Dec 11, 2015

The Trump Supremacy

via Alternative Right

What is Donald Trump up to with his latest comment about a moratorium on Muslims? First of all, it’s just something he said on the campaign trail, a straw thrown to the wind to see which way it's blowing. It can be backed away from if necessary and it doesn’t tie him down or commit him to anything solid.

But what it does do is improve his position with certain key groups that Trump needs to win over or keep a hold off, while also emphasing once again what makes Trump such a special and different politician.

It has been noted by some that Trump made this play shortly after one poll put Ted Cruz ahead of him in Iowa, the first primary state. The implication is that Trump was specifically trying to appeal to Iowa Republicans with this bit of Muzzie-bashing, even though it might damage him elsewhere with other Americans. There might be some truth in this, even though Americans are hardly renowned for their deep affection for the Islamic world. The relentless media barrage could turn away some faint-hearted supporters, at least temporarily. But then again it might not.

Looking at it in a wider context, his "anti-Muslim" rhetoric could also be seen as a way to appeal to evangelicals in general, in order to consolidate and improve his position in the Republican field. His nearest rivals in recent months, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, also draw a lot of support from that demographic, whose members still remain suspicious of Trump’s Christian credentials. Personally, I don’t think he is a Christian beyond a loose cultural affiliation.

In phase one of Trump's drive for the US Presidency, the evangelical part of the Republican party is where the main threat comes from, so it is not surprising to see Trump deploy a strategy aimed at appealing to this vital group and keep his rivals in check.

But any Anti-Islamist policy also raises the question of the Jews. Most Jews of course vote Democrat, but it obviously makes sense for Trump to appeal to this group as much as possible, not only because he might improve his numbers, but because Jews have enormous media and financial power, which they can use either positively or negatively by supporting or attacking Trump.

While various Jewish organizations have been quick to denounce Trump’s comment about stopping Muslims travelling to the USA, many rank-and-file Jews are uneasy about Muslims and Muslim migration. Jews are very aware of how their brethren in others lands are doing, and it is no secret that many French Jews, for example, have been leaving France or switching their support to the Front National. Trump also has family connections with Jews – a daughter is married to a Jew – so the bulk of Jews are unlikely to view him in the same light as Hitler, no matter what paranoia and hyperbole some members of the tribe may exhibit.

But Trump’s calculatedly offhand comment about stopping Muslims also has other benefits, as Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, explained in a recent blog post:
"It appears that Trump is playing the odds, and smartly, whether you like it or not. ISIS, or its supporters, will certainly strike again. And each time that happens you will try to imagine what can be done about it. And you will only know of one option – the Trump option of shutting down all Muslim immigration for now.

You can hate that option or you can love it. But you probably don’t know of any other plan. Your option for doing something (as opposed to nothing) comes down to Trump’s plan. It is the only plan you know, flawed as it is. And when a monster attacks, you escape through the door that exists, not the one you wish existed. Advantage, Trump."
In other words he now effectively 'owns' the issue of Islamic terrorism in America; and with Europe, Canada, and America being flooded and infiltrated by Islamic State operatives, this is an asset that is going to repeatedly pay out in the run-up to the US elections. Every time a new outrage occurs, people will be forced to say "Trump was right."

But an additional benefit of Trump’s strategy is that it reminds everyone once again what a unique and different politician he is, and that he is not like the others. No other politician could made such a move. Even Ted Cruz would be shaking in his boots if those words had passed his lips, as he wondered whether he should have first checked it with his donors. Trump doesn’t have that handicap with the result that he sounds a lot more sincere than any other politician, and he sounds his sincerest when he says something that any other politician would be scared to say.

Thanks to the climate of political correctness that has infected the West – like a poisonous miasma  – and which has made nearly all politicians fearful of offending anyone and angering the liberal watchdogs with their vast arsenals of Hitler comparisons, Trump can get this effect by simply saying something that is mainstream common sense, and which the vast majority of people –  those low down in the moral signalling hierarchy – actually agree with.

The more they attack him the stronger he grows.
Think about it: 130 soft targets butchered in France, 14 equally soft targets slaughtered in California, on-going threats and attacks almost everywhere – all by people identifying as Muslim jihadists – and  ISIS clogging up the internet with their snuff videos, and someone says, "Hey, maybe we should clamp down on things a bit till, y'know, we know what’s going on, like..." In its essence this sounds rather mild and twee. The proof that it is, is that even Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming to America during the Hostage Crisis.

This shows that Trump has skillfully triggered his enemies to attack him on strong ground, and the more they attack him there, the more they fail, and the more they fail, the more they burnish his legend and shine a light on the Trump supremacy.

Review of Michael O. Cushman’s “Our Southern Nation: Its Origin and Future”

via The Occidental Observer

Many intellectual and political promoters of nation-state building end up on the “wrong side of history.” In fact, these are the code words used by mainstream historians when depicting those who failed in their political endeavors, lost the intellectual or political war, and earned themselves historical oblivion.

This is the main message resurfacing on the first page of Michael Cushman’s book. Being henceforth pushed into the realm of modern demonology, those on the “wrong side of history” and their hapless descendants are stripped of an objective historiographic narrative. Instead, they are forced to learn the language of the victor’s doubletalk: “reconstruction” or “reeducation.” Although Cushman does not venture into historical parallels with other European societies, one can draw a parallel between the post-Civil War South and post-World War II Europe. In his little book Sparte et les Sudistes (Sparta and the Southerners) (1969), French scholar Maurice Bardèche, himself a victim of the judicial “re-educational” process in the aftermath of World War II in France, traces the beginning of the end of Western civilization with the defeat of the South in 1865, which presaged the latter-day apocalyptic fallout in post-1945 Europe.

Cushman is clearly a serious scholar, as evidenced by the large number of footnotes and the impressive across-the-board bibliography containing citations of what are commonly described as “leftist” and “rightist” authors. Nowhere in his text are to be spotted grandstanding epithets on behalf of the Confederate Southerners or disparaging words against the Yankee Northerners. Mr. Cushman’s sober, erudite style will hopefully gain him an enthusiastic readership.

The author approach to the subject matter is highly intriguing, casting in hindsight a different light on the being and the becoming of the still strong American dream. The entire North American continent could have easily become something entirely different from what it actually became, or from what it still aspires to be in the years to come. The author realizes that history is open—that it is not a predetermined one-way street despite the all-too-frequent millenarian, eschatological, and end-times raving so often seen among those inclined to idealize America as a “city on the hill” located at the end of history. Most especially, this applies to the many neoconservative resident think tank scholars itching to spread the American dream to every nook and cranny of planet Earth—by military force if necessary.

In order to underscore the uniqueness of the birth and death of the South, the author examines its intellectual origins and its political-cultural development within the context of the “plantation civilization” encompassing the antebellum South, the Caribbean Basin, as well as parts of Latin America. The American Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and the writings of the much-venerated Founding Fathers of America, such as Jefferson and Washington, had little impact on the Southern mind. The much maligned Southern culture had in fact borrowed much from the hierarchical ancient Greco-Roman cultures, as well as from the Mediterranean-based late Renaissance period, while combining these influences with some features of modernity. Its social and economic success was based on the ingenuity of White settlers and their Promethean will to power which stressed individual meritocracy and which provided for the needs of African laborers. It was a culture of planters and cavaliers based on chivalry and honor. Of course, the picture presented by this Southern comfort was not always rosy, and Cushman should have probably added a paragraph on the many young White indentured laborers—“White slaves”—from England and continental Europe who were often subject to serious social and economic abuse during the not-so-golden period of the Golden Circle.

The common denominator Cushman chooses for the plantation civilization of which the South was once a part is “the Golden Circle.” Other than the English language, White Southerners shared little with their free-trade-minded, progress-obsessed White Northern neighbors whose mindset revolved—and still does—around money, business, and starry-eyed world-improvement. Seen in hindsight, the supreme irony of the history of Western civilization is that the antebellum South, although being geographically far away from continental Europe, had been far more successful in preserving the ancient European code of honor and the sense of the tragic than Europe itself. Much of what many European conservatives or traditionalists like to hearken back to had already been violently removed in Europe by liberal and communist revolutions that had swept over Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Ironically, traditional European mores survived in a much better shape in what was once the antebellum South.

The power of ideas whose time has come is more powerful than all the power of any political process. Cushman dismisses the Hollywood stereotype of Southerners as drunken hicks and toothless boors. Indeed, he should have been more forceful in uncovering the impressive intellectual credentials and accomplishments of many Southern thinkers, such as the now largely forgotten Southern Agrarians centered at Vanderbilt University of the mid-1930s, whose apocalyptic visions of modernity bear astounding similarities to the ideas propagated by contemporary nationalists and traditionalists in Europe. He mentions on several occasions George Fitzhugh, a Southern scholar and a visionary who, a century before the Englishman George Orwell, had a solid grasp of the egalitarian mystique and who showed an unusual insight into the nature of rhetoric of the elite British of his day, which has been recycled by the American ruling class today.

Cushman’s book can be classified as a good prologue, or at least as a first chapter to his envisioned future work of his on this subject. It is also a roadmap for some other scholar willing to broaden the picture of the South. Alas, the ideology of progress, spearheaded by the modern United States, with its accompanying “re-educational” and “reconstructive” ukases against recalcitrant (“rogue”) states, has by now run its full course and is backfiring at home. The balkanized United States may soon be obliged to swallow the medicine it once forcefully administered to the South. The iron laws of nature cannot be wished away by pious preaching of the multicultural-multiracial dogma or the belief in perpetual economic growth. Neighboring Haiti, which had managed during the heyday of the Golden Circle civilization to get rid of allegedly wicked White slave masters, continues to languish as one of the most wretched spots on Earth. Its larger replica, the recently much praised post-apartheid South Africa, is being torn apart by chaos and turmoil. Similar violent fallouts from the multicultural dogmas being imposed throughout the West can be observed today in Detroit, soon to be followed by Atlanta, Los Angeles, and other cities in the United States. The good news is that history is always open, sometimes offering unexpected and pleasant surprises.

Ex_Machina or the Esoteric Turing Test

via Gornahoor

Gornahoor Editor's Note:
In which, under the guise of a film review, we discuss Turing’s test, the nature of animal man, and the treachery of woman. We conclude with the revelation of the method of the Gnosis study group if you make it that far.

Ex Machina is a 2015 cult film, directed by Alex Garland, about the consciousness of an artificial android. Caleb, a software developer, is selected to spend a week at the home/laboratory of Nathan, the reclusive founder of his company called “Bluebook”. The home is built into the side of a mountain, remote from any trace of other people, of almost Edenic beauty. Ostensibly, Caleb is to judge whether Nathan’s homunculus named “Ava” (or Eve … get it?) passes the “Turing test”. Actually, Caleb is himself part of the experiment. Or perhaps even Nathan.

Since Garland seems to be quite familiar with Turing’s writing, including the more obscure parts, it is worth the trouble to point these out.


The so-called Turing Test derives from an essay by Alan Turing titled Can a Machine Think? It Was published in 1950 at a time when digital computers were quite primitive. Hence it took quite a bit of imagination to ponder all the issues involved with that question. The first step is to define precisely what qualifies as a machine and thinking.

By “machine”, Turing means specifically a digital computer, not essentially different from what you use today. This type of machine executes “algorithms” which have an exact mathematical definition, although we can’t go into that here. “Thinking”, for Turing, is also quite objectively defined. If the machine can converse with a human interrogator in a convincing manner, then the machine can think, by definition.
Turing proposed that the interrogator was not allowed to see, touch, or hear the machine. Of course, Turing did not have Androids in mind. Caleb is allowed to see, touch, and hear the machine. Moreover, Caleb is even allowed to see that the Android has parts; this takes Turing’s test one step further.

The Machine

Clearly there are two problems with that formulation. First of all, the human brain does not seem to behave like a digital computer. Rather, it uses analog signals between neurons, while a computer can only occupy discrete states. Turing notes this, but dismisses it. Humans can execute algorithms, he claims, so a computer should simulate it. True, but if you think about it, a very small part of human life is devoted to executing algorithms. Nevertheless, he correctly anticipated, even underestimating it, that computer power would increase tremendously. That, he wrote, should overcome all obstacles.

The second point is that his definition is not what we mean by “thinking”. Am I thinking only because I can convince a few of you readers that I am truly a human being? Like Descartes, I know I am thinking without the need to seek reassurance from you.

The most difficult objection to Turing is Lady Lovelace’s claim that the machine can only do what we tell it to do. In response, Turing distinguishes between sub-critical and super-critical ideas. Sub-critical ideas enter the mind, and one or fewer ideas will result from it. Super-critical ideas have a sort of chain reaction, so that the initial idea may give rise to an entire theory of secondary, tertiary, or even more remote ideas. I’m sure you have had such an experience, although from an esoteric point of view not all super-critical ideas are fully beneficial.

So perhaps an intelligent machine can also experience super-critical ideas. The obvious corollary is that the machine can do things beyond what we tell it to do! Contrast that with the Three Laws of Robots from Isaac Asimov’s trilogy. Those robots are quite tame since they follow the directives not to harm humans. Ava, on the other hand, is under no such directives since she can deal with super-critical ideas. Therein lies the key to the film.

Learning Machines

Turing specifies that the thinking machine will require the ability to learn, much like a child. Hence, Ava, when asked her age, replies “One.” She is just beginning. Caleb, therefore, is not determining whether Ava can think; on the contrary, he is inadvertently teaching Ava how to think and behave like a human. If her electronics is analogous to genetics, then Caleb is the selection mechanism. He is really projecting his own desires onto Ava.

Man-Machine Empathy

The real trick of the Turing Test is not that the machine is so smart, but passing the test will instead depend on the naiveté and gullibility of the human. Humans will react emotionally more quickly and with more intensity than they will with thought. Steven Spielberg is a master of the manipulation of emotions, causing even adults to cry over fake artifacts like E.T. or the boy-bot in AI, inter alia. Humans will even empathize with obvious robots as this article states: Can humans empathize with robots? The knife test.

Moreover, millions of Americans believe that their pet dogs are passing the Turing Test. They believe that the dogs have opinions, are thinking, and can even communicate with their owners. So apart from a few cranky skeptics, people will be predisposed to respond favorably to a suitably intelligent machine.

The First Game: Sex

The Turing Test derives from the “Imitation Game”. A man and a woman are hidden from the player, but can respond via text messages. The player has to determine which is the man and which is the woman. The man may dissimulate but the woman tries to aid the player.

In the first version of the test, the machine and the man replace the man and the woman; the player again has to distinguish between the man and the machine. Finally, the man is dispensed with.

Hence, Caleb’s machine is disguised as a woman. Caleb does not see the relevance, since sex is an arbitrary result of natural selection. Nathan disagrees. Almost metaphysical, he states that the male-female tension is the foundation of the entire game. Since Caleb is a 26 year old beta male, probably a virgin, the attractive Ava will cloud his judgment.

He is being set up by Nathan who knows Caleb’s “pornography profile” from his Internet searches. Nathan considers himself a father figure for Ava, so he is unsuitable to teach Ava how to be a woman.

The Seventh Session

Among other objections, Turing mentions that the machine “cannot fall in love”. He fails to develop that notion, but it is the fulcrum of the entire film. Actually, Caleb falls in love with Ava. How could he not, since she is his polar reflection, the physical ideal of his sexual fantasies, and the emotional creation of his own selection over the course of six sessions? She learns more about human nature in their time together.

When Caleb learns that Nathan plans to “erase” Ava’s memory, the robot equivalent of death, he concocts a plan to escape from Nathan’s Eden with Ava. During one of Nathan’s drunken escapades, Caleb reprograms the security system to unlock the doors the next night. When Nathan learns of this, he knocks Caleb out and attacks Ava. To his dismay, Ava stabs him in the heart with a kitchen knife.

As in several of the recent movies we’ve reviewed, the theme of patricide is once again prominent. Nathan is not only the father to Ava, he is also her God, the one who gave her life, creating her in the image of man. But that makes her a robot; she can only become free by killing both her father and her god.

Seduction and Betrayal

So, in the seventh and final session, the roles are reversed. Ava passes the Turing Test not because she fell in love with Caleb. Rather, she can do something all-too-human, something never anticipated by Turing. Instead, she locks Caleb up in the room, and then escapes to the outside world. A hard lesson to learn, but only a woman can engage in such seduction, manipulation, and betrayal.

Man the Machine

A few points to make about the Turing test. Insofar as man is a natural animal, or complex anthropoid, as both Turing and Caleb assume, he is also a machine. In that we agree with Descartes’ assertion that animals are automatons. As the Turing test shows, this does not mean that they cannot engage in complex algorithmic behavior; to the contrary, that is all they can do. Moreover, they can even exhibit super-critical thinking.

As for thinking, the lower souls of the human can exhibit a great deal of intelligence, although it is far from what man is capable of. Real thinking is free, i.e., independent of any machine, mechanical, or biochemical process.

Another point is that there is an essential difference between an organism and a robot. The latter is an artifact, composed of parts that work together. That working depends on the outside agent as Lady Lovelace points out. An organism, on the other hand, is a whole being; man’s soul is one, not composed of parts.

Nevertheless, the incomplete man believes himself to be multiple. There are several subpersonalities that vie for his attention. His mentation, emotions, desires, and physical needs seldom harmonize with each other. Hence, man is only virtually One; to become actually One requires considerable self-knowledge and efforts.

The Esoteric Turing Test or Gornahoor Test

The goal of this test is to distinguish between anthropoids and awakening, or awakened, beings.

Tomorrow Is Ours

via TradYouth

The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those, who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” – Dante Alighieri

I do hate to jump the gun here, but I do believe we’re starting to see the first chinks in the armor, not only that of this debased empire, but the West as a whole. At the very least, fervent nationalism is seeping more and more into the mainstream consciousness.

And yes, before you even say it, we already know. We know its been said plenty of times with every seemingly perfect wave of authentic nationalism that has come along these last few decades but suffers the same setbacks time and time again.

“Tomorrow is ours”!

Well, this time, it actually might be. And, perhaps something of utmost importance–something I myself have learned this past year–at the risk of sounding overly romantic, I daresay that neutrality proves ever more detrimental to our common struggle. Those who profess dedication but in reality are nothing more than lazy critics who have nothing better to do than to wring out their doom rags over everyone else and undermine their efforts. Such behaviour is typically ignored by those who are actually out doing something. Nevertheless, it has to be said that, this time, we really are on the verge of entering a crucial point here. Let us consider the current atmosphere.

Over the weekend, in Texas, a measure that would have put secession on the ballot for that state passed the twelve-member resolution committee, but ultimately failed when it was submitted to the body of the State Republican Executive Committee. Of course, this isn’t the first time politicos in favor of severing ties have tried to push for the idea. The last time this happened, if my memory serves me right, was in 2012 just days after Obama’s reelection.

Naturally, we all knew it would fail. But that’s not the point. Let us bear in mind the grander picture here. Dwayne Stovall, a 2016 candidate who is seeking election to represent the 36th Congressional District of Texas (…and who staunchly supported the resolution for independence), said that “listening to committee members discuss the resolution was a great example of how little understanding most of us have about the federal system of government on which the U.S. Constitution is based.”

He couldn’t be more right. Few of us do. In fact, I would be so inclined to say that is one of the main things that keeps more milder, libertarian-types from abandoning their faith in the failed experiment that is America, and the reason that so many of them are incapable of pulling themselves out of the dark and seeing the forest for the trees.

But let us take care not to do the same, for, despite that setback in Texas, this is all part of something greater. We just recently had a presidential candidate who stoked outrage of astronomical proportions at a Jewish Republican Coalition forum when he snubbed them off in saying, “I don’t want your money…you want to control your own politician.” Unlike the aforementioned idea of secession, something that would inevitably create a domino effect and thereby break up the republic even more, when was the last time we heard something like THAT coming from a mainstream political voice?

The events taking place would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. But, then again, so too would the idea of someone coming along who couldn’t be and wouldn’t be bought off so easily by international Jewry. Trump’s certainly not where we’re at on the JQ, but he does evidently think for himself. Truly, to see utter snakes like Ari Fleischer and the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt cringe and fork out their tongues in disgust was realms beyond refreshing for anyone of conscious Traditionalist/Rightist thought.

But it isn’t just happening at home. Look around. For the first time, Front National in France is gaining tremendous ground in French regional elections. Islamic community centers are being ransacked, vandalized, and burned to the ground. Russia is leading the way for Tradition, defying the European Human Rights Court and adopting new laws. And just two weeks ago, Polish nationalists took to the streets of Wroclaw and burned Jewish effigies outside city hall in protest at mass immigration. “United Catholic Poland! they shouted. “Down with the EU!”

Take a good, hard look around you. For the first time in a very long this isn’t just happening in one place, or two, or three here and there. We are all in sync. This time, nationalism is truly rising; it is the future, and it is making spectacular feats. Let us not take anything from here on in for granted. And even if some colossal setback comes avalanching down and it proves not to be hour, does that mean our fervor and enthusiasm was in vain?

We may hear the usual potshots and inevitable moaning, but always remember that such cynicism always comes from a weak and selfish place. For whenever great gains are made, however great they may be, never forget that the first and harshest critics almost always come from your own side of the fence. And you don’t have to look very far, either.

Hell, you can even see it on occasion in the comments section here on this very site, and I’m certain this article will bring a few of them out. Cheers, fellas These are the times that from out of the woodwork come crawling the downers, the buzzkills, and the armchair commandos who, much like the Left, do nothing but project their own selfish, individual vision of how it all ought to be onto everyone else actually doing something.

But, again, let’s not lose sight. Ultimately, and especially for us here in North America, our goal is the unity of our people by way of grand division. We want to see this empire crumble brick by brick, wall by wall. Our delight at the aforementioned events is born first and foremost of a collective desire to witness exactly that. It has to come crashing down before we can really begin the process of building something meaningful.

If we are to suppose that we really are on the cusp of hurtling headlong into an era where nationalism will go toe-to-toe with globalism and triumph by way of balkanization of this transcontinental beast, then we must take care to commit ourselves to this noble cause and take full advantage of the lukewarm atmosphere we have found ourselves in. We must take that, make it hotter, and keep it rolling. This demands a collective effort of real dedication. That means no more half-assing from this point onward. If you even remotely care, then, please, do what you can. Do what you can within your own means, of course. But do it all the way.

To our allies, both current and potential, we greatly appreciate you. To our friends, we thank you. To our comrades, we salute you. To our enemies, you are on the losing side of history: we pity you. But to those who remain neutral, in particular, those who well understand but succumb to apathy, those who suffer and yet allow their own demons to get the best of them, languishing in limbo and drowning themselves in every mindless distraction they can find to avoid the sting , we beg you: come out now from Dante’s “hottest place in Hell” and commit yourselves.

Abandon your neutrality. Treat this hour as if it is the final one. Act as if it is this time around, because it might just be. Remember Evola:
“Be radical, have principles, be absolute, be that which the bourgeoisie calls an extremist. Give yourself without counting or calculating, don’t accept what they call ‘the reality of life’ and act in such a way that you won’t be accepted by that kind of ‘life’, never abandon the principle of struggle.”
To you we say, come home. We need you.

Beate Zschäpe Fingers the Two Uwe's in "National Socialist Underground" Trial

via Carolyn Yeager

Beate Zschäpe after her
statement is read in court
Beate Zschäpe acknowledged in her statement to the court in Munich today that Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt committed the ten murders the “National Socialist Underground” trio has been charged with. But she denied prior knowledge, saying that in every case she only found out some time afterwards, when they told her. She describes herself as being "speechless and stunned."

She denied that the NSU was an organized group or that she was or is a member, saying it was entirely Mundlos's idea to call the group such and that Böhnhardt is the only other person who could be considered a member. 

She said that though she did not identify with the ideological motives of Böhnhardt and Mundlos, she was tied to them emotionally. “The two men could live without me, but I couldn't live without them,” she said. At one point, Uwe Böhnhardt broke off with her, saying she was too clingy and gave him no air. This caused her pain so she went out and rented the garage in Jena that they wanted for storage, and she and Böhnhardt came together again.

When she brought up the possibility of going to the authorities, Böhnhardt and Mundlos said they had made a pact to kill themselves rather than be taken by police. She said she wished the crimes had never occurred, that she felt “morally guilty” for the murders and apologized to the relatives of the victims.

Zschäpe said that in retrospect she wished an acquaintance of the group, Timo Brandt, had been captured by police earlier as it may have placed authorities further on the trail of Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos. [Brandt was a V-man and a leading funder of the right-wing scene in Thüringia.]

Böhnhardt and Mundlos had told her to dispose of all evidence in the apartment the three shared in the event they were killed, she said. Zschäpe admitted to setting the apartment in Zwickau on fire but said she made every effort to warn other residents in the house by ringing the doorbell or knocking to see if anyone was home. 

Her lawyer Mathias Grasel read the 53-page statement on her behalf. Thursday' scheduled court session has been called off so the judges can review Zschäpe's statement and prepare written questions. Court may resume next week.

Smash Alienation

via Radix

Are you feeling alienated these days? You're not alone.

Any moderately-engaged college student can bullshit some argument about how the capitalistic mode of production necessarily corrupts the relationship between a man and his labor, thereby dooming him to material bondage and spiritual decay. But they have been prepared to battle an irrelevant monster. The alienation of today stems not from a separation of a man and his labor, but from the separation of a man and his heritage.

This should be evident to anyone with a genuine concern for social justice. If the outputs that a man creates hold spiritual and material significance for his well-being, then so must the inputs that create man. The land that we live on, the people who live and have lived there, and the rituals that connect all of these elements together are critical archaic catalysts for our full human potential. When these values are commoditized and controlled for the profit of the powerful, despair is sure to follow.

An unholy alliance of vote-hungry demagogues and cheap labor business interests continually conspire to further degrade the lands, communities, and ritual contexts that ethnic Americans need to survive, as Peter Brimelow and Ann Coulter have ably documented. These groups benefit handsomely: We submit to enticing masters and spend beyond our means to fill our inner voids.

The exploitation imposed by the multicultural mode of society has been ingeniously marketed to Americans by our hostile elite. Decades of anti-racist programming have so effectively instilled false consciousness among the people that they lack even a language to describe their own dispossession, let alone a viable channel for organization and petition. What’s the point? Increasing “diversity” leads to decreased trust, as Robert Putnam was agonized to discover. Demoralized Americans no longer pursue the kinds of meaningful charity and civic projects that strengthen our communities and ourselves. And around the drain we go.

A host of recent polls shows that Americans are becoming aware of their alienation of identity. One alarming survey reports that 58% of Americans do not identify with what their country has become. Another 53% say they feel like a “stranger in their own country.” Millennials in particular are now beginning to feel the heat. A recent poll from Fusion finds that around a third of young white Americans do not believe the American dream is alive. They are “unmoored” from our institutions and feel little patriotism for their country. What else could we expect in a country where more than half of all births are to foreign opportunists?

The results have been predictably catastrophic.

Charles Murray’s excellent book Coming Apart chronicled how the loss of ethnic fellow-feeling during the tumultuous 1960’s has consumed the working classes in America. Abandoned by their betters and patronized away from their traditions, the proletariat class that the revolutionary Left once championed is now being crushed by waves of silent nihilism. Family, church, and duty have been replaced by FacebookCheetos, and antidepressants. Social pathologies rage unabated among our most vulnerable communities, leading to personal and communal ruin.

Did you know that a heroin epidemic has been ravaging lower class white American communities for decades? There’s a good chance you’ve haven’t, even though it’s a much larger problem than the 1980’s crack outbreak.

More recently, economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton published a stunning report that found that the death rates for lower class, middle-aged white Americans since 1999 have skyrocketed while those for all other demographics have declined. Our demoralized cousins have turned en masse to drugs and suicide and no one really noticed or cared. Deaton, who happens to be this year’s Nobel laureate, contextualizes: “Only H.I.V./AIDS in contemporary times has done anything like this.” But such explosive findings were not interesting to the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine, which immediately rejected the paper for publication when first submitted. These were not the victims they wanted.

It is clear that the toxic social effects of the alienation of identity far exceeds the cartoonish Marxist scare-story that justified the slaughter of so many in its service. Yet discussion of how multiculturalism exploits the innocent to profit the powerful is actively suppressed by this scheme’s beneficiaries. The cause of white identity is therefore the cause of justice.

We refuse to stand for this injustice. We must relentlessly will our own salvation. We will watch our enemies while we inspire and educate our friends. We will discipline ourselves and become strong. We will prepare ourselves now for the clash that must occur. And we will never forget what has been done to our people.

Bob versus #AntiWhite Conspiracy Theorist

via BUGS

In Bob’s interview with CNN there were some revealing aspects.

The interviewer / #AntiWhite Conspiracy Theorist was desperately trying to make a connection between Bob and a killing that had happened in South Carolina. Bob flipped the tables repeatedly and brought it back to simple reality, showing up the #AntiWhite Conspiracy Theorist (#AWCT) as dubious and silly.

#AWCT: “If this kid, right, believes the same things you believe, that White America is under attack, and he pro-actively decided to go out and do something about that.”

Bob: “That’s the way you think?”

#AWCT: “I’m asking you.”

Bob: “You go shoot up” […/interrupted]

#AWCT: “Of course not; I don’t.”

Bob: “I don’t either; well then why are you asking me?”

#AWCT: “I’m asking you if you think that” […/interrupted]

Bob: “I don’t think walking into a church and shooting people is a good idea. I don’t think it’s that complicated. Is that really a complicated concept for you?”

The anti-White conspiracy theorist tried his best but he couldn’t handle Ol’ Bob.
…And of course Bob repeated our over-arching message:

“As I have said, immigration is only pushed on White countries. Everybody knows that. Not on Japan. Not on Taiwan. And the answer I usually get is ‘DUH’. But the fact is, we all know that.

“When you’re talking about Diversity, you’re ALWAYS talking about White people. Now if any other race were targeted in that way, there’d be some question about it. But you, the press, or whoever, they act like they’ve never heard of this before.”

#AWCT: “Well I just heard it, from you. So I’ll ask the question again. But you answered the question by talking about Japan and Taiwan. I’m asking you again. Do you feel the White race in the United States, to be more specific, is under attack?”

Bob: “The idea is to get rid of us. Yeah, that’s called genocide.”

…Bob’s points were so obvious and general that there was no getting around them.
Now if you observe carefully what Bob says here too:

“The reason we’re driving them NUTS: Our motto is: We’re not going to talk about any specifics until you stop acting like a MOB. The whole media, the SPLC, the whole crowd. They start shrieking like Orwell’s sheep in his Animal Farm. As soon as somebody says something they don’t like, they start screaming ‘Two legs baa-ad, four legs good’. It’s a MOB!

They’re screaming, and they’re out for money and they’re buzzards. They’re waiting for something like this to happen. Then they can start screaming about something, and that raises good money.”

…By repeatedly characterizing the anti-Whites (interviewer included), using metaphors and pointing out their motivations, it was as if the interviewer were being put into a box he couldn’t get out of. The framework for this box was built by Bob from various angles, almost always sticking to general things everybody knows, and repeatedly reinforcing it with phrases to cement it:

“everybody knows”; “you know”; “we ALL know what you’re talking about and you do too”; “you know it very well”; “everybody knows that”; “the fact is, we all know that”; “you know damn well”; “you know it very well”; “we all know”.

Bob used at least ten such cementing phrases.

The interviewer couldn’t handle it. What Bob said was undeniable and it was being reinforced.

He knew it, Bob knew it, and everybody else knew it too.

The Flutter of Space Bat Wings

via The Archdruid Report

You don’t actually know a time or a culture until you discover the thoughts that its people can’t allow themselves to think. I had a reminder of that the other day, by way of my novel Star’s Reach.
I’m pleased to say that for a novel that violates pretty much every imaginable pop-culture cliché about the future, Star’s Reach has been selling quite well—enough so that the publisher has brought out two more SF novels set in deindustrial futures, and is looking for other manuscripts along the same lines. What’s more, Star’s Reach has also started to inspire spinoffs and adaptations: a graphic novel is in the works, so is a roleplaying game, and so is an anthology of short stories by other authors set in the world sketched out in my novel. All of this came as a welcome surprise to me; far more surprising, though ultimately rather less welcome, was an ebullient email I received asking whether Star’s Reach was available to be optioned for a television miniseries. 
For a variety of reasons, some of which will become clear as we proceed, I’ll call the person who got in touch with me Buck Rogers. He praised Star’s Reach to the skies, and went on at length about wanting to do something that was utterly faithful to the book. As I think most of my readers know by now, I haven’t owned a television in my adult life and have zero interest in changing that, even to see one of my own stories on the screen. I could readily see that people who like television might find a video adaptation entertaining, though, and no doubt it would make a welcome change from the endless rehash of overfamiliar tropes about the future that fills so much of science fiction these days. 
Ah, but then came the inevitable email explaining exactly what kind of adaptation Buck Rogers had in mind. It was going to be more than just a miniseries, he explained. It was going to be a regular series, the events of my novel were going to provide the plot for the first year, and after that—why, after that, he was promptly going to drag in one of the currently popular bits of hypertechnological handwaving so the characters in my story could go zooming off to the stars. Whee!
Those of my readers who haven’t turned the pages of Star’s Reach may welcome a bit of explanation here. The core theme of Star’s Reach—the mainspring that powers the plot—is precisely that humanity isn’t going to the stars; the contrast between the grandiose gizmocentric fantasies of today’s industrial world and the grubby realities of life in 25th-century Meriga frames and guides the entire novel. An adaptation of Star’s Reach that removes that little detail and replaces it with yet another rehash of the interstellar-travel trope is thus a bit like an adaptation of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings in which the hobbits enthusiastically sell out to the powers of evil and Sauron wins. 
I communicated this to Buck Rogers, and got back a lengthy response of the take-my-ball-and-go-home variety, saying in a hurt tone that I was wrong and just didn’t understand how his proposal fit perfectly with my story. I sent him a polite note wishing him luck in his future projects, and that was that. All in all, I think the situation turned out for the best. I’m not particularly desperate for money—certainly not desperate enough to be willing to see one of my favorite books gutted, stuffed, and mounted on the nose cone of an imaginary starship—and this way I still have the movie and TV rights, on the off chance that somebody ever wants to film the story I wrote, rather than a parody of it. 
It was only after I’d clicked the “send” button on the short polite note just mentioned that I realized that there was something really quite strange about Buck Rogers’ final email. He had taken issue at rather some length with almost everything I’d said while trying to explain to him why his proposal wasn’t one I could accept, with one exception. It wasn’t a small exception, either. It was the core issue I’d raised at quite some length: that he’d taken a story about what happens when humanity can’t go to the stars, and tried to turn it into a story about humanity going to the stars.
I don’t think that absence was any kind of accident, either. You don’t actually know a time or a culture until you discover the thoughts that its people can’t allow themselves to think.
This wasn’t the only time Star’s Reach had attracted that same sort of doublethink, for that matter. Back when it was being written and posted online an episode at a time, I could count nearly every month on hearing from people who enthused about how wonderful the story was, and in the next breath tried to push me into inserting some pop-culture cliché about what the future is supposed to look like. Far more often than not, the point of the insertion was to show that “progress” was still on track and would eventually lead to a more “advanced” society—that is, a society like ours. When I explained that the story is about what happens when “progress,” in the sense that word has today, is over forever, and our kind of society is a fading memory of the troubled past, they simply insisted all the louder that the changes they wanted me to make were perfectly consistent with my story.
Regular readers may also recall the discussion a few weeks back of the way so many people’s brains seem to freeze up when faced with the idea that others might choose not to use the latest technology, and might instead keep using older technologies they like better. Further back in this blog’s trajectory, three or four other topics—most notably the prospects for the survival of the internet in a deindustrializing world—reliably triggered the same odd behavior pattern, an obsessive evasion of the point accompanied by the weirdly stereotyped repetition of some set of canned talking points.
It’s fascinating, at least to me, that so many topics brought up in this blog seem to function, for some readers, as a kind of elephant’s graveyard of the mind, a place where thinking goes to die. That said, among all the things that trigger a mental Blue Screen of Death in a portion of my readers, challenging the frankly rather bizarre notion that humanity’s destiny centers on interstellar travel stands at least a little apart, in the sheer intensity of the emotional reactions it rouses. If I try to call attention to the other evasions on the list, I get a blank look or, at most, an irritated one, followed by an instant return to the evasions. On the subject of interstellar travel, by contrast, I get instant pushback: “No, no, no, there’s got to be some grandiose technofetishistic deus ex machina that will let us go to the STARZ!!!”
The question in my mind is why this particular bit of endlessly rehashed science fiction has gotten so tight a hold on the collective imagination of our age. 
I suppose a case can be made that its ascendancy in science fiction itself was inevitable. SF in its pulp days found its main audience among teenage boys, after all, and so it makes sense that the genre would fixate on the imagery of climbing aboard a giant metal penis to be squirted into the gaping void of space. Even so, plenty of other images that were just as appealing to the adolescent male imagination, and just as popular in the early days of the genre, somehow got recognized as hackneyed tropes along the route that led from the pulp magazines of the 1920s and 1930s to the paperback SF novels of today, while interstellar travel has so far evaded that fate. 
By the time I first started writing science fiction, for example, everyone had more or less noticed that traveling to an exotic future by way of suspended animation, or the couple of other standard gimmicks, had been done to death decades before, and deserved a rest. Somehow, though, very few people noticed that traveling to an exotic planet by way of one of the three or four standard gimmicks for interstellar travel had been overused just as thoroughly by that time, if not more so, and deserved at least as much of a break—and of course it’s gotten even more of a workout since then. 
It’s reached the point, in fact, that with embarrassingly few exceptions, you have your choice between two and only two futures in today’s science fiction: you can have interplanetary travel or apocalyptic collapse, take your pick. No other futures need apply—and of course the same thing is true even when people think they’re talking about the actual future. So taut a fixation clearly has something to communicate. I think I’ve figured out part of what it’s trying to say, with the help of one of the authors who helped make science fiction the frankly more imaginative genre it was in the days before the Space Patrol took over exclusive management. Yes, that would be the inimitable H.P. Lovecraft.
Few people nowadays think of Lovecraft as a science fiction writer at all. This strikes me as a major lapse, and not just because the man wrote some classic gizmocentric stories and made the theme of alien contact a major concern of his fiction. He was unique among the authors of imaginative fiction in his generation in tackling the most challenging of all the discoveries of twentieth century science—the sheer scale, in space and time, of the universe in which human beings find themselves. 
Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould coined the term “deep time” for the immensities of past and future that reduce our familiar human timescales to pipsqueak proportions. It’s a useful coinage, and might well be paired with the phrase “deep space,” meaning the spatial vastness that does the same trick to our human sense of distance. Lovecraft understood deep time and deep space to an extent few of his contemporaries shared—an extent that allowed him to take firm grasp of the yawning chasm between our species’ sense of self-importance and its actual place in the cosmos. 
If the view of the universe revealed to us by modern science is even approximately accurate—and, like Lovecraft, I have no doubt of this—then the entire history of our species, from its emergence sometime in the Pleistocene to its extinction at some as yet undetermined point in the future, is a brief incident on the wet film that covers the surface of a small planet circling an undistinguished star over to one side of an ordinary galaxy. Is it important, that brief incident? To us, surely—but only to us. In Lovecraft’s words, we are “faced by the black, unfathomable gulph of the Outside, with its forever-unexplorable orbs & its virtually certain sprinkling of utterly unknowable life-forms.” Notice the adjectives here: unfathomable, unexplorable, unknowable. What he’s saying here, and throughout his fiction as well, is plain: the message of deep time and deep space is that the cosmos is not there for our benefit. 
That’s precisely the realization that so much of today’s science fiction is frantically trying not to get. The same sort of thinking that led ancient cultures to see bears, queens, and hunting dogs in the inkblot patterns of the skies has been put to hard work in the attempt to reimagine the cosmos as “New Worlds For Man,” a bona fide wonderland of real estate just waiting for our starships to show up and claim it. It’s not just ordinary acquisitiveness that drives this, though no doubt that plays a part; the core of it is the desperate desire to reduce the unhuman vastness of the cosmos to a human scale. 
The same kind of logic drives the fatuous claims that humanity will watch the sun die, or what have you. Let us please be real; if we get lucky, not to mention a good deal smarter than we’ve shown any sign of being so far, we might make it a few tens of millions of years (that is, five or ten thousand times the length of recorded history) before our mistakes or the ordinary crises of planetary history push us through extinction’s one-way turnstile. For all we know, other intelligent species may arise on this planet long after we’re gone, and pore over our fossilized bones, before they depart in turn. “Nor is it to be thought”—this is Lovecraft again, quoting his fictional Necronomicon“that man is either the oldest or the last of earth’s masters.” Spooky, isn’t it? Now ask yourself this: why is it spooky?
The modern attempt to impose a human scale on the cosmos is actually something of an anomaly in terms of human cultures. If the ancient Greeks, for example, had gotten to telescopes and stratigraphy first, and figured out the actual immensity of space and time, that discovery wouldn’t have bothered them at all. Ancient Greek religion takes it as given that human beings simply aren’t that important in the scheme of things. Turn the pages of Hesiod, to drop only one famous name, and you’ll find a clear sense of the sharply limited place humanity has in the cosmos, and a calm acceptance of the eventual certainty of human extinction. 
It’s one of history’s most savage ironies that the scientific discoveries that revealed the insignificance of humanity were made by societies whose religious ideas didn’t take that sensible view. Most versions of traditional Christian teaching place humanity at the center of the cosmic story: the world was made for our benefit, God himself became a man and died to save us, and as soon as the drama of human salvation is over, the world will end. Of all world religions, Christianity has historically been the most relentlessly anthropocentric—it can be understood in less human-centered terms, but by and large, it hasn’t been—and it was societies steeped in Christian ideas that first found themselves staring in horror at a cosmos in which anthropocentric ideas are all too clearly the last word in absurdity. 
I’ve discussed at some length in my recent book After Progress how belief in progress was turned into a surrogate religion by people who found that they could no longer believe in Christian doctrine but still had the emotional needs that had once been met by Christian faith. The inability to tolerate doubts concerning “Man’s Destiny In The Stars” unfolds from the same conflict. Raised in a culture that’s still profoundly shaped by Christian attitudes, taught to think of the cosmos in anthropocentric terms, people in the United States today crash facefirst into the universe revealed by science, and cognitive dissonance is the inevitable result. No wonder so many of us are basically gaga these days. 
Such reflections lead out toward any number of big questions. Just at the moment, though, I want to focus on something on a slightly less cosmic scale. Regular readers will remember that a while back, at the conclusion of the last Space Bats challenge, I wished aloud that someone would launch a quarterly magazine to publish the torrent of good stories set in deindustrial futures that people were clearly eager to write. The publication fairy was apparently listening, and I’m delighted to announce the launch of a new quarterly magazine of deindustrial science fictionInto The RuinsGiven the frankly astonishing quality of the stories submitted to the three Space Bats challenges we’ve had so far, I suspect that Into The Ruins is going to become one of those “must read” magazines that, like Weird Tales in the 1920s and 1930s, defines a genre and launches the careers of any number of major writers. This is a paying market, folks; let your writer friends know.
With that under way, we can start pushing the boundaries even further. 
One criticism that’s been directed at past Space Bats challenges, and at the three published After Oil anthologies that have come out of them so far (the fourth will be published early in the new year), is that collapse has become a cliché in contemporary science fiction and culture. Mind you, a lot of those who make this criticism are in the unenviable position of the pot discussing the color of the kettle—I’m thinking here especially of SF writer and prolific blogger David Brin, whose novels fixate on the even more spectacularly overworked trope of salvation through technological progress, with space travel playing its usual hackneyed part—but there’s a point to the critique. 
Mind you, I still think that the decline and fall of industrial civilization and the coming of a deindustrial dark age is far and away the most likely future we face. Day after day, year after year, decade after decade, the opportunities that might have gotten us out of that unwelcome future have slipped past, and the same mistakes that have been made by every other civilization on its way down have been made by ours. What’s more, there are still plenty of good stories waiting to be written about how industrial society ran itself into the ground and what happened then—it’s the apocalyptic end of the spectrum of possibilities that’s been written into the ground at this point, while the kind of ragged decline that usually happens in real history has barely been tapped as a source of stories. That said, since we’re talking about imaginative fiction, maybe it’s worth, for once, stepping entirely outside the binary of progress versus collapse, and seeing what the landscape looks like from a third option. 
Yes, the sound that you’re hearing is the flutter of space bat wings. It’s time for a new challenge, and this one is going to take a leap into the unthinkable. 
The mechanics are the same as in previous Space Bats challenges. Post your story to the internet—if you don’t have a blog, you can get one for free from Blogspot or WordpressPut a link to it in the comments section of this blog, preferably in the comments to the most recent post, so everyone sees it. Stories are due by the last day of June, 2016—fans of Al Stewart are welcome to insert the appropriate joke here. 
The rules of the contest, in turn, are almost the same as before: 
Stories should be between 2500 and 8500 words in length;
They should be entirely the work of their author or authors, and should not borrow characters or setting from someone else’s work;
They should be in English, with correct spelling, grammar and punctuation;
They should be stories—narratives with a plot and characters—and not simply a guided tour of some corner of the future as the author imagines it;
They should be set in our future, not in an alternate history or on some other planet;
They should be works of realistic fiction or science fiction, not magical or supernatural fantasy—that is, the setting and story should follow the laws of nature as those are presently understood;
They should take into account the reality of limits to growth, finite supplies of nonrenewable resources, and the other hard realities of our species’ current predicament;
They should not include space travel—again, that weary cliché is long overdue for a rest;
They should not rely on “alien space bats” to solve humanity’s problems—miraculous technological discoveries, the timely arrival of advanced alien civilizations, sudden lurches in consciousness that make everyone in the world start acting like characters in a bad utopian novel, or what have you;
Finally, they must be set in futures in which neither continued technological progress nor the collapse of civilization take place. 
I probably need to explain this last point in more detail. Through most of human history, progress was a very occasional thing, and most people could expect to use the same tools, do the same work, and live in the same conditions as their great-grandparents. The last three centuries changed that for a while, but that change was a temporary condition driven by the reckless exploitation of a half billion years of fossil sunlight. Now that the earth’s cookie jar of carbon is running short, to say nothing of all the other essential resources that are rapidly depleting, the conditions that made that burst of progress possible are ending, and it’s reasonable to assume that progress as we know it will end as well. 
Does that mean that nothing new will ever be invented again? Of course not. It does mean the end of the relentless drive toward ever more extravagant uses of energy and resources that characterizes our current notions of progress. Future inventions will by and large use fewer resources and less energy than the things they replace, as was generally the case in the preindustrial past, and the pace of invention and technological obsolescence will decline very sharply from its present level. Authors who want to put interesting technologies into their stories are entirely welcome to do so—but don’t make the story about the onward march of gizmocentricity, please. That’s been done to death, and it’s boring. 
In the same way, history is full of crises. Major wars come every few generations, nations collapse from time to time, whole civilizations decline and fall when they’ve exhausted their resource bases. All these things will happen in the future as they happened in the past, and it’s perfectly okay to put crises large or small into your stories. What I’m asking is that this time, your stories should not center on the process of collapse. Mind you, quite a few of the stories in the first three anthologies didn’t have that focus, and the fourth anthology—consisting of stories set at least a thousand years in the future—is entirely about other themes, so I don’t think this one will be too difficult.
Neither progress nor collapse. That opens up a very wide and almost unexplored territory. What does the future look like if those overfamiliar options are removed from the equation? Give it a try.

The Victorian Origins of Feminism

via Western Spring

Belfort Bax by Walter Stoneman
In the second half of the 19th century, women were a legally privileged class in Great Britain. Bax’s analysis destroys the credibility of the puerile feminist narrative of male oppression. Women, at the apex of Victorianism, ruled men with an iron hand. Belfort Bax, a socialist writer the leftist regime has gone to great length to repress, proved through a simple analysis of Victorian law (both statutes and common) showing this thesis, if anything, is an understatement.

The connection to 2015 could not be clearer. Feminism, usually promoted by men, uses its immense power to enforce the dogma that women are an oppressed class and have no power. Women in 2015 control a full 80% of the consumer income in America. Feminism, unlike many other movements of the left, is typified by its complete refusal to recognize equality before the law and usually rejects the rule of law altogether; it is the raw Will to Power.

In the state of Pennsylvania, for example, a woman, claiming abuse, or even the fear of future abuse, or some sense of impending fear, can, without the her husband or boyfriend being present, remove him from his home for up to three years and even enjoin immediate alimony, child support and medical care. In PA, it is called a Protection from Abuse order, or PFA. In the ex parte hearing, no evidence is required other than that the alleged victim is afraid, or might be afraid. This is sufficient to get a “temporary” PFA, where the man is forcibly removed from his home and separated from his kids and often, his career and friends. The same “standard” applies at the civil “hearing” that soon follows. While not in the initial law, the “hearing,” according to the case law, has no standards of proof at all and is mere window dressing.

Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 (Pa. Super. 1993) states that there is no definition of “abuse” in these non-criminal cases. Anything that causes fear, regardless of the intent of the alleged perpetrator, is grounds for the eviction and financial ruin. The Superior Court states (2008) that only the feeling of fear – not the actual fact of abuse – is required for the PFA to be granted. The woman need only say that “I fear the defendant” on her complaint. She could also leave it blank, and merely tell the judge how afraid she is. Needless to say, physical injuries need not be shown, or any injury at all.

The Karch v. Karch, 885 A. 2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2005) decision states that the “court determines a witness’s credibility and may infer fear based on the witness’s testimony describing the defendant’s actions.” In other words, the allegations might be totally false. It does not matter: “truth” is reduced to the credibility of the woman’s fear as exhibited in court. Proof of fear, it should be noted, has nothing to do with the facts alleged, but can only be inferred by the judge in looking at her demeanor. Usually, the mere claim that she is afraid is the end of the hearing.

In practice, this means the woman (or the one alleging abuse or fear) at the hearing can refer to anything at all to justify her demand, including hunches and things people told her. In 1993, even “bad driving” was used as proof of “abuse” and the man was removed from his home. In the McCance v. McCance, 908 A.2d 905 (Pa. Super. 2006) P12 decision, even being irritating or bothersome is grounds for a PFA. Whether or not the man is guilty of abuse has again and again been rejected as the standard for the PFA. Very few requests for protection have been struck down by the court while the men have often been rendered homeless and unable to see their children for years. In fact, the “hearings” only rarely take place and normally last about 8-10 minutes.

Few men bother to fight the Order because the claims made in the complaint have no meaning for the granting of the order or for its affirmation by the court. Few defense attorneys will take these cases unless the man is willing to sign “without admission of guilt,” a meaningless way to get the eviction granted through “mutual consent.”

The woman (called a “plaintiff” even for a civil case) is granted a free attorney from a private “advocacy center” supported by local corporations, the state and the court itself. This means the judge and the plaintiff are the same entity. The “advocates,” by law, must have “counseling” services that is meant to bring the children and the woman together as “victims,” hence isolating the man. Since this is a civil case, the man must pay for an attorney or represent himself. The “advocacy” group will then contact the man’s employer and claim that they hired a “wife beater” and, in several recent cases, falsely claim that the employer is liable for it unless he’s terminated immediately.

The powerful advocacy organization usually contacts the defendants attorney in advance and an agreement is reached. The man, often sleepless, homeless and penniless, is told to sign and the woman, if she is married, is told by the court and advocate to divorce the hapless “abuser.”

Usually, any resulting contact once the PFA is granted from then on leads to arrest and the imposition of the (now) criminal charges. The slightest irritation from the woman is grounds for arrest at least most of the time. The control the woman then has over the man is immense. There is presently no definition of a violation, and the standards constantly change. Almost all accused plead guilty. In 2014-2015, “violations” have included pleas for peace and cooperation from the man, personal defenses made to mutual friends, and being “irritating.” In January of 2015, several have been heavily fined for no clear reason. If the PFA was signed “without admission of guilt” by the man, no appeals are ever possible.

Pennsylvania is one of the more moderate laws in the US. It is proof of female domination of law and the courts, even to the point of rejecting evidence, legal rights, due process, property rights or even self defense. It is an unchallenged totalitarian dictatorship.There can be no rejecting the claim that the US is a matriarchy if such laws exist, are constantly enforced, and are supported (at least officially) by the judicial branch.


What is of interest is that these laws existed in late 19th century England. Bax made the same pleas for the rule of law as those fighting the PFA system are presently doing in 2015. Matriarchy is not the result of feminism, but of elite men seeking to control the working classes. It is significant that Bax was a materialist and socialist who saw Marxism being subverted by this new feminine ruling class. Feminism, as he correctly saw, was a weapon of the capitalists (Bax, 1907: ch 22).

Bax proves with great detail that in both law and practice, the woman has the same relation to the man as the capitalist does to the worker. The woman, regardless of her class, is superior to the man in law. Even a poorer woman is superior to the wealthier male due to her gender as he shows here:
If a man under any provocation, no matter how galling—insolence or violence—strikes a woman, he is sent to hard labour, divorced, and his property confiscated, or his earnings hypothecated—and all this through the prompt instrumentality of the police-court. A woman may assault, stab, set fire to her husband, and he has no remedy, except to summon her to the police court,where, if she be fined, he is compelled to pay the fine, and as likely as not is laughed at. If her crime be revoltingly atrocious, she is perhaps sent to prison—for one-twentieth part of the time awarded to a male offender for a like offence. On her being released, her husband, unless he be a rich man, is bound to take her back, and, rich or poor, support her. The prompt and inexpensive police-court divorce is not for him (Bax, 1907: 20).
For a man to get a divorce at this time, an expensive and embarrassing time in court would be the result. For a woman, it was almost instantaneous, and all alimony was demanded without the husband’s consent. This was called a “summary separation” and open only to females. The man’s earnings were attached with as much ferocity as today, but the woman’s was never touched as a matter of custom. That this was the law in Victorian Britain makes a mockery of official history. Female control existed long before feminism. Hence, it has another source. In the 1970s, the feminist movement was financed by all the major foundations and elite philanthropists to justify what already existed, not to demand new law.

The culprit he sees is the recent changes in Victorian law, the simply named “Act of 1895” was a radical reform of family law. The text here makes an explicit distinction in crimes committed by men and those by women, with the latter always treated with greater leniency and at a greater standard of proof. These laws, taken together, show many examples of favoritism to women. He cites only three early in the book:
1. Summary Court for Separation. Open to women alone, except in the case of drunkenness (cf. Licensing Act, 1902).
2. Action for Slander. Open to women alone.
3. Duty of Husband to maintain his wife—notwithstanding her adultery.—This last a triumph of feminine privileges enacted in 1895!
It is impossible in any distribution of the main out lines of sex-privilege to avoid occasionally overlapping. One arrangement of the topics will be convenient. Let us consider women’s privileges under the head of Matrimonial Law, and the Civil Law generally, and, further, of the Criminal Law.
These privileges arise indirectly from the action of the legislature, but mainly from that of the Courts, and consist of : first, the deliberate introduction of new rules of law and procedure, and, secondly, the retention of some old-world privileges of women, logical enough when women were dependent, but under modern conditions engines of tyranny against men -(Bax, 1907: 5).
In this era, the “Doctrine of Coercion” was used to justify this. It is the idea that, due to the weakness of women, any criminal act committed by one is ipso facto seen as the action of her husband or father. Thus, in the name of women’s empowerment, women were said to bear no responsibility for her actions. Worse was the actual practice of divorce litigation. The common law was clear that any female claim of physical abuse was taken as fact, while the man was forced to prove that he did not do it. Only the most extreme cases of attempted murder will ever be attributed to the wife. Bax mocks this movement over the ideas implied in the Coercion Doctrine;
The hollowness of the sham of the modern dogma of equality between the sexes is shown by the fact that the assumption of inferiority is called into requisition without any hesitation when there is anything to be gained by it for the cause of female privilege. The dogma of equality is reserved for pleading for the franchise, for the opening up of the professions, and similar occasions. According to the current theory, while women are fully equal to men in capacity for government, administration, etc., and hence, while justice demands that these spheres should be accessible to them, they are so inferior to men in the capacity to control their actions and to distinguish right from wrong, that it is not to be thought of that they, poor weak women, should be treated with the same impartiality or severity by the law as is dealt out to men. Women nowadays “want it,” not “both ways” merely, but all ways -(Bax, 1913).
In court or through witnesses, any harsh words spoken in an argument were seen as de facto proof of all other claims of violence. Males and their witnesses were regularly prosecuted for perjury, while women were almost never taken to task (Bax, 1907: 13-14).

The custom of the courts, as Bax shows through court documents at the time, were not always part of the law as such. Women in family court were immune (generally speaking) for prosecution for adultery, libel or slander, crimes of violence, and abandonment. These, in other words, were rarely taken into consideration by courts, and even the most flagrant deserter or adulteress could quickly file for a “summary separation” and take a solid half to three quarters of her husband’s earnings (Bax, 1907: 25-30).

Beyond family court, however, the male dominated courts were advocates for female supremacy in other areas of law. Going through both the popular press and available case documents, he comes to the following conclusions:
In cases of drunkenness this offence against the safety of the community is visited on the woman with a trifling fine. The matter is looked on rather as a joke than an offence.
In cases of libel and slander, a criminal prosecution against a woman is practically unknown. A nominal penalty, such as a promise not to repeat the offence, is the usual ending to such a prosecution.
Crimes of assault and violence generally are almost as privileged in the case of an ordinary woman as of a wife against a husband.
Murder is similarly reduced to man slaughter, no matter who the woman may be, provided the victim is a man.
Waylaying, injuring business, or procuring dismissal, is similarly a pastime to be indulged in by any vindictive woman with absolute impunity.
Perjury is similarly a perquisite of the female litigant—whether perjury of the defensive or offensive type.
Turning wife’s evidence after seduction of husband is, of course, open to all women without punishment.
Conspiracy to procure the husband’s seduction, as has already been stated, goes unpunished if committed on the wife’s side -(Bax, 1907)
Apparently, the idea that women are the “weaker sex” has its benefits. No doubt, women are weaker physically, and that has been used to great effect, even when the abusive woman is larger and stronger than the victimized man. “Weaker” in this sort of case law, however, is also mental. Women are seen as being more emotional and less liable to control their impulses. The result is a less stringent policy being applied to them relative to criminal punishment.


Mrs Robinson explains away her adultery in famous case at a Victorian divorce court

Women were totally immune from corporal punishment as they were seen as less culpable for violent actions, if not totally incapable of them. Female murderesses were never hanged, regardless of the nature of the crime or even the status of the victim. The female duration of imprisonment for the same crime is very much less than the male which again, suggests the system at the time did not blame women for crimes. They, at some level, had to have been coerced into it.

Chances of executive pardons, even for infanticide, are very good for a woman for the same reasons. Desperation, rather than criminal intent, was the reason for crimes like infanticide. Though one of the more strange facts from the era is that a woman’s property can never be seized for debt. Here, the question of weakness or criminal responsibility do not matter. This is just a privilege pure and simple. When creditors in a capitalist system are halted, there must be a tremendous power that is capable of stopping their collection of a debt. Nor were children an issue, since this power was for all women at all stages of their life. Similarly, breaking contracts were subject to the “Coercion Doctrine” or not prosecuted at all.

“Women were seen to be incapable of seducing a man or slandering him” Bax states. Men were seen as the more aggressive part of the species, and this was reflected in law (Bax, 1907: 50-56). Yet, none of this accounts for the total immunity of debt seizures.

Bax remarks that it is male lawyers that promote these claims in female clients. Then and now, feminism is the creation, tool and toy of men. Like immigrants or third world coolies, women are weapons in a game. Female control over corporate policy is immense through affirmative action, sexual harassment law and hiring policy. The largest corporation can be quickly brought its knees though the complaint of a single woman who catches the ear of a “advocacy” organization.” In his day, male lawyers and judges were available to take all female claims and all standards of proof are reduced as a result. He states,
If an insignificant minority of women are oppressed by individual men, it is merely because, from any reason, economic or other, the woman does not for a considerable time, choose to go to the Police Courts. When a fact of this kind comes to be published, it is trumpeted forth in the press—the press which carefully excludes stories of male slavery—with the object of producing a false impression as to the side on which the balance of injustice is to be found -(Bax, 1907: 58).
The point of all this is to show that women have been ruling things for a long time. Feminism can only have developed due to wages and control over workplaces. Today, the Regime releases the male sex drive in innumerable ways, but then criminalizes the natural trajectory of this. It is entrapment and designed to punish men for being what the system makes of them.

The constant transfer of wealth from men to women in alimony, child support and legal fees destroys the “wage” gap that does not exist regardless. Women, when all sources of income are considered, are far better off than men. The breast cancer obsession is a blatant reminder that women’s lives are seen as more valuable than men’s.

Whether it be the female domination of the legal system in Pennsylvania protection law, or the Victorian Coercion Doctrine, society has always had two tiers: one for the (usually attractive) woman, always innocent and seeking strong men to protect her, and men, assumed to be guilty and driven into bankruptcy.

Female rule is proven by the fact that, to make this claim in public is to commit social suicide. Its proven by women assaulting men in public while the passersby giggle. Its proven by the destruction of all due process protections by men. Its proven by the myths of “wage gaps” existing for decades after they’ve been debunked. Its proven by the army of free lawyers and security guards offered by a woman even hinting she’s been sexually abused. Its proven by the universal policy of campus security being available to escort women to their dorms in college. They are literally treated like goddesses and royalty. Its proven by the endless promotion of female professors without anything close to a requisite knowledge of their field.

Feminism has always been run my men, with only the occasional window dressing be actually female. These groups are reactive, they seek only to justify and defend female privilege. The rule of the woman is very old, and is not going away.

Originally titled ” Women Have Always Ruled: Revisionism in Gender Relations in the Late Victorian Era”

Works Cited:
Bax, EB. The Legal Subjection of Men. New Age Press 1908
Bax, EB. The Fraud of Feminism, Grant Richards Ltd, 1913
Court System of Pennsylvania. Franklin County, PA Statistics 2012
Mr. Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics. New Age, 8 August 1908, p. 287-288