Jul 16, 2015

Cultural Marxists Huff, Puff—Try to Shut Down Trump, Immigration Debate

via VDARE

The Big Bad Wolf famously huffed and puffed and blew the little pigs’ houses down. Social Justice Warriors in the Democratic/ Main Stream Media complex are trying the same technique on the GOP over the Confederate Battle Flag (successfully) and on Donald Trump over his mentioning hatefacts about Mexican immigration (unsuccessfully so far).

But the bottom line: Cultural Marxist totalitarianism is coming to an America near you. In fact, it’s already here:
WALLINGFORD — Local police received a complaint when a shopper discovered Nazi and Confederate merchandise at a popular flea market last weekend, according to Chief William Wright.
An officer responded to the Redwood Flea Market on South Turnpike Road Sunday to investigate the report and found Nazi and Confederate memorabilia for sale. He told the complainant, who is Jewish, there was nothing police could do because the merchandise was on private property.
Wallingford police look into complaint about Nazi, Confederate items sold at flea market, by Mary Ellen Godin, Meriden Record-Journal, July 10,
Putting aside the extraordinary level of interpersonal aggression that would cause someone to feel entitled to impose his personal preferences on a scene that could have been found at any American country fair for over half a century, consider the fact that the police felt obliged to respond—and to suggest that they would have taken action if the flea market had been on public property i.e. a town fair ground.
Here’s the huffing and puffing:
The complainant, a town resident, feared possible backlash and asked to remain anonymous. He told the Record-Journal that in addition to several showcases there was Nazi merchandise, including German helmets with swastikas, images of Hitler, and Jewish stars of David, in a truck.
“I was shaking and almost vomiting,” he said. “I had to run. My grandmother had numbers,” he said, referring to the Nazi system of tattooing numbers on prisoners.
Note that this man is not a Holocaust Survivor, or the child of Holocaust survivors—he’s the grandchild of Holocaust Survivors. When will this end? (And what about those “Jewish Stars of David”?)

And what has this got to do with the Confederate flag?

To its credit, the local spokesman for the NAACP was restrained:
Jason Teal, president of the Meriden-Wallingford NAACP, said he was not familiar with the flea market and had not heard any complaints about the merchandise being sold there.
“It’s difficult because it’s on private property and it’s considered free speech,” Teal said.
But the local spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League was in full Cultural Marxist mode:
Joshua Sayles, assistant regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in Connecticut, said selling Confederate and Nazi goods isn’t a moral issue if the merchandise consists of authentic war pieces purchased by a serious collector. But too often, they are cheap replicas and used as symbols of hate.
“It’s not the first time I’ve heard of this,” Sayles said. “It’s unfortunate that under the law people have the right to sell these things; but it doesn’t mean they should sell these things. It’s not a crime but I would call it hate…”
(Emphasis added). In other words, the Anti-Defamation League would like to ban the sale of Confederate memorabilia even on private property.

Next: banning Christian symbols?

Oh, wait—that’s already happening.

Huffing and puffing is going on among MSM Big Feet too: How Views Like Trump’s Became Socially Taboo|The responses to his immigration rhetoric show how much American political views have changed, by Peter Beinart, The Atlantic, July 10, 2015.

Beinart’s argument is that a species of social pressure—as distinct, it should be noted, from rational argument—is what has won the day for homosexual marriage and a variety of other causes. (In Trump’s case, of course, this means suppressing the truth about Mexican crime, but Beinart is not concerned with this nuance). Needless to say, the principle that individuals should be punished in their private and professional lives for their beliefs, or supposed beliefs, about public affairs is quintessentially totalitarian. But obviously it’s already underway in Wallingford CT.

You might wonder how “taboo” Trump’s views can be given his current standing in the polls [Donald Trump tops another poll. Will he stay there? By Sara Aridi, Christian Science Monitor, July 11, 2015] and for that matter the fact that Ann Coulter’s Adios America! has been on the New York Times Best-Seller List for five (5) weeks.

But you would be missing the extraordinary narrow social, and even geographic, circle in which Beinart, and much of the MSM elite, lives. This is from Wikipedia (accessed 7/12/15 at 11:10 pm):
Beinart was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States in 1971. His parents were Jewish immigrants from South Africa (his maternal grandfather was from Russia and his maternal grandmother, who was Sephardic, was from Egypt).[3][4][5] His mother, Doreen (née Pienaar), is former director of the Harvard’s Human Rights film series at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and his father, Julian Beinart, is a former professor of architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1] His stepfather is theatre critic and playwright Robert Brustein.[6] Beinart attended Buckingham Browne and Nichols School in Cambridge. He then studied history and political science at Yale University, where he was a member of the Yale Political Union, and graduated in 1993. He was a Rhodes Scholar at University College, Oxford University, where he earned an M.Phil. in international relations in 1995.[7]
..Since 2003, Beinart is married to Diana Robin Hartstein, a lawyer. They live with their two children in New York City.[7]
Coincidentally, this means that Beinart, like Nikki Haley, is one of those second-generation immigrants whose understanding of America Ann Coulter (quite reasonably in my immigrant view) has questioned.

Sunday’s Meet The Press seems to have consisted entirely of huffing and puffing, about the Battle Flag and about Donald Trump. It did contain this key passage:
CHUCK TODD:
Doris, we’ve seen versions of Donald Trump over the years. And I just don’t mean versions of this Donald Trump, but I mean, you know, a George Wallace and things like this. This does happen. And they do strike a chord.
This of course is a ludicrous statement. George Wallace had a long record as an outspoken segregationist. Trump’s very mild, and brief, comments on Mexican immigrant criminality are simply several orders of magnitude less dramatic.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
I think the important thing is not to understand the chord he’s striking. But we, as journalists, have a responsibility to question is this the kind of person who could truly be a leader, a person so quick to anger, a person who yells at other people, a person who bullies, person who’s loose with the facts, saying lots of things that aren’t true, person who has conspiracy theories about whether Obama was born here, about vaccines, about climate change is a hoax?
I think it’s too much to give him the credit that he’s entertaining, and that we like what he’s saying but it’s interesting. We, as journalists, have a responsibility to figure out which candidates are likely to be our leaders. I remember talking with Tim Russert about this. Rather than who’s got the most money, who’s saying the most outrageous thing, who has the highest polls, who is likely to be a leader? They’ve shown qualities already. This guy has shown qualities I cannot imagine him as a presidential leader.
Meet the Press Transcript – July 12, 2015, NBC News.
What Kearns Goodwin, a long-time fixture of the Democratic/ MSM complex despite being involved in plagiarism scandals, is unblushingly calling for here is a blatant assertion of elite media power: ignore public discontent, decide who is an appropriate candidate.

Orwell called it the Ministry of Truth.

American politics are now profoundly unstable. The Obama Administration is, bluntly, a Minority Occupation Government. Eventually, the Left may succeed in Electing A New People—but for the next few election cycles, whites still cast by far the largest proportion of votes. At all costs, the Left must keep the historic American nation from uniting—which it alarmingly began to do (no thanks to the GOP leadership) in the 2010 and 2014 elections—and cutting off immigration. This explains the mounting hysteria of the Left, and its attempts to institutionalize itself through anti-Hate laws and other totalitarian techniques.

Let’s look on the bright side. Peter Beinart concluded his Atlantic piece on a surprisingly gloomy note:
So what happens to the millions of Americans who have suddenly found their views deemed beyond the pale by America’s political, economic, and cultural elites? If history is any guide, they’ll go underground…
Sooner or later, political upheaval will spark new movements aimed at distinguishing between those Americans who deserve equal citizenship and those who don’t. And as [Bobby] Jindal’s career suggests, these movements may prove more multicultural than we can today imagine.
I don’t look forward to the return to political acceptability of forces aimed at denying certain Americans the same rights and dignity as everyone else. But the tradition is too deeply rooted in our national character to ever truly die.

SYRIZA's Greek Tragicomedy

via Alternative Right

Alexis Tsipras welcoming those who
have no wish to stay
Greece, as is well known, was the birthplace of comedy and tragedy. Recently, with the GREXIT crisis, the “Greferendum” (the vote on whether Alexis Tsipras should prostrate himself to Angela Merkel or simply kow-tow), and all the other absurdities of recent months, we have seen both of these thespian aspects in constant interplay. One simply doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Greece has effectively become a tragicomedy.
The main problem all Western countries have is that we now have highly-evolved economic, administrative, and policing systems – coping systems – that can manage most of the problems now deeply embedded in our societies. This sounds great but it isn’t. What it really means is that we seldom have to directly face any of our problems and thus we seldom have to solve them. Our system is essentially maladaptive. Having a gang of idiots like SYRIZA in power, however, changes this dynamic. This is the main value of the Left today.
The main benefit to Greece of the present crisis is that a lot of these coping systems, such as Keynsian economics, artificial job creation, pump priming, welfarism, anti-racism, and efficient policing, are now breaking down, or at least being stretched so thin that they have lost their ability to cushion the Greek people from the unpleasant realities. The more this happens, the closer things get to a meaningful relationship with reality, and the more that this happens the more likely we are to see problems being faced and solved rather than avoided. For this, at least, we can thank SYRIZA.
If the old parties had been in place – PASOK, say, or New Democracy – the whole process of Greece going cap in hand to the Troika would have been expedited: more debts to pay off existing ones with less austerity, less fuss, and a semblance of normalcy. Greece could have continued ticking over, almost as before, perhaps with the weight of the country’s debt burden subtly redistributed to those points of society that could bear its growing burden better. True austerity – of the sort we are now seeing – and emotional humiliation would have been avoided, while Greece continued to serve out its role as a vassal state and dumping ground for the turbocharged economic centres of the Euro Empire.
But, luckily the Greek voters were idiotic enough and inspired enough to choose SYRIZA at the general election back in January – a party predicated on the notion that wanting something makes it so.
You may not be interested in austerity, but austerity is certainly interested in you
SYRIZA is a conglomerate party, made up of tiny, oddball extreme Left groups that clubbed together in order to pull themselves above the percentage threshold that allows representation in parliament, and therefore access to the gravy train. The plan was never to get this big, but the political vacuum caused by the 2008 economic crisis and the subsequent suppression of Golden Dawn threw then to the forefront of Greek politics.
There is a tendency to see leftist parties as purveyors of fantasy and conservative parties as boring realists, but actually the opposite is true. Today it is conservative parties, like Greece’s New Democracy, the UK’s Conservative Party, or Germany’s Christian Democrats, that are best able to maintain the coping systems that allow modern Western societies to stave off reality and live with the welter of problems that lie just under the surface of any Western multicultural state.
SYRIZA, by contrast, are the latest in a long line of Leftist parties that are unwitting harbingers of reality. In the old Soviet Bloc it was parties of this shade that prevented the Disneyland consumerism, sexual polymorphousness, and racial menageries of the West from forming. Thanks to the grim limitations of Communism, those societies remained closer to the uncushioned bedrock realities. It was only in the West, where there was a synthesis of conservative practicality with Leftist utopianism, that we could create the kind system that could keep swallowing all our contemporary poisons without immediately choking to death on them.
After Greece joined the EU in 1981, it adopted a similar synthesis as its fellow Europeans, enjoying the miasma of affluence on the rotting corpse of traditionalism and sound finances. But when the global system, founded on this Left-Right synthesis, experienced shocks in 2008 and 2009, Greece, as a peripheral state, started to come undone. The need to boost the practical conservative side of the equation created a countervailing excess of delusional Leftism. With PASOK tainted by co-option in the system and Golden Dawn effectively removed from the picture by legal repression, SYRIZA was the main beneficiary.
The old, slick managers, with their crafty accountancy and sympathetic friends in Brussels, were thrown out by the naive voters in favour of a much less tenable and tenacious illusion – SYRIZA's local Leftist hoopla and fantasy of a broad-based, Europe-wide revolution against austerity. The corrupt, cosy arrangements that had massaged and managed the Greek economy, and which had allowed its senility to develop to the diaper-wearing and spoon-feeding stage, were now stripped away, revealing it in its true guise.
Some more pointless pointing
The main threat that any Western society faces is a demographic one, the threat that it will be overrun by an envious horde of Third Worlders, who will grow fat on welfare, outbreed the natives, and replace them and everything they stand for. The modern Western political synthesis of well-managed insanity is particularly adept at managing this toxic social element, allowing it to grow like a cancer until it destroys its host.
SYRIZA’s big contribution – through sheer economic naivety and pigheadedness – has been to make Greece a lot less hospitable for Third World invaders.
With tough austerity, welfare slashed, the economy shrinking, and angry natives, Greece's real problem – the demographic one – is well on the way to being solved. SYRIZA is effectively chemotherapy for mass immigration.
The country's position, between Africa and the Middle East and Europe, and its long and awkwardly shaped coastline, will continue to make it a gateway for Third World migrants invading Europe. According to some reports around 1,000 have been arriving every day. In the past, the majority tried to move on to more affluent and generous European countries, but now, thanks to SYRIZA, possibly all of them might move on – along with many Greeks.
SYRIZA may offer these invaders citizenship, the right to vote in meaningless referendums, and other leftist "benefits" like "gay marriage," but with the Greek economy subordinated to German ordoliberalism, welfare slashed to the bone, and ordinary Greeks looking for scapegoats, the numbers that will choose to stay will probably be even less than if the hard right, ultra-nationalist Golden Dawn party had been elected.
While that party takes a dim view of Third World immigration, their economic policies (exiting the Euro, boosting local manufacturing to replace imports, etc.) would probably have created an a lively economic environment that would have been more inviting to refugees than the present one. Nobody, it seems, does tragicomedy like the Greeks!

Female Marine Commander Dismissed

via The Thinking Housewife

Lt. Col. Kate Germano was fired on
June 30 for abusive behavior
Even under the seemingly best of conditions — when a hard-working female officer is put in charge — an all-female military battalion  faces extraordinary conflict. A reportedly tough female Marine officer who led the only all-female recruit battalion has been dismissed, allegedly because she was too hard on the women soldiers, whom she insisted should meet higher standards:

On one occasion, the investigation found, she made comments during a sexual assault prevention brief that female Marines interpreted as victim-blaming, leading some to testify that it would make them feel less comfortable reporting a sexual assault within the command.

[Lt. Col. Kate] Germano also “reinforced gender bias and stereotypes” in the minds of her Marines by telling them on several occasions that male Marines would not take orders from them and would see them as inferior if they could not meet men’s physical standards, the investigation found.

I did not know soldiers grade their commanders. Germano did not score well on the “Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute command climate survey taken by 64 members of the battalion in April.” (Be forewarned. Pretty soon your children will be taking a “command climate survey.”)

The integration of America’s military forces is a farce. It has nothing to do with fighting for America and everything to do with fighting against it.

What Is a Cuckservative?

via Occam's Razor

Among the alt-right / NRx crowds, one of the most fascinating labels has emerged:  The Cuckservative (aka Conservakin or Conservacuck).  I’m not exactly sure where it started or who coined it (if you know, please say in the comments below), but it is truly brilliant as it crystallizes a particular personality that we all know too well.   If Anthony Trollope were alive today, he’d write an entire series on the cuckservative — or at least make him a re-occurring character in novels.

What is the cuckservative?  Well, I’ll paint in broad strokes here to provide a preliminary portrait.  Mind you, only preliminary.  Perhaps commenters can fill in the gaps below.

Very basically, the cuckservative is a white gentile conservative (or libertarian) who thinks he’s promoting his own interests but really isn’t.  In fact, the cuckservative is an extreme universalist and seems often to suffer from ethnomasochism & pathological altruism. In short, a cuckservative is a white (non-Jewish) conservative who isn’t racially aware.

In some ways, the cuckservative is the counterpart of the SJW (social justice warrior), and they are more alike than dissimilar. You often will hear the cuckservative screaming at an SJW about how “the Democrats are the real racists.”

The cuckservative feels very passionate about issues like abortion, which rarely directly affects his own life.  In fact, you might often hear a cuckservative talking about how abortion is “racist” since blacks and mestizos overwhelmingly get more abortions that whites.

On the other hand, the cuckservative feels uncomfortable about issues like immigration.  If the cuckservative is not an outright open-borders shill, he will only give lip service about “securing the border” or “opposing illegal but favoring legal immigration” but he will never talk about immigration very much.  After all, immigration has very serious implications for Western Civilization, so it doesn’t concern the cuckservative.

The cuckservative is often fanatically in favor of transracial adoption.  He sees it as some divine calling.  In a sense, this is cuckoldry at its essence, since these whites are usually forgoing their own inclusive fitness to adopt someone from another race.  As Heartiste notes, they’re race-cucking their own families.

Although the cuckservative is eager to show his PC bona fides by openness to other races, he really doesn’t want to know about other races.  Human biodiversity terrifies the cuckservative, as deep down he has bought into blank-slatism and egalitarianism.  The cuckservative would rather just have a Herman Cain  or Clarence Thomas poster on his wall than actually have to honestly think about race.

The cuckservative, although never Jewish, often seems vicariously to live through Israel.  Since the cuckservative feels that he cannot defend his own ethnic interests, he’ll defend Israel’s.  The cuckservative cares more about Israel’s borders than his own.  Israel adamantly defends its own ethnic interests and perhaps deep down the cuckservative respects this on some unconscious level.

On the other hand, the idea of whites acting as a group to secure their own interests terrifies the cuckservative. If you ever want to troll a cuckservative, just repeatedly use the word “white,”  such as “this isn’t beneficial for the white community.”  The cuckservative will triggered immediately.

The cuckservative is a fascinating personality.  They’re all around us.  Can they be helped?  Is their condition terminal?  Who knows, but maybe by pointing out their condition they can seek self-improvement.

Updates:

This was only a general sketch — as there are many more nuances of the cuckservative, but I hope this is a good start.  Perhaps others can help fill in the blanks . . .

‘Jews,’ ‘Shabs,’ and ‘Cucks': Moving beyond the 'SJW' Label

via TradYouth

I’ve never cared for the “SJW” shorthand for our opponents in the culture war. For one, it’s a clumsy acronym which doesn’t quite roll off the tongue very poetically in speech. It also ascribes the term “warrior,” to our opponents. Even if one’s being ironic or facetious, it’s still not the best framing. There’s no courage, honor, valor, or discipline among these “SJW” opponents, and only a fraction of them even pretend to be militant in any sort of martial sense.

Most importantly, though, “social justice” was originally and should remain our demand. Historically, the popularizer of that term was Father Coughlin, the fiery radio priest who stood for the working man and traditional family against the capitalist and Jewish oligarchs of his day. Social justice is a good thing, something we should be striving for, and the reason we forfeit on that label is because libertarian and Redbeardian “Dark Enlightenment” types want us to adopt their neo-colonial capitalist worldview which happens to have HBD realism and some chortling about Jewish cultural foibles awkwardly stapled onto it.

A more effective lexicon would be one which directly names Jews when (and only when) they are Jewish. The Jewish media mogul, the minority immigrant interviewer, and the white guy crying with shame about his whiteness are all three very different types of enemies, and hurling a singular “SJW” label at all of them reduces the amount of information conveyed in the attack and inappropriately implies that they’re all three earnestly (if incorrectly) pursuing some form of “social justice” rather than more base motives.

Stephen Friedman, Jew
Jew

Jew

Stephen Friedman, the producer of the virulently anti-White propaganda documentary “White People” is doing what he’s doing because he’s Jewish. Jews have a reflexive contempt for their White Christian hosts which is baked into their cultural DNA. I am the Pharaoh, the Philistine, and Führer of his ressentiment-fueled Pharisaical memeplex. I did nothing to become a target but be born in the wrong place, in the wrong time; a hapless member of a host society that Mr. Friedman is hellbent on subverting, perverting, and inverting.

And just as Whites continue on thinking and behaving in broadly Christian themes and memes long after they don fedoras and start worshiping Dawkins instead, secular Jews pursue their Group Evolutionary Strategy compulsively, with neither sergeants nor scripts guiding them along, because it’s embedded in their cultural firmware.

Typical White Cuck
Cuck

Cuck

The term “cuck” irritates and aggravates people because it’s so vulgar and direct, but it’s not going anywhere and it shouldn’t. “Cuckoldry” is the biological root and psychological basis of the grieving White liberal flagellating himself and begging the documentarian to scold and shame him for being White. It’s degenerate and destructive submission, unlike the noble submission of a Muslim to Allah, a warrior to his commander, or a daughter to her patriarch.

The word makes people sick because it strikes a subconscious nerve. Within the sexual fetish community, cuckolds vividly describe the visceral “gut punch” sensation that overwhelms a man who discovers his wife’s unfaithful. His sperm production, testosterone levels, and a variety of other hormonal and psychological factors are programmed to react instinctively to “cuckold threat.”

Most awakened Whites describe their rapid paradigm shift in terms similar to men who realize they’re being cuckolded. It’s that “gut punch” moment when you realize that you’re being had, taken for a fool, humiliated, and exploited. The Jewish ability to masquerade as “white” in our society is pivotal to our political cuckoldry, as it empowers anti-White Jews like Tim Wise to convince them that anti-Whiteness is an altruistic in-group moral phenomenon rather than an out-group competitive phenomenon.

Jose Antonio Vargas, Shab
Shab

Shab

This is a new insult I propose be added into the mix, an abbreviation of shabbos goyim. In Jewish tradition, the shabbos goyim is a gentile who assists Orthodox Jews with duties that their religious laws forbid, such as running an errand or flipping a light switch during their Sabbath. The majority of the prominent opponents of our identities and traditions aren’t Jewish and they aren’t properly described as cuckolds, either. Unlike the cuckold, they’re achieving money, fame, and acclaim by serving the degenerate agenda.

Jose Antonio Vargas, the illegal immigrant face of the White People documentary is your prototypical “shab,” a man who’s achieved money, fame, and acclaim by dutifully attacking our people and our way of life on behalf of his Jewish paymasters at the Viacom headquarters. Vargas would like to be seen as some sort of “social justice warrior,” and we should stop rewarding him and others with that label. He’s a tool of very wealthy and powerful Jewish oligarchs who are haranguing and harassing random White kids to turn against their own identities …to be cucks.

Campus feminists are shabs, encouraged and goaded by the Jewish leaders of the feminist movement into attacking their white male and Christian targets. While a good share of them most certainly have gender issues and backstories which explain their neurotic behavior, it’s the Jewish academic, Jewish media, and Jewish political system which affords them a platform to spew their bile and rewards them with money, fame, and acclaim for doing so.

Anita Sarkeesian would be an anonymous women complaining about sexism in video games if her campaign weren’t useful for (and therefore supported and perpetuated by) hostile oligarchs who haven’t a clue whether Link is male or female. The oligarchs see that young white men are increasingly retreating into video games, obscure message boards, and darker and darker corners of the deep web to avoid the hostility and degradation which comes with being a young white man in today’s society. There’s good money for Anita and others in spelunking into those “safe spaces” white men are attempting to find refuge in.

There’s good money in being a shab.

Anti-Whites Are Coming for Stone Mountain: NAACP Sets Sights on Jefferson, Jackson, and Lee

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Back on April 17, 2012, these words were published at SBPDL:
Atlanta Journal Constitution 
Georgia's Racist Past Demolished at Stone Mountain ParkJuly 14, 2016

Byline: Racially ambiguous graduate of an Ivy League college/university

It will be completed soon. Freedom will ring from sea-to-shining-sea finally, just as Martin Luther King prophesied in his angelic "I Have a Dream" speech from 1963. Stone Mountain Park's divisive Confederate Memorial carving of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson will be demolished today.

Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land...

One of the last vestiges of public, prominent racism left in America (after the White House in Washington D.C. was renamed "The People's House"), Stone Mountain Park - located in predominately Black Stone Mountain, Georgia - will see a new mural erected in place of the three most prominent leaders of the white supremacist Confederate States of America. 

The new mural, selected by the presidents of America's leading Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) will depict Martin Luther King giving his fabled address in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial. 

"This is a powerful day in our nation's history, with true racial reconciliation coming to a state whose history is replete with the stain of white bigotry," said President Barack Obama. 

"It is only by removing every white stain of bigotry that we can move forward with creating a more powerful union," he said. 

The Army Corps of Engineers will supervise the demolition. Pieces of the memorial will be distributed across the nation as part of the Department of Education's Teaching Tolerance program. 
It was only a joke, though I knew one day the United States of America would do to the engraving of Lee, Davis, and Jackson on Stone Mountain what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamiyan in March of 2001. 

And here it comes. [NAACP wants removal of Confederate generals from Stone Mountain, WSB-TV, July 13, 2015]:

The Atlanta chapter of the NAACP officially called for the elimination of all symbols of the Confederacy from Stone Mountain. This comes on the heels of the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the South Carolina State House.  NAACP's Richard Rose says the time to move is now, but admits it may be a steep slope to climb. Channel 2’s Berndt Petersen talked with Yolanda Shackelford, who was chaperoning a group of children from Cobb County on a trip to Stone Mountain. "When I'm out here, and I have to be honest, when I'm out here enjoying Stone Mountain, I'm thinking about what it has to offer for what I'm coming for," Shackelford said.  But the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP has a much more serious point of view.   The organization issued a statement calling for the removal of all symbols of the Confederacy from the park. "My tax dollars should not be used to commemorate slavery,"Rose said.  Rose said his group wants Confederate symbols removed from all state-owned buildings, parks and lands.   Rose told Petersen he would start with Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. "Those guys need to go. They can be sand-blasted off, or somebody could carefully remove a slab of that and auction it off to the highest bidder," Rose said.  Shackelford said she is all for a discussion as long as it's not based on emotion. "We have to look at history. We have to look at how it's affecting all people. That's my view. We are an organization of many faces. So, we always want to consider our total community,"Shackelford said. A spokesman for Stone Mountain Park said any removal of the Confederate flags or monuments is up to the Georgia Legislature.
I'll never forget when I found out Brittany Watts was murdered in Atlanta in 2011; more than that, I'll never forget where I was when I found she had been murdered by a black male whose primary motivation was shooting white people because of the 'white privilege' he had been taught in college.  [Midtown murder suspect confesses, CBS Atlanta, January 30, 2013]:
All of Thandiwe's victims are white. He said during his last few years in college, his history studies changed his thoughts about how some white people treated black people. 
"In terms of slavery and race, it was something that needed to be answered for. I saw it as something that the black community hasn't recovered from so my initial way to handle that was to spread information to help combat some of the ignorance that was in the black community about our history," said Thandiwe. 
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were trying to spread the message of making white people the enemy," asked Assistant District Attorney Linda Dunikoski."Yes," replied Thandiwe. 
Thandiwe told jurors the night before the killed Watts some white people attended a meeting he felt was only for black people. He said part of that anger was with him the day of the shootings.
White people were the enemy to Nkosi Thandiwe, so he opened on three white women (killing one and paralyzing another); now, the history of white people is an open target for a people whose every intent is to ultimately finish off what Thandiwe started.  

It's funny: a civilization whites created long ago in Selma, Alabama was completely destroyed by the black population after it was unleashed via freedom and a walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Jesse Jackson himself said the only way to stop majority black cities from collapsing once white people left was to make white flight illegal. [Selma, 50 years after march, remains a city divided, Los Angeles Time, 3-6-15]:
"Some people have a need to not be satisfied," said Jamie Wallace, who in 1965 was an editor at the Selma Times-Journal. He stood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge with civil right marchers when they were attacked on Bloody Sunday. He and other newspaper staffers resisted enormous pressure from advertisers, subscribers and the Selma elite to ignore the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the marchers. 
This weekend, he will be presented a Living Legend Award by Selma's mayor, a black man. Things were bad in 1965, Wallace said. They are still bad. 
"But I dispute anyone who claims we didn't change anything," he said. "We went from an all-white power structure to all black. That means something." 
The Rev. Jesse Jackson sat nearby on a wicker sofa, watching Sanders and her volunteers work. "People coming to Selma in a celebration mood should be in a protest mood," he said. Sanders agreed. 
"Sixty percent of Selma's children live in poverty," she told him. Jackson nodded. 
"People assume there is a correlation between political power and economic power," he said. But a black power structure — mayor, city council, police force — is not enough. 
"You change the political power, and the white business owners just move outside the city. So you have power over a doughnut hole. We need help to climb out of the doughnut hole," he said. 
He went on to describe a plan in which the government would intervene to stop people from relocating their businesses. "It's the only way," Jackson said.
They want to destroy your history and then make you a slave to ensure they don't become history.

Sovereignty and the Bounds of Justice

via The High Right

In “After Virtue” Alasdair MacIntyre condemned modern individualistic societies for their inability to make moral language intelligible, their inability to rationally come to a moral consensus, and more specifically their inability to come to a clear conception of justice that can resolve disputes between rival positions involved in ethical and socio-political disputes. He referenced Aristotle and posited with him that justice is the primary virtue of political life, and that without a shared conception of justice there is no genuine political community. (MacIntyre 227) According to MacIntyre early modern philosophers rejected the use of “final causes”, ”ends,” or “telos’” in moral philosophy. For the enlightened bourgeois “individual” a human’s ends could be based on little more than their own free will and desire. There could be no objective telos’ in nature-nor in socio-political life- to guide people. ( MacIntyre 52) According to MacIntyre this rejection lead to a dire problem, as David Hume infamously stated:

“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it…”(Hume 469)

This claim can be understood in a more general way as reporting on the incommensurability of descriptive statements about the world and evaluative statements, those statements about not just what I ought to do, but also what is good to do, what is just to do, who is a just man or woman, etc. There seems to be a difficulty in deriving a statement of the latter sort from a statement or set of statements of the former sort. Hume’s challenge is for one to explain how this derivation can take place. MacIntyre sees this not as a problem for moral philosophy simpliciter, but rather a problem with this early modern conception of morality which denies the reality of telos’. The use of a telos allows us to reach an evaluative conclusion from a descriptive premise. As MacIntyre explains, “From such factual premises as ‘He gets a better yield for this crop per acre than any farmer in the district’… the evaluative conclusion validly follows that ‘He is a good farmer’”. This is only possible because ‘farmer’ as a concept involves a function and telos of producing food. Because of this the concept ‘farmer’ cannot but be bound up with the conception of a ‘good farmer’ who achieves his end. (MacIntyre 55) Thus when man is not conceived of as a bare individual, but rather as a being intimately bound up to his activity and the roles he play as citizen, father, farmer, ect, we can conceive of him as “good” or not, insofar as he fulfills the function, and therefore telos, that his roles and the activity related to them demands. (MacIntyre 56)

MacIntyre conceived of the telos’ that beings can share in their social and moral dealings with one another as an aspect of a kind of virtue ethics. In this theory a virtue is a kind of behaviour or disposition that favours the achievement of a telos. E.G., one has shown himself to be honest- which leads to the telos of a trustworthy society, which is valued, and due to it he deserves the trust that others place in him. This creates an intelligible moral schema by which we can make sense of evaluative terms like “deserves” from factual premises. It is within specific forms of socio-political practice that these virtues can be found. MacIntyre further defined a virtue as “…an acquired human quality the possession and exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods”( MacIntyre 178). These goods internal to the practice are contrasted with goods external to the practice, the former are those goods which can only arise in the context or a similar context to the practice itself, and can only be recognized by those who participate in the practice itself. Goods external to the practice can arise from the practice but are not integral to it. (MacIntyre 176) For example, the ability to write counterpoint melodies is a good internal to the practice of musical composition, where the influence and wealth that may arise from composition are goods external to the practice.

MacIntyre’s work may disturb individualistic and universalistic moral thinkers; for when dealing with a practice and attempting to acquire its internal goods we must be willing to subordinate ourselves to other practitioners within the tradition and the best standards set out in the practice thus far. (MacIntyre 178) Likewise these practices are not universal but always bound to some sort of specificity of a historical and social situation. Outside of the concrete reality of which social and historical setting the human(s) in question find themselves in “man” ceases to be a functional concept.( MacIntyre 56) This brings to mind the famous condemnation of Joseph de Maistre against the constitutional practices of the French Revolutionaries: “During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be Persian; but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere; if he exists. He is completely unknown to me”. ( de Maistre 80) If there is something truly universal about all humans in their actual concrete existence it is their diversity from one another through the particularity that they find themselves bound to. “Man” simpliciter can only ever be a metaphysical or linguistic abstraction from concrete reality, for even the man apart from all other human contact is not the universal man, but his case is particular and he is formed in a unique way corresponding to his surroundings, whatever they may be. “Man” exists only in concrete diversity and particularity beyond even the mere confines of even his biological construct, as there is something always beyond it that corresponds to it, and this addition and his mere existence are never actually separable. It is at this level, the one which takes his concrete particularity into account, rather than trying to abstract away from it, that is the proper subject of a philosophical theory that can elucidate the realities of human life. “Particularity” must be seen as a condition wholly different from the idea of the “individual”. The “individual” is a universalist abstraction, one which demands a uniform and ideal level of self sufficiency and self-made identity to be properly applied to a subject.

Practice is a vital part of any tradition, and every practice implies a relationship between its practitioners. Virtues are those goods which define and mediate these relationships between those who share the same telos with others within the practice, and also those who historically influenced the practice itself. To take part in virtuous practice requires that one is embedded in a tradition and are subordinated to its standards. (MacIntyre 179) But for MacIntyre there are certain virtues that cannot but be respected for the sake of an individual being involved in a tradition’s practice, justice being one of them. ( MacIntyre 178) MacIntyre claimed that justice demands that we treat individuals according to objective standards of merit as defined by the discipline. If a professor grades one student’s paper to the standards of the discipline and another with influence from a unique factor, like the student’s grooming habits, then the relationship that the professor holds with each student in relation to the discipline has been altered. The shared telos that defines the practice in question cannot be fostered if its members constantly deviate from the standards put in place so to reach it. It weakens the social bonds integral to the tradition when one treats members of the tradition unjustly. Thus while particular codes of justice depend on telos’, and cannot be intelligible outside of them, certain virtues like justice cannot be ignored if one is to instantiate the virtues of a tradition required for the attainment of the telos.( MacIntyre 179)

MacIntyre also accepts that traditions and their practices rely on institutions that uphold the traditions’ standards, and use their own acquisition of goods external to the practice, like wealth and power, in order to maintain themselves and the tradition which relies on them. (MacIntyre 181) Institutions of intellectual pursuit require funding and a degree of power, prestige and freedom to pursue its ends in order that it may reach its goals, and be protected from rival institutions’ own power. Without such goods external to the practice the goods internal to the practice are stifled. But this immense dependence of the practice itself on the institution that sustains it leads to an imbalance in power. This imbalance risks that the institution’s quest for goods external to the practice, meant to be a means for the sake of the goods internal to the practice, to become an end itself. The goods internal to the practice, which were meant to be the ends according to the foundations of the institution, become subordinated to the goods external to the practice that the institution focuses on. Thus these virtues, like justice, are dependent on the institution, and yet at the same time their presence in the institution in question is what can ensure that the institution’s external goals do not corrupt the tradition. (MacIntyre 181)

It must be added, apart from MacIntyre’s account, but not in conflict with it, that institutions do more than just ensure that the material goods and socio-politico power of assertion and resistance against opposing and competing forces is maintained. For traditions, taken only in the content of the convictions of its practitioners, are always somewhat heterogeneous and unbounded. Even within a single tradition, there are multiple interpretations of ritual, dogma, ethics, and all categories of thought and action. At what point does one conception become too heterogeneous from the “core” of the tradition? Many shades of belief and ritual may have a close resemblance to one another, but where are the bounds of the identity that can define one tradition as exactly itself and not another? How far can a telos itself be altered and remain with a tradition? How many closely resembling telos’ and means to reach the telos’ can be integrated into the tradition? The content of the telos’ and tradition itself cannot generate an answer to these questions. For example: say that we have many similar conceptions of a tradition, conception one contains elements (A, B, and C), conception two contains elements (B, C, and D), conception three contains (C, D, and E), and finally conception four contains elements (D, E, and F). Each conception shares elements with at least two other conceptions in the example, yet conception one and four have no shared elements with one another. There are an indefinite amount of conceptions that could be linked with all of these by a similar kind of transitive resemblance. Unless one can essentialize one or some of the elements involved then it is not clear where this set of conceptual resemblances could terminate so to dictate that the tradition has been abandoned for something else. But this essentialization is arbitrary by the content internal to the tradition itself, and can only be done from outside of it.

This is not all, for to essentialize the element(s) and make the demarcating decision of what bounds the tradition as itself and not another, an actual act of instantiation is needed. Traditions are not defined by ideas and dispositions alone, but by the actual practice of them. It does not matter if all practitioners are supportive of a certain moral precept if they will not act on it and consent to (or take part in) the constraining, punishing, or at least attempting to deter other members of the practice from it. To not do as much would mean that the tradition that has this norm embedded in it would be indistinguishable from the one who both did not share this same norm and nor upheld it in any meaningful way. We have no epistemic access to what is only internally valuable to the members of a tradition. It is the decisive power that the institution of a tradition can impose onto its members so to demarcate content that makes the tradition (which is defined not by belief, but by practice) what it is as opposed to another tradition. This is loosely what Carl Schmitt characterized as sovereignty, as “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”. (Schmitt 5) The sovereign power acts from a place somewhat detached from the content of the tradition itself, recreating it with each concrete decision to act and exclude the exceptional. This is done by instantiating the bounds of the tradition through force. It is the institution which deals in power itself, a good external to the practice. Due to this it is only natural that the institution serves this demarcating role, as it is what will be powerful enough to exert the needed force so to resolve disputes that arise from heterogeneous conceptions and maintain the needed homogeneity of a shared tradition.

More directly in reference to Schmitt, the existence of a tradition demands that there is a normal situation of stability for the tradition, ensured by its institution, so that the norms of the tradition can take effect. (Schmitt 13) As Schmitt mentioned, “The exception, which is not codified in the existing legal order, can at best be characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state, or the like. But it cannot be circumscribed factually and made to conform to a preformed law”. The precise details of an emergency that would eliminate the institution and tradition itself cannot always be predicted. (Schmitt 6) The normal order depends on a situation of normalcy that the tradition, its institution, and its norms, already can account for and thrives off of. When the exception arises that would threaten the institution and the tradition itself, the order itself and its normative content cannot but recede in such a situation where it has no grounds to instantiate itself. Only the institutional sovereign power that acts as its guarantor can remain in the face of the tradition’s potential destruction. (Schmitt 12) The sovereign power is the one that decides when this disturbance has come and acts to correct it. As this power bounds the limits of what the tradition is itself through acts sovereign power, it also decides through its actions what constitutes the normal order through which norms may be meaningful and functional, by actively negating the decided upon exception.

So far I have argued with MacIntyre that concepts like justice can only be intelligible insofar as they relate to a shared teleological end shared by people. These ends, their corresponding practices and their virtues can only be made sense of in relation to particular historically based socio-political traditions. Traditions are sustained and defined by institutions dealing in power. From considerations from Schmitt I have argued that it is the institutions’ acts of sovereign decision making that facilitates the relevant telos, and the norms of the tradition itself that correspond to the telos by giving it objective bounds. Finally, with Schmitt, I have come to the conclusion that the sovereign power defines when there is a normal situation by which the content of the tradition can be even seen as intelligible and able to be instantiated.

Without the survival of the institution there is no survival of the tradition, its practices, and its telos. And of course without such a telos there is no intelligible way to formulate a concept of justice. By the transitivity of these last two claims it seems that without the institution and its sovereign power there can be no justice. This new step in our argument should be worrying to those who are weary of the potential corruption of institutional power. If this sovereign power is the guarantor of justice itself how could one resist and act against the sovereign power in a just manner, or accuse the sovereign power of the institution of acting in an unjust manner? Can the sovereign power be bound to justice in its formative acts of deciding upon the exceptional case, and the content of the tradition itself?

As pointed out earlier, for MacIntyre traditions are defined in part by certain relationships that make up the community of practice within the tradition. Justice to him is an impersonal standard of treatment that regulates group interaction. To treat one person according to a standard of justice defined by the tradition and to treat another in a way that goes against it is to redefine the relationship with the second person in a way that betrays the standards meant to help the community within the tradition reach their guiding telos. Thus without justice there is no community of practice, and thus no tradition. Justice cannot be devalued for the sake of the sovereign power, because without the instantiation of justice the sovereign power has betrayed its own purpose: to support the tradition and its virtues. But this is still somewhat of an ineffectual response to certain concrete situations. It is only deviation from whatever the set standards for treatment of members of the tradition are that can be considered unjust in this case, this is only a structural necessity, it demands no normative content in particular be followed, it only guards against hypocrisy. But is there no place for just resistance against an institution which is not being hypocritical but is still unfavourable to some, or all, of the members of the tradition?

There is something specious about the argument that: because A is a necessary condition for the existence of B, that when A is as risk that it must take precedent over B. Consider a case like this: I live in a technologically advanced and flawlessly monitored society which discourages philosophy to the point where all philosophers active in philosophic dialectic are put to death. To engage in philosophical dialectic I must be alive (I must ask for forgiveness for this assumption), thus I ought not engage in philosophical dialectic and value my bare life over engaging in it. This conclusion does not follow. In the situation where I must chose either/or between the two there is no reason that I have to accept that living should be valuable to me if to do so requires that I cannot engage in Philosophical dialectic while living. Ontological priority and evaluative priority need not be symmetrical. It is the same with justice and the institutions which create the particular instantiations of it. It may be true that without the telos, norms, and practices defined by the institution and its sovereign power that no notion of justice can be intelligibly produced. But this does not mean that I am logically required to subject myself to a particular institution or any institution whatsoever if I disagree with its norms, practices, telos, and sense of justice.

There is a foundational aspect of a tradition that is beyond the activity of the sovereign power that defines its bounds: the consent of the members of the tradition with the tradition’s telos, norms, and practices that the sovereign power claims to guarantee, consent to the sovereign power’s interpretation of these things, and consent to it’s demarcating decisive actions in relation to them. The members of the tradition always contribute to sovereignty and the bounds of the norms and the exception through their own decisive acts of consent (I.E. not concretely resisting sovereign power). Without the consent of those acted upon to the acts of the sovereign power sovereign activity would turn into something resembling warfare between the sovereign power and the members of its tradition, destroying the tradition’s unity. And if the content pushed for by the institution was completely alienated from the values that the members of the tradition already held it would be difficult to gain any consent. There is always a sense in which the values developed by the people taking part in the tradition will need to be respected by the sovereign power, and that their shared experience as members of the tradition will be a formative force. One is to conform to the norms of the tradition insofar as one believes that they share a telos with the institution that supports the tradition, and that the institution is doing well to foster an environment that helps the members of the tradition reach the telos. If one’s own interpretation of the telos has a clause attached to it that certain actions must be avoided so to maintain the worth of the telos, E.G. that torture cannot be a means to prosperity, then when the institution uses its sovereign power to torture and thus allows torture to stay within the bounds of the tradition, those who disagree with torture find themselves outside of the bounds of the institution’s telos and the tradition it upholds, so as long as they are willing to act against it.

Consent and rebellion must be expressed by action, for it is not just consent to the idea put forward by the institution that bounds one within the tradition, but more vitally physical consent to its sovereign concrete acts of power that places one within the tradition. Traditions are about practice, not private epistemic states. Once one is willing to act against a sovereign power for the sake of their own telos, and finds a community who consents to their telos and demarcating exclusionary sovereign activity that supports it, then one has their own tradition ( and perhaps the grounds for a new institution as well). Thus they have their own justice apart from the institution and tradition they rebel against. Institutions may specialize in sovereign power, but no institution has a monopoly on it.

Justice is a virtue dependent on a relationship between those who share a telos, so in having an alternate telos from an institution, one cannot be called unjust for acting against it. The two traditions are incommensurable systems of social organization. Only by negating the tradition that the institution is meant to uphold can it act unjustly. Beyond this negation only incommensurable traditions and their sovereign powers in struggle remain. Resistance and dissent against sovereign power is as formative and foundational to justice and the traditions that make it intelligible as obedience and consent to sovereign power is, as those who resist and rebel take part in foundational exclusionary sovereign action of their own when they do so. Thus justice is not barred from them when they act against another sovereign power, even if it was one they subordinated themselves to in the past.

Without a shared telos a society can have no justice. When one society’s telos is only that a diversity of incommensurable telos’ are to be maintained at the expense of normative and exclusionary cultural content, and its justice is adherence to the standards of treatment that sustain this constant state of negation, it is self negating. Hypocrisy is inherent to it, for it takes justice, that mediating tool of traditions, to be the absolute negation of the possibility of tradition itself, and therefore of justice itself. The universalistic, modern liberal state, that demands the flattening out of all normative exclusionary content, and any tradition within its bounds that could provide normative exclusionary content, begets its own rebels by its absurdity. For the pluralistic tradition of these states is only the negation of tradition as such. Where one may consent to, or dissent from, a tradition that is unfavourable to them, as a matter of ontological priority to their engagement in social life, the pluralistic tradition that denies a shared telos and all forms of normative exclusionary content demands actual concrete dissent against it.

Bibliography

Hume, David, and L. A. Bigge. A Treatise of Human Nature. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon ;, 1978. Print.
MacIntyre, Alasdair C. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.
2nd ed. Notre Dame, Ind.: U of Notre Dame, 1984. Print.
Maistre, Joseph Marie, and Jack Lively. Works Selected,translated and Introduced by Jack Lively. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Print.
Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1985. Print.

Cat Lady Logic

via Counter-Currents

Obama’s speech in El Paso a few weeks ago began with a feel-good story about a graduation ceremony in Miami in which over 180 flags were marched across the stage – one for every nation that at least one student in the graduating class had invaded from. As each flag crossed the podium, that nation’s invaders cheered. “But then, the last flag, the American flag, came into view, and everyone in the room erupted in applause. Everybody cheered.”

This is, in a sentimental chestnut, the vision for America’s future which has replaced the traditional vision upheld by our forefathers. It’s an inversion of it, one in which America is not only something other than a great nation – it’s the anti-nation. The flag no longer symbolizes the founding values, values by and for a specific nation of people from throughout Europe who were integrating into a shared Anglo-American identity. The flag symbolizes the singular vision of the tens of millions of foreigners of varying legal statuses stampeding in: a free lunch at our expense.

Obama assures us that they’ve embraced our ideals and precepts. While most who parrot the recent idea that America is a “notional nation” shy away from explicitly defining the national notion, he came right out and admitted it: “opportunity”. “Pursuit of opportunity” is a euphemistic way of saying “pursuit of self-interest”. They’re here to get stuff, not to embody Enlightenment ideals, practice the Protestant work ethic, and watch the big game alongside the buffoons they’re replacing. They’re doing what’s in their interests by coming here, just as our hostile elites are doing what’s in their interests by inviting them here.

What’s curious is why so many ordinary White Americans are inviting them here. By what logic would we knowingly and willingly give up our inheritance, our infrastructure, our power, and our very future to an ever-growing horde of intruders who no longer even pretend to take assimilation seriously? America’s media and academia encourage and promote this madness, but there’s a method to the madness beyond the influence of our enemies. It’s a mindset ripe for this sort of manipulation.

It’s the mindset of a cat lady.

America has become the world’s cat lady, throwing its door wide open to whoever wants in. Cat ladies are motivated by an unthinking sentimentality that does the cats more harm than good in the long run. The cats don’t care if it’s sustainable or even tolerable for the lady, they just want in from the cold and in on the free lunch. The promoters of amnesty and open borders can’t define a point at which America’s charity would stop – because there isn’t one. Expecting the illegal immigrant to consider the welfare of his host country is as absurd as expecting a cat to consider the welfare of the old woman.

Ultimately the act which feels like charity becomes intolerable for all involved, including the parasites. Before you know it, they’ve taken the place over, refuse to be domesticated, and even threaten and attack their hosts. Obama openly mocked the growing number of Americans who are concerned about border security with jokes about “moats with alligators”, he spoke to the largely Hispanic crowd as a cat among the cats which have taken over the house, offering  up citizenship to the untold tens of millions here and the untold tens of millions on their way here.

We’re right, both logically and morally. We can’t, however, walk into the trap our enemies have set for us of being the heartless villains intent on being cruel toward immigrants. It’s both impossible and wrong to strip our fellow White Americans of the spirit of charity and sacrifice. White folks, especially the well-fed ones in their suburban subdivisions, can’t think the way the rest of the world thinks: in simple and stark selfish interests. Even if one could beat the Christianity out of us, the Christian themes and attitudes carry on in the mind long after God dies. It’s probably innate, as our pagan forefathers were already abstract, idealistic, and altruistic long before those impulses found expression in Christ’s message. The problem isn’t with charity, per se, but with the unthinking and unsustainable charity typified by the neighborhood cat lady.

If foreigners have a natural disaster, we’ll chip in. If their people are starving and we aren’t, we’ll do our share to help alleviate their suffering. But the solution these non-Whites want is to move over here, and that’s no solution at all. They aren’t escaping the problems in their home country. They’re bringing them here. The Mexican drug cartels are also spilling across our border, and you are guaranteed that they’ll bring their turf wars, their street gangs, their grisly murders, and their kidnappings for ransom with them. The legal ones will bring along the illegal ones, and the law-abiding ones will harbor the fugitives.

They obviously don’t respect our laws, or they wouldn’t be over there defying them and mocking us for trying to enforce them. They obviously don’t plan to integrate, or there wouldn’t be entire regions in America where the signs, businesses, and conversations are all in Spanish. If they’re sincerely loyal to this country, then why do they send tens of billions of dollars “back home” every year? Why do they wave Mexican flags, have Mexican flag bumper stickers, and show up in force at rallies to promote the interests of a foreign country in broad daylight?

Obama won’t seriously answer our objections to open borders. Sure, he’ll call us some names and try to guilt trip us with sob stories. But he won’t answer our objections. He won’t answer our objections because he can’t.

Our hostile elites will not allow an open debate on open borders because it’s an open and shut case of them working against the interests of ordinary White Americans. They’re hoping you’ll see their little signs depicting pathetic children begging not to be deported and take pity on them. They’re hoping you’ll be like the cat lady, and just keep letting a few more of them in until our entire home, our entire homeland, is completely overrun. That’s not hyperbole, that’s an official Census Bureau projection.

Mexico’s Southern border is guarded by armed soldiers who shoot to kill. This is how fiercely Obama’s adoring fans in El Paso protect their own border. Now, I’m not suggesting we stoop to their level. We should be guided by Christian charity in our actions. And when I say charity, I mean true charity, not the unexamined and self-destructive charity of the cat lady. I mean deporting them humanely, each and every last one of them. To do less would be to treat our own children and our children’s children inhumanely, because a nation that fails to define and defend its borders (especially a nation as bountiful and beautiful as this great nation of ours) is bound to fall.

We must not become refugees in a crowded third world madhouse dominated by the very people we once gave refuge. I’m proud to say that our advocacy group here in Indiana, Hoosier Nation, helped pass some of the toughest illegal immigration legislation in America. We can’t afford to wait for the federal government to do its job. We have to engage the political process and set an example for our White American peers of a morally confident and tactically competent resistance to the anti-White biases and anti-White policies that are designed to make us unwelcome and uncomfortable strangers in the land our forefathers fought for.

Our victory certainly wasn’t enough, and “politics as usual” aren’t enough to get us out from under this boot. All Indiana, Arizona, and the handful of other states passing these laws have done is decrease the force and frequency of the boot stomping us into oblivion. What we really need is a radical restoration propelled by a moral and spiritual vision capable of inspiring a true crusade. What we need is to redirect that boundless spirit of sacrifice of so many White Americans from feeding and supporting these ungrateful and undeserving intruders toward a cause and a nation worth sacrificing for.

The War on Spirit

via The European Guardian

The "war on terror" is a phrase often heard; there are, of course, other well-publicized "wars": the "war on poverty," the "war on drugs," the "war on 'organized crime,'" etc. Yet, ultimately, all these "wars" are distractions – indeed, the entire controlled-media apparatus is one ubiquitous, powerful weapon of mass distraction.


There is, however, one very real war that is today raging everywhere on this planet, a war the outcome of which will determine the fate of mankind and, indeed, of ALL life on Earth; it is a war that touches upon every aspect and dimension of what it means to be a human being, to be a living, sentient, conscious being, having a past, a present, and a future. The reader might not have heard of this war, or thought much about it if at all, and there is a reason for this: the mass media have been morphed into mechanisms for manufacturing consent – and the controlled-corporate media have a vested interest in not publicizing this particular war, because it is the War on Spirit.

The War on Spirit is an organized, elite-driven assault on the Peoples of mankind - their respective freedoms, environments, homelands, cultures, belief systems, dignity, and independence. Economistic mechanism-materialism is at war with organic vitalism-spiritualism: Mammon is at war with Beauty; every other struggle is a subset of this existential battle. The conflict rages and grows more severe and pronounced, even as ever more elite-engineered divide-and-conquer balkanization (i.e., "multiculturalism" and "diversity") is promoted by the international tyrants in the global Zionist- plutocracy.

The War on Spirit has been with us for a very long time. Indeed, once the medium of exchange became fungible (e.g., in the form of money), it seems inevitable that economic materialism would embark on a quest to transform the world in its image: humans must become fungible; religions must become universal; everything must succumb to and be subsumed by Mammon – and anything standing in the way of commerce must be plowed under and remade in the image of a rootless, anomic, race-less, ahistorical consumer society.

Ancient conceptions of the sacred and mystical have indeed atrophied, and this process of atrophic decay has been a tragedy for ALL the Peoples of mankind: the conception that mankind are composed of tribes and races, within a harmonic, organic, holonic totality, is infinitely preferable to post-modern ennui and soullessness. Abstract concepts can be deadly, particularly if they divorce consciousness from reality. Mankind need a new paradigm, a fresh, life-affirming perspective to perceive the cosmos – i.e., visible Creation. The old dogmas and blinders must crumble and give way: it is necessary to rethink the meaning of the sacred.

Once the medium of exchange became liberated from use-value, i.e., when the medium of exchange became fungible in the form of money, economic materialism declared war on spirituality, organic life- harmony, and the old values of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. The money-power of economic materialism would, slowly but surely, expand, grow, and consolidate itself. Gradually it would eat away at the organic orders, the aristocratic values, and the supernal systems of thought – the very consciousness – of Western man, as well as the respective consciousnesses of ALL the Peoples of mankind. Eventually, ideologies and paradigms such as Darwinism, Marxism, Freudianism, etc., were developed and promoted, and these new "isms," all these new paradigms and worldviews, all seemed somehow to always have as their as their target the conception of mankind as composed of organic, holonic Peoples and ethno-cultures.

The development of fungible, abstract, detached exchange-value (e.g., consider Aristotle's discussion of commodities, money, barter, usury, exchange-value, and use-value) helped to unleash the forces of economic materialism, and as we witness the course of history, we can see an ongoing world historical struggle taking place, and this titanic clash – which is not yet over – is being waged between Vitalism and Mechanism, between spiritualism and materialism, between particularism and universalism, between soil and profit, between blood and commerce – in short, between Beauty and Mammon. Marxism fetishizes the economic dimension of this struggle and transforms it into the struggle: the struggle to end all struggles. Yet, Marxism is built on lies – lies about everything, from the nature of man to the meaning and purpose of human existence. In this struggle, Mammon-capitalism is allied with radical egalitarianism, i.e., it has institutionalized the lie of human fungibility – and to disagree with totalitarian human fungibility is to be a heretic.

Step by step, the international Zionist-plutocracy has moved to transform homogeneous, sovereign nation-states into globalized, neo-feudal, balkanized, standing-reserve cash cows, to better service the needs and hegemonic objectives of world Zionism and international finance.

Today, materialistic Mammon-capitalism is destroying our planet; indeed, the inner depravity and disharmony of Mammon-capitalism is manifesting itself in the ultimate System crisis: the end of growth, i.e., the point at which the pathologies of Mammon-capitalism, commodification and mass consumption, smash into the wall of reality.