Sunday, June 24, 2018

Was a Renowned Literary Theorist Also a Spy? The strange case of Julia Kristeva. By Richard Wolin

"Oh, I tried the Left Bank. At university I used to go with people who walked around with issues of Tel Quel under their arms. I know all that rubbish. You can’t even read it." — Philip Roth, The Counterlife
Illisibilité: During the 1960s, Tel Quel authors wore this epithet, which means "unreadability," as a badge of honor. It was the Age of Structuralism, an era of high intellectual fashion. Left Bank intellectuals who were less enamored of the journal’s supercilious brand of semiotic hermeticism accused the high-powered literati who regularly appeared in Tel Quel’s pages — a list that reads like a Who’s Who of French Theory — of practicing "theoretical terrorism."
A witticism that made the rounds of the Latin Quarter during the 1970s gleefully took aim at structuralism’s lexical pomposity:
Q. What’s the difference between a Mafioso and a structuralist? A. The latter makes you an offer that you can’t understand.
Unlike in France, among North American universities Tel Quel still seems to possess a solid coterie of reverential admirers. Be that as it may, there is no circumventing the fact that things ended rather poorly for the Tel Quel brain trust, as led by the prodigiously gifted, punctuation-averse, Philippe Sollers. (From 1974 to 1981, every issue of Tel Quel began with an excerpt from Sollers’s unpunctuated work-in-progress, Paradis. Sollers explained that his omission of punctuation was a form of rebellion against the "tyranny of metaphysics": "Punctuation is metaphysics itself and incarnate, including the blank spaces and scansions.") By the late-1970s, Tel Quel’s advocacy of far-left political causes, from Stalinism to Maoism, had become such an embarrassment that Sollers, along with his wife and co-editor, Julia Kristeva, elected to scrap the entire enterprise. In 1982, Tel Quel abruptly ceased to appear. The same year, with a few editorial tweaks, it was rebaptized as L’Infini. 

Read More:

Alfred Hitchcock's VERTIGO by David Thomson

In 2012, five years before the wave of accusations against predatory men in the movie business, the film critics of the world – as chosen by the magazine Sight & Sound – voted to give the accolade of ‘best picture ever made’ to a piercing dream of male supremacy and female servitude carried to the point of murder. It was Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo, and plainly the critics did not vote in pre-emptive defiance of last year’s outbreak of dismay at the way men have run movies at the expense of women. Nevertheless, as Vertigo has its sixtieth anniversary, it is worth re-examining the tormented meanings in the picture.

I was one of the critics who voted in 2012. I didn’t choose Vertigo, but since its release in 1958, I have never doubted the film’s fascination or its ruined mood. It always seemed to be a story told by a man struggling with his own authority. Vertigo is the work of a master in love with mastery yet confounded by its consequences. You could say it is a detective story, with a mystery that has to be cleared up, an example of Hitchcockian suspense. But that is inadequate as a tribute. This is a film about film itself, about the reasons we want to see and believe, and then it becomes an admission that the quest might be disastrous.

So it only seems to be a story about Scottie, or John Ferguson (‘Scottie’ is a curious name, like that of a small dog). Scottie is a police detective until, unmanned by vertigo, he allows a fellow cop to fall to his death in the course of a rooftop chase in San Francisco. Did the police force not know about his condition? Or was this the sudden manifestation of some deeper disability in Scottie? Had he known about it himself? He retires from the force but lives on in San Francisco in what may be masochism or self-loathing. As Hitchcock depicts it, San Francisco is a steep, perilous place – and a character in the film. If the city is not the best place for him, does Scottie’s vertigo speak to a deeper uneasiness?

Scottie is played by James Stewart (which would usually be comforting). He was fifty when the film was made. A man of that age should be mature, but Scottie is unresolved. He went to nearby Stanford, he showed promise of bigger things, but now he’s a pensioned-off cop, with cracks in his life. He tests his head for heights by standing on a footstool: ‘I look up, I look down …’ But he cannot manage even three steps. He swoons, and falls, and is rescued by Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes), a sympathetic pal from his past, a wistful wife-figure. She is attractive and she designs brassières; we can’t miss her coded readiness any more than we can ignore the risks posed by San Francisco. There is what seems like small talk between them, though nothing is casual in Hitchcock. We learn they might have been closer at one time, but that something intervened. Scottie claims that was her doing, but a hidden glance from Midge – a wonderful, bitter close-up – tells us that is not the truth. Something in Scottie was afraid to commit. So Midge is a vital corrective in this story: try thinking of the film without her and her sense of affection.

Read More:

Saturday, June 23, 2018

NEW COLUMN: Trump Valiantly Tried to Save America

An excerpt:

By now most Americans, for or against, get the idea. All an individual or family need do to live in America, and off the avails of the American taxpayer, is to arrive at an approved port of entry and “lodge a legal claim to stay.”
That’s it.
The same understanding animates an entire, parasitical industry that has arisen to coach the claimants in their claims-making.
The refugee and illegal-migrant racket sprung-up on the backs of the American people is Third World cronyism at its best. “The Trump administration plans to pay a Texas nonprofit nearly half a billion dollars, this year, to care for immigrant children who were detained crossing the U.S. border illegally, reports Bloomberg.”
Did you vote for that?
Brazen border-crossers “rarely hide from border agents,” for they know the rules of the game are that there aren’t any rules. Not for them, not for the lawless.
The law-abiding pay.
The profits from the immigration industry, material and political, are privatized; the costs are socialized.
It has taken a president, in the person of Donald J. Trump, and his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to expose for all to see a shameful, likely irreversible, fact: American birthright has been frittered away for a mess of pottage.
In exchange for throwing America open to The World, Americans get crime, poverty, unemployment, depressed wages; environmental despoliation; overburdened public services, and zero comity and harmony across their communities.
Or, more like hate. For to oppose this transformative political give-away is to be branded a hater and be hounded, at home, by a Fifth Column of values-enforcers.

Read More:

Sarah Sanders Refused Service at Restaurant Because of Trump

Why is it an issue for someone to refuse service to Negroes but perfectly fine to refuse service over someone’s politics?

Sarah Sanders the White House press secretary was refused service at a restaurant last night because she works for Donald Trump.
This same phenomenon which has been happening to the Alt-Right is now happening to members of the Trump administration. We’ve been banned from being able to use all sorts of services. Social media, payment processors, AirBnB etc.. This is blatant and unfair discrimination.
If there are going to be laws making it illegal to refuse service to someone based on their race, than there sure as hell need to be laws making it illegal to refuse service to someone because of their political views. Same should be said about hiring and firing practices. It’s only fair.
Read More:

Hassan Nasrallah: Israel Strives to Conceal Defeat in Syria, Final War to Liberate Palestine is Coming


[…] Today, Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and Palestine, as Imam Khomeini wanted when he instituted the (International) Day of Al-Quds, became a cause of (Islamic) dogma, a cause of faith, outside the (opportunistic) area of ​​politics and the political bazaar, they became a cause of dogma, faith, humanity, truth, values…
Young Palestinians (in Gaza) go out (demonstrating) with bare hands against live bullets, and in Sanaa (tens of thousands of Yemeni) demonstrated under the bombs, just like in Al-Foua and Kafraya (Syria), the besieged and starving population demonstrated (for this International Day of Al-Quds). And combatants and Resistance are ready to shed their blood on all fronts for this (inevitable) day where Al-Quds and Palestine will be returned to their people, their owners and their (Muslim) community.
Today, this is our generation, these are our people, and this is a point of strength. Today, the power of the Resistance Axis lies firstly and fundamentally in his generations, one generation, a second, a third… Those who count on the fact that these (new) generations… Some refer to them as the generations of the Internet, Facebook, etc. Do not count on the fact that these generations in our Arab and Muslim world will stay silent, collapse, abandon or withdraw from the battle. And it’s the same for countries.
I have two words to say about the countries.
First, Iran. Since the first day of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, it announced a resolute, radical and decisive stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue (“Israel is a cancerous tumor that must be wiped out”), and pays the price of this position. And I want to tell you quite simply that the Islamic Republic of Iran would never have seen any hostility from the United States, Israel and the Gulf if Imam Khomeini had said from the first day: “We, Iran, just overthrew a tyrannical regime, we have poverty in our country, needy, hunger, underdevelopment, unemployment, etc. What do we care about Palestine?” It was not necessary that he recognize Israel, it would have been enough for him to say that he did not care about Palestine, that it was a cause that didn’t concern them at all, and Imam Khomeini and Iran would not have suffered this hostility, this collusion and these huge plots.
But the Islamic Republic, with Imam Khomeini, Imam Khamenei and its noble people, for 39 years, confirmed its resolute, radical and decisive position, of the magnitude of (religious) dogma, at the side of Palestine and the Palestinian people, and its absolute position with regard to Israel and Israel’s existence (illegitimate entity doomed to extinction). And Iran suffers the consequences of that position. It is natural, my brothers and sisters, that all those who oppose Iran find themselves allies of Israel. Excuse me (to emphasize this truth), but it is a natural equation. The hostility to Iran leads to embrace Israel, and it is a service rendered to Israel.
Also today, our Arab and Islamic peoples have the responsibility not to allow the United States, Israel and some of their instruments in the region to turn Iran into an enemy. Israel must remain the enemy, Palestine must remain the cause and Iran must be regarded as the fundamental, powerful, honest and truthful support. And this is what was expressed by His Eminence Imam Khamenei in his last speech, despite all Trump’s intimidation and threats, his withdrawal from the nuclear deal, US sanctions. And the US Secretary of State said Iran will face sanctions unprecedented in history. But these sanctions and threats, have they led to hesitation in the position of His Eminence Imam Sayed the Leader (Khamenei), officials of the regime or the Iranian people? Absolutely not. Today’s demonstrations in the streets of Iran confirm it.
Therefore, in our (Resistance) Axis, we also have a State, a regime and a people… Iran is not only a State and a regime. Behind us in Iran, stand a leader, a plan, a State, a people, religious authorities and a major regional power who support the Resistance, support Al-Quds (Jerusalem), the Palestinian cause and Resistance movements, who persevered for 39 years and are determined to persevere (in this direction), refusing subservience, submission, surrender or abandonment of any of their rights. Therein lies (another) point of strength.
And to all those who, as it happened just a few months ago, are betting on the fall of the Islamic regime in Iran that would cause a substantial disruption of the strategic situation, I tell them that their hopes are illusions, mirages. These people do not follow the Iranian media. I want to give them proof, since yesterday was the last Night of Decree in Iran. If they had taken some time, or if they had asked their media to collect photos of the Night of Decree in Iran yesterday, in Mashhad, Qom, Tehran, in other cities, (they would have seen the fervor) of this people, who fasts during the day, and stays up all night until dawn, for three nights, and reads (for a long time). And listen to me, listen to me, they read the Quran in Arabic, while we Arabs read very little of the Quran. They read (long) invocations for hours in Arabic. We see it on television. They read for hours invocations in Arabic! And the father, mother, children and grandchildren (the whole family, all generations) go (to mosques) for these occasions. Can such a people abandon its religion? Can it abandon its Islam? Can it abandon its Imam? Can it abandon its Islamic regime that it established itself with the blood of hundreds of thousands of martyrs (during the Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war)? In what illusory world do you live? On what mirages do you base your hopes? This Iran, despite all the blockade that has been imposed, has become increasingly powerful, present and active, both inside and in the region. Even if people could manifest here and there (in Iran) because of such excuse or such problem, it was fixed and it will lead to nothing (this is not an uprising against the regime).
I declare to Palestine in the first place, and to all the Resistance movements in the Resistance Axis, and the (different) generations of our (Muslim) community, our Axis: this great regional country (Iran) is powerful, influential (and stands) with resolve and decisiveness (with you).
Second, the upheaval that took place in Iraq in recent years (is another point of strength for the Resistance). In 2016-2017, Iraq was in grave danger, under threat of ISIS, this ISIS created by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi thought. But Iraqis have overcome it, and today in Al-Quds Day 2018, armed demonstrations and military parades are held in Baghdad for the International Day of Al-Quds, organized by those who participated in the victorious struggle against ISIS.
The Iraqi people elect their deputies, and we know the choice of the people. The position of religious authorities in the holy city of Najaf on Al-Quds and Palestine is very old, going back well before 1948, intangible, from Imam Sayed Mohsin al-Hakim, God have mercy on him, up to Imam Al-Sayed Khu’i, God have mercy on him, up to the highly active current authorities, (all denunced Israel as illegitimate and supported Armed Resistance). This is a well-known historical position followed by all (the successive authorities). The political forces in Iraq, the Iraqi people (are also on the same Resistance line). I do not want to attribute an official position to the Iraqi government, but I know well, thanks to my information, my contacts and my meetings, the true position of these people, and I know where they will be when the great battle (against Israel) will be triggered in this region. I will return to this point in conclusion.
This great upheaval in Iraq favors the Resistance Axis and the armed forces of the Resistance. Iraq, which the United States wanted to see busy and submitted, has not been submitted and never will be.

Convicted by his own words: George Soros

Before he kicks off and joins his father the Devil in Hell, George Soros appears to be desperately funding what is certain to be a futile media campaign to clear his name of the Nazi collaboration that he publicly admitted himself on multiple occasions. Even the likes of Joe Rogan have been trying to defend the elderly Luciferian, to no avail, as Alex Jones bitchslaps Rogan for adopting the globalist's false narrative.

The historical fact is that there is no question whatsoever that George Soros genuinely was a Nazi collaborator as a young man. He is a self-admitted Nazi collaborator, who freely volunteered that he found the experience to have been a positive and exhilarating one. Any claim or assertion that he was not a Nazi collaborator is a deliberate falsehood and should be called out immediately. The absurd thing about this historical revisionism is that in addition to all of the existing video evidence, the Hungarian government, which is obviously no friend to Soros, possesses all the relevant records.

Consider the evidence:

Soros: It was actually probably the happiest year of my life, that year of German occupation for me, it's a very positive experience. It's a strange thing because you see incredible suffering around you, and, and in fact you are in considerable danger yourself, but if you're 14 years old and you don't
believe that it can actually touch you, you have a belief in yourself, your belief in your father. It's a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.

Reporter: While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps George Soros accompanied this phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

Voiceover: these are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros his friends and neighbors

Reporter: You're a Hungarian Jew 

Soros: Mm hmm

Reporter: who escaped the Holocaust

Soros: Mm hmm

Reporter: by posing as a Christian.

Soros: Right.

Reporter: and you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camp.

Soros: Right. I was 14 years old and I would say that that's when my character was made.

Reporter: In what way?

Soros: That one should think ahead one should to understand, and, and anticipate events, and one, one is threatened, it was a tremendous threat of evil, I mean, it was a very personal experience of evil.

Reporter: My understanding is is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted guy, so- 

Soros: Yes, yes.

Reporter: And helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Soros: That's right, yes.

Reporter: I mean that's that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many many years. Was it difficult?

Soros: Not at all, not at all. It may be as a child you don't, you don't see the connection, but it was, it created no, no problem at all.

Reporter: No feeling of guilt? I know, for example, that I'm Jewish, and here I am watching these people go... I could just as easily be there... I should be there... none of that?

I note that by the standards of Soros's own tribe, 14 is not a child. According to Jewish law, when Jewish boys become 13 years old, they become accountable for their actions. It is entirely correct to hold Soros accountable for his, particularly when he is actively attempting to subvert entire nations and systems of government.

UPDATE: Apparently Soros has changed his mind about being indifferent to his reputation now that he is on the verge of facing the judgment of history without any ability to bribe or manipulate anyone. 

Read More:

Fake News-a-PALOOZA! Red Cross fact checks journos reporting Trump banned them from border facilities

The American Red Cross is helping out with the border situation, and tweeted about it a couple days ago:

Read More:

Is the Free Market Destroying the West? feat. JF Gariepy | America First...

The show begins at 12:30

TIME Magazine Twisted Logic: Viral Cover Image of Crying Honduran Little...

Twitter Bans Roger Stone for Cursing CNN, Lets Fonda Talk About Raping Kids

It has become blatantly obvious over the past few years that large social media platforms are run by liberals with an overt bias against conservatives that is displayed through subversive acts of censorship — like deleting, suspending or “shadow-banning” certain accounts — in a bid to silence voices that dissent from the liberal narratives.
As a byproduct of that liberal bias, centrist and conservative voices have been silenced or kicked off the platforms for saying controversial things while liberal voices are at best ignored — at worst openly cheered — and allowed to remain after saying even more despicable things.
For example, look at how long-time Donald Trump friend and confidant Roger Stone had his Twitter account permanently suspended in October 2017 after he let loose an expletive-laden rant in a series of tweets aimed at CNN anchors and personalities, according to Vanity Fair.
That suspension was supposedly part of Twitter’s broad crackdown against online harassment and hatefulness.
Consider the recent tweet-storm of vile threats — since deleted — involving kidnapping, pedophilia and rape aimed at Trump’s family, other government officials and immigration enforcement agents by leftist Hollywood actor Peter Fonda.
Read More:

Friday, June 22, 2018

Response to Patrick Buchanan's Column: "Has the West the Will to Survive?"

Pat Buchanan: 

The English settlers brought in 600,000 slaves, ethnically cleansed the Indians… Andrew Jackson drove the Spanish out of Florida, sent the Cherokee packing on the Trail of Tears, and told a dissenting Chief Justice John Marshall where he could go. Sam Houston tore Texas away from Mexico. “Jimmy” Polk took the Southwest and California in a war Ulysses Grant called “the most unjust ever fought.” When the South declared independence, Lincoln sent a million-man army to march them back in a war that cost 600,000 lives. William McKinley sent armies and warships to seize Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. The indigenous peoples were not consulted. “God told me to take the Philippines,” said McKinley.

Two things.

US empire made good sense when whites were spreading out through areas sparsely populated with savages like in North America and Australia. It’s like Russian expansion into Siberia(and even Alaska) was doable because only Eskimo-like people stood in their way. Also, even SW territories then 'governed' by Mexico had very low population density when US took them over. Mexicans, lacking initiative and spirit, had done little to settle or develop those areas just like Russia had done precious little to develop Alaska.

US empire went wrong when it began to take over places like Cuba and Philippines. There were enough people in those areas to put up resistance and eventually they did, leading to bloody confrontations and rebellions.

As for current Americans lacking the gall and grits to use violence to defend their interests, could it be that Americans have grown too soft and pampered? Too guilt-ridden?

No, upon closer scrutiny, Americans are as ‘heartless’ and/or ‘cruel’ as they were in the past. Consider. Most Americans didn’t bat an eye about 100,000s of Iraqi women and children killed by US sanctions during the Clinton years.
Most Americans weren’t bothered by all those Iraqis killed following the invasion. Americans cared far more about fake 'victims' of Katrina than for the 100,000s of lives destroyed following the US invasion.
Most Americans didn’t care about Obama’s destruction of Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Neither most 'conservatives' nor 'liberals' raised any real objection to the awful theater of neo-imperialism.
Tons of libby dib progs who are supposedly so guilt-ridden and dovish have been for New Cold War with Russia over nonsense like ‘gay marriage’ and Russia Hacking hysteria. Most Americans don't care that Jewish-Americans raped the Russian economy in the 1990s and destroyed millions of lives.
And most Americans are not bothered by US support of Israeli violence against Palestinians.

Read More:

The Entire Western World Lives In Cognitive Dissonance by Paul Craig Roberts

The Entire Western World Lives In Cognitive Dissonance
Paul Craig Roberts
In this column I am going to use three of the current top news stories to illustrate the disconnect that is everywhere in the Western mind.
Let us begin with the family separation issue. The separation of children from immigrant/refugee/asylum parents has caused such public outcry that President Trump has backed off his policy and signed an executive order terminating family separation.
The horror of children locked up in warehouses operated by private businesses making a profit off of US taxpayers, while parents are prosecuted for illegal entry, woke even self-satisfied “exceptional and indispensable” Americans out of their stupor. It is a mystery that the Trump regime chose to discredit its border enforcement policy by separating families. Perhaps the policy was intended to deter illegal immigration by sending the message that if you come to America your children will be taken from you.
The question is: How is it that Americans can see and reject the inhumane border control policy and not see the inhumanity of family destruction that has been the over-riding result of Washington’s destruction in whole or part of seven or eight countries in the 21st century?
Millions of people have been separated from families by death inflicted by Washington, and for almost two decades protests have been almost nonexistent. No public outcry stopped George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump from clear and indisputable illegal acts defined in international law established by the US itself as war crimes against the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. We can add to this an eighth example: The military attacks by the US armed and supported neo-Nazi puppet state of Ukraine against the breakaway Russian provinces.
The massive deaths, destruction of towns, cities, infrastructure, the maiming, physical and mental, the dislocation that has sent millions of refugees fleeing Washington’s wars to overrun Europe, where governments consist of a collection of idiot stooges who supported Washington’s massive war crimes in the Middle East and North Africa, produced no outcry comparable to Trump’s immigration policy.
How can it be that Americans can see inhumanity in the separation of families in immigration enforcement but not in the massive war crimes committed against peoples in eight countries? Are we experiencing a mass psychosis form of cognitive dissonance?
Read More:

Starbucks burned by social-justice appeasement as growth stalls, stock plunges

Coffee giant to shutter 150 stores next year instead of 50

Starbucks may have appeased progressives with its social-justice workshops and open-bathroom policy, but such moves have failed to caffeinate the company’s bottom line.
The coffee giant’s stock took a tumble Wednesday after CEO Kevin Johnsonannounced that Starbucks would close 150 company-owned stores next year instead of the expected 50, with an emphasis on underperforming shops in densely populated urban areas, and lowered growth projections.
Mr. Johnsonacknowledged that the decision to shut down 8,000 U.S. stores on May 29 for anti-bias training, driven by the high-profile arrests of two black men in Philadelphia, played a role in the company’s sluggish second-quarter performance.
Read More:

The Right Side Of History by CHRISTOPHER REUENTHAL

What does right-wing “progress” look like, and why does it seem necessary to put progress in quotes? As a society, we seem to have a shared assumption that progress is what progressives do and we know, of course, that progressives are necessarily left-wing. In fact, it’s probably more accurate to say that the relationship between progress and progressives, and by proxy leftism, is simply tautological, which makes the question of right-wing “progress” seem absurd. Does this mean that what the Right accomplishes is instead regress? Given this framework, shouldn’t we just stop with the politicking, acknowledge that the progressives are by definition right about the future and give them the reigns of our sovereign enterprise?
But there’s a little bit more to this, if only because there hasn’t always been a group of people calling themselves “progressives”, but there has always been a wave of progress roaring through history, claiming victory after victory and leaving in its wake rainbows and safety pins.
This is, of course, Whig history–the natural result of the victors (Whigs), who were the historic precursors to contemporary liberals, writing our history books. But this raises the same question–across all of these historical victories we’re still faced with the left-right dichotomy, one side of which–the Whig side–represents progress, and the other something seemingly lost to time itself.
Progressives today aren’t shy about using phrases like, “I’m on the right side of history,” or, “Reality has a left-wing bias.” Is that really so? It raises a lot of questions, like that it seems apparent that history should be agnostic to “sides,” but I can understand the inclination given that, historically speaking, things sure seem to be trending whigward. The western Right acknowledges a form of this and instead of acting as “regress,” acts as a throttle for progress. If we take this idea seriously, it has an important implication: that both sides of the aisle invariably move in the same direction, but at a different pace. One interpretation of right-wing “progress,” then, might be measured by an ability to effectively control the speed of whiggery at a rate acceptable to the general public. But there are others.
* * *
Here’s another observation of Whiggism: there’s no agreed upon terminal state. We can’t trace modern liberalism’s ideology to an end goal, frankly, because liberals do not strictly follow its movement’s ideological roots. This is becoming much more apparent today as prominent liberals attack the Enlightenment (once hallowed ground for Whigs) on the grounds of racism, or freedom of speech because racists and sexists should not be allowed to say racist and sexist things. This drive for justice, especially with regard to disadvantaged groups, creates an endless political raison d’être: so long as injustice can be found (real or imagined), the Whigs have a public mandate to perform whiggery.
This process is the first hurdle in coming to a terminal state. If my power depends on addressing injustice, then I must continually find and eradicate injustice–regardless of scale or outcomes. It creates blind spots toward absolute accomplishments, where we take for granted our quality of life relative to the rest of the world, and focus instead on the relative minutiae of our own microcosm. More worryingly, this motivation to find injustices is insidious, in that it incentivizes a form of rent-seeking. If you achieve power through the discovery and dismantling of inequalities, then you are necessarily incentivized to invent inequalities to maintain your power. Should you find yourself out of inequalities to equalify, you essentially lose your job and your power and status with it. Those with a taste for power find themselves reluctant to let go.


Adding a “-phobia” suffix to a group’s name creates a new word shielding them from criticism. Those are anti-concepts, empty terminology useful only to delegitimize real concepts. Pointing out a group’s flaws supposedly becomes wrongthink after labeling criticism a phobia, case closed, QED.
The first such usage is “xenophobia”, from the 19th century. (It’s natural to be wary of the unfamiliar, which could be taken to extremes. Still, unconditional acceptance doesn’t make sense either.) New phobia rhetoric is popping up like mushrooms lately, an ongoing trend.

The definition is critical

A phobia is an irrational fear of something. That’s a psychological condition. It’s basically a neurotic or at least illogical reaction.
Thus, arachnophobia is an irrational fear of spiders. Avoiding creepy crawly critters is natural, but it’s a phobia only if the reaction is excessive. Dreading clowns is coulrophobia. There are dozens of recognized phobias, but no central psychological authority approves new definitions. Anyone can call something a phobia. Gyrophobia is an irrational fear of Arab fajitas—I just made it up!
Note well that misusing “phobia” outside of its real meaning is a rhetorical trick. The psychobabble terminology is a framing tactic, labeling traditional beliefs as irrational. (Leftists once merely called their opponents mean and intolerant.) Criticism is not a phobia, nor is dislike, and having an opinion doesn’t make someone neurotic. Phobia rhetoric isn’t a real counterargument; it’s for deflecting criticism and obstructing debate.
If a cross-dressing man demands to be considered a woman, but you don’t buy into his peculiar beliefs, then you’re “transphobic”. If you think gay barebacking parties are health risks and immoral, you’re “homophobic”. If you say 400-pounders should exercise and control their eating lest they kill themselves, you’re “fatphobic”. This rhetoric implies that you’re the dysfunctional one. Nice, huh?
Medicalization of contrary political views is really nothing new. (That’s exactly what Theodor Adorno did when he wrote The Authoritarian Personality.) However, none of the new politicized terminology matches the real definition of phobia.

Gay activist George Weinberg made up this terminology in 1972, the oldest such word since xenophobia. He meant:
[T]he dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals—and in the case of homosexuals themselves, self-loathing.
Lately, the concept has been stretched considerably from that original definition. In particular, merely disagreeing with the gay agenda makes you a “homophobe”.
Are homos scary?
The swishy types couldn’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag. The gym rat types could, but aren’t known for above-average aggression. Homos even can be personable and charismatic, though they’re pretty tedious if their only hobby is being gay.
Homos aren’t threatening, unless you drop the soap in prison. Other than that, homophobes don’t actually fear homos. Some simply think two men banging is disgusting. Others don’t care what homos do in private—if it stays private—but don’t believe it should be encouraged, or that society must accommodate their every demand.

Read More:

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Shattered Society. Liberalism, Right and Left, has made lonely serfs of us all. Does the Red Tory tradition offer a remedy? By PHILLIP BLOND

In February 2009, British philosopher Phillip Blond’s essay “Rise of the Red Tories,” published in London’s Prospect magazine, sparked a transatlantic discussion about the failure of politics, both Left and Right, to address our most pressing social problems. “We are a bipolar nation,” he wrote, “a bureaucratic, centralized state that presides dysfunctionally over an increasingly fragmented, disempowered, and isolated citizenry.”
Each side has had its revolution. Liberals’ cultural coup overthrew traditional mores and installed government as the fount from which all blessings flow. Conservatives swore allegiance to the market, enthroning capitalism as arbiter of ultimate worth. In so doing, both enslaved the individual to forces beyond his reach and leveled the intermediate institutions that once grounded and valued him.
Blond’s call for a new dynamic civic movement based around association has become a book, Red Tory, just released in Britain. He explains, “Red because it caters to the needs of the disadvantaged and believes in economic justice; Tory because it believes in virtue, tradition, and the priority of the good.”
During Blond’s recent American speaking tour, New York Times columnist David Brooks observed that in this country, rising contempt for the political class has taken a more libertarian expression, most recently in the Tea Party movement, but allowed that civic association might be more effective in restoring public trust.
Here we offer a taste of Red Toryism, along with a discussion of whether these ideas could gain traction in the U.S.—or whether they even should.
We live in a society of decreasing circles. More and more of us know fewer and fewer of us. We live alone and eat by ourselves, often with a TV or computer rather than a human being for company. If we do marry, the time an average relationship lasts decreases with each passing year.
In the Anglo-Saxon world, we abandon our old and increasingly care badly for our young. Our grandparents can recall a vivid life in which aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces wove together the social fabric of a stable, mutual society. Nearly half of all children are born out of wedlock. Many grow up without a father, some without any loving parent at all. The young people emerging from this background, denied any real education in public and private virtues, are easily seduced by glamorous dreams that promise consumption they cannot afford. Untouched by ideals of love and fidelity, they operate free of commitment, discipline, and responsibility. These unreformed teenage idioms become adult habits and ruin lives by creating people unable to bond or relate.
For men, especially those at the bottom of the social scale who are increasingly losing out in education and career advancement, an emasculated life at the margins of society awaits. For successful young women, having a degree is fast becoming an indicator of a childless future. No one would choose this outcome nor wish it upon anyone else, not least because it drains the energy from domestic life and compounds the terrifying fate of getting old alone. Everywhere we look, the ties that bind are loosening, and the foundations of a secure and joyful existence are being undermined.

What is the origin of this degradation? Looking back over the past 30 years, we could blame longer working hours that families must put in, a situation itself compounded by the financial necessity that in most households both adults must work, higher levels of personal debt, job insecurity, distrust of institutions, and fear of each other. Our society has become like a ladder whose rungs are growing further and further apart so it is increasingly difficult to ascend. Those at the top have accelerated away from the rest of us by practicing a self-serving and state-sanctioned capitalism that knows no morals and exists only to finance its own excess. Those in the middle are being crushed by bureaucracy and the effort of squaring stagnating wages with higher demands. Those at the bottom are more isolated and despised than ever before.
Read More:

Robert Mueller was the biggest obstacle for Sept. 11 families who wanted to sue Saudi Arabia by Ryan Girdusky

080817 Mueller Financial Disclosure pic
Families of Sept. 11 victims have been on a 17-year-long quest to seek financial retribution from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which they claim funded the terrorist attack that took the lives of their loved ones. Throughout the process, their attempts at uncovering the truth about Saudi Arabia’s role in the deadliest terrorist attack in American history have been impeded by the FBI and its former director, Robert Mueller — now famously the special counsel investigating collusion (or the lack thereof) between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

New York-based lawyer Jim Kreindler, representing the families of the Sept. 11 victims, said in an interview with me that Mueller and his successor, James Comey, engaged in a systematic cover-up of evidence that the Saudi government aided the terrorists who committed the Sept. 11 attacks.

Kreindler and the victims’ families believe there are clear connections between the Saudi government and Sept. 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. Both men met with the employees of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs and received support from Saudi diplomat Fahad al-Thumairy, according to a 28-page report on the Saudi links to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Several people formerly associated with the investigation stated that Saudi Arabia was financially involved with the Sept. 11 attacks, including John Lehman, a Republican member of the 9/11 Commission, and former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time. Graham’s testimony during an appearance on "60 Minutes" was especially damning: "the hijackers received active support and guidance from rich Saudis, Saudi charities, and top members of the Saudi government.”

Stephen K. Moore, the retired FBI agent who led the Sept. 11 probe in Los Angeles, also confirmed in an affidavit back in December 2017 that the Saudis played a significant role.
Despite mounting evidence and testimony from key players in the investigation as well as former politicians, Kreindler told me that he ran into significant roadblocks from the FBI and former directors Mueller and Comey.

“We’ve really been stymied over the last 17 years from getting information from the FBI, State Department, and Department of Defense,” Kreindler said in an interview. “From day one, instead of focusing on the evidence, there was an effort to not look at the Saudis and get their help in launching the Iraq War.”

Kreindler said that retired FBI agents had told him that they also believe Mueller lied in 2002 before the joint congressional inquiry that he was unaware of Saudi government involvement.

Read More:

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

ONLY Patriarchy Builds Nations * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

This Week on the Alt Right - with Richard Spencer

Where Are All the Good Men? by Liv Heide

We have all heard this question before, and some of us white women even ask it ourselves: Where are all the good men? In economic terms, we could consider this a discrepancy between supply and demand in the love market. How did this happen?
Mother Nature gives all her creatures the tools to ensure their survival, and for us that means attraction towards the other sex. Let us assume that nature’s tools are perfect, and look at how our forbears behaved. For thousands of years men were providers and leaders of the household while women were homemakers, which was naturally related to their role as mothers. Did nature intend to make women unhappy until the day they were allowed to sit all day in an office making profits for a corporation and following the orders of a boss who does not love them but treats them as a human resource?
I doubt that. I believe nature wanted women to be happy as mothers and homemakers, which does not exclude having a job. Our female forbears had many jobs besides housework. They were healers, sewers, midwives, gardeners, cooks, traders, potters, singers, musicians, dancers, etc. Yet the center of their lives was the home with a husband and children. Today’s concentration on jobs and the development of the masculine skills needed to join today’s workforce are completely unnatural. They interfere with the main purpose of women: To give life, take care of a home and ensure the continuation of our people.
The masculinization of white women makes them incompetent at relationships and cuts off their desire to have children. This has a disenchanting effect on white men, especially the men these women secretly dream of. Good men are masculine and territorial; they care for the survival of their race and want to restore white societies by building strong families with loving, feminine women who support them. How many truly feminine women have you met recently? They are a rare and precious in the degenerate world in which we live. We need to track them down.
Today, a woman obeying her husband is the most horrific thing feminists can imagine, yet they have to agree that every company has a boss, every ship a captain and that a dancing couple is always led by the man. Everyone accepts hierarchy as an employee, crew member, or dancing partner because we know that otherwise things don’t work.
Bizarrely, I have discovered on social media that even for feminists the good men are the ones that are physically fit, good looking, and have a masculine personality. Even the fattest feminist would not push a Chris Pratt type of guy from the edge of her bed; it is just very unlikely that he would ever be there.
Read More: