Dec 7, 2015

The Nation Publishes Ethnically Motivated Anti-White Hate Propaganda

via The Occidental Observer

A “journalist,” Max Berger, has published the following at The Nation magazine. You really have to read it to believe it. Given the status of The Nation among the elite left cognoscenti, it warrants a thorough review.
How to Understand White Male Terrorism
We’ve been here before, and we know that violent backlash is at its fiercest when movements for racial and gender justice are winning.
Everywhere I look lately, there are signs of white men panicking about their supremacy over American society.
A group of white men shot at young Black Lives Matter protesters on consecutive nights in Minneapolis last weekend, injuring five people. Donald Trump, still a leading Republican presidential candidate, proposed creating a database and ID cards for Muslims, leading even some Republicans to label him as a fascist. White Student Unions are popping up around the country in response to demands that university administrations do more to fight racism on campus. Finally, Robert Dear opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic last week, killing three people and injuring nine.
As a white man [??; see below], I want to understand what it is about the ideas of “whiteness” or “America” that’s causing white American males to be the country’s largest terror threat. Why isn’t white violence that is intended to shut down black movements, or male violence intended to intimidate women, considered terrorism by so many?
The bad faith here is astonishing. Obviously, Muslim minorities across the West commit an enormously disproportional amount of terrorism, whereas members of the White majorities commit a relatively smaller amount (see Peter Brimelow’s summary, including the recent San Bernardino killings committed by Muslims and, as The Economist points out, in Europe the still-small Muslim minority commits an overwhelming majority of terrorist killings). More generally, Blacks and Hispanics commit the overwhelmingly majority of murders of innocent Americans.

Berger also fails to mention that evidence suggests the Minneapolis shooting was in self-defense against Black attackers. He also fails to mention the Roseburg, Oregon shooting rampage perpetrated by the half-Black Chris Harper Miller. But, as we’ll see, building a factual case is not Berger’s strong suit.
I want to understand why, at this particular moment, white American men seem to be losing their minds.
Since the civil-rights movement, the Republican establishment — the big bankers and CEOs that actually run the party — have danced with racists in the white grassroots by conflating racism and fear of the government.
Instead of providing all Americans with decent healthcare, education, jobs, or housing, the racist white grassroots and rich establishment agreed that everyone should be on their own — so black people and immigrants don’t accidentally get anything good. [. . .]
Everyone’s on their own? Black people and Hispanics obviously receive enormous handouts from White America in the form of indefinite welfare transfers. In fact, an astonishing 81.5% of Black families with children are on welfare (54.6% overall), as are 76.4% of Hispanic households with children (54.1% overall).

However, Berger is making an important point insofar as Republicans do race-bait and engage in implicit White identity politics (guns, gays, abortion . . .) to get voters. The problem is that they do not defend the interests of Whites. This is evident in the panic of GOP elites at Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, et al. faring so poorly and the ascendancy of Donald Trump. Rather, Republican politicians are slaves to the media and their donors, and therefore serve only the interests of Big Business and Israel.
The political institutions through which our society is supposed to deal with these problems have been captured by the same interests that are causing the problems. Democracy—rule of the people, by the people, for the people—is in peril.
The emergence of fascism has always depended upon democracy’s failure. The growing proto-fascist, white-supremacist movement in the Republican Party is preying upon non-rich white people who are literally dying of despair, turning to drugs and suicide to deal with a reality they can’t bear, and a society they believe doesn’t care for them. Over the past 15 years, the death rate for white men has actually increased — an unprecedented rise in modern times that’s comparable to the emergence of the AIDS epidemic. White people are right that they are under attack — they’re just pointing to the wrong culprits. For the wealthy elite who fund the political operatives and media companies that tell white people who to blame for their plight, the race war is a very useful substitute for the class war.
Ignoring the will of the people on opposing immigration is “democracy”? Trump’s bringing unprecedented attention to this issue in the presidential campaign is “fascism”? What Berger doesn’t want to talk about is the failure of elites in both parties to look out for the interests of White Americans, and you don’t have to be on the Alternative Right to notice this. Here is Ross Douthat in the New York Times:  “freaking out over Trump-the-fascist is a good way for the political class to ignore the legitimate reasons he’s gotten this far —  the deep disaffection with the Republican Party’s economic policies among working-class conservatives, the reasonable skepticism about the bipartisan consensus favoring ever more mass low-skilled immigration, the accurate sense that the American elite has misgoverned the country at home and abroad.”
Berger again:
What’s new in this moment is the Republican establishment’s losing control of the grassroots for the first time in the post–civil rights era. Instead of the corporate Republicans winning the white vote with coded racist language, the grassroots outsiders are competing with one another to be more and more openly racist.
Berger is terrified that White identity could overtake the Republican Party’s traditional strategy of controlled race-baiting while doing nothing to change the status quo. But if the candidacy of Donald Trump illustrates anything, “racist language” is not enough any more when it comes from establishment politicians with a record of being long on promises and short on delivery.
Trump and Ben Carson are far-right populists rushing to turn non-rich white people’s fear and despair into ever-greater inequality by blaming others for their situation. [. . .]
Does Berger realize that Ben Carson, by all accounts an idiot, is supported by so many Republicans precisely because they want to prove their anti-racist credentials by supporting a Black candidate? And yes, non-rich White people should blame ruling elites and their elected representatives for undermining their interests.
In this moment of polarization, those who politically, economically, or emotionally depend upon the domination of black people are forced to cling ever harder to their hatred.
Typical meaningless post-Freudian psycho-babble. No need to link to any evidence whatever that Whites depend on Blacks for any of the above (see stats on welfare use cited previously).
The successes of past movements are good indications that the polarization happening across America will be, in sum, a good thing. The mask is slipping and more people are seeing the violence inherent in maintaining white supremacy and empire. The courage and wisdom of this generation of young black leaders [sic] has already shifted the scope of what’s possible in a very short amount of time. [. . .]
But for every cop charged with murder for killing a black child, there is a Darren Wilson [who was obviously innocent of any wrongdoing]. For every city full of young black leaders transforming this country for the better, there is a potential Dylann Roof. The process of ending white supremacy will make this a better country for everyone, but in the struggle it will almost certainly bring more pain to those who already suffer most.
White supremacy is a source of constant terror to people of color and is damaging to the humanity and prosperity of people who are considered white. [sic] So, what would it take for the sad, angry people clinging to their whiteness to have something else to feel good about? How can other white people hasten the end of an America that depends on violence, exclusion, and domination?
The answer, of course, is to deny the existence of race entirely. In Berger’s data-free world, people are only “considered white”; there is no reality to being White. And given Berger’s premise, there can be no legitimate White interests. This a common technique to oppress and disorganize a people: Deny its very existence. Jewish Zionists have also used this technique against Palestinians, with the usual shameless chutzpah.
I think, as Ta-Nehisi Coates says, that it will take us waking other white people up to the myth of their whiteness. People believe they are white because someone told them they are. [!] Who is white has shifted over time to reflect the political needs of those in power, and will continue to change. Americans have to learn that race is invented [an idiotic view; see previous two links], but the experience and rules of racism are all too real. Moving beyond white supremacy will require more of us that “believe ourselves to be white” to confront some tragic, simple human truths: Life is short and fragile, each of us has very little control over our fates, and we all belong to the world; it does not belong to us.
The myth of white America depends upon denying these basic, shared aspects of our humanity. It means denying the terror we inflict upon others to enable our domination — and seeing every act that opposes our domination as terrorism. The myth will continue to have power until white Americans realize we are connected to the other peoples of this country and this world, that “whiteness” is a myth invented for profit, and that America is an imagined political community like any other, and is only good if we make it so.
I have come to believe the fears of white Americans are really just reflections of the things that white supremacy and empire have done to others. White America has not been terrorized by people of color; we have terrorized people of color.
Berger is denying the tragedy of many, many thousands of innocent Whites who have been raped, murdered, or otherwise victimized by non-Whites. And how strange that, despite supposed White terrorizing of people of color, so many Africans, Muslims, and Mestizos are still so eager to force their way into the West — to mooch off our rule of law, our welfare states, our job markets, our harmonious societies, which they have so far failed to produce in their ancestral lands.
Black wealth is not based on stealing from white people; white wealth is based on stealing from black people.
I guess White people steal from Blacks and then support the great majority of Black households via welfare? Again, data-free, viciously anti-White nonsense.
Instead of confronting the reality of our history and what our country has become for most people, too many Americans would rather kill those mourning their dead and send orphans and widows to a hellscape we created  [here Berger might want to ponder the complicity of sections of his own ethnic community — the Israel Lobby and neocons — in creating the hellscape in the Middle East]— all in order to preserve the myths of whiteness, masculinity, and empire [actually, it was about the welfare of Israel].
I have to imagine the white men who commit these egregious acts of terror do so out of a silent, personal fear that the myths of whiteness and masculinity engender in themselves [or, more likely, that a job in the military looked a lot better than other options available in an economy that is brutal for working class White Americans]. The dehumanization white supremacists perpetrate on others has to be, in part, a projection of the dehumanization they feel themselves. [Huh?? Classic psychobabble.]  The sad men that hang out on 4chan plotting the destruction of innocent others don’t believe they can be the strong, virile, white male dominators they are prescribed to be. No one who feels good about themselves talks as much as Donald Trump does about how he is a “winner” and other people are “losers.” [I’d say that Trump has billions of reasons to feel good about himself.] No one who is confident of their humanity would deny acceptance to a 5-year-old orphan refugee [so, I guess Israelis have absolutely no confidence in their humanity, given that they have refused all {non-Jewish} refugees].
And yet, these white, American men are taught they must be silent in considering their fear, because to even admit they feel it would be to undo the myths of whiteness and masculinity they cling to.
This last paragraph is yet another beautifully data-free example of psychobabble. Let me help you, Mr. Berger: many White men feel they cannot speak out because they would be swiftly punished (lose their job, slandered) for voicing any degree of White identity, any defense of their collective interests, or any criticism of non-Whites, no matter how true. Meanwhile, Jews organize with the ADL, Blacks with the NAACP, Hispanics with the National Council of La Raza [sic], etc.
I can’t claim to have answers about how we get more white Americans to treat others as human beings. I do believe that all Americans would be better off if we moved beyond white supremacy and empire, and it’s the responsibility of white people to say so. They are myths that rob us all of our humanity, and keep us from uniting against the plutocrats that are stealing our future. I have faith in this generation of leaders of color, and hope they will lead a multi-racial coalition that will uproot white supremacy, once and for all. I hope that white people will follow their lead, as well as join organizations like SURJ that prepare white people to contribute to the struggle against white supremacy.
I have to believe that the next task of our movements —not just the movement for black lives but all of our movements — is to put forth a vision of what it means to be an American that’s based on a recognition of our shared humanity. In the 21st century, we can’t keep living on systems designed for a time before emancipation, electricity, or public education.
We have to put forth a vision of what this country and our lives could be like if it actually was designed to work for all its people.
Personally, I have never read such a deceitful, misleading pack of anti-White lies as this particular article. And I read a lot of this garbage. Really Berger has provided a highly-useful synthesis of all the lies and sophistry which are constantly used against our people.

Berger highlights the “one neat trick” central to all pilpul: It is easier to shamelessly assert a lie than to honestly prove a truth!

But let me point out the central flaw in Berger’s narrative: If there is “White supremacy” in the United States, why is it that White people — who largely oppose immigration — are about to become a minority in their own country even though most of Whites oppose the immigration deluge? The country which the Founding Fathers created explicitly for them, on the time-tested theory that one can only build a genuine nation among peoples of similar ethnic origin.

And, if more and more Whites, especially young White men, are awakening to White identity, it is because the Internet has allowed us, finally, to become aware of the injustices committed against us: Our massive under-representation in the Ivy League universities and much of the mass media (here, p. xlviff); the singular unfairness and hypocrisy that we cannot speak up and organize to defend our legitimate collective interests, while every other group can.

Finally, we cannot do nothing as — not just in North America, but also in Western Europe and Australia and New Zealand — Whites are becoming a minority, a vulnerable minority which will be liable to victimized by an ever-aggrieved non-White majority.

Now, Berger is a German name. But personally, I can sort of tell when a brainwashed, smugly ignorant White person is bashing his own people in order to be fashionable. No, Berger’s piece reeks with race hatred against our people. And sure enough:

Berger claims to write “as a white man,” and claims to lament the injustices that “we” Whites are committing against others. He is in fact an ethnically motivated, deceitful hypocrite. He “deeply believe[s] in the Jewish people’s right to self-determination” and yet claims that the mere organization of student unions for European-Americans, a massively under-represented minority in many elite universities based on IQ and test scores, is a sign of wanting to maintain racial injustice on campus. Jews, he claims, have a right to determine their own destiny, but any self-assertion by people of European descent is “fascism.”

By the way, Berger “works at Vice, is a co-founder of the Momentum Trainings [which appears to be some kind of lucrative diversity scam] and was a leading participant in Occupy Wall Street.” Berger’s role at Occupy Wall Street was presumably to distract protestors from noticing massive Jewish over-representation among Wall Street executives (Goldman Sachs . . .) and Federal Reserve chairman, and to divert their animosity towards Whites. “Evil Whites control America, goyim, there’s certainly been no ethno-plutocratic capture of America’s key financial-cultural institutions by a tiny clique of notoriously clannish Middle Easterners who are related to each other like fifth cousins!”

Oh yes, Mr. Berger, tell us about “White supremacy.” Tell us why Jewish oligarchs Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban work every day to defend the interests of their people, while Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates undermine Whites through support for displacement-level immigration. Tell us how Hollywood, the Ivy Leagues, Noam Chomksy, the New York Times and Jon Stewart Liebowitz fit into this “White supremacist” America you claim exists. Tell us to whose money and whose media both the Republicans and the Democrats answer to.

No, you are an ethnically-motivated, hair-splitting, sophistic, mendacious, lying, anti-White communist You-Know-Who. And after the Revolution, I dare say, such mendacious and ultimately genocidal hate propaganda against our people will be severely punished.

Me, I’m a conciliatory sort. I really do think everyone can find reasonable solutions if men of good will work together to resolve their differences. As such, I invite our readers to tweet at Mr. Berger to tell him how they feel about his anti-White hate propaganda, about his hypocritical denial of European self-determination and support for Jewish self-determination, and about why he, for some reason, wants to send Muslim “refugees” to America and not to Israel. You can also write to The Nation’s editors (and possibly their advertisers) and threaten raise hell or boycott unless such anti-White bullying is removed and desisted from.

The time will come, one day, for our people. In the meantime, let us reread Kipling, starting with: “The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon.”

White Nationalism Explained with Charts, Part III: Jewish Privilege

via Counter-Currents

Part 1
Part 2

Perhaps the most controversial issue of all, indeed even among White Nationalists, is the so-called Jewish question.

1. Race in the Ivy Leagues
The Ivy League universities are no doubt the most important institutions preparing the American ruling elite. Yesterday’s Harvard and Yale graduates are tomorrow’s high-flying bankers, lawyers, politicians, and media executives.

Whites, often portrayed as a dominant and oppressive group in the mass media, are massively under-represented in the Ivy League universities. The conservative Jewish writer Ron Unz has documented how this is due in large part to Jewish over-representation far in excess even of that community’s relatively high academic performance:
Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven [at Harvard University], while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students.[1]

Source: Ron Unz, The American Conservative
Source: Ron Unz, The American Conservative

This appears to be due to pervasive ethnic nepotism, otherwise known as racism, in the Jewish community, leading to discrimination against Whites and Asians.

2. Jewish Over-Representation and White Under-Representation
Source: Ron Unz/David Duke
Source: Ron Unz/David Duke

Given that Whites still represent over 60 percent of the U.S. population, that they be a smallish minority in the Ivy Leagues means that they are shockingly under-represented relative to their ability. Yet there is virtually never any discussion of this injustice in the mass media, nor of possible remedies, such as systematic affirmative action for gentiles, or even just plain meritocracy. What’s more, the media to this day often portrays Whites as a privileged elite responsible for everyone else’s misfortunes.

3. The Rise of the Jews at the Ivy Leagues
Source: Ron Unz, The American Conservative
Source: Ron Unz, The American Conservative

Given the importance of the Ivy Leagues in educating America’s ruling elite, the changing ethnic composition of these universities can be considered a rough proxy for changes in the ethnic balance of power in the American ruling class in general. There has been a change of power from an essentially WASP elite mostly favorable to White America to a heavily Jewish and liberal elite dedicated to replacing this with a “multicultural” America.

4. Top Democratic Political Donors

Liberals often lament the corrupting influence of campaign finance in American politics, correctly pointing out that a tiny percentage of the population contributes the bulk of donations. Less often mentioned is that Jews form a massively disproportionate and indeed sometimes dominant share of these donors. This has notoriously been the case for the Democratic Party – the Jewish favorite in general as the American Jewish community tends to be liberal. The Jewish Telegraph Agency has even reported: “Obama captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, and estimates over the years have reckoned that Jewish donors provide between one-third and two-thirds of the party’s money.”[2]

5. Top Republican Political Donors

The Republican Party, being relatively shunned by Jews for its pandering to the Christian Right and having access to gentile Big Business, is less dependent on Jewish money than are the Democrats. But neoconservative Jews have been eager to finance and infiltrate conservative causes, especially to secure support for Israel. Democrats and Republicans alike have become notorious for pandering to Israeli nationalists at the annual so-called AIPAC Conference. As shown in the above chart, Sheldon Adelson – a Jewish billionaire who supports an ethnically-Jewish state of Israel and immigration/multiculturalism in America – gave more money to the Republicans in 2012 than the next nine biggest donors put together! As a rule, Republicans tend to be pro-Big Business and pro-Israel, but very rarely pro-White.

6. The Liberal Media
Political campaign contributions by industry.
Political campaign contributions by industry.

As seen in the chart above, the entertainment industry, academia, Internet companies, and the print media tend to overwhelmingly belong to the far left of the American political spectrum. Conservatives frequently fault the U.S. media and cultural establishment for waging a long-term culture war against patriotic, conservative, Christian, and small-town White America, and in favor of a new hyper-individualist, pseudo-egalitarian, and “multicultural” America.

White Nationalists argue that the social cohesion and well-being of countries like Sweden, often praised by the liberal media, can only be achieved in a homogeneous White society. Anti-Semites further argue that elite media are so liberal in part because they are so Jewish.

In America, Jews in general are massively over-represented among billionaires (about one-third), Hollywood (controlling all major studios), television, elite media owners and journalists (the New York Times . . .), finance (Wall Street executives, Federal Reserve chairmen . . .), elite lawyers (including the U.S. Supreme Court), “public intellectuals,” and so on. Jews have also been massively over-represented in the last three presidential administrations, be they liberal Jews with Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama or neoconservative Jews with George W. Bush.

Of course, even with so many Jewish media moguls and oligarchs, there are still many White and even WASP media moguls and oligarchs. These include Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others. But none of these men wake up in the morning thinking of how he can benefit his fellow Whites and WASPs and, on the contrary, as a rule will be pro-immigration globalists, whether under the label “conservative” or “liberal.” In contrast, Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban think every day about how they can use their influence to benefit their people both in Israel and the rest of the world. There are also more and more non-White and non-Jewish oligarchs, such as the Lebanese-Mexican billionaire and New York Times co-owner Carlos Slim, who generally support immigration and are opposed to White identity.

Jews then have economic and cultural power far in excess of their numbers in the United States and this must naturally also be felt in the political process. The exact effects of this ethnic bias is heatedly debated, even among nationalists, however most would agree that the results have included:
  • Systematic support for Israel as a racially Jewish State with a Jews-only immigration policy (as notably demonstrated in John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby).
  • A massive emphasis on the Shoah as a uniquely significant genocide, other historical tragedies being relatively insignificant. The conservative Jewish writer Éric Zemmour has even called the Shoah a kind of “official religion.”[3]
  • Demonization and de facto exclusion from the political process of nationalists, whether they be explicit White Nationalists or not, such as Patrick Buchanan or David Duke. (Or indeed, of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France or Slobodan Milošević in Serbia.)
  • Systematic support for multiculturalism and mass immigration to Western countries.
1. Ron Unz, “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” The American Conservative, November 28, 2012.
2. Ron Kampeas, “Democrats launch major pro-Obama pushback among Jews,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 7, 2011.
3. Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015.

Christmas Land Is Our Nation

via Cambria Will not Yield

So let us state what is true. God reveals Himself to us through the intimate, mysterious human relationships we form with our kith and kin. The moral beauty of the European hearth, where our kith and kin dwell, points us to the Star of Bethlehem. The moral depravity of the syncretic religion of rationalism and diversity points us toward the kingdom of Satan. The most counter-revolutionary thing that a European man can do is to refuse to bend his knee to the new diversity of races and faiths. Such a refusal will make the European man a sign of contradiction to Satan and his minions. And such is the European man’s destiny. He was born to bear witness, through his fidelity to the European hearth, to the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.CWNY

Robert Lewis Dear certainly does not look like a hero of a romance. And I can’t, with complete certainty, assert that he is one, because I know nothing about his motivation for shooting the two Planned Parenthood employees and the police officer. But if his intent was to strike a blow for the slaughtered innocents of our nation by striking home against the butchers of Planned Parenthood, then I heartily support him. The Planned Parenthood organization is one of the great satanic bastions of liberalism, and whoever attacks that organization should be lauded by all Christian Europeans. True romance often seems rather uncouth and gritty at its inception:
Dickson groaned. What had become of his dream of idylls, his gentle bookish romance? Vanished before a reality which smacked horribly of crude melodrama and possibly of sordid crime. His gorge rose at the picture, but a thought troubled him. Perhaps all romance in its hour of happening was rough and ugly like this, and only shone rosy in the retrospect. Was he being false to his deepest faith? – Buchan (1)
You don’t want to be (at least I hope you don’t) like the Fox News people who worship the fighting man simply because he is a fighting man. A soldier or a policemen is not absolved from the responsibility of making sure that what he fights for is something worthy of fighting for. It’s a tragedy that the police officer had to die, but his death cannot be laid at the doorstep of Robert Lewis Dear. The police officer did not have to – indeed, he should not have – come to the aid of the baby killers. No white man should sign up to protect and serve the butchers who work for Planned Parenthood, whose mantra is, “First we kill the babies, then we dissect them and sell their body parts.”

Any attempt to actually fight, in the fullest sense of the word, the forces of Liberaldom – whether the fight is against the abortionists, the Aztecs and black barbarians who rape and murder whites, or the Moslem invaders – always leads to the liberals joining with their clerical allies to condemn violence. It is un-Christian, they tell us. Shouldn’t that give a man who calls himself a Christian reason to pause and question the rightness of a fighting faith? How can he be right when the vast majority of professed Christians are against him? No, it should not give him pause. First, the right or wrong of any action cannot be determined by majority vote. And secondly, the white Christian who wants to fight back against the forces of Liberaldom is not in the minority if you allow our honored dead a voice. Do you think our European ancestors would have permitted the slaughter of babies in the womb, the murderous onslaught of the colored barbarians, or the Islamization of Christian Europe? No, they would not, so you must condemn your Christian European progenitors if you want to condemn the contemporary European who wants to follow the path of his fighting ancestors. But of course the modern church men do condemn their violent, racist, moribund, Christian ancestors. Imagine being so simple that you see an evil and immediately want to strike out against that evil. The condemnation of the “simple-minded” faith of the evil whites of old Europe has resulted in the slaughter of the innocents, the unrelenting murder of whites by colored barbarians, and the surrender of the European people to Islam.

Let us never forget when the liberals condemn any violence directed against them or their colored gods that the liberals are the most violent people on the face of the earth. They hire state executioners to kill babies, and they systematically disarm white people while encouraging the colored tribesmen and the Moslems to slaughter whites. The liberals are like the head gangster in the old movies, who fastidiously leaves the room before his mugs begin to torture the hero, because he claims his nonviolent principles forbid him to watch the torture he has just ordered to be done. The liberals have ordered the death of whites and the slaughter of the innocents, but they reserve the right to wear the cloak of sanctity while their henchmen do the actual killings and torture.

Such thoughts are not very Christmas-y, are they? (2) I wonder. Every single blessing in this world, and all our hopes for a blessing in the next, have come about because of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. So maybe it is quite in keeping with the Christmas spirit to attack the great haters of the blessed event in Bethlehem – those who hate so much that they must arrogate for themselves the power to destroy the life of the babe in the womb and the power to eradicate the Christ-bearing race from the face of the earth.

In the 1820’s Washington Irving wrote down his impressions of a Christmas celebration that he witnessed as a guest in an English manor house. Irving, like P. G. Wodehouse after him, never professed to be a Shakespearean diver into the depths of the human heart. He was a humorist with modest goals:
What, after all, is the mite of wisdom that I could throw into the mass of knowledge; or how am I sure that my sagest deductions may be safe guides for the opinions of others? But in writing to amuse, if I fail, the only evil is my own disappointment. If, however, I can by any lucky chance, in these days of evil, rub out one wrinkle from the brow of care, or beguile the heavy heart of one moment of sorrow; if I can now and then penetrate through the gathering film of misanthropy, prompt a benevolent view of human nature, and make my reader more in good humour with his fellow beings and himself, surely, surely, I shall not then have written entirely in vain. – Old Christmas
But in seeking to amuse Irving does reveal to us something quite profound. The old Baron and his family, the poor relations, the workers on the Baron’s estate, and the community at large are all united in one common goal – to celebrate the birth of Christ, their common hope. They are not a racially diverse group, which might account for the fact that their faith and their joy is not feigned, it is something in the blood, which our modern Europeans who are bloodless shadows of men and women can never feel. This is more than a pity, it is a tragedy that the Europeans have traded their provincial “racist” faith in our Blessed Savior for a cosmic faith in nature and nature’s god, the negro. Sometimes, late at night, they look back and feel a twinge of remorse. That is one of the reasons the liberals dare not look with a sympathetic eye at their European past. When they do, they feel like outsiders at a great celebration they cannot enter into, because they can’t understand why the celebrants are celebrating.

As the Moslems invade Europe, as the colored barbarians grow increasingly violent and hostile to all things white and Christian, and as the liberals prepare for the final satanic assault on the white race, it is hard to celebrate Christmas, because the Christian community, the European Christian community, has dwindled down to a precious few. If you go to church you will be told of the greatness of the negro and the evil of the white man. If you go out into the community at large you will find diversity of races and diversity of faiths. I take heart in Burke’s affirmation that a nation is a moral essence. We want the European lands to be one, white, and Christian, but if they are not, if they remain the home of heathens, colored barbarians, and liberals, they are not our nations. Europe is Christmas land; I can’t think of any European nation apart from that nation’s Christian past. If England, France, or any other European nation ceases to be one, Christian, and white, they will cease to be England, France, etc. Those nations will only exist where men are white and Christian. Burke likens Jacobin France to a house where robbers have broken in and dispossessed the homeowners. The real home exists wherever the former homeowners go, because robbers cannot be homeowners anymore than a coalition of Moslems, liberals, and colored barbarians can be a nation just because they occupy a geographic land mass in Europe. The moral essence of every European country will always remain white and Christian. Wherever that moral essence is, there are the nations of Europe.

In the early 20th century it became commonplace amongst European scholars to look down on the European people from their Olympian height and condemn all of the Europeans’ history as one colossal pageant of war and depravity. But is that how God, who is not an Olympian, sees our history? Doesn’t He who sees quite through the deeds of men see something else, something besides war and depravity? I think He does. He sees that the Europeans, responding to God’s grace, built another land within the land of sin, which the Olympian scholars, incorrectly, saw as Europe in its entirety. The antique Europeans built what the little children in the movie The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm called “Christmas Land.” Such a land cannot be seen with the outer eye of the Christian utopians. It can only be seen by the inner eye of love. Could any marriage survive if the wife saw only the faults of her husband but none of his virtues? I know mine couldn’t. The Christian scholars who tell us that there never has been a Christian Europe because the Christian Europeans were such incredible sinners, have no eyes to see with; they have separated their heart from their head and see only with the mind’s eye, not the heart’s eye. “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

My heart and my sword as well is with those inhabitants of that old English manor house – those Europeans who still believe in Christmas land. That is the white man’s homeland.
Pure of heart and mind and hand,
I shall dwell in Christmas Land;
Christmas Land! Christmas Land!
I shall dwell in Christmas Land.
-from the Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm
(1) No doubt Robert Lewis Dear is insane, but is not his insanity a type of divine insanity that is necessary to counter the liberals’ satanic insanity? God forbid that we should, even for one moment, forget that the liberals are the devil’s own, driven by a satanic desire to destroy the image of God in man.

(2) In old Europe when the European nations were fighting (alas) with each other, there were Christmas truces. But there is no Christmas truce in Liberaldom. In fact the liberals step up their assault on the European people during Christmas. They launch a series of propaganda attacks, in film and print, the theme of which is, in the main, that our incarnate Lord was not the Son of God, He was only a forerunner of the Atticus Finch liberal. So long as Liberaldom stands, the Christmas season must always be a time of war as well as a time of peace for the reason that the enemy is attacking whites precisely because they are the Christmas people.

In the massacre in California that took place several days ago, the Jihadists chose a Christmas party as the setting for their massacre. And please note the difference between the justified assault on Planned Parenthood and the unjustified assault on the Christmas people. The former attack was condemned and used as an occasion to demand that whites disarm themselves. The latter attack was an occasion to scold whites about the dangers of blaming all Moslems for the bad actions of a few Moslems.

Every time Moslems strike, a host of terrorist “experts” come on the news and tell us what must be done. One expert’s advice was to “look people in the eye as you go about your daily business.” By looking people in the eye, the expert claimed, you can tell if they are terrorists. Well, even if such a process worked, what could you do if you ascertained they were terrorists, since our government has made it illegal to carry firearms in the areas where terrorists strike the most? The really practical and moral policy to prevent street and terrorist crimes would be to evict all Moslems, blacks, and Mexicans from the European nations. But if you are not going to do that, the next best policy would be to arm every white, not to disarm them. If whites are to be ducks in a shooting gallery, shouldn’t the ducks have the right to shoot back? Of course such a sane policy will never be adopted, because liberals are not about to arm their enemies. Which brings us back to the main point – the liberals hate the white, Christ-bearing race. They only want the military and the police to be armed, because the police and the military work for them. The reason they come down so hard on police officers who shoot black barbarians is because they want to send a message to the rest of the white police officers: There are no black, Mexican, or Moslem criminals, there are only white criminals. When liberals achieve their perfect world, only whites will be subject to punishment, for the crime of being white, which is the ultimate crime in Liberaldom.

Life’s Purpose and Your Purpose as a White Person

via Western Spring

What is the purpose of Life?  The purpose of Life is life itself…to make more life and to fill all of existence with life. At this level of existence Life is that which is within DNA and which uses DNA (and sometimes RNA), at least on Earth, to transform so-called non-living minerals into the so-called living minerals that we are. Note, please, that it is easier, here, to think of Life and DNA and genes in this anthropomorphic way, but do understand that I am not suggesting they have intelligence or will as we know these things.

I do not say that life and DNA/RNA/genes are one and the same thing because on other planets we may learn that Life has found something other than DNA and RNA to carry it.  Time will tell. I do say, however, that life is life.

Life doesn’t care what type of organism carries it, it just wants to fill every possible niche where organisms of some type can live and thrive and expand and evolve so that Life does too.  And to do this, life constantly tinkers with all organisms changing something here and something there on a trial and error basis, repurposing these finger bones for wings or these leaves for food storage and so on, but always building and modifying something else. This causes a constant branching off of some organisms into new organisms and the extinction of other organisms that don’t adapt to changes. This sets up a never ending, but desirable and necessary, competition between organisms for food, for mates, for living space, for dominance, for survival itself.  This is natural selection and the other fundamental processes under the general heading of evolution.

Looking in Mirror - Woman 3This competition, which I call the Gene Wars, starts right within every type of organism as different versions of genes struggle for expression. Look in the mirror at your face. There you will see which gene versions won the gene wars within you. Your eyes show the winner of the eye colour and eye shape gene competition. Your skin shows the winner of the skin colour and texture gene competition. Your various features — the shapes and size of your nose, chin, lips and everything else about you, seen and unseen, shows the winners. The genes that won within you, are you.

But the gene wars also exist in the larger sphere where we exist as the fully manifested individuals that we are, and in this larger sphere, our everyday reality, the gene wars are most pronounced — but largely unknown to most people, who haven’t given this much thought — in relation to other humans that we can breed with and produce viable children with.   It is this ability to breed with other types of humans that can cause the extinction of White people and it is something to be consciously avoided.

The reality, just to repeat this important point, is that our DNA Code, also known as our genome, that makes us, us — that makes us a distinct race or subspecies is also struggling for survival and dominance as a totality, even though we may not be conscious of this.  And, the “enemy” of our genome is other genomes, and especially genomes that are very different from our own White genome. In this struggle — this war — on this everyday reality level, our White genome wants to survive and dominate and even to replace all other human genomes.  And, all the non-White genomes also want to do the same thing. The competition, the struggle, the gene wars are eternal and are essential to find the best organisms for all niches and conditions. There is no good or evil or hatred or love at this level. There is just one type trying to survive, expand and evolve along certain trajectories so that it replaces similar types. Each type wants to be the only type of its kind.

Life itself, doesn’t care who lives or dies. Looking in Mirror - ManLife just wants life itself, to survive, to expand and evolve.  It doesn’t care which form of life wins or loses. Life in a bacteria is the same as life in a man.

We as conscious White humans, on the other hand, should care. We need to make sure that it is us — White humans — who survive and expand and carry life throughout the universe. That is our purpose that is on top of life’s basic purpose. We must look out for ourselves. We must be genetic egoists and particularists. And, while we’re doing this, we must seek our personal and group happiness in the context of our most essential Whiteness. We must take care of ourselves first and then those closest to us who share our DNA Code and this means that we must care about other Whites, because the more Whites there are, the better is the chance that we will have plenty of White mates to help us make more White people and we won’t be tempted to miscegenate or stay childless. There is strength for each of us as individuals in having many more like us.

Too many Whites today lack any purpose in living. They drift day to day and fail to see the bigger picture. And, that bigger picture is our purpose as White people. It is to remain White people. It is to survive as White people. It is to live as White people. It is to breed as White people. It is to win the gene wars and become the next evolutionary step for humans.

How do we win the gene wars?

Looking in Mirror - Woman 2We must ask of everything: Is this good for White people? We must not practice altruism relative to non-Whites. We must mind our own White business and not interfere in the fates or business of non-Whites and we must remain indifferent to them. We must try to remain separate from them and we must avoid mingling with them if we can help it. We must try to have as many White children as possible. In other words, we must do everything reasonably possible to increase the sheer volume of White DNA and we must not help non-Whites in any way; because helping them just allows them to get a leg up in the gene wars and increase their DNA. Remember, their DNA is always the enemy of our DNA. Now, to be clear, by “enemy” I don’t mean a necessarily conscious hatred of us (but there is also plenty of that), but rather the struggle for their genome to replace our genome.

Non-Whites can be intelligent, beautiful, kind and have all sorts of characteristics and values that we may like, and Whites we may know may be dumb, ugly, unkind and have all sorts of characteristics and values that we don’t like, but, and this is the point that we must understand, the DNA Code of non-Whites, their genome, “wants” to replace ours. It wants to have our DNA Code, our genome, go extinct, either directly or by absorption into theirs, so that their genome is the only human genome. And, our genome wants the same thing. However, we Whites are the new kids on the block and our genome is recessive. This means that we have a lesser chance of absorbing other genomes and remaining truly White than other genomes have in absorbing our White genomes and eradicating them. In other words, it takes more effort to remain White. It is easy to become non-White; simply have children with any non-White and you’ll turn your family line, through your children, into a non-White family line. It takes two Whites — a White male and a White female to make a new White person.  Any other combination doesn’t do it.

Stay White and make more like yourself.  That is your purpose.  That is your best present and your best future.

This Christmas, Fight-back with Your Wallet: The 2015 Pro-White Gift-Giving Guide

via American Renaissance

It is not easy for whites to live in a way that’s loyal to their race. We can tune out anti-white rap music, anti-white films, anti-white talking heads, and the entire anti-white political Left, but it is hard to use your wallet to fight back. Everywhere you turn, it seems you are funding some major player in the anti-white agenda. Finding alternatives can be tough.

So many of our race’s best minds, after bringing about wonders in technology and production, devote their profits to white dispossession. Bill Gates is a good example. He did as much as anyone to usher in the information age and now does his best to import more Third-Worlders. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook is no different. It’s hard to avoid using their products.

Another example is Ford Motor Company. It was founded by a man who was not exactly politically correct, but now has a mammoth foundation that gives to all kinds of anti-white causes, from the NAACP to pro-amnesty groups. Even the Koch Brothers–for all the scorn they get from the left–give millions of their oil money to the United Negro College Fund and seem determined to release as many black criminals from prison as possible. If you boycott one of America’s biggest auto manufacturers–as well as all their Asian competitors–your choices are limited.

One American family once tried for an entire year to buy nothing made in China. Afterwards, they had enough of a saga to fill a book, and they concluded that a one-year break was long enough.
American movies are overwhelmingly anti-white, and children’s movies without an overt racial message are no better. The longtime chairman of Disney and current CEO of Dreamworks is Jeffrey Katzenberg–one of Barack Obama’s and the Left’s biggest fundraisers.

We face a tidal wave of anti-white consumption choices. Unless you have managed to drop out of society, compromises are inevitable. However, let me offer one consumer choice to make the world a little whiter: Legos.

From a pro-white perspective, the famous toy-brick manufacturer is one of the best products on the market today. To begin with, the company was founded in Denmark and is still based there. Even in today’s globalized world, it manufactures almost exclusively in white countries. Mexico has a few factories, but otherwise Legos are made in Denmark, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

Legoland in Billund, Denmark, next to the original Lego factory.
Legoland in Billund, Denmark, next to the original Lego factory.

Lego’s charitable work is also not nearly as bad as many American companies. McDonald’s has a whole website dedicated to explaining how much it helps blacks, and dozens of Fortune 500 companies argued in favor of affirmative action the last time it went to the Supreme Court. According to the “LEGO Group Responsibility Report” from last year, the company primarily focuses on the environment and on having safe factories that produce safe products. While they do go on about caring for children’s rights and education, the targets for such efforts include not just the expected–South Africa and Peru–but also poorer white nations, such as Ukraine and the Czech Republic.

The “responsibility report” is filled with photos of token non-white children playing with Legos, but all the employees in the photos are white. And while the report highlights the number of women who work for Lego, and how high they have climbed in the company, it is mute on racial makeup. The workforce is almost sure to be overwhelmingly white.

Lego also promotes the great tales and myths of our people. It has entire lines of blocks featuring Vikings, cowboys, knights in armor, etc. This is a major holdout against anti-white indoctrination. Today’s schools try to teach children how noble the Indians were and how bad the cowboys were. Instead of classic stories such as King Arthur, they favor yet another tale about some Mexican peasant. It is an institutionalized extension of the New Left’s project of “ending victory culture” and ensuring that every white loathes his own past.

Lego combats this trend. It gives children a creative activity that encourages them to wonder who the Vikings were, why they were always fighting, where they went in their boats. It is a wonderful and subtle way to instill pride in the past. A pro-white children’s product is hard to find these days. Whenever I look through the toy section at a big box store, I notice far fewer items inspired by history than when I was a child.


Knights and cowboys have largely made way for action figures and play sets inspired by video games or Hollywood garbage–all made in China, of course. And you certainly don’t find any love of Europe in Jeffrey Katzenberg’s films.

Even when Lego toes the Hollywood line and makes models based on movies, they tend to be overwhelmingly white ones, such as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, Legos let you build your own world, and let your creativity blossom. The castles and monsters found based on the movies are material for making even grander castles for your knights. That’s what I did when I was a child.


The same is true for Lego’s Star Wars sets. They are the starting point for children to design and build their own airplanes, spaceships, boats, etc. It’s hard to imagine a toy more suited for a race so prodigiously disposed to be engineers, architects, and designers.

On some level, the Lego company seems to understand this, and seems to have always understood it. The word “Lego” is a portmanteau of the Danish words for play, “leg,” and well, “godt”–which is to say, Lego means “playing well.” Their advertising has always emphasized the inner genius of children, and there are few Lego ads that feature even token non-whites.


More recently, their ads have invoked classic works of Western art, subtly intimating that through Legos, your children can reach great heights, too.


Lego is also acutely aware of the vile ways children are often encouraged to entertain themselves.

As Christmas approaches, sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, and plenty of other children eagerly await gifts from their relatives. Why not make yours a white one?

The Political Cesspool Radio Show (12/5/15): Better and Better

via James Edwards

Is our show still getting better even after all these years? Many of our listeners seem to think so. Here’s an hour by hour breakdown of the December 5 broadcast:
Radio Show Hour 1
Hosts James Edwards and Keith Alexander team up with correspondent Sean Bergin and spend the hour breaking down the facts from the most recent attacks in San Bernardino, California.
Radio Show Hour 2
Guest: Dr. Kevin MacDonald – Kevin MacDonald, Ph.D., a former professor of psychology at California State University Long Beach, is the author of several books, including: The Culture of Critique and Cultural Insurrections. Dr. MacDonald rejoins us tonight to discuss the War on Christmas.
Radio Show Hour 3
James and co-host Eddie “The Bombardier” Miller talk about a variety of hot topics, including the South Carolina representative who sent out a Confederate themed Christmas card to his colleagues!
If you missed our live show, click here to access our most recent program podcasts, or click here to access the complete broadcast archive dating back to 2004.

Breeding More, …or Breeding Up?

via TradYouth

We’ve been hearing it for some time now, especially in the Traditionalist/Alt-Right circles: “Whites gotta have more babies!”

Of course, many of these same people who are shouting this from the hilltops rarely, if ever, have a clear-cut plan as to how we construct a framework around this fundamental idea that is so critical to our goal of restoring Tradition. And that is the main goal – to restore and maintain our traditional ways of life. And, yes, a primary focus on having more children must absolutely be firmly established.

But, at the risk of sounding too snarky, it doesn’t really come as a surprise that many of those people clamouring for this aren’t really doing their part, or have little realistic plans of doing it. What we’re hearing is a lot of emotional rhetoric, but little or no action behind it.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard of quite a few cases of people on our side of the fence who seem to be under the impression that merely spreading their seed is top priority. That is all good and well, but a specific set of values go must go hand-in-hand with that, for without a strong emphasis and ardent support for white, heterosexual marriage coupled with primary spiritual/religious loyalties solidifying that sacred institution, we will essentially be choosing quantity over quality, and, on some level, that isn’t too far from what many poor whites with families are already doing in some places. The end result is the culture of degeneracy we find ourselves in ends up raising the children more than the parents.

We hear all too often from couples who may flirt with the idea or who make excuses as to why either the time just isn’t right for them. And then there are the overly idealistic ‘volkish warrior’ single males who, if they can’t have their idealised Ostara magazine version of the perfect “Aryan” princess to breed with, they won’t have them at all. This actually reminds me somewhat of a conversation I had with a friend about Evola, who was, to my chagrin, of a similar opinion. Evola had many criticisms of NSDAP era Germany’s Lebensborn program, which he thought was alien to Tradition.

Of course, Evola never had children of his own, and, at the risk of oversimplifying his sentiments, once said that there was no point in ever having them if he couldn’t bring them up to be wholly “Roman”. His cynicism about the future of the Italian Social Republic probably had a lot to do with that. Nevertheless, I see such attitudes as weak, notwithstanding the high regard in which I hold Evola and his ideas. Indeed, we mustn’t choose quantity over quality, but, at the same time, we don’t really have all the time in the world right now, do we? In regards to our situation here in America, we all know the official 63% white thing is actually much lower since, according to this regime, that includes Hispanics and North Africans (most of whom aren’t racially or politically White).

In spite of this, the reality of breeding more and breeding up can never fully manifest properly and healthily unless we solidify that with strong traditional morals backed by spiritual/religious primary loyalties. In addition, it is also crucial that we encourage this with incentive for young married couples to have children. With so many rootless whites today feeling the deck stacked against them, it is no wonder the will to start families is so weakened.

Actions such as abolishing No-fault divorce that make divorces so bleeding easy is one thing we must strive for. We must accept that there are supreme advantages to a system centred around Tradition which establish firm barriers to divorce. Children need a father and a mother, period.

In addition to creating tax incentives for working fathers, which is listed in the Party Platform, fathers must be paid a family wage so that they can support their families while mothers receive incentive to tend to the children within the home.

These are but a few of the goals we must strive to achieve if we are to increase our birth rates. This cannot be accomplished without a solid, moral emphasis on faith and the traditional family unit.

Remembering Ireland's Easter Rising Is Pointless

via The European Guardian

The 100th anniversary celebrations of Ireland’s failed Easter Rising will be about dead people. I’m a lot sadder about the dead spirits.

As a committed nationalist I have nothing but contempt for the upcoming celebrations. The heroes who laid down their lives for revolution doomed to failure did not deserve to have their sacrifice desecrated for a photo-op. The delirium of the brave never referred to pride parades.

The general tone of the "commemoration" will be avoidance: "not militaristic", "not nationalistic", "not anti-imperialist", not "remembering", but really an array of events designed to fill time without saying anything that might get politicians into trouble on twitter. The net outcome would be a carnival of avoidance, amnesia, and self-hatred.

In present circumstances, any commemoration of 1916 we might attempt is bound to be a mockery of what the Rising meant and what the revolutionaries intended. The difficulty lies not so much with formulating a mode of celebration as in identifying something to celebrate about a country as close to the opposite of what the revolutionaries imagined as can be imagined.

We can evince a superficial admiration for "our patriot dead", whom we may consider courageous or principled or idealistic, but we cannot today access the inner lives and loves of such men, because the self-centred obsessions of our culture render them foreign. Our collective post-rationalised thought-processes lead us to assume that such perspectives as theirs were freakish by definition, having now being rendered quaint or ludicrous by some process of cultural "evolution". We are too "clever" to love our country.

One look at the political elite of Ireland will show you why. Balls of lard, or flat chests with protruding ribs who got a career in politics from their student societies. As Mishima said “The cynicism that regards all hero worship as comical is always shadowed by a sense of physical inferiority.”

We are haunted by the ghosts of 1916, by the idea that what happened then might have some meaning for us that we cannot find in ourselves. Our sense, though, is that nothing remains. We secretly suspect that, if we set about "remembering" from our present condition, nothing can result but blasphemy and betrayal, and we will do as much harm to ourselves as we will to the memory of our patriot dead. This is why we cannot find a way to commemorate. We foresee that, rooting amidst the bunting and empty beer cans, we will afterwards come to hate ourselves even more than we do already.

But hey, at least I can buy a chocolate bar with the Proclamation written on it.

Sex on Fire

via Radix

In the sweet, recent past, pornography was a distasteful habit pursued in shameful secrecy. In the clown world, porn actors fight to restore their names not because being in porn tanks their credibility, but because of soap opera rape Tweets.

The "rape" of a "feminist" porn actress by her also "feminist" partner-in-crime is top entertainment news in the Washington Post:
Arguably the most popular male star in adult film, [James] Deen is now fighting to restore his name after he was publicly accused by [fellow porn star Stoya] this weekend of raping her - a claim that was soon followed by similar accusations from two other adult film stars, effectively upending one of the most carefully crafted images in a formerly underground industry whose biggest names are now reaching for mainstream fame.
For what it's worth, the beleaguered whoremonger denies the accusations and maintains that he "respects women."

If, as I suspect, you aren't au courant with the porn industry's latest, you should know that "prolific performer" Bryan Sevilla, better known as James Deen, is more than your stereotypical skin flick stud. WaPo continues its jaundiced gushing:
Over his 11 year career, Deen has emerged as the unlikely darling of the industry - the kind of slender, sensative guy you'd expect to see in a boy band rather than a kinky X-rated film. His boy-next-door vibe and pro-feminist persona helped him capture the attention and imaginations of women of all ages...
Deen expounded on his ideal consent culture to GQ:
Allie relates a childhood memory, the gist of which is that when she was 9 years old, hanging out with her brothers, she was encouraged to perform sexual acts for their friends in exchange for marijuana.
Now Deen looks up from his telephone for the first time in a while.
"And you where cool with it?"
"Oh yeah," says Allie James.
Deen hoists his eyebrows. "As long as you were cool with it," he says.
What a charmer.

The press raved over his brand of so-called compassionate pornography, which dispensed with the delivery boys and "bang vans" in favor of deliberate eye contact and "whispering sweet nothings." His much vaunted "Jewish boy next door vibe" strongly and unfortunately appealed mostly to broken girls.

Then there's the raven haired damsel: 29-year-old Jessica "Stoya" Stojadinovic. The former homeschooled sci-fi geek fom North Carolina carefully crafted a cerebral smuttiness that fortitously extended her sex industry shelf-life, bringing her super stardom and even mainstream respect. She regularly pens pieces for Vice, the New York Times and the Guardian, offering her positions on the "Great Condom Debate", theories about the "metaphysics of cocksucking" and even uplifting personal anecdotes like the time she told her infirm grandmother that she appropriated her name for porn work.

James Deen and Stoya were the carefully-marketed dream couple of a sanitized sexual liberalism where only the "good" kind of nastiness prevails. They were the glowing, grinning proof that enlightened debauchery could be beautiful, even virtuous. What a shock to this self-satisfied dream world, when such latent ugliness destroys the fantasy and undoes the king and queen!

This pathetic state of affairs is a good opportunity to survey the real meaning of popular euphemisms used for damage control of the "random-sex-as-real-living" narrative:

"Rape culture" is a hysterical female reaction to a sexually exploitive environment. Sexual hostility comes not from "men" per se, but a violation of the sacred by a lascivious mass media culture.

A "feminist" today is yesterday's lost woman in a different corset."Sex positivity" is an adaptation to sexual trauma, which both perscribes and welcomes sexually predatory behavior.

"Consent" is a euphemism for alienation from a truly unwanted act, enabling the person to act without registering shame.

A "safe word" is reserved for when a soul's threshold goes past its limit for corruption, as if the whole exercise is a perverse way for an individual estranged from their soul to reach it. A soul's crying out for life is diminished to a sordid "safe word".

These euphemisms collectively form a coping architecture that enables "performers" to live in a sickness unto death. The porn industry is consumed by "consent" because "consent" is the closed door that ensures no gusts of wind blow over their house of cards.

How sad that this common creep was ever percieved as a "darling," a "boy next door," and "sensative" at all. Such men promote "sex positivity" as a craven way of "protecting" women—not from violation, but from the shame that follows, so that they will continue their path to perdition. As more then a few feminist women have noted, wheedling "feminist men" exploit bleeding heart solidarity to gain access to emotionally compromised women (often unsuccesfully). Feminists would never admit it, but these "feminist" men are vastly more predatory than the "alpha men" they rail against.

The progressive, sex positive Camelot is, without Kali Yuga goggles, a ruin sliding downwards inexorably, vaudville on a lake of fire. The fallout over rape claims from spatting ex-lovers in the pornography industry, the women screeching in the streets in fishnets for the right to be sluts, are the piteous "heights" of sex unleashed by the deeply civilizationally naive. The fallen woman was not a Victorian contrivance. The illusion is cracked. Mere "sexual" anarchy is loosed.