Feb 24, 2016

The Ongoing Displacement of White Men: Only a 2% Chance that Scalia's Replacement Will Be a White Man

via The Audacious Epigone

I must confess a lack of familiarity with most of the potential nominees, so I'll trust that these odds are explainable entirely by the perceived qualifications, temperament, judiciousness, etc of the jurists under presidential consideration.


via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Today I want to honor the teachers in my life. In prior broadcasts I’ve shared some of what I learned from my mentors Revilo Oliver and William Pierce. Great men and great teachers they were indeed, and lucky I am to have known them. But today I want to acknowledge my debt to the truly exceptional schoolteachers who have touched my life and helped me to see the world the way it really is.

First and without a doubt foremost is Mr. Frank Herlihy. His colleagues called him by his first name, but, even when I knew him in his later years, long after I was an adult, he was still always Mr. Herlihy to me. A rubicund, cheerful, witty, and vital man of about 40 when we met, Mr. Herlihy was of Irish ancestry. He was my middle school history teacher.

Though he would probably have called himself a radical conservative, he could be better described, I think, as a free spirit and a free thinker with a strong streak of racial and cultural consciousness. His classroom style was anything but conservative, bordering on the downright free-form and experimental.

He’d begin with in-classroom reading of one chapter of our Virginia history textbook, and we weren’t given too much time for that. Then he’d give a lecture on the subject — a quick, pithy lecture — with a lot of spontaneous anecdotes, questions and answers to and from students, and irreverent questioning of some of the premises in the book, or even questioning of the assumptions that most students brought with them from the society at large. He made you pay attention, and he made it fun. Then about halfway through the period, there was a test. Yes, there was a test every day. He demanded real, provable learning every single day — and he never to my knowledge gave homework. After the test, he gave — and explained — the answers to everyone: another opportunity to learn if you didn’t get it the first time. Then he’d write a summary on the blackboard of what we would be covering the next day — so you could read ahead if you wanted to.

To those who passed the test, the rest of the period was free time — a great reward for bright students in a school day filled largely with drudgery. He encouraged us to spend our free time on intellectually challenging pursuits: chess, philosophical and political debates and discussions, historical films (in those days before video, a projector had to be brought in), and — most especially — reading. And what reading material he made available! As I said in “My Political Education“:

How many other 12- and 13-year-olds were reading The American Mercury, American Opinion, Western Destiny, Richard Cotten’s Conservative Viewpoint, or H. L. Hunt’s Lifeline? My history classes were a welcome island of intellectual freedom and patriotism and sanity; a refuge from the anti-White, anti-Western, and anti-American influences that were almost everywhere else at the school.

I recall he brought in publications representing other points of view as well. The New Republic and National Review and others were right there alongside all the local newspapers, historical, artistic, and educational journals, and Carto’s Washington Observer newsletter, and innumerable others I can’t remember now. He brought in books for his students, too — all the way from classic literature to free thought, from Upton Sinclair to H.L. Mencken. We were even allowed to borrow the books and magazines and take them home if we wanted to. (In those days of an almost all-White northern Virginia school system, there were no disruptors in our class and all of the students, as far as I could tell, were delighted to throw themselves into the intellectual pursuits Mr. Herlihy fostered.)

It was a heady atmosphere of ideas, like nothing I’d ever experienced before, and I liked it. I liked it so much that when I was to be transferred to another history teacher the next semester, I moved heaven and earth at the school office, and even risked getting behind in some of my other classes, to get reassigned to Mr. Herlihy’s classroom again.

Once there was a discussion in class about the Establishment conservative journal National Review‘s anti-labor position and the economic and political leftism of the labor unions. No doctrinaire “free market” conservative, Mr. Herlihy was quick to point out that, whatever their flaws and traitorous leadership, the labor unions were quite necessary as a counterbalance to the power of organized finance and big business, which could be every bit as abusive and tyrannical as the biggest of big governments. Some of us were very surprised to hear that from Mr. Right-Wing Herlihy, but there it was and it made us think.

On another occasion, the projector was brought in and we watched several old newsreels from World War 2, not unlike this one. They were over the top jingoistic propaganda, but we students didn’t know it. They simply repeated the memes that we baby boomers had been taught our entire lives about that war — German atrocities, Germany trying to conquer and enslave the world, and American patriotism and democracy saving humanity from unspeakable horrors. We believed it all. In the middle of one of the most anti-German and propagandistic reels, Mr. Herlihy dramatically stopped the projector. The announcer’s voice slowed down to an incomprehensible rumble and then stopped as the screen went dark. In the dimmed room, Mr. Herlihy stepped to the front of the class. He spoke:

“I just want you all to know that it wasn’t like that in Germany. It wasn’t like that at all. I’m a veteran of that war. I served with the military police during the American occupation right after the war. The Germans of that time weren’t monsters. Yes, they did some pretty bloody things during the war, but so did we. So did we. Just as much as they did. And some of the things that happened to the Germans right at the end and even after the war, things you’ve never been told and that I can’t tell you here, were worse than anything you can think of. You need to always remember that the winners write the history books. Don’t forget that. Investigate things for yourselves.” Clearly emotionally moved, and possibly with a feeling that he’d said too much, he walked back to the projector and started the newsreel again. We watched and tried to comprehend what he had said.

Afterwards, a few students tried to draw him out further on the subject. He suggested looking into what David Irving and General Patton had to say. He also told this much smaller, trusted group that the real winners of that war didn’t include the American people — but did include the people who were pushing Martin Luther King, “affirmative action,” and the “counterculture” into our faces every day.

After I left middle school, I kept in touch with Mr. Herlihy. I was very interested in shortwave radio listening and radio in general so, several afternoons a month, I carried my heavy reel-to-reel tape recorder to his classroom after school — my old middle school was within walking distance of my home — and we listened to interesting points of view broadcast from countries around the world, and also to the stories told by radio raconteur Jean Shepherd, which we both found very amusing. My recordings of Radio Havana provided an interesting fugue-like counterpoint to the controlled US media and the New Left. And Radio RSA, the shortwave voice of White-run South Africa, provided another example of a country being outrageously and unjustly vilified by “American” propaganda.

Eventually Mr. Herlihy retired and I moved away, so our conversations were mostly via telephone and much more limited than they had been in the old days. He died in the early 2000s. So often people suddenly leave this life and we never get a chance to tell them what needs to be said. That was not the case with Mr. Herlihy. I got that chance a few years before his death. I met him at his home told him how he had given me the gift of free thought and free inquiry — of questioning things and figuring things out for yourself — of understanding that what the establishment puts forward as “truth” is often only a half-truth or less. I told him how much that had meant to me and how he had changed my life. And I thanked him for awakening in me the first faint stirrings of the only real patriotism — race-based patriotism. Mr. Herlihy was a real teacher, worthy of the name.

I also want to thank some of the other teachers who made a difference in my life: Mrs. Rampoli, who helped a second-grader from faraway Alaska feel at home and “fit in” in a rural Minnesota classroom; Mrs. Pastor, who didn’t laugh, and in fact offered praise and encouragement, when a seven-year-old tried — with many mistakes that would have been embarrassing if I’d even known enough to be embarrassed — to talk of serious subjects like war and peace and foreign countries; Mrs. Lindstrom, who first showed me the power and majesty of great art; Mr. Zipp, who drew up the curtain on the infinite subtleties of music for me; Mr. Pigg and Miss Titus who showed me that there was both fun and sublime beauty in mathematics and geometry; Mr. Sane — he of the eminently appropriate name — who with great patience proved to me that biological evolution was not only true but was also the key to understanding the essential nature of all life — its past — and its future; Mr. Maiolo, who taught me the magic of literature; and Mr. Malone, who on the very last day of high school gave us a warning I will never forget.

Mr. Malone was my science teacher in my senior year. He was tall, thin but broad-shouldered, dark-haired and brown-eyed, and rugged-looking. He was a quiet, serious man of great knowledge and competence, but his words had seldom strayed from the subject matter at hand. That is, until the very last day of class of our senior year.

Final examinations were long over, and there was little to do in any of our classes on that last day except socialize, sign yearbooks, say goodbyes, share memories, and talk of future plans. Mr Malone’s class was the final one of the day, and toward the end of it some announcements came over the school-wide PA system. After the announcements, a group of students played some popular music through the PA system as, I suppose, a kind of celebration of our impending freedom. One of the songs they played was the popular “top 40” hit, “Brother Louie” — a song celebrating interracial sex.

Before the lead singer could get to the chorus, Mr. Malone rose from his desk and walked purposefully to the PA speaker and switched it off. He turned to face the class. With unaccustomed emotion he spoke: “I will not have that piece of filth played in my classroom. The people who produced that and other filth are trying to destroy us. To kill us. By mixing the races. They want to destroy everything that we are and everything we stand for. You may not believe me. You may think I am an old man who doesn’t understand the new ways. But mark my words. Those who made that filth are filth. They are your enemies. You will see one day.” The students, who had a moment before been in a relaxed, conversational, and almost-partying mood, were so silent you could hear their breathing. They seemed to be riveted in place, staring at Mr. Malone. The final bell rang and the spell was broken. Without another word, we students filed out to the buses and into our new lives.

Mr. Malone, I wish I had had the maturity to thank you for your warning and to fully understand it. If you’re in a place where you can hear my words, I thank you now.
Human lives are very short. For our people and our culture to live on beyond this brief generation, the two most basic things we must have are children and teachers. All those of our race with good genes should do what it takes to become parents, abundant parents. And I believe that all of us who know the eternal truths of race must also become teachers, and teach without end every day of our lives. Mr. Malone and Mr. Herlihy and Dr. Pierce and Dr. Oliver taught me. Someone taught them. Someone taught you. Now it is your turn.

The Christian Duty of Discrimination

via Faith & Heritage

The prophet Elijah commits an act of religious
discrimination on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:27)


My wife and I recently attended a worship service of a local Free Reformed Church in the Netherlands congregation where the pastor’s sermon was themed “the sin of discrimination.” The text of the sermon was James 2:9: “if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” The pastor claimed this teaches that discrimination is sinful. Thankfully he made this bold statement right at the beginning of his sermon, starting off with a reference to this rather fake “experiment”, which enabled my wife and me to walk out of that worship service five minutes into the sermon – with no intention of ever returning to that congregation. What made this experience particularly horrifying is that the pastor prior to the service explicitly noted that his sermon is to be understood as a response to the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, France, on November 13, 2015, in which 130 victims lost their lives.

This pastor’s misinterpretation of this verse is commonplace in the Western Church today, which has basically resorted to echoing the the principles of the institutionalized cultural Marxist public religion from the pulpit. For this reason our own Ehud Would has already addressed this particular variant of the egalitarian heresy with this piece. Nonetheless, I would like to elaborate and continue where he left off by emphasizing the necessity and duty of discrimination as an essential part of the Christian life. Firstly, however, I’d like to exegete the full passage of the particular sermon I mentioned in more detail.

James 2 and Discrimination

Interestingly, this second chapter of James’s epistle is one of the best-known texts of Scripture to which it is clearly necessary to apply the exegetical principle of analogia fidei (i.e. that the infallible Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit is its own authoritative interpreter) in order to come to a correct understanding thereof. Following the Reformers, we understand that the message of James 2:14-26 (i.e. that faith without works is dead) is not at odds with the rest of Scripture, by means of understanding this passage of St. James in light of St. Paul’s expositions of the doctrine of justification by faith alone in particular (e.g. Rom. 1:17; 3:24-26; 4:20-22; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:8-11). When reading and praying for wisdom to understand both these inspired authors correctly, we receive enlightenment from the Holy Spirit to understand that James is simply reaffirming Christ’s teaching of Matthew 7:16, namely that true believers, already justified in Him, are recognized by their fruits (works) of sanctification in accordance with God’s Law.

One of the reasons God providentially provided the church with the canon of sixty-six books is because the different authors of Scripture, though all inspired by the Holy Spirit, address different challenges in different times and contexts and for different purposes. This makes some passages nigh impossible to understand without reference to the others. Theodore Beza (1519-1605), the great Reformed theologian and successor of Calvin in Geneva, systematically explains the necessity of this exegetical principle clearly in his attempt (as a second-generation Reformer) to methodologically refine Reformed systematic theology and biblical exegesis, which, in the time of Calvin himself, still had a strong (anti-Papist) polemical character. He proposes what can be termed the “loci method,” where doctrines systematically derived from clear passages of Scripture, and synthesized into a coherent system, serve as an interpretative guideline for more obscure biblical passages. In practice this implies that any text of Scripture is to be understood 1) in relation to its immediate historical context, 2) in relation to other, clearer passages of Scripture, and 3) in relation to those clear and central Christian doctrines derived from Scripture.1

By applying this orthodox method of biblical understanding to the first section of James 2, I would counter that this text does not at all teach what this particular pastor claims it does. The letter of St. James can in many regards be seen as New Testament wisdom literature, in other words, functioning within the New Testament canon in the same way Proverbs does within the Old Testament. The Law of Moses exhibits clearly the will of God for his people and Proverbs is an appeal to the people to live in accordance with the spirit of this Law through the wisdom granted by the grace of God. Similarly, in the New Testament Christ clarifies and elaborates on the Law of Moses in the Sermon on the Mount, and St. James calls upon the Church to live lovingly, patiently, and generously in accordance with the Law of Christ (see chapter 1 in particular). It should therefore be evidently clear that whatever morality is proposed by James cannot be at odds with the Law of God as revealed throughout the rest of Scripture. After all, central to James’s message is that God, whom He clearly identifies as the one God revealed both to the Old Testament covenant people and through Jesus Christ His Son (James 1:1), has within Himself no variability, but is eternally consistent (James 1:17).

James 2:1-9 (v. 5 in particular) clearly begs to be interpreted in light of the the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount, in particular Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The seventeenth-century English Calvinist Matthew Poole comments on this verse:
Happy are they, who, though they be not rich in this world’s goods, yet have a spirit suited to their state and condition, not looking for their consolation here, but, having a poor and low opinion of the world and all that is therein, looking after more excellent riches; and, in order to it, are of broken and contrite spirits for their manifold sins, and cannot entertain any proud opinion of their own righteousness, but flee unto the free grace of God, and the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Not the great, and rich, and proud men of the world are happy, but these are the blessed men; for true happiness lieth not in worldly possessions, but in the favour of God, and a right to the kingdom of heaven, and that these men have (Psalm 34:18; 51:17; Isaiah 66:2).
Notwithstanding that I would not equate the blessedness of which Christ speaks in the beatitudes with happiness as Poole does (at least not in our twenty-first-century context – the error may be overlooked given Poole’s own historical context), he beautifully explains the core of Christ’s statement. Our trust and pride is to be rooted in Christ and His absolute Lordship over and redemption of our lives, and not in strictly material realities. In other words, never can gifts be elevated above Giver – that is idolatry. Yet, simultaneously, gifts are not to be shunned but appreciated as gifts from our heavenly Father (James 1:17). This infallible claim of Christ calls for a Christian orthopraxis in accordance with the Law of our Savior, and James sets out to explain just that.

Having set out these biblical premises for understanding James 2, our apologetic against the alienist interpretation of James 2:9 revolves around noting that it cannot be understood apart from verse 4 of this same chapter. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, in writing this letter to the church (1:1-2), commands the congregation in verse 4 “not [to] show . . . partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts.” He writes this in the context of providing an example of unrighteous discrimination where the rich in the congregation receive preferential treatment over the poor within the context of the assembly (vv. 1-3). Verse 5 then clearly hints towards the aforementioned text from the beatitudes, which is followed by an explicit call to obey the Law of God by loving our neighbors as ourselves by not showing “partiality” (verses 6-9). The Greek word translated as “partiality” or “prejudice” or “favoritism” in verse 9, προσωπολημπτεῖτε, occurs only this one time in the entire New Testament. It can best be defined in English as “to show partiality” or “to have respect of persons.” Clearly this biblical law can be traced back to Deuteronomy 10:17-19, and the meaning, as Ehud Would explains in his brilliant article on the law of partiality, is that “the law forbids favoritism to interfere with the administration of justice. But this is quite different from saying that affinity and acknowledgement of distinctions are categorically unjust.”

The Christian Demand for Righteous Discrimination

Taking this a step further, we must acknowledge that not only biblical law, but the very order of creation, as implanted by its omnipotent and wise Creator, makes continual discrimination an inherent part of life categorically inescapable.

Nonetheless, a quick search of online dictionaries of the word provides us with the definitions like the following:
1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: [e.g.] racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
Mass noun
1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex: [e.g.] victims of racial discrimination; discrimination against homosexuals.
2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another: discrimination between right and wrong.
Modern dictionaries therefore seem to distinguish between two primary definitions of the word discrimination, in short: 1. Unjust prejudice based on race, sex, sexual orientation, class, or religion; 2. Making a distinction (between right and wrong).

In a sermon I delivered on Ezekiel, I noted that the cultural sanctification of a people entails that all of their language, including their expressions and even their dictionaries, need to conform to godliness. Compare, for example, these commonly available online dictionaries with the definition of the same word in Samuel Johnson’s 1755 A Dictionary of the English Language:
Discriminátion. n.s. [from discriminatio, Latin.] 1. The state of being distinguished from other persons or things.
There is a reverence left to be shewed them on the account of their discrimination from other places, and separation for sacred uses. Stillingfleet’s Def. of Disc. On Rom. Idol.
2. The act of distinguishing one from another; distinction; difference put.
A satire should expose nothing but what is corrigible, and make a due discrimination between those that are, and those who are not the proper objects of it. Addison’s Spectator.
By that prudent discrimination made between the offenders of different degrees, he obliges those whom he has distinguished as objects of mercy. Addison’s Freeholder, №. 31.
3. The marks of distinction.
Take heed of abetting any factions, or applying any publick discriminations in matters of religion. King Charles.
Letters arise from the first original discriminations of voice, by way of articulation, whereby the ear is able to judge and observe the differences of vocal sounds. Holder’s El. Of Speech.
The core essence of the word remains the same in all dictionaries, but there is also a marked difference. Whereas in modern English dictionaries either the first or second primary definition of the word is provided with an exclusively negative meaning, Johnson’s Dictionary gives three primary meanings all of which are either positive or neutral. There is a quite simple explanation for this: a change of the public religion (or theocratic order) of Western Civilization as a whole and the Anglosphere in particular from the seventeenth century to the early twenty-first century. Even until late in the eighteenth century, England was a renowned Christian nation, producing the likes of Edmund Burke, arguably the most famous opponent of the anti-Christian French Enlightenment. In the twenty-first century, as readers of this site well know, the old world has been turned completely upside-down, as apostasy characterizes Anglo-American culture, of course worsened and intensified even further by the multiculturalism forced upon all of Western society.

With this shift of public religion, a shift in hamartiology, i.e. the doctrine regarding sin, has also occurred. This is reflected in dictionaries. Wikipedia starts of its article on hamartiology by defining the concept as “a branch of Christian theology.” This is incorrect. Hamartiology is a branch of all theology, Christian or non-Christian. Islam has a concept of hamartiology. You’d probably never get a Buddhist to admit it, but Buddhism also has this concept. And so does the religion of cultural Marxism, the public religion which all of Western Civilization (at least in Western Europe and North America) has today. It is often claimed that modern society cares nothing for the concept of “sin,” but this cannot be further from the truth. The concept is recognized as much as ever – and yes, also in the so-called “secular” public domain, where people are constantly persecuted by what is effectively the blasphemy laws of the secular democratic state. As I’m writing this article, I have on the desk next to me a fine my wife and I received a day prior from a certain Western government’s Ministry of Justice. The crime for which we are fined is the distribution of Christian pro-life literature in front of an abortion clinic. Of course, technically speaking, the law which we disobeyed states that literature may not be distributed at certain times of the day in certain parts of a particular city, but the point is that the officials were called out to check on us because of the very nature of our action, which is considered to be opposed to the ideals of the current state religion. Within a minute after we handed out the first flyer, law enforcement, obviously spying on us, was on the scene. A counterargument may be that this law applies to the distribution of all literature in the given area at the given time, but the point is that whenever Christians are fined by the government for speaking up against the legal murder of innocent babies at any given time, there is clearly tyranny. There is a clear “sin” which legislation of this sort is intended to combat.

Liberals may claim that the Enlightenment liberated mankind from the “oppression” of true liberty by the Medieval Church, but they have no idea what they’re talking about. The simple fact of the matter is that in 1755, discrimination was (rightly) regarded by English society not as a sin, but as an inescapable part of human life, which can be used for good (when executed in accordance with God’s Law) and bad (when executed unrighteously). However, because the modern atheistic state is unable to appeal to a higher moral standard than itself, it has to continually resort to forms of deception in order to make its order appear more acceptable to the general population – this is evident in its declaration of discrimination as sinful. Marxism portrays discrimination as sinful per se, but only after re-defining discrimination as unjust discrimination against other (groups of) people on the basis on race, sex, religion, or class. Furthermore, of course, by continually selectively applying this standard through public discourse, everyone becomes aware of the “fact” that while not wanting your country to be overrun by Muslim hordes is discriminatory, victimizing those who oppose abortion, for example, is simply necessarily to defend “freedoms” and “human rights.”

Note, for example, these striking similarities between the primary definitions of discrimination provided by modern dictionaries and certain anti-discrimination clauses in modern constitutions:
Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
~ Article 1 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (adopted in 1983)
No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone . . . on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed . . . is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.
~ Section 9 (3-5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (adopted in 1996)
It is clear that a certain institutionalized religious notion of sin, with the state and its appointed judges as supreme moral authority, is also reflected in the dictionaries produced by the society living under this establishment. This holistic societal upheaval of the authority of biblical law and the war against its recognition of divinely ordained distinctions has resulted in the revolting and immoral zeitgeist which we have to endure today, where for example unisex bathrooms, a direct threat to the safety of women and a violation of the privacy of all, may be publicly instituted, yet publicly speaking up against murdering unborn babies is not tolerated. At the same time, even in what is supposed to be the public worship of the Triune God on Sunday morning, all we hear is even more appeals for increased conformity to the law of Satan – “thou shalt not discriminate.” Contrary to this, biblical law demands discrimination by both the people and the state, and often on the basis of religion, sex, race, and sexual orientation.


The root problem of the absurdity that cultural Marxism has brought upon our formerly Christian civilization lies in the fact that the willful declaration of discrimination’s intrinsic sinfulness is far removed from all divinely created realities reflected in God’s Law. This includes divinely sanctioned distinctions which cannot be disregarded by any society if it is to function sensibly. Discrimination is an inescapable part of human existence – in fact, it is an integral part of what makes human existence possible and sensible. All humans discriminate almost every day in almost every decision we make. Therefore, to declare discrimination as sinful, as this “Reformed” pastor with his sermon on James 2 did, is nothing short of resorting to the heresy of Gnosticism. The only coherent solution to this societal problem is a return to the biblical law of partiality, which demands of every Christian to live a life marked by the continual exercise of righteous discrimination.

  1. Mallison, J. 2003. Faith, Reason, and Revelation in Theodore Beza, 1519-1605. Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 70-72

The Mantle of Angry Cuckservatives

via Radix

Over at The Blaze Matt Walsh has a new blog post out decrying Donald Trump's recent victory in South Carolina. The only thing notable about it is that it contains almost every cuckservative cliche in one, easy to find place.

Hateful Heretic over at The Right Stuff has a good dissection of Walsh's wailings here. Really it speaks for itself, as Donald Trump rises, Beck's Blaze continues to go up in smoke.
Dear Donald Trump Fan,
I’m going to tell you the truth, friend.
You say you want the truth. You say you want someone who speaks boldly and brashly and bluntly and “tells it like it is” and so on. According to exit polls in South Carolina, voters who want a president who “tells it like it is” are an essential demographic for Trump, just as they’re an essential demographic for Judge Judy and Dr. Phil. You say you want abrupt and matter-of-fact honesty, and you want it so much, you’ll make a man president for it regardless of whether he defies every principle and value you claim to hold.
Personally, I think you’re lying, and I’m going to test my theory. In fact, I believe I’ve already proven my theory because you’re now offended that I called you a liar. But Trump has called half of the Earth’s population a liar at some point over the past seven months, and you loved every second of it. You said you loved it not out of cruelty or spite, but out of admiration for a man who’s willing to call people liars — even if he’s lying when he does it.
Yet here I am employing the same tactic — accurately, I might add — and you recoil indignantly. Over the course of this campaign season I’ve said many harsh words about you and your leader, all of which I stand by, but you’ve never respected my harsh words, or the harsh words of any Trump critic. Indeed, you insist that our tough criticism of you only vindicates your support of Trump, while Trump’s vulgar and dishonest criticism of everyone else also vindicates your support of Trump. You’re tired of people being critical, but you love Trump because he’s critical. You say you like Trump for his style, but you hate his style when it’s directed at him or you.
You say you want someone who’s politically incorrect. You’re so desperate for political incorrectness — a supremely ridiculous reason to vote a guy into the Oval Office, but never mind — that your esteem for him only grows when he belittles the disabled, mocks American prisoners of war, calls women dogs, calls his opponents p*ssies, calls for the assassination of women and children, says he’d like to have sex with his daughter, brags about his adultery, etc.
Dear reader, if you can take any more of this self indulgent claptrap (I can't), then feel free to read there rest of this temper tantrum here.

Whatever else Trump does, the impotent rage he's incited in Conservatism Inc. will surely be one the fondest memories we here at Radix will cherish of this election season.

Texe Marrs: The Only Political Party in the USA Is the Jew Party

via National-Socialist Worldview

Despite his religious outlook, Texe Marrs is an astute observer. Ted Cruz is "one of these people," says Texe Marrs.

Marrs does not directly say that Cruz is a Jew because there is no direct proof, but the circumstantial indicators are strong.

Since Marrs views the world from a religious perspective, the way he explains what he observes is not exactly the way I would explain it. It does not mean that his observations are bad, only that the different framework for interpretation has to be taken into account.

Marrs' reference to Jews as Satan-worshippers makes sense if you take it as a metaphor. The Gospels, in the traditional Christian interpretation, constitute an aetiological myth explaining why Jews are the enemies of the rest of mankind.

The strongest determining factor in how people behave, however, is not religion but inherited character. This is also true of the Muslim immigrants in Europe: they behave as they do not so much because of their religion as because of their inherited character.

Marrs also makes a mistake when he says that the Stasi was the dominant political party in the part of Germany that was ruled by Communists. Stasi means Staatsicherheitspolizei -- State Security-Police. Anetta Kahane is a Jewish woman who was an agent of the Stasi and is currently involved in efforts to stifle nationalist speech in Germany.

Hillary Clinton Is Peddling Fear and Hatred of White Men to Women and Black Voters

via saboteur365

This is your campaign. It is a campaign to break down every barrier that holds you back. — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 20, 2016

Who’s holding them back? Who else but the white man. That all powerful mythical evil figure whose mission is to oppress everyone.

The source article for this post was written by the economist Thomas Sowell, who happens to be a black man.

His pieces are always informative but we can add something to this one: THE WHITE MAN.

Dr. Sowell does not name the white man. Hillary Clinton may not name the white man either, but the enemies of blacks and women that she insinuates control America can only be the white man.

Hillary isn’t going to criticize the Jew man or the Negro man, not even indirectly. Thus, her insinuation is that we white males are oppressing women and blacks but that Hillary will smash us to pieces. That’s the vile message of this Satanic monster who’s married to a serial rapist. Maybe she’s projecting her degenerate husband onto all white men.

Excerpt from Lew Rockwell:
Her basic pitch to black voters is that they have all sorts of enemies and that blacks need her to protect them, which she is ready to do if they vote for her. In short, Hillary’s political fate depends on spreading fear and, if possible, paranoia.

Similar attempts to get the votes of women are based on conjuring up enemies who are waging a “war on women,” with Hillary again cast in the role of someone ready to come to their rescue, if they will give her their votes.
In both cases, rhetoric and repetition take the place of hard evidence. The closest thing to evidence being offered is that the average income of blacks is not the same as the average income of whites, and the average income of women is not the same as the average income of men.
The lower intelligence of blacks would explain their lower earnings while the lower earnings of women reflect to a large degree the differences in their qualifications.
Anyone who is being serious — as distinguished from being political — would have to take many factors into account before saying that male-female income differences, or black-white differences, are due to people with identical qualifications and experience being paid differently.
Hillary Clinton isn’t serious about truth. She’s only serious about her own personal obsession with being the first woman president.

She’s damn dangerous though. Her tactics slander white men. Her policies, if she ever holds another political office, will demolish anything resembling a society based on merit.

Obama took blacks and intensified their hatred of white people. Hillary will take blacks and woman and intensify the hatred of white men.

If we’re lucky those coughing fits of hers signify some serious health problem that leaves her disabled.

As Dr. Sowell writes, Hillary is out to deepen the already deep divisions in America to benefit herself.

What about blacks, women or others who believe the political hype? Will that help them improve their lives, or will it be anther counterproductive distraction for them and another polarization of society that helps nobody, except those who seeking votes? As for the media, they are covering the political contests, not the effects of the lies generated in these contests.


A Tale of Two Cities: Flint, Michigan and Prenter, West Virginia

via TradYouth

The situation in Flint, Michigan is absolutely tragic. It is a story of government incompetence, greed, and the utter failure of politicians and community organizers at the local and national level to address a critical health crisis. For those of you who don’t know, Flint has been poisoning its own people with high levels of lead in their drinking water for over a year.

The city government of Flint had changed the water supply for the town to a far more polluted source and then stopped using a chemical that retarded the leeching of lead by old pipes into the drinking water. The result of both of these failures is pollutants, heavy metals (including lead) and other unsafe elements being introduced to the population of Flint.

These high lead levels can cause birth defects, developmental problems in children, and both physical and mental health issues in those who are affected. Lead poisoning is a horrific problem that no family, Black or White, should ever have to suffer from in this day and age. The situation in Flint should to rectified quickly and the State should provide resources and care for those impacted by it, along with ensuring that this will never happen again.

The Flint water crisis has attracted international attention in the media and has made it to the halls of Washington, D.C and the Michigan Statehouse. The crisis has taken too long to get fixed, but thankfully the situation is getting fixed and families are starting to get some support.

This is a tale of one city in a horrible situation. But there is another town and many like it who are suffering from a similar, and in some cases even a worse problem, of unsafe drinking water, and there is nothing but silence for those communities.

Places like Prenter, West Virginia are drinking poison that isn’t just hurting the people, it is killing them. Yet while innocent White people are losing their lives, suffering from horrific cancers and diseases caused by corrupt politicians and crony corporations, there’s been no nationwide outrage. The problem is more acute and has been going on for decades, but you’re unlikely to hear about it from the anti-white media.

Scientists, health experts and environmental activists have investigated the situation in Prenter and other rural areas where coal slurry has poisoned the water. This man-made health and environmental crisis is afflicting thousands of White families around Appalachia.

The Wesleyan Argus summarizes the situation:
“Before coal mining corporations (Massey Energy in the area around Prenter) can sell coal to power companies, they must wash the coal to remove some of the most dangerous elements restricted by the Clean Air Act. They do this by using huge amounts of water (coal companies in West Virginia have used an amount of water 4.3 times the volume of Lake Ontario) and more than 50 chemicals (many of them known carcinogens), to rinse the coal until it is clean enough to be burned. The leftover sludge is known as slurry, and is a hazardous waste. Not only does it contain lead, mercury, manganese, and arsenic from the coal, but it also contains the chemicals used to clean it, many of which are secret because they are patented by Dow Chemical.
What is done with this poisonous sludge? One of two things. It is either put into sludge lakes, such as the one that collapsed inTennessee last December, or it is injected into abandoned mine shafts. The shafts are supposed to be lined with limestone and concrete, but this rule is poorly enforced and is often ignored by coal companies. Incredibly poisonous coal sludge is being injected into mine shafts, which are almost always uphill and upstream from communities. There are more than 692 known, suspected, or proposed injection sites in West Virginia alone. Bad idea.
As you would expect, the sludge does not always stay in the mine shafts, especially because of the 3 million tons of explosives that are used every day to destroy the mountains of West Virginia. In 2001, when heavy explosives began to be used to perform mountaintop removal on a mountain in Prenter, the water in Prenter began to become poisonous. When coal is not disturbed, it functions as an enormous carbon filter, making the well water in areas around coal seams some of the cleanest in the world. However, the blasting has released some of the coal sludge stored in mine shafts. The water is Prenter is now poisonous, and often runs black, red, or brown.
The Prenter water contains mercury, lead, arsenic, manganese (all at levels 10-250 times the legal limits), and, significantly, hydrogen sulfide gas. Hydrogen sulfide gas in the well water of one Prenter household was measured at 30 parts per million. To put this number in context: water that smells like rotten eggs has a rate of less than 1 ppm and in industrial facilities 15 ppm is the evacuation level. The drinking water in Prenter is twice the industrial evacuation limit. Hydrogen sulfide gas is extremely corrosive and can break a washing machine in about three months. Think of what it does to your stomach.
People in Prenter have developed many diseases and conditions, which are clearly related to the poison in their water. They seem to improve greatly and quickly when people stop drinking the water. Residents have developed a slew of various gastrointestinal conditions, urinary tract infections, and rare cancers such as esophagus cancer. On one street in Prenter, 98% of residents have had their gallbladders removed (the statewide rate is 3%). One man reported that three months after he stopped drinking the Prenter water, his intestinal polyps receded 40%. Other people who have stopped using the water for bathing stopped getting urinary tract infections.“
The situation for the people of Prenter and anyone in Appalachia hurt by coal slurry or the after effects of mining find themselves in a hard place. The Leftists and other radical environmental groups don’t seem to care much about poor White folks in need. When they do; they focus primarily on simply shutting the mines without providing economic alternatives for the communities in need. An example of this is the coalition group, the Alliance for Appalachia that states they simply want to end mountaintop removal and contribute to Green energy and new economic opportunities for the people of Appalachia.

Big Coal promotes "Friends of Coal" as they pillage the resources and people of Appalachia
Big Coal promotes “Friends of Coal” as they pillage the resources and White people of Appalachia

The Alliance however rejected the Traditionalist Worker Party’s application to join their coalition due to our stances on issues that have nothing to do with the environment or health of the people of Appalachia. Leftist groups care more about Social Justice posturing than actually improving the lives of the people they say they care about. Being able to get “Teach for America” style White savior credibility for New York cocktail parties is all well and good, but the folks of these groups have thinly-veiled contempt towards the people and the culture of Appalachia.

The Conservatives on the other hand have fallen behind Big Coal in their “Friends of Coal” movement and see any attempt to regulate or clean up these environmental messes to be part of the Leftist agenda. Republicans and Democrats are in the pockets of Big Coal, but Republicans take their cronyism as a badge of honor. Republican lawmakers call for more mountaintop removal, less environmental regulations and less enforcement of laws meant to protect miners and communities from the harmful effects of mining.

This betrayal by the political class leaves working class families between a rock and a hard place. Both establishment parties receive huge amounts of funding from Big Coal and have done very little to invest in these communities to maintain the environment and provide newer, safer and cleaner jobs for the men of these communities.

While the people of Flint are angry, and justifiably so; the people of Appalachia should be in outright revolt! The people of Appalachia are being poisoned and killed by deliberate and systematic government policies. Children are suffering and no politicians are doing anything to fix these issues.

While we need to fix the problems with the water in Flint, hundreds of thousands of Appalachian’s need help as well! The Traditionalist Worker Party is beginning an outreach program to local communities to find ways to solve these problems, with or without the help of the current political Parties. It is up to us, as stewards of our people to raise awareness about the condition of Appalachian water supplies and to improve the health and environment for our constituents who live there.

In this tale of two cities, Flint Michigan is receiving aid. Prenter is not. It is up to our Party and the local men and women of the communities to take a stand for a better future, one where families can safely raise their children without fear of capitalists and bought off politicians poisoning their children. The suffering of many is no longer going to be allowed to happen in silence. Our Party will fight for these communities just as community activists are fighting for Flint so that hopefully the tale of both of these cities and all others like them will one day be ones of a better tomorrow.

After June 23rd

via Majority Rights

My record on political soothsaying is by no means perfect.  But tonight, for the first time since the Tory triumph in the General Election last May, I am starting to feel optimistic for a Leave triumph in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, which we now know will take place on June 23rd.  The arguments for Remain have already been rehearsed and written off as Project Fear.  They will not grow stronger with repetition.  All the positive noises, all the energy and excitement, the populism, the passion, the patriotism belong to Leave.  I have been amazed to see the freedom and frankness with which even hitherto rigidly loyal journalists at the Telegraph and the Mail have, almost without exception, derided Cameron’s so-called “deal” with the other 27 member states and declared for Leave.  It is said that up to half of the Tory parliamentary party will campaign for Leave, an unknown number of them mindful only that victory for this great cause will very likely remove Cameron from office and put Boris Johnson in his place.  But that is but a small detail of the huge change - a genuine metapolitical shift - which will be triggered by a Leave victory.  Let us just consider that for a moment.

The European Union is a project for the elites.  It is one of the principal engines of globalism, and it is immensely ambitious as such.  It offers a vision of an eventual multiracial, non-democratic unitary state concerned to expand to the eastern and southern borders of Russia, into Turkey and the Levant, North Africa (via the Barcelona Process), and, in time, across the Sahara and into the rest of the African continent.  All this is a matter of record.  But none of it would be remotely open to consideration were it not for the four grand, overlapping developments in the politics of the West in the late 20th century: the triumph of Capital over the command economy; that of political internationalism over nationalism; that of elitism over democracy; that of business and banking over peoples and populism.  These four triumphs winnowed national politics in the West, leaving us with the machine politician, the career politician; and his economically neoliberal and socially neo-Marxist, identikit parties; and ushered in an era of corruption, cynicism and betrayal.

Not unnaturally, this model of power politics has come under attack in every one of the European democracies.  In the UK, although nationalism has failed to lay a glove on it, euroscepticism has not.  True, UKIP could not break through with Westminster seats last May.  But David Cameron was forced to write into his party’s election manifesto a promise that, if successful, a Conservative government would hold a simple in-out referendum on EU membership by the end of next year.  At the time of the election the polls were very tight, and doubtless Cameron expected, at best, to be back in Downing Street with support from the Liberal Democrats.  They, of course, would never sanction any kind of challenge to their beloved project in nation destroying.  In the event the LibDems collapsed, Labour failed miserably, and Cameron won a most unexpected majority.  But ... he was now lumbered with that manifesto promise.  Plainly, he and his advisers thought they would have little difficulty in repeating the success of Project Fear in the Scottish IndyRef.  After all, who would remember Cameron’s Bloomberg speech, in which he had talked of a deep reform of the institutions of the European Union and of the UK’s relationship with it.  Nobody. They’ll all just vote for the status quo ... for what they know, won’t they?  Simple.

But now it’s starting to look like change is coming on 23rd June.  The return to independence of the UK will deliver a mighty blow to the process of ever greater union, energising dissent throughout the Union; ramping up costs for the other contributor member states, of which I believe only five or six will be left; and showing once again that the people do not want what the elites want, but still love and value their nation states and long to preserve them as independent and whole, functioning entities. With Schengen almost dead now, the euro in permanent crisis, the European economies seemingly permanently enfeebled, and the second largest economy negotiating its departure from the Union for good, the credibility of an EU elite which insists that the project must be advanced with ever more speed and determination will be tested and will be found wanting.  The Union could already be fatally wounded.  It might take years to die or it might happen with the dispatch that attended the collapse of communism in the east in 1989.

For nationalists this is a highly significant moment.  The pendulum has surely begun its long, stately swing back towards our politics.  We are in no way ready for what will come.

Southern Poverty Law Center – Manufacturing Hate for Fun and Profit

via American Freedom Party

James Simpson at Breitbart Big-Government reported that The Southern Poverty Law Center, always seeming to hover in the shadows whenever honest citizens and organizations try to stand up for this country, is at it again. In addition to the usual suspects – which includes pretty much anyone who disagrees with the American radical Left – SPLC has been increasingly attacking people and groups who express concern about Islamic terrorism – adding them to SPLC’s infamous “Hate Watch” list.

This now includes the Washington, DC think tank, Center for Security Policy. Widely respected in defense circles, the Center has been warning us for years about the subversive tactics being employed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its proxies to destroy our nation from within. Its veteran analysts from the defense and intelligence community seek to warn the country of the existential threat we now face from Muslim terrorists.

SPLC Hate for Fun and Profit

People all over the world have witnessed the terrorists’ handiwork, and America is now undeniably in the cross hairs. Any organization purporting to defend civil rights would not blame, much less attack, Americans for being alarmed, and would be hard pressed to explain its criticism of the Center for Security Policy.

In fact it is difficult to imagine anyone in their right minds not being alarmed. The chart below uses a list compiled by the Heritage Foundation and traces terror plots in the U.S. since 9/11/01. It is easy to see that the trend has been increasing exponentially and in 2015 went off the charts. What will happen in 2016? Already 3 terror plots have been thwarted and the FBI has over 900 pending ISIS cases in all 50 states. With the attacks in France and America, and the violent Middle East migrant invasion of Europe, how could people not be concerned?

SPLC Manufacturing Hate

The only true haters are the Islamists and SPLC. Americans do not need to justify their concerns over Islamic terror and its political corollary, the body of Islamic law known as shariah. Indeed, shariah is anathema to every freedom we hold dear and threatens to rob us of it before our very eyes.

If there were no reason to be concerned about Islam, it should be a simple matter for American Muslim leaders to reassure America. But instead, they denounce Americans as Islamophobic and the SPLC turns it into a nationwide vilification campaign. In gambling they call this a “tell.” When your political opponent resorts to name calling, it is because he cannot articulate a credible argument against you. So instead of arguing, he intimidates and attacks.

When an organization as prominent and powerful as the SPLC turns its guns on you, it can cost you your job, your livelihood – even your standing in the community. Not because you have done anything wrong. Not because what they say about you is true, but because a focused vilification campaign forces others to avoid you out of fear. You become what they call “radioactive.”

It is a form of psychological attack familiar to the Left. Vladimir Lenin wrote:
We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.
Herbert Marcuse, a German Communist scholar of the Marxist Frankfurt School, formalized this notion in a 1965 essay titled Repressive Tolerance; Marcuse argued that the First Amendment was insufficient in addressing the Left’s need to be heard. In racist, imperialist, oppressive America, their message would always be ignored. It wasn’t fair, he argued. Marcuse’s answer was to shut down the opposition:
Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left… Not ‘equal’ but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality.
While most of us have never heard of Marcuse or his theory, his idea was enthusiastically embraced by the Left. Marcuse himself was an associate of Julian Bond, an SPLC board member from its founding. Marcuse and Bond were co-founders of the leftwing newspaper In These Times. They both served on the National Conference for New Politics and were involved in other radical activism.

Marcuse’s “Liberating tolerance” found its most practical application in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which systematized the tactics of hate, ridicule and vilification to shut down opposing voices. While most leftists have memorized this tactic and we witness it every day in media and politics, I think it is the SPLC’s raison d’être.

Note that they never attempt to justify their position, because they never could. Their sole purpose is to destroy political opposition. That is why debating the Left is impossible. They are not debating. They are calculating ways to destroy you.
And if you think I exaggerate, perhaps I should quote the SPLC itself, whose spokesman Mark Potok has said, “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them…”

Though trained as a lawyer, SPLC’s founder, Morris Dees, is best known for his fundraising ability. Raising over $24 million for the George McGovern presidential campaign in 1972, his payment was the donor list, the gold mine that provided much of SPLC’s later funding. He also worked on the Jimmy Carter campaign in 1976, adding to SPLC’s donor list. In fact, besides issuing slanderous attacks on political opponents, fundraising seems to be SPLC’s primary objective. So since one of the SPLC’s tools is hate, perhaps we should examine how other liberals view them.

SPLC Co-founder Morris Dees’ business partner, Millard Fuller:
Morris and I, from the first day of our partnership, shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money. We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich. During the eight years we worked together, we never wavered in that resolve.
Renowned anti-death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer [not to be confused with Dees’ partner, Millard Fuller]:
[Dees is] the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement, though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.
Nation Magazine’s Alexander Cockburn:
Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America, in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC.
Harpers Magazine:
Today, the SPLC spends most of its time – and money – on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate.
Noting an Arlington, Virginia reader’s question about contributing to the SPLC in the federal government’s Combined Federal Campaign, an editorial in The Fairfax Journal concluded:
…give your hard-earned dollars to a real charity, not a bunch of slick, parasitic hucksters who live high on the hog by raising money on behalf of needy people who never see a dime of it.
Stephen Bright, President of the Southern Center for Human Rights:
The positive contributions Dees has made to justice – most undertaken based upon calculations as to their publicity and fundraising potential – are far overshadowed by what Harper’s described as his “flagrantly misleading” solicitations for money. He has raised millions upon millions of dollars with various schemes, never mentioning that he does not need the money because he has $175 million and two “poverty palace” buildings in Montgomery. He has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people – some of moderate or low incomes – who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation. He has spent most of what they have sent him to raise still more millions, pay high salaries, and promote himself.
Making money does seem to remain SPLC’s primary preoccupation. SPLC raked in $54.4 million in FY 2014, according to its most recent IRS filing, with net assets topping out at an incredible $314.7 million. Some of SPLC’s assets are stashed away in offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands and Bangladesh of all places. Nobody knows how much or why they do that but it is beyond the reach of law enforcement.

Of its $42.4 million 2014 expenditures, 40.6 percent was devoted to salaries. Morris Dees himself still takes a compensation package of almost $365,000 per year. Also noteworthy is the fact that Development Director Wendy Via makes more ($202,426), than SPLC’s general counsel and former CEO Joseph Levin, ($196,446). Not surprising since 22.8 percent ($9,674,637), of total expenses go for fundraising.

Despite its vaunted donor list, SPLC has received millions from literally hundreds of foundations over the years. The following table lists SPLC’s top ten donors between 2000 and 2014. The Picower Foundation provided the most. Founder Jeffrey Picower made $5 billion from the Bernie Madoff scam. Friends with Madoff for 30 years, he made more than Madoff himself. The Picower estate settled a suit for $7.2 billion to compensate victims. Don’t look for SPLC to return any of their millions however.

SPLC Hate for Fun and Profit

SPLC’s Montgomery, Alabama headquarters, an imposing testimonial to Stalinist architecture jokingly called the “Poverty Palace” has been described variously as “a high-rise trailer,” “the Fuhrer bunker,” and “a small-scaled Death Star,” Blogger Steve Sailor states:
The Southern Poverty Law Center has worked tirelessly to eradicate the last vestiges of poverty, Southern or otherwise, in the lifestyle of founder Morris Dees…by smearing people like Dick Lamm, three-times Democratic governor of Colorado. Some of the moolah raised from the affluent saps Dees has terrified has gone into building this expensive but godawful-looking headquarters building in Montgomery, Alabama…Yes, I know it looks like a high-rise trailer, but, trust me, it cost a lot of money to build something that ugly.
Social critic James Kunstler called it:
…a “building” designed to look like a small-scaled Death Star, all black reflective glass, canted concrete and steel walls…
In a singular display of pettiness, SPLC’s Levin, CEO at the time, felt the need to respond to Kunstler’s criticism. Kunstler gave it right back:
You say, “…I was CEO when the building was designed and constructed and lived with that process for almost three years.”
Well, you got hosed. You bought the Emperor’s New Clothes… you put up a building that is a horror, and I’m glad that I said so in public. Now I am only sorry that I did not know you were responsible for the building, or that you were in the audience, because I would have singled you out for opprobrium…
The issue is what you did on the site you chose. (And by the way, in case you wonder, I am a registered Democrat and a New York Jew, not a conservative.) You put up a building that looks like the Fuhrer Bunker. It dishonors the site and it even dishonors your mission of social justice. The design of the building makes social justice appear despotic.
And despotic seems to aptly describe SPLC’s entire approach. SPLC made its bones suing the Ku Klux Klan into penury. Nobody can fault them for that. But then, wrapped in the mantle of “social justice”, SPLC grabbed a place of honor among the civil rights legends, all the while turning its notoriety into a cause célèbre for a massive, non-stop fundraising drive. It must ever grow its list of what it defines as “extremist” to shake down terrified donors for more funds. If it ever had noble motives, SPLC has certainly lost its way. Next time you read something, anything from the SPLC, understand what they are really about: fomenting hate and making money. Consider the source.

The Auto-Erotic Asphyxiation of Roosh

via Alternative Right

"...despite banging her it turned out to
be a deflating experience..."
Immediately after a sloppy attack from elements on our own musty-intellectual wing, the Alt-Right is now under attack again, this time from yet another one of our outlying feudal provinces, namely that part of the Manosphere called Return of Kings. Roosh V, the owner and main writer of that site has just come out with an absurd article titled The Alt Right Is Worse Than Feminism In Attempting To Control Male Sexual Behavior, in which the Alt-Right is compared to "feminism" on the basis of its patriarchal values.

Essentially, both of these recent attacks on the Alt-Right are identical in that they revolve around the question of money and the mistaken perception that attacking the centre of our movement will somehow improve revenue flows. In the case of Arktos/ RightOn, the attack was probably unconsciously motivated, driven by a visceral fear of high quality free content displacing and marginalizing Arktos’s paid-for content. In this sense, I would not characterize the Arktos/ RightOn attack as consciously malicious – just misguided – although Arktos/ RightOn have yet to disown the offending article.

However, the attack by Roosh is a different matter. It is clearly much more intentional, and is apparently driven by Roosh’s own frustrations, arising from his fractured identity (kebab that aspires to burgerhood), as well as economic factors.

While the Return of Kings site has been relatively successful in terms of hits, it is clear that Roosh has two main problems – failure to monetize existing traffic and falling or stagnant traffic as his audience is continually drawn off into the wider Alt-Right-o-Sphere. Both problems are serious issues for someone like Roosh, an unfortunate creature who has to get by solely on the earnings from his site, earnings which are clearly trending downwards if his dishevelled appearance when the mainstream media came calling is anything to go by.

Roosh’s main way to monetize has always been book sales, but the Bang books, in addition to being badly-written fantasies, possibly based on places he went to or researched online, are clearly dating fast and have zero appeal for modern audiences, who can find much better content on-line for free and without the rank smell of interracial cuckold porn. The lecture tours, if they actually ever happen (they always seem to be getting banned) probably have higher overheads than takings, and also risk Roosh getting the shit kicked out of him by angry girls and their beta followers.

The central and most important fact is that Roosh’s original business model had a limited shelf life to begin with and has now obviously run out of steam. This explains why last year he attempted to change direction by launching something called "Neomasculinity." This was an obvious attempt to rip off ideas from the wider Alt-Right in a desperate attempt to stop his audience going there. Neomasculinity even had its own grandiloquent manifesto, which stated:
"Neomasculinity combines traditional beliefs, masculinity, and animal biology into one ideological system. It aims to aid men living in Westernized nations that lack qualities such as classical virtue, masculinity in males, femininity in females, and objectivity, especially concerning beauty ideals and human behavior."
As part of this tack towards Alt-Right territory, Roosh even started to make noises about racial differences:
"For example, today’s left-leaning establishment deliberately conceals differences in sex and race in order to promote an ideal of equality that is meant to severely handicap men."
Roosh also dared to run articles like this one, which because of its strong anti-Jewish emphasis, oddly enough, just reminded everyone of how “kebab” he was.

Perhaps Roosh was encouraged to move in this direction because the Alt-Right is not necessarily an unwelcoming place for non-Whites or borderline Whites. There are people like Dota (an Indian) of Occident Invicta and Siryako Akda (a Filipino), here at our own site, who operate quite successfully within our broader milieu, and whose contributions are valued.

Whether it was the all-too-obvious change of direction or the fact that he continued to try and hawk his former wares, many Alt-Righters smelled a rat and started to attack him at his most obvious point of weakness – his conflicted identity as a half-Persian, half-Armenian, White-presenting kebab. ("Kebab" by the way is to Roosh what "Cuckservative" is to mainstream conservatives – a real kick in the nuts.) This prompted Roosh, with his typical hot-headed Middle Eastern blood, to come out with this ill-judged tweet, which, along with a video where he tried to troll Canada by identifying as a Muslim, basically finished his chances of getting a niche in or near the Alt-Right, with Greg Johnson’s article Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate marking the definitive break.

For this reason, he has now swung towards the kind of anti-racist position that antifa would approve of, using a selection of anonymous tweets and shitposts in order to mischaracterize the Alt-Right's attitudes on race:
"The 1488 mob of the alt right, consisting of white purity enthusiasts who assemble on Twitter and 4Chan, has gone from being a fringe portion of the alt right to the dominant, most numerous, and most vocal force that examines the blood purity of alt right members and that of their girlfriends and associates..."
So, what does Roosh hope to gain from attacking the Alt-Right in this way? My view is that his recent article is essentially an unrealistic attempt at inversion.

Roosh is a man of limited intellect who is defined by a simplistic idea – basically panty removal (whether fictitious or not). The Alt-Right by contrast is a wide-ranging intellectual and populist movement with numerous brilliant individuals producing effective critiques of Liberalism and the modern world and plenty of excellent free content. Roosh knows this because he has been ripping it off for years.

Roosh essentially wants to swap places with the Alt-Right, to be the one at the centre of a wide-ranging, potent and polymorphous intellectual movement, with the Alt-Right itself being pushed into a corner and defined by one, overused, simplistic idea.

Roosh thinks he can achieve this by taunting the Alt-Right with his kebabic nature and his rapey aura until it gets so incensed that it transmutes – in a white hot glow – into unalloyed 1488ness, leaving the field clear for him to broaden the appeal of his site so that it can continue to eke out the hits needed to pay the rent of Mom’s basement.

This is what Roosh is all about, plain and simple. But it is clearly an absurd and unworkable strategy. Sure, some elements of the Alt-Right are going to go all Andrew Anglin on the man, and that will be a pain in its own way, but other elements of the Alt Right are going to remain aloof and simply use their superior intellects to frame Roosh and dissect him as the insect he is by revealing his little game.

Appropriately enough, the best analogy for what Roosh is doing to himself is a sexual one: auto-erotic asphyxiation. This an act of self abuse in which the victim ties a belt around his throat and starves himself of oxygen in order to heighten his mastubatory pleasure before accidentally dying.

If we view Roosh’s failing business model as increasingly unrewarding acts of masturbation, then this attempt to antagonize the entire Alt-Right is analogous to tying a belt around his neck to starve his brain of oxygen. It may produce a short, euphoric buzz and even an uptick in traffic, but once it is widely known that Roosh prefers to view himself as an enemy of the entire Alt Right, including those elements that were prepared to cut him some slack in the past, then a lot of his supporters and fans will quite simply turn their backs on him and let him choke.

Yes Roosh, White Nationalists Want to Control Sexual Behavior

via Counter-Currents

Manosphere blogger and cuckold porn-monger Roosh “the Doosh” Valizadeh has fired back at his White Nationalist critics, most prominently me. His critique, however, is so weak, and the position he defends so morally vacuous, that the likely effect will be to dry up whatever support remains for him on the Alternative Right. And as for the people who are dumb and/or nihilistic enough to embrace his position: they are of no use to us anyway, so he’s welcome to them.

Roosh’s argument is basically to clutch his pearls and declare that he is shocked — shocked! — that the Alt Right is full of racist, illiberal meanies who would put limits on sexual freedom by prohibiting interracial sex and breeding:

The alt right has begun doing what they wanted to do all along: control the sexual choices of men. The following two conditions must now be met if you are to be accepted into their e-movement:
  • If you’re a white male, you’re forbidden to sleep with a non-white girl, because that is “race mixing” and goes against their race platform, even though the white race was certainly produced as a result of pre-historic race mixing.
  • If you’re a non-white male, you’re not allowed to sleep with a white girl, because you’re a nigger/kebab/gook, and you must be deported from the country you happen to be a citizen of or outright killed.
Roosh’s moral axiom here is that there should be no limits on sexual choices. (Although homosexuality is bad, because that provides him with a convenient ad hominem.) Roosh does, however, offer a novel version of pearl-clutching liberal indignation, for instead of arguing that proposing limits on sexual behavior makes White Nationalists “no better than Hitler,” he argues that we’re really no better than feminists:

The alt right has gone from a possible political alternative to a frustrated mob that wants to control the sexual choices of all men. With whom have we encountered that before?

One of the virtues of the “Alt Right” label is its vagueness, which allows people to signal dissent from the conservative mainstream without avowing anything too specific. Roosh is exploiting this ambiguity. But surely it is no news to him that the Alt Right is filled with people who are both racist and anti-liberal and who would gladly ban interracial sex and remove all non-whites from our homelands. Although I can’t speak for Roosh’s Alt Right defenders, Richard Spencer and RamZpaul, I would be quite surprised if they oppose putting any limits on interracial sexual relations either.

The purpose of White Nationalism is first to save our race from the looming threat of biological extinction and then to create healthy social orders in which our people can flourish. To do that, we need to create homogeneously white homelands, which by their very nature limit sexual choices to members of our own race. Beyond that, White Nationalists have to stand for the restoration of biologically based and traditionally hallowed sexual norms: heterosexual marriage, the nuclear family, the single-breadwinner household, men as protectors and providers, and women as wives and mothers. And beyond that, a well-ordered white society should recognize that every regime encourages either eugenic or dysgenic breeding patterns, thus we must institute eugenic incentives.

znkk9None of these measures are consistent with sexual liberalism, libertarianism, or libertinism. But we are not liberals. We believe that people today are miserable because they are free. Civilization is founded upon laws, including sexual norms. Therefore, there is nothing Right-wing at all about Roosh and his lost boys who whine like spoiled children at the very idea of putting limits on their sexual choices and behavior.

If this is what the manosphere stands for, then it is really no different from another social movement that seeks to maximize the same sort of infantile and immiserating freedom while undermining the foundations of civilization itself. I am speaking, of course, of feminism. The manosphere and feminism are cut from the same cloth. They only oppose each other like two rival tribes of barbarians fighting over the spoils of a fallen civilization.

znknzThe feminists, however, are right about Roosh. If a woman is too young, dumb, or drunk to have consented to sex, then she was raped. The fact that this is treated as debatable proves what an airless basement — what a cultish echo-chamber — Return of Kings really is. Either Roosh has admitted to raping a drunk woman in Iceland, or he is a fraud who passed off a rape story with a happy ending as fact. In either case, he can plausibly be branded a rape advocate, since he is in the business of advising young men how to get sex. Roosh has not refuted this argument. He has simply dodged, weaved, and waved his hairy palms.

As Andrew Anglin astutely observed, Roosh sells interracial cuckold porn — and tweets about cuckolding white men — to legions of adoring White Nationalist followers. I don’t know what’s worse: the obscenity of this situation or the absurdity. But it needs to end. Now that Roosh has declared “I can no longer support the alt right,” it is time for the Alt Right to return the favor.