Opening Words

I started this blog today.   Not sure yet where I’ll go with it.


19 thoughts on “Opening Words

  1. Hello, I read your comment on heartiste concerning the neanderthal debate.
    There is a high-iq online community focusing on neanderthals, modes of high intelligence and related topics.

    The basic idea is that phenomena such as high giftedness, creative genius, savantism and aspergers are the result of neanderthal (and denisovan) gene expression. Normality is thus merely lack of active non-sapiens genes.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I looked at the links you provided briefly last night, have been reading the stuff on the altrugenics forum in more depth tonight, will continue to do so over the coming days. Interesting thoughts presented there. I have to get my bearings there. My desktop is kaput and it’s torture on my eyes to do all this on my phone, so as soon as I can get to a computer at my local public library I’ll give you a full reply; in the meantime, thanks for bringing all this to my attention!


    1. Nicely-designed blog! I support what you are trying to do with it. I also understand how careful you have to be about what you say in public in the UK, which is a damned shame considering that your nation was the champion of liberty and passed that tradition on to us here in the U.S. May Albion’s seed never die or be enslaved!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Many Thanks

        Its going to be a long hard fight. Its my intention to direct traffic to blogs like yours and CH, if I ever get any. I plan to post articles from some friends in the law business regarding the legal aspects of the movement, and other firearm owners and users. I have friends and allies in the police and military and I am working quietly to bring them onboard. I wish you well with your efforts.

        Yours aye.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Thanks! I started my blog a few months ago because I wanted to post a comment onto Chateau Heartiste, but I could only do that if I had a blog of my own first; therefore, what you see here.
    As you can see, I haven’t done much with it yet. I have plenty to say, but nothing that hasn’t already been said very well, many times by many others. It’s not easy to be original, and I hate to be a mere copy-cat. Also I no longer have a functioning computer so I would have to grab some time on one of the computers at our local public library, or else try to do it with my Android phone, if I want to work on my blog. So far I either haven’t had the free time for this, or I’ve just been too tired after coming home from work. BTW, do you see that annoying dot with the green ‘and-white pattern that is obscuring the middle of the photo that I placed in the header at the top of the page? How do I get rid of that?!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you for this, Aristarchus. I’ll reply in more depth tonight when I have some free time.


    Thanks for your thoughtful reply re privilege in the 3/13 “Second City Bureaucrat…” thread. I am tactically replying here, so as to avoid drawing you into the wake of “ghey” snipes from Anglin followers who seem to have taken a real liking to me. (I have no current need to form a public dialectic about this for the audience over there; and it’s not up to me to pick your battles for you, when it’s so convenient hereby to avoid doing so.)

    I first started urging my “OWN YOUR PRIVILEGE” set of slogans at CH about a month ago. I adduce that the reason why it gains no traction lies in its logical implications—implications as to which I leave no doubt.

    At the risk of tediously explaining to you what you may much or mostly know already, and with apologies for this essay being somewhat rough, here follows in brief an explanation on a bit higher level. [It is lightly censored, to turn down the potential of drawing heat onto your little blog.]

    One of my metaphysical and moral axioms, readily supported by observation and common sense, is that all men are created unequal. Races (i.e., anthropoid species) differ. Within races, families differ, and individuals differ. Inequality is the rule of the reality in which we live.

    I reject the egalitarian premise in total—unlike those who wish to accept it halfway, evade it halfway, so they can sneer at [Congoids] whilst behaving like [starts with ‘w’, and “triggers” liberals].

    The arc that began with classical-liberal and classical-Marxist deprecation of class privilege, has reached its own logical conclusion with the pomo-liberal and neo-Marxist attack on racial privilege. I am a radical (< L. radix, ‘root’). I attack the root of the problem: Egalitarianism.

    The aristocratic principle is not necessarily incompatible with a populist movement. Adolf Hitler neatly solved this problem with the racial covenant so eloquently described in his famous book at Volume 1, Chapter 12, enumerated point (14) (there building in concept on a discussion of the classes that he had laid at point (6)). In his same book, he also several times described the aristocratic principle as “a law of nature” opposed by [special interests].

    In America, G. L. Rockwell upheld that part of Hitler’s political philosophy. That, indeed, is the reason why he recruited Dr. W. L. Pierce. I mention this because CH is an American site—and Rockwell is badly distorted by Anglin, who seems to be quite popular at CH.

    Of course, I do not expect for any of that to mean much to those who seem both unable and unwilling to read anything that could not be fit into “text message Game”—let alone Hitler’s 800-plus pages of double-barrelled tomes! And of course, that is the cause of the aforesaid “ghey” snipes.

    A Brief Justification of Privilege

    The proper definition of privilege is the power, wealth, and status that are inherited by the posterity of ancestors who both (1) had the potentiality accorded by superior genetics, and (2) exercised that potentiality to create that power, wealth, and status in the first instance.

    —Therefore: Whites are privileged, because they are the culturally creative race that creates civilizations generally, and created Western Civilization specifically. Whose birthright was the might and grandeur of the West, before that birthright was thrown away by egalitarians?

    —Therefore: The old European aristocracy was a privilege of the heirs of noblesse d’épée [‘nobility of the sword’] who won glory (plus accompanying status and wealth) with honor on the battlefield. (The European “nobility” did decay to mostly useless fops, after titles were awarded to new “nobles” based on money or petty politicking—thus effectually replacing an aristocracy with a half-democracy, half-plutocracy. Another major factor was intermarriage with baptized [females], whose bankster daddies gave them on their wedding days a copy of the Book of Esther. By the way, happy Purim!)

    Aryans [< Skt. 'noble'—used by me in contradistinction to mere "Whites"] were always hierarchical in their societies—always and everywhere ruled by the principle of aristocracy, whether explicitly or de facto. It is, indeed, the only way that they can survive. Contemplating here only one issue of that survival, it was the aristocrats and royals who once upon a time had a duty of protecting the commoners from [special interests]—as e.g. did England’s King Edward I in 1290, or the Spanish royals in 1492.

    The lower classes are completely helpless on their own. They were fresh meat when the upper classes slowly sold them out to [special interests] in the past few centuries. With the upper classes now catastrophically decayed, the lower classes’ only hope for survival is for the rare rise of new natural aristocrats—such as Hitler. (N.b. that Hitler’s favorite opera was Rienzi—look up the story, if you don’t know it. Of course, opera is “ghey”…)

    Upon all the foregoing, I say: Own your privilege. Support hierarchy, and the just privileges of those who actually deserve them because they are the best (in contradistinction to corrupt, plutocratic “elites”). “Aristo-“, ‘best’, “-cracy”, ‘rule’.

    I myself am born of strictly bourgeois antecedents, not of the upper-class. In my activities online at present, I am only interested in exchanging ideas with those who may someday grow to fill new middle- and upper-ranks—directly, and/or through the education of their sons. At this point in history, I am strategically uninterested in the masses.

    P.S., just FYI, an article titled “Samizdat” will probably appear on my blog within the next few days. My unusual, and unusually long semi-private response to you hereby will probably seem more sensible in the context thereof.


    1. Please don’t apologize for being busy. I simply want to make sure that we can establish an adequate discussion. That can be problematic on today’s Internet. As I have mentioned somewhere on my blog, all major platforms including WordPress, “social media”, and even email providers may valiant intercede to protect you from what (((they))) don’t want you to see you don’t want to see, such as spam and other abuse. Witness the CH modbot, that throws away quality essays whilst letting through Gregi. It works like that everywhere nowadays.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks. I’ve been busy with splitting firewood out in my yard. It feels good to get away from the glowing screen and to be out in the sunlight and cool fresh air beneath a flawless blue sky, working my muscles and re-charging my Life-force. For now here’s a video that I made this past June that you might appreciate (it’s the first video that I had ever made, so it’s rather amateurish):

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Alright, time for me to respond. I share your aristocratic ethos. All human societies are hierarchical whether the members of such societies acknowledge this or not. I seek to always acknowledge reality; therefore I acknowledge this hierarchy. Aristocracies arise under conditions of great peril in the existence a tribe or nation – during times of emergency Men who are natural leaders and problem-solvers, and Men who are natural fighters, step forward to save their tribe or nation from its peril. If these Men are successful then their grateful people reward them by acquiescing to having them be in charge. Then these leading Men marry each other’s daughters and sisters, establishing bonds of loyalty between their families. Their heirs inherit the power structure that is thereby established, and thus an aristocracy is born, whether it is openly recognized as such with formal titles or not. A healthy and natural aristocracy is based upon military prowess, leadership and toughness of character, and as such it is a vehicle of Darwinian natural selection. This is why women universally fantasize about being rescued by a handsome Prince, being taken by him in a rough and domineering manner, marrying him and bearing his children – they instinctively want to unite their own genes with his and to be the mothers of dynasties. This is right, good and normal.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. [Note: I wrote the following in response to your video, while offline, somehow before I saw your reply re aristocracies; I will briefly respond to the latter subsequently. It does take substantial time to draft and edit a short essay on an important subject.]

        Thanks for that. It looks as if you’re training to swing a two-handed greatsword; or at least, that is what your ceremony suggested to me in a poetic sense. I am reluctant to mention that; for I am strictly against some of the costume-playing tendencies of some of the Right, and I don’t want to come off wrong here. But the image is timeless—and here, metaphorical.

        I actually had you backwards: I had the impression of an idealistic European youth. Take that as a compliment. Cf. my old man and youth.

        If the grid goes down one of these days, I have no doubt that you will enjoy your firewood and your Aryan winter stamina, whilst many annoying anthropoids become muddy icicles. Meanwhile, the spiritual quality of a woodfire is not to be missed—nor is the exercise! I regret that I can no longer split firewood myself.

        My well-wishes for the soon-coming vernal equinox.

        P.S.—and this postscript will, I fear, somehow become the longest part:

        I suddenly understand why Bob Matthews is here in person! The White man definitely needs a new religion, if he is to become again Aryan and stay that way. The study of religion, and specifically the problem of Aryan religion, is a speciality of mine, and one that I approach with the fully detached objectivity of an atheist with some Nietzschean tendencies.

        The closest thing that I myself have to a religion is a quasi-religious reverence for ancestry and descent. For me, that is a matter of natural instinct—intellectually synthesized with my knowledge of the plain fact that I will die, and the only ultimate value of my life is in whatever may survive me. My heaven (or my hell) is here on earth, to be enjoyed (or suffered) by my posterity, if any I will have.

        I write the following with the motive that I would infinitely prefer a society based on a Nordicist religion, in the manner of the Thule Society’s mysticism, to anything unhappily married to Jewish books.[1] Please feel free to copy this to anyone you believe may be interested, or who may find it of practical use in the promotion of an Aryan religion. As before, I understand little of your own thinking; I therefore must fill in the blanks, and run the risk that you probably quite well already understand at least some of what I will here tell you.

        [1. Medieval European Christendom was not Jewish: It was a schizophrenic mongrel of Western Aryan, Jewish, and Iranian (Eastern Aryan) Magian religions, that last of which may perhaps have actually been a proto-Jewish concoction.]

        To be successful, the “revival” of an ancient, dead religion must perforce be the rebirth of a new religion. Anything else will result in mere costume-play—as seen with many “neopagans” so ignorant that they embrace the word “pagan”, a Roman Christian slur idiomatically equivalent to how American liberals slur “[‘rural’] rednecks who cling to their Bibles”. They superficially take on some symbols of ancient religions, and superimpose those upon the depths of a still-Christian Weltanschauung. That is why they come off as ridiculous. The worst are the ones who treat Odin or Thor as an almighty and universal God, capital ‘G’. That is (((Yahweh))) in a Viking costume!

        Amongst many other requirements, a new religion must be expounded by a prophet. This requires a rare charisma. Matthews may have had what it takes—a judgment I base on the evidence that he nearly led off a revolution. His charisma in radical politics should also be applicable, mutadis mutandis, to the remaking of a new Nordicist religion. I do not know if that was his intent—I am here only speaking in the hypothetical, for the sake of understanding the religion problem.

        A successful religion also needs deities—something more personal than what is offered by Dr. Pierce or by Ben Klassen (with all due respect to both of them). In particular, Dr. Pierce’s substantial pantheism could only ever be satisfactory to a small group of intellectuals who are a hair’s breadth from fully Nietzschean atheism. Of course, Dr. Pierce himself was such an intellectual.

        I here list only a few requirements. A full discussion would require a lengthy book (or at least a shelf full of them).

        For a functioning Aryan society, a Thule-style religion, tempered by some Nietzschean philosophy for the aristocracy, could definitely work—if and only if it were somehow grown organically. Artifical religion never works.

        If Matthews had successfully carried off a revolution and then, hypothetically, systematically preached his own religious dogma to the masses, then I think that could have potentially taken root and grown in an America wherein anyway, traditional Christianity was effectually shattered in the 1960s.

        For a quite different example: 1930s Germany was a very deeply Christian nation, wherein Hitler protected the churches as a matter of practical politics and the stability of his nation. Still, many Germans were leaving the churches in droves, whilst nevertheless describing themselves as “gottgläubig” (‘god-faithful’). The gottgläubig folks were in an in-between state, at the threshold; a new quasi-religious Weltanschauung was forming, which, again, is really the most important and difficult part that the “neopagans” totally miss! Despite his formal public detachment from all matters of religion, the Führer was in substance the necessary prophet of an implicit new religion which, no doubt, was understood and fully intended by the intellectuals of the Reich.

        For the sake of illustration, I hypothesize that if the Germans had won the war: (1) Christianity would have been organically (and peacefully) replaced in full within three to five generations. (2) Hitler would have been later apotheosized in some way—partly from the Christian cultural residue of a Messianic savior, partly as a quasi-Hindu avatar. (3) The quasi-Nordic, quasi-Hindu SS mystical doctrines would have filtered down to the masses; and thus, (4) some form of your “Ultima Thule” would have been a reality.

        As you are no doubt aware, much German cultural propaganda in the 1930s specifically inculcated such a reverence for ancestry as you evidently hold in your heart and soul. It starts there. On an individual level, for you, that may suffice. But if you wish to truly establish a new Aryan religion, for a new Aryan society, then you, and any comrades you may have, must also understand the problem in strategic and objective terms.

        May the gods be with you; and may your ancestors guide you in wisdom for the preservation of their posterity through you, you being one link in the endless, eternal chain of your bloodline.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Re: Aristocracies

        I see that you get it; and you state the matter well in your own words.

        Only one point to add for now—original to me; I have never seen anyone explicitly identify this parallel anywhere:

        This is why women universally fantasize about being rescued by a handsome Prince

        Exactly; and more generally, the masses need to look up to glory and glamor. Nowadays, they have Ersatz in the form of drug-addled idiot “movie stars”, Congoids who bounce balls, “rock stars”, etc. When you realize that they are looking up to those in lieu of the majesty of Aryan kings and glory of Aryan noblemen, you truly begin to realize how low this society has fallen.

        Watch again the videos of German girls with ecstatic orgasm-faces screaming their joy at Hitler-parades, as lines of unarmed SS men struggle to hold them back from inadvertently stampeding the Führer to death in a fit of love. Now, compare that pure and perfect picture to the obscene spectacle of girls screaming at the Beatles—or some Congoid “rapper”. The latter is a sick parody of the former. If videocameras had existed before the “Enlightenment”, you would see that Hitler was invoking the same mass-response as a king, or a duke or other high nobleman.

        Mutatis mutandis, especially excluding the female subconscious reproductive motive that you mention, a similar-but-different concept also applies to men. Men want to follow a leader. Amongst ancient Germanics, young men rallied behind the strongest warrior of the older generation. In any properly-run military, the men really look up to their officers, and will follow them through the gates of hell. Now, watch the Hitler-videos again (or even the audience’s response at a Goebbels speech). You can see that the men are in a state of worshipful admiration that tends to be a bit more taciturn than the female outbursts, but is no less intense. In the right context, the taciturnity breaks in applause and huzzahs. Kings and dukes invoked the same response, back in the day.

        And the response is hierarchical, e.g.: The SA men practically worshipped the ground that Dr. Goebbels walked on.[1] Dr. Goebbels was, in turn, personally obsessed with the Führer’s genius—“and that’s a good thing!”

        You probably feel the same response when you watch a Hitler speech. I know that I do. Of course, since we are not Germans living in the 1920s-40s, we need living leaders who are applicable to us; I mention this only for the sake of exemplary illustration, not to promote another costume-play.

        [1. Dr. Goebbels was not formally the leader of the SA; but he developed a special relationship with it, when in the 1920s Years of Struggle he would personally lead columns of SA men on marches through crowds of rock-throwing Reds. The SA men called him “Unser Doktor” and “Der Kämpfer um Berlin”; and it was said that any SA man would happily die for him. He had a similar relation to the SS, wherein he held a formal rank during the War for purposes of the chain of command for defending Berlin, if I recall correctly. This rank was actually invoked in action on the 20th July 1944—and I think during the final defense of Berlin, though off the top of my head, I am not sure of all the details of the latter.]

        Liked by 1 person

  4. SHIT! I just spent a long time writing a lengthy reply to you, and I accidentally did something to make it disappear into oblivion! AAARRGGHH!!! I’ll have to start all over again, but not tonight. I need to drink some beer and watch Cossack folk singing and dancing on YouTube to dissolve my frustration.


  5. I suppose I could be training to swing a greatsword in my video, now that you mention it, Aristarchus, and I know what you mean about the costume-playing, which can seem childish.  My Finnish immigrant father said of Americans that they’re a likeable people but also often strangely child-like.

    I do take it as a compliment that you originally mistook me for an idealistic European youth.  I dread the ravages of impending old age so I try to be physically and mentally active in order to hold that fate off for as long as I can.  Also our world is becoming increasingly dangerous and a man simply cannot afford to be weak before the various humanoid predators who prey upon the weak – and besides, chicks dig fit Men!  But a Man also needs to have a hard attitude toward our current reality, and this attitude needs to be combined with a pitilessly clear understanding of this reality.  As for idealism, my idealism is in my veneration of the beauty of Nature, which includes the beauty of my own people, the children of Mother Europe.  For me, this is at the very core of my reason to continue living in this world:  I want to do whatever I can to protect the beauty that is Us.  As my friend Stephen A. McNallen of the Asatru Folk Assembly and the Wotan Network likes to say:  “The existence of my people is not negotiable!”  This, then, is my religion:  the sacredness of my bloodline that came to be during the last glacial maximum in Europe and that has been shaped by the subsequent tens of thousands of years of hard struggle in the Northlands, resulting in Me.  My known ancestry is Finnic (Finnish, East Karelian and Estonian) and Russian, which is why I self-identify as a Hyperborean.  My test results from the Geno 2.0 DNA project of the National Geographic Society revealed that I am 2.2% Neanderthal and 3.4% Denisovan, which means that 5.6% of what I am is pre-modern-European and was in Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years.  That percentage is slightly less than the equivalent of one great-great-grandparent.  Is this where my unusual physical strength and high I.Q. (standard deviation of 3.44) and my mystical reverence for Nature come from?  Maybe.

    Yes to Nordicism and the Thule Society, although I don’t know if I would be accepted there since I am not Germanic (it would depend on how ideologically strict they were, of course).  There is a certain percentage of the DNA profile of the Finns and Russians that is from northeast Asia, and this needs to be admitted as a fact.  A truly fanatical Nordicist would not regard us as White, and I respect this opinion and would not ever be so low-class as to insist upon being admitted into any group whose membership requirements I don’t meet; however, I do extend my hand as an ally and friend nonetheless.  The history of friendship between Germany and us Finno-Ugrians in the 20th century is a strong one, and I probably would not be alive today, had not Germany come to the aid of us Finns against the Soviet Union in World War II.

    As for your observations about modern neo-Pagans indulging in costume-play and calling themselves “Pagans” without understanding the derogatory nature of this word, yes there is unfortunately much truth to this; however among the “folkish” Norse/Germanic religious revivalists with whom I have personally been associated since 1995, this costume-playing has fallen out of fashion and is seen less and less nowadays at gatherings, and the use of the “Pagan” label has always been frowned upon for the reason that you mentioned.  As for treating Odin or Thor as an almighty and universal God, I have never met any of these people who do that – on the contrary, every Norse/Germanic revivalist that I know of knows that the Gods are mortal and limited in their powers.

    That’s a good point that you make for the importance of a charismatic prophet for the success of a new religion, and Robert Mathews could very well have fulfilled that role, had he not died before he had time to do this.  There does not seem to be anyone else to fulfill that role at this time, unfortunately.  He would have to be truly extraordinary as a prophet because Christianity (in its many forms) is still so firmly entrenched in the psyche of the American people, also among the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian nations of Eastern Europe.  Only in Western Europe is Christianity weak.  I suspect that such a charismatic prophet would somehow have to reconcile Christianity and Native European Religion (which would not be of the Nordicist version in Eastern Europe) among his followers, and I don’t know how that would be possible – maybe in Russia, where the Orthodox Church was historically more tolerant toward the Native Religion practitioners than were the Western Churches, and which has a rather pre-Christian feel to its church services?  My mother was a Russian Orthodox Christian, so I am somewhat familiar with this topic.

    Ah yes, Dr. Pierce and Ben Klassen – I was a member of the National Alliance for 12 years, and I met Dr. Pierce twice.  I never met Klassen but I did read his book, Nature’s Eternal Religion, and I liked it.  You’re right – their spirituality was too cerebral for the masses, which is why it never caught on.  Perhaps Hitler’s approach of leaving the established Churches alone and keeping himself aloof from religious matters, as you described, is the best approach for a leader to take at this time.  He had a good grasp of practical reality, in that regard.

    Yes, it starts with a reverence for Ancestry, and even your average low-I.Q. Bible-thumper can be recruited for that because many (most?) people are curious about their family trees nowadays.  It begins with curiosity but the reverence follows instinctively.  From this primal foundation much can be built.

    Alright, time to sign off.  This is a good dialogue.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I mentioned that Russian Orthodox church services often have a pre-Christian feel to them, and indeed the Evangelical Christians condemn the R.O. Christians as being thinly-disguised Pagans, or even Satanists. In any case I do confess to liking their aesthetics, with the richly-painted interiors of their churches, the hypnotic swinging of the incense burners, the splendid singing (in this example full of testosterone) – I find this to be shamanic:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s