Feb 12, 2016

Ready for Change?: 2016 American Renaissance Conference

via American Renaissance

Donald Trump says what millions of Americans have thought for years — and is much too popular to be silenced. Ann Coulter’s Adios, America! sounds the alarm against Third-World immigration — and is a huge best-seller. An Alt Right of young, cocky pro-whites terrifies liberals and conservatives alike.

And a Muslim invasion is giving new life to the European “extreme right.” Are whites finally waking up? Are we reaching critical mass? Come join activists and leaders from Europe, America, and South Africa for a celebration of our world brotherhood of Europeans. Speakers will include:


Peter Brimelow Peter Brimelow — “The Trump Tsunami and the Future of the Historic American Nation.” Mr. Brimelow is the editor of VDARE.com, and the author of Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster.
Filip Dewinter Filip Dewinter — “The Islamisation of Europe. How Europe becomes an Islamic State.” Filip Dewinter is a strong voice for the preservation of Europe and is one of the leading members of the Flemish nationalist party, Vlaams Belang. He has served in the Belgian parliament, the Flemish parliament, and on the Antwerp city council.
James Edwards James Edwards — “The Best Decision I Ever Made.” Mr. Edwards is the host of the taboo-breaking radio program The Political Cesspool and is the author of Racism Schmacism.
Ruuben Kaalep Ruuben Kaalep — “A Call to Action from a Small White Country.” Ruuben Kaalep is a founding member of the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia, and established its youth movement, Blue Awakening. His goal is to save Europe and Europeans, first by saving his own nation.
RamZPaul RamZPaul — “The Alt Right.” RamZPaul has been creating YouTube videos for the past eight years. Mostly mocking the establishment’s religion of Cultural Marxism, his iconoclastic performances have been called “Pop Culture Meets Nationalism.”
Dan Roodt Dan Roodt — “The South African Crisis in World Perspective.” Mr. Roodt is a prominent Afrikaner novelist and commentator, and one of the leaders of the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group (PRAAG). Part I of his essay “An African Planet?” was published at American Renaissance last July. Part II was published in January.
Jared Taylor Jared Taylor — “Prospects for Our People.” Mr. Taylor is editor of American Renaissance. He is the author of Paved with Good Intentions, and the primary contributor to the collection A Race Against Time. His latest book is White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
Sam Dickson Sam Dickson — “A Benediction for Heretics.” Mr. Dickson is an attorney who has been a advocate for our people since his college days. He has addressed every American Renaissance conference.
Uncuck the Right Uncuck the Right — “We Didn’t Start the Alt Right.” Uncuck the Right makes brilliant, satirical remakes of popular songs. He will debut a new video specially created for this conference.

Register now for the American Renaissance Conference

May 20 – 22, 2016, near Nashville, Tennessee

Conference Schedule:

The conference will begin on Friday, May 20, 2016, with registration from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. There will be a reception followed by opening remarks from the American Renaissance staff. Latecomer registration is at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, May 21, and the program will begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. There will be a banquet (separate charge of $35) on Saturday evening. Participants with alternate dinner plans are welcome after the meal to hear the after-dinner speaker. The program will resume on Sunday the 22nd and end at 11:00 a.m. Gentlemen will wear jackets and ties — equivalent dress for ladies — to conference events. We will prepare name tags in advance; when you register for the conference, you may indicate if you would like to use a nom de guerre. Please contact us if you or your organization would like to set up a vendor table.

Accommodations and Transportation:

The conference will be held in the lodge at the beautiful Montgomery Bell State Park, and rooms are $88 per night — available only through American Renaissance. The address is 1000 Hotel Avenue, Burns, Tennessee. If you fly, it would be best to rent a car at the Nashville airport and drive the 45 minutes to the park. The cost is less than $20 a day if you book early.

Payment:

Registration is $100 per person until April 20 and $150 thereafter. Please ask about student discounts. The optional banquet is an additional $35 per person.

Register Online Now
Click here to register by mail. Please call American Renaissance at (703) 716-0900 if you have questions.

Cat Ladies

via West Hunter

There’s a new paper out that extends the record of host manipulation by toxoplasma. We already knew that toxoplasma infections cause mice to lose fear of cat urine – turns out that toxoplasma infections also cause chimpanzees to develop a morbid attraction to leopard urine, a marker of their main predator. Uninfected chimps avoid it. Interestingly, infected chips don’t seem attracted to lion or tiger urine, which suggests a specific strain of toxo.

The background is that toxoplasmosis infects many warmblooded creatures as the intermediate host, but can only sexually reproduce in cats, their definitive host. These protozoans (apicomplexans, like malaria) need to have their intermediate host eaten by a cat, and they’ve apparently evolved methods of manipulating host behavior to help bring that about, probably through their colonization of the brain.

There is some evidence that toxoplasma in the brain has effects on human behavior, such as slowed reaction times, reduced long-term concentration, and, of course, liking the smell of cat urine.

The changes in mice sure look like host manipulation, and I have wondered if it might be happening in humans – in particular, cat ladies, but maybe this played a role in the whole human domestication-of-cats thing. Then again, perhaps it was toxoplasma domesticating humans. But if this manipulation happens in chimpanzees, you just know it has to work in humans. This suggests that if you eliminate the toxoplasma in the brains of cat ladies, say with Atovaquone and Clindamycin, you could perhaps cure their morbid attraction, just as antibiotics can cure parthenogenesis in parasitic wasps infected by Wolbachia. Cured, they might put all their flea-bitten parasites in a sack and throw them into the river. And get a dog.

About half the human race has toxo on the brain, as if we didn’t already have enough trouble.

The big question (other than helping explain human craziness) is whether this is an important part of how cats make a living. It may be that toxo is an essential ingredient in cat predation strategies: if so, it is probably very old, and may even go back before cats, perhaps switching from some creodont.

If toxo naturally can make people like cat piss, it’s already preadapted to become (with suitable genetic engineering) the model system for many kinds of infectious behavior modifiers.

Sallis on Johnson on Roosh V

via EGI Notes

Greg Johnson has written a critique of Middle Eastern PUA gamester "Roosh" that is worth reading.  As someone who is highly critical of the whole PUA/game stupidity, I find myself in general agreement with Johnson's theme.  



I laugh at the stupidity of some of the critical peanut gallery commentators in the post thread.  One idiot taunts Greg with "if you think Roosh committed rape, why don't you report him to the police" - and that after Greg clearly stated that the brownster's ranting is likely not anything legally admissible; further, why does one need to "report" something posted online and that has been read by, likely, thousands (including leftists. feminists, etc.)?  Another moron states that the "Third Reich" would consider Roosh to be "Aryan" - as if the pathetic racial ramblings of Old Movement cartoon figures should have any meaning for us today. Newsflash: "Aryan" in the sense used by the "Third Reich" is a fantasy, it does not exist and has never existed.  "Aryan" as a group that includes Persians and Hindus with Europeans and excludes Jews is a fantasy.  Population genetics tell us that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically closer to Germans than are Persians and Hindus.  So, if you exclude Jews, why include camel-faced monstrosities such as Roosh?



A great comment, in contrast, is this:
Who cares what feminists say? It’s not relevant. Roosh is trash and a profoundly contemptible piece of filth. As a father of daughters with enough to worry about already when it comes to the possible influence of the wider culture on my family, I find it really demoralizing to see leading figures and a good number of rank-and-file on the dissident right embracing this Asiatic rapist. It’s a symptom of the alt right’s growing incoherence.



 Where I disagree with Johnson is what he writes here:
It pains me to write this, because I have long regarded Roosh V as something of an ally. No he’s not a White Nationalist, because he is not white and does not identify as such. His father is Persian and his mother Armenian. But an ally is not one of us. He is someone with whom we share delimited common interests and with whom we can fight common enemies. The manosphere is part of the larger reactosphere. It performs an important red-pilling function on human biodiversity. And it shares a border with White Nationalism that is as long and porous and the US border with Mexico. Roosh, moreover, is highly intelligent; he has promoted Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique to his readership; and in our limited email interactions, he has always been prompt, civil, and helpful. Beyond that, I despise moralistic ninnies and shit-stirrers who advance the premise that we can’t cooperate politically with anyone if we wouldn’t want to share a pup tent or take a shower with them.



First, I am a complete opponent of the HBD cult, and to the extent that the "manosphere" promotes that Jew-loving Asiaphilic Derbyshirian crap, then that's a negative.



Second and more importantly, I disagree about the "ally" part and, to the extent that "moralistic ninnies and shit-stirrers" applies to people like me, then I obviously disagree.



I take the complete opposite view: one important reason why the "movement" has failed for decades, why it has always been compromised by defectives, traitors, trolls, infiltrators, agent provocateurs, etc., is the "big tent/ally" idea, this urge to accept questionable people as "allies" to obtain some sort of short-term advantage, or because these "allies" cleverly advance memes that feed your ethnic ego, despite the moral, ethical, cultural, spiritual, and racial reasons to reject these allies.  The "movement" grasps at allies and these are usually the wrong types of people (I find it interesting that, in general, people like Roosh, Roissy, Hart, Derbyshire, etc. have been better received by the "movement" than I and my message).



Am I the only one who finds it pitiful that Revilo Oliver talked about 50 years of "movement" failure...back in 1969!



Johnson's own post proves my point.  The attitude toward Roosh could be described as: Group One says he can be a useful ally and let's not be moralistic shit-stirrers and oppose this useful alliance; Group Two says that a Middle Eastern PUA who targets White girls in Europe is part of the problem,. not an "ally" and not part of the solution.



And now a member of Group One is basically accusing Roosh of raping White women, or at least fantasizing about it, publicly online.  So, whose judgment about Roosh turned out correct?  



Isn't it better for a weak "movement" to be prudent and take the chance of rejecting an ally rather than embracing a destructive influence?

Roosh Really Is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth)

via Counter-Currents



Feminists have cried “wolf!” so often that I have gotten in the habit of ignoring them, so my first reaction to the recent campaign against Roosh V was just to dismiss it. The typical SJW is so indifferent to truth that it often seems that an important part of her brain has simply stopped working. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and sadly they are right about Roosh.

But first let me get something out of the way. Roosh’s position in his much pilloried article “How to Stop Rape” is basically defensible. No, rape should not be legalized on private property. But if a woman invites a man to her place or accompanies a man to his place, then claims that she has been raped, it is very hard to prove such charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And the American legal system errs on the side of letting guilty people go free rather than on the side of convicting the innocent.

Feminists, however, are working to destroy the standard of reasonable doubt. They are creating a world where it is possible for a man to be arrested for rape — which has devastating consequences even if he is found innocent — simply on the basis of an accusation that could never stand up in a properly conducted trial by jury.

Police, prosecutors, and judges need to stop pandering to feminists. Women need to know that accusations of rape in which there are obvious grounds for reasonable doubt will simply be ignored, and they need to act accordingly. Fewer women will be raped, fewer men will get away with rape because of reasonable doubt, STD and abortion rates will fall while marriage rates rise, fewer women will behave like sluts, and men like Roosh will get laid a whole lot less. In my book, those are all good things.

But still, Roosh’s critics have a case. His enemies cite three passages from his sex tourist travelogues which fit the description of rape.

From Bang Poland:

I got down her bra and panties, but she kept saying, “No! No!”

I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.

I put it in. I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.

Also from Bang Poland:

It took four hours and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Roosh, No!” until she allowed my penis to enter her vagina.

The sex was painful for her. I was only the second guy she’d ever had sex with. . . . She whimpered like a wounded puppy dog the entire time, but I really wanted to have an orgasm, so I was “almost there” for about ten minutes.

After sex she sobbed for a good while, talking about how she had sinned in the eyes of God.

Sadly, even these girls could probably not get a conviction of rape “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The most damning account is from his book Bang Iceland:

While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was.

In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent.

It didn’t help matters that I was sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated. I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.

What kind of man rapes a drunken girl without remorse because “having sex is what I do”? The proper emotional reaction to this is disgust.

When asked about this last passage in his February 6, 2015 press conference (transcript here), Roosh responded:

Female Reporter: . . . There are several instances in the Bang books where you recount having sex with women who were too drunk or incapacitated to consent. Now people reading that would certainly come away with the impression that you raped those women.

Roosh: I don’t know anyone except for maybe you that thinks that, and people who have lost their minds when it comes to consensual sex. People who don’t have any idea what girls are doing outside right now and what they will do in an hour or two once they get drunk and pick the guy that they like and let him do whatever he wants with her. So macho sex writing, to convert that to rape takes such a leap of faith that you have to be a liar to think that’s true.

Female Reporter: You literally say that they were too incapacitated to consent.

Roosh: Macho sex writing is not a court. It’s not a piece of evidence that you can… Maybe some things I wanted to come across as an aggressive guy. Maybe I did. But just because there doesn’t means that there is a victim out there and she suffered. Have I raped anyone? No.

Reporter: Is that fiction?

Roosh: No. It’s not.

As my friend Seventh Son pointed out on The Daily Shoah (Episode 71, February 10, 2016), this is not a satisfactory response. Roosh faces a dilemma here, and the reporterette knows it. If he is telling the truth, he raped the girl. (It is rape in Iceland too.) And if “macho sex writing” just means Penthouse Letters-style fiction, then it casts doubt on the veracity of all of his sex travelogues, which function as testimonials to his pickup artistry. In short, Roosh is either a rapist or a fraud.

But even if Roosh is a fraud, he is no mere fraud. He is a fraud with a large audience that regards him as a role model. Even if he never raped anyone, one day one of his followers will. Does anyone seriously doubt that somewhere in the world, a woman has been (or will be) raped because of what some pussy nerd read in a book by Roosh V? I’d bet money on it. And not even Roosh’s most ardent supporters would take that bet. So it is not just feminist hysteria to describe Roosh as a rape advocate.

Roosh also argues that since no woman has accused him of rape, he has never raped anyone. But how do we even know that no charges have been filed against him? How would Roosh even know? Roosh was just a sex-tourist; he was just passing through; he could have used a false name or no name at all. There are probably quite a lot of Middle Eastern-looking John Does in open rape cases all over Europe, and it is only getting worse.

But that’s just speculation. So let’s just take Roosh at his word. Even so, his argument does not follow, because genuine rape victims might not come forward for a whole host of reasons: shame; lack of evidence; fear of reprisals; fear of a bad reputation; fear of losing a boyfriend, husband, or family; etc.

It pains me to write this, because I have long regarded Roosh V as something of an ally. No he’s not a White Nationalist, because he is not white and does not identify as such. His father is Persian and his mother Armenian. But an ally is not one of us. He is someone with whom we share delimited common interests and with whom we can fight common enemies. The manosphere is part of the larger reactosphere. It performs an important red-pilling function on human biodiversity. And it shares a border with White Nationalism that is as long and porous and the US border with Mexico. Roosh, moreover, is highly intelligent; he has promoted Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique to his readership; and in our limited email interactions, he has always been prompt, civil, and helpful. Beyond that, I despise moralistic ninnies and shit-stirrers who advance the premise that we can’t cooperate politically with anyone if we wouldn’t want to share a pup tent or take a shower with them.

But rape is rape, and all the red-pilling in the world does not change that.

I cheered Roosh when he asked reporters why they are going after him while covering up mass rapes by Muslims in Europe. All Roosh would have to do is convert to Islam and show up in a track suit, and feminists would shut their mouths and spread their legs.

But the hypocrisy charge cuts both ways: how can White Nationalists decry the mass rape and sexual exploitation of white women by Middle-Eastern men but stand in solidarity with Roosh V?

How can White Nationalists extol Eastern Europe as the most racially and culturally healthy part of the white world and condone the kind of man who treats it as a cheap brothel?

How can we stand in solidarity with Polish nationalists against Middle Eastern rapefugees and defend the author of Bang Poland?

For all its benefits, I am on record that the manosphere morally corrupts men. It does not promote the resurgence of traditional and biologically based sexual norms. It simply teaches men how to make sexual chaos work for them. I was concerned that it gives narcissistic sociopaths tools and encouragement to rape and sexually exploit women. Now I have proof.

Editor's Note: See Ted Sallis's critique of  "Roosh Really Is a Rape Advocate".

Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage

via Gornahoor

A careful reading of John of Ruysbroeck‘s works reveals the great distance that separates contemporary thought from Medieval spirituality. The meaning of those older texts is often obscured by translations which assume that archaic language is more uplifting than clear writing. For example, here is a sentence as it appears in the English translation of John’s Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage:
[Christ] fed in ghostly wise with true and inward teachings all those men who could understand them: and others from without through the senses with signs and wonders.
Here is my alternate translation for your consideration:
Christ fed the true esoteric teachings in a spiritual way to all those men who could understand them; and others exoterically through the senses with signs and wonders.
Here John is making clear that the esoteric (or inward) teachings have to do with changes in man’s interior life, not with unusual events in the space-time world. More specifically, the esoteric teachings require a change in the way one lives his life. A fortiori, these teachings are not part of some novel philosophical system. In the meditation on Justice, Valentin Tomberg brings up the same issues. The spiritual “Greeks” are interested in worldly wisdom and spiritual “Jews” expect the power of God to be revealed in signs and wonders. (Obviously, this has nothing to do with ethnicity.)

Another factor to consider is the difference between literal and symbolic interpretations of sacred texts. The exoterically minded will understand symbolic teachings literally and literal teachings symbolically. To illustrate this, I will mention two topics brought up by John and the animal powers and his understanding of the three comings of Christ.

Animal Powers

In Chapter XXIII, John lists three adversaries to the spiritual life:
  • The Devil. These are spiritual influences that impinge on us from outside the world.
  • The World. These are the hodgepodge of influences originating in the human world. These are the “A” influences described by Boris Mouravieff.
  • Our own Flesh. These are the influences arising from the lower centers of the soul.
For this illustration, we will focus on the “flesh”. This sentence summarizes John’s thought on this matter:
A man should keep his senses in sobriety and should restrain the animal powers by means of the reason; so that the lusts of the flesh do not enter too far into the savouring of food and of drink.
Of course, elsewhere he includes sexual impulses along with food and drink. Now this is all to be understood quite literally. “Animal powers” is simply the admission that man’s soul includes an “animal soul”. Moreover, the traditional teaching is that the “reason”, or intellectual soul, is to have dominance over the lower parts of the soul. This is no different from what Rene Guenon or Julius Evola have written about many times, in many ways. The only difference is that John provides us with the specifics about how that is to be accomplished.

Hence, there is nothing inherently evil about the “flesh” or “animal powers”. Man is part of organic life on earth, and hence falls under the General Law of Life: motivation by fear, sex, and hunger. This was common knowledge at one time; even the Tantric teachings understood them to be embodied in the three lower chakras.

So the problem arises when animal powers become compulsive, and not subject to the dominance of reason. This is quite opposed to the modern view, which understands the power of reason as a late addition to the genetic makeup of man. In this view, the power of reason is the passive force, in service to the needs of sexual and alimentary desires. In this view, therefore, such a use of reason makes a species more “fit” for survival. Moreover, many believe today that their sexuality represents the deepest part of themselves, so it needs to be expressed without any frein vital, or inner check.

Needless the say, the esoteric teaching is that the intellect needs to be the active force. The intellect, therefore, needs to restrain the animal powers. Needless the say, the esoteric teaching is that the intellect needs to be the active force. The intellect, therefore, needs to restrain the animal powers. The intuitive intelligence, the knowledge of the heart, is the deepest part of man, although it usually remains hidden and merely virtual. The animal soul, then, is merely the outer husk.

Now, the animal powers already have an intelligence of their own. Even the material world has an intelligence, otherwise the idea that matters “obeys” certain laws would make no sense.

In the animal world, a natural intelligence regulates sex and hunger, since they, too, are created by the Logos. Thus most animals have a period of estrus during which mating occurs. Often, such mating is very ritualized and ruled by instinct. The same applies to food. Most animals have specific and limited diets which suit them and are instinctually known.

For man, the situation is different. The adult female is sexually receptive at all times and not just during certain times of the year. Moreover, man is omnivorous, able to eat and digest a wide variety of foods. This suggests that man’s “animal powers” are not intended to function by a separate intelligence as is the case with animals, but rather by man’s unified reason. This is not the place to go into all the details, which can be summarized by this note from John:
We should build up a wall and make a separation within ourselves. And the lower part of ourselves, which is beastly and contrary to the virtues, and which wills our separation from God, we should hate and persecute, and we should torment it by means of penances and austerity of life; so that it be always repressed, and subject to reason, that thereby righteousness and purity of heart may always have the upper hand in all the works of virtue.
The wall sounds like the “cage” described by Mouravieff.

Freedom from Images

Clearly, sex and food are not bad, since they are necessary for life. Nevertheless, the lower part has no interest in spiritual pursuits, so it resists the dominance of the intellectual soul. This prevents the unity of the soul and turns a man into a mass of competing interests. John relies on the grace of God:
There springs from the side of man … a gathering together of all inward and outward powers in the unity of the spirit, in the bonds of love.
The animal powers hinder this unity through the power of sensible images and fantasies. In other words, images will arise in consciousness of sex and food, well beyond the body’s actual need of them for health and maintenance. John explains:
The freedom which allows the man to turn inwards, without hindrance from sensible images, as often as he wills and thinks upon his God. This means that a man must be indifferent to gladness and grief, profit and loss, rising and falling, to strange cares, to delight and to dread, and never be attached to any creature.
These three factors
  • grace
  • unity of the spirit
  • freedom from sensible images
are the
foundation and the beginning of the inward practice and the inward life.

The Three Comings of Christ

As an example of a symbolic teaching that is usually understood literally, we can look at John’s teaching on the three comings of Christ:

*These are the three comings of Christ, in inward exercises. We will now explain and set forth each coming separately. Attend therefore with diligence; for he who never has himself felt or experienced this shall not easily understand it.

John returns often to this topic, in increasing detail. For our purposes, we can focus on the first teachings. But pay careful attention to his words. One cannot reach an understanding through an intellectual argument, nor is it just a matter of blind faith. Rather, the teachings on the three comings of Christ needs to be experienced directly in order to understand them.

First Coming. The first coming is the incarnation, or the “historical” Jesus. We can skip past this, since its meaning is clear. This usually deteriorates into inconclusive debates about the “real” Jesus. Yet, paradoxically, this really can’t be fully understood until the second and third comings are understood.

Second Coming. The second coming takes place “in the heart”, that is, it begins with second birth of the Logos in the soul. We have addressed this many times previously. Yet John makes clear that the second coming is not a one-time event. Rather, it takes place daily bringing “new graces and new gifts”. These graces make a man “just”, so he can see himself exactly as he is.

Third Coming. The third coming happens at the Judgment at the hour of death. Here, justice is forced on the soul if it hadn’t been previously prepared by the second coming. In that case, the judgment will appear harsh, as though coming from the outside. John explains: “the soul must then account for every word spoken and for every deed done, before the Eternal Truth.”

Exoteric Postscript

As should be clear by now, the religion described by John of Ruysbroeck is not intended for “children”, as Huysmans described it. Rather, it is possible only for the spiritually mature, those who have turned away from childish things, who have tasted fully the bitterness of life and seek to transcend it.

On one side, there is the exoteric battle between the defenders and the opponents of religion. They both presume the same frame of reference. For them, there is the quest for the perfect argument that will be the “defeater” of the opponent’s position. The wisdom of the world for them is decisive: perhaps a new scientific discovery, technical advance, biblical exegesis, etc., is the answer. Or else, there is the quest for signs and wonders, or which side will manifest the will to power, whether of God or of man.

The esoteric battle, on the other hand, is an interior affair, or spiritual combat. It is not visible to the world. A fortiori, in today’s world, a man can be engaged in this battle daily yet appear totally ordinary to the eyes of the world. Now, there is a pseudo-tradition abounding that rejects the True Religion of the Western Tradition in favor of some imaginary past. Keep in mind that Tradition is not a return to the past, but rather a return to what has always been. The pseudo-traditionalists therefore themselves need to participate in the spiritual combat. There is no difference, they must also dominate the animal soul through the powers of the intellect. Their path is all the more difficult without the guides or graces that make it possible.

The Age of Digital Platform Censorship

via Radix

We are witnessing the dawn of the age of Digital Platform Censorship (DPC), which is censorship on a global scale.
DPC doesn’t originate from any government, but, in its way, it can have a far greater impact than any nation-wide ban. For in the Current Year, if you don’t exist on Twitter or in a Google search—or if you’re book doesn’t appear on Amazon—you effectively don’t exist.

The fact that DPC is not occurring at the behest of a state—and does not have any overt partisan agenda—means that it is difficult to understand and is easily obscured through langue. In fact, those who administer Digital Platform Censorship do so in the name of “free speech” (and many of them genuinely believe that they are protecting “free speech.”)

Exhibit A: Twitter’s new, Orwellianly named “Trust and Safety Council.”
Twitter is famous for 140-character concision. But its statement is vague, rambling, and opaque. Let me try to translate.
On Twitter, every voice has the power to shape the world. We see this power every day, from activists who use Twitter to mobilize citizens to content creators who use Twitter to shape opinion.
Translation: We don't want every voice to have the power to shape the world.
To ensure people can continue to express themselves freely and safely on Twitter, we must provide more tools and policies.
Translation: True free expression requires more regulation and diversity councils.
With hundreds of millions of Tweets sent per day, the volume of content on Twitter is massive, which makes it extraordinarily complex to strike the right balance between fighting abuse and speaking truth to power. It requires a multi-layered approach where each of our 320 million users has a part to play, as do the community of experts working for safety and free expression.
Translation: No one body can keep up with billions of tweets. So we need self-policing. Don’t suspect a follower of racism or sexism—report him!
That’s why we are announcing the formation of the Twitter Trust & Safety Council, a new and foundational part of our strategy to ensure that people feel safe expressing themselves on Twitter.
Translation: Now that we are openly banning people for thought crimes, you’ll finally feel safe to express yourself.
As we develop products, policies, and programs, our Trust & Safety Council will help us tap into the expertise and input of organizations at the intersection of these issues more efficiently and quickly. In developing the Council, we are taking a global and inclusive approach so that we can hear a diversity of voices from organizations including: Safety advocates, academics, and researchers focused on minors, media literacy, digital citizenship, and efforts around greater compassion and empathy on the Internet; Grassroots advocacy organizations that rely on Twitter to build movements and momentum; Community groups with an acute need to prevent abuse, harassment, and bullying, as well as mental health and suicide prevention.
Translation: Rent-seekers galore!
We have more than 40 organizations and experts from 13 regions joining as inaugural members of the Council. We are thrilled to work with these organizations to ensure that we are enabling everyone, everywhere to express themselves with confidence on Twitter. Twitter Trust & Safety Council - Inaugural Members: Anti-Bullying Pro
Anti-Defamation League
Beyond Blue
Bravehearts
Center for Democracy and Technology
Childnet
Circle of 6
ConnectSafely
Crisis Text Line
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative
Cybersmile Foundation
Dacher Keltner, Professor of Psychology and Faculty Director of UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center
Dangerous Speech Project
E-Enfance
EU Kids Online
European Schoolnet
Family Online Safety Institute
Feminist Frequency
Fundacion para la Libertad de Prensa
GLAAD
Hollaback
iCanHelp
ICT Watch
iKeepSafe
INACH
Insafe
Internet Watch Foundation
Jugendschutz
LICRA
Love 146
Marc Brackett, Director, Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence
National Cyber Security Alliance
National Domestic Violence Hotline
National Network to End Domestic Violence
NetSafe
Pantallas Amigas
Project Rockit
Reachout
Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales
Red Papaz
Safernet
Samaritans
Southwest Grid for Learning
Spunout
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation
The Wahid Institute
Thorn
UK Safer Internet Centre
Without My Consent
Yakin
Most of these groups are child safety advocates, which gives the council an untouchable, “how could you possibly be against this!?” aura.

The inclusion of Anita Sarkeesian’s Feminist Frequency and, most of all, the Anti-Defamation League demonstrate that White racial consciousness and langauge that is deemed “anti-Semitic” or “misogynist” will be looked upon as the equivalent of child pornography and drug trafficking.

When It Happens, I Hear Silence

via BUGS

IT has happened!

“White genocide” is now officially viral.

I am sitting in the same room I have been in for the last 18 years where we developed the pro-white writing and memes.

My brother was shocked when the SPLC, through CNN, informed him that “Bob Whitaker has the most dangerous Hate Site in America.”

And when you translate that Anti-White language into English, they were dead right.

Ann Coulter has actually specifically endorsed the concept of White Genocide in plain English.

As for Trump, this is how I think it will play out. I was South Carolina’s first Young Republican chairman in 1962. By then, over fifty years ago, all of us were familiar with the standard operation of all Republican nomination candidates.

They come in and take the lead by making semi-heretical statements, as Trump has. They keep right on the edge of heresy until the primaries and caucuses are over.

Then they have to get the Republican Leadership to nominate them. That’s when they start denouncing all outright heresy.

What has Trump done on White Genocide? He retweeted a White Genocide tweet.

Exactly half of the people I talk to say this means he has accepted the White Genocide concept. Counter stated it herself and endorsed it.

If the world stays the way it has always been, Trump will denounce the concept of white genocide once the primaries have passed.

Watch for Trump and Lindsay Graham, the classic pro-immigration senator from South Carolina, shaking hands on some modified Path to Citizenship legislation.

If and when Trump endorses the deadly heresy of White Genocide in so many words, I will be the happiest man who was ever mistaken.

Meanwhile, Trump is right there where all Republicans have always been:  On the edge of outright heresy and ready to denounce it when the time comes.

Germany's Teleological Flag of Humiliation

via Alternative Right

Once it's seen, it cannot be unseen
Flags are very important, and a good flag can do a lot for a country’s image of itself and also help remind its people of their roots, deeper identity, and even purpose.

Even though the principles have been much abused, everybody knows exactly what the French flag means – liberty, equality, and fraternity – and maybe one day those principles can be set in their proper context again of liberty within the fraternity and equality of the common blood.

The British flag is an interesting one, reminding us of the intense competitiveness between the two principal nations that went to compose the UK – "my Jewish saint who never visited Scotland (St. Andrew) matches your Greek Saint who never visited England (St. George)" – and the potent, world-conquering power that later resulted from unifying such stubborn rivalries in one state.

Manifest Destiny, 2D version.
The American flag too is a joy to contemplate – the red lines of the original thirteen coastal states run across the flag in the same way that America’s "Manifest Destiny" would later cross the continent and carry it to the Pacific and beyond, with one quarter of the flag being given to a space where all the later acquisitions could be dumped in star form – the most convenient symbol for denoting great bulk on a finite piece of cloth.

But surely one of the oddest flags is that of Germany, with its odd and oppressive heavy Black bar on top and a lighter golden bar on the bottom, with an intervening slash of red in the middle.

Convincing explanations for this oddity are surprisingly hard to come by.

Historically, the flag seems to have originated in the 1840s, a time of unsuccessful bourgeois revolutions across the continent of Europe. Accordingly, some say that  the colours were those of the Jena Student's League or derive from the uniforms – black with red facings and gold buttons – of the Lützow Freikorps, a militia of university students.

This sounds all very unconvincing, rather as if a Socialist Workers' Party placard from the 1970s had somehow been chosen to replace the British Union Jack. So, how do we explain the mysterious German flag?

Rather than being an expression of the past, I think it makes more sense to see it as something pulled by the future. Just as the United States flag incorporated certain teleological elements – the red and white stripes reaching across in prefigurement of Manifest Destiny – so the German flag can be seen even more so in teleological terms. In fact, the German flag only truly makes sense as something reaching towards an ominous end purpose, rather than symbolizing something pushed by the past.

What then does it represent? Until last year, it still was not clear, but then, thanks to Chancellor Merkel, momentous events happened that pointed to the riddle’s ultimate solution, which is namely this:
The Gold at the bottom represents the relative blondness of the German people, especially their women, while the Red stands for the Socialistic ideas of universal racial equality and White guilt that have permeated this society for decades, allowing the blond race to be pushed down below the Black, the symbolic colour of the Southern races.
Another way to see it is more explicitly sexual. The Black represents the male Third World migrant himself, the Gold an actual fair-haired German woman, while the Red is the act of violent rape itself, which allows the natural order – the lighter and higher colours above – to be forcibly pushed down beneath the darker and heavier colours.

The German flag, 3D version
The travesty that we saw unfold in Cologne, was, in a teleological sense, prefigured in the German flag that arose in the 1840s. And what does that tell us about that time? Perhaps that the premises of the ideals that stirred revolution in those days were the seeds that carried Germany to its current humiliation.

The correct nationalist way to display this flag

Renewables: The Next Fracking?

via The Archdruid Report

I'd meant this week’s Archdruid Report post to return to Retrotopia, my quirky narrative exploration of ways in which going backward might actually be a step forward, and next week’s post to turn a critical eye on a common but dysfunctional habit of thinking that explains an astonishing number of the avoidable disasters of contemporary life, from anthropogenic climate change all the way to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Still, those entertaining topics will have to wait, because something else requires a bit of immediate attention. In my new year’s predictions a little over a month ago, as my regular readers will recall, I suggested that photovoltaic solar energy would be the focus of the next big energy bubble. The first signs of that process have now begun to surface in a big way, and the sign I have in mind—the same marker that provided the first warning of previous energy bubbles—is a shift in the rhetoric surrounding renewable energy sources.
Broadly speaking, there are two groups of people who talk about renewable energy these days. The first group consists of those people who believe that of course sun and wind can replace fossil fuels and enable modern industrial society to keep on going into the far future. The second group consists of people who actually live with renewable energy on a daily basis. It’s been my repeated experience for years now that people belong to one of these groups or the other, but not to both.
As a general rule, in fact, the less direct experience a given person has living with solar and wind power, the more likely that person is to buy into the sort of green cornucopianism that insists that sun, wind, and other renewable resources can provide everyone on the planet with a middle class American lifestyle. Conversely, those people who have the most direct knowledge of the strengths and limitations of renewable energy—those, for example, who live in homes powered by sunlight and wind, without a fossil fuel-powered grid to cover up the intermittency problems—generally have no time for the claims of green cornucopianism, and are the first to point out that relying on renewable energy means giving up a great many extravagant habits that most people in today’s industrial societies consider normal.
Debates between members of these two groups have enlivened quite a few comment pages here on The Archdruid Report. Of late, though—more specifically, since the COP-21 summit last December came out with yet another round of toothless posturing masquerading as a climate agreement—the language used by the first of the two groups has taken on a new and unsettling tone.
Climate activist Naomi Oreskes helped launch that new tone with a diatribe in the mass media insisting that questioning whether renewable energy sources can power industrial society amounts to “a new form of climate denialism.” The same sort of rhetoric has begun to percolate all through the greenward end of things: an increasingly angry insistence that renewable energy sources are by definition the planet’s only hope, that of course the necessary buildout can be accomplished fast enough and on a large enough scale to matter, and that no one ought to be allowed to question these articles of faith.
There are plenty of points worth making about what this sort of rhetoric implies about the current state of the green movement, and I’ll get to some of those  shortly, but the issue that comes first to mind—typically enough for this blog—is a historical one: we’ve been here before.
When this blog first got going, back in 2006, the energy resource that was sure to save industrial civilization from the consequences of its own bad decisions was biofuels. Those of my readers who were paying attention to the peak oil scene in those days will remember the grandiose and constantly reiterated pronouncements about the oceans of ethanol from American corn and the torrents of biodiesel from algae that were going to sweep away the petroleum age and replace fossil fuels with all the cheap, abundant, carbon-neutral liquid fuel anyone could want. Those who raised annoying questions—and yes, I was one of them—got reactions that swung across a narrow spectrum from patronizing putdowns to furious denunciation.
As it turned out, of course, the critics were right and the people who insisted that biofuels were going to replace petroleum and other fossil fuels were dead wrong. There were at least two problems, and both of them could have been identified—and in fact were identified—well in advance, by that minority who were willing to take a close look at the underlying data.
The first problem was that the numbers simply didn’t work out. It so happens, for example, that if you grow corn using standard American agricultural methods, and convert that corn into ethanol using state of the art industrial fermenters and the like, the amount of energy you have to put into that whole process is more than you get by burning the resulting ethanol. Equally, it so happens that if you were to put every square inch of arable farmland in the world into biofuel crops, leaving none for such trivial uses as feeding the seven billion human beings on this planet, you still wouldn’t get enough biofuel to replace the world’s annual consumption of transportation fuels. Neither of these points were hard to figure out, and the second one was well known in the appropriate tech scene of the 1970s—you’ll find it, for example, in the pages of William Catton’s must-read book Overshoot—but somehow the proponents of ethanol and biodiesel missed it.
The second problem was a little more complex, but not enough so to make it impossible to figure out in advance. This was that the process of biofuel production and consumption had impacts of its own. Divert a significant fraction of the world’s food supply into the fuel tanks of people in a handful of rich countries—and of course this is what all that rhetoric about fueling the world amounted to in practice—and the resulting spikes in food prices had disastrous impacts across the Third World, triggering riots and quite a number of countries and outright revolutions in more than one.
Meanwhile rain forests in southeast Asia got clearcut so that palm oil plantations could supply the upper middle classes of Europe and America with supposedly sustainable biodiesel. It could have gotten much worse, except that the underlying economics were so bad that not that many years into the biofuels boom, companies started going broke at such a rate that banks stopped lending money for biofuel projects; some of the most highly ballyhooed algal biodiesel projects turned out to be, in effect, pond scum ponzi schemes; and except for those enterprises that managed to get themselves a cozy spot as taxpayer-supported subsidy dumpsters, the biofuel boom went away.
It was promptly replaced by another energy resource that was sure to save industrial civilization. Yes, that would be hydrofracturing of oil- and gas-bearing shales, or to give it its popular moniker, fracking. For quite a while there, you couldn’t click through to an energy-related website without being assailed with any number of grandiose diatribes glorifying fracking as a revolutionary new technology that, once it was applied to vast, newly discovered shale fields all over North America, was going to usher in a new era of US energy independence. Remember the phrase “Saudi America”? I certainly do.
Here again, there were two little problems with these claims, and the first was that once again the numbers didn’t work out. Fracking wasn’t a new technological breakthrough—it’s been used on oil fields since the 1940s—and the “newly discovered” oil fields in North Dakota and elsewhere were nothing of the kind; they were found decades ago and the amount of oil in them, which was well known to petroleum geologists, did not justify the wildly overinflated claims made for them. There were plenty of other difficulties with the so-called “fracking revolution,” including the same net energy issue that ultimately doomed the “biodiesel revolution,” but we can leave those for now, and go on to the second little problem with fracking. 
This was the awkward fact that the fracking industry, like the biodiesel industry, had impacts of its own that weren’t limited to the torrents of new energy it was supposed to provide. All across the more heavily fracked parts of the United States, homeowners discovered that their tap water was so full of methane that they could ignite it with a match, while some had to deal with the rather more troubling consequences of earthquake swarms and miles-long trains of fracked fuels rolling across America’s poorly maintained railroad network. Then there was the methane leakage into the atmosphere—I don’t know that anybody’s been able to quantify that, but I suspect it’s had more than a little to do with the abrupt spike in global temperatures and extreme weather events over the last decade.
Things might have gotten much worse, except here again the underlying economics of fracking were so bad that not that many years into the fracking boom, companies have started going broke at such a rate that banks are cutting back sharply on lending for fracking projects. As I write this, rumors are flying in the petroleum industry that Chesapeake Petroleum, the biggest of the early players in the US fracking scene, is on the brink of declaring bankruptcy, and quite a few very large banks that lent recklessly to prop up the fracking boom are loudly proclaiming that everything is just fine while their stock values plunge in panic selling and the rates other banks charge them for overnight loans spike upwards.
Unless some enterprising fracking promoter figures out how to elbow his way to the government feed trough, it’s pretty much a given that fracking will shortly turn back into what it was before the current boom: one of several humdrum technologies used to scrape a little extra oil out from mostly depleted oil fields. That, in turn, leaves the field clear for the next overblown “energy revolution” to be rolled out—and my working ghess is that the focus of this upcoming round of energy hype will be renewable energy resources: specifically, attempts to power the electrical grid with sun and wind. 
In a way, that’s convenient, because we don’t have to wonder whether the two little problems with biofuels and fracking also apply to this application of solar and wind power. That’s already been settled; the research was done quite a while ago, and the answer is yes.
To begin with, the numbers are just as problematic for solar and wind power as they were for biofuels and fracking. Examples abound: real world experience with large-scale solar electrical generation systems, for example, show dismal net energy returns; the calculations of how much energy can be extracted from wind that have been used to prop up windpower are up to two orders of magnitude too high; more generally, those researchers who have taken the time to crunch the numbers—I’m thinking here especially, though not only, of Tom Murphy’s excellent site Do The Math—have shown over and over again that for reasons rooted in the hardest of hard physics, renewable energy as a source of grid power can’t live up to the sweeping promises made on its behalf.
Equally, renewables are by no means as environmentally benign as their more enthusiastic promoters claim. It’s true that they don’t dump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels do—and my more perceptive readers may already have noted, by the way, the extent to which talk about the very broad range of environmental blowbacks from modern industrial technologies has been supplanted by a much narrower focus on greenhouse gas-induced anthropogenic global warming, as though this is the only issue that matters—but the technologies needed to turn sun and wind into grid electricity involve very large volumes of rare metals, solvents, plastics, and other industrial products that have substantial carbon footprints of their own.
And of course there are other problems of the same kind, some of which are already painfully clear. A number of those rare metals are sourced from open-pit mines in the Third World worked by slave labor; the manufacture of most solvents and plastics involves the generation of a great deal of toxic waste, most of which inevitably finds its way into the biosphere; wind turbines are already racking up an impressive death toll among birds and bats—well, I could go on. Nearly all of modern industrial society’s complex technologies are ecocidal to one fairly significant degree or another, and the fact that a few of them extract energy from sunlight or wind doesn’t keep them from having a galaxy of nasty indirect environmental costs.
Thus the approaching boom in renewable energy will inevitably bring with it a rising tide of ghastly news stories, as corners get cut and protections overwhelmed by whatever degree of massive buildout gets funded before the dismal economics of renewable energy finally take their inevitable toll. To judge by what’s happened in the past, I expect to see plenty of people who claim to be concerned about the environment angrily dismissing any suggestion that the renewable energy industry has anything to do with, say, soaring cancer rates around solar panel manufacturing plants, or whatever other form the inevitable ecological blowback takes. The all-or-nothing logic of George Orwell’s invented language Newspeak is astonishingly common these days: that which is good (because it doesn’t burn fossil fuels) can’t possibly be ungood (because it isn’t economically viable and also has environmental problems of its own), and to doubt the universal goodness of what’s doubleplusgood—why, that’s thoughtcrime...
Things might get very ugly indeed, all things considered, except that the underlying economics of renewable energy as a source of grid electricity aren’t noticeably better than those of fracking or corn ethanol. Six to ten years down the road, as a result, the bankruptcies and defaults will begin, banks will start backing away from the formerly booming renewables industry, and the whole thing will come crashing down, the way ethanol did and fracking is doing right now. That will clear the way, in turn, for whatever the next energy boom will be—my guess is that it’ll be nuclear power, though that’s such a spectacular money-loser that any future attempt to slap shock paddles on the comatose body of the nuclear power industry may not get far.
It probably needs to be said at this point that one blog post by an archdruid isn’t going to do anything to derail the trajectory just sketched out. Ten thousand blog posts by Gaia herself, cosigned by the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and Captain Planet and the Planeteers probably wouldn’t do the trick either. I confidently expect this post to be denounced furiously straight across the green blogosphere over the next couple of weeks, and at intervals thereafter; a few years from now, when dozens of hot new renewable-energy startups are sucking up million-dollar investments from venture capitalists and planning their initial IPOs, such few references as this and similar posts field will be dripping with patronizing contempt; then, when reality sets in, the defaults begin and the banks start backing away, nobody will want to talk about this essay at all.
It probably also needs to be pointed out that I’m actually very much in favor of renewable energy technologies, and have discussed their importance repeatedly on this blog. The question I’ve been trying to raise, here and elsewhere, isn’t whether or not sun and wind are useful power sources; the question is whether it’s possible to power industrial civilization with them, and the answer is no.
That doesn’t mean, in turn, that we’ll just keep powering industrial civilization with fossil fuels, or nuclear power, or what have you. Fossil fuels are running short—as oilmen like to say, depletion never sleeps—and nuclear power is a hopelessly uneconomical white-elephant technology that has never been viable anywhere in the world without massive ongoing government subsidies. Other options? They’ve all been tried, and they don’t work either.
The point that nearly everyone in the debate is trying to evade is that the collection of extravagant energy-wasting habits that pass for a normal middle class lifestyle these days is, in James Howard Kunstler’s useful phrase, an arrangement without a future. Those habits only became possible in the first place because our species broke into the planet’s supply of stored carbon and burnt through half a billion years of fossil sunlight in a wild three-century-long joyride. Now the needle on the gas gauge is moving inexorably toward that threatening letter E, and the joyride is over. It really is as simple as that.
Thus the conversation that needs to happen now isn’t about how to keep power flowing to the grid; it’s about how to reduce our energy consumption so that we can get by without grid power, using local microgrids and home-generated power to meet sharply reduced needs. We don’t need more energy; we need much, much less, and that implies in turn that we—meaning here especially the five per cent of our species who live within the borders of the United States, who use so disproportionately large a fraction of the planet’s energy and resources, and who produce a comparably huge fraction of the carbon dioxide that’s driving global warming—need to retool our lives and our lifestyles to get by with the sort of energy consumption that most other human beings consider normal.
Unfortunately that’s not a conversation that most people in America are willing to have these days. The point that’s being ignored here, though, is that if something’s unsustainable, sooner or later it will not be sustained. We can—each of us, individually—let go of the absurd extravagances of the industrial age deliberately, while there’s still time to do it with some measure of grace, or we can wait until they’re pried from our cold and stiffening fingers, but one way or another, we’re going to let go of them. The question is simply how many excuses for delay will be trotted out, and how many of the remaining opportunities for constructive change will go whistling down the wind, before that happens.

Tanstaafl Discusses the Alt-Right with Kyle Hunt

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Tonight at 8PM ET Kyle Hunt and I will talk about the Alt-Right and the zeitgeist behind its rise. You can tune in live at Renegade Broadcasting.

The post for the program is The Solar Storm: Tanstaafl – Team White (2-7-16).

The Unbearable Whiteness of #FeelTheBern

via The Occidental Observer

I have been very struck by the overwhelming Whiteness of support for the candidacy of the archeo-socialist Bernie Sanders to the presidency of the United States of America, which even extends to Europe among young, hip, English-speaking watchers of the Daily Show.

This has been evident in polls and voting. Sanders has done consistently poorly with Black and Hispanic voters as compared to Whites — which does not bode well for him when the primaries shift to states with large non-White populations. Blacks and Hispanics support Hillary Clinton more than two-to-one over Sanders, while Whites are almost evenly split between them. Sanders is absolutely dominating among the young, winning 84% of votes from 17 to 29 year-olds in Iowa. (Feminist Hillary supporters have tried to drive to a wedge between White women and Sanders with the so-called “Bernie bros” meme, but it really has not worked.)

The stark Whiteness of Sanders support was also extremely apparent his “America” campaign ad:


The ad presents does not present any political arguments as such, but summons a compelling feeling of home: Rural farms, renewable energy (wind), organic stuff, wholesome families, happy White people, coffee shops, laptops, hipster glasses, old folks dancing, etc, to the tune of Jewish folk rock stars 1960s’ hippie song of the same name. “Welcome home,” the ad seems to tell its well-thinking White viewers. Yes, welcome to the Whitopia of Organic Communism.

(Incidentally, the obscene comedy show South Park has also been pointing out this liberal White longing for an authentic “home,” which is simultaneously nice and superficially multicultural/multi-class.)

The Sanders ad really struggles to include non-Whites in it (out of hundreds of faces, there is only one noticeable POC). In response, the Clinton campaign predictably accused Sanders of racism: “From this ad it seems Black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders.”

Ads are projections of what campaign consultants think potential supporters want. And I think they achieved that brilliantly in this ad. (Of course, very few Sanders supporters are aware of just how implicitly White their dream of organic communism is . . .) All this very strongly recalls the recent visit California commercial almost exclusively featuring attractive White people doing White people stuff like biking, rock-climbing, camping, and snowboarding.

The Sanders ad very clearly highlights both the idealism and decadence of the more dedicated White liberals. There is an unbearable softness to it all, a world in which everyone will be nice, no hard decisions will be made, and everyone will be both physically and economically secure to enjoy their lattes and free WiFi. The world would be so safe everyone may as well be high on marijuana (and many would be).

Of course, Black murderers and Islamic gang-rapists simply do not exist in this mental universe. Neither, for that matter, do Jewish power brokers. (Jews, 2% of the U.S. general population, astonishingly make up all seven of Hillary’s top seven campaign contributors, the odds of this occurring by chance being absolutely infinitesimal.) There is a hopelessly naïve and infantile quality to Sanders supporters.

Also compare Sanders’ ad to Hillary’s repulsive campaign launch ad, an ode to hollow post-menopausal ambition and rejection of Core Americans in general.

So what is going on?

Interestingly, Pew Research points out that while Democratic Party supporters are becomingly increasingly “liberal,” Whites are much more likely to use the term than Blacks or Hispanics. There has been an astonishing increase in the proportion of self-described liberals among White Democratic voters, from just 28% in 2000 to 50% in 2015, whereas the proportion has remained basically unchanged among Blacks and Hispanics. More generally, youth and education correlate with liberal identification.

I suggest that the support for Sanders reflects the rise of a new generation of sheltered (often superficially) idealistic young White people who have been raised on Jon Stewart Liebowitz and Noam Chomsky. They are soft by temperament, pushovers even (see how two loud Black women were able to simply shout Sanders offstage), eager for the nanny state’s protective embrace. They have grown increasingly dissatisfied by the contradiction between, on the one hand, their soft personality and the egalitarian ideals promoted in their universities and TV sets, and, on the other hand, the increasingly plutocratic and ethnically-chaotic reality that is twenty-first century America. Sanders embodies their striving to make reality conform to their ideal, whereas the warmongering shill Hillary is deeply unattractive to them.

Sanders’ brand of ideological and moralistic politics does not resonate with Blacks or Hispanics. There is a big difference in quality between White and Black or Hispanic support for the Democrats. For Blacks or Hispanics, this is relatively rational, as the Democrats promise a softer approach to crime and ever increasing wealth transfers from the White majority. For Whites, this support, I believe, is more ideological and idealistic. Many Democrat-supporting Whites are in tax brackets which might not economically benefit from liberal tax policies. (Then again, many of these Whites are likely to  be in education or government, and thus benefit.)

The Whiteness of #FeelTheBern is unbearable precisely to these same White liberals, who quite self-righteously think of themselves as the least racist of all people. (Try googling “unbearable Whiteness to witness all the different issues that guilt-ridden White liberals have wrung their hands over.) But the reality is that support for Sanders to a large degree reflects a particular White subculture. Both the Trump and Sanders campaigns are examples of implicitly White identity politics — but of radically different kinds.

Therefore, if Whites (as Paul Krugman urges) were to be reduced to a minority in America and the country were to be reduced, in Barack Obama’s words, to “a hodgepodge of folks,” we can be sure that Sanders’ latte liberalism will be politically impossible. I doubt this reality will convince very many Sanders supporters to embrace White identity. But they must know, somewhere in their lower brain centers, that their dreams are much more likely to be achieved in a country with the demographics of (pre-invasion) Sweden rather than those of Brazil.

There is no  getting around it: Any kind of authentic social justice and social cohesion is only possible in a ethno-culturally cohesive and solidary nation.

British National Party Back on the Register

via BNP News

The successful re-registering of the BNP comes just days before the Electoral Commission is due to announce the donations and loans report of political parties for the last quarter of 2015.

It’ll show that the BNP received a massive £180,000 from just two bequests in that short time, guaranteeing David Furness’ standing on behalf of the BNP in the London Mayoral race this coming May.

Not only does this mean that the BNP started the new year without carrying any debts over into 2016, but also that all the donations flooding in now go straight to the frontline in our election campaigns.

The BNP needs £25,000 to stand our BNP London Mayoral election along with standing a full-slate of BNP candidates in the Greater London Assembly (GLA) elections.

With the hostile media frenzy, and foolish bleatings from Muslim-appeasing politicians such as the Labour’s Margaret Hodge, following last month’s disagreement with the Electoral Commission, donations to the BNP have increased.

We now have £17,000 in the GLA war chest, and with money flooding in from dedicated patriotic donors, the BNP is not only well set to reach the £25,000 target, but fighting fit to provide native Londoners and the people of Britain with a genuine voice.
  • £10,000 to stand our BNP Mayoral candidate, David Furness
  • £10,000 for a BNP double-page spread in the official London Mayoral elections booklet which is sent to 5Million Londoners
  • £5,000 deposit to a full slate of candidates on the GLA list

This string of good news, comes just before the release of the new BNP eagerly awaited issue of IDENTITY, with this issue being dedicated to stopping the Islamification of our capital city and country.

Strengthening the BNP

Bequests to the BNP from patriots who want to fight on even after they’ve gone, have greatly strengthened the BNP over the years and panicked political opposition who have desperately tried to write-off the patriotic party time and time again.

There are many different reasons why people have decided to leave a legacy to the BNP.

As well as the many rock-solid patriots that recognise that the BNP is the only political party fighting to keep Britain British, we also have an increasing amount of animal lovers changing their wills from the RSPCA and other such organisations because they refuse to condemn the barbaric religious ritual slaughter of animals.

Perhaps the most fascinating and contentious reason that people have decided to leave money to the BNP is because their relatives are far-left anti-British political activists or members of the Labour Party.

Why don’t you help secure the future of British nationalism by leaving a legacy to BNP? Find out more here.

Fair treatment from the media

In the interests of fair reporting, and as the corporate media’s own code of conduct dictate, the BNP is asking for nothing more than fair and equal reporting.

The BIG NEWS is the fact that the BNP is now fully re-registered with the Electoral Commission, and gearing up to stand a full-slate of candidates in the GLA, and a BNP London Mayoral candidate, David Furness, while standing in target seats across the country.

The BNP is indestructible and here to stay. Join us today! Call now on 0844 809 4581or join online here.

Adam Walker
BNP Chairman

P.S. The BNP is back on the electoral register and building our campaign for the May elections. Count yourself in - join the winning team today!