Apr 7, 2016

Peak Female Privilege: Madonna Gropes and Exposes 17-Year-Old Girl without Punishment

via Return of Kings

During her recent tour of Australia, Madonna brought a 17-year-old girl on stage, groped her breast, and then deliberately exposed it to thousands of concertgoers in Brisbane. The majority of attendees had access to cameras or phone-cameras, which were able to capture the incident in more than sufficient detail. No charges have been laid yet and Madonna is presently in a bitter child custody dispute with ex-husband Guy Ritchie.

In Australia, like most other countries, there are severe theoretical penalties for both sexual assault and producing nude images of minors. I say theoretical because these provisions are invariably not used to punish women, from female teacher sex abusers to girls who have sex with incapacitated men.

What we are witnessing, and not just with the Madonna debacle in Brisbane, is a new peak for female privilege. Women can condemn men to time in prison for mere allegations, often interspersed with inconsistencies and proven lies, while women commit these same acts on camera with no repercussions.

The 17-year-old girl groped and exposed by Madonna, Josephine Georgiou.

The initial claim from the Material Girl singer’s camp was that the exposure of Josephine Georgiou was unintended, but this does not explain Madonna’s initial groping or the fact that just before she pulled the top down she said, “She’s the kind of girl that you just want to slap on the a** and pull…”

Having read about and researched what happened, I waited for some sort of rebuke for Madonna from the powers-that-be, irrespective of whether they would charge her. Nothing came. Media personality Piers Morgan did launch a stinging attack on her, but it meant much less when we consider the pair have been at war for a long time.

Here come the excuses

Attention seeker and pussy pass holder.

Some who comment on stories like this typically say that the girl in question looks older and that age-related consent and nudity laws are “arbitrary.” That may be so, but there is almost always nothing arbitrary when a man defies them. He is charged, dragged through the court of public opinion, convicted by an actual court, and branded a sex offender for life, both officially and unofficially. Plus, when she was less made-up and sought more celebrityhood via a TV interview afterwards, Josephine Georgiou did look younger.

Georgiou, an aspiring model, labeled the encounter “the best moment” of her life (what does this say about modern girls?). Two unfortunate realities make this confession close to meaningless, though. First of all, both men and women have been taught to believe that women cannot usually be guilty of sexual crimes, even when there is incontrovertible evidence and the same act is considered sexual assault when done by a man. In Ireland, for example, police charged a 16-year-old boy for statutory rape when the female “victim” was the same age. If the boy were a girl, his reported mental illness and dysfunctional family situation would mean that the charges would likely have already been dropped.

This Irish farce is reminiscent of the scandal at the elite Milton Academy in Massachusetts some years ago, over which boys were forced to admit fault for having sex with a girl. The girl herself was not charged for performing oral sex on an underage 15-year-old boy. Such laws almost always reflect the widespread belief that “women cannot be sex offenders.” Even when they are repealed, the thinking behind them, including when prosecutorial decisions are made, remains firmly intact.

Secondly, and primarily in relation to the exposure, the girl is underage. No amount of “I was fine with it” changes that people under 18 cannot consent to being filmed whilst naked. This had nothing to do with “art,” nor did the footage center on something like a private video of teenage friends sunbathing topless at a beach. Rather, the act was beamed around the world and, more to the point, in front of thousands of people present.

Child custody dispute? No matter, Madonna

Madonna’s strange behavior started long before the Brisbane incident, yet has had no real impact on her child custody chances

How many fathers can safely say they could grope an underage girl in public, expose her, and then find themselves without consequences during an acrimonious child custody dispute? Not many, and Madonna’s ex-spouse Guy Ritchie would not be one of them. Despite a wholesome preexisting image (it takes a saint to put up with Madonna’s noted diva behavior, after all), he would not be afforded the benefit of the doubt, let alone the pathetic excuses handed to his former wife.

As I said before, it would be nice if the lack of legal consequences for Madonna were mitigated by greater social condemnation of her. At a time when sexual assault is supposedly a major issue, albeit through hysterical witch-hunts like the one that flared up again against Jian Ghomeshi, the silence is deafening.

I get rather sick of saying this sort of thing, but the public nature of what Madonna did at least shows the double standard for what it is.

In the end, men and women are different. Some hypocrisies, however, are much more intolerable than others and must be challenged.

Nothing Should Be Done to Save Fools from the Consequences of Their Folly

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Our job is not to save anything or anyone. Our job is to survive the unraveling of the American dream.

When you realize this simple fact, you'll understand why the following story is absolutely hysterical and a reminder why the architects of Jim Crow are owed not just a huge apology, but will one day be celebrated for their foresight. [Chicago Woman Who Lost 23 People To Gun Violence Now Fights To Stop It, DNAInfo.com, 4-2-16]:
Less than 24 hours after this story was edited, gun violence claimed the life of yet another close friend of Williams’s. On March 26, Cordero Mosley, 27, was shot six times on Chicago’s South Side. The two had been friends since grade school.
CHICAGO — The first time I meet Camiella Williams, she pulls out her smartphone and calls up a Facebook album she created called “Lost but not forgotten.” It’s filled with pictures of mostly young African-American men, and serves as a kind of memorial wall to some of the people she’s known who have been gunned down on the streets of Chicago. “Martece,” she says, pausing at a photo of a young man in a neon green shirt and a baseball cap. “He got killed on 81st and Ashland, in the dollar store.” The caption on the photo notes that Martece’s little sister was killed six months later, in 2008. Williams, 28, has lost 23 close friends and relatives to gun violence in the past 12 years.
We’re sitting on a bright orange couch in the student union of Governor’s State University, a small state school in a suburb just south of Chicago. It’s November, and students rushing by on their way to final exams stop to say hello. Williams has a round face and a gap-toothed smile, offset by fashionable rectangular glasses. The following week she will complete her bachelor’s degree in criminology, and then begin a master’s program in January.
Williams’s interest in criminology springs from a childhood spent in poor areas of Chicago’s South Side — Englewood, Auburn Gresham, Chicago Lawn — where gun violence is common. In the last five years alone these neighborhoods have collectively seen more than 2,000 shootings, according to the Chicago Police Department.
Scrolling through her Facebook album, Williams points to a photo of a grinning teenage boy with short dreadlocks. “This is my friend Johnathan,” she says, a weariness in her voice. “He was killed at a nightclub in 2008. He was shot in the head by the security guard.”
Another photo, another young man, this one singing into a studio microphone. “Tony was like my big brother. He was an artist.” Tony was shot in the face outside an apartment complex in 2008 and died at the hospital a few hours later.
More faces float by: A middle-aged man. A few adolescent girls. A young man named Deonte, fatally shot during a spate of shootings over July 4th weekend in 2009. “Imagine,” Williams says. “They’re your friends on Facebook one minute, and then they’re gone the next.”
Williams has more than 3,000 Facebook friends. Amid the reminders of loved ones she’s lost, periodically she comes across people that she knows have carried out a shooting. Some of those same people circulate stop-the-violence messages, to her disbelief. “I’m like, dude, you’re killing people,” Williams says.
Not so long ago, gun violence could have consumed her life as well. Williams joined a gang in elementary school, bought her first handgun in sixth grade, and began dealing drugs in high school. It wasn’t until she was 19, when she was pregnant with her child, that she decided to break away from the dangerous trajectory that she had set herself upon as a girl on the city’s South Side. Her path from street life to graduate school has taken 10 years.
“If I didn’t have my son,” Williams says, “I don’t know where my life would have been.” But she can guess. Either the gang disputes she often encountered might have lead her to kill someone. Or someone would have tried to kill her.
Williams was born in South Shore, an economically struggling neighborhood in the city’s South Side with stately red-brick apartment buildings that recall more prosperous times. Even as a young child, she was aware of the area’s problems. But until she was seven, she says, “life was perfect.”
 Odds those stately red-brick apartment buildings were once "white only"?

100 percent. 

Life in 2016 Chicago, courtesy of blacks, is the exact reason why they were designated that way long ago.

Gentiles Will Be the Slaves of Jews

via The End of Zion

Jews are constantly complaining about anti-Semitism.

The real question is, why is there not more anti-Semitism? These people openly view us as cattle – their goyim slaves.

Militant Reason

via Radish

Men are moved most by their religion; especially when it is irreligion. --G. K. Chesterton
The need for religion appears to be hard-wired in the human animal. Certainly the behaviour of secular humanists supports this hypothesis. --John Gray
Our Irreligious friend, the great Humanist philosopher A. C. Grayling, takes primatologist Frans de Waal to task for being “too tolerant of religion” in de Waal’s new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates (2013). Doesn’t he realize these people are the enemy? For God’s sake, isn’t he a Humanist?
He [de Waal] is himself an atheist, he tells us; as an educated scientific Dutchman from secular Europe where religion is a minority if sometimes noisy sport, what else could he be? But he does not like the “new atheists,” and takes the view that religion, though false, has a role, and should be left alone.
Why, he asks, are the “new atheists” evangelical about their cause? “Why would atheists turn messianic?” He cannot see why Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and others attack religion and believers, and why they robustly and even aggressively argue the case for atheism. […]
Well: here is the answer to de Waal’s question. Some atheists are evangelical because religious claims about the universe are false, because children are brainwashed into the ancient superstitions of their parents and communities, because many religious organisations and movements have been and continue to be anti-science, anti-gays and anti-women, because even if people are no longer burned at the stake they are still stoned to death for adultery, murdered for being “witches” or abortion doctors, blown up in large numbers for being Shias instead of Sunnis [my emphasis]… One could go on at considerable length about the divisions, conflicts, falsehoods, coercions, disruptions, miseries and harm done by religion, though the list should be familiar; except, evidently, to de Waal.
(Muslims, Muslims, Muslims, primitive tribes, and a total of four dead abortionists.)
Their militancy — for such indeed it sometimes is, for the good reasons sketched above — is about secularism, not metaphysics; it is about the place of the religious voice in education and the public square where it is at best an irrelevance and at worst a cancer.
Only think: the dates of English school and university spring terms are set according to when Easter falls, and the date of Easter is set by the phases of the moon — this in the 21st century! This seemingly trivial point is the tip of an iceberg of the way that the superstitions of our prehistoric ancestors still distort lives today.
Well, at least he isn’t melting any church bells. By the way, according to Mr. Grayling, until very recently it was impossible for an Atheist to be “militant” (2011):
“And besides, really,” he [Grayling] adds with a withering little laugh, “how can you be a militant atheist? How can you be militant non-stamp collector? This is really what it comes down to. You just don’t collect stamps. So how can you be a fundamentalist non-stamp collector? It’s like sleeping furiously. It’s just wrong.”
Grayling, by the way, non-stamp collector that he is, identifies religious instruction as “a serious form of child abuse,” which “sows the seeds of apartheids” whose “logical conclusion” is “murder and war” (2003). “There is no greater social evil than religion. It is the cancer in the body of humanity.” Organized religion “is the most Satanic of all things.” Grayling considers religion “worse than an irrelevance as regards the inculcation of morality” — “not just irrelevant but dangerous,” with “less than nothing to offer proper moral debate” (2003). And he’s considered moderate (2007):
For some years, AC Grayling and Richard Dawkins have been the good cop/bad cop of anti-religious thought. Dawkins publicly fights fire with fire, while Grayling has opted for a gentler advocacy of humanist values. But now, in Against All Odds, a little collection of his reworked newspaper essays, a distinct note of exasperation has crept in. “If the tone of the polemics here seems combative,” Grayling writes, “it is because the contest between religious and non-religious outlooks is such an important one, a matter literally of life and death, and there can be no temporising.”
Not to be confused with militance (G. Wolf, 2006):
The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there’s no excuse for shirking.
When atheists finally begin to gain some power, what then? […] The atheist movement, by his lights, has no choice but to aggressively spread the good news. Evangelism is a moral imperative. Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.
“How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”
Ah, yes, Dawkins: a self-proclaimed “fairly militant atheist” (1994).

At a “Reason Rally” in Washington, D.C., Dawkins urges the crowd to “ridicule and show contempt” for religion (2012). “I despise what they stand for.”

Religion is a “virus of the mind” — “a powerful infection” (1991). “Am I unduly alarmist to fear for the soul of my six-year-old innocent?”

Faith is a “delusion” (obviously), mass “insanity,” “anti-human,” a “vice” and “a form of mental abuse” (God Delusion), which leaves us “open to exploitation by priests, politicians and kings.” To oppose it “nearly always indicates… a healthy mind.”

Christianity is hopelessly entangled with the “American right,” whose “typical” “ambition” is to achieve “a Christian fascist state.” Beware “the menace of the Christian Taliban,” for “no observer of the American political scene… can afford to be sanguine.” This is “war,” religion is the “enemy” and a “force for evil,” which may “drive” us “to paroxysms of hatred” or even “nuclear war” — and yet a weak-willed “appeasement lobby,” or “Neville Chamberlain school,” consorts with “sympathetic Christians.”

But the so-called “right to be Christian” amounts to “the right to poke your nose into other people’s private lives,” creating “discrimination against homosexuals” and “hatred of women, modernity, … and pleasure.” Without faith, “no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades” (bit of an odd juxtaposition).

In short, there are two kinds of people in the world: “liberal, enlightened, decent people,” on the one hand; and the “bullying, narrow-minded, bossy” “extremists,” on the other, whose “absolutism” “nearly always results from strong religious faith.”

“Faith is an evil” — but don’t worry! “I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers.”

I think you get the picture.

We turn now to Russia’s Iron Age, by William Henry Chamberlin (1934):
One of the most novel and distinctive features of the Soviet régime is its determination to root out every form of religious faith in the vast territory under its sway. There have been many instances in history when one form of religion cruelly persecuted all others; but in Russia the world is witnessing the first effort to destroy completely any belief in supernatural interpretation of life. […]
During the Iron Age every militant feature of Communism became greatly intensified; and antireligious activity was no exception to this rule. Propaganda effort was redoubled. The limited liberties which were granted to religious organizations in the milder years of the New Economic Policy have been withdrawn or greatly curtailed — in fact, if not in name. It is now a real test of physical courage, of willingness to endure hardship and persecution, to be known as an active believer in any form of religion. To be a priest or a minister during the Iron Age was to be engaged in a still more dangerous profession than that of the engineer, the economist, or the agricultural expert.
All the familiar potent instruments of Communist propaganda have been brought into play for the purpose of making religious faith of any kind […] appear at once infamous and ridiculous. The basic tenets of religion, its ministers and practitioners, are ridiculed in cartoons, caricatures, posters, and moving-picture performances, denounced in books and magazines, satirized on the stage, held up to scorn and opprobrium in the antireligious museums which have now been installed in many of the most famous Russian churches and monasteries.
I was once an unnoticed witness of a characteristic episode in the unremitting drive against religion. The scene was the Moscow office of the Union of Militant Atheists. A discomfited photographer was receiving a severe reprimand from one of the officials of the organization. The photographer had been taking pictures of some sectarian artisans, and the official was quite disgusted because the photographs revealed nothing scandalous or incriminating. “You must show them exploiting hired labor or doing something that will discredit them,” he told the photographer. “But I didn’t see them doing anything of the kind,” was the plaintive reply of the taker of pictures, who had evidently been imperfectly grounded in the principles of “class photography.”
One of the most widespread and successful weapons in the campaign for universal atheism is the antireligious museum. When I entered Saint Isaac’s Cathedral in Leningrad, a solid and massive piece of architecture, with huge pillars of Olonetz granite, heavy bronze doors, gilded dome, and richly ornamented interior, I found an incongruous combination of the traditional religious background of bas-reliefs and paintings depicting sacred scenes and the numerous exhibits of antireligious propaganda which have been scattered through the edifice.
Just above a collection of religious books in Old Slavonic which have been preserved in the Cathedral was a text from the works of the Communist prophet, Lenin, to the effect that the purpose of religion is “to justify exploitation and to give a reduced-price ticket to heaven.” Near by was the following citation from Karl Marx: “The destruction of religion, the phantom happiness of the people, is a necessary condition for their real happiness.” Another quotation from Lenin was to the effect that all oppressing classes require the executioner and the priest.
The attacks on religion in the depths and recesses of this vast cathedral were carried on with a variety of methods. The Orthodox Church was depicted as an upholder of serfdom and an oppressor of the people. Baptists and other evangelical Russian sects were displayed in photographs, with accompanying accounts endeavoring to show that such groups had always been counter-revolutionary and anti-Soviet.
In the former Strastnoy Monastery in Moscow and in other antireligious museums throughout the country the indictment of religion is hammered in, the attack proceeding along three main lines. First, there is the effort to prove that religion, in all its forms, has always been the enemy of the oppressed classes, especially of the workers. Second, there is an attack through the agency of natural science. Especially for the benefit of the peasants, who were formerly taught to regard natural phenomena as miracles, there is a systematic effort to give an antireligious turn to the most elementary facts of natural science.
Finally, there is a steady effort to represent religious belief of any sort as a kind of disloyalty on the part of the Soviet citizen. Red streamers with such slogans as, “Religion Is Incompatible with Socialism,” and “Priests and Sectarians: an Obstacle to the Fulfillment of the Five-Year Plan,” are frequently displayed on public buildings and on the streets.
It goes without saying that any representation of religion in fiction, on the stage, or in moving pictures must be derogatory; and some special atheistic plays and films have been produced. […]
Churches and religious organizations are quite unable to reply to the enormous flood of violent, defamatory antireligious propaganda which rolls over the country year after year. The year 1929, which may be regarded as the first year of the Iron Age, witnessed a significant change of the Soviet Constitution and a still more significant change of Soviet administrative practice as regards religious organizations. […]
An authoritative interpretation of the significance of this alteration of the Soviet Constitution makes the points that the law now does not permit either “the winning of new groups of toilers, especially children as adherents of religion,” or “any kind of propagandist and agitation activity on the part of church and religious people.” In other words, no church representative, no individual believer, may reply in speech or in writing to the attacks on religion in the numerous antireligious publications and in the antireligious museums. […]
Priests and ministers of all religions in the Soviet Union have always been classified with criminals and insane persons in so far as they were disfranchised and deprived of civic rights. […]
Apart from these social and economic hardships any priest is in danger of being exiled by administrative order; and this statement is also true for persons who are conspicuously active in church affairs, such as members of the council which exists in every church and must represent the church in its dealings with the authorities. Very considerable numbers of priests have been exiled during the Iron Age; and not a few have been executed. Before the peasant resistance to collectivization had been crushed, first by the wholesale “liquidation” of the kulaks, then by the great famine of 1932–1933, there were many murders of especially hated Communist rural officials and organizers; and the regular Soviet judicial practice in such cases was to execute not only the actual perpetrators of the murder, but also anyone who could plausibly be represented as a moral instigator. The local priest often fell into this last category.
This, of course, could never happen with modern-day Militant Atheism.

Faith is a “virus,” reports our jovial, bearded “Bright,” Daniel Dennett (2005); like “the common cold” (2013). He stands “appalled” by a “retrograde gang” of wayward philosophers who, in spite of all our “progress,” “stubbornly” continue “to play around with outmoded ideas like morality and sometimes even the soul” (2013).
It’s sickening. And they lure in other people. And their work isn’t worth anything — it’s cute and it’s clever and it’s not worth a damn.
Not only worthless, but downright dangerous: “If religion isn’t the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is?” Emphasis mine (2008):
It used to be the case that we tended to excuse drunk drivers when they crashed because they weren’t entirely in control of their faculties at the time, but now we have wisely inverted that judgment, holding drunk drivers doubly culpable for putting themselves in that irresponsible position in the first place. It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion as well, finding all socially destructive acts of religious passion shameful, not honourable, and holding those who abet them — the preachers and other apologists for religious zeal — as culpable as the bartenders and negligent hosts who usher dangerous drivers on to the highways. […]
Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded “sacramental” act. True, you don’t have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don’t have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And — this is the worst of it — religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.
If you have a taste for kick boxing or heavy metal bands, that’s your business. Knock yourself out, as we say, it’s only a game. Not so with religion. Its arena includes not just the participants but all of life on the planet. […]
The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be.
Faith “enables acts of inhumanity” — as opposed to, um, let’s say Rationality, which never enabled any such thing — right? So tear down the churches; lock up the “preachers and other apologists” — the moral instigators, one might say; ban all public displays of religion, which are “preventing” The People “from being as good as they could be”; and Scientific Progress will rule the day at last! Look, I don’t mean to misrepresent the man — I mean, I am reading that correctly, aren’t I (2010)?
I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming [my emphasis], about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?
(Leading Ophelia Benson, Positive Atheist, to conclude that the “free exercise” of religion “is a very problematic little item” (2010). Could I make this stuff up?)
The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all. I don’t see bankers or stockbrokers wringing their hands because the media is biased against them; they know that their recent activities have earned them an unwanted place in the spotlight of public attention and criticism, and they get no free pass, especially given their power.
Bankers! Speculators! Priests! The power of the counter-revolutionaries.
Once more from Russia’s Iron Age:
There is an especially vigorous atheistic propaganda among school children; and any teacher who, because of indifference or secret sympathy with religious faith, is lax in this field is liable to be dismissed. Important religious holidays, especially Christmas, are regular occasions for outbursts of antireligious agitation.
The effort to make Russian school children imbibe hatred and contempt with their A B C’s, or rather with their A B V’s, to use the Russian order of the letters, takes the form of an antireligious alphabet, in which every letter is illustrated with an atheistic slogan, accompanied by vivid pictorial representations. The letter B, for instance, is printed on a sheet showing a red broom sweeping out the Bible and the ikons, accompanied by the appeal: “Bros’tye, bratsi, boyatsya bogov” (“Give up, brothers, fearing gods”).
The powerful combination of propaganda and terrorism has wrought considerable changes in religious faith, as in other fields of Soviet life. Under such strong pressure only persons with deep-rooted religious conviction tend to hold out, along with some of the older people who cannot give up the habit of going to church or of crossing themselves before the ikon. But the neutral, the passive, the indifferent, tend to drift away from religion under the Soviet state creed of atheism, just as they would profess religious faith under a strongly clerical régime. Very typical of this tendency was the simple remark of the wife of a Kolomna worker with whom I talked:
“Before the Revolution everyone told me that I ought to go to church, so I went. Now everyone tells me that I shouldn’t go, so I don’t.”
(And yet “there is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.” I mean, duh.)
The youth has been brought up in an atmosphere of contempt and abhorrence for religion; and when one makes every allowance for the occasional counteracting influence of a religious family there seems little doubt that the majority of the Soviet younger generation, even those who do not belong to the Union of Communist Youth, are indifferent, if not actively hostile, to every form of religion.
Russia seems committed to the experiment of discovering whether a purely materialistic conception of life can permanently satisfy a large and varied population. If the experiment does not succeed, if the traditional craving of the individual for some extra-worldly interpretation of existence proves too strong to be permanently repressed, a revival of religion, perhaps in some form which cannot be foreseen at the present time, may occur. If, on the other hand, Communism proves able to function as a substitute for older creeds, it may well be that during the coming decades belief in religion will become uncommon, as much a sign of an independent and unconventional mind as skepticism or atheism would have been in the Middle Ages, when the whole weight of the existing political and social order was thrown in favor of religion, as it is now, in the Soviet Union, thrown against it.
What a wonderful symmetry.

When "Progressives" Get Religion

via Those Who Can See

Columbia University linguist John McWhorter penned an essay last year which he defended on CNN:
In 2015, among educated Americans especially, Antiracism—it seriously merits capitalization at this point—is now what any naïve, unbiased anthropologist would describe as a new and increasingly dominant religion. It is what we worship, as sincerely and fervently as many worship God and Jesus and, among most Blue State Americans, more so.

For those who insist that religion must include a divine being, not so fast. Communism scholar Peter Sperlich:

Supernaturalism and specific deities are common, but not essential elements of religious systems.  ... Several indisputably “traditional religions” have managed to function perfectly well without specific deities; for example, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Jainism.
... If the chief characteristic of a religion is the belief in the reality of an unseen, it matters not whether this unobservable entity is a specific deity, the “spirit of history,” or the “laws of nature.” (1)
But psychology tells us that the conservative is far more apt to traditional religious belief than the progressive. So is McWhorter just blowing smoke? . . . Read more

Martyr with a Machine-Gun: How Liberal Piety Facilitates Muslim Pathology

via The Occidental Observer

If you pour dirty water into clean water, what happens? It’s remarkable: by a process too subtle for knuckle-dragging racists to understand, the dirty water becomes clean. In fact, the more dirty water you pour, the better the process works. Hence the slogan recently adopted by Greenpeace for the sparkling waters of the Lake District: “REFUSE WELCOME!”

I’m talking nonsense, of course. Greenpeace would never support the dumping of filth into beautiful lakes like Windermere and Ullswater. Greenpeace is full of liberals and liberals don’t believe in polluting healthy ecosystems. Instead, they believe in polluting healthy societies. Here’s a list of pathologies that liberals have wrung their hands over in recent years: mass murder, rape-gangs, dead cartoonists, honour killings, female genital mutilation and grope-festivals. Cousin-marriage and exotic diseases should be on the list too, but although they’re definitely serious problems, liberals prefer to ignore their existence.

Death to Blasphemers

Ignored or lamented, these pathologies only exist in the modern West because of mass immigration. And it wasn’t hard to foresee that Third-World immigrants would bring the Third World with them. It’s as though liberals have pumped oil into a flourishing lake and then discovered, with horror and consternation, that the lake is now polluted and dying. This particularly applies to the question of free speech. The Charlie Hebdo massacre was a deeply traumatic event for the Guardian and its readers. How could such a thing happen in the land of Voltaire?

But it should have come as no surprise. To paraphrase H.P. Lovecraft: the most risible thing in the world is the inability of the Guardian to correlate its own contents. Back in 2011, the paper reported on a shocking crime in Pakistan. The governor of Punjab province, Salmaan Taseer, had “advocated reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws” and taken up the cause of “Asia Bibi, a poor Christian woman … sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the prophet Muhammad.” Taseer was promptly machine-gunned to death by one of his own bodyguards, a devout Muslim called Mumtaz Qadri, who then submitted calmly to arrest and prosecution.

Qadri’s actions made him a hero to huge numbers of Pakistanis. He was hailed as a worthy successor to Ghazi (“Hero”) Ilm-Deen, a widely venerated Muslim saint who stabbed a Hindu blasphemer to death in 1929. Lawyers showered Qadri with rose-petals when he appeared at court. He was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, whereupon the presiding judge had to flee the country. A few months after Taseer’s assassination, devout Muslims were at it again. Shahbaz Bhatti, the Christian minister for minority rights, had also advocated reform of the blasphemy laws. He was ambushed by members of the Taliban and assassinated exactly as he himself had foreseen he would be.

Reforming the human race

So let’s summarize the situation. In 2011, the Guardian reported that Muslims in Pakistan had machine-gunned two politicians to defend the honour of the prophet Muhammad. In 2015, the Guardian was horrified to discover that Muslims in Paris were capable of machine-gunning cartoonists for the same reason. Who could have foreseen that Muslims in Paris might behave like Muslims in Pakistan? It’s almost as though they don’t believe in free speech.

As I said, the Guardian is incapable of correlating its own contents. But in fact it’s worse than that. Liberals haven’t imported Third-World pathologies through simple stupidity. There is a wilful element to the harm they’ve done. When Mumtaz Qadri was finally executed earlier this year, the Guardian published this pious editorial:

An all-male crowd mourns Mumtaz Qadri, Hero and Martyr
An all-male crowd mourns Mumtaz
Qadri, Hero and Martyr
The murder of Salman Taseer was in a literal sense a crime against humanity even if in a legal sense it was just another of the innumerable murders that have disfigured Pakistan in recent decades. He was the governor of the Punjab, who was killed by one of his own bodyguards, Mumtaz Qadri, because he had denounced the dreadful blasphemy laws that have been successively rewritten, widened, and made more stringent under Islamising governments since 1980 so that now people can be executed merely for “using derogatory words in respect of the Holy Prophet”.
On Monday [29th February 2016], Qadri was hanged in conditions of secrecy. On Tuesday, vast crowds attended his funeral to demonstrate their support for this murderer’s crime. Nor was this support confined to Pakistan. One of the largest mosques in Birmingham said special prayers for Qadri, describing him as “a martyr”, as did influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury. These have been strongly and rightly criticised by other British Muslims, and no doubt represent a minority view, but it is disappointing that there are still some imams who have learned little about mutual tolerance in the 25 years since the Rushdie affair, however much mainstream majority Muslim views have moved on. …
It is not just the terrifying levels of intimidation that operate in Pakistan that keeps the law in place, but widespread democratic support. This looks like a reversal of all the great hopes of the closing decades of the 20th century and it is, but it is not an irreversible trend. … [W]e can do better, and we must. Human dignity demands the right to question, to be mistaken, and even sometimes laugh about beliefs. Only on the basis of that kind of equality extended to all can we make a more just world. (The Guardian view on religious intolerance: a sin against freedom, 3rd March 2016)
That is a typical piece of liberal posturing and dishonesty. Who is this “we” who can and must do better? Presumably it’s the human race, so the Guardian is claiming the ability to reform humanity via its editorial column. It’s posturing to feed its readers’ narcissism, nothing more. It’s also being dishonest about the true nature of Islam. Note how it says supporters of Qadri in Britain “no doubt represent a minority view,” but is “disappointed” that “some imams … have learned little about mutual tolerance,” despite the way “mainstream majority Muslim views have moved on” since the Salman Rushdie affair. How does the Guardian know that Qadri supporters are in a minority and that mainstream Muslim views have “moved on”?

Piety in the Sky

It doesn’t know: it merely has pious assumptions. And is it really a cause for celebration if very sizable minorities of Muslims have such beliefs? Like the 35% of young Muslims in Britain and 42% in France who are willing to tell pollsters that they support suicide bombings according to a Pew poll (presumably a low estimate).

But why should we expect a well-staffed newspaper like the Guardian to investigate Muslim organizations and find out what their opinions are? That would be both time-consuming and dangerous, because the Guardian might not get the answers it wanted. As all liberal journalists know, it’s far better to assume the best about a vulnerable minority than to uncover the worst.

A Pakistani Muslim salutes Ghazi (“Hero”) Mumtaz Qadri
A Pakistani Muslim salutes Ghazi
(“Hero”) Mumtaz Qadri
In other words, the Guardian is wilfully blind about the extent of Muslim intolerance and totalitarianism. According to its own report, the murderer Mumtaz Qadri has been acclaimed as a “martyr” by “one of the largest mosques in Birmingham” and by “influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury.” If that is a “minority view,” where is the condemnation from the “mainstream”? Why are pro-Qadri mosques not being condemned and boycotted by anti-Qadri mosques? Why did the moderate Muslim majority not take to the streets to condemn both Qadri’s original crime and their misguided co-religionists who regard Qadri as a martyr?

Well, waiting for moderate Muslims to demonstrate in favour of free speech is a lot like waiting for Godot. Moderate Muslims are very relaxed about killing in Muhammad’s name. The death of Salmaan Taseer proved that in 2011 and so does the death of Asad Shah in 2016. He was a Muslim shopkeeper in Scotland who used his Facebook page to promote inter-faith harmony with the following message: “Good Friday and a very Happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation.” For saying that, he was stabbed and stamped to death by a hate-filled bigot who had travelled hundreds of miles from England with no other purpose.

Missing Ingredient

Has Dr Richard Stone, Jewish high priest in the martyr-cult of Black Stephen Lawrence, hastened to Glasgow to begin work on a new martyr-cult? Have Britain’s liberals been writing and talking non-stop about the murder and the toxic ideology that inspired it? Oddly enough, they haven’t. You see, the murder of Asad Shah had all the necessary ingredients for a martyr-cult and a media frenzy except one: he wasn’t murdered by a White. In fact, he was an Ahmadi Muslim murdered by a Sunni Muslim. As I pointed out in “Moderate Extremism,” Sunnis regard Ahmadis as heretics and persecute them whenever they have the power to do so. And guess what? A month before, an imam at Scotland’s “biggest mosque,” Glasgow Central, expressed his “pain” at the execution of Mumtaz Qadri, called him a “true Muslim,” and pronounced a blessing on him.

Britain has strict laws against the “glorification of terrorism,” but none of the numerous Muslims glorifying Qadri here have been arrested and questioned by the police. But the police did arrest and question a White man who sent a tweet about “confronting” a Muslim woman after the vibrancy in Brussels. He isn’t being prosecuted, but the arrest will have done its job of intimidating other White thought-criminals. Meanwhile, liberals in Scotland have responded to Asad Shah’s murder in their usual fashion: with gusts of hot air and conspicuous displays of narcissism:
Aamer Anwar, the human rights lawyer and one of Scotland’s most prominent advocates for reform within the Muslim community, said faith leaders needed to “step up” and speak out publicly against all forms of religious sectarianism.
Anwar said: “In a city like Glasgow, we have known for too long what hate crime and sectarianism means. We do not want to see the importing of sectarian bigotry and hatred from Pakistan to the UK. It is extremely important for Asad Shah’s family to know that their brothers and sisters in the Sunni community will not tolerate this.” …

More than 400 people, including Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, attended a candlelit vigil on Friday night organised by two local women — one Muslim and one Christian — and publicised on social media with the hashtag #thisisnotwhoweare. Speaking at the event, members of Shah’s family called for Glaswegians to stand side by side. Another gathering to lay flowers outside Shah’s shop, organised by local teenagers, attracted a further 200 people on Saturday, despite heavy rain. … (Prominent Muslims call for unity after Glasgow shopkeeper’s killing, The Guardian, 27th March 2016)
So Aamer Anwar doesn’t want the “importing of sectarian bigotry and hatred from Pakistan to the UK.” In other words, he thinks the Britain can import Pakistanis without importing Pakistani culture. He’s a dangerous idiot. Unfortunately, so are Britain’s Ahmadi Muslims. They’re happy to take advantage of Britain’s religious freedom, but they don’t oppose mass immigration by the Sunni Muslims who hate them. And when they talk about “root[ing] out extremism in all its forms,” they undoubtedly include White nationalism and race realism. Ahmadi Muslims aren’t good for Britain either. I don’t like the way they are persecuted, but I don’t think the West has any responsibility to offer them asylum.

Sleazy Keith Vaz
Sleazy Keith Vaz
All immigration from non-White nations is bad for the West, whatever colour the immigrants are and whatever religion they practise. The Chinese have higher average IQs than Whites, but Chinese culture is corrupt and authoritarian. The sleazy Labour MP Keith Vaz, Islamophile and friend of the late Greville Janner, is a Christian. So is the Eritrean “asylum-seeker” who committed a “horrific” double-rape in Liverpool in 2015.

Non-Whites do not belong in White nations and should return whence they came. Even liberals are starting to realize this. The New Statesman, which is rather like the Guardian on steroids, has called Angela Merkel “compassionate” but “reckless” for opening Germany’s borders. It’s a reluctant admission with big implications. The thaw has begun and the flood that will sweep liberals from power is getting nearer by the day.

Always Attack the Wrong Country: What America Does Best?

via Darkmoon

There are numerous tactics available to those who aim to make problems worse while pretending to solve them, but misdirection is always a favorite. The reason to want to make problems worse is that problems are profitable—for someone. And the reason to pretend to be solving them is that causing problems, then making them worse, makes those who profit from them look bad.

In the international arena, this type of misdirection tends to take on a farcical aspect.
The ones profiting from the world’s problems are the members of the US foreign policy and military establishments, the defense contractors and the politicians around the world, and especially in the EU, who have been bought off by them. Their tactic of misdirection is conditioned by a certain quirk of the American public, which is that it doesn’t concern itself too much with the rest of the world.
The average member of the American public has no idea where various countries are, can’t tell Sweden from Switzerland, thinks that Iran is full of Arabs and can’t distinguish any of the countries that end with the suffix —’stan’.
And so a handy trick has evolved, which amounts to the following dictum: “Always attack the wrong country.”
Need some examples?

(1)  After 9/11, which, according to the official story (which is probably nonsense) was carried out by “suicide bombers” (some of them, amusingly, still alive today) who were mostly from Saudi Arabia, the US chose to retaliate by attacking Saudi Arabia Afghanistan and Iraq.

(2)  When Arab Spring erupted (because a heat wave in Russia drove up wheat prices) the obvious place to concentrate efforts, to avoid a seriously bad outcome for the region, was Egypt—the most populous Arab country and an anchor for the entire region. And so the US and NATO decided to attack Egypt Libya.

(3)  When things went south in the Ukraine, whose vacillating government couldn’t make up its mind whether it wanted to remain within the Customs Union with Russia, its traditional trading partner, or to gamble on signing an agreement with the EU based on vague (and since then broken) promises of economic cooperation, the obvious place to go and try to fix things was the Ukraine. And so the US and the EU decided fix the Ukraine Russia, even though Russia is not particularly broken. Russia was not amused; nor is it a country to be trifled with, and so in response the Russians inflicted some serious pain on the Washington establishmentfarmers within the EU.

(4)  Who was at fault exceedingly clear once the Ukrainians that managed to get into power (including some very nasty neo-Nazis) started to violate the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking majority, including staging some massacres, in turn causing a large chunk of it to hold referendums and vote to secede. (Perhaps you didn’t know this, but the majority of the people in the Ukraine are Russian-speakers, and there is just one city of any size—Lvov—that is mostly Ukrainian-speaking. Mind you, I find Ukrainian to be very cute and it makes me smile whenever I hear it. I don’t bother speaking it, though, because any Ukrainian with an IQ above bathwater temperature understands Russian.) And so the US and the EU decided to fix things by continuing to put pressure on the Ukraine Russia.

(5)  When Russia started insisting on a political rather than a military resolution to the crisis in the Ukraine, and helped negotiate the Minsk agreements together with the Ukraine, France and Germany, a similar thing happened. These agreements obligated the Ukrainian government to pass constitutional reforms to grant autonomy to its Russian regions in the east. The Ukrainian government refused to abide by these agreements. As a result, the US and the EU decided to put pressure on the Ukrainian Russian government.

(6)  When a nasty terrorist group calling itself ISIS and composed of Islamic Salafi/Takfiri extremists started to seize power in large parts of Iraq, and then spread to Syria, something had to be done about it. These extremists were being financed by Turkey (which is still buying oil from them and sheltering them on its territory) and Saudi Arabia. And so the US and NATO decided to put some pressure on Turkey and Saudi Arabia Syria.

—  §  —

In response to all this foolishness, Russia up and decided to actually go and fix something that was broken: Syria. And now Syria is on the mend, and members of the misdirectorate in Washington are left scratching their heads.

So far so good. But this method of pretending to be solving problems by making them worse has some definite downsides.

For one thing, eventually even the dimmest, most geographically challenged bulbs in the general population start to get a clue, and then they start refusing to vote for the establishment candidates. Then it becomes hard to continue with the misdirecting because the people doing the misdirecting are voted out, and (horror of horrors!) somebody who might actually try to fix a problem or two might get voted in.
For another thing, continually making problems worse by attacking the wrong country tends to eventually make the sheer number of problems get completely out of hand.
Take the recent massive terror attack in Brussels, down the road from NATO headquarters, for which ISIS took credit.

Recently, Europe has been experiencing a large-scale influx of people from the Middle East and North Africa, who have been forced to flee their native lands because of all the previous acts of misdirection, and a fair number of these people are ISIS terrorists. And so, to protect itself, NATO is planning to fight ISIS in Europe Syria.

Also, it is well known that the influx into Europe has been orchestrated by Turkey. In response, the EU has decided to put pressure on  give billions of euros to Turkey and tell Turkey that it is welcome to join the EU.

This pattern of attacking the wrong countries and systematically creating new problems has an overall momentum that, over time, becomes harder and harder to break.

It starts out as just one group of plutocrats doing incredibly vile, underhanded but profitable things; later on, an even bigger group of plutocrats is doing equally vile but now completely idiotic, self-defeating, embarrassing things; and right near the end, a really huge group of plutocrats is doing things that are absolutely suicidal—but they can’t stop themselves.

You should be able to decide for yourselves when that point in time arrives.

It won’t be long now.

Tradition Meets Diversity in Two Epic Baseball Fights

via Amerika

So let’s say an individual is a man of great honor. He is a celebrated athlete who honors his sport and competes in accordance with all of the written rules of the sport except when he seeks professional advantage. When whistled for a foul, he accepts it with stoic dignity. More importantly, the great athlete obeys an unwritten code of competitive honor. There is a right and a wrong way to play the game. This is true in baseball, but it is also true in life. And when people who don’t understand the cultural context in operation offend the unwritten codes of cultural dignity, mayhem breaks out. We see three examples below.

The traditional, unwritten rule being not to humiliate your opposition. The batter above did so by watching his home run and slow-walking his home run trot against the Braves. His show-off attitude infuriates Braves Catcher Brian McCann who stands on the baseline and won’t let him touch the base.

In the video below, the same player, Carlos Gomez shows off again. Once again, breaking the cultural taboo against pointlessly humiliating an opponent. Once again, fists get thrown.

In our final brawl is in The World Baseball Classic. We see Canada bunt for a hit when they already had a six run lead on Mexico in the final inning. To the casual observer (and to the ignorant announcers you’ll see below) it seems egregious to hit the next batter with a pitch. But no, in baseball, deliberately scoring on a routed opponent to run up cheap statistics is a cultural foul. Another taboo we see violated is the secondary brawling. Baseball fights are supposed to be mano-a-mano affairs. The hitter decked by a hard pitch gets a few shots at the pitcher if the catcher fails to make a good tackle. The pitcher and hitter both go take an early shower. Others are entitled to insult the other teams’ familial pedigree to their hearts’ content. But they are not supposed to ever be the third man in. Then the fit hits the shan as we see below.

So we come to the end of our athletic-themed episode of The Jerry Springer Show. It’s the part where Jerry asks the vital question. “What can we learn from this experience?”

What we can learn is that any sort of culture or sub-culture will have a complex set of unwritten rules known as tradition. When we introduce people who don’t understand or don’t personally accept these traditions conflict will occur as soon as these unwritten rules are flaunted. The more non-traditional elements that are introduced to a culture, the more these rules will be flaunted or ignored. The warrior traditionalist will not tolerate this.

In the confined and regulated environment of an athletic filed, a few fists fly, a few idiots walk home with lightened wallets and blackened names. Nothing worse occurs and life goes on the next time it’s time to suit up and play ball. In the streets, this sort of thing leaves someone, somewhere laying down for the dirt nap. Diversity plus proximity equals violence.

Know Your Investments: Humanity vs. Ethny

via Counter-Currents

Jacques-Louis David, Leonidas
at Thermopylae
In On Genetic Interests, Salter provides some impressionistic (qualitative) graphs interpreting how different ideologies distribute interests along the continuum of Self-Family-Offspring-Humanity. Putting aside minor quibbles (both offspring and ethny can be more fine-grained categories with different levels of relatedness — offspring can be extended to the entire family, including distinctions such as brother vs. cousin; ethny can have ethnic group vs. race, etc.) this is a quite useful instrument to think about the relationship between memes and genes, and how cultural artifacts and social technologies affect our genetic interests. These charts are an underestimated and under discussed part of the book; besides myself, the only other person I know of who tried to discuss this in a useful fashion is Bowery on a blog post from several years ago.

I’ll likely have more to say about this in the future — including a defense of the national socialist interest distribution — but for now I would like to comment on a key feature of System-approved ideologies — that they skip over ethny as a legitimate focus of interest. Included in the ideologies that Salter (justifiably) claims do this are: (radical) Christianity, Humanism, and Communism, as well as Multiculturalism as practiced by majority groups (Capitalism he has as skipping both ethny and humanity and it will not be a topic of this discussion).

One can attempt to look at this from a logical, objective standpoint, a standpoint that values consistency and a fair distribution of interests along the chain of biological relatedness.

Salter has (radical) Christianity not only eliminating all interest in ethny, but also suppressing interest in self and offspring, consistent with the life-denying, masochistic nature of the creed. Communism depresses interest in offspring while eliminating it for ethny, also demonstrating maladaptive aspects. Even so, for both, they at least pay lip service to a minimal investment in self and offspring (it is low, but not zero) — even the most radical of the System’s approved ideologies (yes, Marxism is approved — compare how a Marxist academic is treated compared to a “Fascist” one; and the form of Christianity most valued by the System is the most self-effacing and maladaptive kind) dare not completely eliminate self and offspring as categories of interest. They may wish to do so, but that is a “bridge too far,” so to speak.

Despite continuing far-left attempts to promote (White) self-abasement and to deconstruct (traditional) families, the natural impulses to preserve and protect self and offspring (even if Whites are not reproducing themselves) are still too strong. Hence, the general lack of interest in radical Christianity and, even more importantly, the movement of the Left Core away from doctrinaire Marxism toward a more “cultural Marxist” memetic structure that emphasizes humanist and multiculturalist values that target ethnic interests for attack while for the most part preserving interest in self and offspring.[1]

Thus, of greater interest for this discussion are “Humanism” and “Multiculturalism as practiced by majorities” as the major vehicles for the System’s Left Core ideology (apart from atomized Capitalism; see note 1). Here, we see an acceptance of basic human nature regarding self and offspring (the most intense repositories of genetic interest — note, not the largest repositories, but most concentrated, intense, and linked to emotional responses). Instead, the target is specifically ethnic interests. It is accepted that a (White) person should invest in self and offspring and also take a strong interest in humanity; but any interest in ethny is viciously attacked by social pricing, “hate” and “racism” laws, and social engineering to completely delegitimize the pursuit of group interests by European-descended peoples.

Given that we all agree on the importance of self and offspring, we need not talk about those any more now. Instead, let us focus on the System’s meme that pursuit of ethnic interests is illegitimate but pursuit of pan-human interests is perfectly legitimate and, indeed, laudable.

We can consider a thought experiment that underscores the hypocrisy — and the ethnic aggression — underlying such arguments by demonstrating that there is no logical, objective reason for making this distinction. Virtually every argument used to attack ethnic genetic interests can also be invoked, given the correct context, for human genetic interests.

Imagine an alien invasion of Earth, with these outer space aliens intent on displacing (demographically, socially, politically, in every way) humans as the dominant sentient species on Earth. Imagine these aliens want to use some humans, particularly human elites, to assist them in their agenda of conquest. Other humans fight the aliens; indeed, some sacrifice themselves in order to save humanity. How would this scenario be viewed?

I guarantee that there would be near-unanimous agreement across the political spectrum: the traitors are despicable, the altruists are honorable, and “of course” we must fight for humanity and preserve the Earth for our patrimony. Indeed, some may even say fighting for humanity is not truly altruism, since we as humans have a strong vested interest in the survival and prospering of our species.

Further, I assert that this position would be held as well by HBDers, Desi “cognitive elitists,” and their White extended phenotypes, Salter-hating Jamaican mongrel bloggers, and all the rest, including the Left.

But we can ask: how is this different from the case of defense of ethny? Why can’t we say that the self-sacrificing fighters for humanity will be outcompeted by free-riding traitors? Why is preserving humanity adaptive? Why, we may even have folks muttering about “green beard effects” and parsing the difference between “identical by descent” and “identical by state” (identical is not identical according to HBDers, you see) — all sorts of rationales. Indeed, preserving humanity is simply “a preference” not more salient than a taste for toffee or an admiration for Mahler — right?

The same people who argue against EGI on the basis that “human groups are virtually genetically the same” would probably be unconvinced by alien claims that dispossession of humans is no problem given that the great apes will be left unmolested and, by alien standards, humans and chimps are virtually genetically identical. Further, if the aliens claim that there is “greater genetic variation within the human family than there is between humans and aliens” would that make the dispossession of the human race any more palatable to the same humanist-multiculturalist-HBD types who use all these same arguments to delegitimize Eurocentric activism?

Of course, the Left-HBD faction need to get their memes straight. Take the argument that “there is more genetic variation within than between groups and there is virtually no real biological differences between human groups.” Very well. But, doesn’t that mean that investing in a single ethny has a great cost-benefit ratio? After all, according to the anti-EGI crowd, a single ethny contains more genetic variation than that found between groups; indeed, we are told that the vast bulk of human genetic variation is found within single population groups. So! All you need to do is preserve one group and you have virtually all the genetic variation right there. No need to preserve all humanity. Why, after all, groups are all the same, aren’t they? And isn’t it easier to invest in a single ethny, concentrating your investment there, than to dilute it over all humanity? Indeed, if we are all the same, then investing in humanity is a superfluous waste of resources. Save a single group, reap the benefits of all that internal genetic variation and diversity, and if the rest of humanity is lost, no problem — no differences between groups anyway. QED.

However, that argument would never be made by the anti-White Left and the anti-White HBDers. Instead, we’ll get talk about the “rich and diverse tapestry of humanity” — but when that tapestry is interpreted as including Europeans, watch the cognitive dissonance unfold and suddenly we are all the same and why be so concerned about individual groups. Genetic and diversity arguments shift back and forth and the only unifying theme is that whatever bolsters investing in humanity over ethny, and more specifically, whatever delegitimizes the pursuit of White interests, is the meme promoted.

Getting back to the arguments supporting betraying humanity to aliens, of course, I doubt any of these Left-HBD specimens would dare make such arguments. Therefore, we see a clear case of the legitimacy of the defense of ethny being specifically disregarded, specifically targeted. For some reason — one that cannot be based on logic or objectivity — self, family, and humanity are considered worthwhile for defense, but the other link in the chain of interests — ethny — is somehow considered an illegitimate focus of interest or concern.

Well, let’s be honest — that’s not the case for everyone. For most peoples, a concern for ethny is acceptable — it is only for European-derived peoples that the ethny part of the chain of interests is skipped over, not legitimate, not considered as valid. It is ONLY and specifically White ethnic interests that form a gap of interest, it is only for Whites that the chain goes self-offspring-humanity, while for every other group it is self-offspring-ethny-humanity. This is proof positive that the delegitimization of White ethnic self-defense is not only illogical, but is an open attack against White interests, it is form of memetic warfare against the entire race as part of inter-group competition and as part of free-riding by White traitors.

Of course, the same arguments against ethnic genetic interests can be applied, following the course of “Left Logic,” to delegitimize pursuit of the interests of self and offspring, bringing us back to radical Christianity, extreme Communism, etc. — which promote decreased investment in those categories in favor of an indiscriminate humanism. There is a consistency in leftist memes in which, ultimately, carried to their “logical” conclusions, every human distinction is eliminated.[2]

To summarize: pursuit of genetic interests at every level of one’s continuum of relatedness is objectively and logically legitimate, and can be adaptive, particularly dependent upon context. There is absolutely no objective or logical reason to pick one chain in the link, in this case ethny, to be specifically disregarded. Arguments against the pursuit of ethnic genetic interests could just as easily be used, dependent upon context, against humanist universalism. Indeed, many of the same arguments can be made against the interests of self and offspring (a child that uses so much resources that it prevents its parents from producing more children — egads! — interfamilial free riding!). Arguments that the pursuit of ethnic interests is wrong because of “wars, conflict, and bloodshed” ignore that the bloodiest ideologies in human history have been egalitarian humanist ones (starting with Communism at the top of the list), that multicultural diversity leads to conflict, and that even at the level of self and offspring, people have been historically violent (how many murders are committed for selfish and familial reasons?). The hysterical denunciation of, specifically, ethnic genetic interests is illogical. Given that this attack on EGI is most often targeted to Whites (usually implicitly, but sometimes explicitly — “Whites acting as Whites have caused unique oppression in human history, blah, blah, blah”), anti-Salterian attitudes are revealed to have an inner core of ethnic aggression against Whites and White interests.

1. While Capitalism is not part of my analysis at this time, I note that the System likes to promote hedonistic, selfish, atomized individualism for Whites to the extent that Whites are not consumed by humanist values. In other words, either be a Humanist who disregards ethny in favor of humanity, or be a libertarian Capitalist who disregards ethny and humanity (and to some extent interest in having children) in favor of self.
2. Which makes one wonder about human-alien distinctions — who would be overrepresented among the pro-space alien traitors to humanity — Leftists who deny the importance of human-alien differences, or atomized, hyper-individualistic Capitalists eager for their thirty pieces of silver?

Academe Finally Discovers Right-Wing Critics of Conservatism Inc., Will MSM Be Next?


A Trump rally in Alabama, where whites
voted 88% for GOP
Dr. George Hawley, [Email him] an assistant professor at the University of Alabama, has provided a badly-needed public service by producing Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism. Hawley’s work, published by an outstanding press for American studies at the University of Kansas, should bring him much deserved attention. Of course it’s ridiculous that America has had to wait so long for a scholarly work specifically devoted to what VDARE.com readers would consider the genuine Right.  But the fact is that, as far as the Main Stream Media was concerned, the GOP Establishment and its Conservatism Inc. flunkies was the “extreme Right”—until they met Donald Trump.

hawleycriticsThroughout his book, Hawley feels the need to signal his disapproval of some views he discusses. This may simply be the price of publication. If I were young enough to be considered for tenure in the average political science department at an American university, I too would spray my books with PC bromides in order to keep the Leftist lunatics off my back. Given the imbalance of forces, we should thank Hawley for daring to treat our side with even a modicum of respect.

We are that part of the American Right which both the Republican Establishment and neoconservative journalists have succeeded in “throwing off the bus,” as Jonah Goldberg characterized this salvific (for him) process. [The Logic of the Conservative Purges, by Paul Gottfried, Radix, September 9, 2015]

But Hawley accurately notes the never-ending purge has left political discourse in the United States “calcified.” So he seeks to rescue these “right wing critics” by comprehensively profiling the wide variety of thought his subjects represent. We encounter paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, market anarchists, neopagan followers of the European New Right, white nationalists, and racial realists. There’s even a cameo appearance by the Dark Enlightenment.

VDARE.com readers may be bothered to find David Duke and Pat Buchanan being juxtaposed in Hawley’s narrative. But Hawley is correct to do so. From the standpoint of their neoconservative critics, Duke and Buchanan are equally reprehensible—and so is the far less rightist but even more bothersome Donald Trump, who has dared to run for president against the wishes of something that still calls itself, however deceptively, “the conservative movement.” Note the continuing ludicrous efforts to link Trump to David Duke.

The only thing uniting these “right wing critics” is their total marginalization by the same Beltway Right that is so eager to shadowbox profitably with the radical Left. Thus Hawley chronicles some of the most shameful campaigns of persecution waged by Conservatism Inc. against dissenters such as M.E. Bradford, Sam Francis, John Derbyshire, Jason Richwine, Joe Sobran and others.

Where does this intense hatred against the Dissident Right come from? The commissars conducting the purges obviously see something in their enemies that’s not just off-putting but evil. Thus we get the Leftist slurs “fascist,” “anti-Semite,” and “racist” adopted by the Respectable Right.

One possibility Hawley proposes is simply the conventional mainstream (Leftist-neoconservative) explanation: he writes “The negative assessment of marginalized ideologies may be correct in many cases.”  Indeed, Hawley tells us intermittently some of subjects may be xenophobic, and men like Sam Francis and Jared Taylor have made no secret of their “racialist” tendencies. Hawley even scolds the GOP for its “immigration restrictionism” that has “driven” minorities into the Democratic Party.

But the only example of this tendency that Hawley cites is the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994, under (let’s stress) the generally liberal Republican governor Pete Wilson. Omitted from consideration are Republican support for the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the Amnesty legislation supported by Reagan and congressional Republicans in 1986, and finally the repeated strenuous efforts of George W. Bush, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other leading Republicans to Amnesty at least 11 million more illegals residing in the country.

Besides, as Hawley himself admits, these illegal residents wouldn’t vote Republican anyway, for economic reasons if nothing else.

More convincing than the ritualistic clichés in Hawley’s work are his assessments of the stale thinking and simplistic GOP talking points that haven’t changed since the 1980s. In contrast to the tiresome PR agents associated with the “movement,” (including the assortment of real and bleached blondes on FoxNews), the paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians Hawley profiles ooze with original insight and vast learning. But even though many of the scholars and writers on the Dissident Right are far more well-read and erudite than the minicons of the official “movement,” Conservatism Inc. simply falls back on calling them stupid.

Hawley in contrast devotes respectful attention to his subjects’ scholarship, which leaves the impression that he is truly struck by the force of their ideas. He even explores my sometimes (alas) abstruse tracts on German political thought and devotes considerable space to Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger and other mentors of the European New Right and its American disciples. In short, he suggests the hatred directed towards the Dissident Right is motivated by fear of the intellectual threat we represent.

Hawley investigates in depth an in-house discussion about the paleoconservatism that had emerged in the 1980s and 1990s held between long-time Chronicles Editor Tom Fleming and myself. Fleming “argued that paleoconservatism is a continuation of the interwar old right, whereas Paul Gottfried viewed paleoconservatism as the true heir of the 1950s conservative movement before it was hijacked by neoconservatism.”
My views have changed since then. I now think the paleos were largely a new movement of the Right born of a lost cause, trying to counter the rise of neoconservatives to a position of control over the Conservative Movement. But though the paleos gave it their best shot, they went nowhere as a counterforce after the defeat of Pat Buchanan’s briefly successful presidential runs in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

Hawley ascribes the view that “paleoconservatism is no longer a meaningful force in the United States’’ to me, and I won’t deny it. He says there are two reasons for paleoconservatism’s eclipse: first, the passing of the generation that identified with it and its defeat in trying to take back the movement; and second, the changing social and cultural face of America, which would be even less receptive to paleoconservatives than were the 1980s.

But that doesn’t mean the fight against Conservatism Inc. (and its neoconservative masters) is over. Both Hawley and I have discerned a new populist Right emerging, which focuses on the high costs of mass immigration and capitalizes on growing popular resentment against Leftist elites.

VDARE.com is obviously a part of this emerging political force. Peter Brimelow and VDARE.com are cited and Peter is singled out (not unfavorably) for his “scathing attacks on American immigration policy.” As a result, we are told, Peter “is no longer published in mainstream venues.”

Three other contributors to VDARE.com who have at least four pages lavished on them in Hawley’s study are: Steve Sailer, for his daring commentaries on sociobiology; John Derbyshire for his examinations of IQ differences and their effect on human behavior and professional achievements; and, well, me, for my studies on European political thought and for being a long-lived nuisance to the neocons. To his credit, Hawley reviews the purge of John Derbyshire by the shameful National Review with sympathy.

Donald Trump in the United States and the National Front in France are two examples of the emerging populist political force—sometimes called “National Conservatism.” In the present historical circumstances, a coalition of the dispossessed, built on the white working class is probably the best the Right can hope for. Hawley is already at work on a sequel dealing with this alternative, populist Right. From having seen his prospectus, I expect it to be entirely on target.

Needless to say, I don’t expect the particular paleoconservatism with which Buchanan and I were associated to make a comeback even if the political climate changes. As one of my favorite thinkers (yes, Carl Schmitt) famously observed: “an historical truth is true only once.” And this aphorism is particularly relevant for the history of failed political movements. After all, the overthrow of Soviet Communism eventually brought to power in Russia the conservative nationalist government of Vladimir Putin. But it hasn’t resulted in restoring the Romanoff dynasty in Russia.
At least, not yet.