Feb 2, 2016

Give Me Your Huddled Privilege

via Kakistocracy

They are things of such exotic wonder, it really is a shame that more people haven’t been exposed to the underlying premises of accepted liberal pieties. Never discussed and thus rarely seen, these assumptions typically remain as sheltered from inspection as a stargazer fish. But just because a thing is buried under rhetorical silt doesn’t mean it can’t be periodically hauled above the surface to gasps of astonishment.

It’s probably useful to haul something else to the surface even more frequently. That being the foundations of nation and state. One would think this topic might be covered in high school courses, though understandably there’s only so much time for instruction after semester-long indulgences to african grievance. As a result, the topic is explored with less enthusiasm than time dilation in a Tyler Perry film.

As a primer for civics neophytes, such as those who write for conservative periodicals, a small group, alike in customs, temperament, and biology form functional communities. Functional, it must be reiterated for some reason, by virtue of their relatively low-friction homogeneity. Like communities cohere into nations, which claim or conquer land as their countries. States evolve as the political, legal, and enforcement expression of those nations, so that men of good-faith can go earn a living instead of standing on their porch (or border) all day with a rifle.

The state is naturally conceived in a subordinate role to the nation that created it. Though every state strains at its leash, with most inclined to maul any nation so foolish to succumb to negligence. A prudent man doesn’t conjure an entity with powers of imprisonment, then leave it unattended. Jefferson understood this perfectly: his tree of liberty was a metaphor; the blood of patriots and tyrants was not. Unfortunately, the only patriots this torpid nation tends to cheer for wear tights and shoulder pads. Though that’s beginning to change, and the Dorian Gray conservatives can’t stand the picture.

All of which might lead one to wonder what the hell is the point. We could live under hostile states without the trouble and expense of forming them ourselves. Though because our forefathers cherished their children and felt a moral obligation to their continuity, they sought, fought, bled, and died to create a habitat favorable to them. That is to say a country, state, and institutions exclusively for them. And thus an environment of bland privilege over those who were not them. Not one starving hypothermic man at Jamestown suffered with the hope his misery would purchase no benefit to his offspring.

Dearest Jane, I have survived the winter as many did not. With God’s blessing none of this sacrifice will accrue to our children’s inequitable profit. Yours lovingly, John.

Of course the concept is so elementary I must apologize for writing it in an adult forum. But doing so becomes necessary when this ancient proposition gets vomited up on our shoes. And that is precisely the fetid mess we find ourselves standing in. A state presumption of national no-privilege. This being a fairly felicitous state of affairs if you happen to be a member of an encroaching nation. In fact, history offers few such opportunities to lay upon an enemy that is so spiritually necrotic. One that could actually be induced to renounce the privilege fundamental to their national formation and maintenance. Though if chance did favor, well, your destruction of them would be very efficient indeed.

What prompted these contemplations was some mildly good news. There is something slightly less rotten in the state of Denmark.
Denmark Passes Tough New Immigration Law
Sounds nice, but don’t retire to the opium pipe quite yet.
Denmark’s parliament has voted in favour of seizing the assets of asylum seekers to help pay for their stay while their claims are processed. The controversial law is part of a package of immigration reforms designed to make the country less appealing for migrants. The new measures, which also delay family reunions by increasing the waiting period from one to up to three years, had cross-party support and passed with an overwhelming majority.
Under the new measures, valuables worth more than about £1,000 will be seized by police as migrants enter the country to help cover their housing and food costs.
After considerable uproar Parliament clarified that jewelry, including wedding rings, and other sentimental possessions would not be taken.
Well thank Allah for that clarification. Here’s another one: only a clairvoyant could predict the forthcoming explosion in migrant sentimentality. This roll of $100s has been in my family for generations. But that’s less the point. What follows is more…
However, the Danish government claimed the measures have been “terribly misunderstood.” It argued that Danes who want to qualify for social benefits may also have to sell their valuables.
“We’re simply asking that if asylum seekers – in the rare case where they do come with enough means to pay for themselves then – following exactly the same rules as for Danish citizens wishing to be on unemployment benefits – if you can pay for yourself, well then you should pay for yourself, before the Danish welfare system does it.”
Following the exact same rules. Thus the approximately five million indigenous children of men who traversed the Arctic in longboats and carved prosperity out of ice have no privilege in their own country over innumerable opportunistic spores from the Maghreb. I suppose American whites would consider that a promotion. Though for clinical comparison, when a human body follows this program the mortician has a new customer.

But it’s not all to frown.
However, Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen from the opposition left Red-Green Alliance that was against the legislation, said “this is a symbolic move to scare people away” from seeking asylum in Denmark.
That’s solid detective work. Thanks for the laugh, Johanne. Though I would think a man like you would more approve of symbolic moves to dissuade invasion than the much more tangible ones to follow.
Critics said separating families was inhumane and would severely affect integration efforts.
I’m starting to appreciate the sub-sub genre of Danish shitlib humor. Yes, barring mass migration will–in theory–severely affect Denmark/Africa integration efforts. Don’t tell Johanne, but that’s the point.

Though everyone can leave this issue with a smile. As no families need suffer separation a moment longer. The loved ones of every migrant in Europe are ready and eager for reunification in their ports of origin. And isn’t being returned home the greatest privilege of all?

Blacks-Only Dorm Created at UConn

via The New Observer

In what would be attacked as “racist” if done by whites, a blacks-only dormitory is being built at the University of Connecticut’s campus with the official endorsement of that college’s authorities. 

Known as the SCHOLA2RS House—which stands for the “Scholistic [sic] House Of Leaders who are African Amercian [sic] Researchers and Scholars,” the blacks-only dorm is only open to those who “who identify as African American/Black.”

scholars-website

According to Dr. Erik M. Hines, Faculty Director and Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at UConn, the reason why they’re creating this blacks-only living space is because blacks do so poorly at academics that he believes they will do better in an “African American” environment.

“African American males graduate at a lower rate than their peers,” said Hines, adding that the graduation rate for all UConn students was 82.5 percent, whereas for blacks it was only 54 percent.

Hines, who will serve as faculty advisor to the 40 students involved with the project, went on to say that SCHOLA2RS House is “a space for African American men to one, come together and validate their experiences that they may have on campus.” [sic]

“Number two, it’s also a space where they can have conversation and also talk with individuals who come from the same background who share the same experience.”

Stripped of all the verbiage, what Hines is actually saying is that just being in the presence of whites somehow makes blacks do poorly at school, and that the only way this can be remedied is for blacks to have their own dorm.

scholars-house-02

Needless to say, all the UConn students and academics who turned out late last year to vociferously protest what they thought was “white racism,” have remained completely silent on this overtly blacks-only dorm plan.

In addition, the controlled media—which would critically feast on the story for months if any college built a “whites-only” dorm—have remained completely silent or even sympathetic to the “blacks-only” dorm plan.

Blacks—and all racial groups for that matter—have a right to ethnocentric education, and even completely separate education if they so wish.

However, it is significant that the establishment and controlled media condone and actively support any such separation when carried out by nonwhites—but will viciously attack any whites who express a desire to create a space where “white men come together and validate their experiences that they may have on campus.”

Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem, Part 1

via The Occidental Observer

‘Wagner himself asserts about Nietzsche that a flower could have come from this bulb. Now only the bulb remains, really a loathsome thing.’ -Cosima Wagner, 1878.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s puzzling stance on Jews and Judaism has perplexed me for the better part of a decade, so I was intrigued and optimistic about Princeton University Press’s 2015 publication of Robert Holub’s Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism. Broadly speaking, I’m sympathetic to certain elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly its rejection of equality and the concept of the ‘will to power.’ However, I can’t say I ever came close to describing myself as a ‘Nietzschean’ in the same way that the late Jonathan Bowden was fond of doing. One of the reasons for my hesitation in claiming affinity with Nietzsche’s worldview was that I couldn’t escape the impression that its nihilism was often destructive ‘for the sake of it,’ a quality that has endeared it to the Left, past and present. Then there was Nietzsche’s, to my mind unforgivable, habit of lauding the Hebrew over the German. More importantly though, I couldn’t perceive any true coherence or solidity in Nietzsche’s writing beyond his celebrated aphorisms. Taken as a whole, the philosophy of Nietzsche was apt to strike me as too intentionally fluid; too deliberately open to interpretation. Nowhere was this non-committal stance more apparent than in Nietzsche’s sparse, vague, contradictory and often quite opportunistic references to Jews and Judaism.

As one might expect of a philosopher as enigmatic as Nietzsche, his work has been approached awkwardly and suspiciously by scholars and ideologues alike. His attitudes towards Jews, in particular, have been debated, discussed and fought over from the very beginning of his public career. Nowhere, and at no time, was a consensus ever reached. During the Third Reich he was both ‘recruited for the cause’ by some, and rejected outright by others. His foundational place in the National Socialist philosophical canon was thus never assured, primarily because of his nihilism, his hostility towards Nationalism, and his ambivalence regarding Jews. Confusion still reigns. Modern scholarship has been divided between those who condemn Nietzsche outright as a ‘racist’ reactionary and a proto-Fascist, and those who highlight his vocal opposition to political anti-Semitism as thus seek his social exoneration and academic rehabilitation. As noted above, elements of Nietzsche remain strongly attractive to the Left. Therefore, where total exoneration of anti-Semitism has been found difficult, blame for ‘corrupting’ Nietzsche and shaping him as an ‘anti-Semite’ has been attributed variously to his one-time guru, Richard Wagner, or his sister Elisabeth, who married Bernhard Förster, perhaps the leading figure in nineteenth-century political anti-Semitism. The result of these battles has not been a clarification of the historical record, but an ever-thickening web of biased interpretations, white-washing, and pseudo-history.

Holub’s book postures as an attempt to disentangle Nietzsche from the tug-of-war waged on all sides by those who have wished to claim or condemn him, and who have represented his position on Jews and Judaism with biased motives. The book essentially claims to offer the clearerst picture yet on what exactly Nietzsche thought and felt about Jews and Judaism. The first chapter, ‘The Rise and Fall of Nietzschean anti-Semitism,’ returns to the primary problem facing such a project by dealing exclusively with how others, over historical time, have interpreted Nietzsche’s attitudes towards Jews. I found this one of the more interesting chapters of the book. The story begins in Nietzsche’s own lifetime when he was initially suspected of anti-Jewish leanings not because of the content of his writings but because of his brother-in-law and also his publisher, Ernst Schmeitzner, who published anti-Jewish content and was a well-known supporter of political anti-Semitism. More crucial however was the fact that Nietzsche was considered an acolyte of Richard Wagner’s cultural mission, at least until the early 1880s. Since Wagner’s circle was widely associated with anti-modernist, anti-Enlightenment, and anti-Jewish tendencies, these naturally came to be associated with Nietzsche also. Quite apart from the fact Nietzsche’s public remarks on Jews “were infrequent and ambiguous,” based purely on such associational links, many of the leading political and social agitators against Jews in Germany prematurely assumed that Nietzsche was firmly among their number.

NietzscheNietzsche’s general reception during his lifetime was mixed to say the least. His oppositional attitude, his polemics against the status quo, and his vaguely defined (yet epic-sounding) vision of the future attracted praise from an assorted collection of writers. There was, it seemed, something for almost everyone in his philosophy. He drew commendation from Greek scholars for his treatment of tragedy; plaudits from those who agreed with his stance on morality; and admiration from those who delighted in his cutting critique of the hypocrisy of middle-class norms. Those who resented Christianity could find what they wanted in his “ruthless criticism of the Church and its oppressive restriction on human development.” Although he heaped scorn on anarchists and socialists, it is a telling feature of Nietzsche’s abstractions that his writing nevertheless appealed strongly to both. Germany’s conservative nature at that time made Nietzsche’s adversarial quality infinitely more attractive to the Left, and even in the United States he was received primarily as sympathetic to the ‘working-class struggle’ and a champion of individual liberties. Leftist intellectuals chose to ignore Nietzsche’s disparaging comments on socialism, anarchism and feminism because they were so enraptured with his critique of the institutions of middle-class society, which they also hated. Since Jews also hated the culture and institutions of Christian middle-class German society, it should come as no surprise that we also find Jews among his earliest supporters. Like the anarchists, socialists and feminists, some Jews simply chose to block out less appealing aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy, and it is interesting that most of the earliest Jewish comment on his work studiously avoided discussion of its alleged anti-Jewishness.

However, there were some murmurs from wary Jews. Max Nordau, cofounder with Theodor Herzl of the World Zionist Organization, was a searing critic of Nietzsche but tended to avoid directly confronting any anti-Jewish qualities he may have perceived in the philosopher’s work. Nordau instead labelled Nietzsche an “egomaniac” and specifically cited his condemnation of Jews, ‘Israel,’ and Christianity for overthrowing earlier moral systems with a ‘slave morality’ as “insane gibberish,” “delirious sallies,” and “fabulous stupidity.” The French Jewish intellectual Bernard Lazare more openly accused Nietzsche of anti-Semitism in his L’Antisemitisme: Son Histoire et ses causes (1894) for practically the same reason, writing:
After [Eugen] Dühring, Nietzsche, in his turn, combatted Jewish and Christian ethics, which according to him are the ethics of slaves as contrast with the ethics of masters. Through the prophets and Jesus, the Jews and Christians have set up low and noxious conceptions which consist in the deification of the weak, the humble, the wretched, and sacrificing it to the strong, the proud, the mighty.
Negative attention from Jews was rare however. More vocal contemporary opinion on Nietzsche’s attitudes towards Jews came from the anti-Jewish ideologists themselves. These opinions were often shaped as much by personal relationships as by considered philosophical or ideological evaluation. Theodor Fritsch, author of The Anti-Semitic Ten Commandments, made numerous failed attempts to solicit support from Nietzsche before publishing a series of frustrated criticisms of his philosophy. Similar treatment followed from Eugen Dühring and his disciple Ernst Jünemann. Jünemann was particularly worried by the fact that Nietzsche appeared to be enjoying Jewish promotion: a sure sign to the former that there was something rotten in the writings of the latter. He would write in 1897:
The writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who several years ago fell into a state of deep derangement, are currently being purchased and read with great enthusiasm by the public since Hebrew advertisements in particular have propped him up, and Jewish opinion, as is well known, is unfortunately fashionable, which is evidence of how low the intellectual and moral level of today’s dominating social powers have sunken.
Jünemann represented Nietzsche’s philosophical trajectory as a “steady decline into insanity and Judeophilia.” Jünemann outlined “a promising beginning when [Nietzsche] engaged productively with Richard Wagner and Arthur Schopenauer, [but] he strayed from the nationalist and anti-Semitic path in his aphoristic period and descended into irrational argumentation and pandering to Jewish interests in his last writings.” Jünemann attacked Nietzsche for arguing that Jews “are the true bearers of culture and the creator of values,” and raised suspicion over the fact Nietzsche’s fame and financial fortunes improved significantly following his public repudiation of Wagner. Faced with a philosophy that amounted to a “Jewish junk shop” of ideas, the German public would have to decide whether Nietzsche was a master psychologist and Nature a “comedian,” or rather that Nature was true and honest and Nietzsche was “spiritually and morally defective.” Jünemann was clear in his opinion that Nietzsche had no place in the movement.

But Jünemann’s rejection was not entirely representative of contemporary nationalist opinion. There were substantial numbers of völkisch figures who found Nietzsche’s statements about Jews and race difficult to reconcile with their own worldview, but who nonetheless found value in the same oppositional aspect of his work that appealed to the Left. One of them, Adolf Bartels, argued in his 1902 essay “Friedrich Nietzsche and Germanness” that the latter’s attacks on German society were fundamentally different from similar pejorative statements by Jewish writers like Heinrich Heine whose arguments sprang from racial animus. Instead, argued Bartels, Nietzsche had gotten carried away in the heat of a “highly spiritual and ideal temperament.” The philosopher had become “ensnared” in Europeanism and the Enlightenment and had mistakenly turned away from nationalism. Although rejecting the anti-Semitic movement, Nietzsche was merely acting against his brother-in-law, and in truth he was well aware of the ability of Jews to “easily obtain power over Europe and its nations.”

But Bartels’ apologetics for Nietzsche’s work were weak and unconvincing for most nationalists, and Nietzsche’s first great adoption by völkisch elements only occurred during World War I. It was during this great European conflagration that his ruminations on war, battle, struggle and related notions found an urgent resonance. Again, quite apart from specific content, the context of the times allowed for the flexibility of his vague works to lend themselves to militaristic and ethnocentric interpretations. Seizing on the new trend, the Germany Army circulated 150,000 of the cryptic Thus Spoke Zarathustra to the troops, and forty thousand copies of the tome were sold in 1917 alone. Mussolini soon announced his enthusiasm for Nietzsche and asserted that the Fascist movement was the concretization of a national “will to power.” Oswald Spengler, author of Decline of the West (1918) declared Nietzsche, along with Goethe, one of his greatest inspirations. Nietzsche had been transformed, by context more than content, into a Nationalist.

During the Weimar period nationalists displayed a desire to ‘keep’ Nietzsche. Franz Haiser admitted in The Jewish Question from the Standpoint of Master Morality (1926) that Nietzsche was “culturally leftist and contradictory” but argued without further elucidation that he “is irreplaceable for us.” One of the most important texts incorporating Nietzsche into the Right was Alfred Baeumler’s Nietzsche the Philosopher and Politician (1931). Baeumler was a close associate of Third Reich intellectual Alfred Rosenberg, and his monograph was by some degree the most important National Socialist work on the philosopher, running into several editions. Baeumler lauded Nietzsche’s opposition to Wilhelmine Germany, but, in relation to the philosopher’s position on Jews, he was forced to “employ strained arguments that are never entirely convincing.” In the end Baeumler resorted to arguing that Nietzsche only praised the Jews in order to goad the Germans to greatness. The gulf between Jünemann and Baeumler starkly illustrates how literally anything could be read into Nietzsche’s work. Even more stark is the fact that while he was lauded by many in the Third Reich, Nietzsche continued to be admired by the Frankfurt School in exile in the United States.

The post-war period would witness yet another radical re-interpretation of Nietzsche’s work. Liberals had by this time started believing the awkward völkisch reading of Nietzsche and were now confronted with the task of either condemning or somehow absolving the newly discovered ‘racist’ philosopher. Many settled on blaming his sister, Elisabeth, who, as noted, had married a well-known anti-Jewish activist and had forged a relationship with Hitler himself. Writers like Henning Ottmann and R.J. Hollingdale hastened to argue that Elisabeth (a “virulent Christian anti-Semite”) had produced editions of Nietzsche’s work that emphasized themes “friendly to the ideas of National Socialism.”  Elisabeth’s ‘influence’ was of course a lie built on top of another lie — that Nietzsche was a bona fide ‘anti-Semite.’ In a post-war West obsessed with its ‘racist’ past, using Elisabeth as a scapegoat provided the means for Leftist Nietzsche enthusiasts to absolve the object of their admiration from the most grievous accusation that could possibly have become attached to him.

Holub’s analysis of these arguments is quite excellent. Using archival correspondence, he deconstructs entirely the notion that Elisabeth in any way doctored her brother’s work after his death, and throws significant doubt over the stereotype of Elisabeth as a violent, fulminating fanatic. Holub’s portrait of Elisabeth is balanced and often sympathetic. This interesting first chapter ends by pointing out that Nietzsche has been claimed by so many, so often, and with so many differing motives, that any sense of clarity on his position regarding Jews has been lost. The only way to regain this clarity, Holub argues, is to return to a close analysis of primary texts and contextual factors, and the rejection of all received wisdoms, including the conventional understanding of terms like ‘anti-Semitism.’ With the slate now ostensibly cleared, we move forward to Holub’s history of Nietzsche’s true view of Jews and Judaism.

Holub surveys an unprecedented amount of Nietzsche’s private and public correspondence as well as his published writings to write what amounts to a biography of Nietzsche’s attitudes towards Jews. Chapter Two, ‘Youthful Remarks and Encounters,’ is an enjoyable stroll through Nietzsche’s childhood and very earliest writings. A survey of his family tree debunks the accusation, made by Jünemann, that he had Jewish ancestry. His childhood town of Röcken had no Jewish inhabitants, and in the whole of Prussian Saxony Jews constituted just 0.3% of the population. It is perhaps not surprising then that Jews are entirely absent from Nietzsche’s writings and correspondence right up until he moved to Leipzig to enrol at the University, at the age of 25, having first completed a degree at the University in Bonn.

Leipzig was a city famous for its trade fairs, which attracted a large influx of Jewish traders and merchants. For the first time, Nietzsche was exposed to a significant number of Jews in one place. Coming from a ‘Jew-free’ environment, Nietzsche is actually the perfect case study for the rational development of negative attitudes towards Jews. A handful of letters to his mother and sister dating from this time reveal that he regularly emphasized the unsavory impact of the Jewish tradespeople on the city. Importantly, he does so without referencing ‘stereotypes’ or appealing to Christian traditions about Jews. Nietzsche’s commentary is much more journalistic. His attempts to finish a book are hindered by the disruption of the trade fair, and “everywhere you look there are Jews and associates of Jews.” Writing on the final day of the fair in October 1868 Nietzsche expresses relief that the city will soon be free of “the smell of fat and the numerous Jews.” Remarks like these are fairly self-explanatory. To Nietzsche, the crowds, the exchange of money, and the influx of a foreign people among the citizens of Leipzig were simply unhealthy and unwanted distortions of the city’s normal, healthier life.

Holub’s analysis, however, follows the standard Jewish-academic line. He can’t accept that anti-Jewish feeling can be this logical or natural, and so he argues instead that Nietzsche’s remarks “must have emanated from personal contact with friends and acquaintances.” No evidence is presented in support of this argument. Holub is left perplexed about where the remarks could have come from because “during his student years there is no evidence that Nietzsche read or pursued authors who exhibited Judeophobia or texts that contained Judeophobic themes.” The simple fact that Nietzsche, like many Leipzig citizens, found this mass orgy of Jewish trading distasteful is overlooked in favor of theoretical abstractions about ‘anti-Semitism.’ Disappointingly then, very early in the book Holub reveals that a primary thesis underpinning the study is that anti-Semitism is simply an ideological, psychological, and prejudicial virus that is contracted from others rather than a natural reaction to direct experience with Jews. My initial enthusiasm for the book began to evaporate at this point.

Chapter Three, ‘The Wagnerian Vanguard,’ covers Nietzsche’s early relationship with Richard Wagner. By the time Nietzsche had been introduced to Wagner, the latter had already become well known for his animus towards Jewish influence on German society. Many Leftist apologists for Nietzsche have found easy prey in Wagner. The maestro, more than anyone, is held responsible for an increase in Nietzsche’s alleged hostility towards Jews. Although Holub postures his book as a retort to scholars like these, he actually makes essentially the same argument. Referencing the innocent college letters from Leipzig, Holub writes that as a young man “Judeophobia was not well developed in [Nietzsche’s] writing or thought, but it formed an unstated background for his intellectual endeavors, ready to be activated by the right person. Wagner was that person.”

Nietzsche first met Wagner, via mutual friends, following an invitation from the composer in 1868. Wagner played from the Meistersinger and the small group discussed Schopenhauer until late evening. The pair instantly hit it off, and when Nietzsche received his professorship at Basel in 1869, he became a frequent visitor at Tribschen, where Wagner and his family lived until 1872. While 1869 was a pivotal year for Nietzsche’s career, it was also a memorable one for Wagner. In 1850 Wagner had published the essay Jewry in Music under the pseudonym K. Freigedank (K. Freethought). In 1869, despite advice from his friends and even his wife, Wagner re-published the piece as a pamphlet, divulging his authorship of the original and adding further thoughts and reflections. The move provoked a predictable storm, as influential Jews moved quickly to destroy the composer. His operas were disrupted, and the every organ of the Jewish media was used to annihalate his reputation.

Nietzsche never personally commented on ‘Jewry in Music,’ but his correspondence reveals that he did read it in its entirety and that he claimed to agree with its message. When a friend wrote to him admiringly of the pamphlet in 1870, Nietzsche replied: “That we are now also in agreement with regard to Richard Wagner is for me completely reliable evidence of how we belong together. Because it isn’t easy and demands a vigorous, manly courage not to be led astray by the alarming racket. … Our ‘Jews’ — and you know how widely this concept extends in particular despise Wagner’s idealistic manner.” Although overlooked by Holub, the last sentence prefigures an ambivalence in Nietzsche’s attitudes to Jews that would last throughout his life. True, Jews were an oppositional element of society, but they were difficult to define. A German, to Nietzsche, could be just as ‘Jewish’ as a Rothschild if he or she displayed enough ‘Jewish’ traits. This certainly opened the door to a justified critique of those non-Jews serving Jewish interests, but by blurring the boundaries and obfuscating the role of race and ethnicity, Nietzsche also moved dangerously close to an erroneous worldview.

Though perhaps ambivalent towards the Jewish Question, Nietzsche was undeniably in tune with Wagner when it came to animosity towards those aspects of modernity most closely linked with the rise of the Jews in Germany: the hegemony of journalists, the press, newspapers, new ‘trends’ in art, and the stock market. He was a critic of both Berthold Auerbach and Felix Mendelssohn, whom he argued produced works typified by foreignness, jargon, mawkishness and internationalism. Even if we accept that Wagner had some influence on Nietzsche in adopting certain positions in the ‘culture war,’ we can by no means place too much weight on the composer’s influence. At Basel one of Nietzsche’s closest colleagues was the historian Jacob Burckhardt, described in one dedication as “my honored friend.” Burckhardt was unequivocally opposed to Jewish emancipation, and believed that everything of worth in European culture was due to its Greek and Roman heritage rather than the Jewish tradition. He would have baulked at the idea of Europe as a ‘Judeo-Christian’ cultural entity, and he was firmly convinced that Jews were responsible for the worst manifestations of modernity. Early in his career Burckhardt wrote to a friend that the presence of Jews in a theatre would be sufficient to entirely destroy his enjoyment of the event.

Although Holub makes the argument that Nietzsche was awed by the likes of Wagner and Burckhardt and adopted their views out of star-struck mimicry, I read a quite different history in the evidence provided. I do not believe that Nietzsche ever became as fully versed in the Jewish Question as many of his contemporaries, but I do see a gradual learning process between 1868 and 1873 where he gains a grasp of the fundamentals. In addition to this, he continually articulates a natural and impulsive distaste for aspects of Jewish culture and behavior. His letters to his mother show that he associated Jews with unsavory business practices, tastelessness, and low cultural attributes. Writing to his mother about a tour around Switzerland in 1872, he describes his fellow travelers before commenting “unfortunately there was a Jew among them.”

In 1872 these feelings and ideas came closest to intellectual expression. In January and February of that year Nietzsche delivered two lectures, ‘The Greek Music Drama’ and ‘Socrates and Tragedy.’ Despite their fairly innocuous titles, the lectures dealt with key aspects of the Wagnerian cultural program: that modern opera had become greatly distanced from its ancient cultural roots, and that Jews were having a deleterious impact on contemporary art and culture. Nietzsche, taking his cue from Wagner, argued that genuine tragedy was mysterious, instinctive and profound. It was also able to be conceived and appreciated only by Europeans. By contrast, ‘Socratism,’ identified with rationalism and dialectic, eradicates instinct and with it art. ‘Socratism’ had also become a historical force in its own right, in the form of this-worldly Judaism. Nietzsche would conclude his second lecture by stating:
Should the Teuton have nothing else to place at the side of that vanished artwork of the past except the ‘grand opera,’ something akin to the ape appearing next to Hercules? This is the most serious question of our art: and anyone who, as a Teuton, does not understand the seriousness of this question, has fallen into the Socratism of our times, which, to be sure, is neither capable of producing martyrs, nor speaks the language of the wisest Hellene. This Socratism is the Jewish press: I’ll say no more.

Three Frogs in a Pot: A White Whateverist Fable

via Compulsory Diversity News

One day, three unfortunate frogs found themselves stuck in a cook pot with a glass lid on it. How they got there is a matter of some debate. Regardless, the water in the pot was getting increasingly, uncomfortably warmer, and it dawned on two of the frogs that they were in mortal peril.

Frog 1 looked up from his philosophy book and said, "Do you think it's getting warmer in here?"

Frog 2 finished his beer, threw the empty can over his shoulder, and said, "Yeah man, I think it is."

Frog 3 just stared off into the distance, ignoring the other two frogs.

Bookish Frog: I think the chef is trying to turn us into soup!

Lowbrow Frog: Don't blame the chef, the guy who runs the restaurant is a total greedy fucking bastard.

Silent Frog just stared off into the distance.

Bookish Frog: Of course the owner bears some responsibility, but that's not the point. Somehow we have got to figure a way out of this trap!

Lowbrow Frog: You just want to escape and not fight back against the assholes who put you here? What a pussy.

Bookish Frog: Ughhh... it's useless talking to you. Hey there, quiet friend, certainly you too can see the danger we are in?

Lowbrow Frog: Yeah ... you know the score, don't you brah? It's time we go on the attack and make these murdering fucks pay!

Silent Frog just stared off into the distance.

Bookish Frog: Are you advocating violence in this situation?!?

Lowbrow Frog: No man, that's retarded. I am against violence - it's counterproductive. Now is the time to use our brains to fight.

Bookish Frog: I agree! So here's my plan. I have begun disassembling my book and moistening the pages with my saliva so they will stick together. Soon, I will have created an unsinkable life raft that will weather the storm to come!

Lowbrow Frog: HA...HA...HA! What the fuck? You think you can ride this shit out on a paper boat soaked in spit? What a loser. Brah - this guy is nutz, don't listen to him.
Silent Frog continued to stare off into the distance.

Bookish Frog: It's not a paper boat soaked in spit! It is a mighty vessel of moral soundness, crafted from the works of the greatest philosophical minds in frog history! 

Lowbrow Frog: Pfffttt. Faggot.

Bookish Frog: Fine then? What's your brilliant plan for the future?

Lowbrow Frog: See - I am already on it. That's how good I am. This ain't no waiting around for things to get better, what I'm doing is happening now. Do you feel it? It's happening!!!

Bookish Frog: What's happening? What are you talking about?

Lowbrow Frog: The plan, man. Ready for this? I just took a shit in this pot.

Bookish Frog: You did what?!? How in the world is that going to help us?!?

Lowbrow Frog: Don't you get it? If we all shit in this pot together, then we spoil the soup. Nobody will want to eat shit soup! They'll dump us out - just like I'm about to - oooo ... ermmmppp ... ehhhhhhh .... Yep, there, I just helped the struggle again.

Bookish Frog: Stop doing that, you idiot!

Lowbrow Frog: Typical. Name-calling and attacking me because you're jealous I'm actually making a difference. See, you don't hear quiet guy complaining, he gets what I am doing for us.

Silent Frog continued to stare off into the distance.

Bookish Frog: No he doesn't! He is ignoring you like any sane frog would.  And while you were busy polluting the waters, I prepared this engraved invitation for him to join me at my next conference about the threat we face. I've even invited a particularly horny toad to teach us all how to be better frogs.

Lowbrow Frog: It's not me he is ignoring, it's you! You're all talk and no guts! Look at this ... I just posted a picture of my latest turd on my Ribbit feed and got 10,000 croaks. How many frogs even know about your little queerbo conference?

Bookish Frog: Mr. Toad's sexual orientation is his personal business! Your homophobia is why our quiet brother remains aloof! If I didn't know better, I would say you're controlled opposition meant to keep us from successfully securing a future for our tadpoles!

Lowbrow Frog: There you go again, attacking me! Now that sounds like what controlled opposition would do! Fuck you! Hey, quiet brah ... time to hop out of here right? On the count of three you and me jump and will knock the lid right off this pot. Ready? 3!

Silent Frog continued to stare off into the distance while Lowbrow frog struck his head against the unbudging lid.

Bookish Frog (sarcastically clapping): Bravo! Ha! You really took the fight to our enemy! Looks like our silent friend has made up his mind and realized it is time to join me aboard the S.S. Who We Are. Come friend, the steam is rising - it's time.

Lowbrow Frog: Whatever man. Fuck both you faggots.

Silent Frog continued to stare off into the distance.

Bookish Frog (grasping silent frog by the arm): What's the matter friend?

Lowbrow Frog: Yeah what's the matter? Doesn't he  want to go on your gay honeymoon cruise?

Bookish Frog: ... He's dead.

Lowbrow Frog: Duuuude... But look at the size of the dump he took when he died! We'll be out of here in no time!

The Kool-Aid Cult

via Radix

No longer a nation . . . and more than an idea . . . America must become a religion. Its martyred savior is MLK. Its sacrament is “Holocaust Remembrance.” Its crusade is to save, convert, and redeem the powerless, colored masses yearning to be brought into the Light. 

The profit . . . er, prophet . . . who will lead us on this sacred quest is none other than the avatar of the Third Great Awakening, the chosen one indwelt by the Holy Founders, Glenn Beck.

Beck’s self-image as an Incarnation of the American Creed was spectacularly revealed when he recently endorsed Ted Cruz. As part of his speech, he asked Cruz, “What is the oath of office you have to take?” For once, the sociopathic, calculating Cruz looked utterly nonplussed and remained silent, eliciting a “What, what?” from Beck.

But when Beck asked again, Cruz, one hand stuffed in his jeans, another raised as a pledge of his sacred trust, dutifully responded, “I pledge to honor and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

The crowd cheered.

Beck beamed.

But it wasn't the Oath of Office . . .

No matter. The incident is a perfect example of Beck’s approach. His entire career has been to create a fantasy version of U.S. history and identity, which has proven powerfully resonant among confused White Americans. As every traditional institution and moral authority turns against the White people who created them, Beck assures them that this is simply a kind of test. He styles himself as a legitimate American authority in exile, even to the extent of creating a full Oval Office set and giving mock State of the Union addresses from his television studio.

Beck provides a comforting alternative to the hard realities of demographic dispossession, arguing that it is not American ideals that have failed but simply our collective adherence to them. Like a preacher who tells us a plague or military defeat has been caused by our lack of faith, Beck is calling us to repent and believe, not just in God, but in an idiosyncratic political creed that seems to exist only in his ever shifting imagination.

It wasn’t long ago that Beck was being denounced by the American Left not just as crazy but positively dangerous. One could even see glimpses of Beck playing footsie with the the emerging Alt Right and Liberty movement, by investigating certain premises of the Establishment consensus, including Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts to get America into World War II, the role of the Federal Reserve, and the legality of secession. Beck’s habit of educating his audience via his famous chalkboard gave the impression that he was operating as a political autodidact in real time and his ideological evolution could take him in any direction.

But Beck proceeded to reinvent himself, not so much as a political commentator as a spiritual leader. More accurately, he reinterpreted politics in spiritual terms. One could argue this was done out of necessity. Beck is, after all, a Mormon, a faith the overwhelming majority of American Protestants do not consider part of Christianity. Instead of urging American evangelicals to get on their knees and discover the wonders of the Pearl of Great Price, Beck reinterpreted American history in religious terms, with the Founding Fathers serving as the original apostles who spread the true faith.

Thus, at Beck’s “Restoring Honor” event in 2010, hundreds of thousands of White people gathered to seek political salvation through a vague plan of spiritual renewal mixed with patriotic nostalgia. Portraits of Samuel Adams, George Washington, and Ben Franklin (exemplifying, apparently, Faith, Hope, and Charity) beamed upon the proceedings. The late Christopher Hitchens recognized the gathering as the first faint stirrings of White racial populism . . . though accurately summarized the message as “a call to sink to the knees rather than rise from them.”

Though Hitchens (unlike many alarmist liberal commentators) saw Beck’s limp-wristed rally for what it was, he still argued a European-style nationalist movement was inevitable in the United States. As he put it in words that now seem prophetic:
It will be astonishing if the United States is not faced, in the very near future, with a similar phenomenon [to European nationalism]. Quite a lot will depend on what kind of politicians emerge to put themselves at the head of it. Saturday's rally was quite largely confined to expressions of pathos and insecurity, voiced in a sickly and pious tone. The emotions that underlay it, however, may not be uttered that way indefinitely.
I’ll say.

Also observing the rally, Samuel Phillips at The Occidental Quarterly speculated that the Tea Party/Beck strategy of a faux populist strategy limited to goals like “cutting spending” is dangerous to its organizers. Such an approach can’t help but tread on “dangerous territory,” taking only a spark to move towards nationalism, and eventually, explicit identitarian politics. That moment has arrived.

But Beck’s entire ideological and spiritual program depends on steering people away from such impulses. The natural and inevitable conflict of interests between different peoples is incompatible with an American Creed that supposedly holds all problems will be solved if we adhere to “limited government” and the Constitution. Thus, Beck has always been focused on the element of conspiracy to explain what he sees as the heretical deviations from the American faith.

Beck once investigated George Soros, an act which he claimed cost him his job on FOX News. Needless to say, his investigation of the “puppet master” did not focus on Soros’s Jewish heritage, except to allege Soros was an “anti-Semite” and a self-hating Jew who was acting out of disgust for “tribalism.” Beck’s own critique of Karl Popper and the “Open Society” was shallow and unconvincing. It couldn’t be otherwise, as Beck thinks of himself as a classical liberal, and is thus just as wedded to “human rights” as any member of the global elite. All Beck can manage is to draw up maps with SPLC-style “links” to various progressives who don’t scare anyone except true believers.

Becks’ book The Overton Window was similarly incoherent. A monstrous conspiracy (conveniently stored on PowerPoint) is discovered to destroy America by promoting fear and “collectivism.” The book inadvertently reveals the ultimate danger of interpreting politics through the lens of “What” instead of “Who.” Various historical figures and ideologies are lumped together with only a vague coherence. The heroic and appropriately ethnically diverse opposition to this scheme fights a shadowy elite following a plan encompassing the nefarious ideological visions of people from Woodrow Wilson to Saul Alinsky.

And in the years that have followed, Beck has resembled some crank at some Bolshevik newsletter, printing out obscure tracts on a mimeograph. Even as the actual constituency that supports American conservatism grows increasingly angry and dispossessed, Beck’s definition of the “true” American identity has grown more arbitrary and abstruse.

Since starting The Blaze, perhaps gun-shy after investigating Soros and being accused of racism and anti-Semitism, Beck has focused a great deal of his fire on the Right, especially any perceived ideological challenge to classical liberalism. Beck was especially excitable about the “truly terrifying” Alexander Dugin, sharing National Review’s weird Warhammer 40K fantasies that Dugin is the Ever-Chosen of the Chaos Gods.  Beck has sounded the alarm about the “far Right” rising in Europe, because it supposedly has an interest in “instability” and undermining capitalism. And most spectacularly, Beck insulted those in his own audience who support Donald Trump as “racists” and suggested Trump may follow the program of Adolf Hitler.

Beck combines this policing of the Right with acts of virtue signaling towards the Left. One of the most outlandish was his recent declaration he would smuggle (supposedly Christian) Syrians into the United States. Conscious this is a crime, Beck boasts that he is willing to go to jail for his beliefs, though one can hardly picture Barack Obama serving in his designated role as Diocletian. After all, Beck’s crime of importing Third Worlders who will vote Democratic until the actual Second Coming is already official policy. But in Beck’s mind, he is a new Bonhoeffer, indeed someone who will save more people than Oscar Schindler (Peace Be Upon Him).

Bewildered conservatives told Beck Muslims are already faking conversions to Christianity in order to claim asylum and such a plan would almost certainly lead to Muslim terrorists being admitted into the United States. In response, Beck claimed, “We have former CIA people who are going over and they’re vetting everybody right now,” an assertion that raises more questions than it answers. . .

But Beck is not a modern liberal who believes religion simply doesn’t matter. His new book is It IS About Islam, a phrase that is all but illegal in the birthplace of Anglo-Saxon liberty. As with many conservatives, Beck regards Islam is unacceptable because it has proven so resilient to assimilation by the gods of the marketplace. What Beck is trying to do is convert the entire world to a rival religion of “Americanism,” a universally applicable creed of limited government, anti-racism, and the Constitution. A non-ecumenical form of Christianity (which includes Beck’s Mormons) serving as a sacral glue holding all of this together.

Naturally, this requires reimagining the Founding Fathers as indistinguishable from modern conservatives. Beck has championed controversial “historian” David Barton and his attempts to rehabilitate Jefferson for the Religious Right as an anti-racist champion of Christianity. Not surprisingly, Barton also heads up a Ted Cruz Super PAC. And Beck has gone so far to compare Ted Cruz to George Washington.

In a recent interview with Beck, Ted's father, Rafael Cruz, waxed theologically:
The Constitution of the United States is a divinely inspired document. It is the greatest document that has ever been written, outside of the Bible.
Beck's response: "It is. It is."

The heretic to Americanism Beck targets today is, of course, Donald Trump. Beck is leading the charge against the Republican frontrunner because of Trump’s supposed lack of support for “the Constitution.” But Beck’s “Constitution” isn’t merely the Constitution. Beck isn’t talking about a document that lays out how the state is supposed to function. It’s a kind of holy text, an American Scripture, which, properly interpreted, gives us guidance on every aspect of life.

We see this in the specific accusations he’s made against Trump for not being a true “constitutional conservative.”

For example, Trump is alleged to be a “dangerous man” who will abuse his power. But this charge is made in tandem with the accusation Trump has been too open to cutting “deals” with Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. This makes no sense; if Trump was actually going to govern as the fascist dictator we all wish he would be, he wouldn’t be negotiating with Congress at all, let alone with leaders of the other party.

Trump is supposedly not a “real conservative” because he supports eminent domain. But eminent domain is one of the few things the government does that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. It is also required to accomplish projects “real conservatives” like Ted Cruz support, such as the Keystone Pipeline.

Trump is not a “real conservative” because he supports ethanol subsidies. But Cruz doesn’t want to scrap it, merely to phase it out over five years. (This is the same kind of trick Barack Obama did with his healthcare plan, making sure the costs are delayed until they can no longer politically harm him.) And Cruz supports subsidies to oil companies, perhaps because they are more important to his political base in Texas. Indeed, if you actually cared about eliminating such subsidies to local interests, the only way to do it would be to support a powerful national leader who would ignore checks and balances and eliminate such inefficiencies at the stroke of a pen.

The weakness of the arguments suggests there’s something deeper at work, something even beyond Beck’s fear of White identity politics. One’s tempted to say it’s because the point of conservatism is to lose gracefully, to honor the form while losing the substance. And Trump is actually a fairly typical “movement conservative” when it comes to issues like taxes, gun control, Common Core, and the like. Beck’s problem is not with Trump himself. It is with what Trump represents.
Beck’s strange faith (and business model) requires a political and cultural environment that allows White Americans to believe their world is coming to an end without such a cultural collapse actually occurring. It’s LARPing America, as we rally to the defense of the Republic in a consequence-free environment where we don’t have to risk anything.

But the stakes are now too high for that. Beck is appealing to symbols that have been stripped of meaning for many Americans. Absent a sizable White majority that can take the core culture and religion for granted, Beck’s entire frame of reference collapses. The fanaticism of Beck’s war on Trump suggests this deeply unstable man is attacking him as a form of denial, a way to somehow prove that rules haven’t changed and that the old slogans and the old symbols are still relevant in the Identitarian Age that is emerging.

Trump heralds a new age of identity politics that has no place for “movement conservatives,” their goofy rhetoric about the Constitution, and their hypocritical exploitation of White resentment. The reason Trump is rising is because once accepted universally White symbols like the Founding Fathers and the Constitution are being deconstructed. There is a palpable sense of an existential confrontation. A war of peoples, is imminent. Trump is only the beginning.

Of course, our time has not yet come. Perhaps Trump’s hasn’t either. Despite the polls, Trump should not be considered the favorite in Iowa. The caucus process favors Ted Cruz’s ground game and the well-organized “movement conservatives” who live for this. Nostalgia for the “old Reagan coalition” may allow Cruz to win this first contest and allow Beck to claim a victory.

But it will be a final victory, not Beck’s oft-prophesized revival. Beck’s professional collapse has already begun, as his website and television network are bleeding viewers and his staff is defecting. Trump’s candidacy has shown immigration is the defining issue for the grassroots American Right, and it has reduced the value of Becks’ moral shaming tactics. And cracks have even formed in the evangelical coalition itself, as Trump’s appeal to evangelicals shows at least some White Christians are open to an identity-based approach on the basis of opposing Islam. Beck is even warning “they” are going to shut his network down, and has floated the idea of fleeing to . . . you guessed it . . . Jerusalem.

The irony is that to survive, in the United States anyway, Beck may actually need Trump. After all, Donald Trump isn’t really a huge threat to the old American order. He’s The Last American, a “strong leader” still willing to work within the old constitutional framework. Instead of stubbornly cutting entitlements and ignoring infrastructure, and so provoking a crisis, Trump seems motivated by a genuine desire to borrow both from the Old Left and the American Right to keep the System going.

For now, Trump is fueling the rise of the Alt Right. But if he somehow makes it to the real Oval Office (as opposed to Glenn’s fantasy set), there’s even a case he’ll serve as a safety valve by reassuring White Americans they are still tied to the regime.
But if Trump fails to become President, the next manifestation of American nationalism won’t be a promise to “Make America Great Again." It will be about establishing a radical alternative to what has been proven a failed experiment deeply hostile to the founding population.

Glenn Beck, priest of a dead god, has nothing to say to such a movement. He has nothing relevant to say on the issues that matter, and he’s slowly transforming from a media personality into the leader of a cult. If we’re lucky, he won’t just be the leader but the only member. Sadly, one suspects he’ll take plenty of White Americans along with him on his journey into oblivion.

Swedish Patriots Defend Their Volk

via Transudationism

Patriotic Swedes defended their people in and around Stockholm's main train station last night beating up invaders and anyone who threatened ethnic Swedes.

Before the attack, the group of 200 people handed out nationalist leaflets with the message 'Enough now'.
Swedish media reported that the patriots attacked so-called 'youths' with an invader background.

The patriots, wearing all-black balaclavas and armbands, 'gathered with the purpose of attacking invader predators' Stockholm police spokesman Towe Hagg said. 'Police are now looking into the leaflets that were handed out by the Swedish patriots before the act of self-defense'.

Authorities confirmed that at least 40-50 people went on a patrol at 9pm on Friday night doing the job Swedish police refuse to do. 

Witnesses told Aftonbladet newspaper that they saw a gang of black-clad patriots defending ethnic Swedes from invaders at the station.
 
'I saw maybe three people who were beaten. That was no football brawl or something similar. They targeted invaders. I was quite scared and ran away,' a witness said.

The leaflet handed out before the attack refers to the murder of Alexandra Mehzer, a 22-year-old aid worker knifed to death at the child centre where she worked in Molndal, Sweden. 

A Somali-born 15-year-old invader has been accused of killing her during a fight between two invaders.

'All over the country, reports are pouring in that the police can no longer cope with preventing and investigating the crimes which strike the Swedish people,' reads the leaflet.
'In some cases, for example, in the latest murder of a woman employed at a home for so called ‘unaccompanied minor refugees’ in Molndal, it goes as far as the National Police Commissioner choosing to show more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victim,' it continues.
'But we refuse to accept the repeated assaults and harrassment against Swedish women.'

'We refuse to accept the destruction of our once to safe society. When our political leadership and police show more sympathy for murderers than for their victims, there are no longer any excuses to let it happen without protest.'

'When Swedish streets are no longer safe to walk on for normal Swedes, it is our DUTY to fix the problem,' the leaflet reads.
 
'This is why, today, 200 Swedish men gathered to take a stand against the north African ‘street children’ who are running rampage in and around the capital’s central station.'

'Police have clearly showed that they lack the means to stop their progress and we se no other way than to hand down the punishment they deserve ourselves.'

'Those who gathered today are neither your politician, your journalist or your policeman. We are your father, your brother, your husband, your colleague, your friend and your neighbour.

'The justice system has walked out and the contract of society is therefore broken – it is now every Swedish man’s duty to defend out public spaced against the imported criminality.' 

'Swedish men and women deserve safety in their everyday life and we are therefore calling on all others who also see the problem to follow in our footsteps, both in Stockholm and in other places around the country. For a better future together'

On Saturday, a 47-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of assault for punching a ZOG enforcer in the face. 

Three invaders have also been arrested on Friday night for disturbing public order.

Last week, Swedish police warned that Stockholm's main train station has become unsafe after being ‘taken over’ by dozens of Moroccan street invaders.


Members of the gangs, some as young as nine, roam central Stockholm day and night, refusing help provided by the Swedish authorities.

Sweden has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Moroccan under-18s who apply for asylum without a parent or guardian in the past four years, with many later running away from the housing provided to live on the streets in the capital. 

Stockholm police estimate that at least 200 Moroccan street invaders move in the area around the main train station in the centre of the capital, sleeping rough, and living off criminal activity. 

The issue of the Moroccan teen gangs first made headlines last year, and the situation has since escalated with Stockholm police demanding authorities to take action.

Desperate officers have started arresting the invaders for public drunkenness in order to get them off the streets for a few hours, with the policeman adding that they are 'on our knees'.

The gangs are made up of young males who have grown up on the streets of Casablanca and Tanger in Morocco, where authorities estimate there are around 80,000 such people.

They have all applied for asylum Sweden as unaccompanied minors after travelling through Spain and Germany, a journey which may have taken them years.

"Disproportionate" Is a Code Word for Egalitarianism

via Alternative Right

Finish the sentence:
‘Jews are disproportionately represented in…’
Whether we’re talking about Nobel Prizes, the banks, Hollywood or any other well-paid profession, you’re guaranteed to read or hear the term ‘disproportionately represented’ thrown about generously online. I’m not for a moment suggesting that Jews don’t do well – they do – but I am suggesting that the term ‘disproportionate’ is out of place and redundant. It’s not entirely meaningless, but it simply isn’t relevant if we’re talking about the qualities of an ethnic group.

I regularly see the word being used inaccurately to describe the actions of Muslims, too. The BBC reported in March 2015 about the ‘disproportionate representation of Muslim men at all stages of the criminal justice system’ – a claim made in a 2014 report by Lady Lola Young of Hornsley. With a name like that, she’d be better off in porn than the House of Lords.

In regards to the success of the Jews, we must remember the historical context, and that they have needed to remain literate, intelligent and driven in order to even survive as a people. Like the Japanese, they have a culture of encouraging their children to be as studious and successful as possible – and, if you’re a believer in the racial bell curve, the Ashkenazis are one of the most intelligent ethnic groups on earth. Their success is therefore not ‘in excess’ of what one would deem normal or expectable, and therefore the term ‘disproportionate’ isn’t applicable. Their success is the proportionate result of Jewish history and culture.

In terms of the Muslim claims – despite making up 4.8% of the population in England and Wales (according to the 2011 census, and a figure that has since increased), Muslims now make up 14.4% of our prisoners. There has been a 122% increase in the amount of Muslim prisoners in England and Wales since 2002, but it’s still not disproportionate.

To be disproportionate, something must be ‘to a higher degree’ than is unacceptable, undesirable or unallowable. It must also be to an ‘excessive’ degree – but, who exactly is in charge of deciding what degree is excessive or unacceptable? And, for that matter, why are we assuming that everyone begins on a level footing? We certainly don’t.

This is why anybody on the political or ideological right referring to these cases as ‘disproportionate’ infuriates me – it is based on the assumption of equality. In terms of the success of the Jews, assuming we’re talking in racial terms, the notion of ‘disproportionality’ is based on the idea that all ethnic/racial groups have the exact same biological and cultural traits. In terms of Muslims being ‘disproportionately’ represented in the prisons, it is based on the assumption that Muslims have the same ethical standards as Westerners – they don’t.

The doctrine of the perfect man, or Al-Insan al-Kamil (which translates to ‘person who has reached perfection), says that the Islamic prophet Muhammed is a shining example of ethics for every Muslim. He is said to embody all of the divine attributes of God.

This same "perfect man" married a six-year-old girl called Aisha, and consummated that marriage at nine years old (Hadith of Bukhari, Volume 5 #234). Furthermore, after arriving in Medina with his followers in 622 AD, Muhammed began sowing the seeds of division. After evicting the Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa tribes, he laid his focus on the peaceful tribe of Banu Qurayza. In 627 AD, Muslims dug trenches around the northern and western parts of Medina, during a conflict known as the Battle of the Trench. Banu Qurayza had pledged to remain neutral, but Muhammed claimed that the angel Gabriel later ordered a siege on the peaceful Qurayza (Ishaq/Hisham 688). The Jews protected themselves for 25 days, but soon surrendered.

Muhammed’s people took the men, bound them with rope and beheaded them in trenches. All those with pubic hair experienced the same fate (Book 38, #4390). Children were taken as sex slaves for his men, and some Qurayza women were sold as slaves (Ishaq 693). 


Islam: morality built on sand.
Muslims cannot therefore be on an equal footing to Christians and non-Muslims. Their perfect man engaged in this behaviour. Therefore, we cannot logically deduce that Muslims committing similar acts of paedophilia or violence are on an equal ethical footing to us. With this in mind, the percentage of Muslims in British prisons is proportionate. There is historic reasoning for these crimes taking place, meaning that these events are not in ‘excess’, but are representative of a violent ideology.

It is simply a matter of Muslims doing what their perfect man would want them to do – in the same way that old Christian women hold ‘bring and buy sales’ to pay for the repair of the leaking church roof.

If there is historic or statistical reasoning to suggest that two groups do not begin on an equal ethical footing, it is therefore not disproportionate to see these groups represented differently in schools, prisons, professions or otherwise. It is entirely proportionate.

Israeli Travel Agencies Collude to Increase Price of “Holocaust” "Education" Trips

via The Realist Report

According to a report recently published by The Times of Israel, Israeli law enforcement officials and investigators have arrested nine suspects in what Israeli authorities are describing as an organized effort by private travel agencies to artificially increase the price of “Holocaust” education brainwashing trips to Poland for Israeli school children.
Jewish greed, deception, and treachery – even against their own kind – knows no bounds.

Screenshot (101)

Nine suspects were arrested in what Israeli police believe is a criminal ring that monopolized the market for school trips to Poland in an effort to fix prices.
Among those arrested following police raids Monday morning on homes and offices were a high-level staffer of a large travel agency and two CEOs of smaller agencies, according to police spokeswoman Luba Samri. Israel’s antitrust authority also included searches of bank accounts in its investigation.
The suspects are accused of violating antitrust laws, accepting bribes and committing fraud.
The antitrust authority alleges that officials in the top travel agencies teamed up to fix prices for groups of young Israelis traveling to Poland for Jewish seminars and heritage trips.
According to Israeli media reports, the suspects won the tender from Israel’s Ministry of Education to coordinate and facilitate school trips to Poland.
Organized school trips to Poland are commonplace for young Israeli students. They typically cost parents thousands of shekels, sparking criticism that they are often inaccessible to lower-income students.
Can you believe the nerve of these Jews?

The fake “Holocaust” narrative, the multi-billion dollar industry it has spawned, and its centrality to Jewish identity is already outrageous enough – now we have reports of Israeli travel agencies colluding to increase the price Jewish school children must pay to visit Auschwitz and other sites in Europe in order to have their minds poisoned with ridiculous propaganda.