Feb 11, 2016

The Filth Makers

via The End of Zion

Here is a short video where Jim Rizoli talks about the Jews behind the pornography industry and my article The Holocaust Hoax and the Jewish Promotion of Perversity.

The video is from last August but I just now came across it. Thanks to Jim for the kind words. Check out his website CCFIILE and the excellent interviews at his The League of Extraordinary Revisionists channel.

I’m now working on an extended essay on the Jewish role in promoting pornography and obscenity in America, beginning with the 1880s as soon the Jews began arriving in significant numbers, and covering their preeminent role in the liberalization of obscenity laws, the comic-book industry, Hollywood, the sexual revolution/counterculture, feminism, and pornography in general (which is why this site hasn’t been updated very often). It will be published here in 8-10 parts hopefully by the end of the year, and then subsequently in printed and e-book form, and hopefully it will help to awaken some people to this menace in our midst.

Gagging at the Circus of Killer Clowns

via Darkmoon

I know we shouldn’t put too much faith in the results of an Iowa caucus, seeing that one year citizens of that Cornbelt state gave an overwhelming victory to an inane Arkansas ex-governor named Mike Huckabee, whose most infamous gaffe was defending a politician who suggested there actually was a category called legitimate rape.

That was 2008. In 2012, Iowa caucusers got even stupider, and made their choice Rick Santorum, a Bible-thumping dodo who became infamous for telling rape victims to make the best of a bad situation.

But seeing Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the New World Order’s dream ticket, gang up on outsider Donald Trump and win the Iowa caucus once again bodes poorly for anyone seeing the faintest trace of hope that this 2016 slate of candidates would offer some possibility of either honesty or sanity.

The idea put forth by some that Microsoft manipulated the recent Iowa vote to deprive Trump of his predicted victory is about as relevant as noting that in the 2000 election when Bush the Younger won the Florida vote by 537 votes, and among Al Gore’s vote totals was the striking official number of minus 17,000 votes in Volusia County, an abomination that was allowed to stand.

For the fact is, Gore has proven as immoral a tyrant as Bush, and eight years later, billionaire Mitt Romney would have been at least as aggressive in Obama in presiding over criminal invasions of nearly helpless countries, as well as the fleecing and poisoning of the American electorate.

And I don’t know how much better Trump would be, who once made a campaign ad for Benjamin Netanyahu, as he talks about building up America’s mighty criminal military.

I don’t know how far back you have to go — perhaps to JFK? — to find a president who was actually working for the best interests of the American people. All the others took their orders from the same kind of people who are running the show today, rich Jewish billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and George Soros who have convinced generations of American males to bend over and pucker up for kosher cash.

There is no shortage of absurd anomalies that render the U.S. presidential race as nothing more than a TV game show of the lowest order which most Americans unbelievably continue to believe is serious business. This is how depressingly superficial American citizens have become. One need only consider that for the last 16 years, closet homosexuals have lived in the White House, and for eight years before that a serial philanderer lived there with his lesbian wife who is now herself running for president (if she can successfully avoid indictment for a seemingly limitless number of crimes).

Perhaps deepest in the bowels of America’s ugliest secrets is the cabal of doctors, judges and health administrators who funnel children into the dirty hands of rich men. Thousands every year. This is even more secret than the 9/11 coverup, poison medicines protected by laws, and the trashing of the environment that makes sickos rich and those who would be healthy surrounded by new diseases that are invented nonstop by those who contribute to all political candidates.

It’s awfully difficult to raise honest children in this immoral environment, particularly when the school systems have long been taken over by Jews enthusiastically eager to progressively diminish school curricula down to autistic levels, and redirect the emphasis of college educations to transsexualism, child molestation and money laundering.

One may measure the dramatic decline in the integrity of America by the pathological presence of these disgusting perverts in positions of power.
And one may also gauge the amoral self-destructiveness of America’s younger generations and their ever growing drug addiction as a direct result of gutter behavior of U.S. leaders over the past few decades.

It is preposterously laughable that casino magnate Donald Trump is the most moral candidate in the 2016 race. This is the horrifying level to which the USA has sunk. The Donald himself is only an amusing illusion, because the one lethal fact still stares us in the face — every single announced candidate in all the major parties will hasten our day of destruction, continue the murderous policies of their predecessors, and continue down the bloody path dictated by the Jewish world plantation owners of trading lives for money.

And that would be trading OUR lives for OUR money.

We’re so desperate for good political news that at least we can cheer the pathetic performance of Jeb Bush, hopefully the last of his ignoble line of pervert traitors, who resorted to paying feckless Iowans $25 per head to show up at his rally before the caucus, an effort which gained him 3 percent of the vote. Of course a number of people who attended claimed they didn’t get paid, which fits right in with an American population who insist they didn’t get their money’s worth either out of either Bush presidency.

And we can roll our eyes at the news that Marco Rubio was a gay boy in a chorus line before marrying an NFL cheerleader to demonstrate his hetero credentials. At least it was not a man he married! But if elected president, he would be the third fag inhabitant of the White House in a row, sending a wonderful message to the young boys of America that the decrepit Jewish pederasts in charge of the U.S. political process would thoroughly enjoy.

As someone who once, as a little boy, saw Harry Truman drive past his house in a yellow Buick convertible while campaigning for Adlai Stevenson, I have yet to see one presidential administration that was not utterly corrupt and utterly intent on betraying the American electorate so they could be enriched by their Jewish masters.

Yes, you could exclude JFK from that list had he not stolen his election with the help of the Chicago machine, a machine now ruled by the Jewish henchman Rahm Emanuel who has taken the guns from the people and elevated his city’s murder rate to an all time high, just the way the Jews want it, just like Palestine, really.

The intent of all these bought-off politicos, we can see now as we are overun by Third World savages interested only in plunder, was to destroy the United States so everyone could come under the control of the Jewish corporations, which is the situation we see before us today.

No benefits, no overtime, no decent place to go home to, medical bills you can never pay. The way Jews want America to be, and all sorts of bogus candidates eager to achieve that objective.

The litmus of legitimacy

On our present course, Americans will never regain their freedom, if a president is not elected who will provide definitive answers to the following questions that remain unanswered.

1. Who planned, executed and covered up the 9/11 disasters? The undeceived among us know for sure it was the Jewish overseers who control the government, the money and the law enforcement apparatus in the United States.

But now another generation has passed through the public school metal detectors, fed on the lies of the neocons, the Communists and the LGBT automatons. An endless series of contrived false flag atrocities have manipulated the lesser lights among us into believing that we should relinquish our weapons and trust in the government to protect us.

Doctors are the worst of these lesser lights. They are still telling us that flu shots are good for us when everybody knows they are killing us, just like the Tdap vaccine is suspected as the culprit in the so-called Zika epidemic.

Doctors say that’s absurd. But can you believe them? <http://www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/health-experts-slam-antivaxxers-zika-virus-conspiracy-theory-as-absurd/news-story/a53d0aaa03cc73922916cd63143bff6e >.

But then, doctors are about as trustworthy as politicians, right?

We should all ask a veteran about these promises, if we can find one who hasn’t committed suicide or is not a drug addict. He will tell you that every veteran of every war is eventually betrayed by his own government. Check under your local bridges and find out for yourself.

2. Has our government been replaced by a corporation, and is that why we can’t get decent services anymore?

This is a question that has come to the fore in the midst of the chaotic events in Oregon. The BLM, the FBI, the IRS and all other so-called government agencies are really private corporations, beyond the control of the American people, and owned by the European bankers (which is a euphemism, of course, for the Jews).

Did the events of the Civil War, the disappearance of the original 13th amendment, the incorporation of the District of Columbia in 1871, the Santa Clara decision of 1886, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the bankruptcy of American and confiscation of everyone’s gold in 1933s mean that we no longer have a government. The Rothschilds think so. They just tried to buy America, claiming nobody owned it.

Is this brouhaha the argument that could finally remove the Jewish owned tyrants from power in the United States? This is the third straight story in which I have mentioned this, seemingly our last and best chance for freedom.

We are the owners of America. Will we continue to the let the Jews and their psycho homo politicians steal it from us? When will you start to pay attention?

3. Is the United States now a vassal of Israel, controlled by Jews from start to finish?

You saw the travesty of Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress and all the American politicians groveling at his feet.

You know that every major media outlet and movie studio in the U.S. is owned by Jews, you know that the Jews have gained control of every major university in the country by their colossal donations, and you know — if you dare to remember — that the Jews hire the U.S. to do their killing for them all over the world.

And yet Obama, and all the candidates running for president, know that the U.S. and its Jewish allies are funding the ISIS insurgency destroying the nation of Syria and now even turning up in Afghanistan. Injured ISIS fighters go to Israel for medical treatment, did you know?

So here we are, gagging at the circus of killer clowns, watching our politicians snuggle up to the weirdo Wailing Wall in Israel, and mingle with the killers we hired to destroy nation after nation at the behest of the nastiest, most brutal group of psychotic killers ever seen on this planet.

Now, let’s see. Who are you going to vote for? Hmm. Too bad Rick Santorum dropped out. Maybe we can send him some Muslim refugees to live in his backyard, just like all the other candidates plan to do for us.

Russell Kirk: The Conservative Giant Conservatism Inc. Wants You to Forget

via VDARE

Russell Kirk, the Sage of Mecosta,
in front of his Michigan home
He was once credited as the leading figure of the “Conservative Intellectual Movement” (to borrow George Nash’s phrase) but today Conservatism Inc. wants to keep Russell Kirk in obscurity. Luckily, Bradley Birzer, the Russell Amos Kirk Professor of History at Hillsdale College, has written what may be the definitive Kirk biography Russell Kirk: American Conservative. It will hopefully have the valuable effect of showing how what masquerades as “American conservatism” has almost nothing to do with the vision or values of the man who once defined it.

Birzer’s impressive accomplishment is especially noteworthy because there’s been no lack of Kirk biographies. Two such works, one by my late colleague H. Wesley McDonald and the other by Gerald Russello, were published by University of Missouri Press with my heartfelt recommendations. But neither book shows the breadth and exhaustiveness of Birzer’s Herculean research.

georgenashconservativemovementClearly the author was aiming at being thorough. He covers just about everything his subject published and left behind in his correspondence over a fifty year period. Unlike the commendable works of McDonald and Russello, Birzer is not offering an engaging picture of Kirk, viewed from a particular angle. He is telling us everything that one might care to know about a leading figure of the post-World War Two “Conservative Intellectual Movement”.

But aside from his obvious appreciation of Kirk as a mentor, Birzer may have undertaken this labor of love to rescue his subject from the oblivion to which Conservatism Inc. has consigned him. After the publication of The Conservative Mind in 1953, Kirk was considered the leading thinker of the American Right. Today, a widely-consulted list of the one hundred most influential conservative books by Goodreads doesn’t even bother to mention Kirk’s once-widely praised books The Conservative Mind and The Roots of American Order. Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism places fifth on the same list.

There’s also been an increasing trend of publications such as National Review promoting some of Kirk’s intellectual opponents, such as the late Harry Jaffa, into conservative icons [Harry Jaffa, RIP, by Richard Brookhiser, National Review, January 12, 2015]. Jaffa stressed “equality as a conservative principle” and viciously disparaged Kirk whenever the occasion presented itself. In his work, Birzer quotes Jaffa-disciple and Reagan biographer Steven Hayward, who extolls Reagan for having saved “conservatism” from a fate worse than death—that is, from “having gone in the direction of Russell Kirk, toward a Burkean tradition-oriented conservatism.” [The Vindication of Harry Jaffa, PowerLineBlog, July 4, 2011]

Birzer is understandably upset by this, and by Jaffa’s relentless invective against Kirk as someone who had been “rabid in his denigration and disparagement of the Declaration of Independence and of the principle of human equality.” But Kirk’s critics are writing generally as defenders of the present version of “liberal democracy.” Meanwhile, they attribute a “counterrevolutionary” impetus to a political holding action that barely even delayed the assault of radical egalitarianism. The truth is Russell Kirk became a convenient punching bag for the Establishment, and men like Jaffa simply swung away.

As Birzer surely recognizes, Kirk was never in tune with American political realities. His “gothic imagination” and his fondness for English romantic critics of the Industrial Revolution never fit in with what passed for the American Right, especially in political and journalistic circles. Kirk’s gifts, like those of his friend Flannery O’Connor, were literary. On this point I agree entirely with my longtime adversary David Frum, who depicted Kirk as an aesthetic conservative who left behind an arresting literary vision. Kirk offered us “a vivid and poetic image—not a program, an image” of what a good society would look like. [The legacy of Russell Kirk, New Criterion, 1994]

Kirk’s version didn’t fit with the Beltway. Kirk’s vision was premodern and aligned with early nineteenth-century classical conservatism. Kirk praised its defense of social hierarchy, its stress on the sacramental and supernatural elements of human experience, and Kirk’s revulsion for all efforts at homogenizing human societies. There was nothing in this vision that could possibly appeal to the present Republican establishment or what calls itself mendaciously the conservative movement. I speak as Kirk’s personal friend—Birzer presents me as his subject’s political ally in the Sisyphean task of opposing the (probably inevitable) neoconservative takeover of Conservatism Inc.

And there may be very little in Kirk’s vision that could now translate into any political movement, even of the Right. The current celebration of Donald Trump as the bane of the Leftist-neocon establishment may have much to recommend it. But what I and many VDARE.com readers like about Trump has nothing to do with what Kirk set out in The Conservative Mind as “canons of conservatism.” Trump is not defending the diversity of human experience or inherited social hierarchy. He is simply taking a wrecking ball to the Leftist establishment.

Even Kirk had to compromise to a changing American society. He watered down his canons in successive editions of his seminal work, lest he offend the changing readership of the movement that he supposedly helped created. But he was never a part of that political movement. He and it simply moved along parallel lines, at least for a time.

If there was anyone Kirk did influence, it was isolated intellectuals of the cultural-social Right. I myself was one of them in the late 1960s. Birzer recounts how I sat in Kirk’s office in his home in Mecosta, Michigan circa 1970 and watched with wonder how my host typed well-turned sentences on an antediluvian typewriter. Every sentence came out in perfect sequence no matter how often Kirk was interrupted by his wife or took time off to puff on a cigar.

The figure of the American intellectual Right whom Kirk may have paralleled most closely was his friend, the social theorist Robert A. Nisbet (1913-1996). Birzer notes that Kirk’s magnum opus came out in the same year as Nisbet’s Quest for Community (1953) and that their works overlap thematically. Both authors deplored modern atomistic societies and the use of political ideology as a substitute for traditional organic ties. Such ties could still be found, we are told by both authors, where the premodern world was allowed to survive. Kirk and his more academically prominent friend worked equally hard to revive the classical conservative legacy (although unlike Kirk, Nisbet was more heavily marked by Continental traditions of conservatism than he was by British ones [Robert Nisbet, 82, Sociologist And Conservative Champion, by Robert Mcg. Thomas Jr, New York Times, September 12, 1996]).

Although both men were once celebrated by Conservatism, Inc. as part of its largely contrived pedigree, it is impossible to see how either luminary influenced its evolution. Hayward and National Review rightly identify whatever movement they’ve cobbled together with progressives like themselves.

Birzer tells us far more about Kirk’s cultural and literary achievements than he does about his political stands. This may be appropriate: Kirk was hardly a political activist. But Birzer makes it appear as if Kirk and Ronald Reagan belonged to a mutual admiration society and their relation was marked by complimentary references to each other.

This isn’t quite true. Reagan and some other politicians paid Kirk tributes, but I doubt any of them read any of his books. Kirk was never honored by being asked to deliver a Jefferson Day Lecture sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities, an honor given to, among others, Robert Nisbet. The reason, we are told, is that William Bennett and other neoconservatives who ran that operation despised Kirk as an eccentric reactionary. But while this is true, as an observer at the time, I can say there was more to it.

As the Reagan presidency wore on, Kirk became thoroughly disillusioned with an administration he had once welcomed. His disillusionment with Reagan is well documented in Wes McDonald’s biography of Kirk. And one can trust Wes’s veracity since as a fervent Republican loyalist as well as Kirk’s onetime assistant, he would have had no reason to exaggerate the difference of opinion expressed by one of his heroes about the other one.

Moreover, to whatever extent Kirk indicated his political views, they were certainly not conventionally Republican ones. Although Kirk graciously sheltered refugees from then-Communist Ethiopia in his own home, he became critical of “immigration reform,” a position that he shared with the former liberal presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy. Kirk supported McCarthy’s presidential bid in 1976, but not simply for the reason that Birzer gives—that Kirk admired McCarthy’s “independent judgment.” He also shared McCarthy’s growing concern about immigration from the Third World getting out of hand.

Nor do I recall Kirk ever saying anything sympathetic about the Civil Rights movement, although to his credit Birzer does not suggest anything to the contrary. The reason was certainly not that Kirk was any kind of scientific racialist. However, he was profoundly distrustful of the agitation that accompanied the Civil Rights upheaval and the demand that a centralized administrative state reconstruct social relations.

A memory that Birzer’s monumental work confirmed for me was Kirk’s largely nonpolitical Anglophilia. But although one would be hard put to find anyone who embraced the Anglo-American cultural tradition more fervently than Kirk, this never translated for him into the kind of foreign policy associated with liberal internationalists and more recently, neoconservatives. Kirk shared the negative attitudes of his hero of the 1940s, the libertarian Alfred J. Nock, toward Wilsonian internationalism. He deplored American intervention in World War One, even on the side of the Mother Country. He viewed America’s participation in the Great War as contributing to greater European discord.

At least part of Kirk (and this was equally true of Nisbet) belonged to the American isolationist tradition. Given this inclination and given his emphasis on Christian humility, he must have cringed in disgust when he heard the neocon beneficiaries of the Reagan administration call for spreading “human rights” to the entire human race.

The truth is that Kirk is a subversive figure for the contemporary American Right. His legacy is more complicated than serving as the intellectual founder of “American conservatism.” His thought was infinitely more sophisticated, and insightful, than anything coming out of the official “Conservative Movement.”

It’s no wonder the Beltway Right seems to have forgotten him. Hopefully, this new work will introduce him to another generation.

Identity Crisis

via Radix

Conservatism, Inc. is more confused about its identity than Bruce Jenner. One day it’s “Judeo-Christian” values, the next cosmopolitan libertarianism, tomorrow it’s liable to be penning a defense of furries(laugh now). But what remains constant, is its inability to defend America’s historic European majority as Europeans.

Over at the Nation, erm, I mean National Review Kevin “the Cuck” Williamson is here to inform us once again what “True” Conservatism™, is all about. He starts with a negative, telling us what conservatism is not, and that is white males. In particular working class white males who voted for Pat Buchanan. Such men have probably never even been to a theater, much less read one of Kevin’s banal theater “reviews” (Exhibit A in bourgeois conservatism’s class insecurities).

Per Kevin:
The Buchanan boys are economically and socially frustrated white men who wish to be economically supported by the federal government without enduring the stigma of welfare dependency. So they construct for themselves a story in which they have been victimized by elites and a political system based on interest-group politics that serves everyone except them.
Yes Kevin, it’s not as if whites are not dying at alarming rates, and their dispossession is not celebrated in elite quarters. After all, it’s not like their children are growing up in an America vastly changed from their own. They don’t have legions of academics who study ending “whiteness”, and they obviously don’t see themselves being taken out of ever more places in our media/linguistic matrix.

No Kevin, these men must be suffering from false consiousness. Way to Marx, bro.

After all, if it wasn’t for the siren call of “big government” all of these hicks would just get back to work and sing paens to the glorious free market utopia of Chairman “Lao”wry at NR. You see for Kevin, and the broader “conservative” movement in general, it’s not about fighting for a particular people but is in Kevin’s words, “rooted in classical liberalism, and…is universalist”(Exhibit B, pretentious signaling about the “real” liberalism).

He is right though, conservatism, as undertood by the luminaries over at NR and filtered through “classical liberalism”, is univeraslist. In fact, it’s just yesterday’s model of today’s liberal orthodoxy (Exhibit C, adopting ideological positions long after they ceased to be “radical” in any meaningful sense). But, if it’s a politcal philosophy for all, then it will be for none.

Kevin notes that conservatism, at least as he understands it, “provides them no Them”, which negates having a political philosophy altogether. The inability to draw a friend/enemy distinction in political discourse is worse than dumb. It’s dangerous to any polity.

This sort of half-cocked reasoning is intelligible once one understands what it is American “conservatism” has failed to do. That is defend and protect the people that founded this country. The “Republic” or the “Constitution” are worthless without the particular people that gave birth to them. Our people.

So, conservatism is in an intellectual crisis.

Will it continue to merely spout yesterday’s “universalist” platitudes, or will it actually realize that there is something worth conserving and that it is who we are.

Presidential Treason?

via Koinen's Corner

Allegations have surfaced that the Obama administration has sabotaged efforts of the Department of Homeland Security to identify Muslim terrorist activity and thereby prevent terrorist attacks.

Here is the link:
  
DHS Official: I Was Ordered to Purge Records of Islamic Terror Ties

Here are the main questions:  Are these allegations true?  Do they have any basis in fact?

If they are true, that would seem to raise a number of other very important questions, namely:

  • Who in the administration is responsible?
  • Could the orders have come down from Obama himself?
  • Are there any ongoing investigations by the Justice Department?  By Congress?
  • If not, why not?
  • Surely, if the charges are validated, someone has deliberately obstructed the lawful efforts and processes of  the DHS, have they not?
  • What crimes have been committed, if any?
  • Is it possible that any wrongdoing involved could rise to the level of treason?
It would seem to me that these kinds of accusations are so serious, and involve such serious potential damage to American citizens, that they demand thorough investigation. 

Time to Exit NATO: A History of the Middle-East in Two Decades

via Traditional Britain Group

Summary: Traditional Britain Group Vice-President Gregory Lauder-Frost argues for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from NATO and the quagmire of conflicts in the Middle-East.

President of Iraq announces he loathes Israel and also decides to recover Kuwait -which had been part of Iraq anyway until detached for a local band of Bedouin chiefs.

USA enters the scene, as its proxy state of Israel (or is that the other way around?) is “threatened” and likewise its other proxy state, Saudi Arabia feels “threatened”.
USA now drags its proxy military arm, NATO, into Gulf Wars. This is nowhere near the North Atlantic. Iraq gets kicked out of Kuwait. Lull in the wars.

USA now engages in an anti-Iraq propaganda war including “weapons of mass destruction” lies, gets its puppet NATO states on side (including Blair) and invades Iraq intent on “regime change”. Iraq defeated. Entire government murdered by NATO after court hearings which make Nuremberg look fair. NATO, having destabilised and utterly destroyed a secular country and its infrastructures, where Christians, Jews, and Muslims had lived side by side most satisfactorily for 2000 years, departs.

Phase Two. Syria. A peaceful secular state where Christians, Jews and Muslims have lived side by side in harmony and protected by the state for 2000 years. Syrian government has full international recognition and is even feted. However, they don’t much like Israel either, and the USA decides that as the Syrian government have very friendly relations with their new bogeyman, Iran, which also loathes Israel, they must be eliminated.

After the Iraq mess, the USA does things by proxy this time. Gets the Saudis to fund terrorists (who are then also externally armed) inside Syria who then start an insurgency and civil war. USA and their proxy NATO states now start a propaganda war (ably assisted by the BBC) against the government of Syria. Suddenly it has become “the regime” and President Assad (a qualified doctor who worked for years in London) a “butcher” (said David Cameron).

Syrian army fights back against the terrorist insurgents. This is displayed by the USA and NATO proxies as “shocking” and “barbaric” as though had a terrorist insurgency or civil war started, say, in the UK, the government army there would do nothing about it. Western states now start saying how shocking it is that civilians are suffering and whole cities destroyed (forget about World War II) and how it is all the fault of the Syrian government, not the terrorists who by now include external elements including Al Qaeda.

Following the destruction of Iraq, a new force of Islamic lunatics appear on the scene: ISIS. They now start a march of death and destruction across Iraq and into Syria while selling oil to the Turks (NATO country) and others at the same time bringing them millions of dollars in revenues. Thousands of Islamic extremists from inside Europe (where they should never have been permitted to reside) and other places go to Syria to join these fanatics who are now murdering en masse.

Western leaders continue to say it is all the fault of the Syrian “regime” (regime change has not happened!) and start moaning about the refugee crisis. Meanwhile NATO forces start bombing indiscriminately what they say are ISIS targets. Sheds, a few trucks etc. Kill a few lunatics. Somehow fail to spot mile long oil convoys.

Russian Government agrees to requests from the legal Syrian Government for assistance. Starts bombing ISIS oil convoys and huge ammunition depots as well as known established ISIS and terrorist strongholds. USA/NATO call Russians “aggressors” and say their bombings are causing a refugee crisis. (Yes, you couldn’t make this up!)

Western governments hold pretend peace meetings in Switzerland without inviting Syrian government. Continues to talk about regime change.

Why is the United Kingdom part of this crackpot NATO organisation and a lapdog for the USA and their endless wars?

Attack of the Paleosaurs or the Dangers of Sectarianism in Politics

via Counter-Currents

Graphic: Voivode Wingate
It appears that polemics against “white nationalism” have become quite the trend at Chronicles, the flagship publication of paleoconservatism. A couple weeks ago I responded to Aaron Wolf’s article “Incidentally White” at radixjournal.com, and now I discover that only a month earlier, editor Chilton Williamson, Jr. had produced a broadly similar piece under the title “White Like Me.” On the very same day, executive editor Scott Richert managed to slip some strictures against “white nationalism” into an article ostensibly devoted to the rock band Cheap Trick (“The Cheap Trick of Whiteness”).

What’s all the excitement, guys? Afraid of losing your readership to Radix, Counter-Currents, American Renaissance, or The Occidental Observer? (I’m forced to speculate here, as it is a common fault of Chronicles writers not to make clear precisely whom they are criticizing.)

In the interests of full disclosure, let it be known that I read Chronicles regularly from 1997 until the passing of my favorite contributor, Sam Francis, in 2005. I am well disposed to the people working there, even more so since the departure of the magazine’s ursine former editor. Moreover, I have no special attachment to the label “white nationalist,” which I think a clumsy term that should not be necessary to describe people who are doing the most natural thing in the world, viz., resisting their own dispossession. But since many of those I write for or associate with are designated “white nationalists,” whether by themselves or by others, I shall once again try to say a few words in our collective defense. As should go without saying, this is not intended as a defense of everything every skinhead gang in the world has ever said or done.

In fact, there exists no catechism anywhere telling “white nationalists” what they must believe in order to maintain their right to that moniker. “White nationalism” refers to a broad political tendency with blurred boundaries. The term would seem, therefore, to require some care in handling, but the usual practice of Chronicles’ editors has been to place “white nationalists” on the side of the goats along with ideology, abstraction, Enlightenment, and various other devil-terms, while assuming that they themselves are safely on the side of the lambs with conservatism, tradition, Christianity, and flesh-and-blood people and communities.

This conceptual sloppiness is unfortunate, as Chilton Williamson in particular says a number of things which will resonate powerfully with readers of the present website. He recalls a moment spent in a particularly attractive corner of old London and describes how he

felt a sudden access of fury, struck by the thought that . . . all this storied historical loveliness is on the verge of being inherited by barbarians who did not create it, know nothing of the civilization of my people from whence it sprang, and have neither interest in knowing it nor attachment to it.

Somewhat farther down he adds:

[I]n  the present crisis of Islamic jihad, the conclusion that Islam and the West are  wholly incompatible things, and that immigration from Muslim societies should be denied altogether, is an humane as well as a culturally and politically sensible  one. Indeed, it is simple common sense. So is a discriminating immigration policy that, though rejected by liberals as “discriminatory,” is the only one any sane government that takes seriously its responsibility for the present national welfare and a consistent and coherent future for the country it is entrusted with would think of adopting.

Given this essential agreement with those he is criticizing, what exactly are Mr. Williamson’s objections to “white nationalism?”

1. Firstly, he devotes a lot of space to a silly remark by some unnamed internet troll that “the Italians are not really a white people” — without, alas, explaining why this should be taken as an authoritative expression of “white nationalism.”

2. Similarly beside the point is his allegation that “white nationalists begin by defining as ‘white’ people who look like themselves and work backward from there to determine who is, and who isn’t, ‘white.’” This appears to be a variant of the charge that racialists are interested in skin color or other physical traits rather than in the people for whom those traits are a (rough) marker. Clyde Wilson has not found this line of argument beneath himself either. Relax, Chronicles — if “white nationalists” are that stupid, you need not worry yourself about them.

3. Like Aaron Wolf, Mr. Williamson associates “white nationalism” with ideology and abstraction. By calling it an ideology, he means that white nationalism “claim[s] to provide the key to history by revealing its end in the dominance of the white race.” Here I can only challenge him to name a single “white nationalist” — or indeed anyone at all — who has ever made such a claim. These first three lines of argument are all forms of the straw man fallacy; no “white nationalism” exists such as Mr. Williamson describes.

4. Mr. Williamson’s most interesting objection is that “white nationalism is not a political concept at all,” which he seeks to justify with the following reasoning:

[W]hile many predominantly white countries are known to history, no white-nationalist one has ever existed. . . . There were indeed white tribes in premodern times, but no white nations built up from exclusionary, pseudoscientific principles. No such project has ever, indeed, been contemplated up until recent times.

This is, of course, true. But is it really due to a baseless fascination with biological taxonomy on the part of some eccentric “white nationalists” who recently appeared on the scene for no reason? Is it not rather because there exists today, as there never has in the past, a large and powerful political movement united by little more than hatred of the people of Europe, the desire to marginalize them and ultimately — taking the tendency to its logical conclusion — to destroy them? If you really want to understand “white nationalism,” Mr. Williamson, look to its enemies: e.g., Noel Ignatiev, George Soros, the tenured “critical theorists,” the Southern Poverty Law Center, etc., etc.

John Derbyshire recently said something insightful bearing on this matter (Radio Derb, December 18, 2015):  A few decades back one could get a pretty good idea of someone’s overall political stance by finding out how much he hates rich people; the equivalent today is finding out how much he hates white people.

Derbyshire is correct. A sea-change has occurred in political alignments throughout the Western world, and the folks at Chronicles are stuck in the company of white lefties as the last to take cognizance of it. “White nationalists” are not responsible for this shift; it was brought about by those for whom nationalists, conservatives, and the European and American working class are but a single indistinguishable mass of “white racists.” These people do not hate conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, or Chronicles subscribers: they hate persons of European descent. And as I have written elsewhere, it is the prerogative of the aggressor to choose where a battle shall take place; we must meet them on the ground they have chosen, and that ground, it is increasingly obvious, will be race and nothing else.

There is a place for debates about the precise limits of biological inheritance as an explanatory factor in human behavior, but that place is not in the midst of a political battle. When the enemy is no longer at the gates but actually ruling over you, you can no longer afford the luxury of refusing to fight alongside anybody who disagrees with you about speculative or philosophical matters.

There is even a word for those who make this type of mistake: sectarians. Burke famously defined a political party as “a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.” A sect, on the other hand, is defined in my dictionary as “a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine” (My emphasis). A doctrine is something broad, containing many different and interconnected principles.

Sects tend to be small, for it is not easy to get a large group of men to agree to a detailed and comprehensive doctrine; in practice, they usually coalesce around acceptance of some type of religious authority. Politics, on the other hand, is about alliances among men who may disagree on everything apart from the principle which defines the alliance. Sectarianism in politics is a recipe for ineffectiveness because it deprives one of allies necessary to the success of political battles.

This brings me to one last claim of Mr. Williamson concerning “white nationalism,” or at least what goes by that name in his own imagination: viz., that it is hostile to most religions “and especially to the Church Universal,” and that “it is a heresy that cannot be reconciled with Christianity in any form.”

Some persons described as “white nationalists” are indeed hostile to Christianity, while others are practicing Christians. Those with whom I associate generally de-emphasize religious differences — not because we think religion unimportant, but because ours is a political struggle, and we are determined not to endanger its success by falling into the trap of sectarianism. The principle around which we have joined to do battle is the defense of European Man and his civilization; it would not be rational of us to reject allies over theological disagreements (which can never be settled in any case).

Mr. Williams, as stated above, specifically denies that “white nationalism” is a political idea. But if the defense of a people and civilization is not a “political” task, I do not know what the word means. What such a defense can never provide is precisely the sort of comprehensive belief system or substitute religion Mr. Williamson takes “white nationalism” for. We have a battle to win, not a doctrine or system to agree upon—and young people first coming to the movement would be well advised to keep this distinction in mind.

I am aware that Chronicles is “a magazine of American culture” rather than an exclusively political magazine, and that is all to the good: I, too, believe that the highest values transcend politics. But even they will be lost to us if we fail to defend our European, Christian — and, yes, white — civilization from its enemies. It is as momentous a struggle as we have ever faced, and sooner or later, Chronicles’ readers — or the best of them — are no longer going to be held aloof from it by the editors’ ill-informed sectarian polemics against the bugaboo of “white nationalism.”

The British People – Which Way Now?

via Western Spring

Since the late 1800s, when the British Empire was at its height and we British had our greatest influence over the world, and following two successfully won World Wars the after-effects of which have been devastating for our nation, we British now seem to have reached our lowest ebb and at a time when there would appear to be no clear leader to follow and seemingly, no clear ideological path forward either.
 
This is not to say that there is no choice of organisation to join or choice of ideological trajectory to follow, and no aspiring leaders calling for us to follow them, because there has never been a greater choice. The problem is that hitherto none of the plethora of voices calling to us appears to offer anything that is fresh or invigorating — which shows a clear path out of the mire in which me now find ourselves — and therefore many of our people find themselves standing at a crossroads.

Politicians of the main establishment parties tell that the problems facing Britain and the British people are international in nature and therefore require us to act in concert with our ‘international partners’ to find international solutions to those international problems, but to most of us with our feet still on the ground it is evident that it is these ‘international partners’; the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank and others that are hindering us in our efforts to resolve our problems, and if anything they are simply making our problems worse.

Many of us have identified nationalism as the logical answer and the means by which we can as a nation protect ourselves against harmful international influences.

Nationalism has traditionally been a popular force emanating from among the most patriotic elements within a nation, who perceive a specific threat to the well-being and integrity of their nation and who react defensively to that threat. In this sense, nationalism has often tended to be ‘reactionary’ in character.

Furthermore, as there have historically been only limited population movements, nationalism has until recently not needed to be concerned with matters of race or even culture, and the patriotisms that have flourished in the past have been expressions of loyalty to tribal groups and the bloodlines of noble dynastic families or monarchs or to Christian religious denominations, and herein lies the roots of local or regional rivalries that have historically existed, dividing our ‘United’ Kingdom, between Yorkshireman and Lancastrian, between the Welsh and the English, between the Scots and the English, and between Orangemen and Republicans in Ireland. Herein lies one of the traditional characteristics, which have to many people made nationalism seem divisive, petty and backward looking.

In recent times however, the arrival of millions of non-White immigrants from the Third World has rendered these old rivalries to a position of virtual insignificance in the minds of most thinking people, and in the eyes of most people nationalism is now seen as meaningless without a strong racial or at least broad cultural basis.

Nationalism has often been a force emanating from the most patriotic elements of an embryonic or putative nation who have temporarily or hitherto been deprived of any formal recognition of their nationhood, and who have striven to assert that nationhood through the establishment of a nation-state within which they can enjoy primacy of place and exercise self-determination.  In this sense, nationalism can been regarded as ‘radical’ in character and nationalism can also be regarded as radical in nature if it effects a social transformation in which there are extensive and fundamental changes to the structure and functioning of the state in terms of the manner in which it serves the future needs and development of our people.

Ship WreckThroughout most of the 20th Century, Britain has been a nation in decline, but a nation that probably until the 1980s still retained core values and at least some semblance of real nationhood, despite the increasingly obvious signs of decay and the vigorous undermining of that nationhood by anti-national forces. Throughout that period, nationalism could still credibly make patriotic appeals to the remaining traditionalist elements of our nation and attempt to save our nation and the historic nation-state that had served us so well over the centuries. Up until that point it was not too late to effect ‘repairs’ to the ‘good ship Britannia’ and restore her to her former glory.

Increasingly, since the 1980s however, and particularly over the last two decades, decay resulting from globalisation, multiculturalism and multiracialism has advanced to a point at which the ‘main structural timbers’ of our nation state are now rotten to their very core and have been rendered beyond repair. So bad is the rot in fact that our nation, the indigenous British, are now in a state of shock and confusion such that the many have now almost completely lost any sense of spiritual, moral or social compass and are well on the way to becoming a seething mass of atomised individuals, devoid of traditional values and driven by materialism — ripe for exploitation and vulnerable to eventual racial and cultural obliteration.

Clearly, if we are to successfully bring about the eventual salvation of our people, the brand of nationalism that we must expound cannot be of the reactionary variety, because the rot is now too extensive and has now taken too great a hold.

Appeals for ‘Queen and Country’ patriotism have been rendered redundant, as have notions of fighting to preserve ‘Christendom’, because all of the great institutions of state have been permeated by decay. They are no longer bulwarks against decadence and corruption and are now totally immersed in it. The ‘United Kingdom’ is now almost fully integrated into the European Union and barely exists as a separate political entity. In this respect, the campaigns of organisations like Britain First are exposed as appeals to loyalties that are now meaningless anachronisms.

CorpseThe main ‘structural timbers’ of our nation now need to be cut out and replaced. In fact, worse than that, the ‘body’ of our nation is more like that of a dying man riddled with a cancer that has metastasised and spread to every organ and every limb and if we are to have a healthy ‘body’ again, if we are to have a healthy nation, we must rebuild it almost in its entirety.

Furthermore, during the period from now until we have been able to build that new nation, we must adopt the mindset that we are the few remaining White corpuscles of a body in an advanced state of decay and our mission must be to create new healthy ‘cells’ within which to  preserve and multiply our DNA thereby creating new healthy ‘tissue’,  a new healthy ‘body’ — a new healthy nation that will one day have the strength to burst free from and sweep away, the putrid remnants of the old.

This is radical nationalism par exellence! It is a self-regenerating, bottom-up, revolutionary, racial nationalism of a vigorous people who will fashion and command the loyalty of new elites that will issue organically from us and will initiate for our people a new epoch of health and vigour, of glory and achievement as yet undreamed of.

Until that time however, we as a people must survive and proliferate in an environment of cultural and political putrifaction, an environment that is corrosive and hostile to our very existence, and we must focus our minds and our energies not upon the ‘macrocosm’ of the current dying edifice within which we barely survive, but upon the ‘microcosm’ of our local communities, the ‘cells’ from which our new nation will be built, the racially conscious White enclaves within which we will thrive.

White PeopleIn short, we must begin rebuilding our nation starting with units that are the smallest constituent building blocks of a nation. We must begin with clusters of racially conscious White individuals and White families and find ways to attract more White families and more racially conscious White individuals who can swell our ranks and in turn produce lots of racially conscious White children. Our racially awakened members must live in localised communities where we will exist in such dense concentrations that we can dominate and thereby determine the character of those communities, and so that we can insulate ourselves against the corrosive effect of the decadent society that surrounds us.

For the foreseeable future we must not allow ourselves to be over-concerned by the continued decline and deterioration of the ‘old nation’, that nation is dying and nothing we can do at present will prevent it. We must instead focus our attention on the creation of a new nation and as our forebears did hundreds of years ago, we must begin with family groups, then extended family groups and then larger tribal groups, until we have the numbers and occupy sufficiently large territories, such that we can merge them to establish our new nation, the new vigorous, healthy, racially conscious White nation that we all long for.

During this period of rebuilding, we White racial nationalists will be living as a minority, in our ancestral homeland. Not a racial minority of course because we will be of the same race as the wider White population and our ethnicity in terms of cultural traditions will be the same also, but we White nationalists are and will continue to be for some time, a ‘minority group’ like any other and if we are to survive and proliferate, then we must adopt a different mind-set to that of the wider White population who are yet to be ‘awakened’.

Looking in Mirror - Woman 2While we will continue to draw newly racially awakened members from the wider White community, those of us who are already awake must regard ourselves as a different and better sub-set of the White race — a different and better sub-set of the British people compared with those who remain wilfully ignorant. To use the terminology of WIN (White Independent Nation) we must regard ourselves as a ‘New Tribe’ — still White, still British, but members of a new racially conscious ethnicity, practicing a new racially conscious culture which must if we are to succeed in bringing about the salvation of our people, eventually prevail over the old.

This must not be seen however as a negation of the common bond that links us to the wider White-British community, nor as a turning away from nationalism, because the ‘Tribal’ mentality should not be regarded as an end in itself. It should only be envisioned as a temporary survival strategy, necessary for the period of rebuilding, during which we will be competing head on with other ethnic/racial minorities and if we are to maximise our effectiveness, like them, we too must organise ourselves and adopt an in-group/out-group approach so necessary if we are to compete successfully and enjoy the benefits of Organised Minority Advantage (OMA).

This process of rebuilding may turn out to be a long process and take longer than many of us would like, possibly much longer, but it is the only way that we will be able to achieve our goal without falling into the trap of making our progress dependent upon the capricious support of a largely disillusioned and disoriented electorate under the sway and influence of a hostile and decadent media and a corrupt and malign political establishment.

I am sure I don’t need to explain that the longer it takes until we are able to achieve power, the less likely it is that we will succeed. The demographic window of opportunity currently available within which we might achieve a straightforward electoral victory at a future general election is very short indeed and while this has in the past served as a spur to those nationalist parties who have so far employed a strategy based solely around electioneering, so much time has been wasted and so near is the point at which that window of opportunity will close, that all but a very small minority of nationalists have now given up hope of ever achieving a solely electoral based victory. By the same token however, there are similar dangers inherent within our strategy of establishing White enclaves.

Be WhiteFor the same demographic reasons, the longer it takes for us to establish White enclaves, the greater is the probability that we will fail and the slimmer are our chances of success. Furthermore, the longer it takes from when community building begins until we achieve sufficient land and people to challenge for sovereign political power in Britain, then so too is the probability that we will fail greater, and the probability that we will succeed, smaller. Ideally, we need to be in a position to challenge for sovereign political power within the next ten years, and within the next twenty years at the very most.

We need to press on with the building of our enclaves, but we also need to have a means of accelerating their development and this can only be achieved and we can only hope to be in a position to challenge for political power at a point early enough to succeed if we simultaneously set about acquiring all six of the Six Prerequisites and most importantly, implement the ‘funding programme’ needed to accumulate a massive ‘war-chest’ – a massive fund of money from which it will be possible to finance the projects that will make our dreams come true. It is for this reason that while we broadly commend the strategies pursued by WIN, we note that they fall short in terms of providing a financially leveraged acceleration of those strategies so necessary if we are to challenge for sovereign political power within the lifetime of anyone alive today.

From the foregoing, it should be unnecessary for me to explain why electioneering is currently a futile endeavour as far as we nationalists are concerned and why we should desist in our efforts to get overtly nationalist candidates elected to public office. Electioneering of any sort must be ‘put on the back-burner’ until we have established our first enclaves to such an extent that our numbers in those locations are such that we can get people elected, and even then, they should not stand as candidates for overt nationalist political parties, but as candidates of the establishment parties.

Our candidates if elected should of course only pay lip-service to the policies of the establishment parties they nominally represent, and they will need to conduct themselves in such a way as benefits our enclaves and the wider White community. From within the establishment parties they will have the opportunity to exercise political power that will greatly benefit our enclave populations; that will facilitate the expansion of the enclaves; and undermine the ability of any hostile or potentially hostile groups in their attempts to impede our progress.

Not until we are in a position where we have extensive tracts of the British Isles under our control and membership running to several millions, and have acquired the other five of the Six Prerequisites should we attempt to flaunt our electoral potential by openly standing our candidates as nationalist candidates in future elections.


In summary therefore, the way forward for nationalism in Britain in the 21st Century is by acting as ‘nation-builders’ and pioneers rather than politicians. Ours must be an organic and social movement for the foreseeable future and not a primarily political movement.  Nationalist electioneers, political campaigners and street demonstrators must turn instead to community activism, and direct their efforts towards the establishment and building of enclaves; towards bringing racially conscious White families together to form racially conscious communities; and eventually mould these into the new nation that is the object of all our dreams. A new independent nation — capable of self-determination — strong, proud and united in the task of forging a new and better future, for our children and the generations yet to come.

Andrew Jackson and the Anti-Cathedral, Part 2

via Amerika.org

Part 1

Honor was banished from America in large part coincidentally with the banishment of The Jacksonian from social and intellectual respectability. This was in no manner accidental. It was studied. To understand what is missing when honor is banished, we first need to examine what honor actually means. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is a reasonably unbiased data source for estimating the current meaning of a word. Here goes:
Full Definition of honor
1 a : good name or public esteem : reputation
b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition 2 : privilege
3 : a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office
4 : one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit
5 : the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon
We simplify this down to reputation, recognition, privilege, an order of earned merit, and credit. (We’ll ignore armorial escutcheons because they sound too much like some medical condition.) As we examine the definition above, we see a list of words that would be an anathema to SJWs. Honor reveals itself to be a system allowing us to operate outside the demesne of an overdeterming state. Honor, I conclude, is OS Freedom.

We go through this exercise to set up a discussion that I left hanging in a blog post last week. I was discussing how the banishment of the Jacksonian quadrant of America’s founding ideology had left our national commonweal dangled above the ditch. I remarked the following.
…it’s not too abusive a stretch to map Wilsonians to Progressives, Jacksonians to Classical Liberals, Hamiltonians to Authoritarians and Jeffersonians to Civil Libertarians. Banish one of these four vectors to the outer darkness and you get a disturbance in the force…In recent years The Jacksonian portion of this Tao has been banished to the trailer parks of Appalachian Hollows. This has led to the death of honor* and traditional culture in Elite American Society.
This death of honor is no mean observation and deserves further deliberation. Taking the Jacksonian Quadrant out of America while leaving the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians remaining in proper apposition, leaves Cthulhu but one direction to swim… Yet this is just a facile discussion of a more complex Free Body Diagram. Saying two forces work to cancel each other gives us a layman’s perspective. To evolve towards journeyman status, we need to examine the mechanism driving the force. Jacksonianism thwarts Wilsonianism. The questions previously begged was just “how?”

The answer, quite simply, is honor. Honor allows a society to function without constant micro-management. Middle management meatballs are what you get for killing honor. They are who drives the managerial state. Without these meddlesome, maundering morons to populate its armies with SJWs; Progressivism wouldn’t make any progress. Honor provides a mechanism to get your own defecation in sequence without the aid of some middle management meatball.

So how does honor thwart the Left? It makes them utterly unnecessary. An independent man with a 30.06 doesn’t need a freaking dog-catcher. The Wilsonian gains control when you make that independent man pay taxes for a dog catcher. The Wilsonian will then lobby the legislature to confiscate the 30.06 because the dog catcher conveniently renders it unnecessary.

Cthulhu you say? Aren’t we just comparing courses of action for ridding the streets of mangy rabid curs? Isn’t government supposed to do that? I mean, why have it if it doesn’t? So let me ask you one silly, little old question. Does any Progressive really care about mangy rabid curs? If you guessed no, the next question to address is then “why do they bother?” It doesn’t require a PhD in anything to realize the entire discussion was a way to take away each independent man’s 30.06. Yet that doesn’t get us all the way home to The Big Why.

We also haven’t addressed a couple of other points an SJW would walk you right passed before you could ask the inconvenient forbidden questions that lead the rational mind towards the satanic graveyard of undead hate truths. Isn’t government supposed to do that? Um, not if Mr. Remington does it faster, cheaper and better. But doesn’t that involve risk? Doesn’t the dog catcher not bothering and you having no recourse when he doesn’t also involve risk? The Progressive insidiously assumes that you can’t do this yourself in a responsible fashion while the government will never fail. Which government minister in Venezuela was in charge of grocery stores again?

Now, that second nagging question. Why have government if it doesn’t do things? The Wilsonian, Progressive, Socialistic, SJW is just about cracking up right now. The entire argument that government exists to do things is a dishonest lie. I’m going to have to pick a bone with a former US President here. Ronald Wilson Reagan once remarked the following. “The words ‘I’m with the government and I’m here to help you’ are the ten most frightening words in the English Language.” I think he should have said that they were the ten most untrue.

The government, and all the apparatchik shrubs that constantly want more of it, are not here to help you. They are here to help themselves. They are here to help themselves to you and all the stuff that is currently yours. The only alternative to the managerial state that allows the progressives to use your butt as an ATM to pay for their perpetual Visigoth Holiday is an emergent concept of honor. The concept that was most fully embodied in Jacksonian America.

The current Progressive government that has replaced and overwhelmed the once-great American Republic has so succeeded because it has banished the entire concept of honor. It fears the return of honor the way a parasitic Nosferatu fears the crucifix. The Good Progressive derides the man of honor as a bitter clinger hanging on to his Bible and, not coincidentally, his 30.06.

Selecting for Strength vs. Selecting for Weakness

via Alternative Right

The result from New Hampshire is in, and there are stories for both sides of the political divide. The "Trump Train" or the "Bernie Blitz" – take your pick. Channel 4 News, a UK station with an inevitable Leftist bias, is pushing hard on the Bernie narrative. They featured this comment, as if it summed up some sort of watershed moment in American politics:
"The people of New Hampshire have sent a profound message to the political establishment, to the economic establishment, and by the way to the media establishment."
"Nice story, bro," but what they are perhaps missing is just how vile and unlikable Hillary has always been as a candidate, and the surprising fact that she was ever chosen. The proverbial pile of dog poop could probably have beaten her.

In other words, Bernie Sander’s victory is actually meaningless beyond the very small fact of reminding us that you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

Any reasonably likable Democrat politician who hadn't been cut down at the knees by the party establishment would have thumped a shambling fantasist like Sanders, and proved once again how powerful the political and economic establishments really were. Oppose him with Hillary, however, and suddenly those same political and economic establishments are trembling before the "towering genius" of a disheveled old Jewish man, who probably has to be reminded to put on his pants before leaving the house in the morning. What a miracle!

Over on the Republican side, thanks to Trump, the race has been taken away from the party establishment and opened up, so that what we are seeing is a rough approximation of a Darwinian struggle, leading to the selection of the fittest – Trump, naturally!

Of course, this is not the way the US political establishment likes to do business, and there may still be a few dirty tricks in the works to derail this healthy process, but for the time being we are seeing something special in American politics.

Inferior politician produced
by uncompetitive party system. 
The Dems by contrast have sought to prevent anything as "fascistic" as actual competition between candidates in their selection process. As that party has moved increasingly towards the "identitarianism of the inferior" – resentful minorities and unbalanced gender groups – it has rejected any principle of true competitiveness, because such competitiveness inevitably favours straight White males. Instead, it prefers a socialistic system of doling out the presidential candidacy to members of the various "sacred" groups – Blacks, Hispanics, unhappy women, etc. – with a mere shadow play of a contest.

The last time, Obama was given the candidacy on a plate, and that worked out okay for the Democrats, as he brushed up well as a candidate, and also fitted the global zeitgeist of a backlash against the Neocons. But this time, pushing "the cat lady's favourite" über alles and ignoring the competitive principle has led to a serious crisis for the Democratic Party. They are now effectively stuck with two losers in Clinton and Sanders.

Because Hillary has been the appointed candidate for the last few years, several things have happened. More likable and electable candidates, like Joe Biden, have been pushed to the sidelines, especially if they are White males – which basically means anybody in the Democratic Party with talent. Next, even though Hillary is obviously a hard Leftist by nature, an attempt has been made to cynically reposition her nearer the centre, meaning that any natural Democrat centrists have been overshadowed and pushed down.

This move, however, has opened up a bit of ground on the Left, where Bernie Sanders has been allowed to stage something of an insurrection, partly because a primary contest with no other candidate would have made this process of mollycoddling and selecting inferiority too apparent. But the sheer atrociousness of the "designated candidate" means that even this token contest has sparked into life, with Bernie outstripping the minor role originally intended for him. But mildly amusing as this is, it is a far different contest from the much more genuine Darwinian struggle that has opened up in the Republican field.

Hillary vs Bernie is essentially a contest between two weak, overprotected, and mollycoddled creatures. Hillary is an unelectable harpy, shuffled to the top of the Dem pack through the connections gained by her husband, and regardless of her many demerits, which the party establishment turns a blind eye to simply because she is a woman. Meanwhile Sanders is utilizing tactically abandoned ground on the far left of the Democratic Party – as well as the relative immunity granted by his Jewishness against the de facto ban on White men in that party – to create a Utopian pipe dream of a campaign that would prove extremely weak in a Presidential election.

Looks good next to Hillary;
looks bad anywhere else.
In the buzz the media tries to create out of this, it must be remembered that any victory that either Hillary or Bernie wins is against another weakling; whilst any victory that the various Republican candidates have is against a field involved in a much more rigorous struggle. The ultimate result of that fight, therefore, is worth a lot more than the winner of Bernie vs. Hillary.

Assuming a third candidate, like Biden, is not ultimately parachuted in to clear up the mess in the Democratic candidacy, whichever of these two electoral weaklings ultimately crawls out of the safety incubator of the Democratic primaries will be ill-equipped to fight the winner of the Republican Party’s much more Darwinian struggle – proving in the most profound way the inferiority of the Liberal Left's most fundamental principles.

Dr. Kevin MacDonald Talks Trump on The Realist Report

via The Realist Report

On Friday, February 5, Dr. Kevin MacDonald joined me on The Realist Report for a brief 30 minute segment to discuss Donald Trump and the upcoming NPI conference in Washington, D.C. Pete Papaherakles of American Free Press and The Barnes Review joined us as well.

Black Supremacism at the Super Bowl

via The Thinking Housewife

The Super Bowl halftime show with Beyoncé paid tribute to the Black Panthers, Malcolm X and Black Lives Matter, writes Lee Stranahan. Imagine a halftime show inspired by the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, assuming the wizard was loved by Hollywood and a powerful elite. Read more . . .

This has nothing to do with black liberation, folks. This isn’t about the people. It’s about the establishment. It’s powerful forces consolidating their power over the people, whether they be black or white. You bein’ used, black man. You bein’ used.