Dec 3, 2015

The Metapolitics of Harry Potter

via Counter-Currents

Harry Potter needs no introduction. It would be hard to find someone who has not heard about him. When J. K. Rowling’s first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in the US), was published in 1997, the entertainment industry immediately “smelled” potential success and invested in the books. Not famous yet, Rowling received $105,000 from the publishing house Scholastic for the American rights of the first book, a sum that retrospectively seems ridiculous but was huge for an unknown author. Eventually, the Harry Potter series soared, both books and movies receiving enormous attention.

As a cultural phenomenon, Harry Potter is quite complex. It is a whole universe, featuring its own order and mystery; it spans time, both internally and as a product line. How many of us have grown up watching a new Harry Potter movie each year?

Beyond the massive promotional campaigns for each new book and movie, several features may have contributed to the success of Harry Potter.

First and foremost, it gives us roots. The magical world of sorcerers is a structured one, featuring rites of initiation, a sense of belonging, magical spells in Latin, and a curriculum dating back to the twelfth century. Characters live in centuries-old buildings in the beautiful landscapes of Scotland. The world of Harry Potter is culturally and racially European, something reflected in the white crowds of fans at Potter events and noticed by Left-leaning media.

Second, it shows us a rich, colorful world. A world full of humans, sorcerers, magical creatures, intrigue, quests – a world that makes a perfect supplement to the real one, “something more” for those who feel bored with the bland world of business, the dirty world of politics, and the generally impoverished world of modernity.

Third, it is structured: we follow the evolution of Harry Potter and his peers, as well as the unfolding of the intrigue, primarily centered on the fight between the young wizard and his nemesis, Lord Voldemort, who killed his parents. Both movies and books unfold as a mega-series that came back each year, coupling the internal time of Harry Potter’s universe with the real world. They show the same structure as a saga, which gives them the taste of a myth, something going beyond the usual ephemeral stuff the entertainment industry provides.

Fourth, it is shared. Fans of Harry Potter have a strong common interest. They can spend hours discussing the aspects of a specific magic spell, a fictional character, and many other arcane topics. In a world where individualism increasingly reduces us to a state of atomization and where multiculturalism leaves us alienated, it is great to have something to share with other fans. Even better when it relates to our roots in a living European tradition.

Fifth, the world of wizards is occult: hidden and filled with magical powers. Though this aspect may be fascinating to some, I believe it has been overestimated. What makes magic fascinating is less its sheer power, than how it goes beyond modern materialistic science and makes a tradition alive – unlike a “dead” tradition that can be revived through a “historical reconstitution” but feels too much like role-playing to be considered genuine. Interestingly, it seems like only Christians focus on the occultist content of the Harry Potter universe. They were uncomfortable with the open practice of witchcraft, spells, and various rites.

This article focuses on the metapolitical content of the movies, which has scarcely been discussed, perhaps because of the idea that it is nothing but childrens’ literature.

Is Harry Potter a Jew?

The media today often attack the traditional family by mocking fathers. Homer Simpson and Archie Bunker are famous examples. In more recent series, the fourth season of Dexter shows us an apparently normal father and husband who is actually mistreating his own children and killing innocent people, while The United States of Tara features a schizophrenic mother with a rather bland husband. Harry Potter’s views on family is a bit more complicated.

Before hearing about his wizard nature, the ten-year-old Harry lives as an adopted child in his aunt’s family. The aunt has a strong dislike for her sister, Harry’s mother. Together with her fat husband and their spoiled son, Dudley, they treat Harry as the fifth wheel. The boy has to do menial work and is made to understand that he does not belong. But though they do not like Harry, they want him to stay: the father destroys letters from Hogwarts (Philosopher’s Stone) and bars the window of Harry’s room (Chamber of Secrets).

Why does Harry live with this family? According to his aunt, his parents died in a car accident. But soon Harry learns the truth. His parents were killed by a dark wizard, Lord Voldemort, who tried to kill Harry too. But even though Harry was then a baby, Voldemort’s spell backfired, outcasting the “Dark Lord.” The boy was adopted by his mother’s sister and raised with no clue about his past.

I wonder whether J. K. Rowling got her inspiration from the Old Testament. Voldemort tried to kill Harry because of a prophecy mentioning a young wizard, born at the end of the eighties, who would be able to defeat him. Just like Pharaoh, the “Dark Lord” has no problem slaying newborn children in order to falsify a prophecy. Just like in the Old Testament, the policy of slaying newborns does not work, and the fated baby survives. When Harry enters the secret world of wizards for the first time, everyone knows his name. He is the only one to survive an attack by Voldemort. He is famous for being “the boy who lived,” the triumph of both life and fatum over a lust for power. I do not speak lightly of fatum, for Harry Potter is also called “the Chosen One.” Harry is fated to greatness and has been chosen. Isn’t there some resemblance with a powerful group that believes itself to be “chosen”?

It is also recognized that Harry has “horrors in his past . . . that others can hardly imagine” (Prisoner of Azkaban). The revelation of Harry’s greatness and specialness cannot be separated from dark memories, which have been caused by Voldemort. As we will see shortly, the latter seems inspired from a source other than the Old Testament, apart from his endeavor to kill a newborn.

Harry’s adoptive family, on the other hand, seems loosely based on the Egyptians as they are depicted by ancient Jews. They dislike Harry but want him close, first in order to perform menial tasks, secondly to isolate him from the wizard world where he belongs. When Hagrid or Harry’s friends come to free him and go to Hogwarts, one can almost hear a Moses-like Dumbledore saying, “Let my people go!” The adoptive family looks like the Simpsons, although they are repulsive rather than fun. They are mediocre, materialistic, and seem animated by the sheer will to conceal or shatter Harry’s inner greatness.

The wizard world exists throughout the Muggle (non-wizard) world, but remains unseen. Some Muggles know about it, usually those whose children turn out to be wizards or witches. To the others it must remain invisible. Wizards have great powers and are somehow above, or different than, the Muggles, although the distinction is far from clear. What matters is that they can keep leading their lives in their own world. Interestingly, the wizard world is not separated but mingled with the Muggle world: it spans several places in England, for example a secret building in London, platform 9¾ at the King’s Cross Station, and a railroad going through a seemingly Scottish landscape. In this respect, the wizard world is very much like the Jewish world: scattered among the goyim, different and somehow superior, and determined to remain unseen. Only the messianic aspect is missing.

Harry Potter’s character is not devoid of Christian symbolism either. From the first movie, Harry steadily appears as a knight who fights various monsters. In The Philosopher’s Stone, he passes a giant three-headed dog. In The Chamber of Secrets, he receives the sacred sword of the Gryffindor house and manages to slay a thousand-year old giant snake, before slaying a dragon, Saint George style, in the Goblet of Fire. Harry also looks for various objects, either endowed with magical properties or trophies, such as the titular “goblet of fire,” which brings to mind the Grail. Yet, each battle is only part of a wider plot: Harry’s struggle against the returning Voldemort.

There is a knightly aspect to Harry’s adventures. Yet, it is subordinated to a mere fight against evil. There is no will for self-transcendence, no yearning for spiritual accomplishment. But there is an imperative to save the wizard world against the big bad Voldemort.

Another Christian aspect of Harry Potter is its presentation of “good” families. Harry Potter’s dead parents appear in a magical mirror (Philosopher’s Stone) and as ghosts, who are mentioned as “ever present” (Deathly Hallows 2). Harry’s real family was full of love. Ron Weasley’s family, although lower middle-class, is generous and has no problem hosting Harry.

The Bad Guys: Lord Voldemort and his “Black Order”

The main villain, who runs through all Harry Potter movies, is the dark wizard Voldemort. In at least two respects, he corresponds to a caricatured view of a “Nazi”: unbounded will to power and “obsession” with the purity of blood.

“There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.” This caricature of Nietzsche is how Voldemort introduces himself in the first movie. Born in 1926 from a wizard and a Muggle, Tom Marvolo Riddle shows an early fascination with the Dark Side. In 1943, Riddle both opens the Chamber of Secrets, the hidden house of a giant snake devoted to kill the Muggle-born students of Hogwarts, and murders various members of his paternal family. Although there is no reference to the Second World War, the year 1943 brings it to mind. Indeed, the mature Tom Riddle is played by Ralph Fiennes, an actor who already played a villainous “Nazi” commander in Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List.

Committing various murders as part of magical rites to make himself immortal, Riddle is said to have lost all ability for love and compassion. His followers tend to shut down those parts of themselves as well. Of course, this psychological disposition makes them quite antipathetic, and their communication style only displays disagreeable emotions: disdain, threat, coldness. Together with Tom Riddle-Voldemort, whom they all follow selflessly (an imitation of the Führerprinzip?), they form an order called the Death Eaters. Wearing black uniforms, they make a frightening appearance at the beginning of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by conjuring a great black skull in the sky.

All this seems to be based on the post-War view of the SS: a fanatical, black-garbed occult order of emotionless martinets. The name Death Eaters may refer to José Millán-Astray y Terreros’ Falangist motto “viva la muerte.” Their use of the skull recalls the SS Totenkopf. As Voldemort’s order expands and gains new ground, the movies’ aesthetic become darker and the contrasts starker.

Because of his use of the Dark Arts, Voldemort turns from a handsome young man to an ugly creature without a nose. In the same vein, many of his followers appear unpleasant or odd, including Lucius Malfoy, a blond and quite beautiful old man who also displays coldness and some repellent sadism. Is Voldemort’s condition a reverse of the prominent Jewish nose? Anyway, here the caricature departs from reality, as the National Socialists prized physical beauty. Revered by his followers, Voldemort shows no positive feeling to them. Instead, he actually kills one out of sheer nervousness (Deathly Hallows 2). Voldemort wants absolute power over the wizard world, perhaps over the Muggle world too.

In The Order of Phoenix, as the signs of the Dark Lord’s comeback are becoming increasingly obvious, the Minister of Magic refuses to believe it. To us, he looks like a post-war liberal who believes that ignoring or concealing non-white pathologies will help us “integrate” them, but for J. K. Rowling or her screenwriters, the Minister’s behavior is likely analogous to Neville Chamberlain wanting peace in Europe – according to the official version of history – and believing it to be possible with the “warmongering” National Socialists.

Besides this villainous will to power, the Dark Lord is also a firm proponent of blood purity. Some wizards hail from ancient families, with a pure wizard ancestry, while others have Muggle ancestors, and even in some cases only Muggle parents. Though he is only a half-blood, Voldemort wants to “purify” the wizard world by restoring the power of pure-blood families and cleansing Hogwarts of students “unworthy” to study magic.

This latter aspect of Voldemort’s personality is crucially important to the whole plot. When Hogwarts was founded in the tenth century, one of the founders, Salazar Slytherin (here again, a likely reference to the twentieth century, Slytherin sharing a part of his name with the Portuguese statesman António de Oliveira Salazar) wanted to restrict the teaching to students of sufficiently pure blood. This desire is treated as completely arbitrary, as if Slytherin were simply a monstrous or defective individual. Rejected by the other founders, the “good” ones, Slytherin created the Chamber of Secrets and a monster able to kill unworthy students. This monster is the giant snake Harry defeats in the second movie. Given its allegiance, it is a clear reminiscence of Bertolt Brecht’s “foul beast” or “vile beast,” an expression meant to epitomize the “far Right.”

By 1900, all the “pure” families are mixed, although some claim to be pure, or at least want to retain whatever purity they have. But in the Harry Potter world, such families are villains and snobs. The wealthiest pure blood families, such as the Blacks, Lestranges, and Malfoys, are contemptuous of others and associate with Voldemort. They seem to be a mix of ancient nobility, the traditional bourgeoisie displaced by twentieth-century managerial elites, and of course National Socialists. Needless to say, they are presented in an unflattering light as remnants of an outdated past one ought to sweep out.

“Hereditarianism” is a recurring theme in the Harry Potter movies, and is constantly associated with negative emotions or characters. Malfoy is the prototypical arrogant young man who shows open contempt for most other wizards because of his pure origins. In the Chamber of Secrets movie, he calls Hermione a “mudblood,” referring to the fact that her parents are both Muggle. As the good guys discuss the event, Ron Weasley pukes while complaining how “disgusting” Malfoy’s remark is (a symbol so void of subtlety it should rather be considered basic psychological conditioning).

In the beginning of The Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry’s adoptive family meets a puffy Englishwoman who happens to be a dog-breeder. Defending a caricature of a hereditarian view of human nature, she carelessly insults Harry’s parents with such a repugnant demeanor that one is glad to see her thrown out of the house by the hero’s magical wrath.

Pure-bloods have to betray their families in order to join the good side. Sirius Black rebels against the family rule by displaying motorcycles and other Muggle stuff on the walls of his room, then expands it by railing publicly against his cousins who care about family integrity. Draco Malfoy, the infamous blond-haired rival to Harry Potter, defects from the Death Eaters at the last moment – which means betraying his own parents as well – and becomes a distant friend to the “Chosen One.” Only by casting aside his family or inheritance can Malfoy join the fold of “normal people,” those who can live in a world where Voldemort is dead. As the wizards’ origins are purportedly diluted, even among the most ancient families, and as the pure-blooded tend to associate with the Dark Side, what remains of ancient blood must be squandered so that “progress” can happen.

The Good Guys

As the bad guys are strongly linked with dark emotions, genealogical integrity, and an undeserved sense of superiority, the good guys tend to struggle for “equality” in diverse forms, prominent examples being the SJW-like Hermione and the headmaster Dumbledore, who displays a lukewarm anti-essentialism.

The dark wizards tend to entertain an anti-Muggle attitude. Dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald wants to “enslave” Muggles. In the Goblet of Fire movie, Death Eaters kill Muggles for fun. Those in favor of pure-blood power equate a Muggle origin with a muddy one. On the opposite side, the good guys also do not belong to the Muggle world – many of them show a poor understanding of modern technology – but do not bully or attack them either. They accept Muggle origin as any other and let some Muggles, usually the parents or relatives of wizards, enter parts of the wizard world as well.

A subplot is introduced in the second movie. When the house elf Dobby inadvertently shows up in Harry’s room, we discover the existence of his kin. A type of magical creatures, house elves are small humanoid servants. Attached to a particular house, they are loyal to its owners (an individual or a family) and serve it. House elves usually feel the loyalty they ought to show and even take pride in not being seen while performing flawless work. As the story unfolds, we see how much house elves live like slaves. Dobby, belonging to the Malfoys, gets so mistreated that he seeks Harry Potter’s help, while Kreacher, another house elf, is said to be accustomed to “bad, even brutal treatment.” Lucius Malfoy hits Dobby with his cane even in front of strangers.

When Harry and his friends become aware of the existence of house elves in Hogwarts, Hermione creates the “Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare” and tries to free them. Although the elves reject Hermione’s paternalism, considering it as an insult, the girl will be rewarded for her activism by a job at the Ministry of Magic, which allows her to intervene in the families’ life as an enforcer of “Guidelines on house elf welfare.” This subplot shows Hermione as a SJW: a girl or a member of a “minority” perceiving an “inequality” to correct, performing activism for “change,” and getting rewarded by the system. Isn’t that an all-too-familiar pattern? Tangentially, one can also see here the triumph of the managerial state over traditional institutions, including property and the family.

Hogwarts, the academy for wizards, unequivocally stands on the good side. It outvoted the dark wizard Slytherin when it was created. Later, it turns into a fortress that Voldemort cannot conquer. As we said earlier, an important aspect of Hogwarts lies in its living culture. The school is not multicultural. It lives according to one culture, compounded of magic and northern Europeanism, ranging from school uniforms to the architecture of the whole place.

However, though a large majority of Hogwarts students are White, there are some Blacks and Indians here and there. Yet this sort of tokenism the is weakest form of political correctness in the books and films. Non-whites are assimilated. They exist as individuals, not as groups, and live by the rules of Hogwarts, rather than try to change it to suit them. Thus Harry Potter subscribes to a now outdated form of political correctness: it turns a blind eye on racial differences, hoping to dissolve them into the unifying effect of a shared culture. In contrast with the real world, assimilationism actually works at Hogwarts.

Beyond this tepid political correctness, Harry Potter is hugely satisfying on the plane of implicit whiteness. It shows a rich diversity among White students, be it the red-haired Weasleys, the blond Malfoys, and many others. Besides, the shared culture of Hogwarts has its roots both in the stunning architecture of the middle Ages and in the pagan Northern Europe. The ball of the Goblet of Fire is called “the Yule Ball,” which refers to the pre-Christian feast later transformed into Christmas.

It must also be said that Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts, is something of a PC icon. “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities,” he says in Chamber of Secrets. And later: “It matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be” (Goblet of Fire). Heredity, and even excellence, are brushed off as unimportant. Innate abilities are rejected for an emphasis on nuture an education. Instead, Dumbledore promotes an existentialist or nominalist position, with an emphasis on “choice” and of course on joining the good side. Existentialism goes hand and hand with a political Manicheism. Innate abilities are rejected for an emphasis on choice, nuture, and education.

Dumbledore’s philosophy is actually at odds with Harry Potter’s universe. The wizard world is, by definition, restricted to wizards and a very few Muggle relatives. Hogwarts only accepts children able to perform magic and strives to turn them into accomplished wizards. When a new student enters the school, a magical device – the Sorting Hat – finds his inner vocation and sorts him into the right house. How is all this consistent with existentialism and denying the importance of innate ability? The “wise old” character hides contradictions under his grey beard. These contradictions line up with the opposition between traditionalism and political correctness that runs thorough the entire series.


Most Whites suffer from what Greg Johnson called homesickness. Feeling no longer at home in our native countries, we retreat into the individual realm or stick with poisoned entertainment. We watch Harry Potter, but Harry himself has no need to watch movies when he is at Hogwarts. Nor does any other wizard. As Harry says, “Hogwarts is my home” (Chamber of Secrets). He has no need for a surrogate home.
The type of political correctness seen in Harry Potter is colorblind. As such, only four years after the last movie came out, this aspect already feels outdated. Postmodernists constantly chatter about race and identity – two themes that Harry Potter writers have carefully avoided. Ironically, colorblind political correctness seems now more outdated than the magnificent medieval architecture of Hogwarts or Harry’s chivalrous virtues.

Harry Potter should not be approached uncritically. One should be wary of its politically correct content, especially in the character of the villains. But Harry Potter has many genuine virtues. Aesthetically beautiful, it gives an idea of what living in a real identitarian culture is like. Like the movies, the fan gatherings display a great deal of implicit whiteness. Also, like Lord of the Rings and perhaps even more so, Harry Potter is one of the few contemporary sagas we have. Harry’s universe feeds the need for genuine white identities. Perhaps many of those who follow the adventures of this young sorcerer are traditionalists in the making.


via Audacious Epigone

If this doesn't inspire a desire for perpetually expanding suffrage to everyone and everything, nothing will:

One Group of Black Friends in New Orleans Produced Multiple Mass Shooters

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Suspect in Bunny Friend Massacre...
17 charges of attempted murder
Did you ever wonder what the European/Australian tourists and white Americans encountered when they sought refuge in the Superdome during and after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? 

The grim reality of the black underclass (byproducts of a scientific experiment - conjured up by egalitarians dedicated to overthrowing civilization just to prove race doesn't exist - gone horribly wrong), subsisting merely on redistributed white tax dollars.

A scientific experiment is the wrong term... it's a holy quest for egalitarians, who have put their faith in a belief nature can be nurtured, damn the economic and moral consequences. 

But this story, out of the Upper  9th Ward in New Orleans, is the reality of what redistributed white tax dollars have gone to nurture, as the true nature of Africans in America always shines brightest when no one dares look. 

Black people opened fire on other black people in Bunny Friend Park, resulting in 17 people shot (up to 70 bullet casings were found, meaning a respectable 24 percent hit ratio was compiled) and yet because of the blacks steadfast 'no snitching' policy, only one lone suspect has been caught: a habitual black criminal continually given light-sentences by judges seemingly dedicated to the egalitarian mythos undermining whatever is left of white civilization on this continent. [Bunny Friend Park shooting suspect arrested on word of single witness, documents show,, 11-3-15]:

Joseph "Moe" Allen, the first suspect named in connection with the mass shooting that wounded 17 people at Bunny Friend Park, was arrested on the word of a single eyewitness, according to court documents obtained Monday (Nov. 30). 
Not making this up... his younger brothers, who have both plead guilty for their role in 2013 mass shooting during a Mother's Day Parade
Allen, 32, was arrested Saturday and booked with 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder. New Orleans police said Allen was the first of several suspected gunmen identified from two rival gangs who opened fire on each other despite hundreds of people gathered in the park around 6:15 p.m. on Nov. 22. 
Authorities said the large crowd had gathered for an unauthorized music video shoot in the park in the 1900 block of Gallier Street. 
An arrest warrant affidavit sworn by NOPD Detective Chad Cockerham offered few new details about New Orleans' biggest mass shooting since the Mother's Day parade attack in 2013. But it illustrates the slim level of cooperation police investigators initially were receiving from eyewitnesses in the Upper 9th Ward park. Though a crowd of at least 300 people was believed to be present, Allen's arrest was pinned in the documents to a lone witness who came forward. 
Allen had no bond set for a fugitive warrant out of Texas on an unrelated matter. The documents show that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice issued a fugitive attachment for Allen on Nov. 25 for an unspecified parole violation, and that Texas would seek to extradite Allen. 
The suspect's mother Deborah Allen told | The Times-Picayune on Sunday night that NOPD investigators had the wrong man. Her son, she insisted, was not in Louisiana at the time of the park shooting. 
"My son was in Texas, not New Orleans," she said. "You can't be in two places at the same time." 
Allen's arrest documents list two home addresses, one in the 5800 block of Tullis Drive in Algiers, the other in Houston. 
NOPD Superintendent Michael Harrison initially said the shootings appeared to be gang-related and involved two groups of people firing on each other. The court documents describe NOPD officers arriving to the park "met with chaos and panic of citizens running in numerous directions across the park as well (as) throughout the surrounding streets. 
"Detective Cockerham observed citizens jumping into vehicles and accelerating their vehicles to the point where the tires of the vehicles were spinning and screeching as the vehicles left the area. ... (Cockerham) observed victims scattered across the north side of the park, lying on the ground suffering from gunshot wounds." 
Court records show that in 2002, Allen was a co-defendant in a heroin and cocaine possession case with Travis Scott, the purported leader of the Frenchmen and Derbigny gang known as FnD. 
Scott pleaded guilty last month to federal racketeering and narcotics charges. 
His brothers, Akein "Keemy" Scott and Shawn "Shizzle" Scott, entered their own guilty pleas as the gunmen in another of the city's bloodiest mass shootings: the 2013 Mother's Day parade shooting in the 7th Ward. 
Allen's criminal record stretches back more than a decade. He twice was booked with murder, in 2002 and in 2008. In both cases, prosecutors refused the charges, court records show. In early 2003, Allen was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to possessing heroin and cocaine, as well as illegally carrying a weapon. 
Seven years later, Allen was again arrested on heroin and cocaine possession charges. He pleaded guilty to the heroin charge, records show, and was sentenced in early 2012 to eight years in prison. The following year, a judge amended his sentence to recommend that he be eligible "for any and all rehabilitation, educational, and or work release programs."
So two, close-knit families of black people are responsible for two separate mass shootings in New Orleans (Joseph Allen's brothers shot 20 people in the 2013 mass shooting)? 

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. 

And it happened in Bunny Friend Park? 

For those still unconvinced of what life was like for the few white people in the Heart of Darkness Superdome setting in late August/early September 2005, just remember the quality of life black people created in Bunny Friend Park in late November 2015. [New Orleans playground shooting: bloody hats, broken glasses, up to 70 bullet casings left behind,, 11-23-15]:

Standing along the chain-link fence that surrounds Bunny Friend Park, Ryndreaka Gooseberry's eyes scanned over the remnants of last night's carnage: a blood-stained hat; sunglasses with a lens popped out, lip gloss and daiquiri cups. 
"Did you find a purse?" she asked the New Orleans police sergeant pacing back and forth by the park's baseball field Monday morning (Nov. 23). "I had it with me last night." 
Gooseberry, 29, was among hundreds of people who packed the Upper 9th Ward neighborhood park Sunday night for an after-party after the end of the Nine Times Social Aide & Pleasure Club's annual second line. 
Suddenly, she recalled, people scattered and gunfire – too much for her to count – rang out. She fell over someone in her attempt to escape, then sprang to her feet to avoid being trampled in the panic that followed. 
When the shots finally stopped, 17 people were wounded in New Orleans bloodiest mass shooting since gunfire at the 2013 Mother's Day parade left 20 injured. 
"It was just chaos," said Jessica Chisolm, 33, who heard the gunshots and stepped outside from her home next to the park to witness the aftermath. "You couldn't tell who was hurt or who wasn't." 
Literally every egalitarian myth on race was washed away by the waters of Hurricane Katrina, and yet ten years later we see the Frankenstein monster's these white enablers have allowed to proliferate, with one black family responsible for spawning the participants in two mass shootings in New Orleans leaving 37 people wounded.

Worse, in the Bunny Friend Park mass shooting, the black community is hard at work to protect the identities of the other black participants in this mass shooting.

 Now do you get why white people in the Superdome decided to band together? They had to live out the nightmare of the collapse of the egalitarian experiment in real time...

The Marxist Subversion of Free Software

via TradYouth

From the very beginning, computer programmers have been sharing code with one another without profit motive. Ada Lovelace herself, popularly considered the first programmer, was also the first “open source” programmer, publicly sharing her notes without licensing restrictions or profit models. Historically speaking, open source software is the rule and proprietary software is the exception, with the earliest mainframes including the freely hackable source code.

Licensed software as a product for sale didn’t meaningfully emerge until the mid-seventies, co-existing alongside the thriving ecosystem of open source software, freeware, and shareware. Some software was truly “open,” meaning that other programmers were free to modify or copy parts of the code at their leisure. “Freeware” is software which is free, but “closed” so that programmers can’t read or edit the code. Finally, “shareware” is free software which is both “closed” and limited in some way that encourages users to purchase a license for a more powerful version.

The terminology gets confusing, but things are more simple now than they used to be. Freeware and shareware are pretty much dead, and the vast majority of software floating around today is either completely open source or completely closed source. Within the open source community, they take pains to clarify that open source software is free as in “freedom,” not merely free as in “free beer.” It’s not only free of charge, but you’re free to do (almost) anything you want with it.

In the beginning, there was nothing political about open source software. There’s nothing political, radical, or subversive about little old ladies sharing baking recipes, after all. The hobbyists and tinkerers were going to continue tinkering away, and dodging licensing fees when they thought they could get away with it, because they wanted to create things, to do things, and to keep up with the nifty projects their friends were doing.

Richard Stallman changed all that back in the mid-eighties, re-envisioning the sharing of source code as some sort of organic expression of radical Marxist ideology. It was his vision and lobbying which transformed the open source community into a leftist Jewish political campaign.

Over his lifetime, Stallman’s been responsible for three major things; one good, one arguable, and one bad. His work developing the GCC compiler can’t really be impugned. Before he came along, a critical component of the total open source operating system stack was missing, and he played a pivotal role in solving that problem. I think Emacs is crap, but I’ll respectfully concede that issue to the three elderly men with Carpal-Tunnel Syndrome who have yet to upgrade to Vim.

The contribution he’s most famous for, and which has become his life’s passion since concocting it, is the GNU Public License, or GPL. This is a legal document he designed with the express purpose of politicizing open source software and antagonizing software corporations. The idea behind the GPL was to transform the non-capitalist open source community into an anti-capitalist political movement.

He’s had more success than failure with this strategy, convincing the community to polarize and politicize hobby coding so that corporations can’t readily integrate GPL’d code into their proprietary products. You’re either with us or against us. Of course, the actual impact of this is that hobby coders had obstacles placed in the way of profiting from their own work while corporations retained the resources and means to refactor and compile the open source code.

The GPL is a minor speed bump for the corporations it was designed to antagonize and a major impediment to coders who want to make the world a slightly better place by solving some problems in it.

Stallman’s megalomaniacal ambition is to personally take credit for the entirety of the open source community’s work. To quote one of his heroes, “You didn’t build that.” Despite the fact that most of the open source core utilities in his GNU stack were developed well before he even dreamed up his legal shenanigans, he insists that the entire open source stack be called “GNU.” Much to his chagrin, the name “Linux” has taken hold, despite the fact that the popular open source kernel is itself only one aspect of the total open source operating system experience.

Technically, calling it either “Linux,” “GNU,” or Stallman’s attempt at a compromise, “GNU/Linux” all miss the point. What people want is open source that they can adapt and review for free. Most users don’t care, many don’t even know, and many can’t even tell which low-level kernel their open source operating systems rely on. I’ve personally encountered multiple people who’ve bragged that MacOS is built atop Linux.

I didn’t correct them (it’s the Darwin variant of the open source BSD kernel). They were technically incorrect but what they meant was that it’s built on an open source POSIX-compliant variant of Unix. Apple went with BSD because, unlike Linux, BSD’s license is devoid of anti-corporate copyright trolling. Linux is great, and I still fondly remember installing Slackware on my 486 back in the day, but Linus’s fateful decision to go with the flow and license it with the GPL has sharply impeded its mainstream adoption.

Google decided to go with the Linux kernel on its Android platform. As such, they have had to deal with and will continue to have to deal with politicized legal hassles from Stallman’s Marxist copyright trolls for having made that mistake. True to his tribe’s modus operandi, Stallman has promised a Utopian vision of fairness and equality while delivering a smorgasbord for attorneys and others who live off of talmudic hair-splitting.

To his credit, Linus has brushed off concerns that Google’s usage of Linux might not be in compliance with the GPL
“If it’s some desperate cry for attention by somebody, I just wish those people would release their own sex tapes or something, rather than drag the Linux kernel into their sordid world.”
In some ways, Stallman, like Bernie Sanders, belongs to a dying breed of Jewish leftists who are being swept aside by a new breed of “Social Justice Warriors” who’ve moved on from Marxist class-warfare and anti-capitalist attempts to subvert their host culture to more identity-oriented attacks specifically directed at straight White males. The rabid fixation on attacking the host culture remains unchanged, but the means to that end vary from generation to generation.

While Stallman and Bernie (and Stallman’s Feelin’ the Bern, of course!) generally perceive corporations and government institutions as threats to attack from the outside, the next generation attacks the host culture from within the corporations. Stallman’s life’s work is to defeat Microsoft (an aim I share with him!), while the SJW crowd has blackmailed and cajoled Microsoft and pals into partnering with their anti-white, anti-male, anti-traditional agenda.

Things have pretty much flipped since the eighties and nineties. The open source community has become a refuge for conservative and libertarian White males from all of the diversity static, feminism, and Leftism of the corporate software development world. Stallman’s revolution crested years ago, precisely because Jewish money can’t easily subvert a community which works for free and mostly hides behind gender-neutral and race-neutral pseudonyms.

Stallman’s own Jewish Dream of sticking it to the (white) man is in shambles, but the dream lives on in a new generation of reformed radicals who are achieving his prerogatives from within the system.

The GPL is losing ground to an array of alternative licensing schemes while a growing body of established case law has castrated much of the copyright trolling intention of the GPL license. As a coder, Stallman deserves credit where it’s due in his contributions to the coding community. As an ideologue, his legacy is one of distracting and detracting from the whole purpose of a community which existed well before he came along and will live on long after he’s dead.

And when he’s dead, I’ll be both glad he’s dead and glad he’s gone.

The Shadows in the Cave

via The Archdruid Report

I had intended this week’s post to be the next episode in the Retrotopia narrative, chronicling Peter Carr’s meeting with the irrepressible Col. Tom Pappas of the Lakeland Republic Army, and the trip out to Defiance County for the annual drone shoot, but that will have to wait another week. No, I haven’t decided to comment instead on the recent spate of terror attacks in France.  As people in a variety of other corners of the world have pointed out, identical outrages happen all over the Third World every few days.  The only reason this latest horror has gotten so much air time is that it affected people in one of the world’s privileged countries instead.
Nor am I going to be devoting this week’s post to the latest, extremely troubling round of news from the climate change front—though that’s going to get a post to itself down the road a bit, when I’ve had time to do a little more research. That’s a far bigger story than the terror attacks in Paris, though of course it’s not getting anything like as much attention in the media.  From the beginning of serious salt water infiltration into South Florida’s aquifers, through ominously bulging sediments in Arctic Ocean shallows, to an assortment of truly frightening data points from Greenland, it’s clear that we’ve passed the threshold from “something may happen someday” to “something is happening now”—a transition that probably has quite a bit to do with the increasingly shrill tone of climate-change denialist rhetoric just now, and even more to do with the increasingly plaintive tone of those activists who still insist that everything can be fixed if we all just join hands and sing “Kum ba ya” one more time.
No, this week’s post is going to explore a topic that’s far less important in the overall scheme of things, though it’s not without its relevance to the crisis of our age. I want to talk about the reaction I fielded in response to last week’s post here on The Archdruid Report, which was an exploration of our culture’s taboo against choosing not to use the latest technologies.
I expected that post to field its share of outraged denunciations, and it certainly did. What I didn’t expect was that it would receive more comments than any other post in the history of The Archdruid Report, and the vast majority of those comments would agree heartily with the two points of that post. The first of these points is that there’s a significant number of Americans out there who, for one good reason or another, choose not to use cell phones, televisions, automobiles, microwave ovens, and an assortment of other currently fashionable technologies. The second is that there’s an even larger number of Americans out there who get really, really freaky about people who make such choices.
Some of the stories I heard from readers of my blog were absolute classics of the type. There was the couple who don’t enjoy television and so don’t own one, and had a relative ask them every single year, over and over again, if she could buy them a television for Christmas.  They said no thank you every single year, and finally she went out and bought them a television anyway because she just couldn’t stand the thought that they weren’t watching one. There was the coworker who plopped a laptop playing some sitcom or other right down on the lap of one of my readers and demanded that the reader watch it, right then and there, so that they would have something to talk about. There was the person who, offended by another reader’s lack of interest in television, finally shouted, “You must be living in a dream world!” Er, which of these people was spending four to six hours a day watching paid actors playing imaginary characters act out fictional events in contrived settings?
Televisions were far from the only focus of this sort of technobullying. Other readers reported getting similar reactions from other people because they didn’t happen to have, and weren’t interested in having, microwave ovens, smartphones, and so on down the list of currently fashionable trinkets. The stories are really quite eye-opening, and not in a good way. Forget about all the popular cant that insists that you’re free in the USA to make your own choices and have whatever lifestyle you want.  According to a significant fraction of Americans—and to judge from what my readers reported, that fraction isn’t limited to any one class, income level, or region of the country—the only freedom you’re supposed to exercise, when it comes to technology, is that of choosing which brand label will be slapped on each item in the officially approved list of devices you’re expected to own.
The prevalence of technobullying and technoshaming in today’s America is a fascinating point, and one we’ll explore in a few moments, with the able assistance of the denunciations flung at last week’s post by the minority of readers who reacted that way. What I want to consider first is the fact that so many people responded to last week’s post so positively. One blog in an uncrowded corner of the internet, written by an author whose day job as an archdruid locates him squarely on the outer fringes of contemporary American life, is very nearly the opposite of a statistically valid poll. Still, the sheer volume of the response makes me suspect that something significant is going on here.
By that I don’t mean that there’s some sort of groundswell of renunciation, leading people to walk away from technologies in the same spirit that led medieval ascetics to don hair shirts and flog themselves for the good of their souls. That’s one of the common stereotypes directed at those of us who aren’t interested in the latest technotrash, and it completely misses what’s actually going on. I’ll use myself as an example here. I don’t own a television—I haven’t owned one in my adult life—and it’s not because I have some moral or political objection to televisions, or because I’m into self-denial, or what have you. I don’t own a television because I find watching television about as enticing as eating a bowl of warm snot.
It’s not the programming, either—that’s another of the standard stereotypes, that the only thing one can find objectionable about television is the programming, and it’s as inaccurate as the rest.  To me, quite simply, the activity of watching little colored shapes jerk around on a screen is boring and irritating, not relaxing and enjoyable, no matter what the little colored shapes are supposed to be doing. Yes, I grew up with a television in the house.  I experienced plenty of it back in the day, and I have zero interest in experiencing any more, because I don’t like it. It really is that simple. It’s that simple for others as well: they don’t find this or that technology enjoyable, useful, or relevant to their lifestyles, and so they’ve chosen to do something else with their money and time. Shouldn’t so simple and personal a choice be their own business, and nobody else’s?
To judge by the reactions that those who make such choices routinely field, apparently not. The pushbacks discussed in the comments page last week range from the sort of in-your-face confrontations discussed above to a much-forwarded article in I forget which online rag, where somebody was airily announcing that he wasn’t interested in being friends with somebody unless he could text some vacuous comment about lunch to the other person at 2:15 and get a response by 2:30. (My readers and I are good with that—somebody who insists on getting immediate feedback for their random outbursts of mental flatulence isn’t somebody we want as a friend, either.) Then there were the indignant responses to last week’s post, which belong in a category by themselves.
I’m sorry to say that my favorite diatribe didn’t show up in the comment queue for The Archdruid Report. It appeared instead on one of the many other websites that carry my weekly posts, and it insisted, among several other less juicy bits, that my lack of enthusiasm for television obviously meant that I was conspiring to deprive everyone else of their teevees. You’ve got to admit that for sheer giddy delirium, that one’s hard to beat. By the same logic, if I dislike peanuts—as in fact I do—I must be committed to some kind of anti-peanut crusade devoted to eradicating the entire species. Not so;  Arachis hypogaea is welcome to live and thrive, for all I care, and my fellow hominids are equally welcome to eat as much of its produce as they happen to desire.  In fact, they can divide my share among them. The only thing I ask in return is that nobody expect me to eat the things myself.
The same rule applies equally to television, as it does to a great many other things. Like most human beings, I enjoy some things and don’t enjoy others, and in the vast majority of these cases, nobody feels particularly threatened by the fact that I don’t like something they do, and avoid it for that sensible reason. For this one commenter, at least, that obviously wasn’t the case, and it’s worth reflecting on the vast personal insecurities that must have driven such a bizarre reaction. Still, that was one of a kind, so we’ll pass on to the others.
A theme that showed up rather more often in the hate mail responding to last week’s post was the insistence that if I don’t have a television, a microwave, or a cell phone, I’m a hypocrite if I have an internet connection. I encourage my readers to think about that claim for a moment. I suppose a case could be made that if my lack of interest in having a television, a microwave, or a cell phone was motivated by the kind of passion for hair-shirt asceticism mentioned above, and I had an internet connection, I could be accused of the kind of slacking that used to get you thrown out of the really top-notch hermitages. From any other perspective, it’s a triumph of absurdity. If people are in fact allowed to choose, from among the currently available technologies, those that make them happiest—as the cheerleaders of the consumer economy delight to insist—what could possibly be wrong with choosing some old technologies and some newer ones, if that’s the mix you prefer?
Then there are the people whose response to the technology of an older time is to yammer endlessly about whatever bad things happened in those days, even when the bad things in question had nothing to do with the technology and vice versa. People like the couple I discussed in last week’s post, who prefer Victorian furnishings and clothing to their modern equivalents, get this sort of bizarre non sequitur all the time, but variants of it turned up in my inbox last week as well. Here again, there’s some heavy-duty illogic involved. If a technology that was invented and used in the 1850s, say, is permanently tarred with the various social evils of that era, and ought to be rejected because those evils happened, wouldn’t that also mean that the internet is just as indelibly tarred with the social evils of the modern era, and ought to be discarded because bad things are happening in the world today? What’s sauce for the goose, after all, is sauce for the gander...
Finally, there’s the capstone of the whole edifice of unreason, the insistence that anybody who doesn’t use the latest, hottest technotrash wants to go “back to the caves,” or to even take all of humanity to that much-denounced destination. “The caves” have a bizarre gravitational effect on the imagination of a certain class of modern thinkers.  Everything that’s not part of the latest assortment of glitzy technogimmicks, in their minds, somehow morphs into the bearskin kilts and wooden clubs that so many of us still, despite well over a century of detailed archeological evidence, insist on pushing onto our prehistoric ancestors.
When people of this kind archly dismiss people like the Chrismans, the neo-Victorian couple just mentioned, as going “back to the caves,” they’re engaged in a very interesting kind of absurdity. Do cavemen and Victorians belong on the same level? Sure, cavemen had flush toilets and central heating, daily newspapers and public libraries, not to mention factories, railways, global maritime trade, a telegraph network covering much of the planet’s land surface, and a great deal more of the same kind! That’s absurd, of course. It’s even more absurd to insist that people who simply don’t enjoy using this or that technology, and so don’t use it, are going back to “the caves”—but I can promise you, dear reader, from my own personal experience, that if you show a lack of interest in any piece of fashionable technology, you’ll have this phrase thrown at you.
That happens because “the caves” aren’t real. They aren’t, for example, the actual cave-shrines of the Magdalenian people who lived fifteen thousand years ago, whose lifestyles were quite similar to those of Native Americans before Columbus, and who used to go deep into the caves of Europe to paint sacred images that still stun the viewer today by their beauty and artistry. “The caves” of contemporary rhetoric, rather, are thoughtstopping abstractions, bits of verbal noise that people have been taught to use so they don’t ask inconvenient questions about where this thing called “progress” is taking us and whether any sane person would actually want to go there. Flattening out the entire complex richness of the human past into a single cardboard bogeyman labeled “the caves” is one way to do that.  So is papering over the distinctly ugly future we’re making for ourselves with a screen shot or two from a Jetsons cartoon and a gaudy banner saying “We’re headed for the stars!”
It’s really rather fascinating, all things considered, that the image of the cave should have been picked up for that dubious purpose. Not that long ago, most literate people in the Western world tended to have a very different image come to mind when someone mentioned caves. That was courtesy of a man named Aristocles of Athens, who lived a little more than 2300 years ago and whose very broad shoulders got him the nickname Plato. In the longest, most influential, and most problematic of his works, usually called The Republic—a bad choice, as this word nowadays has connotations of rights under law that the Greek title Politeia lacks—he framed his discussion of the gap between perception and reality with an arresting image.
Imagine, Plato says, that we are all shackled in a cave, unable to turn our heads to either side. All we can see are dark shapes that move this way and that on the flat wall of the cave in front of us. Those dark shapes are all we know.  They are our reality.
Now imagine that one of these prisoners manages to get loose from his shackles, and turns away from the cave wall and the dark shapes on it. He’s in for a shock, because what he sees when he turns around is a bonfire, and people moving objects in front of the flames so that the objects cast shadows on the cave wall. Everything he thought was reality is simply a shadow cast by these moving objects.
If the prisoner who’s gotten loose pays attention, furthermore, he might just notice that the cave isn’t limited to the bonfire, the prisoners, the objects casting the shadows and the people who manipulate those objects. Off past the bonfire, on one side of the cave, the floor slopes upwards, and in the distance is a faint light that doesn’t seem to come from the fire at all. If our escaped prisoner is brave enough, he might decide to go investigate that light. As he does so, the bonfire and the shadows slip into the darkness behind him, and the light ahead grows brighter and clearer.
Then, if he’s brave enough and keeps going, he steps out of the cave and into the sunlight. That’s not an easy thing, either, because the light is so much more intense than the dim red glow in the cave that for a while, he can’t see a thing. He stumbles, rubs his eyes, tries to find his bearings, and discovers that the detailed knowledge he had of the way shadows moved on the cave wall won’t help him at all in this new, blazingly bright realm. He has to discard everything he thinks he knows, and learn the rules of an unfamiliar world.
Bit by bit, though, he accomplishes this. His eyes adapt to the sunlight, he learns to recognize objects and to sense things—color, for example, and depth—which didn’t exist in the shadow-world he thought he inhabited when he was still a prisoner in the cave. Eventually he can even see the sun, and know where the light that illumines the real world actually comes from.
Now, Plato says, imagine that he decides to go back into the cave to tell the remaining prisoners what he’s seen. To begin with, it’s going to be rough going, because his eyes have adapted to the brilliant daylight and so he’s going to trip and stumble on the way down. Once he gets there, anything he says to the prisoners is going to be dismissed as the most consummate rubbish:  what is this nonsense about color and depth, and a big bright glowing thing that crosses something called the sky? What’s more, the people to whom he’s addressing his words are going to misunderstand them, thinking that they’re about the shadow-world in front of their eyes—after all, that’s the only reality they know—and they’re going to decide that he must be an idiot because nothing he says has anything to do with the shadow-world.
Plato didn’t mention that the prisoners might respond by trying to drag the escapee back into line with them and bully him into putting his shackles back on, though that’s generally the way such things work out in practice. Plato also never saw a television, which is unfortunate in a way—if he had, he could have skipped the complicated setup with the bonfire and the people waving around objects that cast shadows, and simply said, “Imagine that we’re all watching television in a dark room.”
Now of course Plato had his own reasons for using the cave metaphor, and developed it in directions that aren’t relevant to this week’s post. The point I want to make here is that every technology is a filter that shapes the way we experience and interact with the world. In some cases, such as television, the filtering effect is so drastic it’s hard not to see—unless, that is, you don’t want to see it.  In other cases, it’s subtle. There are valid reasons people might want to use one filter rather than another, or to set aside an assortment of filters in order to get a clearer view of some part of the world or their lives.
There are also, as already noted, matters of personal choice. Some of us prefer sun and wind and depth and color to the play of shadows on the walls of the cave. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to drag those who don’t share that preference out into the blinding light, or that we’re going to turn ourselves into the Throg the Cave Man shadow that’s being waved around so enthusiastically on one corner of the cave wall. It does mean—or so the response to last week’s post suggests—that a significant number of people are losing interest in the shadow-play and clambering up the awkward but rewarding journey into the sunlight and the clean cool air, and it may just mean as well that those who try to bully them into staying put and staring at shadows may have less success than they expect.

Accelerated Consciousness

via Radix

By now, you’ve probably heard of the dozens of "White Student Unions" cropping up across Facebook. They’ve been garnering (mostly negative) attention throughout the media both in campus newspapers and elsewhere. Berkeley’s Daily Californian ran an article where the President of the UC Students’ association referred to such groups as a "slap in the face."

Why is that? According to the UC Berkeley White Student Union statement of purpose, the group only wants to create "safe spaces" for those of European descent. It also affirms a commitment to "diversity," saying such things as "we like all people, we just also like being white." The website Medium ran an article referring to these groups as ‘trolls’ and nothing more than racist propaganda.

This begs the question, do we as Europeans have a right to assemble for our own interests? The media/academic complex seems to answer with a resounding "no." Trolls or not, these groups serve an important purpose and that is to deconstruct the language of "diversity" and "tolerance" and reveal the inherent will to power behind them, and expose the decades long use of such language in the dispossession of our people from our historical institutions.

In a way, what we are seeing is a form of identitarian situationism, which uses such acts to deconstruct and accelerate the consciousness of our people. Like the neverending "meme wars" on twitter and throughout the Internet, such acts raise the contradictions inherent in our opponent’s discourse and serve to consolidate our own identities against those of our political opponents.

Even such mundane acts as reporting FBI crime statistics have become revolutionary acts, as Donald Trump is learning. The more we push back and use the reigning liberal hegemony’s grammar against it, the more it’s foundational myths are undermined; in today’s world of rapid information sharing, such acts can awaken more of our people than ever before.

However, these are only first steps to realizing who we are as a people. By defining what we are not and pushing back against those who would say we have no identity or right to organize for our own interests, we begin to become who we are and will need to be.

December 2015: Jew Awareness Month

via Koinen's Corner

This December marks the fifth annual 'Jew Awareness Month,' an event started on this blog back in 2011.  Of course, we should all be fully aware of Jewish perfidy every single day throughout the entire year -- for example their warmongering; control of our government and media; financial fraud shenanigans; negrification and other pollution of our White culture; radical feminism used to destroy our families; promotion of deviant behavior by working to normalize and even popularize homosexuality and transgenderism; racial degradation of our education system; ongoing efforts aimed at the genocide of the White race (for example their working toward our dispossession via promotion of non-White immigration, both legal and illegal); and the many other crimes of organized Jewry (the 'complicit and culpable' Jews).

Just about every other group enjoys a special day, week, or month devoted to their 'cause,' so it seems only right to me that we should set aside this one month at the end of each year to focus our attention on the Jewish problem -- the greatest threat to our Western Civilization, and indeed, to our racial survival. This should be a time for renewed and intensified vigilance and dissemination of information to our people.

2015 has been a terrible year for our people both here in America and the world over.  I could point to such things as the Jewish promotion and enabling of Negro civil disobedience and even outright criminality, together with the so-called 'Black Lives Matter' movement and the resultant emasculation and abrogation of law-enforcement efforts on the part of civic authorities (and especially maintenance of order by police departments); in many of our larger, Negro-infested cities.  And the overwhelming, artificially glorified, 'end-game' presence of Negroes and other non-Whites on television shows, in commercials, in motion pictures, and in print advertising. And the Muslim/Negro invasion of Europe by hundreds of thousands of so-called 'refugees' from the Middle East and Africa.

We certainly don't want to lose sight of any of those important problems, but let's focus today on Jewish (Israeli) destabilization of the Middle East.  That, along with our provoking Russia with our Jew-instigated meddling in Ukraine and Crimea, is the issue which has the potential to spark World War III.

Here is an article that provides an abundance of critical information relating to that extremely dangerous and precarious situation:  How Israel and ISIS are joined at the hip by F. William Engdahl.

Tim Tebow: The 28-Year-Old Virgin

via Alternative Right

It's true that celebrity behavior is usually a matter of little or no account; hence the term "celebrity," with its attendant connotation of overweening glitz and general absence of substance. It is also a verity that what gets called gossip is often based on an unfounded rumor and always none of our business; hence the term "gossip," suggestive as it is of snoopily vicarious prurience and unwarranted intrusion.
Still, there is something of value in noting what "ordinary people" are talking about with regard to the rich, beautiful, famous, and powerful, because it tends to reveal the underlying collective psyche of the times. We not only relish the notion that even celebrities have problems; even more, we thrill to the idea that their problems aren't totally unlike our own. And yet, somewhat contradictorily, we find their problems so damned glamorous that we actually wish we had them too. No matter how totally effed up a celebrity may be, his or her total effed-up-ness has an aura that draws us in and makes us perversely envy them all the more. The fact that such a response is silly doesn't make it any the less real. It is simply a part of our programming to be attracted to the trappings of perceived glory and fame.
Former Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow, however, represents a conspicuous exception to this rule, along with many other rules pertaining to celebrities. Tebow is an athlete of surpassing popularity, despite the fact that, by NFL standards, isn't really all that good. Though the ever-scrambling, doggedly-playmaking quarterback excelled at University of Florida, leading his team to a national championship in 2008, his pro career has proven to be spotty and short-lived (though he hasn't yet officially retired from the sport). Still, Tebow's cult of personality endures to this day, buttressed in large part by the fact that his hard-nosed competitiveness on the field is tempered by a very public piety; though his outspoken conservative Christian beliefs are often bitterly assailed by those who despise any public display of devoutness, even aggressively secular, Christophobic liberals have to admit that the guy's got a pretty good record of helping out the poor and needy, so they can't very well call him a "hypocrite" who "talks it" but doesn't "walk it" when it comes to the prerogatives of his faith.
As a tall, handsome, rich, famous, emotionally-grounded, passionate, and principled man, Tebow the pigskin-pitcher would indeed seem to be a great "catch" for the ladies. Yet gossip has it that this 28-year old living legend has recently been dumped by a glamorous girlfriend. Why?
Apparently (so says the rumor), it's because the little tease won't "put out." 
According to the New York Daily News (most assuredly a gossip rag, but not necessarily therefore inaccurate), citing an anonymous "inside source," former Miss USA and current "supermodel" Olivia Culpo has opted to stop going out with Tebow, because after two long months of dating, he still won't have sex with her. 
"She just couldn't handle it," reported the source. "He's pretty adamant about it (saving sex for marriage), I guess." 
The scandal in this case, of course, is the fact that it is a scandal at all, to anyone, anywhere. Chastity, after all, used to be the default position, the gentlemanly route to take, the only decent perspective to assume. Only a cad would court a lady with the intention of plundering her virgin treasure outside the bounds of wedlock. Yet release of this news has been met with predictable jeers from certain quarters, and even allegations that Tebow must be a closeted homosexual. Why else, they figure, could be possibly defiantly declare "No ring, no fling!" to a woman who looks like this?
Two months and NO SEX? What's a girl to do?
It is worth repeating that no one actually knows the full story about why things didn't work out between Mr. Tebow and Miss Culpa (who notably hasn't offered any semblance of a "Mea" for her caddish determination to plunder Tebow's virgin treasure). But regardless of where the truth actually lies with regard to this admittedly salacious and ultimately trivial matter (which of course, as with all salacious accounts of others' personal relationships, is absolutely none of our business, but knowledge of this fact does nothing to slacken our interest in the business in question), it is remarkable that people are shocked by the notion of restraint on the part of a young man, who, after all, is supposed to want it all the time, or else there must be something "not right" about him ("not that there's anything wrong with that!"... or so we're told).
Might Tebow's insistence not to be defiled in fact constitute an instance of the "manly flaccidity" I prescribed in a prior piece, by which a man in an enfeebled, envenomed, misandric and oversexed age refuses to be conformed to his programming, and in so doing, flummoxes his would-be rulers to the ends of their wits? Regardless of his personal habits (and much can be forgiven in the case of a 28-year old virgin), might this modern-day icon of sport and spirituality be, in the best possible metaphorical sense, a wanker and not a fucker?

Extreme Anti-White Tweets from #BlackLivesMatter Movement

via Occam's Razor

For those in the know about human biodiversity, it comes as no surprise that multi-racial states lead to societal decay.  As Robert Putnam has demonstrated, the more racially diverse a neighborhood or organization is, the lower the social trust.  (For a more expanded reading list on this theme, see here.)

Add blacks into the equation (who have low average IQs and low impulse control), the situation becomes even worse.  Blacks have been told their entire lives that all their failures are due to some mysterious white magic called white racism, so now they angrily attribute all their failings to this magic.  The #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement illustrates this truth.

People on Twitter have been taking screen shots of various BLM activists, which run the usual litany of anti-white hatred.  Here they are: . . . Read more

Jewish Thinking about Syrian Refugees -- Again

via The Occidental Observer

Apropos of Douglas Murray’s warning the the Jewish community, this if from the JTA: “For Jewish groups, Syrian refugees are a reminder — not a threat
American Jewish organizations don’t see the Syrian refugees as a threat; they see them as a reminder.
With rare unanimity on an issue that has stirred partisan passion, a cross-section of the community has defended the Obama administration’s refugee policy in terms recalling the plight of Jews fleeing Nazi Europe who were refused entry into the United States.
“The Jewish community has an important perspective on this debate,” the Orthodox Union said in its statement. “Just a few decades ago, refugees from the terror and violence in Hitler’s Europe sought refuge in the United States and were turned away due to suspicions about their nationality.”
Echoed the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly: “We can sadly remember all too well the Jews who were turned away when they sought refuge in the United States on the eve of, and during, World War II.”
Eleven Jewish organizations joined another 70 groups in pleading with Congress to keep open the Obama administration’s program, which would allow in 10,000 refugees over the next year from among the 200,000 to 300,000 in Europe. Neither the Orthodox Union nor the Rabbinical Assembly signed the letter.
Among the signatories were mainstream bodies like the the Reform movement, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the National Council of Jewish Women, as well as HIAS, the lead Jewish body dealing with immigration issues, and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella body for Jewish public policy groups.

The mainstream Jewish community seems incapable of taking the viewpoint of anyone but itself. Even if one grants that denying refuge in the 1930s to Jews is indefensible — and I don’t agree that it is — there are solutions that would not result in bringing in yet more unassimilable, non-White immigrants with no sympathy for Western culture, such as Donald Trump’s proposal of providing a safe zone in or near Syria where people can live until things are more stable. There is no attempt to balance the interests of other Americans, much less condemn Israel’s opposition to non-Jewish refugees.
However, the parallels to the Nazi era raised hackles among some conservatives.
“The refugees from Syria are not fleeing a genocide, it’s a civil war,” said Matt Brooks, who directs the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Given the general support of the RJC for pro-immigration candidates and their antipathy toward Donald Trump, Brooks is an outlier here, and he is certainly not speaking for the RJC. See also the comments of former Bush administration official Michael Chertoff below.
Officials from the organizations that support allowing in the refugees said they were not likening the magnitudes of the two catastrophes, but could not help noting the reluctance in the 1930s, as now, to accept refugees and the accusations that the refugees posed a danger.
“It’s obviously a sensitive comparison, but it’s the right point to make,” said Nathan Diament, executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center. Both the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Assembly added in their statements that the administration and Congress should also take into account legitimate security concerns, while pressing forward with resettlement.
The consensus among the three major streams of U.S. Jewry – Reform, Conservative and Orthodox – is derived from a shared understanding of Jewish scripture, said Rabbi Jonah Pesner, who directs the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center.
“Our role is to be the pure rabbinic voice that lifts people up beyond their narrow partisan views,” he said of rabbis.
Rabbi Steve Gutow, a Reconstructionist who is the outgoing president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said sympathy for the refugee was written into the Jewish cultural genetic code.
READ: Recalling Holocaust, Jewish congressman slams bias against Syrian refugees
“We’ve been facing the need to have refuge since we left Egypt,” he said. “To think about not speaking out flies in the face of who we are.”
Somehow this sympathy for refugees  fails to show up in Israel where one would think it would be strongest if in fact it is written into the Jewish cultural genetic code. Absent that, the default option is that sympathy for non-European refugees reflects Jewish interests in the diaspora.
There is not 100 percent agreement: The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, for one, spoke against allowing in the refugees at his group’s annual dinner in New York this week, citing security concens.
Still, the overwhelming consensus lines up the Jewish organizational world against the Republican Party.
A GOP-backed bill that would pause the refugee program passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. House of Representatives last week and virtually every Republican governor has said they do not want to allow in the refugees. At the same time, almost all of the Republican presidential candidates want it paused, if not reversed.
There appears to be popular opposition to the resettlement as well. An ABC/Washington Post poll showed 54 percent of Americans oppose accepting refugees, while 43 percent support it. The margin of error was 3.5 percentage points.
Being on the losing side of a political debate is nothing new for organizational American Jewry, said the ADL’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, noting that the ADL in 1958 solicited a book from a “young senator from Massachusetts” — John F. Kennedy — to counter rising anti-immigrant sentiment. The future president wrote and published “A Nation of Immigrants.”
“‘We were once strangers’ is core to our identity,” Greenblatt said.
Jerry Kammer of the Center for Immigration Studies adds that Kennedy’s A Nation of Immigrants “was actually written by a member of Kennedy’s staff, Myer Feldman. Describing Kennedy’s participation as minimal, Feldman said the senator had ‘reviewed it, and did some editing.'” This is a good example of behind-the-scenes Jewish activism featuring prominent non-Jews — a common strategy used by Jews beginning in the ancient world.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, anti-restrictionist arguments developed by Jews were typically couched in terms of universalist humanitarian ideals; as part of this universalizing effort, gentiles from old-line Protestant families were recruited to act as window dressing for their efforts, and Jewish groups such as the AJCommittee funded pro-immigration groups composed of non-Jews (Neuringer 1971, 92). (see Culture of Critique, Ch. 7, p. 261).