Monday, April 30, 2018

AmRen 2018: The Fire Taking Hold by Gregory Hood

The stakes could not have been higher.
The Sixteenth American Renaissance Conference was arguably the most important in the organization’s history. In many ways, it is the best of times and the worst of times. More people than ever are showing interest in our cause, the latest scientific research brings new evidence to support our cause almost every week, and across the West, there is a palpable sense of white people awakening to their identity and destiny. At the same time, our cause also faces unprecedented efforts at repression. Before this conference, masked extremists vowed this would be the “last” American Renaissance, fiercely hostile journalists were sharpening their knives, and powerful technology companies continued to deplatform our content.
In short, this American Renaissance conference needed to succeed.
It did.
Over 250 people gathered at the beautiful inn at Montgomery Bell State Park to hear a diverse and exciting collection of speakers. Though antifa promised to “smash” the conference in the most violent terms, police officers and park rangers clearly learned from the mistakes of Charlottesville. Courteous and professional officers prevented antifa from engaging with attendees and there were no unfortunate confrontations of the sort which occurred last year. Those who remained inside the venue did not even see, let alone hear, the couple dozen protesters. Instead, the police and park rangers, through common sense policies and manpower, allowed both our guests and our opponents to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights in the best traditions of our country.

This conference showed a striking unity of theme throughout the weekend, as speaker after speaker emphasized the need to learn from the mistakes of the past and build on the incredible opportunities of the present. The foundations for a serious, sustainable, and ultimately successful movement were laid this past weekend in the Volunteer State.

In his introductory remarks Friday night, Jared Taylor referred to the “fire taking hold”—the increasing willingness of white people worldwide to finally take their own side and defend their own interests. Fresh from several speaking engagements in Europe, Mr. Taylor chronicled unprecedented progress for our movement globally. He admitted that for the first two decades of his career in white advocacy, he sometimes wondered if he had made a mistake. After all, he said reluctantly, it seemed like nothing was happening. However, the last five years have made it all worthwhile, as more and more high caliber people are awakening to their duty. Both our supporters and our adversaries sense something has been set in motion which cannot be stopped.

On Saturday morning, the conference began with a presentation by Professor Douglas Whitman of Illinois State University explaining the biological reality of race in his lecture “Amazing Racial Differences.” His presentation showcased the incredible diversity of different human populations around the world, showing how different groups evolve different biological characteristics in response to their environment.

Read More:

CrossTalk Bullhorns: Kim winning? (Extended version)

Sunday, April 29, 2018

How Google Works. Shadowbanning.

The precipitous drop in traffic in the last few weeks had to be engineered by weasels at Google who don't don't believe in fair algorithms and search results. It just goes to show what petty punks these Silicon Valley geeks and SJW twerps are. Also, it goes to show they have no sense of honor or fair play. They believe in cheating, rigging, and abusing power. Their real motto is Be Evil.

But then, what do you expect from a company that works closely with Israel to murder Palestinian children and silence Palestinian voices?


Saturday, April 28, 2018

Just Say It is RACE-IST AND TRUE or R&T. Associate Race-ism with Truth.

Even after so much ink has been spilled over how Political Correctness robs us of reason, liberty, integrity, and courage, we still can’t have honest discussions of world problems because the vast majority of people adhere to the PC definition and deployment of the term ‘racist’. The word has such power over us because nearly everyone, from ‘left’ to ‘right’, agree on its dubious meaning. So, even as there are increasing numbers of people who deny that they are ‘racist’ or hurl back the accusation at the other side, almost no one dares to deconstruct the term and examine why it is so powerful.

People fail to understand that the term was devised to suck out all the air in the room so that it can have only one meaning and nullify all other meanings. In other words, ‘racism’ is like a terminological black hole that will not tolerate honest discussion of race. Why would that be? It is because a neutral sounding word has been defined in the most extreme way. Most of you will say that ‘racism’ means racial hatred, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, irrational racial hostility, blind racial animus, or even racial genocide. Now, why is this a problem? Because a neutral-sounding term has been overloaded with strong meanings.
Now, suppose extreme racial views had been associated with a term ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’. Thus, we can agree that some people may have extreme prejudice or extreme hostility based on racial differences. After all, ‘radical’ means purist and fanatical. And ‘extremism’ means an abnormal stress on certain inclinations or tendencies. So, if a term like ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’ carried the burden of ultra-hardline views on race, we can have rational and sensible discussion of the reality of race and racial differences. Indeed, under such rules, the term ‘racism’ or ‘race-ism’ would mean what it should mean. As ‘ism’ means belief or credo, ‘race-ism’ would mean belief in the reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness or awareness.

Now, race-ism could become extreme or radical, but it doesn’t need to be... no more than a religious person must be a fanatical nut like Jim Jones or a socialist must be a radical communist. Likewise, belief in racial reality doesn’t mean one has to be a Nazi or a member of the KKK, Nation-of-Islam, or Jewish Defense League(an outfit created by the Zionist zealot Meir Kahane who was so extreme that even fellow Jews renounced him). Some might go that way, but then, one can become crazy about anything. After all, people love food, but that doesn’t mean they have to become fatty-fatkins. And people like being slim, but that doesn’t mean people who watch their weight are fated to be anorexics.

Read More:

Anti-Racism Is Immoral by Emmanuel Spraguer

What if everything you have been conditioned to believe about truth and morality is simply wrong? It is.
“Racism” is a term with many disparate definitions. Indeed, that imprecision is very useful for addicts of the term. It is like having a nine-headed dog guarding the church of diversity at all times. The term is more of a weapon than a word at this point. It doesn’t construct so much as dismantle. It is essentially always and everywhere an underhanded attempt to end all civil debate and declare victory, by people incapable of reasoning above a very rudimentary level.
As far as I can tell the term refers to what are four largely distinct phenomena: 1) the belief that races differ biologically and that those differences matter; 2) the hatred of members of different races; 3) racial prejudice; and 4) racial discrimination.

The first definition, namely the claim about inequality between groups and the import of that inequality, is nothing more than an idea, a truth claim to be precise. Our Cultural Marxist overlords tell us that to believe it is to be a bad person. But that is not true and indeed can’t really be true. Only imbeciles and totalitarians could believe that merely believing this renders one a bad person. What’s more, claiming someone is a bad person for believing this, is what philosophers the world over call a “category error”. You see, this first definition is simply a truth claim about the world. It is not a moral act and thus is not a candidate for moral judgment. For example, if I told you the sky was green, and you told me I was a bad person for believing that, I would reply that you were clearly very confused about something. Now, I may be mistaken about the sky’s color, but I am not a bad person for being mistaken about the sky’s true color. To claim otherwise is to completely misunderstand the subject matter of the discussion; it is to inject matters of morality into matters of reality. We weren’t acting in ways that subjected us to moral judgment. Indeed, we weren’t even discussing moral issues, or what ought to be. We were only discussing how things are or how things aren’t, out there in the world. People who say things like, “racists are evil because they think the races differ in X or Y”, are stupid people. They are people, by and large, who don’t even comprehend what they’re saying, or how utterly idiotic what they’re saying actually is. This is a simple, unmistakable category error. Truth claims about physical/objective reality are not moral (or immoral) acts. They do not possess the basal qualities of moral acts. Moral acts and even moral claims belong to different conceptual categories.

Read More:


Labour activist Mark Wadsworth: literally Hitler
With important local elections only days away, Britain's Labour Party is being divided and distracted from campaigning by a "civil war" that has broken out within the party.

The civil war, which has seen acrimonious splits in the party, has been caused by a Jewish-led insurrection within the party that is seeking to intimidate critics of Israel, including the Party's leader Jeremy Corbyn, by using false accusations of anti-Semitism.

The insurrection broke out into the open in a parliamentary debate on "anti-Semitism" held on the 17th of April, when one Jewish Labour MP after another rose to play the victim card in emotionally shrill speeches that at times bordered on the hysterical. Naturally they were egged on and supported by Conservative MPs, while the mainstream press later piled on, amplifying the fake charges of anti-Semitism.

The timing of the debate -- shortly before the local elections, in which Labour were expected to make large gains -- seems to have been chosen to maximise the effectiveness of the insurrection and hold the Party hostage. 

By threatening to the derail Labour successes, the Jewish MPs are in strong position to blackmail the Party's leadership to accede to their demands, which essentially amount to demanding a witch hunt against anti-Zionist activists and supporters of Palestinian groups in the Party. 

In the latest twist yesterday (27th April) the Party's leadership tried to pacify the Jewish bloc by throwing them a scapegoat in the person of Labour activist Marc Wadsworth, a soft-spoken mulatto, who was expelled from the party by its National Constitution Committee (NCC) on fake charges of anti-Semitism and bullying of Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth at the launch of a report on antisemitism in the party in 2016.

Read More:

Radfems and Incels: Dueling Pathologies

The tragic van attack carried out by Alek Minassian that left ten dead in Toronto Canada has brought discussion of the "incel" subculture to the international fore.

In case you don't know, incel stands for involuntarily celibate, an online subculture of almost exclusively young men who bemoan their ongoing romantic and sexual failure. Minassian was one of these, as was his idol, Eliot Rodger, who carried out a similar attack that killed six and injured fourteen in 2014.

Then as now, the media narrative surrounding these tragic occurrences has emphasized a sense of entitlement to sex rooted in misogyny of which the incel subculture is but the thin end of the wedge. We are told that this pathology of sexual entitlement permeates all of western culture due to its being patriarchal, heteronormative and so forth.

As always, it's far from that simple, and feminist sermonizing isn't going to help. In fact, it's going to make things worse.

In cases like this, there's really two dueling pathologies to consider.

1 - The pathologies of the incels themselves. These vary, but when it reaches murderous expression, it's safe to say they're pretty extreme. Near as I can tell, the standard narrative of male entitlement to sex rooted in patriarchal misogyny is a gross oversimplification. Yes, that's there, but is far from the whole story. My experience with this, both in incel like people I've known in the past and my own dabbling in such a mindset in my later teen years is that it's driven by resentment over a feeling of having been short changed in overall attractiveness. Incels are obsessed by their own unattractiveness and project this obsession onto a despite for those who are not similarly saddled. As such, it is, at heart, a kind of crab-bucket mentality that is not so different from regressive leftism.

Read More:

The myth of Jordan Peterson's integrity by Vox Day

yclepedbobali observes that Jordan Peterson not only cannot answer my critique in a for summarized by someone else, he is downright afraid of his readers encountering it and exposing his posturing on a subject he refuses to honestly address.

I'm a midwit, at very best. Just synthesising your arguments, with a little embellishment, blew his grand 'arithmetic triumph over the bucko Nazgul' into a million tiny leaves on the Canadian breeze.

He can publicise and flaunt his flawless victory over the lead comment, so 'representative' of the apparent poor intellectual stock of right wing thugs. Just another conspiracy theorist helpless before the isolate and trinity of that 'irrefutable' average IQ of 115, the bell curve tail distribution, and openness to experience and liberalism. But he knows, and he knows we know.

I see why no one debates you. Even a midwit like me becomes something formidable armed with your mental tools and pugilist approach.
Here is my articulated critique of Jordan Peterson's argument. First, I suggest reading Jordan Peterson's actual argument in full: "On the so-called Jewish Question" as well as his subsequent response to a critic who did a reasonable job of showing how Peterson's argument did not hold up given the population demographics. I linked to the archive as well as to his site because I anticipate Peterson will memory-hole it once he realizes how hapless and dishonest it makes him look to an unbiased reader. His argument is summarized as follows:
  1. One requires a victim and a perpetrator in order to play identity politics.
  2. The Far Right has chosen European culture as a victim due to its unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly, and have incorrectly selected the Jews as perpetrator due to Jewish overrepresentation in positions of authority, competence and influence. 
  3. Jewish people are overrepresented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ.
  4. Jews have a mean IQ of 115.
  5. "40.8% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish."
  6. "There is no evidence whatsoever that Ashkenazi Jews are over-represented in any occupations/interests for reasons other than intelligence and the associated effects of intelligence on personality and political belief. Thus, no conspiratorial claims based on ethnic identity need to be given credence."
Peterson's argument is not merely incorrect, literally every single aspect of it is false. It is so resolutely and demonstrably false that it is not possible for Jordan Peterson to have constructed it in innocence by mistake. In my opinion, it clearly represents a purposeful intent to deceive his audience and falsely accuse those he labels "the far right". My responses to those six points.

Read More:

Friday, April 27, 2018

A Lesson In Geopolitics by Charles Lyons

It is important to have an understanding of geopolitics in order to know where identitarians fit in the grand scheme of things.
Geopolitics has become a bit of a buzzword in recent years despite the concept being around for quite some time. With events in places like Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Ukraine it has become important to discuss this topic.  In order to gain a better understanding of the current events, we must first take a history lesson in geopolitics.

Mackinder and the Heartland Theory

Sir Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) is considered one of the founding fathers of geopolitics. Mackinder was an English Geographer most known for his essay, The Geographical Pivot of History (1904) which popularized what came to be known as ‘The Heartland Theory’. Mackinder divided the world into 3 parts: ‘The World-Island’ (Europe, Asia, and Africa), the ‘offshore islands’ (the United Kingdom and Japan), and the ‘outlying islands’ (the Americas and Australia). ‘The Heartland’ lay at the center of the ‘World-Island’ stretching from the Volga to the Yangtze and from the Arctic to the Himalayas. Essentially, ‘the heartland’ constitutes Russia and a few of the Central Asian countries. Later on, in Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919), Mackinder would summarize his ‘heartland theory’ as so:
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.
According to Mackinder, Russia is in the driver’s seat to dominate the planet.
Mackinder’s Heartland

Spykman and the Rimland Theory

Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943) was an important American political scientist who introduced classical realism into American foreign policy and is considered the “godfather of containment” for his geostrategic contributions. Spykman accepts Mackinder’s division of the world into three sections with some exceptions. Spykman expands upon the concept the ‘offshore islands’. He develops what he calls ‘The Rimland’ which is made up of Western Europe, the Middle East, and the ‘Asiatic monsoon’ lands which constitute India, Southeast Asia, China, Korea and Japan. This ‘rimland’ forms a belt wrapping around the entire ‘heartland’. Spykman’s theory of geopolitics differs from Mackinder in that he feels that the ‘rimland’ plays a greater role in determining who dominates the planet.
Read More:

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Hollywood’s malicious propaganda dehumanizes all Russians

Hollywood’s malicious propaganda dehumanizes all Russians

A closer inspection of America’s relentless Russophobic propaganda campaign reveals that it isn’t just the news media spreading hatred of Russia and Russians, but Hollywood as well. 
America’s unrelenting propaganda assault on Russia began by demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin. He is routinely blamed for every evil that occurs under the sun, and according to the establishment media, there is nothing too evil that the Bond super-villain Putin cannot accomplish.

The US likes to personalize its enemy into one caricature so that Americans have an effigy onto which they can project their fear and loathing. A brief glance at recent history shows this to be true as the US used the same playbook with Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong-Il.

Sometimes, when an enemy lacks the requisite charismatically evil leader to fit the propaganda bill, the US will demonize whole peoples, for example the Japanese in World War II. The dehumanizing of the Japanese people, instead of a single leader, is what convinced Americans to accept the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the use of nuclear weapons on Japan to end that war, which is in marked contrast to Americans’ attitudes towards German-Americans.

Read More:

China's "Petro-Yuan" : The END of the Dollar HEGEMONY?

The Syria Narrative Comes Apart - With Guest Sen. Richard Black

Russia not a threat to UK & Brits, but threat to neocon plan for regime ...

Globalistas, Putin, and the Ghost of Mao

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Trade War Between the US and Germany?

 Gustav Horn
The heat has been rising recently in the relationship between the US and Germany. Despite Washington’s regular attempts to bring its allies to heel under the auspices of their cooperation as part of NATO and the fabricated threat of a “common enemy” as represented by Russia, Europe’s largest economy is increasingly irritating its transatlantic partner by strengthening its own positions. The main reason for this is purely economic in nature. After all, in political terms Germany has remained a US protectorate and even an officially occupied country ever since the end of World War II. But in an economic sense, the opposite picture has emerged — the US is now practically a German colony. America’ trade deficit with that country is perilously close to $70 billion a year, taking the honors for second place and trailing behind only the imbalance in US commerce with China. President Donald Trump doesn’t like this situation and wants to change it. But, despite his stated desire to protect the US and US workers by his actions, there is every reason to suspect that his true goals are to harm America’s competitors and undermine Berlin’s positions.

According to the director of the Dusseldorf-based Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK), Gustav Horn, Trump’s line on trade could push Germany into a recession. And there are very real grounds for concern: although the risk of a recession was estimated at 6.8% in March 2018, just one month later that probability has now increased to 32.4%, i.е. the likelihood has almost quintupled! Protectionist statements by the US president have a profound impact on the financial markets and the economy throughout Germany.
Germany’s current period of rapid economic growth has now lasted for five years. That’s a good long run by today’s standards, particularly considering the economic problems in the other countries of Europe. Unemployment in Germany is now at such a low level that corporations and firms often have to decline orders because of their labor shortage. The recent, record-setting tax revenues brought in by Angela Merkel’s government also leap to mind. But the very strength of Germany’s export-oriented economy may also prove to be a weakness. Trump the “protectionist” is very displeased with the countries that have a trade surplus with the US. And Berlin, which he claims is ostensibly sucking the marrow out of the American economy, has been singled out by him for criticism on more than one occasion, along with China and Japan.

Read More:

The great exodus (of Whites) out of America’s blue cities

This is exactly what I predicted in The Balk and updated you on in EthnoState. Whites are moving out of nonWhite areas and voting with their feet in voluntary migrations to New America. The author uses economic reasons as euphemisms for racial ones, as so many libtards do, but we know why people are bugging out, and so do they. 

From The Hill

Am I the only one in my spinning class at Equinox in Manhattan who’s fed up paying $200 every month for a gym with clean showers, $3,000 in rent every month for an apartment without cockroaches and $8 every morning for a cup of coffee? Am I the only one moving through the greater part of New York City boroughs and seeing an inexorable march of urban decay matched with the discomfort of crowding and inexplicable costs? I know I am not.

New York is the most expensive city in America. Its lower-cost neighborhoods are riddled with crime and homelessness. Its public schools, some of which are among the worst in the nation, look more like prisons than places of learning.

With between up to 50 percent of their paycheck going to a combination of federal, local and city taxes, not including other consumer taxes baked into every aspect of their consumer practices, residents don’t even have the comfort of knowing that their tax expenditures are going to the improvement of their lives in the city. New York infamously misuses the hard-earned tax revenues of its citizens in ways that scarcely benefit them.

Read More:

Marxism: A Primer by Bradley J. Birzer

Unlike reality—which is infinitely and ultimately unknowable—Marxism as ideology pretends to understand the world, but, in reality, it offers only the merest shadow of true complexities…

Though responsible—directly and indirectly—for the murder of nearly 150 million innocent children, women, and men in the previous century, Marxism is making a comeback in western civilization. Not only have Che Guevara t-shirts remained in vogue for several decades now, but college-age students in the Americas as well as in Europe are beginning to re-discover that that which has been forgotten by their parents seems new again. Unlike Naziism, which has been properly vilified in all its gaudy horror in the cultural mainstream, Communism was bland and bloody in reality, and little stigma has attached itself to it, despite its utter failures and atrocities.

To be sure, there’s no immediate threat of new communist revolutions anytime soon—despite what Blade Runner 2049 might claim in the backgrounds of its noir landscapes. Whatever tyrannies arise for the foreseeable future will have much more in common with populism, nationalism, ethnicity, and out-and-out racism than they will with Marxian class struggles. James Burnham and George Orwell understood best that fascism, communism, and crony capitalism will be the major managerial forms of present and emerging political states that really matter.

Still, there is a growing interest in Marxian theory, and, thus, there’s a need for those of us who despise all ideologies to remember what Marxism—at least in theory—was all about. Karl Marx came of age in the nineteenth-century German states. Though his father and mother were both Jewish, Marx’s mother raised Karl and his numerous siblings as Protestant Christians (Lutherans). Marx grew up in middle-class comfort and received a liberal arts education in Trier, surrounded by their family vineyards.

Through his vast reading, Marx found great comfort in a variety of authors, classical, medieval, and modern, but none more so than John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, G.W.F. Hegel, and Charles Darwin. Like many nineteenth-century intellectuals, he craved a form of socialist utopianism. Few supporters of socialism, however, knew how to attain it. Marx offered such a popular and compelling theory that, by 1900, as J.M. Roberts has noted, all socialism really meant Marxist socialism, even when presented as Christian socialism, national socialism, or democratic socialism.

Read More:

Monday, April 23, 2018

Dear Natalie Portman: I too was once a liberal Zionist Activism Robert Cohen

“Israel was created exactly 70 years ago as a haven for refugees from the Holocaust. But the mistreatment of those suffering from today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power.”
Dear Natalie
I too was a liberal Zionist.
I too thought the problem was the leaders of Israel and their policies.
I too thought a change of leadership and a change of policies could fix things.
I don’t think that anymore.
Like you, I care about “Jewish values” but I long ago gave up on the idea that Israel, and the Zionism that created and sustains the Jewish State, would protect those values.
We should both be clear about what those Jewish values are.  They’re to be found in the Hebrew bible and are the ideas that have stood the test of time and been passed on to the world through Christianity and Islam: The innate equality of all humanity; a bias towards the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised; and a committment to speak out against the wrong-doing of authority. In your statement on Friday you list what happens when these values are lost: “violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power”.
But to protect those Jewish values you have to push yourself beyond Zionism, especially of the liberal variety that sees today’s violence and inequality as merely a derailment from Zionism’s true course.
Let me explain why.

Genesis Prize

Natalie, without doubt I welcome your decision to snub the Genesis Prize. As an A-list Jewish Israeli-American Hollywood movie star, your stand is a big deal. People take notice. It has influence. Minds are changed when people like you do things like this. So I congratulate you. You’re are already taking serious flak for this and it will take a toll on you personally and professionally.

Read More:

"White Privilege" vs. "Jewish Privilege" by Steve Sailer

Screenshot 2018-04-21 14.53.32
The less white privilege exists, the more it gets talked about.
In my general impression, white privilege and Jewish privilege are fairly comparable in causes, magnitude, as well as quantity and quality of evidence for their existence. For example, whites tend to make more money than nonwhites and Jews tend to make more money than gentiles, and for roughly similar sets of reasons. Whether “privilege” is an appropriate term for either of the two gaps are about equally arguable.
In other words, thinking about Jewish privilege can help us obtain a better perspective on white privilege and vice-versa.

Read More:

Chasing Hillary: Clinton’s ‘Deplorables’ Was No One-Off Gaffe

Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Campaigns and One Intact Glass Ceiling, Amy Chozick, HarperCollins, 400 pages

Time does not heal all wounds. Since November 8, 2016, the national divide has only grown deeper. During the campaign, Donald Trump stoked the fires of cultural and economic resentment while Hillary Clinton worshipped at the twin altars of identity politics and political correctness. The social and demographic tectonics that led to the Trump presidency are still shifting. The election continues to be relitigated hourly in a non-stop loop.

With Chasing Hillary, Amy Chozick of The New York Times offers a clear-eyed assessment of what went wrong inside the Clinton campaign bubble. Drawing upon a decade of covering Clinton, first at the Wall Street Journal and then at the Times, Chozick depicts a campaign removed from America’s geographic and cultural center. While James Comey may have actually cost Clinton the White House, neither the candidate nor her minions were doing all that they could to get her to 270, the magic number. At times, they did just the opposite.

Most glaringly, Team Clinton seemed oblivious to the aftermath of the Great Recession and its resultant middle class anxieties. To put things in perspective, in April 2015, with the presidential race about to heat up, nearly half of Americans, 48 percent at that, self-identified as working or lower class. As Mandy Grunwald, a long-time Clinton advisor, framed things, Clinton could sound like she “DOESNT think the game is rigged,” only recognizing that the “public thinks so”—not exactly an “I feel your pain” reaction, and definitely not her husband’s kind of response. 

In contrast to the candidate, Chozick depicts former president Bill Clinton as still connected to the concerns of everyday Americans. Chasing Hillary documents Bill going “red in the face” almost daily as he warned his wife’s campaign of Trump’s “shrewd” understanding of white working class voters, voters who were Bill’s base in 1992 and 1996 but were neglected by Hillary’s data-driven endeavor.

Read More:

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Mobs Win at CUNY and Duke Undisciplined by JONATHAN MARKS

I don’t envy university administrators the hard job of responding to student protests. But it’s not hard to understand that the job requires a clear view of what sets universities apart. Universities are supposed to be havens for rational inquiry into ideas, however unorthodox they may be. That is why they are uncommonly open to protesters, who often try to convey neglected ideas, and also why their rules are designed so that protests will, as much as possible, catalyze fresh thinking instead of hindering it. But sometimes administrators, either because they don’t understand universities or because they panic, neglect those rules and thereby do harm.

Late in March, Josh Blackman attempted to discuss freedom of speech at the City University of New York School of Law. Protesters, who had persuaded themselves that Blackman is a white supremacist, derailed his talk. Blackman, an associate professor of law at the South Texas College School of Law, is a mainstream legal conservative.

He had initially been invited, by students in CUNY Law’s Federalist Society, to participate in a “panel discussion about theories of constitutional interpretation.” But the students couldn’t find any other professors to participate. Blackman suggested an “event about free speech on campus.” The students, again, found no one to join him. At CUNY Law, which doesn’t hide its progressive commitments, you evidently can’t find anyone to share a stage with someone like Blackman.

Blackman’s talk attracted five listeners and around 30 protesters. After the protesters dispersed, his audience swelled to around 30. Students, Blackman was told, were “ashamed or intimidated” by the protests. At CUNY School of Law, evidently, at least some students who want to hear a legal conservative speak are made to feel ashamed and intimidated. If you think these students are just snowflakes, watch the video.

Read More:

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley Arrogantly Leaves UN Security Council Meeting

Gingrich Breaks down the Current Status of Mueller's Investigation

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Soros in Retreat: Billionaire’s University to Move Out of Hungary!!!

Canada Has No Border

Starcucks & Il Grande Trucco Magico by EMMANUEL SPRAGUER

The disparate way the media treats the Alt-Right, a movement of truth-loving dissidents, vis a vis random black loiterers and trespassers, is as absurd as it is unequivocal and illustrates decisively what utter low-lives white-hating Western power players really are.
Alt-Righters all over the nation are being persecuted merely on account of our thoughts. This fact is virtually undeniable. Our websites are being deplatformed, our videos are being demonetized, we are being purged from social media, we are being fired from our jobs, due only to what goes on in our own minds. Discrimination and persecution against us, again, merely on account of our thoughts, is widespread. Yet the media treats this inherently totalitarian treatment as if it is perfectly fine. Verily, if anything, the media encourages it. But how could a war against freedom of speech and freedom of conscience ever be justified? What kind of twisted group of psychopaths would desire this? Even President Donald Trump ignores our maltreatment at the hands of large social media entities, despite the Alt-Right’s indispensable role in getting him elected via social media itself. The US power class’ unofficial position is, essentially, that we deserve it. There is probably nothing more evil, more indefensible, not to mention more totalitarian, than persecuting & wronging people merely on account of their thoughts, speech & political activities (especially in a democracy). Yet there has been no outcry on account of our abuse at the hands of the mighty and the elite. Opposition to thought-policing and the infringement upon private conscience used to be a core feature of American identity and culture, all the way back to America’s founding. Not anymore I guess.
Meanwhile, last week in Philadelphia two black men were forcibly removed from a Starbucks coffee shop because they sat there for a few hours without actually purchasing anything (they may have been protesting not being given access to the restroom). Of course, being denied access to a cafe’s or a restaurant’s restroom is pretty much standard treatment when one is not a paying customer, and although being forcibly removed by the police, or arrested, is rather extreme given the circumstances, Starbucks is well within its rights to remove trespassers from its property; especially when they refuse over and over again to leave via their free will. In the aftermath of this alleged mistreatment of these two young black men, there was something of a media-engineered national outcry regarding how hard blacks have it in America. The CEO of Starbucks is also falling all over his pasty, cucky self to apologize for this horrible injustice, and Starbucks will shut down all of its 8000 stores in America next month for a full day of nothing but shaming white people and indoctrinating innocent employees, so as to ensure that black people never have to follow the law ever again.

Read More:

Conservative Media Outlet PERMANENTLY BANNED From Twitter Without Reason By Vincent James

Pre-Midterm Election Twitter Purge Continues 

Recently, Twitter has been banning many accounts that were influential during the 2016 election leading up to the midterms in 2018 and purging conservative accounts from social media platforms appears to be the only election-changing strategy the authoritarian left has left.
Silicon valley has made it clear what their target and have realized that the only place where conservatives share their views is on the internet as the mainstream is dominated by the left. The answer? Strip that weapon away as soon as possible away if they have any hope for the ‘blue wave’ in the midterms.
Twitter’s latest target is conservative media outlet “The Red Elephants.” This sizable outlet has been quoted by Fox News referencing stories they have broken amongst many other mainstream news outlets.  The Red Elephants have over 350,000 followers onFacebook, 65,000 on Youtube and up until this week, almost 30,000 followers on Twitter with a reach of one million people per week.

The Red Elephants were especially influential during the election on Facebook with some videos that reached records of ten and twenty millions views.  Facebook has recently changed it’s algorithms to show more posts from friends and less from news sources in the last few months.

Read More:

Meritocratic Fallacy — Choosing the Brightest doesn’t necessarily choose the Best — Problems of Symbolic Morality over Real Morality among the Powerful

In the most basic sense, meritocracy is the fairest and most effective way of selecting the most capable. This is most obvious in sports. The fastest runner is the fastest runner. Fastest swimmer is the fastest swimmer. The heaviest-lifter is the heaviest-lifter. We can’t argue with the results. But, we also know that the most capable are not necessarily the best in terms of morality and character. We know that many top athletes are scummy lowlifes. Who can forget the saga of OJ? Still, there is an idolatrous aspect to our nature that wants to believe that the most talented, most skilled, or most able is also the best in character. This is why most action movies have heroes who are not only the best-looking but the toughest. There is an idealized combination of attractiveness, ability, and morality. Good guys look good and are really the best. The handsome hero of SHANE really is the fastest gun in the West. Even so, we don’t expect too many athletes or some such to be paragons of morality and ethics. (But then, in our nihilistic age, many thug athletes and rappers are admired precisely because they spit on norms of morality and decency.) 

But what about the elites in law, academia, government, enterprise, and media? Unlike athletes who merely need to prove their mettle in brute strength, people who succeed with their minds must gain knowledge, attend prestigious schools, and demonstrate worth on many levels of human relations. Because education is about the teaching of history, literature, science, ideas, and culture, we would like to believe that those who won by intellectual meritocracy are indeed the best kind of people. Not only the smartest but the wisest and most judicious. After all, they read so many books and gained so much knowledge. Unlike sports where brutal performance is all that counts, academics isn’t only about getting good grades but attaining higher and deeper understanding of many facets of truth. Or so we like to think. 

Now, there are certain inbuilt virtues within meritocracy itself. Any serious student must have the simple virtues of effort, diligence, discipline, commitment, and stamina. Without such habits and attitudes, one cannot do well in school(unless one happens to be a super-genius). But simple virtues are just that. They are useful in the service of attaining certain goals, but they don’t reveal the higher truth or deeper meaning. After all, simple virtues can be in the service of an evil system. Dutiful and sober men can work hard to support the system. The men in the German film DAS BOOT are high in simple virtues. They are men of commitment and patriotism. But they ultimately serve an evil system.

Read More:

Jordan Peterson on Lobster Hierarchy: A Response to P. Z. Myers' Critique

P. Z. Myers, an evolutionary biologist, has attacked Jordan Peterson's account of lobster hierarchy as utterly stupid in its ignorance of Darwinian evolutionary science. Here are the videos.  The total time for all three is about thirty minutes.  The first one is eight and a half minutes.

Peterson argues that the similarities between lobster hierarchy and human hierarchy show that human hierarchy is rooted in an evolved human nature, and therefore that it cannot be a purely cultural construction of capitalist patriarchy, as some radical feminists have claimed.

Against this, Myers raises four objections.

(1)  Hierarchies in the animal world have not evolved to be fixed and identical, as Peterson claims, because they are variable in response to variable social circumstances; and therefore human hierarchies really are social constructions, and as such they are open to change.

(2) Peterson claims that the hierarchies of lobsters and human beings are the same in being derived from a common evolutionary ancestor, but this is denied by the logic and evidence of evolutionary science, which therefore refutes his assertion that human hierarchy is biologically determined.

(3) Peterson claims that the hierarchies of lobsters and human beings are the same in being based on the same nervous system that runs on serotonin, but this is denied by the fact that the nervous systems of lobsters and humans are very different, and by the fact that serotonin serves diverse functions in different nervous systems.

(4) Against Peterson's claim that all hierarchies are simple, linear, and competitive, Myers argues that in fact they are complex and nonlinear, and they are based not just on competition but also on cooperation.

All four objections fail because they are based on a straw-man fallacy: Myers is refuting claims that Peterson has not made.

Notice that like Cathy Newman, Myers is engaged in a dominance contest with Peterson.  For Myers, an intellectual discussion like this is an opportunity to show his superiority over those with whom he disagrees, as shown by his smug insulting dismissal of Peterson: "he is a loon!"  So Myers gives us a good illustration of what Peterson identifies as one of the eight kinds of conversation--the dominance-hierarchy conversation.  This debate over the idea of hierarchy is itself a manifestation of the natural human inclination to hierarchy.

Read More:

Can we just make it illegal to arrest black people in the United States of America? Black Police Commissioner of 70% Black Baltimore Apologizes to Blacks at Rap Concert for the City Once Holding Blacks Accountable for Their Actions

If you've read The City that Bleeds: Race, History, and the Death of Baltimoreyou know black people in Baltimore carefully protect their city by using black criminality to keep out white people from ever being a demographic threat to run things again.

You'll also know that in 1917, Baltimore was 88% white. Restrictive covenants and segregation kept city prosperous and safe from the very population now representing 70% of the city's population, with the white population below 25 percent.

Yes, Baltimore is a 70 percent black city. It was roughly 10 percent black in 1917. With black-fueled violence exploding across the city, it's important to remember the reality of homicide in Baltimore: Lynchings in USA over an 86-year time-span vs. Homicides in Baltimore over a 7-year time-span (91.5 percent Black-on-Black)

Again, in 1917, Baltimore was 88% white. Restrictive covenants and segregation kept city safe and prosperous from the very population now representing 70% of the city's population.

In 2018 Baltimore, a 70 percent black city governed by democratically elected black officials, we are on the verge of seeing a black police commissioner unofficially hand the city over to the criminals.


Read More:

The Rainbow Nation goes dark Racial population distributions in South Africa, by age cohort:

This data is from 2011. Farm murders have stepped up since then. So has black immigration into South Africa from other sub-Saharan African countries. White emigration from South Africa has increased, too. The demographic situation is thus even bleaker than the above graphs indicate.

The last civilizational light flickering on the southern end of the Dark Continent will be extinguished--the question is "when?", not "if?". Not long after that, the continent's youngexploding population will stampede north. Or, in what will be an ironic historical twist, sail west in tightly-packed ships as the trans-Atlantic 'refugee' invade commences.

Read More:

A New Religion for Us, part 10 by Kevin Alfred Strom

American Dissident Voices broadcast of April 21, 2018
Audio Player
by Kevin Alfred Strom
TRUE RELIGION is not impractical. True religion is not “pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye.” True religion is not “love thy invader and hate thyself.” True religion is not Jesus and not the bloody, genocidal Torah. True religion issomething we as a people must rediscover if we are to survive. And it is something that will make us incomparably stronger as a race. It is something that will steer us on our true path toward the stars.
No man offered deeper insights on true religion, and on the shape that the White society of the future should take, than William Gayley Simpson. A profoundly religious and philosophical man, he went from an earnest advocate of Christian ideals — to an understanding of the revolutionary philosophy of Nietzsche — to a vision of our race’s place in the evolution of Life and consciousness that can only be called Cosmotheist.
I give you the words of William Gayley Simpson, taken from his important philosophical works, especially his book Which Way, Western Man?, read by Miss Vanessa Neubauer. Listen:
* * *
[The Christian concentration on the allegedly] spiritual… meant an indifference to, and a neglect of, physical relatedness in all its aspects — family kinship, gratitude and obligation to one’s ancestors, identification with one’s kind by which one feels oneself differentiated from all other kinds of human beings, and under the pull and direction of which identity every member should undertake with the rest of his kind to preserve an indissoluble bond, so that in every hour of peril and crisis they should unite to form a solid fighting phalanx against every common foe.
Jesus’ neglect of every sort of physical relatedness left the soil quite untended against the invasion of the rank weed of the doctrine of human equality, as soon as a shift in the winds began to carry the seeds of it into lands taken over by Christianity. Our air is fairly filled with the floating seeds of this detestable doctrine: “one man is as good as another; the differences that are hereditary, that are handed down from father to son, and that run in families—are of no consequence.” “Why should we bow before the will of a king? What is an aristocracy but a useless and costly burden? Why should there not be the same law for the high as for the low, for the low as for the high? Why should there any longer be any ‘high’? Should not we all, one as much as another, have the right to judge, to decide, and to rule? Should not he who rules, rule by our will, with our permission, as our servant and subject to our approval?” Thus men have said within themselves and to one another.

Read More: