Apr 10, 2015

Le Pen vs. Le Pen: Another Indictment against Mainstreaming

via EGI Notes

Read this.

And this.

Whatever you may think about the wisdom of Mr. Le Pen's comments (and the worst you can say is that his timing was bad), Marine's attitude toward her father is absolutely despicable.

Someone needs to tell the esteemed Ms. Le Pen that her status as a national political figure is due solely to her father, it's dynastic politics, without being the daughter of the founder of the FN, she'd be some frumpy housewife trying to match the right type of wine to the right brand of cheese.  Who the hell does she think she is?

Of course, one must consider that Mr. Le Pen's "bad timing" was not purely accidental. Thus, the accusations of "sabotage." Perhaps he is disgusted with the leftward drift of the FN, frustrated by mainstreaming, upset that the cause he defended his entire adult life is being diluted, attenuated, altered, made indistinguishable from Gaullist Sarkoyism.

Whatever the ultimate motivation, this ugly scene is a direct result of the "sissification" of the FN, manly values espoused by Mr. Le Pen being replaced by womanly moderation by his daughter.

The ONLY way that any of this can be justified and legitimized is if Marine's strategy allows her to come to power, after which she transforms ideologically into her father, and takes steps to ensure that anti-French forces never again get their hands on the levers of power.  Since the chance of all of that happening is nil, it's safe to say that from any long-term preservationist agenda, mainstreaming in France is, and shall remain, a dismal failure.

Speeches from 'Beyond Conservatism'

via Radix

For your listening pleasure, here are the speeches from NPI's 2015 Winter Gathering, "Beyond Conservatism." 

We are in the process of collecting all NPI speeches from the past four years into a stand-alone podcast, which you can subscribe to on iTunes. All audio produced by NPI and Radix can be enjoyed and downloaded at Soundcloud.

If you enjoy these, consider attending NPI's 2015 Fall Conference, "Become Who We Are," which will take place in Washington, DC, on October 31.

Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner’s Work and Thought an Interview with Martin J. Grannenfeld

via Traditional Britain Group

Introductory Note: Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner (1939-2011) was an Austrian Catholic Traditionalist philosopher who was influential among conservatives and traditionalists in the Germanophone world. He is particularly well-known for his extensive corpus of works dealing with conservative, traditionalist, and religious theories and portraits of numerous thinkers involved in these philosophies. However, his works and thought are, unfortunately, not well- known in the Anglophone world. In order to help introduce Kaltenbrunner to the English- speaking world and to encourage further studies and translations, we have chosen to interview Martin Johannes Grannenfeld – a German Catholic Conservative and editor of the website Geistbraus – who is among those who have studied Kaltenbrunner’s works in depth and has been inspired by them.

Lucian Tudor: How did you first become acquainted with Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner and his work?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: It happened by mere chance. Around 2003, I read about the mythological figure of Prester John, a mighty oriental Christian priest-king during the Middle Ages, who was prepared to help the crusaders with a great army. I was somewhat fascinated by this figure, thus I looked for literature about him – and in the Bavarian State Library in Munich I found a book named Johannes ist sein Name. Priesterkönig, Gralshüter, Traumgestalt by an author I didn't know then – Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner. From the very first sentence I was thrilled. Unlike many other scholars, Kaltenbrunner didn't demystify the legend. Quite on the contrary, he revealed its metahistorical core, and outlined a fascinating, rich, and deeply symbolic cosmos of ways to see our world and the beyond. I understood immediately that I had found an author whose writings were different from everything I had read before, and who would certainly keep me occupied for quite a while.

Lucian Tudor: Kaltenbrunner has written extensive studies on Dionysius the Areopagite, Prester John, and Anne Catherine Emmerich. Can you tell us about these figures and what you found most significant about them in Kaltenbrunner’s books on them?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Kaltenbrunner wrote two large books about Dionysius and Prester John. His work about Anne Catherine Emmerich is much shorter and less complex. He intended to write another extensive study about Melchizedek, the mysterious priest-king from the Old Testament, but there exist only drafts of this work.

His book about Prester John was written in 1989 and published in 1993. Its first sentence, “Prester John has never lived and is nonetheless one of the most influential figures of the Middle Ages,” can be regarded as a motto: the mystical, invisible world can be more real than the visible everyday life. Subsequently Kaltenbrunner drafted a complex picture of this metahistorical “John” – comprising not only Prester John himself, but also his spiritual ancestors John the Evangelist, his disciple John the Presbyter, and the esoteric school of “Johannides” – which is not primarily meant as a historical fact, but rather as a “Johannide,” i.e. a mythologic-symbolic way of thinking. In the second half of his book, Kaltenbrunner linked Prester John with the other great myth of the High Middle Ages: the Holy Grail – and interpreted some of the Grail epics against the background of the Johannide philosophy.

The other book, Dionysius vom Areopag. Das Unergründliche, die Engel und das Eine, was published in 1996. It is even more voluminous, comprising more than 1000 pages. Like the book about John, it focuses on one figure – Dionysius the Areopagite – and draws a specific theology out of this encounter. Like John, the figure “Dionysius” is composed from several single persons by the same name: a) Dionysius the Areopagite from the Bible, b) the author of the famous writings, c) the bishop of Paris from the 3rd century, d) the Greek God Dionysos, to whom the name Dionysius is dedicated. Starting with multifarious reflections on the Greek and Christian spiritual background of these figures, Kaltenbrunner finally sketches – inspired by Dionysius’ negative theology – a great picture of a hierarchical world, which comprises everything from the ugliest scarab up to the nine spheres of angels, and above all, the inexpressible and incomprehensible God – the “One,” as Dionysius calls Him.

Lucian Tudor: From your reading, what are the most important principles of Kaltenbrunner’s religious philosophy?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: 1. The Invisible is real. 2. History is full of symbolic meaning. 3. Legends, myths and tradition are important keys to the Eternal. 4. The esoteric core of all religions converges.

How does Kaltenbrunner believe we should understand the Sacred and the mystical experience?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Kaltenbrunner is strongly influenced by negative theology and Platonism. God only discloses Himself through the hierarchy – the great Jacob’s Ladder where the angels descend and ascend, and our knowledge of the Eternal with them. We can ascend the Ladder, but we can never reach God: the inner core of His essence is beyond our thinking and our language. Kaltenbrunner insists that Buddha, Lao-Tse, Shankara, and Meister Eckhart would have been able to communicate, because they were very far in their hierarchical way of understanding the divine mysteries.

Lucian Tudor: Kaltenbrunner appears to have been very knowledgeable about a variety of religious beliefs and sects; what led him, in particular, to Catholic religiosity?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Kaltenbrunner, born 1939 in Vienna, was raised as a Catholic. However, after he grew up, his belief took a back seat, and his interest in politics, history and culture became more important. Catholic thinkers like Franz von Baader remained important for him, but it was only in the mid-nineties – after the publication of his Johannes and before his Dionysius – that he rediscovered his faith. Father Georg Alois Oblinger, a Catholic priest who accompanied Kaltenbrunner during his last years, told that one day, while strolling in his garden, Kaltenbrunner suddenly understood that God really existed. He had always had sympathy for the Catholic Church (at least in its traditional form, since he didn’t like the modern liturgy and the Popes Paul VI and John Paul II) – but he had looked to it simply in a cultural way, not in the way of a believer. His Dionysius is a striking testimony of his newly discovered faith: For example (inspired by the Old Testament story of Balaam’s donkey), he asks in all naivety if some sudden, irritated movement of our domestic animals might be caused by sudden encounters with angels, invisible for humans...?

Lucian Tudor: We often encounter nowadays people who ask for "scientific proof" that God and the supernatural exist. How does Kaltenbrunner address this kind of mentality?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Mostly he ignores it. His Dionysius, the only major book he wrote after he became a believer himself, is obviously addressed towards an empathic, traditionalist reader. Kaltenbrunner’s concern was not primarily apologetics, but the conveyance of his spiritual insights to like-minded persons.

Lucian Tudor: Kaltenbrunner discussed in his works a vast variety of philosophers with differing viewpoints, some of them not even Christian. How did he reconcile his Catholic beliefs with his interest in the works of “Pagan” intellectuals such as Ludwig Klages and Julius Evola?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Kaltenbrunner had an exceptional knowledge of Occidental thinkers, writers, and artists – some famous, some less known, some virtually forgotten. He wrote several hundred essay-portraits about them, most of which have been collected in his six “Europe” volumes, consisting of two series: Europa. Seine geistigen Quellen in Portraits aus zwei Jahrtausenden (three volumes, 1981-85) and Vom Geist Europas (three volumes, 1987-92). Kaltenbrunner had always pled for an “inspired Christianity” (“geistdurchwehtes Christentum”) without any ideological blinders. This explains why even after his rediscovery of faith he continued to be interested in all the different thinkers he had known and portrayed before. However, Julius Evola and the “Traditionalist” school founded by Rene Guenon held an exceptional position in Kaltenbrunner’s philosophy. Their concept of Integral Tradition, the Sacred, kingship, and priesthood was very close to Kaltenbrunner’s own views. Leopold Ziegler, the Catholic exponent of the Traditionalist school, was especially influential to Kaltenbrunner. His book about Prester John can in fact be read as a transformation of Guenon’s and Evola’s philosophy into the spiritual cosmos of Christianity.

Lucian Tudor: What are essential principles of Kaltenbrunner’s theory of Conservatism?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Kaltenbrunner pointed out that conservatism cannot be a synonym for intellectual idleness. Referring to a poem by Goethe on breathing in and breathing out, he described conservatism as a sophisticated balance between things that stay and things that change. He thought that the real conservative has to be un-conservative in some matters, open to new solutions in order to prevent destruction of human culture and society as a whole. For example, nowadays, with war and poverty being absent from Europe, the contemporary conservative has to develop new ways of struggle, battle, heroism, and asceticism.

Lucian Tudor: How does Kaltenbrunner understand Tradition, specifically, and how does he believe that traditional values can be revived in the modern world?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: The concept of “Tradition” became important for Kaltenbrunner in the 80’s. As mentioned before, he got more and more influenced by Integral Traditionalism as taught by Guenon and his followers. Parallel to the shift from “conservatism” to “traditionalism,” Kaltenbrunner’s concern in changing today's world declined. He focused more and more on the single, remote individual, who preserves Tradition during the “spiritual winter” – a human network scattered through space and time, but unified in spirit. During the last fifteen years of his life, he took the most radical consequence of this world-view, becoming a hermit, living on his own in the countryside, without a telephone, without even a door bell, just with his books and his large garden.

Lucian Tudor: Traditionalists are often associated with a "cyclical" view of history in which the world goes through lengthy stages, beginning with a Golden Age and ending in a Dark Age. This is opposed to the "linear" and "progressive" views of history, although there are arguably other perspectives. Considering his Traditionalist influences, could you tell us if Kaltenbrunner held the cyclical view of history or did he offer another view?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Kaltenbrunner certainly never held the cyclical view in a strictly “pagan” or “Indian” sense that after a huge fire everything starts again. Nevertheless, Kaltenbrunner was a cultural pessimist – his favourite centuries lay a long time in the past: the Greek antiquity, the High Middle Ages, the Baroque Period or the days of Goethe. Unlike Guénon and Evola, however, he was not very interested in speculation about a prehistoric “Golden Age.” As a literary person, an era without written documents did not concern him too much – with the only exception of the first chapters of Genesis, especially about the Nephilim and Melchizedek, with whom he dealt in his Dionysius.

Lucian Tudor: What are the fundaments of Kaltenbrunner’s theory of culture?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Kaltenbrunner never sketched an explicit theory of culture. Culture meant for him rather a never-ending dialogue with thinkers and poets from all times. He did not approach thinkers from a modern, patronizing, “enlightened” position, but as equals, at eye level, no matter how ancient and strange they may be. In the beginning of his Dionysius he even wrote a personal letter to his hero. Kaltenbrunner is certainly more attracted by non-mainstream authors, individuals, and often forgotten thinkers, but he also adored well-known and famous writers like Goethe, Novalis, and Angelus Silesius.

Lucian Tudor: What did Kaltenbrunner say about social ethics, the individual’s role, and holism?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: A common topos in Kaltenbrunner’s philosophy is, as abovementioned, the remote individual preserving knowledge for the society. Kaltenbrunner often mentioned that the world as a whole is threatened by nuclear, ecological, and spiritual destruction, and that the effort of an elite is required to prevent or at least attenuate the upcoming catastrophe. Hence his
sympathy for ascetics, hermits, mystics, monks, thinkers and writers in general. Particularly, the ecological concern is quite special for Kaltenbrunner and distinguishes him from many fellow conservatives, who abandoned environmental issues after the political left took possession of this complex in the late 80s. In his last years, living in harmony with nature became more and more important for Kaltenbrunner – he grew ecological food in his own garden and did not even possess a car. But all this was not condensed into a theory (he did not longer write texts during his last 15 years), but mere practical exercise.

Lucian Tudor: What did Kaltenbrunner conclude about the problem of secret societies and conspiracy theories?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: Frankly speaking, Kaltenbrunner did not see secret societies as a “problem” at all, but as an important means for the conservation of ideas rejected by the mainstream. He wrote a short text on the matter in 1986, entitled “Geheimgesellschaften als exemplarische Eliten” (“Secret Societies as Exemplary Elites”), which was included into the second edition of his book Elite. Erziehung für den Ernstfall. In this sketch, he did not only describe Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, the Illuminati, etc., but also secret societies which managed to grow large and usurp a whole state – like the Bolsheviks in Russia, or formerly the Jesuits in Paraguay. However, he pointed out that this can be a possible escape from the typical loyalty conflict between the secret society and the state which every member has to face; his true sympathies lie without any doubt with the small, hidden groups without any political power. Kaltenbrunner’s text about secret societies could be regarded as a link between his earlier “conservative” and his later “traditional” views: getting less and less interested in changing the world in respect to the political, and more and more concerned about its spiritual renewal.

Lucian Tudor: Can you please summarize Kaltenbrunner’s position on political forms (monarchy, republic, democracy, etc.)? What political form did he see as ideal and did he believe that political corruption could be minimized in a certain system?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: In his heart of hearts, Kaltenbrunner was an aristocrat. Although he was sceptical about a restoration of the traditional nobility, he felt the necessity of a skilled elite in government, culture, and warfare. He did not directly reject democracy, but warned of the mediocrity which often accompanies it. In his early works, no specific sympathy for republic or monarchy is visible – aristocratic republics like Venice are approved by him as well. In the 80s, however, culminating in his Johannes, he is more and more absorbed by the idea of a universal Christian monarchy, with a supra-national emperor exercising spiritual-metapolitical leadership over the occidental Christianity – like it used to be in the best times of the Middle Ages, e.g. under the rule of Frederick Barbarossa or Emperor Charles IV.

Lucian Tudor: We are aware that very little of Kaltenbrunner's work is available in English and he is not well-known in the Anglophone world. In your opinion, what is the best starting point from Kaltenbrunner's works? Also, what would you suggest is the best book to translate first out of works?

Martin J. Grannenfeld: I would suggest the same book which happened to be my first one:

Johannes ist sein Name – Kaltenbrunner’s great essay about Prester John. This is in my opinion his best written and most inspiring book, comprising everything that makes Kaltenbrunner so unique. It is shorter, more concise and also more optimistic than his later opus magnum Dionysius vom Areopag, and yet more intriguing and unconventional than his earlier political and cultural writings. I really hope that one day an English translation of this work (and of other works by Kaltenbrunner) will be available! This will be a big step to make this great thinker of our time better known.

Lucian Tudor: Thank you very much for the interview.

UVA Rape Hoax Retraction: Don’t Be Next

via Toiletnation, USA

“Rolling Stone has completely retracted its Nov. 19 article, “A Rape on Campus,” and apologized to the falsely accused fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, in a joint report released Sunday night.

The new article, reported by three members of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, is nothing short of a scathing indictment on the storied progressive magazine, its reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and Jackie, the student who falsely claimed that she was gang-raped in 2012 by seven members of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.”

Young men of America, hear me:

Your Christian forbears–especially Southern Christians–would not have approved of inter-gender socializing. They would have been outraged unto apoplexy at the notion of inter-gender drinking gatherings. As believers in the idea that the women that they knew were decent and unsullied, they erred on the side of worrying about the side of men’s lesser natures getting ahold of them and making victims of women. Honestly, it isn’t a completely unfounded fear. Drunk men often act like idiots.

But there is a new snake in the fishpond: the hysterical rape accuser. She is a paranoid, mixed-up sort who, on the one hand, wants to be sexually liberated and in control of her own body but, on the other hand, sees men as evil apes. Her loins compel her to seek It and say yes to It and her ideology compels her to regret It. Even more dangerous for bumbling, sex-obsessed men, she doesn’t have any identifying characteristics.

Now, Rolling Stone is admitting that the infamous “Jackie” case was all a bunch of lies as many men knew it was from the first few seconds. In this case, there were no falsely-accused men ruined. No names. No pictures. No Duke Lacrosse team. The male sex on UVA campus was dragged through the mud in general, but no specific men were harmed in the making of this hysterical lie.

But, somewhere, on some campus somewhere, completely oblivious to the artillery shell of false accusation whistling his way, there is a man walking around unaware. It could be you. If you want to dodge it, you might want to consider following some good, old-fashioned advice. Call it prudish if you want, but I can almost guarantee that you will never find yourself in the pages of a magazine or in the local jail if you follow the following tips:

1. Never be the drunkest guy at the party–The drunkest guy is the one who will make the biggest mistakes. He’ll have the worst hangover. Frankly, he’s probably not super bright or super sane and he might just be trashy. Don’t be him.

2. Never touch or be within arm’s length of the drunkest girl at the party–She’s not right in the head. Stay away from her. She has more potential to ruin your life than just about anyone you’ll ever meet. If she wakes up in your dorm room with a blank memory and a sore spot between her legs, you could spend the next ten years with a sore spot between yours.

3. Not on the first date–You just met her and it’s thrilling if she’s sending you signals, but think about it. She’s sending you signals on the first date. How many other first dates has she been on? In the words of a wise man: “A rutted road ruins the suspension.” A woman willing on the first date isn’t worth your time, brother. There’s a word for that kind of girl. And a word for the kind of guy who doesn’t care.

4. Have some history–Maybe you aren’t religious. Maybe you’re “too smart” to be a Christian and you’ll be sexual if you damn well please. Fine. But if you’re going to have sex with a woman you aren’t married to, you might want to consider dating her a while first. Because you’re a romantic? Not necessarily. Do it because that will give you the chance to exchange texts, gifts, emails, phone calls and be seen together. In other words, EVIDENCE. You “hook up” with some girl you don’t know well and, in today’s world, you’re at her legal mercy. The feminists have made it so that SHE’S ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH, even when she’s lying, like “Jackie.” Make sure that if she’s lying, you have sufficient reasonable doubt at your disposal.

5. Don’t Insist or Be a “Cad”–Feminists say “no means no.” Take them up on it. If she’s a tease and you’re frustrated, dump her. Don’t risk “overwhelming” her like women fantasize about in their romance novels. The second she says no, stop, get up, leave. If she means it, you avoid trouble. If she doesn’t, she’ll let you know.

6. Try Making the Safest Bets–There are decent, Christian girls out there. The kind that don’t do “shots.” The kind that don’t swear or discuss their periods. The kind that don’t post pictures of themselves kissing other women. The kind that bathe every day. The kind that will wait until marriage. Make the effort. Find her. Be good to her.  Marry her. Avoid the kinds of women who have been raised wrong; they’ll destroy you one way or the other.

So learn from the UVA rape case: don’t risk being the victim of the next “Jackie” or her Jewfeminist “journalist” lackies.

Ferguson's Neighbor, 98% Black Pine Lawn, Offers a Glimpse into the Future for the Ever Darkening City

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

"The wrong side of history."

You hear this phrase used a lot. You see it written even more, to celebrate the steamrolling of "traditional" America by the combined forces of the united left. 

What's left behind via this steamrolling of a once healthy people and culture resembles the pulverized remains of roadkill on a highway. 

Or so you'd be led to believe, for history has no side. 

History is indifferent.

Which is why it's always worth a chuckle when this reality seeps into the present, where the phrase "the wrong side of history" is shown to be irrelevant. [Black Officials Fleece Ferguson’s Neighboring Town: Hope for change in Mike Brown’s hometown lies with voters, but just changing the color of government isn’t enough: Just look down the road in Pine Lawn, Missouri., Daily Beast, 4-7-15]:

Ferguson, Missouri, voters head to the polls Tuesday with a chance to overthrow the white City Council and all those who answer to it who have been blamed for keeping the town’s black residents broke and scared of police. 
But it’s far from certain that a Ferguson City Council with more black members will change how the city is run. Black leaders may not necessarily mean better lives for black residents, a fact of life that anyone from Detroit or Newark could tell you about. 
You don’t have to peer all the way to Motown to see this. In fact, all you have to do is look five miles down the road from Ferguson to Pine Lawn, Missouri.Led by Sylvester Caldwell, Pine Lawn’s black mayor, a majority black City Council represents a 98 percent black population there. It’s no statistical surprise then that the majority of traffic stops are directed at African Americans, but the scope of those interactions with police are a bit staggering. Those pushing for reforms in Ferguson, Pine Lawn, and the rest of St. Louis County hope the area’s black residents who are affected by predatory policing show up at the polls in large numbers. That hasn’t been the case in Pine Lawn. 
In 2013, Pine Lawn police handed out more than five tickets per resident. That same year, the city’s municipal court made $2.2 million for Pine Lawn, more than $500,000 of that coming from the fines and fees netted from traffic offenses and other petty crimes. 
In both Ferguson and Pine Lawn, police have been responsible for enforcing the rules of a municipal system that is addicted to the revenue from fines and fees. The distinction lies in the racial makeup of the two cities’ governments. While Ferguson’s overwhelmingly white leadership has come under international scrutiny for their practices, which led to the death of Michael Brown, Pine Lawn’s black leaders have received virtually no attention. Among those leaders is Anthony Gray, who is most know as the attorney for the family of Michael Brown but is probably more recognized in Pine Lawn as the city’s ex-police chief. Gray now moonlights as Pine Lawn’s prosecutor in addition to running his private law practice.
Five miles down the road from currently 70 percent black Ferguson sits 98 percent black Pine Lawn, a city whose incredibly depressing state - The Riverfront Times dubbed it "The Little City That Couldn't" in 2006 - serves as nothing more than a glimpse into the future for the municipality 18-year-old Michael Brown made famous. 
A staggering 70 percent of the revenue 98 percent black Pine Lawn brought in for fiscal year 2013 was through the courts (tickets, court fees, etc.), a hilarious, emphatic statistic in understanding how a soon-to-be white-free Ferguson will generate revenue. 
The entirely black city government of Pine Lawn has even used speed-cameras to collect more than $1 million in 2013... enough to boost the black mayor's salary by 200%!
Even the St. Louis Post-Dispatch begrudgingly labeled 98 percent black Pine Lawn "the poster child for dysfunction?" in an October 2014 story (no doubt the dysfunction is because of white privilege sucking all the jobs and capital from the city...:
Some had seethed for years about their mayor hanging his hat miles away from a place where one-third live below the poverty line and nearly half of households are on food stamps, and where the police rank fourth in Missouri for most tickets per square mile. 
Without many other sources of income, the city relied on its police and court to raise about two-thirds of the city’s general revenue last year alone. A state law says cities can’t get more than 30 percent of general revenue from traffic fines. Last year, Pine Lawn issued about seven summonses for traffic violations and other infractions for every city resident.
City Administrator Brian Krueger said complaints about city government, and unfair police and housing code practices come from a vocal few. He said good things happen here: The city in 2012 saw the construction of about 40 homes using state tax credits for low-income housing, and in 2011 saw the dedication of the Barack Obama Elementary School in the Normandy School District.
Fitting Barack Obama Elementary School would be found in 98 percent black Pine Lawn, a city only a short jog away from Ferguson where Mr. Obama sent three representatives of his administration to attend Brown's "state" funeral...

Though those on "the right side of history" don't care, but Pine Lawn was 71 percent white in 1970; by 1980, Pine Lawn was only 19 percent white (the black population grew from 29 percent to 81 percent of the population of the city). In fact, Pine Lawn was one of eighteen cities in St. Louis County to from less than 1 percent black to 65 percent in a forty year timespan (1960 - 2000].[Source: St. Louis Metromorphosis: Past Trends and Future Directions (edited by Brady Baybeck and F. Terrence Jones, p. 287-289]

And though the Riverfront Times will never admit it, the growth of the black population in a city is the kiss of death for economic vibrance and tax-revenue producing commerce in the municipality. [IT'S BEGINNING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE ST. LOUISJobs are leaving, the tax base is shrinking and the population is dropping. North County is feeling the squeeze., 12-22-1999]:
Ferguson suffered a steep decline in population in the 1980s, something Mayor Steve Wegert attributes to white flight and the effects of uncontrolled urban sprawl. "When Ferguson was incorporated 100 years ago ... people wanted to move away from the dirt and noise of downtown," he says. "This was urban sprawl back then. We've both benefited and are now a victim of urban sprawl." 
Retail has left his city, too. Ferguson went without a supermarket for two years after Schnucks pulled out, although it has since been replaced with a Shop-'N-Save.
Remember, Ferguson was 74 percent white in 1990; by 2000, the white population of the city was 44 percent...

Though the civilization whites built and the infrastructure once creating growth and prosperity (streets, sidewalks, civic buildings, private houses and commercial buildings) remain in place when white flight occurs, the vital variable necessary to the city's overall health is gone.


The buildings will only remain until time weathers them into the blight we see so many people maintain is proof of America's declining fortune, when the dilapidated state of the houses and buildings is only proof of how four simple letters explain everything.


Four letters, when combined, help spell out the truth for why a civilization will flourish, or - more importantly - why a civilization blacks inherit via white flight will ultimately crumble into the blight we see in Detroit, Newark, and Pine Lawn... the latter being a 98 percent black city mere miles away from Ferguson.

The Burden of Denial

via The Archdruid Report

It occurred to me the other day that quite a few of the odder features of contemporary American culture make perfect sense if you assume that everybody knows exactly what’s wrong and what’s coming as our society rushes, pedal to the metal, toward its face-first collision with the brick wall of the future. It’s not that they don’t get it; they get it all too clearly, and they just wish that those of us on the fringes would quit reminding them of the imminent impact, so they can spend whatever time they’ve got left in as close to a state of blissful indifference as they can possibly manage.
I grant that this realization probably had a lot to do with the context in which it came to me. I was sitting in a restaurant, as it happens, with a vanload of fellow Freemasons.  We’d carpooled down to Baltimore, some of us to receive one of the higher degrees of Masonry and the rest to help with the ritual work, and we stopped for dinner on the way back home. I’ll spare you the name of the place we went; it was one of those currently fashionable beer-and-burger joints where the waitresses have all been outfitted with skirts almost long enough to cover their underwear, bare midriffs, and the sort of push-up bras that made them look uncomfortably like inflatable dolls—an impression that their too obviously scripted jiggle-and-smile routines did nothing to dispell.
Still, that wasn’t the thing that made the restaurant memorable. It was the fact that every wall in the place had television screens on it. By this I don’t mean that there was one screen per wall; I mean that they were lined up side by side right next to each other, covering the upper part of every single wall in the place, so that you couldn’t raise your eyes above head level without looking at one. They were all over the interior partitions of the place, too. There must have been forty of them in one not too large restaurant, each one blaring something different into the thick air, while loud syrupy music spattered down on us from speakers on the ceiling and the waitresses smiled mirthlessly and went through their routines. My burger and fries were tolerably good, and two tall glasses of Guinness will do much to ameliorate even so charmless a situation; still, I was glad to get back on the road.
The thing I’d point out is that all this is quite recent. Not that many years ago, it was tolerably rare to see a TV screen in an American restaurant, and even those bars that had a television on the premises for the sake of football season generally had the grace to leave the thing off the rest of the time. Within the last decade, I’ve watched televisions sprout in restaurants and pubs I used to enjoy, for all the world like buboes on the body of a plague victim: first one screen, then several, then one on each wall, then metastatizing across the remaining space. Meanwhile, along the same lines, people who used to go to coffee shops and the like to read the papers, talk with other patrons, or do anything else you care to name are now sitting in the same coffee shops in total silence, hunched over their allegedly smart phones like so many scowling gargoyles on the walls of a medieval cathedral.
Yes, there were people in the restaurant crouched in the gargoyle pose over their allegedly smart phones, too, and that probably also had something to do with my realization that evening.  It so happens that the evening before my Baltimore trip, I’d recorded a podcast interview with Chris Martenson on his Peak Prosperity show, and he’d described to me a curious response he’d been fielding from people who attended his talks on the end of the industrial age and the unwelcome consequences thereof. He called it “the iPhone moment”—the point at which any number of people in the audience pulled that particular technological toy out of their jacket pockets and waved it at him, insisting that its mere existence somehow disproved everything he was saying.
You’ve got to admit, as modern superstitions go, this one is pretty spectacular.  Let’s take a moment to look at it rationally. Do iPhones produce energy? Nope. Will they refill our rapidly depleting oil and gas wells, restock the ravaged oceans with fish, or restore the vanishing topsoil from the world’s  fields? Of course not. Will they suck carbon dioxide from the sky, get rid of the vast mats of floating plastic that clog the seas, or do something about the steadily increasing stockpiles of nuclear waste that are going to sicken and kill people for the next quarter of a million years unless the waste gets put someplace safe—if there is anywhere safe to put it at all? Not a chance. As a response to any of the predicaments that are driving the crisis of our age, iPhones are at best irrelevant.  Since they consume energy and resources, and the sprawling technosystems that make them function consume energy and resources at a rate orders of magnitude greater, they’re part of the problem, not any sort of a solution.
Now of course the people waving their iPhones at Chris Martenson aren’t thinking about any of these things. A good case could be made that they’re not actually thinking at all. Their reasoning, if you want to call it that, seems to be that the existence of iPhones proves that progress is still happening, and this in turn somehow proves that progress will inevitably bail us out from the impacts of every one of the predicaments we face. To call this magical thinking is an insult to honest sorcerers; rather, it’s another example of the arbitrary linkage of verbal noises to emotional reactions that all too often passes for thinking in today’s America. Readers of classic science fiction may find all this weirdly reminiscent of a scene from some edgily updated version of H.G. Wells’ The Island of Doctor Moreau: “Not to doubt Progress: that is the Law. Are we not Men?”
Seen from a certain perspective, though, there’s a definite if unmentionable logic to “the iPhone moment,” and it has much in common with the metastatic spread of television screens across pubs and restaurants in recent years. These allegedly smart phones don’t do anything to fix the rising spiral of problems besetting industrial civilization, but they make it easier for people to distract themselves from those problems for a little while longer. That, I’d like to suggest, is also what’s driving the metastasis of television screens in the places that people used to go to enjoy a meal, a beer, or a cup of coffee and each other’s company. These days, that latter’s too risky; somebody might mention a friend who lost his job and can’t get another one, a spouse who gets sicker with each overpriced prescription the medical industry pushes on her, a kid who didn’t come back from Afghanistan, or the like, and then it’s right back to the reality that everyone’s trying to avoid. It’s much easier to sit there in silence staring at little colored pictures on a glass screen, from which all such troubles have been excluded.
Of course that habit has its own downsides. To begin with, those who are busy staring at the screens have to know, on some level, that sooner or later it’s going to be their turn to lose their jobs, or have their health permanently wrecked by the side effects their doctors didn’t get around to telling them about, or have their kids fail to come back from whatever America’s war du jour happens to be just then, or the like. That’s why so many people these days put so much effort into insisting as loudly as possible that the poor and vulnerable are to blame for their plight. The people who say this know perfectly well that it’s not true, but repeating such claims over and over again is the only defense they’ve got against the bitter awareness that their jobs, their health, and their lives or those of the people they care about could all too easily be next on the chopping block.
What makes this all the more difficult for most Americans to face is that none of these events are happening in a vacuum.  They’re part of a broader process, the decline and fall of modern industrial society in general and the United States of America in particular. Outside the narrowing circles of the well-to-do, standards of living for most Americans have been declining since the 1970s, along with standards of education, public health, and most of the other things that make for a prosperous and stable society. Today, a nation that once put human bootprints on the Moon can’t afford to maintain its roads and bridges or keep its cities from falling into ruin. Hiding from that reality in an imaginary world projected onto glass screens may be comforting in the short term; the mere fact that realities don’t go away just because they’re ignored does nothing to make this choice any less tempting.
What’s more, the world into which that broader process of decline is bringing us is not one in which staring at little colored pictures on a glass screen will count for much. Quite the contrary, it promises to be a world in which raw survival, among other things, will depend on having achieved at least a basic mastery of one or more of a very different range of skills. There’s no particular mystery about those latter skills; they were, in point of fact, the standard set of basic human survival skills for thousands of years before those glass screens were invented, and they’ll still be in common use when the last of the glass screens has weathered away into sand; but they have to be learned and practiced before they’re needed, and there may not be all that much time left to learn and practice them before hard necessity comes knocking at the door.
I think a great many people who claim that everything’s fine are perfectly aware of all this. They know what the score is; it’s doing something about it that’s the difficulty, because taking meaningful action at this very late stage of the game runs headlong into at least two massive obstacles. One of them is practical in nature, the other psychological, and human nature being what it is, the psychological dimension is far and away the most difficult of the two.
Let’s deal with the practicalities first. The non-negotiable foundation of any meaningful response to the crisis of our time, as I’ve pointed out more than once here, can be summed up conveniently with the acronym L.E.S.S.—that is, Less Energy, Stuff, and Stimulation. We are all going to have much less of these things at our disposal in the future.  Using less of them now frees up time, money, and other resources that can be used to get ready for the inevitable transformations. It also makes for decreased dependence on systems and resources that in many cases are already beginning to fail, and in any case will not be there indefinitely in a future of hard limits and inevitable scarcities.
On the other hand, using L.E.S.S. flies in the face of two powerful forces in contemporary culture. The first is the ongoing barrage of advertising meant to convince people that they can’t possibly be happy without the latest time-, energy-, and resource-wasting trinket that corporate interests want to push on them. The second is the stark shivering terror that seizes most Americans at the thought that anybody might think that they’re poorer than they actually are. Americans like to think of themselves as proud individualists, but like so many elements of the American self-image, that’s an absurd fiction; these days, as a rule, Americans are meek conformists who shudder with horror at the thought that they might be caught straying in the least particular from whatever other people expect of them.
That’s what lies behind the horrified response that comes up the moment someone suggests that using L.E.S.S. might be a meaningful part of our response to the crises of our age. When people go around insisting that not buying into the latest overhyped and overpriced lump of technogarbage is tantamount to going back to the caves—and yes, I field such claims quite regularly—you can tell that what’s going on in their minds has nothing to do with the realities of the situation and everything to do with stark unreasoning fear. Point out that a mere thirty years ago, people got along just fine without email and the internet, and you’re likely to get an even more frantic and abusive reaction, precisely because your listener knows you’re right and can’t deal with the implications.
This is where we get into the psychological dimension. What James Howard Kunstler has usefully termed the psychology of previous investment is a massive cultural force in today’s America. The predicaments we face today are in very large part the product of a long series of really bad decisions that were made over the last four decades or so. Most Americans, even those who had little to do with making those decisions, enthusiastically applauded them, and treated those who didn’t with no small amount of abuse and contempt. Admitting just how misguided those decisions turned out to be thus requires a willingness to eat crow that isn’t exactly common among Americans these days. Thus there’s a strong temptation to double down on the bad decisions, wave those iPhones in the air, and put a few more television screens on the walls to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay for a little while longer.
That temptation isn’t an abstract thing. It rises out of the raw emotional anguish woven throughout America’s attempt to avoid looking at the future it’s made for itself. The intensity of that anguish can be measured most precisely, I think, in one small but telling point: the number of people whose final response to the lengthening shadow of the future is, “I hope I’ll be dead before it happens.”
Think about those words for a moment. It used to be absolutely standard, and not only in America, for people of every social class below the very rich to work hard, save money, and do without so that their children could have a better life than they had. That parents could say to their own children, “I got mine, Jack; too bad your lives are going to suck,” belonged in the pages of lurid dime novels, not in everyday life. Yet that’s exactly what the words “I hope I’ll be dead before it happens” imply.  The destiny that’s overtaking the industrial world isn’t something imposed from outside; it’s not an act of God or nature or callous fate; rather, it’s unfolding with mathematical exactness from the behavior of those who benefit from the existing order of things.  It could be ameliorated significantly if those same beneficiaries were to let go of the absurd extravagance that characterizes what passes for a normal life in the modern industrial world these days—it’s just that the act of letting go involves an emotional price that few people are willing to pay.
Thus I don’t think that anyone says “I hope I’ll be dead before it happens” lightly. I don’t think the people who are consigning their own children and grandchildren to a ghastly future, and placing their last scrap of hope on the prospect that they themselves won’t live to see that future arrive, are making that choice out of heartlessness or malice. The frantic concentration on glass screens, the bizarre attempts to banish unwelcome realities by waving iPhones in their faces, and the other weird behavior patterns that surround American society’s nonresponse to its impending future, are signs of the enormous strain that so many Americans these days are under as they try to keep pretending that nothing is wrong in the teeth of the facts.
Denying a reality that’s staring you in the face is an immensely stressful process, and the stress gets worse as the number of things that have to be excluded from awareness mounts up. These days, that list is getting increasingly long. Look away from the pictures on the glass screens, and the United States is visibly a nation in rapid decline: its cities collapsing, its infrastructure succumbing to decades of malign neglect, its politics mired in corruption and permanent gridlock, its society frayed to breaking, and the natural systems that support its existence passing one tipping point after another and lurching through chaotic transitions. 
Oklahoma has passed California as the most seismically active state in the Union as countless gallons of fracking fluid pumped into deep disposal wells remind us that nothing ever really “goes away.” It’s no wonder that so many shrill voices these days are insisting that nothing is wrong, or that it’s all the fault of some scapegoat or other, or that Jesus or the Space Brothers or somebody will bail us out any day now, or that we’re all going to be wiped out shortly by some colorful Hollywood cataclysm that, please note, is never our fault.
There is, of course, another option.
Over the years since this blog first began to attract an audience, I’ve spoken to quite a few people who broke themselves out of that trap, or were popped out of it willy-nilly by some moment of experience just that little bit too forceful to yield to the exclusionary pressure; many of them have talked about how the initial burst of terror—no, no, you can’t say that, you can’t think that!—gave way to an immense feeling of release and freedom, as the burden of keeping up the pretense dropped away and left them able to face the world in front of them at last.
I suspect, for what it’s worth, that a great many more people are going to be passing through that transformative experience in the years immediately ahead. A majority? Almost certainly not; to judge by historical precedents, the worse things get, the more effort will go into the pretense that nothing is wrong at all, and the majority will cling like grim death to that pretense until it drags them under. That said, a substantial minority might make a different choice: to let go of the burden of denial soon enough to matter, to let themselves plunge through those moments of terror and freedom, and to haul themselves up, shaken but alive, onto the unfamiliar shores of the future.
When they get there, there will be plenty of work for them to do. I’ve discussed some of the options in previous posts on this blog, but there’s at least one that hasn’t gotten a detailed examination yet, and it’s one that I’ve come to think may be of crucial importance in the decades ahead. We’ll talk about that next week.

Get Out!: US Voters Want More Deportations, Curbs on Immigrants

via National Vanguard

National Vanguard Editor's Note: Even though an end to the non-White invasion has been wanted by the vast majority of the electorate for decades, both parties conspire (at Jewish insistence) to make sure that nothing effective is ever done. This is tyranny of the worst kind.

THE MAJORITY OF US voters think their government should be more aggressive about deporting illegal immigrants, dislike automatic citizenship, and oppose President Obama’s amnesty plan, a new survey shows. (ILLUSTRATION: Illegal migrants from Guatemala, deported from the U.S., arrive at an air force base in Guatemala City, March 19, 2015.)

A Rasmussen Reports nationwide phone survey found that 62 percent of likely voters polled believe the government is “not aggressive enough” in deporting illegal immigrants and should do more. This is an increase from 56 percent in last November’s poll and from 52 percent last April. Only 15 percent think the current number of deportations is “about right.”

Fifty-one percent of respondents disagreed that illegal immigrants with American-born children should be exempt from deportation – as proposed by the president’s amnesty plan – while only 32 percent agreed. In November, those percentages were 42 and 38 respectively.

Most of those polled, 54 percent, continue to oppose automatic birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrant mothers. Only 38 percent favor the current policy, which grants citizenship to all born on US soil. Since the first survey in April 2006, Rasmussen noted, support for automatic citizenship has ranged from 28 percent to 41 percent, and opposition has varied from 51 percent to 65 percent.

Belief that a person should have to prove they are in the country legally before receiving government services remains steady at 83 percent. August 2014 surveys indicated 74 percent of likely voters also supported voter ID laws, and did not believe them discriminatory.

Only 41 percent of the voters polled support Obama’s plan to allow almost 5 million illegal immigrants to stay in the US legally and apply for jobs, while 47 percent now think Congress should find a way to stop it.

The survey was conducted on April 1-2, on a sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points and a 95 percent level of confidence.

A demographic and party affiliation breakdown of the respondents reveals that people under 40 are more favorable to birthright citizenship, but only slightly less enthusiastic about deporting illegal immigrants. Sixty percent of whites oppose automatic citizenship, while 51 percent of blacks and 56 percent of other minority voters were in favor.

Only 40 percent of Democrats thought the government was not aggressive enough in deportations, and were far more concerned deportations might violate civil rights of some US citizens. The majority of Democrats (51 percent) also believe illegals with American-born children should be exempt from deportation.

Meanwhile, among the Republicans and the unaffiliated, 81 percent and 68 percent respectively believed the government should get tougher on deportations, while 62 and 60 percent respectively opposed birthright citizenship.

University RFRA Discussion Panelists Agree: USA Is a Secular Capitalist State

via TradYouth

Members of Omega Psi Phi Black fraternity at IU-Bloomington hosted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act discussion panel last night and graciously invited a member of Traditionalist Youth Network to sit in as a panelist.  There’s no party like a TradYouth party, and true to form the discussion was provocative, engaging, and intense at times.  The evening’s discussion was also one of several indicators that our overall mission on campus has been increasingly successful at reaching students with the message of Radical Traditionalism.

Heimbach was joined by students from the Lutheran Student Association, Muslim Student Association, and a member of the local chapter of the NAACP.  As a disclaimer I will also add that the other students were representing only themselves and were not baring any official representation for their respective organizations.  With such a broad cross section of religious and social opinion you’d think that we would have had more disagreement on more topics, but really only came down to a single disagreement: whether or not anyone has the right to discriminate for any reason.Across the board the decision to repeal, rescind or otherwise shit-can the RFRA was a unanimous decision.  The little protection that the RFRA provides is, as Heimbach described, a “Styrofoam shield” if it is anything at all.  He believed we should scrap the entire bill because it did not go far enough in the protections it is supposed to grant, and also that it isn’t actually capable of defending people who claim those promised freedoms.  The Lutheran and Muslim Student Associations members argued along some line of reasoning that LGBTQWERTY people would be denied essential services or some basic service needed of be members of a society.  The NAACP member agreed with the reductio ad gay-discrimination (which continued well through the evening) but also added that Selma spice impugning that bitter earthy aftertaste of 1960s civil rights agitation.  No surprises there.

The real surprises started coming when panelists had to speak about whether or not RFRA would have any long lasting impact on the way that business conduct themselves in the marketplace.  Again, all panelists were in agreement that businesses would carry on with “business as usual.”  Most of the other panelists said it would have been silly to refuse business to anyone on simple grounds of fiduciary responsibility on part of the business owner– convictions be damned.  As Heimbach reiterated in the opening question: freedom to discriminate is real freedom.  Without the freedom to discriminate a business owner doesn’t own his own business, but instead he becomes a tenant to a government owned shop.  This was that one weird moment when the liberal pro-LGBT panelists came out as hardcore capitalists and tyrannical usurpers stating that nobody should be allowed to deny service to any member of the public.  Folks, remember that these other panelists are the very ones who decry fascism (or whatever they decide to call fascism), and their solution to the RFRA “problem” is to say that an all-powerful state should be able to punish even the smallest of business with such heavy handed fines that the business’s only option is to go out of business.  If that doesn’t say “we need the government to stamp out small businesses and make room for godless multinational corporations” then I don’t know what does.

The most surprising point that the whole panel agreed on was that our Federal government is a godless secular capitalist state and needs to be destroyed.  Our position on #DeathToAmerica was entirely and completely without rebuttal, and neither did anybody quibble about our observation that the federal and state governments are bought and owned by international Zionists and organized international Jewish interests.  The only time that the other panelists refused to answer a question with any clarity, trying to play both sides of the line, was when Heimbach flatly asked if anyone ever has a right to discriminate for any reason at all.  The smooth talking girl from the Muslim Student Association learned quickly that “you can’t block the ‘bach” after she was left floundering around and offering highly conditioned hypothetical conjecture in response.  I guess it’s better to respond with wishy-washy hot air than nothing at all, but she certainly didn’t help her case any.  She didn’t much like my question about whether or not a copy shop owner should have the right to refuse service to a Klansman who wants Klan fliers printed (true story, ask me about it sometime…).  She didn’t want to answer that question either, because she would have had to deny her own position (that nobody can refuse service based on conscience and conviction) or affirm our position (that people can and should be able to deny service based on conscience and conviction).

The high point of the evening was finding out that many Black members of the audience agreed with our positions on self-determination and the right of the Black community to organize for its own best interests in cases like law enforcement.  A hush fell over the audience followed by tense whispering on the “F” of “Ferguson” when Heimbach said we wouldn’t have had a situation like Ferguson, MO if the Black community had been allowed to select police officers from their community for their community– after which there was a resounding nodding of heads and smiles.  The second high point was the panel’s hosts were amazed to find out that we weren’t the hateful evilnaziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.  Can you imagine that?  White nationalists and Black nationalists happily agreeing and shaking hands after finding out that even though we’re playing for different teams that we’re not necessarily competing against each other but with each other for the same quality of life in our own communities.  Shocking!  I can only wonder who has been running around scaring them into thinking otherwise… (draw your own conclusions)

The evening’s discussion was a complete success.  The liberal hive-minds in attendance managed to publicly prove that their world view is oppressive, intolerant, secular, capitalistic and fundamentally against even the most basic freedoms of association.  Meanwhile, the Traditionalist Youth Network genuinely and sincerely argued for true freedom: freedom from capitalist government, and freedom of conscience. Our youth organization model has proven very effective on IU-Bloomington, and there’s no reason to think that it couldn’t work elsewhere.  We are winning the fight for our future in the classroom and in the streets, and we are actively forging inroads to campus and youth communities and educating them with the Radical Traditionalist school of thought while fighting for Faith, Folk, and Family message.

The Mysterious Madame Rothschild: A Case of Bogus Anti-Semitism?

via Darkmoon

Darkmoon Editor's Note: Lasha Darkmoon has been duped and made to look a fool by a husband-and-wife team of Zionist trolls. At least that’s what she thinks. Is she right or wrong?

We have received hate mail and death threats from a Zionist troll called “Aavi Kastner”, probably a false name. We have reason to believe that his partner in deception is the writer Ellie K, aka “Madame Rothschild”, whose articles we have published on our website in good faith—under the pen name of Ellie Katsnelson.  We have been guilty of a serious error of judgement. For this we apologize. — John Scott Montecristo, Editor

I have finally reached the sad conclusion, after much soul-searching, that the beautiful woman known as “Madame Rothschild”, whose articles we have been publishing on our site, is a fictitious character. She does not exist. She is a figment of the Jewish imagination, a cartoon character created by some unknown entity employed by organized Jewry.

Her anti-Semitism is so strident, so extreme, so over-the-top that it is almost laughable: a parody of anti-Semitism that only a clever Jew would be capable of creating.

In Madame Rothschild’s case, we already know she is Jewish. She admits it. She claims to be the illegitimate daughter of Jacob Rothschild and a German multimillionaire heiress called Diana Kleist. Her beloved mother Diana, she tells us in her biography (scroll down to bottom of page here), died in a skiing accident in the Alps in 1989 when Ellie was 19.  Only her mother didn’t die in the so-called accident, Ellie claims, but was actually bumped off by Rothschild assassins. Heartbroken by her mother’s murder, Ellie decided to devote the rest of her life to avenging her mother’s death  and hating the Jews.

An excellent storyline for a bestselling novel or blockbuster movie. Curiously enough, there is no newspaper account of any such skiing accident in the Alps in 1989. If it ever happened, it’s a crime that has been covered up perfectly.

Madame Rothschild is apparently worth $5 billion (see here) and resides primarily in Paris, though whenever I hear from her she is gadding about in some far-flung corner of the globe—Borneo, Sydney, the South Seas—engaged in various business deals, consulting with international lawyers, dispensing lavish sums of money to worthy recipients, and snorting cocaine.

She has four passports in false names, each name so ludicrous  that only a comic novelist like PG Wodehouse could have invented it. Always on the run or in hiding, a fugitive from Rothschild assassins herself, our Ellie Kleist—for that is apparently her real name—travels to America as Beatrice H. Klopp, to Canada as Eleanor Schleswigg Beyersdorf, to Australia, the Far East, and Africa as Ellie D. Fenstermacher, and to South America as Ellie Heppenheimer Schmidt. (For further details, scroll down here).

In her earlier articles, Madame’s anti-Semitism was relatively muted and restrained. Publishing her work was therefore possible. She seemed a plausible enough character. The lady’s mother is killed by Jews, so she becomes a Jew hater. You follow her logic? Because someone she loves is assassinated by Jewish thugs employed by the Rothschild family, it follows that all Jews without exception are evil and deserve annihilation.

In her later articles, the lady’s anti-Semitism became so wild and hysterical that it was painful to read her dreadful diatribes. We had no alternative but to reject three of her articles in succession. This drove her to distraction. This is because she considers herself a literary genius superior to Voltaire and Proust. She railed at us for this rejection of her articles, telling us we were inferior hacks unworthy to judge her sublime works of genius.
Later on she turned even nastier, accusing my editor of angling for a large donation from her in advance of publication. Upon receiving a substantial sum of money from her as pre-payment, we would then be prepared to publish her articles without further question  and dance attendance on her like lackeys. I confess I was absolutely revolted by this suggestion. At no time had we requested a single penny from her. In fact, I had turned down all offers of money from her repeatedly. I even sent her an email with the subject heading in capital letters: I DON’T WANT YOUR MONEY!
Our disillusionment with Ellie K, aka Madam Rothschild, stemmed from our perception that her anti-Semitism was a put-on act. My editor cousin Monty said to me: “The woman’s anti-Semitism is bogus. It is a fake, ersatz, simulated anti-Semitism designed to give anti-Semitism a bad name.”
I couldn’t help laughing at that.

cemetery_00.jpg b

We know from experience that numerous anti-Semitic incidents are perpetrated by Jews. So often it is Jews who are caught scrawling swastikas on walls and gravestones (see cartoon) and vandalizing Jewish cemeteries. No one does anti-Semitism better than the Jews. The object of the exercise is to create sympathy for Jews, forever perceived as persecuted and oppressed, by showing what subhuman scum all anti-Semites are.

Oh, these despicable “Nazis”! See how they deny the Holocaust and say bad things about dear old Israel! Come, let’s criminalize Holocaust denial in all countries! And anyone who dares to criticize Israel or offend a Jew in any way, let him be punished severely. 

This is what the Jews want: to turn the clock back to the 1920s, as in Stalin’s Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution. Anyone caught reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was put to death in those days. People who complained about the Jews, or even asked if a particular government official was a Jew, were marched off to a cheka dungeon and tortured by a Jewish commissar. This is a fact. An indisputable fact.

Let me begin now by offering the reader a series of emails to me full of hate speech and death threats. It will soon be seen that Ellie K, aka Madame Rothschild, is not the fabulously wealthy multi-billionaire she claims to be. She is a self-invented fictitious character. She is about as real as Vampirella or Lady Dracula, the Transylvanian femme fatale.



“[I give you warning] we are going to attack your site soon, something which the IDF ALWAYS DOES before attacking the Palestinian Terrorists [i.e., give prior warning before an attack] …. Soon the Sons of Judah will descend on you and you will see then how you will spew Jew hating crap. Nazi!  WHOEVER MIXES WITH NAZIS IS A NAZI! AND TO ALL THE NAZIS — DEATH !!!  — Aavi Kastner, in an email to me (see below).

FROM:  Aavi Kastner <kastner@mail.com>
SUBJECT:  Article

SENT: Thu 1/22/2015 11:37 AM
TO:  darkmoon@darkmoon.me

Well, Lasha Darkmoon, whilst you have been infamous since the day you started your anti-Semitic website, you should know that it’s only when you began publishing the writings of your lesbian mistress E. K. [‘Ellie Katsnelson’] that you have really sunk at bottom low.

You, we merely laugh at and consider a clown; it’s that despicable bitch we hate!
Wonderful thing, money, eh? Do you charge her per words or per article? We know who and where E. K. is, but even we can’t describe how she makes us feel and what we intend to do to her.

E.K. is dirt. A fucking rich wreck. a worthless piece of scum who says and does nothing but demonizes the Jews. That you are in league with her, just shows to prove how deep up her ass you are in.

I refuse to post on your site, as I find both of you disgusting.

FROM:  Aavi Kastner <kastner@mail.com>
SUBJECT:  Comment
SENT:  Thu 3/26/2015 5:37 AM
TO:  darkmoon@darkmoon.me
I am warning you that the Jews around the world will soon be targeting all the Jew-hating websites, and yours will DEFINITELY be one of the first to be hit.
You accuse the Jews as NOT BEING THE SAME AS US, by which you imply that we are animals, since to the said article you attached the image of a Neanderthal man, which is more than suggestive that Jews are yet to evolve. (The “said article” he refers to was written by someone else, not by me. LD)

Yes, you criminal English slut, we who have given you your SOUL Did you forget that before Jews came to the world scene man had no soul? And which race has most Nobel Prizes under their belt? Is it your race or mine? Your miserable nothing!

As for you making it known to your fellow Jew-hating followers what I have said in the emails, quite frankly I DON’T GIVE A FLYING FUCK, as the way I see it it’s not me who should be fearing exposure and sabotage but YOU.

FROM:  Aavi Kastner <kastner@mail.com>
SUBJECT:  Poetry
Fri 4/3/2015 2:06 PM
TO:  darkmoon@darkmoon.me

Lasha Darkmoon filling up the comments space under the names of Seymour Zak and Sardonicus. Even when you make a typo I can pick out your Jew hating voice, you Hitlerite piece of shit. Soon the Sons of Judah will descend on you, and you will see then how you will spew Jew hating crap. Nazi!

FROM:  Darkmoon <darkmoon@darkmoon.me>
SUBJECT:  Aavi and Ellie have been outed! 
SENT:  Fri 4/3/2015 6:00 PM
To:  ‘Aavi Kastner’
Give my regards to Ellie K, your troll partner and accomplice in crime! — and tell her we don’t publish pornography!  LD
A note of explanation is needed here.

Ellie K had just sent our website a new unsolicited article for publication that consisted in large part of a long description of bestiality combined with lesbianism, probably copy-pasted from an unpublished pornographic novel of hers. This description consisted of Ellie K being asked to spread her legs wide by her lesbian mistress, Madame d’Anguille,  in the snug basement room of a French chateau and there experiencing the Ultimate Orgasm when a long, glistening black serpent insinuates itself  into her vagina.

”Spread your legs, Ellie,” she said, helping me make myself comfortable again on that fateful old velvet Bergères, ”and let go of all your fears, my love. Here,” she said, ”place them onto the armrests, and close your eyes, my darling, for I assure you that, il n’y a qu’un bonheur dans la vie, c’est d’aimer et d’être aimé.” [There is only one happiness in life: it’s to love and be loved.]

The object of love, in this case, is  the amorous serpent winding its way into the inner recesses of our Ellie’s womb.

As our website does not wish to be associated with a female pornographer who has taunted us in several emails that we would be only too pleased  too publish her sub-standard, unpublishable articles in exchange for generous donations from her in advance — donations which we have never requested from her at any time nor received—let me provide the reader with a sample of her latest pornographic offering.

This article, we are told, is a work of consummate genius; and if we don’t accept it, she says it’s only because we are waiting for a generous donation from her in advance. Once we get a donation, no problem! The article will then be published in the shake of a lamb’s tail and we will be fawning all over her like lapdogs.

Lip-curling insolence, it seems, is this detestable lady’s stock-in-trade.

Here is Ellie K then, aka Madame Rothschild, with her legs splayed wide in the basement of a French chateau. She has just taken a rare drug available only to the elite ones of the world, a drug known as monatomic gold.   A fire crackles in the hearth. Velvet curtains keep out the garish daylight.  Her lesbian mistress, Madame d’Anguille, stands by Ellie’s side as the serpent slithers toward the yawning portal of Ellie’s welcoming womb.

Madame d’Anguille and Ellie have just enjoyed the languors of lesbian love and are sated by each other caresses and tongue titillations, but hey, that was only the aperitif! The main dish du jour is the black, slimy, erotogenic Serpent with the hooded eyes and long sinuous body.

Reader, take a deep breath! You are about to read the longest sentence in your life: 874 words! I’m willing to bet this qualifies for the Guinness Book of Records as the longest sentence ever written in a pornographic novel.
. . . “I could hear the reptile’s scales slowly, ever so slowly, grate the cold, ancient floor, and move towards me, inch by deadly inch, displaying, in the process, that viciousness, that coldness, that selfishness with which the deadly serpents are known for; and, reaching my snow-white Germanic feet, whiter, if I may add, than those of Madame d’Anguille’s, it rested there first, it thought, and it smelt, and it felt, and when no more thinking and smelling and feeling was done than was required, it penetrated me, deep, deep inside, head first, and then body, followed by its seemingly interminably long tail, forcing itself into those carnal excursions which no man on earth had ever been allowed to force himself in, and embroiled itself within my hot blood, my soft loins, my long convulsing body, utterly unconcerned how I would react, what I would feel, or if I would even survive the deadly encounter…and remained deeply entrenched in my body, the whole of its long serpentine length now invisible to the soft and superintending eyes of Madame d’Anguille, who ever so lovingly kept stroking my forehead, kept holding my hands, asking, enquiring, feeling how I felt, if it was good, if I was hurting, if I felt pleasure, soft and feeling requests to which I was too numb to reply, too mesmerised to respond, for the serpent, the black, glistening serpent, had intoxicated me, it had cut and bruised and poisoned me with its deep penetrating power, without respect, without love, without feeling, and without fear, and now without the slightest cession such as would be expected of even the deadliest predator in the harshest of jungles to show towards its victim, the serpent continued on its upward journey, up, and up, and up, violating all the laws of physiology, of nature, of decency, and coiled itself round the beating sinews of my lonely heart, like a thief,  listening, hearing, remembering, stealing all the memories, all the thoughts, and all the events of my life, my contempts, my hates, my loves and my sadnesses, as inseparable to my heart as my thoughts are to my mind, and sucked my heart very nearly dry, that beautiful, black, glistening serpent, whose chief and only aim as I soon learned was to both take away and give power, immense, immense power, power so great and unique, that even the highest degree of intelligence and eloquence could not possibly satisfactorily describe, for what I now had inside me was not merely a penetrating object, pleasuring one now with this movement, now with that, but a god, a dark cosmic god, secured from all damnations, from all the curses, and from all the cutting imprecations which man may hurl at a god, a creature who exchanged my chains for freedom and freedom for chains, and who, oh, so coldly and callously, imprisoned me in my own body, drowned my loins in my own blood, and who made it known, in a manner most remarkably and singularly otherworldly, that as a condition of the wisdom which it would impart me, it must cut me, it must bleed me, it must poison me, for knowledge, deep knowledge, the serpent hissed to me, cannot come without a pain, without a boiling pain, and that even if I hadn’t desired to accept it, it would now perforce instil it within me, for its cutting scales were now too deep within my flesh to be easily dislodged, and its tearing fangs had done their work, had seeded themselves in my stream, and that from now on I would have no more human blood within me than I would have the blood of a serpent, of that serpent, which, seeing that now the theft had been effected, and the deep wisdom and deeper still pleasure had been imparted, suddenly began its downward journey, leaving, as a final instruction to my bleeding heart that, were he to survive, I summon it again, that I call it afresh some other night, just he and I, though never without the presence of that cosmic powder and the planet Earth’s perfect alignment, and slithered itself slowly, each cold move cutting afresh the same path and through the same Germanic loins it had earlier cut and traversed, without the fear of drowning, or the shame of being discovered, and exited it now moist self through the same opening it had earlier entered, happy, invigorated, rich, and full of the Aryan blood on which alone it knows it can feed, and meandered itself atop the same, centuries-old black iron stove as before, positioning itself in such a manner and in such a pose as to make it impossible for me not to meet the eyes of it who had so terrified me, who had so injured me, who had so, so pleased me, like the soft luscious lips of Madame d’Anguille had once terrified me and yet pleased me, at the end of which, and performing its final, remarkable deed, it began its last, short journey towards us, and, placing itself onto the extended hands of Madame d’Anguille, it looked up, rested awhile, and finally, in the manner most unforgettable, it closed its now fatigued black eyes and died.”
Whew! I had to brew a cup of green tea after reading that! The article was then forwarded to my editor cousin Monty, with this covering note: “She will now accuse us of not publishing this crap because we are allegedly expecting a fat donation from her first! A cash payment in exchange for the publication of snake porn!” 


FROM:  Aavi Kastner <kastner@mail.com>
SUBJECT:  Oh, my!
SENT:  Sat 4/4/2015 2:25 AM
TO: darkmoon@darkmoon.me

In response to Lasha Darkmoon: “Give my regards to Ellie K, your troll partner and accomplice in crime! — and tell her we don’t publish pornography!  LD”
You are sick, that’s the only way to describe you, just like that Jew-hating Nazi slut whose Jewish money you take.
You tell your Nazi readers how evil Jews are, but what you don’t tell them is that you yourself are supported by stolen Jewish money! Jewish money, stolen Jewish money, is what keeps you afloat, and without it you would have been forgotten long ago. It’s all right to take, but it’s not all right to declare.
The German whore must have done something very, very special for you, apart from filling your mouth with our cash, otherwise you wouldn’t be publishing her psychotic hate speeches like you do.
You can’t see through me as there is nothing to hide in me, but through you anyone can see. You’re just a sexless, hateful, unloved, deceptive white slut who has nothing better to do in her life than bash the Jews, whose money must for sure taste sweet.
Of course your dominatrix slut mistress is pornographic, but that’s just how all the EVIL GERMANS are. In fact, they are not just evil, they are beyond evil, but so are they who associate with them, like you.

As for me being someone’s troll, the chances of that are below zero, as I don’t seek to deceive or to confuse anyone, and have no agenda in my mind other than to tell you and your Nazi dog of a friend how disgusting you both are.

Maybe this is why you two make such a ”nice” lesbian pair: you both are sad, you both are unloved, you both are lonely, and you both are unbelievably evil.

But I am nice, as I prefer to tell you the truth in ”the face,” so to speak, and not make my real thoughts about you known to the rest of the world like you and your slut lesbian friend do in regards to the Jews.

For a mere 1 or 2% of bad apples, you two white evil sluts put every Jew in the same basket, and make every Jew a settler, a bulldog, a killer, a criminal. Maybe we should judge you two according to the deeds of your English and German forefathers, and apply the same standard of judging to you as we would apply to the Englishmens’ (sic) deeds in South Africa, and the Germans’ deeds in Namibia and half of Europe.

Speaking of evil, since you two seem to be so concerned about it, why don’t you and your German mud face of a friend write an article about your own countrymens’ crimes in America, and Africa, and India, and Australia, and not just focus on Israel, because when you put a nation’s or a government’s crime sheet in the light for everyone to see, you will see that on balance they are all the fucking same, England, and Israel, and Russia, and America, only Germany beats them all, because they alone are the ultimate beasts, which is probably why you made friends with one, as evil tends to attract evil.
In fact, I am so nice that I even warned you that we are going to attack your site soon, something which the IDF ALWAYS DOES before attacking the Palestinian Terrorists.
Every sleight of hand, every hideous crime which your countrymen and the Germans did, you accuse Israel of doing, that’s just how it is. In case you think I agree with everything Israel does, let me tell you that I DON’T, as Bibi is no better, but at the same time no worse, than Churchill or Hitler were, but it seems to me that to concentrate on Bibi alone and the Jewish people as a whole is anti-Semitic in the extreme.

Did not Hitler have 100,000 Jewish fighters in his Wehrmacht? Did not the Rothschilds bankroll his wars? And was it not the Jewish fighter pilots that helped save your shitty little country from the destruction of the same Germanic evil with whom you have now made bed friends?

Yes. So, what’s your fucking problem? Let me answer the question for you.
You are so deep in your German whore’s ass, and so attracted to her stolen loot, that for the sake of money you are willing to say anything, so long as the cash keeps rolling in. But though she may have the money, and you the greed, she can never be as connected as we are, and it is through such connections that we soon intend to render both of you disconnected, if you know what I mean.
A. Kastner
(Unsent email)

I have one important disclosure to make to you, Mr “Aavi Kastner”.  Listen carefully! I have received incontrovertible proof that you and Ellie K are working together as a Jewish troll team. I thought you were the same person initially. I have now ruled this out as most unlikely, given the complete dissimilarity of your literary styles.

Maybe you are two Jews working as a husband-and-wife team, your wife writing pornographic novels in her spare time.  Or maybe you are two men paid by the ADL to infest websites like ours. You have just threatened to attack our website and get the IDF to infect it with viruses. You have even given me notice that you expect the Jews to track me down and kill me.

This is why I am publishing your demented ravings. So that the world may know what you Zionist trolls are really like. Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.

Don’t ask me to waste my time explaining to you how we found out that you and Ellie K are in cahoots and always have been, a troll team if ever there was one! We received a tip off from two external sources, one of them a person who may have personal knowledge of one of you or both.

Whatever lingering doubts we may have had were dispelled by Ellie K herself. The final proof came from her, not from you. She gave herself away by a careless remark in a comment. In other words, she slipped up. Here is what she said in one of her comments on the site:
“Moving down the aisle – oh, how I love this site now, [the dynamic has now changed entirely, hasn’t it?] – we come across Pat – remember him? [friend of the now-dead Dr David Green!] – the cool, intrepid, smart Hollywood investigator. . . ”
ELLIE K, March 29, 2015 at 5:34 am

Those words in bold print were the clincher! No one knew that Dr David Green was “now-dead”, i.e., a defunct poster. We never told Ellie K this. So how did she know Dr Green had been banned? that he was a defunct or effectively “dead” poster? I had told this to only ONE person in a private email: YOU!

So tell me, Mr Kastner, how did Ellie K  know that Dr David Green had been banned and was “now-dead”? She could only have gotten this information from YOU! 

One final word, Mr Kastner. I don’t care who you are or how many contacts you have in the IDF or ADL or elsewhere — I want you out of my life! You  are a pernicious pest. You emanate evil. You give off the most nauseating vibes of malevolence and hatred.  Any future attempt on your part to intimidate me, abuse me, or attempt to bribe me or my editor with promises of money to publish your partner’s  over-the-top, hysterical, articles of simulated, spoofed-up anti-Semitism will result in legal action.

Begone, toxic toad!

Lasha Darkmoon


Sunday, April 5 (today). I have just opened a new email from Ellie K, aka Madame Rothschild. It comes too late to include here, and it is far too long. It goes on an on and on, raging and cursing, full of sound and fury, almost 3000 words long. I will quote a few juicy extracts to give you an idea of what this crazy woman is really like when the mask slips from her face. Truly, she belongs in a padded cell:
My dear Doctor Lasha Darkmoon, Respected Scholar, Freedom Fighter, Truth Teller, and Fellow Woman Friend,
I now find you so absolutely revolting and so very accursed, as to veritably know that one of the best things that could have happened to me in recent times, is to finally have nothing more to do with you….
You unfair, filthy little Jew, Lasha! You demonic little coward! No, better still: you infernal English beast, you, whose race helped burn my Dresden, level my Berlin, smash my Dortmund, and melt my München….
I hope one day the Jews seize you, you inhuman little wretch, and do to you what they did to the Germans of Dresden, and the Russians of Kerch, and rape you with the same canine taste, with the same flesh-cutting pornographic accoutrements, and with the same diabolic Judeo/Satanic relish as they raped them, as they burned them, and as they tortured them, for it seems to me that you will only learn who the Jews really are after they have seized you, after they have handled you, after they have cut you, and after they have made you open your white little English mouth wide enough for a Jewish cock to piss in and a Jewish ass to shit [in]…you black, demonic Jewish demon….
Whilst my hope of seeing you being torn to pieces and alive by the evil Jews and their fucking dogs may or may not happen, I most certainly and most sincerely hope that you spend the rest of your miserable days on earth in the same exact state of heart and mind as the one in which I first found you: loveless, lonely, sick, anxious, distrustful, poor, frightened, empty, and sad, and that you no more think of Ellie K than Ellie K will think of you, for you are a veritable thankless devil, Lasha Darkmoon, a true and cold-hearted fucking robot….
Death to all the evil Jews, my Lasha! Death to all the Christians who protect the Jews, who love the Jews, who speak favourably of the Jews, who care about the Jews, who are Jew-friendly, who read Jewish books, who eat Jewish food, who laugh at Jewish jokes, who cry at Jewish movies, and who so much as have one single nice thought about the Jews in their head. Death to every Jewish man, death to every Jewish woman, death to every Jewish boy and Jewish girl, without exception….
Notice how I have steered clear from offending your dead mother, you stupid little English bitch.
Ellie K
Maybe I am wrong to publish this correspondence. Perhaps I should have kept it private. My profoundest apologies if I have given offense.

Do I bear Ellie K any ill-will? — None whatever. Try and understand that it was she who came to me and not I to her. If she had left me alone, how much better things would have been for both of us.

Peace, my dear sister, may you find peace and forgiveness for all the anguish you have caused me.