Jul 29, 2015

The Morph

via DiggerForTruth

When becoming jew-wise, often one likes to think that ‘it’s not all the jews'; because at some point in our youth we have had some nice times with Jew pals. We’ve shared some laughs, we’ve enjoyed some ventures, we used to socialise with one or two jews who were really good buddies. So perhaps it’s a bit unfair to label all Jews as bad, all Jews being part of the agenda.

But…….it’s not until one really looks at the complete picture. That when one objectively steps back with many years of experience and study of this conspiracy against humanity; that one can see how the good Jew fits into this comprehensive agenda.

Because, as this title suggests. Those good Jews whom we shared some laughs with in previous years, will always, always in every case evolve into a position in society where they will directly or indirectly play their role in this demonic/Archontic enslavement. I happen to call this the morph.

That’s what these nice Jews do. Slowly gradually, just as the acorn develops into the oak tree, as the puppy grows into a dog, as the innocuous snake develops into a venomous snake; so the youthful, pally Jew will naturally morph into a fully operational Jew.

Your once buddy, who just happen to be a Jew, will gradually incrementally turn. The morph won’t necessarily be that noticeable at first. It will be little things, such as a slight career shift, a notch up the ladder. A dash of financial serendipity: property, business investment, whatever. Always just happen to land on their feet. Always just happen to be at the right place at the right time for that golden opportunity.

Then as the years go by and you happen drift from your nice Jew friend, and meet up eight to ten years later; you will see how they just happen to have got on in life. Just happen to be head of department, got a chain of shops, successful warehouse, lucrative art career with the right connections, established jeweller, successful lawyer (liar), chief financial advisor, top physician. You will also notice how their appearance has changed, how jewish they appear. The large darkened glasses, the style of clothing, the beard, the smell of money, the eyes, the nose – the morph. Your old college buddy, now very very different from how they were and very very different from you.

Somehow, you and your nice Jew buddy are now miles apart. Not able to relate. They are up there and you’re down there. Still down there. Never able to get out of your rut, always tripping up in business deals, just when you think you able to succeed, you slip right down that greasy pole again. Whereas your Jew buddy seems to always come out on top. Funny that. Must be because Jews are so much cleverer than us, so more hard working hey.

Can you see a patten here? Can you see what is covertly happening? How they always always come out on top. Always just happen to be in a position of social influence. As throughout the ages. Can you see it? Can you get it now?

It is not until one is able to be completely Jew-wise that one can observe this much repeated patten.

And just look at what they morph into. Not so much what they become as far a their career title. But their character. They become A JEW. They are ruthless in business, cold, uncaring, seriously materialistic, untrustworthy, callous. And most of all…. have no conscience. [PONCs People Of No Conscience.]

Try asking a favour from your old buddy, to help you get up a notch on the social ladder. Just you see how much your ‘friendship’ was worth. All those favours you’ve done for them. Remember how you bailed them out on your travels when you were in your youth – forget it. Remember how you put them up when they needed somewhere to stay – forget it. Remember how you nursed them when they were sick – forget it. Remember how you helped them get hooked up with that girl they liked – forget it. Remember how you went out of your way to repair their vehicle – just you forget it goy. Because now you are a nothing server and they are of social influence. And that is just how it is. They are better people in society and you are not. Know your place.

The morph just happened when you weren’t looking. You were not Jew-wise. You were not in the know, you with your blissful ignorance, you gullible goy thinking that you were all on the same level, on an even playing field. Ha, such naive trust.

Isn’t it about time us non Jews get wise to this comprehensive Jewish usurpation by stealth.

Huginn and Muninn, Part 2: Symbols of the First Function

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

Part 1

I have recently been dwelling upon the relationship between Woden and His ravens Huginn and Munnin and came across a most interesting passage in Edred Thorsson's Northern Magic. Rune Mysteries and Shamanism. I initially read this book many years ago but only recently have I begun to appreciate its full merits. The primary focus of the book is on the Younger Futhark, a rune row which is very much ignored in mainstream books on runology. Edred follows the Dumezelian tripartite division of the Aesir/Vanir into the First Function (Sovereignity), Second Function (Warfare) and the Third Function (Production/Fertility). He divides the First Function into law, governed by Tyr and magic, governed by Odin.

"The first function is that of judgement, rationality, law, and measurement (embodied by Tiw/Tyr) and of inspiration, intuition, and transformation (embodied by Woden/Odhinn). These two together form the sovereign and intellectual part of the world and of the human being-consciousness. They are the Gods of the ancient kings, judges, poets, and magicians." (Thorsson)
This division of the First Function has a direct parallel with Woden's two ravens, Huginn and Muninn (thought and memory). Hugin represents the rational and that which can be objectively observed whilst Muninn represents to the Collective Unconscious, the Blood Memory or Racial Memory. The synthesis of the two parts is surely the objective of the Woden initiate? An indepth study of our sacred literature and runelore supported by the development of the intuition and psychic abilities should be at the forefront of the initiate's endeavours.
"The true Odinist-that is, one who follows the particular path outlined by the character of the living god Woden-is a person who seeks to understand the deepest cosmic mysteries and then to put these mysteries into a communicable form to be expressed in the world at large. This is part of doing the work of Woden. The path of Odhinn is one which combines the intellectual with the intuitive-but which in both cases strives toward the objectively real and powerful. The highest aim of the Odinist is self-transformation-according to the mysto-magical model provided by Odhinn." (Edred)

The Cuckening

via Radix

At CPAC, I once overheard the late Andrew Breitbart marvel in front of some of his groupies how progressives would think nothing of calling someone a “homophobe” and a “faggot” within the same sentence. “The inversion of values” is key to the leftist vision of morality. A “badass” and strong woman is one who complains the world isn't fair enough. A man who isn't a feminist is “afraid” and therefore weak, as are Whites who don't want to hand away their countries to other peoples. Men who are aggressive and physically strong are actually “delicate” and acting out of fears of inferiority.

Despite being published at American Renaissance, my article “ What is a Cuckservative?” didn't mention “cuckolding” as a racial phenomenon but as a general psychological problem. More importantly, the figure generally credited with benefiting from the American Right's impatience with the “cuckservatives” in Conservatism Inc. is Donald Trump. However, Donald “I love Latinos” Trump shows no signs of White racial consciousness, a staunch position on immigration, or even especially “right-wing” beliefs. He simply doesn't apologize every time he opens his mouth, and this alone has driven the controlled media insane with rage.

Nonetheless, Jeet Heer at The New Republic thinks he's got the alt-right pegged (no pun intended) because the term “Cuckservatives” pushes “psycho-sexual” buttons about race. He writes:
Racism and sexism have always been connected, with one of the prime justifications for racial hierarchy being the supposed need to protect white women from black men and also, more implicitly, to keep black women sexually submissive to white men. A cuckservative thus conjures up one of the supreme nightmares of the white supremacist imagination, the fear that white men will assume a submissive role (or position) in the sexual hierarchy.
The problem is that the alt-Right term really became aware of the existence of “cuckolding’ as kink when The Daily Beast promoted it as the “intellectual sex fetish” in 2010. The article was widely circulated as confirming what we all imagined about left-wing academics. As author Anneli Rufus wrote:
Cuckolding is rapidly emerging as the alt-sex fetish of choice for American intellectuals. Just check out the online forums like OurHotWives.org/forum, where letter-perfect postings celebrate cuckoldry as a cerebral pursuit, transcending ordinary voyeurism and S&M as a dangerous game involving jealousy, misery, gratitude, shame, sharing, sublimation, lust, and trust.
As anyone who set foot in a college classroom knows, it’s not surprising academics utterly obsessed with rooting out the racially and sexually “problematic” implications of every cultural product find bizarre ways to act out their intellectual perversions in sexual form. Only a few days ago, New York Magazine unironically published a preening article by a Michael Sonmore about how letting his wife sleep around allowed him to more fully realize what it was to be a feminist. Some charge that this is a hoax, but that's the point; in today's culture, we have no way to know.

Though I felt no need to mention it, awareness of the racial subculture of all this is also eagerly promoted by the Left. Again, Rufus notes:
But there's also a somewhat uncomfortable racial angle to cuckolding. Cruise the galleries at cuckolding Web sites and you'll see the same dynamic again and again: white husband, white wife, African-American other man. In cuck slang, these black men are dubbed “mandingos” or “bulls.” Some sites, such as InterracialCuck.com, CuckoldHoes.com, and BigBlackBull.com, cater solely to this.
“It harks back to the notion of the forbidden,” says Paul, who doesn't pursue this fetish-within-a-fetish himself, “and to that monstrous old stereotype in which all black men have two-foot cocks.”

These sexual obsessions pop up in the literature of various minority activist groups, from Malcolm X's self-hatred about the “White rapist” blood in his body to the rapist Eldridge Cleaver strange tales in Soul on Ice (required reading at some colleges) about White men begging Blacks to have sex with their wives.

As Louis C.K. (who is now a “cuck” meme himself, after a particularly lame anti-White segment) once said of homosexuality, “I hadn't been told people did that.” For most of us, had we not been told, it never would have occurred to us that this existed. However, even just within the last few days, VICE provides us with a video feature about “America's fastest growing fetish: interracial swinging,” entitled “Mandingo.” As we live in a country where pornographers who specialize in such practices are then recruited to produce children's programming, it’s hard not to notice how it is being encouraged, rather than being “forbidden.” It's also easy to connect this practice of signaling superiority through ostensible degradation with modern leftist politics and moral philosophy.

White nationalism, or even racial realism, is often defined as an “extreme” ideology, and, indeed, there are undercurrents within it about rejecting mainstream thought, religion, morality, and culture. Yet in another sense, what is often termed the “far Right” is really just an energetic defense of normality. What leftists call “fascism” is liberty for most of the population, and what they call “freedom” is “fascism” for most of us. The state and the commanding heights of the culture are never “neutral,” and it seems reasonable such institutions should be used to promote healthy ideals that lead to better lives for our people. This means we should promote strong families, pride in one's identity, and positive aesthetics, rather than degeneracy, self-loathing and a cult of victimization.

Most people, even today, would simply call this “common sense,” hence the somewhat justified paranoia of the antifa that the masses will turn “far Right” overnight if every spark isn't swiftly stamped out. Even the most militant ideals are simply an acknowledgement that a great deal of force will be required to dislodge a system that is being upheld with a great deal of brute power.

Despite the eternal faux rebelliousness of the Cultural Marxist Left, they are the Establishment. And today, it's not White Nationalists having nervous breakdowns over lurid tales about “our women” copulating with Negroes. It's progressives breaking into hysterics over about how all normal sex is rape, how using English pronouns constitutes oppression, and how police in America are murdering innocent Blacks for no reason other than “hate.”

Generally speaking, the current American “far Right” isn't composed of grim-faced political soldiers marching in militaristic uniforms, ready to purge for the Fatherland. The traditional institutions needed to serve as the basis for that kind of a movement no longer exist. The alt Right is ironic, subversive, and cynical. It’s about turning the tactics of the Left back on itself, deconstructing the tropes and narratives forced upon us.

It’s composed of people who spent their formative years listening to tenured mediocrities with six-figure incomes shriek at them about “privilege,” suffering through speeches by “conservative” politicians about how “Islam means peace,” serving abroad and risking death to bring “democracy” to hostile Third Worlders, and watching reports about raceless “youths” attacking people in the streets. The response from the Right to all of this is less, “Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?” and more often, “Are you serious?”

This is what neither the Beltway Right nor the liberal press quite gets about the whole cuckservative debacle. Robert Stacy McCain seems to suggest the Hillary Clinton campaign is behind #cuckservatism, and this is bad, because “If we can't defeat Team Hillary, America is doomed and deservedly so.” And Taylor Millard at Hot Air, attacking the “Cuckservative Lie,” says it is all “idiotic thought and tribalism at its worst” because (you guessed it) “all men are created equal.”

Here, we have both the essential premises of the Beltway Right—that our fate is tied to that of the GOP as currently constituted and and that the Enlightenment, egalitarian rhetoric of the American Founding is a good thing. Rhetorically, this is the equivalent of waving a totemistic statue from some savage tribe in front of a 19th century Englishman, or for that matter, preaching Biblical fire and damnation on a 21st-century college campus. Nobody cares, because no one is taking it seriously as a source of authority.

Despite many tactical disagreements, the alt Right is largely united in the contention that the current Republican Party leadership is essentially a group of glorified corporate lobbyists hostile to their own White base and far more patriotic towards the Jewish state than their own. Yes, we know racializing Republicans will break the Party as currently constituted. That's the point. And ironically, breaking your stupid movement will actually do more to “conserve” the limited government ideals you claim to believe in than campaigning for Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney.

Furthermore, neoreactionaries, White nationalists, Identitarians, and even some racial realists are gradually coming to the conclusion that the American Founding was fatally flawed and that what the United States was able to accomplish was chiefly because the Founders didn't take the egalitarian propaganda seriously. It is self-evident that all men are not created equal. Jefferson's goofy slogan is now being exploited to destroy the very people who came up with it, as was inevitable.

It’s unclear why “tribalism” (I'd call it loyalty) towards our fellow European-Americans ( and Europeans worldwide) with whom we share kinship, identity, and interests is somehow wrong. It’s even less obvious why service to a self-defined “proposition nation” composed of mutually hostile ethnic fiefdoms and ruled by people who want to destroy us is a sacred duty.

Conservatism Inc. keeps invoking ritualistic phrases that no longer elicit the usual response. We don’t think it’s clever to talk about “liberal fascism,” “Democrats are the real racists,” or that “Martin Luther King was a Republican.” We think it’s shallow, self-deluding, and most of all, pointless. Such phrases actually further the interests of an increasingly hostile elite anyway. And these hoary clichés simply won't suffice for a generation that has been propagandized with lies their entire lives. If alt-Right activists and thinkers were the type who believe what they're told, they'd be Social Justice Warriors.

The term “cuckolding” works because it speaks to something primal. At its core, it’s less about sexuality and more about a creature that actively works against its own interests, knowingly or unknowingly. The term comes from the cuckoo bird which tricks birds of other species into taking care of its eggs. The bird doesn’t know it is devoting time and resources to a competitor, indeed, the very competitor that just destroyed its own offspring. Clueless, it serves the interests of its enemy.

Some cuckservatives know full well what they are doing and are either cowardly or filled with inverted moral righteousness about their actions. Others, just like the victims of the cuckoo birds, might be ignorant. Yet in the end, the result is the same. European-Americans are being used to further the interests of every group except their own, even as they are targeted on specifically racial grounds . And however Whites define themselves, the words of Sam Francis remain true:
At a time when the self-declared enemies of the white race define themselves in racial terms, only our own definition of ourselves in those terms can meet their challenge. If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as the Tutsi people have been slaughtered in Rwanda, they will do so not because we are “Westerners” or “Americans” or “Christians” or “conservatives” or “liberals” but because we are White.
"What do you want us to do?” conservatives may ask. The answer is simple. Stop pretending it is illegitimate for European-Americans to work in defense of our own interests. Stop pretending to be offended about “tribalism,” when you accept the “tribalism” of non-Whites and glory in the tribalism of Jews. And above all, stop apologizing.

We aren’t the ones who have the weird hang up, sexual, moral, or otherwise. We simply claim the right every people takes for granted, the right to advocate in defense of our own. For some reason, this common sense suggestion throws our entire political and cultural system into turmoil. And in the end, that tells us more about the inherent perversion of the System that rules us than anything else.

Don’t Criticize the GOP for Performing Its Function

via Henry Dampier

The purpose of the GOP is to run interference for the left to make it easier for said institutional left to administer the state, and through its administration of the state, the rest of the society.

Criticizing the GOP for performing its function is confused — there’s no other role for it to play, considering its non-representation in important institutions like government bureaucracies and, more importantly, universities.

The GOP functions to contain discontent among the population, to channel it into useless issues, and to tell people what they’re allowed to believe and express without provoking social opprobrium and legal consequences.

Wanting to replace the GOP with a new party would just mean taking over its function — which is to perform as a catcher, political policeman, and misdirection apparatus for the state — really not terrible work if you can get it, but nothing like actually controlling the state or changing the methods by which it operates.

Deliberately breaking the ability of the Republican party to field national candidates is worthwhile for this reason: because it deprives the American state of a critical tool for keeping a large section of the productive population down on the farm and working hard to pay for all those free pills and free hot pockets and subsidized rent vouchers.

On this theme, giving people in the GOP the opportunity to display their value to their masters is useful for both parties. When spoilers like Donald Trump earn high polls, it’s a sign that they’re not doing their job properly, that the cattle are getting restless, and that the political policemen need another ‘Benghazi!’ style shiny object to redirect their attention away from more important things.

It’s also important to remember that throughout American history, the parties that have been able to bring the entire country underneath its apparatus of economic extraction and cultural management have tended to dominate smaller groups — the broad appeal worked, as we know from the gradual introduction of new nationalistic ideologies which evolved from ‘America the WASP frontier’ to ‘America the shining beacon for Whites of all Christian denominations’ to ‘America the White’ to ‘America the universal colorblind ideal-nation,’ the political parties which have been able to assemble the most numerous and wealthy supporters have tended to succeed against those which have made more narrow appeals.

The American conservative movement is, broadly speaking, an administrative arm of the left that acts to consolidate the political gains of the broader leftist faction. They make sure that recalcitrant citizens get with programs affirmed in the 1940s, 1960s, 1970s, or at other points in time, to say little of planks of the program established earlier in the 20th century. They permit some quibbling over new developments in international leftism, in exchange for unquestioning obedience to the larger platform which has already been implemented.

In the end, democracies consume themselves, as federations become unstable and break into mobs made up of people without common interests. Creating political structures that create and maintain common interests among people is very hard indeed, and most fail to do so (democratic or otherwise).

Governor John Slaton and the Leo Frank Case

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

2015 is the year of Jewish failure to contain and control the Leo Frank narrative, a narrative they very much want to control in this, the 100th year after Frank’s death. For in the case of Leo Frank we find century-old confirmation of a pattern — a pattern of Jewish sexual license, Jewish racial solidarity even in the case of a Jewish murderer, Jewish corruption of American law and government via money and via media control, and unrelenting use of that media control to distort our history and pervert the truth.

Next month is the 100th anniversary of the carrying out of the sentence of death by hanging imposed by the courts on the Jewish sex killer Leo Max Frank by a group of prominent Georgia men who were outraged by the commutation of his sentence by a corrupt governor, and last month was the 100th anniversary of that commutation. That Governor’s name, which will live forever as an example of subservience to Jewish power and Jewish propaganda, was John Marshall Slaton (pictured above).

Here’s what happened:

In 1913, the Atlanta president of the Jewish B’nai B’rith, sweatshop operator Leo M. Frank, was convicted of strangling to death a 13-year-old White girl in his employ — Mary Phagan — after sexually assaulting her while they were alone on the second floor of the National Pencil Company, of which Frank was the superintendent and part-owner. Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, networking, and financial and press power came into play almost immediately after Frank’s arrest and indictment.

The case became a national cause celebre for the Jews, with headlines in major newspapers from San Francisco to New York City trumpeting Frank’s “innocence” and the barbarity of the White Southerners who dared to convict him. Fat-headed Whites who believed the fictional newspaper stories of the “persecuted” member of “God’s Chosen” were recruited to help in the crusade, and the equivalent of many millions of dollars was raised in his defense.

With this Jewish money, Frank hired the finest and most expensive team of lawyers ever seen in the state of Georgia, yet he was still held by the Coroner’s Jury — still charged by the Grand Jury — and still convicted at trial. He hired another expensive legal team — and then another, even including the leading Jewish lawyers in the USA — and appealed his conviction to the Georgia Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. In every case, his conviction was upheld.

With this Jewish money, other things were procured as well: Someone planted a bloody shirt at the home of the factory’s Black night watchman, Newt Lee, at a time when both Lee and Frank were suspects in the killing. Someone paid a long list of witnesses to leave town or change their stories in ways that favored Frank. Someone paid an unscrupulous attorney named Felder to fraudulently present himself as working for the Phagan family and attempt to illegally obtain evidence and documents in the possession of the police. Someone paid a Pinkerton detective named W.D. McWorth — and the Pinkertons were openly in the pay of Frank and the other Jewish owners of the pencil factory — to “discover” a bloody club and what was said to be part of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope near the ground floor elevator where the factory’s Black sweeper, Jim Conley, was keeping watch for Leo Frank that day — but the fake was discovered and McWorth dismissed. Someone paid the Pinkertons’ great rivals — the infamous Burns detective agency — to take over when the Pinkertons refused to “cooperate” as the Jews had hoped, and in particular refused to withhold evidence from the police until Leo Frank’s attorneys had had a look at it.

And, in 1915, when all the appeals had failed and the integrity of the jury’s verdict that Leo Frank was guilty and that Leo Frank should hang had been upheld by every jury, every judge, and every court with jurisdiction over the case, there was only one place left for the Jews to try: the outgoing Governor of Georgia, John Slaton. In addition to their glittering wealth and generous largesse, the pro-Frank forces had another ace up their sleeve with John M. Slaton: He was a leading partner in the partly-Jewish law firm that defended Frank and had been so for many months. Even though he could not practice law while governor during his term of two years, for some reason or other the law firm that was defending Frank — and which doubtless was receiving a huge portion of the money raised in Frank’s defense and would receive even more as “bonuses” for each desired outcome attained — sought out Governor Slaton as a partner.

With Leo Frank’s execution date imminent and all appeals exhausted, and with Governor Slaton leaving office in just days to be replaced by a man without such connections, the time was now or never. One would think that an ethical governor would have nothing to do with, and would not even consider, interfering in the case of a man who was a client of his own law firm, especially when the issue could be handled by the incoming governor, who had no conflict of interest, and who would be in office in less than a week. You would think that a rational governor would know that his political career — and Slaton very much wanted to be become United States Senator from Georgia — would be over for life if he committed such an ethical lapse. It would take some kind of overwhelming consideration for a man in Slaton’s position to interfere in the Frank case. But interfere he did.

On June 21, giving a patently specious string of reasons, he commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank to life in prison. He said his conscience impelled him and that he could not live with himself if there was even the possibility that he would have the blood of an innocent man on his hands. That, if true — though it hardly sounds like the reasoning process of the same man who blithely ignored the commutation requests of several non-Jews while in office — would truly constitute an overwhelming consideration. But you will forgive me when I tell you that the evidence suggests an overwhelming “consideration” of a quite different kind.

Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, lead counsel for Leo Frank, who had argued his case before the jury, paid a very interesting visit to the home of his law partner Governor Slaton just before the commutation decision was made. For reasons which might not seem too obscure, he arrived late at night. For the same reasons, he approached the mansion by a back street, parked several blocks away, and entered the grounds on foot via a dark alley. He did not leave until well after midnight.

I quote from Watson’s The Celebrated Case of Leo Frank:

What Rosser said to Slaton in this clandestine meeting, will never be known; but it was noticed that next day the lamentations of the Jews were replaced by sly grins, and offers to bet ten to one that Slaton would commute!

Read the following, not as evidence of Frank’s guilt, or as proof of Slaton’s hypocrisy and perfidy, but as a side-light on events in Atlanta:

Atlanta, June 22.

Mr. Tom Watson:

What I tell you I know to be true as God is light, and it is this: The Jews all gathered at the home of the Seligs, on Washington Street, where Frank’s wife and father-in-law live, and from 8 till 12 o’clock, they had a regular old-time Belshazzar feast. They drank wine, high balls, whiskey and beer, and smoked and sang, and had music; and there were not less than a hundred and twenty automobiles full of Jews that came there from the time I say to the late hour.

Now, they all knew Slaton had commuted Frank, and were celebrating it.

And I know a policeman who was on the streets yesterday, to make out like controlling the mob, and he told me he passed the jail every night at 12 o’clock for a year, and going on duty, and never saw a light in the office of the Sheriff till Saturday night, and he was surprised to see the Sheriff sitting there like he was waiting for somebody, and suddenly a Jew came running up and tapped on the window, and the Sheriff raised the window and the Jew whispered to him, and the Sheriff smiled, and then the Jew ran off and the Sheriff closed the window. Now, that showed conspiracy, and that Slaton was working with the Jews all the time.

In other words, the Jews knew — some on Friday, and some on Saturday — that Slaton had commuted the sentence.

John Slaton did not announce his commutation order until Sunday.

After you hear my words and read the sources I have provided on the Frank case, I invite you to  watch the NBC television program about John M. Slaton, from their 1964 series Profiles in Courage. I’ll embed the video from that program so you can watch it right here on nationalvanguard.org:


After watching that production, do you recognize John Slaton? — do you recognize the Leo Frank sex killing case? — do you recognize the people of Georgia? No. You cannot. The program — like almost all Establishment works on the Leo Frank case — is a vicious, poisonous cocktail of lies designed to obscure the truth, exonerate and even ennoble a murderer, make the odious and the sleazy into “heroes,” and demonize the real heroes — real heroes like Tom Watson.

Thomas E. Watson’s contemporary series of exposés on the corruption and mendacity of the Leo Frank machine is one of the classics of American muckraking. Watson was an intelligent, cultured, and literate man, author of highly-regarded biographies of Jackson and Jefferson and a history of France. In the NBC episode, he is played by a sweaty, greasy-looking Hollywood “heavy” Michael Constantine, who, as Watson, openly admits his corruption and talks in “cracker” dialect, wearing a heavily rumpled suit without a tie, putting his feet up on Slaton’s desk, and wiping his dripping nose on his sleeve. We get it, Mr. Director, we get it. No such meeting between Watson and Slaton ever took place.

The program is anything but subtle. In the opening scene, another sweaty White man, with a crazed look on his face and a very bad set of teeth, stands on the courthouse roof and screams for the head of Leo Frank to a torch-lit crowd of Whites while the Frank verdict is about to be read. No such rally ever took place — it is an invention of the filmmakers.

Inside the courthouse, Judge Roan, the presiding judge in the case, mutters to an associate that “Frank’s innocence has been proven to a mathematical certainty” — something that he never said.

The noble Slaton is played by Jewish actor Walter Matthau, who is portrayed as a deeply moral man of principle throughout. The screen Watson admits to the screen Slaton that Watson’s newspaper, the Jeffersonian, is “written for the great unwashed,” and that “you bathe too much.”

Almost unbelievably, the program asserts that the Black night watchman and early suspect, Newt Lee, was in the pencil factory building when the murder was committed — and that the factory sweeper Jim Conley, another Black man falsely accused by the pro-Frank forces, confessed to the murder to his own attorney. Needless to say, none of this ever happened.

Jewish screenwriter Don Mankiewicz was the author of this bundle of lies. It was made by Saudek Associates, and aired on Robert Sarnoff’s Jewish-owned NBC. The executive in charge of production was the Jew Bernie Weinraub.

The producers of this program were so sloppy — and so contemptuous of their viewers, who they evidently think will believe even the crudest and most obvious lies — that they even get Leo Max Frank’s name wrong, calling him “Leo A. Frank.”

Thus is history rewritten by liars. Thus is the public fooled into hating those who try to save them, and worshipping those, like John M. Slaton, who have sold them out.

It is satisfying to reflect upon the fact that John M. Slaton, quite contrary to the liars at NBC, was so reviled for his act of evil that he had to flee the state. He did not return to stay for nearly a decade. Tom Watson was elected to the Senate seat that Slaton had coveted, and it was only recently that the Jews were able to force the great writer and statesman’s statue to be removed from the state capitol.

I’ll speak again about the Leo Frank case in three weeks, on the centenary of that moment in US and Georgia history when the leading citizens of that state re-took control of the legal and judicial process and carried out the sentence of the court — the sentence of the judge — and the sentence of the people — on Jewish sex killer Leo Max Frank.

Europeans, Asians, and Racial Ambiguity: Where to Draw the Lines?

via Majority Rights

A few days ago Kumiko and I were contesting how this man - Zakirzhan Niyazov - should be designated.

She felt that he should be considered “Asian” whereas he appears to me, on balance, to be more of a Caucasoid prototype - that is, he seems to me to be slightly more kindred of The Caucuses and Europe. He probably could fool me as kind of sort of Bulgarian or something like that, but he is actually of the direct genetic lineage which, after coming out of Africa, has been in an area around southern Kazakhstan and its Kyrgyzstan border for 40,000 years.

whitemanblackman

That Spencer Wells (Niyazov’s genetic discoverer) would say that his people are closely related to Europeans does not help much in disambiguation - Wells also considers Europeans to be very closely related to Africans: “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.”
                   
Hiding behind PC for popular audiences, Spencer Wells downplays or ignores the signficance of mutations that have occured since man left Africa.

Nevertheless, we might proceed as if he provides operational verifiability enough in his genetic evidence to say that Niyazov’s is a proto-population of both Europeans and East Asians. If one hopes to investigate with rigorous disamiguation just who is European and who is not, Niyazov’s people are: a tight knot, gnarly lot, a gordian knot, or an important “white box” -  an area where the details necessary to sort and name elements are unknown to us - choose your metaphor for the challenge.

Wells found that following a first wave out of Africa which went down the western coast of India, another wave - specifically, Niyazov’s forebears - came out about 40,000 years ago and went not to Europe through Turkey, or even through the Caucuses, but went straight east, to central Asia where they evolved alone in situ (apparently southern Kazakhsan near Kryzykstan) for about 10,000 years - incubating a primeval population from which sprang Europeans, East Asians and some of India.

kazaaa

   
Coming back to the contention over the ambiguity of this white box then, Kumiko argues that his people and nation belong clearly in “the Asian sphere of influence.”
Russians, a White, viz. European people, play insufficient part of this man’s people’s history to assert their designation, how they should “count” as a nation and people.
On the other hand, I look at him prima facie and see a tilt toward European. Especially when I look at his father, I see someone who at first blush looks like someone that I would guess to be “Russian.”

I would guess that his grandfather was from somewhere around the Caucuses, South Russia or Ukraine (one of the guys in the old Dannon Yogurt commercials about Ukrainian men who live to be well over 100, supposedly because they eat yogurt):

Granted that there is a slight epicanthic fold in Niyasov, his father and grandfather, but many Europeans have that degree of an epicanthic fold, including Germans, English and in fact, some people of most all European nations.

Europeans seem less perturbed and more familiar with these ambiguites than White Americans, but I digress. How do we handle these ambiguties?

When confronted with ambiguities of Europeans mixed with other Europens and living in other European nations my first instinct is to look for means of damage control to native populations; conflict resolution to stave off overcompensation and destructive, incorrect puritanism in how they look at ambiguous Europeans. Therefore, in order to reduce anxiety as such, I seek to have their difference honestly recognized while recommending their right to abode being limited to safe, minimal numbers in porportion to the purer native stock.

In native populations that have been more mixed for a while, I would imagine that is their “native type.” It would be a matter of arriving at a more complex formula of what range and ratios comprise the natives. Naturally, those populations which were ambiguous from the start, in the sense of being a “primordial stew”, phylogenetic forebears to different kinds, they too would have native status to their nation.

My instinct thus, is to resolve matters of racial ambiguity by national designations and assignment. For those of us more serious minded, however, this is far from an arbitrary matter or flight of imagination. While these ambiguities do require at least a modicum of social constructing, real lives, ancient human and natural ecologies are at stake.

If Niyazov’s people are a primeval type which has both European and Asian elements and particularly as they are evolved in that area then that is a very powerful warrant as to their sovereign nation in consradistinction to regional imperialism, whether European or Asian.

Sorting out Niyazov’s people may not easily solve problems of the geopopolitical chessboard, but it should help greatly in clarifying just what and who is in dispute.

The Regional Imperialist Twist (also known as Igor’s boogie):

Freedom for Tibet! er, Kyrgyzstan, er Southern Kazakhstan, er proto- Europeans, er proto-Asians… Asians… East Asians..

..there you have it, a problem for the would-be nationalist solution seems to arise within the framework of geopolitics. Our case in point, regarding the European sphere of influence, viz. what is a nation of European people and therefore under its allied interests as opposed to an Asian nation and arguably thus, under its allied interests, closer concern and protection.

I confess to not being attuned to the need to fight on these lines of “Asian vs European” spheres of interest, but then I am not preoccupied with the relation of populations, their requirements and resource scarcity. Still, it is a practical concern and we are all pragmatists to some exent - because we have to be.

Thus, despite mine and GW’s more idealistic view, interested as we are in populations in relation to territory and habitats, human ecology and warrant, trying to sort out nations on genetic lines that are ambigously tangled can still give rise to contention and thus the requirement for negotiation on radical pragmatic grounds of “how things count” - as in the case of Niyazov, which requires the negotiation and social construction of our alliances as native nationalists.

The matter of negotiation that is contested here again: Kumiko sees Niyazov, his father and grandfather as “Asian” and a clear line between them and Europeans. Whereas I see them as in an ambiguous continuum with Europeans. While such ambiguites don’t really surprise me, I was a little surprised (because I was not looking for it) to see him looking (to me) slightly more Europeans than oriental (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian). But whatever is most characteristic of Niyazov’s type, I have a gut reaction to preserve him and his, with national sovereignty, the way that a zoologist would seek to preserve a precious species. I also believe that there is a kindredness in my visceral response - I sense Europeanness in this man that should be protected by necessary means, including national sovereignty.

It seems that Kumiko has a similar kindredness and wish for nationalism as a means to protect native populations, including his; but perhaps we both have a confimation bias - hers moving through the pragmatics of geopolitics and Asian regionalism while mine is filtered through a Eurocentric perspective.

From her perspective, because he has traditionaly been considered “Asian” means that his nation belongs in closer alliance with China, Japan, Korea, India etc.

In the first clues of the genetic evidence, I am inclined to say, “not so fast”.... there may be more connection to Europe in Asia than is being given its due by the traditional designation of “Asia” bereft of genetic data.

Not that a people’s co-evolution in a particular land is a thousand percent incontestable warrant, but it is strong.

Even so, if ideally proposing the sovereignty of ambiguous nations to harbor primordial types, questions and contentions can arise to their hazard, questions conveniently at the disposal of regionalist, internationalist and neoliberal forces. These poltical contentions seem to me to require more, not less attention to sorting out issues of genetic, racial ambiguity and native national alliances in order to establish warranted assertabilty.

Let us attend to sorting out and negotiating with peoples how it is that they count.

The handling of these older ambiguous types is a simpler matter than newer mixes. The older types are more amenable to sorting - a genetic criteria lays still to set out in evidence. Thus, political accordance is less subject to arbitrary contention and imaginative whim if one is fairly reasonable regarding that genetic record and its relation to neighboring peoples.

For the ambiguity of evolutionary commonality, race is still a social construct the lines of which need to be negotiated (for the sake of accountability to human ecological sanity, if nothing else). But again, the case of historicaly ambiguous peoples is not as challenging as the case of negotiating lines with those recently mixed or would-be mixers. Their concept does not abide such rigorous genetic criteria, if abiding a concept of race at all; or for that matter, a physical criteria at all. Their imagination can combine with the fact that all human races can interbreed, add to that some Darwinist tropes and they have some powerfully destructive arguments on their side.

Far more problematic then are national designations as a means of protection from recently mixed peoples, or those who would askew accountability to historical genetic categories, who would just as soon mix, or who are themselves racially mixed as their parents might have “chosen” a form, prefering the fancy of their imaginative choice over their ancient human ecology. Dealing with the products of imagination requires a new designation and requires a re-negotiation and defense strategy for its new and “freely chosen” ambiguity.

This has one soon after asking the question of more recenty mixed types: Create a nation for their ambiguities? Would that not provide a potential breeding-ground, haven and springboard of liberal contention and dissolution of specific native forms? If not new virulent types, a mulatto supremacism, a kind of mixed and venal cyborg, perhaps even a hybrid even worse than Jews?

The Question of Unity

via TradYouth

A question has been taking shape inside of my mind lately and that question has everything to do with the future of western civilization. We have at this point in time a great division among those who would call themselves Nationalist or Identitarians.  The division is on the topic of religion and more importantly what religion should serve our folk as we face a future that with every passing day grows ever more hostile to our continued existence this question cannot be ignored. I personally believe that this is the most pressing question. That from it all other questions arise.

The values and virtues we should hold high, how we conduct our actions, even the things that we should call wrong and intolerable are all to my mind religious questions. A Large section of the Nationalist community then has come to call it self “Christian”. Some of these people see Christianity as a matter of western European civilization and for others not only is it a matter of civilization but also of deeply held faith. Another section of our community has come to identify with the pre-Christian religious tradition native to Europe that finds its expression mostly commonly in the modern religious movement called Asatru. Both lay claim to Europe and the sons and daughters of Europe. Who is right then?

Surely it is true that before Christianity came to Europe we had our own folk ways, stories, religious rites and culture. At the same time it cannot be denied, historically speaking, that Europe was the heart of global Christianity. So then as people concerned with the future of our folk which should we be? Pagan or Christian? I would like to propose an answer that I have not seen talked about anywhere almost as if the idea is not possible, but i believe in to be the historical reality.

Europe and her sons and daughters are both Christian and Pagan. Our pagan past gave birth to such concepts as common law and trial by jury. Our christian past gave us the armies that defended our homeland against the advance of Islam in the middle ages which if successful would have ended European civilization as we know it. Just to name one such example of dual contribution that both of these religions have had on our people. We are in a crisis. In times of crisis what is needed is unity. Not a false unity based on compromise but a unity of Brotherhood and Honor.

Sermon: Turn and Live

via Faith & Heritage

For those of you who weren’t able to attend yesterday’s Sunday service at ORCNI, the full transcript and a video of my sermon are now available online.
Today, we are looking into the particulars of this message: the Gospel according to Ezekiel.
Ezekiel starts this message by proclaiming death as the consequence of sin. This is reiterated throughout the Bible, but we sometimes tend to forget the vital importance and the sentiment Ezekiel expresses here. From various places in Scripture, both Old and New Testament we know that God will judge all people, each one, according to their deeds. Ecclesiastes 12:14 says “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Romans 2:6 teaches that God “will render to every man according to his deeds”, and similar passages appear throughout Scripture. This is serious. The Bible repeats this message time and time again. This was meant as a very serious message to the people in captivity by Ezekiel; and it is meant as a very serious message to God’s church throughout the ages – to us. Sin leads to death. In sin there is only death. And by death, Scripture does not simply refer to the few moments of suffering it takes the average person to die. No! Death means eternal agony, eternal suffering under the just wrath of God for ever and ever and ever without end. That is the second death – the final death. That is the wages of sin. That is extremely, extremely serious!
The soul who sins shall die!

The Indoctrination Game, Part 2: Jewish Influence in Creating a Pro-Homosexual Culture

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

Graham Moore wins an Oscar for
Best Adapted Screenplay
The recent Jewish sanctification of Alan Turing as noble gay victim and Nazi nemesis is the photographic negative of pre-and post-World War II Jewish efforts to smear Hitler and his National Socialist comrades as “sexual perverts.” For decades the supposedly sordid sex lives of Hitler and the Nazi leadership filled tomes. Allegations of homosexuality were often repeated in Social Democratic and Communist newspapers (often Jewish-owned and -controlled) in the years leading up to Hitler becoming German chancellor in 1933.

Jewish attempts to brand Hitler and other National Socialist leaders as sexual perverts have since been largely abandoned with the ascendant cultural Marxist assault on White heterosexual normativity since the 1970s. Two Harvard-educated (non-Jewish) homosexuals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, authored what can only be described as an incredibly successful blueprint for marketing the radical homosexual agenda in the United States. In their 1990 book entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, they advocated the demonization of those opposed to homosexuality, painting them as evil as possible until the general public comes to view such people as moral pariahs and avoids them. The authors suggested that Christians and others opposed to homosexuality should be labelled Klansmen, Nazis, racists or unbalanced freaks. Obviously, this approach draws on the long history of the media demonizing and pathologizing Whites who identify as Whites and see pursuing White interests as legitimate, a tradition that has its intellectual roots in the unholy nexus of the Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis.

Although TOO has emphasized that homosexuality should not be condemned by White advocates and that White homosexuals should also realize they have interests as Whites (see, e.g., here), the movement to promote a public culture of homosexuality is injurious for a variety of reasons, and certainly does not further the biological/ethnic interests of White homosexuals. It is deplorable that sexual non-conformists have become a central component of the “culture of the aggrieved” that permeates all Western societies and is a pillar of the political left.

Typical of the left, it has used its power to go beyond vilification to direct infringement on the freedoms of speech and religion of those who disapprove of homosexuality. With “gay marriage” legalized in Canada, Catholic Schools are having a difficult time teaching Catholic precepts on marriage and sexuality and an Ontario statute compels Catholic schools to host “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs. In the U.S., many individuals and groups are being punished for what amount to thought crimes, such as the couple from Oregon (the same state that allows 15-year old children to have a state-funded sex change operation without parental consent) who were ordered to pay $135,000 for “emotional suffering” to two lesbians when they refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

Even non-religious dissenters to the homosexual agenda are being punished for expressing a conscientious objection to having a certain interpretation of sexuality forced on them. The Boston urologist Paul Church, who, after a distinguished career on the faculty of Harvard medical school, was recently expelled from his job at the Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston for voicing his opinion that the hospital pressuring its staff to participate in Gay Pride Week activities was contrary to its mission to promote healthy behaviors and lifestyles. Using the well-established Kirk/Madsen strategy, email and blogs immediately and aggressively denounced his views, despite their being based on his medical experience, as “ignorant,” “hateful,” “offensive,” and “bigoted.”

To its credit, The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons defended Church, noting that “The penalty for making a truthful but politically incorrect statement that ‘may offend’ someone could be the ruin of one’s medical career.” The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alito, in his dissenting judgement to the recent “gay marriage” decision, warned that those who supported natural marriage will soon only be able to “whisper their thoughts within the recesses of their homes.”

white house
The homosexual agenda has
backers in high places
The radical homosexual agenda could not have made such incredibly rapid strides without Jewish backing. Without this support, the agenda of a small minority, whose behaviour has traditionally been frowned upon, would have gained little traction in the public sphere. Professor of Political Science at Florida University, Kenneth Wald, notes that: “The political power of the gay community does not come close to matching the impressive resource base assembled by American Jews.” An integral part of the “impressive resource base” of American Jewry is, of course, their domination of the media and entertainment industries. Hollywood has been integral to changing Western attitudes towards homosexuality, as Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged when he noted in 2013 that
it wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace [gay marriage]. Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.
Commenting on Biden’s point, liberal Jewish columnist Jonathan Chait, in his article “The vast left-wing conspiracy is on your screen” notes that:
the world of popular culture increasingly reflects a shared reality in which the Republican Party is either absent or anathema. … When Joe Biden endorsed gay marriage in May, he cited [the television show] Will & Grace as the single-most important driving force in transforming public opinion on the subject. In so doing he actually confirmed the long-standing fear of conservatives—that a coterie of Hollywood elites had undertaken an invidious and utterly successful propaganda campaign, and had transmuted the cultural majority into a minority. Set aside the substance of the matter and consider the process of it—that is, think of it from the conservative point of view, if you don’t happen to be one. Imagine that large chunks of your entertainment mocked your values and even transformed once-uncontroversial beliefs of yours into a kind of bigotry that might be greeted with revulsion.
You’d probably be angry, too.
Chait summarizes recent natural experiments showing the power of the media in shaping social attitudes in Brazil (smaller families) and India (smaller families, more assertiveness by women).  He also mentions research in the U.S. showing that Will & Grace resulted in more positive attitudes toward homosexuality, especially among people who had little contact with homosexuals.
And [Will & Grace] was merely a component of a concerted effort by Hollywood—dating back to Soap in the late seventies, which featured Billy Crystal’s groundbreaking portrayal of a sympathetic gay character, through Modern Family—to prod audiences to accept homosexuality. Likewise, the political persona of Barack Obama attained such rapid acceptance and popularity in part because he represented the real-world version of an archetype that, after a long early period of servile black stereotypes, has appeared in film and television for years: a sober, intelligent African-American as president, or in some other position of power.
Jewish influence on these cultural shifts is increasingly acknowledged by Jews. In his book Jewcentricity (reviewed here), the Jewish author and founding editor of The American Interest, Adam Garfinkle, admits that “it is striking, one has to admit, that the cultural influence of Jews and Jewishness is what it is, considering that fewer than 5 million American Jews are influencing more than 296 million other Americans.” He notes that critics of what American popular culture has become, including of “the increasingly salacious content of mass media or the apparent elevation of anti-patriotic sentiment and homosexual lifestyles above more traditional values” inevitably find that “there are Jews at every turn, in marketing, in media, and, of course, in the entertainment business itself.” He correctly observes that it “does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots: liberals are responsible for the dangerous debauching of our society, not least through vapid entertainment-culture garbage, and a disproportionate number of liberals who are doing precisely that are Jews.”

With the legality of “gay marriage” seemingly secured, the next frontier in the campaign to liberate Western societies of their sexual inhibitions is “about deconstructing societal views about what it means to be a man or a woman.” Among the 58 “gender identities” that are listed on the majority Jewish-owned and controlled Facebook are bi-gender, gender questioning, gender variant, pangender, intersex and 26 versions of trans, transgender and transsexual. Plain old male and female do not make the list. Sarah Middleton, an academic from the University of Melbourne, correctly points out that: “We’ve seen, over the past forty or fifty years, an absolute transformation in how we think about gender and sexuality.” Toby Miller, Professor of Cultural Policy studies are Murdoch University, echoing Joe Biden, notes that Hollywood, the media and social media are driving the trend, and that: “Reality TV has been intrinsic to normalizing some of these ideas.”

The Jewish-controlled media pushing “America’s next civil rights frontier”
The Jewish-controlled media
pushing “America’s next civil
rights frontier”
Now that homosexuality is invariably portrayed by Hollywood as a behaviour that is to an individual’s credit rather than discredit, speculation about Hitler’s sexuality is becoming increasingly unacceptable. One source epitomizes current thinking when it argues that: “When I read these notes about Hitler, I kept thinking over and over again, ‘Why does any of this matter?’ Honestly, does Hitler being gay really even matter at this point? If we found out that he really enjoyed eating raspberries would that matter as well?” For this individual, the only reason why the sexual orientation of anyone would be brought in to question is “because being gay, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, queer, or any other form of sexual ‘deviance,’ is controversial and often stigmatized in today’s world.” The new politically correct line is that:
anyone can commit horrible acts. Were Hitler’s SchutzStaffel and Nazi soldiers all gay too? Were the 1500s–1800s white male slave owners, who raped and assaulted their black female slaves, gay? Were the fighters for The Crusades, who slaughtered countless people, gay? People of all backgrounds, genders, ages, and sexual orientation commit crimes against humanity. Therefore, we shouldn’t assume that Hitler’s sexuality played any role in his actions.
Note the anti-White nature of all of the historical examples cited above by a non-White (Chinese) writer. So while anyone, regardless of their sexuality may engage in heinous behavior, White males, it is implied, are particularly prone to committing evil acts — especially against the “oppressed” non-White peoples of the earth.

The trend in recent years is to ascribe the aggressively anti-Jewish nature of German National Socialism to Hitler’s neurotic denial of sexuality. As early as 1943 half-Jewish Walter C. Langer‘s 1943 psychoanalytical report for the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS) described Hitler as having “repressed homosexual tendencies.” This line of thought can, of course, be traced back to Freud and his acolytes like Wilhelm Reich. The following account from the writer Wylark Day is typical of the Freudian interpretation of National Socialism, in claiming that:
Hitler put young Germans in “sex-segregated, no nudity Youth Labor Camps; where their young sexuality was now savagely repressed. Coming from such sensual freedom [of the Weimar Republic years] to such savage repression of all sensuality, these young people quickly became warped. As Freud disciple Wilhelm Reich, who witnessed this before he fled Germany, said about it: ‘sadism originates from ungratified orgiastic yearnings.’ Now sexual repression has been a powerful force for redirecting people into the violence needed to conquer and build empires throughput Western history (in fact it does a lot to explain how little England conquered much of the world during the ultra-repressed Victorian Age). Yet never before in history had so much repressed and redirected sexual energy been seen, as was present in Hitler’s young army. … So, with a truly diabolical genius, Hitler successfully repressed and channeled the normal sexual feelings of Germany’s young adults, into a blinding zeal for the ‘fatherland!’”
Non-Western traditional societies revelled in sexual freedom and promiscuity? Regarding Hitler, the prolific Jewish writer on “anti-Semitism” Robert Wistrich similarly proposed that “A particularly striking feature of Hitler’s Judeophobia was his intensely puritanical reaction against the prevailing [Weimar era] hedonism in sexual mores.” Psychotherapist and writer Raymond J. Lawrence has likewise proposed that: “It should strike us as no historical coincidence that Hitler personally promoted a public image of sexual abstinence. He countenanced no display of sexuality in his presence. Keeping his mistress, Eva Braun, in virtual hiding, he maintained an asexual public image, he and Eva didn’t marry until just prior to their mutual suicide.” Lawrence also asserts that “Hitler’s presumed sexual purity played well with anti-Semites. … But Hitler was not the creator of such anti-Semitism; it had a long history in Christendom. The Jews have paid dearly in Christendom for their affirmation of sexual pleasure.”

This kind of Jewish ethno-politically motivated and pseudo-scientific theorizing underlies The Imitation Game which is yet another manifestation of the Jewish culture of critique. In addition to providing yet another reminder of the “evils of Nazism,” the film is a repudiation of traditional Western sexual mores and an implicit endorsement of “sexual liberation.”

There is, of course, another way of looking at Alan Turing’s contribution to history. Subtract the film’s fixation on Turing’s homosexuality, and we are left with yet another White man whose creative genius helped change the course of history and which, in his case, laid the foundations for the computer revolution. Turing’s extraordinary intellectual gifts were, after all, the result of his European biological origins and not his sexual orientation.

Islamic Terrorism: Why There Is None in Japan

via American Freedom Party

With all this Muslim terrorism plaguing the world, perhaps it is time to take a look at a country not suffering the same fate and analyze exactly why that is…

In 2011, Sunni Muslims accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third year in a row. Over 5,700 incidents were committed by Sunni Muslims, responsible for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of 12,533 fatalities.*

Another 24 percent of the fatalities are on Shi´a Muslims. So in 2011, Muslims were responsible for 94 percent of the fatalities in terrorist attacks. Since 2011, with ISIS on the scene, the number of the fatalities –victims of the Muslim terrorist attacks- sharply grew, together with Muslims´ share in the world terrorism that is steadily closing in on 100%.

In 2013, according to the US Department of State, a total of 9,707 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 17,800 deaths and more than 32,500 injuries. In addition, more than 2,990 people were kidnapped or taken hostage. Information about perpetrators was reported in source materials for 32 percent of terrorist attacks in 2013.

And of these 32 percent, or 17,800 deaths, only three Muslim terrorist groups, namely the Taliban, ISIS and Boko Haram, were responsible for 5,655 fatalities, or for 31.76 percent! That means that 31.76 percent out of the 32 percent of terrorist attacks which had reported information about the attackers were perpetrated by only three Muslim terrorist groups, out of a good 50 more that exist in our turbulent world!

Muslim terrorists can be proud: their share in world terrorist attacks is now close to 100%.

Seems there is not a single country where Muslims would not show their true colors… But no! There is such a country. It’s one of the most developed countries on Earth, and its democratic nature is recognized worldwide, a true ally of the USA and a member of NATO. However, with all this, there was not a single terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims in this country. Moreover, there was not a single, even minor, riot, disturbance or protest, no matter how many citizens of this country support cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in some Danish newspaper or in a French magazine.

The name of this lucky country is Japan.

Of course, Japan achieved this by some super effective integration policy, through using the most advanced technologies and assigning billions of yen on the building of thousands of mosques and Islamic schools all over Japan, banning pork in all public places, introducing separate hours for boys and girls in swimming pools in all public schools, and Japanese male doctors do not dare touch their female patients, Muslim women get immense social aid each time they have a child, Shari´a courts were introduced in the judicial system of Japan, and the Koran is considered a Holy Book in Japan…

No, nothing of the kind. What Japan did to avoid problems related to Muslims was much simpler and cheaper; Japan is practically closed to Muslims.

Officially, immigration to Japan is not closed to Muslims. But the number of the immigration permits given to the applicants from Islamic countries is very low. Obtaining a working visa is not easy for adepts of Islam, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region. As a result, Japan is “a country without Muslims”.

There is no reliable estimate on the Japanese Muslim population. However, claims of thirty thousand made by some researchers are without doubt an exaggeration. Some claim that there are only a few hundred. This probably amounts to the number of Muslims openly practicing Islam. Asked to give an estimate on the actual number of Muslims in Japan, the ex-president of the Japan Islamic Association Abu Bakr Morimoto replied, “To say frankly, only one thousand. In the broadest sense, I mean, if we do not exclude those who became Muslims for the sake of, say marriage, and do not practice then the number would be a few thousand.”

One of the leaders of the Muslim community in Japan, Nur Ad-Din Mori, was asked: “What percentage of Japan’s total population are Muslims?” He responded, “The answer at the moment is: One out of a hundred thousand.”

Japan’s population is 130 million people, so if these Muslim leaders are correct, then there must be around 1300 Muslims. But even those Muslims who obtained immigration permits and lived many years in the country have very poor chances of becoming Japanese citizens.

Japan officially forbids exhorting people to adopt the religion of Islam (Dawah), and any Muslim who actively encourages conversion to Islam is seen as proselytizing to a foreign and undesirable culture. Too active “promoters of Islam” face deportation- and sometimes even a jail sentence.

The Arabic language is taught by very few academic institutes; I could find only one such institute: The Arabic Islamic Institute in Tokyo. But even the International University of Japan in Tokyo does not offer courses on Arabic or Islamic languages.

Importing the Koran in Arabic is practically impossible, and the only one permitted is the “adapted” version in Japanese.

Until recently, there were only two mosques in Japan: Tokyo Jama Masjid and Kobe Mosque. Now, the total number of Muslim praying sites in Japan is counted in some 30 single story mosques and about a hundred apartment rooms set aside for prayers.
And Japanese society expects Muslims to pray at home: no collective “prostrating” in the streets or squares; in Japan, for such “shows” the actors can get pretty high fines, and in those cases Japanese Police consider “serious”, the participants can be deported.

Quite often, Japanese companies seeking foreign workers specifically note that they are not interested in Muslims.

There is not even a trace of a Shari´a Law in Japan, and halal food is extremely difficult to find in there.

The Japanese tend to perceive Islam as a “strange and dangerous religion” that a true Japanese should avoid, and the recent murders of two Japanese nationals, Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto, by ISIS have not contributed to any improvement in the opinions of the Japanese on this matter.

And the most interesting thing in the Japanese approach to Muslims is the fact that the Japanese do not feel any guilt for such a “discriminatory” approach to Islam, and they evidently do not think they should apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they perceive their religion. Arab gas and oil- yes, and Japan maintains good relations with Arab exporters. But Islam – no, and Muslim immigration- neither. Islam is something that is suitable for others, not for Japan, and therefore the Muslims must remain outside.

And Muslims in Japan do not riot, they do not brand the Japanese “racists”, they do not burn cars, smash windows, behead Japanese soldiers for having been in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else on Earth – and not a single Japanese has been victim of a Muslim terrorist attack on Japanese soil in the last 30 years.

Maybe Europe and the USA should look at the Japanese model of dealing with Muslims more closely?

*This information comes from the National Counterterrorism Center’s (NCTC) unclassified report. The NCTC provides the State Department with the statistical data it needs and was created to provide government agencies with this type of information.

Atticus Finch Grows Up

via American Renaissance

The newly published Go Set a Watchman is the book Harper Lee originally delivered to J. B. Lippencott Company in the spring of 1957 and that later became To Kill a Mockingbird. It presents a very different picture of Atticus Finch, the hero of Mockingbird–one that will disappoint millions of readers who admire him as courageous fighter for equal treatment for blacks. It is also an unwitting portrait of the shrill, uncomprehending liberalism that has come to dominate American thinking about race.

At Lippencott, Go Set a Watchman was assigned to an experienced editor named Tay Hohoff (1899 – 1974). She later recalled that “the spark of the true writer flashed in every line,” but she did not consider the book ready for publication. For two years, Miss Lee and her editor rewrote the work until it bore little resemblance to the original manuscript. “I was a first time writer, so I did as I was told,” recalls Miss Lee. Go Set a Watchman, then, reveals for the first time a Harper Lee unmediated by the “hands on” editing of Hohoff, and there are surprises aplenty for any American who has taken high school English.

Tay Hohoff
Tay Hohoff

To Kill a Mockingbird, which was published in 1960, is narrated by nine-year-old Jean Louise “Scout” Finch, daughter of attorney Atticus Finch. It is set in the small south-Alabama town of Maycomb, circa 1935. There is much space allotted to the childhood adventures of Scout and her elder brother, narrated with understated humor. For many young readers, undoubtedly, this is the main source of the novel’s appeal.

But To Kill a Mockingbird owes its longstanding position as required reading in American high schools to its account of the trial of Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. The accuser is a contemptible piece of “white trash” who lives on government relief checks and occasional poaching, but who has one inestimable advantage over the accused: “if scrubbed with lye soap in very hot water, his skin was white.”

Atticus Finch is the object of much unfavorable gossip and even threats merely for representing a black defendant. At the trial, Finch proves Tom’s innocence to the unbiased reader, but within a few hours the jury returns the inevitable guilty verdict. Finch views it as a remarkable success that even one juror initially intended to vote for acquittal, and that the jury spent several hours deliberating.

The reader is clearly led to understand that the treatment of Tom Robinson is typical of its time and place, and that no black man in such a situation could possibly have hoped for justice. But there are very few real-life historical analogues, and Harper Lee has always been evasive about where she found her inspiration for the case. Perhaps the nearest historical equivalent was the 1945 trial and eventual 1951 execution of Willie McGee, made into a cause celèbre by the US Communist Party. But Willie McGee was probably guilty.

Harper Lee in 1963.
Harper Lee in 1963.

The biggest surprise in Go Set a Watchman may be that the trial around which To Kill a Mockingbird is built occupies only a single page. Tom Robinson is never named, no information is given on his accuser, and Finch wins an acquittal. Hohoff must have zeroed in early on the possibilities of giving this story a different ending.

Go Set a Watchman is set in the mid-1950s, some twenty years after the action of To Kill a Mockingbird. Twenty-six year old Jean Louise Finch is returning from New York to her hometown for a two-week vacation with her family. The story is written in the third person. Only a few short passages, and these not among the most important, found their way into the novel that was published in 1960.

The most enjoyable episodes in Watchman are the occasional reminiscences of Jean Louise’s earlier life growing up in Maycomb, and this may be what inspired Hohoff to suggest rewriting the work as a childhood memoir. As in To Kill a Mockingbird, the childhood adventures are largely unrelated to the book’s political message.

Mockingbird


Go Set a Watchman actually concentrates more closely on racial politics than the novel with which we are familiar. About one-third of the way into the story, Jean Louise happens onto a pamphlet her father has been reading:
On its cover was a drawing of an anthropophagous Negro; above the drawing was printed The Black Plague. Its author was somebody with several academic degrees after his name.
In Jean Louise’s retelling, the booklet explains how:
the Negroes couldn’t help being inferior to the white race because their skulls are thicker and their brain-pans shallower . . . so we must all be very kind to them and not let them do anything to hurt themselves.
Her aunt explains that “it’s something your father brought home from a Citizens’ Council meeting.” (The Citizens’ Councils were set up throughout the South in the 1950s to resist school desegregation on both constitutional and racial grounds.) Horrified, Jean Louise rushes down to the courthouse where both her father and her longtime suitor Hank are attending a council meeting at that very moment. As she arrives, Finch is introducing the featured speaker, a certain Grady O’Hanlon, whose speech is summarized as follows:
Mr. O’Hanlon was born and bred in the South, went to school there, married a Southern lady, lived all his life there, and his main interest today was to uphold the Southern Way of Life and no niggers and no Supreme Court was going to tell him or anybody else what to do . . . a race as hammer-headed as . . . essential inferiority . . . kinky woolly heads . . . still in the trees . . . greasy smelly . . . marry your daughters . . . mongrelize the race . . . mongrelize . . . mongrelize . . . save the South . . . Black Monday . . . lower than cockroaches . . . God made the races . . . nobody knows why but He intended for ’em to stay apart . . . if He hadn’t He’d’ve made us all one color . . . back to Africa . . .
Jean Louise leaves the courthouse. Shortly afterwards, she vomits.

O’Hanlon’s speech is presented as a miscellaneous collection of broken phrases separated by ellipse. This makes it impossible to evaluate the speaker’s argument, or even know whether he had one. All we are given is an emotional reaction to the coloring of certain phrases.

It is at this point that Miss Lee introduces the anecdote about Atticus Finch defending a black man wrongly accused of rape. Jean Louise cannot understand how the same man could now be attending Citizens’ Council meetings, and assumes that some dramatic change in his character must have taken place. The media reaction to Watchman has been identical; this Atticus Finch is utterly unlike the Atticus Finch of Mockingbird.

The noble Atticus Finch, played by Gregory Peck. (Note that in the courthouse, the blacks are segregated in the balcony.)
The noble Atticus Finch, played by Gregory Peck. (Note that in the courthouse, the blacks are segregated to the balcony.)

Of course, there is no contradiction between supporting segregation and wanting to see an innocent black man acquitted. Despite the impression conveyed by To Kill a Mockingbird, there is no evidence that most Southernerswho certainly supported segregationwanted to see black people wrongfully convicted.

But Jean Louise thinks her father has “betrayed her, publicly, grossly, and shamelessly” by attending a Citizens’ Council meeting. She got her ideas about the council from New York newspapers. As she recalls:
one glance down a column of print was enough to tell her a familiar story: same people who were the Invisible Empire, who hated Catholics; ignorant, fear-ridden, red-faced, boorish, law-abiding, one hundred percent red-blooded Anglo-Saxons, her fellow Americanstrash. [emphasis added]
An important part of any ideology is how it accounts for dissenters. For racial egalitarianism, this has remained unchanged since Harper Lee wrote Go Set a Watchman: the “racist” is driven by ignorance and fear. This explains away anything a “racist” might say, makes egalitarian ideology unfalsifiable, and prevents communication between believers and unbelievers.

Harper Lee in 2007.
Harper Lee in 2007

Much of the second half of Go Set a Watchman is devoted to Jean Louise’s fuming over what she has seen, and it does not make pleasant reading. She calls her father a “double-dealing ring-tailed old son of a bitch,” and angrily breaks off her engagement with Hank. She reduces her aunt to tears by telling her she is leaving and never wants to see anyone from Maycomb again. Hohoff served Harper Lee well in convincing her to transform Scout into an innocent nine-year-old girl.

Jean Louise soon discovers other racial realities. When she goes to visit Calpurnia, the black housekeeper who was a substitute mother to her as a child, she is met with “a haughty dignity” utterly unlike the intimate friendliness she had always known, and she is understandably upset. When she returns home, her aunt tries to explain the changes that have taken place in the South while she was away in New York:
Jean Louise, nobody in Maycomb goes to see Negroes any more, not after what they’ve been doing to us. Besides being shiftless now they look at you sometimes with open insolence, and as far as depending on them goes, why that’s out. That NAACP’s come down here and filled ’em with poison. You do not realize what is going on. We’ve been good to ’em, we’ve bailed ’em out of jail and out of debt since the beginning of time, we’ve made work for ’em when there was no work, we’ve encouraged ’em to better themselves, they’ve gotten civilized, but my dearthat veneer of civilization’s so thin that a bunch of uppity Yankee Negroes can shatter a hundred years’ progress in five . . . . No ma’am, after the thanks they’ve given us for looking after ’em, nobody in Maycomb feels much inclined to help ’em when they get in trouble now. All they do is bite the hand that feed ’em. No sir, not any morethey can shift for themselves, now.
The political entrepreneurs of the NAACP have been preaching racial militancy and collective political struggle through the courts in a land where race relations, indeed all social relations, have always been conceived in personal terms. Whites are indignant. As Finch explains to Jean Louise:
The NAACP-paid lawyers are standing around like buzzards. They watch and wait, just for some felony committed by a Negro against a white personyou’d be surprised how quick they find outin they come and . . . they demand Negroes on the juries in such cases. They subpoena the jury commissioners, they ask the judge to step down, they raise every legal trick in their booksand they have ’em aplentythey try to force the judge into error. Above all else, they try to get the case into a Federal court where they know the cards are stacked in their favor.
Still upset, Jean Louise visits her father’s brother, Uncle Jack. He tries to explain to her that the South is trying to defend a vision of a society of free and responsible citizens who manage their own affairs. He believes that race is being seized upon by unscrupulous people as a means to carry out a political revolution in the South, and that the entire race question is “incidental to the issue in the war we’re in now:”
The only thing I’m afraid of about this country is that its government will someday become so monstrous that the smallest person in it will get trampled underfoot, and then it won’t be worth living in. The only thing in America that is still unique in this tired world is that a man can go as far as his brains will take him or he can go to hell if he wants to, but it won’t be that way much longer. Now, at this very minute, a political philosophy foreign to it is being pressed on the South, and the South’s not ready for it . . . . [A]ll over the South your father and men like your father are fighting a sort of rearguard, delaying action . . . . Jean Louise, when a man’s looking down the double barrel of a shotgun, he picks up the first weapon he can find to defend himself, be it a stone or a stick of stovewood or a citizens’ council.
Despite the author’s liberalism, this is not a bad summary of how many Southerners of the time viewed Second Reconstruction (aka the “Civil Rights Movement”). Yet his remarks have little effect on Jean Louise; she goes away reflecting that her uncle is “mad as a hatter.”

In her showdown with her father shortly afterwards, however, Jean Louise makes some surprising admissions. She acknowledges that the Supreme Court’s Brown decision made her “furious:” “there they were, telling us what to do again.” She understands that the decision was a usurpation of power not delegated to the federal government (let alone to the Supreme Court) by the US Constitution, and therefore a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Her father also elicits an acknowledgment from her that “our Negro population is backward” and that “the vast majority of them here in the South are unable to share fully in the responsibilities of citizenship.”
Finch explains his Jeffersonian ideal of citizenship:
Jefferson believed full citizenship was a privilege to be earned by each man, that it was not something given lightly nor to be taken lightly. A man couldn’t vote simply because he was a man, in Jefferson’s eyes. He had to be a responsible man. A vote was, to Jefferson, a precious privilege a man attained for himself in aa live-and-let-live economy.
The NAACP, by contrast, “doesn’t care whether a Negro man owns or rents his land, how well he can farm, or whether or not he tries to learn a trade and stand on his own two feetoh no, all the NAACP cares about is that man’s vote.” Here we glimpse the origins of our modern plebiscitary oligarchy exercising broad, unconstitutional power through the clever manipulation of uninformed, economically dependent voters.

George W. Bush awards Harper Lee the Medal of Freedom.
George W. Bush awards Harper Lee the Medal of Freedom

Finch, in his turn, acknowledges to Jean Louise that Grady O’Hanlon, with his talk of “lower than cockroaches,” does not reflect well upon the Citizens’ Councils: “Mr. O’Hanlon’s not, I am happy to say, typical of the Maycomb County council membership . . . . I rather think he’s paid by some organization in Massachusetts.” When Jean Louise asks Finch why he allowed the man to speak, Finch gives her a lesson in the Southern conception of tolerance: “Because he wanted to.” In the same vein, another character observes, “people don’t agree with the Klan, but they certainly don’t try to prevent them from puttin’ on sheets and making fools of themselves in public.”

Jean Louise is a prototype of the modern progressive who cannot defend his views and is reduced to shrieking when exposed to unfamiliar ideas. She accuses her father of being “a coward as well as a snob and a tyrant,” calls her uncle a “cynical old man,” and complains that “Hank and Aunty have lost their minds.” Mainstream reviews of Go Set a Watchman are entirely focused on the revelation that Finch is a “racist;” I seem to be alone in disliking the shrill and self-righteous Jean Louise. Perhaps this is because the entire mainstream of American journalism has become this unpleasant character writ large.

Go Set a Watchman is not great fiction, but it is something like a time capsule from the age in which it was written. As a portrait of a particular era in American history it is surely more realistic than the ideologically distorted view of the 1930s that made To Kill a Mockingbird famous. But America has grown more narrow-minded in the nearly six decades since it was written, and most of our contemporaries will react with uncomprehending horror to the prescient concerns of white Southerners of that era.