Jun 11, 2015

Gladiator, 15 Years on

via The Audacious Epigone

I was in middle school when Gladiator came out, and I liked it when I saw it in the movie theater. The opening battle scene against a loosely interpreted German tribe like the Marcomanni or Quadi is a thrill. That the disorganized combat melee and use of siege weapons in the forest against a mobile army was, to put it mildly, a similarly loose interpretation of Roman military tactics during the age of the Antonines didn't matter. Russell Crowe's character, Maximus, doesn't even wear any headgear when he leads a cavalry charge into the fray. On the other hand, it captures the essence of the age, and many of the criticisms are picayune--Commodus, like most emperors after Trajan, wore a beard--or blatantly incorrect. For example, in this documentary--a putatively more veracious telling of the events depicted in the movie--it is asserted that, unlike in the film, shields, in addition to providing protection, were also used as weapons (clip). That's true, but as much was quite clearly depicted in Gladiator (clip).

This artistic license doesn't matter just because I was ignorant of as much at the time, but more importantly because, in capturing the spirit of the Roman military ethos, it conveys heroism and valor in ways that men have recognized for time immemorial. As a tweenager, I recognized this essence at a hazy, rudimentary level.

Watching the film again fifteen years later, the fog has lifted. Gladiator is the story of a hero, a hero not merely in the cheap sense of a comic book superhero who enjoys the ability to fly or get up after being run over by a Mack truck while acting like a petulant, snarky child, but a human hero in volition and intent. Maximus is a good man who is good at being a man.

Being a good man and being good at being a man

The former is contextually captured in Stoicism's four cardinal virtues of wisdom, justice, fortitude, and temperance. In stark contrast to Maximus, who possesses all of them, is Commodus, who possesses none (clip). More broadly, the goodness of a man is judged by the morality of his thoughts, words, and deeds.

Regarding the latter, Jack Donovan identifies four tactical virtues that define masculinity: Strength, courage, mastery, and honor. They may correlate positively, negatively, or not at all with the characteristics that define a good man. These virtues are universally applicable to men while at the same time tending not to graph well onto assessments of feminine virtue. The phrase "strength and honor" (clip) recurs throughout the movie. If not such a mouthful, the inclusion of the other two virtues into the phrase would've fit just as well.

A seasoned warrior, Maximus is physically strong and martially capable (clip). His courage is unquestionable. Unregulated courage, however, can slide into recklessness. Maximus' demonstrated understanding of the concept reveals the necessary restraint true courage demands, as when he asks Proximo's gladiatorial contingent to buy him time to steal out of the city (clip). Mastery is conspicuously insinuated by the defeat of the Germans and on full display in the arena 'reenactment' of the second Punic War (clip). Honor, probably the virtue most frequently misunderstood in the contemporary Western mind, is most succinctly demonstrated when the Spaniard's identity is revealed to Commodus (clip). Honor is not the self aggrandizement of 'honors' bestowed (clip), nor is it, as it is often incorrectly defined to be by 21st century WEIRDOs, the expression of one's personal convictions (clip).

The film is full of allusions to the power of these virtues, but in the 'recreation' of the battle of Zama and its immediate aftermath, Maximus demonstrates all of them in the course a single event:




A Stoic superman

It is tempting to say that the previous assertion that Gladiator is the story of a hero needs no qualification, but that is a difficult position to maintain when when one looks around today. Maximus is a practitioner of violence, and that, in tandem with devotion to family and to republican ideals is a 'controversial' concoction, as Chris Kyle's story illustrates.

More precisely, Maximus epitomizes the ideal practical Stoic hero. As someone who finds just about every metaphysical system devised (or invented) prior to the Scientific Revolution to be conjectural fantasy, I'll dispense with that whole aspect of the Stoic philosophical tradition and focus on the philosophy's functional aspects.

It is not only as an actionable model of the four Stoic virtues that this representation is played out. In the face of the most hellish experience a man can suffer (clip), Maximus regains his balance after a brief stumble (clip) that would be more than enough to send many men careening over the precipice. He refuses to be consumed by a hatred for Quintus, one that would be entirely understandable but also counterproductive at the individual level and, more importantly, in the pursuit of justice. In the rigged duel with Commodus, Maximus doesn't waste a single breath bemoaning his circumstances. He doesn't even allow the perception of a brutally unfair fight to be detected by onlookers, choosing instead to lunge at Commodus as soon as the opportunity presents itself (clip).

The movie isn't all unrestrained reverence for the teachings of Epictetus and the letters of Seneca. In his biography of Marcus Aurelius, Frank McLynn refers to Stoicism as an "inhuman philosophy". That sentiment, and the consequences it entails, are thrown into sharp relief when Commodus murders Marcus (clip). We see in Quintus the inherent dangers acceding to the idea of an ordained natural hierarchy carries with it. Even the Stoic protagonist is incapable of embracing one of the philosophical tradition's most callous precepts: "As you kiss your son goodnight, whisper to yourself that he may be dead in the morning" (clip--the only time as an adult that a movie has made me tear up).

The Roman citizen, soldier, and farmer

The idea and the polity of Rome, the Roman military ethos, and his patch of blood and soil existing within that framework--these are the motivators driving the protagonist. When the corruption of the first obliterates the existence of the third, the course of the individual, Maximus, and well being of the society, Rome, align. Perpetuating the dictatorship in his own person holds no appeal. So genuine is Maximus' claim that he will simply hand over control of Rome to the senate that the conspiratorial senator Gracchus takes him at face value: "Marcus Aurelius trusted you. His daughter trusts you. I will trust you." Such is the Stoic ideal.

But life doesn't always converge so conveniently. Lucilla, sister of Commodus and mother of the vulnerable heir apparent Lucius, is willing to bring the whole world down in a desperate effort to save her son (clip). Even though harsh judgment seems the only defensible verdict for Lucilla's behavior--as a categorical imperative it fails, miserably--it is difficult to not at the same time empathize with her, viscerally.

A commenter once wrote something here that has stuck with me ever since: "A more interesting question is not whether or not you would sacrifice or endure pain for a child (as a father of three it is a no-brainer that I would gladly and with satisfaction give my life), but what level of misdeeds would you perform [to keep your own child from suffering]?"

Quintus, look at me

The line separating blind subservience from prudent loyalty is both fine and easily blurred. Less the natural than Maximus, Quintus attempts to compensate with rigid adherence to the purple, whoever is wearing it. The interaction between the two generals, comprising just a few minutes of the film, is a beautiful illustration of how the essence of mentorship lies in providing an aspiration, of being worthy of emulation (clip, clip). Lifted straight from the pages of Meditations comes perhaps the most concise explanation of the Stoic's relationship with the universe, at once profound and perplexing, an ingenious attempt at squaring the circle to allow a simultaneous influence of both free will and fate in determining what becomes of us (the scene only appears in the director's cut):


This pithy profundity inspired three words that changed the (fictionalized) course of history: "Sheathe your swords!" (clip)

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus

Marcus was a man forced by necessity and circumstance to spend much of his life engaged in militarily securing the northeastern borders of the Roman empire. Of primary interest was the study of philosophy, and of predominant 'vocational' interest the adjudication of cases in what would today be termed "family law". He was not considered the last of the five good emperors for nothing though, and took the self-prescribed advice to retire into himself while performing the functions of his office.

We get an allusion to this when Maximus comes upon Marcus in his room (clip). At first blush, it appears as though senescence, in the form of hard hearing, has caught up to the emperor. Instead, Marcus, the polar opposite of the irresponsible and dissolute Verus, reveals to his most trusted general a little crack in the carapace. Sensing the end, he is betraying a wariness from the unending business of empire by sneaking a few more lines into the Meditations before addressing Maximus.

Historically at the time of Marcus' passing there was of course no succession uncertainty. Commodus had already been co-emperor for three years when his father died. By bending actual events in the way the film does, perhaps the biggest failure of Marcus' reign--his support of and devotion to Commodus--is fancifully made into a pivotal part of the story line.

Heroism

Good art inspires. It motivates. It provides an ideal, and it also provides a reference point to check one's journey towards attaining that ideal. The fanciful absurdity that characterizes today's action genre and the snarkiness that infects so much of everything else keeps me away from most movies, but Gladiator reminds me that the medium is still capable of producing great power when all the requisite pieces of the puzzle are present.

What we do in life echoes in eternity. It is why nihilism, materialism, and existentialism--basically materialism with experiences substituted for material things--don't do it for me. When I'm decomposing in the ground or ashes floating disparately on the surface of the sea, what more can I leave behind than the biological legacy of my descendants and the philosophical legacy of who I was and what I stood for? Yes, I understand that such a concern does not constitute a tenet of the Stoic school, quite the contrary. But we're all eclectics to some degree.

Solipsism and Narcissism

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

A further examination of the rational and emotional machinations which enable White genocide.

There’s an old joke I wanted to tell, to make an analogy, and when I went searching for an example to read here I found that there’s a name for the analogy. It’s called the streetlight effect. The joke goes like this:
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is.”
As the Wikipedia article describes it, the streetlight effect is a type of observational bias where people search where it is easier, rather than where it would be more fruitful.

Over the course of the past year or so I’ve laid out what I think has been a thorough and fairly stated critique of what others refer to as “White pathology”, and specifically what they call “pathological altruism”. The key point I return to, again and again, is that there is a pathogen, an Other, an enemy. The jews. My criticism, to put it simply, is that much of what is labeled “White pathology” is a result of enemy action.

In fact I’ve gone farther and pointed out that if Whites exhibit any behavior which could justifiably be called pathological, symptomatic of a collective mental disease, then it would be how Whites collectively fail to perceive jews collectively as a mortal enemy. And this in spite of the jews’ relentless expressions of alienation and hostility, made most plain in the victim narrative jews never tire of recounting. In essence the jewish narrative portrays the jews as entirely blameless and eternally oppressed by “anti-semites”, which by their own telling includes every people they’ve ever come into contact with, but most recently is primarily Whites. Their holocaust narrative is the latest, most specific, most in-your-face example of this narrative.

In other words, jews clearly see Whites as their enemy, and you can hear them more or less openly lecture everyone about this in their media and from their privileged perches in universities and corporations and government any day of the week. Yet even Whites who have demonstrated some greater than average racial consciousness and even an awareness of the jews seem prone to discount the impact of jewish hostility, their influence, or both. Instead they hypothesize some mysterious inborn defect in Whites, some baked-in weakness that makes Whites vulnerable, with the premise that it has nothing to do with the jews. As I’ve pointed out, this desire to search within their own collective – to look where the light is best so to speak – is itself, I think, a symptom of the very weakness they’re looking for.

It also seems to me that there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why this happens. The word for it is ethnocentrism, an anthropological term:
the technical name for the view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything
There is another recurring theme, or to put it more bluntly another elementary error, which occurs in many attempts to understand and explain collective behavior using terms which are ordinarily used to describe the motives and behaviors of individuals.

Using the term suicide instead of genocide is a good example of both mistakes – blotting out the jews and personalizing the problem at the same time.

The psychological term “self-deception”, as in “jewish self-deception” is another. I’ve argued that it should really just be called jewish deception. The real “self-deception” is in White individuals who misinterpret the persistent and collective nature of jewish lying.

The error in such individualistic terms is that it inevitably personifies and thus distorts the problem, even if only in the minds of listeners. The speaker may simply be grasping for words, with a preference for familiar terms, where there seems to be more light. In my opinion blunter language is ultimately more fruitful, even if we must invent or call in other terms so as not to misunderstand or misrepresent what is in truth a collective phenomena.

A few months ago I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome and Gaslighting, trying to address these errors and to offer some other psychological terms and concepts which I think better fit the relationship between Whites and jews. In particular, that it is a relationship, and that it is an asymmetic, abusive parasitic relationship in which jews benefit and White are harmed.

To refresh your memory about gaslighting
Gaslighting or gas-lighting[1] is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception and sanity.
The obvious analogy is that the jews and their holocaust guilt-tripping and psychoanalytic theories of “anti-semitism” are the mental abusers, the sociopathic liars who deny any wrongdoing, and Whites are the victims of their mental abuse, and exhibit various “white pathologies” as a result.

I’ll emphasize again right here that I’m drawing an analogy. It’s not a perfect fit. For one thing, gaslighting ordinarily describes a relationship between two individuals, whereas the analog I’m making is for the relationship between Whites and jews collectively, even though within those collectives there are a broad spectrum of individual motives and attitudes.

I do think however that the analogy is useful because it fits the most relevant and important aspect of the relationship between Whites and jews, the relatively conscious and lopsided relationship between White and jew elites.

Here’s a bit more about these kinds of relationships, specifically to the point of anyone who says what I’m presenting is an arguement that Whites are blameless.

When You Love Your Abuser: Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonds, via Psychopathyawareness’s Blog:
So far I’ve used the word “victim” to describe the women (or men) who suffer at the hands of psychopaths. Yet I don’t really like this word for several reasons. It tends to imply a certain passivity, as if the woman herself had nothing to do with the decision to get involved with the psychopath or, worse yet, to stay with him even once his mask of sanity started to slip. It’s rare that a psychopath physically coerces a woman to get involved with him or to stay with him. Although he intimidates and brainwashes her, generally the victim cooperates.
A victim of Stockholm Syndrome irrationally clings to the notion that if only she tries hard enough and loves him unconditionally, the abuser will eventually see the light. He, in turn, encourages her false hope for as long as he desires to string her along. Seeing that he can sometimes behave well, the victim blames herself for the times when he mistreats her. Because her life has been reduced to one goal and one dimension which subsumes everything else–she dresses, works, cooks and makes love in ways that please the psychopath–her self-esteem becomes exclusively dependent upon his approval and hypersensitive to his disapproval.
As we know, however, psychopaths and narcissists can’t be pleased. Relationships with them are always about control, never about mutual love. Consequently, the more psychopaths get from their partners, the more they demand from them.
“The combination of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and ‘cognitive dissonance’ produces a victim who firmly believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival.
This calls to mind recent statements by Manuel Valls in France and Joe Biden in the US concerning how absolutely essential jews are.

In criticizing the rhetoric of “White altruism” I’ve argued against what I’ve described, grasping for the proper language, as a form of racial solipsism:
Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”)[1] is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist.
Metaphysical solipsism is the “strongest” variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.
In the view of a White racial solipsist other races have no independent existence, no agency. It is a form extreme ethnocentrism, a focus on the collective self to the point of ignoring enemies – a pathological ethnocentrism.
Gorgias of Leontini
Solipsism was first recorded by the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:[3]
Nothing exists.
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.
Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that “objective” knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera).
The foundations of solipsism are in turn the foundations of the view that the individual’s understanding of any and all psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, etc.) is accomplished by making analogy with his or her own mental states; i.e., by abstraction from inner experience. And this view, or some variant of it, has been influential in philosophy since Descartes elevated the search for incontrovertible certainty to the status of the primary goal of epistemology, whilst also elevating epistemology to “first philosophy”.
There an element of what the jew fraud Freud called projection in there. And the common understanding of the word comes with quite a bit of individualist and philisophical freight. Rather than trying to tack a racial qualifier on solipsism I think a term like pathological ethnocentrism is the better fit.

Another term comes to mind that came up in the discussion of gaslighting, but which reflects an ancient European archetype, originating in a European myth. It even has to do with “suicide”. The term is “narcissism”, which comes from the archetype and myth of Narcissus:
In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. He was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope.[1] He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus drowned. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself.
The self-attraction/self-infatuation of narcissism is broadly understood. That this weakness is exploited and made fatal by a hostile Other, a nemesis, is not as well known.
Multiple versions of the myth have survived from ancient sources. The classic version is by Ovid, found in book 3 of his Metamorphoses (completed 8 AD); this is the story of Narcissus and Echo. One day Narcissus was walking in the woods when Echo, an Oread (mountain nymph) saw him, fell deeply in love, and followed him. Narcissus sensed he was being followed and shouted “Who’s there?”. Echo repeated “Who’s there?”. She eventually revealed her identity and attempted to embrace him. He stepped away and told her to leave him alone. She was heartbroken and spent the rest of her life in lonely glens until nothing but an echo sound remained of her.
Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, learned of this story and decided to punish Narcissus. She lured him to a pool where he saw his own reflection. He didn’t realize it was only an image and fell in love with it. He eventually realized that his love could not be addressed and committed suicide.[1]
Again, the Other plays a key role. In this case there is a gaslighting Other as well as the vengeful Other. There are other versions. All end in the death of Narcissus – which is the moral of the story.

The Problem with Latino Immigration into the U.S.

via The Social Contract Press

The problem in which the current immigration is suffused is, at heart, one of numbers; for when the numbers begin to favor not only the maintenance and replenishment of the immigrants’ source culture, but also its overall growth, and in particular growth so large that the numbers not only impede assimilation but go beyond to pose a challenge to the traditional culture of the American nation, then there is a great deal about which to be concerned. —Richard Estrada, late columnist for the Dallas Morning News, letter to author, January 13, 1991
The United States must get serious about the tide of legal and illegal immigrants, above all from Latin America. I don’t think I am overstating it when I say that the non-acculturation of Latinos is now the chief social problem of our country—and that it will become the chief national problem before too many more years. Samuel Huntington was on the mark once again in his final book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, in which he points directly at immigration from Latin America as the principal threat to our unity as a nation, because Latin America’s Ibero-Catholic value system is incompatible with the Anglo-Protestant system that is our bedrock.

Huntington was gravely concerned by the evidence that Latinos were not “melting”—and by the related phenomenon of the Spanish language challenging English, as we appear to be becoming, willy-nilly, a bilingual country, with all the divisiveness that phenomenon implies.

Thus, it’s not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs or the number of uninsured straining the quality of health care. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.

In his recent book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, Charles Murray presents a well-documented case that America is coming apart at the seams—seams of class, not ethnicity. My concerns are focused on ethnicity, specifically Latino ethnicity. The political realities of the rapidly growing Latino population are such that President Obama may be the last president who can avert the permanent, vast underclass implied by a Census Bureau projection that Latinos will constitute almost one-third of our population by 2050—which virtually ensures the United States will become a bilingual country.

Sound like the concerns of a right-wing “xenophobe” or “nativist”? I’m not. I’m a lifelong Democrat; an early and avid supporter of President Obama; the grandson of Eastern European Jewish immigrants—and a member, along with several other Democrats, of the advisory boards of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Pro English.

Moreover, although I am gravely concerned about the flood of immigrants from Mexico, and Latin America more generally, and mindful of the requirement for periodic assessments of need, I welcome immigrants from China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and India, whose swift acculturation and hugely disproportionate contribution to our progress contrasts strikingly with those of Latino immigrants.

The Asians’ rapid upward mobility is evidenced by their numbers at our most prestigious universities. Comprising about 5 percent of the U.S. population, Asians recently constituted 41 percent of undergraduates at the University of California at Berkeley, 27 percent at MIT, 24 percent at Stanford, and 18 percent at Harvard.
Comparable numbers for Latinos are depressing: At 16 percent of the total population, and constituting three times the Asian population, Latinos accounted for a fraction of the Asian numbers at these universities (e.g., 7 percent of MIT students).

Latinos: The OECD Program for International Student Assessment

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) comprises thirty-four countries: the members of the European Union; the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; Japan and South Korea; Israel; and Chile, Mexico, Slovenia, and Turkey. The OECD is the home of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which assesses mathematical literacy, scientific literacy, reading literacy, and problem solving for students in its member countries every three years starting in 2000. The 2009 PISA ranked the United States twenty-fifth in math and twenty-first in science, precipitating a lot of handwringing on the part of the media, government officials, and educators. However, analysis of the 2006 PISA results for science disaggregated by white and Asian, Hispanic, and black students presents a strikingly different picture.

U.S. white and Asian students ranked seventh, with 523 points (the OECD average was 500 points), after Finland, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands. But the U.S. white and Asian students were ahead of South Korea, Germany, the United Kingdom, and several other high-income countries including Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, and the other four Nordic countries (excluding Finland).

.However, U.S. black students were at the bottom of the list, after Greece, Turkey, and Mexico, and the increasingly numerous U.S. Hispanic students were fourth from the bottom, behind Greece. When the three American groups were combined, the national total fell to 489 points—twenty-first of thirty.

Traditional Concerns of the Democratic Party

Concerns about the impact of immigration on low-income Americans preoccupied the distinguished Democrat Barbara Jordan when she chaired the congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform during the 1990s.

Beyond the immigrants themselves, the principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas has estimated that U.S. workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end. I might add that remittances sent to Mexico by immigrants approximated $21 billion in 2010, and to Latin America about $59 billion.

The health care costs of the illegal workforce are especially burdensome and are subsidized by taxpayers. To claim Medicaid, you must be legal, but as the Health and Human Services inspector general found, forty-seven states allow self-declaration of status for Medicaid. Some hospitals and clinics are going broke treating the constant stream of uninsured, many of whom are the estimated 12 million to 15 million illegal immigrants, a large majority of whom are from Latin America, the large majority of those from Mexico. This translates into reduced services, particularly for lower-income citizens.

The Burgeoning Latino Population—and Its System of Values

The Pew Hispanic Center reports:
The 2010 Census counted 50.2 million Hispanics in the United States, making up 16.3 percent of the total population of 308.8 million. The nation’s Hispanic population, which was 35.3 million in 2000, grew 46.3 percent over the decade, and even more sharply in many Southeastern states. Overall, growth in the Hispanic population accounted for most of the nation’s growth—56 percent—from 2000 to 2010. Among children ages 17 and younger, there were 17 million Latinos, representing 23 percent of this age group, up from 17 percent in 2000.
I should point out that the Latino population is probably greater, and possibly substantally greater, reflecting the reluctance of illegal immigrants to get involved in the official census.

Population growth is the principal threat to the environment via natural resource use, sprawl, and pollution. And population growth is fueled chiefly by immigration. Consider what this, combined with worrisome evidence that Latinos are not melting into our cultural mainstream, means for the United States. Latinos have contributed some positive cultural attributes, such as multigenerational family bonds, to U.S. society. But the same traditional values that lie behind Latin America’s difficulties in achieving democratic stability, social justice, and prosperity are being substantially perpetuated among Hispanic Americans.

Several prominent Latin Americans have concluded that traditional values are at the root of the region’s development problems, among them Peruvian 2010 Nobelist in literature Mario Vargas Llosa; Mexican Nobelist author Octavio Paz; Teodoro Moscoso, architect of Puerto Rico’s successful Operation Bootstrap; Ecuador’s former president Osvaldo Hurtado; Costa Rican ex-president Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in 1987; and Mexican-American author Ernesto Caravantes.

Vargas Llosa has this to say:
The culture within which we live and act today in Latin America is neither liberal nor is it altogether democratic. We have democratic governments, but our institutions, our reflexes and our mentalidades are very far from being democratic. They remain populist and oligarchic, or absolutist, collectivist, or dogmatic, flawed by social and racial prejudices, immensely intolerant with respect to political adversaries, and devoted to the worst monopoly of all, that of the truth.
Octavio Paz answers the question “What lies behind the contrasting experiences of Mexico and the United States (and Canada, the third of the North American Free Trade Association partners) with respect to broad-based democratic development?”
One [society], English speaking, is the daughter of the tradition that has founded the modern world: the Reformation, with its social and political consequences, capitalism and democracy. The other, Spanish and Portuguese speaking, is the daughter of the universal Catholic monarchy and the Counter-Reformation.
In 1966, Teodoro Moscoso, architect of Operation Bootstrap and the first U.S. Coordinator of the Alliance for Progress, John F. Kennedy’s answer for Latin America to the Cuban Revolution, wrote a retrospective on his years with the Alliance:
The Latin American case is so complex, so difficult to solve, and so fraught with human and global danger and distress that the use of the word “anguish” is not an exaggeration. The longer I live, the more I believe that, just as no human being can save another who does not have the will to save himself, no country can save others no matter how good its intentions or how hard it tries.
Moscoso, who had been my boss once removed when I started to work in the Latin American Bureau of USAID in 1962, had a sign on the wall in his office on the sixth floor of the State Department that read, “Please be brief. We are twenty years late!”

Osvaldo Hurtado’s article, “Know Thyself: Latin America in the Mirror of Culture,” appeared in the January–February 2010 issue of The American Interest. In it, he cites the writings of the Venezuelan author Carlos Rangel:
Latin Americans now largely accept the idea that our position of inferiority vis-à-vis the United States is due . . . to that country’s exploitation of our subcontinent through the mechanisms of imperialism and dependency.
Thus we have fallen prey to the most debilitating and pernicious of several myths through which we have tried to explain our destiny. This myth is debilitating because it attributes all that is wrong in Latin America to external factors. . .
A sincere, rational, scientific examination of North American influence on Latin America’s destiny would have to . . . keep open the possibility that the United States’ overall contribution may have been positive…

Rangel concluded that at the root of Latin America’s problems is neither dependency nor exploitation, but a set of cultural values that impede the consolidation of democratic institutions, the advance of social justice, and the achievement of economic development. I am convinced that he was and remains correct, and that cultural change is indispensable to the region’s long-term, sustainable progress.

In its January–February 2011 issue, Foreign Affairs published as its lead article an essay by Costa Rican ex-president Oscar Arias titled, “Culture Matters: The Real Obstacles to Latin American Development.” Arias, who had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts at promoting peace in Central America, wrote:
Instead of a culture of improvement, [Latin Americans] have promoted a culture of preservation of the status quo. Constant, patient reform—the only kind of reform compatible with democratic stability—is unsatisfying; the region accepts what exists, while occasionally pining for dramatic revolutions that promise abundant treasures only one insurrection away.
Ernesto Caravantes, whose parents immigrated to the United States from Mexico, had this to say in the preface to his 2010 book From Melting Pot to Witch’s Cauldron: How Multiculturalism Failed America:
I was at one of my book signings some time ago when a woman raised her hand to speak. She was a Mexican immigrant, and she told me that she had a 13-year-old son, whom she is raising here in southern California… her son is an American citizen by virtue of his birth. She said she makes it a point to tell her son of all the virtues and wonderful aspects of Mexico. She wanted her son to be proud of his Mexican heritage.
What she said gave me pause. Presumably, this woman and her husband had immigrated to the United States in search of a better life for their family. Mexico had failed them on multiple levels. The United States was seen as the country most able to offer educational and occupational opportunities. Why, then, would they have left a failed country to come to the United States to raise their children and then exalt Mexico, a country which they were only too willing to leave behind?
This stands in stark distinction to the European immigrants who flocked to this country in the nineteenth century. Upon landing on the eastern seashores, they cut all ties with their mother country and immediately began to forge for themselves an American identity. They did not force feed their children the language of the mother country, be it Danish, Norwegian, or Dutch. Yes, perhaps they did lose a part of their cultural identity, yet that loss was quickly replaced by a new forward-reaching identity: an American identity. Their quick adoption of an American identity, combined with industriousness and hard work inspired by their Protestantism, quickly allowed them to begin prospering and building metropolises that have become so iconic in the American landscape.

Samuel Huntington captured the cultural implications for immigration from Latin America into the United States when he wrote in Who Are We?: “Would America be the America it is today if it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no. It would not be America; it would be Québec, Mexico, or Brazil.”

Low Latino Priority for Education

Latin America’s cultural problem is apparent in the persistent Latino high school dropout rate—30 percent in California, according to a recent study—and the high incidence of teenage pregnancy, single mothers, and crime. The perpetuation of Latino culture is facilitated by the Spanish language’s growing challenge to English as our national language. It makes it easier for Latinos to avoid the melting pot and for education to remain a low priority, as it is in Latin America, a problem highlighted in recent books by former New York City Deputy Mayor Herman Badillo, a Puerto Rican, and Mexican-Americans Lionel Sosa and Ernesto Caravantes.

In his 2006 book , One Nation, One Standard: An Ex-Liberal on How Hispanics Can Succeed Just Like Other Immigrant Groups, Badillo underscores “the distressingly low level of educational achievement among Latin Americans in their own countries.” For example he cites Mexico, which had established 10 years of education as “compulsory” but had achieved only an average of 7.2 years. The Latin American leader was Chile with 12 years compulsory and 10.1 years achieved. Haiti was the lowest with 6 years compulsory and 2.8 years achieved.

Badillo showed the United States with 12 years compulsory and 12 years achieved. This presumably bulks college graduates with high school graduates considering particularly the high dropout rates of Latinos and African Americans.

Based on a broad survey, the Pew Hispanic Center produced data for 2007 that showed that 50.6 percent of foreign-born age twenty-five and older Latino immigrants had dropped out of school before completing high school; 23.5 percent of Latinos born in the United States had dropped out. This compares with 19.8 percent of African Americans and 10.5 percent of white Americans. The Washington Post reports, “Second-generation Hispanics have the highest high school dropout rate—one in seven—of any U.S.-born racial or ethnic group and the highest teen pregnancy rate. These Hispanics also receive far fewer college degrees and make significantly less money than non-Hispanic whites and other second-generation immigrants.”

The troublingly low level of educational achievement of Latinos brings with it several other problems:
High teenage birth rate: According to a University of California San Francisco 2002 study, “Latinas [had] the highest teen birth rate of all major racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., resulting in an increasing number of young Latina mothers and children who are especially vulnerable to poverty, lack of health care, and welfare dependence. . . 83 births per 1,000 teenage women aged 15–19 in 2002, a rate nearly twice as high as the national rate of 43. Birth rates were highest for Latinas of Mexican descent (94.5), followed by those of Puerto Rican descent (61.4).”
High incarceration levels: “[A] study, conducted by the Pew Center on the States, found that among Latino men, one in every 36 is incarcerated. One in every 15 black men is incarcerated . . . compared to one in every 106 white men.”
Welfare dependency: Department of Health and Human Services data for 2005 show 6.7 percent of whites, 24.9 percent of African Americans, and 14.6 percent of Latinos who receive some sort of welfare assistance.
The contrast between Latinos and African Americans must be kept in a perspective that magnifies the Latino problem: In the 2000 census, Latinos numbered 35.3 million, or 12.5 percent of a total population of 281.4 million; African Americans numbered 34.7 million, or 12.3 percent. In the 2010 census, against a total of 308.8 million, Latinos numbered 50.2 million, an increase of 16 million that raised their share to 16.3 percent, while African Americans grew only by 4.3 million, with a share of 12.6 percent. Moreover, the Census Bureau projections for 2050 would bring the Latino segment of the population to 132.8 million, or 30 percent of the total, compared to an African American segment of 65.7 million, one-half the size of a Latino segment to which it was equal in the 2000 census.

A Bilingual United States

We are becoming a bilingual country; witness the experience of calling a business and hearing, “If you wish to speak in English, press one; si quiere hablar en español, oprima el botón número dos.” Never in our history has an immigrant language acquired the power to compete with English for a prolonged period anywhere in the nation. As Huntington points out in Who Are We?,
The continuing growth of Hispanic numbers and influence has led some Hispanic advocates to set forth two goals. The first is to prevent the assimilation of Hispanics into America’s Anglo-Protestant society and culture, and instead create a large, autonomous, permanent, Spanish-speaking, social and cultural Hispanic community on American soil.
Advocates, such as William Flores and Rina Benmayor, reject the idea of a “single national community,” attack “cultural homogenization,” and castigate the effort to promote the use of English as a manifestation of “xenophobia and cultural arrogance” . . .
The second goal of these Hispanic advocates follows from the first. It is to transform America as a whole into a bilingual, bicultural society. America should no longer have the core Anglo-Protestant culture plus the ethnic sub-cultures that it has had for three centuries. It should have two cultures, Hispanic and Anglo, and, most explicitly, two languages, Spanish and English…
A choice must be made “about the future of America,” the Duke professor Ariel Dorfman declares: “Will this country speak two languages or merely one?” And his answer, of course, is that it should speak two.
Huntington goes on to point out that Latinos in large metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, New York, Miami, and Chicago can live their lives substantially in a Spanish-speaking environment. Heretofore all immigrant groups made sure that their U.S.-born offspring were native speakers of English, which usually resulted in the native language being substantially lost to the third generation.

Now, a Spanish-language television network, Univisión, competes with the major U.S. networks. My friend since college days and colleague Reese Schonfeld, the first president of CNN and the media person on the Cultural Change Institute’s executive committee, periodically brings to my attention such information as the following:
Adults are beating a path to Univisión, and we’re beating the other networks.
• We’ve beaten NBC 64 out of 112 nights with adults 18–49 in primetime . . .
• We deliver more bilingual Hispanics 18–49 than American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, or Modern Family.
• 18 of the top 25 shows with bilingual Hispanics are on Univisión.
The game has changed. If you want to win with the Hispanic consumer, click here.
I am, I guess, a fairly good example of the heretofore typical language acculturation pattern of immigrant groups in the U.S. My Yiddish-speaking grandparents learned English as adults; both of my parents spoke Yiddish but were native speakers of English—and they often spoke Yiddish so that my brother and I wouldn’t understand what they were saying. The result is, sadly, that I know some Yiddish words and expressions but can’t understand it or speak it. (I say “sadly” because Yiddish is a dying language, even though it has contributed many words to modern American English, e.g., bagel, lox, nosh, schlep, schmooze, tush.)

Huntington cites Senator S.I. Hayakawa of Hawaii on Spanish’s unique supporters:
Why is it that no Filipinos, no Koreans object to making English the official language? No Japanese have done so. And certainly not the Vietnamese, who are so damn happy to be here. They’re learning English as fast as they can and winning spelling bees all across the country. But the Hispanics alone have maintained there is a problem. There [has been] considerable movement to make Spanish the second official language.
One need only look at other bilingual countries (e.g., Canada, Belgium) to sense what divisiveness may be in store for the United States, above all as the Latino component of our population soars toward one-third. On October 28, 1975, the NewYork Times, published a highly atypical editorial, given its current pro-immigration posture, titled ‘‘Divisive Languages.” Consider a few of its key points:
Viewing the growing language conflict in Canada, Americans can be grateful that this country has no great region of non-English-speaking citizens…[T]he…Canadian situation tragically demonstrates the awesome power of bilingualism to perpetuate differences within a country, deepen antagonisms and make national politics an endless walk on an ethnic tightrope.
Immigrants to America have naturally formed language enclaves, but the sooner their children have learned to think, speak, and write in English, the greater has been their mobility, the better their chances of success and the freer their country from the friction of clashing cultures…

Language and Culture

Language is the conduit of culture. Consider that there is no word in Spanish for “compromise” (“compromiso” means “commitment”) nor for “accountability,” a problem that is compounded by a passive reflexive verb structure that converts “I dropped (broke, forgot) something” into “It got dropped” (“broken,” “forgotten”).

As the USAID mission director during the first two years of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, I had difficulty communicating “dissent” to a government minister at a crucial moment in our efforts to convince the U.S. Congress to approve a special appropriation for Nicaragua. The minister was the scion of an upper-class Nicaraguan family who had studied at a U.S. university. Yet he was buffaloed by the concept of dissent as a legitimate, even indispensable, democratic concept. After an extended effort on my part to explain, his face brightened, and he exclaimed, “Now I understand what you are talking about—civil disobedience!”

I was later told by a bilingual, bicultural Nicaraguan educator that when I used the word “dissent,” what my Nicaraguan colleague understood was “heresy.” “We are, after all, children of the Inquisition,” he added.

In his letter to me in 1991, Mexican-American columnist Richard Estrada addressed the consequences of bilingualism: Estrada believed that, in the long run, the language problem in the U.S. southwest may prove to be greater than in the case of Québec:
[F]or Québec...does not lie contiguous to France.... The Southwest, on the other hand, shares a 2,000-mile long border with a Spanish-speaking country of at least 85 million people [in 1990; 112 million in 2010], hundreds of thousands of whom yearly move to the U.S., or who reside with one foot in one country, the other in the other. The twin factors of geographic contiguity and rate of immigration must give pause. No one can witness the growth of Spanish-language media in this country and fail to believe that things are headed in the direction of a parallel culture. And that is the point: bilingualism has generally militated against assimilation. It has promoted a parallel culture instead of a subordinate one.

Huntington poses the problem in even stronger terms, with which I agree:
Despite the opposition of large majorities of Americans, Spanish is joining the language of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelts, and Kennedys as the language of America. If this trend continues, the cultural division between Hispanics and Anglos will replace the racial division between blacks and whites as the most serious cleavage in American society. A bifurcated America with two languages and two cultures will be fundamentally different from the America with one language and one core Anglo-Protestant culture that has existed for over three centuries.
Jim Ruvalcaba’s Mission
Jaime “Jim” Ruvalcaba was, in 2004, a U.S. Marine major in the masters’ program at Tufts University’s Fletcher School when he first participated in my seminar, “Cultural Capital and Development.” I arranged for him to meet with Samuel Huntington. We stayed in touch after he returned to the Marine Corps, and, after retiring from the Corps as a lieutenant colonel, and as a student at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School, he participated in my seminar once again in the fall of 2011.

Jim retired from the military because he wants to dedicate his life to encouraging Latino immigrants to acculturate to the U.S. value system, above all by giving heavy emphasis to education. Ultimately, he is thinking of running for Congress from California, his home state. What follows is derived from his term paper, “The Economic and Social Impact of Latino Immigration.”

Growing up as an indigent migrant farm worker in California and living among legal and illegal immigrants confirmed to him that Latino families (especially those of Mexican ethnicity) focus much more on family than on community and the broader society. Furthermore, their dominant focus on the present and past, and the absence of role models, preclude many Latinos from visualizing the benefits of investing in education.

One particularly noxious result of these cultural obstacles to progress has been the emergence of Latino gangs. The Department of Justice National Gang Center estimated that, in 2009, there were 731,000 gang members of all types operating in the United States; 367,000—more than 52 percent—were Latinos. Although the total number of gang members had declined by over 115,000 in thirteen years, the proportion of Latino involvement in gangs had increased by five percent, while that of black and white Americans had both decreased.

Gangs also expose their family members to emotional and psychological trauma, injury, and death. Ruvalcaba can attest to the emotional pain associated with losing a family member to the corrosive gang lifestyle. His closest brother was involved in gangs from the age of sixteen. During his six-year involvement in gangs, he dropped out of school, was in and out of juvenile hall and prison, fathered two children by age eighteen, and was engaged in violent gang activity (i.e., shootings, stabbings), and heavy drug use. Because of this dangerous lifestyle, Ruvalcaba’s brother did not live to see his twenty-second birthday.

Ruvalcaba finishes his presentation with a clarion call to replace multiculturalism with the U.S. national cultural mainstream:
Samuel Huntington was absolutely correct in addressing the important issues regarding the slow or non-assimilation of the massive flow of Latinos into mainstream American society. Although there are many productive Latinos in the U.S. who are fully assimilated into the American culture, we have to pay attention to the alarming current indicators and trends among Hispanic-Americans that validate Huntington’s warning.
After analyzing the Latino legal and illegal immigration flows, education levels, welfare utilization, gang involvement, incarceration rates, and the costly, parasitic...subculture that prevents Latino youth from assimilating into mainstream society, I conclude that it is of the highest national priority that assimilation of Latinos be vastly accelerated. The social and economic costs are too high to continue to tackle this challenge piecemeal.
Accordingly, the government, religious organizations, media, corporate sector, and, first and foremost, Latino families must come together to address this threat to Latino youth—and to American identity.
The motto on our national seal reads “E Pluribus Unum” (“From Many One”). This motto needs to be the guiding theme for our immigration policy and especially our assimilation philosophy—not the multiculturalism that is without core values. Although I acknowledge the value of ethnic diversity, we must exercise caution in espousing the multiculturalist perspective that states that all cultures are equal—regardless of evidence to the contrary, and the costs with which it burdens society.

The multiculturalist viewpoint is not only costly to our society’s present and future; it tolerates the status quo (low or non-assimilation) as an acceptable level of comportment. Our national identity and political integrity depend on a unified vision—a national creed. We can and should do better: E Pluribus Unum!

The National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) are all committed to the multicultural vision—and are receiving support from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. A new pro-acculturation organization might be a crucial actor. And what better person to lead it than Jim Ruvalcaba? One possible name: LATUSA—Latinos for the USA.

What We Must Do

• We must end illegal immigration by enforcing the laws on employment and strengthening our control of our southern border.
• We should calibrate legal immigration annually to: first, the needs of the economy, and, second, past performance of immigrant groups with respect to acculturation and contribution to our society.
• We should declare our national language to be English and discourage the proliferation of Spanish language media.
• We should end birthright citizenship, limiting citizenship by birth to children with at last one parent who is a citizen.
• We should provide immigrants with easy-to-access educational services that facilitate acculturation, including English language, citizenship, and values.

McKinney, Texas: Another Anti-White Narrative Collapses

via The Daily Stormer

White “racism” is very real, at least according to our enemies that want to see us violently exterminated. If we just look hard enough, really use that imagination and maybe completely divorce ourselves to reality we should find examples of it everywhere. For example, we were told that well-behaved “teens” were kicked out of a pool and brutalized by the 90 I.Q. police because Whites are bad, invisible backpack and privilege. I read about it, chuckled to myself, and got ready to write about it in a few days when the unpleasant truth ruins another cultural marxist fairy tale. Suffice it to say the mythical well-behaved group of negroes is every bit as elusive as the pervasive but nowhere to be found “racism” of Whites. Somehow “negroes put pool on tilt, get arrested” became a fable about the wickedness of Whitey and the justification for the ongoing campaign of genocide against us, at least for a short time.



They didn’t do [anything]
 Conservative Headlines:
The McKinney Pool Party story by the media was a total hoax.
“Here’s a incident involving race, should we carefully research it and make sure we have all the facts so we don’t make inflammatory statements that later turn out to be false?”
“LOL, no, let’s just blame Whites.”
It was not even a “pool party.” A cookout was held at a park near the pool. A DJ was hired, who blasted foul mouthed gangster rap music for hours.
A little (c)rap music to prime the pump of typical negro behavior. After this kosher dose of worthless obscenity and calls for violence against Whites it was time to run wild.
This prompted carloads of teenagers from other neighborhoods began showing up.
Reasons you need to be armed in the U.S.S.A., volume 78,158.
Once the crowd reached about one hundred teens, they violently invaded a private community pool. The mob of teenagers both fought with each other, hurled bottles at cars, assaulted the two neighborhood security guards, and viciously attacked an adult female resident.
The content of their character. Imagine that, a mob of 70 I.Q. genetic aliens engaging in pathology that somehow escaped mention from the kosher media. Bottle chuckers loose in a dead nation, the failure of fifty years of pathetic appeasement.
As the violence escalated, residents began calling the police. Virtually everything reported by the national media has turned out to be a hoax.
We were fed another pack of jewish lies. The propaganda hay has been made, expect an official retraction in 4 point type on page 17F.
The media has falsely claimed that white police officers attacked a peaceful black pool party, because residents merely objected to the presence of black people in their neighborhood.
Seems plausible. The “Fresh Prince” and his tar-colored teen friends, having an innocent little party. Racist Whites, driven mad by White Privilege, bring in the KKK in blue. There are people that honestly believe this sort of thing happens, because that’s what the electronic synagogue tells them.
The pool has strict rules. Any “pool party” requires prior notification, a deposit, and must be limited to no more than twenty people.
Rules be “races” an sheet.

Not Your Pool

via Henry Dampier

From our responsible friends at Vox, we learn that private property is merely an expression of racism.

The Cathedral gets to win this one because the people who would otherwise want to defend private property are entirely hamstringed by the ideology and legal structure of civil rights. Centrist and left-leaning libertarians in particular, who might be inclined to defend the rights of suburbanites to maintain an exclusive place to themselves, are instead pushed by their prior ideological commitments to defend the raucuous mob.

Why exactly should anyone give a rotten dime to the Cato Institute if they’re unwilling to defend the most clear cut issues related to trespassing? You would have to be both rich enough to not care about wasting the money and dumb enough to not comprehend the issues involved here.

The entire point of private property is having the right to select who can and can’t make use of something. If you say that you can’t use even reasonable amounts of force in defense of property, then it’s not private property anymore.

Hamfisted Red propaganda makes its return as the state conscripts indoctrinated children to wave signs condemning the ‘intolerance’ of the inoffensive suburban bourgeoisie.

If anything, not enough force was used to clear the pool. To claim to uphold private property without being willing to use as much force as is necessary to demonstrate that claim is to give up the claim. Proclaiming that you support private property in the abstract, while condemning the defense of those rights in the concrete, is to be worse than useless as an ‘advocate’ of those rights. It is to say “I will defend this” while unchallenged, and then to back away when that principle is actually challenged. This is more obnoxious even than an open Bolshevik who openly opposes the existence of private property.

For conservatives, the unreliability of the state in defense of private property is a further difficulty. It’s embarrassing that private property owners have to make themselves so pathetic in relying on a uniformed agent of the state to defend their own pool. Given that the priestly authority in the US, bound up in the press, wants to obliviate the principle of private property selectively — particularly in cases like this — it’s going to be more challenging to prevent the US from receding to the third world mean.

For the press, events like these are teaching moments intended to shame the remnant middle class to part with their holdings, creating maudlin morality plays intended to break resistance to expropriation of all kinds.

The entire national press will censure one woman for saying “Go back to Section 8,” but it’s become crimethink to even conceive of something like “end Section 8″ and “those who do not work should not eat.”

It may be true that the left is overplaying its hand in cheering on the mob of youths. The rising third world generation may have numbers on their side, but they aren’t really useful for much else other than mobbing things and whining on the internet. To that extent, the left is good at mobilizing discontent, but not terribly good at making those people productive.

Anti-Bias Brainwashing: A Psychometric Attack against White Collective Interests

via EGI Notes

"Scientists” are perfecting brainwashing techniques to make Whites “lessen bias."
Abstract: Although people may endorse egalitarianism and tolerance, social biases can remain operative and drive harmful actions in an unconscious manner. Here, we investigated training to reduce implicit racial and gender bias. Forty participants processed counterstereotype information paired with one sound for each type of bias. Biases were reduced immediately after training. During subsequent slow-wave sleep, one sound was unobtrusively presented to each participant, repeatedly, to reactivate one type of training. Corresponding bias reductions were fortified in comparison with the social bias not externally reactivated during sleep. This advantage remained 1 week later, the magnitude of which was associated with time in slow-wave and rapid-eye-movement sleep after training. We conclude that memory reactivation during sleep enhances counterstereotype training and that maintaining a bias reduction is sleep-dependent.

Here’s a “popular” explanation of this despicably evil Pavlovian, Huxleyian, and Orwellian research.

Emphasis added:
In a computerized program, faces were paired with words that ran contrary to negative stereotypes. For instance, female faces appeared with words associated with math or science, and black faces appeared with words considered pleasant. Paller said two distinctive sounds were played during the training, one associated with the women and science pairs and the other with the black and "pleasant" pairs.
After the training, participants went to sleep. Then, without the participants' knowledge, scientists repeatedly played one of the sounds with the volume low enough to avoid waking sleeping participants up. 
Paller said the sleep training produced results. He said bias reduction was stronger for the sleep-training group and that the changes were identified as having continued a week later. 


 Emphasis added:
In a commentary, Gordon Feld and Jan Born from the University of Tubingen praised the study saying: "This is the first to demonstrate that this method can be used to break long-lived, highly pervasive response habits deeply rooted in memory."
But they cautioned that sleep was a vulnerable state in which people did not have "wilful consciousness".
They added: "However, Aldous Huxley's description of a dystopian 'brave new world' where young children are conditioned to certain values during sleep reminds us that this research also needs to be guided by ethical considerations." 
Prof Paller said there were similarities to subliminal advertising and that there was an ethical discussion to be had.  
However, he continued: "More importantly, perhaps, is the question of whether people in positions of authority in society, such as judges and police officers, and perhaps people who make hiring decisions, should have their unconscious bias evaluated and perhaps trained to some standard.”

So every subject was white? How could they legitimately test the efficacy of cross-cultural bias abatement using only one cohort? That’s actually quite simple. The experiment isn’t at all about reducing a natural and beneficial concept called bias; it’s about reducing whites. Were it otherwise I quite think all of the clucking about diversity that emanates from the academy would seep into their studies. Practically every Western university has jettisoned principles of merit to accommodate a campus potpourri–and suddenly not a single student of color could be located to participate in critical bias reduction experiments?

This blogger asserts that Paller’s ancestry is reflected here.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true, but I will withhold further comment on that until more information is available. I note that the first author has a Chinese surname. No experiments were done to see if this technique would lessen anti-White attitidues among Chinese. Fancy that!

From a proximate interests standpoint, maybe people would – on their own, without brainwashing – associate Blacks with “pleasantness” if that racial group was in fact pleasant, intelligent, disciplined, creative, productive, and law-abiding, instead of being unintelligent, violent, unproductive and generally useless, making the streets of America run red with their criminal proclivities.  Likewise, people may associate women with STEM achievements if in fact that was warranted, but the realty is, men are in general better in those fields. The idea – the lie – promoted by the evil genocidal filth behind this study is that their techniques allow people to “unlearn” the biases they have accumulated from (negative) influences in their lives.  Really?  The truth: the hyper-PC anti-White System (the same folks who fund this research) have been subjecting society to decades of anti-White and anti-male propaganda. In the mass media, Blacks are discriminated-against geniuses, and women are portrayed as far superior to men both intellectually and physically. What "biases" against minorities and women are being "learned" in this manner? If people have “biases” that go in the opposite direction of Paller's sociopolitical agenda, it is because they have experienced reality, and reality is a harsh mistress indeed. What Hu and Paller want is to brainwash Whites to reject reality in favor of socially engineered fantasy.
And from the ultimate interests standpoint, this is all about disarming Whites in their competition with other groups, to make Whites unconcerned with their genetic and cultural dispossession and race replacement, while also masculinizing women and promoting non-fertile lifestyles for White females. This is, from a racial preservationist standpoint, in its ultimate outcome, the promotion of genocide.
Update: See this.
We are also experimenting with a crowdfunding project on implanting false memories during sleep...
This fellow is more dangerous than a million feral Negroes. More evidence that the ancestry mentioned above is correct.  Heritable ethnic evil...what else could it be?

The Jewish Hidden Hand Behind Muslim Ethnic Antagonism in the UK

via The Occidental Observer

You could fill the pages of TOO with examples of hostile Jewish strategies designed to advance the cause of White dispossession, but here are two case studies from the UK which are particularly instructive.

One involves an organisation which has been exposed for false or exaggerated claims about White violence towards Muslims. The second involves the concealment of the ethnic dimension of grooming gangs which targeted White girls. In both cases it is the role of the Jewish hidden hand in exploiting these ethnic conflicts that is interesting.

TellMama  — Mama stands for ‘Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks’ — styles itself as Britain’s foremost anti-Muslim hate organisation and has received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the government to “monitor and combat hate crimes” against Muslims.

Initially it was a government project set up by the Conservatives in 2012 with a fairly overt remit to demonise any White reaction to Muslim predation. It seems to have been the brainchild of a Muslim “social entrepreneur” called Fiyaz Mughal who figured out there is big money in setting up sock-puppet outfits that peddle the government line.

Tell Mama shot to national prominence in the wake of the murder of Lee Rigby on 22 May, 2013 when the off-duty Fusilier was hacked to death by Muslims in a busy street in south east London.

Within a day of this atrocity, Tell Mama was claiming Muslims were being attacked. Soon much of the Lee Rigby coverage was swamped by a scare about an “Islamophobic” backlash that was supposed to be taking place all over the country. Media such as the BBC and Guardian  were only too happy to provide a platform for these claims without looking too closely.

Fiyaz Mughul told the BBC “There has been a massive spike in anti-Muslim prejudice. A sense of endemic fear has gripped Muslim communities” and Tell Mama’s Twitter feed claimed that a Muslim woman had been “knocked unconscious” in Bolton, a claim recycled in the Guardian. “The scale of the backlash is astounding,” said Mughal.
But the “unconscious” Muslim woman in Bolton could not be tracked down. And apart from a few individual cases of graffiti and broken mosque windows the anti-Muslim reaction did not seem to amount to anything. But Tell Mama’s efforts had done their job — and diverted media attention.

Only much later, when a diligent Telegraph reporter Andrew Gilligan began to look into the claims more closely did Tell Mama’s claims began to come apart.  Peeling back the layers of hyperbole he discovered that most of the “attacks” consisted of angry online social media exchanges. In fact out of 212 alleged Islamophobic incidents it turned out that 57% were online.

For this stooge organisation’s amateurish claims to be so easily exposed was embarrassing for its political paymasters, and Tell Mama’s grant was withdrawn.  The gravy train had well and truly hit the buffers.

Fast-forward to April, 2014  when Tell Mama announced the names of its new co-chairs.  One was Shahid Malik, a Labour Party hack and former government minister who was entrusted with delivering the Muslim vote to the party.

But the other was Richard Benson who for the previous 12 years had been chief executive of the Jewish community’s private security organisation, the Community Security Trust. After defending the Jewish community against “hate” he was now apparently going to do the same for the Muslims.

In fact at least three of the ten patrons of Britain’s foremost Muslim anti-hate organisation are Jews: these include Jonathan Bloch, a South African political activist, lawyer and businessman and author of books on KGB and CIA dirty tricks; and businessman Sir Trevor Chinn whose Wikipedia page reveals that, when not fighting Islamophobia, he has “devoted himself to the Jewish Community in Britain and supporting the State of Israel”.

But it is the arrival of Richard Benson at the cash-strapped organisation that is most interesting. While running the Community Security Trust he also found time to manage 200 filling stations for Gerald Ronson, the billionaire convicted criminal who largely bankrolls the CST and who obviously believes in getting maximum value from his employees.

In the past Mr Benson has taken a zero-tolerance stand against any expression of White identity.  He condemned Tommy Robinson of the English Defence League as a “street thug” even though the EDL only marches against militant Islam and is financially backed by other Jewish activists such as Pamela Gellar.

Taking control of an ostensibly Muslim agitational organisation such as Tell Mama is a good example of covert Jewish anti-White activism that has a long and infamous history.

But the real reason that Jews back such a Muslim organisation is the same reason they backed Black nationalism in South Africa and Black civil rights organisations in the United States — to undermine White society.

Tell Mama was, of course, never about anti-Muslim attacks which are almost as negligible as anti-Jewish violence in Britain. It was always about demonizing and demoralising the Whites and distracting them from who their real enemy is.

For Jewish groups know their privileges guarantee their community more safety in Europe and the USA than anywhere else in the world. Even unhinged murderous attacks like Charlie Hebdo are negligible in the big scheme of things, and possibly even helpful from their point of view in that they usher in a new raft of anti-free speech laws.

However there are good examples where the Jewish agenda is more insidious. One involves a “child safety” bureaucrat called Sue Berelowitz.

Sue Berelowitz
Sue Berelowitz
The child sexual abuse industry has been good to Sue Berelowitz and she has risen high on to become the Deputy Children’s Commissioner to the tune of just under £100,000 a year. Her mission has been to sniff out child sexual abuse wherever it is taking place, and she has duly complied. In the spirit of Witchfinder General Matthew Hopkins she  sees it everywhere in White Britain — children are being sexually abused at record levels across the country, especially within families and within “every town, village and hamlet” in the land.

She has often been accused of hugely overstating the national problem but last year she was roundly condemned for a surprisingly different reason. This was when her Office published a report which played down the race of the offenders in child sexual exploitation gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford. Instead she insisted the ‘model’ of Asian men abusing White teenage girls was only one among a wide range of unacceptable behaviour. She was accused of turning a blind eye to the glaring ethnic nature of a very large component of the sexual abuse problem.

But even the figures in her own report contradicted this. Despite making up only 6.9% of the population, Asian and South-East Asian men made up 27.4% of offenders. Black men make up 2.3% of the population but 16.1% of offenders. By comparison, White men make up 91% of the population but only 35.9% of offenders. And one wonders if White men are being prosecute far more aggressively in order to keep the percentage of offenders even this high.

So despite finding that more than a quarter of perpetrators known to the authorities were Asian and despite the fact that this is far out of proportion to their numbers, Berelowitz said there was no evidence to conclude that there was a particular issue with Asian gangs.

The Berelowitz report was a lifeline that was eagerly grabbed by many embattled Labour figures such as the Rotherham MP Sarah Champion who echoed Berelowitz’s finding that nationally, the main culprits of child sexual abuse were White men.

Then last month when it was revealed Ms Berelowitz was leaving her job with  a voluntary severance payment of £134,000 — but was to be immediately rehired as a freelance consultant to do the same job, at £960 a day.  Even for the public sector this was seen as a gross abuse and she has since been stripped of this position.
Naturally enough this grasping woman has played the only card left to her — the race card and in so doing has suddenly rediscovered the importance of ethnicity which was so irrelevant when it came to Pakistani Muslims preying on young White girls.

At the Hay Literary Festival she said :
“I am a Jew who is doing work that’s very difficult right now because I’m inquiring into the sexual abuse of children and I’m facing the most vile anti-Semitic attacks on social media — ‘filthy Jewish bitch’.
I stand here as a Jew who will not give up Jewishness and who will not give up standing up for victims and will continue to live in my neighbourhood because the police are having to patrol to keep me safe.”
Since the scandal over her pay-off Berelowitz has returned to what she does best — ramping up the child sexual abuse industry. And White men, watch out! She is producing a new report on the national scale of the problem in November and warns that it will reveal that there is not enough land to build the prisons needed to hold offenders. And of the Muslim child rape epidemic, this loyal public servant still has nothing to say.

And this is how Jewish malevolence and hostility towards the indigenous Whites reveals itself.