Apr 14, 2015

Republican Candidates Jockey for Favor of Jewish Money Man

via DavidDuke.com

DavidDuke.com Editor's Note: The following two articles are examples of how Zio the Republican presidential hopefuls have become.

Lindsay Graham stated on CBS’s Face the Nation that every Republican candidate except Rand Paul would have negotiated a “better deal” with Iran (read “started a war with Iran”) than President Obama. He even conceded that his erstwhile nemesis Hillary Clinton would have negotiated a better deal. Meanwhile, Rick Perry has made it clear that his campaign will center on the deal, stately unequivocally that one of the first things he will do if elected will be to scrap it. 

The Republican hopefuls are jockeying for position ahead of the first in the nation primary — the Sheldon Adelson primary. 


Graham: Anyone but Rand Paul could get better Iran deal


South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that nearly anyone, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, could negotiate a better nuclear deal with Iran than the current framework the Obama administration was able to secure.

Anyone, that is, except his fellow Republican, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

“Is there a better deal to be had? I think so. What I would suggest is if you can’t get there with this deal is to keep the interim deal in place, allow a new president in 2017, Democrat or Republican, to take a crack at the Iranian nuclear program,” Graham said in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “The best deal I think comes with a new president. Hillary Clinton would do better. I think everybody on our side except maybe Rand Paul could do better.”

He argued the current framework is “the best deal Barack Obama could get with the Iranians because they don’t fear nor do they respect him and our allies in the region don’t trust the president.”

Graham is among the many Republicans who has said he is exploring a run for president in 2016. Rand Paul is also a likely entrant in the 2016 GOP presidential primary.

The president sought to head off critics in Congress like Graham when he hailed the framework of the deal in a Rose Garden address last week.

“When you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: do you really think this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers, is a worse option than another war in the Middle East?” he said.
Graham said he “doesn’t buy that for one minute.”

“It’s the best deal he could get but the question is, is Barack Obama the best person to deal with the Iranians given his miserable foreign policy failure? Does anybody really believe the Iranians will take the billions of dollars that we’re about to give them and build hospitals and schools?” he said. “I believe there’s a better deal. I don’t want a war, but at the end of the day I don’t want to give Iran the tools and the capability to continue to destroy the Mideast and one day destroy us by building bigger missiles and until they say they will not destroy the state of Israel, until they stop their provocative behavior, I think we’d be nuts to give them more money and more capability.”

He was also critical of the Bush administration, saying it was a “miserable failure” at reigning in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Graham argued that the real success story is congressional sanctions, which brought Iran to the negotiating table.

Like many other lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, Graham said Congress should have to approve the deal. He says he is willing to give the administration until June to write the final agreement, but after that, “I insist that Congress review the deal, debate and vote on it before the deal becomes final.”

In his view, Congress should continue with sanctions that have been in place during the interim deal, but wait to lift any more until there is “the best opportunity to get the best result.”

“Require Iran to change its behavior stop destroying the Mideast, stop bringing down governments one after another, stop chanting death to America, death to Israel, then when they change their behavior, allow the new president without the baggage of Barack Obama see if they can negotiate a good deal,” Graham said.


Texas Governor Rick Perry hasn’t yet said whether he’s running for president, yet he will announce Monday that if he wins the White House he intends to trash President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement  with Iran as one of his first official acts.

Perry will give what his staff is calling a major speech on national security at the Citadel in South Carolina Monday. In advance of the speech, Perry talked with reporters about his views on Obama’s and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy and what he would do to change it. He said atop his agenda is getting rid of the deal that the Obama administration is negotiating with the Iranian regime, a framework for which was announced last week.

“Should I run for president, and be so fortunate to be elected, one of my first actions in office would be to invalidate the president’s Iran agreement, which jeopardizes the safety and security of the free world,” Perry will say in his speech, according to an advance copy of his remarks.

Perry insists that contrary to Obama’s claims, the deal enables rather than prevents a nuclear Iran, and will further destabilize the Middle East by creating a regional competition for nuclear weapons: “He says it prevents a nuclear Iran. Just the opposite, this agreement enables it. And no agreement is better than a bad agreement.”

I asked Perry what he would do as president after scuttling the deal. With no agreement, no negotiations and no inspections on Iran’s many nuclear facilities, how would a President Perry propose to stop Iran from getting the bomb?

He said he would seek to further cripple Iran’s economy, undermine the Iranian regime by increasing support for its internal opposition, and then rely on military strikes to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary. “The message needs to be: As soon as that election result comes in November of 2016, any agreement between the president of the United States and the Ayatollah is a worthless piece of paper,” he said.

The U.S. should then work with Israel and America’s Arab allies to increase pressure on Iran’s economy,  he said, with airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a last resort. “The Israelis have dealt with this twice, to take out their ability to use their nuclear facilities, and that certainly is an option that needs to be on the table,” he said.

Perry’s comments put him squarely in line with the letter to Iran’s leaders penned by freshman Senator Tom Cotton last month and signed by 47 Republican Senators, which warned that any deal Iran signs with the Obama administration won’t last past Obama’s presidency.

By pledging to end the deal, Perry is going further than some of his potential 2016 GOP rivals such as Jeb Bush, who have criticized the deal but not said exactly what they would do about it if elected. “Nothing in the deal described by the administration this afternoon would justify lifting U.S. and international sanctions, which were the product of many years of bipartisan effort,” Bush said last week. “I cannot stand behind such a flawed agreement.”

There can be no real progress with Iran so long as that country continues exporting terrorism and oppressing its own people, Perry told reporters on Monday’s conference call. He said the U.S. should sell crude oil on the international market to further cripple the Iranian economy. He said there should be a more expansive covert program to support Iranian dissidents and opposition to the ayatollahs and the Iranian regime.
In his call with reporters, Perry harshly criticized Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and said that she shares responsibility for Obama’s foreign-policy failures. “She’s either going to have to stand up and say ‘I was a complete and utter failure as Secretary of State,’ or she’s going to have to take ownership of these issues,” Perry said. “I think you are going to find a secretary of state who is going to be looked upon as a failure.”

Perry said Clinton did not stand up for Israel while she was a top cabinet official: “Our oldest friend and most vibrant democracy in the Middle East, Israel, is being put in jeopardy and she was part of that.”

The Metaphysics of Indo-European Tripartition, Part 5: Tripartition & the Gunas

via Counter-Currents

1. The Emergence of the Gunas from Brahman

We are obviously dealing with three principles which manifest themselves in different forms. These principles have the status of Platonic ideas: transcendent forms which we may approach through their various expressions in the world. But can we express the three principles in the abstract?

The most obvious place to look is to the Indo-European philosophical and mystical traditions. Here we are in luck, for there is much to draw on. As you might expect, the Indian tradition is the richest source. The ancient Aryans explicitly recognized and discussed exactly what I have argued for in this paper: that all things exhibit the same tripartite structure.

What I am referring to specifically is the ancient doctrine of the gunas. Guna means something like “quality,” and it may also have meant “part of a whole.” Guna thus is the same concept referred to in German philosophy as a “moment.” A moment is a part of a whole separable only in thought. The gunas are three moments of Being, which we may talk about separately, but which cannot actually exist in separation.

The gunas originate out of Brahman, which is the Absolute or Transcendent Immensity existing beyond all creation. I understand Brahman as the “ground of Being.” What is the ground against which existence or creation itself becomes present? This is Brahman. For this reason, it is sometimes spoken of as nothingness. Brahman is indeed no-thing, but it is an actual nothingness: it must be actual in order to be the ground against which the figure of creation appears.

Through the power of Maya or Illusion, movement appears in this transcendent immensity of nothingness. This movement has, of necessity, three and only three forms: centripetal, centrifugal, and revolving (movement around in one place). As Alain Danielou points out, “this triad pervades all things and appears in all aspects of the universe, physical as well as conceptual.”[1]

2. Sattva, Tamas, and Rajas 

The centripetal force of attraction creates cohesion, or coming together. The Hindus call it Sattva or “existence,” for all existence is a coming together or holding together. Sattva is thus the principle of oneness, having a binding or preserving function. It is pictured as light, and as the Sun. It is associated with intelligence, and with dream. It should be obvious that this is the first of the Indo-European functions. Sattva is embodied in the god Vishnu, the “all-pervader.”

The centrifugal force is the opposite of Sattva. It is not a force of attraction, but of repulsion. It is not a force of cohesion, but of dispersion, annihilation, and return into the Immensity. It prevents concentration. This force is called Tamas, darkness or inertia. Tamas is obscurity, because where there is dispersion there is dispersion of energy, and hence the absence of light. Accordingly, because of this association with chaos, darkness, and dis-unity, it is the third function. The god Rudra embodies Tamas. He is also called Shiva, the destroyer and lord of sleep. Tamas or Shiva is thought to be the inner nature of all things, since all things arise out of disintegration, only then to disintegrate themselves. Like Sattva, Tamas is associated with sleep, only this time it is dreamless sleep — a sleep without form or image.

The balance of Sattva and Tamas gives rise to a third, Rajas. In cosmology, this is the revolving, circular motion (which, incidentally, the Greeks associated with perfection). Rajas means “activity.” It is the source of all the different forms and kinds in creation. All rhythmic motion — the type of motion exhibited by life — comes from Rajas. Unlike Sattva and Tamas, Rajas is not linked with sleep, but with waking awareness. Sattva is associated with form or intelligence, Tamas with mass or matter, and Rajas with energy. These associations correspond closely to Paracelsus’s sulphur, salt, and mercury. Interestingly, Rajas is thought to be embodied in Brahma, which is the nominative, masculine singular of Brahman: i.e., the personification of Brahman. Rajas is obviously the Indo-European second function.

Danielou notes that, “One or the other of the three tendencies predominates in each sort of thing, in each kind of being.”[2] We saw this in human beings, in the tendency of some men to be rational or spiritual, others spirited, and others appetitive. Precisely this doctrine of human types is to be found in Tantric psychology. According to Tantra, men belong to Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Only the former two are fit to take up spiritual practices.

3. The Divya, Vira, and Pashu 

The Tamas (third function) man is called Pashu, which means “animal.” Pashu comes from “pac,” to bind. The Pashu is bound by animal urges — hunger, sex, comfort, greed — as well as by social convention. (This is, by the way, precisely how the Greeks regarded the appetitive man: they saw him as more of an animal; as not fully human.) Tantrism holds that in the present age, which is called the Kali Yuga, the Pashu type predominates.

The Sattva (first function) man is called Divya, a “divine being.” Like the Pashu, he is in some sense not human, because he is more than human. This man follows an inner path, detaching himself from the world. The Divya is very rare in the Kali Yuga.
The Rajas (second function) man is called Vira. This word comes from the Indo-European root vir- from which we get the words virile and virtue. The vira is a fully actualized human being: a manly, heroic being. There are right hand viras and left hand viras. The right hand vira is heroic but uncritical. He fights for ideals he has barely examined, and puts himself in the service of authority which he never questions. In fact, with the right hand vira, submission to authority and the unthinking performance of duty are considered supreme virtues.

The left hand vira may begin in this state, but, like the Divya, he follows an inner path. He may be compared to the Chinese Taoist ideal of the “scholar warrior.” Julius Evola writes, “Ascending from lower levels to higher, viras are subject to increasingly fewer limitations and ties.”[3] The vira reaches a point beyond good and evil, where he becomes autonomous in the literal sense of giving a law unto himself. The ideal for the left-hand vira, and thus the human ideal as such, is independence, self-sufficiency, wholeness, and detachment. These are characteristics we find again in the Greek tradition, in Aristotle’s concept of God, the Unmoved Mover. The ideal man for Aristotle, approaches as close as possible to the qualities of the Unmoved Mover. In Tantra, the ideal man is he who most fully embodies Brahma, the embodiment of Rajas.

The fact that the word “virtue” is derived from the same root as vira is very significant. First of all, it suggests an unexpected connection between virility and virtue, or between masculinity and virtue. The obvious conclusion to draw is that the ancients regarded the virtues as masculine attainments. This is confirmed if we turn to Aristotle. The Greek word normally translated into the Latin virtue is arete, which is perhaps best translated as “excellence.” In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the nature of the virtuous man, and nowhere relates his observations to woman. Furthermore, Aristotle conceives of virtue as a mean between two extremes. For example, courage is a mean between cowardice and rashness. The Indian vira — who, I have argued, is the mesomorphic, somatotonic warrior type — is a kind of mean between the divya and the pashu. Indeed, whatever is analogous to the Indo-European second function occupies a middle position between the other two functions. If we look at a list of Aristotle’s virtues, his means between extremes, it amounts to a description of the vira. My suspicion is that the two extremes opposed to the mean will also consistently describe the characteristics of the divya and the pashu.

Those in whom Tamas predominates, the Pashus, worship ghosts and spirits (Bhuta and Preta). Those in whom Sattva predominates, the Divyas, worship Deva. Those in whom Rajas predominates, the viras, worship genii (Yaksha), and the anti-gods (Asura). This last fact is exceedingly interesting, for the term Asura is cognate with Old Norse aesir, which is the name of the group of principle first and second function gods in the Germanic tradition: Odin, Thor, Tyr, etc.

According to Tantra, Tamas is actually the path to enlightenment. But despite the fact that he is a creature of Tamas, the Pashu cannot take advantage of it. Tamas is annihilation and disunity. Recall that it is also associated with deep, dreamless sleep. The way to enlightenment, to the realization of the ultimate ground of all things, the transcendent Immensity of Brahman, is through annihilation of multiplicity. On the plane of action, the vira annihilates with his sword. The left hand vira turns this power inward, and annihilates the play of multiplicity within his own soul. He attempts to achieve a state like that of dreamless sleep, only in a waking state, within his control. Hence the use of meditation, and practices designed to achieve total mastery over the body, such as the various forms of yoga and martial arts.

But both the external world of things and the internal world of thoughts and images has been constituted out of Sattva, the centripetal force. Anything that goes contrary to Sattva goes contrary to the world itself, and to the creator’s intention. “The aim of any creator is to prevent a realization which would destroy his creation,” Danielou notes. “This is why [it is said that] ‘the Soul [the Atman, the true self] is not within the reach of the weak.’ It has to be conquered by going against all the forces of nature, all the laws of creation.”[4] Thus, he who seeks enlightenment must become a warrior against all of creation, indeed against the gods themselves. This is why the man most suited to the quest for enlightenment must be the man who answers to the description of the left-hand vira – at least this is the case in the Kali Yuga.

Notes

[1] Alain Danielou, The Myths and Gods of India (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1991), 22.
[2] Ibid., 27.
[3] Julius Evola, The Yoga of Power, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1992), 55.
[4] Danielou, 33.

Homosexual Militancy, Sexual Licence, & the Undermining of Traditional Values

via Western Spring

The deplorable decision by the National Union of Teachers under their General Secretary, Christine Blower, to demand that any incoming government should compel teachers to extol the virtues of homosexuality highlights the almost total victory of neo-Marxist “political correctness”.  In case there was ever any doubt about Miss Blower’s Marxist credentials we can note, that before becoming NUT boss in 2009, she stood as a candidate for the extremist ‘London “Socialist” Alliance’ in 2000; obtaining a derisory 1.6% of the vote.

In tackling the highly sensitive issue of homosexuality one is immediately aware of the taboos put upon the subject by an oppressive and all pervasive “liberal” clique; taboos which discourage any clear thinking or frank discussion. Indeed, it’s one of life’s ironies that the more sexually liberated we’ve become in theory, the more constrained our thinking has become in practice. Whereas, in happier times homosexuality wasn’t a problem for the vast majority of the population, nowadays, like propaganda for racial miscegenation, homosexuality has been constantly thrown in our faces and has obsessively penetrated into the heart of Western consciousness.

Even though homosexuality isn’t an obvious problem for the average family, our prurient mass-media ensures that no man woman or child is ever left innocent of the subject. It is now de rigueur for every television “soap” to have a homosexual intrigue running through part of its story line. And of course the theme is eagerly taken up by a scurrilous press, a press which having abandoned all pretence at serious or objective reporting takes refuge in the banalities of TV scriptwriters. Even the supposedly more cerebral newspapers are not immune. In fact ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Independent’ have become virtual house journals for the homosexual lobby.

In their desperate attempt to normalise the abnormal our militant neo-Marxists of the intolerant “liberal” press are past masters at selective reporting. Any academic study which dismisses our fundamental identity as heterosexual beings is presented to the readership as holy writ, alternatively, any academic study which claims that our sexuality is socially constructed rather than a natural biological disposition will be lauded, and by contrast any studies to the contrary, which doubt the general efficacy of sexual licence (assuming such studies are able to receive university funding in the first place) are either belittled or ignored.

1941382_286512528165129_1407889019_oHowever, the onslaught against natural order isn’t confined to the championing of homosexual men. As the reader will be well aware, a whole new industry has gathered pace since the 1960’s with the express intention of attacking the soft underbelly of our culture by undermining the assumptions upon which each healthy individual and every healthy society has always dwelt. Our neo-Marxist enemy has invented the L.G.B.T. phenomena with a whole army of, ” Homophobic”, the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender” militants eager to promote their ’cause’.

Writing in the ‘I’, sister paper to ‘The Independent’, an L.G.B.T. apologist, Emily Dugan explained how according to a new Cambridge University study, conservative parenting assumptions have been challenged. She says the study found that children brought up by two mothers, two fathers or single parents fare no worse than those from traditional families. Not surprisingly, the Cambridge study was compiled by a feminist academic, Professor Susan Golembok. With breathtaking chutzpah she wrote … “Whether children have one parent or two, whether their parents are male or female, whether their parents are of the same sex or the opposite sex, and whether they have been conceived naturally or through assisted reproduction, seems to matter less to children than the quality of family relations, the support of their community and the prevailing attitudes of the society in which they live.”

The preponderance of Jewish feminists, especially in American academia, is pronounced. The first female American rabbi to be ordained made her name through a lesbian interpretation of the ‘Book of Ruth’. She is Rebecca Alpert who despite bearing two children divorced her husband before entering into a lesbian partnership in 1986.
The pernicious influence and religious sanctification of lesbianism reached nightmare proportions however in October 2013 with a report in The New Observer. It was revealed that a “married” lesbian couple, Pauline Morena and Debra Lobel, a “marriage” sanctified by a local rabbi in Berkeley, California, had adopted an eleven year old gentile boy and brainwashed him into accepting the idea of hormone therapy in order facilitate a sex change operation later in his life.  To quote from The New Observer… “The “mommies” actually claim it was young Thomas’s idea to become a girl…If they can be believed, Thomas allegedly of his own initiative favoured headbands to baseball hats and picked out bras and dresses to start wearing when given a choice of clothing. Thomas is set to start hormone blocking treatment to stop him going through puberty as a boy, and has now been renamed Tammy”.

Freud

By gnawing away at the most sensitive spot possible, our personal sexual experience, the political enemies of Western culture and civilization have succeeded in immobilising our spirit in much the same way as a jujitsu practitioner would paralyse an opponent by pressing his finger on a pressure nerve. The Victorians had the good sense to treat sexual matters with a certain amount of reserve. However, Sigmund Freud, made famous by his grandson’s advertising of “Pal” dog meat on commercial television, changed all this in the early half of the twentieth century. Sigmund Freud, who could be classed as a pioneer of deconstructivism, asserted that all Art, Music, Literature and human love could be explained away as no more than a sublimated form of sexuality. In other words, the mystery and magic of existence was reduced to that of a bodily function!

Naturally, Freud and his fellow deconstructivists wouldn’t have been able to get a toe hold in their attempt to destroy Western norms if sexual matters were simple. Despite a significant down side, which we have no need to dwell upon here, many homosexuals as individuals can be both charming and gifted, so one is often tempted to regard them more with compassion than disdain.

The American, Alfred Kinsey, perhaps the most renowned psychologist after Freud to analyse sexual behaviour, came up with a scale in 1948 which categorized individuals from one to six (known as the Kinsey scale) according to how inclined they were towards homosexual behaviour. As Kinsey put it … “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexuals and homosexuals. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats…The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects”. Despite Kinsey’s ostensible good intentions, here we can detect a strong subversive tendency undermining nature’s intended sexual role model. Having said that, it would be disingenuous for us to ignore the fact that we harbour elements of the opposite sex within ourselves.

For example, a man has nipples which can still form part of his erogenous zone. Likewise, although body hair is more predominant in a man it can still be regarded as a sexually attractive feature in a woman; this is despite unnatural fashions generated from America! Indeed it has been claimed by many psychologists that in addition to the obvious joy found in sexual differences it’s the twenty percent male in women and the twenty percent female in men which helps the two sexes to communicate more thoroughly. Furthermore, it is said that it’s precisely where the ratio varies that sexual problems begin to occur.

In their doomed quest for normalcy homosexual proselytizers are always keen to claim distinguished historical figures for their own. Great Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo have often been targeted on the flimsiest of evidence. However, with his lush paintings of pouting youths it’s probably true to say Caravaggio’s was a homosexual.Two distinguished and highly popular, twentieth century musical playwrights were the quintessential Englishman, Noel Coward, and the Welshman, Ivor Novello. Yet in an age of “don’t ask, don’t tell” they were able to sublimate their homosexuality into tender, often sentimental, yet passionate heterosexual romance. When Noel Coward wrote:

“I’ll follow my secret heart
My whole life through
I’ll keep all my dreams apart
Till one comes true
No matter what price is paid
What stars may fade above
I’ll follow my secret heart
Till I find love”.

He was expressing the inner torment of a lonely homosexual. Yet for all the world this talented man had transcribed his feelings into a heterosexual theme. This of course is as it should be. When asked about his private life he refused to divulge, saying no more than, “There are still a few old ladies in Worthing who don’t know.”The extent to which homosexuality is genetically determined and the extent to which it is acquired through social conditioning, the perennial nature/nurture question, will always be subject to endless debate. The reality is that both nature and nurture play their part, with the weaker souls more vulnerable to deleterious, outside influences. An example of this is illustrated by the increased percentage of younger, self proclaimed, homosexuals found in the population at large, compared to the percentage of homosexuals amongst the older generations, as attitudes have become increasingly “liberalised” through the maladroit influence of the mass-media.

According to a 2012 survey of 180,000 British adults 1.8% men admitted to being homosexual or bi-sexual and 1.2% of women admitted to being lesbian or bi-sexual. However, if we look at the different age groups 2.6% of those under 24 admitted to being homosexual, bi-sexual or lesbian, whilst only 1% of those over 50 admitted the same.

It can also be seen that there are strong regional variations. The breakdown into geographical regions makes fascinating reading with East Anglia having the lowest numbers of homosexuals at 1% of the whole, and London the highest with 2.5%. Just out of interest we can compare London’s comparatively modest percentage with that of the notorious homosexual ‘Mecca’, San Francisco, which boasts 15.4%. Rio de Janeiro comes a close second, by the way, with 14.3% and it is no coincidence of course that San Francisco has a proportion of Aids carriers which is proportionately six times greater than that of Britain as a whole!

Thought to have originated from the human consumption of chimpanzee meat, what started as a mystery virus was first detected in the Congo in 1959, but it wasn’t until the late 1970’s and early 80’s that serious concern occurred, following reports of rare types of pneumonia, cancer and other illnesses affecting homosexuals in Los Angeles and New York. As the effect of the illness was to break down the immune system, health officials begun to describe it as an “acquired immunodeficiency syndrome”, or “Aids”. In those days, before neo-Marxist “political correctness” had gained quite such a stranglehold on public discourse, the Chief Constable of Manchester, James Anderton, was able to describe Aids victims as … “Swirling about in a human cesspit of their own making.”

Since then we’ve seen a concerted effort by our government and health authorities to avoid any moral censure at all, despite Aids’ unfortunate association with some of the more squalid forms of human existence.

To some extent the avoidance of moral censure is understandable. While a slow terrifying death might be acceptable in Iran, Somalia or Saudi Arabia, where homosexual acts frequently incur the death penalty, amongst British people only the most fanatical “fire and brimstone” zealot could ever wish to see such a cruel fate inflicted on any fellow mortal. By avoiding moral censure it was assumed that homosexuals or drug addicts would not feel daunted when seeking medical assistance and so by coming forward help prevent the spread of Aids.

Unforeseen by the general public, a consequence of such moral neutrality has been an unprecedented breakdown of all sensitive constraints on sexual morality or normal behaviour. Our society is in a dire state of moral confusion. Conflicting messages abound; on the one hand there is what sometimes amounts to a witch hunt against suspected paedophiles, on the other hand five year old children are encouraged by the fashion industry to dress up as tarts and teenage girls routinely asked to pull a condom over a manikin’s penis as part of their sex education lesson in school.

Homosexuality 1

One of the wonders of the modern World has been the orchestrated legislation of what is euphemistically called “same sex marriage”. What surer way to devalue true marriage and healthy family life than to reduce it to such an absurdity? How could any normal heterosexual couple ever again feel any sense of fulfilment in marriage once they know that the institution has been so defiled?

Those who doubt any alleged conspiracy to destroy civilisation might just ponder at the speed and thoroughness with which homosexual “marriage” has been instituted across he globe. It would stretch human credibility too far to claim that legislation for homosexual marriage was enacted in countries as diverse as Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark (2012), France (2013), New Zealand (2013), and of course our own United Kingdom (2014) as a result of popular grass-roots demand! The list goes on. Naturally, our po-faced hypocrite of a Prime Minister added his comedy piece by announcing that he didn’t support “Gay” marriage despite being a Conservative but because he was a Conservative. In fact what ever else we may call David Cameron, his duplicity and willingness to insult the public intelligence ensures him his place as a true “heir to Blair”.

One of the most insidious aspects of the homosexual controversy is the way it has been framed, by the enemies of normalcy and natural order, as a dual between enlightened secular liberals and religious obscurantists. The implication being that amongst our own folk only Christians might have a legitimate objection to homosexuality: Christians, emasculated by their own liberalism have thus become an Aunt Sally to be attacked with impunity.

Taken with a degree of circumspection, an altogether more scientifically principled objection to the promotion of homosexuality as normal can be found in the writing of British psychologist, Raymond Cattell, who takes a somewhat extreme view when attacking the aridity of rationalism for divorcing sexual activity from procreation. In his seminal book, ‘Beyondism – A New Morality from Science’ he quotes Aristotle as saying, “Nature never makes anything superfluous”… and goes on, “Any separation of satisfaction from functionality is sheer suicide”.

Cattell makes the interesting point, which would implicate the dysgenic effects of pornography, as well as all forms of non-procreative sexual abnormality, when he tells us that biologists have started to use a chemical sex stimulant which creates a false sense of sexual satisfaction as an ingenious way of wiping out insect pests. Perhaps we should take warning!

Lies, Immigration, and the American Nation

via Theden

One of the lines that crops up again and again in debates about immigration is that America itself is a nation of immigrants. The implication, of course, is that in halting or throttling back on immigration, contemporary Americans would be in some sense engaging in hypocrisy. They would be pulling up the ladder behind them, changing the rules of the game while they are in the lead. It’s an attempt to morally shame opponents of “immigration reform.”

Of course, the idea that America is a nation of immigrants doesn’t pass logical muster. The original Americans were colonists and settlers—not immigrants. They had various entanglements and conflicts with the nations that already existed on this continent, but they didn’t immigrate into in any of them. On the contrary, they built their own nation, over the course of centuries, bringing with them the customs and institutions and mores of Europe but also originating many of their own in the New World. The new nation that they and their descendants brought forth on this continent was just that: a new nation. They built a homeland for in the wilderness, for themselves and their posterity.

This is all perfectly commonsensical and obvious, of course. But the weird vicissitudes of our contemporary discourse sometimes require that we reiterate even plain truths.

The other sense in which the “nation of immigrants” line distorts reality is by giving the impression that our current approach to immigration is a historical norm for us. That, too, is a lie. While it’s true that America has (with various peaks, troughs, and the occasional moratorium) allowed immigration throughout most of its history, the current pattern of mass, Third World immigration is actually new under our sun. It is a recent, post-60s phenomenon, as the Insightful Interaction graph below illustrates:

N.B.: This graph only reflects legal immigration, so it understates the number of recent arrivals from south of the border

As you can see, the differences between immigration prior to World War II and immigration postwar are stark. There was no point, for instance, before the 1900s that the majority of immigrants to America were not Europeans. (It ought to be pointed out that this pattern was no accident. Our founding fathers—displaying a retrograde xenophoba that would no doubt scandalize the colorblind Constitutional conservatives who pay them lip service today—wanted all immigrants to be “free white persons” who could demonstrate “good character.”) Would-be citizens were arriving on our shores from different countries, of course, but they were almost uniformly European, possessing a far higher degree of shared historical, religious, even linguistic heritage than our current crop, who now arrive from every inhabited continent on the planet.

In other words, the unique character of contemporary immigration is that we are actively importing a whole menagerie of religions, races, worldviews, political traditions, languages, etc. And we are doing so at the same that that we have given up all pretense of asking anyone to assimilate to the American way of life. (Even when immigrants had a certain degree of shared history, assimilation was not always smooth sailing.) We are no longer attempting to reconcile just Swedes and Italians and Germans to one another and to our host culture, we are throwing Congolese, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, and Guatemalans into the mix as well. There is hardly a more perfect recipe for Balkanization, ethnic conflict, and plummeting social trust.

On top of all this, the historical American people are still suffering from a sub-replacement birthrate. Much has been said about the fact that white Americans are set become a minority in the country of their forefathers by 2040 or so. Less has been said about the fact that, for our youngest cohorts, minority status is more or less a done deal.

Only a dogmatic liberal, still dreaming of the perfect mosaic of their multicultural Utopia, would look at this state of affairs and foresee a bright future. The historical American nation is declining on the one hand and being displaced by border crossings and “refugees” and work visas on the other. The threat to America is not just present but existential. The assertion that America is a nation of immigrants is a lie on any number of grounds. The fact that it is often used to justify our ongoing inundation makes it seem like a malicious one.

On Jewish Privilege and the 'Dictator Mentality'

via The Occidental Observer

It’s been noted previously at TOO that Jews are happy to be considered White when they benefit from it. Historically, Jewish efforts at crypsis and gaining acceptance among Whites were pursued in order to obtain significant political, social, educational, and economic benefits.[1] Efforts at being seen as White have varied over the course of millennia. Some of the earliest efforts involved abandoning phenotypic characteristics that marked them out as a very distinct population, and which provoked White hostility. Since the Enlightenment in particular, there has been a powerful trend towards abandoning special Jewish languages, modes of dress, styles of hair, and ways of dressing. Even in modern times, rhinoplasty, or nose reshaping, has been so common among Jewish female teens that Tablet argued it was at one point a Jewish “rite of passage” that fell “somewhere between their Bat Mitzvahs and their wedding.” Aside from alterations to outward appearance and behavior, prior to emancipation the Jews of Europe often saw conversion to Christianity as a meal-ticket to mass acceptance, and with it admission to the franchise, political office and commercial opportunities. These “conversions of convenience” were hardly sincere, but were sufficient for Whites to admit Jews into the ranks of their society. A major part of the Jewish evolutionary strategy is therefore the penetration of White society, assisted by the adoption of the outward appearance of conforming to White norms, thereby enabling the untroubled transfer of resources from Whites to the cryptic Jewish population.

The Jewish evolutionary strategy is also adaptive and responsive to cultural and demographic change, and humans more generally are “flexible strategizers” in pursuit of evolutionary goals.[2] Jews in particular have employed countless strategies involving crypsis in their bid to combat hostility from Whites and other ethnic groups. They have been assisted in this by their above-average IQ, and related talents in general purpose cognitive processes — enabling them to constantly adapt, shift and change posture in response to novel situations. One of the simplest and most basic of these strategies is what has been called the “shell game of Jewish identity.”[3] This is the game where Jews will describe themselves primarily as either an ethnic group or a religion, depending on the angle of the attacks, or the nature of the disabilities, they face. New contexts demand the need for new “games.” American demographics are shifting ever faster against Whites, and Leftist dogma has taken on a life of its own within some of the new minorities — on occasion quite apart from Jewish intellectual influence. In the new context, Jews are seen by minorities as too phenotypically and culturally similar to Whites to escape the accusation that, even if not White, they have enjoyed the fruits of that social unicorn, “White Privilege.”

The new context has thus demanded of Jews that they play a new game whereby they adopt and abandon ‘Whiteness’ on an ad hoc basis. An excellent example of this was the Jewish journalistic response to the hacks at Sony, which revealed that Jewish Hollywood executives harbored views considered by the Left to be racist and enjoyed salaries and power far in excess of others. Almost every piece of coverage on these leaks ignored the Jewish background of the people concerned, described them universally as ‘White,’ and drew instead on tropes about White privilege and White racism. In these contexts it was beneficial to Jews to throw a veil of Whiteness over clear-cut instances of Jewish power and influence, and to keep the story gravitating around the alleged innate evil of Whites. The tactic of representing a non-White as White in order to demonize those of European origin was also sufficiently flexible for it to be employed with mixed success in the Trayvon Martin fiasco, when some media outlets gave the impression that the ethnically diffuse George Zimmerman was a veritable pure-blood descendent of the Pilgrim Fathers.

With the “Whiteness” shell-game in mind, this week I’ve been observing a noticeable, but far from mainstream, debate that has broken out over the Jewish relationship to ‘White privilege.’ A very small number of liberal Jews have vocalized that they are indeed part of a privileged group, even employing the term “Jewish privilege.” They have been confronted by a vocal majority which resists even having the debate. The main argument of the majority is that conceding the existence of “Jewish privilege” will leave them open to “anti-Semites” who will “use the term as a way to claim that Jews control the world.” A noticeable trend within denunciations of efforts to acknowledge any privilege enjoyed by Jews is the employment of the Holocaust as an argument-ender. For example, Jewish blogger Taffy Brodesser-Akner has countered any notion of Jewish privilege with her retort that:

Privilege has two meanings: One is that those who are privileged are elevated somehow. The other is that they are different. I renounce the notion that Jews—Jews, being told to stay home from their synagogues for their safety, Jews being kept out of schools and ridiculed in the street, all this, right now in Europe—have the first kind of privilege. But the second, we have it in droves: It is my Jewish privilege to have very few blood relatives because the rest of them were murdered in the Holocaust. … It is my Jewish privilege that the word lampshade makes me cringe, that the word camp—camp!—makes me cringe. It is my privilege to always wonder what I should have been doing differently, how I am a disgrace to the martyrs of the Holocaust because my outrage and sadness is confined to my Direct Messages.

Examined in detail, Brodesser-Akner’s remarks contain a litany of Jewish anxieties, cultural relics, myths, self-pity, and self-deception. At bottom, the argument is that no such thing as ‘Jewish privilege’ can exist because Jews are the quintessential victim — and a blameless one at that. The comment unapologetically ignores the pre-eminent position of Jews in all reasonable contemporary assessments and scales of social, political, and economic success. The situation of Jews in Europe is presented spontaneously, with no explanation, and certainly no reference to the fact that Islamists are fuelled by what they see as a multitude of Israeli ‘privileges.’ Jews, and their putative suffering, are believed to be too unique for them to be seen as enjoying special benefits in modern society. It’s the means by which Jews pragmatically drop the White mask, and aim to position themselves as part of the coalition of victim minorities.

This adaptation to the new context, and specifically the invocation of the Holocaust as a facilitating device, has been employed before. Last year Jewish Princeton student Tal Fortgang responded to the campus minority emphasis on “checking privilege” with a lengthy reference to:
the privilege my grandfather and his brother had to flee their home as teenagers when the Nazis invaded Poland, leaving their mother and five younger siblings behind, running and running until they reached a Displaced Persons camp in Siberia, where they would do years of hard labor in the bitter cold until World War II ended. Maybe it was the privilege my grandfather had of taking on the local Rabbi’s work in that DP camp, telling him that the spiritual leader shouldn’t do hard work, but should save his energy to pass Jewish tradition along to those who might survive. Perhaps it was the privilege my great-grandmother and those five great-aunts and uncles I never knew had of being shot into an open grave outside their hometown. Maybe that’s my privilege.
This is evidence not only that young Jews continue to see persecution as the lynchpin of their identity and position in society, but also that this mind-set enables a stunning level of self-deception when it comes to acknowledging Jewish elite status in contemporary America. Samuel Freedman correctly pointed out that Fortgang “clutches the memory of loss and struggle. He does not seem to accept the existence of inherited advantage.” Even for some of those Jews who are convinced about the evils of White privilege, the invocation of past victimhood, real or imagined, is just too noticeably evasive. Phoebe Maltz Bovy states that:
It’s entirely possible for a Jew whose relatives were killed in the Holocaust to benefit from certain aspects of (for lack of a better term) white privilege. That the Nazis wouldn’t have considered you white doesn’t mean that store clerks, taxi drivers, prospective employers, and others in the contemporary United States won’t accord you the unearned advantages white people, Jewish and otherwise, enjoy. That your ancestors were victims of genocide in a different place and at a different time doesn’t mean you can’t be part of the victimizing caste in your own society, any more than having had impoverished forbears means that you can’t have been born into money.
This provoked a gut reaction from many Jews, among them the ever-eloquent Rosanne Barr who linked to the comment on Twitter with the refrain: “This is complete bullshit. Sickening bullshit.” Barr contributes a visceral example of what is the far from uncommon innate intestinal reaction Jews have to even remote recognitions of their power, wealth, and influence in the West. In some instances, efforts to avoid connections to ‘White privilege’ have been laughable to say the least. Take the comments of Seth Frantzman, who has argued, apparently with a straight face, that Jews cannot enjoy ‘White privilege’ because this makes the “racist assumption that all Jews are white. However, there are hundreds of thousands of black Jews and Jews of color in the U.S. and Israel.”

The pathetically small Ethiopian Jewish community is thus wheeled out for a lap of honor every time Ashkenazi Jews wish to play “religion” in the Jewish identity shell-game. The whole issue of privilege descends further into farce with Frantzman’s claim that Jews surely have less privilege than African-Americans because Blacks have failed to “acknowledge their very own privilege of having not been targeted for extermination.”

Of course, one of the reasons Jews fight so hard to deny complicity with White culture is that they genuinely see themselves as different, and resent White culture as fundamentally anathema to everything they are. Their desire to reap the rewards of being seen by us as ‘one of us,’ doesn’t obviate this hatred. The Holocaust-fixated Taffy Brodesser-Akner remarks:
We know inherently that we’re not part of the establishment, that we are surrounded by ourselves in certain enclaves, but mostly that this particular tradition comes from the fact that know we are believed to be disgusting, and we know we can calm everyone right down by letting them know we know that. That’s not a privilege. That’s a nightmare of self-loathing. And yet, it is somehow our birthright. We do not speak up now. We didn’t speak up then. We might have to look ourselves in the mirror and say, yes, we stand idly by, and we would have as our relatives were being sent off to the gas chambers back then.
Brodesser-Akner is being more than a little disingenuous here. I might agree with her insinuation that Jews are not a part of White society, but they are definitely a greatly and disproportionately influential part of “the establishment.” In fact, in spheres of public influence like Hollywood, and in terms of funding political parties, Jews are the establishment. Jews want to cling to victimized minority status while simultaneously disguising their own ethnic interests and masquerading as Whites when it suits them.

This display of identity gymnastics necessitates getting around the reality that Jews occupy astonishing levels of power and wealth, and are in many senses the most privileged ethnic group in America. Haaretz reports that Jews “are better off economically than other ethnic or religious groups. … A survey by the Jewish Federations of North America in 2001 found that 34 percent of Jewish households reported an annual income of more than $75,000, compared to only 17 percent of all U.S. households…A Pew survey in 2009 that compared incomes by religion illustrates these differences even further. According to that survey, 46 percent of American Jews had household incomes of more than $100,000, and 12 percent take in $75,000–$99,000 a year. Only 18 percent of U.S. households had incomes of more than $100,000, and an additional 13 percent showed incomes of $75,000–$99,000.” Jews have ensured the continuance of this privilege by, among other practices, discriminating against other ethnicities in Ivy League admissions. A quick survey of hits for “Jewish Privilege” reveals that the Holocaust, and an allegedly persistent anti-Semitic threat, is by some margin the favored option for Jews questioned about these facts. Jews want to derive benefits from Whites, but remain fundamentally suspicious of them. Benjy Cannon at Haaretz has argued that “our Jewish history should remind us every day that we’re perpetually at risk of being on the wrong side of white elitism.”

This balance between occupying so much power, and yet being so crippled by gut-wrenching paranoia, brings to mind the psychology of dictators. Indeed, in The Political Economy of Dictatorship Ronald Wintrobe argues that “the most likely personality characteristic of dictators is paranoia.”[4] The dictatorship model, seen in a group context, may also provide a suitable lens through which to examine Jewish privilege and political behavior. Wintrobe argues that successful dictators solve the balance between power and paranoia (“the Dictator’s Dilemma”) by discovering or institutionalizing programs or mechanisms that:
  • Promote competition among other powerful groups in the country (divide and rule).
  • ‘automatically’ reward their supporters and monitor their support.
  • Fund these reward programs, sometimes via the systematic oppression of the opposition.
Jews have certainly been at the forefront of fomenting a spirit of competition between groups in societies they have occupied. Among ethnically homogenous societies, Jews have gravitated strongly towards, or pioneered, social movements which sought to fragment those societies along several lines, including class (Marxism) and gender (Feminism), and which sought to generate new conflicts. In the 1960s, 96 percent of American Jews backed President Kennedy’s steps to enforce the end of segregation in the South — a socio-political barrier which had reduced inter-ethnic conflict and competition in the region. More recently, Jews have been at the forefront of creating new fractures within nations by pushing for multiculturalism and the introduction of new ethnic groups that Whites have been forced to compete with, often with the newcomers having the benefit of affirmative action policies. Jews also do extremely well in terms of rewarding their supporters and monitoring both support and dissent. I’ve previously covered the rewards enjoyed by John Hagee, a seemingly inexhaustible supporter of Jews and Israel, and it’s a recurring TOO theme that the war on Whites is massively incentivized. Jews have also pioneered organizations of repression such as the ADL and the SPLC, and have been at the forefront of moves to limit free speech and place restrictions on the Internet.

Whites have been ‘privileged’ to suffer at the hands of all these measures. In conclusion, it might be worth stating, in the vein of Brodesser-Akner, that White privilege is:
  • The privilege of witnessing the fast and probably irrecoverable numerical decline of your people, even in their ancient homelands.
  • The privilege of having your ancestors, who essentially pushed (and in some cases dragged) mankind forward for centuries, slandered and their achievements demeaned.
  • The privilege of being discriminated against in Ivy League admissions, and through various ‘Affirmative Action’ programs.
  • The privilege of having your children indoctrinated with the belief that they are responsible for an endless and sometimes imagined list of historical evils.
  • The privilege of being labelled a supremacist, or other pejoratives, should you choose to publicly object to the assault on the demographic health of your people, its safety, its traditions, its cultural treasures, and its community and family structure.
  • The privilege of being one of the 400,000 poor White South Africans living in squatter camps because you have no hope of getting employment, or one of the 30,000 White South African farmers who were murdered, driven out, or expelled from the country during the last two decades.
  • The privilege of being one of the 25% of Swedish women who will be raped by Muslim immigrants.
Of course, I could go on. But perhaps the most biting insult of all is simply that the term “White privilege” should even exist. By contrast, I suspect it won’t be long before asking a Jew to check his privilege will be declared a ‘hate crime.’

[1] K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1st Books, 219).
[2] Ibid, 213.
[3] M. Neumann, ‘What is anti-Semitism?’ in The Politics of Anti-Semitism, 2003, 1.
[4] R. Wintrobe, The Political Economy of Dictatorship, 335.

Where the White Women at?

via TradYouth

Get Rid Of Slimy girlS!
Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer has become the most active and popular pro-white website, much to the chagrin of the “respectable” paleocon leadership of America’s White Nationalist movement. This development is in part because Anglin’s a talented and prolific polemicist, but it’s also because his political theory is superior to his colleagues’. While they’re wasting time and energy in futile attempts to win the respect of an establishment which despises them and eternally belabor the point that we’re factually correct on our key considerations, Anglin’s speaking directly to alienated and frustrated young white men who don’t care to look “normal,” wouldn’t want this system’s “respectability,” and take delight in triggering each and every taboo that the old guard so studiously works to tip-toe around.

There’s utility in projects like VDare, NPI, and AmRen, and I support all those projects, but they’re actually less relevant and politically impactful than sites like Daily Stormer, precisely because they speak to comfortable and respectable bourgeois whites. Comfortable and respectable folks who will anxiously scurry off at the first sign of aggressive or confrontational language aren’t where revolutions foment. The popular idea that we should focus on influence and entryism instead of developing radical dissident subcultures, given the tactical situation of White identity in North America, is almost certainly the worst and most stupid idea to ever plague this movement notorious for its bad ideas.

We need more angry young men, not more ‘race realist’ pensioners.

And I say “men” advisedly, as women, young and old alike, are neither designed nor inclined to develop or encourage politically aggressive subcultures. Women tend to prefer compassion and compromise over conflict, albeit social or physical. Women tend to tag along with the herd rather than staking out their own course. Women tend to be more sensitive to safety and security considerations, with a general attitude of risk-aversion. Women tend to think in terms of people and details rather than abstractions and ideals.

All of these general inclinations make for superior nurturers, superior community organizers, and superior secretaries. But they also make for counter-productive and corrupting distractions from the development of radical subcultures if they’re allowed to set the tone, guide the conversation, or steer the decision-making process.

Women are absolutely equal to men in value for our communities and for our cause. They’re complementary halves of our racial whole, and we should strive to respect them, protect them, and go out of our way to put their energy and talent to use for our survival. But Anglin’s correct on a fundamental point: Our work is implicitly male at this stage and we can’t afford to waste time trying to make it more comfortable for or inclusive of women. Predictably, he goes astray in his application of this point for the same reason Anglin always misses the mark, because his approach is ultimately secular, modern, and biologically reductionist.

In the general framework of Radical Traditionalism, more specifically within the Christian Traditionalist framework, a dynamic has been developed wherein men are trusted and expected to lead in political matters while women are afforded complementary opportunities which are every bit as vital to our long-range success. Simply borrowing from the “manosphere” and its groupthink to arrive at our approach to gender relations is as toxic as imbibing the implicitly feminist and egalitarian approach to gender relations which secular women who happen to be pro-white generally expect. A synthesis of insights from tradition, from the manosphere, and from the small but growing number of complementary feminine traditionalist projects is necessary, one which discards both the feminization of contemporary Christianity and the misogynist resentment of MRA culture.

We could use more white girls supporting our projects and standing with our men, but we can’t and won’t achieve that by catering to them, propping up tokens, or watering down our message to make it more female-friendly. There’s a small contingent of white girls who are genuinely willing to marry and support men who have chosen a life of conflict with the system and sacrifices for the cause, but the drummer from Def Leppard can count them on his fingers. Being a political soldier in today’s environment is pretty much antithetical to being an ideal mate for most women. You’re not going to be “settled,” you’re not going to be financially secure, you’re not going to be respected by mass society.

Women in our scenes should stop nagging about the relative lack of “suitable” mates, because the problem can’t be resolved to their satisfaction at this time. The system systematically degrades, humiliates, and marginalizes the men who stand up against it. All things being equal, judging matters objectively, young women looking for a mate will be able to find a more settled and suitable mate outside of our subcultures. And that’s fine. Go.

The few who are willing to make that sacrifice because they value the political soldier’s courage and commitment to the cause over material comfort deserve a great deal of gratitude and respect not only from their partners but from the entire dissident subculture, but the women who aren’t willing to make that sacrifice have a duty to stop complaining about the situation and go marry any one of the numerous men out there who quietly agree with our positions while refusing to make a public stand.

At a certain point, several years from now at the least, our dissident subcultures will hopefully develop to a critical mass point where women can have their cake and eat it too, finding mates who are settled and capable of offering them a comfortable life, while also enjoying high social status. Until that happens, things will carry on like they’re carrying on now, with pro-white men complaining that not a single pro-white woman will have them and pro-white women complaining that none of the dozens of men who will have them are up to their standards. That’s okay. Not all men could or should reproduce, and they should actively avoid marriage to women who insist on dropping their dissident work as a precondition for courtship.

Reproducing is important, but our political work is more important than marriage if the two are to be juxtaposed, as they typically are. The man who heroically sacrifices himself so that white families can thrive is more needful and necessary at this point in our struggle than a man who has and raises children. Both are important work, but the implicitly feminine and biological reductionist attitude that we must all breed and must make whatever compromises we need to make in order to breed must be rejected. The men who perished at Thermopylae made a greater contribution to the replication of their genome than the men who stayed behind with their wives.

Personally, I don’t believe that implicitly male spaces like Daily Stormer should disrespect white women or drive them out. It’s not necessary or constructive. All they need to do is confidently and consistently remain implicitly male in their leadership, focus, and rhetoric. Websites aren’t tantamount to war rooms or initiatic leadership circles, and I believe Anglin’s recent aggressively misogynist effort to drive women off is unnecessary and less than honorable. Plenty of women enjoy and constructively participate in implicitly male spaces. From time to time, women will come along who insist on making the space implicitly female, and they can be ignored or driven off on a case-by-case basis.

There’s an important and operative difference between confidently asserting one’s masculinity and one’s implicitly male spaces…and disrespecting or degrading what’s female and feminine. Women are good for much more than making sandwiches and babies, and some of the most talented and dedicated advocates I’ve worked with over the years have been women. In fact, it’s not uncommon for them to have more physical and social courage than the average white guy. White girls are, love it or hate it, generally more assertive and less submissive than non-white girls, and we can’t simply borrow an Oriental approach to gender relations because our women aren’t Oriental.

Implicitly male spaces rather than explicitly male spaces or explicitly gender neutral spaces are vital for the success of our dissident subcultures, as the risk-affinity, boldness, and social courage expected in those circles will naturally attract two kinds of women who are critical to our success; women who are seeking to be helpmeets of men with high status in those dissident circles and women who can and will thrive in and contribute to an implicitly male environment. While the mere presence of women does categorically entail that some women will test those boundaries, the answer is to strengthen the boundaries, not to drive off all the women. After all, even if you drive out all the women, there are more than enough men who are risk-averse, easily taboo-triggered, and mortified by the prospect that somebody, somewhere, might give them the stink eye at the water cooler if they find out he believes his people have a right to exist.

The Ideology of United Russia

via Radix

Recently, a delegation from the United Russia ruling party came by my university to give a talk about their platform. Seeing as we are a “liberal arts college” they didn’t get a warm reception. But to those who were willing to listen, one could learn a lot. Let's start from the top.

Is United Russia Conservative?

Most people, if prompted to answer where they believe United Russia fits on the political spectrum would say that the group is conservative. But according to Huntington’s definition of conservatism, United Russia cannot be considered conservative. Huntington’s thesis is that conservatism can only be a purely situational rather than ideational ideology—a defense of any existing institutions against fundamental challenge. In other words, conservatism is a knee-jerk reaction to whatever trend of progressivism is alive and well at the time, without an all-encompassing idea at its core. The United Russia party openly agrees with Huntington’s analysis and instead considers itself traditional as opposed to “conservative”.

However, can it be said that UR is even traditionalist? According to the party ideology, and the presentation by the representatives, UR is firmly wedded to many key concepts of modernity and the liberal project. In fact, UR considers itself the only force that can save classical liberalism from itself, a strange claim for a party that considers itself “traditional.”

They claim the title of defenders of real liberal values which they claim are now dead. From a conceptual point of view, this seems to be a either a convenient escape from logic or perhaps a different understanding of the term “traditional.” Perhaps there is a new understanding of traditionalism that is defined by UR as being “diet liberalism” or “liberalism lite” that makes it more palatable to the Russian public.

The Individual vs “The Persona”

One of the more interesting ideas advanced by UR is the concept of a “persona,” not an individual. They make the point that a “person is realized only in the context of society not as a disembodied individual. Mass culture is creating a culture of individual consumers,” United Russia says, and here they have a point. At least in the West, the United States has embarked on a project following the end of the Second World War and arguably even earlier, to transform the American citizen into the American consumer. United Russia asks the hypothetical about what the future will look like, “when we are all interchangeable consumers, when all identity is relative, when we can sell everything that we own as a culture to transnationals. Whether this is the future of disembodied individualism that we want…”

Their criticism of modern consumer culture extends to the ideas of modern liberalism as well. Neoliberalism as a model they say, is one that is not needed in Russia, and that we have to learn from the cultural suicide of the West. They came out swinging against neo-liberalism saying that, “neoliberals say you will win if you sell out, and they to convince you to be willing to sell everything, all in favor of economics. Replace everyone with Vietnamese if you want efficiency. This is the end goal of the neo-liberal model, and we believe that it is an insane experiment; rather all social experiments must be grounded in history.”

Surprisingly enough, they made an argument about the need for multiculturalism, but not in the way that most progressives would consider. If a country has a right to self-determinism, then what can we say about neo-liberalism, “when it is involved in the colonization of traditional cultures?”

A Case against Democracy

It would seem that United Russia does not believe in democracy as the highest governing principle of a state. They did not come right out and say it, but I believe the interpretation is correct, if one is wililing to read between the lines of the rhetoric. For example, one of the representatives of United Russia said that, “democracy can be manipulated, like a retard; special interest groups can derail the entire project, what is more important is the narod.” This draws obvious parallels with the German idea of the volk. They continue: “Democracies can become easily manipulated by transnational corporations, foreign NGOs, or corrosive ideals.” United Russia makes the point, (take it as you will) that they are not against the idea of democracy categorically, rather, “what United Russia is against, is the manipulation of identity… in the name of any ideology that is alien to that people.” A criticism of democracy is hard to find in the modern world, where the idea of popular government has trumped all others in debates about the nature of government, but it seems that United Russia is making the case for a national project not necessarily based on democratic values.

Religion and Tradition

When asked how many people in attendance actually were practicing Orthodox Christians, only a smattering of people actually raised their hands. This is fairly typical among the youth of most developed countries, and it seems to be a valid criticism to point out that among the population at large, religiosity is not that common. Therefor a party that is basing its appeal on “traditional values rooted in Orthodoxy,” seems to be only appealing to the minority of faithful in an otherwise post-communist country. The counter to this point, that I personally found convincing, is that the question is not necessarily one of religious practice (going to church every Sunday) or even faith (blasphemy I know), but rather self-identity. They make the comparison to China, still ostensibly Communist, but which has people who have the Chinese and Confucian values and realize the value of traditional religion to their self-identity-like. No one could say that the average Chinese does not realize that he is Chinese first and communist second. This is not a unique phenomenon, and Russians, just like the Chinese, need a self-identity grounded in history and tradition.

A Unique Take on the Recent History of Russia

People thought synergy between countries would continue, but this was not the case as the United States decided to pursue hegemony and rifts developed between the SCO countries. To put in perspective the loss incurred by Russia, Ukraine took 60% of the industry with it during the breakup of the Soviet Union, as well as 50 million citizens. The rift between Ukraine and Russia has in fact been called a “tragic development” by both Putin and his party on several occasions.

Interestingly enough, they seemed very well read on Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” making the point that the split in Ukraine has been predicted for a while now and that this entire crisis is about deciding what Russia is in the post-soviet world. However, on the important questions, such as what Russia's future looks like in the 21st century, their stance is unclear. Almost as opaque are the answers of United Russia about the border question.

When I asked about Russia’s boundaries, the answer was not what I expected.
The representatives said, “For now, Russia’s boundaries, but boundaries change. It is not to say that we want to fight for new ones, but further integration is possible. Take Kazakhstan as an example. We cannot wage wars to expand markets, but further synchronization with Kazakhstan and the other 'stans' is possible."

When pressed about Ukraine, however, there was a lot of dodging, and roundabout answers. It was only when they were pressed further by the audience that they finally gave out the party line. “We support federalization of Ukraine with greater independence for the Lughansk and Donetsk oblasts.” No mention of Novorossiya, of independence, of possible integration with Russia, nothing. Here they toed the party line very carefully, but that does not mean that they may not have other convictions privately.

A Critic

A student stood up and asked a long and impassioned question about economic opportunity. She mentioned how she did not feel that she could have a career here as a student of politics and with opinions that run contrary to the ruling regime. She said that she was planning to leave for the West soon, and seek self-realization there. I will let the United Russia answer stand on its own here. Their appeal to the idea of the narod and the common folk is clear here, and so is their refusal to backpedal.

“Conservatism needs a structure of realization, just like liberalism, and if you want to immigrate away and realize yourself in another country, you are in a minority. Most people can’t do that, it is only people with a certain level of prosperity and income independence that have that option available to them. We need to care about the people that don’t have that option first and foremost.”

This quote more than any other I believe, highlights who United Russia’s voter base is, and who it tries to focus its appeal to. Needless to say, it is not the liberal intelligentsia of the university crowd.

Tove Lo's Tragic Tune and the Destruction of the Feminine

via Alternative Right

While a recent discovery to this writer, the Swedish singer Tove Lo obviously has a significant fanbase, one that likely extends throughout the world. The two top results on YouTube for her song, Habits (Stay High) have been viewed 107 million times, and 199 million times respectively. While certainly a compelling song, the tune's lyrical content is emblematic of the destruction of the sexes that the institutional Left has accomplished in the last century or so.

The despairing ennui that seems to be a significant part of millennial culture is immediately apparent in the opening lyrics. The song speaks of being overstimulated and bored and desperately seeking any sort of meaning to life, much like the recovering sex addict anti-hero of Chuck Palahniuk's early novel, Choke:
"I eat my dinner in my bathtub
Then I go to sex clubs
Watching freaky people gettin' it on
It doesn't make me nervous
If anything I’m restless
Yeah, I've been around and I've seen it all"
Our sultry songstress nods to the decadence of our age in the next few verses, and again touches upon the gnawing emptiness that seems to permeate so many people these days, people who bought fully into the notions of "liberation" that the Left has offered over the last century:
"I get home I got the munchies
Binge on all my Twinkies
Throw up in the tub
Then I go to sleep
And I drank up all my money
Dazed and kinda lonely"
We hit the chorus next, in which we discover all of this is an attempt to forget an unspecified 'someone.' Although, judging from the video cut, in which the lovely Lo is seen drunkenly kissing people of both sexes, sometimes separately, sometimes together, in a display of polymorphous perversity, who this 'someone' actually is remains hard to nail down:
"You’re gone and I gotta stay high all the time
To keep you off my mind
Spend my days locked in a haze
Trying to forget you babe
I fall back down
Gotta stay high all my life
To forget I’m missing you"
Next we catch this broken shard of modernity seeking out other broken shards, namely divorced men, spending visitation time with their kids: 
"Pick up daddies at the playground
How I spend my day time
Loosen up the frown,
Make them feel alive
Oh, make it fast and greasy
I’m numb and way too easy"
That sexual liberation that she's been sold on sure does seem to be making her happy. That last line is a real clincher. Finally, Lo expresses the infantilization of society discussed by the likes of Hans Herman-Hoppe and others:
"Staying in my play pretend
Where the fun ain’t got no end
Can’t go home alone again
Need someone to numb the pain"
While her pain is seemingly heartfelt, Lo is nothing more than the accumulation of distortions caused by feminism's destruction of the feminine, overseen by that odd combination of capitalism and Marxism that characterizes the modern world. As many have remarked, the rise of the manosphere and other movements seem to be a direct response to this fallout. 
With the recent ruckus regarding a comparison between a Swedish feminist and a very feminine Swedish nationalist, it appears that, even though the destruction of the feminine is still underway, a countervailing current is beginning to run the other way, perhaps best embodied by Evola’s thoughts on the roles of the sexes:
"We cannot ask ourselves whether 'woman' is superior to man or inferior to 'man' any more than we can ask ourselves whether water is superior or inferior to fire...There can be no doubt that a woman who is perfectly woman is superior to a man who is imperfectly man…"

The Noah Shoah

via Age of Treason

On March 30th Trevor Noah was named as Jon Liebowitz’s replacement as host of The Daily Show. Jews immediately began swarming and screeching in protest.

By the next day the editorial staff at The Hollywood Reporter announced, Trevor Noah Criticized as Anti-Semitic Due to Twitter History, and laid out a handful of old twits as pretext for the screeching.

The “jokes” in Noah’s twits come across as ridiculously mild, especially in comparison to the kind of toxic mockery regularly aimed at Whites, whether on The Daily Show or in the broader corporate jewsmedia. In fact, though THR only vaguely identifies “the internet” as the source of the complaining about Noah, it is the broader corporate jewsmedia which has led and amplified the controversy from the get-go.

On the 30th, the day the Noah announcement was made, David Steinberg at the PJ Tatler wrote Trevor Noah and His Anti-Semitic Tweets. That same day Jamie Weinstein at The Daily Caller asked, Is New ‘Daily Show’ Host Trevor Noah Anti-Israel? The main point in both cases was to simply echo and add their screech to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article.

The next day, the 31st, Dave Itzkoff at the Jew York Times cited Weinstein’s article in Comedy Central Stands Behind Trevor Noah, New ‘Daily Show’ Host, Amid Scrutiny. Itzkoff also quoted Abraham Foxman, national director of the jews’ Anti-Defamation League, who acknowledged that comedians “poke fun at stereotypes” and “push the envelope of political correctness” but urged Noah not to target “jews, other minorities and women”. The logical implication of Foxman’s stereotypically jewy double-talk: White men are the only legitimate, non-offensive target.

Also on the 31st Alyssa Rosenberg at the Washington Post wrote How Trevor Noah can save his tenure at ‘The Daily Show’ before it starts. Rosenberg cited Itzkoff’s article and described the screeching as stemming from “material that targeted jewish women, heavier women, jews and Israel”. Rosenberg’s stereotypical jewish advice was that Noah should apologize to and surround himself with advisors like herself.
Also on the 31st Spencer Kornhaber and James Hamblin at The Atlantic wrote Trevor Noah Meets the Outrage Internet. Queer jew Kornhaber explains his outrage:
[a Noah twit] in May of 2014 indulges some not-s0-helpful thoughts about Jews controlling the world, but actually is almost a punchline, at least. The older stuff is just such a fascinating glimpse at what makes bad humor bad—the idea that you’re doing something exciting by saying something offensive, when really you’re just outing yourself as a deeply unoriginal thinker who has a tragically commonplace obsession with Jews. Or you’re outing yourself as the stereotype of a frat-bro when it comes to attitudes toward women.
Like Rosenberg, Kornhaber tells Noah what he should do:
He should explain the thinking behind some of those jokes and whether he still holds to that thinking. He should probably offer an apology.
Also on the 31st came a broader glop of jewcentricity from Phoebe Maltz Bovy at The Jew Republic: Trevor Noah’s Tweets Show Anti-Jewish Humor No Longer Acceptable. Bovy noted that Noah is a quarter-jew and pointed out the significance of this to jews, implying that most of the jews who were screeching must not have realized.

Perhaps the most hysterical reaction came via Blabbermouth reporting on an interview on Voice of Israel. Disturbed’s David Draiman Slams New ‘Daily Show’ Host Trevor Noah Over Twitter Jokes About Jews:
“You know, I’d love to have this mamzer [a Hebrew word referring to a person born of certain forbidden relationships] go ahead and call me on to his show. If he wants to go ahead and be a funny guy, go ahead. Have me on your show. Go ahead and start spewing anti-Semitic or Jewish jokes while I’m on your show. Somebody’s gonna end up in the hospital and somebody’s gonna end up in jail, and I’ll give you three guesses who that’s going to be.”
Asked how it could be that a public figure like Noah could “spout anti-Semitic rhetoric” to the world, Draiman responded: “I think that anti-Semitism has become fashionable. I think it’s become acceptable in a lot of people’s eyes.”
He continued: “The media continues to spin the State of Israel and Jews as war-mongering, evil people, which we are not. I think that it’s become something that, where people used to quickly rise to condemn it, they more and more are being very, very lackadaisical about it, and it’s becoming something that isn’t offensive to the mass public, which is very, very disturbing.
By April 1st it seemed the jews making the decisions at Comedy Central were not planning to cave in to the screeching jews, and the tone of some screeching changed. The Jew York Times ran an op-ed by Guy Branum, another queer jew, titled Trevor Noah Learns Twitter Just Can’t Take a Joke. Beyond the jew-washing title Branum played down Noah’s “handful of mediocre jokes with hack premises about women, jews and fat people” and shifted blame instead to the “mostly white, straight, male power dynamic within the comedy world”. Branum’s conclusion:
Mr. Noah has gotten a clear message about cheap jokes at the expense of marginalized groups, but so far it doesn’t seem as if that response will cost him the job. And it shouldn’t. Because, in the process of a comedian’s learning how to say the right thing, he needs the chance to say the wrong thing.
Not to mention, of course, that Noah also needs to learn to hire some marginalized fat queer jews as advisors.

For a week or so the screeching shifted elsewhere. On April 8th The Washington Post published Why we have to stop telling Jewish jokes by Michelle Van Loon, a jewess who describes herself as “someone who moves in Gentile church circles” telling Christian women what to think and do.

Loon cited an American Jewish Congress campaign intended to restart the swarming and screeching. President Jack Rosen asked, “How can one of the world’s most admired Jewish comedians leave his legacy to a sexist anti-Semite?”, and bluntly called on Liebowitz to rescind Trevor Noah’s contract.

Loon also refers to another glop of jewy thinking Phoebe Maltz Bovy wrote just before the Noah Shoah began: Lena Dunham New Yorker Jew-Dog Joke Not Offensive, But Unfunny. There are differences between Loon and Bovy. But their premises and conclusions are the same.

When we consider the various jewsmedia screechers mentioned above – Steinberg, Weinstein, Itzkoff, Foxman, Rosenberg, Kornhaber, Draiman, Bovy, Loon – their common conceit is that because they are jews they regard themselves as the arbiters of what is or isn’t offensive or funny, what is or isn’t permissible for anyone and everyone else to say.