Jun 18, 2015

Peak Freak

via Alternative Right

About to blow?
America used to be known as "The Land of the Free." After recent weeks, and the total dominance of the news narrative by the transgenderism of Bruce Jenner and the transracialism of Rachel Dolezal, this may have to be amended to "The Land of the Freak," although the freakery is at least partly the result of the freedom.

But just how significant are these recent cases and their attendant phenomena?

The pessimist or frequent internet user may see this as a sure sign of decadence and impending doom, with visions of the fall of Rome or Babylon swimming about his head. One may even imagine "trans-ing" spreading like some contagious disease, with each outbreak encouraging similar creatures elsewhere to shuffle out of the shadows – an Ebola of the soul.

There is already the phenomenon of "gender fluidity," in which some people claim to identify as "male" one day and "female" the next – and then it gets complicated.

Christopher Lee, pioneer
of transracialism, apparently.
Won’t this also spread to race, with people identifying as Black in the morning, Hispanic at lunchtime, and White in time for dinner? Then, what if they start getting into trans-ethnicism – a very slippery slope! I may already be guilty of this myself. On a good day, when I’m being particularly efficient, I get the spooky feeling that I may actually be German, but when it comes to tipping, my inner Jew comes to the fore.
And what about the majority of White Americans, most of whom are "mutts," mixtures of different European ethnicities, each one with its own distinct identity and perceived behaviour patterns? The potential for transethnicism is enormous.

To those in thrall to the clickbait sites that now dominate the media narrative, it must seem as if identity in America is tottering on the brink of dissolving entirely or becoming little more than a commodity in a supermarket or an avatar choice in a video game.

Change your toothpaste on Monday, your hair colour on Tuesday, your nationality on Wednesday, your gender on Thursday, and on Friday meet yourself coming the other way. Then what about transpecieism? Or even better transagism? After all, age is a significant part of anyone’s identity and it is so limiting to have to always act one’s age.
Evil Rachelist.
But is any of this identity dissolution likely to actually happen outside some tiny zero-point percentage of freaks?

Even there it often depends on utility and benefits. Jenner may very well be more comfortable pretending to be a woman, but how many men actually want to go to that length – or lack of length – and how many of those actually become happy, well adjusted individuals  afterwards?

He may also be enjoying once again the caresses of the limelight and being the centre of attention. Non-celebrities are unlikely to enjoy that benefit.

Rachel Dolezal also seems to have enjoyed some psychological and financial benefit. She has gained several sinecure positions and managed to promote her oh-so-poignant art on the back of her ersatz identity. This is something that SJWs, if they ever come to their senses, must hate her for, because she is a one-woman refutation of the idea of "White Privilege," which can best be described as the homeopathic dilution of actual racism.

But there are limits to this kind of thing. Real Blacks have always been wary of lighter skinned mulattoes. Even Obama had a hard time being accepted by them until the contrast effect kicked in. And even though Al Sharpton has come out in support of Dolezal "choosing" to be Black, this sentiment is unlikely to be shared by run-of-the-mill Blacks – I fully expect to see Dolezal in the near future having her "weaves" pulled out by one of her "sistas" in one of those "sheboon" fights that frequently pop up on Worldstarhiphop.

What we are seeing here in these cases is by now a very old and jaded trick. Progressives, in order to push their unnatural agendas of "normalizing" homosexuality and inverting healthy White racism, have relied on provoking outrage and have then fed off it. They do this by channelling it back into the intellectual and cultural matrix of the West, which most people still use to define their moral universe. This is an unholy amalgam of Christian or Post-Christian guilt/humility and a pugnacious belief in individual freedom as an absolute – a distorted, toxic value that was shaped by the need to fend of the threat of Communist tyranny during the four decades of the Cold War, rather in the same way that nuclear missiles, poison gas, and biological weapons were required, but which now merely exists as a poison in our civilization.
Another week, another freak.
Each freak, reprobate, and abomination that progressives have hoisted into the public consciousness over the last few decades, starting with Rodney King, has provoked this same trajectory – natural revulsion from normal people, quickly followed by a sense of guilt at being "unkind" and "intolerant," followed by the concession of "freedom" as a compromise solution and way of making the problem "just go away." Call it mental White Flight. This is the fertile ground on which Cultural Marxism has been marching for the last few decades.

But this process, like the proverbial shark, must forever swim forward to survive, and seek out ever more outlandish freakery to cause outrage and feed upon. If it does not, the pendulum is poised to swing the other way.

Social media – and the mainstream media which slavishly trails behind it – has a tendency to gorge on freakery, but freakery has always been parasitic on normalcy. Once there is too much of it, the law of diminishing returns kicks in. After the bloating the purging looms. Collectively, as a culture and civilization, we have at least twenty years of vomit backed up, waiting to be unleashed. When that erupts, you may very well have a dead shark on your hands.

Can the Ossis save Europe?, Part 3

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1
Part 2

Scene from Russian Victory Parade, 2015

Putin’s Russia: Imperfect Allies

It would be wrong to either idealize or demonize the government of President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation. He is neither as sound as White Nationalists would like nor as devilish as many mainstream democrats assert.

But Russia has one great, indeed unique, virtue. Gregory Hood has termed Putin’s regime “the one powerful white government that is not completely under the rule of the bankers and politically correct bureaucrats that rule the West.” Indeed, Russia is the last fully sovereign European-derived nation. Sovereignty exists in all spheres or not at all. Whatever one thinks of them, the Russians are indeed militarily, economically, geopolitically, culturally, and indeed psychologically sovereign like no other.

Russia today is more independent still than was France under President Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s, and is far likelier to remain so. In the rest of Europe, every nationalist government has gradually been subverted by the forces of disintegration at work in the West. France has grown weaker and less sovereign every year and is but a shadow of her former self; Spain and Portugal were seduced by the material promises of the European Economic Community, and Serbia was simply bombed and dismembered by NATO in collaboration with ethnic Albanian criminals and terrorists.[1] Every attempt at emancipation from the American Empire, whether General de Gaulle’s Fifth Republic, François Mitterrand’s creation of a European currency, or Slobodan Milošević’s efforts to maintain Yugoslavia, has ended in failure. All have been dissolved by the culture of critique, multinational corporate interests, and the pleasures of individualist consumerism, or simply destroyed through violence.

The current crisis over Ukraine has in some ways been beneficial in terms of Russia’s independence. The Western sanctions do not appear to have had much effect on the Russian economy, but they have encouraged group solidarity, self-reliance, and pride. Russia is working with renewed effort to enhance its independence further, notably in IT and finance. GDP may well be a little lower than otherwise possible, but self-reliance has other advantages: “Autarchy is a good idea. Puts a nation on its toes. Makes more work. Stimulates invention. Of course we can’t do it a hundred per cent. But the nearer we can come to it, the better.”[2]

This feeling of national unity is visible in the aid given to Crimea, where the people overwhelmingly support having rejoined Russia. Putin’s approval ratings are astronomical. Western governments, with few exceptions, are unpopular and are struggling to contain nationalist parties voicing opposition to being permanently demographically replaced through Third World immigration. While the West showcases deviants like Pussy Riot and Austrian pop singer and drag queen Conchita Wurst, Russia promotes the attractive Prosecutor-General of Crimea Natalia Poklonskaya.

In short, on the one side patriotism and cohesion, Sobornost, on the other neurosis and decadence, Poshlost.

The results of the Putin regime have been impressive. In the 1990s, Russia fell into chaos and poverty, mortality skyrocketed and fertility collapsed, whatever was left of the former Soviet command economy was plundered by well-networked oligarchs with the “advice” of a small clique of Harvard economists, including Stanley Fischer, Larry Summers, Andrei Shleifer, and Jeffrey Sachs, all heavily Jewish.[3] The nation’s recovery under Putin has been nothing short of remarkable. GDP has more than tripled. A shocking demographic collapse (the population falling from  over 148 million in 1992 to under 143 million in 2008) has been arrested, and there has even been a moderate return to growth (albeit through immigration, much of it from ethnic Russians and other Slavs from the near abroad). Even fertility has steadily recovered, reaching 1.76 in 2014, insufficient, but still a remarkable rise from 1.17 in 1999. Putin has made raising fertility still further an explicit objective, spending billions to this effect.

Russia, like other Eastern Europeans, wants to rejoin “Europe” (really Western Europe). In Putin’s speeches, at least before the Ukrainian crisis, Western Europe was the explicit standard for wealth, social well-being, and good government to which Russia aspired. But he will not crawl to Europe; he will not compromise on Russia’s fundamental interests.

All this, however, is not enough. “Putinism,” if there is such a thing, does not appear to be a very rigorous ruling ideology. Rather, the regime and its rules are the embodiment of the pragmatism and “common sense” of the Russian oligarchy that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Union, a composite entity made up of the major industries (fossil fuels, arms) and the state apparatus (military, secret service).[4]

The “Eurasian” project in general has serious flaws so far as European Identitarians and White Advocates are concerned. There is every possibility that the interests of “Eurasia” as a geopolitical, imperial, and economic bloc — notably with the joining of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in a Customs Unions — will be put before those of the Russian ethnos. The Russian population remains unhealthy, there is typically Eastern European crass materialism (showing off of wealth), and wealth concentration in the hands of the oligarchy is enormous. Why is such wealth not being spent on some national cause rather than on building mansions or being siphoned off to obscure bank accounts? The interests of Russia’s corrupt native bourgeoisie are not the same as those of the Russian nation.

Russia’s ethnocentrism, like that of the Central Europeans, is too instinctive, too intuitive. They know themselves to be themselves, and that the others are “Other,” because it is common sense. Russians will likely retain this common sense longer than will Central Europeans. But there is no explicit ethno-national doctrine. I do not know the Russian scene well enough to comment fully on this. What is the ethnic break down of fertility?[5] What is the ethnic composition of immigration to Russia? (In the 1990s immigration was largely made up of Slavs repatriating themselves, but now immigration appears to be made up of various Caucasians [as in, from the Caucasus], central Asian Muslims, and Ukrainian refugees). The iconoclastic Russian thinker Alexander Dugin does not appear to have an ethno-national doctrine.

But there are also other tendencies in Russia. The popular nationalist website Sputnik i Pogrom is strongly concerned with Caucasian Muslim criminality. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, perhaps the most powerful Russian moral figure in recent memory, was an ethno-nationalist. In 1990, before the total collapse of the Soviet Union, he called on the country to shed its non-Slavic republics, leaving only a union of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russified north of Kazakhstan.

I am personally convinced the salvation of the European peoples and the restoration of our national and civilizational sovereignty will require a reconciliation between Western/Central Europe and Russia. I have the utmost respect for Ukrainian nationalists and their struggle to defend their people, well understood. But, as Western Europeans, there is little question that Russia is less hostile to our interests than America.

Russia is in objective alliance with Western European nationalist parties, providing both cultural and economic support. If a nationalist government were to take power in Western Europe, such as France, Russian support would be critical to preventing subversion or outright aggression by the EU and U.S. authorities, as occurred against Serbia. Beyond ideological considerations, Russia would do this for geopolitical reasons, in order to split Europe from the United States. More constructively, we can imagine renewed intergovernmental cooperation with Russia on mega-projects, already there is collaboration in aerospace, and the creation of a vast economic area, in Putin’s words, “from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” This would give a concrete unity to what Jean-Marie Le Pen has called “Boreal Europe.”

Such a scenario would likely be anathema to many Central Europeans vulnerable to Russian power. But the relative Russophilia of the Hungarian and Czech governments does show that a different attitude is possible (Czech President Miloš Zeman has asserted that Islamic expansionism is more dangerous than Russia). Personally, I do not think any homogenous country (such as Poland) has much to fear from Russia. I am frankly struck at how conservative Moscow has always been since 1945. The Soviets and Russians have since then never used their armed forces to expand, but have always used force (typically unjustly) to maintain a shrinking sphere of influence. I do not think Putin or anyone else sees any benefit in occupying any Russophobic people outside of the Russian Federation.[6]

Russia will however continue to support unhappy minorities in ethnically heterogeneous countries, especially when these are ethnic Russians, as in Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic states. There is rarely a right and wrong in these sorts of tribal disputes. These are yet more examples of the soundness of the ethno-national principle as embodied in the Treaty of Lausanne, even if such population shifts may be deeply unjust in the short term. Where such movements are not possible or desirable, Russians and Central Europeans should seek to respect each others’ minorities and legitimate interests.

Anti-Communism: A Factor of European Unity

Modestly, I suggest Central Europeans and Russians can be reconciled, just as the French and Germans have, if both sides take certain steps. I believe a good knowledge of history would be useful in this.

Central Europeans must not render the Russian people collectively guilty of communism. The early Bolsheviks were in their majority non-Russians — Jews providing the largest contingent, but also Poles, Georgians, and others. The Russian people did not create the Soviet tyranny. True, in the postwar years the Soviet elite was dejudaized and Slavicized. But by then the bureaucratic machine was already established, following its monstrous logic to its absurd conclusions, oppressing Russian and non-Russian alike, and was understandably willing to do anything to cling to the gains of 1945, the Red Army having fought its way to Berlin after the country had suffered tens of millions of casualties.

The Russians for their part will have to disassociate themselves more from their Soviet legacy. Pride in Sputnik and Gagarin, certainly, but Lenin and Stalin must be forgotten as the aliens they were. This will be difficult as, in an order derived from 1945, Russia draws considerable prestige and self-esteem from having been the single biggest contributor to the defeat of the Third Reich.

Anti-communism can be a unifying factor for all European nations. Anti-communism can also assist us in emancipating ourselves from the current order. Strange and shocking as it may seem, the spiritual and blood cousins of the Bolsheviks have enormous and even commanding influence in America, an influence achieved through cultural hegemony and the financing of both political parties. This is manifest historically in numerous episodes: in Wall Street’s strange financial support for the Russian revolutions of 1917; in the Holodomor-denial of the New York Times and other media during the interwar years; and in the ideological roots of both the New Left and the neoconservatives in Marxism.

Make no mistake: The cultural masters of America have only contempt for Europeans in general and for Slavs in particular. They have always feared and loathed Slavs, with their goyische kopf. The pejorative stereotype of the hateful, idiotic Slav is alive in well in Anglo-Zionist media. Recall Seinfeld’s “Ukraine not weak” scene. This caricature was also evident in Sacha Baron Cohen’s 2006 film Borat, portraying vaguely Slavic villagers as idiotic, inbred and joyously anti-Semitic (notably in the, admittedly hilarious, “running of the Jew” scene) .[7] Borat also mocked rural conservative White Americans, clad in cowboy gear, as anti-Semitic, having them join in a song called Throw the Jew down the well!”[8]

More generally, for Hollywood and American TV, the Russians are “the go-to bad guys,” and they are a virtual obsession for the neoconservatives who have been strong opponents of Russia in Georgia, in the annexation of Crimea, and now in  eastern Ukraine. Under the culture of critique, all ethnic European groups are understood to be evil, be it the Anglo-Saxon, the German, or the Slav. The same ethnic resentments that drove the Bolsheviks’ lust for blood are still at work in the highest cultural institutions of the West.

This hostility towards Europeans among the American elite is evident to this day. As Jean-Marie Le Pen has pointed out:
Concerning Europe, the Americans have taken the side of the Muslims, of Bosniaks and Kosovars against Christian Orthodox Serbs. They are pushing incidentally for Turkey, 95% Muslim, to enter the European Union. There are political ulterior motives whose results, I am forced to observe, are hostile to the survival of Europe.
This hostility is also evident in the New York Timespush to open Europe to the teeming masses of Africa, even as that continent’s population is expected to reach a terrifying 4.2 billion by the end of the century, and even though no nation anywhere in the world has succeeded in happily integrating their African diaspora.

Meanwhile, the Times has not reported on Israel’s forced sterilization of its Black Ethiopian population. If any European nation attempted such a thing we would never hear the end of it! It would be portrayed as nothing less than a return to Nazism and a new Shoah. None of this is understandable except in terms of the ethnic biases and interests, conscious or not, of hostile elites in the West. It is cultural-demographic warfare.

Eastern and Western Europeans need each other and have complementary traits. They face a common adversary in the form of international Zionism and hypertrophied individualism/egalitarianism. Central Europeans and Russians can play a critical role in helping their Western brothers escape the globalist suicide pact. Central Europeans may believe they are strengthening themselves by clinging to the West, but how strong will the Western alliance be when the United States has an Afro-Hispanic majority and France an Afro-Islamic one? Does anyone seriously believe that the new Third World majorities will be will be particularly interested in “dying for Poland” or any other European nation in a conflict with Russia? Surely, in Europe, peaceful coexistence with Russians is easier than with Muslims or Bantus. Rather, Europeans should realize that peace and freedom in our continent can only come from two sources: spiritual and physical strength within each nation, and reconciliation between nations.

Notes:

[1]The corruption and tribalism of NATO’s Kosovar allies are truly remarkable, the worst example being outright organ trafficking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_theft_in_Kosovo

[2]The words of an Italian naval officer prior to the country’s entry into the Second World War quoted in T. Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness: An Uncensored Report from Inside the Third Reich at War (Burlington: Ostara, 2011, first published 1940), 6.
[3]Fischer went on to serve as Governor of the Bank of Israel and Vice Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve. What a résumé!

[4]The flavor of the Russian ruling elite is suggested by top companies and oligarchs (as in the West, the latter are disproportionately Jewish). See Forbes’ lists: http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#country:Russia http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#version:static_country:Russia

[5]A friend informs me that Tatars and Bashkirs, the two largest Muslim groups have fertility rates similar to Russians, while these are much higher among Caucasian Muslims such as Daghestanis and Ingushetis (around 2 for both), and Chechens (around 3.5). East Siberian Buddhists such as Buryats and Tuvans also have higher fertility rates (2.5-3.5).

[6]The Russian wars in Chechnya, while involving the repression of a Russophobic population, are rather different, because the goal was the maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation itself.

[7]The impoverished villagers were actually non-Slavic Romanians and felt humiliated at not having been told of that they would be the objects of mockery. “We all hate Borat: The poor Romanian villagers humiliated by Sacha Baron Cohen’s spoof documentary,” Daily Mail, October 17, 2008. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1078446/We-hate-Borat-The-poor-Romanian-villagers-humiliated-Sacha-Baron-Cohens-spoof-documentary.html

[8]The hysterically ethnocentric arch-Zionist Charles Krauthammer thought this hit too close to home, fearing it would give people ideas. Charles Krauthammer, “Just an Anti-Semitic Laugh? Hardly,” Washington Post, November 24, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006112300966.html

More generally, an evolutionary analysis of Baron Cohen’s work remains to be made. All of his characters, be he the Arab “chav” (Ali G), the backward Slav (Borat), the homosexual German/Austrian (Brüno), or the corrupt Arab leader (Admiral General Aladeen), mock and caricature peoples who have come into conflict with, and are often hated by, Jews. Baron Cohen does seem to have a certain genius for comically expressing the subconscious feelings of both Jews and non-Jews which are suppressed by the reigning culture.

Deus Ex Machina

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Worth mentioning is the fact people in positions of power are floating the idea of paying blacks in 65% black Baltimore NOT to kill one another. In essence, the incentivizing of good behavior via cash payments is now being pitched as a solution to the violence in Baltimore. [Should Baltimore pay people to not kill each-other?, Baltimore Sun, June 2, 2015]:
However, the Washington Post offered a potential solution to the violence today: pay people to not kill each-other. 
The post article cites the case of Richmond, Calif., and Devone Boggan. Boggan is a former criminal who ran with gangs in Richmond, and is now a community activist.  
He was asked by the city of Richmond to help its violence problem during a time when the city held the 11th-highest murder rate in the country. He founded the Office of Neighborhood Safety in 2000, and identified the 50 men in the community who were most likely to kill, and be killed. 
Speaking with mentors hardened on the streets, the 50 men sought counseling and joined an 18-month program that helped them develop life skills, take anger management classes, and get paid while doing so—up to $1,000 a month.
Pay people to behave.

What a novel concept: Reward people with monetary handouts for their successful participation in civilization.

Well, at least it beats asking for divine intervention to halt the bloodshed... (below is a press release SBPDL received for a multicultural prayer march this upcoming Saturday in Baltimore):



-- MEDIA ADVISORY --PASTORS, LEADERS & POLICE IN BALTIMORE'SMOST VIOLENT MONTH IN 40 YEARSJOIN IN PRAYERFOR SUMMER OF PEACE AND RECONCILIATIONA Moving Visual: The Bless Baltimore Prayer Motorcade
BALTIMORE–June 15, 2015–On June 20th, city pastors, community leaders and police facing the highest murder rate in 40 years will engage in a unity and prayer rally. The rally has been organized by the Multi-Cultural Prayer Movement of Baltimore: 400 participating churches in the Mid-Atlantic Region. In strategic community engagement, the allied churches will address root causes of poverty and unrest in Baltimore and all of Maryland. 
All Baltimore residents are invited to join Lt. Col. Melvin Russell, chief of Community Partnerships Baltimore Police, and a host of faith leaders from across Baltimore in a Bless Baltimore Prayer Motorcade to some of the city’s most intense sites of violence. Faith leaders include:
  • Bishop Angel Nunez (Bilingual Christian Church)
  • Bishop Clifford Johnson/Pastor Darryl Brace (Mt. Pleasant Church)
  • Bishop Willard Saunders (Created For So Much More)
  • Bishop Mike McDermott (Life Source Int’l)
WHO: Bishop Angel Nunez (Bilingual Christian Church), Bishop Marcus Johnson (New Harvest Ministries), Bishop Clifford Johnson/ Pastor Darryl Brace (Mt. Pleasant Church), Bishop Willard Saunders (Created For So Much More), Pastor Matt Stevens (Somebody Cares), Lt. Col. Melvin Russell (Chief, Community Partnerships Baltimore Police), Bishop Harry Jackson (The Reconciled Church), Rev. Derek McCoy (C.U.R.E./Maryland Family Alliance), Bishop Mike McDermott (Life Source Int’l), Bishop Monroe Saunders (Transformation Church), Pastor Toni Draper (Freedom Temple AME Zion), Bishop Abel Palomo (House of Prayer), Pastor Benjun Uybengkee (River of Life Int’l), Rev. Dr. Harold Carter, Jr., (New Shiloh Baptist), Rev. Dr. Errol Gilliard (Greater Harvest/President, Baptist Ministers Conference) 
QUOTES: 
“Together--and together only--can we begin to change our city.” Bishop Angel Nunez, president of the Multicultural Prayer Movement. 
“Together--and together only--can we begin to change our city.” Bishop Angel Nunez, president of the Multicultural Prayer Movement. 
"The police department needs the help of grassroots partners to ensure community safety. Once again, we call on the church to help lead the way to Baltimore’s peace and reconciliation."Lt. Col. Melvin Russell said. 
“In Baltimore’s unprecedented spiritual crisis Church and community, united, will invoke Baltimore’s highest power, its surest hope. We’ll find value in the crisis,” Bishop Willard Saunders said. 
"After prayer, churches across Maryland will work together to create a greater sense of peace and reconciliation on the streets of our communities, ”Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. of The Reconciled Church Movement   (thereconciledchurch.org) 

WHAT: “Bless Baltimore Prayer Motorcade” of city leaders and residents www.mc-pm.net  

It's hard to determine whether or not 2015 America is a tragedy or a comedy. 

Music and All That Jazz: Western Man's Diversion with Rap

via TradYouth

Dixieland jazz and rap both came from
the negro community, but Dixieland
evolved into a highly refined form while
rap became increasingly detrimental
to the white community.
Hate modern music?  Not sure if there’s anything worth saving? Wondering what happened to the grand tradition of Western classical music? Western man’s sick infatuation with culturally alien music, such as rap, is not a new phenomenon, but it is proving unique in the way that Western man has not been able to wring anything of substantial cultural value from.

Julius Evola was right and wrong about Modern music.  He railed against the beatniks and the radical and overly technical condition that classical music had  metastasized into during his own time.  Not only that, but Evola had also fallen into the self-same mistake of reactionary conservatism with his recommendations of where we were supposed to go to fix the problem.

Evola decried the then-contemporary music scene saying that classical music had reached its zenith and then been corrupted by a radical intellectualization and simultaneously took up a physical expression beholden to the physical world and natural forces; Modern music, he says, had turned into a hyper-technical expression designed to both entice and appease base desires.  He prefers that we should listen to something “vocal and emotional”, or coming from the schools of Romanticism
or Expressionism.

Jazz was a distraction for Western man, but it wasn’t the worst thing that’s ever come our way. Contemporary rap music has proven to be significantly worse than jazz ever was. The negro community “owns” this insidious new genre of music, and the Jew-dominant media industry has jubilantly encouraged, subsidized and promoted rap in the West. Western man’s history of engaging rap music has been one long disastrous and cringe-worthy enterprise.  No matter how many white people have taken up the unfortunate vocation of making rap music, they have only managed to degrade and defile every other form of music that it encounters.  However, I’m getting ahead of myself right now.  “White rappers” were not the death of music, only an extension of the franchise.

The fact is that we have already passed the stage in which Evola proclaimed us to have reached a terminal crisis in western music (Ride The Tiger, p 161). He says we have exceeded the chromatic limits of all classical and then-contemporary music technology while also falling into a regressive form of physical performance. This musical revolt as it might be called was brought about at the advent of electronic music.  I believe a similar electronic revolt occurred when auto-tuned singing made the scene, but that’s getting off topic. These new forces of music bring with them new conventions and rules for music composition and consumption.

It’s important to know that In every instance where one force overthrows another, the rebels must then replace the old system with a new system. Every system’s universe must have a set of laws which its members are bound to observe, and the chaos of this present musical rebellion is the search for new rules under which we will be constrained. Thus, a rebellion is never about removing or stopping government, but about dictating what the leader’s government shall be named and who will be the supreme lawmaker. The new order of music is still attempting to establish those rules, and until it does we will not begin to see a finer expression of such music that might be representative of a High Culture.

This is where Evola begins to make his mistake.  He seems to pine for something that, by his own admission, had already passed. Evola wrote in Men Among the Ruins that we would be committing the worst kind of reactionary conservatism were we to try and “sluggishly perpetuate” the past into the present. That’s where he was wrong with the music scene. He denies the possibility that our current culture might synthesize a new musical form and expression. But, he was right in pointing out that Westerners went off the path somewhere along the way.

“This is very apparent in the latest forms, such as the music of the so-called beat groups. Here the obsessive reiteration of a rhythm prevails (similar to the use of the African tom-tom), causing paroxysmal contortions of the body and inarticulate screams in the performers, while the mass of the listeners joins in, hysterically shrieking and throwing themselves around, creating a collective climate similar to that of the possessions of savage ritual and certain Dervish sects, or the the Macumba and the Negro religious revivals.” (Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger, p. 164)

Whatever jazz was as a degenerate music form, rap has long since picked up where jazz left off and galloped away with wild abandon. Juvenile’s Back that Ass Up (1998), Petey Pablo’s Raise Up (2001), and both the white version (2013) and black version (1981) of the Harlem Shake are some contemporary examples of this insidious music form where people hysterically shriek and throw themselves around.  Pure, unadulterated Dionysian musical manias.  For some reason, white people lost their damn minds over these songs twerking and jerking their way to infamy.

Was jazz a deviant and regressive form of music and dance at one time? Certainly. But, I dare say it has changed and grown into something different and more refined in the time since. There’s no denying that jazz was borne off the negro’s lips in Storyville. Western man did take after the negro music, abandoning their own tradition of Western European music. But, I think this was inevitable given North America’s extreme geographical separation from Europe, and the fact that Western man went after the negro’s music was only incidental. This lapse proved to be but momentary in the development of a new Western music tradition.  So, what happened with Dixieland jazz that didn’t (and hopefully won’t) happen with rap?

Without taking the entirety of the jazz music genre by itself, take a look at the development of Dixieland jazz. Most of the Dixieland you will hear today came out of the 1940s Dixieland revival.  This music was also undeniably borne of Storyville’s negro music, but it became so much more after white musicians took it up. Folks like Al “he’s the king” Hirt, Eddie Condon, Pete Fountain and the Assunto brothers are a couple of artists who showed that culturally alien music forms can be appropriated, refashioned and made into a unique cultural expression of our own.  Hirt managed to play a very high-brow brand of jazz. Check him out. Obviously, Hirt proved that jazz is not exclusively a degenerate and regressive form of music.


Evola missed the mark when he said that jazz was the degeneracy that we should look out for. He nailed it “10 for 10″ when he said that Western man was making a mistake by taking after the negro’s music. He nailed it “10 for 10″ when he described what it would look like.  However, he was “0 for 10″ with the unfortunate fact that he was about 30 years too soon with his warning.

One of the people who didn’t get Evola’s warning is Miley Cyrus, who is in the news (again). This time she’s covering Khia’s “My neck, my back.” This is the kind of stuff that Evola was warning us about. I don’t expect that Cyrus will turn Khia’s music into a respectable art form, neither that she will stop making such music any time soon. She seems to be betting on her sex, taking a page from Madonna’s play book, and I’m curious to see how much longer it takes before people lose interest in Cyrus’s (increasingly now) defiled body.


It’s not fair of me to compare Hirt and Cyrus, because Hirt’s trade is entirely dependent on his skill as a musician, while Cyrus’s success as a musician is (almost totally) dependent on the manner in which she flaunts her sex. The other important difference is that Hirt took a music style and rendered a highly refined version of it whereas Cyrus is doubling down on performing degenerate rap in an atrociously worse manner. See the difference now?

Where does music go from here? If I knew the answer to that question I wouldn’t be writing pro bono. However, a few of the broad strokes are easy enough to fill in.  We don’t need to be buying into the degenerate and culturally alien rap music lifestyle promoted by Jewish interests in the media industry. We shouldn’t necessarily avoid new forms of technology for making music, but we should ensure that we’re finding ways to use these new technologies in a manner that is unique to our own social-cultural-spiritual body. And, finally, we should start looking for music from within our own social-cultural-spiritual  body, and not from outside of it.

Africans Pursue Dreams in Europe

via The Thinking Housewife

HERE’S an interesting article in The Wall Street Journal, also posted by Brenda Walker at VDARE, about the migrants who are leaving Senegal for Europe. Drew Hinshaw writes:

Senegal is a stable West African democracy, and Kothiary has profited from the currents of globalization transforming rural Africa’s more prosperous areas. Flat screen TVs and, increasingly, cars—mostly purchased with money wired home by villagers working in Europe—have reshaped what was once a settlement of mud huts. The wealth has plugged this isolated landscape of peanut farms and baobab trees into the global economy and won respect for the men who sent it.

But it has also put European living standards on real-time display, and handed young farm hands the cash to buy a ticket out.

A Senegalese woman is quoted:

“What is happening now is not that different from the time of slavery,” Mr. Diop said. “We are losing the arms we need to build this country.”

De-Christianized Europe is a materialist utopia for Africans. Would they be risking everything to get to Europe if they were greeted by gargoyles and black-clothed clerics instead of social workers and pornographic billboards? Would they flee their families and homes to settle in an alien culture if they were reminded of that ancient pessimism once they hit Italy’s shores?

It’s not surprising that Africans will do anything to be part of such a frivolous, man-centered culture.

On that subject, here is a video showing the destruction of the church of Saint Jacques in Abbeville, France in 2013. According to a writer for the Arts Tribune, it would have cost about 200 euros per resident of Abbeville to save the building, a cost that could have been spread out over several years. But the city government decided to tear it down instead.

Weep for Europe. The waves of Africans inundating its shores want to participate in its escapism and diabolical dreams. And without God, there are almost no men in Europe left to stop them.

Things We Need to Know and Don't Need to Know about Hillary

via Koinen's Corner

Damn, it just seems to get weirder and weirder every day.  Sometimes I feel like I'm going to have to start drinking something stronger than coffee when I read my pathetic excuse for a local news rag in the morning.

They recently changed the format of the front page to a scattered collection of headlines and spintro blurbs that refer to actual stories inside the paper -- no doubt trying to make it look like a website home page on the internet.

One of those in this morning's paper, just below a couple others with the titles 'EUROPE TAKES AIM AT GENDER NOTIONS' (a real sicko, anti-Western Civilization Jewish end-game type story) and 'SPOKANE NAACP LEADER'S RACE QUESTIONED' (another daily dose of racial insanity) reads as follows:

'PRESIDENTIAL RACE' -- 'CLINTON TO TELL MOM'S STORY'
'Hoping to show that she is driven by more than ambition, Hillary Rodham Clinton is changing tactics for her 2016 campaign.  And that includes plans this weekend to discuss her mother's difficult childhood.'
Then, at the end of the tearjerker story itself, on page six, it says:
'Talking so extensively about Rodham [her mother] indicates a shift for Clinton, from a private, reluctant politician to a 67-year-old candidate who, according to her friends and aides, is running the campaign she wants to run.'
'A sympathetic tale of her mother's struggles could help Clinton convince a struggling middle class that she understands their problems, aides said.'
Just wondering, here -- have I missed something when it comes to the essentials of how to evaluate Presidential candidates?  Am I alone in having the thought, after reading all this gibberish:  'Gosh, I'm more interested in Hillary's habitual lying, her ineptitude in office, her queer-compliant lesbophilia, and her criminal, power-mad, Marxist, and anti-White adulthood than I am in her mother's childhood?'  After all, what we are talking about here is Hillary Clinton's qualifications (or lack thereof) to be President of the United States, isn't it?

Rachel Dolezal – Fraud, Victim, or Standard Bearer?

via Western Spring

Dolezal, before and after
I imagine many people will have been variously amused, disgusted or intrigued by the recent publicity surrounding the race and identity of Black civil rights campaigner, former Africana studies instructor and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) chapter in Spokane, Washington, USA, Rachel Dolezal, who it appears, is a White woman who has been passing herself off as Black. This case involves much stupidity, hypocrisy, falsehood and self-deception on the part of all those involved and it is worthy of further examination and analysis.

Rachel Dolezal is the biological daughter of Lawrence and Ruthanne Dolezal, who are both White and believed to be of Czech, German and Swedish ancestry. The Dolezal’s, like so many evidently White families also allude to the possibility they may have a trace of Red Indian, so called ‘Native American’ ancestry also. This always makes me laugh, especially when so many such families are to be found in the far flung corners of the British Isles, where a Red Indian would have been throughout our history, as rare as ‘rocking horse droppings’.
 
This apparently insignificant detail in the Dolezal family’s folk memory is however central to this whole issue, as I will explain:

During the 19th and 20th Centuries, we Europeans dominated most of the world militarily and politically and many of our people migrated out from our ancestral homelands to either settle or seek their fortune in the colonies, and in doing so, encountered non-White peoples for the first time. For those who stayed at home, especially if they were from poor working class backgrounds, life was comparatively often hard and often dull and uninteresting.

True folk communities that had existed in the past, in which our people were inextricably immersed in a rich pageant of customs and a folk culture going back through millennia had been disrupted by first the Enclosures Acts and then the agricultural and industrial revolutions, which drove our people from their traditional rural communities into the cities in search of work. These developments had a disastrous effect upon our folk culture and the life of our rural communities and left the newly urbanised masses with little in the way of community, culture or identity.

The anguish of these times is expressed poignantly in following extract from the poem by Oliver Goldsmith entitled, ‘The Deserted Village’:

“Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.
Princes and lords may flourish or may fade,
A breath can make them, as breath has made:
But a bold peasantry, their country’s pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.
A time there was, ere England’s grief began,
When every rood of ground maintained its man;
For him light labour spread her wholesome store,
Just gave what life required, but gave no more,
His best companions, innocence and health,
And his best riches, ignorance of wealth.
But times are altered: trade’s unfeeling train
Usurp the land and dispossess the swain.”

While the 19th and 20th Centuries were a time of great expansion in power and political influence for the wealthy, the mercantile classes and our nations as a whole, and a time of great opportunity for people with money and a driving sense of adventure, for the majority of people from the newly urbanised, industrial, working class backgrounds, especially in those days before radio or television, there was little to fire the imagination especially where our culture or ethnicity were concerned and life could be rather dull and grim. In response to this there was a tendency for imaginative grandparents to invent for their grandchildren romantic stories of distant fictitious ancestors who were invariably, Red Indians or Romany Gypsies, or some such like, who led comparatively colourful, carefree lives complete with elements of mysticism and the exotic.

In this way there has been created within many predominantly working class families a fictitious folk memory of these fictitious exotic ancestors, the ‘memory’ of whose colourful lives seemed to brighten an otherwise grim and grey existence. In my experience almost invariably, these ‘folk memories’ upon investigation turn out to be completely fictitious.

That Rachel Dolezal’s parents also maintained such a fiction regarding their ancestry suggests a tendency to view their working class White background as rather dull and uninteresting and a yearning on some level at least, to have something exotic in their lives. In reality however, investigation by a genealogy expert commissioned by the Daily Mail has shown no evidence of Black ancestry whatsoever for the Dolezal family and no Red Indian ancestry either. All of Rachel Dolezal’s great-grandparents it would seem, can be traced back to Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Germany or the Netherlands.

This brings us back to the issue of a White woman passing herself off as Black and stating defiantly that although she had as a child and an adolescent the appearance of a White person, and although her biological parents are both White, she never-the-less identifies as a Black person. This also begs the question: why a White woman would want to pose as a Black person and why she would self-identify as Black?

The answer to this question in my view rests with her upbringing and the stupidity of her parents.

We are all well aware of the effects of our mass media upon the minds of White children: disparaging our ancestors and their achievements and making us feel ashamed of our White ancestry; presenting non-Whites as victims of White racism and inducing a sense of guilt for ‘historic’ and ‘institutionalised racism’; presenting non-Whites as morally superior to Whites; presenting non-Whites as ‘cool’ and ‘vibrant’ and ‘sexy’, while Whites are portrayed as nerdy, dorky, dysfunctional and dull. We are also well aware of liberal and Marxist politicians telling us repeatedly that non-Whites are needed within our societies in order that we should have a ‘vibrant’ and ‘colourful’ culture, as if life within White nations had been sadly lacking before the advent of mass non-White immigration. If we add to this mix parents who have a fictitious family folk memory of an exotic ancestor, and who feel it more important to adopt and nurture and give their love and affection to non-White children than to have more White babies of their own, so that their two biological White children are raised in a multiracial household in which they are outnumbered by four Black adoptive ‘siblings’, we can begin to see the roots of Rachel Dolezal’s confused and distorted sense of identity.

Dolezal 3

The Dolezal’s are undoubtedly well meaning people and having had two children of their own, thereby replacing themselves for their posterity, they were no doubt motivated by the moral universalism of the Christian upbringing to want to do ‘good work’ by providing a home to disadvantaged Black children. What they failed to understand however, is that by doing so, they would create the kind of conditions that would inevitably have an adverse impact upon the sense of identity their own children, especially their one female child as women tend to be more susceptible to subliminal suggestion and to social peer pressure.

Having created the conditions in which their daughter grew up wanting to be Black like her four Black adoptive siblings and wanting to be ‘cool and Black’ in the way Black people are portrayed in the mass media, the Dolezals apparently failed to realise the confused sense of identity which lay latent within their daughter’s psyche until she was in her twenties and began to manifest an obsession with Black and African culture and later began the process of changing her appearance from White to Black.

Worse still, it seems, having effectively set their daughter off on a trajectory in life upon which she would almost inevitably lead a perverse existence, the Dolezal’s waited until Rachel Dolezal had established a career for herself based upon her false identity, and then in a very high profile way, pulled the rug out from under her by publicly exposing her as a fraud. I cannot imagine a greater cruelty that parents could inflict upon the evidently tortured mind of their child – it beggars belief!

We come now to the issue of the hypocrisy of the media and the political establishment in terms of their reaction to Rachel Dolezal having been ‘outed’ as a White person by her family.

In keeping with their liberal and Marxist ideology the mass media and our political establishment repeatedly expound the falsehoods that ‘race is a social construct’, that ‘there is no such thing as racial purity’, that ‘racial differences are merely cosmetic’, i.e. ‘skin deep’ and that we are all ‘fungible’, ‘interchangeable’ members of the human race. If these assertions are true however, then Rachel Dolezal should be free to claim to be any racial identity she chooses and should be heralded as an example of what can be achieved in life, to be whatever we want to be, without limitations imposed by ‘race, creed or colour’.

Instead of considering whether or not to prosecute or take other legal action against Rachel Dolezal for misrepresentation, and instead of taking offence that she has employed ‘blackface’ to insultingly impersonate a Black person, the liberal/Marxist establishment and their acolytes in the NAACP should logically recognise that Rachel Dolezal and anyone else for that matter, can legitimately ‘socially construct’ any racial identity she likes. She has made the ‘cosmetic’ changes necessary to have the appearance of a Black woman, so why is she any less a Black woman than someone whose genetic composition gave them the appearance of a Black woman? If there is no such thing as racial purity as multiracialists and non-White advocates claim, then logically Rachel Dolezal must be ‘of mixed race’ at the very least, and therefore should able to legitimately claim to be a ‘woman of colour’.

The fact that Rachel Dolezal is being denounced as a fraud is rank hypocrisy on the part of the mass media, the political establishment, and the NAACP. Unless of course, race is not a social construct and the concept of race and racial differences have legitimacy and go deeper than ‘skin deep’. Unless of course there is such a thing as racial purity and obviously based upon her genetic heritage Rachel Dolezal is a pure bred member of the White race, and unless of course, all humans are not fungible and mutually interchangeable.

For my part, I view Rachel Dolezal as a victim of a society in a state of decay, but herein lies the dilemma that now faces those liberal/Marxists who attempt to delude us with their deliberate falsehoods: do they continue to denounce Rachel Dolezal as a fraud or do they embrace her as a standard bearer of their corrupt and fraudulent belief-system?

For us nationalists, the lesson to be learned from all of this is that we must value community with those of our kind as the key to maintaining pride in our culture, social cohesion and a healthy sense of group and individual identity. Let us make sure that we imbue our children with respect and admiration for our forebears, a strong sense of comradeship and belonging with other racially conscious White people, and a feeling of optimism for the future. No more Rachel Dolezals!

Working Within the System: Mitt Romney's Self-Proclaimed 'Biggest Mistake'

via EGI Notes


What is it?  That he didn't appeal to working class Whites?  That he didn't win a larger percentage of the White vote?  That he came across - accurately - as a plastic, Chamber of Commerce shill for predatory capitalism?  No!  It's that he failed to effectively communicate to "minority voters" and to assure Hispanics how much the GOP loves "legal immigration." Emphasis added:

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said that, in 2016, his party's candidates need to do much better than he did at communicating to minority voters what the GOP is offering them. 
"I think we have a real difficulty in the party, and myself included, communicating to Hispanic voters and minority voters generally why it is that conservative principles are better for them and their families than those that are being promoted by the liberals, by the Democrats," he told Yahoo's Katie Couric in an interview that went online Thursday. "That's something I didn't do very effectively," he said, calling it "without question the biggest mistake that I made in the campaign." 
The former Massachusetts governor, who challenged President Obama in 2012, said he wants to see the Republican "nominee do a better job communicating to Hispanic voters that we love legal immigration"...
So, who should you believe?  Shaggy-haired English immigrants and their child brides or Oriental love dolls, or the evidence of your lying eyes?  Face it White man, the System hates you, "your" political party hates you and takes you for granted, and absolutely no one represents your interests.

Now, go away and watch the football game, that'll make everything better.

There’s No 'Black Privilege' in Obama’s America?

via VDARE

The impossibly swarmy Tavis Smiley
Black media celebrity Tavis Smiley (right) had a typical reaction to Rachel Dolezal’s bizarre racial hoax: “I laughed. Out loud.” [LOL — Who’d Sign Up To Be Black? Time, June 13, 2015]. So did I—I couldn’t wait to watch the Left reconcile Dolezal’s controversial “transracial” transformation with its celebration of “Caitlyn Jenner.” (Update: it can’t). But note that Smiley assumes with a straight face, and insists we accept, that in Obama’s America there’s no such thing as “Black Privilege.” Dolezal’s decade-long dalliance proves that he’s wrong.
 
Of course the details are farcical: Dolezal filing complaints about fake hate crimes, giving lectures on the “brown paper bag test,” and telling Hispanic students they couldn’t participate in school exercises because they didn’t appear Hispanic enough [Rachel Dolezal gave lectures on ‘nappiness’ and ‘the brown paper bag test,’ once told student she didn’t look ‘Hispanic enough’, the Grio, June 13, 2015]. And also her do-gooding family: her parents went out of their way to adopt black children and moved to South Africa to promote creationism [Black like me? By Jeff Selle and Maureen Dolan, CDA Press, June 11, 2015].

Yet the Time-touted Smiley did not find any of this funny. Instead, he laughed because, as he put it, blacks face a “life of social disenfranchisement, political marginalization, economic exploitation and cultural larceny” along with “always feeling unsafe, unprotected, subject to random violence and being hated for who you are.”

Wellesley University sociology professor Michael P. Jeffries [Email him], a very light-skinned black, similarly intones:
White households have far more wealth than black and Hispanic households, as economic class privilege has been generated, passed down, and protected through slavery, Jim Crow, and continued discrimination in housing, banking, and the labor market. Whites are presumed innocent and nonthreatening, and are allowed to assemble freely and move through all sorts of public spaces without being labeled deviants or “thugs.” [Rachel Dolezal a lesson in how racism works, Boston Globe, June 13, 2015]
Unlike Smiley, however, Jeffries acknowledges that Dolezal “profited both personally and professionally from passing as black.”

So it is possible to profit from being black!

But Jeffries still judged her sternly as someone unable “to address her own white privilege.”

Reality check: Dolezal did not suffer from adopting her black identity. Instead, she suddenly benefited—from “Black Privilege.”

And when we look at their careers, we find Tavis Smiley and Michael Jeffries did too.
Smiley launched his career as an aide to black Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley. Smiley was not from California and according to his autobiography, was on academic probation when he began working at his job. His only credential was leading protests over the allegedly racist shooting of a black basketball player at the University of Indiana [Police Killing of Student Stuns Indiana Residents, by Jane Gross, New York Times, September 25, 1983].

After working for Bradley, Smiley began a career in broadcasting, first giving the black point of view on a local radio show, then becoming a commentator on the Tom Joyner show, and eventually moving on to Black Entertainment Television.

Today, Smiley is a multimillionaire who gets to have presidential candidates from both parties kowtow to him every four years for his “All-American Presidential Forums.”

jeffries_head_shot[1]Similarly, Jeffries (right) manages to have an academic career that many people can dream of, based solely on the fact that he is a (very light skinned) black man. He got his PhD in African American studies at Harvard, which he converted into a tenured professorship at Wellesley. Some of the best academic presses in the country have published his books: Paint the White House Black: Barack Obama and the Meaning of Race in America and Thug Life: Race, Gender, and the Meaning of Hip-Hop. The Atlantic regularly publishes his op-eds, all of which are about race and racism.
Now let’s compare Dolezal’s career trajectories in black and white. As Jeffries noted in his Boston Globe article, in addition to being director of the local NAACP and serving in the Office of the Police Ombudsman, Dolezal worked as a certified “diversity trainer,” taught African studies at Eastern Washington University, and worked as the education director at the Human Rights Education Institute in Coeur d’Alene.

Of course, this is nowhere near the success Smiley or Jeffries have achieved. However, it’s better than she was doing as a white woman.

Back then, she received an MFA from (historically black) Howard University. After graduation she applied for and was denied a number of teaching positions with the university.

She sued Howard alleging anti-white discrimination. The suit claimed Howard “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,” the University’s decision to take down her exhibit was “motivated by a discriminatory purpose to favor African-American students” and she did not receive a teaching assistantship and other employment positions due to anti-white racial discrimination. The DC Court did not take her seriously, dismissed the charges, and made her pay Howard’s legal costs and $1,000 sanction [NAACP Imposter Sued Over Race Claims, The Smoking Gun, June 15, 2015].

zoebushHmmm. The trial judge was Judqe Zoe Bush, pictured right, who hails from Little Rock, Arkansas, was appointed by Bill Clinton, and is a member of the National Association of Black Women Attorneys.
I don’t know if Dolezal’s allegations of discrimination at Howard were true. On the one hand, anti-white discrimination is pervasive in academia, and I’m sure it’s much worse at “historically black institutions.” On the other hand, Dolezal is clearly crazy and dishonest.
Yet when she “became” black, she remained crazy and dishonest—but her allegations were suddenly taken much more seriously.

Thus she alleged that the Human Rights Education Institute in Coeur d’Alene discriminated against her—and the local newspaper diligently repeated her allegations. [Human rights educator Rachel Dolezal resigns, by Kevin Graman, The Spokesman-Review, July 28, 2010]

Later, as Dolezal mysteriously became victim of “hate crime” after “hate crime,” the police and Main Stream Media treated her as a heroine. Here are a few headlines:
So the white Dolezal’s claims of discrimination were laughed at. But “black” civil rights leader Dolezal’s even more outlandish claims garnered her accolades, tributes, and fame.

Shawntelle_MoncyTake one Shawntelle Moncy’s adoring profile of her (and her “caramel skin complexion”) in the college paper at Eastern Washington University. Ms. Moncy (pictured right) who is very white even compared to the young Dolezal, writes:
[W]hite supremacy groups burglarized every home she and her son lived in. Doležal [Moncy is using the Czech alphabet version of Dolezal’s name for some reason] said she believes the white supremacy groups felt threatened by female power. According to Doležal, they hung nooses in her home, vandalized and stole from her property, directed death threats toward her along with threatening to kidnap Franklin while he was in the second grade. She reported all of these acts to the police and each was admitted into police records as hate crimes, yet the culprits were never caught. Doležal moved from home to home and everywhere she moved, they followed. [A Life to be Heard, The Easterner, February 5, 2015]
Of course, Dolezal was not subject being hated for who she was, or for that matter, who she pretended to be. But she certainly profited from the ruse.

Now the world knows that Rachel Dolezal is really white. So if the Main Stream Media, Smiley, Jeffries et al. are correct, her white privilege should kick back in any second now. The police should be adoring her and social and economic barriers should come tumbling down.

On yeah? Instead:
James Baldwin famously said “As long as you think you’re white, there’s no hope for you.” At the time, he did not have people like Dolezal in mind.

However, given the existence of systematic black privilege in Obama’s America, Baldwin’s words sound prophetic—maybe even a bit like career advice.

In today’s America, Dolezal’s actions were not shocking. What’s shocking is that there are not many more cases like her.