, at least since we became bipedal at any rate. As for "return to our rivers", which one? We (most of us commenting here, anyway) live in the U.S. I need not really mention that most of us are of mixed heritage.

          • Bookhousegal

            In all honesty, just because we are in the present *more* than that, doesn't mean a lot of kids don't just have a *hole* where their heritage ought to be. It doesn't *always* lead to racist BS or other forms of irresponsibility, but it's not just imaginary. Bastards like the Aryan Nations don't get various kids cause they write compelling *fiction,* they get those kids cause those kids have *holes.* Whether or not they spin it back into Christianity, white supremacism, straight supremacism, any other kind of supremacism, it doesn't *matter.*

            The kids that buy in, buy in cause all they know is a *hole.*. And I'll tell you from personal experience, most of those same kids will also stand with real pride for *anything* better that we can possibly offer them. They don't want *hate,* they want *home. They want *tribe.* And I *so* blame the dominant religions, both for *taking* that from them and also *teaching* them to blame Jews for what was stolen from Jews, to blame blacks for being stolen from their *own* homelands, the Irish for similar reasons… It just never ends if you want to assign blame.

            It's not anything like what some call missionizing or converting, but if you can give most of these kids *anything* ennobling to call their own, and live out, they *will* put their heart's blood into it.

            This isn't about esoterica or 'accuracy,' it's about, exactly the kind of sense of 'We're home' that more cerebral type Pagans like most of us here are have felt. It's *not* about 'hating' anyone else, someone just taught them that they lived in some kind of zero-sum universe where that's the 'price,' the 'sacrifice,' the *whatever* that's just the understide of the same old Godsforsaken damage that outcasts so many people to begin with.

            Sometimes that's the power of our old stories, you know, not that they moralize, frighten, condemn, condemn, condemn, then conditionally-absolve, all the while asking all kinds of credulity, …just that they can be *teaching stories.* They can even *work* that way.

            Someone *else* tried to claim it's about authorities and definitions, some who claim to represent the old ways most 'purely' *especially.* think that's the paradigm. But it never was. All the old honor comes from heart, self-acceptance, and *community,* and if fights happen, honor your *opponent.* And if you have *needs,,* they aren't about an argument, never mind hurting anyone else.

            I've been called higher titles, but I *never* felt more a priestess when this tribe I was with simply wouldn't let me go do something, and, yeah, they were people of high principle about *anything* discussed here. and i wasn't a good night, but I said, You *know* I'm the second or third best fighter we got,here, and no shrinking violet,' but what they said, 'But you're the only one who can be here when we get back.' Something to that effect.

            And, you know what, the world's a *mess,* and from some points of view worse than others, and I'm not saying it sank in all at once, but if I have any claim to be a priestess, but that had very litle to do with academics. It's just when I chose the shawl over the blade. Not cause of some books, but, Because they asked.

            (And they also acquitted themselves ith honor. I was in fact, 'What were you worried about me seeing, the way you were talking?'

            Some people try to translate this into some kind of race, fear, or aggression, but you know what? It's about *trust.* And what some kids taught *me* is that trusting *me* was more important to *them* than if I really trusted *them.* (Or myself: It was not a good night. Alll of this was one of those nights when you'd understand 'the word Warpath.' )

            And to be very honest, bravada's easy when you're right there on point.

            Letting someone tell you 'We need ou back here,' ……..well, that's another.

            I will turn it around to sa that if a bunch of punks could earn that, I'm nost seeing how anyone wants or expects to say, 'Give us the river valleys in the name of a racial theory, or you aren't leaving us alone.'

            I'l tell you this though: The rivers aren't *yours,* and 'left alone' is what my people call a *curse.*

            Perhaps you have a song to sing, instead?

    • Henry Buchy
    • Faemiller

      Um, so did the Spirit happen to tell you which river I should go back to? Should it be the Thames for my British ancestry, or should the 25% of me that's German head over to the Rhein. What about the part of me that's African – I don't know which river my people were nearest, can I pick the Congo and hope for the best? Can I cut off a finger or two and leave them by the Chattahoochee to cover the Native American blood I know I have but don't have good documentation on?

      The problem with ANY racially based identity is that it dramatically oversimplifies culture, and generally tries to go back to a place and time that is more fantasy then historical reality. I prefer to live in today where all of those bloodlines can intermingle and be stronger for the connection. I'm the product of generations of happy cross-breeding and proud of it.

      • Crystal7431

        "The problem with ANY racially based identity is that it dramatically oversimplifies culture, and generally tries to go back to a place and time that is more fantasy then historical reality." Exactly.

    • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

      Malaz:
      Cultures have the right to exist independently from each other.

      If you can show me a culture anywhere at any time that existed independently from any other culture, you may have a point, however unlikely.
      Every culture, every nation, every village is interdependent – and I think that humanity is better off for that. The rapid and easy dissemination of ideas across the entire planet is a good thing – it allows for problems to be solved and resources to be moved to help those who need it (somewhat) quickly and efficiently.

      • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

        So Eran, you're saying that no cultures have the right to exist independently, because theoretically they've never been independent? "I'm sorry, you don't have the right to exist as you please because you've never existed that way before?"

        Wow, just wow….

        • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

          NA writes:
          So Eran, you're saying that no cultures have the right to exist independently, because theoretically they've never been independent? "I'm sorry, you don't have the right to exist as you please because you've never existed that way before?"

          Not at all, I'm saying that Malaz's concept is inherently flawed – there is no such thing as an 'independent' culture, and there never has been.

        • cigfran

          "So, X, you're saying that…"

          So sick of this little trope.

  • Amy Hale

    Thank you, Jason.

  • Joseph

    At least they're not calling themselves Odinists…

  • chuck_cosimano

    Crowley would be laughing his head off. After all, perish the thought of a publisher not mouthing the lastest PC shibboleths.

    Hmm, maybe I should write something and get them to publish it. I could use another bad guy medal.

  • Tea

    Good for you, Scarlet Imprint.

  • The_L

    “the world will become increasingly drab, standardised and monotonous and the only people left on the planet will inevitably form part of a coffee-coloured mush of uniform humanity.”

    According to my high school biology class, skin tone is based on several genes, and once two of those “coffee-brown” people get together, (assuming they have one dominant and one recessive copy of each gene) they can theoretically produce children in ANY shade from lily-white to jet-black. So these people are not only racist, they fail biology as well!

    And which river should I go to? The Tiber? The Thames? The Rhine? Even as a “purely” white person, I’ve got lots of different European ethnicities in my family tree. I might even have a bit of Cherokee from a few centuries back (family records were not very carefully kept). The very idea that cultures have a “right” to isolate themselves (which sounds more like it would have to be compulsory in order to make any sense) baffles me.

    • Lonespark

      These people fail all kinds of thinking. Insisting homosexual relations are unnatural, cultural mixing is some modern phenomenon, and yeah, what you said about genetics, and the glaring oxymoron of "national anarchism…"

      The thing I don't get in rhetoric like this is that separatism could be a reasonable choice for a community concerned with oppression, assimilation, dilution…but these folks don't emphasize what they're trying to preserve, only what they think they're going to keep out.

  • Jake Stratton-Kent

    not to distract from the main topic, but two side points: first, Fat Eddie (er, I mean AC) is not specially cutting edge or relevant nowadays, most advances in recent occultdom occurred *outside* the mainstream thelemic community, and have no jump off points in Crowley's writings (apart perhaps from his workaday records). Viewed dispassionately he is, primarily, merely one of several important writers, not some kind of role model or uber-guru. So perhaps this controversy serves a purpose in the world of letters, namely, who needs another Crowley book anyway? (NB that the author of the first ever Crowley fan-book subsequently walked away from him, after labelling him – correctly – a moral coward). Second and more importantly, most if not all the contributors to this book – aside from the publisher – were *duped*, they don't win bad boy badges, they risk losing credibility thru understandable ignorance of UK fringe politics.

    • scarletimprint

      I have to disagree Jake, many of the contributors to Black Front Press were aware of the politics behind the facade.

      Many of them are also part of this tiny clique of New Right 'thinkers'. See Gwendolyn Toynton who runs the Primordial Traditions publishing company with Damon Zacharias Lycourinos.
      For K R Bolton see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Bolton
      For Keith Preston a New Right activist in the US, see here: http://attackthesystem.com/

      David Beth has clearly now distanced himself from the publication, which we applaud, and we are sure that he did not realise their political 'credentials' , and we have been very careful not to implicate him as we know that he is an innocent party. However, when you are talking about Evola and the Traditionalists then your ideas are also prone to being seized on by the Far Right. He should have checked, which is exactly what we did when we were approached by them for an essay and it did not take more than a quick google to reveal their agenda.

      Vadge Moore, a member of David's SVG, who we do not personally know, is no doubt in the same position of simply being a writer wanting his work to be read.

      As for George Sieg, who we have published in the past, after being assured by him that his personal politics were not of this nature, that is perhaps a little more complicated. George Sieg did his MA on the subject of the Far Right and the Occult. It would seem highly unlikely that George does not know exactly who Troy Southgate is…

      So clearly this is a book with an ideology attached, masquerading as something quite other.

      Obviously if people want to read or support New Right material it is their free will to do so.

      It is the dishonesty which we object to, and this goes for any extremists seeking to infiltrate the esoteric community.

      • Tom

        Say what you will about the politics of the New Right, but Anglo-sphere paganism can't hold a candle to the intellectual brilliance New Right paganism.

      • http://enfolding.org Phil Hine

        Hang on, this wouldn't be the same "Vadge Moore" who was a big mate of Boyd Rice, and wrote stuff for Synthesis (http://www.rosenoire.org/index.php) – a journal for the "Sovereign Individual" edited by Troy Southgate?

        • scarletimprint

          The plot thickens…

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            You seem to be invested in deciding who is "tainted" by their association with Southgate, and who is to be forgiven.

            The problem is that in the case of Southgate, the National-Anarchists, National Bolsheviks, etc, they take very clear and explicit positions that are racist, anti-Semitic, and so forth. Attributing these positions to others requires far more than guessing about who is "mates" with who.

            And to what end? And If you really think someone might be in agreement with the National-Anarchists, then why not just ask them? Or if you want to make insinuations, then at least try to ensure that people are given a chance to respond.

          • scarletimprint

            No, not at all. In fact we've been very careful to spell out that these people have been played.

            The whole intent of the piece is to shed light on the BFP and Southgate so that credible writers don't have their ideas co-opted by him.

            No insinuations have been made.

            Oh, and Vadge has distanced himself from Troy and his politics now.

  • Valerie Herron

    All cultures evolve, and syncretism is inevitable. Sorry, purists.

    • Valerie Herron

      Not to mention the fact that we are all, individually, already complex mixtures of ethnicity. What exactly do you think was the result of all that raping and pillaging our ancestors did? As a one of Sioux, Basque, Dutch, British,and Irish lineage (to name what I'm at least aware of), I also have to wonder how many pieces I would rip into as my bits flew to their assigned rivers at the far corners of the world.

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      "All cultures evolve, and syncretism is inevitable. Sorry, purists."

      Yes! And this is my favorite part of Scarlet Imprint's reply: "what is clear in magickal history is that racial mixing has been incredibly beneficial.”

      But this point raises issues that go waaaaaay beyond scumbags like Troy Southgate and the National Bolsheviks. What about the increasing emphasis on "ethnicity" within the wider Pagan community. And what about the clear signs of "racial thinking" that are found within reconstructionism, which, after all, is based on the stupid idea that "pure" cultures existed at one time, each with their own neat little "pantheon" with it's "own" Gods and without any ooky foreign influences. That kind of thinking is not ancient, or Pagan, at all. It comes out of the intellectual mainstream of 18th and 19th century European Christendom.

      • http://kauko-niskala.blogspot.com kauko

        Even though my approach, I suppose, is reconstructionist, I often have the same criticism of the way that reconstructionist methodologies are used by Pagans. I have never viewed 'Finnish Paganism' as some separate, pure thing that ever existed but rather something that existed within an interrelated spectrum of cultures and groups across Eurasia. Even the very idea of 'Finnish-ness' is arguably a construct formed over the last thousand years, but especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. If you go back far enough 'Finnish' is indistinguishable from, say, 'Estonian' (both linguistically and culturally). Ethnicity, as you say, can be a difficult concept to superimpose over ancient Paganism because those ethnicities are often formed much later.

        • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

          I should have been more qualified in my use of "reconstructionist".

          And there is also the evil tendency among some post-modernist historical revisionists who want to claim that the various "peoples" who were forcibly Christianized had no culture whatsoever prior that, so that they cannot be considered to have had any religion to lose.

      • http://erynn999.livejournal.com Erynn

        There are a lot of reconstructionists out there who are not about purity of cultures and pantheons. Many of us work in syncretic, multicultural, and otherwise complicated contexts.

        • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

          I realize that the term "reconstructionist" is used in different ways by different people. Nevertheless, the term is inevitably associated in peoples' minds with various hyphenated-reconstructionist projects that are narrowly focused on particular cultures and particular historical periods, and in most cases this is stated up-front as in "Celtic-reconstructionist". And there is also a great deal of overlap between this hyphenated-reconstructionism and those who explicitly describe their own forms of Paganism in terms of "ethnicity".

      • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

        @Apuleius, normally, I consider you well informed. Clearly in this instance you are ignorant.

        In regards to the re-constructionists with "racial" thinking (whom you are inferring are nothing better than polytheistic racists) you are viewing it through eyes coulded with hate. The vast majority of the Folkish, Tribalism, and Ethnic recons (like myself) are not doing it from the idea of a "Pure Race."

        We are doing it because we believe out ethnic backgrounds are important, that they speak to us, provice us with common ground, pride, ancestry, and a place of belonging. That our Ethnic bagrounds, and the Pagan/Heathen religions that sprung from them, speak to us far better than anything else in the world, be it Universal Monotheism or Universal Paganism. That these things, our ethnic backgrounds, are Valuable, Honorable, and Important, and that they are ours and should not be cast aside just because of where we're from, or the color of our skin, or what the current political ideologies think and feel about us, who we are, and where we've come from.

        It's not that we're "better" or "purer" or "superior" to anyone else. It's that we have as much a right to our ways as everyone else, that we are equal to them, that our heritage is equal to them, and that it deserves to be preserved and lived. I don't see you complaining about Native American Tribalism. Nor do I see you doing it towards African, Latin American, or any other Tribal or Ethinic groups. So Do Not go calling European based traditions Racist because We are doing the same they are.

        • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

          The problems with "European based traditions" rarely goes so far as actual racism. Thank the Gods.

          But the very phrase "European based" by itself already reveals the real problem. There are only two truly "European based" religious traditions: Catholicism and Protestantism.

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            Technically, one would have to say that Protestantism is solely European – Catholicism comes from the Levant (You know, Palestine, Judea, etc).

            Though I disagree with the basis of that idea – I'm pretty sure that the Basques, Finns, Romans, etc. would also disagree with you.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            I was talking about Roman Catholicism. Only the various Eastern ("Orthodox") Churches can justifiably claim to be "from the Levant". The Roman Catholic Church was founded by people who couldn't even be bothered to learn the language of the Gospels and the Nicene Creed (Greek). This cultural insularity is a defining characteristic of the true "European".

            The story of the birth of Western Christendom (first Catholicism and later Protestantism) is very nicely told in Peter Brown's book with the self-explanatory title The Rise of Western Christendom. Historians generally agree that both Western Christendom and Europe itself, as a coherent cultural entity (as opposed to an ill-defined geographic non-entity), were born together in the late 8th and early 9th centuries, before which neither existed except in embryonic form.

          • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

            Okay so….the texts come from Europe, where they are part of a tradition extending thousands of years before the Christ god came.

            The people and culture come from Europe, where they have existed for thousands of years.

            But they are not a European tradition.

            Yet, Ap, you say that a religion that has existed in Europe for less that Two Thousand years, and which came from the Middle East, Is the Only European Tradition.

            I think your logic got a bit screwy.

      • Constance Lal

        The natural intellectual development of that time emerged from the mere power and pride of survival and the eletism of the "haves vs the have-nots." Christiandom at that time had invented the concept of "intercession" to enrich its coffures. The serfs were duped to pay for "penance;" while today there is the understanding that Christ frees us from this "unnatural" bondage. People today can sense the true difference
        between ritualistic and spiritualistic harmony. One is from The Creator and the other contrived for selfish gain. One lives and the other dies… We are as we are created; that's the 'natural ' given.

        • Chuck Milton

          Constance, am new to internet. Although I am highly interested and educated by what you have written here, I have a vital and insistant problem that I have been dealing with here in Turlock, CA. I need to make a world-wide call for all Wiccans to help me in this pressing matter that concerns the balances between good and evil in our world. I am tired of facing the demons alone. I am a High Priest and White Witch. The Balance Covin. My new page at southwestpagans.com chuckmilton contains my written plea to our people. I do not know how to get this request thru to all Wicca, but feel time constraints and wish to expidite this into all Wiccan hands for much needed help in the situation that continues to confront me. Sorry Constance for not being on point or topic. I consider this paramount ….vital to all humanity. The positive and negative poles are shifting. A lens will be made for me. I must use it. Please read what I have had to write at the southwestpagans.com web page. Sorry that I am not too good this internet navigation/world-usually live alone above 5 thousand feet elevation. Please help. Chuck Milton

  • Amanda

    So, we shouldn't practice sodomy because it's against nature…But nature allows us to reproduce with people of other races…But we shouldn't do that either? I'm so confused.

    • Mesmeritic

      Reproduction is of course natural and necessary for the continuation of any population.What is sodomy good for?

  • Wulf Grimmson

    I am a little surprised by the lack of knowledge about the European New Right and the comments made in this peice. As a homosexual and a member of the European New Right I think you have misunderstood the whole nature of the movement. The National Anarchist Movement run by Troy Southgate is connected to the New Right and while Troy himself may have personal issues with homosexuals there is no discrimination in his movement. In his magazine New Imperium were various articles by Alaisdair Clarke (deceased) on the homosexual Mannerbund tradition and there is a queer National Anarchist cell in the U.S.A. The ENR has been going since the late Sixties and is a THIRD way network of many thinkers, it is not Nazi or fascist, this is just another slur from the uninformed. It is essentially a thinktank looking at a new way beyond the failed forms of Marxism, fascism AND liberal democracy. Some of its thinkers such as Gullaime Faye are somewhat homophobic, others are less so. Alain De Benoist, for example, is highly respected in many folkish circles and his book On Being a Pagan is well respected. I respect Scarlet Imprints decisions insomuch that anyone can decide not to supply an article to a publisher. But how far does this go. One of the largest publishers in the U.S.A Inner Traditions publishes Julius Evola (a very rightist author to say the least!), Schwaller be Lubicz (who ran a paramilitary outfit as well as being an occultist) and Otto Rahn who was a member of the S.S. I admire them for being willing to publish such works without falling to the pressure of what seems to be developing as a sort of "pagan thought police". Paganism is a very "wide church" and there will be groups and individuals of the left and the right should we start banning publishers because they do not sit well with our bourgeous middle class sense of what paganism should be. I think not. Wulf Grimmson

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      The National Anarchists cannot be considered a "THIRD way" group in any meaningful sense. Rather, they are just a "SAME OLD SHIT" group. Their vile anti-Semitic and "Racial Separation" propaganda is text-book stuff, and it is amazing that anyone can mindlessly repeat this garbage and still whine about being labeled as racist and anti-Semitic.

      • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

        So, Ap, your basically saying that the Gay member of an organization, who is trying to provide information about the group he belongs to and spends time with, doesn't know what he's talking about because you say his group is a bunch of racist homophobes?

        huh.

  • http://www.rosenoire.org Troy Southgate

    It seems perfectly clear to me that Peter Grey (Scarlet Imprint) is contradicting his own remarks about freedom of thought and action. My views have always been vigorously anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-nazi and if Peter did a little more research, rather than simply take my words out of context and make vague references to the BNP and National Front, then perhaps he would understand my position on these matters. I have written several books condemning Nazism and Fascism, including an anti-Hitler novel and an academic work on the Far Right, and my thoughts about these negative and destructive systems can be found all over the web.

  • Troy Southgate

    I never "wrote an article for the BNP", as Peter claims, this group – whose ideology I strongly reject – asked if they could use one of my pieces about home-schooling from the internet and I agreed because I felt that it could have positive effects on those parents looking for alternatives outside the system. Incidentally, when I joined the NF in 1984/5 it had changed dramatically from the reactionary, Right-wing outfit that it was in the 1970s and early-80s and those elements had been purged. We also forged links with Black separatists who thought exactly the same as we did, i.e. that multi-racialism essentially uproots and eradicates people from all ethnic backgrounds and that, ultimately, it is the most contemptible form of racism there is. But I have never endorsed racial supremacy and do not believe in "racial purity" or mindless race hatred.

  • Troy Southgate

    Peter is also incorrect to assume that we promote "queer bashing" when, in fact, we have had two openly homosexual speakers at our meetings and there is also a specifically gay National-Anarchist group in America. The admittedly negative comments that I made about homosexuality appeared in an interview that was published 10-12 years ago and whilst I accept that it was very foolish of me to do so, I was a fundamentalist Catholic (SSPX) at the time and, as a result, my views were obviously clouded by that fact and I have since revised them. I would hardly have published a work on Crowley if I had a problem with homosexuals and I would therefore deserve to be labelled a hypocrite. We also have many women speakers at our meetings, too, so the comment about "misogyny" is also wildly incorrect. I have the utmost respect for women, although the same cannot be said of feminism.

  • Troy Southgate

    Our meetings offer people from a diverse array of views a platform and function as a dissidents' forum. If Peter wished to speak about his own views, then I would be perfectly happy to invite him along to air them. We have had Pagan, Occult, Christian, Muslim and Orthodox speakers, too. What I won't accept, however, is that publishing a book about Crowley amounts to an agenda of some kind.

  • Troy Southgate

    The previous book in the series, which focussed on Julius Evola, actually included a contribution from Professor Roger Griffin of Oxford Brookes University and his chapter is vigorously opposed to the ideas of Evola himself. Finally, Peter Grey sent me an e-mail in which he said that he agreed with my 'anti-capitalism' and 'anarchism', so he clearly does realise that I am a genuine anarchist even if he can't accept my position on racial separatism. I stand by my comments on a 'coffee-coloured' world, because if globalisation and mass immigration continues then people from all racial backgrounds will lose their identity and surely that has to be a great tragedy for all concerned. If people wish to live in multi-racial communities, by the way, then my belief in non-coercion means that I respect their decision to do so, but I won't sit idly by and have the destructive consequences of internationalist economic policy imposed on myself and my family. We, too, have a place in the world. Live and let live.

    • Jason Pitzl-Waters

      Quote Troy Southgate:

      "I have the utmost respect for women, although the same cannot be said of feminism."

      "I stand by my comments on a 'coffee-coloured' world, because if globalisation and mass immigration continues then people from all racial backgrounds will lose their identity and surely that has to be a great tragedy for all concerned."

      So really, the only thing that might be incorrect in my article is that you no longer find gays to be "unnatural" and participating in a culture of "death and AIDS" (though I note you say you "revised" your views, not retracted). But you still stand firm regarding feminism, racial separatism, and, I'm assuming, your belief that Zionist Jews are “vampiric parasites intent on carving up the world’s resources in an attempt to create a single, global market.”

      As for your assertions that you are "anti-fascist and anti-nazi" those are de rigueur public stances for third positionist entryists. You even admit to being an entryist in your own manifesto: "there is no reason why tactics such as entryism, industrial sabotage, picket lines, fundraising and community action should not be used by National-Anarchists."

    • Baruch Dreamstalker

      "I stand by my comments on a 'coffee-coloured' world"

      With which there are (at least) two major problems. One is that you don't seem to know how genetics works in practice.

      The other is that your comments carry an implicit esthetic standard. Beyonce and The Rock are both coffee-colored, and there's nothing esthetically wrong with them.

      • Lonespark

        I'm drinking coffee right now and noticing it's available in a lot of shades. Basically all the human skin tones, if you don't mind a lot of milk. So coffee sees like an especially stupid comparison.

    • http://twitter.com/lysana @lysana

      I shudder to think what you would make of transgender people. Or bisexuals and asexuals, for that matter.

      • cigfran

        If they emitted the proper ideological behaviors, I'm sure he'd be fine with them, at least until the (fantasized) revolution comes.

    • Tea

      Your attack on "a coffee colored world" is an attack on me and my (interracial) family. Live and let live indeed. I think your ideas on that issue are completely idiotic, no matter how enveloped in lofty intellectualism they may be.

  • Troy Southgate

    Yes – I am retracting the comments I made about homosexuality all those years ago, but continue to stand by what I said about racial separatism (as opposed to race hate or supremacy), Zionism (which has been equated with racism in the United Nations Charter) and Feminism (see http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/against_femmini…. Incidentally, in that article on entryism I made it perfectly clear that it is a tactic favoured by National-Anarchists and I have been an opponent of Fascism all my life. Again, you will find evidence to support this all over the web.

    • Baruch Dreamstalker

      Zionism was not equated with racism in the UN Charter. That equation was made in a UN General Assembly resolution that did more that anything to erode the standing of the UN among American liberals.

      • Tom

        That resolution was later revoked as well.

      • Nemesis

        And that particular resolution of 1975 was revoked in 1991. Though taking a negative stance towards a political movement that – for its time – supported "a place in the world" for a specific culture that did not have a land to call home, seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Troy Southgate

    For the record, whilst National-Anarchism may seem like an oxymoron to some people, the 'national' component of this term relates to ethnicity and not to the nation-state (something we reject).

    • Ralph

      Sounds like a prescription for endless strife, chaos and destruction. Like a perpetual Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the tribal strife in Somalia and elsewhere. If you believe in Wyrd or Karma and "ethnicities" I would reflect on the fact that "globalism" was set in motion by the Portuguese and Spaniards, the Dutch and Belgians, the English and Scots, the French and to lesser degrees the Germans, Italians and Russians. Can't hide from the consequences of colonialism. Peace, love and understanding will be the way to make the world fit for our children, not hunkering down in ethic enclaves and festering with resentment.

      • Pagan Puff Pieces

        "Can't hide from the consequences of colonialism."

        Ah! Ah! That's the thing that's been running in the back of my mind in some form or another.

        Of course, I'm uneasy with holding a collective responsible for bad decisions ("It's a woman's fault! All women must suffer!"), but I can't help but look at people with issues like this and think, "You made your bed. Sleep in it!"

  • Jose

    The concept of racial pride only appeals to those individuals who have accomplished nothing, and expect to accomplish nothing worthy of not in the future. So instead they try to claim credit for the work of their countrymen and women. It is an outdated concept that comes from an age of helplessness and ignorance. You want pride? Do something – YOU, as an individual. In today's world where knowledge is at your fingertips there is no excuse for not accomplishing great feats or wallowing in ignorance.

    • Will

      Absolutely !

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shannon-Moore/1493071867 Shannon Moore

    That has to be one of the most ridiculous versions of "what is natural" that I have ever seen.

    • Crystal7431

      I was thinking the exact same thing as I was reading this.

  • Nicole Youngman

    The entire concept of "race" is only as real as we decide to make it, regardless. Racial categories are *invented* by different societies over time and so they vary drastically from one place to another and through different time periods; they simply don't have any basis in biological reality. Yes people have different skin colors and hair textures and what have you depending on the geographical origins of their ancestors, but it's the meanings that we assign to these characteristics that make up what we call "races," not the characteristics themselves. We don't talk about "quadroons" any more for heaven's sakes (heh, the spell check here doesn't even recognize the word! :)) but it was a vitally important concept a century and a half ago in the Deep South of the US.

  • Malaz

    As to the question of which cultures have been completely separate, I'd cite the several tribes still in existence in Central and South America. As to whether or not they should be forced to be "connected" I'd cite ref's to Native North American tribes and Australia's Aboriginal groups.

    As to the question of "which river" (which I understand is meant to be rhetorical) I'd say, "Yes, the Spirits taught me about that as well" They taught there are in fact five races. The fifth race is the mixed-bloods and their Rivers are the Colorado and the Mississippi.
    None of the 5 are superior to others.

    As to the question of "what is natural" one need only look at animals.
    Leopards do not mate with lions.
    Zebras do not mate with horses.
    (Though there have been, on occasion, the WONDERFUL mutations, evolutions and crossbreeds which constitute a 'new race')
    I'm into diversity, but I'm also into avoiding the complete destruction of unique cultural and racial aspects that make our planet so wonderful.

    M

    • David Wiegleb

      You are aware, I hope, that humans of different 'races' are the same species. And that Leopards and Lions are not. Nor are Zebras and Horses. And that the very notion of 'race' is problematic. Your rhetorical device needs a bit of work.

    • Jason Pitzl-Waters

      "The fifth race is the mixed-bloods."

      So did the spirits give you a blood quantum to decide at what level someone was a "mixed-blood"? Is one drop enough? It certainly was under Jim Crow. Will those who are "mixed" who try to live with a non-mixed "tribe" be ejected? Put in a ghetto? Killed? Will every society live under martial law preventing immigration and emigration? Will marriages be arranged? This Utopian vision sounds like a far larger nightmare than the fears you hold regarding the elimination of "racial aspects."

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      Leopards CANNOT mate with lions. Nature does not prevent interspecies fucking, but it does prevent interspecies reproduction, that is, "mating" in the sense of anything that produces offspring. This is part of what defines species demarcations, and even these boundaries prove to be somewhat porous.

      By contrast, human beings with very different cultures, skin colors, languages, customs, etc, can and do both fuck AND reproduce. And those who oppose this very simple fact of life place themselves against both Nature and Love.

      Those who would use Nature as a guide to their thinking should take some basic university level biology classes first.

    • Merofled Ing

      Chinese people at the Yangze Jiang (which translates as ‘Yellow River’), the ‘fifth race of the mixed-bloods’ and the Color ado – I must say, these spirits have a sense of humor…
      Can I offer the Danube, as well? A river that springs in Germany, flows through Austria with its ever multi-ethnic Vienna, on through Hungaria and Romania into the Black Sea, where its waters float around the Crimean and wash up on the Turkish coast. A river that ran through countires that were Christian (off all sorts), had Muslims on or near it, Jews travelling on it or living on its banks, probably facilitated the journey and westward movement of the Visigoths, the Magyars, the Huns/Mongolians and that saw all sorts of displacement, migration, voluntary and enforced… Rivers are great places. Often they are abused as borders. Their waters mix.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    What I said was more directed at Scarlet Imprint than at Phil Hine, and it appears that Scarlet Imprint chooses to stand by their statements. As far as I'm concerned anyone who can be shown, using their own words and actions, to be a racist, anti-Semite, etc, is fair game. And to my mind this includes those who plays the "oh, we're just for racial separation" game and/or the "oh, we're just against Zionism" game, as if that fools anyone any more.

    I definitely think that the phrase "New Right" is being used here to unfairly paint people as racists and anti-Semites without justification. And it was the Scarlet Imprint folks who first chose to frame this in those terms.

  • Harper

    This whole exercise would be comedic if it weren't for the poisonous nature of these ideas. I mean, good lords, think of these two facts: first the human race, all seven billion of us together, has less genetic diversity than can be found in a single troop of chimpanzees. We experienced am evolutionary bottleneck at some point and now we're a pretty homogeneous lot when it comes to biological reality. Sure, the social concept and reality of race is alive and well. But pick a stranger off the street and you're JUST as likely to share more genes with someone of a different race than someone of of your own race as it is possible for the opposite to be true. And second, it is typical for 5-15 percent of an average population to be fathered by a man who is not "official" father. Mind, this is on average. Some communities show very high correlation of official and biological paternity, while others show a good deal less fidelity. And that's just one's own father. If 5 percent of all births are an "oops", then if you go back ten generations there's a 40 percent chance of having a biological ancestry that differs from one's official ancestry.

    What I'm trying to say is that while madness like the New Right makes the social clout of race very clear, when it comes down to it we're about as genetically diverse and promiscuous as inbred lab mice and with about as much right to get uppity about justifying racial separation when we could barely make out where to draw the lines between races.

  • Valerie Herron

    On a biological level, people are actually drawn to people that are genetically dissimilar from them. This creates stronger offspring due to the diversity of genetic make-up. http://www.physorg.com/news162451924.html./ http://www.physorg.com/news190463674.html./

    I guess it's too bad that we are hard-wired to create this future of "coffee-colored people," who of course will have no clue what the separate cultures of their past were. It's very much like how we cannot differentiate between the Minoans and The Visigoths, or how we cannot simultaneously take pride in two or more different lineages, like Mexican and Irish. Damn globalization.

  • Valerie Herron

    Their are two links there, BTW, they kind of ran together :(

    • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

      You seem to be forgetting though, that people also tend to select those that are physically similar to them as well.

      • Valerie Herron

        My point is that we have proven that their are benefits to procreating with those who are different than us, and that we are genetically predisposed to do so. This is just one of many rebuttals to all of that garbage about sticking to our own people and assigned corners of the world. It is unrealistic, as well as scientifically unfounded.

  • Valerie Herron

    *There are*

  • Jake Stratton-Kent

    TS said: <I would hardly have published a work on Crowley if I had a problem with homosexuals and I would therefore deserve to be labelled a hypocrite.>

    but see Fat Eddie's own hypocrisy (in Equinox notices) regarding Leadbetter & Krishnamurti, where he employed blatantly homophobic (and racist) agendas. While supposedly in support of the 'pure ideals of Freemasonry', more likely the grooming of Krishnamurti to be a 'World Teacher' simply encouraged Fat Eddie's jealousy. Nevertheless, it is perfectly feasible to shift the position of propaganda based on expediency; also scapegoats are often as not means to an end, rather than the object of genuine conviction.

    • elnigma

      But it's okay to mock people if they are seen as overweight?

  • Malaz

    This happens to me more frequently than I can say.
    Online culture is so often about "debate", "rational thinking" and "proof"
    so when I post something which I learned through divination,
    people get a little upset that I won't argue about it.
    I won't, because it's almost impossible to do so.
    These opinions are simply what I've learned from the Spirits and that's the only "proof" I need.

    I'm not trying to offend, but I feel that I have the same right as anyone to voice my opinion,
    even if that opinion is vastly different than others…provided that I make no conscious effort
    to attack individuals or groups.

    David mentioned the difference between race and species. I'm aware of this…but
    the animals I mentioned are similar enough in genetic terms to produce offspring
    should the need arise.

    Jason spoke on "blood quotients" and I've not practiced a divination on those specific questions.
    However, I would suggest that his rhetoric completely sidesteps what I was saying at first, that being,
    while not everyone in the world practices recycling…it is commonly accepted that it's beneficial,
    and this has all been through a grassroots word of mouth type ideology, which has brought people
    to an acceptance of a particular ideal and a movement on that ideal without the need for legislation,
    mandated behaviors or brutal enforcements. (The legislation came as a result of the ideology, not the other way around…as in Nazi Germany)
    My point is that separation does not connotate segregation.
    Not everybody recycles, but people who don't aren't being put in labor camps or gas chambers.

    Again, these are things taught by the Spirits, I have almost no facts, historical references or scientific proofs to back them up.
    These are my opinions because I believe in divination.

    • cigfran

      Excellent. Since nothing you say is open for discussion – being 'revealed' and all – we can ignore you entirely.

    • Valerie Herron

      "These opinions are simply what I've learned from the Spirits and that's the only "proof" I need."
      That's extremely convenient. You ever here of a term called "spectral evidence?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_evidence

      I know "rational thinking" can be such a bummer for enlightened mediums such as yourself, but while everyone on this planet shares a PHYSICAL reality, we work with the rules that apply to all of us. Do we really need to look up all of the atrocities throughout history that have happened when rational thinking went out the window?

      And there's no need to act persecuted. No one said you don't have the right to voice your opinion, people just happen to disagree with your opinion and are stating theirs.

      • Bookhousegal

        Having visions and being *right* are two different things, bear in mind. People feeling called to home *rivers* doesn't have to mean anything to do with *fences.* Or even validating some *idea* of fences.

        Rivers are sacred to us, they're sacred to many.

        They also don't sit still and they are also *not* so unchanging as some senses of memory or imagination would wish it.

        Gods know I feel it, but there's no 'one right river,' there's no 'absolute category' that could make it so, and several do tug at my heart, but it's not just the Shannon, it's the Charles, it's a lot of others: some dammed off from me, some not: We're like the salmon: we may seek the rivers of some home only remembered faintly, irrationally, however *deeply,* but someone interepreting that to validate hatred and division doesn't mean it can all be denied when maybe many of us *are* looking for our sense of home and regeneration.

        The important thing to remember is that salmon are creatures of the common ocean, and the waters of each river rain from clouds that span our *world.*

        The metaphor only goes so far. But a river is not a fence. Not to the water, and not to the fish.

        And being a 'medium' doesn't mean you're *right.* And 'mediums' are well advised to remember that in a world that wants to put seers on pedestals and then whack us down off them.

        We're not Christian prophets or anything of the sort. If we *see,* we *see,* and if we *feel,* we *feel, and that neither means no one else does, nor that we're *laying down some 'law'' or something.

        It's not even *about* the leap so many make about anything 'supernatural.' 'Supernatural' doesn't mean 'The next theory that pops into your head or some rationalization of the last ideology you brought with you is inherently the correct real truth compelling some action as though it were an absolute.' That's not 'seership,' that's trying to be a *prophet,* or worse.

        No 'revelation' told these people 'homosexuality is wrong,' even if for once in their lives they felt being *heterosexual* as *any* kind of 'sexual' was *right.* It's the same with race and all the rest. The world is *not* really poison. Wanting, *needing,* a *past* doesn't mean you have to take a weed-wacker to the *future.*

        Cause then those roots and branches of our past just turn into what we call a *dead stick* in more ways than one.

        • Bookhousegal

          (Also, needless to say, racists, exclusivists, *or* anyone wanting to confine me to the ocean,)

          I belong to those rivers, too.

          Don't fence me in. Or out.

          One thing I know is, you can't. I can't. And it's not cause of credentials or skills or talents or even weighty lineages.

          Gods know I claim no authority, and *sure* claim no 'pure blood,' …I'm also not a 'homogenous blend.' I am *spumoni.* I am a 'quality assortment.' I am a Whitman's sampler, I am a wave on the sea, a salmon in a pool, and I'm also some Italian things I'll be coy about naming.

          I'm also an American Pagan
          And a hack that stuck around. And I will *dance* at our common circles, and I will *rejoice* there, be they ever so humble or be they looking up at proper balefires in Wisconsin, because. This is a new river, this is an old river, this is *our* river in this time and place and being.

          Like a drop of rain….flowing to the ocean.

          Older school than some people's books and degrees will validate, and newer, sometimes, than the last rain.

          Yeah, I see and have seen, a *lot* of stuff, but *that's* what's precious to me.

          *That's* my river. That's my sea.

          The greatest curse on a seer is thinking everything's on you.
          The greatest mercy and grace is…. It's not.

          Shall we live?

          • Bookhousegal

            (Yeah, I'll also steal back a lot of words some thought they could copyright. Another thing to be used sparingly. ;))

          • Bookhousegal

            (Further interesting bit: If people can have 'visions' of 'reconstructionism,' who's to say Lady didn't actually turn up just likewise in Tuscany and.or Shropshire ….or Newton, and say 'It's gonna be different, now.' Maybe the problem isn't 'proof,' so much as, *paying attention.*

            Some people dismiss the idea, some people want to treat it as just the kind of thing we thought we weret rying to avoid, but maybe it's *neither..*

            I can *see* Lady saying 'I demand naught of sacrifice,,' but what we humans refuse to see is that *people* do, whether of animals, people, or some strange metaphor of *words.*

            Maybe the 'Vangelo' is not supposed to *be* Gospel, but maybe it's not about proving or accepting it as such, *either.* Maybe there's a *point,* there, though. Maybe, if you don't mind *my* theory, Lady ain't interested in 'sacrifice,' if that means what we're taught it means: destroying ourselves or someone else….

            Maybe it means such demands are made by *people,* not the Gods. And if I could see that, maybe someone else di, too, and maybe that's the *point* of all this bit.

            Or *a* point.

            Visions. I've had a million of em, and trust me a lot of them *did* make me react like I should hide or sacrifice myself in lieu of others, but you know what? But, hey, I also had visions said that *wasn't* what all this is about. I don't meant to trivialize it by saying a *million.* Cause most of them are about people doing things to each other. A lot of them *would* make anyone want to run and hide, or whatever. The ones that *count,* well, those are about why to not accept that.

            And if you will, if I've been so graced as to speak with Gods, I'll point out it's not about these things someone sees to have tried to teach us religion and history and even heritage are supposed to do.

            In some ways, it may indeed come down to, it's not the Gods who demand sacrifices, (even in the form of fences of one kind or another.)

            We do.

            We're even *allowed* to. But we don't *have* to.

            So says a 'seer.'

          • Boohousegal

            Anyway. Sorry to rant. But maybe being a 'seer' or 'seeing something' means 'You must either discredit or obey me.' Cause that's just an equation for being told what you think you want to hear. And no one's immune, there.

            Maybe even flawed people see stuff. Maybe a lot of 'correct' people *don't.* Maybe that's a *human* problem not one about someone else's questions and paradigms about 'what's 'supernatural.'

            Maybe that ain't the point.

            Maybe it's cooler than that.

            I do my best to be smart about it, (Actually, I work *really* hard at that.) but I'm no 'prophet.' I'm just a slob with an 'aytpical 'job.'

          • Bookhousegal

            *facepalm over typo.* Maybe it means something *other* than 'You must obey me or discredit me.'*

            (Also, I should actually get an account here so I don't have to make still *more* posts* every time I make a horrid typo.:) )

            My apologies.

    • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

      Hey Malaz, another question: what makes you think the spirits were telling you the truth?

      • Robert Mathiesen

        This is, I think, the real question. Anyone with a fair amount of occult experience will have run into spirits that lie, and sometimes even Deities that lie. Just like people, some of them are real con-artists.

      • Malaz

        Some things are just a matter of faith.

        • Valerie Herron

          Wow, I guess we do have to go over some instances when blind faith was the wrong idea:

          Burning the Library of Alexandria
          The Crusades
          The Spanish Inquisition
          The f***ing Holocaust
          Every genocide ever attempted
          "Manifest Destiny"
          The execution of women and children for being "Witches" all over Africa presently
          Forced mutilation of women and children in various parts of the Middle-east and Africa
          The list goes on and on

          This is why critical thinking trumps faith. I'm not even an Atheist and I know this. The human mind is a tricky thing, and it is way too easy to confuse divine inspiration with our own narcissistic ideology of how we think things should work. You have to draw the line when it comes to institutionalized bigotry or cruelty.

          You may also notice that EVERY instance of blind faith when it comes to social movements are not purely spiritual in origin. They are all inspired first and ultimately by politics. Don't try to hide behind your spectral evidence.

          • Malaz

            The issues you've just mentioned are all horrible.

            There have been a lot of things based on faith that are awesome as well…
            The temple to Isis at Philae,
            the Ziggurat at Uruk,
            Buddhist monks defeating tyrannical guhvurnmints with peaceful protests,
            Pagans buying land in the states and in Europe to hold gatherings for polytheists
            vegetarianism
            eco-awareness
            and the animal rights movement.

            I understand that you (and many others) correlate 'racial separation' with
            some type of fascism, but it doesn't have to be that way.

            The return to the rivers is not a politically or racially motivated teaching,
            it's a spiritual one. The rivers are our Mothers. Regardless of the
            association most people make with this kind of ideal, don't you think
            the Rivers would have our best interests in mind?
            I'm talking about people again making the Rivers that bore them into something
            revered. I don't see the problem here.

          • Valerie Herron

            There is a big difference between having faith which you feel free to question and having blind faith. Blind faith is taking something for granted because a person, book, or spirit told it to you, regardless of the possible ramifications or potential fallacies of the information.

            That's what lead to the aforementioned atrocities, and those atrocities are just a few examples of why one needs to think about all of the information/material that they encounter. If you believe that your higher power/powers gave you a brain, why wouldn't you be expected to use it?

            You still have yet to demonstrate any benefits to racial separation, or how it would be implemented in a non-fascist way.

          • http://nihhus.jimdo.com/ Malaz

            As someone said earlier, a solid benefit would be not only to avoid all of us becoming one "coffee colored race" (not that I have a problem with mixed blood peoples of any type) but also to avoid culture and religion becoming some 1-900-Futurama-esque-"First Amalgamated Church"

            Implemented in a non-fascist way?
            Allow me a short list of things in our culture that have been brought about without any threat of violence and are almost universally acceptable:

            television
            the internet
            cars
            mens suits or conversely; pantyhose
            the idea of "straight, white teeth"
            a house, a dog, 2 kids
            public libraries
            college education

            All of these things have become part of our culture. All of these things have both beneficial and repugnant aspects. All of these things could be viewed in some way as harmful.
            None of these things are forced on people, yet, they are accepted and moved on.
            :)

          • Valerie Herron

            Alright, this is my last reply. I MUST stop arguing with people that cannot see the insidious philosophies that hide within their own preoccupation with racial separation.

            Alright, when you say "our culture" I'm assuming that you mean caucasian, Western culture. There is no chance that a culture will disappear from all recollection at this point in humanity. With the level of information exchange that we have today, that would be pretty much near impossible. There will always be scholars and books about everything under the sun. Plus, we have all of these wonderful (non-hateful) Reconstructionalist movements. They are not going anywhere, and collectively they are doing a lot to preserve and spread information.

            As far as cultures being "muddied" or "watered-down," like I already said: All cultures evolve, and syncretism is inevitable. Is Shinto a "watered-down" religion because it has taken in so many influences outside of itself, like Chinese Buddhism and the animistic views of the Ainu people? Cultures will continue to evolve, mesh, separate, and influence each other whether you like it or not, it doesn't mean those vital elements that make different cultures unique will ever disappear.

            That being said, the only thing left one could possibly worry about disappearing is the white part.

            If history is any indication, any culture that is predominantly white and male-centric will not disappear. Read Jarod Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.

            At this point we will just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the dialogue, from your tone you seem like a nice person.

            I will bow out with this: WTF are the repugnant aspects of public libraries and college educations?

  • Merofled Ing

    “divining on the issue of racial separation” Malaz had “the spirits” tell him it was good, or okay, or “need not be a bad thing”. Well – maybe some issues require some clear thinking in addition to “divination” that have some “spirits” tell me secrets about how great I am because of some accident of time, place and birth. (Somehow they always leave me with ideas of improvement rather than of perfection…)
    I do believe in cultures. I do not believe in racial separation. It makes sense to me that people who want to make sense of this world in a belief system that truly speaks to them might do it along their own cultures and thus their own ancestors. And maybe that seems unfair – racially mixed people then have so much more to choose from … On a serious side – I’m German with a Danish grandparent, okay, that’s a given, and so I have decided to explore the Celtic (very loose term indeed) and Norse Stories and Explanations (I don’t like the word myth that much). And while I’d be slightly surprised to see, say, a Maori here, all I’d say is “welcome here”. If he or she says they can hear Thor’s hammer calling them – who am I to say what spirits/gods call whom? Thor is on the side of anyone who’s brave, not on the side of anyone who’s white. And when my mother told me about the Maya Stories and Explanations of this world – she loved Mexico – I could feel that they spoke to her and that she related – who is Malaz or anyone to say who or what speaks to whom?
    When my grandfather met my grandmother in Denmark, he wasn’t there by choice. He was there as a soldier in the Nazi army. And when they made their first baby, my father, they didn’t do it to perpetuate the Germanic race. They were young – underage even – and in love. And while the Nazis didn’t mind, seeing the Danish as “NorthGermans”, I don’t really know what it was like for my grandmother to have a baby by a soldier from an occupying army. (I do know the atrocities people and peoples suffered at the hands of that army.) I don’t know really what it was like for her, because people who have been through times when people who believe in racial separation (or national or cultural separation) ruled the communities do not like to speak about it. (Or is that merely one of those “wymins” issues? Maybe villifying women for the wrong kind of babies is a spiritual practice – so that’s all right then, like having ‘untouchables’ is or praying for the downfall of the Jewish ‘race’ is.., like as long as they leave me alone, right??) And I can’t ask them, because most of my family isn’t here anymore. If Malaz wants to perpetuate his own race (whatever that may be) he can choose who he wants to do it with – I just don’t see any reasons for glorification, and it’s sure generous that he doesn’t want to deport anyone.
    I did like the “recycling” metaphor though, one of the most apt ones I’ve come across recently. It seems fairly obvious what is being recycled here, and no, it isn’t suitable for recycling. Some stuff just becomes toxic, you know.
    And for German people gathering at the Rhein (Rhine) – well err, you know it is pretty crowded here and we’ve got quite enough “Ausländer raus” (foreigners out) multi-ethnicists here anyway. If you want to enjoy the beauty of the landscape, by all means but please accept that there are many tourists from everywhere here and I’d rather welcome those who do not believe in “racial separation”. And as I said – Thor likes those who are honest, and brave, and not just those who happen to be white.

  • Merofled Ing

    What Malaz is doing isn’t “divination”. It’s called something else, and it has a “w” and a “k” in it and two letters in between.

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      Does it rhyme with "banking"?

    • Malaz

      How mature.

  • http://pallasrenatus.blogspot.com Pallas Renatus

    It's alarming how disarming the "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone" rhetoric can be. Tag it on the end of your most controversial statements, and you can get away with saying pretty much anything, perhaps even getting a few people to agree with you along the way.

  • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

    "Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Order because sodomy is quite undeniably an unnatural act. Groups such as Outrage are not campaigning for love between males – which has always existed in a brotherly or fatherly form – but have created a vast cult which has led to a rise in cottaging, male-rape and child sex attacks. Nature is about life and health, not death and AIDS. One of the most eye-opening pamphlets produced on this issue is Alexander Baron’s truly excellent Guide to Gay Sex: A Primer For Young People (Infotext Manuscripts, 1994). But we are not trying to stop homosexuals engaging in this kind of activity like the Christian moralists or bigoted denizens of censorship are doing, on the contrary, as long as this behaviour does not affect the forthcoming National-Anarchist communities then we have no interest in what people get up to elsewhere. I just hope these people respect our own right to live in the way we choose."

    I can't really speak to the nature of Homosexual relationships or the other things they talk about in this section. That said. the fact is that they seem to be holding something similar to the Wiccan Rede, and basically are saying "Do what thou wilt, just please don't do it around us, we aren't going to stop you as long as it doesn't hurt us." Which honestly, I thought, was the entire basis of "Tolerance" that everyone insists we should be. But hey, these folks are on the "Right" so they must be bad and lying. Even if they said they weren't out to prevent homosexuality the way the Christians and the Muslims are.hmmm.

    "As far as abortion is concerned, this process violates the sanctity of life and once again the killing of an unborn child is flying in the face of Nature and one could do far worse than read Abortion: Yes Or No? by John L. Grady (Tan Books, 1979).”

    Well, I know Abortion is a touchy topic, but I can kinda see their point here. I'm not sure what is right or natural or good about killing something that can't even defend itself. I'm not interested in forcing my point of view on anyone, but it doesn't seem Honorable to kill the unborn. Everything has the right to fight for its life, even if it's just by dent of acting cute.

    As for their racial views, I point to my sentence at the start of my comment. We are told to be tolerant and respectful of all cultures and peoples, This is good. (Though perhaps not as good as crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before, and hearing the lamentations of the women – Conan). Yet here we have a group of politically "right" White Europeans arguing basically something similar, that it is okay, even good, for the cultures and races to be preserved, and suddenly everyone is screaming Racist. Now, forgive my ignorance, but the only difference I see between the Multi-Culture point of view and the Multi-Racial point of view here is that the former comes from the left, and the latter from the right. I didn't see anything in the "New-Right's" words about the inferiority of any race, and I'm pretty darn sure that if it existed, that it would have been posted in this article.

    Is it so bad that we ethnically and "racially" are diverse peoples? Is it bad that we should value the differences in addition to the similarities? We are taught to value the cultures of Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, and so on. Yet here I see a group that, while not disparaging any of these groups in the above statements, says that All cultures and races should be preserved (including the "White" European cultures) and now everyone is screaming racist and Nazi.

    Wow, that's a lot of maturity there.

    My humble thoughts.

  • Crystal7431

    "'…but because it ignores the complimentary relationship between the sexes and encourages women to rebel against their inherent feminine instincts.' " I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it sort of irritates me when people throw around phrases like "inherent feminine instincts". What are those? Apparently, I'm not inherently feminine, and by this thinking not really a woman, as I don't think this guy really understands the subtle difference between gender and biological sex. The reason feminism exists is not to create a war between the sexes but to question an attitude that assumes every woman's deepest need and natural urge is to embrace motherhood and a domestic role. I never had that urge. Ever. It took me years before I would even consider procreating. I did (but mostly because my husband wanted a child) and I love my son more than anything, just as many parents do regardless of sex (fathers love and protect their children too) but I am not particularly nurturing; and as for domestic life- well, I did that once and nearly went crazy (I'm not exaggerating; there were lots of bad episodes and a bit too much alcohol consumption).

    • Crystal7431

      continued…
      My husband is the nurturer at home, not me. That role works well for him. I am enrolling in graduate school soon so I can get a better paying job because MY HUSBAND wants to stay home with the kid. That is HIS inherent instinct. He's rather cook breakfast than worry about the morning commute. That's what he wants and I take offense to those who try to tell him that that's unnatural and I get irritated when people try to tell me somehow I am less feminine for not allowing myself to be pushed into being a housewife who lives only for her children. Some women want that and I'm okay with that as long as they realize that doesn't work for me. It's a social norm but it has very little to do with biology. That's where feminism comes in. It's for those of us who don't want that. It's also for the men who aren't aggressive, who embrace a nurturing role, and don't care about being bread winners.

      • http://heathenfaith.blogspot.com/ NorseAlchemist

        And that is all well and good Crystal, but the above point still stands to an extent. Feminism has aided you in obtaining what you seek, but it still has led to a war between the sexes (however unintentionally, though considering some I have seen and heard, they pretty much intend it) and often strikes against "traditional" if not "inherent" feminine instincts. There's nothing wrong with you if these instincts aren't all that important in your life, but they are to other women, and feminism does tend to attack them for it.

        • Lonespark

          No, feminism doesn't.
          The feminism I am familiar with is constantly struggling to have women's work and achievements acknowledged as work and achievements. Caring for one's own children, or other people's, for elders and the infirm, running households, building and maintaining relationships, are all vital things, holy things, and things traditionally and primarily done by women in the American society I live in. Despite their importance, they are not accorded all that much respect, and the people who do them are not compensated well. Feminists fight to change this every day in their communities.

          I'm not saying that traditional cultures don't value women's work, or household arts and sciences; many do, greatly, and there's a lot of variation. But I don't at all feel that modern, or recent historic, American society does significantly, and my experience among feminists is that most do. Some feminists are deeply connected homemaking, frith-weaving, and nurturing. Some are uninterested in those things while vaguely supportive. But the hostility toward taking women and their work seriously that I have encountered has come from people (chiefly men) claiming the superiority of a "men's work" world that looks a lot more like a rat race.

  • Merofled Ing

    No one casts away their backgrounds, or their religions, or their skin colour or where they come from by casting away ideas of racial separation. Cultures are interdependent. They often are more fantasy than reality. ‘Ethnicity’ as a racial concept is not part of them. And that means that no one gets to decide who can root themselves in whichever culture that speaks to them. It is by understanding the difference between anything biological – like skin colour – and ideas that we begin to understand culture. Biology doesn’t have culture, it has organic laws. We have brains, and thoughts, and we make our laws (by use of brains, not skin).

    Sorry to become personal here, but over here (yep, not too far from the Rhine river) it has taken decent people more than 60 years to drag norse mythology and its symbols out of the dirt and mud (and the blood and the bones, teeth and hair) that a lot of our more immediate ancestors trampled them down in, when they thought they could link these myths to their ancestry, form special ancestral groups, call their ideas of racial separation defence of their threatened culture and caused a war that we, and our neighbours, are still reeling from. Norse Alchemist, I’m not letting you throw those ideals back. If you’re so concerned about showing the difference between your ideas and those of the more outspoken racial separatists, then go visit their websites and their debates. Explain your stuff to them. Maybe they’ll better understand the finer points between your idea of racial separation and theirs.

    • Valerie Herron

      Well said, Merofled. Don't apologize for getting "personal." When it comes to spirituality, culture, and genetics, it's about as personal as it gets.

    • Robert Mathiesen

      Very well said, Merofled! I think that I, too, will get personal, and for similar reasons.

      By ancestry I'm roughly half Danish (mostly from Jutland), roughly a quarter German (Hamburg and the Rhineland), and roughly a quarter Anglo-Saxon (Wiltshire and Kent), with a small fraction of Dutch thrown in the melting pot for good measure, and a very, very tiny smidgin of French Canadian. I know the names, and details of the life, of each and every one of my ancestors back to the time when they immigrated to what later became the United States, and sometimes for a few generations before that. Ancestral stories and ancestral heritage matter great deal to me, as they did to the generations before me.

      The very first old sacred stories I ever heard or read as a boy were the ones that make up Norse mythology, thanks to my father, a 3rd generation Danish-American. They are still the stories that I keep closest to my heart, the ones that speak to me more than any others. To them my father added, with great admiration, the recent story of King Christian X going out in public in Copenhagen, while the Nazis occupied the land, wearing the yellow star that the Nazis had decreed all Jews must wear in public. (I hear tell that this last story is now regarded by some as myth more than true history, but either way it's a powerful story.)

      So all this is personal for me, too, and for much the same reasons as it is for Merofled — even though my most recent immigrant ancestors left Denmark in the 1860s. I'm not particularly political, though the moderate center appeals to me much more that either the left or the right wing. But I despise stupidity wherever it is found on the political spectrum, and the whole theory of supposed inherent racial differences seems hugely stupid to me. It makes me want to snarl, bare my teeth, and dream atavistic dreams of leaping for the throat.

      I take a great deal of pride in my specific ancestors and their fellows, in their accomplishments and in their legacy to succeeding generations and so to me. But those things are the accomplishments and the legacy of *my* specific ancestors, not the accomplishments and heritage of some non-existent thing called a "race" that stupid people take seriously.

      And I will have no fellowship with those who will subsume the accomplishments and heritage of my specific ancestors (and of me) into those of such a "race."

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      Merofled: " … it has taken decent people more than 60 years to drag norse mythology and its symbols out of the dirt and mud (and the blood and the bones, teeth and hair) that a lot of our more immediate ancestors trampled them down in …"

      Nazi racial theory was promulgated in explicitly Christian terms from beginning to end. The Nazis may have borrowed a little symbolism and terminology here and there from pre-Christian sources, but Christians have always done that.

      • cigfran

        Don't the books by Goodricke-Clarke argue against such a definitive statement?

        • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

          The textbook (literally) of Nazi racial theory is Alfred Rosenberg's "Myth of the 20th Century", which opens with a quote from the Christian mystic Meister Eckhardt. In that book Rosenberg specifically mentions Wotan or Wotanism a grand total of 5 times, each time to reject any connection with them. Jesus, on the other hand, is mentioned over 100 times, always very positively. Luther is praised 45 times, and Eckhardt is praised 40 times.

          The other two main written works that formed the basis for Nazi race theory were Huston Stewart Chamberlain's "Foundations of the 19th Century" (the model for Rosenberg's book), and, of course, Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Those two books are even more enthusiastic in their embrace of Christianity than Rosenberg's (if that is even possible).

          Goodricke-Clarke completely ignores the actual roots of Nazism's racist ideology while taking his readers on a wild goose chase in search of "The Occult Roots of Nazism". Yes there was some interest in the Occult on the part of some Nazis, but so what? There have been Christian Occultists all along. Many Christian intellectuals today wish to claim Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola as among the greatest Christian thinkers of all times, and it doesn't get any more "Occult" than Ficino and Pico.

          The primary sources (by Chamberlain, Rosenberg and Hitler) are all freely available on the Internet. If want a reliable secondary source, then I highly recommend Richard Steigman-Gall's "Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity".

          • cigfran

            I disagree that the book is a wild goose chase. Rather than presenting ariosophy and its adherents as the 'source' of Nazi ideology, he rather shows how those interests collided with volkisch sentiment, wounded nationalist pride and a kind of ersatz intellectual nostalgia to provide a substrate for what became that ideology.

            As for the public embrace of Christianity, I always thought of that as being in keeping with, and a promotion of, the anti-semitic program. But by all means, I'll look at the source material, and I thank you for the references.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Neither Ariosophy nor Volkish sentiment contributed anything of any significance to either Nazism in general or the Nazi view of race in particular. So-called "scientific racism" was already well established as part of mainstream European culture of the time. And the specific form that "race theory" took on under Nazism is completely described by the works of Chamberlain, Rosenberg, and Hitler — and none of those works rely in any way on Ariosophy or Volkishness.

            Goodricke-Clarke is a Christian apologist who has devoted his career to portraying the Nazis as Pagans in order to distract attention from the close ties between Nazism and both Protestant and Catholic Christianity. He knows that there is no real evidence to support this, but he does not let that stand in his way. For Goodricke-Clarke Christianity is good and the friend of all that is good, while Paganism is bad and the enemy of all that is good. Therefore the Nazis, as representatives of ultimate Evil could not have been Christian and must have been Pagan. This is Goodricke-Clarke's starting point. The fact that he is forced to completely ignore the main story line of how racist ideology actually developed in Europe clearly reveals the complete worthlessness of his "research". Racist ideology was out in the open and in plain view, and it was adhered to by millions or even tens of millions. The lurid tales spun by Goodricke-Clarke involved tiny highly-secretive cliques furtively meeting in the shadows — this freak-show is just a distraction from actual history.

            And the Nazi embrace of Christianity was not just for public consumption. Huston Stewart Chamberlain was to National Socialism what Charles Darwin is to Evolutionary Biology. And one of Chamberlain's closest life-long friends was Adolf von Harnack, one of the leading Protestant theologians of his day, and still considered an important pioneer in such areas as Positive Christianity, Higher Criticism, and the Social Gospel, and liberal theology generally.

            It is interesting to realize that the Nazis embraced not only Christianity broadly speaking, but they specifically promoted Positive Christianity and the Social Gospel. And the Nazis were also very favorably disposed to Higher Criticism, which gave them the freedom to purify Christianity not only of Semitic influences, but also of the "effete" influence of Greek philosophy, thus returning, in their minds, Christianity to its original, pure, Aryan roots. You won't learn any of this from Goodricke-Clarke, and it is precisely what his writings are consciously intended to steer you away from.

          • Merofled Ing

            The Nazi ideology would not have attracted such a vast number of mainstream followers if it had openly (or otherwise) challenged the churches.
            I’m also a bit wary of people overstressing the occult ideas of the Nazis, thereby (even if unintentionally) imbuing them with an aura of special secret societies or freemason lore, or of pagan independence.
            I certainly don’t want to downplay the role of the churches in the development of anti-semitism, or their support of the fascist movements or the blind eye they, as institutions, turned towards mass murder. (Individual exceptions within the churches noted, and praised.)
            At the same time, Himmler did surround himself with scholars who were into some kind of (exclusionary, racially interpreted) norse and volkish ‘research’. The ‘Ahnenerbe’ (ancestral heritage) was about that. Another example was his interest in witch trials where some of his scholars were, among other things, looking for ‘genuine’ volkisch awareness (‘those deepest layers of folk/the peoples’/Volks’belief that can only attain visible effect in an unbroken/undisrupted community’) – uhuh – and placed that in opposition to Christianity, viewed as ‘intellectualism’ as opposed to the ‘common’ ‘folk soul’. Some of his scholars aimed to prove that ‘parts of the Judeo-Christian concept of witches were racially conditioned ideas and completely alien to the Nordic man’. (That doesn’t really make sense – Nazi ideology never did, I’m translating a quote here.)

            I’m quoting this in the hope of raising some goosebumps, sound familiar, any of that?? This delving into Nazi interpretation of ‘folk’ myths and what that entails has left me queasy, now. Valerie Herron is absolutely right – whatever we do, let’s include rational thinking.
            And the NS movement’s blatant use of some runic symbols then and now has made it a criminal offence here to display these even today. That means a lot of the symbols aren’t out of the mud yet, and some probably never will be. It also means that people and their rights are more important than ‘cultures’ and that for me to cherish ancient northern culture, in full awareness of whatever fantasies that may involve, it needs to be open, egalitarian, and open, and egalitarian, and open, and egalitarian. It’s not being threatened from outside.

    • David Wiegleb

      Well said.

      A number of commenters on this topic have tried to muddy the waters between the notions of "cultural pride" and "right to exist" and their conclusion of "racial separatism." Racial separatism has a bad tendency to lead to such horrific consequences as the call for "Lebensraum."

  • Valerie Herron

    How many Feminists have you actually met, pal? Yes, we all know that the aggro-extremeists exist in every political and religious movement, but all of the feminists I know (I live in one of the bluest of the blue states, I know hundreds) are all men and women who challenge patriarchy by promoting egalitarianism and questioning rigid gender-rolls. I wear make-up, heels, and have hair-extensions and I haven't been hazed by any of these people.

    And I love the idea that Feminism just might cause the sexes to hate each other by promoting understanding that we are all people, regardless of our gender-status. Who knows, maybe Feminism will get people to stop having heterosexual intercourse all-together!

  • Pagan Puff Pieces

    I highly doubt he's actually criticizing any legitimate points and logical extremes.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    Being Finnish you have the perfect vantage point from which to see the Big Picture. Basically you are cheating. ;)

    • http://kauko-niskala.blogspot.com kauko

      It is definitely easy to see from the Finnish perspective, but honestly the meaninglessness of the concept of 'Europe' should be even more obvious for anyone looking at the religious environment of the ancient Mediterranean world, but people somehow manage not to see it.

      • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

        The problem with the Mediterranean vantage point is that so much psychic energy has been invested in the mythos that Greece and Rome were the birthplace of "western" civilization. Bah. Alexandria was the cultural and intellectual center of gravity of "classical" civilization. That's just Ancient History 101.

        • Don

          Alexandria was part of Hellenic and Roman civilization.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Well, it all depends on how you define who is a "part" of who. The simple fact is that neither the Hellenic nor the Roman world were primarily European — in any sense, including geographically, culturally, demographically or economically. The center of gravity was outside of Europe.

            And when civilization itself collapsed in Western Europe (where it's hold had always been rather tenuous), it was the Eastern Roman world (so-called "Byzantium", which was still largely based in Asia) that carried on.

          • Don

            To speak of anything "European" at the time is anachronistic, and I'm sure you'd agree.

            "Greece" and "Rome" ought not to be confused with Greece and Rome as specific geographic locations, but as civilizations.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Don: << <i>To speak of anything "European" at the time is anachronistic >>

            This is certainly the most important point of all. In fact, the word "Europe" disappears from use during the Dark Ages, and does not reappear until the late 8th century with the rise of the Franks as the military power behind the birth of Western Christendom.

  • Mesmeritic

    How does race define who we are? I don;t want to be defined by how I look. … Consider a stone: it can be called a rock or a pebble depending on its size; BUT it can become a gem depending on its environment and interactives.

  • Bryan Cederberg

    After being defriended, getting called a troll, and having my comments dismissed as "stupid" by Scarlet Imprint (on Facebook), I decided to have a look a what others have written regarding the libel that has been spreading about Black Front Press (and associates).

    The Troy Southgate who's posts I've read here doesn't seem to match the dangerous, bigoted, wolf in sheep's clothing being portrayed by the self-proclaimed voice of the occult community.

    Perhaps it's just "entryism and infiltration" and I'm being misled. But how do you escape an accusation like that? You'd have to be Houdini to have a fighting chance.

    That said, my politically neutral comments led to similar accusations. I'm a Nazi "with far right sympathies" and a "knob". I'm a "racist", a "sexist", and a "homophobe".

    But I was assured that Scarlet Imprint does not support censorship… just prior to getting banned from the discussion. I guess for an editor, some habits are hard to break.

    When I reread the thread on Facebook, and consider the accusatory tone of some of the posts directed at me, I must say that it's interesting that I'm the one who was vilified and removed.

    Based on my experience with the group who is making accusations, I'm don't regret giving the Crowley Anthology the benefit of the doubt.

    I think it's a shame that a book released with such fanfare (from both contributors and readers) has been reduced to a political hot potato. David Beth was excited and promoted the journal stating that he was quite proud of his essay. I think he said it best when he wrote "The failure of whatever political system most of the time lies not in its theory, but in the shortcomings of those who apply it into practice, and these are quite universal."

    I'm curious as to how he felt when Scarlet Imprint (one of his publishers) started putting the screws to those folks who participated in the making of this particular Crowley Anthology.

    • Jason Pitzl-Waters

      "But I was assured that Scarlet Imprint does not support censorship… just prior to getting banned from the discussion. I guess for an editor, some habits are hard to break."

      Point of order: you do know that getting banned from an Internet forum isn't "censorship," right? You can indeed be against censorship while booting people off an Internet forum you control. Just as you can be against censorship and call the cops on someone shouting at you on your yard.

      • Bryan Cederberg

        I know that it isn't technically censorship, but I was being civil in the discussion, asked what I thought were valid questions, and was kicked soon afterwards.

        I don't appreciate being accused of being a closet fascist in a debate and then pulled from the conversation without an opportunity to further clarify my position. It's poor etiquette.

  • Jason Pitzl-Waters

    "Considering the mud that was slung at me, am I wrong to think that the same people who are making accusations about Troy Southgate (and others) might be off base and exaggerating? Perhaps it is the mudslingers' politics/agenda that should be put under the magnifying glass."

    Well, I have no professional or personal relationship with Scarlet Imprint, I don't publish esoteric books, not looking to get published in any book on magic(k)al practice, and I'm not really the biggest Crowley fan. So it would be hard, I think, to categorize me as some sycophantic follower of random proclamations made on the Internet by SI.

    So, when I tell you that Southgate is indeed a crypto-fascist and any serious reading of his history, words, and associations would bear that out, would you take it seriously? As for him being a "dangerous, bigoted, wolf in sheep's clothing," well if you think subscribing to beliefs straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (“vampiric parasites intent on carving up the world’s resources in an attempt to create a single, global market”) or racial separatism ("a coffee-coloured mush of uniform humanity"), or anti-feminism, or anti-abortion, or his "criticism" of fascism that really isn't criticism at all (he mostly thinks their tactics were bad) aren't well, "dangerous" or "bigoted," I'm not sure what to tell you. As for entryism, it is something he admits to, so its hardly a conspiracy against him.

    Now, if you think a publishing company run by someone with his views is something you want to support, there's nobody stopping you. But as I said, to pretend that we live in apolitical vacuums where his views won't ultimately taint the work of authors who participate in his ventures is naive at best. An "apolitical" book that supports a very political man's company and goals isn't "apolitical" at all.

    • Bryan Cederberg

      Zionism is just another form of fascism. I'm surprised your defending it – especially considering your criticisms of Troy Southgate.

      Supporting separatism as a defense against homogenization doesn't scream "crypto-fascist" to me. What alternatives are there for preserving culture? (this is NOT a rhetorical question)

      Feminism has a fascist contingent. What is your position on that flavor?

      I'm anti-abortion. I believe that life starts at conception. Is it really an unreasonable position?

      He may have said something in the past about entryism, I've not seen the specific quote. Is it possible that he's changed his position? I know my politics have changed numerous times over the years.

      I've never used the word "apolitical". But I'm not going to allow people to force me into their political left-right paradigm. I don't belong in either camp. I'm north of both ;)

      From what I've read of the reviews of the Crowley Anthology I get the impression that it isn't particularly political. With a minimum of three non-right contributers (and others invited to contribute), it's hard for me to buy into the political agenda conspiracy.

      • Valerie Herron

        Also, you do not have to be a Zionist to know that "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are a fabrication. You can't claim someone is a Zionist for pointing out the obvious.

  • http://twitter.com/magickalrealism @magickalrealism

    I find any attack on feminism completely alarming. That said, the solution is simple: don't sleep with men that are anti-feminist. The breed will die out, and the problem is solved.

    • Bryan Cederberg

      I don't think it's that simple. There are many feminisms; often with contradictory agendas.

      You're clinging to the label like it means something specific.

  • Valerie Herron

    Being politically-neutral about separatism is as paradoxical as being mildly-fascist. If you don't oppose separatist, nationalist, or any anti-egalitarian ideals, you condone them. This is one of those few things in the Universe that is really black and white, and it's inherently black and white because of the criteria set up by separatists.

    I would love to hear what your politically neutral comments were, or you explanation of how one can be truly politically neutral on these issues.

    • Bryan Cederberg

      As far as I know the thread is still up at Scarlet Imprint's Facebook page. It was under a link to the Wild Hunt article. Feel free to have a read.

      I disagree with your stance on separatism being an either or proposition.

      I'm in favor of organic communities. If folks choose to separate themselves out by race, class, religion, interests, ethnicity, culture, family, friends, I'm in favor of it. I'd also support multicultural communities as long as they aren't the homogenized materialistic nonsense that often parades around as such. Truth be told, if folks want to live that way, let 'em do it.

      Little utopias or tribes are my Republic.

      That said, I do value culture as a source of meaning. It also serves as a safeguard against material predators. One of the reasons the black community in the United States is in the shambles that it is is due to the fact that a rootless people can be sold anything. Hence the destructive bullshit pushed on their community from aggressive capitalist and media interests. Artificial roots are weed-like and dangerous. American multiculturalism hasn't helped the black community, if anything it has filled their world with poisonous distractions.

      Our leaders like to divide and conquer.

      Culture is a tricky proposition in the United States. I certainly wouldn't call the homogenized plague we're bombarded with on a daily basis a worthwhile alternative. I'm not sure what the answer is. Somehow, we need to establish meaningful roots. They aren't found in Human Resource departments, the media, or in watered down public education. We're conditioned to be a slave class.

      Remember… it was George W. Bush who said your either with us or against us. Sound familiar?

      • Valerie Herron

        I grew up in a county with a large KKK following, another nice little separatist community. While I agree that it is their constitutional right to gather peacefully, the peacefulness of said organization always ended up in the harassment of certain residents in the form of death threats, racist things written in family lawns with weed-killer, nooses hung up in front yards, a few molotov cocktails thrown into churches and people's houses, actual assaults, etc.

        My point is, separatist communities like the Phelps family and Neo-Nazis don't work too hard to actually separate themselves from the rest of us. They stick around to harass people and sometimes worse. Does this mean that I'm lumping in these groups with other technically-separatists groups like communes, the Moari people, or Tibet? Obviously not.

        There is a lot I could say about the challenges faced by the African American community, but I will let someone who is actually African American address that point. I am unclear as to what you mean by "artificial roots." Could you elaborate on that? What exactly has the African-American community been sold?

        Does a culture really need to be separatist to understand its roots? Also, why is it so crucial to have a clear idea of what your ancestral roots are? Are people destined to poverty and an inability to function in society if they were adopted? What about people of mixed-ethnicity that have a very clear idea of what their roots are? I'm good friends with an interracial family (one parent from India, one Irish-American) and they don't seem to have any problems on this front. Would you say that their children have been brought into a "homogenized plague" of mixed-culture?

        Also, I don't think taking a "for or against" stance on separatism can equate me with George W. Bush. I am not asking anyone to kill separatists.

        • Bryan Cederberg

          I'm not saying the black community is deficient in their ability to understand history or culture. What I am saying is that they are specifically and intentionally targeted by corporate America and defined by branding.

          In the history of marketing, black Americans were seen as a rootless people who would buy anything; an easy target population for sales pitches of material junk.

          This is due to the fact that historically the government and corporate america have worked to keep things this way. Homogenization is good for business. Hollow people have more space to fill.

          Blacks were separated from their families, their religion, their language, and their culture. This left a void that salesmen filled with the false promises thought up in corporate ad agencies. These are the "artificial roots" I was referring to in my earlier post.

          I'd argue that the same tactics are being spread throughout America today. The American people are malleable. We're mongrels who don't have an identity. That's why you see folks desperately cling to cultural stereotypes and symbols (Irish wear green and support Notre Dame) and empty patriotism (even when it's against their best interest).

          We've been sold a bag of goods, but there is nothing good about what's in the bag.

          People who have roots and know who they are don't need products. They have an identity and don't have to buy the bullshit people try to sell to them. Culture defines them – not material objects.

          Corporate America does today, what they did to slaves yesterday. They're just more sneaky and insidious from years of practice.

          • Valerie Herron

            There is definitely no argument that people of African decent have been outright robbed in the last 400 years. I also can not deny the unsettling presence of cultural stereotypes that many people take for reality in the United States.

            However, I'm still failing to seeing how being duped by consumerism has anything to do with knowing one's ethnic roots. If people practiced critical thinking, they would question a product before they buy it, or question any material for that matter, including stereotypes.

            To my knowledge, you do not need to be aware of your ethnic or cultural background to be capable of critical thought. I agree that there is an over-arching culture of consumerism in the US, but will knowledge of one's ancestry really combat that?

  • elnigma

    As someone who at times has been a "stay-at-home" mom and feminist, I got to say you're the first person I've ever heard call that being a "sex traitor". Even fundamentalists are more subtle just suggesting working for monetary support is immoral and try to posit that working women are a recent thing coming out post use and invention of birth control pills. (Which is untrue – my grandmothers and great-grandmothers needed and took employment to take care of their families. )
    Your premise is a"few smelly nappies".

  • Don

    "but should be understood as civilizations." That should read.

  • David Wiegleb

    Bryan,

    Just so that you can be certain that no one is mid-characterizing Troy Southgate regarding his strategy of “entryism”, here he is describing his methods in detail in his own words on his own website. Pretty indisputable.

    http://www.national-anarchist.net/2010/09/case-for-national-anarchist-entryism-by.html

    Why entryism? Because his philosophy, ethos, and goals are odious and he has to deploy by stealth. He needs to rope in people who have their own audience and who don’t necessarily agree with or even know of his political goals in order to gain implicit public acceptance of those goals. It’s a fig leaf – nothing more. If you’re okay with that, that’s your decision. But there’s no sound argument to be made that that’s not what’s going on here.

    These so-called “apolitical” anthologies provide him political cover. They are the KY lubricant of “entryism.”

    • Bryan Cederberg

      Thanks David.

      After reading Troy Southgate's post on entryism, I can better understand why some folks are suspicious of his motives.

      The tactic seems a bit silly, but I'm an American, so what do I know?

      In the States all someone has to do to sway the general populace is have the right financial/media backing and be a B-Grade actor. Ma and Pa Kettle routines really get the crowds rolling.

      For fucks sake, our current president won the Nobel Peace Prize and then a day later his Neo-Conservative alter-ego took over. Obama is as bad as George W. Bush, and much more dangerous than Troy Southgate.

      Truth be told, I don't care about Troy Southgate or his politics. I really don't. And I could give a shit what Scarlet Imprint, or the occult community think about him. I'm my own man and can sort things out myself.

      However, it does piss me off when they pressure others to see the world through their eyes. I don't like being put in a box and labeled by strangers. The whole 'you're either part of the problem, or part of the solution' routine is nonsense. It's a tactic similar to entryism in that it creates a manufactured environment used to sway folks to their side of their political spectrum.

      I find it offensive that a group of high-profile left-leaning pagans have such little respect for the "occult community" that they really believe that all a fringe character has to do is trade his industrial/neo-folk garb for a coat of many colored cloth and a flute, play a tune near the cool kids and we'll all mindlessly follow him into his evil lair. It's Satanic Panic all over again. Been there, done that.

      This is the same type of hysterical bullshit that Christian Fundamentalists subscribe to. This is Geraldo Rivera sensationalist propaganda.

      What happens if the David Beths' and Vadge Moores' of the world turn the tables on them. It's impossible to stop an idea whose time has come. Charisma has a way of turning a fig leaf into a forest over night. Creative material has a way of casting shadows on lesser works.

      That said, It's difficult for me to understand how using entryism to infiltrate an already maligned sub-culture will further the National-Anarchist cause in any way shape or form. The heralds of the "occult community" (whatever that means, I'm still not sure) are overreacting. The hysteria they have created is divisive and counter-productive. Some folks will be naturally inclined that way, other will be put off, and some people will simply consider what they're reading in the context of their own experiences and move on.

      It hasn't worked for the other side. Scarlet Imprint (and friends) rubbed me the wrong way with their activism. Their tactics in the guise of paternal protector haven't redefined my politics. If anything, I've lost respect for people whose work I think highly of. I'll get over it in time, but I don't appreciate being manipulated or misrepresented. It pisses me off that they think I'm so gullible that I can't think for myself. I'm not going to play ball in their false left-right paradigm and I have no plans of joining up with Troy Southgate's team either. That doesn't mean that they aren't positions worth considering. I'm sure there is intelligent thought in both camps. But, despite what some might say to the contrary, there are other options, new ways of thinking, and more creative solutions. This scenario is not (and never will be) an either/or proposition.