Jan 15, 2016

Haley, Jindal, and the Useless White Man: Brown Laughter Growing Louder

via EGI Notes

Faux-conservative, anti-White
governor of S. Carolina,
Nikki Haley
Open borders Haley - who openly mocks the White base and Trump's supporters - as well as Jindal, are South Asians elected to high office in southern states by White conservative Republican voters. Just think abut that for a moment.

Haley and Jindal shouldn't even be living in this country, much less be nationally known political figures, elevated to power by the same Whites for whom they have very obvious disdain.

How many White politicians have been elected to office in India? Hmmm...let's remember when Brimelow tried to immigrate there:
The Indians said, "Are you of Indian heritage?" They mean race. When we said we weren't, they just hung the phone up on us. Apparently, it is technically possible to immigrate to India. Fifty thousand Indians a year come here. It's technically possible to immigrate to India as an American citizen, but it's extraordinarily difficult because there's a lot of hoops you've got to go through.
The brownsters are laughing at you, White man. To them, you are nothing but a contemptuous clown, a fool, their court jester. What are you going to do about it, White man? Nothing, as usual, nothing.
What? White man, you are even afraid to tell pollsters of your tentative support for the affirmative action-loving, Black vote-pursuing, reality TV star Touchback Trump - even that is too much for you. Aren't you embarrassed by yourself, White man? Aren't you tired of being the dancing fool? Aren't you weighted down by the yoke imposed by your Asiatic masters? Or perhaps all that talk about "environmental estrogens" must really be true, isn't it, White "man?"

Foreword to “The West and Its Enemies”

via The Occidental Observer

Dr. Kevin MacDonald
TOO Editor’s note: The Swedish publisher Logik.SE has published a collection of my essays translated into Swedish. These essays originally appeared in The Occidental Quarterly or The Occidental Observer. The foreword by Daniel Höglund is interesting in its own right because of its discussion of Jewish media influence in Sweden — a truly remarkable phenomenon given the small number of Jews in Sweden. Quite clearly the attitudes of Jewish media owners reflect positive attitudes toward immigration and multiculturalism that are typical of Jews throughout the West. UPDATE: Moreover, the Bonnier group has holdings far beyond Sweden.

From Wikipedia:
In Denmark, operations include magazine publisher Bonnier Publications, which has subsidiaries in Norway, Finland and Sweden; business daily Dagbladet Børsen; and film distributors SF Film and film producers SF Film Production.
Finnish operations include MTV Media Oy, which owns commercial channels MTV3 and Sub, among others; radio channel Radio Nova; book publishers Tammiand WSOY; plus magazines from Bonnier Publications and film productions by FS Film.
In Germany, Bonnier Media Deutschland includes Ullstein Buchverlage, Piper Verlag, Thienemann Verlag and Carlsen Verlag, among others.
In Norway, along with magazines from Bonnier Media and the movie chain SF Kino and film distribution company SF Norge, subsidiaries include book publisherCappelen Damm.
In January 2007 the Bonnier Magazine Group acquired 18 magazines from Time Inc.[8] As a result in the U.S., the Group owns over 40 magazines, includingPopular Science, Saveur, Field & Stream, Outdoor Life and Popular Photography, a range of action sport magazines focused on motorcycling, as well as a number of niche travel and lifestyle titles.[9] Book publisher Weldon Owen is also part of the company.
Bonnier Publishing book publishing operations in the UK include Autumn Publishing, Hot Key Books, Red Lemon Press, Templar Publishing, Piccadilly Press[10] and Weldon Owen (which is separate from the U.S. book publisher); Piccolia in France; and Five Mile Press in Australia.
Bonnier owns business newspapers in Russia, Estonia (Äripäev), Lithuania (Verslo žinios), Poland (Puls Biznesu) and Slovenia (Finance Business Daily), as well as medical journals in Denmark, Norway, Finland, Poland, and Slovenia.
Bonnier is also behind several digital startups, including the tablet publishing platform Mag+ and children’s toy app producer, Toca Boca.
Foreword to The West and Its Enemies

Professor Kevin MacDonald is well known for his research on evolutionary psychology and group strategies, and he is the author of several books. The most well known of these have doubtless been A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994), Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998), and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth- Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). The last of these books has been translated into Swedish (Kritikkulturen), as has MacDonald’s monograph Understanding Jewish Influence (Att förstå det judiska inflytandet). Both books have been much appreciated and I am very glad to have been involved in the work to publish a third book in Swedish by Kevin MacDonald. Several of the chapters in this book have been published earlier on different webpages, but unfortunately, these webpages are they are no longer active. Over the years I have tried to contribute to these pages and fortunately I have access to archives with important translations and other published material. This book is the first result of an ongoing work with categorizing and identifying the most important articles in these archives.

The West and it’s Enemies is a collection of essays that is divided into two parts with the first part dealing with how Westerners are — the psychological and cultural developments that make us unique as a people. Just as the concept of “nation” has an ethnic and biological basis, there is a similar connotation when one speaks of “the West.” However, in common parlance, both “nation” and “the West” are decoupled from their ethnic connotations, but even so, the biological basis of nationhood and the West is implicitly understood. Similarly, most people implicitly understand that an African who moves to Sweden will not become Swedish. Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that others, particularly in the current establishment, are actively trying to thwart the understanding of the biological basis of traditional Western nations, as well as pride in our shared history of inventions, progress, explorations and more. They try to reduce Sweden, Europe and the West to purely geographic areas inhabited by rootless consumers. There are several reasons why their hateful propaganda is widespread even though it is not difficult to prove that their worldview is unnatural and false.

To begin with, their opinions dominate the public square. They are stated explicitly and in public, whereas the understanding of our biological uniqueness remains implicit and out of public view. The mainstream media accept this ideology and have the same values. Indeed, the media are doing their best to try to stigmatize and punish those who are outside of their ideological framework. However, it is a fact that we humans are different, that there are biologically and genetically distinct populations, that these populations have developed different cultures and ways of life.

Nevertheless, despite the biological reality of nation, it is not set in stone. The demographic changes in the West are now occurring at a rate unprecedented in history, and we are moving quickly towards a society where the West and White Europeans are no longer synonymous with each other. In order to meet the challenge that the West is facing in the long term, it is extremely important to succeed in spreading a basic understanding about the things that unite us Westerners both historically and ethnically, how this affects our development and civilization, and, not least, how the traits we have evolved can be and are being used against us. This collection of essays provides a good overview of these topics. Another aim is to publish a book that encourages readers, both new and old, to start to read more of MacDonald’s work. We have therefore decided to mix some more academic texts with shorter chapters in order to introduce these important topics for a wider readership.

MacDonald explains in the first part of the book how the Western character evolved, the central role for Christianity and the Catholic Church, and how the nuclear family, monogamy, strong individualism and weak ethnocentrism developed throughout our history. In addition to being interesting, the knowledge about the uniqueness of the West is more important than one first might imagine. MacDonald explains how the moral sense has become universalized in the West as a result of the strong individualism, and how an altruistic punishment followed this which means that our people have a tendency to punish their own if they violate moral rules, even when they know that it will hurt themselves. One result of this tendency for altruistic punishment is that it is extremely dangerous for Whites — more so than for other, less individualistic people — to be convinced that their race has committed acts of historical injustice, that White people have a collective guilt, or that White people have behaved or are behaving immorally. The acceptance of punishing one’s own people, as a response to these alleged immoral acts, is very high among Westerners. This is one of the important explanations for why the collective suicide of the West is accepted, and even applauded by so many Westerners. The uniqueness of the West is in many ways interesting and impressive, but it is also something that can be exploited, which the second part of the book clearly presents (“What Makes Western Culture Unique”; “Ricardo Duchesne’s Intellectual Defense of the West”; “Monogamy and the uniqueness of European Civilization”; “Martin Hewson Reviews Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization”).

The second part of the book begins with two relatively short chapters that show how traditional values and the White family are attacked by leftist academic activists, and how so-called “anti-racist” groups actually are driven by hatred against Whites, a hatred that trumps everything else. (“For Heidi Beirich and the SPLC, hatred of White America trumps environmentalism and everything else”; The Dissolution of the Family among Non-Elite Whites”) The phenomenon is apparent in the entire Western world, and what is even more interesting is why these groups are taken seriously, and how their often imbecilic criticisms are able to generate such a massive impact, an impact that intimidates people into being silent on very important questions.

To give an introduction to how this power over the general conversation could be established, MacDonald goes back in time. The first example that is highlighted in the book is a look at how public opinion and public discussion on Zionism and Jewish subversive groups changed in America during the twentieth century — how the government changed completely from dealing with these groups like any other subversive group. Instead, the tables were turned, and those who warned about them were dismissed as anti-Semites and put under government surveillance (“Enemies of my Enemy”).

But why should it matter if people who are accused of being anti-Semites are stigmatized and monitored? There are obvious reasons for this — mainly that it morally repugnant when people are silenced and stigmatized for discussing important issues. However, the next chapter shows how the power that had been established in the mass media also has implications for science, discussions of science, with implications for the development of the whole society.

The examples that MacDonald refers to in this book when it comes to science deal with more contemporary persons. The examples are of very influential people when it comes to science, people that have argued that there are no biological differences between geographic populations, that there are no human races.

The evolutionary biologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould is one of the most renowned of these activists who have been proven to be fraudulent, pseudo-scientific, as well as ethnically and politically motivated. These facts do not change the reality that the pseudoscience and propaganda of Gould and others are still widespread and frequently cited. Because their agenda coincides with influential opinion-drivers, especially in the media, their false ideas still have massive impact. And it is worth mentioning that the examples given in the book are by no means unique exceptions, but rather some of the most successful of numerous activists in many different areas (“Beyond Boas,” section of Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique).

But again, does it really matter if their ideas have an impact? Does it matter if there are those who believe that White people do not exist as a race, when it is obvious that we do? Simply put, if it is quietly accepted that there is no ethnic or biological basis for a White race, this is the best argument for why the White race cannot and should not be defended. Slogans like “But who is really Swedish anyway?[1] are a result of this work against White interests. To get people to wake up and understand that they have to defend their people, they have to know that our people exist, that we are under attack, how and why we are under attack, and finally, what consequences the attack will have on the West if we are not able to fight it back.

So why? Why the hatred against Whites? What is the driving force behind the “anti-racists” of all kinds? Could there be any more rational explanation for this than that it is a result of an irrational hate? Of course there are several answers to this question, as the enemies of the West are not a homogenous group, either ethnically or ideologically.

The altruistic punishment and pathological altruism, which are rewarded in various ways within the establishment, obviously create an incentive for some people to accept hatred against Whites. Further, there are ideological interests behind the will to break ethnically homogeneous nations, such as the Marxist basic idea of the nationless world citizen.

There are strong economic interests behind seeing benefits with mass immigration. That the immigration results in an ethnic and biological decomposition of the West is of lesser concern for these persons. It is also in the interests of particular ethnic groups to weaken the ethnic homogeneity of the society and to lower the social status of other ethnic groups. There is thus not one interest underlying the destruction of the West, but rather several different interests that are having a disastrous result, and it is not uncommon that many of these different interests also coincide in the same person or group.

Several dominant groups and persons that are in conflict with the West are mentioned in this book, and it does not require much of the reader to realize that many of these groups and individuals also have a common denominator in their Jewish origin. (“The Conservatism of Fools”; “Non-Jewish media owners: Hope for the future”)

Jewish Domination of the Swedish Media

This is also the case in Sweden, where the media constitute a very clear example of the power behind pro-multiculturalism, against Swedish nationalism, and opposition to any idea of Swedish ethnic interests. There are a very strong Jewish media ownership and influence in Sweden, not least in terms of the country’s largest newspapers. Seven Swedish newspapers have a daily circulation of around 100,000 or more copies.[2] Four of these are owned by the Bonnier Group (Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, Dagens Industri), two are owned by Schibsted (Aftonbladet, Svenska Dagbladet), and one by Stampen Media Group (Göteborgsposten).

The Jewish origins of the Bonnier family are fairly well known, and they have a strong Jewish identity. As an example, Jeanette Bonnier explained the importance of Jewish heritage for their media group in an interview in Dagens Nyheter 2014:
Jeanette Bonnier, 80, owns one-tenth of the Bonnier Group. She is one of Sweden’s richest and a strong power who is on the board of Dagens Nyheter, Expressen and the Swedish Film Industry. […]
“And my family has Jewish roots. And so — this I have noticed to my own surprise — there is a group feeling when you are with a group of Jews.
There are cohesion and a group feeling that are … comfortable, I can tell.
And that should be the reason why they have survived, the Jews, that they have had this group feeling. If we stick together we will make it. And you can say the same of this company too.”[3]
Carl-Johan Bonnier, Chairman of Bonnier AB, has also pointed out that Jewish heritage is important for his family. When he was asked, in an interview in Dagens Industri in 2004, if it bothers him that the connection between Bonnier and Judaism is often made, he answered: “No, not all. The Jewish heritage still feels as a base for the family.”[4]

That the Bonnier family influences public opinion through its extensive ownership,[5] was, for example, commented on by, Håkan Karlsson, the Chairman of Swedish Journalists, in Dagens Nyheter in 1997:
The Bonnier family owns a total of three of the country’s four tabloids and five morning newspapers. Bonnier also has interests in TV4. — Thus, Bonniers have crossed a line where they in the end could threaten the free formation of opinion, which in turn is the basis for an open and democratic society, says Håkan Carlsson in a written statement.[6]
Another example is a statement from thirteen independent Swedish book publishers, discussed in the article “Now the Bonnier family have dared to face the criticism about their monopoly.” The article very clearly explained the influence of the Bonnier family:
Every public thought has in one way or another passed through the Bonnier business. It can at least seem so after a day of Dagens Nyheter and Dagens Industri for breakfast, Expressen at the afternoon coffee, TV4 News at night, a movie that Bonnier-owned SF have chosen to distribute, and before bedtime a magazine or maybe any of the approximately 500 books published by Bonnier publishers each year. The Swedes have gradually become accustomed to the Bonnier Group’s increasing dominance in their everyday life. No one raises their eyebrows any longer when Dagens Nyheter Culture collaborates with the Bonnier-owned internet bookstore Adlibris or when Malou [von Sievers, a Swedish journalist] runs a Bonnier Book Club on TV4. […] Now we are informed that the Bonnier publishers also have offered to ‘take responsibility’ for the remaining distributor: Pocketstället. If such a deal should be realized, one publishing group will be in total control of the country’s paperback distribution.[7]
In 2014 Pocketstället AB was driven into bankruptcy and Bonnier’s control over paperback distribution became total.

Stampen Media Group, in addition to its ownership of Göteborgsposten, is also a major owner of local newspapers. The Hjörne family is the largest owner of Stampen, and Peter Hjörne is also the company’s chairman. Peter Hjörne has also a strong Jewish identity, and in an interview in Göteborgsposten in 1999 he stressed his “obvious, long-term commitment to the Jewish cause.”[8]

The last one in this media sector is Schibsted that owns Aftonbladet[9] and Svenska Dagbladet. Mats Svegfors, former Chief Editor for Svenska Dagbladet, in an interview in  Aftonbladet in 2012 stated that “among Schibsted’s largest shareholders are directly and indirectly, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of New York Mellon. It is to these that the management for Schibsted turns when it explains that Svenska Dagbladet should be dismantled.”[10]

Thus, five of the seven largest newspapers are owned entirely by Jews, the biggest owners of the remaining two are foreign banks. Note that not a single one of the biggest daily newspapers in Sweden are owned by Swedes.

Clearly the newspapers intend to influence politicians, politics and the public opinion in any specific direction. For example, the Newspaper Publishers — which is the “association for newspaper companies and other companies in the media business,” which most daily newspapers in Sweden are members of — state that their purpose is to “influence politicians and the public on issues that are crucial for the media industry — and thus our democracy.”[11]

It is a fact that a positive attitude to a multiethnic society, and a negative attitude to Swedish nationalism, go hand in hand for the established mass media in Sweden. That there is also an interest in maintaining this agenda is very clear.

An example of how this agenda is maintained by the owner’s direct involvement was when Expressen‘s Chief Editor Erik Månsson was fired immediately after having allowed the publication of a series of articles that dealt with Swedes’ views on immigration.

Månsson’s Expressen‘s article series “Black on White” started September 6, 1993. He explained the purpose: “For how long can we in Sweden give the impression that we welcome immigrants and refugees? Because we don’t. The Swedish people have a strong opinion about immigration and refugee policy. Those in power have a completely opposite view. It does not make sense. It is an opinion-bomb about to explode. Therefore, we will tell you, starting today. Just as it is. Black on White. Before it explodes.”

The first article dealt with the Swedes’ views on immigration. A survey done by Sifo (Swedish Institute for Opinion Surveys) reported that 63% of the respondents thought that the authorities should try to influence the refugees to return to their home countries. Expressen’s headline that day was “Drive them out! What the Swedish people think about immigrants and refugees,” and Månsson immediately got massive critique. The editor tried to save himself by publishing a headline the following day with the text “Take care of them! What Expressen thinks about immigrants and refugees,” but was fired anyway on September 15.

Månsson was replaced by Olle Wästberg, who was also fired after a conflict with the Bonnier family. In an article after his resignation, Wästberg clearly described Bonnier’s personal power over the editorial board, where Johan Bonnier, for example, could “be on the editorial board, try to get a book by a good friend reviewed, or to complain that the editor is not good enough.”[12]

There is of course much more to write about when it comes to mass media in Sweden. Other media have similar ownership dominance. However, with this short presentation, it should be clear that it is a fact that Jews in Sweden have a very strong influence on public opinion. In relation to their low numbers in Sweden, the influence is extreme.

That so significant a part of the media in Sweden is owned by non-Swedes is startling, and it is obviously disastrous for Swedes that all established media are against nationalism and the ethnic interests of Swedes. It is a fact that needs to be highlighted as well as critically scrutinized to a greater extent than is the case today.

To return to this book, it is worth emphasizing that the groups and persons included in it are not chosen primarily because of their Jewish origin, but rather this is very often found to be the origin for many of the most successful persons that are attacking the West.

But why would it be in the interest of these Jews to try to destroy the West? Why would Jews have an interest in destroying the ethnic basis for the West? I think many of us find it difficult to embrace ideas that comprise “evil” or similar puerile, subjective judgments, and I think that the answer is much simpler than that.

These groups are not driven primarily by malice or similar, although there obviously can be such elements for some persons too, but rather they are driven primarily of one or several versions of self-interest. A convincing hypothesis is that it is part of an ethnic self-defense, and, in some cases, the striving for revenge.

If you believe that your people throughout history have been victims of injustice, persecutions and even attempt to outright extermination, and this belief has been strongly integrated into your ethnic identity — an identity that is extremely important for large percentages of your people, and if ethnically homogenous indigenous populations have been responsible for the persecutions, then it is very understandable that members of the group also have very strong incentives to try to undermine ethnic homogeneity of other nations. Also, some of them want to avenge what they see as historical injustices and defend themselves from the risk of being exposed to them again in the future. Another reason often given is that very motivated and ambitious individuals, who seek personal success and power, who want to become part of the ruling elite, must strive to break the ethnic homogeneity in White countries if they themselves are not part of the homogeneity. In practice they will also do that if they become successful as individuals. But even if it is understandable that the various enemies of the West are acting rationally from their own perspective, it does not make it somehow more acceptable, morally legitimate or desirable for Westerners to accept this. They are still attacking us. They are still our enemies.

It is a fact that our common, objectively understandable interests are in conflict with other groups. Kevin MacDonald has done an outstanding job explaining the situation we are in, how the West was and is being led to its destruction. Only by knowing who we are — our group’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as knowing which groups oppose us and understanding their approaches and objectives — can we work as efficiently as possible for our common interests in a time when the power of other groups has grown devastatingly strong.

It is supremely moral to work for the interests of the West, and utterly immoral to support those who want to harm them. The West is unique, our Western peoples and cultures are unique and important — not only for ourselves but also for global development. Not least of these reasons, it is so important that the information that Professor Kevin MacDonald conveys in this and other books is spread as widely as possible.

Daniel Höglund is a Swedish Molecular Biologist (MSc.) and active nationalist. He is one of the main persons working with the publishing house Logik Förlag (Logic Publishing) with the aim to ”increase the availability of books with focus on Western history, culture, philosophy and politics.


[1] A very common question raised by leftist activists in e.g. media in Sweden, that tries to impose that there is no such thing as human races and that it is impossible to distinguish Europeans genetically.
[2] Tidningsutgivarna, Svenska mediehus 2014/15 – Fakta om marknad och medier, (http://www.dagspress.se/images/stories/Svenska_Mediehus_2014_2015.pdf)
[3] DN, 2014-12-19. (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/jeanette-bonnier-slakten-far-inte-arva-mina-andelar/)
[4] TU, 2009-02-09, Om TU. (http://www.dagspress.se/om-oss/om-tu)
[5] See the Bonnier webpage for an overview of some of their ownership. (http://www.bonnier.com/sv/foretag-varumarken/)
[6] DN, 1997-08-23.
[7] DN, 2010-03-11. (http://www.dn.se/debatt/nu-maste-bonnier-vaga-mota-kritiken-om-monopol/).
[8] GP, 1999-12-12.
[9] The ownership was earlier split with the workers organization, LO, but in 2009 LO sold their 41 % shares of the company to Schibsted. Arbetet, 2009-06-15. (http://arbetet.se/2009/06/15/lo-behaller-9-procent-av-aftonbladet/).
[10] Aftonbladet, 2012-10-02. (http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article15537703.ab).
[11] TU.se (http://www.tu.se/om-tu).
[12] DN, 1995-02-23. (http://www.dn.se/arkiv/kultur/stungen-av-en-bonnier-olle-wastberg-om-den-langa-kampanjen).

Neocon 2.0: Ben Shapiro’s War on Iran

via TradYouth

Faux-Conservative and Jewish
hawk, Ben Shapiro
I do my best to be clever, but sometimes things are simple. Ben Shapiro of Breitbart is Jewish. He does indeed write plenty of quality populist fodder, but he is a Jew. His goal is to tag along with whatever’s going on and tie it all back to his ethnic agenda. His goal is to agree with us about the refugee and immigration stuff, heartily confirm that Barack Obama hates White people, signal favorably toward a lot of dissident right stuff, then redirect it all to the Zionist project.

His latest, “5 Lies the Obama Administration Told to Defend Iran’s Humiliating Seizure of Navy Sailors,” is a paint by the numbers attempt to turn a minor diplomatic non-event between the United States Navy and Iran into World War 3. The Jews really really really want you and your extended family to die in the desert for Israel. They want to contort every routine diplomatic encounter with Iran into a farce of escalating threats.
Barack Obama has a history of humiliating photo-ops associated with his full-blown Radical Islam Denial Syndrome
I also suffer from RIDS, apparently. I’m under the impression that Iran is actually the world’s foremost nemesis of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and pals. NAMALT (Not All Muslims Are Like That). Neocon Jews are desperate to translate our very valid frustration with Islamic radicals and Islamic immigration to the West into a disastrous attack on the very Muslims who aren’t acting like that. It’s a perpetual motion device where we’re aggravated by Islamic migrants in the West, so we attack them in their homelands, so more flee to the West, so we get more aggravated.
the burning consulate in Benghazi juxtaposed with Obama partying it up in Vegas with Beyonce
According to the neocohen narrative, the problem in Libya was that Hillary and Obama kind of sort of bungled the job. If truth, justice, or the lives of children don’t compel you to think twice about serving the Jewish agenda, take note. If you don’t manage to serve their agenda with surgical precision, they’ll stab you in the back for your trouble.
the dead bodies of ISIS-slain Parisians juxtaposed with Obama telling the world that ISIS could be fought with a climate change summit;
Iran has nothing to do with the Paris attacks, and climate change has nothing to do with anything, either. Shapiro’s just pounding on the Fox News triggers like a toddler on a keyboard. Climate Change! Benghazi! Hillary’s email inbox! Oh vey!
As Obama prepared for his last State of the Union address – an event he pitched with hijinks and mugging for the cameras – the Iranian Revolutionary Guard arrested 10 American sailors and seized two Navy boats. Obama never mentioned it in his State of the Union address; the day after the address, Iran returned the sailors, unharmed.
But the message was clear to those who were watching: Obama had been castrated on the world stage by Iran, a country he once termed “tiny compared to the Soviet Union.”
I was watching, and that’s not the clear message I received. The servicemen had drifted into sovereign Iranian waters. Iran went through the motions that sovereign nations do when foreign military forces lapse into their territory. The only coherent response is to thank Allah that the Iranians were more merciful than our Turkish allies were with the Russian fighter jet. Had the sailors drifted into Israeli waters, they could well have suffered the fate of the crew of the USS Liberty, who were brutally slaughtered.

Now there’s a real example of American diplomatic cowardice in action.
Meanwhile, Obama bragged to Americans about his “smarter approach” to world affairs, including an Iranian deal that will grant the mullahs the bomb in ten years, and hundreds of billions of dollars now.
The Iranians are in a race against time to hurry up and develop a defensive nuclear arsenal before Shapiro manages to trick us into kicking off World War 3 against Iran. And we’re not giving Iran “hundreds of billions of dollars,” we’re de-escalating our military campaign of financial and trade harassment. Everything Shapiro’s saying here is the same old Israel Lobby chicken hawk warmonger lies and distortions, served up in a zesty new populist civic nationalist bottle.

If he wants a war on Iran, he can exercise his right of return, join his nation’s military, and fight Iran. It’s not our fight.

The "Colocaust"

via Aryanism

Remember the supposed ‘Holocaust’? Remember how Jews, in the aftermath of WWII, got most people believing that it actually happened? It was easy: all they had to do was call themselves ‘Holocaust survivors’ and tell horror stories of what they supposedly experienced. It didn’t matter how far-fetched the horror stories were: the sheer number of ‘Holocaust survivors’ telling roughly similar horror stories at the same time was all it took to get most people unquestioningly believing them all. People didn’t demand that the ‘Holocaust survivors’ provide evidence for their horror stories, instead people just took their horror stories at face value solely on account of the number of simultaneous horror storytellers. People didn’t consider that it would have made no strategic sense for the Third Reich to have done what the ‘Holocaust survivors’ accused it of doing (from the fact that it needed all the effort it could spare to fighting WWII and not to manufacturing luxury Jewskin lampshades, to the utter impracticality of gas chambers, ovens, etc. as methods of killing people in large numbers), nor did they consider that Zionism stood to (and in fact ultimately did) benefit immensely from a widespread belief in the ‘Holocaust’, which thus gave Jews a very strong incentive to conspire in a synchronized lie about it. All the basic principles - innocent until proven guilty, evidence weighed against interest – went out of the window as soon as the number of Jews telling ‘Holocaust’ horror stories became large enough.

Fast forward to New Year’s Eve 2015, and a phenomenon that I hereby coin the ‘Colocaust’, by which I refer to the supposed ”mass sex assaults” and supposed ”media coverup” that has been (oxymoronically) all over the news these last few days. At worst people are blaming it on asylum seekers as a whole; at best people are saying that we don’t know who the thousands of assaulters are, and hence should not jump to conclusions.

I agree that we should not jump to conclusions. But by saying we don’t know who the thousands of assaulters are, we would be jumping to the conclusion that there were thousands of assaulters. What we should be ascertaining is whether or not all the ALLEGED assaults – and that is what they should be called by elementary standards of journalism, even though the media are virtually unanimously just calling them “assaults”  - even happened in the first place.

All we are dealing with are lots and lots of “mass sex assault” ALLEGATIONS – and that is all they are – coming in from ‘Colocaust survivors’ all from the same night (not just in Cologne, but also in Hamburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Duesseldorf, etc.) I have seen NO online videos or photos that concretely support such allegations. All the videos and photos that I have been able to find of the night in question show nothing more than people shooting off fireworks. (I have also seen far-right channels re-upload old riot videos from the Arab Spring and other events and falsely claim these as ’Colocaust’ footage, which further convinces me that no actual ‘Colocaust’ videos exist, for if they did the far-right channels would have posted the actual videos.) I am not the only one who has noticed this:

Every single one of these “mass sex assault” ALLEGATIONS by these supposed ’Colocaust survivors’ are being auto-accepted by the media (and then auto-believed by the public) without any demand for evidence, solely because of the raw number of horror stories being told simultaneously (something like 120 complaints in Cologne so far, and I guess a few hundred total in all locations).

To those who so unquestioningly believe that the ‘Colocaust’ was a “planned asylum seeker jihad operation”, I ask the equivalent question that I routinely ask people who believe that the ‘Holocaust’ was a planned Third Reich Final Solution operation: does it make any strategic sense? If you are waiting for your asylum claim to be processed, can you think of a worse way to sabotage your own chances of receiving asylum? Therefore is it even remotely likely that you could be talked into pulling a stunt like this?


To everyone else, I ask the equivalent of the question that I routinely ask people new to ‘Holocaust’ conspiracy theory: who stands to benefit immensely from widespread belief in the ‘Colocaust’? We all know the answer to that one:



So could the far-right pull off a ‘Colocaust’ hoax? PEGIDA, AfD, NPD, and other similar groups have a combined support base in Germany numbering in the hundreds of thousands at least. There are also at least hundreds of thousands of Jews (ie. sayanim) living in Germany. Do you think that, from all these, it would be hard to get a mere few hundred to volunteer as ‘Colocaust survivors’ and go to the police and media with synchronized fictional horror stories? Remember, most of the ‘Colocaust survivors’ have been telling their horror stories anonymously, so there is no way to look for group background patterns (e.g. membership in certain organizations). It would be interesting to see how many of the storytellers chosen for media attention were Jews, for a start.

In short, an asylum seeker has massive disincentive against perpetrating a “mass sex assault”, but the far-right has massive incentive to file false complaints of “mass sex assault” which they know will be blamed on asylum seekers. So when hundreds of such complaints come flooding in, who would you guess are behind most of them? Seriously, if you were an asylum seeker, would you be interested in participating in a “mass sex assault”? But if you were a far-right or Zionist strategist, wouldn’t precisely this ‘Colocaust’ trick be an obvious opportunistic move for the sake of advancing your side’s propaganda objectives?

Next, imagine yourself in the perspective of the police: how would you tell the difference between a real victim reporting an actual crime and a fake complainer alleging a similar fictitous crime?

Furthermore, the “mass sex assault” ALLEGATIONS have come from multiple cities across several countries. Which would be technically easier to achieve? Asylum seekers living in all these different cities (who don’t even know one another) communicating with one another for the purpose of coordinating “mass sex attacks” in all these cities on New Years’ Eve? Or far-right groups in all these cities (who already know one another) communicating with one another for the purpose of concocting a mass lie about what happened on New Years’ Eve? (And again, who has the incentive? Real sex assaulters gain absolutely nothing from synchronizing their sexual assault with other sex assaults in other cities. But the far-right gains much from making the ‘Colocaust’ as spectacular as possible, which synchronicity across many locations provides.)

And here is the kicker. You would think that those who are sceptical towards the ‘Holocaust’ would also be sceptical towards the ‘Colocaust’ based on parallel reasoning. But no. Many of the people who usually talk loudest about the ‘Holocaust’ being 100% fake are the same people who most blindly accept the ‘Colocaust’ as 100% real. When I suggested to one such idiot about the possibility of the ‘Colocaust’ being a far-right or Zionist conspiracy, this idiot assumed that what I meant was far-rightists/Mossad agents disguising themselves to look like “Arabs/North Africans” and then carrying out the “mass sex assault” as a false flag operation. Never did it occur to him that I was conjecturing the far more efficient approach of mass false accusations by ’Colocaust survivors’. This was how completely he auto-trusted the ‘Colocaust survivors’. And – I’m not joking – this was a self-proclaimed “Holohoax expert”. (In contrast, a serious psychological warfare expert like JAM understands trivially the power of false accusations of sexual assault as a weapon, which is why the Monarchist Party would make false accusations of sexual assault punishable by death.)

Am I saying that none of the allegations are true? No, I am not. Probably there were a few genuine cases in there. Similarly, I have never claimed that none of the Third Reich concentration camp guards ever mistreated Jewish inmates. Probably a few did. It goes without saying that I do not defend the actual criminals in either case. But just as it is exceedingly likely that the ‘Holocaust’ was a conspiratorial exaggeration for propaganda objectives, it is as likely that the same applies to the ‘Colocaust’. Immediately after the night in question, but before the ‘Colocaust survivors’ started flooding the police with complaints, Cologne’s police chief was on record as initially saying: “New Years’ Eve celebrations passed peacefully, in a relaxed atmosphere.” (Much like pre-’Holocaust-survivor-complaint’ visitors to Third Reich concentration camps remarked on the nice living conditions they offered the Jewish inmates.) He would not have said this unless he expected those present at the celebrations that night to generally agree with him, in other words this was his sincere impression at the time, which in turn indicates that many of the horror stories are likely to be fiction. Here is another source (my bold) that corroborates the police chief’s initial account and contradicts the zombie movie narrative:
I was at the main station, alone after midnight, as I often am, happy to have had a lovely night watching fireworks at the Rhine. Imagine my surprise, six days later, to discover I had been within 100 metres of a roving gang of rapists without noticing that anything was amiss. … People from home are asking me if I’m frightened. I am more afraid than I was yesterday, but not of being attacked. I will still walk the city centre as I have always done and not think twice about it. It’s other people’s fear that makes me wary.

This would also explain why it took several days before the media started reporting on the ‘Colocaust’; that was the amount of time it took for all the ‘Colocaust survivor’ horror stories to arrive in sufficient volume for anyone to even consider this significant enough to be worth reporting on. There was no “media coverup”, any more than there was ever a “media coverup” about the ‘Holocaust’ prior to the end of WWII – in each case, it wasn’t even a phenomenon until the number of horror stories by its respective supposed ‘survivors’ made it into one.

If you prefer to believe every single one of the ‘Colocaust survivors’, you are entitled to do so. All I am saying is that, in that case, you had better start believing every single one of the ‘Holocuast survivors’ also. No double-standards.

Amazon's Man in the High Castle

via Gornahoor

Gornahoor Editor's Note: Ostensibly a review of some artifacts of popular culture including the Man in the High Castle, the Vikings and Valkyrie, but a few may notice something else . . .

Amazon recently released a dramatic television series, The Man in the High Castle, loosely based on Philip K Dick’s novel of the same name first published in 1962. The premise is based on the counter-factual history that the Axis powers won World War II. The Pacific states are occupied by Japan and the Eastern states by Germany, with a buffer zone around the Rockies.

It’s difficult to understand Amazon’s purpose, since the occupied USA seems more attractive. Was that by accident or design? Or most likely, the writers saw it as less attractive. That Nippon states were less attractive, since the white citizens were pretty much in dhimmitude to the Japanese. Nevertheless, one is struck by the Japanese code of honor and politeness, at least among each other. Moreover, a government official who failed in his duties felt shame to the extent that suicide was preferable. Now in the USA, many politicians are willing to “accept responsibility” for their failures, but that is something quite different from accepting the consequences.

The Eastern sector was populated by normal families, who were well groomed, polite, dined together, interacted with each other rather than electronic devices, valued patriotism and education. Apparently the intact family, in the mind of the Amazon Studio writers, sounds fascist to the modern mind. On the negative side, the right to bear arms was rejected and Bibles forbidden, available only on the black market. In 1962, a well-bred man in the USA would have been shocked that a government would have that power, since he still “clung to his gun and his Bible”. Nowadays the possession of guns and Bibles is considered fascist and the utopian left is working to ban both of them; what was fascist in 1962 is progressive today.

If the elimination of guns and bibles sounds normal to you, perhaps assisted suicide still makes you queasy, at least it was unthinkable in 1962. When the son of the American Nazi officer John Smith starts exhibiting symptoms of a genetic degenerative disease, the father is given a suicide kit to use on the son. Nowadays, it is called “end of life” counseling, and the “right to die” is increasingly accepted. Moreover, the idea of euphemistic post-natal abortions is gaining acceptance. So the idea of a hospital cremating the handicapped and terminally ill, as in the series, is really a foretelling of our own future rather than an imaginary fascist past.

There is even an annoying SJW, Juliana, who is headstrong in taking on a mission she does not understand, oblivious to the collateral damage she is causing. She illustrates the danger of the sex instinct, since her boyfriend, a young nazi secret agent, and even her I Ching casting Japanese boss, all had major crushes on her. Let’s just say some people get hurt, especially the boyfriend’s sister, niece and nephew. The men all compromise their own life missions for her.

So back to the important part of the story, which we will have to fill in, since it was unclear in the series. The man in the high castle is collecting films that depict alternate versions of reality. For example, in one of them, the Allies won the war, in another the secret agent assassinated the boyfriend.

Now we are getting into Philip K Dick territory, even if he himself did not actually use that motif. In Gnosis, Boris Mouravieff compares each person’s life to a film in which he has a leading part. Such as we are, we are passive participants in the film, interacting with persons for unknown reasons. However, the goal is to become the conscious agent – writer and director – of script of one’s own life.

Perhaps that is the real point of the series, rather than as an homage to our “superior” way of life. As Guenon pointed out, “The end of one world is the beginning of another.” Awakening from the common dream leads to the real world, but it must start with a few.


The series includes a failed assassination attempt on Hitler, perhaps mirroring a real attempt in 1944, that Julius Evola, writing in 1952, claimed was little known. Valkyrie is the title of a 2008 film, about the 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler, starring Tom Cruise, so it is perhaps more well-known now. One can easily get the impression from these shows that liberals and progressives were interested in eliminating Hitler. However, in fact, the attempt was engineered by the conservative elements in Germany who did not regard Hitler as conservative or right-wing.

The Vikings

The History Channel has been airing a series about the Vikings at the time they were becoming interested in England and France. The broad outline is historically correct, although certainly not in every detail. There is a lesson in it about a real “clash of civilizations”. A couple of generations after Charlemagne, Europe had become Christianized while the Vikings remained pagans. Although both sides practiced Realpolitik, the Vikings had no regard for just way theory. Whenever they wanted something, they went on a “raid”. Saxon England and Paris, as more advanced, and possibly more effete, civilizations, provided attractive targets for raids.

There may be lessons here for contemporary attempts at multi-culturalism: it does not happen by wishful thinking. Even when a Saxon king allowed a Viking settlement on his land, the problems did not go away. Differences in race, religion, language, and culture are not easily bridged.

The conflict between pagans and Christians is one of the more interesting aspects. Despite their general amorality, there is still something noble about the Vikings. They regard patriarchy as normative, support their community, love and value their children, are indifferent to pain, accept the tragic side of life, and look forward to an afterlife. Ragnar, the Viking leader, tells his son that “happiness does not matter”, i.e., it is neither the purpose of life nor a goal to pursue.

The Nordic gods and stories are a real presence and even temptation. Nevertheless, from an esoteric perspective all that must be left behind. One Viking explains to a Christian monk that his gods are real, they eat, fight, and so on. To him such humanized gods are regarded as a strength. Yet, Boris Mouravieff tells us something different:
Reason attributes to the divine an attitude, a weakness, and even more often, purely human motives… which tended to humanize the divinities. The Good News announced by Jesus reversed this ancient conception, calling for the divinization of the human in man by a second Birth; the gateway to the Kingdom of God.
Some try to idealize the pagan life in its immediacy and closeness to nature. They can’t see past the first birth into the state of nature. The task of the esoterist is quite different: it is not to humanize the gods, but rather to divinize the human.

A final thought: in our time, it is rare to see a movie or TV show with an all white cast and no gay characters. If you are flirting with white nationalism, you can look and then decide if you like that. I suspect not, since there is no gay character to explain to the Vikings how to act more manly.

When We Were Young

Avoid this if you can; I couldn’t. It concerns a culture clash between a boomer and an ambitious millennial. There was a minor point that was of interest, viz., acting either from innocence or experience. The boomer was all high tech, but the millennial went retro. For example, he played board games rather than electronic games, he used an old mechanical typewriter for his scripts, sported a fedora, and owned an extensive music collection on vinyl LPs.

I don’t see that millennials are going retro in droves, although Barnes & Noble is phasing out CDs in favor of LPs. Now in fact I play board and card games rather than electronic games, often wear a fedora, and still have a nice collection of vinyl. But I do it naively, since that was the world in which I was raised. There is not necessarily a conscious choice, but more a matter of habit.

However, the millennial is acting ironically. He makes a conscious decision to reject the contemporary option; it is not a habit, but rather an acquired taste.

We are in an analogous position. The world of our fathers no longer exists, so we can’t absorb that worldview automatically without thinking about it much. Quite the contrary, we are faced with a choice since the worldview of the modern world totally surrounds us. Hence, we can no longer be naïve, but rather we need to know exactly why we adopt one worldview while rejecting its alternatives.

For the innocent man, the will follows the intellect which was formed by family, society, and church. The man of experience needs to consciously create. He is in the situation described by Mouravieff:
By progressively taking his fate into his own hands, man at the same time takes responsibility for all the partners in his film. It has already been said that he must restore the original meaning of his film, then push the development of the latter in such a way that the ‘play’ be properly played out to its intended denouement. The hero, while working on himself, must apply himself to create new circumstances around him,
which will enhance the unfolding of the action towards its originally intended conclusion.

Why We Will Win

via Radix

Guillaume Faye's speech at Become Who We Are (October 31, 2015).

Retrotopia: Learning Lessons

via The Archdruid Report

Author's Note: This is the thirteennth installment of an exploration of some of the possible futures discussed on this blog, using the toolkit of narrative fiction. Our narrator finishes up his trip to a tier one county, and starts to notice ways in which the Lakeland Republic has gone neither forwards nor backwards, but off on an angle all its own.

It must have been midnight, or close to it, when Pappas and I got back to the New Shaker gathering. The shooting went on until four in the afternoon; during a lull in the gunfire, a little after noon, we got into line outside a big olive-green tent in the middle of things, filed in, and left with glasses of beer and sausages and sauerkraut on big fresh-baked rolls. After the last drone was blown out of the air, people milled around while the judges conferred, and then it was time for trophies to be handed out—Maude Duesenberg, who I’d seen shooting earlier, squeaked out another win by a couple of points over a scruffy-looking kid from the mountain country off east. They shook hands, and he grinned; you could tell he was already thinking about getting ready for next year’s shoot. 
From there it turned into a big party, with plenty of food—somebody spent most of the day roasting a couple of pigs, just for starters—and no shortage of alcohol, either. Pappas and I ended up sipping moonshine around a fire with the guys from the 34th Infantry, who were already talking about what kind of stunt they were going to pull the following year. The ‘shine was pure enough that I’m honestly surprised that the whole lot of us weren’t lifted into the treetops by a sudden explosion, just from the vapors. As it was, I was tipsier than I usually let myself get by the time Pappas and I headed back to the jeep, and he was worse off than I was. Did you know a wheelchair can stagger? Trust me, I’ve seen it.
The next morning came too early, announced by the same overenthusiastic rooster as before. I got myself washed and dressed, and stumbled downstairs, to find Pappas looking as though he’d slept the clock around and was ready for anything. “I’m going to have to get the early train back,” he told me, “but Melanie says you want to see first tier up close, so she found someone to show you around Hicksville—a city councilwoman, I think.”
“If she can show me the nearest barber shop first,” I said, “I’d be happy.”
Pappas pulled out a pocket watch, glanced at it. “There’s one on Main Street,” he told me. “If we go now you’ll have time to take care of that before she shows up.”
That sounded like a good idea to me, so we said our goodbyes to the New Shakers and piled into the jeep for the ride back into town. This time there weren’t more than three or four wagons on the road that had been so crowded two days back; I gathered that most of the attendees were either sleeping off the consequences of the previous night or enjoying a leisurely morning. Fields and pastures eventually gave way to the outlying houses of the town, and then to the main street, which was paved—I hadn’t expected that—and lined on both sides with the sort of shops and city buildings you’d expected to see in an Old West history vid.
“City Hall’s there,” Pappas said as the jeep pulled up in front of the promised barber shop. He pointed to a three-story building of what looked like local stone half a block up the street. “Right next to the library. Ask for Ruth Mellencamp. All set? Hey, it was a pleasure.” We shook hands, I hauled my suitcase out of the jeep, and away it went.
I shook my head and went into the barbershop, and found a half dozen guys ahead of me in line. I’d expected that; what I didn’t expect is that four of them were singing. They had books open in their laps—copies of the same songbook, I gathered after a fast glance—and were belting out some song I didn’t know, and doing it in pretty fair harmony. I sat down in the nearest available chair, tucked my suitcase back under the seat, and all of a sudden had to fight down an impulse to laugh. You can run into a phrase hundreds of times and never think about what it actually means; I must have read at least that many references to “barbershop quartets” without realizing that that’s what guys did in barbershops while waiting for a shave, back in the days when there weren’t loudspeakers in the ceiling blaring pop music everywhere and veepads sitting in everyone’s lap to make up for any lack of distraction. In the Lakeland Republic, obviously, those days were back.
I’m pretty sure that if I’d picked up a copy of the songbook from the table in front and joined in, nobody would have blinked, and in fact that’s what happened with two of the next three guys to come into the barber shop. The odd thing was that the songs weren’t the sort of thing I dimly associated with barbershop quartets. I didn’t know most of them, but then I’ve got pretty specific musical tastes—jazz on the one hand, and opera on the other. Still, they were pretty good. One that stuck in my memory had a rock beat, and something in the chorus about a star man waiting in the sky. I made a note in my notebook to look it up once I got back home and could chase down the lyrics on the metanet.
It was a half hour or so later when I left the barbershop, feeling a lot less scruffy, and with another song’s chorus—“Turn and face the strange ch-ch-changes”—ringing in my head. It wasn’t a bad bit of advice for the day I was about to have, for that matter.
There were sidewalks, too, and I walked up the one that led to City Hall, went in, and asked for Ruth Mellencamp. She turned out to be short, plump, gray-haired, and businesslike, the kind of woman that looks like somebody’s slightly batty granny until she starts talking and you realize there’s a mind like a steel trap behind the cozy facade. “Pleased to meet you,” she said, shaking my hand. “Yes, Ms. Berger called down from Toledo two days ago. It’s not often we get visitors from outside here in Hicksville, and I admit I’m curious to see what you’ll think of our little town.”
“So far,” I said, “I know that it has decent train service and you can get an excellent shave here.”
She chuckled. “Well, that’s certainly a good start! Why don’t you stash your suitcase here and we can have a look at the town.”
“I was a little surprised to see paved streets and sidewalks here,” I said as we left the building. “I thought you didn’t have those in a first tier county.”
“They weren’t paid for with tax money,” she said. “About ten years ago, some of the business people in town got together, organized a corporation, got a charter from the legislature for it, and used that to raise money to pave six streets downtown. A lot of people contributed, and not just people who live in town. So the streets got built, a fund was set aside to repair them, and the corporation wound up its affairs and closed down.”
“I imagine you know,” I said, “just how odd that sounds to someone from outside.”
“Of course.” She gestured down the street, and we turned. “The thing is, that’s what corporations were originally:  schemes for public betterment that were chartered by one of the old state governments for a fixed term, and allowed to raise money by stock sales for that reason alone. It wasn’t until clever lawyers twisted the laws out of shape that corporations got turned into imaginary persons with more rights and fewer responsibilities than the rest of us.”
I remembered what Vinny Patzek told me about corporations at the Toledo stock market. “So you went back to the older way of doing things.”
“Exactly. We do that a lot here.”
“I’ve gotten that impression,” I said dryly, and she chuckled again.
Hicksville was a farm town’s farm town, and you could tell. The biggest store in town was a feed-and-seed with big silos out back, next to a rail siding where freight cars could pull up to take on loads of grain, and the next biggest business was a whiskey distillery—“you won’t find a better bourbon in the Republic,” Mellencamp told me—which also had its own rail siding, and a loading dock stacked with cases of bottles ready to ship. Thinking about the tier system when I was in Toledo, I’d conjured up a picture of log cabins, dirt roads, and the kind of squalor you get in the poorer rural districts of the Atlantic Republic these days, but that’s not what I saw all around me in Hicksville. What I saw instead was a bustling, tolerably prosperous community that somehow got by without the technologies everyone outside took for granted.
We stopped in front of another big building of local stone, with HICKSVILLE SCHOOL carved over the door. “I don’t know whether you’re interested at all in our education system,” Mellencamp said.
“Actually, I am,” I told her. “Ours has problems; maybe I can pick up some useful ideas.” It was half a joke and half the understatement of the year—the public schools all over the Atlantic Republic are a disaster area, and the private schools charge more and more each year for an education that isn’t all that much better.
She beamed. “Maybe you can. We’re very proud of our school here.”
We went inside. I probably shouldn’t have been surprised that there were no armed guards in flak jackets standing in the halls—I’d seen none of those elsewhere in the Republic—but it still rattled me. The place was clean and pleasant, without the prison look schools have back home. We went to the office, a little cubbyhole in front with a desk for the secretary and a bunch of filing cabinets, and Ellencamp introduced me; the secretary had me sign in, said something pleasant, and away we went.
“People come here all the time,” Mellencamp explained. “People moving to the area who want to check out our schools, parents and grandparents who have free time and want to volunteer, that sort of thing. It’s very much part of the community.”
There were eight classrooms, one for each of the eight grades taught there. We slipped into the back of the second grade classroom, nodded a greeting to the teacher, and sat in wooden chairs up against the back wall. The room was about as plain as could be, a simple square space with a blackboard and a teacher’s chair and desk up in front, a round clock over the door, four big windows letting in light on the left, a teacher’s desk and chair up front, and rows of seats for the students, each with its little half-desk curving forward from one arm. The teacher was maybe thirty, brown-skinned, with her hair in a flurry of braids tied back loosely behind her neck. A blonde girl of sixteen or so was standing next to the desk, reading a simple story aloud, and the students were following along in their textbooks.
I leaned over to Mellencamp. “Who’s she?” I whispered, meaning the girl who was reading.
“An apprentice,” she whispered back, and motioned to a boy around the same age, brown-haired and red-cheeked, who was going from student to student, and now and then squatting down and murmuring something or pointing to some bit in the book. “So’s that one.”
I gave her a startled look, but decided not to risk interrupting.
The story wound to an end, and then the teacher started asking questions about it to one student after another—not the kind of simple you’d expect to see in a test back home, either. It sank in after a moment that she was actually asking the kids for their thoughts about this or that part of the story. I put my hand on my chin. It struck me as a very odd way to run a lesson—wasn’t the point of schooling to make sure that everyone in the class came up with the right answer when it was called for? Not in the Lakeland Republic, I gathered.
The reading lesson ended at ten-thirty sharp—it took me a while to remember how to read a clock with hands, but I managed it—and once it was over, the students and both apprentices got up and trooped out the door in a ragged but tolerably well behaved line. Ruth Mellencamp got to her feet once the last of them were gone, gestured for me to follow, and went to the front of the room. “Angie,” she said, “this is Peter Carr, who’s visiting from outside. Mr. Carr, Angela McClintock.”
We shook hands, said the usual polite things. “How long do you have before the next class?” I asked.
The teacher gave me a blank look, then smiled the you-don’t-get-it smile I’d seen too often for my liking already. “They’ll be back in fifteen minutes, after morning recess.” It was my turn to wear a blank look, and her eyebrows went up. “Good heavens, you can’t expect second graders to sit still for an entire school day. Don’t the early grades have recesses where you’re from?”
“We probably should,” I allowed.
“You certainly should. If I kept them in much longer they’d be so restless wouldn’t absorb a thing I taught them. This way, fifteen minutes from now they’ll be ready to sit back down and pay attention to the next set of lessons.”
I nodded. “I was curious about the two young people who were helping you—apprentices?.” She nodded, beaming, and I went on: “They look a little young to have gotten a teaching degree already—will they go to college and get that after their apprenticeship?”
That got me the blank look again, and this time it wasn’t followed by the too-familiar smile. Ruth Mellencamp came to the rescue. “They used to send teachers to college before the war,” she said. “I gather they still do that outside.”
“And I gather you don’t do that here,” I said.
“Good heavens, no,” said the teacher. “Why would we? You don’t need a college degree to teach second graders how to read—just patience and a little bit of practice.”
“But I’m sure you teach them more than reading,” I objected.
“Yes, but the same thing’s true of all the three C’s,” she said.
“That’s what we call the curriculum,” Mellencamp added, seeing the blank look start to appear on my face. “Literacy, numeracy, naturacy—we call those the three C’s.”
I took that in. “So you teach them to read, and then—mathematics?”
“Literacy’s more than just reading,” McClintock said. “It’s the whole set of language skills—reading, grammar, spelling, logical reasoning, composition and speaking, so they can learn whatever interests them, think intelligently about it, and share what they find with other people. Numeracy’s the whole set of number skills—mathematics, sure, but also the trick of putting things in numerical terms and using math in the real world, so probability, statistics, everything you need to keep from being fooled or flummoxed by numbers.”
“Okay,” I said. “And—naturacy? I don’t even know the word.”
“The same principle,” said the teacher. “The whole set of natural science skills: learning how to observe, how to compare your observations to what’s already known or thought to be known, how to come up with hypotheses and figure out ways to test them—and also natural history, what living things you found here, how they interact with us, with their habitats, with other living things.”
“I suppose you don’t teach that in the schools back home,” said Mellencamp.
“There are college classes,” I said.
“Most of these kids will grow up to be farmers,” McClintock told me. “Most of those that don’t will be dealing with farmers and the farm economy here every day of their lives. How on Earth will they know how to do that if they don’t understand soil and weather and how plants grow?”
“Back before the war,” Mellencamp reminded her, “corporate farmers tried to do without that .”
“Yes, and look what happened.” She shook her head. “I’m not sure we’ve learned everything we should have from the mistakes that were made back then, but that’s one I think we got.”
I thought about that on the train that afternoon all the way back to Toledo.

Response to the Response to Obama's State of the Union Address

via Alternative Right

After the vapid rhetoric of President Obama's State of the Union Address and the insipid drivel of the official "response" from the Indian wing of the Republican Party, vlogger RamZPaul offers a few simple ideas from the Alt Right that tower above anything the establishment has to offer.

Why Merkel Is Enabling Muslim Rape Culture in Germany

via Carolyn Yeager

The new protest sign in Germany after the mass
sexual assauts and thefts by asylum-seekers in
Cologne on New Year's Eve. Merkel's Interior
and Justice ministers object to the message
A Rape Culture that has existed in Scandinavia and England for a long time already, has now been invited into Germany. A rape culture is exactly correlated to the arrival of men from African and Middle East Muslim countries in the guise of refugees, migrants, asylum-seekers and so on. The CDU (Merkels ruling party), the SPD (Merkel's coalition-partner party) and the CSU (Merlel's sister party), say that Germany MUST accept all refugees because of some agreement Germany signed with the UN back when the world was a different place than it is now. Interestingly, some other European nations don't feel the need to slavishly follow that so-called UN agreement on refugees. 

The real reason for “multiculturalism” going full-steam ahead in these days is to hold down competing parties to the right. The Right-Wing is the evil to be avoided at all costs—even at the cost of young German women and children. Yes indeed, they are thrown to the wolves, so to speak, sacrificed for the greater good of preventing the emergence of any politics tinged with love of nation and ancestry. Racism is the number one evil to be trounced down. That means German women of all ages must be at the mercy of foreign rapists—that is really what it comes down to.

I want to stress that the only solution coming from Merkel's administrations and all the mainstream parties is: More Surveillance and More Police Powers

This works out just fine for bringing Germany into line with the New World Order lifestyle. Danger everywhere, terrorism everywhere, strict gun ownership laws, the philosophy of equality. The fact that German society never needed all this before the Muslim migration is not mentioned by anyone in government. Because, as is accepted as the new unquestioned reality, 3rd world migration is the future of Germany. It must be dealt with.

So don't believe her promises to reduce the number and to deport hundreds of thousands who don't qualify. So far, only a tiny few have been returned. It is much harder to remove people than to just keep them out to begin with. It will never happen.

The following essays and news reports can tell the story best. I urge you to take a look at each one.

Angela Merkel brings rape culture to Germany  Points out that women politicians are more willing to sacrifice their women to Political Correctness than are men politicians.

Amy Davidson defends Angela Merkel  Followup

Sweden investigates sex assault cover-up  Of 20 complaints, 14 were from girls under age of 15, some as young as 11. No mention of ethnicity of perpetrators in 2015 files.