Jan 29, 2016

Have White Men Been Feminized?

via EGI Notes


The fact that a woman needs to be the one to speak the truth is more evidence supporting her thesis.

Now, the "game" crowd will offer the riposte that if women want men to defend them ("white knighting"), then the women need to act like more traditional feminine women, and not as man-hating feminist harridans, with colored-loving, alpha male-slavering, slut behavior.

There's some truth to that riposte, but at some point someone needs to make a stand, and it has to be men.  Their stand can be in defense of race and civilization, even if they believe that their woman folk are too degraded to be worth the effort. Indeed, the two go together: saving race and civilization by reasserting Western Male values will have a salutary effect on female attitudes and behaviors.

In other words, manjaw feminists cannot be used as an excuse to do nothing and just "sit poolside." By doing the right thing, the manjaws can be put into their proper place (preferably masked and out of sight) and a bright new day can dawn for the West.

But, guys, wearing miniskirts in public (or private, for that matter) just won't get it done.

Kouchner’s Rage: Portrait of a Warmonger and Immigrationist

via The Occidental Observer

Bernard Kouchner laughs when questioned
about reports of organ trafficking under
his watch in Kosovo
Bernard Kouchner is a senior French politician and has for decades been a common face in the media, typically promoting this or that “humanitarian intervention” in some part of the world. He served as France’s foreign minister between 2007 and 2010.

I was tremendously struck by a passage in Paul-Éric Blanrue’s book on Sarkozy and the Jews[1] in which he mentions Kouchner’s hysterical reaction to one of his friends mentioning “the Jewish lobby.” Numerous senior figures, including President François Mitterrand and Prime Minister Raymond Barre, have noted that the lobby is a major player in French political and cultural life.[2] Blanrue’s book more generally uses Sarkozy’s career to explore the secular trend in France of the steady replacement of vestigial Gaullist elites, still vaguely committed to French independence, by neoconservative and globalist elites.

Jacques Séguéla, a wealthy French advertising man, recounts that he was on a cruise with Kouchner and his wife Christine Ockrent (then the head of France’s international state media, including Radio France International and TV station France24):
I incidentally mentioned, I no longer remember in what context, without any racist intent, the expression “Jewish lobby.” What had I said? Bernard jumped up at once and locked himself in his cabin. Christine [Ockrent, wife, DG of France Monde, TV5 Monde, France 24, RFI], went in as a scout, she came back bearing a Kouchnerian diktat: “I will leave this anti-Semitic boat first thing in the morning!” I didn’t sleep the entire night. At the crack of dawn, I broke into apologies without really knowing what had been my sin.[3]
This episode, I believe, will resonate strongly with many people who have had to interact with strongly-identified Jews whenever their perceived core interests are stake. Kouchner displays astounding emotional intensity and a sense that he is entitled to engage in unrestricted emotional blackmail against a friend for the smallest unintentional slight. But what is more terrifying, for a Jew, than the sight of goyim pointing out that Jews have a disproportional influence, or even form a “lobby,” in goyishe lands?

Kouchner, born in 1939, is the son of a Jewish father and Protestant mother. Like the part-Jewish Emmanuel Todd,[4] he strongly identifies as a Jew, saying: “to be a half-Jew is to be twice Jewish.”[5]

Kouchner has built his entire career on the discrediting of the notion of national sovereignty and the principle of Western elites’ “right of intervention” (droit d’ingérence) anywhere on the globe, citing humanitarian or democratic pretexts. He has specialized and been very skillful in exploiting the mass media, using images of starving children or massacred civilians, to emotionally manipulate public opinion to accept imperialist wars.

Kouchner’s first escapade abroad was as a physician in Biafra during the 1968 famine caused by the Nigerian Civil War. In 1971 he founded Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) and became known in international media as the “French doctor.” He later rose in the ranks of the French Socialist Party, often serving in the government.

As a senior French politician, Kouchner has exploited virtually every opportunity to agitate for war against European and Arab nationalists, citing his theory of droit d’ingérence. In 1991, as a member of the French government, he pushed for violating Iraq’s sovereignty to help Kurdish secessionists and called for the West to push beyond the liberation of Kuwait to topple President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

Throughout the 1990s, he was part of the clique of overwhelmingly Jewish “intellectuals” in France (Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Glucksmann . . .) who never saw a war they didn’t like and enjoyed strangely systematic media access to promote these wars. There is a famous photo of him hauling rice into famine-wracked and war-torn Somalia.

In 1999, following the NATO bombing of Serbia in violation of international law, Kouchner was appointed as the United Nations High Representative in Kosovo, effectively governor of the new ethnically-Albanian mafia state in that province. Kosovo was run by the former terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army and Kouchner had the dishonor of presiding over astounding corruption and criminality. Beside the oppression of the Serbs of Kosovo, Kouchner’s Albanians allegedly engaged in a gruesome trade of organ trafficking taken from combatants and civilians. Whereas senior United Nations and Council of Europe officials have backed the claims, Kouchner dismissed the matter on Serbian television with a hearty cackle and obscenities.[6]

In 2003, the “humanitarian” Kouchner backed President George W. Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of almost 5 million people.

In 2007, freshly-elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy appointed Kouchner to be his foreign minister, despite the fact that the former is a nominal conservative and the latter was a card-carrying Socialist. This move made sense insofar as this distinction is spurious, and both men are dedicated to the same globalist program of neoliberalism, foreign wars, and indefinite displacement-level African/Islamic immigration. There is no left-right distinction in politics any more; the only valid distinction is between globalists and nationalists. In this respect Sarkozy and Kouchner were perfectly compatible as globalists.

Foreign Minister Kouchner ended Jacques Chirac’s previous policy of timid independence relative to the United States, reintegrating France into NATO. He also moved to have France adopt the Lisbon Treaty reinforcing the European Union, despite the French public rejecting a very similar “Constitutional Treaty” in 2005 by referendum. Thus Kouchner was among the gravediggers of President Charles de Gaulle’s previous work of limited French independence, a balanced Middle Eastern policy, and at least verbal opposition to American imperialism.

In 2010, the Jerusalem Post named Kouchner the fifteenth most-powerful Jew in the world, noting that he is “[a]t the forefront of the international struggle against Iran’s nuclear program.”[7]

Since leaving office in 2010, Kouchner has also agitated for war in Libya,[8] which has led to the destruction of the stable anti-Zionist regime there and its replacement with permanent tribal civil war. And of course he advocated war to depose President Bashar al-Assad in Syria,[9] which has fueled the rise of the Islamic State. In each case, Kouchner has advocated policies which have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people while at the same time advancing the interests of Israel by rendering the Arab states politically fragmented and militarily impotent.

Kouchner has also asserted that whereas Iran must be deprived of nuclear weapons, the world has “a duty to protect [Israel].”[10] Israel, let it be recalled, is an explicitly racist state with a Jews-only immigration policy. Indeed, Israel has been violating international law and ethnically cleansing the native Palestinians for half a century. Israel has also engaged in periodic wars of aggression. Yet Kouchner has curiously never applied his theory of droit d’ingérence to Israel and in fact in the past has taken the lead in cracking down on excessively pro-Palestinian elements in the French Socialist Party.

Kouchner however is very critical of France, saying that “France is a racist country” and claiming that President Sarkozy “was detested also because he was the son of a Hungarian and the grandson of a Jew.”[11] And while asserting that the entire world has a duty to support Israel with its Jews-only immigration policy, Kouchner has demanded that both France and Europe respond to the current migrant crisis by taking in more African/Islamic settlers.[12] These migrants, incidentally, are coming to Europe in part precisely because of the murderous wars Kouchner has agitated for in the Arab World. For Kouchner, it’s a win-win situation.

Bernard Kouchner’s entire life and career have been dedicated to promoting the interests and claims of universal jurisdiction of the American Empire and its European satellites. He has, objectively and consistently, agitated to destroy independent European and Arab nations, while simultaneously promoting the perceived interests of Jews and in particular the Jewish ethno-state of Israel. Hypocrisy is his right, I suppose.

But it begs the question: Why was he able to serve as foreign minister of France?**
Why is he even a French citizen?

** The short answer to this question is obviously and at least in part the strength of “the-lobby-that-doesn’t-exist” meme in elite French circles. Kouchner’s president, Sarkozy, has made unbelievably Judeocentric statements over the years, presumably to pander to Jewish elites and fully cognizant that such statements will not hurt him with French voters, including most recently that “Israel’s right to security [. . .] is the struggle of my life” and that humanity has “contracted towards the Jewish people a debt which cannot be extinguished.” See Guillaume Durocher, “Paul-Éric Blanrue and the Jews: From Celebration to Censorship,” The Occidental Observer, September 24, 2015.


Notes:
[1]Paul-Éric Blanrue, Sarkozy, Israël et les Juifs (Embourg, Belgium: Oser Dire, 2009).
[2]Guillaume Durocher, “‘The Lobby-That-Doesn’t-Exist’: Politicians and Pundits on Jewish Influence in France,” The Occidental Observer, October 1, 2015. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/10/%EF%BB%BF-the-lobby-that-doesnt-exist-politicians-and-pundits-on-jewish-influence-in-france/
[3]Blanrue, Sarkozy, 108.
[4]Guillaume Durocher, “Emmanuel Todd’s Conceit,” The Occidental Observer, November 12, 2015. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/11/emmanuel-todds-conceit/
[5]Ibid.
[6]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMOtjnpDG78
[7]Steve Linde, “The World’s 50 Most Influential Jews,” The Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2010. http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Worlds-50-most-influential-Jews
[8]Bernard Kouchner, “Libya: The morality of intervention,” The Guardian, March 11, 24. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/24/libya-morality-intervention-united-europe
[9]“Syrie: Kouchner et Glucksmann pour une intervention militaire,” L’Express, October 22, 2012. http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/proche-moyen-orient/syrie-kouchner-et-glucksmann-pour-une-intervention-militaire_1177635.html
[10]“Bernard Kouchner : ‘Le monde doit protéger Israël,’” Courrier international, February 2, 2013. http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2013/02/15/bernard-kouchner-le-monde-doit-proteger-israel
[11]“French loathed Sarkozy because of his Jewish origins, says former FM,” The Times of Israel, October 15, 2014. http://www.timesofisrael.com/french-loathed-sarkozy-because-of-his-jewish-origins-says-former-fm/
[12]“Bernard Kouchner : ‘La France n’accueil pas assez de migants,” Fdesouche, September 9, 2015. http://www.fdesouche.com/642209-bernard-kouchner-la-france-naccueille-pas-assez-de-migrants “Kouchner: ‘L’Europe ne fait pas assez pour l’immigration,’” Le Soir, November 7, 2014. http://www.lesoir.be/702013/article/actualite/union-europeenne/2014-11-07/kouchner-l-europe-ne-fait-pas-assez-pour-l-immigration-video

A Conversation about Fairy Tales with William Scott

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

I spoke with William Scott on the 8th of January to discuss the significance of fairy tales to White identity, and how this relates to the age-old struggle between Europeans and jews. Our focus was on one particular tale from the Brothers Grimm. William uploaded his reading of Snow White and Rose Red to YouTube, and I’ve taken the liberty of transcoding to mp3 in order to put it on TFeed. It’s only 16 minutes long, well worth a listen even if you aren’t interested in what William or I have to say about it.

William has divided our conversation into two parts. The first part he’s just published on YouTube as Conversation with Tanstaafl A (mp3).

If you have time, see also his Interview with Ayla – an intelligent and insightful exchange about the same tale which stayed more directly on topic.

William also posted a monologue, Trailer for Tanstaafl, as an introduction to our conversation and to lay out his thoughts on racial differences. William’s website is FOLKWAYS/Teleolojic. His introductory post, Intention: Deep racial identity explains where he’s coming from and what he’s trying to do.

Anti-Semitic Legends contains a short collection of European tales, including several published by the Grimm brothers, in which the jews are more explicitly identified. The following bit of impudent spin appears at the top of the page:
These legends reflect an anti-Jewish sentiment long exhibited by European Christians. These tales, like their witchcraft analogs, illustrate a tragic and lengthy chapter in ecclesiastical history. Archives, like microscopes, often reveal root causes of sickness and evil. Our best hope of correcting the errors of the past lies in exposing their root causes to the light of day.
In fact the deep wisdom and values reflected in European fairy tales long predates Christianity. Recent analysis suggests that the tradition and themes trace back to the Aryans, just as the Grimm brothers and their contemporaries surmised.

The wisdom in these tales is as valid with regard to the jews as anything else, and that’s so whether they are represented directly or via stereotypically jewy characterizations (like the dwarf in Snow White and Rose Red). The hostility and arrogance of jews is no fiction. It is clearly visible in the reality-inverting spin quoted above. Fairy tales indicate that the origin of “anti-jewish sentiments” lies in the jews and their behavior. Their attempts to excuse themselves by literally pathologizing and demonizing Europeans only confirms this.

The Harmless Racket

via Radix

It’s probably the last time we’ll be talking about National Review. The attack on Donald Trump by Rich Lowry and the other giggling minicons at Mr. Buckley’s vanity project have revealed that Conservatism, Inc. is not just politically but intellectually bankrupt. It’s been reduced to offering slogans none of the writers actually believe or can even define.

We are told true conservatism is opposed to “populism” and that Trump is simply a salesman. Yet the first contributor to the Beltway Right’s supposed intellectual case #AgainstTrump is none other than Glenn Beck, rendering it laughable before it even begins. Beck has fleeced well-meaning rubes for years by posing as a champion of the “real America” standing against shadowy Machiavellian elites. These elites, we are told, are inspired by some monstrous conspiracy uniting figures as diverse as Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and Saul Alinsky. As the late Andrew Breitbart noted, the huckster Beck personally profits by warning Middle Americans about some imminent disaster that never quite arrives, pushing buckets of “survival food” on evangelicals fearful about the end of the world.

The collection of other mediocrities offered to us as “leading intellectual conservatives” would be indistinguishable from a list any Radix reader would create as part of a parody.

Ben Domenech, a man whose entire life can be summarized as a combination of plagiarism and anti-White signaling.

Russell Moore, a Soros-backed evangelical, who claims that God is giving Southern Baptists a “second chance” to redeem their errant ancestors and embrace African-Americans and immigrants.

Katie Pavlich, a Fox News talking head of uncertain accomplishments lecturing us about unnamed conservative “principles.”

Michael Mukasey, a national security advisor to the failed Guaca Bowl Merchant Jeb Bush.

And Erick Erickson, whose mere appearance suffices to define The Cuckservative Mind.

Thomas Sowell’s inclusion surprised some people, as he has provided some work worth reading. Yet none of it is especially remarkable. As with Ben Carson, he is an accomplished man in his field, but none of us would find him particularly noteworthy if he was not Black. He’s simply another example of Dr. Johnson’s woman preacher. And it’s not surprising Sowell’s most often cited work (usually the only one they’ve read) among your typical “movement conservative” is the shockingly shallow Black Rednecks and White Liberals, which suggests White Southerners are to blame for pathologies of urban Blacks and that the only reason people ever oppose Jewish influence is “jealousy.”

And speaking of the ostensible Chosen, if one were to activate the Coincidence Detector before reading this, your computer might explode.

We have William Kristol, lecturing us “as conservatives,” even though the only principle we can discern from his blood-soaked career is the need for Americans to die in wars actively harmful to our national interest (though not to his). He says we need to listen to Leo Strauss, who tells us conservatism is defined by despising “vulgarity.”

We have Yuval Levin, born in Israel, who has openly discussed co-opting the Tea Party in order to push his agenda, which includes favoring Marco Rubio-style proposals for Amnesty.

We have Mona Charen, perhaps the most insipid commentator in a movement defined by Protective Stupidity, whining that Trump will “insult and belittle others including, or perhaps especially, women.” (Only Rosie O’Donnell, Mona).

We have Michael Medved telling us Trump must be opposed because he’ll “associate conservatives with all the negative stereotypes that liberals have attached for decades.” Medved then fulfills a stereotype attached to his own people by moaning about Trump’s “racism,” support for deporting illegals, and his appeal to White voters. “Imagine the parade of negative ads the Democrats are already preparing for radio stations with mainly black audiences and for Spanish-language television,” says Medved. After all, what is conservatism if not worrying about the feelings of the hosts on Hot 97 and Telemundo?

Finally, there’s John Podhoertz, whose crudity, shallowness, and stupidity is too much even for the shtetls of New York City neoconservatism. Podhoertz solemnly informs us Trump would be the worst thing to happen to “the American common culture in my lifetime,” a claim which only be called bizarre coming from someone whose entire professional output consists of squabbling on Twitter and endless kvetching about whatever sitcom he saw on television the night before.

To an outside observer, National Review’s attack on Trump seems absurd. Trump may not be a “true conservative,” by whatever amorphous definition can be cobbled together. Yet Trump is far more conservative by Beltway standards than many other candidates in the Republican primary.

His tax plan is hardly “populist” and is instead a product of supply-side economics, endorsed by figures such as Larry Kudlow. Trump was once pro-choice but is now pro-life, an ideological journey no different than that undertaken by Ronald Reagan. Trump opposes Common Core. He has perhaps the strongest position on the Second Amendment of any candidate, as the importance of national concealed carry cannot be overestimated. And unlike Pat Buchanan, whom NR crusaded against in the 1990s, Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, wants a military buildup, and opposed the nuclear deal with Iran. He’s only a “non-interventionist” in the sense that he favors a realistic approach to Russia.

If Jeb or Kaisch were the frontrunner, there would be no criticism from from National Review. If it were Rubio, there would be celebration.

What’s more, the issue confirms what we already knew, that the conservative movement does not see immigration as an important issue. While some of the contributors praise Trump’s stance on immigration (or at least his drawing attention to it), others outright condemn him. David Boaz, who calls himself a libertarian, identifies “nativism” as Trump’s biggest offense, along with Trump’s supposed promise of “one-man rule,” which seems to exist only in Boaz’s imagination.

One’s tempted to say they are attacking Trump precisely because of his opposition to immigration. But it’s not quite as simple as that. And while the conservative movement doesn’t consider stopping immigration important, opposing it (so long as you don’t express it too forcefully) isn’t enough to get you kicked off the island. Though I don’t believe this, there is a case to be made that Cruz, who is now the choice of most movement conservatives, has a stronger position than Trump on immigration. After all, Jeff Sessions, Steve King, and Tom Tancredo have all defended Cruz’s immigration record, with the latter two endorsing him. The conservative movement’s opposition to Trump goes beyond his position on immigration or even Trump’s putting it at the center of his campaign.

Some would say it is about “limited government.” But this ritualistic phrase means nothing. Indeed, much of the current Alternative Right is composed of red-pilled former libertarians well aware of the conservative movement’s empty sloganeering when it comes to their supposed “principles.”

When Ron Paul ran as the “champion of the Constitution” and practically created the modern “Liberty Movement,” it was National Review and the Beltway Right that led the pushback against him. After the invasion of Iraq, the movement bequeathed “Defender of the Constitution” awards on people like Donald Rumsfeld, and the years of conservative silence on Barack Obama’s massive social engineering efforts, how can anyone take these people seriously when it comes to “limited government?” Especially when you have the likes of William Kristol telling you that it’s Donald Trump who is the threat to the Constitution? The lowest shitposter on the chans has a more sophisticated understanding of politics and philosophy than any “movement conservative,” with his gibberish about “limited government” and “constitutionalism.”

So what is really at the heart of the “movement’s” hysterical opposition? This lame attempt to “Stump the Trump” was reportedly organized by NR’s editor, Rich Lowry. One can actually imagine Rich Lowry as a champion of Middle America . . . but only because he looks eerily similar that preacher kid from Children of the Corn. He could have saved the trouble as he and H1-B conservative Ramesh Ponnuru already told us the real case against Trump in October.
[Trump] basically never says ‘freedom’ or liberty.
That’s it. Trump simply doesn’t mouth the required pieties.

They hate Trump because he’s unveiled the scam. They hate him not because he is a vulgar “populist” devoid of substance, but because he is a candidate with more substance in one of his rambling speeches than they have in their entire faux “movement.”

After all, populism is a tactic, not an ideology. Trump’s populism comes from substance, not style. He appeals to the masses with his policies and by attacking their (and his) enemies, not by clumsily pandering to them. Trump doesn’t make a show of himself eating corn dogs at the Iowa state fair. He doesn’t try to fake being a “real person” with a leather jacket he changed into three seconds before his speech. Nor does he give us a lame story about how hard life was for him.

He usually arrives in a suit and tie; on more casual occasions, he’ll wear one of his trademark rope hats. He insists on sleeping in his own bed each night. He flies in on a plane or helicopter with his name on it. He eats his pizza with knife and fork, and defends it when people laugh. Trump campaigns as himself, not as some cornpone imitation of William Jennings Bryan. Insofar as he’s made one concession to being a conventional politician, it’s by overcoming his fear of germs and shaking hands with supporters. (Incidentally, it’s when he started doing that I knew he was serious about winning.)

It’s really “movement conservatism” that is purely a product of style. Though “principles” are constantly invoked, they are rarely defined. There’s almost nothing uniting even the elected group of contributors to #AgainstTrump but their devotion to slogans. All conservatism requires today is certain invocations and rhetorical prostrations before key phrases such as “limited government” and “the Constitution.” But these words are empty. And they certainly have no connection to advancing an agenda that can actually make life better for the GOP’s supporters.
What we are left with is simply a scam, a movement generating an endless series of complicated explanations about why White people are not allowed to pursue, attain, and exercise power to defend their collective interests.

As Richard Spencer observed, the insult cuckervative isn’t directed at those who aren’t “true conservatives.” Before National Review’s attack, an artificial Narrative that had been gaining traction was that Donald Trump was actually the real choice of the “Establishment,” in contrast to Ted Cruz. There are problems with this theory, notably that “establishment” figures were saying the exact opposite thing to reporters only a few weeks earlier.

But more importantly, people like Bob Dole weren’t endorsing Trump, merely pointing out the obvious reality Trump has a better chance of winning a general election than Ted Cruz. Furthermore, it’s clear this Narrative was artificially created and coordinated as part of an attempt by the Beltway Right to seize control over the primaries, now that Trump has largely destroyed candidates such as Jeb Bush.
After all, what is the “Establishment?” As Ann Coulter said in a speech at CPAC which cost her future speaking slots, there is a “fake Republican establishment” which is “scapegoated” on marginal issues, thus allowing the “true conservatives” to avoid doing anything about immigration. The “true conservatives” never deliver or even mobilize on anything important. Instead, we get frantic editorials and appeals to Middle Americans to get really worried about things like the Export-Import Bank.

It’s just a scam. And Trump has revealed it as a scam. The arguments raised against him now are openly dependent on ignorance. Conservatives who champion the Keystone Pipeline tell us “eminent domain” is the worst thing imaginable, even though it’s required to build that pipeline. And people who want a large military built by politically connected defense contractors scream and shout that “ethanol subsidies” are the worst injustice in the Republic.

The conservative rhetoric about “limited government” and all the rest accomplishes two purposes. First, it justifies support for unpopular and self-defeating programs that are beneficial to certain donors and ideologues, but not for voters. Thus, the only tangible accomplishments movement conservatives can point to are economic benefits for those who profit from globalization, cheap labor, and capital gains. Americans are confronted by a hostile elite dedicated to destroying them—and the GOP wants to cut its taxes.

Second, conservatism provides arguments why the grassroots is ideologically forbidden from pursuing its interests. Whenever you hear someone say “as a conservative” or “as a Christian,” you know he’s about to cuck. And what is most dishonest about this is it is designed to defend those already in power, even as it cloaks itself in the rhetoric of individual rights or egalitarianism.

Thus, we can’t defend our interests as Whites because “as conservatives” our ideology forbids it—except when we have a non-White we can run for president. We can’t oppose immigration “as Christians” because we have to be altruistic—except towards working-class voters. We can’t support programs that benefit our voters because “limited government” means the only purpose of gaining political power is to lecture your people why you aren’t allowed to help them. “I know you think it’s bad when we cut your Medicare and sent your job overseas, but it’s what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.”

The problem for National Review is that the smarter people keep seeing through this. And not just the masses, their own writers. Mark Steyn, late of NR and who had a “not terribly pleasant” parting with the magazine, wrote in response to the #Against Trump issue,
“I don't think Trump supporters care that he's not a fully paid-up member in good standing of ‘the conservative movement’—in part because, as they see it, the conservative movement barely moves anything.”
He dismissed the issue as a trolling attempt and mocked the continuous references to Reagan, saying:
“You have to be over 50 to have voted for Reagan, and a supposed ‘movement’ can't dine out on one guy forever, can it? What else you got?”
Not much. L. Brent Bozell III says Trump must be condemned because he doesn’t “walk with” the conservative movement or read Human Events or National Review enough. But people who walk with the movement, at least the more interesting characters, tend to walk away eventually. His own father, L. Brent Bozell Jr., who ghostwrote Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative, eventually found a society more to his liking in Francisco Franco’s Spain.

Another fierce Catholic, Joe Sobran, was perhaps the finest stylist the magazine ever produced. And he saw clearly how power is exercised in contemporary America. As he put it, “The Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” He was eventually purged for what Bill Buckley called “contextually anti-Semitic” writings.

Three of the most prominent people purged from the magazine are Peter Brimelow, John Derbyshire, and Ann Coulter. All have defined themselves as opponents of mass immigration and political correctness. All have essentially supported Trump. All have proven to be right about what is driving conservative voters—the questions of immigration, identity, and nationalism that are defining world politics. And none now write for National Review. But don’t worry, you still have the scintillating prose of Kathryn Jean Lopez.

But the scam hasn’t quite run its course yet. Though it’s dying, it’s may be able to cost Trump Iowa in its death throes, as there are a lot of useful idiots out there who think Trump is a dictator because he supports ethanol subsidies.

Talk radio hosts such as Mark Levin, smoothly pivoting away from last week’s line that Trump exemplifies #NewYorkValues, now condemns Trump because he is offering “agrarian national populism.” Such Talmudic reasoning is absurd on its face, but it will win over some people. Whatever his later sins, Jack Hunter was right when he said the movement is defending “conservatism” as a word, and breaking away from that label will be hard for many people.

But the breakaway will happen. The problem National Review faces is bigger than Trump. It can’t engage on the questions of identity, immigration, and race that will define this century. More than that, its own infantile sloganeering ensures “conservatives” are incapable of even understanding let alone driving the debate.
The postwar conservative movement dies not with a whimper or a bang, but with one last news cycle of relevance. For all the talk of “principles” and the “conservative intellectual tradition,” the Beltway Right has been left with nothing to say.

If Social Engineers Were Civil Engineers . . .

via BUGS

If EVERY building designed by a civil engineer collapsed, how long do you think it would take for the engineer to be investigated?

Even if the first time around investigators thought somebody else was to blame…

At least after the civil engineer’s NEXT building collapsed an extremely careful investigation would be carried out, right?

But what if the civil engineer never got the blame, and building after building – EVERY single one of them designed by the same engineer – collapses, killing many people……

Any sane observer would wonder what on Earth is going on, right? Why isn’t the civil engineer getting the blame?

Amazing as it sounds, this has actually been happening…

The only difference is it isn’t called civil engineering but SOCIAL ENGINEERING.

Marx designed Communism.

And EVERY communist Workers Paradise needed machine guns and guard towers to stop people from fleeing.

Shouldn’t that tell you something?……

But for those in the religion of Political Correctness these facts do not mean anything.

The same happens for Liberals/Witchdoctors, who use handed-down prescriptions that never work, so they blame OTHERS, especially disbelievers, for the ill-effects.

Those who take Liberals/Witchdoctors seriously, the Cuckservatives, follow right along. These cuckolds, that most derided group, allow any and every stranger to move into their area, to take over their living space while they are degraded.

Shouldn’t that tell you something?……………………

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Shylock & Classical Judaism

via Counter-Currents

Henry Irving as Shylock
The Jewish Thought Police employ various methods to thrust their self-obsession over alleged misportrayals of Jews across history onto center stage in the study of classic works of English literature.

In his Introduction to a reissue of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, published by Bantam Books in 1981, Jewish author Irving Howe directs the reader’s attention, for nearly four pages, to modern Jewish polemics surrounding Dickens’ Fagin, an archetypical Jewish villain. As preface to the novel, readers are served a mini-history of Jewish objections to the Fagin character. A Jewish woman, it seems, had even written a complaint to Dickens that the character was too negatively stereotypical. Dickens wrote back to her, saying, “Fagin is a Jew because it is unfortunately true, of the time to which the story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was Jewish.” (A real life model for Dickens may have been Ikey Solomon who had undergone a much-publicized trial in England a few years before the book was written.)

Of course the disturbing precedent Howe’s framing of the novel sets (for those who have the power to enforce such things) is that any literature must be subject to polemical rebuttal in a kind of aggrieved “class action” to begin (and essentially merge with and reframe) the original writing itself. Hence, a major literary work becomes — first and foremost — a polemical lecture on Jewish history and identity.

One of the most famous negative portrayals of Jews in English literature is the avaricious moneylender Shylock in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, which was written in the late 1590s. Shylock reflects the prevailing Christian perception of Jews: he is greedy, usurious, villainous, fraudulent, exploitative, and cruel. His radical isolation from the Christian community in Venice is voluntary: “I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you” (Merchant of Venice 1.3.29-32).

As early as 1912 Jewish American organizations were successfully lobbying the College Entrance Examination Board to remove The Merchant of Venice as a required reading for its tests. As Nathan Belth explains, “school superintendents in all cities of 10,000 population or more” were then lobbied by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith to remove the text from study, and “between 1917 and 1920 many school systems discontinued study of the play.”

“The most effective way of making the play acceptable to post-Holocaust sensibilities,” Jewish critic John Gross writes, “in the view of many directors, is to underscore the prejudices of the Christian characters, and generally show them in an ugly light.” In some productions of the play, Shylock is even completely reconstituted, as in Arnold Wesker’s version, where Shylock becomes “scholarly, impetuous, and warm-hearted.” In 1999, the Los Angeles Jewish Times reported, an actor on tour from South Africa, Percy Sieff, portrayed Shylock as “a worldly, successful businessman who has become embittered by discrimination and compensated by focusing on money.” One French critic, Pierre Spriet, has even gone so far as to dismiss the play entirely, suggesting the work is so anti-Semitic that “it must be abandoned.”

In 1980s the Canadian Jewish Congress intervened in a planned performance of The Merchant of Venice by the Stratford Festival. The play was finally performed, but only, notes Jewish activist Sol Littman, after it was agreed that “care would be taken to make sure that the representation of Shylock steered clear of crude stereotyping and — best of all — that the festival would arrange seminars for young theater-goers to explain the historical context of the play and the social prejudices of the period.”

Similarly, in 1994 Rabbi Richard Litvak spearheaded a protest of a performance of The Merchant by a Shakespearean theater group in Santa Cruz, California. Jewish lobbying resulted in a plan for “discussion groups” and “program notes” to express Jewish concerns about the Shylock character. Rabbi Litvak noted the effect of Jewish protest, which turned the performance of a Shakespeare play into something else: “The director and the festival have expressed a commitment to try to make the play a vehicle for raising awareness of anti-Semitism.”

“It was with great trepidation that I agreed to undertake the responsibility of commenting on yet another production of William Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice,” wrote censorial Jewish professor Racelle Weinman in 2001. “In this instance the venue is the PBS Masterpiece Theatre series. . . . I have come to the conclusion that the Holocaust negates the untenable premise of The Merchant of Venice. It should not be produced.”

Shakespeare’s Shylock embodies, in a dramatic character, a number of stereotypical traits that Christian Europe often attributed to Jews: exclusiveness and self-imposed ethnic separation, fueled by a powerful ethnocentrism, from the larger society around them; exploitation and manipulation of gentiles; double moral standards for Jews and non-Jews, etc. Nowadays to impute such traits to Jews is deemed “anti-Semitic,” which is not much different from declaring that the stereotypes that Shakespeare’s character embodies are false and groundless. Shylock becomes therefore an expression of bigotry and prejudice, a libel having no real basis in historical reality.

Yet it is a fact that the closest parallels in our own time to the Orthodox Jews of Renaissance Europe are the black-clad, self-cloistered Orthodox Hasidim of which there are today hundreds of thousands in Israel and America. If we want to understand Shakespeare’s Shylock, we can profitably look to his counterparts in our own era.

The ultra-Orthodox Hasidic movement, which was created in the 1700s and represents a particular back-to-basics strand of Judaism, eventually numbered about half of the Eastern European Jewish population. David Berger writes that “with the dawn of the 19th century, Hasidism . . . became the dominant form of Judaism in much of Eastern Europe, the heartland of 19th-century Jewry.”

The perceptions by many secular Jews today — most particularly in Israel — of the self-segregated Hasidim (also called Haredi) communities are very similar to the anti-Jewish stereotypes common in medieval and Renaissance Europe. An Israeli professor, Menachem Friedman, notes the characterization of these Ultra-Orthodox talmudists by secular fellow Jews in Israel: “The alienation and isolation of the Haredim, their eagerness to claim exemption from service in the Israeli army, their demands for increasing allocations for their society of scholars and sometimes unrestrained use of political power arouses resentment and even hatred among large sections of the Israeli public.”

“Hatred of the ultra-Orthodox has deep roots [in Israel],” Israeli critic Laor Yitzhak wrote in 1998. “There is no offense so great that one cannot tag it on the Haredim — especially the guy with the black hat, frock coat, and side curls beloved of modern anti-Semites. . . . ‘Death to the black hatters’ is scribbled on toilet doors at the Tel Aviv School of Humanities; if fliers showing Haredi children and screaming ‘Kill them while they’re young!’ are being distributed in Kfar Saba, then it is those who participate in fomenting hatred against the Haredi minority who must prove there is not something behind their behavior frighteningly like anti-Semitism.”

In 1986 the Jerusalem Post reported an Israeli poll that found one-fourth of its secular Jewish respondents called the Ultra-Orthodox — who like their ancestral counterparts have retreated into self-created ghettos, even in Israel — “opportunists, liars, and charlatans.” “There is much hostility to the Orthodox rabbinate among the majority (about 70% of the Jewish population) of secular Israeli Jews,” says Adam Garfinkel. “They see the rabbis as coercive and intolerant . . . excessively political and unspiritual . . . seeming never to have a word to say about kindness, humility, and God’s love for humanity. . . . To be blunt, some secular Israelis see the haredim as fanatical atavistic freeloaders who have yet to discover modern hygiene.”

In 2000, the results of study by Jerusalem’s Hebrew University about “hate” in 168 secular Israeli schools indicated that “47% of the [secular] Jewish students hate haredim.” A Jewish religious organization, Ahavat Israel, has even posted an entire section at its Internet site about what it calls “anti-Semitism in Israel”:

Today, the attack upon the religious Jewish population is most heavily felt in the Israeli media, including newspapers, radio and TV . . . In a recent 9 (Dec 98) column, Israel Eichler charges that many of the stereotypes used by the Nazis against Jews have been translated into Hebrew and employed to delegitimize the haredi (religious) public . . . [Meretz political party founder] Shulamit Aloni described the haredi population as “suck[ing] from the same sinister passions which nurtured the Nazis” . . . “We have to storm Mea She’arim [a famous Jerusalem ultra-Orthodox enclave] with machine guns and mow them down,” recommends left-wing darling Uri Avneri. “I would take all those weird people from Shas, Aguda, and Degel Hatorah and tie all their beards together and light a match,” says Popolitika’s Amnon Danker. Yonaten Gefen announces his willingness to cast the first stone in the intifada [uprising] against haredim, and Prof. Uri Arnon tells a Kol Ha’ir interviewer, “Haredim should be suspended on an electricity pole”. . . . Today ‘bloodsucker’ is a favored term for haredim. . . . “Parasite” has become used so frequently in connection with haredim that the two have become virtually synonymous. . . . “When I see the haredim surrounded by their large families, I understand the Nazis,” wrote sculptor Yigal Tumarkin — a statement which did not prevent him from being honored by Yad Vashem [Israel’s Holocaust memorial center]. And Tommy Lapid sees the haredim as having usurped the traditional Jewish role of “taking advantage of the gentile, trading in his blood, and laughing at him,” only this time with the secular [Jewish] public in the role of the gentile.

In 2000, the Cleveland Jewish News reported that, in Israel, “there have been many instances of anti-haredi graffiti on haredi synagogues, and even, in 1998, the torching of two haredi classrooms in Pardess Hanna, where local secular [Jewish] residents tried to keep haredim from moving into their neighborhood.”

Evelyn Kaye, a woman raised in an Orthodox Jewish community in New York, wrote in 1987 an indicting volume, The Hole in the Sheet, about her life within it and the religiously enforced racism of the ancient sages that still holds firm in Jewish communities to our present day. The foundation of “being Jewish” against the rest of humanity is manifest in the fundamentally hostile attitudes towards non-Jews. Kaye writes that

the mark of a truly devout Hasidic or Orthodox Jew, as well as many other Jews, is an unquestioned hatred of non-Jews. This is the foundation of ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic philosophy. . . . There is a complete litany of all the terrible things about non-Jews which apply to every single one and which are believed implicitly by the Orthodox. . . . [T]he essence of anti-Goyimism is passed to Jewish children with their mother’s milk, and then nurtured, fed and watered carefully into a full-blown phobia throughout their lives. In order to avoid being contaminated by these terrible creatures, the Ultra-Orthodox go out of their way to avoid them. . . . Children . . . manage to grow up without seeing one of these dangerous people close up. Their attitudes are then perfectly formed. They know whom to hate.

In the 1990s, secular Jewish professor Stephen Bloom tried to connect to his Jewish heritage via a Chabad Lubavitcher (ultra-Orthodox/Hasidic) community in the little town of Postville, Iowa. He went there with the legends of Jewish historic identity and was stunned by what he found. Jews in the Iowa town, Bloom observed in his book Postville, don’t want to touch gentiles, they resist eye contact with them as they walk down the street, they have no knowledge or interest in gentile life around them, they appeared “obnoxious and imperial” to local people, they cheat local merchants, and they use oil in their candelabras because oil, which doesn’t mix with other liquid, symbolizes Jewish separateness from all others. “Wherever we go,” one Chabad leader said, “we don’t adapt to the place or the people. It’s always been like that and always will be like that. It’s the place and the people who have to adapt to us.”

“Postville people, by and large, were tolerant,” says Bloom, “. . . [but the Hasidic Jews] were downright rude. They seemed to go out of their way to be obnoxious, especially when it came to business dealings. . . . At first, the locals welcomed the Jews, but even the simplest offer — a handshake, an invitation to afternoon tea — was spurned. The locals quickly discovered that the Jews wouldn’t even look at them. They refused to acknowledge even the presence of anyone not Jewish.”

Bloom’s book explored taboo topics such as bargaining, poor hygiene, atrocious manners, disrepair of homes, Jewish elitism, sexism, crime and prejudice directed at gentiles. Bloom writes:

In response, I’ve received dozens of hate letters, all from Orthodox Jewish readers . . . To these readers, to criticize any aspect of Judaism is patently unacceptable. To them, I wasn’t a journalist doing my job. I was a self-loathing Jew, the worst kind of anti-Semite. I was embarrassing the family. . . . When journalists parachuted into Postville, if the locals said anything bad — or even neutral — about the Hasidic Jews, the response was swift and to the point. Mayor John Hyman was labeled an anti-Semite when he told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that the Jews in Postville don’t pay their bills on time [which Bloom found to be a true assessment].

What does all this mean? The foundation of animosity (labeled as “anti-Semitism”) towards “traditional” Jewish behavior, as most clearly manifested today by the cloistered, seclusionist, Jewish haredim/hasidic communities — a behavior that was a mainstay for centuries for all Jews in Europe — is so great that even other (secularized) Jews today express vehement disdain and outrage towards their obsessively “particularist” and exploitive fellows. And this is crucial: today’s haredim merely reflect meticulous attention to the ages-old religious laws of Jewish orthodoxy. As Michael Govrin notes, living under the Halacha — Jewish religious law — “until two hundred years ago was the only way a Jew could define him or herself.”

The Road from Dante to Guenon

via Gornahoor

Vintila Horia was a Romanian Traditional author. In a collection dedicated to the thought of Rene Guenon, titled Rene Guenon Colloque du Centenaire, he contributed an essay Mon Chemin de Dante à Guenon, or, My Path from Dante to Guenon. (I’m looking for a hard or soft copy of the full text if anyone can find it.)

The Project Rene Guenon published some excerpts from it here. In the section below titled “Reading Notes”, there is my translation of the notes from French to English.

Even this little taste is quite suggestive. Usually applied to Sacred Texts, Horia points out that the Divine Comedy by Dante can also be understood on four levels. It is no surprise that he names Rene Guenon as providing to key to the highest level of interpretation.

An interesting wrinkle is that Horia names Soren Kierkegaard as providing to key to understand the Comedy at the moral level. That is certainly worth exploring. Kierkegaard describes the phenomenological states of consciousness for many types of men. Perhaps then, we should understand Dante’s descriptions of the punishments of hell for the various class of sinners as pictorial representations of their inner soul life.

Horia then points out the roles of the Cross and the Eagle, i.e., Church and Empire (or Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power, in Guenon’s terms). A one-sided effort is certain to fail.

Horia ends on a note reminiscent of Boris Mouravieff: a small group of the just will witness the coming Age of the Holy Spirit.

Reading Notes

There are several keys to Dante. Rene Guenon provides us one: that of esoterism, which would make the “Divine Comedy” the poem par excellence from the standpoint of traditional studies. (p 93)

Among the studies devoted to Dante, the closest to the poet’s spirit are:
  1. that of Rene Guenon
  2. that of the Italian scholar Luigi Valli
  3. that of the Spaniard Asin Palacios, entitled “Dante and Islam.”
“With the fourteenth century, and especially with Petrarch, the path takes a turning point, it tries to rise, with the return of Platonism to power, along the first part of the Renaissance at least, but it sinks, after Marsilio Ficino, into a hopeless landscape, or terminal end, of which the eighteenth century constitutes a type of spiritualist error, so to speak, by following the teaching that Guenon suggests to us as an example of what we should not do especially at times when poetry, like politics together, as in Dante’s time a tragic inseparability. Hölderlin, already at the beginning of the last century, placed in relation the “times of distress” and the “presence of the poet.” (p 94)

Our time is perhaps one of the closest to Dantean exegesis.

“Dante was above all a poet faithful to poiesis and then to creation, and, in the most logical way, he found himself tempted by all the paths to the very source of creation, which is Truth. To reach it, he let himself be guided by the two poles of our poetic soul: inspiration, which proceeds in a straight line from the unconscious world, and reason, linked to the consciousness above any partial separation, classical in one sense, romantic in another, and which removed from his work that tone of impartiality — I would not say objectivity, because this word has no meaning in this context — that characterizes it despite permanent injunctions of his ego and of the historical sufferings that inspire it and, often, determine it in his creative action. Dante is a world, in the fullest sense, and it even lets us embrace it, even if we are situated almost seven centuries after his adventure.” (p 94)

There is a literary key of “The Divine Comedy” and of Dante in general. Next, there is an allegorical key, which is a first way to add a veil above the literal sense. Then a moral key, proposed by Kierkegaard. The last one, the anagogical key, was given by Guenon and Luigi Valli.

“What Guenon did for me and, I imagine, for most of those who found in him the same remedy, was to draw me away from minor or partial truths, to put me in contact, at least wavering, with Truth, which is one and that, by following ever more complicated and hidden paths, drew me to Plato and made me understand the most prominent and the most spectacular aspects of current physics, for example, through Heisenberg, to name a stage, as efforts as part of a broader effort whose aim was that to help me advance towards something after going through hell —  the last two centuries of history Western form, in this perspective, the nine circles of hell and it is possible that we are going through the last, that of eternal ice and traitors, those who betrayed man —  to lead us to an indispensable Purgatory to make the last jump, one that implies an end and a beginning, and that is surely one of the end and a new beginning, ‘Pure and disposed to mount unto the stars’, which is the last verse of Dante’s Purgatory.” (p 97)

The metapolitical goal of “The Divine Comedy” is to present to a sick mankind the double remedy of the Cross (the Catholic Church) and the Eagle (the Empire). The Cross has the role to cure ignorance and the Eagle, distress. Lust was to be annihilated by the victory of the Cross, and injustice by the victory of the Eagle.

“So don’t we owe our terrible entrance into the deterministic and entropic night to the separation between the Cross and the Eagle? The Cross alone would now solve the problems that it could solve neither at the end of the Middle Ages, when it was strong and universal, nor in the age of the Revolution, when it was abandoned by poets causing the flight of the gods which Hölderlin speaks about. The Eagle soared, too, on other worlds, very far away from us, imitated by fake eagles, imperial in space but not in time, which belongs to the reign of the Cross. We live under the oppression of invalid empires, not only because sick of tyranny and inhumane separations, fated to protect the ultimate fall and decay, but also because they do not want the Cross, their most mysterious and fiercest enemy, alone but surviving. I think that Dante and Guenon complement each other on the threshold of the catastrophic loss of the relationship with being and of finding again complementary phases in the path of salvation that explain the history of this time with a clarity that other specialized disciplines are not able to explain because they unable to understand. Beyond the end of time, that time already many centuries old, we may find ourselves in the fullness of Being, according to the voice full of the bitterness and hope of the best prophets. Everything will only be the pile of the useless, arrogant and vain. Only a voice of the righteous, that is to say, those that have been formed in a different light, will accompany us in the great alchemical change in the third millennium.” (p 100-101)

Scathingly Funny TV Spot Mocks SJWs and Muslim Invaders

via Alternative Right

In this scathing (and quite funny) animated piece apparently broadcast recently on Norwegian television, a pretentious, sanctimonious, self-satisfied, latte-swilling ethnomasocist bloviates relentlessly about how bigoted his countrymen are towards the Middle Eastern "refugees," who, he avers, are in truth quite wonderful people.

A trio of migrants then approach, call him a faggot, catcall his blonde date, before dragging her away before and spitting hot coffee in his face. Yet this experience does nothing to dissuade the cult-marxian to question the premises he holds onto so tenaciously; if anything, his humiliation only cements his conviction.

It is worth a look!

Retrotopia: Lines of Separation

via The Archdruid Report

Author's Note: This is the fourteenth installment of an exploration of some of the possible futures discussed on this blog, using the toolkit of narrative fiction. Our narrator returns from his trip to a tier one county full of doubts about the Lakeland Republic’s prospects, and has those at once challenged and sharpened by a conversation at the local Atheist Assembly...
I’d had lunch with Ruth Mellencamp at a pleasant little diner a block from the station before I caught the train, so I had nothing to do until I got to Defiance but watch farmland roll by and think about what I’d seen since I’d crossed the border less than a week before. My reactions were an odd mix of reluctant admiration and unwilling regret. The people of the Lakeland Republic had taken a situation that would have crushed most countries—an international embargo backed up with repeated attempts at regime change—and turned it into their advantage, using isolation from the capital flows and market pressures of the global economy to give them space to return to older ways of doing things that actually produced better results than the modern equivalents.
The problem with that, I told myself, was that it couldn’t last. That was the thing that had bothered me, the night after I’d toured the New Shaker settlement, though it had taken another day to come into focus. The whole Lakeland Republic was like the New Shakers, the sort of fragile artificial construct that only worked because it isolated itself from the rest of the world. Now that the embargo was over and the borders with the other North American republics were open, the isolation was gone, and I didn’t see any reason to think the Republic’s back-to-the-past ideology would be strong enough by itself in the face of the overwhelming pressures the global economy could bring to bear.
That wasn’t even the biggest challenge they faced, though. The real challenge was progress—the sheer onward momentum of science and technology in the rest of the world. Sure, I admitted, the Lakeland Republic had done some very clever things with old technology—the Frankens blowing drones out of the sky with a basement-workshop maser kept coming to mind—but sooner or later the habit of trying to push technology into reverse gear was going to collide catastrophically with the latest round of scientific or technical breakthroughs, with or without military involvement, and leave the Lakelanders with the hard choice between collapse and a return to the modern world.
A week earlier, I probably would have considered that a good thing. As the train rolled into Defiance, I wasn’t so sure. The thing was, the Lakeland Republic really had managed some impressive things with  their great leap backward, and in a certain sense, it was a shame that progress was going to steamroller them in due time. Most of the time, people say “progress” and they mean that things get better, but it was sinking in that this wasn’t always true.
I picked up a copy of that day’s Toledo Blade from a newsboy in the Defiance station, and used that as an excuse to think about something else once I boarded the train back to Toledo. The previous day’s drone shoot was right there on page one, with a nice black and white picture of Maude Duesenberg getting her sixth best-of-shoot trophy, and a big feature back in the sports section with tables listing how all the competitors had done.  I didn’t pay attention to anything else on the front page at first, though, because another satellite had been hit.
The Progresso IV and the the Russian telecom satellite were bad enough, but this one was a good deal worse, because it was parked in a graveyard orbit—one of the orbital zones where everybody’s been sticking their defunct satellites since it sank in that leaving them in working orbits wasn’t a good plan. There’s a lot of hardware in most of the graveyard-orbit zones, and though they’re well away from the working orbits that doesn’t really matter once you get a Kessler syndrome started and scrap metal starts spalling in all directions at twenty thousand miles an hour. That was basically what was happening; a defunct weather satellite had taken a stray chunk of the Progresso IV right in the belly, and it had just enough fuel for its maneuvering thrusters left in the tanks to blow up. A couple of amateur astronomers spotted the flash, and the astronomy people at the University of Toledo announced that they’d given up trying to calculate where all the shrapnel was going; at this point, a professor said, it was just a matter of time before the whole midrange was shut down as completely as low earth orbit.
That was big news, not least because the assault drones I’d watched people potshotting out of the air depend on satellite links.  Oh, there are other ways to go about controlling them, but they’re clumsy compared to satellite, and you’ve also got the risk that somebody will take out your drones by blocking your signals—that’s happened more than once in the last couple of decades, and I’ll let you imagine what the results were for the side that suddenly lost its drones. Of course that wasn’t the only thing that was in trouble: telecommunications, weather forecasting, military reconnaissance, you name it, with the low orbits gone and the geosynchronous going, the midrange orbits were the only thing left, and now that door was slamming shut one collision at a time.
It occurred to me that the Lakeland Republic was one of the few countries in the world that wasn’t going to be inconvenienced by the worsening of the satellite crisis. Still, I told myself, that’s a special case, and paged further back. The rest of the first section was ordinary news: the Chinese were trying to broker a ceasefire between the warring factions in California; the prime minister of Québec had left on a state visit to Europe; the melting season in Antarctica had gotten off to a very bad start, with a big new iceflow from Marie Byrd Land dumping bergs way too fast. I shook my head, read on.
Further in was the arts and entertainment section. I flipped through that, and in there among the plays and music gigs and schedules for the local radio programs was something that caught my eye and then made me mutter something impolite under my breath. The Lakeland National Opera was about to premier its new production of Parsifal the following week, and every performance was sold out. Sure, I mostly listen to classic jazz, but I have a soft spot for opera from way back—my grandmother was a fan and used to play CDs of her favorite operas all the time, and it would have been worth an evening to check it out. No such luck, though: from the article, I gathered that even the scalpers had run out of tickets. I turned the page.
I finished the paper maybe fifteen minutes before the train pulled into the Toledo station. A horsedrawn taxi took me back to my hotel; I spent a while reviewing my notes, got dinner, and made an early night of it, since I had plans the next morning.
At nine-thirty sharp—I’d checked the streetcar schedule with the concierge—I left the hotel and caught the same streetcar line I’d taken to the Mikkelson plant. This time I wasn’t going anything like so far: a dozen blocks, just far enough to get out of the retail district. I hit the bell just before the streetcar got to the Capitol Atheist Assembly.
Half a dozen other people got off the streetcar with me, and as soon as we figured out that we were all going the same place, the usual friendly noises followed. We filed in through a pleasant lobby that had the usual pictures of famous Atheists on the walls, and then into the main hall, where someone up front was doing a better than usual job with a Bach fugue on the piano, while members and guests of the Assembly milled around, greeted friends, and settled into their seats. Michael Finch, who’d told me about the Assembly, was there already—he excused himself from a conversation, came over and greeted me effusively—and when I finally got someplace where I could see the pianist, it turned out to be Sam Capoferro, the kid I’d seen playing at the hotel restaurant my first day in town. He gave me a grin, kept on playing Bach.
We all got seated eventually. What followed was the same sort of Sunday service you’d get in any other Atheist Assembly in North America: the Litany, the lighting of the symbolic Lamp of Reason, and a couple of songs from the choir, backed by Capoferro’s lively piano playing. There was a reading from one of Mark Twain’s pieces on religion, followed by an entertaining talk on Twain himself—his birthday was coming up soon, I thought I remembered. Then we all stood and sang “Imagine,” and headed for coffee and cookies in the social hall downstairs.
“Anything like what you get at the Philadelphia Assembly?” Finch asked me as we sat at one of the big tables in the social hall.
“The music’s a bit livelier,” I said, “and the talk was frankly more interesting than we usually get in Philly. Other than that, pretty familiar.”
“That’s good to hear,” said a brown-skinned guy about my age, who was just then settling into a chair on the other side of the table. “Even with the borders open, we don’t have anything like the sort of contacts with Assemblies elsewhere that I’d like.”
“Mr. Carr,” Finch said, “this is Rajiv Mohandas—he’s on the administrative council here. Rajiv, this is Peter Carr, who I told you about.”
We shook hands, and Mohandas gave me a broad smile. “Michael tells me that you were out at the annual drone shoot Friday. That must have been quite an experience.”
“In several senses of the word,” I said, and he laughed.
We got to talking, about Assembly doings there in Toledo and back home in Philadelphia, and a couple of other people joined in. None of it was anything out of the ordinary until somebody, I forget who, mentioned in passing the Assembly’s annual property tax bill.”
“Hold it,” I said. “You have to pay property taxes?” They nodded, and I went on:  “Do you have trouble getting Assemblies recognized as churches, or something?”
“No, not at all,”  Mohandas said. “Are churches still tax-exempt in the Atlantic Republic? Here, they’re not.”
That startled me. “Seriously?”
Mohandas nodded, and an old woman with white hair and gold-rimmed glasses, a little further down the table, said, “Mr. Carr, are you familiar with the controversy over the separation of church and state back in the old Union?”
“More or less,” I said. “It’s still a live issue back home.”
She nodded. “The way we see it, it simply didn’t work out, because the churches weren’t willing to stay on their side of the line. They were perfectly willing to take the tax exemption and all, and then turned around and tried to tell the government what to do.”
“True enough,” Mohandas said. “Didn’t matter whether they were on the left or the right, politically speaking.  Every religious organization in the old United States seemed to think that the separation of church and state meant it had the right to use the political system to push its own agendas—”
“—but skies above help you if you asked any of them to help cover the costs of the system they were so eager to use,” said the old woman.
“So the Lakeland Republic doesn’t have the separation of church and state?” I asked.
“Depends on what you mean by that,” the old woman said. “The constitution grants absolute freedom of belief to every citizen, forbids the enactment of any law that privileges any form of religious belief or unbelief over any other, and bars the national government from spending tax money for religious purposes. There’s plenty of legislation and case law backing that up, too. But we treat creedal associations—”
I must have given her quite the blank look over that phrase, because she laughed. “I know, it sounds silly. We must have spent six months in committee arguing back and forth over what phrase we could use that would include churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, assemblies, and every other kind of religious and quasireligious body you care to think of. That was the best we could do.”
“Mr. Carr,” Finch said, “I should probably introduce you. This is Senator Mary Chenkin.”
The old woman snorted. “‘Mary’ is quite good enough,” she said.
I’d gotten most of the way around to recognizing her before Finch spoke. I’d read about Mary Chenkin in briefing papers I’d been given before this trip. She’d been a major player in Lakeland Republic politics since Partition, a delegate to their constitutional convention, a presence in both houses of the legislature, and then the third President of the Republic.  As for “Senator,” I recalled that all their ex-presidents became at-large members of the upper house and kept the position until they died. “Very pleased to meet you,” I said. “You were saying about creedal associations.”
“Just that for legal purposes, they’re like any other association. They pay taxes, they’re subject to all the usual health and safety regulations, their spokespeople are legally accountable if they incite others to commit crimes—”
“Is that an issue?” I asked.
“Not for a good many years,” Chenkin said. “There were a few cases early on—you probably know that some religious groups before the Second Civil War used to preach violence against people they didn’t like, and then hide behind freedom-of-religion arguments to duck responsibility when their followers took them at their word and did something appalling. They couldn’t have gotten away with it if they hadn’t been behind a pulpit—advocating the commission of a crime isn’t protected free speech by anyone’s definition—and they can’t get away with it here at all. Once that sank in, things got a good deal more civil.”
That made sense. “How’s the Assembly doing financially, though, with taxes to pay?”
“Oh, not badly at all,” said Mohandas. “We rent out the hall and the smaller meeting rooms quite a bit, of course, and this room—” He gestured around us.  “—is a school lunchroom six days a week.” In response to my questioning look:  “Yes, we have a school—a lot of,” he grinned, “creedal associations do. Our curriculum’s very strong on science and math, as you can imagine, strong enough that we get students from five and six counties away.”
“That’s impressive,” I said. “I visited a school out in Defiance County yesterday; it was—well, interesting is probably the right word.”
“Well, then, you’ve got to come tour ours,” Chenkin said. “I promise you, there’s no spectator sport in the world that matches watching a class full of fourth-graders tearing into an essay that’s been deliberately packed full of logical fallacies.”
That got a general laugh, which I joined. “I bet,” I said. “Okay, you’ve sold me. I’ll have to see what my schedule has lined up over the next few days, but I’ll certainly put a tour here on the list.”
“Delighted to hear it,” Mohandas said.
I wrote a note to myself in my pocket notebook. All the while, though, I was thinking about the future of the Lakeland Republic. Unless the science and math they taught was as antique as everything else in the Republic, how would the kids who graduated from the Assembly school—and equivalent schools in other cities, I guessed—handle being deprived of the kinds of technology bright, science-minded kids everywhere else took for granted?

Reflections on the Oregon Standoff

via TradYouth

My sympathies are with the ranchers against the federal government, of course. My sympathies are with just about anybody against this regime. While the #OregonStandoff episode isn’t entirely over, I believe we can go ahead and conclude that it was a failure by any reasonable metric. A life has been lost. The leader of the project–who is in custody–is begging the holdouts to call off the standoff and go home, and there’s no indication that the government’s going to budge on the initial issue of the Oregon ranchers being subjected to double jeopardy and egregious “terrorism” charges.

What went wrong?

Scope Creep

When pursuing a political objective, it’s imperative to clearly define one’s objectives and explicitly lay out a proposed roadmap to achieving those objectives. If there were achievable and concrete demands, I haven’t seen them. I saw a flurry of disjointed social media with no central theme, complaining vaguely about tyranny, constitutionalism, the overarching tension between land management and ranching interests, anti-Islam, and from time to time, the proximate issue; the ranchers imprisoned for lighting fires on their leased property.

It costs little money and requires little time and effort to create a centralized web presence for an activist objective which can help define political goals. While the supporters can be motivated by and talking about a broad range of issues, it’s imperative that the stunt itself maintain a laser-like focus. The closest Ammon Bundy ever got to formulating something like a demand was for the family being prosecuted to be straight-up released and for more land to be freed up. With framing like this, it was just a matter of how the project would fail, not if it would fail.

The federal government’s not going to just stop on a dime to appease a handful of angry protesters, …at least not White ones. A more thoughtful approach would have been a demand for specific elected officials to meet with them to address the sentencing of the ranchers. A band of embattled ranchers who just want to have their grievances heard is more effective than a band of militia types crowing about “tyranny” to the general public. And after that demand, you make another incremental demand.

With the proper media hustling and a persuasive delivery of their case, they could have put the government on the spot for the unfair sentencing. The affected family had (wisely) chosen not to support this project, but that can be rhetorically skirted. But the Bundy family were fighting in the way that they’re familiar with rather than in the way that’s likely to win. The American government is militarily invincible yet profoundly vulnerable to the right kind of public moral pressure.

Framing

You’ve got to make the best of the human resources you’ve got to work with. To some extent, it was a foregone conclusion that the hostile media framing would be of a dangerous gun-wielding militia of angry White men who want to overthrow the federal government. While the media wasn’t going to do them any favors, they did themselves no favors either in consistently and repeatedly confirming that narrative in their interviews and social media outreach. They spoke in the imagery and lexicon of the militia movement to the outside world, which was alienating to the general public whose fate they depended on.

This mirrors an internal debate within our own movement over how to manage framing and presentation. To insist that everybody refrain from developing a subcultural mythos and affect chokes off the subculture. For a subculture to become a movement, it must dynamically and organically learn to code switch between ingroup and outgroup interaction. It’s not about deception or even what’s said, but how it’s said. It’s about taking a step back to analyze the interaction and arrive at a lexicon and framing that communicates what needs to be communicated with minimal alienation and triggering.

Whether or not Lavoy Finicum was reaching for a weapon, Finicum and his associates assisted in creating a frame which allowed the federal government to shoot him without the general public being offended or surprised. It’s not as if the FBI wouldn’t have already been concerned that these men were not to be presumed to be unarmed. Had they insisted that they were engaging in a nonviolent demonstration and explained that their firearms on their person were just part of their Country Western lifestyle, they would’ve created space for a counter-narrative to be produced in opposition to the media’s narrative that a gang of anti-government radicals were itching for a gunfight.

Popular Support

When an Islamic jihadi blows something up, tens of millions of his allies around the world cheer for him. When a White Advocate or Militia Patriot deign to do even mild-mannered occupation stuff, the sort of project the #BlackLivesMatter folks routinely engage in, there is little if any popular support. Insurgencies and rebellions against the prevailing order require sympathizers with the vanguard among the general population in order to achieve political relevance.

Whether or not the Oregon Standoff could have been a good idea, the failure to persuasively build and present their case to the American public doomed the project from the start. This sort of magical thinking prevails in right-wing circles. Every political activist would like to think that the general public is just itching to boil over into revolt over whatever their issue is, if only there were a flashpoint of some kind. Unless there’s been a wealth of effort already invested, and the timing and framing are just right, the general public will shrug.

Public sympathy is a bit like a bank account, and the Bundy Family overdrafted their account.

Conclusion

My aim here is to learn from the incident so both my own movement and the Patriot movement can be more effective in the future. I’m not anti-Bundy, though I’m not part of that movement. I’m sympathetic to them. There’s definitely an overlap of concerns. But my struggle’s against the displacement and disenfranchisement of my ethnic folk, not against “big government.” I had hoped to be actively supportive of the project, but refrained from publicly discussing it after it became clear to me that the government was playing it smart and the Bundy Family was not.

A potential opportunity to rally the American public against the outrageous abuse of “anti-terrorism” legislation has been lost, and the national conversation’s now about how to deal with the threat of gun-toting anti-government radicals. To the credit of the Patriot movement, several of its leading voices have been consistently critical of the project, and even predicted that it would most likely prove disastrous in exactly the way that it’s proven disastrous.

My prayers are with Mr. Finicum’s family, with the men remaining in the government building, and with the Bundy brothers. We owe it to them all to think long and hard about the incident to ensure that future right-wing activist efforts can achieve the security and success which eluded this one.