Cohen's Commentary

On this point, I agree with the author. Gentile (non-Jewish), or shall I say goyim, altruism is something that every Jew should fear. Whenever goyim have forsaken their own vices for the greater good of their own ethnicities, communities and nations, the Jewish people have historically suffered, usually in the form of expulsion.

Let me recap how many times this has happened. We're all familiar, of course, with the expulsion of Jews from Ancient Egypt, and in 580BC Nebuchadnezzar chased the Jews all over arabia. Diaspora Jews would later find themselves on-the-go for the next two milleniums. In 250AD, the goyim expelled Jews from Carthage; 415: Alexandria; 554: Diocese of Clement (France); 561: Diocese of Uzzes (France); 612: Visigoth Spain; 642: Visigoth Empire; 855: Italy; 876: Sens; 1012: Mayence; 1181: France; 1290: England; 1306: France; 1348: Switzerland; 1349: Hielbronn (Germany); 1349: Hungary; 1388: Strasbourg; 1394: Germany; 1394: France; 1422: Austria; 1424: Fribourg & Zurich; 1426: Cologne; 1432: Savory; 1438: Mainz; 1439: Augsburg; 1446: Bavaria; 1453: Franconis; 1453: Breslau; 1454: Wurzburg; 1485: Vincenza (Italy); 1492: Spain; 1495: Lithuania; 1497: Portugal; 1499: Germany; 1514: Strasbourg; 1519: Regensburg; 1540: Naples; 1542: Bohemia; 1550: Genoa; 1551: Bavaria; 1555: Pesaro; 1559: Austria; 1561: Prague; 1567: Wurzburg; 1569: Papal States; 1571: Brandenburg; 1582: Netherlands; 1593: Brandenburg, Austria; 1597: Cremona, Pavia & Lodi; 1614: Frankfort; 1615: Worms; 1619: Kiev; 1649: Ukraine; 1654: LittleRussia; 1656: Lithuania; 1669: Oran (North Africa); 1670: Vienna; 1712: Sandomir; 1727: Russia; 1738: Wurtemburg; 1740: Little Russia; 1744: Bohemia; 1744: Livonia; 1745: Moravia; 1753: Kovad (Lithuania); 1761: Bordeaux; 1772: Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement (Russia); 1775: Warsaw; 1789: Alace; 1804: Villages in Russia; 1808: Villages & Countrysides (Russia); 1815: Lubeck & Bremen; 1815: Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria; 1820: Bremes; 1843: Russian Border Austria & Prussia; 1862: Area in the U.S. under Grant's Jurisdiction; 1866: Galatz, Romania; 1919: Bavaria (foreign born Jews); 1938-45: Nazi Controlled Areas.

Why did this happen? Gentile altruism.

It happened because goyim cared more about their folk and communities than they cared about themselves. And it can happen again. It is happening already with the rise of nationalism. Although I'm inclined to feel a sense of pride at the achievements of my Jewish tribe, as detailed in Professor Kevin MacDonald's book, Culture of Critique, I am also mortified that Gentiles have taken notice of it.

Jews are taking this very seriously.

Scott Huettel, an associate professor of psychology at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C, and Dharol Tankersley, a graduate student at Duke, published findings in the Jan. 21 online issue of Nature Neuroscience, illustrating a nexus between altruism and heightened activity in the posterior superior temporal cortex (pSTC) of the human brain. Huettel defines altruism as acts "that intentionally benefit another organism, incur no direct personal benefit, and sometimes bear a personal cost."

Fortunately, fellow jew, Paul Sanberg, director of the Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, in Tampa, publicly challenged these findings. The last thing we need are Gentiles in the scientific community exploring ways to increase higher levels of pSTC. But we've already known what causes it:

Perceptual models suggest that an early-developing and rudimentary capacity to perceive another agent's action as self-generated and goal-oriented may form the basis of empathic perception and, in turn, altruism. Neuroimaging studies indicate that brain regions in the pSTC contribute to the perception of agency. Both low-level perceptual tasks, such as target detection and prediction of complex movements, and more complex tasks, such as consideration of other agents' beliefs or (inter) actions in the environment evoke activation in the pSTC. For example, right pSTC activation increases when people watch geometrical shapes performing seemingly purposeful acts, but not when the shapes move at random. The pSTC may support rudimentary computations about the meaning of perceived actions, which might in turn subserve more complex social capacities, including empathy and theory of mind. Thus, the functional integrity of the pSTC may be a prerequisite for prosocial traits such as empathy and altruism.

In plain Yiddish, the perception of purposelessness lowers pSTC stimulation, consequently lowering altruism (new scientific terminology, but an old game for Jews). Gentiles need to perceive the world around them as lacking order and purpose. They need to step out of the orderly machine that drives them to higher states of evolution and consciousness, and into a world of purposeless individualism.

Relax. The circumcised sons of Abraham are on the job.

Fellow jew, Nadine Strossen, is second in command of the ACLU. She was given the "Woman of Distinction" award from the Women's League of Conservative Judaism and the "Women who Dared" award from the National Council of Jewish Women. Below her is Steven Shapiro, who commands an army of 90 full-time lawyers, with an active docket of cases against Gentiles. Geri Rozanski, former director of field operations for the American Jewish Committee, is another loyal Jew. Together, they've taken on the tasks.

Although the groundwork for racial desegregation had already been laid by jewish icon Franz Boas, Shapiro's sayanin, with their sophisticated attacks upon Eurocentrism, would make Franz Boas proud. They champion racial justice for non-Whites, affirmative action, racial profiling and immigrants rights.

Speaking of immigration "rights," I tip my yalmuke to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: they pushed so hard to get amnesty for illegal aliens. Mui Bueno! A special thanks also to Jewish Senators Boxer(D-CA), Coleman(R-MN), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein(D-CA), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (D-CT), Specter (R-PA), Schumer (D-NY) and Wyden (D-OR) who voted in favor of amnesty, and to all the jewish PAC's who paid off enough of the remaining Gentile Senators to get eleven million jobless, criminal wetbacks into this country. Just what America needs!

Homosexualism and transgenderism are both antithetical to the family unit, which, if functioning correctly, is a microcosm of progressive, communal order. That is why Shapiro's starched-shirt attorneys defend he-she's and she-he's and their various isms.

It's also why Jews are the mouthpiece of homosexual organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, co-chaired by Loren S. Ostrow, who is also President of the Board of Congregation Kol Ami, a predominately gay and lesbian synagogue in West Hollywood, CA, and formerly served as Co-Chair of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's Board of Directors.

Alan Klein, another trustworthy Jew, is co-founder of Queer Nation. In 1997, a year television critics will remember as the "Year of the Lesbian," Mr. Klein played a pivotal role in the international media frenzy that accompanied Ellen Degeneres' historic announcement. As National Communications Director and chief spokesperson for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), he orchestrated the media's Ellen coverage from day one. Mr. Klein also co-founded the successful multimedia campaign STOPDRLAURA.COM. Klein carries on the fight for Gentile individualism by serving as Communications Director for Rainbow25 ...

Because Christianity lends itself to the integrity of family units, order and a strong sense of purpose, it hasn't escaped the ACLU's Goydar. In 1925, the ACLU defended biology teacher John Scopes, in the famous "monkey trial," against the charge that he had broken Tennessee's fundamentalist-inspired ban on the teaching of evolution. In the 1930s, the ACLU supported the right of Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren not to salute the American flag, which would have violated their religious beliefs. In 1947, the ACLU participated in the landmark case, Everson v. Board of Education, in which the United States Supreme Court proclaimed: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We would not approve the slightest breach."

In the 1950s and 1960s, our loyal jews successfully challenged official prayer and bible reading in public schools. The Supreme Court ruled, in Engel v. Vitale and in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, that school prayer and Bible reading are unconstitutional. In the 1980s, the ACLU successfully fought bills introduced in 23 state legislatures which required public schools to teach the biblical version of the earth's creation. In the early 1990s, the ACLU lobbied for congressional passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which strengthens protection for the rights of "religious minorities." More here.

One method of achieving the separation of family units has been to drive a wedge between genders. That is why our loyal Jews in the ACLU have been strong defenders of womens' rights and why so many other Jews extend this branch of "individualism" to the goyim (it's not exactly an olive branch, but the goyim don't seem to know the difference).

Gloria Felt, a loyal Jew, is the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Eric Schaff is Chairman of the National Abortion Federation. R. Gaull Silberman is Chairman of the Independent Womens' Forum. Leslie A. Calman is the Executive Vice President of National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOWLDEF), with Lynn Schafran as the Director of the National Judicial Education Program, and Stephen Hammerman as the Vice Chairman of the Board. Malcolm Lazin is the Executive Director of Equality Forum, which is the largest national, and international forum for gay, lesbian and bisexual civil rights.

Vivienne Kramer is Chair of the New England Leather Alliance and Chairperson of the Board of Directors for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. On New Voices, she explains "I probably wouldn’t play [engage in BDSM] on a Friday night,' she says, merging the two practices into her own version of religious observance." Hymm. She didn't owe the goyim any explanations, but okay...

Marcia Pally founded Feminists for Free Expression, whose President is loyal Jew, Marilyn Fitterman, and whose secretary is loyal Jew, Jayme Waxman, who is a writer, producer, performer, sex educator and outspoken advocate for women's sexual liberation. She is currently pursuing her masters in human sexuality education and teaches sexuality classes at a well-know adult toyshop in downtown Manhattan. She is the Associate Producer of the television show Naked New York and a columnist for Playgirl Magazine. She produced 'Love Bytes' with Bob Berkowitz and hosted her own show 'Aural Fixation' on WSEX Radio.

Abby Ehmann is a member of the board of Feminists for Free Expression. In her own words, she is a "Sexpert" and "New York's preeminent female smutmeister." This faithful Jew began a career in the adult entertainment industry as an Associate Editor at Penthouse Forum. She has also served as Consulting Editor of Masquerade Erotic Newsletter, Girls of Outlaw Biker and Erotica Online. She has written for many sex-oriented publications from Screw and Hustler to Forum and New Rave."

I'm happy to announce that the entire pornographic industry is heavily larded with God's Chosen people. Fellow Jew, Nathan Abrams, boasts: “A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer that the ‘triple exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue’ Jews. Smut peddlers." Jewish Quarterly (UK), [print edition] 2005, p. 27-30. And just why is that? Al Goldstein (fellow Jew and publisher of Screw magazine) answered this question on Lukeford. “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”

This is why Jews, whether holding the reins to civil rights groups like the ACLU or leading the guilds of feminists, homosexuals or pornographers, have always been faithful advocates of Gentile "individualism," although, as we all know, individualism really has no place in the party line of international Jewry. Can you imagine the consequences to Israel if Rosa Parks lived to ride on this Israeli bus? Israel would be teaming with Mutti shvartz!

But I digress. A small amount of controlled, Gentile altruism can be good.

The only time---and I mean the only time---Gentiles can be allowed to behave altruistically is when they sacrifice themselves and their freedom for the greater good of the Jewish people or Israel. The less than finite war in Iraq (and future wars with Syria and Iran), demonstrates that this artificial form of Gentile altruism, once guided toward our own interests, can actually serve the Jewish people well. And, it also allows the altruistic type of goyim to feel somewhat true to their own in-group instincts, however misguided, adding a slight texture of realism to the fantasy world painted by our other loyal Jews on the entertainment front, Red Summerstone (also known as Murray Rothstein), Michael Eisner and Spielberg.

So long as the goyim stay glued to Murray Rothstein's MTV and embrace this multi-cultural morality of individualism, they will not care what happens to them as a whole. The goyim certainly won't care enough to be "altruistic."

cohenreport.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-it-can-happen-again.html

Eclipse of the Normal

Nearly a century ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote of “the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal.” Today the very word normal is almost taboo. Perish the thought that there is anything abnormal—let alone sinful, vicious, perverted, abominable, sick, unhealthy, or just plain wrong—about sodomy. (Unsanitary? Let’s not go there.)

As one T-shirt legend puts it, “I’m proud of my gay son.” Sure you are, lady. I’ll bet when he told you, you blurted, “O darling, you make me so proud!” I mean, like, who wouldn’t? And then you went out and bragged to all the neighbors.

And do you enjoy picturing what he and his “partners” do together? If you’re curious, you can probably get the idea from a DVD. Just go into an “adult” DVD store and ask where the anal-sex section is. This should make you just burst with maternal pride.

Let me lay my cards on the table. I’m what they call homophobic, and I believe God loves me just the way I am. He may even regard homophobia as one of my finer qualities. To a much lesser degree, I’m also lesbophobic. I realize that lesbianism is also a form of sodomy, but that strikes me as a rather technical point, because, in my rather limited experience, it doesn’t involve the sort of repulsive practices male sodomy does. How often have you heard of a lesbian dying of AIDS?

This is hardly the place to discuss sexual practices in clinical detail. Such discussions are freely available, indeed unavoidable, elsewhere. To add to them here would be, as the old saying has it, carrying coals to Newcastle.

But I digress. (I wondered when you’d notice.) Most people realize that God made two sexes. Even the phrase gay and lesbian is an attempt to ape the natural symmetry of nature’s (two and only two) sexes. Male and female homosexuality are only superficially parallel; in fact, they are wholly different and dissimilar maladjustments. The male brand is madly promiscuous and indiscriminate; the female brand tends to be monogamous. This will surely be borne out by the upshot of the craze for same-sex “marriage”—an absurd contradiction in terms if ever there was one. (You might as well expect two bulls, or two lions, to form a lasting union.)

We are witnessing what might be called the eclipse of the normal—an eccentric phase of modern history in which huge numbers of people feign ignorance of what is perfectly obvious. The polite taboos on calling abortion “killing” and sodomy “perversion” are mere symptoms of this; Barack Obama, with his sycophantic solicitude for “gays,” is typical of the modern liberal mind-set. “Who is to say what is ‘normal’?” is now thought to be an insoluble conundrum.

Well, who is to say that, in all the fantastic abundance of nature, there are only two sexes? Or is that another tough one? After all, members of some species of marine life can even change sexes. It’s clear that anybody who can’t answer such questions just doesn’t want them to be answered. All sane people know the answers, and it’s a waste of time arguing with a man who pretends not to know, even if he’s the president of the United States. This nonsense has been going on far too long.

Who could have imagined, a generation ago, that organized Sodom would achieve such cultural and political power in the United States? And so soon, at that! “We are all sodomites now,” exults Andrew Sullivan, and he has a point, at least a semantic one. The word sodomy, as he notes, used to comprise all sexual perversions, including contraception within marriage. The real sexual revolution came to pass quietly, when contraception became generally accepted as a legitimate part of marriage. After that, it became hard to argue against virtually any sexual practice, inside or outside wedlock, short of rape. The revolution in morals occurred almost before anyone noticed it. And today it is taken for granted.

Few of us can now remember how sternly nearly all Christians disapproved of birth control before 1931, when the Anglican Church opened the floodgates with a few seemingly innocuous exceptions in certain cases of hardship. By now the old standards of chastity have melted away like ice in August. In today’s terms, they are well-nigh incomprehensible.

Modern man is thoroughly cut off from his past. He and his ancestors would be total strangers to each other. The essential problem is a new form of hypocrisy in which we all feel pressure to affect ignorance of things everyone used to know—and which most people still do know.

To put it bluntly, our moral standards would horrify our forebears. They would gasp in disbelief at the things we now accept as normal, for the simple reason that any civilized society would recognize those things as highly abnormal.

This article first appeared in the April 2010 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. By Joe Sobran.

NATO tells Russia: We'll keep the heroin flowing

NATO Wednesday rejected Russian calls for it to eradicate opium poppy fields in Afghanistan, saying the best way for Moscow to help control the drug would be to give more assistance against the insurgency.

Russia's anti-drugs czar, Victor Ivanov, met NATO ambassadors in Brussels and proposed that NATO troops be given a U.N. mandate and an obligation to eradicate Afghan opium crops, which were killing 30,000 Russians a year.

(Afghan opium kills 100,000 people every year worldwide" - Wikipedia)

But NATO spokesman James Appathurai said the drug problem had to be handled carefully to avoid alienating local people. He said the alliance was continuing efforts to target drug lords and drug labs, but added at a news briefing:

"We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income of people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them with an alternative."

Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of poppies used to make opium, the key ingredient in the production of heroin.

Appathurai said NATO understood Russian concerns, given its estimated 200,000 heroin and morphine addicts and the tens of thousands dying each year.

Wed Mar 24, 2010
reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62N56U20100324

Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide

By F. Roger Devlin

What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream. But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime? The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.

Truth Has Fallen and Has Taken Liberty With It

Paul Craig Roberts - March 25th, 2010

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. — George Orwell

There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”

And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”

The Council of Europe is investigating big pharma’s role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.

The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.

And there is the global warming scandal, in which climate scientists, financed by Wall Street and corporations anxious to get their mitts on “cap and trade” and by a U.N. agency anxious to redistribute income from rich to poor countries, concocted a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.

Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.

I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.

When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.

As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.

Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.

Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.

Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.

Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”

For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.

The American media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.

America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.

With over 21 percent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.

The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.

Impact of Voyeurism

Voyeurism is regarded as a fetish. It conjures images of masturbating old men, peering from the corner of the curtain to catch a glimpse of a young woman in the street. This description is appropriate for that particular type of voyeur, but it hides the reality of voyeurism. Voyeurism is not limited to a few deviants who like to spy on their neighbours, but is rather a behaviour which has become so commonplace as to be the norm.

Western society has been corrupted by alien influences and degenerates from within for many years. With the advent of television, the decline of culture and morality accelerated. With the internet, that decline has become such that it can be felt to worsen on a near continuous basis.

So what has voyeurism to do with the decline of the West? Is the relationship one of cause, or one of effect? The relationship is in fact both - voyeurism is a result of the decline of Europe, and acts as an accelerant of that decline. The same can be said for other parts of the world which have succumbed to the media age, but analysis of the entire world is far beyond the scope of this article.

Voyeurism is the act of obtaining gratification by observation. It is much more than a non-productive sexual activity. Voyeurs include all those who watch sport on the television but do not actively play. To that end, even people who regularly attend football matches (or any other sport), but do not participate on the field, are voyeurs. They satisfy their need to feel that they belong to the tribe by diverting what is a natural and vital instinct, into watching a game - and in some cases into literally violently opposing those who pledge allegiance to a different team. Football hooligans are obeying a natural drive to defend the tribe - but such is the degeneracy of the West, that rather than defending their families and their people, they commit acts of violence against their kinsmen who wear different colours and have different chants. Can there be anything more ridiculous than a man in a Leeds United shirt kicking unconscious a man in a Manchester United shirt? Yet these oafs take pride in such destructive actions against their compatriots.

Not all sports fans are hooligans, but, with the exception of those who play the sport in question, they are voyeurs. To hear a typical football fan speak after a match, one would be forgiven for thinking that the individual boasting of how 'we won' had actively contributed to the team effort to kick a ball into the opposing goal more often than the other team - rather than in actuality screaming abuse at players in different shirts whilst shouting at the players he idolises. To witness the anger and tears gushed forth by football fans when the favoured team doesn't manage to kick the ball in the desired manner, one would fear for the mental well-being of the individual who doesn't understand the difference between trivial games designed as entertainment, and matters of importance.

The internet has greatly exaggerated sexual voyeurism, and the availability of the most bizarre pornography imaginable (and unimaginable!) Before the arrival of the internet, being 'into' Scat meant having an appreciation for a type of singing found in Jazz music! The easy availability of all manner of pornography has undermined the sanctity of a stable and meaningful monogamous relationship. Whereas the traditional society was built upon marriage with each partner remaining celibate until after the wedding ceremony, and faithful thereafter until the couple were separated by death, the era of mass pornography has introduced the mass of society to un-natural sexual practices which can be explored without taking part. Sadly, this perversion of the mind does lead to a desire to experience the bizarre acts witnessed on the screen. Just as how during the televising of cricket or tennis, the urge to play manifests in a healthy game amongst friends, so with pornography, curiosity manifests in anonymous acts of degeneracy far from the bosom of the family. The diseases thus caught, and the destruction of the bond of monogamy invariably take their toll.

The promotion of promiscuity and perversion are not confined to seedy shops and websites. By far the greater source of the family-destroying material is the television. Politically correct soap operas such as Eastenders and Coronation Street only show perverts in a positive light, with any objectors being painted as bigots, haters, and insane. School children are especially vulnerable to the drive to reduce society to a collection of valueless individuals. In school, children voyeuristically absorb the social conditioning of the indoctrination system which provides no education whatsoever. They are not allowed to question their 'teachers' or to have a different opinion to that which is ordained by the Establishment. They are told that internationalism is desirable, that man made global warming is true, that 9/11 was carried out by Sin-Laden Obama, sorry, Osama Bin Laden, and that it is the child's duty to experiment with many different sexual partners of every race, age, sex, and sexual proclivity. Marriage and family are presented as outmoded and oppressive institutions. Denied the ability to question the lies of the 'education' system, children are reduced to observers of a bizarre cult, which is replicated on the television and due to its pervasive nature, becomes accepted as normal reality.

The music industry has become a driving force for the destruction of society. Britney Spears' 'If You Seek Amy' (F U C K Me), Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face' (Poke Her Face), Beyonce's 'Video Phone', to mention but a few, promote promiscuity to impressionable children. Children are further sexualised by modern Disney films which present 'adult' themes to children, implanting ideas into the subconscious which the child should not be exposed to. Advertising hoardings in the street assault the passer by with imagery which works its way into the mind - corrupting the natural healthy mind with decadent individualist materialism. Again, these media instruments are viewed voyeuristically.

The news media present crime and violence in a sensational manner, which breaks down the horror and revulsion which a healthy individual feels when confronted by the unacceptable. In exactly the same way as people have become desensitized to murder, rape and torture by horror films, so people become desensitized to the crimes of the State which are presented on the news. Before television, a government which stole from the people, enacted policies which they expressly promised not to (such as being pro-immigration, committing wars of aggression against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc), would have provoked mass action, even to the point of revolution. Now, the TV screens corruption and Zionism around the clock, with barely a whimper of indignation.

Voyeurism is a state of mind where the individual observes but does not participate. It creates a desire which must eventually be acted upon. The football fan who is frustrated by not having a real input and thereby is powerless to make his team win, may express this frustration with violence. The child who is lied to by the school system but is prevented from getting his or her point across may become 'anti-social', finding power in rebellion. This rebellion is pre-channelled into hostility to authority which mistakenly becomes hostility to the family. Not being in a position to even fully appreciate the fact that the family is the safe haven from the anti-human society created by the (pseudo-) libertine materialist Establishment, the child unwittingly follows the programming of the media and the indoctrination of the school and becomes promiscuous and immoral - exactly as the Establishment wish.

The West is in a trance. We are sleep-walking our way to oblivion. We have become so used to passively absorbing the diseased programming of the Establishment, that even though we may be aware that something is wrong, the same programming has led us into false rebellions which serve to protect the enemy. All is not lost however. By studying how subliminal control is placed in our homes and streets, we can awaken our minds to the point where subliminals no longer work. By making the effort to participate in sports rather than observing them, we can achieve some personal control, which can then be used as a self-esteem builder which will enable us to shake off the shackles of despondency. Sport is but one option - the individual must fond what he or she enjoys and can use to self-actualise.

Turning off the television and radio, not reading the mass media, listening to wholesome music (maybe to instrumental music), home-schooling our children, participating in the community rather than vegetating in front of the media box - these are just some of the ways we can remove the hypnotic power which keeps our minds enslaved. We cannot avoid all advertising, but we can limit what we are exposed to by not inviting the media into our homes and voluntarily exposing ourselves to their poison.

We are voyeurs. Maybe not sexual voyeurs, but voyeurs nonetheless. This is the key to our psychological enslavement. We are asleep to our peril, but we can easily awaken. Once awake we can never be beaten down. Freed from the oppression of media manipulation we will see the liars and their lies with fresh eyes. Then, they will flee like rats back into the sewers. All we need to defeat our enemies to to wake up and sense our own strength - and see their power for the illusion it is. It really is that simple.

By news from atlantis March 2010

Death of the West: The Cultural Revolution

Note from TTHC: The following review came from the blog Victory or Death back in 2007.

A while ago I finished reading Death of the West by Patrick Buchanan. I was not familiar with the author prior to reading the book, and would in all likelihood not have come across his book had a close friend not urged me to read it. I'm glad I did read it, and for a number of reasons which I will endeavor to share with you. It discusses a number of crucial issues which may be summarized as the following: a dying population, mass immigration, an anti-Christian culture, and 'the breakup of nations and the defections of the ruling elites to a world government whose rise entails the end of nations'. I intend to post about all of those issues but if I'm to give each area the proper attention I'm going to have to do it one by one. So I'll start with the cultural revolution. This post is actually less of a review, and more of a summary. I quote Buchanan at length, and keep my commentary to a minimum, so as to keep the post as short as possible (even so its pretty long). First things first though; although I think the book is immensely useful when it comes to explaining certain things, it does have some drawbacks, so I'll start with them.

Drawbacks
There are 4 main faults. First is the use of the term Judao-Christian throughout the book. Although the author is not a Christian Zionist he persists in using the phrase and I can only assume that he is covering his back after having been accused of being an anti-Semite many times. Therefore since he is already bringing up very controversial issues such as the cultural revolution (and naming Jewish names), and promoting Christian values, he feels a need to temper the possible fallout and not rock the boat even more. Usually the nonchalant use of the term bothers me, but in the context of the information and values he conveys in his book, I'm willing to overlook it in this instance.

Secondly, being an American, a large portion of the book is understandably devoted to examining American problems and possible solutions. While I found his information and thoughts interesting, I confess that I have no emotional attachment to America. Even though it has patently been hijacked for malevolent means, I don't have much affinity for the founding fathers or the Old America. If Buchanan thinks America can climb out of the present hole it has dug for itself then good luck to him. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm more concerned with Europe, and most of all with Orthodox nations.

Thirdly, being an ex-Presidential candidate, and Republican, Buchanan does show some flicker of hope in the democratic process and even his former party. To his credit he does ravage Republican policy, Republican politicians, the political and judicial system, but out of some sort of nostalgia or wishful thinking, hopes that the situation can be reversed using the democratic process. That after he spent the whole book outlining that the media, political, educational institutions are all firmly tied up in the hands of those he opposes.
Fourthly he talks in broad terms about the West without really giving a definition.

Cultural Revolution
Buchanan starts off by stating that America has 'undergone a cultural revolution, with a new elite now occupying the commanding heights.' He observes: 'What was immoral and shameful- promiscuity, abortion, euthanasia, suicide- has become progressive and praiseworthy'.
He traces the start of this revolution to 1914, which in my opinion doesn't go back far enough, but in his analysis of the situation from that moment on, he brings up some very interesting points. He describes how during WW1, that apart from in Russia, the workers had failed to rally to the revolutions launched in their name. Nothing the marxists had predicted had come to pass. Two of Marx's disciples advanced an explanation: 'they had not risen in revolution because their souls had been saturated in two thousand years of Christianity, which blinded them to their true class interests.' Until Christianity were uprooted the revolution would be betrayed by the workers in whose name it was to be fought.
The first 'dissenting disciple' was Hungarian Georg Lukacs who had the following solution to the problem: 'I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries'. As deputy commissar for culture in the Hungarian communist regime, Lukacs put his self-described 'demonic' ideas into action in what came to be known as 'cultural terrorism'. Buchanan summarises:

As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures.

The second disciple was Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist who had seen that Bolshevism did not work, and that the regime could only compel obedience through terror.

Gramsci concluded it was their Christian souls that prevented the Russian people from embracing their Communist revolution. 'The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2000 years', Gramsci wrote; and a regime grounded in Judeo-Christian beliefs and values could not be overthrown until those roots were cut... Marxists must first de-Christianize the West.

Rather than seize power first and impose a cultural revolution from above, Gramsci argued, Marxists in the West must first change the culture; then power would fall into their laps like ripened fruit. But to change the culture would require a 'long march through the institutions'- the arts, cinema, theater, schools, colleges, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, and the new electronic medium, radio. One by one, each had to be captured and converted and politicized into an agency of revolution. Then the people could be slowly educated to understand even welcome the revolution. Gramsci urged his fellow Marxists to form popular fronts with Western intellectuals who shared their contempt for Christianity and bourgeois culture and who shaped the minds of the young.

On the cover of his 1970 runaway bestseller The Greening of America, the manifesto of the counterculture, author Charles Reich parroted Gramsci perfectly: There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and it will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted with violence. It is now spreading with amazing rapidity, and already our laws, institutions, and social structure are changing in consequence... This is the revolution of the new generation.

In 1923, Lukacs and members of the German Communist party set up, at Frankfurt University, an Institute for Marxism modelled on the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow which would come to be known as the Frankfurt School. The Jewish Max Horkheimer became its director.

At Horkheimer's direction, the Frankfurt School began to retranslate Marxism into cultural terms...To old Marxists the enemy was capitalism; to new Marxists, the enemy was Western culture... Victory would come only after Christian beliefs had died in the soul of Western man. And that would happen only after the institutions of culture and education had been captured and conscripted by allies and agents of the revolution.

The following extract from the book could easily be passed over by many, but it is telling:

...in 1933, history rudely intruded. Adolf Hitler ascended to power in Berlin, and as the leading lights of the Frankfurt School were Jewish and Marxist, they were not a good fit for the Third Reich. The Frankfurt School packed its ideology and fled to America.

Two of the more famous Jews were Erich Fromm and Theodor Adorno (who changed his surname from Wiesengrund). Among the new weapons of cultural conflict that the Frankfurt School was to develop was Critical Theory. One student described it as the 'essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism'.

Under Critical Theory, one repeats that Western societies are history's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-semitism, fascism, and Nazism. Under critical theory, the crimes of the West flow from the character of the West, as shaped by Christianity...Critical Theory eventually induces 'cultural pessimism', a sense of alienation, of hopelessness, of despair where, even though prosperous and free, a people comes to see its society and country as oppressive, evil and unworthy of loyalty or love. The new Marxists considered cultural pessimism a necessary precondition of revolutionary change.

They flatly asserted that individuals raised in families dominated by the father, who are flag-waving patriots and follow the old-time religion, are incipient fascists and potential Nazis. As a conservative Christian culture breeds fascism, those deeply immersed in such a culture must be closely watched for fascist tendencies.... As early as the mid-1960s, conservatives and authority figures who denounced or opposed the campus revolution were routinely branded 'fascists'. Baby boomers were unknowingly following a script that ran parallel to the party line laid down by the Moscow Central Committee in 1943:

Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them a fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic...The association will, after enough repetition, become 'fact' in the public mind.

Since the 1960s, branding opponents as haters or mentally sick has been the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the left.

During the 1950s, the Frankfurt School lacked a personality to popularize the ideas buried in the glutinous prose of Horkheimer and Adorno. Enter Herbert Marcuse. (Editors note: another Jew)

Marcuse provided the answer to Horkheimer's question: Who will play the role of the proletariat in the coming cultural revolution? Marcuse's candidates: radical youth, feminists, black militants, homosexuals, the alienated, the asocial, Third World revolutionaries, all the angry voices of the persecuted 'victims' of the West.

Past societies had been subverted by words and books, but Marcuse believed that sex and drugs were superior weapons. In Eros and Civilization, Marcuse urged a universal embrace of the Pleasure Principle. Reject the cultural order entirely, said Marcuse, and we can create a world of 'polymorphous perversity'.

For cultural Marxists, no cause ranked higher than the abolition of the family, which they despised as a dictatorship and the incubator of sexism and social injustice... Wilhelm Reich believed the way to destroy the family was through revolutionary sexual politics and early sex education. The appearance of sex education in elementary schools in America owes a debt to Lukacs, Reich and the Frankfurt School.

In the death of the West, the Frankfurt School must be held as a prime suspect and principal accomplice. The propaganda assault on the family it advocated has contributed to the collapse of the family.

The pill and condom have become the hammer and sickle of the cultural revolution.

In a third of a century, what was denounced as the counterculture has become the dominant culture, and what was the dominant culture has become, in Gertrude Himmelfarb's (Editors note: yet another Jew) phrase, a 'dissident culture'. We see it in the mandatory requirement for 'sensitivity training' in the military, in business, and in government. Turn on the TV and observe. The values of the revolution dominate the medium. Political correctness rules. Defiance of our new orthodoxy qualifies as 'hate speech', disrespect for its dogmas as a sign of mental sickness.

Political correctness is cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy.

People who today accept these ideas 'cannot know that they were hatched in a Marxist nursery in Weimar Germany' or that their purpose was to 'subvert our culture and overturn our civilization'.

Why they succeeded

Buchanan proposes a number of elements that came together:

First was 'the message in a bottle', as the men of the Frankfurt School called their ideas.

Second, there arrived on campus, beginning in 1964, a huge cohort of youth who had known niether hardship nor war. The cultural revolution now had a huge, captive, and receptive audience. Spoiled and affluent, carefree, confident, liberated, and bored, these young people were ready for rebellion.

Third, 1960s television could convey the tactics and triumphs of campus radicals and urban revolutionaries instantly to their peers.

Through its control of the culture, the Left dictates not only the answers, but the questions asked. In short, it controls the cosmological apparatus by which most Americans comprehend the meaning of events. This cosmology is based on two great axioms: the first is that there are no absolute values in the universe, no standards of ugliness, good and evil. The second axiom is- in a Godless universe- the Left holds moral superiority as the final arbiter of man's activities.

I'll end today's commentary with a rousing quote:

Political adversaries who use terms like Nazi, fascist, anti-Semite, nativist, homophone, bigot, xenophobe, and extremist have started a fight and should be accommodated.

I'll add that its time, not to be silenced, but to take their 'Critical Theory' and shove it right back in their faces with the same gusto that they try to shove it into ours. Two can play the game of constant repetition and demonisation, and since the truth is not on the side of those degenerates, we can beat that at their own game!

Death of the West & The Age of Man-Gods

What a sorry state we live in, or rather that of the rotting and dieing West. A people without morality, an amoral humanity made of tens of millions of individual man-gods, each nurtured from birth on the value of his own self worth above that of all of humanity.

It started a long time before, the roots planted in the Renaissance, nurtured in the Reformation and given full birth in the explosion of Nihilism that prevailed the world and especially the West in post Great War countries.

Western tradition, long ago, planted the roots of its own destruction, when it started to view itself as the center of the universe. Sure, people learned that the Sun did not rotate around the earth, but the earth around the Sun, however, at the same time they learned that the world, that reality, also rotated around something and that something was no and could not be God, it was them, each and everyone of them.

The Nihilism lead to the Marxisms: Stalinist Communism on one hand, Leninist-Trotskyte War Fascism on the other and 3rd War Socialism in the Anglo-spheres, Marx with a kinder gentler face and velvet lined club behind his back.

The veterans of the 1940s did not believe in large families, they believed in "quality" families. What this really meant was one or two children that could be spoiled rotten...give the "proper" amount of attention, that is, enough to make them think that they were the centers of the universe.

These spoiled and listless brats were the hope of that generation, not God. God, you see, was already on the way out, replaced with militant atheism or some pseudo Eastern mombo jumbo in half understood fashion or fashionably replaced by a neo-paganism that thought to take only the kinder parts of the pagan world and ignore the blood and guts. Just like the modern Druids running around in circles and chanting but avoiding, at least in public, the human sacrifices demanded by their blood thirsty gods. What no humans sacrificed inside the Burning Man every year? Where's the tradition? Where's the authenticity?

And so here we are, a West immoral, trying through bombs to instill its "correct" form of life upon all of humanity, while itself dieing from the now not so slow rot of its putrid moral guts. Everywhere in the West, a Christless, traditionaless, amoral elite has taken over, raped the dumbed down sheep that pass for citizens, and instilled a police state under which they control the very life and death of their public.

But these were the supposed enlightened republics and democracies for which the public over threw their age old, and God chosen Kings, bound by faith, the Church and tradition to take care of the people. As the populace abandoned God, so has God abandoned the populace, driven insane by the very inadequacies that they feel as man-gods at their own lacking statures.

After all, they were told that they were so ever very special, the centers of Creation itself, the purpose of the world's creation, each and everyone. Yet they are passed by life, aging, sagging and dieing, unable, through their vaunted science to live forever and have everything, finding that the material junk they have collected does not replace the relationships with God, family and friends that they have lost or worse never known.

They cling ever stronger to their own self worth, as they slide into the long night, feeling ever stronger their own self-loathing. These are the people who lead the West and populate the majority of its citizens. These are the fools who will quite willingly drag their fellow man into the Hell that they so well prepared for themselves.

I would say repent, but what has a man-god to repent for?

By Stanislav Mishin Saturday, March 20, 2010

Quit You Like Men

Sermon on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (16:13-24), Thirteenth Sunday After Pentecost by Father James Thornton

Some years ago a distinguished academic published a work in which he put forth a thesis that Christianity during the first millennium was, like its Jewish ancestor, a highly masculine religion. Christianity was distinguished, he contended, by certain masculine traits, which arose from its traditional worldview and traditional theology, and from physiological, psychological, and sociological realities that are as old as mankind itself.

The lives of Christian believers of both genders were delineated in terms of a masculine imagery that rested especially upon the traditions of the Holy Martyrs and Ascetics. Christians, both male and female, thought of themselves and described themselves as "athletes" and as "soldiers" or "warriors." Christian life was seen as ongoing warfare against the powers of darkness, a struggle in which one must don spiritual armor and fight with spiritual weapons. Monastics, specifically, and the great monastic Saints, were thought of as fighters who battled heroically against the demons.

The author went on to say that modern Judaism—but only in its traditional forms—preserves its essentially masculine character. And though he is not an Orthodox Christian, the author contended that Eastern Orthodox Christianity also preserves the masculine attributes prevalent during the first millennium. That is not surprising, of course, because Orthodoxy continues to uphold the Biblical-Patristic theology and lifestyle of early Christianity. Orthodoxy is one with early Christianity. Orthodoxy is early Christianity.

In contrast, Western Christianity, losing its understanding of Biblical-Patristic Christianity and imagining it to be unsophisticated, dabbled in highly innovative theologies that gradually sapped that religion of its masculine characteristics. Thus, Western Christianity has become largely a religion of women in the sense that formal attendees at religious services are overwhelmingly female, instead of, as during the first millennium, roughly equally balanced between men and women.

This fact, needless to say, has had a tremendous effect upon the nature of the Eastern and Western forms of Christianity. Contrast the "sweet," almost feminine, pictures of Christ prevailing in Western religious art with the austere image of our Christ Pantokrator. Contrast the sugary hymnography of the West with the sternly Biblical-theological music of the Christian East. And consider the ease with which various fads and fashions dramatically influence the course of events in Western religious groups, while Eastern Orthodox Christianity holds firmly to its tradition.

In our age of "political correctness" and hyper-sensitivity in matters touching upon gender and the like, let us take pains to elucidate what we mean when we use terminology like "masculine" and "feminine" when describing religions. This has nothing whatever to do with the value of men or women in the eyes of God. Both are of precisely equal value. Rather, what we refer to here are psychological characteristics.

Would one wish to have personnel in charge of a nursery full of newborn babies with largely masculine or feminine attributes? Obviously, the tenderness and the nurturing qualities that we associate with the feminine side of human nature are preferable, even indispensable, here. If, however, a nation fields an army, arrayed in its helmets, armor, weapons, and flags, would one wish masculine or feminine qualities to predominate in such an army? The answer is crystal clear. The traits we associate with the masculine side of human nature are requisite to winning a military battle.

Those truths do not denigrate either men or women, but simply point to certain innate characteristics established by God when He created the two sexes. The Church, in its public aspect, is more like an army arrayed in its battle gear than it is like a nursery of children. Though the latter comparison is not wholly inadmissible when speaking of the Church, this aspect involves more the private than the public.

St. Paul was, without question, a decidedly tough man, thoroughly masculine in his bearing and attitudes, characteristics he doubtless inherited at birth and characteristics which were accentuated by his rigorous training in Judaism in his youth. His admonitions to the local Churches he founded read like the commands of a great general to his soldiers. In today's reading he gives this order to the Christians of Corinth to: "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." Consider each command.

"Watch Ye:" In modern English we would say, "be vigilant." Soldiers and armies that fail to be watchful at every moment, day and night, are doomed to defeat. Many times in history, larger armies with better equipment have suffered defeat because overconfidence engendered carelessness and a lack of vigilance. So, too, with ourselves, if we fail to appreciate that our mortal enemy, led by the Evil One, is perpetually probing our defenses, looking for the smallest signs of weakness, in order to attack and overwhelm us. The Christian man or woman, if he or she is earnest, is ever vigilant over every detail of life, being certain that every thought and act is harmonious with Christian teaching. The Christian man or woman is particularly aware of weaknesses peculiar to his or her own person, so that in such things he or she may be especially watchful.

"Stand fast in the faith:" In other words, one might also say "in your faith and all that it teaches be absolutely firm, absolutely unyielding." In our own time, where flabbiness, looseness, and compromise are, sad to relate, looked upon as virtues, we are under constant pressure not to stand fast, not to be firm, with regard to many things. We are told, for example, that one religion is just as good as another, a falsehood that, if we consider it, would make a liar out of Christ Jesus, Who said forthrightly: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me."[10] Likewise, in matters of moral uprightness, we are tempted to believe, nowadays, that transgressions from time to time, or on certain occasions, do not really matter, so long we act like Christians on Sunday. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be further from St. Paul's demand that we must "stand fast in the faith." An army, however lavishly it may be equipped, will fail in its mission if it does not truly believe in its mission, if it is not truly determined to "stand fast," come what may.

"Quit you like men:" In the English of King James' time, "quit you like men" meant "conduct yourselves like men" or, better yet, "behave courageously."

During a particular battle in Africa during the Second World War, history records that a certain unit of more than four thousand men promptly surrendered after it suffered only six casualties and before it had expended any of its own ammunition. What a piteous example of a dearth of courage! And what shame that unit brought to its own nation! Those men, and their commanders, failed to grasp that to be a soldier in wartime is not simply a matter of grand music, colorful banners, and smart uniforms. War is a grim duty, a serious struggle of life or death, requiring genuine courage. It is no different for us. To be a real Christian, in this day and age especially, is not simply a matter of grand words or of beautiful crosses to adorn our necks. It is also a grim duty, and a serious struggle involving spiritual life or death, a struggle requiring genuine courage.

If the word "Christian" has any meaning at all consonant with Christ's life and teaching, it takes more courage, at least in one respect, to be a Christian today than it did to be a soldier in the deserts of North Africa during the last great war. The soldier in North Africa knew that the danger and hardships were of comparatively short duration, lasting a few months or, at most, a few years. Our danger and hardships as Christians last our whole lives, from the time we are able to understand the difference between right and wrong until the moment we draw our final breath. In the Army of Christ, we enlist for life.

"Be strong:" Armies do not recruit the infirm, the disabled, or the elderly. Armies must be composed of healthy, vigorous, and relatively young men, for only such men possess sufficient stamina to endure the hardship likely to be required of them. Even in peacetime, soldiers undergo continuous physical training to keep them fit for the battles of tomorrow. Similarly, to be a Christian requires stamina, not physical stamina but spiritual stamina, to endure the hardships of Christian life. Unlike the soldier, the Christian experiences no intervals of peace and war. All of life is a war between good and evil, between light and darkness, and so the spiritual exercises that keep us spiritually strong must never cease. And if we should assert that we need not be strong since we encounter no hardships and make no sacrifices for the sake of Christ, then it must be questioned whether our lives are truly Christian in the full sense of that word.

St. John of San Francisco was not a man of great physical strength, but if we speak of the spiritual, he was healthy, vigorous, and young throughout his earthly days, enduring even the pain of ridicule and unjust criticism from members of his own flock. No one would compare the strength of a young soldier to the physical strength of St. Xenia of Petersburg, but of her spiritual strength there can be no doubt or question, living as she did in rags, a Fool for Christ.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, St. Paul's admonitions "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong" reverberate down two thousand years of Church history, like the sharp, exacting commands of a general. They are no less compelling, no less urgent, after twenty centuries, and they obligate us no less than they did the Corinthian Christians. May we, like soldiers in a grand army on a battlefield, resolve never to give the least ground, never to despair, never to surrender, but instead to conquer and to triumph.

Losing the Ties that Bind

By Paul Craig Roberts

Whatever became of marriage? Cultural conservatives blame the decline of marriage on the sexual revolution, which destroyed the chastity of women. Men don’t marry, say the conservatives, because sex is available outside marriage.

There is, of course, something to this view, but it is hardly the whole story. Sex has always been available outside marriage. Call girls are cheaper than wives, and a prostitute costs no more than a date.

Men married for love, children and family. They would still do so, only the culture—and women—have changed.

When I inquire of men in their thirties why they remain unmarried, a few give the hedonistic answer, but most deny that they are unable to make commitments and assume responsibility. Marriage, men say, has been undermined by a lack of female and societal commitment.

The fickleness of women, men argue, is no longer constrained by concerns with reputation and by laws that require real grounds for breaking up a marriage and a family.

A wife can walk out at any time—with another man if she wishes—and take your children, your house, half of your pension and half of your income. If you make a fuss over child custody, she can gun you down with accusations of child molestation.

Even if a father is awarded joint legal custody, the mother usually has actual custody. It is up to her whether the father’s visitation rights are honored.

Professor Stephen Baskerville at Howard University in Washington, D.C., is an expert on family courts. For most men, divorce and its aftermath are a Gestapo experience. There’s not a man alive who doesn’t know someone who has been through the experience. Indeed, the experience never finishes with a man.

Men say that women’s lack of commitment is evident in the fact that the vast majority of divorces, family quarrels and acts of domestic violence are initiated by women. Yet, from start to finish, men are regarded as the villain. Society’s image of divorce is the successful executive who dumps his dowdy wife for a young blonde bombshell. The propaganda is ubiquitous that domestic violence means men beating women.

Men maintain that the position of a husband in a marriage is untenable. Formerly, there was a division of labor and authority among the spouses. Today, working wives have financial independence, and divorce laws and family courts give them the upper hand in any dissolution of the relationship. Husbands know this and, consequently, have lost their share of authority. The wife cracks the whip, and when she is no longer pleased, she leaves with your assets.

I have listened to men debate what can be done. They doubt Baskerville will succeed in reforming family courts and don’t believe that heterosexual men will organize politically like feminists and homosexuals.

Recently, I heard the view expressed that multiculturalism would provide a solution. Men will return to marriage, a young man said, when the bride brings a large dowry that remains the husband’s property regardless of what happens to the relationship. The dowry would offset the risks that make it foolish for men to marry.

Heads nodded in agreement, but one spoke out, saying that more would need to be imported from India’s customs. He had in mind child betrothals and child brides. It was the only way in this day and time, he said, to acquire a wife who didn’t have the sexual experience of a prostitute by the time she reaches marriage age.

Conservatives are right—but for the wrong reason—that the sexual revolution has undermined marriage. Men see women as damaged goods and feel funny about marrying a woman who might have shared a bed with a number of the wedding guests.

It is called the double-standard, but many men believe that promiscuity does not suit women. They believe that a woman who has had many partners cannot bind emotionally with a husband. She is never his. The emotive ties that bind a woman to a man are lost to professionalism or to indifference.

None of this is to deny that individual men can be jerks, neglectful and abusive, but the decline of marriage is not caused by personalities.

Women think men don’t care, but men are far more aware of the problem than women. I was a young professor when it all started and watched a campus turn into a brothel. The male students were perplexed, even the left-wing ones who had been taught to regard female chastity as oppression. I still remember the resident Marxist who, high on peyote, came to me to complain that “nice girls are ruining themselves.”

Twilight of the Godless

Feminism is a Darwinian blind alley. In biological terms, there is nothing that identifies a maladaptive pattern so quickly as a below-replacement level of reproduction; an immediate consequence of feminism is what appears to be an irreversible decline in the birth rate. Nations pursue feminist policies at their peril.

~Katarina Runske

It’s no secret that Western man has given up breeding. A society needs to have 2.1 births per women in a lifetime if it’s going to maintain a steady population. Besides the U.S. and Iceland, no western nation is even close.

Putting the problem in chart form may help to illustrate its enormity. Here are some of the fertility rates for western countries and their projected white populations by 2050, not counting migration. I estimated 4.9 million nonwhites for the UK and knocked that out of the population, 6.4 in France, 1.7 in the Netherlands, 2.5 in Germany, and 10 million for all other EU countries. The total EU white population is 491.5 million- 25.5 million nonwhites = 466 million. Also, the TFR was adjusted from the official number of 1.51 to 1.45 due to the higher nonwhite birth rate. Canada has around 2.7 million nonwhites. Their overall TFR is 1.58; I estimated the white number at 1.5. Russia is about 20 percent nonwhite.

^EU member
*ex Soviet state, non EU member

It can be projected that the total number of white people lost from the EU, Canada, Switzerland, the Balkans, Norway and the ex-Soviet states including Russia will be around 279,000,000. To put that in perspective, that’s more than the losses due to World War I, World War II, the Nazi regime and all communist governments in history combined. Of course, deciding against having children is not equivalent to starving people in gulags. Still, whatever the causes of the birth slump, the result is hundreds of millions of lives not existing that otherwise would have.

Perhaps low birth rates are not a cultural phenomenon and the number of children people have is based more on economic considerations. Looking at birth rates for the world as a whole casts doubt on that possibility. The top five countries are Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger and Afghanistan. Not exactly places known for their prosperous middle-classes. Even within first-world countries, if there’s a correlation between wealth and fertility, it’s negative. In the U.S., black and Hispanic households are worth about one tenth of what white household are. But according to estimates, Hispanic women have 3.0 children each, blacks 2.2, and whites 2.0. Ukraine’s nominal GDP per capita is less than $4,000 a year while its TFR is indistinguishable from that of Italy ($39,000), Spain ($35,000) or the Czech Republic ($21,000).

We must conclude that there is something besides economics that is going on here. If you find a white population somewhere, it’s almost certain that it’s not going to be reproducing itself enough to survive.

There is one major exception.

After the 2004 presidential election, Steve Sailer famously analyzed Caucasian fertility rates in Red (those that voted for the Republican candidate) and Blue (those that voted Democratic) states. He found that the top 19 states in fertility (and 25 out of the top 26) voted for George W. Bush. Amongst the 50 states and Washington, DC, the correlation between white fertility rate and the Republican share of the white vote was 0.86 (0.84 in 2000).

Sailer hypothesizes that the lower cost of living in Red States makes child bearing more feasible.

In a tempting contrast, the cost-of-living calculator provided by Realtor.com says that a $100,000 salary in liberal Manhattan buys only as much as a $38,000 salary in conservative Pinehurst, North Carolina. Likewise, a San Francisco couple earning $100,000 between them can afford just as much in Cedar City, Utah, if the husband can find a $44,000-a-year job—and then the wife can stay home with their children. Moreover, the culture of Cedar City is more conducive to child rearing than San Francisco.

While this kind of thinking is on the right track, it doesn’t address why some women choose carriers and others families as much as it does why those with particular characteristics end up in one place rather than another. After all, those from New York are free to move to Idaho and vice versa. But it does show that we’re dealing with a cultural issue—one of the soul, not the pocketbook. Utah, the only majority Mormon state in the Union, has a 2.45 TFR. That’s pretty impressive, especially considering Utahans watch the same TV and listen to the same music (both of which encourage libertinism and nihilism) as the rest of America. While cost of living considerations may explain some of the difference in TFR between New York and Utah, they do less to shed light on the disparity between Utah and the rest on the socially conservative and sparsely populated heartland.

Taking an international perspective, there seems to be two ways to have a replacement fertility rate in the modern world.

A) Be really religious.

B) Be really r-selected.

Since Europeans aren’t Africans, that leaves option (A) as the only proven method for replacement Caucasian fertility. The potential success in this area of any secular philosophical system is speculative. Remember that next time you see Bill Maher on TV foaming at the mouth about those stupid Christians who won’t bow before the god of evolution. The ultimate irony is that championing Darwinism has, as Katarina Runske wrote of feminism, been a Darwinian dead end.

Put bluntly, liberal secular humanists are on the verge of extinction.

To get an idea of the cluelessness of the evangelical Darwinians, look not further than Richard Dawkins’s recent article “What Use is Religion?” The author begins by distinguishing between proximate and ultimate causes. To get an idea of what he’s talking about, think of a moth that flies into a lamp and kills itself. The proximate cause is that the physiology of the insect and physical properties of light cause the moth to behave in a suicidal way. An ultimate cause is evolutionary: in the conditions in which the insect evolved, the only light in the night sky was the moon, which the moth was able to use as a compass without ever running into it.

Saying we believe in religion because it feels good is a proximate explanation, the same way that saying we eat sugary foods because they taste good is. The evolutionary “why” just isn’t there.

Dawkins’ answer to “what use is religion?” has something to do with children, but nothing to do with the likelihood of having them.

My specific hypothesis of the necessity of religion is all about children.

More than any other species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations. Theoretically, children might learn from experience not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But to say the least, the child whose brain includes this rule of thumb will be at a selective advantage: Believe whatever the grown-ups tell you. Natural selection builds child brains just this way.

In addition, this very quality automatically makes them vulnerable to infection by mind viruses. For excellent survival reasons, child brains trusts parents and elders whom their parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the “truster” has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot tell that “If you swim in the river, you’ll be eaten by crocodiles” is good advice but “If you don’t sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, the crops will fail” is bad (or at least, unnecessary) advice.

Dawkins compares religion to an Internet virus in this way. A good computer does what you tell it. That makes it a wonderful machine capable of doing spreadsheets, but also likely to follow harmful instructions. To Dawkins, religion is a late arriver like the artificial light which kills the moth that is behaving in ways that in other conditions were evolutionarily adaptive.

The problem with using that explanation for religion is that spirituality has been around for too long. There has been plenty of time for evolution to preserve the positive results of blind obedience and do away with what’s harmful and wasteful. For similar reasons, Harpending and Cochran theorize in The 10,000 Year Explosion that Jewish intelligence was a recent adaptation. The Jews have unusually high intelligence and a susceptibility to a group of similar diseases. The genes for disease may have not had time to be selected against. They are around because they are part of the package that includes traits which are adaptive and make up for the fact that the carrier is more likely to die from a particular group of illnesses. Had Jewish intelligence been around for much longer—Harpending and Cochran say it reached its abnormal level in the Middle Ages—then evolution would’ve had time to create a healthier high-IQ race. If man’s spiritual side goes back tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, it’s unlikely that he couldn’t have evolved to both obey elders as a child and as an adult only believe things that he has empirical evidence for, if such a thing was adaptive. After all, evolution does produce secular, empirical-minded men (Dawkins and I among them). We simply haven’t been able to outbreed believers.

Since man’s been talking a lot longer than he’s been writing, it’s hard to date the birth spirituality or belief in life after death. As good a guess as any for the start of religion is when humans started taking the trouble to ceremoniously bury their dead. That’s been happening for at least 100,000 years. We may trace spirituality even further. OriginsNet.org has put together the evidence for religiosity in the great apes in their “Appendices for Chimp Spirituality.” As the article recounts, after a 10-year old female bonobo was killed by a leopard, the tribal elders encircled the body almost immediately, some making loud displays and calls, others sitting in solemn silence. The body was eventually groomed and cared for, and the high-status apes wouldn’t allow any other apes access to the body. Surely if these alpha apes could talk, they would’ve declared themselves a priesthood and said they were praying for the poor child’s soul!

There’s also evidence that animism and a certain reverence for nature has a very long lineage. Jane Goodall observered that at the onset of thunderstorms, chimpanzee males would often perform spectacular aggression displays, charging, swaying back and forth, and brandishing and shaking branches. Goodall sensed that the Chimpanzees were expressing something like the emotion of awe.

Religion may have evolved to protect us from slipping into hedonism, or to instill a sense of duty in order to go bear the difficulties of childbearing. It may simply be that those who thought God was on their side exterminated the prissy atheist cavemen (who probably also believed their women should be “liberated” and hunt for themselves.) The issues of the evolution of religion and exactly why it’s good for the fertility rate in the modern world are outside the scope of the article. There isn’t even an established theory on the evolution of the brain yet. (I’m partial to Geoffrey Miller’s belief that it has something to do with sexual selection, but I wouldn’t bet a week’s salary on it.)

What we can say with certainty is that Dawkins’s idea that religion brings nothing to man, or, indeed, harms him, is patently false, whether we see things from the perspective of how long faith has been around or what’s happening today to people without it. A quick look at the CIA Factbook proves that Dawkins is very wrong when he claims, “religion has no survival value for individual human beings, or for the benefit of their genes.” If, in the end, all evolution cares about is survival, it’s liberalism that must be considered the virus. Our ancestors who had religion survived while those of us without it might not.

The two most evolutionarily successful men in written history were probably Genghis Khan and the Prophet Muhammad. But only the latter invented a religious justification for his conquests. Now his ethny (loosely defined) continues to claim land while the Mongolians are a measly five million and dwindling. Among whites, the two most fertile groups are by far the mentioned Mormons and the Anabaptists. Though the Old Testament ignores the afterlife, the Hebrews’ great reward for pleasing God was that the they could spread their genes. Millennia later, God’s chosen are still around, while the Canaanites exist only in word.

There may be nothing we can do to stop the current trends. Whites may simply not be fit for the world they created. Perhaps the few that are have already become religious fanatics and simply need time to expand their numbers. We won’t know until there’s a white elite that doesn’t declare war on the traditional beliefs of their people. Russia may be providing a test case (albeit not a perfect one. The government may have started to encourage nationalism and religion, but there’s still the poisonous effects of the Western-American media).

Even if it was granted that the modern world, with its feminism and secularism, produced all the happiness one can imagine, it cannot last. A baby born today may live to see the extinction of the Lithuanians (projected to be a population of 760,000 by 2100, possibly all assimilated into other ethnicities). Any philosophy that guarantees that those that adopt it will be gone within a few generations can only be embraced by nihilists. The patriarchal and god-fearing will inherit the earth, one way or another.

by Richard Hoste on November 03, 2009