Feb 19, 2016

Female Betrayal: The Problematic Nature of Female Sexuality

via Alternative Right

A civilization that embraces feminist values will simply cease to exist. In this excellent video from Black Pigeon, the destructive nature of unbridled female sexuality is laid clear, with women displaying limited loyalty to their in-group, contempt for less-than-alpha males, and an attraction for aggressive incomers. It is therefore no accident that Sweden, the most feminist country on earth, is also the rape capital of the World.

Ted Cruz, Constitutional Conservative?

via traditionalRIGHT

In the past few years I have noticed an increase in the use of the term “constitutional conservative”, usually to describe a candidate or politician who is associated with the Tea Party or is otherwise generally considered more conservative by some degree. I have seen this term used a lot lately to describe Senator Ted Cruz, the recent winner of the Iowa caucus. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t recall this term being used much prior to a few years ago, which is why I noted it with some curiosity as it began to appear more frequently. Jack Hunter also notes the newness of the term in this article from 2012.

Presumably, a constitutional conservative is one who believes the U.S. Constitution should be strictly interpreted and abided by as originally intended by the Framers. Quaint notion, I know, but what confuses me about the sudden appearance of this term, is that there already exists a perfectly workable term to describe this political position. Such people have previously been called Constitutionalists.

Now it must be conceded that there is some room for confusion here, because almost every pundit and politician believes or at least pretends to believe that the policies he promotes are within the bounds of the Constitution. Few American politicians announce their intentions to willfully ignore the Constitution or articulate any qualms with the Constitution. Both opponents and advocates of gun control, for example, generally believe the Constitution is on their side. The same is true of the abortion issue and on and on, but issues-activists don’t usually describe themselves as Constitutionalists either. Even people and organizations who place a particular emphasis on the Constitution, such as the ACLU, are not commonly called and don’t self-describe as constitutionalists. ACLU types might call themselves civil libertarians, for example, and they come to conclusions regarding the Constitution that are quite at odds with people who identify as Constitutionalists.

Despite some opportunity for confusion, “Constitutionalist” has over time come to mean a pretty specific set of beliefs, especially among people who identify themselves as such and use it to favorably describe others. Constitutionalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted and followed as originally intended by those who wrote and ratified it. They reject the idea that the Constitution is a “living and breathing” document. Unless it has been specifically amended otherwise, they believe, the Constitution means now exactly what it meant in 1787 – 1789. 

For the Constitutionalist, the Constitution is not primarily a document that outlines what the federal government can’t do, but is rather a document strictly describing what the federal government is authorized to do. The sine qua non of Constitutionalism is the belief in “enumerated powers” which flows from the determination that this was the intent of the Framers and state ratifying conventions. Along with this belief in enumerated powers, there are other beliefs that generally travel together, some to a greater or lesser degree. Constitutionalists reject the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. They reject judicial supremacy with regard to who has the “final say” in interpreting the Constitution, and some reject the practice of judicial review outright. (This is a bit of an intra-constitutionalist feud.) Constitutionalists do not automatically defer to the most recent Supreme Court decision to settle the constitutionality of a matter because they believe many such decisions are in error since they were not reached by originalist methods. Rather, they appeal to the original intent of the Framers each time a Constitutional question arises. They reject “incorporation”, meaning they don’t believe the Bill of Rights was originally intended to be applied to the states, and most reject that this was the original intent of the 14th Amendment as well. Constitutionalists also tend to be open to the idea of state nullification and interposition and even secession as remedies for an overreaching federal government.

These beliefs can be, especially when taken as a whole, rather jarring to the modern consciousness which has come to accept the conventional wisdom on such matters. Nevertheless, they represent a consensus that serious Constitutional thinkers arrive at by the consistent application of the originalist methodology. 

So how do so-called “Constitutional conservatives” differ from Constitutionalists proper? My hunch from the start has been that its original popularizers wanted a term that invokes the good feelings most people and especially conservatives have for the Constitution without all the baggage associated with “Constitutionalist”, which has truly radical implications by modern standards, and this appears to be how the word is generally used. I searched “define constitutional conservative” and what I found were a lot of vague invocations of Constitutional “principles” and other general principles (fiscal responsibility for example) with very little explanation of how the Constitution was any more than a totem in this formulation. One article revealed by my search introduced the concept and then proceeded to define it by quoting…the Declaration of Independence? (The article did, however, confirm my impression that this is a term of relatively recent origin.) 

Constitutional conservatives seem to cherry-pick their application of strict constructionist principles to suit their needs. They invoke the Constitution to oppose the Obamacare mandate, for example, but are seemingly untroubled by the fact that a similar argument could be made against Medicare and Medicaid, the FDA, etc.  I don’t require that every candidate I support fall on his sword by inveighing against Medicare and the FDA or whatever on enumerated powers grounds. Dismantling the 80 – 90% +/- of the federal government that isn’t actually constitutionally authorized isn’t politically or logistically feasible at this time, but I do ask that if the Constitution is invoked to describe your politics, you not rhetorically concede the Constitutional legitimacy of such programs. 

The aforementioned Ted Cruz and his supporters demonstrate well this disconnect between Constitutional conservative and Constitutionalist. For example, if you want me to take seriously your claim to the title “Constitutional conservative”, you have to at least attempt to address the eligibility question from an originalist perspective. You can’t cite current law or a recent court case or conventional wisdom and pronounce the matter settled. While I think there is a growing consensus among serious originalists that Cruz is not eligible, an originalist case can arguably be made that he is, but you at least have to attempt to make that case. The original intent of the Framers with regard to the “natural born citizen” requirement seems not to have even occurred to many Cruz supporters I have interacted with, and they often seem perturbed by the mere suggestion that they need to address it. Perhaps if you want me to accept your professed devotion to the Constitution, maybe you shouldn’t swear your fidelity to a far off foreign country in your rather ungracious Iowa victory speech. Where the heck is standing with Israel in the United States Constitution?
So far as I can tell, Ted Cruz isn’t even trying to represent the original intent of the Constitution or the spirit of the American Founders.

The Creative Process

via Gornahoor

Training in esoteric psychology not only enables us to understand our own inner natures, but also provides a key to understanding much about how the world works. In the books on Gnosis, Boris Mouravieff expresses traditional psychology in terms suitable for our contemporaries. So instead of speaking of the soul elements – viz., the vegetative, animal, and intellectual souls – he refers to various centers.

Animal life, in this scheme, has sexual, motor, and emotional (at least in higher animals) centers. Man has an intellectual center, actually two of them, a lower center for rational thinking and a higher center for intuitive thinking. In the Primordial State, represented by Eden, Adam had the lower centers, but his consciousness was dominated by the higher intellectual center, i.e., direct intuition of the spiritual realm. Nevertheless, as part of his creative activity in the world, the lower intellectual center, or critical spirit, was necessary to formulate aims and to determine the means to achieve them. This formation of the critical mind is, according to Mouravieff, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As the critical spirit becomes dominant, the intuitive center or divine spark recedes and is generally forgotten.

Now animal and plant life lacks the intellectual centers, hence they do not have any inner conflicts that arise from the over-development of the critical spirit. This is the attraction many people feel toward animals. Moreover, there are systems of thought, most famously that of Rousseau, that seek that animal state in some primeval “state of nature”. Of course, that is not possible, nor is it really a return to the Primordial State. That path is not a rejection of the critical spirit from below as a return to animal nature, but rather the transcendence of that spirit from above. The esoteric path seeks the regeneration of man through conscious efforts to become aware of the divine spark.

To illustrate esoteric psychology, I will use Mouravieff’s description of how the creative process functions. There are three stages from the idea, the thought, and the will.
The joint action of the creative energy of the sexual centre and the faculties of intuition and discernment of the lower intellectual centre caused imagination to arise in man. After this, his development, the fruit of his conscious efforts, takes on an epicyclic form:
  • Man explores the unknown: this operation, fruit of this creative imagination, is characteristic of every project;
  • Then, by the return path his ideas become concrete, he accumulates the necessary data to establish a plan of action and assembles the elements needed to put it into execution;
  • Lastly, thus enriched, he acts on this plan.
This is the scheme of every human enterprise which puts into play all the factors in this activity.
The first phase involves the action of sexual energy, or eros. It causes phantasms, or images unrelated to the external world, to spontaneously arise in consciousness. When it is sublimated be means of its interaction with the higher centers, there will be creative activity. Otherwise, left on its own, the eros will simply produce sexual phantasies of the type that John of Ruysbroeck warned us against. This is not the place to discuss the practice of “concentration” in which the formation of thoughts and images are consciously directed rather than spontaneously arisen.

If the higher powers are weak, then the power of the eros will be dissipated in sexual imagery. Moreover, pace the Rousseauists, the state of nature is not necessarily pure and healthy. For example, Sigmund Freud last century made a career out of documenting the unhealthiness the unchecked libido. Although Freud distorted traditional psychology and was completely unaware of the higher centers, he recognized the decadence of modern man. Keep in mind that the “id” represents the lower centers, and the lower intellectual center he called the “reality principle”. Unfortunately, his system was unable to point the way to a cure.

Step (2) is not always so straight-forward. Of course, ideally the critical spirit should be able to judge rationally the ideas of the mental imagery. The spirit would determine if the plan is just and reasonable. It would then formulate the means to realize the plan. But at this point it is helpful to recall some of Julius Evola’s ideas. Of course, he agrees about new representations of the world spontaneously arising in consciousness.

Beyond that, Evola recognizes three stages:
  1. Spontaneity. The self is not fully developed. Evola describes it as “immersed in an immediate, indistinct coalescence with nature and the world, we can say that it is not so much he who thinks, speaks, and asserts himself, but rather that various forces and impulses think, speak and assert themselves in him.”
  2. Autonomy. The self begins to separate from the world. Evola’s description is much like Mouravieff’s description of the lower intellect: “Consequently, what used to be familiar to the individual is made alien and impenetrable, what intuitive certainty used to reveal to him as indisputable fact is made dubious and problematic.”
    In the attempt to discover some unity in the random fluctuations of phenomena, the self looks for solutions in adhering to some ideology, typically in the form of science or religious doctrines.
  3. Mastery. By transcending phenomena and ideologies, the self gains the power of mastery and becomes “deep centre of will and power”.

Primal Traditions

As an example of the first stage, we can rely on Julian Jaynes’s study on the Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. In those early civilizations, there was a priesthood that still had an active and direct connection to transcendent reality. There was also a caste of aristocrats who knew how to wield political power, while maintaining the societal order determined by the spiritual authorities. The workers were still at stage one, living spontaneously. They were sub-rational, with a poorly developed lower intellectual center, and responded spontaneously to the images arising in consciousness. They were not plagued with the doubts that arise from the uncertainty of critical thinking. Hence, they primary mode of control and communication required the use of commands, poetry, songs, or other art. That is obvious from the perusal of ancient spiritual texts. Now Jaynes claims that those people were content in those roles, and that is probably true. Such civilizations were able to persist for extended periods.

Ideologies

Step (2) of the creative process can be distorted or even thwarted by the adherence to ideologies that are at best partially true, if not completely false. That is Evola’s second stage. When attempting to solve a difficult societal problem, ideologues will be blinded by their own worldviews. Since a worldview forms the foundation for their being in the world, there is a strong psychological need to adhere to it; the alternative is to fall back into the uncertainty of critical thinking and fluctuating phenomena.

Hence, the human race is prevented from achieving its creative potential. People get stuck at step (2) by debating worldviews without any possible resolutions. They become convinced that their own worldview is correct, so that it would be necessary to convince everyone else to adopt it. That is simply not possible because men have different capabilities and are of various spiritual races which prevent a common way of relating to the world.

The Degeneration of Castes

Since the question of pseudo-traditions came up in the comments recently, this is a good moment to look at the question from the eternal perspective of Tradition. There is still this idea in certain circles that claim to be “traditional” that the goal is to formulate the perfect ideology. Hence, they usually blame “Christianity” for replacing the pure spontaneity of animal life with a critical attitude, especially its moral judgments. Since the identity of the self still resides in the lower centers or chakras, they come to experience the Christian teachings as “alien” and therefore resent its intrusion onto the spontaneity of the self-expression of the lower instincts or desires.

As we see, however, even Evola, who was no Christian, recognized that stage (2) is a necessary element in spiritual maturity. However, since the spirit is free, there is no compulsion or mechanical process to traverse the three stages. The Christian teaching therefore is the “way” to promote the movement into stage (3) or theosis. At that stage, there is a second spontaneity as one lives in the intuitive awareness of presence of God. Now, someone can try to make the case that Christendom has lost its power for that. Their burden, then, is to come up with a living and viable alternative, not to reject the teaching in toto.

Back to the point. According to Rene Guenon and Evola, the decline in the world process results from the degeneration of castes, not from the adoption of specific ideologies. In that decline, the spiritual authority and political power proper to the higher castes are transferred to lower castes who are incapable of maintaining the traditional structures. It would be impossible to convince them to adopt a different ideology that would deprive them of power; that is why logical arguments are beside the point in political discourse. It is a democratic illusion to believe that a single ideology can be grasped and adopted by the entire population. If a spiritual elite arises with demonstrable powers, then circumstances may change, otherwise people are satisfied with what they have.

European Parents Are Completely Unprepared for the Non-White Invasion

via BNP News

The parents in Europe are completely unprepared for the invasion of rampant and ingrained sexual deviancy of these men.

Normal life has been destroyed and will not return unless and until these men are returned to their own countries.
They treat their own children like rubbish – they butcher them, sell them, use them for criminal purposes and even turn some of them into killers.

We don’t live like this and don’t have the structures in place or the manpower to police our countries adequately.

No one was prepared for this invasion except the people traffickers and the economic migrants who were lining up to pay their handlers.

They had all the plans in place – we were sitting ducks. We need our Armed Forces on the ground but the leaders won’t do this. They won’t save even the children of Europe to protect their evil EU Empire.

Not even train stations or swimming pools or school are spared.

What has Merkel the Mad unleashed? The whole of Germany is being turned into Rotherham.

It’s difficult to believe that any human being, let alone Merkel, could be so brainless, and I strongly suspect that she is acting under orders, but heaven knows who is issuing the orders.

Her threats to Greece are entirely empty in view of the fact that anything she does to destroy that country immediately creates a bonfire of hundreds of billions of Euros of German loans.

Who in their right mind would allow mass immigration to plunge their country into an economic winter, which is inevitable with a massive number of migrants requiring indefinite life support and even getting them into any form of work will be a cost to the state ? Just trying to prevent them murdering and raping the local population will be costly enough and there is evidence that local imams are licking their lips to have a new force at their disposal.

If she didn’t know before she must now know that her political career won’t last much longer and, as the repercussions of her disastrous decisions come back to haunt her, the pressure to bring her career to an end will mount. Not even the media and her propaganda machine will save her.

Even if she throws money at the problem the true patriots of Germany have shown that they won’t stand by as their future housing and prosperity is handed to migrants.

It will be an unusual first if Merkel finds she is having to defend herself from the right and the left.

The Krugman Scam

via The Occidental Observer

Antarian Jewish "intellectual," Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman is one of the leading intellectuals of the Left in the United States. He writes a regular column for the New York Times, won the Nobel prize in economics in 2008, and is perhaps the single most influential social-democratic pundit in the American ruling establishment. Krugman is a (self-)righteous liberal. He sharply condemned the Iraq War during the Bush years and has continuously ridiculed those in America or Europe who oppose redistributive welfare spending to equalize outcomes or stimulus programs designed to keep the economy going through government deficit spending.

But Krugman really is extremely narrow in his center-leftism. He recently wrote on his blog that all those who supported Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton were not “serious”:
Meanwhile, the Sanders skepticism of the wonks continues: Paul Starr lays out the case. As far as I can tell, every serious progressive policy expert on either health care or financial reform who has weighed in on the primary seems to lean Hillary.
This is very strange for the more consistent kind of (overwhelmingly White) liberals who find the socialist peace activist Sanders to be much more in line with their ideals than the banker-funded warmonger Hillary Clinton. This is rather ironic given that the values of Sanders-supporting young White liberals were inculcated precisely by leftist intellectuals like Krugman, as well as Jon Stewart Liebowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn, among others.

Glenn Greenwald, a Jewish libertarian writer (who has problematic views on immigration, but is a powerful critic of the Democratic and Republican establishments), was quick to point out the hypocrisy of Krugman’s claim:
For years, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has repeatedly complained about the D.C. orthodoxy-enforcing tactic of labeling only those who subscribe to Washington pieties as “Very Serious People,” or “VSPs.” It’s a term Krugman borrowed (with credit) from the liberal blogger Atrios, who first coined it to illustrate how Iraq War opponents were instantly marginalized in establishment discourse and only war advocates were deemed to be Serious. Krugman mockingly uses it so often that the New York Times created a special tag for the term. The primary purpose of the “VSP” tactic is to malign anyone who dissents from D.C. establishment pieties as non-Serious or un-Serious, thus demeaning the person as someone who can (and should) be ignored as residing on the fringe, unworthy of engagement or a real platform regardless of the merits of their position.
Yesterday, one of the purest and most noxious examples of this tactic was invoked — by Paul Krugman. [. . .] As so often happens, those who fancy themselves dissident gate-crashers (which apparently can include someone who is a Nobel Prize-winning tenured economics professor, at Princeton until somewhat recently; an advisory board member of the nation’s largest corporations; and effectively, a life-tenured New York Times columnist) quickly assume the role of vigilantly guarding the gate once they realize they were admitted all along. So congratulations to Paul Krugman on his power of decreeing who is a Serious Expert and announcing that the label applies only to those who want Hillary Clinton be the next president, but not Bernie Sanders.
Note the vitriol. Krugman and Greenwald really are of a kind as culture warriors, shaping the boundaries of acceptable discourse through ridicule and righteous moralizing.

Krugman is an anointed thought-leader of the American and global ruling elites. But why is that? What exactly is his agenda, his narrative?

Paul Krugman is an open borders tax-and-spend liberal, one who particularly likes the idea of deficit spending in general. He has otherwise consistently supported policies which have increased economic inequality and concentrated ever more wealth and power in the hands of a tiny plutocratic and financial elite. He has supported free trade to outsource American jobs to China and has supported indefinite immigration from the Third World. These open borders policies have dramatically hurt the (White) working class, enriched the so-called “one percent,” and massively increased inequality.

Furthermore, Krugman has never been fundamentally critical of the American financial system, either before or after the 2008 banking crisis. As he recently wrote: “Most of us argued long before there was a Sanders candidacy that the focus on Glass-Steagall [financial regulation] and too-big-to-fail was misguided. In fact, I argued that position very early in the Obama years.”

None of this is problematic for the “egalitarian” and “neo-Keynesian” social democrat Paul Krugman. His solution? The empowerment of the federal government. All economic problems can basically be addressed through a massive expansion of the redistributive welfare state and constant stimulus spending and soft money, printed at the discretion of the tiny clique that runs the Federal Reserve.

The bad guys in Krugman’s narrative are the Republicans. He is not particularly vitriolic on Donald Trump, as Krugman considers the entire Republican Party to be bad, infinitely worse than a “serious” Democratic candidate, such as Hillary Clinton. He recently wrote: “Trump isn’t a problem for Republicans; he’s a symptom of the problems Republicans have.”

Krugman’s solution to the evil Republicans is the reduction of White America to minorityhood, and hence, her subjection to a permanent non-White Democrat majority. As he told a Norwegian reporter in 2014:
[The craziness of American politics] is not a permanent condition. The craziness really comes more from cultural-ethnic issues than anything else. A lot of the real craziness comes from rural White Americans who feel that they are losing their country, they are losing ownership of the country. They’re right. We are becoming more diverse, more multicultural, and they are, in the end, not in the future. The power they still have will go away but it’s a very difficult time until then. The future is Mayor De Blasio of New York, but Ted Cruz of Texas is still out there with the ability to do a lot of damage.
The new permanent non-White majority would of course be informed and led by enlightened liberals like Paul Krugman.

The selectiveness of Krugman’s outrage is striking. Whereas he is very intolerant of those unenthusiastic about his particular brand of redistributive neo-Keynesianism, he poo-poos most other left-wing economic causes. Whereas he was vociferous in denouncing the consevative George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and the wider War on Terror, he has been extremely circumspect on the constant wars and bombing in the Islamic World undertaken by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Krugman supported Obama’s war for regime change in Libya, which was no less illegal under international law than the attack on Iraq. Like Iraq, it has also had disastrous consequences and resulted in political instability.

Whereas Krugman is withering in his denunciation of ethnocentrism among conservative Whites, he writes that “like many liberal American Jews — and most American Jews are still liberal — I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going.” (Philip Weiss has for his part criticized Krugman, calling him a “latent Zionist,” for consciously ignoring the issue of Israel.) In contrast, Krugman has been very generous in lending his column space to publish his colleague Kim Lane Scheppele’s repeated denunciations of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, despite Hungary’s version of ethnonationalism being at best a pale imitation of Israel’s (and despite Hungary, unlike Israel, being free of the minor details of oppressing another ethnic group, ethnic cleansing, etc.). Orbán is the first Western leader in generations to stand up for the vital interests of Europeans.[1]

The inescapable impression that emerges is of Paul Krugman as a shill of the Democratic establishment, global plutocracy, and continued massive non-White immigration. He merely wants the system to be a bit more socially sustainable and stable by keeping the increasingly non-White masses’ refrigerators full through a bit of wealth redistribution and neo-Keynesian pump priming. The result? Global corporations and oligarchs are empowered, the individual is made dependent on the growing welfare state, while the government itself, by getting into debt, makes itself dependent on financial markets (Wall Street) and the Federal Reserve.

Any genuine destruction of global plutocracy and the realization of any real equality would never be achieved anyway in Krugman’s system, and certainly not by “electable,” compromised center-left as embodied by Hillary Clinton. But Krugman would support her, claiming righteousness based on the conceit that Hillary Clinton is infinitely better than the mainstream Republican candidate — as though there are any real differences on the ultimate fate that the two ruling parties have reserved for the country.

There is nothing “democratic” in any noble sense about Krugman’s vision and there will not be any genuine “equality,” even in an economic sense. Above all, Krugman’s agenda would not eliminate ethnic inequality. It would no more increase Black and Hispanic academic achievement than it would reduce the achievement of Asians or Jews. And Krugman’s post-White America would be wracked by all the problems that afflict stratified multiethnic societies, especially a permanent loss of trust and social cohesion, as documented by Robert Putnam. There would intractable ethnic tensions and hatreds stemming from average differences in temperament and performance.

But Krugman is easily intelligent enough to know all this. Indeed, he is aware of the importance of a sense of nationhood to having a healthy polity. In the 1990s, Krugman built up his credentials as a pundit by poking fun at the European Union’s project for a common currency, correctly noting that the idea was deeply flawed due to Europe’s national diversity:
Euroland is anything but ready to think of itself as a nation. After all, the countries cannot even agree on a set of heroes to celebrate on their currency: where almost every money in the world bears the portraits of great men and women, the new euro notes will bear pictures of bridges, gates, and windows — not any actual bridges or gates, mind you, but imaginary bridges and gates that might come from any European country. (There was a minor scandal a few months ago when it turned out that one of the pictured bridges was actually, mein Gott, recognizably French. It was quickly replaced with something acceptably generic).
Despite understanding that a strong national identity is critical to having a good society, Krugman sings the praises of the demise of White America and Obama’s grand project of replacing the nation with nothing more than “a hodgepodge of folks.” So nice to hear ethnic displacement phrased in such a folksy manner.

Does Paul Krugman really believe that “cultural-ethnic issues” will no longer drive “craziness” in American politics once Whites are a minority and the country’s demographics come to resemble a cross between Brazil and Yugoslavia? I really have hard time believing he is that stupid. I suspect that he thinks that, whatever the residual anger, the regime will have enough power to stifle any lingering hostility and resentment.

Krugman has also written on the “White death,” that is the stark increase in the death rate of White Americans (mainly due to various forms of substance abuse). He attributes this primarily to economic causes but concludes there are no obvious solutions. But could it be that White Americans are depressed and adrift after being ruled for decades by a hostile media-cultural elite which has, like Paul Krugman, systematically demonized them and organized the destruction of their historic nation? I have to think this has been at least a contributing factor.

Krugman has also rationalized the systematic left-wing bias of academia, absurdly claiming this is only because conservatives have shifted rightwards and because the Right supposedly rejects the theory of evolution. While many Republican politicians pander to evolution-rejecting Evangelicals, this is absolutely untrue for the philosophical Right more generally. What’s more, it is obvious that it is above all the Left — starting with the ethnically- and politically-motivated pseudoscience of the fraudsters Franz Boas and Stephen J. Gould — who have denied Darwinian evolution’s applicability to humans.

Krugman’s selectiveness is too convenient to be accidental or disinterested. No, I must accuse Paul Krugman, a Jew, of ethnocentrism, of racism against non-Jews and in particular against Whites. How else can we explain why an “egalitarian,” “neo-Keynesian,” and social-democratic peace activist like Paul Krugman would support the banker-funded warmonger Hillary Clinton with her neocon foreign policy advisors? Could he simply be very comfortable with a candidate like Hillary Clinton who is almost completely dependent on his co-ethnics for financing her campaign? (Amazingly, all seven of Clinton’s top campaign contributors are Jews.) Would Krugman consider Hillary the only “serious” candidate if she were entirely dependent on, say, pious Mormons or ethnically-conscious WASPs for her campaign money? I suspect he would be very critical, indeed hysterically so, and he has certainly written a great deal on the supposed corrupting influence of the gentile Koch brothers’ money, while ignoring the influence of of George Soros and Haim Saban in the Democratic Party (indeed, Krugman has written positively of Soros and ridiculed those critical of his influence as engaging in “conspiracy theory”). Krugman has been critical of Donald Trump who, being self-financed, is for  his part not dependent on Wall Street and Hollywood.

Is the “democratic” Paul Krugman comfortable with the very elitist economic system in the United States, in part, because of the staggering prominence of his co-ethnics in the Federal Reserve (three chairmen in a row over nearly 30 years!), Wall Street, and elite academic economics[2] generally?

Whether Krugman is conscious of his ethnic bias or not, this is all very convenient. He “just happens” to be comfortable advocating a system in which our people are systematically weakened and lose their historic homelands, while his people steadily build up their homeland in Israel and retain a position of staggering privilege and commanding influence in America. What a happy coincidence.

In any event, I take Krugman at his word: He wants America to look like Mayor Bill De Blasio’s New York City. New York, like virtually all “global cities,” is characterized by massive inequality and ethnic fragmentation bordering on outright segregation (even some liberals are uncomfortable at the degree of racial segregation in the city’s schools). New York City’s prisons are chock full of Blacks and Hispanics because these groups commit most of the violent crime, making up an incredible of 97.5% those arrested for shootings for example. Meanwhile, a heavily Jewish and increasingly global oligarchy runs New York’s elite institutions, from the New York Times through the big Wall Street firms. This day-to-day reality  of ethnic stratification doesn’t seem to bother Paul Krugman, and only someone who is blind or a liar can claim that Bill De Blasio is going to bring anything like “equality” to the Big Apple. Affirmative Action laws may be on the books, but De Blasio will not be kicking out staggeringly-overrepresented Jews from the big Wall Street firms and replacing them with “underprivileged” Blacks and Hispanics any time soon.

This is the plan Krugman has for the world: A borderless ethnic chaos with shocking inequality and social-ethnic fragmentation, made up of rootless individuals and mutually-hostile tribes dependent on the state for sustenance, and run by people like Hillary Clinton and institutions like the Federal Reserve, who just happen to be in the pocket of Krugman’s co-ethnics. Very convenient. This world would be one of lies and hypocrisy, everyone having nothing but “anti-racism” and “equality” in their mouths, as they govern on behalf of a non-White majority. Meanwhile real power would be held by whoever can form the most powerful ethnic networks (e.g. Patrick Drahi).

Paul Krugman embodies the hypocrisy and selectiveness of the establishment Left. The Left likes to talk about the pervasiveness of White racism and of the so-called “corporate capture” of the American political process. But what about Jewish racism and what about ethnic capture of the intellectual, financial, and political high ground in the United States? There will be no real justice in the world and no future for Europeans worldwide unless these problems are frankly discussed and dealt with.

Notes:
[1] I have not been able to determine whether Scheppele is Jewish
[2] The prominence of Jews, 2% of the U.S. population, in elite academic economics is really quite astounding. They are incredibly overrepresented for instance in academic rankings of top economists. More generally they are extremely prominent, easily more so than even members of the White non-Jewish majority, in both top level government positions and in economic punditry. We can cite: Paul Krugman (top establishment liberal), Joseph Stiglitz (top “Third Worldist” liberal), Kenneth Rogoff, Martin Feldstein (former adviser to President Ronald Reagan), Barry Eichengreen (currency historian), Dani Rodrik (the defender of a kind of “national economics”), Jeffrey Sachs (the top “development economist”), and many more. I have also been very struck at observing the prominence and obvious networking of young Jewish liberal economists, who typically market themselves as “wonkish” experts, such as Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias.

Traditionalist & Degenerate Themes in Game of Thrones

via Counter-Currents

Warning: spoilers ahead

Game of Thrones is perhaps the single most popular mass cultural product today. One indicator: In 2015, the show’s Wikipedia page was among the ten most-visited in English, German, French, Italian, and Russian, a remarkable distinction. Game of Thrones really is one of the major planks of our “global culture” as produced by the media masters in America. Given the show’s popularity, it is worth examining the values it promotes.

Game of Thrones’ most pervasive degenerate theme[1] is the gratuitous inclusion of numerous quasi-pornographic sex scenes, something the Jewish-owned company which produced the show, HBO, has long been notorious for. This includes an explicit portrayal of brother-sister incest “doggy-style” in the very first episode. Though I have not read the novels on which the series is based, I am told the author George R. R. Martin’s literary description of that event was much more allusive and vague. (There is, after all, nothing degenerate as such about telling a story involving incest.) The pornographic elements were therefore presumably inserted by the TV show’s creators, David Benioff (born David Friedman) and Daniel Brett Weiss.

Nonetheless, Game of Thrones also portrays traditionalist values, in keeping with the show’s medieval fantasy setting, such as honor, loyalty, and discipline. The two overwhelming facts facing people in the world of Game of Thrones appear to be family and hierarchy, two eminently Right-wing themes.

These values and the show’s violence create a sense of realism, quite different in this respect from the Lord of the Rings films, despite the inclusion of magic. The brutal violence, often eliminating leading characters we have come to identify with, is quite in keeping with the actual violence among the ruling classes of early medieval Europe. White viewers get a taste of the kind of tough and often brief lives of their forefathers, a rarity. Forefathers who, it cannot be emphasized enough, fought on and persevered despite the incredible hardship, making our lives possible as their descendants.

The show frequently portrays younger characters being lectured and educated by older ones in the realities of the world and traditional wisdom, in order to have them better accept the decisions and disciplines expected of them.

On family, Catelyn Stark, the loving mother of the young King in the North Robb Stark, urges her son to not marry out of ephemeral passionate love. She tells him:

Your father didn’t love me when we married. He hardly knew me or I him. Love didn’t just happen to us. We built it slowly over the years, stone by stone, for you, for your brothers and sisters, for all of us. It’s not as exciting as secret passion in the woods, but it is stronger. It lasts longer.

While I am not an advocate of arranged marriages, this is wonderful advice for finding genuine love and happiness, and founding good, healthy families. Catelyn’s words are completely at odds with the glorification of frivolous sex that otherwise dominates Western pop culture today (especially in pop music).

Tywin Lannister, a powerful and ruthless southern lord embodying raison d’État, also speaks to his son, Jaime Lannister, about family, albeit very differently. He tells him:

Your mother’s dead. Before long I’ll be dead. And you and your brother and your sister and all of her children. All of us dead; all of us rotting in the ground. It’s the family name that lives on. It’s all that lives on. Not your personal glory, not your honor, but family. Do you understand?

Tywin, like Catelyn, thus condemns individualist selfishness, albeit in a very different way. Individualism is vain because the individual ends in death. His life can only have meaning if it is part of something greater, more lasting. For Tywin, that thing is family. And what are nation and race but extended families?

The character who is most explicitly schooled on respect for hierarchy is Jon Snow, a Stark bastard who joins a kind of monastic warrior order known as the Night’s Watch, which guards the realm’s northern border. Jon is dissatisfied with his role and frequently criticizes or disobeys his superiors. The Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch takes him aside to scold him saying: “You want to lead one day? Then learn to follow.” Another Night’s Watch superior, Alliser Thorne, on a separate occasion also gave Jon some wisdom on this theme:

Do you know what leadership means, Lord Snow? It means that the person in charge gets second guessed by every clever little twat with a mouth. But if he starts second guessing himself, that’s the end. For him, for the clever little twats, for everyone.

This is something that we who are so critical should bear in mind. Armchair criticism is very easy, actually doing something is supremely difficult. (Personally, I try, though this is difficult at times, to limit my denunciations of others to cases of bad faith, and make only constructive criticism of others’ execution.)

There is also a brilliant scene in which Tywin, not disinterestedly, advises in Socratic fashion the boy-king Tommen, his grandson, to hold wisdom as the highest virtue, and to be modest by heeding the advice of those wiser than he is.

Beyond these individual cases, what are the overall values of the show? This article cannot claim to make a comprehensive assessment, and much depends on future episodes (I am writing as of season five) but some observations can already be made.

IronThrone

Game of Thrones is a constant and brutal education in the disasters that sentimentality brings about in a dangerous world. The show’s original protagonists are the Stark family, who are clearly portrayed as the good guys. The Starks, again and again, are defeated, murdered, and even destroyed due to misplaced sentimentality. Ned Stark tries in good faith to be an honest and honorable prime minister (“Hand of the King”) and as a result is quickly outmaneuvered and executed by those who do not have such scruples. Catelyn Stark put a sentimental attachment to her daughters above a higher sense of family interest and loyalty, leading her to foolishly release a major Lannister prisoner and sow discord in her own camp. King Robb himself offends an important ally by reneging on a promise to marry his daughter, in order to follow his heart instead, leading to his and his family’s downfall in the notorious “Red Wedding,” a truly shocking and traumatic event for the viewer.

The story of the Starks’ undoing, which is the main event of the show’s first three seasons, is a lesson in the perils of putting sentimentality before reason and of being honorable with those who are dishonorable. It is an ode to realism. This is a good antidote to liberal illusions.

There is however a second set of good guys, those around the young Daenerys Targaryen, who is busy building an empire in the show’s equivalent of Asia before returning to Westeros (Europe) to reclaim the throne. Daenerys’ adventures are rather disconnected from the rest of the show and have a rather infantile, magical quality. She triumphs without real effort or dramatic tension (her struggles are not, as in the wars of Westeros, between fellow main characters, but between her and secondary characters, leaving no doubt that she will always win).

What’s more, Daenerys not only wins but does so despite ruling arrogantly as a young person and as an idealist (she emancipates slaves, promises goodness to all, et cetera). She promises not to be another spoke on the wheel of the “game of thrones,” but to “break the wheel.” Thus Daenerys can be considered a stand in for an infantile femininity and sentimental egalitarianism, ultimately leading to Bolshevism (which is, among other things, the critique of an existing order based on the lie that one can form a human society without a ruling class or even without inequality in general). Daenerys overcomes the contradictions of all this, basically, through an outsized and implausible character shield.

If Daenerys really does triumph and create an egalitarian utopia, then Game of Thrones will not have been an illustration of the merits of realism, family, and hierarchy, but a denunciation of the real world, with all its viciousness, in favor of a communistic imaginary world.

I am curious as to the direction the show will take in the next seasons, which will apparently not be based on George R. R. Martin’s still-unfinished novels, but will be invented by the producers. Martin himself is incidentally a big fat liberal who cites Emma Lazarus to demand settlement of Muslims in America. Nonetheless, at least for me, Game of Thrones has been an enjoyable romp through an often compelling fantasy world, one which recalls the experiences and wisdom of my European forefathers.

Note:
1. I will not discuss gender roles in the show, which are for the most part traditional but feature some unrealistic portrayals of female fighters. The latter is for the most part considered unusual. Nonetheless, the inclusion of a little girl shown physically defeating grown men on occasion is degenerate. This gives women and girls unrealistic portrayals of their own physical strength. In the real world, such illusions lead them to be raped and murdered.

Retrotopia: Back To What Worked

via The Archdruid Report

Author's Note: This is the fifteenth installment of an exploration of some of the possible futures discussed on this blog, using the toolkit of narrative fiction. Our narrator visits another school, catches the flu, and has his first encounter with the Lakeland Republic’s health care system.

***********

I made some phone calls the next morning and got my schedule sorted out for the next few days. Now that President Meeker had gotten things sorted out with the Restos, I had a lot of things to discuss with the Lakeland government, and I knew they’d want to know as much as possible about what was going to change following the election back home.

By quarter to nine I was climbing the marble stairs in front of the Capitol, passing a midsized crowd of wide-eyed schoolchildren on a field trip. The morning went into detailed discussions with government officials—Melanie Berger from Meeker’s staff, Stuart Macallan from the State Department, and Jaya Patel from the Department of Commerce—about the potential reset in relations between their country and mine now that Barfield and the Dem-Reps were out on their collective ear. They were frankly better prepared for the discussion than I was; I’d taken the precaution of printing out the position papers from Montrose’s transition team before I got on the train in Pittsburgh, and reviewed them the night before, but it was pretty obvious that the Lakelanders weren’t used to looking things up moment by moment on a veepad and I was.

We had lunch downstairs in the congressional dining room, a big pleasant space with tall windows letting in the autumn sunlight, and then it was up to Meeker’s office and a long afternoon talking with the President. I have no idea to this day if Isaiah Meeker plays poker, but if he does, I pity the other players; the skill with which he tried to lure me into saying more than I should, while gracefully evading any question of mine he didn’t want to answer, was really quite impressive. I’m pretty sure that he ended up with a clearer idea of the incoming administration’s foreign-policy plans than anyone outside of Ellen Montrose’s inner circle was entitled to have, though in exchange I think I got a good sense of how his administration was likely to respond to some of the impending changes in inter-American relations—including some I was pretty sure he didn’t know about yet.

Dinner was at a really pleasant French place two blocks from the Capitol: Berger, Patel, her husband Ramaraj, and me—Macallan had to attend some kind of event at the Texan embassy. The conversation stayed deftly on the edge between too little politics to be interesting and too much to be safe. When I finally got back to my hotel room that night, I sat at the desk writing down my impressions until well past midnight, and then fell into bed.

The next morning I’d scheduled a visit to the Capitol Atheist Assembly’s school, and showed up at nine AM promptly just as classes were getting under way. The drill was nearly the same as at the school in Hicksville; I went to the office and signed in with the secretary, they found someone to show me around, and I sat in the back of the room and watched a couple of classes. I’d wanted to see their math and science classes, and I got my wish, but what I saw wasn’t anything like the math and science I was used to. The kids weren’t learning how to run programs to solve mathematical problems, or watching computer simulations of experiments—no, they were actually solving the problems and doing the experiments themselves. I watched a room full of sixth-graders work their way through a geometrical proof, and a class of eighth-graders hard at work setting up some kind of complicated apparatus with mirrors and prisms that ran out to all four corners of the classroom.

“The Michaelson-Morley experiment,” the teacher explained to me as we stood on one side of the classroom and watched the students and a couple of teacher’s apprentices get everything lined up. He was an old guy with flyaway white hair and disconcertingly blue eyes.  “I don’t know if they teach that outside, but it’s one of the classic experiments in physics.”

“I don’t think I heard of it,” I admitted. “I’m curious why you have them repeat it, rather than just telling them how it came out.”

That got me the classic Lakeland you-don’t-get-it look. “We actually have them replicate a whole series of classic scientific experiments,” he said. “That way, they learn that science isn’t some kind of revelation handed down from on high—it’s a living, growing thing, and it lives and grows when people get their hands dirty running experiments, and replicating them.” He gestured at the hardware. “And by making mistakes. Michaelson-Morley’s a finicky one; the first time they do it, the kids almost always get a different result than Michaelson and Morley got, and once that happens they get to go back over what they did and figure out what happened.”

Right then he got called over by one of the apprentices to help sort out some detail of setting up the apparatus, and my guide and I watched for a few more minutes and then headed for another class. All in all, it was an interesting morning; one thing I noticed is that the kids were never just sitting there being bored and restless, the way they were in every school I’d ever seen back home. I wondered how much that had to do with the fact that the students here were actually doing something active in every class I saw, instead of sitting there staring at screens by the hour.

I left when the students went to lunch. While I’d been inside, a rainstorm had come rolling in off the lake, and though it wasn’t much more than five minutes before a streetcar came to the stop out front, I was pretty wet by the time I climbed on board. I had lunch at the hotel; by then the rain had stopped, and I dodged puddles up to the Capitol and then a block and a half past it, to the office building that housed the Lakeland Republic’s Department of Commerce. I spent all afternoon there with Jaya Patel and half a dozen other Commerce staffers, looking into possible trade deals and sorting out how those would be affected by their tax and tariff policies. It was a productive session but a tiring one, and then we headed off to an Indian place for dinner; by the time I got back to my hotel room I was feeling pretty run down.

It wasn’t until the next morning that I realized that there was more going on than simple tiredness. I felt awful, and the face that confronted me in the mirror looked even worse. I sat down on the side of the hotel bed and tried to figure out what to do. Back home, I’d simply have canceled everything for a week, taken some over-the-counter meds, and waited it out.  You don’t go to a doctor or a hospital in the Atlantic Republic if you can possibly help it—a checkup plus lab work and a simple prescription will cost you the better part of a month’s income even after health insurance pays its cut, and you really don’t want to know how many people end up sick or dead every year because somebody screwed up a diagnosis, or because trade treaties won’t allow the government to pull medicines off the market even if they’re ineffective or worse. I’ve seen the numbers and they’re pretty grim.

Still, I wasn’t at home, and I couldn’t afford to spend the next week doing nothing. After a bit I went over to the packet I’d gotten on arrival, and paged through the paper on getting by in the Lakeland Republic. There was one short paragraph on medical emergencies and another on ordinary health care; this didn’t feel like an emergency, so I read the second one. It told me to call the concierge’s desk, and so as soon as I’d called Melissa Berger and cancelled the day’s meetings, that’s what I did.

“No problem, sir,” said the voice on the other end of the line. “I’ll call Dr. Hammond, find out how soon he can get here, and call you right back. It’ll be just a moment.”

About the time I’d begun to wonder how long “just a moment” was—it probably wasn’t more than five minutes, to be fair—the phone rang. “Mr. Carr? Dr. Hammond’s on his way. He’ll be up to see you in twenty minutes or so.”

Up to see me? I wondered about that. Something I’d read on the metanet once mentioned that a long time ago, doctors used to actually go to people’s homes—I think they called it “making house calls” or something like that. The idea sounded pretty far-fetched to me, but then plenty of things about the Lakeland Republic were pretty far-fetched by the standards I knew. Sure enough, right about twenty minutes after I’d gotten off the phone with the concierge, a crisp knock sounded on the door, and I went to open it.

Dr. Paul Hammond turned out to be a youngish African-American guy dressed like an ordinary Toledo businessman, with a big brown leather case in one hand. We did the usual, and then he sat me down, pulled over a chair, pulled a pen and a notebook out of the big leather case and started asking me questions about my health and the symptoms I’d noticed. After he’d finished with that, he got a thin glass thing that seemed to be some kind of thermometer in my mouth, checked my pulse, used some kind of rig with tubes that went from his ears to an odd-shaped disk to listen to my breathing, and then took the thermometer out, had me stick my tongue out and shone a flashlight down my throat.

“Pretty much what I expected, Mr. Carr,” he said then. “There’s a nasty little 24-hour flu going around, and I’m sorry to say you’ve got it. The good news is that you’ll be over it sometime tomorrow if you take it easy and let your body deal with it. You’ve got a mild fever, but that and the muscle aches are normal for this bug—all we have to do is keep any kind of secondary infection from getting going in your upper respiratory tract or your chest, and you’ll be fine.”

He reached into his case, pulled out a brown glass dropper bottle and what looked for all the world like a package of tea bags. “Twenty drops of this in water every two hours,” he said, indicating the bottle, “and one of these in hot water whenever you feel like it—that’s to treat the muscle aches.”

I picked up the package, gave it a dubious look. Yes, they were tea bags, full of what looked like bits of leaves that I guessed came from a bunch of different plants.

Hammond watched me with an amused look on his face. “The concierge tells me that you’re from outside,” he said. “So you were expecting pills, right, rather than plants.”

“Well, yes.”

“Care to guess where a lot of the ingredients in those pills come from?”

I gave him a quizzical look.

“Plants. Aspirin comes from willow bark, menthol from mint, and so on—there’s a long list. And here’s the thing—some of these plants have been bred for thousands of years to have the right mix of active compounds to treat this or that health problem. By and large, the kind of pharmaceuticals you’re used to taking pull just one compound out of the mix and use that, because somebody or other decided that it was the ‘active ingredient.’” He shook his head. “I can get you some pills if you really want them, but the tincture and the infusion will actually do you more good.”

That seemed improbable to me, but I was feeling too out of sorts to argue. He wrote down some notes about what to eat, told me what symptoms to watch for, and handed me his card so I could call him if anything out of the ordinary happened. Then he told me he’d check on me the next morning, said goodbye, and headed out the door.

I put twenty drops of the stuff from the dropper bottle into half a glass of water from the tap. It tasted so bad that I filled the glass the rest of the way before choking it down. By then I was feeling really tired, so I crawled back into bed and proceeded to sleep like a stone until past noon. I called room service and got some food, along with hot water for the tea-ish stuff—I figured, what the heck, might as well give it a try. It had an aromatic smell I didn’t recognize at all, but it went down easily enough and it seemed to make my muscles ache less.

That’s basically the way I spent the rest of that day. By sunset, rather to my surprise, I was starting to feel noticeably better, and by morning I felt—not well, exactly, but the sort of weak-but-better feeling that tells you that you’re going to be over an illness pretty soon.

Dr. Hammond showed up again at nine-thirty sharp. He had someone else with him, a wiry kid of eighteen or so—Hammond introduced him as his apprentice Larry Soames. “So how are we feeling?” he asked, as he settled on the same chair he’d used the morning before.

“A lot better,” I admitted. I fielded his questions and then got my temperature, pulse, and so on taken again, while the kid watched and listened and took notes in a little black notebook.

“Excellent,” Hammond said finally. “You ought to take the rest of today off, too, but if you do that you should be back on your feet again tomorrow.”

“Fair enough,” I said, “and thank you. Now how much do I owe you?”

“You don’t,” he said, with a broad smile. “I gather nobody’s told you how we do health care here.” When I shook my head:  “It’s pretty simple, really. Doctors like me—general practitioners—contract with businesses, churches, or citizen’s groups to provide basic health care.  That used to be common all over the old United States a century and a half ago.  My contract’s with the hotel; I get a flat monthly salary from them, and in return I provide all the primary health care for the employees and the guests.”

“What if somebody gets something a general practitioner can’t treat?”

“Well, of course, then I refer them to a specialist, and people have health insurance to cover that—but that’s not really that common, all things considered.”

That surprised me.  Back home, if you want to risk going to a doctor, you pretty much have to go to a specialist in whatever’s the matter, and if more than one part of your body is involved you’d better hope the specialists you get are willing to talk to each other or you’re going to land in a world of hurt.

“You don’t have a lot of general practitioners back home, I imagine,” he said then.

“I don’t think I’ve ever met one,” I admitted.

“Well, there you are. Here, probably ninety per cent of the physicians are GPs, and if you want to get into med school and become a specialist you pretty much have to go through an apprenticeship and then work as a GP for at least a few years first.  That way you remember that your job’s to treat patients, and not just a heart or an endocrine system or what have you.”

“Hold it,” I said. “You don’t go to med school to become a GP?”

“Not usually, no.” With another broad smile: “Back in the old Union, the universities got really good at inserting themselves into just about every job category you can think of as a job requirement. It was a big moneymaker for the academic industry but it didn’t work very well for anybody else—you’d go to college and learn a bunch of things dreamed up by people who didn’t actually work in the field, and then you’d graduate and have to unlearn most of it once you were on the job. We ditched all that after Partition; outside of a very few fields, most of them scholarly, it’s pretty much all apprenticeship.”

He nodded at Larry. “Six years from now, when he’s done with his apprenticeship, he’ll have years of hands-on experience to go with what he’s learning from the books, and once he passes his board exams he’ll be ready to start treating patients on his own right away. That’s the way it used to be done, you know—by apprenticeship, followed by state board exams. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, architects, all the skilled professions used to be that way, and it worked better, so we went back to it.”

He got up. “But that’s neither here nor there. Take it easy for the rest of the day, and if you feel worse—or if you get any of the symptoms I mentioned—give me a call right away. Okay? Excellent. Well, Mr. Carr, have a great day.”

They left, and I lay back down and eventually dozed off again.

Actually . . . Trump Is Sort of a Democrat

via TradYouth

People get on to Donald J. Trump for supposedly flip-flopping his party and ideology throughout his life. But if you really think about it, it’s the world around Trump which has changed, not Trump. He’s sort of an eighties Democrat frozen in amber and released in current year. The flamboyant and wealthy villain in the eighties blockbuster Back to the Future was actually modeled after Trump, which involved time traveling from the eighties to 2015, so maybe there’s some synchronicity going on here.

Within the time period between Marty stepping into his time travel DeLorean to stepping out around the time of the first Republican primary debates, the Democrats have transformed from being an implicitly white, worker-friendly, pragmatic and protectionist party of government-friendly solutions and humble foreign policy into a minority grievance mob with a neocon foreign policy approach which is explicitly and overtly anti-white. Trump’s minority-friendly and immigrant-friendly, but in an eighties manner, back before it all reached this point of self-parody.

Even the Republican Party is dominated by multiple Cubans who recently washed ashore, a man whose love of Mexico exceeds any Japanese anime nerd’s love of Japan, a man whose Goldman Sachs wife advocates for a transnational North American super-state at secretive Council of Foreign Relations conferences, and an angry libertarian manlet who takes the side of cop-killing thugs against law and order.

The argument that the government is racist because more Black people are locked up for violent crime belonged in a Black Panther crackhouse in the eighties. Now that whole conversation, whether cops are too hard on violent thugs, is standard faire in the conservative party’s national conversation. Trump’s firm stand in support of law enforcement against drug dealers and gangbangers in the New Hampshire debate is now a bold stand for a Republican, …but it’s generic standard boilerplate for an eighties Democrat.

At this juncture, an eighties Democrat is a conservative beacon of traditional values relative to what the supposedly “conservative” Republican Party has on offer. At some point in the past few decades, the DNC crossed that line from merely being inclusive of and supportive of immigrants, minorities, and women into a party machine which aggressively and explicitly scapegoats white males. The GOP ain’t much better on all that, and it’s even worse on the corporate cronyism and warmongering.

Some smarmy Republican operative declared a few weeks ago that “Trump’s not a Republican. He’s a Democrat who happens to hate Mexicans.” There’s some truth to that, actually. But the truth condemns the two parties’ elites more than it condemns Trump. There are too many Mexicans here, after all, and even an impressive share of Mexican immigrants are inclined to agree. We all know you’re not allowed to say that in 2016, but a time traveler from the eighties would almost certainly make note of it.

Trump didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left Trump, …and tens of millions of other White Americans. America’s monolithic political machine has evolved a great deal in the past few decades, but the American people themselves and Donald Trump haven’t really. They still want fair trade, sane immigration policy, a fair economic playing field, and investment in our nation’s infrastructure. The only thing that’s really changed is their mood, a mood which Trump masterfully mirrors as his face turns pink with rage at a political system rigged to thwart the will of the voter.

Gregory "Rabbit" Stewart: An Individual Who Proves America Is Irredeemable

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Black Heroin Dealer Who Killed a Dozen
before the Age of 20, Now Works with Feds
This is your American Judicial System corrupted by an intense aversion to actually punishing black criminality. 

Meet 24-year-old Gregory Stewart of New Orleans. 

Street name "Rabbit."

He's murdered at least a dozen people and is now actively working with Federal prosecutors to get his four-life sentences reduced. [A dozen murders before age 20: a young killer and his help for the federal government, The New Orleans Advocate, 2-13-16]:
In a city afflicted by murder, the most prolific New Orleans killer over the past several years might well be a 24-year-old drug dealer who goes by “Rabbit.” At least Gregory Stewart has admitted to more killings than anyone else in recent city history.
By his own reckoning, Stewart had a hand in a dozen homicides over a 15-month stretch of bloodshed that started in early 2010, when he was 18.

Only one of those gun assaults involved multiple slaying victims: acclaimed bounce rapper Renatta “Magnolia Shorty” Lowe and Jerome “Man Man” Hampton, the intended gangland target in a December 2010 barrage of more than 50 bullets.

Stewart, who told authorities he started dealing cocaine at age 11 in the 9th Ward, has acknowledged leaving corpses in neighborhoods from Mid-City to St. Claude to Little Woods in New Orleans East, court and police records show. 

U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown tallied up the carnage at a hearing last year, saying Stewart has “accepted responsibility for the murder of at least 14 people.”

Now jailed, Stewart is helping the government in a big way, hoping the feds come through on a promise to try to reduce the four consecutive life prison terms Brown handed him last year.

In his come-to-Jesus moment, Stewart came packing. Court records indicate he has revealed names and other specifics on numerous killings, shootings and the ferrying of heroin from Houston to the streets of the 9th Ward and Central City.

Federal prosecutors, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurice Landrieu — Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s brother — have parlayed those revelations into one of the biggest street gang indictments to date in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Handed up last June, the indictment against 13 alleged members of the city’s “39ers” gang listed 13 slayings, numerous shootings, drug trafficking and gun crimes in a 45-count roadmap of urban mayhem. Three of the 13 defendants already have pleaded guilty.

Federal prosecutors often go to bat for helpful criminals, before or after sentencing. But Stewart’s exceptionally bloody history, and his key role in the case against several of his alleged killing partners and drug mules, has raised questions over just what the cooperation of an admitted killing machine is worth.

Stewart’s murder spree — as triggerman, shot-caller or driver — ended with his arrest in June 2011 at a motel south of Atlanta on federal heroin distribution charges. He was 19.

By then, federal agents had been monitoring him and other alleged members of “G-Strip,” a 9th Ward drug gang, for several months in an expanding array of wiretaps.

Stewart had risen during his teens to upper management. Prosecutors describe him as a top dog in the 39ers, which the FBI says was a “hybrid” force of G-Strip and 3-N-G, a notorious Central City drug clan named for its stronghold at Third and Galvez streets.

The combined group’s aim was to control the heroin trade in two of the city’s hotbeds for drugs and violence, prosecutors allege.
 There's a lot more at the New Orleans Advocate, but it's a tough story to get all the way through.

In a sane world, "Rabbit" would hang from the highest point in New Orleans for days.

Weeks.

Months.

As a reminder what happens to drug dealers.

Punishment must be unusual or else it serves no purpose.

Porn's Profit

via Radix

“We still advertise on billboards and magazines they’re important, but more and more we need to start advertising where people go,” so said Nicola Formichetti, the artistic director for the fashion label Diesel about starting to advertize on PornHub, YouPorn, and Tinder.

Yes, you read right, the couture fashion house Diesel has started hustling its products on the sleaziest corners of the web. In fact, it should not come as too big a surprise; back in 2014 I noted:
Currently, the only companies willing to advertise their products to viewers of pornography are companies who are in the same industry, or an offshoot, like vendors of sex toys or lubricants. But as porn becomes steadily more mainstream, this will change and the day it does is not far off. Once a single vendor of cologne, beer, firearms, cigarettes, denim, or whatever decides to flash their product on pornhub.com or one of its clones, the dominoes will fall. Since so many people watch it, the sales will skyrocket, and more companies will follow suit. Once that happens, tube sites will fall by the wayside as all major porn producers and distributors set up their own adult versions of hulu.com. Porn is here to stay.
Admittedly, I suspected the first product not of an explicitly sexual nature to break into the porn market would be Axe or some similarly crappy cologne only lonely men are stupid enough to buy, but supposedly “high end” fashion has officially won that distinction. The back and forth between the two industries has certainly been interesting, with American Apparel being something of a vanguard of our current era by featuring (barely) clothed pornstars in their ads a few years ago. That company’s bankruptcy does nothing to alter the trend.

Diesel is not publicly traded, so the number of people who will get rich off of this is not as big as it could be, but make no mistake, the money has got to be rolling in. For those of you in doubt, remember that YouPorn is the 370th most popular website on the planet, which is nothing in comparison to PornHub, which is the 64th most popular website on the planet. It’s been said that at any given second, around 28,000 people are watching porn.

And now that ostensibly respectable companies have crossed into the realm of advertising on these websites, porn has the financial safety net it has been yearning for ever since the Internet came along and the quasi-respectability it has yearned for since the dawn of time.

One wonders how much longer America can pretend that it isn’t a porn-saturated wasteland. Everyone is watching porn, but Ted Cruz’s campaign will still throw a fuss upon discovering that an actress from one of their ads has a background in softcore porn, and outed pornstars will still commit suicide out of shame.

Well, ain’t that Weimerica.

SC Washes Out New Hampshire?

via BUGS

South Carolina was once known as a rebellious electorate. Once the primary happens here you will see the pattern no other political analyst has noticed.

No famous political analyst becomes famous for being right. No one ever checks their predictions. A public political writer makes his living by saying what he should say when he needs to say it.

You would be astonished by the difference in what a staffer writes to his boss and the public commentaries:

Goof real advice up and you’re dead.

We just had a not unusual New Hampshire primary. The rebels won. This time in both parties.

SC will, as always, wash that out.

Rebellious? In recent times The SC electorate has a doglike loyalty that would make Lassie jealous.

Black or white, those at the polls in South Carolina primaries, black or white don’t really vote.

Whites do what the Republican establishment tells them to do. Blacks do what their owners tell THEM to do.

Black obedience is more ostentatious because their owners actually write down the list of candidates and Black “voters” take it with them into the polling booth.

In South Carolina in 2010 an utterly unknown candidate got the United States Senatorial nomination entirely because the list was printed wrong.

Show me the political writer who would survive reporting THAT!

This year In the New Hampshire primary Bernie and Trump got the nomination. The media noted that Bernie did not get the minuscule minority vote in that state and he certainly couldn’t win the election without it.

When the SC primary occurs Hillary will win. She knows who owns them and how to buy them. This is the first time Hillary will be able to deal directly with the minority’s owners.

Hillary will get what they call the minority “vote.”

On the Republican side, SC voters stopped the Buchanan tide in New Hampshire and SC voters are likely to reject Trump on Republican orders.

Put simply, Trump voters here will be afraid they will be labelled “rednecks.”

I would be delightedly surprised if SC voter doggies didn’t do exactly what they are told will make them “respectable.”

For the thousandth a time, a three -way election is entirely different from a two-way, and that is what Trump will be in. He COULD get a plurality, but I doubt it.

Trump is a vote against orders, fit for a redneck instead of a Respectable.

2016 Jonathan Bowden Oratory Prize Nominee: Ben Raymond

via Western Spring

I am pleased to announce the first nominee this year for the Jonathan Bowden Oratory Prize, Ben Raymond of National Action. Ben’s nomination  is for the opening speech he made on 2nd May 2015 at the National Action 2015 Annual Conference. Ben is one of the founder members of National Action and has been responsible for producing much of their propaganda material, both in terms of writing articles for the group’s website, in terms of producing and editing videos and in terms of designing the hard hitting and often darkly sinister graphics that are a feature of the group’s propaganda.

Despite the somewhat ‘backroom’ role Ben has played in National Action, he rocketed to prominence last year following his appearance on the Victoria Derbyshire show, in which he revealed considerable public relations skill, far beyond his years.

In this speech Ben speaks at a measured pace which allows him time to think and speak simultaneously, and which adds a sense of gravitas to what he is saying. He makes good use of imagery, emotive language and humour in order to give his speech impact.