Apr 20, 2015

Why the U.S. Constitution Is Completely Bankrupt

via The Fitzpatrick Informer

Resistance to the New World Order conspiracy has been pigeonholed to constitutionalism—specifically the U.S. Constitution, Americanism, and libertarianism by the architects who have set up the “truth movement” as the supposed antidote to the “enslavement” of mankind.

No further evidence is needed to expose these architects as either controlled opposition or unwitting dupes than an examination of the beacons of freedom and liberty they hold up as the primary goal around which “truthers” must rally.

Forget that the U.S. Constitution was adopted by a largely freemasonic clique of American revolutionaries or that it was shaped from the freemasons’ own constitution, the document is fundamentally illogical and contrary to true freedom. The Constitution’s absolute promulgation of indifferentism—that all beliefs are equally valid—is the most glaring error. This gross error permeates the document as well as its offspring movements libertarianism and Americanism. Indifferentism violates the primary law of philosophy, the law of noncontradiction, that no two truths can contradict each other. All beliefs cannot be equally valid simultaneously as Christ claims to be the only Truth. The U.S. Constitution then is declaring unequivocally that Christ is not the only Truth. This denial is in harmony with their loose definitions of “God”, freedom, and liberty.

The U.S. Founding Fathers’ deliberately vague writings on “God” are completely consistent with the doctrines of freemasonry, which are equally as vague and indifferent. Of course, not believing in any one truth, how can they adequately describe God? They are functioning on the basis of a fundamental lie. In Freemasonry, “God” is liberation from the true God, freedom from the true God and His just order of the universe. The masonic ambition of Godless autonomy is manifested in the rebellious character of Satan, in the pride of mankind, and in the “do what thou wilt” revolutionary spirit. It is codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and commonly known as “separation of Church and State”. Ironically, the truth movement is sold the lie that anything that violates their masonic liberation from God Almighty is “enslavement”. The global conspirators, as guilty as they are, function as a mere prop in this grand delusion. Truthers are struggling against a ghost and have no truth from which to defend their true freedom, which is only found in Christ Jesus, the true and only liberator of mankind.

I can hear supposed Christian constitutionalists arguing that notions of “free speech” and the “right to bear arms” are Godly. Under the overall rebellious spirit of the U.S. Constitution, concepts such as freedom of speech are also loosely defined by the document and the fathers. What exactly constitutes free speech and what limits ought to be in place, if any? Obscenity and pornography have only gained prominence in American society because they have been attached to freedom of speech. Is this merely a misuse of the Constitution? How can it be when the concept is so loosely defined, open to interpretation? If the framers of the Constitution wished this not to happen, would they not have clearly stated so? It’s virtually the same with every other supposed misuse of the Constitution, whether it be the dominance of corporations over the U.S. government, infanticide (state-sanctioned abortion through the 14th amendment), Talmudic influence through the courts, or, worst of all, state-sanctioned usury through institutions like the U.S. Federal Reserve. It appears that the U.S. Founding Fathers, guided by dark spirits, designed the Constitution to fail the people in their true pursuit of freedom, which comes only through Christ Jesus. To corroborate this, we have the testimony of the authors of the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a documented purported to be the documented framework from which the world’s anti-Christian conspirators would execute their specific plans for world governance. Whether or not the document is real or fiction matters not. The concepts and ideas were in circulation among the populace of the time of the document’s writing.

Constitution designed to self-destruct?
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots – the kings on their thrones – are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart. (Protocol 3:1, 19th Century)
This shows that the Elders of Zion knew full well the self-contradiction of the humanist constitutions they went on to feed the gentiles as the saviour of mankind. It makes their governance of mankind all the more diabolical.

Most Protestants and some Catholics alike have been hoodwinked by the masonic mechanism of Americanism. In order for the “truth movement” to realize its true purpose, it must recognize its error and return to Christ, the true liberator of mankind. An American or libertarian identity is really a pseudo-identity. Only through a resurgence in Catholic/Orthodox identity can the New World Order be defeated and Logos be restored.

What Did the Founding Fathers Really Think about Race?

via The Political Cesspool

TPC Editor's Note: Today, the United States officially takes the position that all races are equal. Our country is also committed legally and morally to the view that race is not a fit criterion for decision-making of any kind, except for promoting “diversity” or for the purpose of redressing past wrongs done by Whites to non-Whites. 

Many Americans cite the “all men are created equal” phrase from the Declaration of Independence to support the claim that this view of race was not only inevitable but was anticipated by the Founders. Interestingly, prominent conservatives and Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachman and Glenn Beck have taken this notion a step further and asserted that today’s racial egalitarianism was the nation’s goal from its very first days.[1]

They are badly mistaken.

Since early colonial times, and until just a few decades ago, virtually all Whites believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities, and built markedly different societies. They believed that only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live, and they strongly opposed miscegenation. For more than 300 years, therefore, American policy reflected a consensus on race that was the very opposite of what prevails today.

Those who would impute egalitarianism to the Founders should recall that in 1776, the year of the Declaration, race slavery was already more than 150 years old in North America and was practiced throughout the New World, from Canada to Chile.[2] In 1770, 40 percent of White households in Manhattan owned Black slaves, and there were more slaves in the colony of New York than in Georgia.[3] It was true that many of the Founders considered slavery a terrible injustice and hoped to abolish it, but they meant to expel the freed slaves from the United States, not to live with them in equality.

Thomas Jefferson’s views were typical of his generation. Despite what he wrote in the Declaration, he did not think Blacks were equal to Whites, noting that “in general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection.”[4] He hoped slavery would be abolished some day, but “when freed, he [the Negro] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”[5] Jefferson also expected whites eventually to displace all of the Indians of the New World. The United States, he wrote, was to be “the nest from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled,”[6] and the hemisphere was to be entirely European: “… nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”[7]

Jefferson opposed miscegenation for a number of reasons, but one was his preference for the physical traits of Whites. He wrote of their “flowing hair” and their “more elegant symmetry of form,” but emphasized the importance of color itself[8]:
Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one [whites], preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black, which covers all the emotions of the other race?
Like George Washington, Jefferson was a slave owner. In fact, nine of the first 11 Presidents owned slaves, the only exceptions being the two Adamses. Despite Jefferson’s hope for eventual abolition, he made no provision to free his slaves after his death.

James Madison agreed with Jefferson that the only solution to the race problem was to free the slaves and expel them: “To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.”[9] He proposed that the federal government buy up the entire slave population and transport it overseas. After two terms in office, he served as chief executive of the American Colonization Society, which was established to repatriate Blacks.[10]

Benjamin Franklin wrote little about race, but had a sense of racial loyalty that was typical of his time:
[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small… . I could wish their Numbers were increased…. But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
Franklin therefore opposed bringing more Blacks to the United States[11]:
[W]hy increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America?”
John Dickinson was a Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention and wrote so effectively in favor of independence that he is known as the “Penman of the Revolution.” As was common in his time, he believed that homogeneity, not diversity, was the new republic’s greatest strength[12]:
Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?
Dickinson’s views were echoed in the second of The Federalist Papers, in which John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people,”[13]
a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”
After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, Americans had to decide who they would allow to become part of their new country. The very first citizenship law, passed in 1790, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized,[14] and immigration laws designed to keep the country overwhelmingly white were repealed only in 1965.

Alexander Hamilton was suspicious even of European immigrants, writing that “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”[15] John Quincy Adams explained to a German nobleman that if Europeans were to immigrate, “they must cast off the European skin, never to resume it.”[16] Neither man would have countenanced immigration of non-Whites.

Blacks, even if free, could not be citizens of the United States until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The question of their citizenship arose during the Missouri crisis of 1820 to 1821. The Missouri constitution barred the immigration of Blacks, and some northern critics said that to prevent Blacks who were citizens of other states from moving to Missouri deprived them of protection under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. The author of that clause, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, was still alive, and denied that he, or any other Framer, intended the clause to apply to Blacks: “I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it.”[17]

THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT

Today, it is common to think of the antebellum North as united in the desire to free the slaves and to establish them as the social and political equals of Whites. Again, this is a distorted view. First of all, slavery persisted in the North well into the post-Revolutionary period. It was not abolished in New York State until 1827, and it continued in Connecticut until 1848.[18]

Nor was abolitionist sentiment anything close to universal. Many Northerners opposed abolition because they feared it would lead to race mixing. The easiest way to stir up opposition to Northern abolitionists was to claim that what they were really promoting was intermarriage. Many abolitionists expressed strong disapproval of miscegenation, but the fact that speakers at abolitionist meetings addressed racially mixed audiences was sufficiently shocking to make any charge believable. There were no fewer than 165 anti-abolition riots in the North during the 1820s alone, almost all of them prompted by the fear that abolition would lead to intermarriage.[19]

The 1830s saw further violence. On July 4, 1834, the American Anti-Slavery Society read its Declaration of Sentiments to a mixed-race audience in New York City. Rioters then broke up the meeting and went on a rampage that lasted 11 days. The National Guard managed to bring peace only after the society issued a “Disclaimer,” the first point of which was: “We entirely disclaim any desire to promote or encourage intermarriages between white and colored persons.”[20]

Philadelphia suffered a serious riot in 1838 after abolitionists, who had had trouble renting space to hold their meetings, built their own building. On May 17, the last day of a three-day dedication ceremony, several thousand people—many of high social standing—gathered at the hall and burned it down while the fire department stood by and did nothing.[21]

Sentiment against Blacks was so strong that many Northern Whites supported abolition only if it was linked, as Jefferson and Madison had proposed, to plans to deport or “colonize” Blacks. Most abolitionist activism therefore reflected a deep conviction that slavery was wrong, but not a desire to establish Blacks as social and political equals. William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina and Sarah Grimk√© favored equal treatment for Blacks in all respects, but theirs was very much a minority view. Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: “Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them.”[22]

The American Colonization Society was only the best known of many organizations founded for the purpose of removing Blacks from North America. At its inaugural meeting in 1816, Henry Clay described its purpose: to “rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population.”[23] The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Winfield Scott, John Marshall, and Roger Taney.[24] James Monroe, another President who owned slaves, worked so tirelessly in the cause of “colonization” that the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in recognition of his efforts.

Early Americans wrote their opposition to miscegenation into law. Between 1661 and 1725, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and all the southern colonies passed laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage and, in some cases, fornication.[25] Of the 50 states, no fewer than 44 had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage at some point in their past.[26] Many Northern Whites were horrified to discover that some Southern slave owners had Black concubines. When Bostonian Josiah Quincy wrote an account of his 1773 tour of South Carolina, he professed himself shocked to learn that a “gentleman” could have relations with a “negro or mulatto woman.”[27]

Massachusetts prohibited miscegenation from 1705 to 1843, but repealed the ban only because most people thought it was unnecessary.[28] The new law noted that inter-racial relations were “evidence of vicious feeling, bad taste, and personal degradation,” so were unlikely to be so common as to become a problem.[29]

The northern “free-soil” movement of the 1840s is often described as friendly to Blacks because it opposed the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories. This is yet another misunderstanding. Pennsylvania Democrat David Wilmot started the movement when he introduced an amendment banning slavery from any territories acquired after the Mexican-American War. The “Wilmot Proviso” was certainly anti-slavery, but Wilmot was not an abolitionist. He did not object to slavery in the South; only to its spread into the Western territories. During the congressional debate, Wilmot asked:
whether that vast country, between the Rio Grande and the Pacific, shall be given up to the servile labor of the black, or be preserved for the free labor of the white man? … The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent; let us keep what remains for ourselves, and for our children.
Wilmot called his amendment the “white man’s proviso.”[30]

The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for Whites. Every state that entered the Union between 1819 and the Civil War denied Blacks the vote. In 1855, Blacks could vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the nation’s Black population. The federal government prohibited free Blacks from voting in the territories it controlled.[31]

Several states that were established before the Civil War hoped to avoid race problems by remaining all White. The people of the Oregon Territory, for example, voted not to permit slavery, but voted in even greater numbers not to permit Blacks in the state at all. In language that survived until 2002, Oregon’s 1857 constitution provided that “[n]o free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate.”[32]

Despite Charles Pinckney’s confirmation in 1821 that no Black could be an American citizen, the question was taken up in the famous Dred Scott decision of 1857. The seven-to-two decision held that although they could be citizens of states, Blacks were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Roger Taney, the chief justice who wrote the majority decision, noted that slavery arose out of an ancient American conviction about Negroes[33]:
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. Abraham Lincoln’s time was well beyond the era of the Founders, but many Americans believe it was “the Great Emancipator” who finally brought the egalitarian vision of Jefferson’s generation to fruition.
Again, they are mistaken.

Lincoln considered Blacks to be—in his words—“a troublesome presence”[34] in the United States. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates he stated[35]:
I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
His opponent Stephen Douglas was even more outspoken (in what follows, audience responses are recorded by the Chicago Daily Times, a Democratic paper):
For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any form. [Cheers—Times] I believe that this government was made on the white basis. [‘Good,’—Times] I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men—men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes and Indians, and other inferior races. [‘Good for you. Douglas forever,’—Times]
Douglas, who was the more firmly anti-Black of the two candidates, won the election.[36]

Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery outside the South, but was not an abolitionist. He made war on the Confederacy only to preserve the Union, and would have accepted Southern slavery in perpetuity if that would have kept the South from seceding, as he stated explicitly.[37]

Indeed, Lincoln supported what is known as the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress shortly before he took office, which forbade any attempt by Congress to amend the Constitution to give itself the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. The amendment therefore recognized that the federal government had no power over slavery where it already existed, and the amendment would have barred any future amendment to give the government that power. Outgoing President James Buchanan took the unusual step of signing the amendment, even though the President’s signature is not necessary under the Constitution.

Lincoln referred to the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address[38], adding that he had “no objection” to its ratification, and he sent copies of the text to all state governors.[39] Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois eventually ratified the amendment. If the country had not been distracted by war, it could well have become law, making it more difficult or even impossible to pass the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln’s Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of September 22, 1862 was further proof of his priorities. It gave the Confederate states 100 days to lay down their arms, and threatened to emancipate only those slaves living in states still in “rebellion.” Lincoln always overestimated Unionist sentiment in the South, and genuinely believed that at least some of the Southern states would accept his offer of union in exchange for the preservation of slavery.[40]

As late as the Hampton Roads conference with Confederate representatives—this was in February 3, 1865, with the war almost won—Lincoln was still hinting that the South could keep its slaves if it made peace. He called emancipation strictly a war measure that would become “inoperative” if there were peace, and suggested that if the Confederate states rejoined the union, they could defeat the 13th Amendment, which had been sent to the states for ratification. Lincoln appears to have been prepared to sacrifice the most basic interests of Blacks if he thought that would stop the slaughter of white men.[41]

Throughout his presidency, Lincoln took the conventional view that if slaves were freed, they should be expatriated. Even in the midst of the war, he was making plans for colonization, and appointed Rev. James Mitchell to be Commissioner of Emigration, with instructions to find a place to which Blacks could be sent.[42]

On August 14th, 1862, Lincoln invited a group of free Black leaders to the White House to tell them, “there is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.” He urged them to lead others of their race to a colonization site in Central America.[43] Lincoln was the first president to invite a delegation of Blacks to the White House—and he did so to ask them to leave the country. Later that year, in a message to Congress, he argued not just for voluntary colonization but for the forcible removal of free Blacks.[44]

A CLEAR LEGACY

The record from colonial times through the end of the Civil War is therefore one of starkly inegalitarian views. The idea of colonizing Blacks was eventually abandoned as too costly, but until the second half of the 20th century, it would be very hard to find a prominent American who spoke about race in today’s terms.

Blacks were at the center of early American thinking about race because of the vexed question of slavery and because Blacks lived among Whites. Indians, of course, had always been present, but were of less concern. They fought rearguard actions, but generally withdrew as Whites settled the continent. When they did not withdraw, they were forced onto reservations. After the slaves were freed, Indians were legally more disadvantaged than Blacks, since they were not considered part of the United States at all. In 1884, the Supreme Court officially determined that the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians associated with tribes. They did not receive citizenship until an act of Congress in 1924.[45] The traditional American view—Mark Twain called the Indian “a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one”[46]—cannot be retroactively transformed into incipient egalitarianism and celebration of diversity.[47]
There was similar disdain for Asians. State and federal laws excluded them from citizenship, and as late as 1914 the Supreme Court ruled that the states could deny naturalization to Asians. Nor was the urge to exclude Asians limited to conservatives. At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese on the grounds that America already had problems enough with Negroes.[48]
Samuel Gompers, the most famous labor leader in American history, fought to improve the lives of working people, but Whites were his first priority[49]:
It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”
The ban on Chinese immigration and naturalization continued until 1943, when Congress established a Chinese immigration quota—of 105 people a year.[50]

Even if we restrict the field to American Presidents—a group notoriously disinclined to say anything controversial—we find that Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s thinking of race continued well into the modern era.

James Garfield wrote[51],
[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.
Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1901 that he had “not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent.”[52] As for Indians, he once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the health of the tenth.”[53]

William Howard Taft once told a group of Black college students, “Your race is adapted to be a race of farmers, first, last, and for all times.”[54]

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as President of Princeton he refused to admit Blacks. He enforced segregation in government offices[55] and favored exclusion of Asians: “We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race… . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”[56]

Warren Harding wanted the races separate: “Men of both races [Black and White] may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. This is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing a fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference. Racial amalgamation there cannot be.”[57]

In 1921, Vice President-elect Calvin Coolidge wrote in Good Housekeeping about the basis for sound immigration policy[58]:
There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend…. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.
Harry Truman wrote: “I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.” He also referred to the Blacks on the White House staff as “an army of coons.”[59]

As recent a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant Blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality “or that a Negro should court my daughter.”[60] It is only with John Kennedy that we finally find a president whose conception of race begins to be acceptable by today’s standards.

Today’s egalitarians are therefore radical dissenters from traditional American thinking. A conception of America as a nation of people with common values, culture, and heritage is far more faithful to vision of the founders.

Click here to see a listing of the source material used for this article.

Our Savior: The Shopping Mall

via The Distributist Review

Crestwood, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis near where I live, has gone through some hard times. At one point Crestwood was the home of Crestwood Plaza, “where the big stores are”. Crestwood Plaza was such a popular shopping mall that one year, a week or two before Christmas, it took me over an hour to drive there in bumper-to-bumper traffic from only a few miles away, so many folk were eager to shop at the then very popular Crestwood Mall.

That was maybe ten years ago.

Today the mall is abandoned.

Little by little, over the past decade, every one of the hundreds of stores in the indoor climate controlled retail paradise closed up, from the big anchor stores to the smaller chains. No one’s quite sure of the cause of this. One factor is the renovation of other malls in the St. Louis suburbs. Another is the declining demographic of Crestwood and its environs, an area which now consists mostly of seniors whose children and grandchildren live elsewhere.

For a while, the mall’s owners were renting out abandoned shops to locals who were either struggling theater troupes or craft stores. The rent for each shuttered unit was a token of perhaps $100 per month, which is not enough to enable the mall to stay open and maintained, but a local arts mecca suddenly existed and the mall was being visited again.

But since that economic arrangement could not last, the local tenants were evicted, and the mall now sits totally vacant, its parking lot empty and slowly weathering away.
A development group has expressed interest in tearing the mall down and building an new and improved retail / entertainment paradise, but the group is being stymied by local politics and by a Crestwood board of aldermen who are not willing to authorize the hiring of a planner, and are wary of the tax increment financing the mall’s prospective developers are asking for.

Recently, my family and I stepped out of St. Elizabeth of Hungary church in Crestwood to be greeted by a group distributing flyers regarding the situation at the mall. The group is Metropolitan Congregations United , an ecumenical association of Christians advocating for economic development in St. Louis neighborhoods.

The flyer urges folks to attend the next Crestwood Board of Aldermen meeting to pressure city hall to give the developers what they want, so that the mall can be rebuilt and Crestwood’s tax base saved.

So it occurred to me—are Christians really so gullible as to advocate for Salvation by Means of a Shopping Mall?  If this new mall ever gets subsidized by TIF financing and built, who will the tenants be? Local craft shops and theater troupes? No, overpriced out of town chains selling useless luxury items.

I understand that it’s not economically viable for locals to pay only $100 per month rent on indoor retail space, but is the solution to that the corporate capitalist cave-in to the least Christian element in our economy—the artificial and unnecessary air conditioned affluence of chain store retail outlets?

If Metropolitan Congregations United really wants to help the citizens of Crestwood, then they should learn a bit about Distributism and the social encyclicals of the Catholic Church. A more local economy, based upon a greater distribution of independent mom and pop business owners, would find a way to make the old mall viable, without surrendering to the “we always get what we want” mentality of our debt-based consumer culture.

But instead the local Christians are advocating for the very economic system that is both culturally and economically doomed.

The Racist, Hateful, Bigoted, Nazi Sin of White Survival

via Koinen's Corner

Here we have a compelling piece by Jared Taylor of American Renaissance: White Survival: Beyond Left and Right

Yes, yes, I know that Taylor is open to legitimate criticism for not naming the Jew -- for ignoring the elephant in the room.

Still, I think this kind of article is excellent 'gateway' material for getting many of our uninformed and misinformed people to start thinking; to start questioning.  In any case, anyone that would choose to pursue this topic by clicking on the above link, on my blog, will most likely have an idea of what I was referring to in the paragraph immediately above.

And for those who are puzzled about that, and would like to delve further into the matter of naming vs. not naming the Jew, this extensive compilation on the Katana blog will tell you all you need to know.

Netanyahu Warns of Second Holohoax While Committing a Real Holocaust against Palestinians

via The Daily Slave

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
The baby killing war criminal Jew Benjamin Netanyahu is warning that a second Holohoax will occur because America is negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran.  He even compared the negotiations with attempts to appease Adolf Hitler during World War II.  This naturally led to 60 trillion Jews getting turned into bars of dish soap.

The Jewish Holocaust stories are nothing but fantasies.  Despite this, Netanyahu wants us to believe that these fantasies will be repeated because negotiations are occurring with Iran.

Meanwhile, this Jew is committing a real Holocaust and genocide against the Palestinians.  Hell, just last year he ordered the bombing of the Gaza Strip which resulted in thousands of women and children getting killed.  Even still, this Jew says with a straight face that another 60 trillion Jews will be gassed to death if a nuclear deal is struck with Iran.  This story in of itself illustrates the mental illness inherent within the Jewish mind.

From Washington Examiner:
In a speech already winning attention in Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday compared Washington’s deal with Iran to Europe’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler which led to the Holocaust and world war.

In a speech at a Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, Netanyahu said, “Democracies cannot turn their eyes away from the dictatorships of the world that seek to spread their influence.”

He noted that “ahead of World War II, the world attempted to appease the Nazis. They wanted quite at any price, and the terrible price did come.”

What Is Neo-Reaction?

via Amerika

Neoreaction is in crisis because it does not know what it is.

As formulated by Mencius Moldbug, expanded by Nick Land and others, Neoreaction is what happens when conservatism adopts social engineering. Conservative goals however do not resemble liberal ones, which are ideological. Conservatives are consequentialists who aim for results in reality, not pandering to what is popular which is inevitably illusion.

While some in Neoreaction may doubt its conservative roots, its philosophy is essentially identical to that of conservatism, which is the way things are traditionally done: responsibility for actions based on their results in reality. It cuts ideology out of the equation entirely.

Conservatism exists as a term only to describe what is not-liberal. When the liberals first seized a European state in 1789, the congress in that State separated into left-wing, who supported the new ways, and right-wing, who wanted to retain as many of the old ways as possible. To liberals, conservatives are evil; to conservatives, liberals are misguided and incompetent. They are civilization destroyers. The right wing has been staging a rearguard retreat ever since because conservatism is less popular than liberalism and always will be.

People on an individual level respond more energetically to pleasant visions with an emotion (not factual) basis. Ideas like equality, freedom and pacifism appeal to all of us because they abrogate the struggle of life, which is Darwinism itself: the struggle to adapt. When civilization is founded, adaptation switches from reality to civilization itself, and with that, decay begins.

This does not mean that civilization is bad, but that it must be aware of these problems, much like we still use fire and internal combustion engines despite the possible dangers associated with them.

Liberalism succeeds because it creates fanaticism. The thought of what “should be” swells people with a sense of purpose, which appeals to the vast majority of humans who are — since we are speaking frankly — evolutionarily unfit for anything but subsistence living. Left to their own devices, they ferment the potatoes and eat the seed corn, then exist in perpetual alternation between apathy and starvation. Never forget our glorious simian heritage and the fact that most humans want to return to that state if they can.

The right has no such fanaticism. Its members merely want to adapt to reality and set up the best society they possibly can. This goal does not break down into issues, talking points or ideology. It is a gut-level instinct that incorporates as well the highest function of the brain, which is integrating and synthesizing many issues into a big picture.

Liberalism denies the big picture by replacing it with ideology and attacks the conservative majority on “issues” by looking for exceptions which are presumed to invalidate rules. The ultimate goal of liberalism is to abolish all social standards so that the individual is unconstrained by any accountability, and yet can still enjoy the benefits of civilization. It fails because liberals do not understand time and how over time, society changes with liberal alterations and what is left offers few of the benefits of civilization.

Conservatives create 18th century Europe; liberals create 2015 Brazil.

The left grew exponentially after 1789 despite constantly creating disasters, the two biggest of which are the Napoleonic era and the Bolshevik revolution. Where prosperous societies once stood, third world ruins remained. France went from being a superpower to a nobody and quickly fell into radical social decay, prompting in part the first world war. German intervention in WWII saved much of their society from utter confusion, if nothing else by giving them an enemy.

But as Evola observed, all of us in the post-war period are men among the ruins, because with WWII liberalism achieved its final victory over conservatism. In Europe, states became what we might call 60% liberal, in contrast to the 100% liberal of pure Communism in the Soviet Union. The United States, hovering at 50%, shot upward such that in the present day it hovers in the 90s somewhere.

Neoreaction rejects not only liberalism as politics but its social effects, comprised of the twin dragon-heads of Cultural Marxism and mass culture, as well. Where conservatism has traditionally tried to hold on to power, Neoreaction remains fond of the idea of “exit,” which originates in its post-libertarian theoretical roots.

You might know “exit” of this sort under the names of libertarianism or “freedom of association.” The idea is simple: we remove the obligation to the State for anything more than military, and run the State like a corporation that provides certain services to citizens. Gone is the egalitarian imperative that arose after WWII to not just consider citizens equal, but to subsidize them so that they are equal in surviving at least.

However, Neoreaction keeps the 1789 portion of liberalism. If we divide liberalism into major movements, it splits into its 1789 variant which demands political equality, and its post-WWII socialist variant, which demands subsidized social equality. Neoreaction goes back to political equality but uses it as a weapon, saying that if we are to have freedom, that includes the freedom to associate with people like ourselves.

Let me quickly allow the master to show us all why that is a failure:
And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people.
When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.
Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. – Plato, The Republic, Book VII
In other words, the sheer weight of populism will doom any attempt to both be free from the others and thrive. Mobs take what they want; democracy is mob rule. There is no exit. This must be repeated:

There is no exit

On a personal level, exit consists of running off to some place where the disaster has not reached and becoming prosperous enough to keep it at bay. That only works until social disorder increases to the point that crime takes wealth from you, and/or political order increases to allow the government to seize such property. If that does not do it, the corruption of late democratic states will do so.

A cynical historian will see “limousine liberals” as an attempt to achieve exit. By endorsing liberal ideas, they think they will be popular with the herd. They then voluntarily dump their money into the impoverished horde as a means of bribing them like mercenaries. However, this creates a feedback loop where people who are receiving money want more money, and simultaneously blame those with the money for the plight of “the poor,” a term used in self-pity by the masses who are by now far from poor. Leftists think they can buy loyalty, forgetting that when the money is insufficient, the crowd sees only a binary: “rich” or “like us,” and they take from anyone richer than subsistence living.

Liberalism has one basic tenet, which is egalitarianism. All of its many theories exist in support of this and for no other reason. A nihilist sees liberalism as advertising, the same way big companies push each other out of the way trying to donate to third world rescue missions, inner city education, peace-in-our-time etc. and other “populist” notions which pander to the emotion need of the herd to escape risk. The crowd wants to avoid conflict because its individuals fear being losers. It forms a warm buzzing hivemind around any idea that argues that conflict is unnecessary and can simply be bought off. Its core is submission in order to avoid losing.

This philosophy gains the epithet of civilization destroyer for a simple reason: liberalism creates a feedback loop where egalitarianism separates intentions from their consequences in real world, causing disaster wherever implemented, but the zombie ideology recognizes only a lack of egalitarianism as its enemy, so it pushes for even more egalitarianism. The solution to the problem is more of the problem. Liberal societies follow the Franco-Russian pattern: glorious revolution, many happy things, then pervasive and unshakeable social and economic problems doom the society to third-world status, at which point it launches wars to mobilize its citizens toward productivity.

Neoreaction like the New Right in Europe tries to counter the liberal expansion by stopping conservative retreat. Instead of solely pointing out problems with liberalism, the New Right illustrates the type of society it wants, which might be described as an identitarian libertarian socialist society. Its libertarian wing consists of what classical liberals accepted, which was that most people fail at life by being mentally disorganized, lazy and self-deceptive (as well as self-pitying, another feedback loop) and that therefore, society must reward citizens only for productive acts. Anarcho-capitalists and libertarians wish to bring this “Social Darwinism” back in the present time instead of the subsidy before productivity that is the hallmark of socialist states.

Unlike the New Right, Neoreaction has both a pure libertarian flair and a social engineering outlook. It attempts to restore freedom of association and Social Darwinism, but adds a method to restrain government: government should work like a corporation, and be accountable for the results of its own programs, instead of justifying those programs with ideology and measuring “results” in terms of achievement of ideology and popularity. As we look at ruinous programs like the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Civil Rights Struggle (e.g. “war”), Social Justice crusades, and other unaccountable government programs we see something in common: they act on ideology alone and when they fail, they blame the enemies of this ideology, whipping the population into a witch hunt lynch mob which desires to destroy ideological enemies.

This American flavor to Neoreaction separates it from the New Right, but not by much. All of these are conservative philosophies and ultimately will be absorbed and become intellectual threads within conservatism. The broadest distinguishable idea always assimilates related ideas unless they distinguish themselves as entirely distinct. Since liberalism is the interloper in politics that consists of illusion, everything not-illusion is a strain of conservatism. Using the percentage system above, we might say that American Republicans are 60% conservative, the New Right is 90%, and Neoreaction is 85%, where the post-Roman German tribes are 100%.

A perpetual internal conflict in Neoreaction arises from not only the clash between latent leftist elements in libertarianism, but within the personalities themselves. As described by Henry Dampier, one of the other Neoreactionaries worth reading regularly:
The biggest difficulty in working on the cultural fringes is the crab bucket mentality, which is common on the fringes of neoreaction, but is really a sort of basic human behavior that requires a lot of moral instruction to counteract, having its roots in the sin of envy. – Henry Dampier, “Responding to Kantbot’s ‘Rentention’ Criticism,” April 15, 2015
The crab bucket mentality is the same thing as a quest for attention. Whether at the bar with friends, or a product looking to brand itself, or a politician in a democracy trying to make his idea seem unique and emotionally-gratifying enough to rise above the rest, this is populism.

Let that sink in for a moment.

What is subverting Neoreaction is what Neoreaction was designed to avoid: “demotism,” or a substitute for leadership where whatever idea is most popular is chosen. Demotism occurs in politics through democracy, in economics through consumerism, and in socializing through flattery. Neoreaction has been subverted by its inability to purge its opposite from itself, because when emerging from a political system the most common tendency is to carry over unseen elements of that system into the post-revolutionary future society.

The same conflict that crushed Napoleon crushes Neoreaction. He wanted to be a King, but with the revolutionary ideology of egalitarianism behind him. These two ideas conflicted, and so he became a tyrant, using the advertising of the ideology of altruism to justify his seizure of power and wars to enforce these ideas on others.
Neoreaction has stopped moving in a linear direction toward a goal, and instead is circling itself, trying to rid itself of an entryist it cannot identity.

This leads to two suggestions: first, Neoreaction needs a goal, and second, it needs to start making hard decisions about what is relevant. Too many bloggers trying to differentiate themselves will come up with “unique” theories as a means of advertising themselves, and will create a fragmented philosophy that rapidly becomes internally inconsistent. This will attract opportunists, who will use the “radical” image of Neoreaction to pose and self-advertise — think of flowers offering up bright colors to bees, or the sexual display inherent in the plumage of tropical birds — while doing absolutely nothing.

Like a liberal society, Neoreaction will accumulate dependents because they make Neoreactionary writers famous.

To counter this, Neoreactionaries can regain control of their movement by keeping it on topic. This is a cultural rather than governmental approach, which means the best people must begin to take unpopular stances and exclude those who do not understand them. This includes telling many bloggers that their endless theorizing is calcification and decay rather than innovation.

Next, Neoreactionaries need a goal. Much as the New Right in France influenced the shifts in platform between Jean Le Pen and his daughter Marine Le Pen who is currently winnning elections in France, Neoreaction can influence both libertarians and Tea Party style conservatives (70%) into adopting many of the Neoreactionary ideas as part of their own outlook.

Revolutions only occur for the left. Highly energized, the mob supports what is basically a riot given the veneer of military activity, and take revenge on the existing hierarchy by destroying it, then replacing it with their own version. We all know how revolutions end, which is in civilization failure, so there is no point taking this route.

The right, on the other hand, takes over by demonstrating viability and then disenfranchising people to protect them from themselves. It is worth repeating: as individual humans, our worst enemies are ourselves. Our desires, judgments and feelings mislead us where factual reality would help us, but we reject it because it is both emotionally un-fulfilling and scary because it does not attempt to banish risk like ideology does. Our own decisions doom us. We do best with social order that keeps us in line.

As this line of thought advances, it takes us to 100% conservative ideals, which we might describe as our civilization before decay set in. This is the type of civilization which has been adopted throughout all of human civilization by civilizations which rise above the third-world levels of existence under which most humans, at all times in history, labor. A 100% conservative civilization will have a strong identity, caste distinctions, social standards and values imposed by culture, and a thriving aristocracy. It will replace the State and throw it away as the unnecessary relic of a failed time that it is.

Perhaps Nietzsche can elucidate:
We see exactly the opposite with the noble man, who conceives the fundamental idea “good” in advance and spontaneously by himself and from there first creates a picture of “bad” for himself. This “bad” originating from the noble man and that “evil” arising out of the stew pot of insatiable hatred – of these the first is a later creation, an afterthought, a complementary colour; whereas the second is the original, the beginning, the essential act of conception in slave morality.
Although the two words “bad” and “evil” both seem opposite to the same idea of “good”, how different they are. But it is not the same idea of the “good”; it is much rather a question of who the “evil man” really is, in the sense of the morality of resentment. The strict answer to that is this: precisely the “good man” of the other morality, the noble man himself, the powerful, the ruling man, only coloured over, reinterpreted, and seen through the poisonous eyes of resentment.
Here there is one thing we will be the last to deny: the man who knows these “good men” only as enemies, knows them as nothing but evil enemies, and the same men who are so strongly held bound by custom, honour, habit, thankfulness, even more by mutual suspicion and jealousy inter pares [among equals] and who, by contrast, demonstrate in relation to each other such resourceful consideration, self-control, refinement, loyalty, pride, and friendship – these men, once outside where the strange world, the foreign, begins, are not much better than beasts of prey turned loose. There they enjoy freedom from all social constraints. In the wilderness they make up for the tension which a long fenced-in confinement within the peace of the community brings about. They go back to the innocent consciousness of a wild beast of prey, as joyful monsters, who perhaps walk away from a dreadful sequence of murder, arson, rape, and torture with exhilaration and spiritual equilibrium, as if they had merely pulled off a student prank, convinced that the poets now have something more to sing about and praise for a long time.
At the bottom of all these noble races we cannot fail to recognize the beast of prey, the blond beast splendidly roaming around in its lust for loot and victory. This hidden basis from time to time needs to be discharged: the animal must come out again, must go back into the wilderness — Roman, Arab, German, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings — in this need they are all alike.
It was the noble races which left behind the concept of the “barbarian” in all their tracks, wherever they went. A consciousness of and a pride in this fact reveals itself even in their highest culture (for example, when Pericles says to his Athenians, in that famous Funeral Speech, “our audacity has broken a way through to every land and sea, putting up permanent memorials to itself for good and ill.”). This “audacity” of the noble races, mad, absurd, sudden in the way it expresses itself, its unpredictability, even the improbability of its undertakings – Pericles emphatically praises the rayhumia [mental balance, freedom from anxiety] of the Athenians – its indifference to and contempt for safety, body, life, comfort, its fearsome cheerfulness and the depth of its joy in all destruction, in all the physical pleasures of victory and cruelty – everything summed up for those who suffer from such audacity in the image of the “barbarian,” the “evil enemy,” something like the “Goth” or the “Vandal.”
The deep, icy mistrust which the German evokes, as soon as he comes to power – even today – is still an after-effect of that unforgettable terror with which for a century Europe confronted the rage of the blond German beast (although there is hardly any idea linking the old Germanic tribes and we Germans, let alone any blood relationship). — Friedrich Nietzsche, “Good and Evil, Evil and Bad,” On the Genealogy of Morals
The blond beast is what we need to restore. The blond beast is humanity at its best: heedless of danger, asserting what is right that it can see with an inner genius. An aristocracy of blond beasts provides the only sensible leadership for us because it can achieve what the rest of us cannot.

Why did the blond beasts die out? Their plans worked. They made great societies, much like Neoreactionaries, and then all the people who could not do that surged in, made money and took the blond women on that basis. The result is a mixed hodge-podge of genetics like we have now.

Golden ages may be restored, but not solely by typing theory onto the internet, and not by radical and ill-conceived plans of revolution and “action” that consists of wanton violence. The solution is to re-take our institutions and dismantle them, bypassing libertarianism for outright Social Darwinism that disenfranchises those unfit to make leadership decisions, and from that to for the first time in history move a society from decay to health.

The path for Neoreaction and New Right thinkers who wish to achieve this goal is not to make ourselves another demotist community that thrives on the votes (or Google AdWords impressions on blogs) of the masses, but forms a cultural consensus among the natural elites to work toward this end. We do not need more theory and closed-circuit intellectualism. We need to clarify our ideas, simplify them and begin putting them into actuality.

The Last White President

via Radix

I was recently interviewed by the German magazine Zuerst! about Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she will soon become our benign overlord. 

Here is the interview in English. (No doubt, all of this will sound more profound auf Deutsch.) 


1. Mr. Spencer, Hillary Clinton is running for US presidency. The American-Serbian political writer and analyst Serge Trifkovic wrote: “Hillary R. Clinton will be the next president. A nation capable of electing, and then reelecting, Barack Hussein Obama is perfectly ready to make the most influential woman in the world the most powerful person on this planet.” Do you agree? Does she have a serious chance?

If I were a gambler, I’d put money on the Lady in the Pantsuit. At the moment, she does not have a serious challenger in the Democratic Party, and there are demographic and electoral factors that will make it difficult for a Republican to win the presidency in 2016, or anytime in the foreseeable future.

That said, whenever I hear people use words like “inevitable,” I become suspicious: It’s usually a sign that someone has already peaked. I remember people using “inevitable” in 2007 and ’08 in reference to Hillary’s campaign. We know what happened. . .

2. What is Hillary Clinton´s basic idea of presidency? How would she govern in Washington?

It’s a cocktail: Add in two parts Bill Clinton, one part George W. Bush; and sprinkle in some “hope and change” and “first women in the White house” to taste.

There’s a useful clich√© that come from Shakespeare: “What's past is prologue.” In other words, history informs the future. This holds doubly for Hillary Clinton, who was directly involved with the Bill Clinton and Barak Obama administrations and was actually an ally of George W. Bush, supporting, among other things, his catastrophic attacks on Iraq. Put simply, Hillary is a force of continuity and stability in Washington.

3. Clinton made in the past some aggressive remarks against Iran, Russia and other countries–what type of foreign politics would she do in case she moves into the White House?

Aggressive remarks against Iran, Russia, and other perceived enemies are quite typical for Hillary’s circle of friends and colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike.
The good news is that the unlikelihood of a Republican president means the unlikelihood of ever having “neoconservatives” in a President’s cabinet. These are the real crazy ones, who were behind the Iraq War, who are seeking war with Iran and might even be willing to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.

The bad news is that Hillary, like Obama, will be aligned with “humanitarian interventionists” as well as the established foreign-policy-makers of the past 25 years. (During Hillary’s terms as Secretary of State, Washington bombed Libya and clumsily attempt to ride the wave of the Arab Spring.)

My guess is that in a Hillary presidency, we’ll see a few “little wars” and various “democratization” efforts; but we won’t see “big wars” (i.e., against Russia or Iran). Only Republicans are capable of that kind of madness.

4. Who are the biggest fans of Hillary?

The “Baby Bboomers”—older White Americans. Whatever you want to say about “Gen-Xers” (people in their 30s and 40s, like me) and “Millennials” (people in their 20s), we can’t be blamed for Hillary!

Hillary’s biography and political mentality is very much that of the generation that is now reaching retirement—and thus will be the recipients of trillions in government entitlements over the next 20 years.

Many thought that with Barack Obama, we had—at last—escaped the politics of the Baby Boomers, which were defined by controversies over the Vietnam War and the “culture war.” Apparently, there’s no escape!

It’s also worth pointing out that Hillary is not an extension of the Barack Obama phenomenon.

Yes, it’s true that American politics is a giant, billion-dollar, 18-month “realty show.” To a great extent, Americans don’t vote on issues (even if they claim otherwise). They vote on “who they want to have a beer with” (George W. Bush); they vote on having “the first Black president” (Barak Obama) or, in Hillary’s case, “the first women.”
That said, for millennials and leftist idealists—who, in 2008, were genuinely enthusiastic about Barack Obama and who genuinely felt that he represented a break with “business as usual”— Hillary is a huge disappointment. Hillary does not have a drop of the revolutionary potential so many saw in Barack Obama. Hillary is the incarnation of “business as usual” in Washington. She’s not even a “socialist” or “leftist,” as her right-wing detractors say she is. Her “feminism” amounts to putting bossy women like her in charge of institutions.

5. What are the biggest differences between Hillary Clinton and John McCain?

McCain is a psychopath, whereas Hillary is merely a sociopath.

6. How would the “US American dream” of Hillary Clinton look like?

The meaning of “The American Dream” has changed over time. At one point, the Dream had connotations of self-reliance, independence, and the infinity of the American “frontier.”

For the past 30 years, the Dream has been equated with getting a mortgage for a big house in the suburbs. (That Dream exploded along with the housing bubble in 2008.)
More recently, I’ve noticed that the Dream has become associated with immigration and diversity—the idea that anyone from around the world can journey to the United Staes and become an “American” (whatever that means) based on a shared love of freedom, democracy, shopping, and fast food.

Any successful politician in a democratic system in a diverse country like America cannot have just one base of support. (This is why someone like Ted Cruz, who appeals only to Southern Christians, won’t stand a chance.) Hillary, if she is to be successful, will have to speak to a number of different bases: Baby Boomers, who are seeking economic security; millennials, who have a much more negative economic outlook; and millions of immigrant Hispanic voters, whom she probably can’t relate to.

Many have suggested that we are unlikely to have another Republican President in the foreseeable future. The GOP will have to evolve into something that is no longer defined by White Christians. Whether that’s realistically possible is a big question.
I would add another prediction:

Hillary will be the United States last White president.

The Group of Aryan Races

via Gornahoor

In this section from Sintesi di dottrina della razza, Julius Evola describes the third migration from the Hyperborean regions. This was the incursion of the Germanic tribes into the Roman Empire. He points out that they were a degenerate remnant, and were unable to continue the civilization of the Roman Empire. It took several centuries for European civilization to re-emerge, beginning with Charlemagne.
Evola then sketches out the various branches that followed from the Hyperborean migrations. As we see, his understanding of “race” is more in line with the UNESCO understanding of a race as an “ethnic group”. As such, the Hyperboreans, or “Aryans”, include the inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent, ancient Egyptians, Persians, and even Amerindians and Eskimos.
By “race of the first level”, Evola refers to the race of the body, which is how most people conceive race. Of course, there are also two higher levels: the race of the soul and the race of the spirit. He rejects so-called “scientific” racism, since it deals strictly with the race of the body. For Evola, genetics cannot explain the soul and spirit of the various races.
As justification, he refers to the philosopher Emile Boutroux, who denies that even the physical world is deterministic. This type of philosophizing is virtually unknown today, but was a dominant perspective among French and Italian philosophers at the time.
A fortiori, man, as a free spirit, can hardly be fixed and determined by his body or genetic makeup, despite certain tendencies or habits. Any attempt by “science” to “fix” a given race to predetermined characteristics or behaviors is ultimately deleterious.
The most recent of all is the emigration of the third voyage which followed the north-south direction. Some Nordic lineages had previously traversed this direction in prehistoric times; they are those, for example, who gave rise to the Doric-Achaean civilization and brought the cult of the Hyperborean Apollo to Greece. The last wave was that of the so-called “migration of the people” which happened at the fall of the Roman Empire and corresponds to the race of the Nordic-Germanic type. In this respect, we must make a very important observation. Those races that spread in the north-south direction descend more directly from the Hyperborean lineage who last left the Arctic regions. For that reason, they often display, from the viewpoint of the race of the body, a greater purity and conformity to the original type, having had fewer possibilities of encountering different races. The same however cannot be said from the viewpoint of their inner race and traditions. Their self-maintenance, further from the sister races, in the conditions of a climate which had become particularly harsh and unfavorable could cause in them a certain materialization, a one-sided development of certain physical qualities and especially of character, courage, resistance, tenacity and inventiveness, having, however as its counterpart, an atrophy of the truly spiritual side.

That is seen previously among the Spartans: to a greater extent, however, in the Germanic peoples of the invasions that we may continue to call “barbaric”; barbaric, however, not in relation to degenerate Roman civilization, in which those people appeared, but in relation to a higher stage, from which those races had fallen by that point. Among the proofs of such an interior degeneration, or spiritual darkening, is the relative facility with which such races converted to Christianity and then to Protestantism. For that reason, the Germanic peoples in the first centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, up to Charlemagne, were unable to oppose anything of importance in the spiritual domain to the crepuscular forms of Romanity. They were enchanted by the exterior splendor of such forms and easily fell victim to Byzantinism, they were unable to reanimate much of Nordic-Aryan existence, in spite of everything, in the Mediterranean world, that by means of a faith corrupted, in more than one aspect, by Semitic-Southern racial influences as soon as they later on gave form to the Holy Roman Empire under the Catholic sign.

Thus even some of the German racial theorists, like Gunther, had to recognize that, while trying to reconstruct the vision of the world and the type of spirituality characteristic of the Nordic race, had to refer less to the testimony included in the traditions of the Germanic peoples of the period of the invasions – fragmentary testimonies, often altered by foreign or decadent influences in the form of popular superstitions or folklore – than to the superior spiritual forms characteristic of ancient Rome, ancient Greece, Persia, and India, i.e., of the civilizations derived from the two first waves.

For the combination of the races and traditions generated by these three currents, the first transverse (Ario-Nordic lineage), the next horizontal (Nordic-Atlantic or Nordic-Occidental lineage), the last vertical (the Ario-Germanic lineage) we can apply, not so much for true conformity, but rather on the basis of a usage that has become current, the term “Aryan”. In order to take into consideration the races defined by the most noted and recognized of racial theories of the first level, we can say that the trunk of the Aryan race, having at its root the primordial Hyperborean race, is differentiated in the following way. There is first of all, as the blond race, the branch called Nordic in the strict sense, that some differentiate into Teutonic-Nordic, Dalic-Falic, and Finno-Nordic sub-branches. The same lineage in its mixing with the aboriginal Sarmatian populations then gave rise to the so-called East-Europid and East-Baltic types. All these human groups, from the point of view of the race of the body, as was noted, preserve great fidelity or purity in respect to what can be presumed to have been the primordial Nordic, or Hyperborean, type.

In the second place, we must consider the races that are most different in relation to the original type, whether in the sense of its phenotype, or form, which the same dispositions and the same hereditary genes caused under the action of a different environment, or of mix-mutations, i.e., mutations produced by more accentuated mixing. It is a matter of predominantly brown types, of smaller stature, in which the dolicephalous is not the rule or is not too pronounced. We mention, using the terminology that is more in vogue, the so-called race of the man of the west, the Atlantic race that, as Fischer defined, is already different from it, then the Mediterranean race, from which, in its turn according to Peters, the variety of the Euro-African man, or African-Mediterranean  is distinguished, where the dark component has greater prominence. Sergi’s classification, according to whom these last two types more or less coincide, must be rejected and, from the point of view of practical racial theory, especially the Italian, is among the most dangerous. Equally dubious is calling the Mediterranean race, as Peters does, the Pelasgic: in conformity with the meaning that the word had in Greek civilization, it is necessary to consider the Pelasgic type, in a certain way, in itself, especially in terms of the result of a degeneration of some very ancient Atlantic-Aryan stocks established in the Mediterranean before the appearance of the Hellenes. Particularly, from the point of view of the race of the soul, this meaning of the “Pelasgics” is justified, among whom the ancient Etruscan people also are included.

In a certain way by itself is the Dinaric race because while it is very close to the Nordic type in certain aspects, in others it shows characteristics in common with the Armenoid and desert race and, like that which some racial theorists define properly as the Alpine or the Vosgic race, is prevalently shown brachycephalous: the sign of crossing that happened along other directions. The Aryan race of the east has, again, distinct characteristics, both physical and mental, through which it is distanced substantially from the Nordic type.

There is nothing contradictory, from the traditional point of view, in assuming in the doctrine of race of the first level the clarifications that the various authors make in relation to the physical and, in part, mental, characteristics of all these branches of Aryan humanity. Only it is not necessary to create too many illusions on the importance of all that, in the sense of establishing rigid limits. Thus, although neither white nor blonde, the superior races of Iran and India, and, although not white, many ancient Egyptian types can moreover be included in the Aryan family. Not only: authors like Wirth and Kadner, who sought to utilize recent studies on blood groups for racial research, were led to believe that some North American Amerindian and Eskimo stocks were closer to the primordial Nordic type, than the greater part of the Indo-European Aryan races just noted. And in this kind of investigations, for example, it indicates moreover that the primordial Nordic blood in Italy has a percentage close to that of England, and certainly higher than that of the Germanic peoples. It is therefore necessary to not be fixated on rigid schemas and to think that, except for rather rare cases, the “form” of the original super-race, more or less latent, obstructed, overpowered, or exhausted, subsists in the depths of all these human types. Under certain conditions, it can reappear as predominant and shape a given type from itself, which proves them equivalent, even where it is least suspected, that is, where the previous races according to the schematic and static conception of race, would have instead made the appearance of a type of race, let us suppose, Mediterranean, Indo-Afghani, or Baltic-Oriental, seem probable.

Emile Boutroux, in one of his classic works on the contingency of the laws of nature has compared the regularity of phenomena that permits relatively exact scientific predictions, to the course of a river, whose waters follow a riverbed that however it itself hallowed out, so that they can modify it and in exceptional circumstances even abandon it. He considered natural laws as a sort of “habit” of things: what originally was also able to be a free act, in repeating itself, automatizes and mechanizes itself and ends up appearing to be a necessity. If that is valid for the laws of so-called inanimate, physical nature, it is of greater validity in respect to races. The proper description of racial theory of the first level, that, in certain authors, leads up to distinctions of an almost scholastic pedantry, fits in the measure to which the forces of races, so to speak, follow a type of law of inertia that automatizes them and fixes them in the state in which, at a given moment, they find themselves being. In these conditions the models drawn for each of the Aryan race fit, determinisms are verified, and sciences observe. At the moment in which the most original forces begin to advance, these constructions demonstrate their relativity and an excessive attention conceded to racial theories of the first level and its “scientific” results can even end up bringing damage to the creative and evocative task of race theory.

A Giraffe Dies in Denmark

via Counter-Currents

Marius the giraffe
In February of 2014 a two-year old giraffe was euthanized at the Copenhagen Zoo. Worldwide media attention and an online petition signed by twenty-seven thousand friends of animals had failed to save him.

Since the Copenhagen Zoo had raised Marius, the petition argued, it had a moral responsibility to find him a home. The zoo ignored the plea and Marius was killed. His corpse was fed to the zoo’s lions.

Marius was not a defective giraffe. He was healthy, but sadly for him his genes were, in the eyes of Copenhagen’s zookeepers, too much like the genes of other giraffes. He was therefore not genetically useful for a breeding program designed, as the zoo put it, “to safeguard for future generations a genetically diverse, healthy population of animals against their extinction.” The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, reflecting the opinion of a number of authoritative voices, supported the Copenhagen Zoo in its decision to euthanize Marius, which was effected by a bolt-gun. “If an animal’s genes are well represented in a population,” the zoo’s scientific director explained, “further breeding with that particular animal is unwanted.”

The campaign to save Marius and the outcry over the zoo’s decision to kill him are both signs of the times. Concern for the welfare of animals has long been a feature of Western societies. Modern landmarks in the anglosphere include the founding of Britain’s RSPCA in 1824, the passage of Britain’s Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876, and the founding in the United States seven years later of the American Anti-Vivisection Society. Other important moments in the history of Western empathy for animals occurred much earlier, some taking us far back into antiquity.

In the twentieth century the movement included intellectuals on both Left and Right, ranging from the Jewish philosopher Peter Singer to the Far Right’s own Savitri Devi, whose Impeachment of Man argued for positive kindness to animals as part of the life-centered religion she advocated. Hitler himself could be considered an animal-rights supporter, as Leon Degrelle recounted: “He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food.” In his concern for the welfare of animals Hitler shared the opinions of many Westerners, from Pythagoras through Rousseau and Schopenhauer down to Brigitte Bardot and Pamela Anderson. The list is long and it is growing. Whether we should be happy about that or not is a separate issue.

A hundred years ago few in the West would have been troubled by a zoo’s decision to kill a giraffe in the cause of giraffe preservation. Today many of us are. The slogan “meat is murder” may sound foolish to some, a sign of growing enlightenment to others; but it is unmistakably the result, for good or ill, of a socio-political evolution of some duration, as was the outcry over the death of Marius the giraffe.

So, too, was the decision of the Danish government, also in 2014, to prohibit kosher and halal slaughter. Denmark’s agriculture minister made it clear that, despite protests of religious Jews and Muslims in Denmark, “animal rights come before religion.” In non-Semitic slaughterhouses livestock are stunned before they are killed, while in kosher and halal slaughterhouses animals must bleed to death after their throats have been cut. Since kosher and halal slaughter are so obviously less humane than European methods of slaughter, both will predictably be banned in a nation that has been significantly influenced by the growing empathy for animals.

It is even more predictable if the culture of the nation in question is, like Denmark’s, secular in character. Defense of Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughtering livestock by reference to old religious traditions from the Middle East will have little effect on a secular population and a secular government that believe in the moral need to spare animals unnecessary pain. If kosher slaughter causes more pain to animals than normal Western methods of slaughter, then kosher slaughter must go, regardless of how passionately Jews and Muslims believe they possess an inalienable religious right to ensure that slaughtered livestock bleed to death.

I have not mentioned either anti-Semitism or the Holocaust in discussing the banning of kosher slaughter and the death of Marius the giraffe. The principle of parsimony suggests that no extraneous motives need to be adduced to explain the banning of kosher slaughter in Denmark and elsewhere, and it would be difficult to glimpse any possible relevance of the Jewish Holocaust to the death of a giraffe in Copenhagen. Jews, however, have their own distinctive and curious perspective on these sorts of issues.

In the ban an Israeli cabinet minister saw sinister forces at work: “European anti-Semitism is showing its true colors across Europe, and is even intensifying in the government institutions.” A neoconservative academic went much further. In presenting his opposition to Denmark’s “racist law banning kosher butchers,” Michael Widlanski, writing in the respectable Jerusalem Post, claimed to see baleful shades of nazi Germany in the death of Marius:

Sounding a bit like Nazis, Danish Zoo authorities said they had to kill the giraffe for the sake of racial purity — to protect the genetic lines of their giraffes. They added that the zoo needed Lebensraum — living room — space for other, purer giraffes.

Widlanski’s fanciful summary of what he calls “the Danish Giraffe Murder” is based on the same facts I presented earlier, but he, as a passionate Jew, draws a much different conclusion. His is a vision of Danish nazis at the Copenhagen Zoo executing, in the name of giraffe racial purity, a genetically impure giraffe, just as seventy years ago Germans executed Jews allegedly for the purpose of ridding Europe of their non-Aryan impurities.

There is a large factual problem in Widlanski’s vision, even if we ignore its obvious absurdity. Marius was killed because he was too much like other giraffes, not because he was an endangered minority among his fellow giraffes in European zoos. For Widlanski’s nazi-era reference to function coherently, you would have to calculate the likelihood that a European anti-Semite — say, Hitler — would execute a healthy giraffe in a local zoo, because he felt the giraffe was too Aryan, and then graciously move a living Jewish giraffe into the dead Aryan giraffe’s Lebensraum. It is unlikely that Hitler would have done that, leaving aside his animal-rights sympathies; but objecting to the incoherence and striking stupidity of Widlanski’s account would mean taking Widlanski seriously, as though he actually has an opinion on this subject worth considering.

Like the Israeli cabinet minister, Widlanski believes that Denmark’s ban on kosher slaughter is a sure sign of racial hatred and an act of anti-Semitic persecution, not a predictable result of the West’s growing empathy for animals. He believes that non-Jews in their own countries have no moral right to prohibit a specific method of killing animals, because some Jews happen to practice that method of killing animals. The prohibition of kosher slaughter is therefore unmistakably “racist,” with all the semantic weight of opprobrium that adjective carries.

In the real world opposition to kosher slaughter says little or nothing in itself about a person’s political orientation or his attitude toward Jews. Brigitte Bardot and Pamela Anderson, we can reliably guess, oppose kosher slaughter because they believe in animal rights, not because they dislike Jews. NS Germany banned kosher slaughter in 1933, but Norway had banned it three years earlier.

As a rule, however, Jews have great difficulty recognizing that Gentiles can have any legitimate convictions at all if they conflict with some cause close to their hearts, in this case kosher slaughter. We don’t reason. We just ventilate our hatreds, and we are at our most dangerous when we can layer over our raw hatreds with some semblance of rational argument, which leaves Jews with the task of digging up the hatreds beneath.

“Persecuting Jews is always kosher,” Widlanski writes, “and the Jews will sooner or later leave Europe rather suffer the fate of that Danish giraffe who was found to be genetically inferior.” A nation that could allow Marius to be euthanized, instead of discovering “a less-than-final solution for the problem of a genetically inferior giraffe,” cannot simultaneously profess belief in animal rights. Danes must therefore be anti-Semites, using animal-rights and bogus moral objections to kosher slaughter as excuses to get at Jews. A perceptive Jew, who knows race hatred and persecution when he sees them, will remember “just how many non-Jewish Europeans came to the rescue of defenseless Jews during the past century, especially during the Holocaust.” Not many, is the expected answer.

Widlanski’s argument, to use the term loosely, runs as follows: Germans killed Jews seventy years ago and many Europeans were insufficiently dedicated to rescuing Jews from their German enemies; therefore when Danes prohibit a Jewish cultural practice like kosher slaughter, it must mean that they hate Jews, not that they hope to reduce the suffering of animals. Thus the death of Marius the giraffe becomes important proof. Most Jews, especially those with a strong Holocaust consciousness, will regard this as an impressive chain of evidence assembled by a keen Sherlockian intellect. We can, charitably, call it moron-level logic.

Again, however, Widlanski’s fantasy and his moron-level logic meet factual difficulties.
The Holocaust’s Judeocentric reinterpretation of the Second World War privileges Jewish lives over other lives. The Axis campaign to defend Europe from Marxism and the Allied campaign to defend and promote democracy — causes that, rightly or not, many of the men who fought the war believed in — have gradually over the decades been displaced in favor of the Jewish Holocaust and its special concerns. In looking at this old war that claimed as many as sixty million lives, you judge your country not by how heroically her soldiers fought the war or how stoically her civilian population endured privation and sometimes bombing or occupation, but by how well your country treated Jews and how energetically it rescued them.

If we envision this Judeocentric reinterpretation of the war as an athletic competition, a track event at the Olympics, Germans came in dead last in this race to rescue Jews, with Poles and Hungarians a few yards ahead. The French and the Lithuanians were feeble competitors; Americans also had a slow day on the track. But fatally for Widlanski’s fantasy the Danes performed well in the race and may have placed first. They have earned their medal and should be entitled to boast, if we accept the premise of this strange competition. Leni Yahil, the most openly Zionist of the major Holocaust historians, speaks very highly of Danes: “the humane character of this small Scandinavian nation, many of whose citizens took their lives into their own hands to save Jews, shone over the inhumanity of mass extermination . . .”

Widlanski knows that Hungary and Denmark are different countries, and he may be able to locate them on a map. Yet their differing wartime histories are irrelevant in his eyes. He was angry to learn that Denmark had prohibited kosher slaughter, a prohibition that he considers “racist” because as a Jew it offends him, and he looked about to find some reason to condemn the Danes. He found Marius. The optics of the giraffe’s death were unflattering, regardless of whether we accept the zoo’s explanation or not, so Widlanski had a weapon, something with which he could attack his enemy.

Virginia Morell, writing on the National Geographic website, expressed well the feelings of those who signed the petition: “And so our hearts were broken when we saw the keepers at the Copenhagen Zoo break their trust with Marius. He should never have died so young and at the hands of his caretakers, the very ones who should have done all they could to protect him.” I agree, though not with the same emotion; I might have signed the petition if I had known about it. If we take Widlanski’s words as indicators of his beliefs, he would agree too. His words, however, tell us nothing. His professed concerns for animal welfare are instrumental. He wants to use the giraffe Marius as a weapon against an enemy, a European population that has offended him. He deploys his Holocaust weapon for the same reason, indifferent to the fact that Danes are morally among the least eligible targets of the weapon. We know that Virginia Morell is telling us what she believes, whether we agree with her or not. We cannot say the same about an activist Jew who asserts similar sentiments. There is, of course, an obvious lesson here.

Michael Widlanski is not, outwardly at least, an irrational Kahanist. He is not stupid either, though his stated opinions about giraffes and kosher slaughter might suggest otherwise. He is a New York Jew, a university professor with multiple post-graduate degrees, who has taken up residence in his homeland, Israel. He served in the IDF and wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject of Palestinian broadcast media. He teaches at Bar-Ilan University and formerly taught Middle Eastern politics at Hebrew University. He is a regular contributor to David Horowitz’ FrontPage website and has spoken at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, where he explained “why America and the Jewish people remain prime targets of terrorists.”

He sometimes returns to the land of his birth, where he laments Jewish intermarriage with non-Jews, the scarcity of good kosher food in American supermarkets, and the failure of too many Jewish parents to segregate their children in Jewish day schools, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to learn Hebrew. An ungenerous observer could also accuse him of harboring some small sense of racial superiority. “Israel is,” he writes, “a nature preserve for Earth’s most persecuted and perhaps most productive minority,” an exclusivist view of the Jewish state that fails to include the non-Jewish fauna who also reside there and who once called this Jewish nature preserve their home. At The New York Times, where he was employed during the era of Abe Rosenthal and Arthur Gelb, Widlanski was notably Jewish among an already notably Jewish group of journalists, which was in itself a substantial accomplishment: “I’m a religious Jew — I try to be a religious Jew — and everybody in The New York Times who would see me from a distance knew that this was the only guy walking around the newspaper with a yarmulke on his head.”

All of this suggests a strong Jewish ethnocentrism, so strong an ethnocentrism that Professor Widlanski could seriously argue that because Danes prohibited kosher slaughter on humanitarian grounds, they are likely to exterminate Jews in the future and that Jews should, therefore, flee Europe before they suffer the fate of Marius the giraffe, murdered out of Europe’s congenital hatred for the genetically impure. He did not and probably could not see how foolish he would appear to anyone who does not share his remarkable ethnocentric fixations.

Another improbable element in Widlanski’s case against nazi Denmark is the Scandinavian tradition of gun ownership. He largely manufactures this tradition, and then contrasts it to the Jewish tradition of preferring books and tablet computers over guns and hunting. He means to suggest that gun-toting Danes cannot convincingly claim empathy for animals, since they spend so much of their leisure time shooting wildlife and admiring the animal heads they mount on their walls as trophies.

It is not the sort of argument Widlanski would make when promoting, as he often does, support for Israel among American conservatives, most of whom correctly regard second-amendment rights as evidence of rugged independence, not as signs of cruelty and bookless backwoods ignorance. Gun-crazed Scandinavian hunters and nazi zookeepers in Copenhagen may appear to us as merely ad hoc fantasies constructed for the purpose of attacking enemies, but there is at least some chance that the inventor of these fantasies actually believes in his inventions. Such is the strength of an activist Jew’s ethnocentrism, especially when some apparent misbehavior on our part has aroused his anger.

Widlanski is the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat. It is, judging by online reviews, the sort of book that neoconservatives and certain kind of gullible Republican find powerfully impressive. The book even has its own website, which boasts that “Dr. Widlanski was known as the ‘hit man’ for Israeli negotiators at the 1991-92 talks in Madrid and Washington,” suggesting that he worked hard to ensure that no peace broke out as a result of the Madrid Peace Conference. Conservative commentator Cal Thomas reports that “Widlanski’s main point is that political correctness has stifled the West’s ability to understand and fight terror,” which is true yet close to self-evident.

In his book and in many of his online articles Widlanski is offering advice to the West. He even speaks of “we in the West,” although he has in fact removed himself from the West in order to live among other Semites in the Middle East. Yet the “West” on whose behalf Widlanski is framing his arguments and collecting his evidence is not really the place you read about in history books. Cal Thomas is, we can be sure, concerned about the threat of Muslim terror to the West in general and to the United States in particular. Conservatives like Thomas, being owners of maps, would include Denmark, we can also be sure, in their West, along with even the least fleet-footed competitors in the race to rescue Jews seventy years ago.

It is normally assumed that a defender of Western civilization has at least some affection for the various nations that comprise it geographically. The Slovenians may not be your favorite European nationality, but you know that Slovenia is part of our West and you wish her well. The “West” of neoconservatives like Widlanski is a different and a much smaller location. It consists essentially of Israel, Diaspora Jews, and those American conservatives amenable to sending soldiers off to fight and die in destructive Mideast wars. The enemies of this West are the enemies of Jews and of Israel. Anti-Western enemies can also include, given Widlanski’s highly ethnocentric world-view, one of the most philo-Semitic nations on the planet, if for some reason he sees or claims to see some improbable harbinger of genocide within its domestic politics.