Feb 26, 2016

What I Discovered During My Brief Career with the Indiana Department of Child Services

via TradYouth

My reputation follows me everywhere I go, and it’s decidedly a mixed blessing. While I’ll never regret becoming a public advocate for my extended family of White brothers and sisters, the racial element of my work does overshadow my life’s calling of public service. I’ve always wanted to help people. I try to be helpful toward my fellow Christians; I try to be helpful towards my friends and family members; and I try to be helpful toward my community and nation.

I would like to think that the people who know me beyond my reputation for White Advocacy will confirm that.

Having a strong academic record at a reputable university and a solid work record, I’m a Department of Child Services hiring manager’s worst nightmare. On paper, I’m the perfect candidate for the job. I aced the interview, because I care deeply about child poverty issues, building strong families, and investing in the folks who need it the most. I pass the “background check” with flying colors, because I’ve never stolen a stick of gum or been caught jaywalking.

But I have something in my past (…and present…and future) which doesn’t get flagged on the formal background checks because it’s not technically illegal; pro-white political beliefs. In today’s America, being pro-white is worse than being a convicted felon. Several DCS employees have a variety of blemishes on their criminal record which the State of Indiana is happy to work with. Most of them have academic records and work histories inferior to my own. But they all get to keep their jobs because they didn’t commit the greatest crime of all: politically incorrect thought crime.

Part of my worldview is that I am a community organizer and taking care of the members of my community is a primary concern. Millions of working families of all ethnic backgrounds have been abandoned by our political elites, state governments and local institutions. It is up to men and women to invest themselves in our local communities to help those in need and provide services to those who need assistance. With this fact in mind, I applied to work for the Indiana Department of Child Services.

I would like to think that my volume of work and public advocacy has proven that I respect each and every individual and ethnic community. I have worked with Black community leaders in Baltimore, Indianapolis and Chicago to discuss ways that we can find common ground and common solutions to issues facing the White and Black communities.

I have always been respectful to coworkers of different backgrounds and always promote to my members that our movement should never belittle or act hateful towards other groups. I am a nationalist, which means I take care of and advocate for my ethnic community, and I believe my actions have shown that I can treat everyone with dignity, respect and courtesy; making me perfect for the job of a Family Case Manager.

I worked for the Indiana Department of Child Services for a little under three weeks. From the beginning of January until Thursday, January 28th. I was warmly regarded by my training instructors, by my classmates, by my field trainers in Jasper, and–most importantly–by the handful of struggling families and children I had the honor of assisting during my brief tenure. It was all going very well, with documented confirmation of satisfactory behavior and grasp of the material until my instructor referred to me by my first name, “Matthew,” instead of by the middle name I had been going by.

The Chelsea Handler special had come out on NetFlix the previous evening. Surely enough, a student had watched it the night before and rumor had bubbled up the food chain. I wasn’t sure whether they would be wise and closely watch me, waiting to catch me in some routine mishaps or misstep or whether they would panic and fire me for my private politics, then scramble to lie about it and cover up their tracks. One thing was certain. I was going to be fired for my private politics in direct contradiction of law and policy.

They went with the latter option, firing me in a panic and then making up excuses later.

Within hours, I was being escorted out of the building with no explanation. I didn’t need one. I had been found out. DCS is attempting to carefully weave an easily disproven story around the fact that they illegally fired me for my private political beliefs by making up stories about inappropriate conduct. But there were dozens of witnesses, or non-witnesses, …as it were. If I had the legal resources at everyone else’s disposal, or if the ACLU were as impartial as they pretend to be, the wealth of witnesses and detailed records of my time with the department would vindicate me.

Indiana’s Department of Child Services in Indiana has been having a rough time as of late. Multiple lawsuits against the agency based on not paying overtime to employees to chronically being understaffed and having caseloads so high that Family Case Managers cannot properly take care of the children and families in their care; have been piling up for some time. In 2015 the State wasordered to pay more than $31 million to an Indiana family ‘destroyed’ by wrongful accusations that the parents caused their 14-year-old daughter’s death.”

Also in 2015 the ACLU sued the State of Indiana because the State wasn’t following its own laws based on case load for Family Case Managers. One news story reported that, “Case managers for DCS are overworked, and as a result, are unable to protect thousands of children across the state. ACLU lawyers claim DCS is breaking Indiana law. In the suit, the ACLU represents a case manager responsible for 43 cases. The state required maximum is 17.”

The department was also sued by “grandparents who are caretakers of their severely disabled grandchildren and who are ready to adopt them have filed suit today against the Indiana Department of Child Services for failing to approve adoption assistance payments that will allow them to continue to adequately care for the children.

This is just a few of the cases filed just in the past year against the Indiana Department of Child Services, a strong indicator that something is wrong within the Department on an institutional level. Both employees and clients have sued the Department for a variety of justified causes in recent years. I cannot, however, begin to speak to all of the elements of DCS, only what I personally experienced.

I began my training in DCS hoping that we would be focusing simply on child welfare and caring for our communities, I was wrong. I had thought that due to DCS official policy that states No employee will be appointed to, demoted, or dismissed from any position, or in any way be favored or discriminated against with respect to employment because of his or her political opinions or affiliations” that I would not be persecuted due to my political beliefs.

The training for Family Case Manager’s is political through and through; for the cause of Leftist Social Justice. And because of this, the Department violates its own policies towards non-discrimination based on political belief. Both on field assignment and in the classroom, I was especially careful to keep my politics to myself, and to avoid even the superficial appearance of racial favoritism. I think we can all agree that Hoosier children in crisis situations deserve a helping hand and unbiased treatment.

One of the first moments that I realized something was wrong was when I was sitting in class and several of my coworkers were discussing various Social Justice groups and projects they had been involved with in college. I understood then that being a practicing traditionalist Christian and nationalist that I was heavily outnumbered in this group. I had gritted my teeth and resigned myself to carefully abide state policy no matter what, as a necessary compromise to achieve a career of direct community service.

Several of my Black coworkers discussed the Black Lives Matter Movement and how they were supporters. I think it is great for anyone to advocate for their community, it is just tragic that there is a clear double standard where White State employees are banned from being ethnic advocates in their private lives while all other races are encouraged to carry out their ethnic politics on the public payroll.

In training, the question of illegal immigrants was brought up several times. I was told by one coworker that in Dubois County, the county I was assigned to work in, that I should “brush up on my Spanish” because it would “get a lot of use” in the county due to the population of illegal immigrants who commit child neglect, especially when it came to sex crimes in relation to children.

Southern Indiana has an increasingly severe illegal immigration problem due to the lure of agribusiness and the remaining manufacturing jobs in the region. It was found that “Prisons and jails across Indiana have held hundreds of people over the past year for being illegal immigrants, although many wouldn’t have been identified without being arrested on other charges.”

These illegals are not just passively going to work every day to feed their families as #Cuckservative politicians like Jeb Bush would have you believe. These illegals are disproportionately committing murders, assaults, drunk driving, and child neglect. Not to mention that they’re stealing jobs from legal citizens in already economically depressed areas.

FAIR estimates that there are approximately “120,000 illegal immigrants in Indiana that cost the State 570 million dollars a year.” The illegal immigration crisis takes money out of healthcare, education, infrastructure projects, and economic investment throughout the State every single year.

Illegals hurt working families not only economically, but they are also a danger to them on the streets of their communities. If the State government really cared about kids, they would be getting criminals off the streets and out of our country instead of letting them remain in our communities and then spending an estimated 81 million dollars a year on government services and 45 million dollars a year in welfare for illegals and their families.

It was found thatbetween October 2008 and July 2011, more than 159,000 illegal aliens were arrested by local authorities and identified by the federal government as deportable but nevertheless released back onto the streets. Nearly one-sixth of those same individuals were subsequently again arrested for crimes.” Not only are we not deporting illegal immigrants when we catch them for committing other crimes, many of them re-offend when they go back to their communities.

After coming to training and hearing about the impact of illegal immigration in the county I was going to serve in, I was shocked to find that not only did we not address the issue in a positive way; we were told to be de facto vigilante facilitators of illegal immigration, in direct contradiction of clearly written federal law. Our trainers told us that we were not to contact law enforcement when we discovered that alleged abusers or families were illegal immigrants and instead provide them with not only DCS services, but help them find other government programs to “help them.”

The problem for DCS is that this policy violates federal immigration law as found in Sec. 274. [8 U.S.C. 1324] which states,
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law
[…]
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place.”
Family Case Managers as part of their job have to transport children. If you know that a child is an illegal immigrant and you knowingly transport him throughout the State, you’re an accomplice to a federal crime.

If you have a family going before a judge and you know they are illegal immigrants and knowingly conceal this from the judge, law enforcement and other representatives of the State, that would also seem to run afoul of federal law.

The training instructors of Cohort 220, my training group, told us that we were not to tell law enforcement or ICE in order to encourage us “working in these communities” by facilitating illegals and not reporting them or documenting their status in our official reports. Should we also aid and abet bank robbers and drug dealers as part of our job, so that we may win the trust of bank robbers and drug dealers?

One of the trainers, a White female, talked about how she and local law enforcement turned their eyes away from situations of illegal immigrants in her time as a Family Case Manager. This is an issue not only of DCS, but a lack of enforcement and compliance with Federal law on behalf of some members of law enforcement and Family Case Managers of DCS.

One of my fellow trainees discussed that when she worked as part of a community organization that she actively helped illegal immigrants get access to welfare and government programs. The trainers did not point out that she was violating the law because illegal immigrants are not allowed to collect welfare, at least according to the law. The trainers instead encouraged her and noted that she was “serving her community” by facilitating and aiding illegal immigrants.

Inside the Department of Child Services we also had to take a Diversity course. Somehow I passed! Inside this course though we were made to participate in exercises to expose “White Privilege.” The “Privilege Walk Activity” as it was called is done at universities around America to push a shaming activity on White students and in the Indiana Department of Child Services, on White Employees.

The questions for this activity where each participant either gives themselves a “privilege step forward” or a “step backward” are fairly consistent. This example from the University of Michigan is nearly identical to the questions given to Indiana DCS employees.

Some of the questions are as follows.
  • If your ancestors came to the United States by force, take one step back.
  • If you believe that you were denied employment because of your race, gender, or ethnicity, take 1 step back.
  •  If you are reasonably sure that you will not be denied access to jobs or political resources because of your gender, take one step forward.
  • If members of your gender are portrayed on TV in degrading roles, take one step backward.”
Now looking at these questions, and in our activity there were about two dozen more of varying degrees of Leftist thought, it is clear that there is a political agenda behind them that is anti-White.

The questions are ignorant of the fact that tens of thousands of White slaves and indentured servants were brought to America, most likely my own. That Indiana is an Affirmative Action State so that White men and women can and do face open discrimination based on the fact that they don’t fit into the Affirmative Action quotas set up by the State government.

White men are at the bottom of the totem pole for government resources with people of color and single White women being given preferential treatment for Section 8 Housing, Food Stamps and other government programs. No one would question either that in the mainstream media that the only group you can openly mock and humiliate anymore is straight White men, the only “non-protected” class of citizens left. Even if one grants that many White people are relatively privileged, we’re talking about families interfacing with DCS here. These White families most certainly don’t enjoy “White Privilege” and don’t need this resentment-driven anti-White garbage injected into their cases.

The DCS policy says in Section F of Prevention of Workplace Harassment: “DCS staff will strive to maintain an environment free from sexual harassment and harassment based on race, color, creed, religion” yet during our training on drug awareness we were taught the stereotype that methamphetamine is a “White drug” and during a section on mental health there were multiple jokes that young White men were the most dangerous members of our population due to examples of school shootings.

Stereotypes against Whites were taught and allowed to be reinforced by comments from my fellow trainees that weren’t corrected by our trainers. The claims especially on violence in our society, not based on actual facts; but they promoted negative stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards Whites.

One additional portion of training was discussing this video…



We were told that this film demonstrated that we should always check our own “personal bias” and “privilege.” The video shows a Greek family sitting down outside a doctors office. The father stands as he makes sure there is a comfortable space between his daughter, wife and a Third World immigrant. We are shown at the end of the video how “evil and racist” this family was being because this man turned out to be the bone marrow donor for their daughter.

Scientifically, we all know it is nearly impossible for separate races to donate bone marrow to one another (I thought race was a social construct??). Given the rising rate of assaults, rapes and murders of Greek men and women by refugees and immigrants from the Third World, it would seem reasonable to not want to be cozying up with complete strangers, but that biological desire for self-protection is considered racist in DCS culture. Science, culture and human nature are to be thrown out the window and instead replaced with a multicultural hug-fest in order to appease the false gods of multiculturalism.

Young women are taught to say or do whatever they feel necessary to ensure their physical safety, …unless it’s racial.

Religious Freedom is also under attack according to DCS training in regards to parental rights. I asked a question in regards to families who believe in religious doctrines that support prayer and Faith healing over modern medicine for themselves and their children. Groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who reject blood transfusions, Christian Scientists, some Seventh Day Adventists and others have deeply held religious convictions in regards to the issues of natural medicine versus institutionalized medicine.

I was told by my trainers in front of the class that they would seek to use the courts to compel families, or outright seize children from Faith based homes if the Family Case Manager and their supervisor thought they knew better than the wishes of a child’s parents on healthcare.

This is a terrifying prospect if the State believes that it can challenge deeply held religious doctrines of its citizens and instead impose the regimes morals on these families and used the courts and DCS employees (backed up by armed police) to kidnap children based on religious differences.

DCS policy on diversity seems to only run one way, with White Christians being looked upon with suspicion or downright hostility.

My time with DCS was only a brief glimpse into a world in which the State institutions are shifting more and more to the Left. Government institutions, instead of being apolitical and being respectful of differences in political and religious opinions is starting to coalesce around anti-White and anti-Christian policies.

Governor Pence and the other Republicans of Indiana have proven themselves unwilling or unable to defend religious freedom in Indiana over Christian businesses being sued for upholding their values against the political Homosexual lobby groups in Indiana. The leadership has proven weak on enforcing immigration laws that are supported by the vast majority of Hoosiers and now it appears that they have allowed far-Left politics to infiltrate government agencies.

The issue here is not whether you think I should be a Family Case Manager. It is that the Civil Rights slippery slope is clearly in front of us. If the State of Indiana can fire people for “far-right” politics, where does it end? Soon does it mean that if you are a Christian who supports Traditional Marriage you will be labeled a “hater” and lose your job?

Given that the SPLC and other left-wing groups already classify Traditional Marriage groups, Traditional Catholics and other Christian groups as “hate groups” is it that much of a reach to believe that soon Indiana could be firing people over their convictions in regards to marriage? Even DCS itself confirms that it’s struggling mightily to find enough qualified social workers to help the most helpless Hoosier children. Perhaps part of the reason is their requirement that the employees obey a strictly Leftist, anti-White, and anti-Christian agenda.

Croatoan

via West Hunter

There is a new article out on the genome of the Altai Neanderthal, found in the same cave as the Denisovan. The authors find clear signs that this population of Neanderthals had some admixture with modern humans, roughly 100k years ago, or perhaps a bit more. That’s a twist, especially considering that the main migration of modern humans out of Africa is thought to have occurred roughly 65-70k years ago.

There was an earlier expansion of anatomically modern human out of Africa: the Qafzef-Shkul skeletons, around 125-90 k years ago, in Israel – probably this occurred during the last interglacial. As the climate cooled, Neanderthals returned to the area. Humans didn’t yet have the moxie required to beat out archaic humans on their own territory, and the Qafzeh-Shkul population is usually thought to be a dead end.

Maybe it’s not as simple as that. Those Altai Neanderthals had to pick up those genes from someone – maybe it was from the lost colony, Qafzeh-Shkul. Apparently there is another paper coming out suggesting that there’s a touch of ancestry from a separate human expansion, roughly that old, in New Guinea.

Another point: in that Altai Neanderthal genome, there seems to be some adaptive introgression of modern human variants (FOXP2, for example), while at the same time, you see a lower amount of human introgression in regions of the genome under strong purifying selection – much the same pattern as we see with Neanderthal introgression in modern humans. This is strong evidence that this purging effect is mostly due to incompatibility between very different groups (dawning species), rather than genetic load in the smaller populations. Which we knew couldn’t have had the nasty effects suggested in those earlier papers, since archaic humans like Neanderthals and Denisovans didn’t lose rapidly when they first encountered modern humans.

Meta: a high-quality ancient genome contains an enormous amount of information (billions and billions !): it’s not like any other kind of fossil. You can figure out interesting properties of a population, including a lot about its history, from the genome of a single individual. Although there have to be limits: the Chinese have more Neanderthal admixture than Europeans (about 1.2 times as much) – and maybe they picked up the extra from a different Neanderthal population – maybe those Altai Neanderthals. So they might carry a tiny amount of genetic material from those Qafzef-Shkul types: but this way lies madness.

Robots vs. Immigrants

via EGI Notes


A frequent theme at VDARE is how automation is making immigration superfluous, even from the "cheap labor" standpoint, and this video clip is more evidence supporting that thesis. And it is not only manual labor, even much of "the professions" will eventually be automated as well (*).  We will enter a new age in which there will be too many people for too few jobs, which will necessitate a radical restructuring of society, likely (and hopefully) using some sort of "social credit" mechanism.

So, we are importing people, and destroying our EGI, our culture, and our posterity, for nothing. Actually, even worse than nothing, for once the automation revolution occurs, the descendants of all the imported cheap labor will be among us, as a permanent addition to our polity, demanding their share of the social credit, and displacing Whites from their own nations.

Isn't it grand to have such prudent and far-seeing political leadership in the West?

*That assumes technological advances continue, which assumes that Whites somehow escape their demographic death spiral, and retain control over their nations. Otherwise, we'll have another dark ages, this time lasting forever.  East Asians?  Why should they automate, they are already robots themselves.  All other considerations pale in significance - the White man if he continues to exist, can solve these other problems, but not the problem of his own non-existence, if that occurs.

From Communist to Neoconservative: The Ethnic Blindness of David Aaronovitch

via The Occidental Observer

A sepia-tinted picture of life in the Communist Party in post-war London is painted in Party Animals, a memoir by neoconservative journalist David Aaronovitch whose father was a full-time communist organiser and whose non-Jewish mother was equally staunch.

Today Aaronovitch is a fashionable neoconservative who backed Britain’s involvement in George W Bush’s wars and now rails against a variety of predictable targets from boycotts of Israel to Vladimir Putin. He flits easily from perch to perch in the establishment media and is currently a feature writer with The Times.

It is a fairly predictable progression for this modern day establishment figure.  His family lived in the well-to-do, leafy Hampstead in a neighbourhood filled with like-minded Jewish families. The Communist Party life was a world within a world with its own travel agencies, daily newspapers, and bookshops. There were party doctors, dentists, plumbers — all overwhelmingly Jewish. It was a Jewish subculture of the sort that sprang up throughout the Jewish diaspora in the West: The comrades were born into it, married within it, and died within it.  And yet the strangest thing is that no-one ever seems to have asked — “Hang on? Why is everyone Jewish? Isn’t this all a bit like a Polish schtetl?"

Indeed, even the Jews involved seemed unaware that they were entirely immersed in a Jewish sub-culture. Paul Lyons describes a similar situation among Jewish communists in Philadelphia, 1936–1956:
Most Jewish Communists wear their Jewishness very casually but experience it deeply. It is not a religious or even an institutional Jewishness for most; nevertheless, it is rooted in a subculture of identity, style, language, and social network. . . . In fact, this second-generation Jewishness was antiethnic and yet the height of ethnicity. The emperor believed that he was clothed in transethnic, American garb, but Gentiles saw the nuances and details of his naked ethnicity. …
Evidence of the importance of ethnicity in general and Jewishness in particular permeates the available record. Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have married a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could have married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted. The alternative was never really considered, particularly among Jewish men. (Paul Lyons, Philadelphia Communists, 1936–1956. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982, 73, 74)
That’s the weirdest thing about this book. For while communists were notorious for their moral blindness, it is the ethnic blindness that stands out. While not all Jews were communists, the proportion of communists who were Jewish, can only be described as ‘beyond parody. Yet Aaronovitch sees none of that. He is determinedly ethnically blind. His only remark on the matter that I could find was: “The British Communist Party had a significant Jewish membership, partly as a result of its record in the fight against fascism.”

David Aaronovitch
David Aaronovitch
Far from it being a world of persecution and adversity, he recalls a jolly and event-filled life with weekend schools, protest marches, meetings and concerts. Communist circles ranged from the entertainment world to the bohemian circles of Bloomsbury and Chelsea. There were lots of opportunities for travel, especially behind the Iron Curtain. Life was good.

The family social circle included aristocratic members of the House of Lords, fellow-travelling Labour MPs, and figures from the entertainment world such as the singer Paul Robeson, Ewan MacColl, and novelist Doris Lessing. It seems to have been an enjoyable social whirlwind where they never seem to have wanted for anything. There was always a tight network to fall back upon and decades before the sixties, they created a sexually free-wheeling atmosphere, where casual infidelity was the norm.

The outside world looked on them with amused tolerance as romantic outsiders with a misplaced sense of conscience, but there is no indication that they suffered social ostracism or political persecution. Nationalists who cannot even gather in a pub without the windows being broken or having the premises lose its alcohol licence will be amazed how risk-free it was being a communist at a time when the world was waking to the horrors of Stalinism.

They reproduced one pattern that is almost an identifying characteristic of Jewish subversive organisations, from the NAACP to the communist parties of Eastern Europe — the non-Jewish figurehead, the public face of the organisation (see here, p. 92). And so it was, almost comically, that an organisation that was overwhelmingly controlled by Jewish intellectuals from the leafy shires was “led” by such as Edinburgh painter John Gollan or London boilermaker Harry Pollitt.

The decidedly educated, elite and rather aloof atmosphere probably helped when it came to career networking. The civil service and BBC were nominally barred to Communist Party membership but this was easily circumvented as the case of notorious spy Guy Burgess and many others show. In fact party membership might have been an asset, as David Aaronovitch admits. Before being appointed to a BBC executive position in the 1980s, he was asked by the corporation to drop his formal party membership for fear of the attendant publicity.

His father enjoyed the same privileged treatment. After having only ever worked as a full-time communist party organiser for decades, 47-year-old Sam Aaronovitch was admitted to Balliol College, Cambridge to do a doctorate in three years! Courtesy of strings pulled by the Marxist historian Christopher Hill, he was able to leap over better qualified but less well-connected candidates to study for a DPhil in economics. As a result, Aaronovitch senior was eventually able to wangle himself a comfy berth in the academic world as a professor of business studies at a polytechnic. Not bad for a man who left school at 14 without a certificate to his name!

The political evolution of David Aaronovitch seems to match that of the revolutionary left in Britain through the last century. His parents were loyal Soviet communists to the end.  But he himself was kicked out of Balliol after one term but went onto Manchester University where he was able to leave the ghosts of 1930’s Stalinism behind and throw himself into the new identity politics of anti-racism and feminism. It is while discussing the White opposition to mass immigration that led to the street riots in the 1970s that he betrays his feelings of contempt for the ordinary people of the society that nurtured him. The oppressed masses in abstract he does not mind, but the White working class — supposedly the main beneficiary of communist efforts in Marxist theory — he cannot stand.

His political evolution followed the typical neoconservative arc, and he welcomed both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to the outrage of former family friends, but to the benefit of his career. Today, as the voice of neoconservative foreign interventionism he has a guaranteed berth across the establishment media from the Guardian to the BBC and beyond. From communist to neoconservative, with the only constant being a strong Jewish identification and dedication to perceived Jewish interests.

While his memoir, written in a style drenched in irony, confronts some toe-curling family secrets, there are some puzzling omissions, including one obvious question: Why are so many communist traitors Jewish?

For it is a pattern that is thrown up again and again during his own research. A huge proportion of the communists who turned traitor were the Jewish offspring of equally fanatically left-wing parents.

Not everyone was looking at them as harmless eccentrics or failing to notice that communism, Jewishness, and spying seemed synonymous. The lower rank MI5 or police Special Branch gumshoes who carried out the observations certainly noticed the pattern.

Aaronovitch is indignant when he discovers in one archive, a file mentioning his family babysitter, saying that at one Communist Party meeting “about 50% were Jews.”  This reflected a pattern that could be found across the party in London, yet Aaronovitch opines only that it was “snide” and “almost entirely pointless and remarkably intrusive snooping of a woman who clearly was nothing more than an activist.”

Unfortunately, as he discovers, MI5 archives told a different story. For 25 years the babysitter’s sister had worked for the GRU (the Red Army intelligence outfit) and had been awarded the Order of the Red Banner. She had been a courier to whom atom bomb spy Klaus Fuchs had passed his secrets to the Russians. Fuchs sat on crucial British American scientific committees, and it was partly because of him and other spies, that the US stopped sharing atomic research with the British in 1946. Fuchs was jailed for 14 years. Despite the suspicions of the security service, both sisters and their brother — all spies — were allowed to escape to East Germany.

Another close family friend was also a traitor.  James Klugmann had been in British special operations in the Balkans during the war and had played a crucial role in persuading the British to switch their backing from Serbian nationalists to Tito’s communists. Like Aaronovitch he was a full time communist party organiser who lived in Hampstead, and as with Sam Aaronovitch, MI5 surveillance revealed nothing untoward.

But that all changed when the Mitrokhin KGB files were published in the nineties. They showed that  Klugman was a KGB officer who was instrumental in recruiting the entire Cambridge spy ring while a student at Trinity College.

The same applies to another Hampstead neighbour and fellow party member Andrew Rothstein who is recalled affectionately.  Somehow Aaronovitch omits to mention Rothstein’s other role. He was also a recruiter for the forerunner of the KGB.

For British communists stayed true to the faith throughout some of the most horrific episodes in human history. Untold millions were swallowed up in mass executions, purges, civil wars, artificially induced famines and forced population transfer.

There was no secret about any of this, but it was relatively smaller episodes targeting Jews beginning in the late forties that forced a change of mind. And that is when the purges in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and what became known as the Doctor’s Plot began to target Jewish party members.

It is here that we get closest to seeing the ethnic contours and can see the party for what it is — an instrument of ethnic warfare which, under Stalin, had turned on its creators.

Fat chance of Aaronovitch admitting any of this.  There are several memoirs of the British communist party, and, while some bemoan a life wasted in a futile cause, others still cling to the idea that they helped world peace.  What none of them seem willing to do is own British communism’s main achievement — and that is because of their efforts, the Soviet Union possessed the atomic bomb within years of the end of World War II.

Peter Pan-Europeanism

via traditionalRight

There is a considerable amount of literature out there on the New/Alt-Right. The internet and a few successful publishers spawned by the movement have made a huge impact on our ability to have resources for people to find. It has been a largely idea-based movement ever since AlternativeRight.com was started in 2010. Over time these ideas have developed and matured to the point where people start mixing and mashing them, putting together a rough vision for what an ideal society might look like, as racial consciousness has taken center stage.

Being racially conscious allows us to have honest discussions about how people interact, develop, and organize themselves. People, as we have rediscovered for ourselves, are less malleable than the Earth around us. And largely, our role has been to clearly and uncompromisingly define who “we” are. Things like White identity, remembrance of our forefathers who were instrumental in creating the great stories and myths of our civilization. This harkening back to European identity appeals to our nostalgia for a time where an all-White society was taken for granted. This, of course, leads to visions of a future society in which that could be possible again.

Enter Pan-Europeanism.

To preface, I have always loved thinking about the possibilities of a society like the one a Pan-Europeanist worldview could create. Really, any society that has White identity at its core should be unanimously preferred over any of the alternatives we as a people have been forced to endure. But as always, at the end of any red pill conversation or internal debate there comes many difficult questions: What do we do with these new understandings? Where should we be headed? What should I be doing to advance these ideas beyond myself?

And, I think, Pan-Europeanism provides many with a placeholder for these questions. In an ideal world, the type of society we would like to see might resemble the Pan-European vision.

But has the red pill taught us nothing? There is no such thing as an ideal world, and we have to start thinking and acting with reality in mind.

2015 was a huge year for the Alt-Right–thank you, Donald Trump–and now suddenly our ideas are getting little bit of mainstream traction. We need to ramp up our focus on honing and critiquing our own movement, and that includes our vision for the future.

Dreaming of a pan-European empire alone isn’t enough to make it a viable goal. It will require a massive amount of work and even greater cultural programming. It is based on many assumptions about how the world will react to whatever the future brings. We don’t even know with reasonable certainty if many of our people will survive to see a future nation-state with White identity at its core. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but Britain, Sweden, and Germany might be lost. Does a Pan-European empire sound great? Yes. Is it also pie-in-the-sky? Without a doubt.

This wasn’t an issue a year ago. It wasn’t even really a major topic at the forefront of debate within the movement. Pan-Europeanism and religion may be the most divisive items of controversy for the movement in 2016. It is an issue now because as I pointed out, we are at a point where we need to cull and critique our movement into a plan of action. We have brilliantly laid out the aesthetics of what we want society to reflect, but just as the paleo-conservative movement in the ’60s/’70s, we have so far failed to put these theories into anything more than an aesthetic and rhetorical critique of the world in which we live.

In order for us to continue to advance towards a racially-conscious agenda, we must put more energy into making it real-world applicable. For those of us who are Americans, we need to appeal to the American mythos. While we share a European heritage, we have our own American spirit of pioneering and adventure that makes us distinctly unique from native Europeans. The Alt-Right for the most part dismisses anything to do with America, because “lol duh failed experiment haha.”

With that attitude, we are ignoring a valuable piece of positive propaganda for our people to rally around. Even if America has become a cesspool, we still have the American legend and myth that people can, even if just barely, relate to. White Americans have always had a sort of chip-on-their-shoulder attitude, and if the events of the past year are any indication, are much more racially aware than we may have realized.

The Pan-European idea simply isn’t the best vision for Americans to adopt. It is based on the assumption Europe even survives the rapefugee invasion that is projected to add at least another million fighting-age males to the horde.

We as Americans have a lot to work on ourselves as well. We have grown too trusting of the nation-state and its ability to provide for its people. As of 2015, many have begun to question this very issue. The first questions are ones of loyalty. We need to help redirect loyalty not to the state, but to a people. Not to sports teams, but family. Not to instant gratification, but to history.

People can continue to salivate over the prospect of Pan-Europeanism. But if we truly want to draw more Americans into our camp, we need to appeal to things they can relate to. We can’t slap the European aesthetic on ourselves and call ourselves Europeans. Just as proud Italians don’t want to become Germans, or French, I don’t think Americans should be so quick to lose their loyalty to their own American identity.

Pan-Europeanism sounds great, and has a place in its ability to inspire those of us who long for the civilizations of old. But now that it is apparent that reality is catching up to us, we must be careful not to get stuck in Neverland.

Donald & Us

via Counter-Currents

Donald Trump’s master strategy is such a perfect response to the Current Year that was, and the Current Current Year, that the man is either a genius, a savant, or someone anointed by the Gods to wreak havoc on the folly of humankind. The Donald has armored himself in a sort of ideological invulnerability that comes from strategizing on a primal level, and this makes him unassailable, even as it arouses the most visceral hatred and bile from his enemies.

Commonly, Trump is either “a racist,” “a xenophobe,” or a garden-variety “asshole,” “bigot,” and so on. To the press he is much, much worse: the WaPo laments in “The Moment of Truth: We Must Stop Trump” that “Watching Donald Trump’s rise. . . . I now understand how Hitler could have come to power in Germany.” He “broadcasts incendiary and foul ideas.” The Telegraph in the UK has a “Who Said It: DT or AH?” quiz. CNN’s Sally (((Kohn))) say’s “there’s a word for [Trump Supporters] . . . It’s fascism” and drops the “Hitler was elected” H-bomb, and that’s just the first page of Google results.

They’ve lined up all their best Hitler Comparison Artillery and have been pounding away; but we’ll see who can pound longest. Peak oil doomer James Howard Kunstler gave me the inspiration for this article with his absolutely laughable hyperbole: “As for Mr. Trump, he remains what I said at the campaign’s outset: worse than Hitler, lacking the brains, charm, and savoir faire of the Ol’ Fuhrer, and with his darkness even more plainly visible.” Were it not so absurd, this would be really gripping stuff; real boys-own adventure story material for young American patriots to nourish themselves on.

Trump is a “master troll” triggering the enemy with increasingly outrageous displays of male independence and power. The more intense the hysteria he evokes in white liberals, Jews, and shills by stoking their resentment, the more he reinforces the image of himself as the man-who-can, the authentic choice, and the only one running on the ticket of Patriarchal Statesmanship.

The feud of Donald and Jeb! has been the defining narrative of the Republican race. On one hand, a dynastic cuck who offers “conservative solutions,” plastic turtles, and televised exasperation that he is being “demonized.” On the other, a self-made billionaire who has pledged himself to the NEETs and blue collars; who talks, talks big, and talks loud; and can point to his own organization as proof of his ability to deliver.

Going into South Carolina — a state where George Bush has enduring popularity and the decision to remove Saddam is widely supported — Trump declared the Iraq war a “big, fat mistake.” He then turned to the rest of the runners and gestured “Come at me, Bro.” This was a ballsy move but an essential part of the Donald Dynamic. Even when taking a position that voters would strongly disagree with, by doing so from a position of both sincerity and fact, Trump showed he is willing to stake his political life on his integrity. The gamble was that voters — even in disagreement — would reward the credibility this bought, and it paid off. Rolling Stone comments that Trump won big with voters looking for “much needed change,” but Cruz and Rubio won for having “shared values” and being “electable,” which signifies a crucial distinction in voter mentality.

For all Trump’s continual appeal to the buried racial instincts of despondent white Americans, he is still a civic and economic nationalist, and his centrist positions simply don’t warrant the outpouring of frankly insane rhetoric from all the bile-secreting organs. Trump has his own political correctness, whereby he places Negroes in his campaign adverts front and center when they align with his causes. He treads extremely carefully around language that could be construed as racially charged or insulting. His focus is on the rule of law and prosperity. So while UKIP and Front National could plausibly be described as inheriting BNP or anti-Semitic votes, the frothing psychopathy and “Nazi” slurs thrown at Trump don’t hold up and are purely emotional.

Trump’s insistence that he would “Make America Great Again” recognizes that America is no longer Great — no longer “winning” —  and Trump stops just short of saying that America is as pozzed as Charlie Sheen. While not rejecting egalitarian ideology directly, Trump’s trump card is that he subjugates a concern for ideology to the facts of Realpolitik. Trump’s democratic success undermines the social hierarchy based on humanitarian moral signalling and the humanistic pretense that the welfare/warfare state rests on.

Those who are alert to imminent social collapse and Third World colonization are avid Trump supporters. His macho charisma and alpha male qualities activate the survival instincts of white Americans who feel completely ensnared by modernity and who want to circle the wagons, load their muskets, and keep what precious little they have left safe from illegal aliens and terrorists pouring across the border. Trump’s supporters have a reputation for being aggressive and “passionate.” No doubt. Their survival instincts are screaming at them that Trump is the man they need to build the wall and protect us all. In contrast, those with threat blindness, or who are safely insulated from Third World colonization and increasing diversity, remain concerned about moral fluff, social appearances, and “fairness” — just like a great many Evangelical rubes who voted for Cruz based on some codswallop about abortions, an entirely sideline issue to the demographic survival of white Americans and the low-level ethnic warfare in “Amexica.”

Every vote for Trump endorses the idea that there are bad people who are dangerous, that walls are necessary, and most importantly, that egalitarianism has to be subject to the laws of nature like everything else. Jeb Bush’s concern about the “moderate opposition” (read: “our terrorists”) in Syria is a “humanrightsitude” that a neocon would trot out in order to drum up some veneer of legitimacy for another illegal war. Trump’s insistence that he would look a Syrian child in the eye and say, “You can’t come here” is another prepper who would crawl through broken glass and barbed wire to press the voting button for Trump.

Trump reigns-in the wild insanity of utopian humanism. The AngloZionist empire has defined itself upon Human Rights and egalitarian doctrine. The very legal definition of an “American” is propositional, and both Britain and France define themselves only as state entities that uphold “Democratic Values.” Should Trump surf the Kali Yuga all the way into the White House, then that slavish devotion to egalitarianism would be inverted. The rule of law and propositions about “rights” would once again be subordinated to the goals of national security and prosperity, as Trump says, of us “having a great life all together.”

The slow motion extermination of Europe through dissolution into a ocean of dirt would lose American backing and American political leadership. Washington would likely retreat into fortified isolationism, and the world over, liberal democracies of whites would be left staring at their hands and having to face the question that if adherence to egalitarianism doesn’t define them, then what does? What shapes and makes them a nation and what conditions must be met for citizenship, beyond a vague allegiance to “democratic values”?

Trump’s detractors sense that the gravy train of gaining money, status, and legal privileges through egalitarian oneupmanship is about to come to an end, because by electing Trump, Americans are sending a message that they will no longer pay or bleed for such self-indulgence. This election is so gritty, so tense, so able to convulse the body of the nation because ethno-tribal identity is like a boomerang: the harder you throw it from you, the more violently it returns.

Beauty Is Its Own Argument

via BUGS

Freedom has been defined as being able to go after what you want, as in the pursuit of happiness.

But freedom is also the right to WANT what you want.

And to SAY what you want.

Anyone who has spent time in Latin America or other colored countries knows that it is not a typical Latin American who is preferred for TV down there.

As one anti-White put it, “South American TV looks like its casting was done by David Duke.”

The same problem comes up with the lack of Black people getting Academy Awards.

The same situation came up when Bay Watch with its blond beauties totally wiped out other TV shows throughout the COLORED world. It was popular here, but outside the white world it totally swamped other shows.

So when a Black woman features in a movie or TV show, the White actors’ dialogue repeats and repeats and repeats “She is beautiful.”

No character ever had to say that about Wonder Woman or the bathing blondes on Baywatch.

When I see a Black dating a blonde, I feel sorry for the children. I hear Blacks say the same thing privately.

But you are only allowed to consider whether, when the sex act that leads to a child takes place, the interracial couple are Truly in Love.

You are required to forget, whether you are White or Black, that it is the child and the child’s offspring who have to live with the result forever.

Enslavement is being denied the right to pursue happiness, to get what YOU want.

But enslavement BEGINS with not being able to SAY what you want.

Going Nuclear

via Radix

National Review is in full (nuclear, perhaps) meltdown over the continued rise of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. In an article titled “It’s Time for an Anti-Trump Manhattan Project,” Charles C.W. Cooke pulls no punches constructing grandiose metaphors, and vollying volumes of verbiage to the dire threat that is Donald Trump to the (con)servative “movement.”

In what must be a mad dash to construct as many WWII analogies as possible (What? Are you competing with Glenn Beck?), Cooke cooks up his own Dolchsto├člegende as to why so many of the GOP’s voters are angry. Per him:
The conservative movement’s failure to counter all of the Obama era’s excesses is not the product of the crucial democratic and structural factors that prevent any one faction from ushering in substantial change, but of a lack of will or desire.
Well, Charles, that’s all fine and dandy, but the GOP has betrayed and continues to betray the interests of White Americans, particularly lower income White Americans, that have handed it (and movement conservatism) victory after victory, and endowment after endowment.

For years, Conservatism, Inc. has duped countless Whites with promises of action on immigration, on education, on their very country itself. But all they (and I mean you, Charles) have ever produced is warmed over paens to the “free market” that are even staler than when they were first written in the 19th centurty. You used our natural anger at the existential direction of our country and redirected it towards mostly-fruitless campaigns on marginal tax rates, enterprise zones, and concerns about budget minutia.

Yes, Donald Trump represents anger. But it’s not an anger that the GOP didn’t cut enough entitlements, or that it failed to stop the ACA or whatever. All of those were mere flashes in the pan of White America’s larger, more existential crisis.

Trump represents the start of a new era in American politics. The era of identity politics. Though just an implicit step towards White identity politics, Trump’s rise does signal the displacement of the deracinated “movement” conservatism that plays kabuki theater with its liberal counterparts every four years.

Charles, by your own admission, you’re “eschatological.” You say it's not because of fear of being cut off from Reince Priebus’ champagne dinners (I’ll take you at your word there), but what you are feeling is existential. The “right” you and your colleagues represent is being displaced. Sure, it might not happen today or tomorrow, or even ten years from now (after all, those endowments can self-fund), but you’re through. And deep down, you know it.

You say now is the time to “throw everything” at Trump. That “our children wonder why we were so reluctant?” Well, yes our children will ask that, especially if you get your way.

The only important “conservative” cause left this century is conserving our people: America’s historic European majority. After that, everything else pales in comparison. Ironically, your own righetous crusades for "conservatarian" (LOL) social values and go-go-Reaganite international capitalism are doomed by your bizarre refusal to defend your own people first. That is why so many flock to Trump, even if they only know it subconsciously.

In the "conservative" movement, it's now time for choosing. Will you stand up and preserve a people you profess to stand for? Or will you sit back and continue to make snide remarks about anyone who chooses to act, rather than live in a fantasy world of "muh constitution" or "Dems r real racists"?

It’s times like these that would drive any good denizen of the beltway right to drink:
If I am told one more time that it makes sense to nominate a single-payer-supporting defender of Planned Parenthood because Congress’s repeal-and-defund bill was vetoed by the incumbent, I shall begin to order bourbon in bulk.
Drink up, old boy! The fun is just beginning.

Psychology of Mystical Experience

via Gornahoor

We can indeed know that the bosom of the Father is our own basis and origin, and that our life and being find therein their life and principle. From this basis that is proper to us—that is, from the bosom of the Father, and from all that lives in him—shines forth an eternal brightness, the generation of the Son. And in this brightness, which is the Son, God sees himself openly, with all that lives in him. All those who, above their created being, are raised to a contemplative life, are one with this divine brightness. They are that brightness itself, and they see, feel and discover, under this divine light, that according to their ideal or uncreated being, they are themselves this abyss of simplicity, the brightness whereof shines without means in divine modes. Thus the contemplatives attain their eternal exemplar, after whose image they have been created, and they contemplate God in all things, without distinction, by a simple gaze, in the divine brightness. ~ John of Ruysbroeck
 
The concluding chapter of Studies in the Psychology of the Mystics by Joseph Marechal, S.J. deals with how one’s world conception colours his mystical experience. As a methodological principle, Fr. Marechal is not concerned with the truth of the metaphysical systems, but rather with its psychological effects. The obvious problem with his study is how to define “mystical experience”, since Christian ecstasy and yogic Samadhi are often included as such experiences along with trances induced by hallucinogens, ritual dance, etc. This, then, is his definition mystical experience:
Mystical experience is a religious experience which is esteemed as superior to the normal: more direct, more intimate, or more rare.
The corollary is that there are three fundamental elements:
  1. A religious doctrine—rational or revealed—which is a metempirical doctrine, relative to the Absolute.
  2. Psychological facts of actual experience that are relatively rare or exceptional, and susceptible of a religious interpretation.
  3. A synthesis of doctrine and psychology which interprets the psychological facts as a function of the doctrine.
Not unlike Rene Guenon, Fr. Marechal accepts the ideal of a unique metaphysic, despite the historical existence of a variety of metaphysical systems. Given the three elements, the highest and purest expressions of mystical experience will be associated with an intellectual understanding of the ideal metaphysic. Fr. Marechal describes several metaphysical systems and the mystical experiences arising from them.

Animism

Inferior systems have not yet achieved a unity of thought from the plurality of sense impressions. An example is animism which postulates metempirical “souls” behind the world of outward experience. The medicine man or sorcerer will associate strange subjective states with these hidden entities. This includes experiences, among others, such as:
  • Dreams with a sacred content
  • Narcotic-induced delirium
  • Trances resulting from extreme physical ascesis
  • Hysterical ecstasies brought on by music or scents
Although such experiences are valued very highly and are still sought after by a substantial number of spiritual seekers, Fr. Marechal considers them not worthy of an extended treatment.

Metaphysical Awakening

Creation of Adam

Fr. Marechal points out the close connection of metaphysics with religion in general and with mysticism in particular. He use the famous panel from the Sistine Chapel showing Adam’s attraction to finger of God pointing at him as the artistic rendition of the awakening of human intelligence to the notion of an Absolute distinct from himself. It shows:
  • Man’s consciousness of his own ego, at once infinite and limited
  • His perception of the universe
  • His thought seeking the Absolute
This is the Great Triad: the ego, the universe, and the Absolute. The relationships of these terms are the sources of two fundamental things:
  1. The source of his potentialities of action in the physical order
  2. The law governing his attitude and the key that unlocks his destiny in the moral order
Different metaphysical systems define those relationships in different ways. Although Fr. Marechal does not mention this, it is obvious that, as a practical matter, two sciences are a great help in developing those potentialities: esoteric cosmology, which deals with the universe, and esoteric psychology, which deals with man’s inner states of consciousness.

Dualism and Pessimism

Dualist systems see the universe as the expression of the conflict of two eternal principles: e.g., Being or the Good vs non-being or Evil. Such viewpoints lead to destructive asceticism and negative mysticism. That is, one’s destiny is determined more by the attempted renunciation of the “evil spirit” rather than by a path of positive and uplifting stages. The world is experienced a being limited by the unreal or not-being. The universe is seen as evil and illusory.

Marechal refers to Arthur Schopenhauer‘s philosophical system, although not strictly a dualism, but a pessimism. The will to live creates a universe of “my” representations, which is nevertheless evil and meaningless. Only the renunciation of that will can be the solution. Again, beyond the negation of phenomena, there is nothing positive. In Manichaean, and even Buddhist mysticism, object, actions, etc., are all limitations; that is the sole Evil. Such mystical practices focus on overcoming the limitations of the World of Becoming, without consideration of what lies beyond in the World of Being.

Pantheistic Monism

This is a more advanced of sophisticated metaphysical system, what we may call the God of the philosophers. There is no opposition to Being; rather primacy belongs to the Absolute, which is beyond dualism. The earliest such systems derive from the Upanishads or Vedanta. The essential basis of this philosophy is the identity of Brahman and the Atman, which is the sole reality. The apparent multiplicity of things and souls is illusory. Hence, man’s destiny is extirpate in his soul the illusory multiplicity of objects and acts to end up within the Atman. The Atman is known, but not as an object. Hence, the only goal is to “be” the Atman.

Comparable Western systems never quite go that far, since the idea of an ascent to God via created things is not denied. The influence of Plotinus affects not only the West, but Sufism and even Indian philosophers. God, or the One, eternally creates the world by casting out his rays like a sun to the “very confines of non-being”. Then the things, which are divine fragments, have a desire to return to the unity of the absolute Good.

The human soul is between the pure Ideas and matter; it is attracted towards the Center by Love. If love predominates in the soul, it begins to be concentrated. Firstly, it apprehends intelligible beauty through the senses. Then by contemplation, it is purified and unified: “to contemplate is to become what is contemplated.” From sensible beauty, the soul passes to the lower intellect of concepts, or psyche. Then it becomes the higher Intelligence, or nous.

Still the drive of Eros leads it to seek the perfect unity of the absolute Good. Thus it contemplated Being as the summit of the intelligible world. Yet, there is still the duality of Essence and Existence. Ultimately, though Love, even that duality is overcome in the One.

Later metaphysicians such as Giordano Bruno, Benedict Spinoza, or Johann Fichte are in this stream. For example, in the negative direction, Spinoza defines man’s moral end as the freedom gained over inadequate ideas and the passions. Yet, there is the positive direction of the “intellectual love of God”.

Fichte, from whom Evola borrowed much, discovers the pure I, or spirit, opposing to itself the not-I, or universe, so that it may progressively know itself and conquer itself by gaining self-mastery. The human intelligence is raised to the dignity of an Absolute, i.e., a “mysticism of becoming God.”

The point is that “metaphysics can invest the ordinary operations of our understanding with a mystical significance.” However, Marechal identifies the mysticism that such systems inspire as purely “natural”, achieved through thought, and lacking any notion of “grace”. In short, the distinction between nature and supernature is obscured.

Monotheism and Supernatural Mysticism

Finally, Marechal address strict monotheism as the answer to the question of the relationships between the Ego, the universe, and the Absolute. God, then, is strictly transcendent without any common measure with that which is not himself. He possesses the fullness of Being which excludes not-Being.

The universe then is a “becoming” proceeding from God and arranged between the limits of pure Being and pure Not-Being. Although external to God, it is moved and directed by divine action. Finite things do not create themselves as in in monistic systems; yet they are not evil or nothingness as in the pessimist dualist systems. They are free creations of love and possess value measured by their degree of participation in the perfection of the divine Being.

Hence, the created intelligences and wills will tend to reproduce the divine Ideal and try to make progress towards it. Hence, the mysticism from this view will have many analogies with Neoplatonism. Creation is grafted onto the closed cycle of the operations of Divine creation as an epicycle. At the beginning of the epicycle, the divine actions descends into the innermost elements of things, giving them their “nature”.

Next the flood ascends back to God, as every material beings “tends to the perfection of its species”. The entire physical world tends toward vital unity in stages:
  • The vital unity, through its comprehensive interiority, foretells and prepares for consciousness
  • Sensibility (or sense experience) reflects the unconscious world of matter and brings it to the threshold of the idea
  • Then, the intelligence recognizes the intelligible in the data of sense
  • Finally, it discovers in its “becoming” no other end except God himself. This closes the epicycle.
The return of things to their first principle, i.e., the ascent of the intelligence to God, is a mystical phase. All becoming has a law, and in that law, is an end. Marechal then describes that law as it is fostered in the depth of the human soul. There are two aspects: the order of intelligence and the order of the will.

The Intellect tends toward the assimilation of Being as know, or, Absolute Truth. The Will tends to the possession of Being as absolute Good. The two tendencies converge on the direct vision of God. However, insofar as the soul is restricted to the plane of creation, there must also be an initiative from God that expands the intelligence and reveals himself.

This initiative from above leads to higher states than what can be achieved through the natural mysticism of monism, as it opens up the horizons of grace and supernature. It does not reject the natural metaphysical systems, but builds on them. Paradoxically, it leads to unity with the divine while retaining the individuality of the soul. That is the highest achievement of the Western Tradition.

Summary

Marechal summarizes the three principal types of mystical theories:
  1. Negative mysticism. A mysticism of simple liberation, the result of dualistic cosmologies and philosophic pessimism.
  2. Positive mysticism. A mysticism of divine becoming immanent in the soul.
  3. Theistic mysticism. The mysticism of objective striving toward God by means of knowledge and love.
Clearly, a superior metaphysic will lead to deeper mystical experiences.

Deport Them all and Let God Sort 'Em out: Enter the Mind of Wasserman Schultz

via Alternative Right

Following the conquest of Nevada by Trumpist insurgents, the Democratic party is wishing it had worn brown pants on February 23rd. The double-barreled chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, ((((Debbie Wasserman-Schultz)))), issued a very boilerplate reaction to the Trumpenkrieg, indicating opposition from the mainstream left has reached its rhetorical plateau. They are, if you will, stumped by Trump.
Donald Trump’s victory tonight means he has won the vast majority of the Republican primary delegates to this point, and is well on his way to winning his party’s nomination.
That's right. This train doesn't come with brakes.
After years of pandering to extremists, the Republican Party is now stuck with what it created: a field of extreme candidates with views far out of the mainstream and out of touch with the American people.
This is the ad nauseam talking point that somehow beltway pundits, being to the right of their politicians just as the ((((New York Times)))) is to the left of Democrats, are to blame for cultivating the White populism, burgerclap patriotism, and desire for economic protectionism that is fueling the rising fire of Trump (and to a reduced effect, Cruz).

This would be true if maybe Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter were the anchors of Fox News and editors of National Review. But they aren't. White conservatives are watching the United States tumble demographically and ideologically and are reacting to it by themselves. Unlike the pet populations the left is so used to gaming for votes, they have enough agency to favor policies outside of wealth redistribution and affirmative action. Nativism and national self-interest are becoming mainstream because people want them. There are people who want to Make America Great Again in a way that doesn't involve importing liberal voters. To call someone winning the race "out of touch" reveals one's own aloofness. Not that I would expect ((((Wasserman-Schultz)))) to be attuned to goyish concerns.
At least with Trump, he’s not shy about exposing what the Republican brand has truly become. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are every bit as extreme as their party’s frontrunner, they just hide it better. Well the voters are seeing right through it, which is why Marco Rubio got exactly zero delegates out of South Carolina in his virtual tie with Ted Cruz and was dealt a fourth consecutive loss by the voters of Nevada tonight.
Trump is not the Republican brand. He is completely disruptive. Jeb Bush was supposed to win the nomination; a man so open to immigration and ethnic replacement that he married a Mexican and claims to speak Spanish at home. That is the Republican brand. The idea that all the other candidates are just crypto-Trumpists is equally asinine and signals the indignation of ((((Wasserman-Schultz)))) more than it does explain the real fissures within American conservatism. I wish everyone running was crypto-Trumpist, but they aren't. They're mostly shades of cuckservative who are too afraid of being right. The DNC seems to understand ideological diversity about as well as the ((((Soviet Union)))).
The losers tonight will no doubt try once again to spin their failure as a victory. It’s not.
I agree. The race for second and third place between Rafael Cruz and Maricon Rubio is a tight one. May the most subpar shabbos win. But of course, second place doesn't mean you're getting anything out of the primary. The nominee doesn't owe you and might resent you for being his closest rival. If silver goes to Rubio, I can't imagine Trump appointing a Wall Street favorite and amnestyist to anything in his administration.

Mainline conservativism will not be the same after Trump. Agree-and-amplify only works if you have dominance and clearly it is slipping for the concern trolls in the Democratic party. It's the current year, and as I said last current year: The age of cucks is over. The time of the shitlord has come.


Super Tuesday is next week, meaning almost 600 delegates are up for grabs across 12 states. It is the largest single total available on one day and could very well KO some of Trump's rivals. May meme magick grant us victory in the South and beyond.

The Decline and Fall of Hillary Clinton

via The Archdruid Report

The last couple of weeks in American politics have offered an interesting confirmation of some of the main themes I’ve discussed on this blog. For that matter, those weeks would have come as no surprise to one of the thinkers whose work has guided these essays since this blog started a decade ago, the philosopher of history Oswald Spengler. I can all too readily imagine the hard lines of Spengler’s face creasing in momentary amusement as he contemplates the temporarily divergent fates of those two candidates for the US presidency that, less than a year ago, nearly everyone insisted would be facing one another in the general election:   Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
Bush is in some ways the perfect poster child for the theme I have in mind just now. When he launched his campaign last year, it was a letter-perfect copy of the successful presidential campaigns of the last three decades. He lined up plenty of big-money sponsors; he assembled a team of ghostwriters, spin doctors, and door-to-door salesmen to run his campaign; he had a PR firm design a catchy logo; he practiced spouting the kind of empty rhetoric that sounds meaningful so long as you don’t think about it for two minutes; he took carefully calculated stands on a handful of hot-button topics, mouthed the conventional wisdom on every other issue, and set out to convince the voters that their interests would be harmed just a little bit less by putting him in the White House than by any of the alternatives.
That sort of content-free campaign is what got George Bush I, Bill Clinton, George Bush II, and Barack Obama onto the list of US presidents. What it got Jeb Bush, though, was a string of humiliating defeats. Some have suggested that his tearful exit from the race in the wake of the South Carolina primary was the act of a child who had been promised a nice shiny presidency by his daddy, and then found out that the mean voters wouldn’t give it to him. I think, though, that there was considerably more to it than that. I think that Bush had just realized, to his shock and horror, that the rules of the game had been changed on him without notice, and all those well-informed, well-connected people who had advised him on the route that would take him to the presidency had basically been smoking their shorts.
If anything, though, Hillary Clinton’s campaign offers an even clearer glimpse into the festering heart of the American political process. She did exactly the same things that Jeb did—it’s indicative that the two of them both splashed their first names across their equally banal campaign logos—and she also managed, as he never did, to get the apparatchiks of her party lined up solidly on her side before the campaigning season got under way. By the ordinary rules of US politics, she should have enjoyed a leisurely stroll through the primaries to the Democratic convention while Jeb Bush wrestled with his opponents, and then gone into the general election with plenty of money to spare, saturating the air waves with a deluge of advertisements designed to convince the American people that four years under her leadership would be ever so slightly less disastrous for them than four years under Bush.
This time, though, the rules have changed. Clinton is facing a spirited challenge from party outsider Bernie Sanders, and though she’ll still probably get the nomination—it’s a source of wry amusement that just now, the Democratic Party’s nominating procedure is significantly less democratic than that of the GOP—it’s pretty clear at this point that she’s not going to get it without a fight. Once she does, in turn, instead of facing another bland insider in a tepid race to the center that can easily be clinched by an ad blitz or two, she’ll be up against Donald Trump, whose popularity soars with every petulant denunciation the pundits of the privileged classes fling at him, whose take-no-prisoners style of bare-knuckle campaigning is exactly the sort of challenge that neither Clinton nor her lumbering campaign staff have shown the least ability to handle, and who is prepared to offer the voters something other than the very slightly lesser of two evils.
Now of course Clinton has made things considerably worse for herself by the way she’s approached the  campaign.  She’s got a whopping case of that weird mental blind spot I labeled, in a post that appeared here last year, “the delusion of control”—the notion, as pervasive as it is preposterous, that when a member of America’s privileged classes does something, the rest of the cosmos is obliged to respond to that action in a wholly passive, wholly mechanical manner. For a world-class example, watch the way Clinton’s handlers simply look blank each time they find out that most of the American people loathe and distrust their candidate, and try repeatedly to “reintroduce” her, as though they think they can just hit a reset button on the campaign machinery and start all over again.
For that matter, Clinton’s own attitude during the campaign so far reminds me of nothing so much as  what happens when someone puts money into a defective vending machine. She’s fed the thing her quarters and pushed the right button, but the desired product hasn’t dropped to the bottom where she can get it.  Now she’s jabbing the button over and over again, and in due time she’ll be pounding her fists on the thing and screaming at it because it won’t give her what she’s paid for.  I honestly don’t think she’s ever, even for a moment, considered the possibility that the voting public isn’t simply a passive, mechanical mass that will spit up a presidency for her if she just manipulates in in the right way.  I doubt it has entered her darkest dream that the American people might just up and decide to cast their votes to further their own interests rather than hers.
That analysis seems plausible to me for a variety of reasons, but high among them is the way that Clinton’s supporters among her own class-and-gender subcategory have demanded that all American women back the Clinton campaign. I’m thinking here particularly of Madeleine Albright, who made the news a little while back with a irate public statement insisting that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”  That’s a common trope among a certain well-paid class of Second Wave feminists. It’s become controversial, and for good reason, among a great many other feminists, particularly in the partly overlapping sets of women of color and women in the wage class. Listen to them, and you’ll hear at some length how they feel about being expected to help rich and influential women like Madeleine Albright pursue their goals, when they know perfectly well the favor won’t be returned in any way that matters.
What, after all, does a Clinton presidency offer the majority of American women, other than whatever vicarious thrill they might get from having a president with a vagina? The economic policies Clinton espouses—the current bipartisan consensus, from which she shows no signs of veering in the slightest—have already brought poverty and misery to millions of American women who don’t happen to share her privileged background and more than ample income.  Her tenure as Secretary of State was marked by exactly the sort of hamfisted interventions in other people’s countries to which Democrats, once upon a time, used to object:  interventions, please note, that have already been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, and may yet—especially if Clinton takes the same attitudes with her into the White House—treat a good many American women to the experience of watching their kids come home in body bags from yet another brutal and pointless Mideast war.
The reaction to Albright’s public tantrum is in many ways as instructive as the tantrum itself. A great many American women simply aren’t buying it. More generally, no matter how furiously Clinton and her flacks hammer on the buttons of the vending machine, trying to elicit the mechanical response they think they ought to be able to expect, the voters aren’t falling into line. Trump and Sanders, each in his own way, have shown too many people that it’s possible to hope for something other than an intolerable state of business as usual.  In the wake of their candidacies, a great many voters have decided that they’re no longer willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

That’s a point of some importance.  To my mind, it’s far from accidental that for the last few decades, every presidential election here in the US has been enlivened by bumper stickers calling on voters to support the presidential ambitions of Cthulhu, the tentacled primeval horror out of H.P. Lovecraft’s tales of cosmic dread. I’m sorry to say that the Elder God’s campaign faces a serious constitutional challenge, as he was spawned on the world of Vhoorl in the twenty-third nebula and currently resides in the drowned corpse-city of R’lyeh, and as far as I know neither of these are US territory. Still, his bid for the White House has gotten further than most other imaginary candidacies, and I’ve long thought that the secret behind that success is Cthulhu’s campaign slogan: “Why settle for the lesser evil?”
The reason that this slogan reliably elicits laughter, in turn, is that the entire rhetoric of presidential politics in the United States for decades now has fixated on the claim that one party’s pet stooge won’t do anything quite as appalling as the other side’s will, even though they all support the same policies and are bought and sold by the same corrupt interests. Over and over again, we’ve been told that we have to vote for whatever candidate this or that party has retched up, because otherwise the other side will get to nominate a Supreme Court justice or two, or get us into another war, or do something else bad.  Any suggestion that a candidate might be expected to do something positive—that he or she might, for example, reject the bipartisan policies that have crashed the standard of living for most Americans, consigned the nation’s infrastructure to malign neglect, and pursued gargantuan corporate welfare programs, such as the worthless F-35 fighter, at the expense of anything more useful or necessary—is dismissed out of hand as “unrealistic.”
What the insurgent candidacies of Trump and Sanders show conclusively, in turn, is that the lesser-evil rhetoric and its fixation on “realistic” politics have just passed their pull date. There are very good reasons for this. The pursuit of the lesser evil means that the best the American people are supposed to hope for is the continuation of the current state of things—that’s what you get, after all, if your only talking points fixate on stopping things from getting worse—and for most Americans today, the current state of things is unbearable. Cratering wages and soaring rents, a legal environment that increasingly denies even basic rights to everybody but corporations and the rich, an economy rigged to load ever-increasing costs on working people while funneling all the benefits to those who already have too much—well, you can fill in the list as well as I can. If you don’t happen to belong to the privileged classes, life in today’s America is rapidly becoming intolerable, and the “realistic” politics that both parties have pursued with equal enthusiasm for decades are directly responsible for making it intolerable.
Thus the reason that a large and growing number of ordinary working Americans are refusing to accept another rehash of the status quo this time around is that their backs are to the wall. That’s a situation that comes up reliably at a certain point in the history of every society, and it’s a source of wry amusement to me that Oswald Spengler predicted the situation currently facing the United States—and, mutatis mutandis, the rest of the industrialized world as well.
Spengler’s historical analysis covers a vast amount of territory, but the point at issue here appears late in the second volume of The Decline of the West, where he sketches out the immediate future of what we call Western industrial civilization and he named the Faustian Culture. His theme was the way that democracies die.  He argued that democracy suffers from a lethal vulnerability, which is that it has no meaningful defenses against the influence of money.  Since most citizens are more interested in their own personal, short-term advantage than they are in the long-term destiny of their nation, democracy turns into a polite fiction for plutocracy just as soon as the rich figure out how to buy votes, a lesson that rarely takes them long to learn.
The problem with plutocracy, in turn, is that it embodies the same fixation on short-term personal advantage that gives it its entry to power, since the only goals that guide the rich in their increasingly kleptocratic rule are immediate personal wealth and gratification. Despite the ravings of economists, furthermore, it simply isn’t true that what benefits the very rich automatically benefits the rest of society as well; quite the contrary, in the blind obsession with personal gain that drives the plutocratic system, the plutocrats generally lose track of the hard fact that too much profiteering can run the entire system into the ground  A democracy in its terminal years thus devolves into a broken society from which only the narrowing circle of the privileged rich derive any tangible benefit. In due time, those excluded from that circle look elsewhere for leadership.
The result is what Spengler calls Caesarism: the rise of charismatic leaders who discover that they can seize power by challenging the plutocrats, addressing the excluded majority, and offering the latter some hope that their lot will be improved. Now and then, the leaders who figure this out come from within the plutocracy itself; Julius Caesar, who contributed his family name to Spengler’s term, was a very rich man from an old-money Senatorial family, and he’s far from the only example. In 1918, Spengler predicted that the first wave of Caesarism in the Western world was about to hit, that it would be defeated by the plutocrats, and that other waves would follow. He was dead right on the first two counts, and the current election suggests that the third prediction will turn out just as accurate.
To a very real extent, Hillary Clinton’s faltering presidential campaign is a perfect microcosm of what Spengler was talking about in his cold analysis of democracy in extremis. Her entire platform presupposes that the only policies the United States can follow are those that have been welded in place since the turn of the millennium: more government largesse for corporations and the rich, more austerity for everyone else, more malign neglect for the national infrastructure and the environment, more wars in the Middle East, and more of the fantastically stupid policy of confrontation—there really is no gentler way to describe it—that has succeeded, against all odds, in uniting Russia, China, Iran, and an assortment of smaller nations against the United States, by convincing their leaders that they have nothing to gain from a US-centric world order and nothing to lose by challenging it.
Those policies have not brought any of the good things their promoters insisted that they were going to bring. Another four years of the same policies aren’t going to change that fact. Every American voter knows these things, and so does Hillary Clinton, which is why her campaign focuses so precisely on everything but the issues that actually concern the majority of American voters today. That’s what lends a savage irony to Madeleine Albright’s brittle demand that American women support Clinton even though, for all practical purposes, she’s offering them very little more than they got from George W. Bush.  Albright’s is the classic voice of a senile plutocracy on its way down, demanding a loyalty from others that it has done precisely nothing to earn.
I suspect we’ll see plenty of the same sort of irony as the current election season lurches toward its end. No doubt Clinton and her flacks will keep on trying to reintroduce her to voters who already know her quite well enough, thank you; no doubt we’ll hear all sorts of encomiums about what a nice person she is—as though that matters one jot to people who know that four more years of the policies she supports may well land them out of a job and out on the street. For that matter, facile claims that everything is fine, the economy is booming, and the American people are happier than they’ve been in decades are already appearing in the mass media. No doubt things look that way if you live in a bubble of privilege, and take good care never to step outside it and see how the other 80% live; for that matter, it’s true that if you take the obscene gains raked in by the privileged few and average them out across the entire population, that looks like economic betterment—but those gains are not being shared by the entire population, and the entire population knows this.
For the connoisseurs of historical irony, there will doubtless be plenty of entertainment to be had in watching the Clinton campaign as it tries one tactic after another to get that vending machine to cough up the prize Clinton so obviously and desperately craves. None of those veerings matter in any broader sense, because Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have already demonstrated that rejecting the consensus of America’s dominant minority is a ticket to electoral success. It’s possible—indeed, I think it’s likely—that Clinton will manage to squeeze past Sanders and get the Democratic nomination by fair means or foul; it’s considerably less likely that she’ll be able to overcome Trump in the general election; but even if she does, others will follow where Trump and Sanders lead, and sooner or later one of them will triumph.
The more likely option just now, I think, is that the Clinton campaign will meet a crushing defeat at Trump’s hands, and the decline and fall of Hillary Clinton will also mark the end of the failed consensus that has dominated American politics for decades. That fact alone doesn’t guarantee improvement; no law requires that whatever policies replace the conventional wisdom must be better. Nonetheless, things will change, and it’s at least possible that some of the changes might remove at least a few of the worst features of the bleak era now stumbling to its end around us.