Apr 6, 2016

Infiltrating the Republican Party

via Aryan Skynet

Virtually alone among the “alt-right” and White Nationalist blogs, AryanSkynet has spent the last year documenting the reality of Donald Trump and his campaign. Far from being an implicity White nationalist, we have documented over and over again that Donald Trump is essentially, a Democrat and that his campaign represents a hostile takeover of the Republican party by the most extreme elements of the Israel lobby and the Likud party of Israel.

The establishment Republicans and Conservative Inc. are perfectly aware that Trump is essentially a front for Jewish interests, but they can’t breathe a word about it, because they themselves are aware of Jewish power and perfectly understand that their role is to make the “right” safe for Jews. After spending the entire Obama administration working in tandem with Benjamin Netayahu and the Zionist entity against the American president and the US military intellgence establishment to prevent a conflict with Iran, now the establishment Republicans watch as they are tossed aside like yesterday’s hook-up as Likud snatches their base away from them.

It should have been obvious to the dimmest of observers when Trump began to be endorsed by Likud assets in the GOP. Mike Huckabee, who is perhaps the most loyal Likudnik in the GOP, was one of the first to support Trump. At the height of the GOP establishment’s hostility to Trump, no other than Newt Gingrich, the wholly-owned asset of Zionist oligarch Sheldon Adelson, went on TV to defend him.

bnprodtrumpgottrumpcardWhile there has been a lot of wishful thinking about Trump due to the apparent hostility of the neo-cons and because Trump has made some noises about ratcheting down tensions with Russia and his apparent endorsement by Putin, the reality shows us that the neo-con agenda is Syria was already derailed last year by Russia’s entrance into the conflict. Far from proposing anything different, Trump is merely vocalizing the already-existing new consensus on Syria – a new consensus that was, in fact, already publicized by Netanyahu’s deal with Putin and the acceptance by the Obama administration that removing Assad from Syria was off the table due to Russian involvement.

We now know that Trump isn’t serious about his deportation of illegal aliens, but has instead gone to that bastion of the establishment, the New York Times, and admitted it was all for show.

Now that Trump is the likely nominee, he no longer has to pretend for his gullible white base. Yesterday, Trump appeared before the Israel Lobby’s central institution, AIPAC, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, and let the cat out of the bag.
I don’t even need to write this article, merely copy and paste Trump’s own words for the bitter clingers.
Good evening. I speak to you today as a lifelong supporter and true friend of Israel. I am a newcomer to politics but not to backing the Jewish state.
In late 2001, weeks after the attacks on New York City and Washington – attacks perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists, Mayor Giuliani visited Israel to show solidarity with terror victims. I sent him in my plane because I backed the mission 100%.
In Spring 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the Grand Marshal of the 40th Salute to Israel Parade, the largest single gathering in support of the Jewish state.
It was a very dangerous time for Israel and frankly for anyone supporting Israel – many people turned down this honor -I did not, I took the risk.
I didn’t come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That’s what politicians do: all talk, no action. I came here to speak to you about where I stand on the future of American relations with our strategic ally, our unbreakable friendship, and our cultural brother, the only democracy in the Middle East, the State of Israel.
My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic – for America, for Israel, and for the whole Middle East.
Let the wailing and the gnashing of teeth commence.

Trump Is the Quintessential Anti-German

via The Audacious Epigone

Drumpf is informative because it is yet another stark illustration of the inverse relationship between how proud one should be of an ethnicity and how much that ethnic tradition has objectively accomplished*, or of Who? Whom? more generally. As Red Phillips sardonically wrote:
I need clarification from the PC police. It's wrong to call Barack Obama by his middle name Hussein. It's wrong to call Ted Cruz by his given first name Rafael. It's wrong to call Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley by their real Indian names, because, you know, bigotry. But it's OK to call Donald Trump by his ancestral name Drumpf because bigotry against Germans is OK? Is that the official ruling?
It's also funny because of how poorly Trump does with ancestral Germans in the US (see Jayman's two-part series on Trump and the American Nations). Ethnic majorities/pluralities by county in 2000:


If Trump somehow pulls off a major upset in Wisconsin tomorrow, he'll hit the 1,237 not because Wisconsin's delegate haul is critical, but because it is one of the cuckiest states in the country. It's heavily German, Canadian-nice, conventional and friendly, enjoys little racial diversity outside of Milwaukee, etc. If he wins Wisconsin there isn't a state left besides Nebraska that he'll be incapable of taking.

As mentioned, that would constitute a stunning win. Iowa and Kansas are heavily German, too, and Trump fared poorly in both. The German (and Scandinavian) states of Minnesota, Nebraska, Montana, and South Dakota were and are going to be bad for him. Indiana is doable, and of course he won the open primaries in Michigan and Illinois, so it's not as though Germans are allergic to him (he is at 40% in national Republican polls, after all). The West Coast is a tough call but I'd guess his relative performance will be best in California, middling in Oregon, and worst in Washington, and that he'll win California but lose the other two.

(Non-Mormon) English is much better--he won Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, and rather surprisingly lost Maine (although less than 2% of the eligible adult population voted in the Republican caucuses in that state--if it were an open primary Trump would've won it). Pennsylvania is an outlier if he wins, which I think he will, but I'm not confident he'd be able to without Kasich in. The rest of the English/Irish/Italian northeast will be easy.

Missouri provides a nice illustration. Without the Scots-Irish "American" southern counties, Trump would've forfeited the state.

Finally, it's rich because of how critical Trump has been of Germany's civilizational-threatening handling of the migrant crisis. There is no Drumpf in Germania anymore.

Ascending the Spiral Ladder

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Clyde Hutchison, Hamilton Smith, J. Craig
Venter, and Daniel Gibson
An all-White team team of scientists led by J. Craig Venter has just created a new form of life. They didn’t “create life from scratch” as some breathless headlines implied — that’s not possible yet, and may never be. We just don’t know. But what Venter and his team have done is awe-inspiring — and profoundly revolutionary nonetheless. What they have done exceeds the Moon landing in significance and potential. They have removed the DNA from a living cell, rearranged and essentially reprogrammed it according to principles learned over years of experimentation, inserted it into another cell, which then was able to live and reproduce as an utterly new form of life, a new species. They first succeeded in doing this in 2010, but just this Thursday announced success in a much more advanced experiment in which the alteration of the genetic code was far more extensive.

They began with a species of parasitic bacteria, Mycoplasma mycoides, from which they took the genome. This species was chosen because many of the parasitic bacterium’s needs were provided by the host animals, thus making the genome simpler and easier for researchers to understand, analyze, and re-engineer. Mycoplasma has the smallest genome of any known independently-reproducing cellular organism.

They removed the DNA from the bacterium for their 2010 experiment, then chemically recreated it in the laboratory. They used a complex technique to “watermark” non-functional parts of the genetic code with human prose and poetry taken from literature. They then inserted the watermarked genetic material into another bacterial cell — from the closely-related Mycoplasma capricolum species, which had previously had its genome removed.

They tried — and failed. They failed again and again. Their chemical synthesis of the natural genome had tiny mistakes in it. When it was inserted into the cell, it failed to reproduce, and died. But finally a new version of the genome was inserted in the cell — and it began to reproduce. To use the computer-derived terminology of the experimenters, it “booted up.” The team anxiously tested the new, daughter cells. They didn’t know for sure what they would find in their genomes. Would they simply revert back to the natural genome of the parent cell? When the results came in, they saw that the daughter cells’ DNA contained the poetry written by the scientists as a watermark. They had created a new, viable, living species — with a genome rewritten by man. Like all forms of replicating life, it now was potentially immortal.

This new living species they dubbed JCVI-syn1.0 (or just syn1.0 for short).

The next step was to understand more clearly what they had done — and thereby increase their power to alter the genome.

Syn3.0
Syn3.0

They had already begun with one of the simplest genomes extant, and they decided the pathway of their experiments would be to simplify it even further. Over the course of the next six years they experimented countless times with the removal of various genes to see which were essential to cellular life and which could be dispensed with. They divided the genes into groups and eliminated them one at a time — and if a group proved essential to the life process, they further divided it into subgroups and eliminated each of those in turn, and so on through sub-sub-groups and then individual genes — until, finally, they had stripped the organism down to just 473 genes (human cells have about 20,000) and it still was able to live and reproduce. Venter and his team say they could have gone a bit further than that, but then the speed of cell division would have gotten so slow as to make their experiments impractical. So they stopped at 473 — the simplest genome of any living being known. And it was created by four men of our race in a laboratory in La Jolla, California — 2,200 years after another man of our race, Eratosthenes, first calculated the diameter and polar tilt of the Earth, and the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

So, today, we behold syn3.0.

Syn3.0 has no watermarks — and needs none, so distinctive is it from anything that has ever existed before on this planet.  “We did not add new poetry,” Venter said. Dan Gibson said they didn’t need to: “The whole cell is a watermark.”

The scientists’ growing power over the genome is illustrated by the fact that the Venter team even rearranged the genes to make future experiments easier, arranging them so that genes with known related functions were next to one another, in a process not unlike “defragging” a hard drive so that files are placed contiguously on the drive’s surface and not scattered randomly.

Defragging the genome
Defragging the genome
Clyde Hutchison, lead author of the team’s latest study, said “the goal is to figure out the functions of all the cell’s genes and make a computer model to predict how it would grow and change in different environments or with additional genes. It’s important to realize there is no cell that exists where we know the functions of all the genes.” Many mysteries remain. Even in the new, ultra-simple genome they have created, there are still 149 genes, almost a third of the total, the function of which is unknown — though it is known that they are in some way essential to life.

Now, there is a long, long road ahead before this knowledge and power can be used practically. And even then, the applications being talked of are mostly constructing novel organisms, like bacteria that can eat plastic or toxic waste, new life forms that act like “living medicines” inside the human body, or “living biofuels” to replace fossil fuels — or even reconstructing the earliest and simplest forms of life, or attempting to design life forms that can thrive on other worlds.

Ultimately, though, the most profound potential of this new power can be found in how it may one day be used to direct our own evolution.

Now, are there potentials for terrible disasters to be found in this new, almost god-like power to create new species? Yes, there are. Just thinking about these new abilities being put in the service of the same men who run the FDA and the CIA and the ADL and Monsanto and the pharmaceutical companies — men hostile to our race, men with a focus on money and this year’s bottom line, and to Hell with what might happen to our race and the Earth a thousand years from now — is enough to freeze my blood colder than an Antarctic cave.

But the power now exists. It cannot be wished away. It cannot be moralized away. Having it regulated by today’s Western governments or NGOs will just make it more likely to be used for evil than for good.

And there is much potential for good.

What are Venter and his team accomplishing, really? They are, first of all, learning precisely what the function is of each individual gene. (They have learned the functions of 324 so far. It took them six years to do this. At that rate, in three or four centuries we will understand the function of every single human gene. But it will not take 300 years — assuming that White geniuses and scholars of the hard sciences will continue to exist, their knowledge will feed on itself and it will happen in decades, not centuries.) They are learning to write genomes like computer programmers write software. And they are learning how to physically insert the genetic “software” into the “hardware” of a living cell. All of this is a dizzying advance over current genetic engineering technology.

In secret or in the open, such technology will eventually be applied to human beings.

If in secret, we might see efficient, uncomplaining slaves developed. We might see unfeeling, never-tiring, super-strong killing machines — engineered psychopaths — to be raised and used as semi-human soldiers. We might see engineered races of assassins and “minders,” indistinguishable from us in appearance, created to keep a constant eye on the rest of us and report any thought-crimes or word-crimes to our masters. We might see nightmare horrors beyond the worst and most tortured imaginings of H.P. Lovecraft come to life to kill us, torture us, eat us, and replace us.

If in the open, though, we might see fathers and mothers able to ensure that all the desirable characteristics — and none of the defects — of their genetic backgrounds are passed on to their children. We might see higher intelligence, greater creativity, nobler character, and stronger and more beautiful bodies than have ever before been seen among us. What mother, what father, given free choice, would decide that his children should be degraded or inferior or in fact anything less than excellent? And what is the aesthetic and practical and instinctive ideal of almost all of our people, despite the lip service they pay to the plastic idol of “diversity”? It is the Aryan ideal.

Considering that some races will master this technology and some will not, we might see an ever-greater divergence between the intelligent and primitive races on this planet, with the differences becoming so great that the equality lie will totally collapse in the face of the fact that the primitives will no longer appear to even be of the same species as us.

We might even see genetic programming written to ensure that our newly-advanced race will no longer run the risk of genetic pollution through racial mixing with savages — since such pollution will have been rendered as impossible as crossing a bison with a bumblebee.

The answer to ensuring that these new powers are used for good and not evil — for ascending the spiral ladder of our DNA, upward to the stars, and not descending it to a lower-than-animal or slave existence — is, as always, gaining power. Power over our own lives. Power that can be gained only by having our own society and a government answerable only to us. Power to keep the incalculable wealth generated by our people in our own hands and using it for our own purposes, and ending the wealth transfer to the Brown underclass and the Jewish overclass. Power to achieve the destiny that is ours alone and cannot be shared with any other race. Achieving this necessary power is the long-term goal of the National Alliance.

It would be a great sin indeed to let these new technologies fall by default into the hands of our mortal enemies — because we failed to act.

Today I want you to make a decision. I want you to decide to join the most noble cause of all time. I want you to join the only group of men and women on this planet who truly understand the cosmic stakes that are involved in our race’s present plight. I want you to join us and help us gain the power we need not only to survive this year, this decade, or this century — the power we need not only to survive as members of a particular nation or culture — but to survive and achieve our destiny as the vanguard of conscious life in the Universe — to build a new nation, a new people, a whole new world of which men have only begun to dream. I want you to decide today, this hour, this minute, that you will join the National Alliance.

Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn: Fighting Entrenched Jewish Interests

via The Occidental Observer

It is hard to think of two politicians further apart than Britain’s Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump. Corbyn is a Marxist class warrior steeped in identity politics while Trump is, well, Trump.

The similarity is in who they have managed to antagonise. For both have incurred the wrath of the media through the perception that they are not totally beholden to Jewish political priorities.

Since the moment Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the opposition in Britain in September, he has undergone a media demonization that is surely unprecedented in its intensity and duration. Like phosphorous bombs on Gaza, the abuse rains down on him from all points on the compass, day after day. It is hard to keep up with all the accusations but broadly, Corbyn is accused of harbouring or sympathising with “anti-semitism” which is defined as previous association with Islamic preachers, sympathy with the Palestinian cause and his insistence that the Iraq war was a criminal mistake.  It has now reached the stage where ‘anti-semitism in the Labour Party’ is a bigger daily story than the impending referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

All the elements of Jewish communal defence have been mobilized in this campaign but it has been spearheaded by the British Board of Deputies and the main Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle. The Jewish vigilante group, the CST have weighed in.

How did this happen? Corbyn is probably the most left-wing leader Labour has ever had and a believer that borders are a thing of the past. He would flood Britain with refugees tomorrow, if he could.

The problem, of course, is that his far-left and Muslim support represents a distinct threat to Jewish power. Britain’s Labour party has accommodated itself to Jewish priorities for most of the last century and under Tony Blair and his successor Gordon Brown, the Labour Party was as captured by Jewish political power as it is possible to be.  For 12 years as prime minister Blair was under the sway of the one of the tightest Jewish cabals that has ever been seen in Western politics.  Blairite New Labour eagerly signed up to George W Bush’s neocon wars for Israel, and British bombs fell on Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

But all this was at huge cost within the party. Northern Labour MPs, especially, were becoming more dependent on the Muslim bloc vote. Thanks to mass immigration more and more of the Labour constituencies are turning into Muslim fiefdoms and they have not taken kindly to a party that openly kowtows to the Jewish lobby in all its guises.

The public sector rank and file was also disgusted with how Labour had become a servant of the corporate financial sector.

Until his election as Labour leader, Corbyn was seen as a quaint left-wing eccentric, a relic of a bygone age. But his election took the whole party establishment by surprise, and no-one was more outraged than the Jewish lobby as the TOO showed last year.

Since then the campaign has been unremitting and no charge is too wild. Corbyn has been accused of sympathising with terrorism; of being an ally of Vladimir Putin; of undermining the armed forces; of giving comfort to Holocaust deniers. He has turned Labour into the home of conspiracy theorists. This culminated in a front-page article in the Jewish Chronicle accusing Labour of attracting anti-Semites “like flies to a cesspit.”   This week Corbyn was condemned again for refusing to condemn Osama Bin Laden — in a vote taken sixteen years ago and six months before 9/11(!). Again this transparently cooked-up story can rely on getting widespread, national , coverage.

As with Trump, all of this is being carried out by the traditional method of smearing by association. Needless to say, Corbyn’s own protestations of some Jewish ancestry have done him no good (though revealing he knows exactly what signals are important.) Well, maybe Corbyn himself isn’t anti-Semitic, they concede — but he should be more careful of the people he surrounds himself with.

The herd of independent-minded political hacks are queuing up to land a punch. Conservative Mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith took a swing. Even Tony Blair’s bagman, fund raiser Lord Levy, threatened to quit Labour “unless the anti-semitism problem was sorted out.” Naturally, the Prime Minister is happy to play his part and stand up in the House of Commons denouncing Labour Party anti-Semitism.

It all culminated in a particularly hysterical article in which Jewish Chronicle  editor Stephen Pollard describes anti-Semitism as “a cancer in their party and it is getting worse by the day”, and wrote that in order “not to lose the last residue of trust from our community, it must recognise and deal with that cancer”.

But the most laughable aspect of this is that the evidence of “anti-Semitism” is so ridiculously thin. It effectively amounts to peddling hate crime hoaxes. Take the main story from Oxford University where the resignation of the co-chair of the Oxford University Labour Club was being ramped. Here, the disgruntled student cited the fact that the club had endorsed the campus Israel Apartheid Week.

Otherwise this entire anti-Semitism hate crime hoax amounts to no more than playing whack-a-mole with social media comments made by nonentities.  Typical is a gormless woman called Vicki Kirby. This Labour activist from Surrey got into trouble for tweeting in 2011 that Jews had “big noses.” She’d already been disciplined for this in 2014 but it was thought important enough to make a lead story in Britain’s national media again this month and so once again she has been suspended.

Then there was some Muslim activist’s following of a Twitter account which has said positive things about Hamas. Somehow this was worth a page of condemnation in the Spectator.  Another local activist was expelled from the Labour Party after tweeting his refusal to condemn the 9/11 bombers and opposing the bombing of Syria. Then a Muslim former Mayor of Bradford  has been suspended for sharing a Facebook post that complained that the deaths of millions of Africans are not taught in schools but “your school education system only tells you about Anne Frank and the six million Zionists that were killed by Hitler”.

Readers of the abuse poured on Trump will be wearily familiar with the tone of the coverage devoted to anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. There is the blithe assumption that the moral degeneracy is so self-evident that it need not be explained.

But there is no hiding the fact that a few injudicious tweets do not a Shoah make. The raw material you need for a good anti-Semitism scare is just not there.  Once again, demand is exceeding supply.

The anti-Semitism drought has got so bad that professional Jewish dissidents are having to drum up business by themselves. One such is Sir Gerald Kaufman, a Corbyn ally and veteran British parliamentarian who caused a storm last week by saying that the ruling Conservative Party is influenced by “Jewish money” and that the Israeli government made up the recent spate of violent attacks in order to allow it to “execute Palestinians.”

In a wide ranging attack he said. “It’s Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party — as in the general election in May — support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives,” Kaufman said.
There is now a big group of Conservative members of parliament who are pro-Israel whatever government does and they are not interested in what Israel and the Israeli government does.
Kaufman caused controversy earlier this year when he said that Israel uses the Holocaust to justify murdering Palestinians.

This must have caused a sigh of relief in the Jewish organisations who worked themselves up into their usual fury. Led by the Board of Deputies, Community Security Trust vigilantes and the Jewish Leadership Council, it was demanded that Labour exert “swift and appropriate disciplinary action,” on this new outbreak of anti-Semitism from a (Jewish) politician.

Another interesting casualty of the Corbyn affair is the Labour party membership of the Jewish founder of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Tony Greenstein. For years Greenstein has been making the Palestinian cause safe for the Jews. If there is one thing Greenstein hates more than Israel’s policies, it is anyone who questions the Holocaust narrative (see comments in this link). And for two decades he has slandered and harassed the genuine pro-Palestine activists such as Gilad Atzmon. Now he’s been kicked out of the Labour Party and is moaning that that’s all  the thanks he’s gotten for fighting for his people. In his letter Greenstein wrote “even the Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews and other Zionists have acknowledged my role in combatting Gilad Atzmon.”  It is a sorry state of affairs when not even the controlled opposition are safe!

There have been other unusual twists and turns.  For years we have been lectured that Jews and Israel are not the same thing and to conflate the two is anti-Semitic.  Now it seems that attacking Israel alone is anti-Semitic.

To his credit Corbyn, the old Marxist, has never lost his composure and his stuck to his guns.  He has said that Britain’s entry into the Iraq war was based on a lie and has hinted that he wants to see Tony Blair tried for war crimes.  Corbyn has a difficult tightrope to walk. He has to placate not only the far-left public sector group that elected him but the rapidly growing assertive Muslim lobby within the party.

But have you noticed whose concerns are missing in all this? It is ironic that of all the charges that have been levelled against Corbyn, the one that has never been uttered is the one that is most self-evidently true. In placing the needs of others before his own, Jeremy Corbyn is a traitor to his own White people. One wonders how he feels about throwing the White working class under the bus in favour of Guardian-reading liberals and non-Whites.

But no matter how fraught Jeremy Corbyn’s relations with the official Jewish community there is one thing you can guarantee. There will always be some people who differ from the official communal line. Playing both sides is, of course, a fundamental rule of the game.

This weekend Corbyn has been on the receiving end of another media barrage. In the Telegraph the President of the Board of Jewish Deputies was given all the space he needed to say what has been said many times before.  The Mail is pretending it has a new angle on this story.  Meanwhile The Times is claiming that Labour has re-admitted Greenstein, the activist who is said to have compared Israelis to Nazis. The fact that there is nothing much new in any of these stories is irrelevant because as every good propagandist will tell you; the secret is repetition.

Restoring the Indo-European Religion?: Zoroastrianism, Germanic Paganism, & Rune Magic

via Red Ice Radio

Stephen Edred Flowers, also known by the pen-name Edred Thorsson, is an American Runologist and proponent of occultism, Germanic mysticism, Odinism, esoteric runosophy, Asatru, and Mazdaism. He is known for being instrumental in the early establishment of the Germanic Neopagan movement in North America and has been involved in Left-Hand Path organizations. Flowers has hundreds of published papers and over three dozen books, including “The Good Religion” and the forthcoming release, “Original Magic”. Flowers is currently director of the Woodharrow Institute of Germanic Studies and the owner and operator of Runa-Raven Press.

Stephen begins by discussing his vision for rejuvenating the Indo-European way through a revival of well-founded Germanic traditions and the restoration of traditional areas of study that are being eliminated from academia. He explains the foundations of the Mazdan tradition and its ultimate goal of attaining happiness in the here and now, and he speaks to the importance of preserving the heroic myths that our ancestors would evoke to organize and motivate societies. We talk about the centuries-long, coercive Christianization process that eroded away the ancient organic values of Indo-European folk-groups and flipped the true position of humanity on its head with the idea of original sin. Stephen highlights his understanding of the connection between the formation of the Germanic religion and the Zoroastrian way, and he emphasizes how the absence of culturally conditioned images allowed different cultural spheres to develop according to a veneration for their own symbols, myths and rituals.

In the members’ segment, Flowers talks about ancient horse domestication and the profoundness of the great myth of the American frontier. Then, Stephen explains the history of the Germanic writing system called the Runes and the relationship between the theory of magic and the mystical study of runes. We discuss rune magic, the use of artistic, mythical components in conveying messages, and the function of rune stones in immortalizing the dead and instilling motivation for group survival. We also touch on the application of runes in self-transformation, which Stephen says can be used to facilitate communications between one’s conscious and unconscious mind and in activating the spirit. Additionally, Stephen gives recommendations for inspiring a sense of spirituality and purpose through self-exploration and bonding with other like-minded individuals in real life. At the end, we consider the Persian Empire’s role in spreading the Aryan traditions of community and rights for all living things.

Dabney on the “New South”

via Faith & Heritage

I am the Cassandra of Yankeedom, predestined to prophesy truth and never to be believed until too late.” – Robert Lewis Dabney, 1894

We’ve covered Robert Lewis Dabney extensively on F&H before, but recent events call for a revisiting of Dabney’s denunciation of the “new South” doctrines he saw developing after the War Between the States. Two days ago, Georgia governor Nathan Deal, a Republican, announced his intention to veto a bill which would allow faith-based organizations the ability to avoid hiring or providing services to sexual degenerates like homosexuals and transgenders. In this we see the three heads of Dabney’s hated “new South” at work against the average Southerner and God’s law.
First, the true relation between God and man had been distorted by egalitarianism. There was no such thing as real human equality, Dabney repeated, and to attempt to impose it was to violate the laws of God and nature. The effects of such efforts were disastrous to society. . . .
The second adverse condition Dabney attacked was the growth of financial oligarchy. Here Dabney drew a comparison between the United States of 1789 and ninety-three years later, in the 1882. In the former year no one city, no one or two states, no handful of corporate giants controlled the nation’s wealth. But in 1882 New York City had become “the commercial mistress” of the whole nation and a handful of industrial and financial barons dictated policies to presidents. Asked Dabney: “Can a sensible man persuade himself that political independence and individual initiative shall remain in a land where financial despotism has become established?” . . .
This brought Dabney to his third adverse condition, the destruction of true republican government and the establishment of what he saw as a political and managerial oligarchy. . . . Concentrated wealth provided almost unlimited opportunity for a powerful few to sway and manipulate the public. In post-war America it was but an easy step to observe that the oligarchies of wealth would now control politics, as well. “Is it Washington or Wall Street,” exclaimed Dabney, “which really dictates what platforms [of the political parties] shall be set forth, and what candidates shall be elected, and what appointments shall be made? For certain it is not the people of the states.
In the case of the Georgia bill, it was the threat of big commercial interests boycotting the state under the guise of support for “equality” which put the most pressure on Deal, a member of the new managerial political class, to cave and veto the bill. And now Christian Georgians remain vulnerable to the same kind of anti-Christian lawsuits and penalties which Christians in other parts of the U.S. have suffered for wanting to opt out of participating in sinful behavior.

Cruzin': A Conspiracy Theory

via Alternative Right

Sexier (and scheme-ier) than you think he is?
Partisan politics are invariably poisonous. Indeed, boosterism breeds an ever-expansive propensity to a pernicious myopia. The more passionate one becomes in advocating for a particular candidate, the less that advocate is able to see, or care about, the truth; instead, such a one reflexively comes to believe, and just as reflexively to argue for, whichever “version” of the truth is most conducive to the likely success of one’s own candidate, and/or most presumably detrimental to the prospects of that candidate’s rivals.

But more is occluded than the fundamental ability, or willingness, to tease out fact, and conscientiously distinguish it from falsity. Another casualty of partisan punditry—whether carried out by the highest-paid, forever-flacking news television flunky or the merest envelope-licking volunteer—is a consequent inattention to subtlety. An enthusiastically compulsive partisan simply reacts to an event, rather than actually chewing it over; as a result, he frequently misses both the short-term truth of the matter and the long-term takeaway.

A case-in-point of this phenomenon is the reaction of partisans of various stripes to a recent National Enquirer piece, alleging that Presidential aspirant Ted Cruz is a serial adulterer.
The information in the piece, whatever its level of veracity, apparently originated from elements in the now defunct Rubio campaign. Still, Cruz instantly called the story “garbage” and blamed it on “Trump’s henchmen.” At the same time, Trump’s operatives were gleeful about Cruz the conspicuously unctuous evangelist apparently being exposed as a randy hypocrite, Jimmy Swaggart-style. Of course, the course of Trump’s own past is scattered, smothered, chunked, and topped with numerous infelicitous infidelities (though he’s apparently calmed down recently as a near-septugenarian baby boomer working on his third marriage), but partisanship can always rationalize the practice of grossly disproportionate moral standards, and is adept at finding specious justification for behavior that one would hotly condemn under non-partisan circumstances.

What the partisans ignore, or fail to notice, is what I would call the “meta”-story here. I claim no insider knowledge of the goings-on of the campaign trail, but I do, I think, have some inkling of the contemporary Zeitgeist with regard to attitudes towards marital sexual morality, particularly with regard to certain less-remarked mores, which go unremarked because people generally retain an awareness that they are shameful, even as they unquestioningly internalize them.

Elsewhere, I have remarked upon how the rise of feminism has worked very much in favor of the sort of men usually viewed as “alpha males," and quite to the detriment of so-called "betas,” since young women are now encouraged not to “settle” for just any guy, however “nice” or “good”; instead, they are given general permission to be quite unrestrained in pursuing their bliss, as I remarked in my 2014 article "Brutalizing the Beta":
It has often been remarked that the real losers of the sexual revolution are the so-called “beta males.” After all, prior to the time when the marital covenant became so thoroughly denigrated and devalued as it is now, “betas” actually wielded a kind of clout. 
Back when young women were still encouraged by the culture to marry decent men, instead of being pushed to pursue Eat Pray Love-esque escapades with sexy strangers, the better to “find themselves” and so earn their ticket of supposed feminine “authenticity,” it actually paid for guys to be good, solid providers with sweet natures and decent temperaments. 
During such times, men of this sort were quite sought-after commodities, in fact. Prospective wives could, after all, do a lot worse than to pledge troth to a solid, respectable man, even if truth be told he was no Gable or Grant in the looks department, didn’t ooze irresistible tough-guy charisma like Bogart, and didn’t possess the world-conquering ambition of Hitler or Stalin. Even if your "beta" hubby was a bit of a dullard, he at least took care of you, provided for you, and saw to the health and well-being of your children; these matters certainly weren’t small potatoes, and weren’t viewed as such. A good man, everyone agreed, was good to find. 
Now, with fornication common, marriage rendered malleably meaningless and conformable to any and all newfangled configurations, and bristling misandry rampant in the culture, “betas” have it much tougher. Being a solid, respectable man is no longer enough; women, fed on vacuous mantras of self-esteem and entitlement from an early age, now demand “that spark” from their prospective mates; their less virtuous hypergamic tendencies are indulged, rather than discouraged, by the “you go, girl” Ophrah-fied, slut-celebrating Cosmo-culture of flagrant degeneracy in which we now find ourselves. As a result, the sort of guys who used to get snatched up greedily by the ladies who dwelt in the old dispensation now get kicked to the curb with numbing regularity by the whores who rule the new one.
As a result, "betas" today are regularly roasted, ridiculed, and scapegoated: they are mocked as losers if they can’t land a girlfriend, castigated as "entitled" if they complain about being treated badly by women, and sneered at as hapless "cucks" when their faithless wives or girlfriends cheat on them with a higher-status man. The sexual revolution—fed, financed, and encouraged by the likes of bloated, oversexed, power-drunk narcissists like Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, along with much of their grisly generation, those feculent "free-loving" freaks who came of dubious age at the "Woodstock" psyop—has turned normal and healthy sexual mores upside-down; today, it is decent men whose behavior and attitude is regarded as silly and embarrassing, while patently caddish men are commonly respected and admired.

Hugh Hefner, degenerate geriatric shitlord
Of course, this manner of thought often takes place, as it were, beneath the surface of things; superficially, out of deference to tradition, we still maintain a certain grudging respect for men who remain true to their vows and refrain from betraying their spouses. Viscerally, however, we are can’t help but feel drawn to that which denotes status and power. In our debased age, an adulterous man is seen as someone who is “alpha,” someone for whom ordinary rules of morality simply don’t apply, someone who, in short, we’re conditioned to envy and look upon as our natural "better."

I have heard not a few people all but praise Trump for his extramarital shenanigans, implying that such behavior somehow indicates his deep-down shitlordy manliness. Again, such an assessment, absurd as it is (the true measure of manliness rests upon a man’s capacity for restraint, not his compulsion towards indulgence), is fairly common today.

Given this sad state of affairs, is it really so out of bounds to wonder if the news of Cruz’s alleged adulteries could have been made public with the tacit compliance of the Cruz campaign itself? Might Cruz’s own lawyerly non-denials of the allegations be designed to lead us to suspect him to be guilty? Might it be that we’re being invited to entertain the notion of Cruz as an ardent and avid pussy-slayer, in order that we might come to view him—perversely enough—as a more properly “presidential” sort of man?

Scientology & the CIA

via The Soul of the East

SofE Editor's Note: This presentation was read by Aleksandr Leonidovich Dvorkin, president of the Irinaeus of Lyons Center for Religious Research Studies, on January 26th, 2016, at a conference run by the Orthodox St. Tikhon University for the Humanities. (Translator’s note: While we wouldn’t claim that the Church of Scientology is an integral element of the US Intelligence Community, Dvorkin’s lecture is an excellent expose of the nexus between the Western power structure, its intelligence apparatus and dangerous cults).

The topic of Scientology’s connection to the CIA became commonplace long ago. It’s mentioned in a mass of articles, interviews, and television programs. But when I referred to this in passing during a conversation with one journalist several months ago, he took interest: do I have irrefutable evidence of or clues to this connection? Could I, so to say, point to a “smoking gun?”

The question interested me, and I decided to try and collect materials on this topic. So can we bring irrefutable evidence? . . . Read more

Anti-Semitism AND Islamopobia?: The EU Verdict

via The Traitor within

On 1 October 2015, the Vice-President of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans, said this at the First Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights Brussels:
"I think it is hugely symbolic that we have decided to devote this first Colloquium to anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred. I feel very strongly about both issues. 
Hundreds of thousands in need of refuge are arriving on our shores and the capacity of our society for tolerance and inclusion is put to the test like never before... Europe is going through a period of crisis and turmoil, which is challenging the very values on which it was built. It is challenging the very fabric of European society and therefore the very fabric of European cooperation. The rise of anti-Semitism, the rise of Islamophobia, each in their own way are symptoms...

Anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred are emblematic of other forms of hatred. At the bottom of all forms of hatred, is the fact that you are targeted purely for who you are. No matter what you do, or what you say, you are targeted for who you are, something you can do nothing about...

About a year ago I started losing sleep over the headlines about Aliya: Europeans leaving Europe, today's Europe, because they no longer see, as Jews, a future for themselves here. Without our Jewish community, Europe would cease to exist. Europe would simply cease to exist.

When you know about European history, you know that the darker, uglier forces in our societies always turn first against minorities. Always turn first against Jews. And when you know anything about European history, you know that anti-Semitism is a triple red line, never, ever to be crossed, for our collective sanity.

Anti-Semitism is not just terrible for the Jewish community, it is like a fever in an infected body; it points at a much wider problem. Anti-Semitism left unchallenged will create a much, much bigger problem in any society, that is what European history teaches us. So tackling anti-Semitism is an essential operation to save what we cherish in our society.

The fact that today, in Europe, anti-Semitism is still a reality, and that it is in fact on the rise – old anti-Semitism that we have known for centuries, and new anti-Semitism, that sometimes tries to hide itself behind anti-Zionism – is something we need to confront. I don't want European children to grow up with police at their school gates; it is a dark, dark stain on our collective conscience... 
In the past weeks, we have seen tremendous solidarity in some of our Member States. But we have also seen the dark side of society... We have heard political leaders declare that their countries would not accept refugees if they were Muslim.

Anti-Muslims incidents are multiplying across Europe. We're seeing a huge spike of attacks. Verbal insinuations, closed-mindedness, prejudice, discrimination. The rise of Islamophobia is the one of the biggest challenges in Europe. It is a challenge to our vital values, to the core of who we are. Never has our societies' capacity for openness, for tolerance, for inclusion been more tested than it is today.

Diversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat. Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity's destiny. There is not going to be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that will not see diversity in its future. That’s where humanity is heading. And those politicians trying to sell to their electorates a society that is exclusively composed of people from one culture, are trying to portray a future based on a past that never existed, therefore that future will never be.

EUROPE WILL BE DIVERSE! Like all other parts of the world will be diverse... If we don’t get this right, I truly believe Europe will not remain the Europe we built. Europe will not remain a place of peace and freedom for very long.

Ladies and gentlemen... I want to encourage you to share your... ideas on very concrete ways in which we can fight back against hatred and intolerance in Europe. Think about the things we could do in education... Look how we can tackle hate speech on the Internet and in other places. Together, we will take stock of the main challenges faced by the Jewish and Muslim Communities in Europe today. And together, we will explore solutions, from the fight against hate crime and hate speech to the role of civil society, education and local authorities to policies promoting non-discrimination and inclusion...

The importance we attach to fighting anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred also means that we do not just want to listen to you and your concerns today... Commissioner Jourova and I have decided that we will designate, within the Commission, two coordinators with specific responsibility for following issues relating to one, anti-Semitism and the other, Islamophobia. So one coordinator responsible to be your contact point on issues relating to anti-Semitism, another coordinator responsible as your point of contact for issues related to Islamophobia. And these two persons within our services will have direct access to me. So whatever you say to them lands on my desk immediately.

I want to be in direct control of this. I will be your envoy if you want to call it that. I will have two people in my services whose task it will be one, to make sure that the issue of anti-Semitism is her or his main activity, and the other, Islamophobia, and that they report to me directly."
 Likes the term 'anti-Semitism,' doesn't he?

Timmermans used it fifteen times all told. He also complained of anti-Zionism.

Islamophobia isn't quite such a big thing down Timmerman Way but it's big enough. He used that term five times.

And who's responsible for all this anti-Jew and Muslim hatred? Why we horrible Europeans, of course. The people whom Timmermans is Vice-President of. Those whom it appears he's going to sort out on behalf of the Jewish and Muslim minorities if we don't start being nicer to them!

Hey, Frans! If relatives of those who died in the Brussels, Tunisia and Paris attacks don't show Muslims a little more affection and respect, will you be on their case? Will you accuse them of Islamophobia? What about the young women of Cologne and the little girls of Rotherham, Rochdale, Keighley, Oxford, Newcastle et al? Will you insist they be more tolerant of their abusers' sexual abuse? You know, for diversity's sake?

'No matter what you do, or what you say, you are targeted for who you are, something you can do nothing about.'

But what if the things Muslims say and do are out of order, Frans? What if they preach hatred of us? What if they, as described in the penultimate paragraph, kill us en masse and rape our little girls? Are we not allowed to dislike them then? And why no mention of this very real hatred? The savage criminality Europeans (and their own people in the Middle East and Africa) have suffered at their hands surely warrants a mention. Doesn't this deserve some minor acknowledgement in your finger-wagging speech?

Why is the horror that indigenous Europe must inevitably suffer as part and parcel of the mass movement into their world of peoples who are very different to them of no account? Why do our feelings and wishes not matter? You will be just as aware as I am that the diversity you and yours are so fond of brings untold joy to very few outside the immigrant, elite and PC loop.

Why are you so intolerant of our wish to retain our identity and maintain our culture as it is, and yet so tolerant of the damage the unwanted incomer has done to us in the past and is liable to do to us in the future?

Why do you care so much more for the immigrant than the indigenous?

Are you a traitor, Frans? Do you wish to see the white world browned? Do you wish to see us enter the genocidal melting pot, never to emerge, as the EU icon, Count Coudenhove-Kalergi did?



Or do you just wish we white folks replaced in our ancient homelands?

As for anti-Semitism, tell me something, in your world, are Jews sacrosanct? Must they never be criticised, no matter what they do?
"At the bottom of all forms of hatred, is the fact that you are targeted purely for who you are. No matter what you do, or what you say..."
So if I condemn the following for what they say, I'm not criticising bad attitudes and warning the world of a nasty mindset, I'm targeting Jews. That is what you're saying, isn't it?


Of course, you may accuse me of anti-Semitism anyway, despite the pretty obvious need for we non-Jews to know that there are people out there who are thinking such thoughts. However, if you dared to accuse these of anything you could run the risk of being accused of anti-Semitism yourself, as all are, themselves, Jewish:

Jews telling tales on their own?
How do you handle that one, Frans? How do you prevent the reality of elite Jewish antipathy towards the rest of us emerging when Jews are, themselves, blowing the whistle?
And, Frans, why would you want to keep such things hidden? Why would you not want the world to know that Neoconservative Jews were deeply involved in the push for a second war against Iraq, for example? I mean, that war and what has followed has led directly to refugee exodus that we, in Europe, are now having to cope with. Why would you not wish us to know who was responsible?
It's a rhetorical question, Frans, I do know the answer. The accusation levelled at the destructive Jew can also be levelled at the establishment Gentile who enables his destructive behaviour. 
Point the finger at George Soros or the Holocaust industry and you must also point it at Frans Timmermans.
You're in the notebook, Frans, no matter what you threaten, no matter what you do, we're here to stay and we're keeping count.
Oh, yes. No matter how you huff and puff, as long as people like you hold the reins of power we'll keep telling the majority what you are doing with that power.
"Dictators ride to and fro on tigers from which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry." (Winston Churchill: 'While England Slept' - 1938)
Ring any bells, Frans?
P.S. 
"Without our Jewish community, Europe would cease to exist."
F*** off, Frans. You're nothing but a bought-and-paid-for, over-promoted groupie.

P.P.S. I'm not sure what's happening with the blurred graphics, folks. My computer is screwing up at the moment. Time to invest in another perhaps.

Black Crime & a Well-Meaning White Lady

via Counter-Currents

Last month there was a mass shooting of Blacks in Wilkinsburg, a high-crime suburb of Pittsburgh. As CNN reported, “two gunmen turned a backyard cookout into a bloodbath in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, leaving six people dead — including a pregnant woman — and a community grasping for answers.” The massacre, described in the media as a “deadly backyard ambush,” may have been drug-related.

The gunmen have not yet been arrested and convicted, so we don’t know for certain their race. It is within the realm of fantastical possibility that they are white supremacists or mafia hitmen, enabled thus far by their white privilege to elude justice; but there is not a single rational person who doubts that it is much more likely that the killers are Black thugs. Wilkinsburg is a high-crime suburb because it is filled with low-income Blacks, and these Blacks often kill one another. In general, of course, Blacks kill far too often: between 1980 and 2008 Africans living in America were responsible for more than half of the country’s murders, despite being only about twelve percent of the population.

A White television anchor in Pittsburgh, with numerous awards for excellence to her credit, has been fired for arriving at the reasonable conclusion that the Wilkinsburg killers are likely Black and likely from dysfunctional families. That was Wendy Bell’s own attempt to grasp for answers, and she lost her job as a result.

She did not suggest, as I would, that Blacks are naturally more violent and more impulsive than Whites, and that Black crimes of this sort are thus tragic but unsurprising. She did not suggest that low-IQ Blacks often have difficulty judging whether any gain they might acquire through criminal violence is worth the time in prison their violence is likely to cost them. They act rather than think, because they are better at the former than the latter, and they often end up dead or behind bars as a result.

Instead Wendy Bell, writing on Facebook, made what most non-Blacks would consider informed remarks, while including appropriate expressions of grief at the tragedy:

You needn’t be a criminal profiler to draw a mental sketch of the killers who broke so many hearts two weeks ago Wednesday . . . [T]hey are young black men, likely in their teens or early 20s. They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs. These boys have been in the system before. They’ve grown up there. They know the police. They’ve been arrested. They’ve made the circuit and nothing has scared them enough. Now they are lost. Once you kill a neighbor’s three children, two nieces and her unborn grandson, there’s no coming back.

It is worth noting how non-racial this sketch is. If you grew up with multiple siblings from multiple fathers, and your mother, without an employed husband in her home, worked multiple jobs or received public assistance, you are statistically more likely to end up a thug than is someone who grew up in a more stable family. A dysfunctional family with absent parents doesn’t guarantee bad results, but it does make them more likely, whether the family in question is Black or White. No one, least of all liberal Wendy Bell, would argue that it is a criminal’s fault that his childhood home was dysfunctional.

Bell, in other words, was offering an accurate but charitable interpretation of the crime, an interpretation supported by five decades of social-science research documenting the consequences of the Black family’s decline. Her charitable interpretation aroused, nevertheless, great anger among Negroes in Pittsburgh, and their anger, along with the cowardly passivity of her employers, caused her firing. She had been working at WTAE-TV since 1998.

Negro journalist Damon Young, an expert in the racial etiquette surrounding the word “nigger,” was an important participant in the campaign against Wendy Bell. He acknowledged that she is a “well-meaning White lady,” but thought she merited punishment nevertheless. “She very much deserved to get fired,” he wrote. “She earned this.”

Professional Negro Damon Young
Professional Negro Damon Young

Prominent among Damon Young’s various complaints is his target’s supposed confidence in her talent as a criminal profiler: “Although she’s a news anchor, Bell apparently moonlights as Sherlock fucking Holmes.” Her belief that she is Sherlock fucking Holmes is in turn, according to Young, an expression of her white privilege. Young defines the term: it is “the idea that [our] Whiteness is omniscient and inherently superseding.”

There are two complex words in this definition, and Young succeeded in using only one of them correctly, which makes his meaning unnecessarily obscure.

He apparently means, however, that Whites, owing to our unexamined racial confidence, believe that we are capable, like the Christian God, of seeing and knowing everything. Filled with our whiteness, we assume, without first consulting the nearest available Negro, that our interpretations of the world, including the Black crime that plagues most American cities, are always right. Blacks, for example, believe that O. J. Simpson was innocent and Darren Wilson guilty, whereas too many self-confident Whites imagine that we are entitled to ignore deeply held Black convictions on such issues.

Young angrily paraphrased Bell’s innocuous Facebook post as follows: “Maybe we don’t know who killed these people. But we do know their mommas are some broke Black hoes. If you round up all the broke Black hoes in Wilkinsburg — all the women with multiple jobs and multiple baby daddies — you’ll find the people who did this.” He intended this as a darkly humorous indictment of Wendy Bell for her “racially problematic” prediction about the likely perpetrators of an especially savage episode of Black-on-Black violence.

The difficulty with this paraphrase is that, like the Facebook post it is so loosely based on, there is a very good chance that it is true. The killers are likely underclass Blacks. There is a good chance they live in or near Wilkinsburg. Their mothers may have had multiple baby daddies, an expression that Damon Young’s racial group has introduced into the American lexicon. We all have heard the expression because the phenomenon it names is so common, and the phenomenon is especially common in low-income Black enclaves. The well-meaning White lady didn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that a violent crime in a high-crime suburb was likely committed by violent criminals who live there, and that the criminals who live there are more likely to have dysfunctional families and criminal records than the non-criminals who live there too.

Bell was guilty only of making an informed guess. In the unlikely event that the Wilkinsburg killers do not fit her prediction, we can be sure that the criminals in the next Black-on-Black shooting will, or we can look back at previous Black criminal outrages and see her sketch confirmed. She was familiar with a common pattern, so she wrote about it, which journalists are supposed to do. That’s why she specifically denied that it required any skill as a criminal profiler to predict the type of Blacks who committed the crime. And that’s also why any concept, like Damon Young’s version of “white privilege,” that imputes to Bell an improper belief in her race’s supernatural omniscience cannot be relevant. The ability to see the obvious doesn’t require special abilities.

It is possible that Young claimed that we believe our whiteness is “omniscient” and “superseding” only because he thought the words sounded impressive. But if he really meant what he apparently tried to write, he picked a remarkably poor case to display his imperfect command of Whitey’s English. If he wanted to disprove our alleged belief in our racial omniscience, he should have picked instead an example of Wendy Bell making an implausible prediction. Or, better still, he should have caught her in a simple factual error. He should not have picked an example of a White woman making a prediction that everyone knows is highly plausible. Young himself doesn’t need divine omniscience or Sherlockian deductions to know what kind of Black criminals transformed a backyard cookout into a bloodbath, and he would be both pleased and astounded if the killers turn out to be Caucasians. As Bell said in her doomed defense, “what I wrote is realism, not racism.”

If we want to understand Damon Young’s anger, it is better to ignore his dumb chatter about nonexistent white privilege and concentrate instead on his hostility to Wendy Bell’s many expressions of grief over the massacre in Wilkinsburg. She was, unfortunately as it turned out, insistent that she had a powerful emotional stake in the killing of one group of Blacks by another group of Blacks:

There’s just been nothing nice to say. And I’ve been dragging around this feeling like a cold I can’t shake that rattles in my chest each time I breathe and makes my temples throb. I don’t want to hurt anymore. I’m tired of hurting.

She went on at length with similar expressions of personal suffering, and Young had a good time making fun of her grief over Black deaths: “I’ll . . . picture a sad and sullen Wendy Bell at a Starbucks in Sewickley last week — teary-eyed, tense, and teetering on the edge of a panic attack.”

Young is more skilled than I am at interpreting the nuances of “nigga” in the works of Kanye West; I am more skilled than he is at evaluating the feelings of well-meaning White liberals. My expert opinion in this case is that Bell’s professions of anguish were sincere.

But it doesn’t matter. The important underlying idea, whether Bell’s claims of heartbreak were genuine or not, is that she and Damon Young both live in the same racially inclusive community within the same nation. She lost her job because she believes that idea is true.

If members of Damon Young’s often savage race are shot near Pittsburgh, Wendy Bell assumes that she has a stake in the resulting suffering. She is affected by the crime and thus feels grief just as much as any Black woman would feel grief, because the inclusive community she believes she inhabits is defined not by race but by location. A pregnant Black woman, along with other innocent victims, is brutally killed near where she lives, and consequently Wendy Bell’s temples throb just as intensely as they would if a pregnant White woman had been murdered there instead. Perhaps they might throb just a little bit more, given that well-intentioned White liberals often have special feelings of sympathy for distinctively Black tragedies.

On the other hand, I do not believe that Wendy and Damon meaningfully live within the same nation, even though both physically reside in Pittsburgh, and I believe that he and his fellow Black agitators have been kind enough to prove it.

Bell was attacked and mocked and ultimately fired because she was a White woman expressing concern about Black deaths. Young would not have mocked a Black reporter if he or she had written the same words. He didn’t want Bell to talk seriously about the crime. He didn’t want her assistance in evaluating the causes of the crime. He didn’t want her expressions of grief at the human cost of the crime. He doesn’t like her because she is White, and he doesn’t value her expressions of sympathy for the same reason. The nation to which he belongs clearly does not include the pretty White woman who formerly worked at WTAE-TV.

It required from Damon Young a contemptible brand of negritude to feel pleased that a well-meaning reporter lost her job for speaking truthfully and for expressing her sadness over the deaths of members of his race. But on one important issue Young is right: he belongs to a different nation from ours, and we would do better to worry more about Black crimes against Whites and fret less about Blacks murdering other Blacks. As The Color of Crime reports, “of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence [in 2013] that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time.”

I will not be the first observer to note how the strange configuration of modern race relations enables Africans in America to leverage their many social failures as a race into political victories. A Black thug is shot while trying to kill a White police officer in Ferguson, and after destructive Black riots the police department promises to hire more Blacks and fewer Whites. Among other bad effects, Michael Brown’s violence will end up costing in future some White would-be policemen their jobs, which will be handed instead to less competent Blacks.

The angry Negro Damon Young and his angry racial community have just engineered a similar victory: Blacks kill other Blacks in Wilkinsburg; Young enjoys the thrill of helping to get a White woman he sees on television fired from her job for “insensitive” comments about the crime; and as recompense for the hurt feelings her insensitivity caused, her former employers have now promised to hire more Blacks and fewer Whites. If you live in Pittsburgh and still watch television, in future you’ll be seeing fewer White faces and more Black faces, and the source of the new Black faces on WTAE-TV will be the killing of Blacks by other Blacks at backyard cookout.

Why Universities Love Grievance Studies

via Henry Dampier

Insert Democratic Voting Bloc Studies are popular at most universities among faculty, the students, and the administration. On occasion, conservatives and other bad people will criticize such departments as distracting from the important public missions of those universities or of destabilizing society at large.

Any freshman will probably tell you that the classes taught by these academic departments provide easy As for little effort or even classroom attendance. This is the lure: all a student needs to do is to attend class, write some lightly-graded essays, and skim the readings if they bother to go that far.

The classes will often win some points with new students because the professors and teaching assistants are more reasonable than any nasty critics that they may have heard of had once construed them to be.

It also helps that the university administration and many other departments which aren’t formally an Insert Democratic Voting Bloc Here Studies department have, in fact, been given over to those departments. English departments teach English literature according to how well that it matches up with the precepts of social justice. A character is a good or bad character to the extent to which he matches with the new morality.

While it may alienate a small number of students who have some ideological preconditioning — a College Republican, perhaps — the average healthy person with only a passing interest in ideology as such unless learning to parrot that ideology increases their GPA and therefore their future projected earning power — will do what they’re expected to do.

Insert Democratic Voting Bloc Studies departments are also easier to stuff with various members of Democratic voting bloc racial, ethnic, gender, and behavioral groups than others. It’s difficult to dig up enough Chicano lesbian transmales to staff even a skeletal Physics department, but they’re thick on the ground when you’re trying to staff a humanities department.

Finally, academics love them because the departments simultaneously create more job opportunities while lowering overall standards in all departments throughout the institutions. It’s much easier to parrot political slogans to your students than it is to teach a real subject or hold the line on academic standards.

Conservatives, having a reasonable temperament, tend to encourage a reformist approach to universities if they consider it at all.

Others just encourage prospective students to stick to the ‘hard sciences’ and engineering, even though those departments similarly suffer from political pressures, a constant grubbing for government money, and tangential utility at best to the people who actually hire scientists for productive work.

The grievances will continue to be advanced so long as the funds continue to flow into the universities, and the funds will keep flowing into it as long as the departments serve a useful political purpose — namely to create an intellectual vanguard which revels in the destruction of the society that funds it.