Aug 7, 2015

Cohousing: A Basis for Aryan Communities

via Counter-Currents

In 1516, Sir Thomas More published his now-famous work, Utopia. One of his recommendations was that housing be constructed for groups of about 30 families in order to create small villages which share common facilities, dinners, and child care.

This idea has recently been expanded considerably and put into practice in what has come to be called bofaellsskaher in continental Europe, and “cohousing” in the English-speaking world. Cohousing communities first appeared in Denmark in the late 1960s, and the idea spread to a number of other European countries, as well as the United States and Canada. Today in Europe, there are many hundreds of cohousing communities, and hundreds more in North America.

Cohousing came into existence because people had become dissatisfied with the isolation of the typical suburban house or urban apartment, but they wanted to avoid the opposite extreme of communal living. They wanted privacy, but not alienation and loneliness. They wanted to be part of a community, but to retain their independence and their right not to participate. They wanted a safe, healthy, stimulating environment in which to raise children. One couple explained what motivated them to search for an alternative form of housing:

Several years ago, as a young married couple, we began to think about where we were going to raise our children. What kind of setting would allow us to best combine our professional careers with child rearing? Already our lives were hectic. Often we would come home from work exhausted and hungry, only to find the refrigerator empty. Between our jobs and housekeeping, where would we find the time to spend with our kids? Relatives lived in distant cities, and even our friends lived across town. Just to get together for coffee we had to make arrangements two weeks in advance. Most young parents we knew seemed to spend most of their time shuttling their children to and from day care and playmates’ homes, leaving little opportunity for anything else. (MacCamant, Katherine, and Durrett, Charles (1988) Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, Ten Speed Press, California, p. 9.)

What is Cohousing?

The Danish word for cohousing, bofaellsskaher, translates “living communities.” When Katherine McCamant and Charles Durrett wrote Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves in 1988, they coined the English term “cohousing,” short for “collaborative housing.” In a nutshell, cohousing is that which is organized in such a way as to create a natural community, much like the villages in which our ancestors lived for thousands of years.

There are many variations on the cohousing theme. One cohousing venture was constructed inside an abandoned iron foundry, another was created in a high-rise apartment building. In one Toronto neighborhood, six families tore down their backyard fences and began sharing gardening equipment, buying in bulk, and eating dinner together several nights each week. Some cohousing communities have as few as 4 families, some as many as 80 (although the latter is subdivided into smaller groups). However, there are several essential elements which most cohousing communities have in common:
  • self-sufficient, single-family residences
  • a common house for group activities
  • participation by residents in decision-making on matters affecting the group
Although some cohousing groups modify existing structures, most embark on the more ambitious journey of building their communities from scratch. An individual or couple usually begins the process by placing an advertisement in the local newspaper or on the internet announcing their intention, asking like-minded people to contact them. After a series of meetings and considerable attrition, the group enters into in a loose-knit partnership and begins looking for a site upon which to build. Next they consult with a developer and an architect, with whom they work especially closely so they can build homes to fit each family’s needs. From start to moving in, it takes a minimum of 2 years, sometimes as many as 4 or 5.


Most cohousing is situated on the outskirts of a metropolitan area where many of the residents work. One typical arrangement is clusters of 2-story townhouses constructed in an oval shape surrounding a courtyard, along with one large, collectively-owned building at the end — the common house — used for dining and other group activities. The complex provides homes for 25 families of various compositions — couples with children, single parents with children, elderly couples, and singles. Houses may vary from one to four bedrooms. Each house is designed to be self-sufficient, and each kitchen is fully furnished. The front door opens into the courtyard with a semi-private yard for each household, and the back door opens to the outside to a private yard, and then the parking lot. This arrangement creates a village atmosphere where, in the course of ordinary, every-day activities, residents naturally interact and get to know one another.


The Common House

The common house is the hub of social activity, where people can chat with neighbors, play indoor sports, and, most importantly, eat dinner. The evening meal is the main collective endeavor. Most cohousing communities serve dinner in the common house every night to the majority of residents. There are very substantial practical advantages of communal dinners over individually-prepared dinners, both in terms of time and money. Buying food in bulk is much cheaper, and one big effort spent preparing a communal dinner once a month for everyone is far less trouble than each family shopping, cooking, serving, and cleaning up independently each night. Two adults and two children may work together for several hours once a month to prepare a meal for everyone, and clean up afterwards. This entitles them to inexpensive, work-free dinners for the entire rest of the month. “I don’t have to cook all those other nights,” one woman resident exclaimed cheerfully. “I can just waltz in there at 6 p.m. to a homemade dinner!”

Almost all cohousing communities chose to include the following basic features in their common house, in order of priority:
  • a common kitchen which is convenient for use by several cooks at the same time with the capacity for preparing meals regularly for most of the community, and occasionally for all the community, plus guests
  • a dining area and gathering space, capable of seating most residents regularly and all residents, plus guests, occasionally
  • a children’s play area visually connected, but acoustically isolated, from the dining area
  • mail pick-up location, with bulletin boards
Many cohousing communities also include storage areas, a laundry room, an adult lounge area, guest rooms for visiting friends and family members, office spaces, and other special-use spaces in the common house. Cohousing communities in Scandinavia often have glass-covered pedestrian streets or courtyards, which can be a blessing during their frigid winters.

Practical Matters

Financially, owning a house in a co-housing community is like owning a condominium, where each household owns its own home, plus a share of the common facilities. In Europe, existing cohousing complexes are highly prized because buyers receive the benefits without all the developmental work involved in finding a site and building on it. Attempts are made to standardize as much as possible during the building phase — not customize — to keep costs down. Turnover in cohousing complexes is less than in conventional housing, and appreciation is considerable greater, as they’re considered desirable places to live.


In conventional housing, parents especially tend to feel isolated and stressed. If a couple decides to go out to a movie, for example, or if a wife wants to go shopping, what was formerly a simple act suddenly becomes a major undertaking when small children are involved, requiring finding a babysitter, picking her up, paying her, and driving her home again. Usually this must be planned well ahead of time in order to work smoothly, so there’s little opportunity for spontaneity. In contrast, the social network which naturally develops in cohousing enables parents to take time away from their children on the spur of the moment. As one resident explained, “When you have children, you lose some of your freedom. To move into cohousing is to regain it.”

Potential babysitters are always around. Children easily find playmates. The courtyard makes a safe haven for toddlers where mothers can keep an eye on them. Crime is virtually non-existent because everyone knows his neighbors, and a stranger will be spotted immediately. Cars are parked safely outside, on the periphery of the complex. Another resident explained it thus:

If I had to chose one word to describe what cohousing meant to me, it would be security — in the emotional sense that I know there are people that I can depend on, people I can call for help. When I couldn’t make it home the other night, I called a neighbor to ask him to feed the chickens. When I got home, I found that he had not only fed the chickens but also the rabbits, figuring I had forgotten about them. We never worry about finding a baby sitter because we know we can depend on one of the neighbors — and the kids are very comfortable staying with them. The older kids can just stay home because they have neighbors to call if they have any problems. (Ibid., p. 87)

Children seem to thrive in this environment. Field trips become possible when a critical mass is reached such that if one or two participants drop out at the last minute, the outing doesn’t fall through. As one cohousing resident put it:

[T]here are favorable conditions for children here — socially, physically, and educationally. They are exposed to many more interests and stimulations than usual . . . They also have a strong sense of identity. They are not anonymous here; and like the children of any village, they know that there is a place they are recognized and have a sense of belonging. This enhances their self-confidence. Children who live in cohousing are usually “can do” people because they learn from participating in so many kinds of activities, and receive recognition for their accomplishments. (Ibid., p. 87)

Many families nowadays home-school their children, which can be a big burden on the mother, but it’s made much easier by tackling the job collectively, as is day care for the younger children.

Shared Facilities: More Stuff, Lower Cost

While few people would consider relinquishing private ownership of their houses, cars, or personal possessions, there will always be a myriad of impersonal items which people need occasionally which quite reasonably might be purchased collectively. Examples: guest rooms for visiting friends or family, soccer field, workshop, swimming pool, tree house, tennis court, exercise machines, and garden. In conventional housing, the family must either foot the bill for the entire thing, or go without. Cohousing makes it possible to own these sometimes-needed items collectively, at a fraction of the cost. A few cohousing communities even maintain a small store stocked with household items, cereal, toiletries, etc. The store is unattended, but all residents have a key so they can shop any time. They simply record the items they’ve bought, for which they’re billed later. Residents appreciate the convenience of an on-site store, and benefit from the savings of buying in bulk.

Who are These People?

Virtually everyone in cohousing is on at least one committee, and most people attend at least some meetings. The alternative to attending meetings is to have no impact on how things are run, and to leave decisions to others who may — or may not — see things the same way. The point is that in this environment, unlike a typical suburban house or urban apartment, total lack of participation can have costs.

New people assimilate quickly in cohousing, and become part of the community, which is an advantage in technologically advanced countries where more and more people work all day at the computer, never meeting anyone in the course of their workday, and where others move frequently to better jobs.

People who chose cohousing are an interesting, self-selected bunch. They tend to be well-educated, with a broad range of interests, often active in local affairs such as politics or the school board. They also tend to be predominantly professionals, who often work at home, with higher than average incomes, of European descent, ranging from early thirties to retirement age, and politically somewhat Left of center. Efforts to increase ethnic diversity have not been successful. The authors of The Cohousing Handbook describe them as “experienced and successful controllers,” accustomed to controlling the world around them, at least more so than the average person. When asked what most attracted them to cohousing, they reply that it offers safety and security; an ideal place for raising children; flexibility and choice in such things as meals and socializing; savings in terms of both money and time; and greater control of their lives. (Scott-Hansen, Kelly, and Scott-Hansen, Chris (2004) The Cohousing Handbook, New Society Publishers, p. 120)

Cohousing is not for everyone. It probably wouldn’t be a congenial environment for extreme introverts or people who dislike children. Personality clashes are inevitable in any group endeavor, and in small communities, they will have more impact than in larger ones, where it’s easier for two people to simply avoid one another. In small communities, if the disagreement is serious, one party may decide to move out.

Back to the Future

Medium-sized cohousing complexes (15-35 units) seem to work best. It’s interesting that Sir Thomas More chose the figure of 30 families per village in Utopia, because it’s not far from the median number of 25 which recent experience seems to have chosen as ideal (Ibid., p. 15). Evolutionary psychologists frequently talk about “the environment of evolutionary adaption” (EEA). The EEA is said to influence our innate psychological predispositions today by the process of natural selection. Since human beings are social animals and evolved in small groups, it stands to reason that they are best suited psychologically for living in a similar environment to the one in which they evolved. The pioneers of cohousing tried to imagine the optimum arrangement of houses to create a community. There are limits to how many people we can get to know, or how many names we can remember. Originally intuition and reason were the only guidelines to such things as optimum size, but now there’s the experience of others to draw from. 

Cohousing and Eugenics

Eugenicists are interested in cohousing because it makes parenthood easier and more enjoyable. Women who have children as a result of a conscious choice are, on average, much brighter and more responsible than women who have their children as a result of a series of “accidents,” so eugenicists favor anything that makes motherhood easier. Moreover, high-IQ women often have fewer children than they would ideally like to have because of conflicts with career. Living in a cohousing community makes juggling career and motherhood easier and less stressful, so it could reasonably be expected to increase the fertility of this group.

Many wives either want to work, or need to work. Few young couples can afford full-time nannies, but most want to have children. However, they don’t want to become slaves to their children – they want to retain a good deal of their freedom. But is this even possible? In the Western world today, few couples have an on-call, ’round-the-clock baby-sitter living nearby, so it may not be possible. Cohousing provides couples the opportunity to have small, medium, or even large families while still retaining a good portion of their freedom.

21st-Century Cohousing

In the future, cohousing ventures may increasingly be organized around one unifying principle – for example, all elderly residents, vegetarians, environmentalists, artists, musicians, writers, scientists, and those with specific religious or political philosophies. People who are committed to a religious or a political belief can be empowered by joining forces with others who have the same convictions. The value of such gatherings is already well-known, viz. universities, conferences, and churches. Inspiration doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and having the opportunity to meet informally with colleagues on a regular, day-to-day basis could be ideal. When people get together who share the same beliefs and interests, it sparks imagination and fosters collaboration, and the kind of deep communication that makes life worthwhile. A unique and priceless “ferment” takes place that frequently results in original creative work.


Beyond sharing common facilities, dinners, and child care, cohousing has little else in common with Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, and residents don’t claim that life resembles a “utopia” in the more general sense of the word. Not surprisingly, however, cohousing communities bear a strong resemblance to traditional villages of the past. Cohousing offers major time, money, and convenience advantages over conventional 21st-century housing, particularly for parents and children, which probably account for its rather marked growth worldwide, despite the very considerable trouble and expense of starting such endeavors from scratch and seeing them through to completion. In addition to practical advantages, cohousing seems to have struck an emotional cord because it provides a more natural balance between autonomy and community.

Calling Out the Cuckery

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

The term cuckservative is shaking up the American political discourse. It originated outside the corporate judaized mainstream, in reaction to the destructive, destabilizing, degenerate policies of the anti-White/pro-jew regime. Cuckservative is as insult, an accusation, an indictment aimed at those who participate in this poisonous regime by those of us who are sick and tired of being poisoned.

Cuckservative has gained traction so quickly because it strikes a big, fat, pulsing White nerve. The term is an expression of White racial grievance. It has crystallized and brought forth decades worth of pent up White anger, resentment at being lied to and betrayed by White political leaders who have been going along to get along, dog whistling what they have to to get elected, and then giving the country away to aliens, people whose thoughts and desires and behaviors are so different from ours that they alienate us even when they’re not physically hostile and dangerous.

There are many aspects of the term cuckservative and the reaction it’s creating that are good and indicate a shift in a positive direction for Whites. There are also a few aspects that cause some concern.

On the good side, the cuckservatives and their cuckers haven’t yet figured out how to effectively deflect or defuse the accusation. The main response has been no response. The relatively few defenses have so far been along the lines of, “that’s racist, this is coming from White supremacists”, which only confirms the charge that cuckservatives, and the system they serve, are anti-White. Another type of reaction – the insinuation or counter-accusation that the term is being pushed by “liberals” – reflects the blinkered bunker mentality that afflicts those Whites who continue to work within the anti-White regime. They so want to keep on working within it that they pretend it is all that really exists.

The term cuckservative is breaking through and spreading through White minds faster and more broadly than other explicit attempts to craft language to express White interests have been. Bob Whitaker’s mantra, which has been spreading gradually for years, was too wordy and ironically stated. Even the more recent, shorter slogans expressing the same basic sentiments – that anti-”racism” is code for anti-White and to fight White genocide – just haven’t spread as quickly as cuckservative has. I think these other terms have helped. They’ve prepared the ground, and they’ll probably enjoy more use going forward. Many Whites don’t want to be discriminated against for being White, but they still aren’t willing to identify positively as White. The polarization created by the term cuckservative will surely encourage more Whites to see that they do have a racial identity, that they do have racial interests. More will find the nerve to say, “Yes, I’m White, and I’m angry, because I can see the media, the schools, the laws, the government, the whole system is anti-White. It has been working against me and my kind. That’s not right, and it’s got to go.”

I’m also glad because I think cuckservative also takes the wind out of the sails of “White pathology”. That’s the truly pathological idea that Whites are a race of catladies, that we’re driving ourselves to extinction because our ancient altruistic hunter-gather personality traits are reasserting themselves, causing us to want to smile as we give everything over to the hostile, alien invaders flooding our former homelands. “White pathology” is the idea that we’re doing this to ourselves, or at least that we’re literally programmed to be exploited by others. That it’s in our DNA.

The attack on cuckservative demolishes this “White pathology” suicide meme in two ways. First, if it wasn’t already obvious that many Whites oppose the anti-White regime, the popularity of the cuckservative attack demonstrates that the White opposition is broader than many of us imagined. So, no, we’re not a race of catladies. Second, it takes two, or more, to cuck. Cuckservative better fits the reality than catlady, in the same way genocide fits better than suicide. The leaders who are selling out and betraying us aren’t catladies. They’re not impoverishing themselves serving nameless, faceless, agentless cats. They’re enriching themselves personally by serving the interests of anyone and everyone but Whites, other people who every day more freely express their own “vibrant” non-White/anti-White racial identity. The word cuck evokes the biological roots of the injustice, the despicable, disgusting, deplorable, exploitative nature of the crime.

I’ve made the argument many times that parasitism is a more accurate term for what’s happening. Cuckolding is just one aspect of parasitism. Cuckholding hints at sexual deviance and gives perverts a cheap thrill, whereas parasitism more completely encompasses the sick, subversive, collective nature of the phenomenon – the infiltration, manipulation, and exploitation of one group for the benefit of another.
So on the downside, the term cuckservative is not as clear or racially explicit as parasitism or “White genocide”. In fact it’s more popular because of that, because it offers some wiggle room for the merely less squishy Whites to point their finger at the more squishy Whits and say, “they’re the problem”. Some Whites are using cuckservative only because they think they can tell themselves and their critics that, really, they’re not racists, they’re just upset about their money being given away or their Christian values being trashed, by other White people. In other words, they’re not really conscious of their racial interests, much less that they have racial enemies.

Another reason the term is so popular (and another downside) is because it plugs into the mental mold of the existing system – it focuses attention on just one half of the left/right, liberal/conservative, two-faces-of-the-single-party that is judeo liberal democracy. There are in fact White cuckees and jew cuckers in both halves of the anti-White/pro-jew system. The left side is certainly more explicitly anti-White, and it is the increasing obviousness of this hostility which has brought the anger at cuckservatives, who are seen as capitulating to this obvious enemy. There is a false impression, which is only reinforced by the partisan roots of the word cuckservative, that the source of the hostility is “the left”, that it arises more from some abstract ideological wonkery rather than from an inherent and implacable racial animus.

The White traitors on the left are just more out of the closet about it. As Robert Frost put it way back in 1961, “A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.” That captures a good part of the cuck mentality. We could call White liberals cuckerals, to match cuckservatives, but from what I’ve seen the terms libtard and shitlib are already far more popular.

There’s also some ambiguity to the term cuck which isn’t good. Calling someone a cuck could be taken to imply they’re a victim, that they’re the one being harmed. In the strict, biological sense of the word, you’re only being cuckolded if it’s your resources being taken and used to the benefit of another. That sense of the word technically fits someone like Jeb Bush, who married an anti-White mestiza, better than it fits a mere closeted queer RINO, like Lindsey Graham. But in both cases the outrage aimed at these two cuckservatives and others is collective, not personal. The politicians being called cucks are being accused mainly of giving away other people’s resources, the resource of their partisan base or race, not their own.

Which brings me to the last nit I have to pick with the term cuckservative. It mistakenly implies the traitor is weak, effeminate. In this way it is similar to the catlady slur. It’s easy to mock and taunt weaklings. They don’t fight back. But when you call these traitors out, and calling them cuck works well enough, they will fight. Generally speaking these are men and women rose to where they are in the poisonous anti-White environment because they have a lack of racial loyalty and a lack of scruples, not because they lack the will to seek and hold fast to personal power.

Still, as powerful as they may seem, the White traitors aren’t running the show. As I’ve just pointed out, they’re generally self-interested individuals. They aren’t really any more loyal to each other or their party or its abstract ideology than White voters. They aren’t in cahoots with each other either. The old boys club of White supremacy is long gone, not much more than a figment of jewish imagination at this point. It lives on in the imaginations of others mainly because of the propaganda the jews produce and distribute via media and academia.

What’s so demoralizing about the Whites at the top is that even the ones who aren’t actively selling out are keeping their mouths shut. They know that to even say something sympathetic about Whites, as a group, is “racist”, so they don’t. You occasionally hear someone say that cuckservatives, or other White politicians, are just afraid of being called names like “racist”. That isn’t accurate. A good part of their motivation is fear of pain. Fear of being punished, fear of being ostracized. It isn’t pain alone, and it isn’t a desire for power, fame or fortune alone. It’s both. It’s carrot and stick.

The jews are the ones wielding the carrots and sticks. The jews aren’t cucked. The jews aren’t White. The jews are the ones who are organized, and have always been organized, as a group. They’ve been organized and aggressing against Whites, from within White societies, for millenia. The jews are the source of the racial animus against Whites. The cucker is not “the left”, or “the right”, but the jews who fund and dictate the policies of both sides of the system. That’s why it is not just an anti-White system but a pro-jew system. That’s why the one unshakable principle that none of the White cucks, left or right, dares to question is jewish privilege. Jewish power is so thorough-going and secure inside America that jews have for decades been able to control American foreign policy to the painfully obvious benefit of Israel, a foreign ethnostate of jews, by jews, and for jews.

In the 1980s the well-known cuckservative William F. Buckley purged Joe Sobran from conservativism specifically for being insufficiently respectful of the jews and Israel. Since then jewish power has only grown. Nowadays every significant politician from every “Western” country sooner or later makes a pilgrimage to Israel to pay symbolic tribute to their jewish overlords.

Some of the people tossing around the cuckservative charge don’t realize it, yet, but the reason that term is bound to cause a real backlash from the regime isn’t because it embarrasses the traitors, or upsets the blacks or browns. It will be because it displeases the jews. The charge that White politicians are ignoring or betraying White political interests is a direct challenge to the jews and their narrative. Under the current zeitgeist Whites aren’t supposed to advocate for their interests as a group, that’s “racist”. If you do so with any hint that you understand that the jews are your opponents, not just standing in the way but the ones who are actively deconstructing and destroying White racial interests, then you’re a “nazi”.

Everybody knows the jewish narrative, that “racists” and “nazis” are not just wrong but crazy and evil. But the pols and pundits at the top also know that the first rule of jew rule is that nobody talks about jew rule. The notion that the jews and their interests are at the crux of it all this cucking business is already visible in some articles and comments. This may grow. I hope it does. That would be good for Whites.

The traitors certainly know who’s got the carrots and sticks. Super-cuckservative Mike Huckabee just recently provided an excellent example of both the dominant and unspeakable nature of the jews’ narrative and power. Huckabee tried to explain how he objects to the recent US nuclear agreement with Iran because he thinks it’s bad for the Israelis, and used the jewish holocaust narrative when he did it. He was immediately upbraided by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a jewess politician from “the left”. His crime, apparently, was using terms that the goyim aren’t supposed to use, even in service of the jews. She actually demanded an apology.

Politicians who aren’t traitors also know about jewish power. They also understand that there are penalties for speaking against it. From France there is news that the nationalist politician Jean-Marie Le Pen is going to be prosecuted, again, for confronting the primacy of the jews and their narrative. As The Independent reports:
The decision to prosecute followed the aging politician’s comments on French television in April when he said: “Gas chambers were a detail of the war, unless we accept that the war is a detail of the gas chambers.”
He responded to the new charges by referring to the recent public protests that followed the muslim attack on Charlie Hebdo. He said:
“I thought that millions of French people had marched for freedom of expression”
“I thought that included the right to blaspheme. And this is blasphemy, isn’t it? It is after all an almost religious point.”
(For context see Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do and Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy.)

But that’s the moral of the jewish narrative, that the jews are paragons of virtue, the highest moral authority. Thus it is right that they dictate what’s good and bad, what’s allowed and not allowed. The White race traitors say and do what the jews tell them to, even if it makes for something that looks like a glaring contradiction – arguing open borders and multicult for the US and security and ethnic homogeneity for the jewish state, for example. Whether any of them actually believe the fairy tales the jews tell, or not, they know the jews will punish them if they misbehave. That threat, and the fear it inspires, is what looms behind all the cucking.

The Bite of the Adder: Can only Whites Be Racist?

via Western Spring

Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward,
the blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard…
-Rudyard Kipling

When the United States relieved Spain of the responsibility for administering the Philippines, Kipling wrote these words to his friend Theodore Roosevelt, as a warning about the consequences of taking on an imperial role. Likewise, Mark Twain declared that the colours of the American flag should be changed from red, white and blue to black, blue and white, and that the field of stars should be replaced by a skull and crossbones.

It has often been said that only Whites can be racist and coloured people are innocent of any such, allegedly, uncharitable feeling. However, this article will go even further and argue that White folk should, far from denying their racism, consider whether they might claim sole possession of the term and so wear their racism, not with shame but with pride.

The comedienne Jo Brand, having taken a break from her usual sarcasm, dressed up as humour, was recently taken to task for saying, “My personal opinion is that you can’t be a racist towards White people,” adding, “You can be prejudiced about them but being prejudiced isn’t an illegal act whereas being racist can be.” When pressed further Miss Brand let slip her Marxist credentials by explaining, “I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can’t be Racist towards a group that’s politically more powerful than a minority. That to me is the correct definition of racism. I think you can be prejudiced against a group of people who are more powerful than you but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.”

Jo BrandBy denying race as a biological fact, by implying that race is a social construct, Marxists, or more accurately neo-Marxists, portray race as simply a factor in the interplay of power politics. Unlike true socialists, neo-Marxists, such as Miss Brand refuse to acknowledge any natural hierarchy or organic order in human society. Their barren collectivism is the collectivism of the desert where one stone or grain of sand is much like any other. Theirs is the procrustean urge of the ‘Untermenschen’ to cut everything down to ‘a one size fits all’ world.

By contrast the collectivism of Racial Socialism is a collectivism which respects each individual as an unique being; never as an end in him or herself, as the universalists and sentimental liberals believe, but as a vital link between all that’s preceded him or her in evolution and all their progeny might yet become. In fact Racial Socialists would see their individual lifespan as no wider than the thickness which could be measured by a postage stamp on top of Nelson’s Column. White Racists can only view themselves as on the cusp of ever greater things in the future. Indeed, accompanying such racial consciousness comes the greatest of responsibilities. Other races may wither on the vine of evolution but White racial loyalists are duty bound to carry the beacon of evolution, lit by the Promethean fire of creativity: the fire which was stolen from heaven.

By respecting the true individual, Racial Socialists reject the sham liberalism of universal equality. How could we respect any individual or individuality if we refused to recognise or acknowledge variations in intelligence or ability? It’s only by discriminating between one individual or between one race and another that we can demonstrate any true respect. Sham liberals and neo-Marxists want us to respect all individuals and all races regardless of actual merit. True individual character and freedom is thus stood on its head and crushed by a mob of fanatical “politically correct” pandandrums. To do this they set up an imaginary ideal of some universal being, a monster even; sometimes ironically described as a disabled, lesbian mulatto; sometimes described as God.

Bahar MustafaAlongside Miss Jo Brand, also showing her tantalisingly but dirty neo-Marxist slip, is Miss Bahar Mustafa, ‘Student Union Welfare and Diversity Officer’ from Goldsmith’s University; a University that supplies teachers for our children by the way.Miss Mustafa claims that she can’t be racist because she is an ethnic minority woman. Miss Mustafa came to the attention of the ‘Evening Standard’ after she banned White people, unless they happened to be homosexual or lesbian, from an event which she claimed to be promoting equality. The theme was called “diversifying the curriculum.” She wrote to her ‘Facebook’ friends, “Invite loads of BME Women and non-binary people!! Also, if you’ve been invited and you’re a man and/or binary white PLEASE DON’T COME just because I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to accept this is a BME and ‘non-binary’ event only.”

For the less hip amongst us, BME translates as Black Minority Ethnic, and non-binary is “urban speak” describing those of indeterminate sexual identity. In a statement read out to fellow students Miss Mustafa said, “Ethnic minority women cannot be racist or sexist towards White men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender. Therefore women of colour cannot be racist or sexist, since we don’t stand to benefit from such a system. On this point Miss Mustafa is undoubtedly wrong because the whole structure of European culture and civilization was built by the Aryan/White Man, reaching this pinnacle of success by working as a team — as part of a self-identifying society — and it’s a success that is threatened as never before by mass-immigration, threatened as never before by the very same coloured benefit seekers with whom Miss Mustafa so obviously identifies.

Leaving aside Race and the Marxist argument that race is merely a proxy for the interplay of economic factors manipulated by greedy bosses, and leaving aside any biological foundation for racial variation as insignificant, we might consider another non-racial explanation for group identity — that mankind has a visceral need to organise itself into cultural groups regardless of blood loyalty.

Accordingly, the enemies of White identity have seized on the tribal nature of spectator sport to launch their counter attack.

Lord OuseleyA prime example of this is that whilst the controlled media has been busy promoting Negro footballers as national heroes, they have at the same time instituted the campaign, “Kick Racism out of Sport” under the Chairmanship of Lord Ouseley. Whilst ordinary mortals, and working class students in particular, may have to study hard for their university degrees, Lord Ouseley, of West Indian origin, and who to the best of our knowledge never got further than a Diploma from Catford College in the real world, has been awarded no less than 13 honorary degrees from universities as far apart as Brighton, London, Oxford, Sheffield and Edinburgh.

Another underhand trick of channelling the masses away from their natural inclination to favour racially loyal groups, has become obvious with the emergence of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Even some seasoned Nationalists have been bluffed into thinking they’re doing something clever by supporting UKIP and so avoiding the racist tag. The truth of course is that civic nationalism is grudgingly tolerated by the Establishment as a means of taming and neutering any opposition, just so long as it remains non-Racist.

Although as a people we can draw sustenance and inspiration from our history and culture, civic nationalism on its own spells disaster. It was civic nationalism which inveigled Britain and Germany to fight to the death in two “brother’s wars” — two world wars — which have brought our blood line as North Europeans to the verge of extinction.

Some progressive and intelligent minded people are understandably inclined to describe retarded civic nationalists as “Patriotards”; combining the word patriot with mental retardation. Although, American “culture” with its razzmatazz and superficiality, together with its military, gungho bombing of civilian populations, has done so much to undermine any serious concept of patriotism, the origin of the word ‘patriotism’ comes from Latin and has a racial connotation. Patriotism refers to one’s paternal blood line, so it would be shameful and unnecessary to discard the word altogether because of its American toxicity.

Another term that needs rescuing is “nation”. Left to itself nation has all too often lost its original biological connotation. Primarily it should mean a people, a folk, united by one blood, but in many minds it has come to signify no more than a convenient civil arrangement, as proposed by the Eighteenth Century purveyors of the “Social Contract” and found, for example, in the ‘American Declaration of Independence’.

To overcome this dilemma many racists like to distinguish themselves as “Racial-Nationalists” or “White-Nationalists”.  However, the descriptive terms “Racial Socialist” and “Racial Socialism”, as advocated by Ben Klassen have the added advantage of clearing away any undeserved connection with civic nationalism. Racial Socialism recognises that “race is everything”.

Klassen 1A White man or woman are bound by their racial history, whether living in an inner-city ghetto or on the outer reaches of the Himalayas. An individual’s racial history signifies the society to which he genuinely belongs far beyond his fragmented surroundings. Of course that said, the idea of Racial Socialism doesn’t in itself necessarily preclude the concept of nationhood once we accept the full biological implication of the word ‘nation’. In fact whilst remaining international in scope, Racial Socialism has to work through national structures in practice — that is to say, it has to be organised culturally so as to provide resonance and a sense of identity for its adherents.

The term “racist” (as is well known) was allegedly first coined by Leon Trotsky or by the circle of Jews surrounding him. It was used initially as a derogatory word of abuse to protect the anti-Tsarist plotters from criticism. It was feared that once the overwhelming evidence of Jewish complicity in Bolshevik agitation became widely known the Russian people might become less pliable.

Nowadays, as we are increasingly aware, the term “racism” is used as an all embracing means of thought control, so effective that even the mildest verbal opposition to our national destruction is frequently preceded by the words, “I’m not a racist but…” So prevalent has the word racist become as a term of abuse that it would be futile to distance oneself from it. We could insist until we were pink in the face that we’re not nasty, misanthropic bigots but just genteel patriots, to no avail. Our enemies in the media occupying most of the strategic high ground, hate us and are out to destroy us verbally, if not in every other possible way. Therefore our only means of defence is to accept the description of ourselves as ‘racist’ and by so doing neutralise it. We must learn to wear it as a badge of honour.

When Nietzsche wrote ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’ he included a chapter entitled, ‘The Bite of the Adder’. In it Zarathustra is bitten by a viper but before the reptile can slither away, Zarathustra calls it back saying, “I haven’t yet thanked you for waking me up.” Zarathustra then asks the snake whether it can afford to waste its venom on someone with a likeness to a dragon. The snake thus sucks the poison back out and goes on its way.

Likewise, if we prove ourselves impervious to verbal abuse by taking ownership of the term ‘racist’, our enemies won’t obtain any advantage by describing us as such. Enoch Powell, a twentieth century student of Nietzsche, understood this well. When, writing in the ‘Sunday Telegraph’ he described the then leader of the Labour Party, Michael Foot, in glowing terms as a “racialist”. 

During an era which had yet to succumb fully to “political correctness”, Michael Wharton wrote a regular column in the ‘Telegraph’ under the nom de guerre, ‘Peter Simple’. Exuding a gentle and genuinely funny satire for fifty years, the ‘Peter Simple’ column became something of a moral lifeline for intelligent Racial-Nationalists. Indeed, Nick Griffin was privileged to be received by Michael Wharton at his home shortly before Wharton died in at the venerable age of 92 in 2006. The two events are not related.

Peter Simple 2A notable feature of ‘Peter Simple’ was his staunch advocacy of racialism of which he said, “We’re all racialists”, implying that anyone who failed to admit as much was suffering from self-delusion. The question as to what extent racism is a natural human feeling common to all peoples, and what extent it’s more specific to White/Aryan folk, bears further examination. The very fact that many North Europeans are perversely and uniquely hostile to their own racism strongly suggests that North Europeans are actually intensely aware of their own racial feelings, feelings they have nevertheless been conditioned to suppress by a hostile mass-media.

Among the supporters of what might be dubbed as the “racist but equal brigade” is American author Richard McCullock. McCullock is an ardent proponent of racial separate development. On his website ‘The Racial Compact’ he has drawn up a map in which he attempts to divide the United States into various racial compounds, compounds which would allow each distinct nation state to live exclusively with its own people. He writes in his ‘Charter of Racial Rights': “All races have a right to independence and peaceful self-determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate development, to exclusive control of their own life and existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination, control or interference by other races.”

The Utopian dream continues, “All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity, reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free, safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial inter-mixture and replacement.”

Of course many will find this vision extremely attractive as an ideal. Unfortunately, whilst ideals must be upheld if we are to evolve to higher forms they also have to be based on a realistic understanding of nature. The ideal of the “lion lying down with the lamb” is static and therefore a non-starter. In fact demographically Richard McCullock’s map is already hopelessly out of date. The nature of life is essentially one of movement and evolution through struggle: not “poor, nasty brutish and short” as Thomas Hobbes would have us believe but joyful because of the fulfilment we find through our active participation.

Similarly, if the White enclaves as planned by ‘WIN’ and by ‘Western Spring’ are to succeed they must become the advanced guard of a reborn nation just as the Kibbutzim were in Israel and the Saxon or Norman Castles once were in England. The nature of our folk would soon become bored with a static society, however attractive the rural idyll might appear from the outside, a static society would rapidly become a stagnant society.

GWH 2Interestingly, there’s an implied contradiction to the static society in an earlier McCullock book of 1982, ‘The Ideal and Destiny’, when he says, given a choice most human beings would wish to evolve towards the European ideal of Aryan perfection as found in the statues of Michelangelo or Arno Brecker. We find some suggestion of this in mixed race Negroes with their hierarchy based on lightness of skin; Indians have their caste system of course, whereas wealthy Mongoloids sometimes pay for cosmetic surgery to make their eyes rounder: most races will have members who dye their hair blond from time to time.

Having dispensed with any serious suggestion that racism, as defined here, is in itself immoral we have to move on finally to consider whether it can be adopted as an exclusively White ideology. We’ve just seen how many coloured people attempt to emulate White features and it’s the contention of this article that those who object to White hegemony very often do so out of a negative resentment of the White man rather than a healthy appreciation of their own kind. This is a question often asked in the case of the Jews.

As Evola writes in ‘Racism and anti-Semitism': “According to racial theory, Jews are not a race in the true sense, but a people of mixed race. The Semitic peoples, to which the Jews belong, are considered by Gobineau in his seminal ‘study’, ‘The Inequality of the Human Races’ to already be a mixed race derived from a cross between the White race and the Black race … this mixture would have been further complicated by other racial elements … At the time of the Diaspora and the last prophecies, other residual elements of Mediterranean ethnic and spiritual decadence coagulated into Judaism … if the Jews are liberated from the law, they automatically become a factor of dissolution. Thus, themselves without race, Jews then become the anti-race themselves without nation, they become anti-nation … They exert an uncanny corrosive force on everything that is differentiated, qualitative, bound by blood and tradition in politics, this culminates in the Judaizing Masonic ideology, with the consequent social and internationalist humanitarian myths.”

That may be the case with a significant number of influential Jews but many would hesitate to lay the entire responsibility for Pandora’s Box at Judah’s feet. No more could one honestly say that all anti-White racism is conceived as a product of spite and envy. In summary there is no conclusive evidence to say that the racism of non-European peoples, is necessarily swayed by anything other than a natural racial loyalty on their part.

Where the White Man might claim a more exclusive racist identity than the rest is in his place at the forefront of evolution. The White race which has reached for the stars is essentially aspirational. The White man loves truth above all things and is a fearless innovator. If the White/Aryan race and racism is superior to other group loyalties it is because of its ability to wed that loyalty to a moral code, a code that embraces the concept of eugenics and aspires to become a new species.

The Suicide of the American Left

via The Archdruid Report

Regular readers of this blog know that I generally avoid partisan politics in the essays posted here. There are several reasons for that unpopular habit, but the most important of them is that we don’t actually have partisan politics in today’s America, except in a purely nominal sense. It’s true that politicians by and large group themselves into one of two parties, which make a great show of their rivalry on a narrow range of issues. Get past the handful of culture-war hot buttons that give them their favorite opportunities for grandstanding, though, and you’ll find an ironclad consensus, especially on those issues that have the most to say about the future of the United States and the world.
It’s popular on the disaffected fringes of both parties to insist that the consensus in question comes solely from the other side; dissident Democrats claim that Democratic politicians have basically adopted the GOP platform, while disgruntled Republicans claim that their politicians have capitulated to the Democratic agenda. Neither of these claims, as it happens, are true. Back when the two parties still stood for something, for example, Democrats in Congress could be counted on to back organized labor and family farmers against their corporate adversaries and to fight attempts on the part of bankers to get back into the speculation business, while their opposite numbers in the GOP were ferocious in their opposition to military adventurism overseas and government expansion at home.
Nowadays? The Democrats long ago threw their former core constituencies under the bus and ditched the Depression-era legislation that stopped kleptocratic bankers from running the economy into the ground, while the Republicans decided that they’d never met a foreign entanglement or a government handout they didn’t like—unless, of course, the latter benefited the poor.  An ever more intrusive and metastatic bureaucratic state funneling trillions to corrupt corporate interests, an economic policy made up primarily of dishonest statistics and money-printing operations, and a monomaniacally interventionist foreign policy: that’s the bipartisan political consensus in Washington DC these days, and it’s a consensus that not all that long ago would have been rejected with volcanic fury by both parties if anyone had been so foolish as to suggest it.
The gap between the current Washington consensus and the former ideals of the nation’s political parties, not to mention the wishes of the people on whose sovereign will the whole system is supposed to depend, has attracted an increasing amount of attention in recent years. That’s driven quite a bit of debate, and no shortage of fingerpointing, about the origins and purposes of the policies that are welded into place in US politics these days. On the left, the most popular candidates just now for the position of villainous influence behind it all mostly come from the banking industry; on the right, the field is somewhat more diverse; and there’s no shortage of options from further afield.
Though I know it won’t satisfy those with a taste for conspiracy theory, I’d like to suggest a simpler explanation. The political consensus in Washington DC these days can best be characterized as an increasingly frantic attempt, using increasingly risky means, to maintain business as usual for the political class at a time when “business as usual” in any sense of that phrase is long past its pull date. This, in turn, is largely the product of the increasingly bleak corner into which past policies have backed this country, but it’s also in part the result of a massively important but mostly unrecognized turn of events: by and large, neither the contemporary US political class nor anyone else with a significant presence in American public life seems to be able to imagine a future that differs in any meaningful way from what we’ve got right now.
I’d like to take a moment here to look at that last point from a different angle, with the assistance of that tawdry quadrennial three-ring circus now under way, which will sooner or later select the next inmate for the White House. For anyone who enjoys the spectacle of florid political dysfunction, the 2016 presidential race promises to be the last word in target-rich environments. The Republican party in particular has flung itself with creditable enthusiasm into the task of taking my circus metaphor as literally as possible—what, after all, does the GOP resemble just at the moment, if not one of those little cars that roll out under the big top and fling open the doors, so that one clown after another can come tumbling out into the limelight?
They’ve already graced the electoral big top with a first-rate collection of clowns, too. There’s Donald Trump, whose campaign is shaping up to be the loudest invocation of pure uninhibited fΓΌhrerprinzip since, oh, 1933 or so; there’s Scott Walker, whose attitudes toward working Americans suggest that he’d be quite happy to sign legislation legalizing slavery if his rich friends asked him for it; there’s—well, here again, “target-rich environment” is the phrase that comes forcefully to mind. The only people who have to be sweating just now, other than ordinary Americans trying to imagine any of the current round of GOP candidates as the titular leader of their country, are gag writers for satiric periodicals such as The Onion, who have to go to work each day and face the brutally unforgiving task of coming up with something more absurd than the press releases and public statements of the candidates in question.
Still, I’m going to leave those tempting possibilities alone for the moment, and focus on a much more dreary figure, since she and her campaign offer a useful glimpse at the yawning void beneath what’s left of the American political system. Yes, that would be Hillary Clinton, the officially anointed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that she’ll lose this campaign the way she lost the 2008 race, and for the same reason: neither she nor her handlers seem to have noticed that she’s got to offer the American people some reason to want to vote for her.
In a way, Clinton is the most honest of the current crop of presidential candidates, though this is less a matter of personal integrity than of sheer inattention. I frankly doubt that the other candidates have a single noble motive for seeking office among them, but they have at least realized that they have to go through the motions of having convictions and pursuing policies they think are right. Clinton and her advisers apparently didn’t get that memo, and as a result, she’s not even going through the motions. Her campaign basically consists of posing for the cameras, dodging substantive questions, uttering an assortment of vague sound bites to encourage the rich friends who are backing her, and making plans for her inauguration, as though there wasn’t an election to get through first.
Still, there’s more going on here than the sheer incompetence of a campaign that hasn’t yet noticed that a sense of entitlement isn’t a qualification for office. The deeper issue that will doom the Clinton candidacy can be phrased as a simple question: does anyone actually believe for a moment that electing Hillary Clinton president will change anything that matters?
Those other candidates who are getting less tepid responses from the voters than Clinton are doing so precisely because a significant number of voters think that electing one of them will actually change something. The voters in question are wrong, of course. Barack Obama is the wave of the future here as elsewhere; after his monumentally cynical 2008 campaign, which swept him into office on a torrent of vacuous sound bites about hope and change, he proceeded to carry out exactly the same domestic and foreign policies we’d have gotten had George W. Bush served two more terms. Equally, whoever wins the 2016 election will keep those same policies in place, because those are the policies that have the unanimous support of the political class; it’s just that everybody but Clinton will do their level best to pretend that they’re going to do something else, as Obama did, until the day after the election.
Those policies will be kept in place, in turn, because any other choice would risk pulling the plug on a failing system. I’m not at all sure how many people outside the US have any idea just how frail and brittle the world’s so-called sole hyperpower is just at this moment. To borrow a point made trenchantly some years back by my fellow blogger Dmitry Orlov, the US resembles nothing so much as the Soviet Union in the years just before the Berlin Wall came down: a grandiose international presence, backed by a baroque military arsenal and an increasingly shrill triumphalist ideology, perched uneasily atop a hollow shell of a society that has long since tipped over the brink into economic and cultural freefall.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor any of the other candidates in the running for the 2016 election will change anything that matters, in turn, because any change that isn’t strictly cosmetic risks bringing the entire tumbledown, jerry-rigged structure of American political and economic power crashing down around everyone’s ears. That’s why, to switch examples, Barack Obama a few days ago brought out with maximum fanfare a new energy policy that consists of doing pretty much what his administration has been doing for the last six years already, as though doing what you’ve always done and expecting a different result wasn’t a good functional definition of insanity. Any other approach to energy and climate change, or any of a hundred other issues, risks triggering a crisis that the United States can’t survive in its current form—and the fact that such a crisis is going to happen sooner or later anyway just adds spice to the bubbling pot.
The one thing that can reliably bring a nation through a time of troubles of the sort we’re facing is a vision of a different future, one that appeals to enough people to inspire them to unite their energies with those of the nation’s official leadership, and put up with the difficulties of the transition. That’s what got the United States through its three previous existential crises: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Great Depression. In each case, when an insupportable status quo finally shattered, enough of the nation united around a charismatic leader, and a vision of a future that was different from the present, to pull some semblance of a national community through the chaos.
We don’t have such a vision in American politics now. To an astonishing degree, in fact, American culture has lost the ability to imagine any future that isn’t simply an endless rehash of the present—other, that is, than the perennially popular fantasy of apocalyptic annihilation, with or without the salvation of a privileged minority via Rapture, Singularity, or what have you. That’s a remarkable change for a society that not so long ago was brimming with visionary tomorrows that differed radically from the existing order of things. It’s especially remarkable in that the leftward end of the American political spectrum, the end that’s nominally tasked with the job of coming up with new visions, has spent the last forty years at the forefront of the flight from alternative futures.
I’m thinking here, as one example out of many, of an event I attended a while back, put together by one of the longtime names of the American left, and featuring an all-star cast of equally big names in what passes for environmentalism and political radicalism these days. With very few exceptions, every one of the speakers put their time on the podium into vivid descriptions of the villainy of the designated villains and all the villainous things they were going to do unless they were stopped. It was pretty grueling; at the end of the first full day, going up the stairs to the street level, I watched as a woman turned to a friend and said, “Well, that just about makes me want to go out and throw myself off a bridge”—and neither the friend nor anybody else argued. 
Let’s take a closer look, though, at the strategy behind the event. Was there, at this event, any real discussion of how to stop the villains in question, other than a rehash of proposals that have failed over and over again for the last four decades? Not that I heard. Did anyone offer some prospect other than maintaining the status quo endlessly against the attempts of the designated villains to make things worse? Not only was there nothing of the kind, I heard backchannel from more than one participant that the organizer had a long history of discouraging anybody at his events from offering the least shred of that sort of hope.
Dismal as it was, the event was worth attending, as it conducted an exact if unintentional autopsy of the corpse of the American left, and made the cause of death almost impossible to ignore. At the dawn of the Reagan era, to be specific, most of the movements in this country that used to push for specific goals on the leftward end of things stopped doing so, and redefined themselves in wholly reactive and negative terms: instead of trying to enact their own policies, they refocused entirely on trying to stop the enactment of opposing policies by the other side. By and large, they’re still at it, even though the results have amounted to four decades of nearly unbroken failure, and the few successes—such as the legalization of same-sex marriage—were won by pressure groups unconnected to, and usually  unsupported by, the professional activists of the official left.
There are at least two reasons why a strategy of pure reaction, without any coherent attempt to advance an agenda of its own or even a clear idea of what that agenda might be, has been a fruitful source of humiliation and defeat for the American left. The first is that this approach violates one of the most basic rules of strategy: you win when you seize the initiative and force the other side to respond to your actions, and you lose by passively responding to whatever the other side comes up with. In any contest, without exception, if you surrender the initiative and let the other side set the terms of the conflict, you’re begging to be beaten, and will normally get your wish in short order.
That in itself is bad enough. A movement that defines itself in purely negative terms, though, and attempts solely to prevent someone else’s agenda from being enacted rather than pursuing a concrete agenda of its own, suffers from another massive problem: the best such a movement can hope for is a continuation of the status quo, because the only choice it offers is the one between business as usual and something worse. That’s fine if most people are satisfied with the way things are, and are willing to fling themselves into the struggle for the sake of a set of political, economic, and social arrangements that they consider worth fighting for.
I’m not sure why so many people on the leftward end of American politics haven’t noticed that this is not the case today. One hypothesis that comes to mind is that by and large, the leftward end of the American political landscape is dominated by middle class and upper middle class white people from the comparatively prosperous coastal states. Many of them belong to the upper 20% by income of the American population, and the rest aren’t far below that threshold. The grand bargain of the Reagan years, by which the middle classes bought a guarantee of their wealth and privilege by letting their former allies in the working classes get thrown under the bus, has profited them hugely, and holding onto what they gained by that maneuver doubtless ranks high on their unstated list of motives—much higher, certainly, than pushing for a different future that might put their privileges in jeopardy.
The other major power bloc that supports the American left these days offers an interesting lesson in the power of positive goals. That bloc is made up of certain relatively disadvantaged ethnic groups, above all the African-American community. The Democratic party has been able to hold the loyalty of most African-Americans through decades of equivocation, meaningless gestures, and outright betrayal, precisely because it can offer them a specific vision of a better future: that is, a future in which Americans of African ancestry get treated just like white folk. No doubt it’ll sink in one of these days that the Democratic party has zero interest in actually seeing that future arrive—if that happened, after all, it would lose one of the most reliable of its captive constituencies—but until that day arrives, the loyalty of the African-American community to a party that offers them precious little but promises is a testimony to the power of a positive vision for the future.
That’s something that the Democratic party doesn’t seem to be able to offer anyone else in America, though. Even on paper, what have the last half dozen or so Democratic candidates for president offered? Setting aside crassly manipulative sound bites of the “hope and change” variety, it’s all been attempts to keep things going the way they’ve been going, bracketed with lurid threats about the GOP’s evil plans to make things so much worse. That’s why, for example, the Democratic party has been eager to leap on climate change as a campaign issue, even though their performance in office on that issue is indistinguishable from that of the Republicans they claim to oppose: it’s easy to frame climate change as a conflict between keeping things the way they are and making them much worse, and that’s basically the only tune the American left knows how to play these days.
The difficulty, of course, is that after forty years of repeated and humiliating failure, the Democrats and the other leftward movements in American political life are caught in a brutal vise of their own making. On the one hand, very few people actually believe any more that the left is capable of preventing things from getting worse. There’s good reason for that lack of faith, since a great many things have been getting steadily worse for the majority of Americans since the 1970s, and the assorted technological trinkets and distractions that have become available since then don’t do much to make up for the absence of stable jobs with decent wages, functioning infrastructure, affordable health care, and all the other amenities that have gone gurgling down the nation’s drain since then.
Yet there’s another factor, of course, as hinted above. If the best you can offer the voters is a choice between what they have now and something worse, and what they have now is already pretty wretched, you’re not likely to get much traction. That’s the deeper issue behind the unenthusiastic popular response to Hillary Clinton’s antics, and I’d like to suggest it’s also what’s behind Donald Trump’s success in the polls—no matter how awful a president he’d be, the logic seems to run, at least he’d be different. When a nation reaches that degree of impatience with a status quo no one with access to power is willing to consider changing, an explosion is not far away.

Donald Trump–STILL Right about Mexican Rapists


There’s a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn’t exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettoes. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved. (They are family-oriented!)

In a 2011 GQ magazine story about a statutory rape case in Texas, the victim’s illegal alien mother, Maria, described her own sexual abuse back in Mexico.
“She was 5, she says, when her stepfather started telling her to touch him. Hand here, mouth there. The abuse went on and on, became her childhood, really. At 12, when she finally worked up the desperate courage to report the abuse and was placed in foster care, she says her mother begged her to recant—the family needed the stepdad’s paycheck. So Maria complied. She was returned home, where her stepdad continued to molest her. When she talks about it, tears stream down her face.” [The Girl from Trails End, By Kathy Dobie, GQ, September 2011]
Far from “I am woman, hear me roar,” these are cultures where women help the men rape kids.

Maria dismissed the firestorm of publicity surrounding the sexual precocity of her own daughter, laughingly referring to the 11-year-old rape victim as “my wild child.” She even criticized the girl’s older sisters for complaining about the young girl’s promiscuous clothing choices, saying—of an 11-year-old: “Well, she’s got the body, so leave her alone.”

Dodge-Woman-161x161[1]In 2013, illegal immigrant Bertha Leticia Rayo . . . was arrested for allowing her former husband, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, to rape her 4-year-old daughter, then assisting his unsuccessful escape from the police. The rapist, Aroldo Guerra-Garcia, was also aided in his escape attempt by another woman, Krystal Galindo. (Kind of a ladies man, was Aroldo.)

That same year, the government busted up a child pornography operation in Illinois being run out of the home of three illegal aliens from Mexico, including a woman. At least one of them, Jorge Muhedano-Hernandez, had already been deported once. (Peoria Journal Star headline: “Bloomington men plead guilty to false documents.”)

conradoThe Baby Hope case in New York City began when a Mexican illegal alien, Conrado Juarez . . . raped and murdered his 4-year-old cousin, Anjelica Castillo. His sister helped him dispose of the body. Police found the little girl’s corpse in a cooler off the Henry Hudson Parkway, but the case went unsolved for two decades, because none of the murdered girl’s extended illegal alien family ever reported her missing. Anjelica’s mother later told the police she always suspected the tiny corpse in the cooler was her daughter’s, but never told anyone.

isidroIn 2014, Isidro Garcia . . . was arrested in Bell Gardens, California, accused of drugging and kidnapping the 15-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, then forcing the girl to marry him and bear his child. The mother had suspected Garcia, then 31 years old, had been raping her teenage daughter, but did nothing. All three were illegal aliens from Mexico, making this another case for the “Not Our Problem” file.

casarezIn 2007, Mexican illegal immigrant Luis Casarez . . . was convicted in New Mexico for repeatedly raping a 3-year-old and an 8-year-old. During his sentencing, Casarez borrowed Marco Rubio’s talking points about hardworking illegal immigrants with roots in America. “I have been here for many years,” Casarez told the judge—incongruously, through a translator. “That’s why,” he added, “I’ve been working instead of getting involved with problems.” Other than that one thing.

Two weeks after Luis Casarez was indicted for child rape, his son, Luis Casarez Jr., was indicted in a separate case of child rape.

When the crime is this bizarre, it’s not “anecdotal.” “Child rape perpetrated by more than one family member” isn’t your run-of-the-mill crime. It’s rather like discovering dozens of cannibalism cases in specific neighborhoods.

How many fourth-generation American father-son child-rape duos do we have? How many American brother-sister teams are conspiring in child rape and murder? How many mothers are helping their boyfriends and husbands get away with raping their own children?

And how many 12-year-old American girls are giving birth—to the delight of their parents?

In some immigrant enclaves, the police have simply given up on pursuing statutory rape cases with Hispanic victims. They say that after being notified by hospital administrators that a 12-year-old has given birth and the father is in his 30s, they’ll show up at the girl’s house—and be greeted by her parents calling the pregnancy a “blessing.”

This happens all the time, they say.

And yet, in the entire American media, there have been more stories about a rape by Duke Lacrosse players that didn’t happen than about the slew of child rapes by Hispanics that did because Democrats want the votes and businesses want the cheap labor. No wonder they hate Trump.

Globalist Propaganda: Its Effect on Orthodox Values

via TradYouth

Orthodox Macedonia Church's
Coat of Arms
A collection of beleaguered Orthodox Churches has played a vitally significant role in the development of Eastern European culture and society. They have established significant traditional values, moral codes, and beliefs in the frames of their respective cultures and communities that were accepted from the earliest stages in the development of the Balkan nations and were strictly important in the building of the free and prosperous nations and nation-states during the national revivals in Eastern Europe.  With the absence of those values it’s unlikely to think that the societies we see today would have existed without falling in decline.

The Slavic tribes from Macedonia, who initially settled on the Balkans between the 6th and 8th centuries AD, were among the first to accept the Orthodox faith from the neighboring Byzantine Empire. The people from Macedonia were also the first to realize that the use of local vernaculars in the preaching of doctrines and beliefs by the Church, instead of the till-then exclusive Greek language, would bring the support to the faith from the rest of the Slavic people in Europe.

To this end, two clerics from the town of Salonica, Saints Cyril and Methodius, took the roots of the Macedonian Slavic dialects and created the first all-Slavic language (today known as Old Church Slavonic). With it, they preached the Orthodox faith to Slavs from Macedonia all the way to Moravia (present-day Czech Republic), and is still used by all Slavic Orthodox churches. So, in a way, the people of Macedonia were the initial Slavic adherers to Orthodox Christianity and helped spread the values, moral codes, and ethics of the faith throughout the whole “Slavic world.” Even the first autocephalous Slavic Orthodox church, the Patriarchate of Ohrid, was founded on the territory of Macedonia by Samuil, a Bulgarian king native to Macedonia.

The long-lasting Christian tradition in Macedonia today sees a new challenge in a long series of consecutive existential threats. Maybe one that works less conspicuously than the previous, however I think brings a lot of damage, not only to the Macedonian Orthodox tradition and identity, but also the national values of other traditionalist societies on the Balkan Peninsula and in Europe.

I’m speaking, of course, about the liberal and globalist propaganda carried out by the present US government and the European Union that tries to preach its homosexual, so-called “multi-ethnic,” “democratic,” and downright destructive agenda to the people of this region. It’s interesting how the people and organizations pulling the strings of the United States government and its puppet formations like the European Union don’t want to force these ideas exclusively in their own jurisdictions, but the whole world, as it seems.

Maybe Russia adopting those laws banning homosexual propaganda and destructive Western NGOs brings some light of hope to the traditionalist nations in Europe swept under the radar of liberal propaganda machines financed by the US and the EU. However, this year, maybe more than any other since the 2001 ethnic conflict, the Orthodox Macedonians saw more escalations and tensions in their society as a consequence of the activities and influences made by these organizations. In 2015, Macedonia saw:
  • Muslim Albanian terrorist and Islamic extremists entering its borders from the disputed territory of Kosovo and engaging in deadly shootouts with the authorities in which 8 Macedonian police officers lost their lives;
  • extremely violent demonstrations and rallies with Albanian, communist, and homosexual “rainbow” flags that hospitalized 40 police officers and were organized by US financed liberal and communist groups;
  • thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country’s  southern border,  every day, destroying Macedonia’s economy and transport systems;
  • the removal of the Macedonian nationalist prime minister Nikola Gruevski from office just one year after an election that was described as “free and democratic” by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe took place.
Even though Macedonia is the only country in the world with a governing Orthodox Christian traditionalist party, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity (VMRO-DPMNE), there are still many obstacles that prevent the current government from returning Christian values to the society after a long and destructive Communist regime.  The Party of European Socialists-backed opposition party, the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, last year successfully brought down a government proposed change in the Constitution that would make marriage exclusively a “union between a man and a woman.”

The Orthodox community in the country, although making the vast majority of the total population, is harshly segregated in Muslim-dominated areas. Many Orthodox Macedonian settlements in Albanian-dominated regions were brought to ashes during the 2001 ethnic conflict between Muslim Albanian rebels and the Macedonian Army.

Last year, five Orthodox Christian boys were gunned down by automatic rifles by Albanian Islamists near the Macedonian capital of Skopje. Even the Kosovar insurgents that crossed the Macedonian border this year planned on attacking government institutions, Orthodox churches, and events. Those were the same people that were supplied with arms and financed by the US government during the Yugoslav wars and fought the Serbians for Kosovo.

Through the use of extremist left-wing groups and NGOs, the United States Embassies and the European Union are undoubtedly pushing a Globalist idea much to the expense of the centuries-old values and social orders of the traditions in Eastern Europe, with a sole purpose, as it seems, of creating a stateless people-less form of anarchy in which the people, ripped off their moral and religious beliefs, serve only one purpose – money.