Jews & Free Speech

Comments to Fred Reed:

* When Jews were on the rise and challenging wasp elite power, they needed all the free speech protections they could find. It was a time ethnic balance of power when wasps, Jews, Catholics, Irish, etc were all powerful. Contentiousness and Jewish and boomer youth push for free speech made US a lively place.

Now that Jews control all the elite institutions and industries, they have no more use for speech freedom. They are for speech control. They don’t want the young to rebel against them as they’d rebelled against the older generation.

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Does The Manosphere Corrupt Men?

Greg Johnson writes: In sum, my concern is that the manosphere teaches young men to emulate anti-social and pathological traits. Women then reinforce these traits with one of the most powerful inducements of all: sex. And, over time, otherwise good men become the kind of men they would never allow around their own sisters and daughters. This is moral corruption. Namely, moral corruption by teaching men to conform to emancipated female desire rather than to correct it.

The manosphere provides the New Right with all the theoretical premises necessary for a patriarchal sexual counter-revolution that reinstitutes traditional and — it turns out — biologically sound norms and institutions to govern sexuality, thereby promoting the individual happiness of men and women and the common good of society and the race in general.

But in practical terms, the manosphere does not promote such a restoration, but instead urges an ethic of “riding the tiger” (or perhaps the cougar), i.e., to personally wallow in — and thus to amplify and advance — the decadence that we are supposed to combat.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off

Holocaust As A Code Word

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Guilt-mongering is a serious business, Steve.

Sometimes I think that, if you were a Mossad agent deliberately trying to draw anti-Semites to comment on your board to record their IP addresses, you’d be doing precisely what you are doing – overwhelming us with posts about how pushy Jews always need to rub everyone’s noses in the notion that they’ve suffered more than anyone else in the history of the world.

(Of course, you never said “Jewish” – “Holocaust” is the code word that draws the Stormfronters to go goyim-hatin’-on-der-Juden as all get-out.)

And there is truth in your argument – it is true that some Jews say, “Oy, we’ve suffered more than anyone else!” … it is true that the Communists killed more people than the Nazis ever did … and it is true that the memorials to the Communists’ victims are dwarfed by the memorials to the Nazis’.

Do Jewish gentile-guilt-mongerers think that all of these Holocaust memorials actually do induce non-German gentiles to feel guilty about the fact that some German gentiles tried to kill all the Jews in Europe back in the 1940s? Or is it yet another way for Da Jooz to tell us that they’re our daddies?

* Double standards:

Compare how many people even recognize the word Holodomor vs Holocaust. Or which one is taught in classrooms, or depicted in Hollywood films.

Or compare how Nazi and communist purges are treated. If anyone called the Night of the Long Knives Hitler’s greatest crime, they would be considered crazy. Yet Stalin’s purge is popularly regarded as the worst of his crimes. Far more people have heard of the purges than have heard of the Holodomor even though the Holodomor killed at least 10x as many people. Stalin’s willingness to persecute other communists is what convinced many on the left that he was evil, meanwhile his killing of the kulaks actively covered up by the New York Times and The Nation. (The truth is, most of the people put on trial during the purges were guilty of enormous crimes. Not the crimes Stain accused them of, to be sure, but others much worse.)

Compare the treatment of Trotsky and Goring.

Leon Trotsky was the second most powerful man in the USSR until Stalin falsely accused him of disloyalty and exiled him. While Trotsky was living in Mexico, left intellectuals (the Dewey Commission) led by John Dewey traveled to his home and spent months going over documents and interviewing witnesses to prove that he was not disloyal to the USSR as Stalin had claimed. At no point did they raise the issue of the actual crimes he had committed, such as the thousands of summary executions he ordered after the Kronstadt rebellion, among others.

Hermann Göring was the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany. In the last days of WW2, Hitler came to believe that Göring was disloyal and had him arrested. Now, imagine if his Nuremberg trial had consisted of nothing more than proving that Hitler’s suspicions were unfounded, that Goring had in fact been a loyal Nazi, and with that cleared up they shook his hand and sent him on his way. Yet that kind of whitewashing is exactly how Trotsky was treated by the Dewey commission.

Here’s another thing: in academia, there’s a longstanding program to scrutinize intellectuals who may have contributed to the intellectual climate of slavery, colonialism, or fascism. Steve has written about this with Francis Galton and his work on eugenics. You will also find anthropologists condemning early practitioners who they claim justified colonialism. Universities will have commissions which investigate every historical tie they may have had with slavery.

But you never see similar systematic scrutiny of those countless academics who helped give communism its veneer of intellectual and moral respectability. Any such inquiry would be called McCarthyism.

The left defends communist sympathies by saying communism at least had “noble ideals”. But where does this appearance of nobility come from? Is communism inherently noble, or is it because left wing intellectuals have spent centuries now idealizing radical egalitarianism at the expense of competing ideals such as loyalty to family, nation, and religion?

The left has never really been forced to confront the crimes of communism. They might vaguely indicate awareness that millions died, but the real significance of how and why that happened has never sunk in. During the 20th century, more people were enslaved and murdered in the name of egalitarianism than in the name of supremacism (racial, religious, or otherwise), How many people realize that?

The Canadian memorial is a small step to making that truth sink in.

* This is really clever of Harper. Canadian schoolchildren will be taken to visit both memorials and they’ll acquire a childhood impression that the communists were every bit as murderous and thuggish as the Nazis. When lefty college professors teach those kids later about how great the leftists were/are, those kids will remember that memorial and give their professors the stink-eye. The great rule of indoctrination is: Get there firstest with the mostest.

Also, the anti-commie memorial will be a great draw of tourist cash. No one wants to visit Ottawa in particular, so what does a country do to get its mitts on extra spending money? Bam, put up a very controversial memorial. If visitors consider it to be politically offensive, they can skip it and still see the Holocaust memorial as a consolation prize. Either way, Ottawa’s going to make money out of this. When you have a small population in a big space the way Canada does, and those citizens want all those nice social services which are becoming more and more expensive to finance, you either raise taxes or squeeze the foreign visitors, and Harper’s chosen the latter.

* Having these two deliberately oversized and brutal monuments to foreign victims of foreign wars being imposed on Canada’s capital are really monuments to something else: post-nationalism. These are monuments to the idea of the country as a giant hotel or industrial park and Prime Minister Harper is just acting as a good little hotel manager giving two groups of guests what they want to make their stay more comfortable.

* I’m building a monument to the Holocaust in my backyard, just to stay on their good side.

* The Holocaust sites aren’t so much memorials, but office space, and meeting facilities, for marketing, outreach, and political/cultural re/education. The Lincoln Memorial is a true memorial. They were not created for the eyes but for the words their dwellers will preach.

The Holocaust sites are like modern art. They are strange shapes and colors and angles that do not inspire visually, but need Clement Greenberg-style high priesthoods of docents to verbally explain and interpret. In fact, the more bizarre and strange they appear, the better, since they will require even more words and teaching and re/education too truly understand.

Read Tom Wolfe’s “The Painted Word”. Except in this case it would be ” the sculptured word” or “the architected word”.

I have often wondered why. Perhaps semitic peoples {both Jews and Arabs/Moslems) are fundamentally uncomfortable with visual inspiration [graven images, golden calves, pictures of Mohammed] and need words instead.

* How about a monument for displaced Palestinians? There are tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians and their descendants living in the Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa areas. It would be a geographically well-suited place to have it at the exact spot where the Holocaust memorial is slated to go.

* The obvious question is, why have a Holocaust monument instead of a “Victims of Nazism” monument?

Isn’t it a bit crass to shape the victimhood narrative so blatantly? Is that really what a monument like this should be about?

* The reason for the lack of nuance and compromise in modern discourse is the dominant religion is an absolutist one. Christianity, for all its faults, had built into it a way to tolerate dissent that did not necessarily lead to murder. Rousseau-ism lacks that feature, because it is Utopian. There’s only one destination and everyone has to be headed in that direction. To be otherwise is to be an obstacle to the tide of history.

The result is a world of stark choices. You either embrace homosexuality or you are a homophobe. You either embrace the latest health care schemes or you want to murder granny. There’s never a middle-ground because that implies that the one true faith may not be 100% correct. In Stalinism, everyone had to pretend that the new plan was always the plan, otherwise, they could end up in Siberia.

When it comes to public discourse, the fact that the major parties largely agree on all the big stuff means they have no choice but to hoot and bellow over the small stuff. Otherwise, how can we tell Red Team from Blue Team?

* I myself would like to see a monument to the explorers, voyageurs and bush pilots who opened up the country for us. That would be far more fitting than these competing narratives of East European history being shouted at us all in jagged slabs of concrete.

* WWII started when Britain declared war on Germany.

Germany did not want war with the British Empire.

Posted in Communism, Holocaust, Jews | Comments Off

What Does Bibi’s Speech Mean To Jews?

For Jews, watching Bibi speak to Congress is like watching your favorite team play in the national championship.

I just flipped through the network channels and none of them are carrying the speech live. I fear that we have lost control.

Ex CIA officer Phil Giraldi writes: “The only thing exceptional about America at the present time is our hubris. We helped create al-Qaeda by attacking the Soviets in Afghanistan. Iraq is a basket case because we invaded it without cause. Syria is in chaos because we have never seriously sought a peaceful solution with Bashar al-Assad. What we have done in Iraq and Syria taken together has produced ISIS. Libya is a toxic mess because we overthrew its government on phony humanitarian grounds. Afghanistan is about to copy Iraq because we have occupied it for thirteen years without a clue how to get out. We started the troubles in Ukraine and with Russia when we broke our promise by expanding NATO and then worked to overthrow an elected government.”

Kevin MacDonald writes in his 2001 Preface to the paperback edition of Culture of Critique: What is perhaps most interesting is the long list of non-Jews who are in the first category—those who support Israel reflexively and without qualification. These include George Will, William Bennett, Andrew Sullivan, Allan Keyes, Brit Hume, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Barone, Ann Coulter, Linda Chavez, and Rush Limbaugh. The fact that reflexive support for Israel is not characteristic of nonJews in other societies with less Jewish influence on the media strongly suggests that unconditional support for Israel is a critical litmus test of acceptability by the major media in the U.S.—that prospective pundits “earn their stripes” by showing their devotion to Israel (and, one might infer, other Jewish issues, such as immigration; none of these pundits is a critic of massive non-European immigration into Western societies, and several are noted for their strong support of this policy). After all, reflexive, uncritical support for anything is rare enough for any issue, and we know that the media in other countries are not so one-sided. So it seems difficult to explain the huge tilt toward Israel as the result of individual attitudes in the absence of some enormous selective factor. And there is the obvious suggestion that while the Jews on this list must be seen as ethnic actors, the non-Jews are certainly making an excellent career move in taking the positions they do. This litmus test for prospective opinion makers is further supported by the fact that Joe Sobran was fired from National Review because he argued that U.S. foreign policy should not be dictated by what’s best for Israel— a position that resulted in Norman Podhoretz labeling him an “anti-Semite” (see Buckley 1992; Podhoretz, 1986).

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off

Let’s Talk About Reproduction

A reader suggests: “If you want to reproduce couldn’t you just buy an egg of some high IQ woman and then pay for a Mexican to be the surrogate mother for it? If you don’t have the money for it you could even put a donate thing on your blog for it. If people like what you say enough I’m sure they would want to help your genes get passed on so that maybe someone would at least have the talent to be able to say similar stuff further on down the line.”

Chaim Amalek: Raising a child above the poverty line in free-market America is a very very expensive proposition. You have to pay for food, medical care, and then, unless you are lucky enough to be living in a non-diverse, mostly white and/or asian area, you have to pay for tuition from preschool through college. Do you have the money for this? What about the family backup nearby? Also, what happens when you get sick – who looks after the kid?

Also, eggs donated from high IQ young white women don’t come cheap. Wombs don’t come cheap, either. You would need tens of thousands of dollars just to have a baby delivered to your doorstep. And then you’d have to figure out a way of paying to raise that kid. Sorry, but I don’t think this is a do-it-yourself project, especially not for you.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

What Does It Mean To Be A Man?

Nietzsche teaches that we should love our fate. Here is a quote from Oswald Spengler:
“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.”

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off

To All The Girls I’ve Loved Before

I’ve dated a lot of girls who went to Harvard, but yeah, none of them wanted to marry me.

Darren Melamed Tell us about all the girls who DID want to marry you.
2 mins · Unlike · 1

Luke Ford They were co-dependent and didn’t have much going on. They had worse credit scores than me. They had divorces and kids.
1 min · Like · 1

Darren Melamed Were they hot?
Just now · Like

Luke Ford At one time, they could have all been strippers.

Darren Melamed In the same club.

Maybe they were all a strippers, and you were drunk, and thought they all really wanted to marry you (or your wallet).
Just now · Like

Luke Ford When I meet a woman who’s worse than me at reading social cues, I know I need to move on (after the good times go).

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

House Of Cards

I’m six episodes into season three of the American adaptation of the British miniseries (based on a novel) and the only excitement so far is in America’s foreign entanglements. Without that intrigue, the show would be dull.

I wonder if this principle applies in real life. I wonder if much of America’s foreign policy is simply a playground for the rich and powerful? I wonder if it is just the greatest game of all? I find it hard to see how America’s extensive foreign policy has been in America’s interests over the past hundred years. Without needless sanctions, without selective engagement and unnecessary favoritism, America could have avoided two world wars, the Cold War and now the war with Islam.

I favor a foreign policy consisting of two pillars — America does not invade other countries and America protects itself from invasion.

Chaim Amalek: “I would add a third pillar: America’s trade policy is whatever works to the benefit of America’s Citizen-Workers and Nation-minded businessmen. (This is what China has.) And a fourth pillar: America offers military assistance to protect nations similar ours to help deter and resist invasion.”

Posted in America | Comments Off

Jews Vs Nazis

When I think about joining a group, I look around and say, do I want to be like them? With Jews, they were high IQ, successful, educated, rich, influential, strong families, passionate, they sucked the marrow out of life, had a rich culture, history and future. I found much to admire. On the other hand, they’re not good at marching, saluting and using chairs as weapons.

White nationalists are strong at discipline, marching, saluting and wearing cool uniforms. They’re good at fighting. They’re not so strong, on average, at making scientific discoveries.

Posted in Jews, Nazi | Comments Off

Israel, Jews & The Right

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Indeed, if Israel didn’t exist, Jews would be even more Liberal and anti-white. It is because of Israel that some Jews have formed a coalition with the American Right that has whored itself out to AIPAC to prove that the Right has been cleansed of ‘antisemitism’ by aiding and abetting Zionists in the total destruction of Palestinians.

If Israel didn’t exist, Jews would feel as a minority elite and would fear white majority even more. They would work harder to weaken it.

One way in which Israel is harmful to the American Rights is it gives Cons the false hope that Jews will eventually come to their side if Cons wave the Israeli flag crazily enough.
But this is like hoping that browns will come to the GOP if GOP leads amnesty. It’s like hoping blacks will vote GOP if cons worship MLK more than Dems do. It’s a fool’s game.

* It would be an immense improvement if some of these Israel-First/Diaspora-Jewry-First whores would just try Israel-First/America-First, like this:

“I love Israel and want to show American solidarity by adopting similar policies of majoritarianism, secure borders, opposition to demographic transformation, etc.”

“I love Israel, and support the idea of a Zionism, and a Zion, for every people on Earth – even the European ones.”

“How can Israel continue to survive as a Jewish state without European peoples with European states?”

* We shared common interests at times with Revolutionary France, the Soviet Union, and Red China, all of which were responsible for millions of deaths and untold human misery.

Surely we can *sometimes* find common grounds with the State of Israel.

Remember, national interests are forever, but alliances are not.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off