Jun 3, 2015

Bruce's err . . . 'Caitlyn's' Makeover

via Radix

Since the creation of the "So This is How it Ends" series back in the Alt Right days, I don't think we have witnessed something that encapsulates the Kali Yuga in one single image.

The former Olympian Bruce Jenner's Vanity Fair cover shoot coming out to the world as a chick named "Caitlyn" manages to mold all our present insanity into one disgusting photo.

It was praised to the moon and back by our press and even the President's chief adviser as a courageous and wonderful thing.

The fact that the American elite is celebrating this rather than retching uncontrollably shows just how much our society's morality is warped.

We only show this to let our readers know why we must fight for a better world. This is what our future looks like if we don't change course.

Somewhere our ancestors are watching us and praying for Ragnarok. We the living can only hope for a redemption from this madness.

If Whites Had Gay Rights – Recap

via BUGS

Bob has given us a very practical model here which I think needs to be discussed further. I found this article online – STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: “The Overhauling of Straight America”, it may be useful for us? We want to go after anti-whiteism just as the Gays demanded straight America they be accepted, now even promoted.

By Bob

Years ago Pat Boone, a celebrity in the know but pro-white, announced that Gay Lib had a special power which was denied to every other minority group, even blacks and women’s lib:

While every non-white male group has enormous power AFTER a movie is shown, only Gay Lib Representatives were allowed in to cut anything they didn’t like BEFORE the movie left the studio.

Gays are now beginning their campaign to have gays kissing on television.

TV shows have begun gently poking fun at the fact that gays don’t really kiss on TV. Most series have the obligatory part where a black male falls SINCERELY in love with a blondish white girl.

It is NEVER just a black guy wanting a white girl because she’s prettier or to prove he’s a man despite being black, no, sir, every time he is deeply, genuinely in love and there is a deep French kiss to show it.

The Dexter series included that required scenario and so did the House of Cards series and most other series since 2000.

Gays, despite their superior minority power, are still just beginning their campaign because they face religious opposition and a public that can still be openly turned off by SOME things.

But we all know gays will get their way in time, so we should ask why this is true?
And what is NOT true about Gay Power or, for that matter, all of the minority power that we run into every day?

Did the gays or the blacks or the Hispanics gain all this censorship power by a Massive Torchlight Parade that Overthrew the Government on Der Tag?

In the Real World, the Real way the real power we face every day was developed is totally alien to the News and Jews approach.

The way Gay Lib will get its French kisses in daytime TV and the way blacks have achieved their dream of French-kissing between white women and black men is utterly alien to the Torch Light Parade types and totally familiar to BUGSERS:

Gay Lib never lets a single remark which can possibly be interpreted in the most paranoid way as saying something they don’t want said about gays get by without raising hell.

Sound familiar?

It certainly wouldn’t sound familiar on the pro-white side with one single exception:

ALL of the minority power we are buried under began by a consistent message.

ALL of the minority powers we now face met a puzzled public in its day: the New York Times routinely called homosexuals “queers” a few decades ago.

Gay Lib crushed the crusade to CURE people of homosexuality. We face a similar, and even crazier and more outspoken, program, to “cure” people of being whites, that “cancer of humanity.”

The responses we got on March Against White Genocide on the Spring Equinox were totally familiar to an old history junkie like me:

“What is this?”

“DUHHH! What is white genocide?”

The response to the beginning of every message has always been “What are they talking about?” aka “DUUUH!” and, always, INSULTS.

We are exactly where all the power we are up against began. This is a FACT, a memory, it is NOT identifying WITH them.

I have finally realized what kept bouncing around in my mind all these years when I kept mentioning – not fully understanding – my own statement that revolutions occur when the established party in power and the only real opposition – finally cease their dual control, as Conservative and Labour did in Britain and the two-party system does in America.

Everybody is predicting that whites will become minorities in today’s white countries. But it will be a long, LONG time before whites cease to be the overwhelming MINORITY.
White rule lasted longest in low-state South Carolina and in South Africa. All white areas have always been notoriously anti-white, like Minnesota electing Senator Humphrey, or New York, electing Javits.

Minorities rule. And whites are on their way to being a minority.

The shrinking white population will be many times as large as the most inflated estimates of our gay population.

All the powers that be began exactly the way we did.

'Anti-Racism' Is a Jewish Construct

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

The poisonous bit of anti-wisdom that “race is a social construct” is one of the most common expressions of anti-”racism”. The truth is the opposite – society is a racial construct.

In Race and Jews – Part 6 we examined how the jews were for race before they were against it, how their stand on race has shifted over the past century, guided by the underlying principle that good is what’s good for the jews.

In The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity:
Goldstein describes the private communications between jewish leaders in America. In 1909 these leaders feared that race scientists were close to declaring the jews a non-White race, and so they conspired to:
enlist the help of an anthropologist in order to get “a very strongly worded declaration as to the practical identity of the white race,” one that would presumably leave no doubt as to the whiteness of Jews.
During the first two decades of the twentieth century, Columbia University Processor Franz Boas was the best known anthropologist of Jewish origin in the United States. Boas shared the concern of the Jewish communal elite about racial nativism, but his preference to identify as a German American rather than as a Jew prevented him from engaging too directly in Jewish defense efforts during these years. Instead, Boas worked to discredit the centrality of race in evaluating human capabilities, arguing that differences between groups–including those between blacks and whites–were heavily influenced by environmental factors. Because these ideas contradicted the overwhelming consensus about the importance of racial differences in the United States, however, they offered little to Jewish leaders hoping to win acceptance for their group in white America.
The other jewish scientist that jewish leaders enlisted was Maurice Fishberg. In a book published in 1911:
Fishberg argued that the jews were not a “race, creed or nation” but simply a “social phenomenon”.
The reception from jews was cold. Goldstein tried to explain the apparent conflict like so:
If Jews found that race was an increasing liability and threatened to lump them with nonwhites, they also found themselves unable to break the emotional commitment they had to a racial self-understanding. The result was a constant stuggle with these two powerful impulses for inclusion and distinctiveness, one that led many acculturated Jews to assert their status as a religious group in public while privately clinging to a much broader racial understanding of Jewishness.
In my assessment these “two powerful impulses for inclusion and distinctiveness” are not at odds but are instead exactly what a parasitic organism needs to succeed. The parasite must infiltrate, manipulate and exploit its host, and in doing so it must detect and disarm the host’s defenses while being mindful enough not to attack or destroy its own.

The topic here is an extension of information and arguments laid out in a previous series of installments on race science, including a 5-part series on Race and Genetics, a 5-part series on Race and Anthropology, and finally a half-dozen more parts focused on Franz Boas and his proteges, titled Race and Fraud.

Peter Frost is a contemporary physical anthropologist, a scientist who studies the evolutionary genetic nature of the most visible racial attributes of Whites, namely skin, eyes and hair. He describes his work like so:
My own research has focused on the sex difference in human complexion. In short, women are paler and men ruddier and browner because of differing amounts of hemoglobin and melanin in the skin’s outer layers.
This subject has also led me to the puzzle of European pigmentation, i.e., the highly visible facial and body hues that occur almost wholly in Europeans. How can we explain the wide range of hair colors, the equally wide range of eye colors, and the maximum lightening of the skin? These color traits are a puzzle, all the more so because they do not have a single genetic cause.
For example, see his articles Why do Europeans have so many hair and eye colors? and Why are Europeans so white?

Frost is a favorite among “human biodiversity” enthusiasts, especially the subset of the HBD-o-sphere which has coalesced around unz.com, a web site run by the anti-White jew Ron Unz. The discussion at unz.com is “race realist” in the sense that the false mainstream “race is a social construct” tenet of anti-”racism” does not prevail. Even jews come up for discussion. However, amongst HBD writers and commenters, at unz.com and elsewhere, there is a conspicuous preponderance of jews, part-jews, jew-firsters, and outright jew-worshippers. One of the consequences is that whenever the jews do come up for discussion, so do all the old evasions and excuses.

It is in this context that Frost published a series of articles, both at unz.com and on his personal blog “Evo and Proud”, concerning Franz Boas and the origins of anti-”racism”.

In the first article, The Franz Boas you never knew, Frost argues that early in his career Boas believed race differences were real, significant, and rooted in biology. But:
Something critical seems to have happened in the late 1930s. When Boas prepared the second edition of The Mind of Primitive Man (1938), he removed his earlier racialist statements. The reason was likely geopolitical. As a Jewish American seeing the rise of Nazi Germany, he may have felt that the fight against anti-Semitism would require a united front against all forms of “racism”—a word just starting to enter common use and initially a synonym for Nazism.
Boas died in 1942 and the leadership of his school of anthropology fell to Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. With the end of the war, both of them wished to pursue and even escalate the fight against racism.
As we have already seen above, Boas was hard at work against race science long before the national socialists rose to power. As early as 1909 jewish leaders saw race science as a problem for the jews and were looking for a way to co-opt it, to establish that jews were White, so they wouldn’t be excluded.

They won by attacking on multiple fronts. Today “race is a social construct” prevails, and “there is no such thing as the White race”, at least in the judaized mainstream. The recognition that jews are not White, in body or mind, but are instead the hostile enemies of Whites, is considered just as scandalous among the jewy “race realists” as it is in the judaized mainstream.

Frost’S conclusion contains his thesis:
Boas had sought to strike a new balance between nature and nurture in the study of Man. The war intervened, however, and Boasian anthropology was conscripted to fight not only the Axis but also racism in any form. Today, three-quarters of a century later, we’re still fighting that war.
It is Frost who is seeking to strike a new balance. The current thoroughly judaized, anti-White regime sees Boas as a hero, a champion. Pro-White jew-wise dissidents properly finger Boas as an enemy and villain. Both sides agree that Boas was the earliest, most prominent, and most prolific proponent of what eventually became anti-”racism”.

Frost is trying to argue that Boas is somewhere in the middle, just a guy trying to strike a balance – who only sided with his own race when pushed into it by the evil “nazis”. In fact, Frost takes that argument a step farther by trying to argue that the jews as a group are not responsible for anti-”racism”. In other words, he’s excusing the jews.

I think Frost is White. I don’t know. He thinks more like a White man than a jew. His comes across as objective rather than emotional, especially regarding the jews. He calls the stuggle between “racism” and anti-”racism” a war – and though he’s actually engaged in it, a soldier in the ongoing battle over the idea of race rooted in science, he doesn’t seem to want to take it seriously as a war and side with his own team, against the aggressors. He sees and understands the racial identification and concerns of the jews, but does not feel his own.

Frost’s argument has been challenged by the pseudononymous blogger n/a (not applicable?) who writes at “race/history/evolution notes”. n/a has a deep understanding of race – genetics, history, and the jews. I think n/a is a he, an American, a logical thinker, probably a scientist of some sort. He identifies very strongly with “WASP”s, to the point of recognizing and disliking that term as an enemy slur, in much the way national socialists dislike “nazi”.

n/a often takes issue with someone, like Frost, who misunderstands or misrepresents history, especially re WASPs, America’s founding stock, and especially when it involves the jews.

n/a’s appreciation of European history and the jews was visible when he identified the spirit of neo-reaction (AKA judeo-reaction) in 2009, before it had even had adopted a name, mocking the mindset of it’s part-jew guru Moldbug: “Bring back Monarchy so I can live out my dream of becoming a court Jew”.

n/a took issue with a comment Frost made where he let slip the argument behind his argument.

Reply to Peter Frost’s most recent bizarre attempt at rewriting history (part 1):
Peter Frost has previously claimed:
Anti-racism was neither solely nor primarily a Jewish invention. It initially arose through a radicalization of the abolitionist movement in the early to mid 19th century, its adherents being overwhelmingly of WASP origin. It then fell into decline, largely in response to the failure of black emancipation and the growing influence of Darwinian thinking in the social sciences. It was this half-discredited antiracism that Jewish immigrants, like Franz Boas, encountered in the late 19th century and the early 20th. With the rise of Nazi Germany, antiracism made a resurgence, and Jewish intellectuals certainly contributed to this resurgence for obvious reasons. But it was at all times as much a northeastern WASP cultural trait as a Jewish one.
He’s now back with more of this:
How did [Franz Boas's] views on race evolve over the next twenty years? This evolution is described by Williams (1996), who sees his views beginning to change at the turn of the century. After getting tenure at Columbia University in 1899, he became immersed in the elite liberal culture of the American northeast and began to express his views on race accordingly. [. . .]
From 1900 to 1930, Boas seemed to become increasingly liberal in his views on race, but this trend was hesitant at best and reflected, at least in part, a change in the audience he was addressing. As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of the previous century. A good example was Mary White Ovington, whose Unitarian parents had been involved in the anti-slavery movement and who in 1910 helped found the NAACP. Boas was also dealing with the city’s growing African American community and, through Ovington’s contacts, wrote articles for the NAACP. Finally, he was also dealing with the growing Jewish community, who identified with antiracism partly out of self-interest and partly out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture.
It’s an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism “out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture”.
Most northeasterners, of any class, were never abolitionists (antislavery does not equal abolitionist), and even most abolitionists did not advocate anything approaching modern anti-racism.
No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement (though obviously, at a deeper level, Boas was no doubt motivated by a desire to eliminate “anti-semitism”).
It would have been very strange indeed for a physical anthropologist in 1890s America to outright deny the existence of race or obvious racial differences. What matters is the direction in which Boas differed from his contemporaries. And there’s no question Boas was promoting “anti-racism” from the outset.
The sneer quotes n/a puts around enemy propaganda terms demonstrates his awareness of and disdain for them as such.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 2): Boas was a product of German(-Jewish) culture, not American culture:
The version of history in which Franz Boas was a dispassionate purveyor of real talk who picked up anti-racism from “liberal WASPs” is of course wholly Peter Frost’s own invention. This scenario finds no support outside of Frost’s imagination.
Boas’s agenda remained consistent over his entire career, and it’s not an agenda he picked up in America. Boas was born in Germany, studied anthropology in Germany, brought his fully-formed worldview with him from Germany, and continued to identify with Germany throughout his life.
Nor was it “liberal WASPs” Boas primarily affiliated himself with in America.
n/a excerpts parts of an academic anthropology paper from 1982, titled Types Distinct from Our Own: Franz Boas on Jewish Identity and Assimiliation, by Leonard Glick. The synopsis reads:
Boas’s published writings on assimilation were deeply influenced by his German Jewish background. In particular, his unwillingness to recognize Jewish cultural identity as a reality was central to his persistent emphasis on human plasticity and his insistence that people not be “classified” in groups.
Boas’s work is marked with the deepest irony, in that his position on these questions was shaped – far more deeply, it would seem, than he recognized – by his own heritage as a German Jew and by formative years which coincided precisely with an eruption of the most explicit and virulent anti-Semitism in Germany prior to Hitler.
In other words, Boas’ outward anti-”racism” sprang from his inner jewishness.
The paper concerns, from a jewish point of view, an interesting period in German history, after the emancipation of the jews and prior to the rise of national socialism. Those who trace anti-”racism” back to abolitionism, including Frost, usually neglect to consider the connection between the emancipation of jews and negroes, and that the one preceded and undoubtedly influenced the other.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 3): The founding of the NAACP.
Reply to Peter Frost (part 4): Grant vs. Boas:
From Jonathan Spiro’s Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant:
. . .
If, as we delve into these complicated and long-forgotten controversies, the issues sometimes seem arcane if not downright petty, it will be good to bear in mind that, like the Cold War battles over Quemoy and Matsu, a great deal more was at stake then met the eye. The lives of millions of persons depended on the struggle over the validity of scientific racism.
For years, however, Boas had been diligently training a cadre of professional anthropologists who shared his revulsion for the theories of Grant, so that by the end of the 1910s Boas was surrounded and supported by a growing group of scholars well positioned to use their expertise to join in the assault on eugenics. Some of the more important anthropologists who received their Ph.D. from Boas were A. L. Kroeber (who earned his degree in 1901), Robert Lowie (1908), Edward Sapir (1909), Alexander Goldenweiser (1910), Paul Radin (1911), Leslie Spier (1920), Ruth Benedict (1923), Melville Herskovits (1923), Margaret Mead (1929), and Ashley Montagu (1937). With the exception of Kroeber, Benedict, and Mead, all were Jews, many were immigrants, and several were both. (It was a poorly kept secret that Ashley Montagu, the son of a Polish-born Jewish tailor, had been Moses Israel Ehrenberg before metamorphosing into Montagu Francis Ashley-Montagu.)
The old name game.
On a theoretical level the debate between the Grantians and the Boasians pitted the defenders of heredity against the proponents of environment. Intellectually, the split was a disagreement between adherents of polygenesis, who were obsessed with the classification of races, and adherents of monogenesis, who were fairly certain that races were socially constructed myths. And professionally, it was a conflict between an older generation of physical anthropologists (often gentleman amateurs with no academic affiliation or perhaps an association with a museum) and the newer generation of cultural anthropologists (usually trained professionals with full-time positions in academia). But for all that, it was difficult not to notice that at heart it was a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and the zeitgeist of immigrant Jews.
The older generation of amateurs were aristocratic WASPs with the money and leisure time to ponder fossils as an avocation, whereas the younger generation of professionals were immigrant Jews who saw higher education as a route to social respectability and jobs in academia as a means of economic survival.
Contra Frost, it was “difficult not to notice” that the conflict was between White racialists and jewish anti-”racists”.

Polygenesis is the theory that the continental races evolved separately and crossed the threshold to become “human”, capable of art, culture, civilization, separately. Monogenesis is the theory which has been popularized as “out of Africa”, summed up in the poisonous aphorism, “we’re all one race, the human race”.

In this next part n/a cites an anthropology book published in 2004 which argues for the biological reality of race. Here we see an argument for the longer-term and decidedly jew-driven nature of the anti-”racist” war.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 5): anthropology as the science of race:
In discussing the history of anthropology, Sarich and Miele (in Race: The Reality of Human Differences) find it useful to:
highlight three critical junctures in which science, politics, and personality interacted: the disputes between Ernst Haeckel and Rudolf Virchow, between Franz Boas and Madison Grant, and finally between Carleton Coon and Ashley Montagu.
Of the two cases that played out in America, both involve race-denialist Jewish immigrants opposing “northeastern WASPs” with colonial roots (Coon’s ancestry is 3/4 colonial New England and 1/4 Cornish; all of Grant’s ancestors were in America before 1790, at least half of Grant’s ancestry can be traced back to New England).
. . .
Haeckel and all he came to champion were opposed by his former professor, the distinguished biologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902). The conflict between them was both personal and political.
Virchow, whose name and appearance betrayed a Slavic ancestry
Haeckel was a strong supporter of the German Volk and Reich; Virchow was a radical advocate of social reform who fought at the barricades in the revolution of 1848.
Eugenics is applied race science – helping to guide politics, shaping government policies.
When Galton died in 1911, eugenics was widely accepted not only in Britain and Germany but in the United States as well. Raymond Pearl, professor of biology at Johns Hopkins University (then a supporter of eugenics but later an opponent), noted that by 1912, “eugenics was catching on to an extraordinary degree with radical and conservative alike.” [. . .]
At the start of the twentieth century, most American anthropologists came from wealthy Brahmin families and were educated at Harvard University. They were solidly in the eugenics camp, agreeing with [Francis] Galton on both individual and race differences. And then, as one author put it, Along Came Boas. His name is hardly a household word, but it is no exaggeration to say that Franz Boas (1858-1942) remade American anthropology in his own image. Through the works of his students Margaret Mead (Coming of Age in Samoa and Sex and Temperament in Three Societies), Ruth Benedict (Patterns of Culture), and Ashley Montagu (innumerable titles, especially the countless editions of Man’s Most Dangerous Myth), Boas would have more effect on American intellectual thought than Darwin did. For generations, hardly anyone graduated from an American college or university without having read at least one of these books. They all drew their inspiration from Boas’s The Mind of Primitive Man.
. . .
Before Boas, anthropology was the study of race. After Boas, anthropology in America became the study of culture
. . .
Franz Boas was a dark-haired Jewish immigrant from a leftist milieu, educated at German universities steeped in the ideals of the Enlightenment. Madison Grant, an archetypal Nordic, was a lawyer turned amateur biologist and a pillar of America’s WASP establishment. Grant claimed that his fellow American Nordics were committing racial suicide, allowing themselves to be “elbowed out” of their own land by ruthless, self-interested Jewish immigrants, who were behind the campaign to discredit racial research.
. . .
Coon vs. Montagu:
The Boasians were outsiders. Papa Franz and many of his stu­dents were Jews, though “the preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations has been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline.” Some, like Boas himself, were immigrants to boot. Montagu was born Israel Ehrenberg in the working-class East End district of London, England. He was so leery of anti-Semitism (“If you’re brought up as a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic . . . It’s a good working hypothesis”) that he reinvented himself as Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu from London’s well-to-do West End financial district, complete with a posh public school accent. When he came to the United States, Montagu played the role of the British headmaster, lecturing American audiences before a receptive media on the foolishness of their prejudices. Later he dropped the hyphen and became simply Ashley Montagu.
Mead and Benedict could point to WASP pedigrees as pure as Madison Grant’s, but Mead was bisexual and Benedict a lesbian. At that time, those sexual orientations were far more stigmatized than they are today. Their sexual preferences are relevant, be­ cause developing a critique of traditional American values was as much a part of the Boasian program in anthropology as was their attack on eugenics and nativism. [. . .]
Whatever their individual origin, the Boasians felt deeply es­tranged from mainstream American society and the male WASP elites they were displacing in anthropology.
. . .
According to Degler, “Boas almost single-handedly developed in America the concept of culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race from the literature of social science.” In fact, Boas achieved his goal only with help, including a great deal from a most unwelcome source— Hitler and the Holocaust. After World War II, “race” and “eugenics” became very dirty words.
. . .
In 1949 the United Nations Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was called upon to adopt “a program of disseminating scientific facts designed to remove what is generally known as racial prejudice.” For the drafter of the first UNESCO statement, Ashley Montagu, this was an opportunity to deny the reality of race.
. . .
The preliminary match in anthropology’s fight over race was Vir­chow versus Haeckel. Then there was Boas versus Madison Grant. The final match in anthropology’s dispute went the distance.
. . .
[Carleton Stevens] Coon believed that race was a central issue and his job as an anthropologist was to study race; Montagu felt his was to banish race to the periphery and replace it with the concept of “ethnic group.” He began his effort to have the word “race” replaced by “ethnic group” in his 1942 book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. When he was selected to draft the initial (1950) UNESCO Statement on Race, Montagu was given a platform from which to present his view to a much larger, non-academic audience.
Carleton Coon‘s magnum opus was the physical anthropology textbook, The Origin of Races (1962). He was a proponent of polygenesis.

There is one other point about Frost’s narrative which he continues to repeat and which n/a does not address. In his third post on the subject, Age of reason, Frost reasserts:
The interwar years gave antiracism a new lease on life, thus reversing a long decline that had begun in the late 19th century. This reversal was driven largely by two events: the acrimonious debate over U.S. immigration in the mid-1920s and Hitler’s rise to power in the early 1930s. Many people, especially academics, were convinced of the need for an uncompromising war on “racism”—a word just entering use as a synonym for Nazism.
Frost’s insistence that “racism” was a synonym for “nazism” would appear to undermine his own argument that anti-”racism” was not primarily a jewish invention. He has at the same time implied that Boas and jews generally were, but of course, opposed to “nazism”, it’s synonym.

The fact that “nazism” remains a synonym for “racism” and both are slurs to this day, seven decades are the “nazis” were destroyed, is because the jews won that war and now more or less openly dominate Western culture and promote their narrative, their morality, via education and mass media.

The understanding is beginning to spread that anti-”racism” is really just anti-Whitism. The fact that the terms “racism” and “anti-semitism” so often appear together in political rhetoric is evidence that it is jews who are defining and driving the regime’s anti-White/pro-jew political agenda. The fact that the word “combat” is often attached to these terms – as in “combating racism and anti-semitism” – is evidence that it is a war, a one-sided war on Whites in which jews openly organize conferences, call for laws, and direct governments to dedicate funds for their benefit.

What has happened in the past century is quite different from the way Frost and other jew-excusers see it. As I put it in Race and Jews – Part 7:
During the 19th century and into the 20th Whites were just beginning to appreciate the depth and breadth of their roots, their biological relationship with each other, but also to recognize their common parasite. They were beginning to appreciate just how biologically and psychologically distinct and implacably alien and hostile the jews are and have always been. How the jews have in fact insisted upon being and remaining this way.
This growing understanding of their roots, this racial consciousness, was not fabricated out of nothing, but was based on evidence gathered from study and research – archeology, linguistics, biology. It was spreading not only among the elite, the intelligensia, but was beginning to trickle out to the masses too.
In the first half of the 20th century Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Color were popular books. White understanding of race was increasing.
In 1933 the national socialists took power in Germany, and for the first time a White European government officially and definitively answered the question, “who is us”, and pursued policies guided by the principle, “what’s best for us”, racially. Expressing a collective group-consciousness that for the first time approximated (and took into account the competitive and adversarial nature of) the kind of collective awareness of identity and interests that the jews had been practicing for millenia among Europeans.
Even before this, before this racial consciousness had fully coallesced into a national socialist government, those jews most aware of their collective interests recognized this burgeoning understanding among their host as a threat to the jews. They saw that jews embracing race was not going to be good for the jews in the long run.
By the time national socialism rose to power in Germany the jews had come to the consensus that race was definitely bad for the jews, and they were throwing all their efforts into an idea, a movement that would eventually be called “anti-racism”.
“Anti-racism” is a jewish contruct, though they have tried to generalize it and otherwise obscure this. As many Whites are beginning to realize, “anti-racism” is really just anti-Whitism. It is a movement, a perverse way of thinking about race that doesn’t abolish the idea of race, but simply inverts White consciousness – making White bad and non-White good. It was inspired and continues to be led and driven by jews who think that this is what’s best for the jews.

The Media’s Race-Baiting Snipers

via Taki's Magazine

We see it every day. Pick a news story, any news story, and it’s guaranteed that some journalist will spin it to scream “racism.” Look at the past few weeks. David Letterman’s farewell? “Unbearably white.” The National Spelling Bee? White racism has “cast a pall” over the event (apparently these days a dozen anonymous tweets have the power to “cast a pall” over a national event, at least according to the journos who gave the tweets top billing over the event itself).

But the biggest “let’s put a ‘racism’ spin on it” story of May 2015 was the Waco biker brawl. Jim Goad had a great take on this, but I’d like to examine a different angle: the “snipers.” These are the journalists who use every story du jour to cry racism. I call them “snipers” because they’re not looking to debate, discuss, or engage. Their M.O. is simple: make an outlandish claim, and then retreat behind the safe walls of the media corporation that employs them.

“Their M.O. is simple: make an outlandish claim, and then retreat behind the safe walls of the media corporation that employs them.”
My first run-in with a media race sniper was in 1999, when I was an occasional op-ed contributor to the L.A. Times. Periodista Alisa Valdes (then Valdes-Rodriguez) had been hired away from The Boston Globe to provide a Latina perspective for the Times’ entertainment section. Each article she penned was indistinguishable from the last: “Whites are racist.” If I link to one (“whites are racist for enjoying Lou Bega’s remix of Mambo No. 5, and Lou Bega isn’t entitled to sing it because he’s “Italian and Ugandan!”), I’ve linked to them all.

But one piece made even my jaded head do a neck-popping double-take. Remember back in June 2000 when over fifty women were assaulted in New York during the annual Puerto Rican Day Parade? Valdes wrote that following the attacks, the media tended to “blame the youths themselves, or their race and ethnicity” for the violence. Yes, she said the media blamed the violence on the attackers’ race and ethnicity. In her paranoid worldview, it seemed so reasonable, so probable, that Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings would open the news by saying “Today over fifty women were assaulted in New York by filthy Puerto Ricans who were only doing what their foul genes command, the lousy spics,” that she never actually felt the need to find one single example of anyone in “the media” blaming the attacks on race or ethnicity. For months, I emailed her, phoned her, and generally pestered her to name one example of this.

She ducked me at every turn.

In January 2001, she left the Times, accusing the paper of (what else?) racism. Quite obviously relieved by her departure, Times associate editor and ombudsperson Narda Zacchino (an honest journalist who would herself soon flee the sinking Times) spoke with me about Valdes. I asked her if she thought Valdes’ claim about the media blaming the race or ethnicity of the attackers sounded legitimate. She replied, “No, no. She did another commentary piece about where the term Hispanic came into usage and she was off by a couple of centuries. I pointed out to the editor when she left that we probably in my office had more complaints about accuracy of things that she wrote than any other reporter.” Zacchino agreed Valdes should have been “given more scrutiny.”

And Valdes? She landed safely on her kitty-cat patas. Her journalistic fabrications led to a $500,000 book deal from St. Martin’s after a bidding war for her first novel, “Dirty Girls Social Club” (think “Sex in the City,” but with gratuitous use of the word papi). In 2009, NBC was planning to develop the book as a TV series, until Valdes killed the deal by publicly accusing the producers of (you guessed it) racism.

I bring up Ms. Valdes to illustrate how, when it comes to media race sniping, everything old is always new again. Within hours of the Waco biker brawl last month, the snipers were doing what they do best, taking shots, then ducking and hiding. Jesse Holland, the AP’s “race and ethnicity writer” (yes, that’s his title), complained about the media’s focus on “black-on-black” crime and issues like absent fathers. He grumbled that no one was using the Waco shootings to focus attention on “white-on-white” crime or white absentee dads.

Sex Changes and Shared Bathrooms

via The Federal Observer

My wife and I have had tickets for Phantom of the Opera at Gammage Auditorium since my birthday (a present you know), and so as beat as I am we left her house (hahahahah) at about 11:20 for a 1:00 p.m. curtain call. If you get their early enough – you are guaranteed a parking spot nearby.

I am now fully packed for my uh – ‘fishing trip‘ – yeah – that’s what I call it, so we were easy breezy, except that I had not been to Gammage in some years, so it took a bit of driving around the May pole to remember where it was. We made it in time for a great parking spot – but too early to be seated – that would be another 20 minutes or so – and God – I am tired…

As usual, the wife had to go to the ladies room and luckily there was one just feet away from inside the doors. I got stuck sandwiched between two old, obese show-goers who stunk like 5 gallons of cheap perfume.

Fishin' - yeah - that's what they call it.
Fishin’ – yeah – that’s what they call it
Five minutes later – it’s my turn, but I have to go up the stairs the the mezzanine level get to the Men’s Room. “Made it Ma – Top of the world.” I passed up probably seventy five women waiting in line to “powder their nose” – or whatever they do – and me? – right into the place I needed to be. No fuss! No muss! No waiting! – and that is when it all hit me…

What in the hell do these ‘guys’ want to have sex change operations for anyway? So they can stand in line for twenty minutes to take a pee?

Have a good life Jenner.

I’d rather be ‘fishin’!

Without Apology I am leaving in the morning.

Radical Egalitarianism vs. the Heroic Spirit of the West

via The Occidental Observer

Related to Alain de Benoist’s interview on the Big Mother-Therapeutic state, I recently received an email commenting on a recent Red Ice interview where I talked about two of the major trends in European culture, the Indo-European heroic warrior culture of aristocratic-egalitarianism and the northern hunter-gatherer culture of individualist-egalitarianism. My correspondent writes:
It seems to explain many casual observations that I made.
For example: why we can’t rent a horse to run full gallop? And not only in California but also in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. Apparently this is because of the disdain which herb gatherers feel for the nomadic horse which symbolizes oppression for them. One can retort that it is because of the lawsuits for injuries. But what motivates the lawyers? Mere greed? It could also be hatred for horse and horseman. And why do the people let it happen? I should add that the only place  in the USA where I could gallop was Tennessee. And you actually said in your interview that the South is different.
Why can’t we solo Mount Rainier? [Actually, it is possible to solo Mt. Rainier, but it requires written permission from the superintendent.] Messner soloed Everest. But in this great country on God’s green Earth we are not even allowed to solo Rainier. Genuine concern for our safety?  Or, perhaps, this is the wish of the duck hunters [egalitarian hunter-gatherer types] to pull down anyone who stands out? You spoke at length about this trait in your lecture.
And why was Snow Summit closed for downhill biking for over five years?  I could continue for an hour, but this may get boring.
I have written several articles on extreme sports as a context for implicit Whiteness (e.g., here and here). Putting this all together, the nanny state described by de Benoist and my correspondent has the effect of suppressing a critical aspect of traditional European culture — death-defying deeds in pursuit of personal glory. This restless Faustian spirit of the West is linked to exploration, invention, military exploits, and conquering the unknown.

As Domitius Corbulo notes in his comment on the vast overrepresentation of Europeans as explorers:
Exploration is not only a popular subject, but one filled with fascinating stories of human greatness, heroic will, and stamina against immense odds and hardship—exactly the sorts of traits that, according to cultural Marxists, should not be found to be unusually common among Europeans. …
Roughly speaking I counted about 75 great European explorers in the period from about 1800 to the present, men (and a few women) who dedicated themselves to the discovery of the unknown, reconnoitering every place of the planet, climbing the highest mountains, penetrating into the deepest crevices of the oceans and high above in space. This history is rarely taught in our schools and universities; it has been virtually banned, or slandered by charges of imperialism.
All these men were engaged in very dangerous activities. And we are the better off for it. The campaign to suppress the history of Western heroic deeds in the universities dovetails with the campaigns to force people to live safe lives while wallowing in the consumer culture so aptly described by de Benoist. Both can be thought of as battles in taming the West, the ultimate victory of radical egalitarianism—and really the end of the traditional culture of the West.

Truth Irrelevant in Kabbalist-Controlled Climate Debate

via The Fizpatrick Informer

The Jewish-controlled mainstream media has managed the climate debate in its typical over-simplified fashion, resulting in a population that has been tricked into working against its best interest.

The protagonist—climate alarmism—is financed and controlled by wealthy Jews like George Soros. Climate alarmists advocate an apocalyptic global warming scenario that is set to destroy the planet unless something is done, as if something could be done. They claim that man is responsible for global warming and climate change (they use these two terms interchangeably even though they are completely different) and that the solution is the de-industrialization of society through a complex series of greening schemes involving carbon trading and globalization—all carried out under the watch of the United Nations and their Agenda for the 21st century (Agenda 21). The more extreme elements of the this radical leftist encampment, especially elite proponents like Bill Gates, go further and claim that overpopulation is the major problem and that action should be initiated to reduce the population. Furthermore, to fulfill these greening orders, technological development must be ramped up in order to save the planet…and man, if possible. So, the climate debate is really about advancing the kabbalist-masonic goal of transforming (alchemy) society through technocracy, collectivism, eugenics (GMO, chemtrails, sterilization, vaccination), and absolute surveillance (smart grid) so that man may realize his Satanic potential of becoming a god. Agenda 21’s smart grid is a cheap imitation of God’s omniscience.

Wealthy Jews also finance the antagonists—so called climate deniers. The Koch Brothers provide the non-Jewish veneer for the capitalist side of this kabbalist Hegelian dialectic. The capitalists claim that global warming is exaggerated, if not, outright fabricated, without showing too much of the actual science. The right could easily win the debate by widely publicizing the science, but they don’t do this. It doesn’t fit the dialectic. Doubt must remain on both sides; there cannot be a clear winner. They claim that the left is conspiring to collectivize the world and push and profit from alternative technology in its place, resulting in excessive taxation and regulation. This is actually true, but again, they don’t elaborate too much on the details of this. They just want to plant infertile seeds of doubt, enough to confuse the public and maintain cognitive dissonance. Just like the left, the right doesn’t really seem to care about the truth, which is actually in its favour, because their motive is political and financial.

Big Oil and Eco-Fascists both ignore truth

The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. Warming may not be taking place, but the climate is changing. However, that change can in no way be due to man-made activities. God is the ultimate mover, with the sun being the most obvious and likely driver of climate change. Man is ignorant and arrogant to think he has the ability to effect such change. Consequently, nothing man does can alter climate change; therefore, green schemes and carbon taxes are ineffective and can only serve as a wealth transfer pretext and further eradication of the middle class through excessive taxation—the Jewish money lenders’ goal, as outlined in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. However, industry is polluting the planet with chemicals and the devastation of the beautiful ecosystem that God created for His and man’s enjoyment. Regulating or even eliminating industrial polluters isn’t really talked about in the mainstream press. Only taxation and carbon trading is talked about. Clean, alternative energy exists, but it doesn’t benefit the cryptocracy. Instead, it benefits man, who is the target. Agenda 21, which is one of the most sinister forms of government even devised, is all that we are offered as the answer.

As you can see, we are being force fed only two predetermined solutions—determined by the very ones who created the problem in the first place. If the Luddites had succeeded in smashing to death the kabbalist Newtonian industrial revolution, the climate debate would not exist in its current form and the planet would be healthy. But we are long past that. Technocracy and Agenda 21 (both of which are closely allied with the Sodomite agenda) will eventually win the dialectic battle, as part of the final Satanic transformation of society before the final Judgement. The overthrow of capitalism in its current form will be touted as great human progress and the next step towards godhood.

Street Violence Rises in Baltimore

via Theden

Baltimore, Maryland, site of a recent spate of race riots over the death of crack dealer Freddie Gray, once again made headlines over Memorial Day weekend. During that three-day period, the city saw twenty-nine shootings, nine of which were fatal. This weekend flare up, of course, is only part of the “alarming surge” in violence that has wracked the city since the riots last month, resulting in a homicide rate twice as high as the one that immediately preceded the late-April “protests”:


The Left insists that black inner cities in places like Baltimore suffer from malicious, systematic hyperpolicing. They insist it is America’s institutional racism (and the avatars of that racism: law enforcement personnel) that keeps those black communities sunk in dysfunction and turmoil. The insistence of the Right, however, is that the dysfunction is endemic to the communities themselves. The insistence of the Right is that the tough policing such places endure isn’t evidence of ill-will at all but rather evidence of what extreme measures it takes to keep such areas from collapsing even further into bloodshed and mayhem.

When the “hyperpolicing” of these inner cities lets up and the streets ignite into a firestorm of shootings, this is clear evidence that the assessment of the Right is correct and that the assessment of the Left is just so much fantasy thinking. The police aren’t in these communities stirring up strife. They are keeping a lid on things. For anyone interested in realistic, long-term solutions to American war zones like the one in Baltimore, then, the answers are not in feelgood platitudes about a kinder, more compassionate law enforcement but in a reckoning with the dangerous and unstable demographics that necessitate our “militarized” LEOs in the first place.

No Diversity

via The Political Cesspool

The light skinned black woman in the center-right holding her hands up and her thumbs and index fingers in the zero pattern is Beyonce (“Beyonce Knowles-Carter”), and behind her, the light skinned black man is Jay-Z (“Shawn Carter”), her husband. Both are musicians and music industry impresarios, she’s R&B and he’s rap/hip-hop, and combined they are worth about $1.5 billion. All the crackers are part of the staff of Asipro, a streaming music service which Mr. and Mrs. Z started and provided the seed money.

Mr. and Mrs. Z are getting a lot of grief from blacks on social media for only hiring white people. Their retort and the retort that their apologists are using is that Aspiro is based in Norway, so of course just by the law of averages, just about every employee in a Norwegian firm is going to be both white and Norwegian. But then that begs the question: Why did they base their service in Norway to begin with? After all, Jay-Z hates white people and funds black rioters.

Hold my hand while I fill in the blanks.

If you’re black and you’re upset about Mr. and Mrs. Z’s racial hypocrisy, then I want to show you a picture from 2012:


This is a room full of racist white (or “white,” in some cases) honky KKK crackers that were the staff of the Obama 2012 re-election campaign data mining team. The very same Baraq Obama, when he wanted to make sure what was the keynote accomplishment of his first term went off without a hitch, called on the whitest part of the U.S. Armed Forces (the Navy SEALs) to dispatch Bin Laden.

All these white-hating black or mulatto people really do hate whitey and stand with the bruthaz and sistahs, right up to the moment when they want something done and want it done competently.

A Cat Lady Culture

via Radix

Turns out they really are crazy. A new report from the National Center for Health Statistics shows women of every age group are more far more likely than men to suffer from severe mental health issues. As the blogger Heartiste snarks, “Feminism and the sexual revolution have done wonders for American women’s mental health.” And while the “one in four” rape statistic is completely bogus, one study showed one in four American women actually are on prescription medication for mental illness.

What is needed are some cold, hard, empirical studies on whether there are different rates of mental illness between proud and strong modern women who do “badass” things like be offended and beg for money on Twitter from men and those weak, pathetic, and retrograde women who do boring things like bear children, create strong families, and serve as the bedrock for functional communities. But based on anecdotal evidence (and, in truth, my own ideological predisposition,) this is what I’d expect.

Modern feminism is defined by what can only be called an outright mental illness. It’s no longer a surprise when you read reports of women inventing mystical “rape” stories and seemingly convincing themselves it’s true. The screeching activist with garish hair, a Tumblr account filled with obscenity and a sense of perpetual outrage isn’t so much a stereotype as a subculture in its own right. When reading tales of hysterical shrews who claim PTSD from people disagreeing with them on social networking, one can only wonder how these people who constantly boast about their own strength manage to even feed themselves. (And unfortunately, in many cases, manage to feed themselves a little too well.)

Modern men are facing their own crisis. But the collapse of masculinity, especially among Whites (and the Japanese), is of a different character than what’s happening to Western women. While masculinity is fading (or being deliberately driven out), certain inherent characteristics of femininity are being skewed and exaggerated to the point they are becoming dominant and destructive. Weak men are essentially becoming women in psychological temperament and outlook, and women themselves are becoming caricatures of irrationality and hysteria, especially when it comes to morality and “pathological altruism.”

Pathological Altruism is defined as a sincere attempt to help others that instead harms others or oneself. Writing on the phenomenon, Jared Taylor observes some people believe Pathological Altruism is the result of an “excessively female brain.”
Women are more likely than men to be co-dependents and have eating disorders. Girls are more compliant than boys, better behaved, and more eager to please. They are better able to figure out the needs of others. They are politically more “liberal,” and more likely to think that an important function of government is to take care of people. Low levels of testosterone in the womb during fetal development is associated with higher levels of empathy in both sexes.
As Taylor notes, the male equivalent on the other side of the spectrum is autism, far more common in men than women.

Yet the strength of culture is reflected in the way it can incorporate and even take advantage of “dysfunctional” impulses. Just as autists can make huge contributions to human society (but shouldn’t necessarily be running the show), we see case after case of women displaying what we might call “pathological altruism” but having it funneled into productive ends. You can’t save everyone, and people who want to save everyone drive themselves insane. But you can make productive use of these people.

The Catholic nun laboring away for the poor and unfortunate in various charitable institutions and hospitals is an example of how an emotional addiction to altruism, sublimated under discipline, can be transformed into the basis of organizations that help people. Today, however, this impulse is less funneled into direct charitable or humanitarian endeavors than into political activism. We see an especially destructive form of this in our discussion of immigration.

Many women (and men for that matter) don’t so much want to help people as they want to be seen helping people (hence, Humanitarians of Tinder). But the people who truly frighten me are those who actually mean it. They are political Cat Ladies.

A real Cat Lady isn’t an old feminist (her grey hair dyed pink) sitting at home with her cats: it’s a mentally unstable women who “rescues” animals she can’t care for. Again, Taylor:
They fill their houses with “rescued” pets but fail to look after them. They declare their love for animals even as they step over the bodies of dogs and cats that have died of malnutrition. They often neglect their own health, living in tumble-down houses filled with animal filth. 
The Cat Lady doesn’t actually help of the creatures she claims she loves. She also destroys her own life. But because of the emotional satisfaction she receives from these “rescues” and the deep psychological needs that are fulfilled, she can’t stop herself.

This particular form psychosis came to mind when watching Ann Coulter’s remarkable interview with the openly anti-White (and needless to say, White skinned and blue eyed) Jorge Ramos to promote her new book Adios America. The highlight came when a mujer gorda, an illegal immigrant and member of the Parasite Class, waddled to the microphone and demanded to give Coulter a hug as a symbol of “my humanity and yours.” Like a character from Akira, Coulter was able to avoid being absorbed into the bulbous mass of flesh, but the “undocumented activist,” like so many of those “living in the shadows,” immediately hit the interview circuit to be praised about how courageous she is for repeating establishment talking points.

One can only the imagine the reaction if a man demanded to give a female liberal pundit a hug as a symbol of shared humanity–he’d probably be charged with rape on the spot. Yet the invader’s clumsy attempt at emotional blackmail was portrayed as a great triumph for the pro-Amnesty cause, even though her very presence on national television shows illegals face no danger from immigration law enforcement.

Indeed, Ramos stubbornly refused to answer the question posted by Coulter about whether there is any limit to how many Mexicans are expected to be admitted by the United States. Ramos, after initially letting slip he thought 30 million illegals were in America before retreating back to the more palatable figure of 11 million, essentially admitted there should be no limits. He did recycle the traditional claim the only reason Mexicans are in the country is “economics,” implying that immigration will continue as long as Mexico remains economically inferior to the United States. And as that inferiority is likely to last forever (or at least until America is actually transformed into just another extension of Mexico), America is obligated to accept unlimited numbers of migrants for all time.

The rationale behind this is pure Cat Lady morality. Because the average individual’s life is “better” in America or Europe than in the Third World, it follows that all people must be allowed to enter the country. This is the justification behind the “rescue missions” being launched by smug Cat Ladies to bring African boat people to Europe, even though these “migrants” tend to be males of military age rather than helpless women and children. Similarly, because all White Americans arrived in the Western Hemisphere from Europe at some point, as Alan Colmes lectured Peter Brimelow, limits on immigration are unfair.

The logical conclusion is for America as a legal entity to simply abolish any concept of citizenship and allow both unlimited immigration and voting by illegals. And a majority of Democrats and a significant number of Republicans actually believe this, with almost a full third of likely U.S. voters agreeing illegals should vote as long as they pay taxes. (They don’t, at least not anything close to what Americans pay, although illegals still get “refunds” even if they don’t pay.)

The assumption here is that the prosperity and high quality of life in White nations can be sustained forever, even if the actual population of those countries is completely replaced. And it’s not that the “new Americans” are simply interchangeable with Europeans or European-Americans, they are actually superior as they will redeem the West’s history of racism and exclusion.

The cynical motivations behind all of this, from the corporate desire for cheap labor, the Left’s need for welfare dependent votes, the economic motivations for Christian “refugee” groups that are actually for-profit businesses, and the sneering contempt for Whites by organized Jewish groups are all part of this. But we should not underestimate the degree to which many Europeans and European-Americans really believe this and take pleasure from the dispossession of their own people. Self-hatred is obviously part of it, but a greater motivation seems to be the pleasure people derive from “helping” Third World unfortunates who are perceived as lacking agency. And it doesn’t seem like a coincidence that the unhinged women leading so many of these egalitarian crusades lack children of their own, instead transferring their empathy to moral mascots they only have to talk to when they are slumming it.

Today, there’s no pleasure to be found in helping an equal or rallying to a superior; real pleasure is to be found to liberating the agency-free “oppressed,” so long as you don’t have to deal with the messy reality of actually improving their lives. This is also why the immigration issue, unlike transportation or health care, is not a public policy issue so much as a moralistic, sacred cause to Open Borders advocates. The SPLC, for example, is indignantly demanding Coulter be cut off from all access to television and radio.

Most of these “social justice campaigns,” from foreign aid to Africa to cracking down on the police in Baltimore, actually hurt the very people they are designed to help. But that’s beside the point to every wide eyed Cat Lady who fancies herself Daenerys Targaryen. Rising rates of crime in the inner city, the support of corruption in the Third World, or economic collapse in communities welfare programs are supposed to be “helping” don’t register any more than rotting kitty carcasses in the living room bother a crazed woman who has devoted her life to animal “rescue.” And just as the neighbors have to live with consequences of a hoarder’s insanity, so Whites generally have to deal with the crime, economic collapse, and societal disintegration caused by the desire of unstable people to feel good about themselves.

These impulses are eternal and will never fully be removed. It’s not about exterminating those Whites who hate us but reorienting them. A functional society isn’t just the one that’s most “right wing” but one that can incorporate these different motivations and impulses in such a way that everyone can still be a productive and beneficial member of their society.

In our society, we end up with SJWs and their Cat Lady morality destroying their own people in order to feed their mental illness. In a based society with proper leadership, even an excess of a “horizontal” temperament can be put under discipline to help those vulnerable members of the folk who need it.

Western society is so heavily feminized (as even Bill Maher admitted) that redressing the balance and restoring masculine virtue is the first step to imposing any kind of political sanity. But even if that is accomplished, as Richard Spencer has said in the past, you are never going to get rid of “Right” and “Left.” Or as Jack Donovan might put it, the more masculine “Vertical” and more feminine “Horizontal” viewpoint. The necessity isn’t domination, it’s obtaining an Exit by any means necessary and using the opportunity to create a superior system.

After all, what do we have left? The more talk there is about solidarity and universal empathy, the more social trust and actual community is destroyed. When we hear someone babbling about “self-evident” truths like “human rights,” we know we are hearing a sales pitch just as cynical as any attempt to push another high interest credit card. And when you let Cat Ladies who get off on suffering run your country, you don’t end up with a Great Society filled with compassion, but a Great Slum containing only filth and failure, fit only for demolition.

Adelson Hosts Secretive 'Elders of Zion'-Style Event to Counter Anti-Zionism

via DavidDuke.com

Sheldon Adelson, chairman and CEO of
Las Vegas Sands, at a news conference
in Macau, China, in September 2012
The following article from the Jewish Daily Foward newspaper shows just how threatened Jewish supremacists feel over the Boycott, disinvestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Just this past Sunday PM Netanyahu told his cabinet that Israel’s existence is threatened by the BDS movement. Still, this issue is yet another example of the divide between the crazy Jewish supremacists and their more cunning co-tribalists. The BDS movement itself includes a large contingent of Jewish individuals and organizations, most prominently Jewish Voice for Peace, which includes such high-profile Jewish leftists as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Tony Kushner, and Michael Ratner on its advisory board.
The Jews in the BDS movement may be sincere in their opposition to the most egregious of Israeli crimes, but at the same time they act as watchdogs to make sure that the movement keeps a narrow focus on Israeli Zionism and stay away from the more fundamental issue of Jewish domination of Western societies. An example of this is the recent denunciation of If Americans Knew founder Alison Weir by Jewish Voice for Peace over her associations and interviews with people who see the bigger Zionist picture, such as Reverend Mark Dankof. 

It is noteworthy that Adelson, the biggest donor to Republican candidates, Haim Saban, his counterpart in the Democrat Party, and several other megadonors chose to have a secret meeting with selected Jewish organizations to discuss this issue. Could anything be more reminiscent of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?

From the Forward:
Leading Jewish mega donors have summoned pro-Israel activists for a closed-door meeting in Las Vegas to establish, and fund, successful strategies for countering the wave of anti-Israel activity on college campuses.

The meeting, taking place this weekend, will be hosted by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and was organized by several other top Jewish funders, including Hollywood entertainment mogul Haim Saban, Israeli-born real-estate developer Adam Milstein, and Canadian businesswoman Heather Reisman.

Organizers have sought to keep the gathering secret and have declined to respond to inquiries from the Forward, which confirmed the upcoming meeting with two separate informed sources.

The planned Vegas summit marks a shift in approach on the issue of anti-Israel activity on college campuses, whose growth in recent years has captured a top spot on the Jewish communal agenda, The initiative, in this case, did not come from students on the ground; nor did it emerge from work of the many organizations involved in pro-Israel activism on campus. Instead, it is an idea coming from wealthy Jewish philanthropists, who have decided to take action. Their communiqu├ęs to Jewish groups invite them come and brainstorm with them during a weekend gathering at the Veneitian, Adelson’s luxury hotel on the Vegas Strip.

Saban, a Los Angeles billionaire who is also a major Democratic donor with close ties to the Clintons, has been discussing the idea for over a year, said one source with first hand information of the initiative. Saban has spoken to Israeli officials, including the former ambassador to Washington Michael Oren and top officials in the Israeli foreign ministry about setting up a special task force to deal with increased calls on campuses to adopt measures of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel, measures commonly referred to as BDS.

According to an official in the Jewish community, it was another California philanthropist of Israeli background, Adam Milstein, who put the initiative together, getting on board mega donor Adelson and Reisman, who has been increasingly involved in recent years in initiatives to support Israel.

The donors’ invitation came as somewhat of a surprise to at least some of the invitees, An official with one major group said leaders of the organizations were not aware of the initiative before receiving the last minute invite and had not been consulted as it was crystalized. The official added that leaders of these groups were not quite certain what the goal of the Vegas summit is. Another Jewish organization official made clear that while his group intends to participate, it will not dispatch a top-level leader to the event.

All Jewish organizations contacted by the Forward declined to speak on record, citing the request of organizers to keep the gathering away from public eye.

According to several prospective participants, Jewish groups planning to attend the meeting include the Israel on Campus Coalition, Hillel, StandWithUs, the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Federations of North America. The Israel Action Network, a communal body created specifically to counter BDS and de-legitimization of Israel, will not attend, although it will be represented by one of its parent-organizations, JFNA.

J StreetU, the student arm of the dovish Israel lobby, which has presence on most campuses and which opposes BDS, was not invited.

The purpose, said an official with one of the groups invited, was to “find best strategies” for countering campus anti-Israel campaigns and to “make sure there is funding” for those programs. However, groups were not asked to prepare a pitch to present to the panel of Jewish mega-donors.

Another official explained that the request for secrecy was “reasonable” because “it makes sense not to have the public in the room when you sit with funders to set priorities.”

Campus activity has been among the fastest growing fields in Jewish organizations. Most major groups, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have set up operations geared at students, alongside groups whose main focus has always been campus activity such as Hillel and the Israel on Campus Coalition. Yet despite the growth in pro-Israel activism, pro-Palestinian driven protests and resolutions have been on the rise. The past year has seen a record number of 15 universities adopt resolutions demanding divestiture of college funds from Israel.

'Diversity Officer' at British University Won't Be Fired for Anti-White, Misandristic Rants

via White GeNOcide Project

Bahar Mustafa, anti-White activist
Bahar Mustafa, a student “diversity officer” for London’s Goldsmiths University will not be removed from her position after making a series of anti-White comments and rants on Twitter.

Mustafa originally caused controversy when she banned White people from attending an “anti-racist” rally at Goldsmiths University.

Other anti-White comments she has made on Twitter and to journalists have merely fanned the flames.

The comments ranged from calling someone “White trash” using an official university Twitter account, all the way to hash-tagging several posts with “#killallwhitemen”.

Mustafa excused her behavior on the grounds that she is not White and therefore cannot be “racist”.
I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.
A petition was filed to dismiss Mustafa from her job, but failed to reach the required percentage according to the university’s rules. In short, she keeps her job with no punishment.

That’s exactly why we say “anti-racist” is a code word for anti-White. In academia, only White things can be “racist”. They may not say such things publicly, but the anti-Whites in academia do honestly believe that to be “anti-racist” you must be against White people.

White neighborhood = “racist!” neighborhood. White city = “racist!” city. White country = “racist!” country.

That is how these anti-White idiots think.