by Jim Dewitt [from National Vanguard magazine, Issue No. 105, May-June 1985]
The Life Rune comes from an ancient alphabet, or futhark, used in northern Europe for many centuries before the general adoption of the Roman alphabet there. …Like the cross and various sun signs, the symbol is an ancient one. Over 3,000 years ago the Germanic peoples of northern Europe carved it on rocks, along with other pre-runic figures, perhaps as a sign of a man with arms reaching upward and addressing the gods.
Later — something between 2,000 and 1,800 years ago — the Germanic peoples began using a script having 24 characters, with both phonetic and magical-symbolic values, called runes. These were organized in a system known as the “futhark.” The name “futhark” derives from the initial sounds of the names of the first six runes, that is: feo – ur – thurs – asa – rit – kaan. This is similar to the way in which the word “alphabet” comes from the names of the first two Greek letters, alphaand beta.
In addition to the original Germanic futhark, there were two principle later runic systems: the expanded Anglo-Saxon, with up to 33 runes; and the reduced Norse, with 16 runes. Although many runes are common to the various futharks, the names and phonetic values of a given rune are not always the same. Most runic characters were made up of straight vertical and diagonal strokes to facilitate their carving on wood stone, and metal.
Over 5,000 runic inscriptions have been preserved. Although these were scattered by Norse rovers from Greenland to Greece, the vast majority of them are found in Sweden. Many of these are carved on commemorative monuments, or rune stones.
The more efficient Roman alphabet eventually supplanted the futhark for most purposes throughout northern Europe, but runes continued to be used in a few places — especially in Scandinavia — as late as the 17th century.
The origin of runes and the futhark is as murky as the water in the depths of today’s polluted Rhine. The evidence is sparse, and scholars disagree in their interpretations of it.
Some authorities speculate that the futhark simply derived from German contact with Greek or North Italic writing, about 2,000 years ago. Others suggest that the futhark and the various southern European alphabets come independently from an older, common European script. Many German, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan characters did have similar forms. For example, the figure we call the Life Rune occurred in the early Greek and Etruscan alphabets, as well as in the Germanic futhark.
It even has been proposed that the futhark must have been the brainchild of one man, rather than an evolutionary development, much as the Gothic alphabet was the creation of Bishop Wulfila, and the Cyrillic alphabet was the work of St. Cyril.
Runic writing was primarily used for Germanic religious and magical purposes: for gravestone inscriptions, for dedications, and for spells and charms. These roles overshadowed its function as a utilitarian script. The word “rune” itself comes from a Germanic root meaning a secret or a mystery; it implies arcane knowledge and wisdom. Runecraft was originally a private, esoteric practice, engaged in by those considered to be magicians. (Of course, in a preliterate society anyone who could communicate by writing might be thought of as a magician.)
Each rune had a name related to the sound of the character: names like “hail,” “ice,” and “birch.” A single rune could stand for its name-word itself, as well as for the sound associated with that word. It was thought to have magical powers that could be used to evoke, or protect against, the force contained in that name. Runes were often inscribed on weapons, tools, and rings to give them talismanic powers.
The 15th rune in the original Germanic futhark is the one with which we are especially concerned here. It appears variously with diagonal strokes pointing upward, downward, or in both directions. All these forms represented the same sound, originally “z.” Rune masters wrote individual runes up or down, left or right, without distinction. Nor was there any single convention for the direction in which lines of runes were written.
The symbol we call the Life Rune was not known as such in futhark times. In the original Germanic futhark this rune was known variously as the Axe Rune and the Elk Rune. It signified defense.
Later, in the reduced Norse futhark of the Viking Age, a formal dichotomy developed. The arms-upward rune was known as the Man Rune and had an “m” sound. The arms-downward rune had the strong palatalized “r.” It was called the Yew Rune or “bow made of yew wood,” a symbol of death.
The medieval Christian church used the Axe Rune/Man Rune form as a variation of the cross. They simply bent the arms of the Latin cross upward at about a 45-degree angle to form a stylized crucifix, known as the forked cross. The shape is also suggestive of a tree. Gregory the Great, who was Pope from 590 to 604, wore a forked cross on his vestment. Fork-cross crucifixes are common in Westphalia and parts of Austria and Italy even today.
Conversely, enemies of Christianity — Saracens, Satanists, and others — bent the arms of the Latin cross downward to signify the crucifix broken.
In Germany, Life and Death Runes were used in newspaper obituaries, death notices, and on gravestones: The Life Rune by the date of the person’s birth and the Death Rune by the date of his passing.
The National-Socialists were inspired by the rune lore of their remote Germanic past, and they made use of the Life Rune and Death Rune in many aspects of their cultural life.
Runic emblems were also a prominent feature of National-Socialist military and civil service regalia. Among the runes used were the Tyr Rune (after the Norse god of war for whom Tuesday is named), the Sun Rune, and the Life Rune. The Life Rune was used to identify members of National-Socialist women’s associations, welfare workers, and medical personnel in a number of organizations.
The designers of the emblem conceived for the nuclear disarmament movement in the late 1950’s — later known as the “peace” symbol — were aware of the Death Rune context. They described their design as a highly stylized human being with arms only slightly raised from a downward position in an attitude of hopelessness: a gesture-of-despair motif. They knew it was of ancient origin and signified the death of man.
When asked how the Life Rune is related to the more familiar peace symbol, one can describe the relationship as one of opposites: the one is related to the other as up is related to down, as life is related to death. Like heads and tails on a coin, both are aspects of the same reality.
This, briefly, is the heritage of the Life Rune, used today as the symbol of the National Alliance, as well as of some groups in Europe.
The Life Rune is an ancient, sacred sign of our folk. It has had different aspects and meanings. Now it is up to us to give it yet a new one: to make it the emblem of White resurgence everywhere.
8/8/88: An Evening of Apocalyptic Delight interview:
Nikolas Schreck interviewed by Tom Metzger:
Christian Priest Bob Larson Interviews the Church of Satan (Zeena and Nikolas Schreck):
‘Showdown with Satanism’: Bob Larson Interviews the Temple of Set (Zeena and Nikolas Schreck again):
2012 radio interview:
“Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: I don’t see what the beef is with technology… Technology is not evil and technology does not make people weak. The people genetically, are already weak. They’re weak because of their genetics, they’re weak because of their morals.
Andrew Anglin: But that’s racist!
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: No, it’s not racist. Wow.
Andrew Anglin: Yes, it is racist. It is racist.
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: How is that racist? Man, that’s reality, dog.
Andrew Anglin: I’m hanging out with Philippinos, man. How are you gonna say that Philippinos are weak because of their genetics? And any Philippino who you give a cell phone to is gonna use it and they’re gonna start text-messaging and it’s gonna change their entire environment!
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: Okay. … Who has the power, Andre, who is it?
Andrew Anglin: I don’t know, man. When people have the capacity to abuse other people, they do it. So, I mean, what are we gonna do about that? … So I mean, I understand where you’re coming from with how all these people are Jews but I mean that’s just obvious because Jews are genetically bred to be more intelligent than everybody else. Of course they’re running everything. … I’ve had a lot of Jewish friends, man. They don’t have any divorced parents. They don’t have any of this shit. I mean, they have a much more intelligent way of running their lives. They’re smarter than us. … Do you think, that if somebody else had the capacity to do this, that they wouldn’t be doing it?
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: They’re not more intelligent.
Andrew Anglin: IQ, which is a fuckin racist concept, it’s bullshit, man. I know, it’s a racist concept. … But is this Jewish cult, is its purpose not just to defend itself? And is that not a logical purpose to have?
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: Defend itself from what? Who’s after it?
Andrew Anglin: Everybody’s after it, apparently!
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: Why? That’s what happens in cults. They get paranoid that everyone’s after them and they usually they create the situation for themselves. Now, why is everyone looking at the Jews? Well, because they look at everyone else as being subhuman, and they being God’s chosen. We’re Goyim, right?
Andrew Anglin: But people thought that before. When you go back, every tribe does that. … Jews are more capable of dealing with this shit. They obviously are. … I mean, Paul, I like you a lot. I don’t see why all of your shit has to be so fuckin’ angry!
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: You’ll be alright. (laughs)
Andrew Anglin: I’m alright. … How are we going to stop genetic engineering without a world government? I mean, we’re going to have to have a world government for everyone on the planet… If technology didn’t exist, would any of this be a problem? That’s what I’m asking you. Because it wasn’t for how many millions of years. It wasn’t a fuckin problem. We’ve got records of shit and people did not fuckin’ destroy themselves for so many millions of years. And now we’re in a situation where people are destroying themselves.
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: There’s nothing you can do to stop this shit. It has to happen. Technology is not the problem. If these people were decent and they actually were caring people they’d take responsibility-
Andrew Anglin: Well show me where people that happened in history. Show me when people that cared about other people were in charge of other people. It didn’t ever happen. Every single time you put some in charge of other people’s lives- … It’s not the Jews fault. That’s stupid to talk about how its the Jews fault…
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: It’s your fault, Andre.
Andrew Anglin: Okay, I’m going to go ahead and take a bathroom break okay? Is that cool? … Look man, I wanna support you. Cuz I don’t really give a fuck about any of the things we’re disagreeing about. I mean, whatever! Because, man, I mean, I know you’re for real. And I don’t know anybody else that’s for real so who else am I gonna be interested in talking to? But talking about 9/11 is non-sense. I mean, anybody that doesn’t get it by now? Jesus Christ. What more do we need, that we gotta keep talking about this shit for 15 fuckin years?! Every single one of these people is full of shit. I mean, that’s a really important point. There’s not one that we can point to. … But why should black people be forced into this system? They were never going to invent this system. Neither were Philipinos, neither were Malaysians. The only people who would have ever invented this system are white people and Chinese. So why should everyone else be forced into it. You see the way white people – and it IS white people – went around the whole world and FUCKED everybody and made them accept this shit: Christianity and money! That happened, man. I mean, that’s just a fact of history. … Like, Leave It To Beaver? That’s fake.
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: Why do you hate yourself so much, man? White people, man?
Andrew Anglin: I don’t hate myself. I mean, uh, obviously my race is powerful, uh, I guess. … I think we need more mixed races. Mixed races would be a positive progression for everyone. … I think the white race should be bred out. This is dangerous to have these people.
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: You can’t breed white people out.
Andrew Anglin: I think white people are dangerous! I think white people are dangerous!
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: Well you’re saying you’re dangerous then. White people can be dangerous but so can other people too.
Andrew Anglin: I’m only attracted to black girls, honestly.
Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore: When we talk about genetics, some white people might not like oriental. Well that’s cool. That’s their prerogative. It’s okay to be racist, man. In the sense of just having a preference.
Andrew Anglin: He thinks white people should all breed together? Well fuck that shit, man! That’s stupid! What I care about is human beings and the species, you know?”
– Iconoclast Radio Round Table with Lewka Peel & Paul Ironshore
Striking quotes from Anglin. After he was called out for them, he denied he made them, then tried to buy the copyright claim, then tried to sue to have the interview taken down[1, youtube]. This is strange for a man that has never praised anarchism once (to my knowledge) and who sets himself up as a cheerleader for Donald Trump, Adolf Hitler, Bennito Mussolini, and “total fascism” . Which is it, Anglin? Are all rulers horrible or are you with Fascists for Trump? Also, when did you decide you don’t like Christianity, technology, money, 9/11 truthers, etc? That’s news to us. Anglin also mentions that he was paranoid about being arrested by the Philippines authorities for some reason, during the interview.
If you don’t believe he’s attracted to black women, here’s a years back facebook post by Andrew:
Paul Ironshore is a snitch that has put several people away in federal prison. He hosts an online talk show that attempts to pin the woes of the modern world on white privilege. 
After the interview, Angelo John Gage, formerly of the National Youth Front, came to Andrew’s defense. “Anglin is getting harassed by this Lewka Peel guy,” Gage explained in an online chat with Scott Roberts and Mike Delaney. “But I got him to think straight.”
Angelo John Gage is an Italian immigrant to the United States, anti-immigration activist, U.S. Marine, and certified hypnotist and neurolinguistic programming practitioner. 
Several independent bloggers have posited that Anglin is Jewish and that there are minorities on the board of management at Daily Stormer (DS). After these comments started to appear on the DS itself, the DS disabled its comments section . This happened as many mainstream Jewish media sources also closed their online comments sections.
“I am going to have to start taking a much more aggressive stance toward some of the issues coming up. The main problem is people using the comments section to push their own personal agendas and to argue these agendas with others with personal agendas. This is not a blogspot where people who discuss these issues as a hobby can argue about esoteric details. The Daily Stormer is not a mystery-solving club. Overly intense debate and argument in the comments section can be confusing and off-putting to those who are new to this information,” said Anglin. “I have already said that I would not tolerate insults against Christ and Christianity in the comments section.”
Perhaps that’s why he deleted my comments exposing the Jewish origin of Christianity and how its teachings are thoroughly communist.
“Please do not tell me about censorship. If my logic for restricting speech does not make sense to you… then I can only advise that you find another website to post your comments on.”
With regards to 9/11, Anglin further states: “I distanced myself from John Friend last year over his fixation with various conspiracy theories which I find outrageous; I believe the promotion of this type of thinking is totally detrimental to the cause. I am regularly attacked by conspiracy theorists… And I don’t think it is right to let these comments stand without answering them, and explaining why they are wrong, as otherwise someone could come along and be drawn in by them. But I simply do not have it in me to make it my life’s work to argue with conspiracy theorists in the comments section.” Also, with regards to the comments section, “if you post a threat of violence, and the FBI knocks on my door and wants your IP address, I will give it to them.”
“The old comments will be back soon enough. We haven’t gotten to that yet, but we still have the database.”
You still have the database? Earlier you claimed that Jews had vindictively removed your Disqus rights. Is it just me, or don’t these claims contradict eachother?
With regard to the new comments system which Andrew replaced for the old one in 2015, Anglin says “Hail to Weev for setting this all up. Send him a shekel or three.”
Weev is Jewish. Interesting.
Further thoughts for your consideration:
Andrew Anglin often lives abroad in non-white majority countries. He used to work for the United Nations. 
Trump is a progressive Zionist. Trump supports the refugee program as well as Israel.
Anglin links to many crypto-Jews, presenting them as credible white people. An example is Stefan Molyneux. Like Molyneux, Anglin claims that his website is somehow “number 1” in the world, most popular (etc), a claim which can most certainly not be evidenced. Anglin’s sites are certainly not more popular than Mike Delaney’s sites, whom Andrew seems to be trying to impersonate.
Andrew’s father, Greg Anglin, is a councellor in Ohio. He’s a proud pedophile and says he’s definitely attracted to underage girls.  One of his clients, a 16 year old girl, allegedly killed herself after claiming sexual harassment by Greg Anglin. Many people have brought similar claims of sexual violations against Greg.  Andrew claims he used to have a 16 year old girlfriend in the U.S. before he lived in the the Philliphines. 
Anglin recently lied about getting into a fight with blacks. 
Andrew’s contact info:
Phone: 614 592 3565
Skype ID: hello.andre
United States address(s):
6827 N. High Street, Suite 121
357 E Tompkins St Columbus, OH
(1.) http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=584272&cmd=apop /
by Dr. William Luther Pierce
If you watch the news on television regularly, I’m sure you saw the huge get-together of so-called “Promise Keepers” in Washington: hundreds of thousands of mostly White men hugging each other, holding hands, and rocking back and forth with their eyes closed. Some of them were shaking and crying or singing and clapping their hands much like one used to see in an old-fashioned revival tent. I was fascinated by the phenomenon — and by the reaction of various elements to it.
The most interesting reaction was that of the feminist organizations. They clearly were worried. They did not like the idea of a large number of White males gathered together for any purpose. Some of the feminist commissars made cautious statements to the media. They expressed their concern about the Political Incorrectness of men getting together as men. They saw this as a very dangerous development. What if the all-male Promise Keepers, said to have nearly three million members, decided to use their numbers politically? Suppose they decided to back candidates for public office or to express their collective opinion on some matter of public policy. The very thought gave them the cold shivers.
On such matters as abortion for convenience the Promise Keepers, as a fundamentalist Christian group, do not share the views of the feminists. And the Promise Keepers disagree with the feminists on such matters as lesbianism and homosexuality in general — although, a lot of male homosexuals must have been looking with considerable interest at all of those men hugging each other.
The concerns of the feminists went beyond specific issues such as abortion for convenience and lesbianism, however. They were profoundly disturbed by the fact that the Promise Keepers were an unapproved group. It’s fine for Blacks to organize, or Jews, or homosexuals, or women, certainly, but heterosexual White men are the enemy. They’re not supposed to organize. They’re supposed to be kept disorganized, confused, and impotent, so that they can’t get in the way of “progress” and the march toward a New World Order.
But the more I learn about the Promise Keepers, the more I’m inclined to believe that they really won’t be much of an obstacle on the road to a New World Order. On the truly essential issues, they are already there. Consider race, for example. The founder of the group, Bill McCartney, used to be a football coach at the University of Colorado, where I got my doctorate, and his daughter used to love the Black players on his team. He seems to be proud of the fact that he now has two non-White grandchildren sired by different members of the team.
Although there are very few Blacks among the rank and file membership of Promise Keepers, it’s not from lack of trying on McCartney’s part. He has an affirmative action hiring program for his organization which has resulted in his office staff being fully one-third non-White. He has vigorously recruited non-White directors for the governing board of the group. At Promise Keepers rallies held anywhere near the Mexican border, he literally buses in thousands of mestizos to add “racial diversity” to the audiences. He talks about the meaninglessness of borders. His meetings often feature Jewish, Black and other non-White preachers, and he uses posters and banners picturing Whites and non-Whites together.
And he always plays the White racial guilt card. At a meeting of 30,000 men, nearly all of them White, held in the New Orleans Superdome last summer, McCartney complained about the lack of non-Whites in the audience. “Where are the men of color?” he asked. And then he continued, “I want to tell you why they’re not here. There’s a spirit of White racial superiority that exists in this nation. It’s an insensitivity to the pain of men of color. We have not been washing their feet. We have not been feeling their pain.” Whenever the opportunity presents itself, McCartney will get down on his knees, pull off the shoes of any Black within reach, and give a personal demonstration of foot-washing.
Now, it’s really not important whether one marches toward the New World Order with a copy of the Bible in one’s hand, or a copy of Das Kapital. It doesn’t matter whether one’s admission pass is signed by Jesus or by Karl Marx. I really hate to say bad things about anyone that the feminists don’t like, but the fact of the matter is that the Promise Keepers, on the basis of their racial doctrines alone, are a dangerous and destructive group.
Perhaps patriots should be grateful that the feminists have a new group to worry about and to contend with on social issues, but patriots should not let themselves be fooled into believing that Promise Keepers can be our allies, just because they are saying the right things on some issues: just because they condemn homosexuality, for example, or because they deplore the decay of the institution of family. They are so dead wrong on race that nothing else they say or do can possibly compensate for this.
Racial egalitarianism and the encouragement of racial mixing are not the only problems with the Promise Keepers. There’s something basically unhealthy about these people — I might almost say unmanly. When I watch a group of them doing their thing — holding hands and rocking back and forth with their eyes closed and praying aloud — I become distinctly uncomfortable. I mean, these are grown men. Why are they doing this? Is this religion? Or is it some sort of feel-good group therapy?
The whole thrust of the Promise Keepers’ doctrine bothers me, with its emphasis on guilt, confession, self-flagellation, submission, and the washing of Black feet. I realize that there are different currents in Christianity which have come to the fore at different periods in history, but there’s something distinctly un-White, something essentially Levantine rather than European, about the current in the Promise Keepers’ doctrine. I really don’t like this soft and weepy “forgive me, oh Lord, for I am a sinner” approach to the problems we are facing as a race when what’s needed is the vigorous use of a whip to drive the destructive and unhealthy elements out of our society.
Even if we had to deal only with the problem of trying to repair the damage which has been done to the American family and oppose the feminists who are largely responsible for that damage, and even if we had to deal with this problem in a Christian manner, we wouldn’t need the Mother Theresa approach of the Promise Keepers; we would need instead a much firmer approach. I believe the situation we are in calls for the attitude of the 13th-century papal legate who was asked by a military leader attacking a city in southern France — a city which was a stronghold of heretics — how his soldiers could tell who was a heretic and who was not. The papal legate answered simply: “Kill them all. God will sort them out.”
I don’t believe that we need to take a religious approach at all to fixing America. However, when dealing with radical feminists, I do believe that the proper approach is closer to that of the papal legate in 13th-century France than it is to that of Mother Theresa. They are an incurably sick bunch.
There’s something else that bothers me about the Promise Keepers. It’s the style as well the content of their doctrine. Let me go back to what I mentioned a minute ago about their penchant for holding hands and weeping and confessing their sins to strangers in big meetings. These things are not just incidental or peripheral. The men in Promise Keepers are told that this sort of behavior is not only acceptable, but it is necessary. It is a constant at their meetings. It is the central feature.
What this reminds me of more than anything else is so-called “sensitivity training,” a brainwashing technique that is very effective with a certain type of person with a weak sense of personal identity, a low level of self-esteem, and a strong need for group acceptance. It is a technique that can be used very effectively to change many people’s ideas and behavior. The Communists mastered the technique back in the 1920s and 1930s and used it on a huge scale. The public confessions they obtained with the method are notorious. Today the U.S. government and many businesses use the technique to force White people to change their attitudes on racial matters. Cults also use the technique to control the thinking of their members. It makes zombies of people: the right sort of people, that is, people who are susceptible to the technique.
I am alarmed by the fact that there are so many of our people who are susceptible. This is a time which demands strength from us. The problems we are facing require every bit of manliness we can muster. Among the attributes of a man are a sense of personal dignity, of self-worth, and of self-reliance. This is true of a White man whether he is a Christian or not. The sort of self-abasement we see at every meeting of Promise Keepers is contrary to our concept of manhood. It is much more in accord with the feminists’ idea of what a man should be like: weepy and submissive.
We live in an unnatural environment these days which is confusing to our instincts, whether we are men or women. Most boys, in particular, are not raised in a way which naturally strengthens and develops the manly virtues. Boys raised on a farm a century ago were given work to do from the time they could walk. Everyone was expected to pull his own weight. This helped a boy develop a sense of self-worth and self-reliance. And boys learned from a close working association with their fathers what was expected of a man. This association all too often is absent today and in nearly all cases is greatly attenuated in comparison to what it used to be. In very few families today does a boy have an opportunity to do any meaningful work with his father.
On top of this is a Politically Correct educational system which makes things much worse by de-emphasizing everything which used to contribute to a boy’s sense of identity and to help him acquire a strong set of standards and values. Take a close look sometime at the old McGuffey’s Readers, which were used 100 years ago to teach young Americans in our elementary schools how to read and to build their vocabulary and sense of style while strengthening their understanding of grammar and the rules of spelling. Nearly every story also taught a moral lesson, beginning with very simple lessons, of the sort found in Aesop’s fables, and progressing to stories which illustrated and praised the virtues of courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. Personal dignity too. Many of the stories were based on historical incidents, ranging from Roman times to the American Revolution. By the time a boy had progressed through the whole series of readers and finished elementary school he had been exposed to dozens of historical role models and had developed a strong sense of identity: that is, a historical sense of who his people were and what they were like, what they had gone through during their history, what their values were, and what they believed. And he had acquired at least a rudimentary concept of personal honor. He might still grow up to be a crook or a bum, but at least he knew the difference between honorable and dishonorable behavior.
Now, of course, to modern educators the McGuffey Readers are intolerably racist and sexist. The values they teach are European values, White values, and that just won’t do in a multiracial society. The concept of proper behavior is one thing for Europeans and something quite different for Africans or Chinese. The same objection is raised against the historical lessons. Why should boys learn from anecdotes about Romans or Germans instead of Zulus and Ubangis? And to teach boys bravery and chivalry really gets the feminists steamed. So the McGuffey Readers and everything like them were tossed out long ago, our schools have become what they are today, and it is no wonder that a great many of the young men who pass through them are confused and disoriented — not to mention the young women.
Then, there is the effect of the modern entertainment media, primarily television. I won’t even get into that. Let it suffice to say that many of the problems in our society the Promise Keepers talk about are real problems, and they need to be dealt with. But the men who are attracted to the Promise Keepers also have problems — personal problems — and those problems need to be dealt with too, but not in the way the Promise Keepers or any of the other cults deal with the personal problems of the people they attract. These personal problems, these personal weaknesses, which have arisen because of flaws which have developed in our society — in our life-styles, our educational system, our mass media — are exploited by the cults to win converts. The cults depend on these weaknesses, and they are much more interested in taking advantage of them than in curing them.
Which is to say that when the Promise Keepers encounter a man whose sense of manly propriety and manly dignity has gone so awry that he is attracted, rather than repulsed, by the spectacle of other men hugging each other in public, confessing their “sins” to each other, and looking for Black men whose feet they can wash, the Promise Keepers encourage him to join and do these things himself, rather than trying to help him get a grip on himself and behave the way a man should behave.
This is a fundamental flaw that all cults have. They attract people who have serious personal problems, and in order to do that they encourage and exacerbate these problems rather than trying to cure them. Some cults become quite large and quite strong by this strategy and are even able to achieve certain goals using their flawed members. But I find this whole cult strategy extremely distasteful.
One of the goals of the Promise Keepers is strengthening the American family, but I’m dubious about their prospects for success in the long run. It becomes a case of the blind trying to lead the blind. It becomes a case of the more seriously flawed men in our society setting out to cure the problems which contributed to their flaws. If we are to cure what’s wrong with the American family, then we need men with a strong sense of identity and self-worth, men who know who they are and what they want, to tackle the problem. We need self-reliant men, not men who are attracted to a cult like a moth to a candle.
One of the unfortunate things about life in America at the end of the 20th century is that we’ll be seeing a lot more of cults in the next few years, cults of all sorts. As American society continues to unravel, more and more men and women will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold to, grasping for something which promises to give them the sense of security and certainty which they so desperately need.
But the solution to our problems, the cure for our ailing society, will not come from these cults: certainly not from a cult which encourages White men to wash the feet of Black men and whose leader boasts of his mixed-race grandchildren. We can only have a healthy society again by solving the problems of life-style, education, and mass media.
We can only have a healthy society and healthy families again when we are able to return to the sort of life-style which allows children to work together with their parents and learn from their parents — boys from their fathers and girls from their mothers — and when our educational system has shaken off the last trace of Political Correctness, and our entertainment media, as well as our news media, have been taken out of the hands of Jews.
This does not mean that we must return to the past and all grow up on farms like we did a century ago and all read McGuffey’s Readers in school. But it does mean that we must restore to our lives the essential elements from our past which allowed us to be healthy then, and we must get rid of the unhealthy elements and influences which have taken their place. And when we have done that we will have many fewer of the sort of people who look for solutions to their personal problems in cults. It will be a long and difficult task, and we’d better get started soon.
Contemporary thinker Gregory Hood notes that: Denial of the Holocaust was held to be far more sinful by Benedict XVI than the Jews’ denial of Jesus Christ as Savior.
They laugh at the silly story about Adam and his spare rib, but they continue to believe in a “human race” descended from a single pair of ancestors and hence in a “brotherhood of man.” They speak of “all mankind,” giving to the term an unctuous and mystic meaning with which they do not invest corresponding terms.
– REVILO P. OLIVER, ‘WESTERN MAN MUST ASSERT HIMSELF OR PERISH’, 1979