Apr 1, 2015

Yet again: Are Jews White?

via EGI Notes

So, at the “dark enlightenment,” we see the peanut gallery once again debating that old and boring question: “Are Jews White?” The juvenile mindset that the “movement,” and associated precincts of “race realism,” have on this question is based on the simplistic idea that: 
1) If Jews are “White” we must accept them, which we do not want to do.
2) If Jews are not “White” then we can reject them, which we do want to do.
Therefore, the anti-Jew crowd wants to prove the non-Whiteness of Jews, while the philo-Semites wish to prove the opposite.

However, for practical political purposes, this is meaningless. We all can think of many individuals who we will all agree are “White,” persons of impeccable “Aryan” bloodlines, folks of whom ancestry is not in question, and these people we would (I hope) unambiguously reject, since they are despicable traitors to their race and civilization. Think of many politicians and world leaders, businessmen and other wealthy celebrities — are they part of our ingroup? Washington DC is full of such types; they can be found in the EU, Hollywood, the US Chamber of Commerce, among our population of “White” billionaires, our financial aristocracy. We find them among celebrities who proudly race-mix. We find them among “leaders” who promote Third World immigration and other aspects of White genocide, these are scum who sell out their people for their own selfish interests, or because their minds have been infected with anti-White memes. These are the types that Pierce would have wanted to have executed in his “Day of the Rope.”

Very well. But if we can identify individuals who are “White” but who we reject, why can’t we do the same about an ethnic group that behaves in the most destructive manner of all? So, we can all agree that “Jews are White” but at the same time reject them as a “White” ethnic group that has a historical animus towards Europeans, a group that selfishly pursues their own hyper-ethnocentric interests at the expense of the rest of the “White race,” a renegade treasonous “White” ethny that makes common cause with the “rising tide of color” against White and Western interests, a “White” group actively promoting White genocide because they don’t really identify as “White” in the same sense as other “Whites” do, and because they believe that the destruction of the greater White Race ensures their own narrow group survival as an unique population group with its own special history and identity. We can state that the Jewish “White” group perceives itself as having radically different interests from Gentile “Whites,” so that the two groups are incompatible. We can point out that whenever an attempt is made to include Jews in “White” racial nationalism, they consistently promote destructive memes (e.g., a multiracial “White separatist state,” supporting the “racial status quo,” blaming our problems on “Protestants,” stating that racial preservation for its own sake is “insane,” and of course promoting the anti-White creed of HBD). We can therefore accept Jews as “White.” while at the same time also accepting them as an enemy and rejecting them from inclusion in our ingroup of the White family of peoples. After all, throughout human history, who has been more despised than the traitor? Given their behavior, one could consider that saying that Jews are “White” may actually increase, rather than decrease, the hostility of racially aware Whites toward that group.

Having said all of that, and explaining why the question of “are Jews White?” is practically unimportant to any serious racial nationalism, I’ll switch gears and say that if, for some reason, it was important to more objectively justify exclusion of Jews, then the “movement” could adopt my reasonable definition of “indigenous” and state that we consider as “White” those individuals deriving ancestry from one or more of the indigenous ethnies of Europe. Thus, Jews are no more “White” than are Roma, despite the fact that some Jews may be genetically or phenotypically close to Europeans.


Even more basic: we can follow Yockey and accept that Identity is holistic, and cannot be strictly reduced to biological reductionism (although the biological is important; it just isn’t everything). Thus, regardless of whether a Jew looks like Dolph Lundgren is immaterial; their overall Identity is non-European and non-Western. When the Jews established a modern homeland, where did they choose? Palestine, in the Middle East. That choice was not solely or even predominantly motivated by pragmatics — there were other spaces available, spaces that could have avoided the endless conflict with the Arab natives of that region. Palestine was chosen and, more importantly, as Israel holds such a fascination on Jews, because Jews in their total Identity passionately feel a close connection, at minimum historically and culturally, to the ancient Israelites; modern Jews identity with a non-Western, non-European, Middle Eastern “Magian” High Culture. We see the Jewish settlers of today invoking Biblical scripture as their basis for claiming this land in the Middle East. They view this land as theirs as their birthright as Jews, as part of Jewish history, a history rooted in the historical Middle East, not in Europe. Thus, Israel is their homeland, not Europe, and it matters not if a given Jew is genetically and/or phenotypically “White” in the European sense. They do not identify as such. They identify as Jewish, a separate and unique group, and there is genetic evidence supporting a biological link to those historical and cultural ties, even though the link has been attenuated through admixture. But again, we need not be reductionist. Jews are a People, with a strong identity, and that identity is not “White” in the same sense as is the identity of English, Germans, Italians, Czechs, Swedes, Spaniards, or French.

So, Jews may be “White,” but they do not identify as such, when push comes to shove. They may be “White” but they are not indigenous Europeans; there is no historic European nation of “Jewia.” They may be “White” but they do not belong to the High Culture of the West; instead, they identify with the “Magian” High Culture of the Middle and Near East; they may be “White” but their passionate attachment to “blood and soil” is in the Levant, not in Europe. Whether or not they are “White,” and regardless of how one wants to “crunch” the data on cephalic indices or gene frequencies, Jews are not European Westerners. They are themselves, with their own interests, which they pursue with great efficacy. Perhaps if we were equally concerned about our own identity and our own interests, rather than worrying about how to classify Jews, our own situation would be far less dire.

Love and Marriage: Dads

via Radix

Watchmen, the 1986 graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, is widely regarded as a masterwork of popular culture, one that certainly transcends the genre of comic books. That said, its treatment of love and sex have not been widely appreciated. For me, the most striking sexual fact in the novel is that the Man-Becoming-God, Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, needs sex, whereas the Super Man, Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, does not. One might expect the opposite: the closer to divinity, the less sex would matter. After all, sex is the heart of our struggle for genetic immortality—one might see it as pointless for someone who has already achieved personal immortality.

But there must be some meaning to this for Dr. Manhattan. Laurie Juspeczyk (“Jupiter”) is his squeeze for the some 20 years leading up to the main action of the novel. Her mother, Sally, tells her that, as far as the government is concerned, the only difference between Jon and an H-bomb is that “they didn’t have to get the H-bomb laid every once in a while.”

In contrast, Veidt is one of two superheroes in the novel who seem asexual (Rorschach being the other). We have no evidence that Veidt has a love life at all; in fact, we are tempted to speculate that he fills this gap emotionally with his affection for a giant, genetically engineered lynx. At one point, Rorschach hints that Veidt is a homosexual, but there is no verification of this; at most, it fits with our image of the putative homosexual aspects of Veidt’s grand hero from history— Alexander the Great.

To examine this difference between Manhattan and Ozymandias is to examine why Osterman needs sex despite being a demigod, since it is as clear why Veidt is auto-sexual as it is why Rorschach is anti-sexual: They are both divorced from humanity. Rorschach’s scarred childhood with his prostitute mother has made him thoroughly misanthropic and anti-social. Veidt, on the other hand, is so narcissistic he is Messianic; he’s too much in love with himself to trouble with sexual overtures to the mere run of humanity.

So why do they have to get the Jon/bomb laid every once in a while? One key to Dr. Manhattan’s sexuality is that it is in transition, part of his overall transformation that is central to the story. Jon’s burgeoning relationship with Janey Slater played a key role in the accidental chain of events that led to his irradiation and reconstitution from dissolute atoms. Jon and Janey had already slept together at that point, so with Jon’s metamorphosis, Alan Moore can hardly emasculate him. Why wouldn’t Janey be even more attracted to this naked superman?

One of the more striking visuals in the novel is Janey’s face when Jon first ascends from scattered particles in his finished form. The rest of the scientists are portrayed as terrified forms with wild hair, fleeing toward the periphery, then staring in fright. Janey however, stands in the middle of the scene, watching Jon levitate like an Ascendant Christ, all naked, muscular power, with the most incredible mixture of awe and hope on her face. She sees her boyfriend transformed into her vision of the ultimate alpha male. She utters a balloon of a single word, “Jon?” With a face like that, one can hear her lovesick, questioning tremble.

From that point, there is no reason their relationship should not proceed, and so begins one of the more politically incorrect sexual themes in the novel, a theme that, like all political incorrectness, was once universally acknowledged as true in the West, just as it still is in most of the world. It is this: when it comes to high sexual market value, man’s life can extend from mid-adolescence to the very extremity of middle age, but woman’s time in the sun is brief: traditionally extending from completed puberty for less than a decade before she should be hitched.

This is not dealt with explicitly in Watchmen, for it seems covered by the fact that Jon is, so far as we know, immortal: Janey ages and he does not. But what other than this basic biological fact regarding differential sexual market value must underlie all such tales of male longevity paired with ephemeral womanhood: Zeus with Leda, Europa, and so many more; King David and his last concubine; Highlander; and even, in full reverse, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button?

Sure enough, as Janey’s natural human life proceeds, she becomes jealous and bitter as Jon’s attention turns to Laurie, beginning when the latter is a mere sprout of sixteen. That Moore would pair her with Jon at an age when she is barely legal in much of the West, tells us that underneath Jon’s extreme genius, immortality, clairvoyance, raw power and blue skin, he’s just as turned on by hot young chicks as any red-blooded mortal man. (It’s a particularly daring plot choice for readers in prudish America.) After all, one view of orgasmic pleasure is that sex itself is the apparent goal our genes infused us with, just so they could replicate. A drive that strong need not disappear with immortality.

But there is evidence of waning sex drive in Jon. He never does trade Laurie in for a third model because, over the two decades of their relationship, his initial enthusiasm, shared with the common run of male humanity, turns to a general detachment, not only from Laurie but from our whole species. The man-god does not just tire of Laurie, he tires of us.

Near the end of this phase, he alienates Laurie with a misguided attempt to stimulate her sexually by dividing himself into multiple copies and tempting her toward a novel form of group sex. This is as far as the novel goes to suggesting anything beyond vanilla sex within established straight relationships, and it turns out Laurie is not interested. However, that’s not necessarily because Jon’s idea (“I thought you’d enjoy it”) was off-putting; it’s because the “real Jon” was not even one of the copies on offer; the real Jon was conducting a scientific experiment while all this was going on in the boudoir. When Laurie discovers he has staged the whole auto-menage just to distract her and give him time to concentrate on what’s really important to him, she is outraged.

This scene also touches on another politically incorrect sexual theme in Watchmen: women are not much interested in the details of how the male, especially European man, has struggled to understand the world and then build on that understanding all those things that enable the march of civilization. Women are interested in relationships, family, and emotions. It seems reasonable that Laurie would be offended in the pseudo-menage scene, with his rationale that his “work’s at an important stage”; but later, in the scene with Jon on Mars, Laurie is almost completely oblivious to the natural wonders Jon is continually pointing out to her, and to the magnificent glass clock-ship he creates from Martian sand. “Look over there: a dust storm rising,” Jon points out. “Yeah. Very nice,” replies Laurie. Then she continues to examine relationships.

Seen as an archetype in 2015, Jon is an extreme form of “conventional alpha male”: He’s a celebrity alpha, pretty much like many Hollywood leading men, of all eras. A man like that can get the girl with hardly a try, because he has looks, he has money, and he has fame. He has so much fame that he’s sexually pre-selected; millions of women are already attracted to him, which makes it highly likely any particular woman he wants will fall for him with very little effort on his part.

There’s an important sense in which a celebrity alpha is not necessarily an alpha male at all: If his inner nature is dad-like, i.e. his long-term romantic goal tends toward finding that one woman for life, he is only slightly more likely than any similar male to go beyond that nature tendency and opt for a continual succession of women instead; if he does, it’s mainly his celebrity status that has tempted and enabled him-without that, he’d be a dad or fail at being a cad. In other words, leading men come in alpha and beta flavors, just like ordinary men: Some are like Errol Flynn and some are like Jimmy Stewart.

Looked at this way, Dr. Manhattan is the ultimate celebrity alpha who is a beta at heart. He’s a demigod who can see both within and beyond the scale of life to quarks and quasars, worlds he finds more fascinating and more comfortable. Not only is he not interested in using his status to increase his succession of women past two, he eventually loses interest in his second woman, and in the process, almost loses interest in all humans, indeed, life itself.

As a matter of fact, though I’m sure Alan Moore did not intend a close parallel, this is exactly what happens, at least at the sexual level, to most men who settle for one woman–they lose touch with sexual reality in favor of an idea, and they risk deep dissatisfaction with women, and often all people, as they are. Of course, most of these men are happy enough much of the time, but mainly because they have built a web of comforting ego-assuaging deceits between their youthful desires and their mature selves. A tiny fraction of these: “a nice house with lots of toys makes me feel just as good about my status as bedding beautiful women would,” “my wife would hate me and leave me if I cheated,” and, coming full circle, “I can’t be that guy anyway, because I don’t have the looks, money, and fame of a celebrity.”

So there’s a sense in which conventional alpha males are not alpha at all, not in one arena that can pack a big Darwinian punch—womanizing. They are the men conventional society, which nowadays is the society of mostly female values, designates as “alpha.” The truth is that what separates them from the general run of men is mainly that they are better at the material aspects of being beta: the best providers of money and security. But they are far from best at providing emotional thrills.


The counterpart to the provider beta is the natural alpha, the born womanizer. It’s crystal clear who plays this archetype in Watchmen—the Comedian, Edward Blake. And nothing could illustrate better Moore’s understanding that many women are strongly attracted to this type of man than the fact that Blake, who once raped Laurie’s mother or came within a minute of raping her, later reunited briefly with her under more tender circumstances, therein fathering Laurie.

Blake has a whole panoply of characteristics that fascinate already fascinating characters. Rorschach says of him,
Forceful personality. Didn’t care if people liked him. Uncompromising. Admired that. Of us all, he understood most. About world. About people. About society and what’s happening to it. Things everyone knows in gut. Things everyone too scared to face, too polite to talk about.
As intelligent men facing lunatic times, we were very alike, despising each other instantly.
And Osterman, in paraphrase:
I never met anyone so deliberately amoral–like me, he understood perfectly what Vietnam said about the pointless butchery of the human condition, but unlike me, he didn’t care.
However, it’s Blake’s sexual force that is central here, and on that subject, there’s little to add to the stark contrast of his dual persona as Sally Jupiter’s rapist and Laurie Jupiter’s dad: Moore has not been so politically incorrect as to suggest that Sally enjoyed the sexual assault–it traumatizes her, and for the rest of her life she remains, for the most part, outwardly antagonistic to Blake. But when the chips are down, she choose her assailant to father her child. “Watch what people do, not what they say” is a time-honored maxim; it goes treble for women, the more instinctive sex.

It is true that Moore portrays Sally as a tough, ambitious, and vulgar woman, which puts further distance between this 1986 character and one of today’s more daring conjectures, that most women have nuanced and ambivalent attitudes toward rape and aggressive sexual conquest, and, furthermore, the more feminine and attractive the woman, the more the dark side of this ambivalence will have its allure.

In evolutionary terms, the persistence of the womanizing reproductive strategy is felt to lie mostly in the possibility that, through cuckoldry, the womanizer can forgo the immense costs of raising a human child, by leaving such dirty work to the woman and her luckless cuckold. From a woman’s point of view, she may also gain, because it is the lot of all mothers to have this hard work to do anyway; and her offspring may possess and pass on some of the genes that contribute to the womanizing personality, perpetuating this risky but potentially very rewarding strategy. And, of course, male self confidence is a trait that can make him a better provider and achiever, not just a better womanizer. However he uses it, if man learns to display self-confidence to women, he will be much more attractive to them.

In Watchmen, this greater complexity of the cuckold issue is never explored, at least not through the issue of Laurie’s paternity. There is a cuckold, but it’s Sally’s agent, Larry Schexnayder, whom she married several years before Laurie was born. We get the impression that Schexnayder has never thought Laurie was his genetic child, and doesn’t much care. The reason this is believable, compared to the soul-destroying pain and shame felt by most awakened cuckolds down through the ages, is that as her agent, Schexnayder has always lived off Sally. Sure, the agent-star relationship is something of a partnership, but a star, by definition, is a brand in human form, whereas agents are interchangeable. Moreover, Schexnayder seems to derive much of his status satisfaction from the visibility of marrying a star and living the show-biz life, not from having sex with her and inspiring her to bear his children. Very beta male behavior, and consistent with a high tolerance for being cuckolded. He hasn’t slaved away his life to raise the child of another man and a stay-at-home princess; he has made a comfortable living off his star and is willing to pay the price of cuckoldry.

However, the personal tragedy of the cuckold is touched on elsewhere in the novel, though not through the ultimate man-rape of dyspaternity. Early in the comic, we learn the story of Moe Vernon, a garage-owner who had employed one of the original heroes as a boy. Upon learning that his wife has run off with the head mechanic at his own garage, Moe cranks on “Ride of the Valkyries,” runs a hose from an engine exhaust into his office, and drifts off into oblivion. Thus, this famous theme, with all its intended pomp and triumphalism, becomes “the saddest music I know.” My conclusion is that the locus of female power has nothing to do with shieldmaidens and Amazons: Woman’s power is in rather the sphere of love and sex, not the battlefield, but their wielding of power nevertheless produces casualties.

Returning to Schexnayder and his contentment with living off the Sally Jupiter brand, there is a lesson here about end-stage feminism. The more women are “empowered” to become full providers, not only providing the womb and work of mothering, but most of the provisioning as well, the more some men will sink to the bottom of male ambition and live off a woman with minimal effort, not caring if they are cuckolded, happy to be mothered amid feminine emotional wallowing, happy for occasional lackluster sex. It’s another result of perpetual adolescence for modern beta-boys.
And by becoming the default provider-beta, the welfare state accentuates this trend. Considering the relatively small numbers of Blacks who live in the two great welfare exemplars, Canada and Sweden, it is surprising how many unwed White mothers can be seen in these countries with little mulattoes in tow. Though many Blacks have a raw virility less common in Whites, they barely need it to cuckold the welcoming governments of the West, absentee fatherhood being the time-honored African way of life. Meanwhile in America, a welfare state with large numbers of Blacks, the President himself embodies this theme.

The close of Watchmen reads almost as almost a parody of “beta settling.” Laurie has not, so far as we know, had lovers on the side for all those years she was with Jon. At 36, she is getting close to hitting the female Wall—when the modern woman begins to feel she’s not up to the alpha males she bedded in the past and casts around for a safe beta-provider to get cosy with. In Watchmen, that would be Dan Dreiberg. Laurie’s settling for Dan represent the romantic and sexual aspects of the settling for comfort that is Veidt’s goal for world peace—comfortable times are decadent times, both materially and sexually. (Well, at least Dan’s a superhero.)

I have suggested much here that could be construed as very negative about women:
  • Women say they want “a nice guy,” whereas, sexually, they are far more likely to reward arrogance;
  • Women want the security of a beta, and the semen of an alpha, if they can get them;
  • Women are generally uninterested in science, building, and the mechanics of how things work;
  • Women are much more open to aggressive sex than it is permissible to discuss outside of play-acting;
  • Rape has had its role in shaping their evolutionary psychology;
  • In Darwinian terms, women are capable of committing something more costly to a provider male than rape is to a female: they are capable of lying him into expending his substance raising the child of another man for decades.
And I admit that I do believe these facets of women are real, and are relevant.

But perhaps the real tragedy of the sexes in modernity is not the persistence of these inner aspects of women, nor even the denial of them by feminism. Perhaps the real tragedy is the expectation that women should be something they are not. Who cares if Laurie is uninterested in hadrons, dust storms, and Olympus Mons? As a woman, she is most interested in the personal creation and nurturing of life. Isn’t that more than enough?

It all reminds me of a tale, apocryphal but nonetheless insightful, of a botanist who responded to a zoology colleague’s criticism of the passive, static nature of plants with, “Good God, they eat light–isn’t that enough for you?”

In the end, Jon Osterman finds Laurie’s womanly nature enough, for it saves humanity. On Mars, while Jon is expounding on the cosmic meaninglessness of man, Laurie is solving a puzzle that is pregnant with human meaning–the puzzle of who is attracted to whom, and why. And being a woman, she does not piece this out in the abstract, as in modern Game theory. She does not boil it down to an explicit, empirical understanding. No, Laurie arrives at her own understanding of an uncomfortable truth—that women are attracted to dangerous men—through examining the origins of her own particular life, solving the riddle of her paternity.

And it is up to Jon—whose near-omniscience has failed to encompass that small riddle, Jon the demi-god, Jon with his abstractions—to extend Laurie’s discovery to the unpredictable miracle that is all life. And in that extension, he decides to save human life. In the end, this understanding of the eternal feminine is the key that allows Jon to transcend personal sex, in favor of expanding the creative power resident in sex to new worlds, completing his quest for Godhood.

All because of woman’s power to choose in the game of Life.

Isn’t that enough?

A Review of Jewcentricity by Adam Garfinkle, Part 3: The Israel Lobby

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1
Part 2

It angers Garfinkle (doubtless due in large part to his role as speechwriter for Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice) that the influence exerted by the Israel Lobby over the foreign policy of the United States, and other Western nations, provides yet another focal point for “negative Jewcentricity.” Garfinkle’s discussion of this issue centers on the publication and reception of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy in 2007. He notes how:
In recent years, this debate has revolved around the writings of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, notably a paper and then a book they wrote called The Israel Lobby. The authors argue in essence that U.S. foreign policy has been distorted, particularly in the Middle East but really on a global scale, by the exertions of Jews in the United States who have managed to bend the American national interest to that of Israel. The authors believe that the Israel Lobby — they always use a capital L for that word — has made U.S. foreign policy too interventionist, notably in causing the Iraq war, and that U.S. support for Israel is a main source of Islamic terrorism directed against the United States.[1]
Garfinkle freely engages in ad hominem attacks on Mearsheimer and Walt, implying that they wrote their book mainly out of desire for financial gain, rather than from a deeply felt conviction about the misdirection of American foreign policy under the influence of the Lobby. He claims “the authors parlayed the ruckus [over the influence of AIPAC] into the book, published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 2007, for which the two reportedly received an advance of $750,000 to split between them.”[2] He likewise notes the furor over the book soon died down “despite the authors’ efforts to keep the buzz buzzing, the better to sell more books and promote their views.”[3]
As well as writing their book for mercenary reasons, Mearsheimer and Walt were also, Garfinkle contends, unqualified to offer their thoughts on American foreign policy because they are not “Middle East experts” and do not speak any Middle Eastern language. He writes:
Like many other Israel lobby critics before them, Mearsheimer and Walt are not themselves Middle East experts. Before their Israel Lobby essay and book, neither had written much on the region and anything at all for scholarly, expert audiences. They have never claimed to be regional experts, and rightly so, for neither seems to have studied, let alone mastered, any Middle Eastern language. The many factual errors they make illustrate their lack of familiarity with the basic literature on the subject. … [S]erious scholars are supposed to respect certain standards of logic and rules of evidence, and tenured faculty at prestigious institutions are presumed to be among those professionals.”[4]
Having engaged in some initial character assassination, Garfinkle finally addresses Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis that American foreign policy has been unduly influenced by an Israel Lobby which has pushed the American government into wars not in the American national interest. Garfinkle claims this assumption is based on a “vast exaggeration” and claims The Israel Lobby is marred by a “fundamental illogic,” despite himself having, as previously noted, acknowledged in other parts of Jewcentricity the existence of a plethora of powerful and well-funded activist organizations “serving parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from broader American interest but not related directly to religion.”[5]

The power of the Israel Lobby in shaping foreign policy is not just an American but a broader Western phenomenon. The sway held by organized Jewry over Australia’s political leaders was highlighted last year when the former Foreign Minister Bob Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s cabinet. Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said: “I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.” Carr’s observations were later corroborated by the former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser who said Carr was “absolutely correct” in his view that the Jewish lobby wielded too much power.

Garfinkle’s main counter-argument to Mearsheimer and Walt is that while Jewish activist organizations are indeed highly effective in lobbying Congress (which is surely egregious enough), its influence does not extend to the executive branch of government. He maintains that “when a president knows what he wants, whether it pleases Israel or not, he does it. He does it because, as the steward of American national security and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he thinks it best for the country. He may be right or wrong in his judgments, but lobbies have never decisively influenced any major U.S. strategic judgment concerning the Middle East.”[6] This argument might have some validity with regard to the Obama presidency, but is patently false with regard to the Bush administration. Regarding the disastrous invasion of Iraq, Garfinkle claims that “trying to pin the blame for it on Israel and its American supporters is a stretch well beyond credulity.”[7]

So the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq was, Garfinkle proposes, made independently of the urgings from the Israel Lobby and the neoconservative establishment. Garfinkle makes no mention of the fact that Israeli plans for a war against Iraq had been in place for several years prior to the 2003 invasion. No mention is made of the mid-1996 policy paper prepared for the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu entitled  A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm which was authored by, amongst others Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser — three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush Administration — and which called for an “effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” Garfinkle also ignores the fact that Netanyahu lied brazenly about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to goad the United States into an invasion. He likewise ignores the many media reports from around the time of the invasion that show that AIPAC was actively lobbying for the invasion of Iraq — not to mention the recent statements of Rep. Barney Frank. For example, Matt Yglesias, writing in in 2007, noted in an article entitled “AIPAC and Iraq” that:
One of the odder notions to take hold in recent years is that AIPAC specifically, and the so-called “Israel lobby” more generally had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq War, and that anyone who says otherwise is an anti-Semite. As John Judis writes for The New Republic, however, this is just false:
“At the time, a Senate staff person with a responsibility for foreign policy told me of AIPAC’s lobbying. But I don’t have to rely on my memory. AIPAC’s lobbying wasn’t widely reported because AIPAC didn’t want Arab states, whose support the Bush administration was soliciting, to be able to tie Bush’s plans to Israel, but it lobbied nonetheless. In September 2002, before Congress had begun considering the administration’s proposal authorizing force with Iraq, Rebecca Needler, a spokeswoman for AIPAC, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “If the president asks Congress to support action in Iraq, AIPAC would lobby members of Congress to support him.” Then at an AIPAC meeting in New York in January 2003, before the war began, but after Congress had voted to authorize Bush to go to war, Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s executive director, boasted of AIPAC’s success in lobbying for the war. Reported the New York Sun, “According to Mr. Kohr, AIPAC’s successes over the past year also include guaranteeing Israel’s annual aid package and ‘quietly’ lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq.”
And, obviously, other institutions of the hawkish “pro-Israel” establishment — the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Saban Center, JINSA, The New York Sun, The New Republic, etc. — all advocated strongly in favor of invasion.
Ignoring all of this, Garfinkle maintains that:
If, as Mearsheimer and Walt argue, even against their own realist convictions, a domestic lobby is responsible for U.S. policy decisions at the highest level and with the greatest consequence — not least the U.S. war in Iraq — and if their own argument is as new and revelatory as they claim it is, then it follows that their book should have had a major impact on how U.S. foreign policy is made and what its basic tenets are. Yet no such thing has happened. The Bush administration did not throw up its hands in surrender after the Mearsheimer-Walt book was published, and shift its policy on cue. None of the Democratic or Republican primary contenders in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election mentioned the Mearsheimer-Walt book or said anything remotely endorsing their case against the Israel lobby.[8] 
Garfinkle’s bizarre logic seems to be that if the Israel Lobby did have undue influence over the direction of U.S. foreign policy, then exposure of this influence alone should have been enough for it to cease. In truth, the fact that Mearsheimer and Walt’s book had no discernible impact on the direction of U.S. foreign policy can be taken as confirmation of their thesis. Political survival in the contemporary United States is contingent on garnering and maintaining the broad support of the organized Jewish lobby. Defy this lobby and you are destined for the political scrap heap. This is the reason why Mearsheimer and Walt’s book had no discernible effect on U.S. foreign policy. Elsewhere in his book Garfinkle acknowledges that:
Without questioning the right of Jews, or any other ethnic group of U.S. citizens, to organize and lobby for their interests, Jewish lobbying has become so proficient, so well-financed, so unvarnished, and so persistent as to have generated a certain amount of ambient resentment. Not even political animals who get elected to Congress like to be pushed around, and to put it generously, Jewish lobbying tactics are not always subtle. There is something almost the equivalent to nouveau riche behavior in the way some Jewish organizations lobby for what they want. Instead of ‘Look I can afford to pay five thousand dollars for a lamp I don’t even like,’ it’s ‘Look, I can contribute five thousand dollars to this guy’s congressional race and in effect exercise a veto over what he says about Syria.’[9]
It is common knowledge that Jewish organizations throughout the West respond immediately and aggressively to any individual who makes statements in the public sphere critical of Jews or Israel. These actions range from having the individual prosecuted under “hate speech laws” to getting them fired from their job and/or forcing the individual to engage in some humiliating act of public contrition and obeisance to Jews. Garfinkle admits that Jewish activists are quite willing to use underhand tactics to defend their interests. He cites the March 2009 decision by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to make Charles Freeman director of the National Intelligence Council. As soon as Freeman’s appointment was leaked, Freeman was assailed by Jewish activists and journalists (who are frequently one and the same). This criticism centered on the fact that Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, had made comments critical of Israeli settlements and occupation policies. Garfinkle notes that:
[W]hile AIPAC took no formal position on Freeman’s nomination, a smear campaign against him mounted by American Jewish partisans of Israel sprinted into high gear from a standing start. Some of this criticism linked into insinuations that Freeman had acted as an unregistered agent for foreign governments — Saudi Arabia and China were mentioned — which is illegal. But no evidence was produced that this was so. Some criticisms of Freeman sought, in a manner of extreme political polemic, to collapse any difference between Freeman’s criticisms of Israel and those of a more extreme sort. Much of this was tactical, in the sense that the polemicists knew that what they were doing and did it anyway.”[10]
Having had his appointment rejected thanks to the efforts of the Jewish lobby, Freeman, as he headed for the door, wrote a scathing post on Salon.com that is worth quoting at length:
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, and willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government — in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the State of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.[11]   
If President Bush was willing to commit U.S. troops to an incredibly expensive and destructive war benefitting Israel, then, argues Garfinkle, this should not be attributed to the Israel Lobby but the “positive Jewcentricity” that exists among millions of American evangelical Christians like Bush. While drastically understating the role of Jewish activists in provoking the Iraq War, Garfinkle is right to highlight the importance of “evangelical Jewcentricity” having “a significant influence on American attitudes and policies toward the Middle East”[12] — although its influence on Congress and the executive branch pales in comparison to the Israel Lobby (e.g., no one has made the case for the role of Christian Zionists in fomenting the Iraq war or in the demise of Charles Freeman and the many politicians who have run afoul of the Lobby; nor have the Christian Zionists established a powerful infrastructure in think tanks, universities, and the media dedicated to support for Israel; nor have Christian Zionists been able to influence public policy on issues like prayer in public schools or abortion rights).

Garfinkle cites a Pew research survey that found that “30 percent of American Christians define themselves as evangelicals, and of these, 67 percent believe the Bible is the word of God; and at least 36 percent believe that the foundation of the State of Israel is a harbinger of the Second Coming of Christ.”[13] He also notes that:
There can be no doubt many of the truest true believers among American Protestants today — and not only American Protestants — believe that Jews are still the Chosen People. They believe that the birth of Israel is part of divine cosmic history being revealed before our eyes. They believe they must defend Israel lest the Jews have nowhere to go to fulfill their cosmic destiny. They believe that the end of days is near, and they interpret contemporary political and strategic events in this context. All who behave this way believe, by way of foundational premise, that what Jews are and do, especially in Israel but all over the world, constitutes the core of the divine drama itself. God writes the script; the Jews and their enemies are the star actors; everyone else just sits in the audience, as it were, and watches it all pour forth. These people are Jewcentric — very Jewcentric.[14]  
Christian Zionism is largely a British invention. Garfinkle argues this may have something to do with an indigenous tradition of British ‘chosenness’ that emerged among early British Christians who fashioned a way to read their own historical narrative in parallel with the Hebrew Bible. The Epistle of Gildas, for instance, which seems to be a late-sixth-century work, pronounced Britain a new Israel with its battles against heathen invaders from Scandinavia comparable to Israel’s struggles against the Babylonians and Philistines. This theme was repeated in the Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastic History from around the year 735.[15]

Garfinkle traces the historical emergence of modern Christian Zionism in the nineteenth century to John Nelson Darby, an Irish Anglican priest, who systematized it “into a full-fledged theology” and who was the man to spread it to America. Garfinkle observes that:
It was Darby who, basing himself on an interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, formalized the doctrine of “the Rapture,” the idea that born again Christians would rise up into the sky when the Second Coming was imminent and be transferred directly to heaven, spared the sufferings of Armageddon. It was also Darby who first specified how a reborn Israel would play pivotal roles in the series of events leading to Jesus’s return. The Jews would be gathered again in their ancestral land, gain political independence, and be the pivot of end-of-history convulsions.  And it was Darby who developed the idea that the history of humanity from the creation of the world onward was divided into a small number of eras — just seven — each with its own characteristics and symbols, which called “dispensations.”
Above all, Darby challenged the classical Christian replacement, or supersession, theology. He argued that the Church — any church — has never superseded the Jews as God’s Chosen People. Rather, he argued, the Church as a “parenthesis” in earthly history, for it was not of this earth, but of heaven. The Jews remain and always will be God’s Chosen People on earth, while the Church is God’s chosen vehicle for cosmic redemption. This dualism, which resembles ancient views that human time is unreal and only Eternity matters ultimately, seems to have been Darby’s invention. As far as standard Catholic and Protestant theologians are concerned, it has no basis in Christian theology.[16]   
Through inventing dispensationalism, Darby consolidated the various strands of a Christian movement in Britain known as “premillennial fundamentalism.” This movement is now “an integral part of evangelical and Pentecostal as well as fundamentalist Protestantism in the United States.” As well as essentially inventing a new theology, Darby also founded the Plymouth Brethren and exported it, via seven missionary trips, to North America. By his death in 1881, dozens of Plymouth Brethren congregations had been founded in the United States.

John Nelson Darby
John Nelson Darby
It was one of Darby’s followers, Anthony Ashley Cooper — who later became the seventh Earl of Shaftsbury — who helped to mold Britain’s imperial ambitions to accord with Darby’s Christian Zionism. Garfinkle notes that, acting on his own religious convictions but arguing political rationales, Shaftsbury persuaded the British Foreign Minister, Lord Palmerston, to send a British consul to Jerusalem following a rebellion against the Ottoman Empire which allowed unobstructed British travel to Palestine. Garfinkle notes that “This Palmerston did in 1838, sending out William Young with instructions to ‘promote the welfare of the Jews.’ Darby was thrilled.” The following year Shaftsbury wrote an article in the prestigious and widely circulated Quarterly Review which was entitled “The State and Prospects for the Jews.” Palmerston was so receptive to this and other lobbying by Shaftsbury that the latter concluded that: “Palmerston has been chosen by God to be an instrument of good to His chosen people.”[17] Garfinkle observes that:
Taking his cue from Darby and his growing cohort of supporters, Shaftsbury kept pressing for British engagement in Palestine on behalf of the Jews. Ottoman authorities, naturally enough, took a dim view of the idea, but Shaftsbury did not. When, on the cusp of the Crimean War in 1853, it looked as though the Ottoman Empire might collapse, or at least be made more pliable as a result of another battlefield defeat, Shaftsbury, by now an earl in his own right, again picked up his pen on behalf the idea of a Jewish return to Palestine. Writing to Lord Aberdeen, then British Prime Minister, and speaking not just of Palestine but more broadly of geographical Syria, he argued that it was “a country without a nation,” needing to be matched to a “nation without a country.” Shaftsbury asked rhetorically, “Is there such a nation? To be sure there is, The ancient and rightful lords of the soil, the Jews!” … So I think it is fair to say that dispensationalist Christians became political Zionists before many, perhaps any, European Jews did.[18]  
Darby’s dispensationalism found fertile soil in North America. Just as the Napoleonic Wars seemed to be a harbinger of Armageddon to many Englishmen, the Civil War was similarly regarded by many Americans. Thanks to advocates like John Inglis, James H. Brookes, Dwight L. Moody, William Eugene Blackstone and others, dispensationalism gained millions of American adherents throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Another major figure in the early advance of American dispensationalism is Cyrus I. Scofield who created The Scofield Reference Bible, first published in 1909 by Oxford University Press. Garfinkle notes that:
It is hard to overstate the influence of this book. Depending on John Nelson Darby’s own notes, Scofield annotated the whole Bible. His commentaries systematized dispensationalist theology in a way that no one before had done. The fact that Scofield had put it all in writing was the key — that and the rapid spread of rural literacy in the United States through the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries. Before long the Scofield Bible’s commentaries took on an aura of authority equal to, if not greater than, that of the text itself. The reason is disarmingly simple: the Bible, particularly some significant stretches of the New Testament, can be rather cryptic; the text doesn’t always say clearly exactly what it means. Scofield told readers what it meant, in plain, clear American English. He insisted, further that the scripture was to be taken literally. Invoking Darby, Scofield wrote: “Not one instance exists of a ‘spiritual’ or figurative fulfilment of prophecy. … Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion. … Prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal.”
Among the literal meanings he made plain to his legion of readers was that the Jews, and only the Jews, were God’s Chosen People. … [B]y the time Scofield died in 1921, his work had become the leading Bible used by evangelicals and fundamentalists in the United States, and so it remained for the next half century. It brought greater respectability to dispensationalism, which, before Scofield, lived in an ill-defined world suspended between an oral and written tradition. Scofield changed that, and in so doing helped to accelerate the institutionalization of dispensationalism.[19] 
The success of the dispensationalist movement in North America is reflected in the fact that, as Garfinkle puts it, “The United States of America is probably the most Jewcentric society in world history, in a large philo-Semitic way.”[20] Perhaps the most philo-Semitic President the United States has ever had was Lyndon Johnson who “had several Jewish friends and associates” and whose mother admonished him as a young man to: “Take care of the Jews, God’s chosen people.” Johnson recalled an aunt once telling him “If Israel is destroyed, the world will end.” That aunt, who was a Baptist from Texas, even joined the Zionist Organization of America.[21]

Nevertheless, Garfinkle fails to discuss the role of Jews in promoting Christian Zionism, both historically and on the contemporary scene.
There is a fascinating history (see, e.g., here) that suggests but falls short of proof that early Zionists like Samuel Untermeyer were important in promoting and publicizing the work of C. I. Scofield whose annotated Bible, published by Oxford University Press in 1909, is the basis of Christian Zionism. In any case, the above source discusses footnotes to the Scofield Bible added in 1967 that emphasize Zionist aims. For example,  “For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgment.” ” God made an unconditional promise of blessing through Abram’s seed to the nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever.” “It has invariably fared ill with the  people who have persecuted the Jew, well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.” (Footnotes to Genesis 12:3)
Jews have not stood by idly on this but have actively supported the Christian Zionism movement. Beginning in 1978, the Likud Party in Israel has taken the lead in organizing this force for Israel, and they have been joined by the neocons. For example, in 2002 the Israeli embassy organized a prayer breakfast with the major Christian Zionists. The main organizations are the Unity Coalition for Israel which is run by Esther Levens and Christians United for Israel, run by David Brog. The Unity Coalition for Israel consists of ~200 Christian and Jewish organizations has strong connections to neocon think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney, pro-Israel activist organizations the Zionist Organization of America, the Likud Party and the Israeli government. This organization claims to provide material for 1,700 religious radio stations, 245 Christian TV stations, and 120 Christian newspapers. (Kevin MacDonald, “Christian Zionism“)
Nevertheless, despite claiming that the United States is the most philo-Semitic nation in history, Garfinkle warns that “anti-Semitism” lies just beneath the surface and “American society has been for most its history about as reflexively anti-Semitic as most majority-Christian civilizations.”[22]


[1] Adam Garfinkle, Jewcentricity: why the Jews are praised, blamed, and used to explain just about everything (Hoboken NJ: John Wiley, 2009), 206.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid. 207.
[4] Ibid. 212.
[5] Ibid. 168.
[6] Ibid. 217.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid. 218.
[10] Ibid. 220.
[11] Ibid. 221.
[12] Ibid. 4.
[13] Ibid. 50.
[14] Ibid. 51.
[15] Ibid. 42.
[16] Ibid. 43-44.
[17] Ibid. 45
[18] Ibid. 46-47:46
[19] Ibid. 48-49.
[20] Ibid. 93.
[21] Ibid. 97.
[22] Ibid. 96.

The Realist Report: Interview with Brad Trun on Libertarian Bionationalism

via The Realist Report

Listen Now

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by Brad Trun of Libertarian Realist. Brad and I will be discussing his new essay and video Libertarian Bionationalism: An Ideology of a New Ascendancy. Calls are welcome! You can download the entire program here.

Below are relevant links for this program:

Judd Not Lest Ye Be Judded

via Alternative Right

Ashley Judd
Recently a former actress by the name of Ashley Judd, who incidentally appeared nude in each of her remotely memorable roles, was on social media and accused opponents of her alma mater’s basketball team of cheating. While such verbiage is the common and even expected grousing during such matches, reaction to her general mantra “We wuz robbed!” came swift and withering.

Apparently several users of the Twitter messaging system were unconvinced Miss Judd was qualified to determine whether unsportsmanlike conduct had occurred and proceeded to let her know so using a variety of colorful metaphors. Her emotions in tatters, she appeared on national television to pan for cameras and unambiguously state in her sassiest tone, “…and by the way I am pressing charges!”

Throughout the land a legion of millionaires from Fox’s Bill O’Reilly to MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart nodded in agreement; they being the types who can afford free speech protection even absent that explicitly granted mere plebeians by the Constitution.

Now far be it from me to dish unsubstantiated Hollywood gossip or unproven rumors in discussing Judd, even though her odd public behavior would tend to lend gravity to speculation. If she has previously been physically abused as she claims then some psychological trauma should be anticipated. Thus I tend not to cast stones upon those whose private experiences I do not fully comprehend.

That is, until aforementioned half-baked intellectually unstable miscreants attempt to unilaterally revoke the First Amendment. In that eventuality they should expect me to drop Plymouth Rock directly upon their overexposed noggins.

To be entirely candid I do have a modicum of empathy for crazy (probable cat-lady) Ashley Judd. Having written approximately 200,000 published words the past few years, among many accolades there have been more than a few derogatory jibes. To wit I have been called a “fool,” “ignorant,” “stupid,” told to “mind my own business,” named a “bitch” (for some reason), and, as everyone everywhere in America, been told I am a “racist” despite readers having absolutely no idea what is my actual race or ethnicity.

Yet unlike Judd, I relish these compliments. First, it means someone read what I wrote. Second, it means they cared enough to take the time to answer. Third, and to my view most importantly, it made them feel something about the issue. To have the privilege of anyone bothering for an instant what I think is such a gratifying enigma as to far outweigh any negativity that might ensue.

Aside from which is my strong conviction once a column is published I have had my say and any comments made thereupon are the just due of those who pause to peruse it. Or, in other words, time for me to sit down and let everyone else have the chance to speak.

Of course, to scan the vitriol directed at Miss Ashley is a fearsome thing indeed. Some of the language is undoubtedly harsh. An extremely limited amount may genuinely be illegal. However most of it is nothing more than people venting. Contrary to popular belief, the internet is not run by computers but is in truth one giant steam engine; largely powered by people blowing it off.

Moreover, much of what recipients of unkind remarks ascribe as illegal is in fact perfectly law-abiding. Someone texting to the actress, “You should be raped” is likely not illegal although typing “I am going to rape you” may be. Likewise sending a tweet such as “Anal, Anal, Anal” is hardly a threat given that word has morphed in the past two decades into slang for overly precise; this generation’s version of “nit-picky.” Lastly, unless our fading star can prove the sender calling her a “whore” meant it in the strictly professional sense it is permissible.

All of which is not to mention the jackass in the room, that being our “public figure” protection for speakers. Ever since Jerry Falwell lost his lawsuit against Hustler magazine for describing him practicing carnal love with his own mother in an outhouse, there has been an exceedingly narrow reading of what constitutes emotional harm to celebrities. Even as far back as 1964 actual malice was required in cases.

Whether one agrees with this interpretation of the Constitution or not, this has prevailed over half a century. Absent some outrageous act more serious than name-calling, Ashley Judd isn’t going to alter it.

Perhaps the worst characteristic of this tempest in a tweetstorm is that Judd’s fervent ire takes away from far more serious incidents. Where was she a few years ago when Vanity Fair published the home address of Rush Limbaugh? Does she denounce the ongoing assaults upon disseminated private residences of expelled University of Oklahoma fraternity members? Or are these the “right” kind of public figures to put in mortal danger?

However I am nothing if not helpful to my fellow man. If Ashley Judd wants to be coddled from the harsh light of the klieg lamps compiled below is a list of destinations which would happily accept her under the condition she shut her fool mouth and obey their authoritarian governments.

Number One: China. These people are so afraid of hurt feelings they go to any length to protect their charges. Tiananmen Square? It’s in China but don’t go looking online to see if anything unseemly ever happened there. The Cultural Revolution? Well, you might get a great deal on the “glorious” aspects but don’t query search engines about the Four Olds or what happened to those who believed in them. Hong Kong? You can find it on a map rather easily but mustn’t add “student protests” to your browser.

"You forgot your Bible."
Number Two: North Korea. They were a close second but missed the top prize based on sheer numbers alone. Still the leaders of this scrappy little country are certainly motivated to protect you from disturbing speech. Should you visit the capital and find a Bible in your hotel room they’ll not only sentence the person who left it there to years of hard labor they might even do you the benefit of beating out of your mind anything you read inside… so you won’t be troubled by subversive concepts such as tolerance for opinions or beliefs not your own.

Number Three: The entire Middle East. The fine folks of Arabia, et al. are awarded third place because these slackers fail to be equal-opportunity protectors. For example, if you are wealthy (and, it goes without saying, male) you need but cross the nearest border to begin drinking and whoring it up with slave-prostitutes from Asia and anywhere else unfortunates are so poor they sell their bodies to feed their families. Yet if you are a woman they’ll immediately enforce the Judd Doctrine of Injured Pride by barring females from driving so as not to be abused by “road rage,” keep you indoors unless you wear a full-length burka to protect you from “body shaming,” as well as help you avoid the indignity of a rape trial by stoning you to death so you won’t have to face your accuser on the stand.

Ah yes, the globe is full of places to protect the likes of Ashley. That rich diversity I refer to as “anywhere not philosophically Western” which encompasses the vast majority of the unwashed of this world and seems to delight in aggressively enforcing its protection racket against the impoverished and powerless by keeping them virtually voiceless.

So I invite Miss Judd to depart forthwith. Hers is too sensitive a heart to suffer the slings and arrows of free people speaking freely. Liberty is an adult game and poor little tots like her are apt to scrape their knees playing. It would be best for all concerned that she not try to alter our way of life and find those greener pastures more suited to her delicate nature. Therefore I most decorously intone, “Good riddance you insipid, execrably filthy, possibly addled, mindlessly ungrateful brat.”

And now…let the hate commence!

'The Boondocks' Meets Jessica Valenti

via Occident Invicta

When I was younger and had a greater proclivity for race-based humor, I enjoyed watching an animated sitcom called The Boondocks. The show, based on a comic strip of the same name by Aaron McGruder, revolves around the lives and humorous misadventures of a black family living in a predominantly white suburb. I’m not going to turn this into a post about race or blacks, as The Boondocks parodies society in ways that extend well beyond race.

One of the more ridiculous characters in the show that embodies modern societal dysfunction is a cornrowed wigga named Gin Rummy, who’s ironically voiced by black actor Samuel L. Jackson. A parody of both wannabe thugs and slippery elites such as Donald Rumsfeld (after whom he’s named), Rummy’s classic line is that the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” You can laugh at him aggressively elaborating on his absurd logic in the clip below:

I always chuckled at his sheer idiocy, but my laughter is starting to recede as I witness just how prevalent Rummy’s mentality is in the wider world. I’m specifically referring to everybody’s favorite professional feminist, Jessica Valenti, who never got the memo that digging yourself into a bigger hole isn’t the wisest course of action. What triggered Valenti’s latest display of verbal diarrhea is the continued unraveling of the story of supposed UVA rape victim “Jackie.” Just to refresh everyone’s memories, there is no evidence of a gang rape actually taking place at a frat party a couple of years ago.

However, Valenti is not deterred. Just because the police were unable to secure evidence of rape does not mean that Jackie wasn’t victimized (emphasis mine. Also removed one of Valenti’s typos):
“No evidence” of a rape does not mean that a rape didn’t happen. But try telling that to any one of a number of media outlets who, when the Charlottesville Police Department released their findings on “Jackie” (the University of Virginia student whose alleged rape was at the center of a widely-disputed Rolling Stone article) essentially indicated to their readers that nothing happened to her.
But at a press conference, even Police Chief Timothy Long refused to go that far. He told reporters that the police found inconsistencies in the story Jackie told a UVA dean and what she told to Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely and that they could not find any evidence to support the story as reported in the magazine. (Jackie declined to speak to the police for this investigation.)
Long also told reporters that the police findings “[don’t] mean that something terrible didn’t happen to Jackie in 2012.”
“We are just not able to gather sufficient facts as to what that something might have been,” he said.
In so many words, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! You’d think that this whole “Jackie” episode might have taught feminists to exercise a little more restraint before too eagerly exploiting our current climate of rape hysteria. It doesn’t take a genius to know that too many unfounded accusations can erode one’s credibility, as well as undermine support for a cause. Instead, like a reckless blackjack player, feminists are only doubling down. The next time feminists attempt to mollify men by claiming that they don’t intend to rob them of due process or anything of the sort, be sure to have this editorial in reserve.

In the meantime, I shudder at the thought of a cartoon character’s perverted notion of justice increasingly intruding on mainstream thought.

Full-Spectrum Cynicism

via Soul of the East

Encapsulating his view of the essence of politics, Vladimir Lenin famously asked “who, whom”, that is to say, what matters in power relationships is who does what to whom. Under the elaborate trappings of abstract, supposedly universal morals, this brutal and obscene maxim has long been the West’s primary operating principle in international affairs.

This week’s Washington-backed Saudi attack on the country of Yemen is a reminder of this cynical practice. Saudi warplanes, supplied with US intelligence data, began bombing Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, in an effort to dislodge the Shiite Houthi militias from their positions. A few weeks earlier these tribal mountain fighters had ousted Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, Yemen’s puppet president, and seized control not only of the capital, but also of large swathes of the country.

The Saudis and the State Department have justified the intervention on the grounds that the Houthi are supposedly Iranian stooges, and that the removal of the US-installed president will leave Yemen open to radical Islamic terrorists linked to al-Qaeda. Such charges, which are dubious at best, have no basis in reality, as Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com points out:
In spite of US-based news accounts reporting the current conflict to be between the Saudis and “Iran-backed rebels,” the evidence for the Tehran-Houthi connection is tenuous to nonexistent. There is no evidence of Iranian involvement beyond political (i.e. rhetorical) support. Indeed, as Christopher Boucek and Marina Ottoway report in their book, Yemen on the Brink, “some Yemeni officials have confided that such assertions are unfounded.” Doctrinal differences between the Zaydi sect of Shi’ism and the Iranians over important theological issues within Islam preclude Tehran from providing any substantial support for the Houthi insurgency beyond mere words. Neoconservative pundits who point to the Houthis’ success with alarm mirror the propaganda of al Qaeda, which denounces the Zaydi “takfiris” (apostates) in similarly hysterical terms. The Houthis, for their part, have never attacked Americans or American interests in Yemen, as acknowledged in a series of classified cables sent by the no-longer-present US embassy.
Freedom Drone
Can you feel the freedom yet??
So what really stands behind these prefabricated, substance-less media talking points? Why are some 150,000 Saudi troops amassed and being positioned for a potential ground invasion in Yemen? And equally important, why is the Obama Administration facilitating this unprovoked aggression against Yemen by the theocratic, tyrannical Saudis?

Consider this: in Yemen, an unpopular, corrupt ruler was ousted by violent protests, with the West supporting the exiled leader as well as violent intervention by a neighboring country. Yet in the Ukraine, when an unpopular, corrupt ruler was ousted by violent protests, the West had financed and organized the revolutionaries while denouncing and sanctioning Russia for its supposed intervention.

In this same vein, the Russian philosopher and Eurasianist theorist Aleksandr Dugin, who holds no political power, was sanctioned by the American government for his calls for more direct Russian aid to pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. But such harsh policies only exist for Russian scholars. In the US, warmongering neoconservative academics are given access to the Washington Post to promote war against Iran, and a psychotic retired American general can go on FOX News and call for the US government to “start killing Russians” in order for Washington to have its way in the Ukraine.

And now let us return to Lenin’s dictum. It is considered a matter of legitimate public discourse for establishment figures to advocate aggressive wars against other countries via the corporate media, but a Russian speaking on Russian interests in Ukraine is ruthlessly punished by Washington.

In the eyes of Western ruling elites, it’s perfectly valid for a violent mob, coordinated by CIA, the State Department, and allied NGOs and including a pivotal force of neo-Nazis, to overthrow a democratically-elected president, and it is entirely unacceptable to the Euro-Atlantic elites that Russia would oppose this move and seek to protect its historical interests and influence in its near abroad. On the other hand, it’s impermissible for the historically oppressed Houthi Shi’ites in Yemen to oust a corrupt ruler, and it’s praiseworthy for “our friends the Saudis” to militarily intervene in Sanaa and restore their marionette to power.

US Intervention CartoonAll the effusions of rhetoric on human rights and democracy employed by the Atlanticist ruling class form a thin film of deception concealing endless geopolitical gambits and the raw will to global control. The budding war in Yemen is an attempt by the Wall Street-Riyadh axis to maintain hegemony. As the geopolitical analyst F. William Engdahl observed some years ago:
In addition to its geopolitical position as a major global oil transit chokepoint, Yemen is reported to hold some of the world’s greatest untapped oil reserves. Yemen’s Masila Basin and Shabwa Basin are reported by international oil companies to contain “world class discoveries.” France’s Total and several smaller international oil companies are engaged in developing Yemen’s oil production. Some fifteen years ago I was told in a private meeting with a well-informed Washington insider that Yemen contained “enough undeveloped oil to fill the oil demand of the entire world for the next fifty years.” Perhaps there is more to Washington’s recent Yemen concern than a rag-tag al Qaeda whose very existence as a global terror organization has been doubted by seasoned Islamic experts.
A Houthi-dominated Yemen would seek to break out of the US-Saudi orbit, and move closer to Russia and Iran, thus depriving America of easy access to both a geopolitical chokepoint and a potentially rich supply of energy resources. That is a reality intolerable to the Atlanticists and their Wahhabi henchmen. As the oligarch-funded neocon senator Tom Cotton recently pontificated, the US must establish and maintain “global military dominance.” Whether through the bogus threat of “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” or fears of Iranian hegemony via the Houthi Shi’ites, the American people must at some point sense the fraudulent nature of the unjust wars perpetrated in their name. Until then, the think-tank warlords of liberal imperialism, heirs to the ruthless utopian enterprise of Lenin and his Bolsheviks, will seek to enforce their full-spectrum dominance over Yemen, and indeed over all of the Middle East and Eurasia.

The Wonderful World of Whiggerism

via Renegade Tribune

There has been much ado about Whites imitating blacks and therefore becoming ‘whiggers’. And unfortunately, so much regarding Whiggerism has been unfairly portrayed in a most negative way – at least by racially aware members of the White race – which clearly needs to be addressed. The purpose of this article is to bring enlightenment to those who may still feel a certain amount of resistance towards embracing the wonderful world of Whiggerism.

What follows here are just a few of the benefits of becoming a whigger.

Benefit Number 1:


One of the main benefits of being a whigger is that it allows one to finally release pent up desires to express ones inner self through outside appearances and behavior by simply mimicking the negro race as the perfect model of personal evolution. Whiggers can enjoy the fruits of Western technological advances along with discovering their true inner man. Being cool and hip never felt so good.

Benefit Number 2:


Another benefit of being a whigger is being able to adopt a free and easy lifestyle that is more in tune with nature. By releasing all that burdensome stress of Whitey’s ways of doing things, whiggers can finally live their life fully directed by their base instincts and impulses. It can be such a thrill when one discovers that there is more than just one way of ‘going’ with the flow. And releasing waste with finesse into the communal flow while feeling that your immediate needs have been satisfied can be utterly exhilarating.

Benefit Number 3:


Another wonderful benefit of being a whigger is that instant connection one experiences when becoming accepted by the brothers. Being a homie in da hood gives you such a wonderful feeling of camaraderie that can only come with the inexplicable joy of being surrounded with like-minded people. It makes you want to spend the rest of your life living amongst the best that civilization has to offer. What a wonderful world it would be if all Whites could become whiggers.

Benefit Number 4:


An important characteristic of being a whigger is being allowed the freedom from the need for abstract thought. Thinking no further than one’s nose is truly the essence of the whigger lifestyle. Completely disregarding the consequences of your behavior and actions is the hallmark of the true essence of Whiggerism. Being a whigger means taking it to the streets in high style and having absolutely no concerns with the consequences. Whiggerism is modern day liberté, égalité, fraternité in spades!

Benefit Number 5:

Last but not least, being a whigger releases the suppressed alpha male. From the sideways baseball cap to the pants hanging down to the knees, females cannot resist the whigger. Whether she knows it or not, she wants a whigger. Most of the time she doesn’t, so therefore it’s the duty of the whigger to help her come to terms. Besides, what good is being a whigger if one cannot partake of the multitude of benefits derived from Whiggerism? It’s just too bad if the White female population is just too stubborn to realize it and thus continues to cling to old fashioned White ideas of morality.

It should go without saying that the above examples highlighting just a few of the benefits of the wonderful world of Whiggerism are but a mere glimpse at the tip of the iceberg. There is an immense array of other benefits that would help bring the world into harmony with itself if only White males (and females) would adopt Whiggerism on a grand scale. By simply imitating and embracing the characteristics of the negro race, nearly all of the advances in civilization that have been brought to the world by evil White Western Culture over the ages could easily be reversed and eradicated in short order for the benefit of all races, especially for jewdom – the authors of Whiggerism.

So there you go White boys and girls, men and women. Go and throw away thousands of years of your ancestry, heritage and culture so that you too can become whiggers to be proud of!