AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT

A podcast powered by FeedBurner

...

Reset this favorite; show all Subscribe options

Subscribe Now!

...with web-based podcatchers. Click your choice below:

...with iTunes:

Add to iTunes

...with something else (copy this address):

Get more info on other podcatchers:

View Feed XML

A podcast is rich media, such as audio or video, distributed via RSS. Feeds like this one provide updates whenever there is new content. FeedBurner makes it easy to receive content updates in popular podcatchers.

Learn more about syndication and FeedBurner...

Current Feed Content

• BULLYING INCIDENT BEING WEAPONISED TO BULLY BRITS INTO SUBMISSION ON IMMIGRATION

  Posted: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:19:00 +0000

  Slightly bullied Syrian boy with his ISIS supporting friends

  by Trad News
  
  

  Britcuckistan, that weird zombie nation that now inhabits the hollowed-out shell of the former British Empire, continues to set new precedents in double standards and sheer insanity.
  
  The latest example has been a minor bullying incident, in which an English boy slightly bullied a Syrian migrant, who, let's face it, should be back in his home country now that President Assad has managed to fight off the terrorists supported in part by the government of Britcuckistan.
  
  I don't approve of this act of bullying, although who knows what proceeded it. But its pretty tame compared to some of the kid-on-kid violence I saw growing up.
  
  The English boy grabs him, pushes him down, and pours a little water on his cheeks before letting him go. There might be more off camera—who knows?—but this story is mainly about what was recorded on camera.
  
  Check for yourself:
  

  
  

  
  

  
  As it stands, it is clearly a triviality. Most kids suffer a lot worse than that at school. However, the globalist-controlled media and the Leftists who control social media have decided that this is a "teachable moment" and should be spread around the world as yet more evidence of the "evil of White people."
  
  Yes, in short, it is being weaponised as a means to attack White people and bully us into never showing any kind of dissent on the migration and racial replacement question.
  
  As for the so-called "victim," he seems to have done extremely well out of the whole thing, with a flood of donations (at least £135K), presents—check out his new Armani jacket—and messages of support.
  
  

  

  
  I'd guess that most of that £135K came from cucked White people, keen to signal how on board with the migrant invasion they are.
  
  But just compare this story to how the press dealt with the actual grooming, rape—and worse—of literally hundreds of thousands of English children by gangs of a migrant Muslim background.
  
  That story was literally going on for decades. I knew all about it from my friends in the British Nationalist Party, but the police, the politicians, and the media enforced a blanket of silence that lasted right up to a few years ago, when they had a damage limitation strategy in place.
  
  

  Whatever truth there was in the pedophile scandal of this dead celebrity, it was deployed strategically to save multicultural Britain from serious collapse.

  
  I've got nothing against refugees as people, and you shouldn't either, as it allows Leftists to portray you as an evil, hate-filled bigot and thus weaken any healthy nationalist message you have.
  
  But migrants usually come from shithole countries. That is undeniable. I also understand that their culture—sometimes combined with our foreign policy—creates extremely dysfunctional states, which is why they need our help.
  
  But when helping them becomes an existential issue and a threat to our own national identities, then we are clearly doing something very, very wrong.
  
  Let's help them by stabilising instead of destablilising their countries, and by keeping them in their own neighbourhoods where the costs of supporting them are so much lower than in our own countries.
  
  

  

  
  Become a Patron!

  

• TOLSTOY VS. DOSTOYEVSKY

  Posted: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 21:52:00 +0000

  
  

  At his new "Right-Wing English Teacher" YouTube page, Andy Nowicki discusses the two generally acknowledged giants of Russian literature, Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and their vastly divergent perspectives on modernity and its discontents.

  

• STAIRCASE HISTORY AND THE SUBPRIME MORALITY OF THE NANKING MASSACRE

  Posted: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:10:00 +0000

  

  by Colin Liddell
  
  

  The French have a term for it, L’esprit de l’escalier, or “staircase wit.” It means bright and witty sayings thought of too late as one is exiting a party. But history has its own “staircase” element as well, namely events that receive historical attention much later than they should if, as we are supposed to believe, they were so important to begin with.
  
  A perfect example of this is the “Nanking Massacre” of 1937, now a much-contested historical event in the Sino-Japanese War (1937—45). The Chinese claim that the Japanese went on a brutal rampage resulting in 300,000 deaths. The Japanese claim they were responding to irregular troops in civilian clothing using guerrilla tactics, with a much lower death toll.
  
  Even though this is now presented as a pivotal historical event and something that we are all supposed to know, the surprising thing is that, like the Jewish Holocaust from the same era (which began to be used to advance Jewish ethnic interests after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and really only gained traction in the 1970s [here, p. 42ff]), it got off to a rather late start, becoming suddenly very, very important decades after it actually happened.
  
  Not only had Clio the Muse of History descended the staircase before anything of importance had been written about this supposedly groundbreaking event, but she had climbed into her carriage, arrived home, and kicked off her shoes as well. If Nanking was so important surely it should have been broached at the first practical opportunity, say in the immediate post-war period. Of course it wasn’t, not by the Chinese nor by anyone else. As it was, the event had to wait until the publication of Iris Chang’s best seller The Rape of Nanking in 1997 to really get its historical marching boots on — a full 60 years after the event! Some staircase!
  
  James Dao, writing in the New York Times in 1998, called attention to the sudden spurt of interest:
  

  As recently as five years ago, the 1937 Rape of Nanking, in which up to 300,000 Chinese were massacred in six weeks by Japanese troops, was barely a footnote in American popular culture. Since then the event has inspired two novels, a documentary film, a book of photographs, several Internet Web sites and a dozen academic conferences. Another documentary on the Rape of Nanking for the History Channel and one on the Sino-Japanese War for public television are also in production.

  As remarkable as this sudden interest was, it was perhaps even more remarkable that Chang’s book became the vehicle for this, as it had serious flaws as a work of history, the main ones being its lack of credible causation for what was supposed to be a particularly violent incident by Japanese troops. Essentially Chang ascribed it to the inherently violent nature of the Japanese, something I have yet to notice in decades spent living here. More importantly for a book that was presented as a serious academic work, she did zero research in Japan, laying her work open to the charge of being extremely one-sided.
  
  

  Despite this, the book was lionized, with the author getting the full “instant celebrity” treatment of newspaper profiles, talk show appearances, honorary degrees, and invitations to the Clinton White House. No doubt, the racy title in conjunction with a young Chinese female author — she was 29 at the time — played some part in stimulating interest. It is also interesting to note what ultimately happened to Chang — after a bout of depression, apparently caused by overwork, she killed herself at the early age of 36 by placing a gun in her mouth and shooting herself.
  
  

  Chang meeting Clinton: maybe it wasn't suicide after all.

  This saga reveals once again that history is never just about what happened in such-and-such a place at such-and-such at time. It’s much more about what certain groups choose to focus on and why. Personally, I’m not overly interested in the minutiae of the Nanking Massacre. Trainspotterly hairsplitting about numbers of victims or whether the victims were blameworthy can get boring extremely fast. People died, how many, how, and why, take your pick. What is more interesting is why “Nanking 1937” suddenly jumped to life as “history” in the late 1990s.
  
  To answer this, you first need to understand why it wasn’t considered historically important much nearer to the time in which it happened, in the same way that, say, Dunkirk, Stalingrad, or Hiroshima were.
  
  There are two reasons for this. Firstly, Nanking 1937 wasn’t particularly unique or special. Secondly, it was an event that had no effect on the actual outcome of events at the time. Ironically, the only unique thing about it was how particularly ineffectual it was on outcomes. This is because the whole point of the Japanese advance on the city of Nanking was to force Chang Kai-Chek’s Nationalist government to come to terms, something that the fall of the city signally failed to do.
  
  Beaten at Nanking, the Nationalists just moved their capital to Hankow, and when that city also fell, they moved it again. Like Napoleon in 1812, the Japanese seemed to naively think that they just had to show up at the opposition’s capital to win, possibly because that is exactly what would have forced them to surrender if the boot had been on the other foot.
  
  Also, terrible as it was, the Nanking Massacre was just one of many incidents of a similar nature. I believe this makes it what is sometimes called, a “mere detail” of history. The Sino-Japanese War lasted 8 years and covered most of the heavily populated parts of China. It was so vast and violent, with millions dying, that there are many other examples of horrific butchery/ tragic violence besides Nanking to develop historical narratives with.
  
  

  This one act by the Chinese government killed almost three times as many people  as the highest estimates of the Nanking massacre.

  Indeed, just a few months before Nanking, the Chinese themselves committed an act demonstrably much worse than the Nanking Massacre — even if we accept the highest estimate of 300,000 deaths — when they deliberately destroyed the Huayuankou Dyke on the south bank of the Yangtze River in a ruthless attempt to halt the Japanese advance. This act of demolition unleashed flood waters across a wide area of Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu provinces. In order to avoid Japanese counter-measures, the civilian population was not warned, so the flooding resulted in a massive death toll from drowning, estimated at 800,000, with many millions more displaced and made homeless.
  
  In the context of the wider war, we can say that Nanking 1937 was not unique and not decisive, and furthermore that it was dwarfed by the Chinese government’s atrocities against its own people. From this, you can see there was no immediate reason for Nanking to become a significant part of history. Why then was it subsequently presented as such?
  
  The most obvious answer to this is that it proved useful to the Chinese government and to a lesser extent Western elites. Internally Nanking serves as a useful unifying device for the Chinese state, giving the Chinese people an external hate figure — Japan — while also reminding them that they need a strong centralized government to avoid similar outrages. Externally the Chinese use it as a stick to beat Japan with, and keep them on the defensive regarding their historical pride and identity. This serves to weaken their Asian rival, although, overusing the tactic can backfire. It could be argued that this is one factor that has pushed Japan in a more assertively nationalist direction in recent years.
  
  But why did the Chinese wait so long before resorting to this tactic? Iris Chang’s book put it down to the economic weakness and isolation of Communist China, which sought economic benefits from trading with Japan. By the 1960s “Red China” was opposed not just by the West but also by the Soviet Union, with which it had fallen out. It was only with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the success of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms that the country felt strong enough to use this stick to beat Japan. Interestingly, by that time, those same economic reforms were creating big inequalities within China that challenged social cohesion. China’s version of Japan bashing arrived at an opportune moment.
  
  But what about Western elites? The benefit of the Nanking Massacre for these people is less obvious, especially as it is occasionally used to undermine Japan, a key Western ally. But maybe this is exactly what is wanted, namely a Japan that is regarded as somehow historically flawed and morally tainted, because this is a Japan that can operate less on its own terms and has an obvious need for a geopolitical intermediary. As Dutch journalist Ian Buruma, writing in the Guardian in 2010 said:
  

  Most Japanese were happy to be pacifists and concentrate on making money. Japanese governments could devote their energy to building up the country’s industrial wealth, while the US took care of security, and by extension much of Japan’s foreign policy. It was an arrangement that suited everyone: the Japanese became rich, the Americans had a compliant anti-communist vassal state, and other Asians, even Communist China, preferred Pax Americana to a revival of Japanese military clout.

  But, there could well be less obvious reasons, connected to the strangely moralizing purpose to which history is put these days. Victim narratives are an important part of the “power eco-system” in Western societies, where they are typically used to “de-privilege” the core populations of Western states through White guilt. This is done for a variety of reasons: (1) to facilitate the importation of cheap labor, (2) to create “diversity” as an end in itself, and (3) to justifying the “affirmative action” necessary to maintain social cohesion in societies characterized by very substantial racial differences and divisions.
  
  In the case of the Holocaust, Jewish activists have used it as a rationalization for Israel and its policies, to silence critics of immigration and multiculturalism, to portray the relatively wealthy and successful Jewish community as victims, and pad the coffers of Jewish organizations (here, p. lvi ff).
  
  Western elites get benefits from victim narratives that feature Jews, Blacks, and other non-Whites as “victims” of Whites. But, what about a narrative presenting the Chinese as victims of the Japanese? Aside from the geopolitical benefits outlined above, there are two possible additional benefits. The first one emphasizes the Japanese side of the equation and the other the Chinese side.
  
  The first possible benefit is that narratives of Japanese guilt play into the wider narrative of White guilt. Japan has often been viewed as “honorary White” nation in the past, and was described by President Theodore Roosevelt as “the only nation in Asia that understands the principles and methods of Western civilization.”
  
  The second possible benefit is that persuading the Chinese to participate in a victim narrative helps to strengthen the institution of victimology itself. In the decades leading up to Chang’s book, victim narratives in general had already been overextended and overused to the extent that they were in danger of losing their value. The obvious analogy here is with currency notes or government bonds, which quickly depreciate if too many are issued and demand falters.
  
  By 1997, when Chang’s book came out, the global guilt industry had enjoyed its first big spurt and needed a fresh infusion of energy to avoid a crash. Getting China to buy into its own victim narrative, not only served specific Chinese and Western elite goals, but it also helped to keep the global guilt market afloat. As with America’s overproduction of fiat currency in the Chimerica years, here too China picked up the slack.
  
  Previously published at The Occidental Observer
  
  Become a Patron!

  

• THE FAILURE OF SPIRITUAL COUNSEL (FATHER FINE'S FOLLY)

  Posted: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 16:09:00 +0000

  

  The passage below is taken from Andy Nowicki's new publication, Ravages of the 'Rough Beast,' now available on Kindle, and in paperback.

  
  

  The priest with whom I scheduled a meeting about my "demon" problem was—I am convinced--- a man of personal decency and theological reliability. I do not have an easy time opening up to people, particularly if they strike me as fundamentally unserious in nature or disingenuous in temperament. It is not enough to intuit genuine compassion in another person, though compassion is, of course, a desirable, indeed, a necessary characteristic in a confidant.
  
  But I find it foolish to seek spiritual intimacy based merely on the sense that a would-be adviser seems “well-meaning.” Good intentions are a good thing… but they are also known to pave the road to a certain loathsome place which I have visited all too frequently, one I very much wish to avoid taking up as a permanent residence.
  
  This man, however—let us call him Father Fine, as he was indeed a “fine” man—again, struck me as possessing a grounded personality and a sincere faith. I felt I could let him know directly of my state of mind and spirit. Yet to my dismay, he appeared quite skeptical, even dismissive, when I asked if he knew of someone within the priesthood who might be willing to function as a spiritual adviser. With a shrug and a smirk, he likened such a request to the seeking for a “guru,” and indicated that he didn’t think such a course of action would be especially useful for me.
  
  My heart was already sinking at this point, as I detected that his dubious attitude could not be overcome, nor was I interested in trying to talk him into believing that my concerns were worth addressing. Weakly I muttered something about how I had no use for a ‘guru” per se, with the sort of connotations suggested by such an epithet (That is to say, I didn’t wish to join a cult or be mind-controlled by a charismatic charlatan); then I added that I had for a while been experiencing what I suspected to be demonic influence or oppression, though I took special care to make clear that I did NOT think myself possessed, as I inferred that if he even suspected I was making such a claim, his skepticism towards my expressed dilemma would only grow more withering.
  
  At some point, in order, I suppose, to attempt to convince him of the reality of what I suspected (and still suspect) to be my “demon issues,” I confessed to having often been seized by sadness, and often feeling out of place. Father Fine responded to these revelations by chiding me for not being friendly enough, for behaving standoffishly, and for all too often holding myself aloof in social settings; he suggested that I make more of an effort to be sociable with others. (He apparently based this critique on what he had observed of me during Church-related activities). Moreover, he added, it made sense that people would reject me, if I behaved in a way that did not seem friendly or hospitable to them…
  
  It was at this point of our discourse when my mounting despair reached its terminal nadir. Had the occasion been different, I would have been miffed at his effrontery at choosing to give me ill-conceived lectures; instead, I just felt the misery of one who has failed to make his case heard, despite having practically pleaded on its behalf.
  
  I hadn’t, after all, scheduled this meeting with Father Fine to have my people skills and socialization habits dissected. I would freely admit, of course, to being a quiet, unassuming person most of the time, with a particular disinclination for small talk or chit-chat. I have never been “Mr. Congeniality,” for better or for worse. But I hadn’t visited my priest’s offices out of a desire to know how to better my social life, as should have been clear from everything I had told him.

  
  

  *************

  
  

  Again, I wish to emphasize that Father Fine was a fine man, but he simply seemed uninclined to take me seriously. In retrospect, I wonder if he felt himself improperly equipped to receive my concerns; perhaps they struck him as altogether too exotic, compared to the sort of things he typically heard from people. Or possibly his credulity prevented him from acknowledging the demonic realm in anything other than a broadly theological or dispassionately academic manner.

  
  

  In any case, the failed interview it left me demoralized. Even the blessing that he bestowed upon me at the end of the conversation (at my request) came across as awkward, half-hearted, desultorily formal. I am quite sure that he felt as frustrated as I did, in his own way. He didn’t mean to have failed me so badly; again, he was a good man, yet for all of his good-naturedness he couldn’t bring himself around towards comprehending the actuality of my demon-haunted psychic state.
  
  Travis Bickle's "Father Fine" moment:
  
  

  
  

  
  

  Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Affirmative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the Nihil, The Columbine Pilgrim, Considering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. Visit his Soundcloud page and his YouTube channel. His author page is Alt Right Novelist.

  
  

  Become a Patron!

  

• REFLECTIONS ON THE CHARLOTTESVILLE "SHOW TRIAL"

  Posted: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 17:24:00 +0000

  Fields is a synonym for soil; blood and soil, anyone?

  by Daniel Barge
  
  

  The problem with the trial of Alex Fields for the supposed murder of Heather Heyer is that it is being heavily politicized.
  
  It is being politicized by the left,  who coincidentally have a lot of political power,  and it is also being politicised by what remains of the Alt-Right, who now have zero political power.
  
  Furthermore the Left is much better placed morally, as Colin Liddell observed in his recent statement on the role of the Affirmative Right.
  

  "The main problem that had to be addressed was the Alt-Right's failings as a moral movement, as this made it easier for its more politically powerful but intellectually weaker opponents to attack it and shut it down without engaging with its ideas."

  Yet again, in moral terms, the Alt-Right is going into this renewed Charlottesville conflict almost naked.

  
  It did not need to be that way.
  
  When Unite the Right decided to stage a protest at Charlottesville to oppose the removal of an important item of historical commemoration and Southern identity, it was taking a stance that had moral support across much of America, and which even reached into the White House. As president Trump half correctly said,  "There were good people on both sides."
  
  But, more correctly, there were also bad people on both sides. First of all, in my opinion, all the people on the left were pretty bad. This includes the antifa actively seeking violence, their camp followers like Heather Heyer, and even their pet Christians, out there to provide cheap moral ammunition against the foot soldiers of Unite the Right.
  
  There were definitely bad people on the Alt-Right side too, people who spouted Nazi rhetoric and espoused the kind of views calibrated to marginalize and toxify any White identitarian movement.
  
  Among the "baddies" on the Alt-Right side, you would have to include people like Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch who pushed the notion of "don't punch right" and turning a blind eye to the excesses of Stormerists and Feds, which could then be used by the Left to attack the movement. The rumours that these so-called Alt-Right leaders may not be as genuine and sincere as they claim should never be dismissed as long as their behaviour is consistent with infiltrators and disruption agents.
  
  

  Spencer getting his "money shot" at Charlottesville.

  The fact that members of the National Socialist Movement were invited was an obvious own goal as well, as this is a group that worships Adolf Hitler and fully approves of the worst crimes of the Nazi regime, while at the same time claiming that it was totally innocent. Also, the fact that what looks like an obvious shill was able to unfurl a swastika flag and calmly parade around without a word of disapproval, shows a sad naivety or chronic lack of judgement on the part of those supposedly in control of the demonstration.
  
  Now, having set up the protest in this way, essentially framing it in the most immoral terms possible without actually sacrificing a baby and drinking its blood, whatever happened next was bound to be weaponized by the Left against the protesters. So, the Alt-Right pushing for this trial to be politicized and moralised is yet another defeat waiting to happen.
  
  The best option for the Alt-Right in this case would be to unilaterally depoliticize this trial and to essentially ignore it. The more you have the likes of Andrew Anglin, Mike "Edge cases" Enoch, and "America's Fuhrer" Richard Spencer kvetching about what a "monkey trial" this is to get more hits and likes, the more likely you are to skew the court's decision in favour of the Left.
  
  Also, it is relatively unimportant whether Fields turns out to be innocent or guilty, as the true verdict here is that he was neither entirely innocent nor entirely guilty.
  
  A gun may have been flashed at him, mobs may have been milling around, his car may even have been struck by a baseball bat, etc., but remember these were mainly mobs of fat ladies and limp-wristed men LARPing as tough guys, plus there were plenty of other roads to drive away from potential trouble.
  
  

  Not all the roads were shut down by baying antifa mobs.

  While some degree of nervousness on Fields's part is understandable, the way in which he hit the gas and plunged into a crowd of people, throwing several of them high up into the air, was obviously excessive. In any case like this, even without politicization, there would still be a fairly good chance of the accused being convicted.
  
  Also, whether or not Fields is convicted should have no bearing on the two most pertinent facts of the day, firstly that antifa, with the full blessing of the local police, initiated practically all the violence that day, and secondly that the Alt-Right idiotically attempted to stage a moral fight, while at the same time morally disarming and arriving on the battlefield naked.
  
  Become a Patron!

  

• SHORTPOD (31): THE MEANINGLESS SAINTS AND MEDIEVAL METAPOLITICS

  Posted: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 17:07:00 +0000

  

  Affirmative Right chief editor Colin Liddell wishes listeners a happy "St. Andrews Day" and explains why the Scots picked a Jew, who never came to Scotland or even knew Scotland existed, to be their patron saint.
  
  Also, discussed  and compared is Saint George, the Greek who somehow became the patron saint of England.

  
  

  YouTube version available here

  

• FAKE FEELZ FIGHT ON THE BORDER

  Posted: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:23:00 +0000

  
  

  For a country to survive, it needs not just well-policed borders but also a positive identity and a strong nationalist faith. Instead, most opposition to illegal immigration in American today is merely based on peripheral factors, such as whether illegals are likely to be gang members or not, place a burden on public services, etc. The migrant caravan is a cynical plot to target this ideological weakness by bombarding Americans with imagery designed to appeal to their "feelz." But, as RamZPaul shows in this video, many of the images are contrived and faked for maximum effect. 

  

• "DEMON IN THE ROUGH"

  Posted: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:20:00 +0000

  

  The passage below is taken from Andy Nowicki's new publication, Ravages of the 'Rough Beast,' now available on Kindle, and in paperback.

  
  

  I write with the consciousness of a man who strongly suspects he has acquired a demon.
  
  While not feeling himself to be overtly possessed by said demon, your faithful interlocutor nevertheless struggles to comprehend his current psychic state in absence of rhetorical recourse to citation of the doings of the denizens of the infernal realm.
  
  I am not possessed, I don’t think. Nothing unknown has invaded my body or breached the borders of my consciousness. Still, my mind is demon-haunted, and my heart is devil-bedeviled. An infernal element has entered my interior line of vision, and I can’t seem to avoid glimpsing him; he is always in front of me, though often merely in my peripherals. At times I can forget that he is even there, but then, with a wash of dread, I remember him again.
  
  And once I recall him, there he is before me again.
  
  Your faithful interlocutor is hardly a scholar of demonology. At one point, he would even have doubted the actual, non-metaphorical existence of entities known as demons, devils, or ghouls. Yet now he has discovered that in a sense it scarcely matters if the entity which oppresses his senses is literal or figurative. It is no less real, either way.
  
  I am thus left with the conviction of being in the state known as “demon-oppressed.” No hell-spawned pest has taken me over, yet something wicked clings to me at all times, from which I am unable to break free.
  
  Of course, demonic oppression, as commonly understood, shares many characteristics in common with what those in the medical field would call “depression” or “anxiety.” There is an ever-palpable conviction of dread, worry, and sadness. And there is a perpetual overload of empathic awareness. Now empathy is a gift, properly belonging to a well-functioning human being, but demons can turn blessings into curses: thus it at times becomes difficult to avoid fixating upon the pain, heartbreak, or suffering endured by others.
  
  This seeming curse, after serving its cursed role, may indeed loop around and again transform into the blessing it was first intended to be, thanks to the gracious intervention of Heaven. Perpetual empathy in the face of tragedy can lead a man into a debilitating mental state, but it can also shake that same man out of the stupor of his ignorant complacency.
  
  So I suppose (and I am only realizing this now), it is unclear to me if my demon is a demon at all, but rather a chastening angel, scourging my consciousness with horrors which are ultimately designed, not to debilitate, but instead to rouse me to action.
  
  Still: would an angel, even a chastening angel, be so relentless? If God wants joy for the creatures that He has fashioned in His image and likeness, would he send a such a spirit which now seems to find fiendish delight in the act of dunking me headfirst into horror?
  
  Moreover, like St. Paul (though unlike him in that I am in no sense saintly), I have received a “thorn in the flesh,” one which will not depart, one which serves as its own kind of reminder of that which I cannot forget.
  
  Perhaps God is allowing me to suffer with these interior depredations, which may indeed be demonic in origin, in order to create within me a cleaner heart and a more properly-oriented spirit. Perhaps even demons can be utilized, against their own infernal wills, to accomplish just and divine ends. God grant that it may be so!
  
  The demon which grips my consciousness, if demon it be, whether literal or proverbial, does not oppress me only. Your faithful interlocutor feels quite keenly that he is not merely a voice crying in a wilderness of indifference; rather, the demon which attacks him now is of the same sort as his kin mentioned with respect to the possessed Gerasene: “My name is Legion, for we are many.”
  
  

  Christ meets the Gerasene demoniac

  Yet this very multiplicity of entities has but one purpose: the dissolution of harmony, order, reason, joy, and hope in our world. This legion of demons wishes to erase these sweet, harmonious aspects of existence—and all others which savor of Heaven and right living, and to replace them with a cacophony of chaos and an acrimonious atmosphere of debilitation and despair.
  
  And in our age, they have made advancements towards this goal with one particularly devastating all-out crusade against one particular virtue: chastity. Everything else has followed forth from this one concerted and organized attack upon this most vulnerable of human pressure points. Restraint has been eroded, and Hell has been unleashed.
  
  
  

  Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Affirmative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the Nihil, The Columbine Pilgrim, Considering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. Visit his Soundcloud page and his YouTube channel. His author page is Alt Right Novelist. 

  
  

  Become a Patron!

  
  

  

• ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE JEWS "DECLARED WAR" ON GERMANY

  Posted: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:45:00 +0000

  Tabloid headlines are the highest form of historical evidence, apparently.

  by Colin Liddell
  
  

  Due to the obsessive grip that antisemitism exerts on weak and immature minds, most of the lies that exist in the Alt-Right seem to focus on matters relating to the Jews.
  
  This is pretty odd, especially if you consider the fact that nothing reinforces disappearing Jewish identity better than the kind of ineffectual antisemitism that the present-day Alt-Right specialises in.
  
  In a previous article, I pointed out how limited Jewish control of the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union, and thus the Holodomor really was. In a supplementary article I then drew attention to the awkward fact—at least for the Alt-Right—that prominent Jews in the Communist Party actually opposed staging the Revolution, regarding it as too violent and risky. It was essentially the headstrong and impetuous "goy brigade" who were all for storming the Winter Palace and putting their fellow goys in the Tsarist regime to the sword.
  
  In this article I want to look at another popular Alt-Right "meme" that is completely fake, namely the quite common idea that WWII was started by the Jews, and that Hitler was therefore just "defending" himself against aggression, and that any Jewish deaths that resulted can be laid at their own feet.
  
  

  Gariépy

  Really, to believe this requires a level of historical illiteracy or arcane solipsism that only morons or autistes are capable of. One such individual is clearly Jean-Francois Gariépy, who, in the post-Spencerian Alt-Right, is probably better thought of than even the likes of Mike Enoch, Greg Johnson, or Andrew Anglin.
  
  While Enoch is tainted by his obvious Jewishness, Johnson by his apparent homosexuality, and Anglin by his low-brow trollish character (along with the obvious Jewishness of (((The Daily Stormer)))), Gariépy is seen as a "rigorous intellectual" with relatively little negative baggage.
  
  This image is maintained by what appears to be his apparent dedication to "logic and facts," along with a funny French accent.
  
  Don't underestimate the last point, as I've noticed that this especially impresses American alt-righters, who appear to have some sort of "cultural cringe" towards Europeans. As an example, I remember that my ex-associate Richard Spencer was also deeply "smitten" in a kind of school-girlish way by the Gallic charms of Roman Bernard, a once important figure in the Alt-Right, who has now mysteriously disappeared. For my part, whenever I hear such characters with their heavily nasal voices, I am put in mind of a certain comic skunk.
  
  

  Sexy "French" accent

  But back to Gariépy's rigorous erm... intellectualism.
  
  In a recent YouTube video he decided to attack Stefan Molyneux of all people. This was done either to make pointless trouble or else to drive traffic to his own site. Molyneux is one of the rocks of the Dissident Right, who, unlike the retards of the Alt-Right, has a keen understanding of moral dynamics, and has created an informative and morally nuanced channel that pushes realistic and politically incorrect thinking to a vast audience.
  
  Some of the criticisms that Gariépy directed at Molyneux had a point, and showed just how effective he can be as a critic. But then he suddenly went and ruined it all—and blew his credibility—by stepping on one of his real blind spots, namely the causes of WWII.
  
  Now, most fake intellectuals can carry things off as long as they stay out of their obvious weak zones. This allows them to speak with assurance on topics, giving their audience a positive impression of their erudition and honesty. But once they stray into a blind spot, as happened here, then, it is almost as if they have stepped on a landmine or are suddenly shot through with an X-Ray-like beam that entirely reveals their inner workings.
  
  This is what happened to Gariépy, who was revealed as little better than a wind-up anti-Semite, seeking to attribute everything bad to his chosen hate object, with reason and logic subordinated to mere tools in order to present this emotionally preconceived notion. Here is the point at which Gariépy's rationalist mask slips—it can be found at the 2:14:20 mark on this video:
  
  

  
  

  
  And here is a transcript of exactly what he says:
  

  "Oh boy, we need to talk about World War II, Stefan. World War II was not an intra-white war. World War II was a proxy War involving the international Jewish community. World War II has been declared even before the beginning of World War II. International Jewry declared War against Germany. World War II has occurred because of the desire of Germany to form a society for itself, for its own people. And Jews declared the war. They said we don't want that, we won't let you. And this is very well documented. You can Google it. Those are facts, those are not conspiracy theories. Just Google 'international Jewry declares war on Germany.' So don't tell me about World War II as something Whites have done independent of the Jews. The Jews were extremely involved in the question surrounding World War II."

  I have long been aware of this retarded meme that the Jews started the war, as it is an extremely popular one in the increasingly reductionist Alt-Right, but I was actually quite shocked that someone like JF, who affects to be a rigorous intellectual, would push it.
  
  The first point to make in opposition to this erroneous theory is that Jews simply did not have the apparatus to start wars independently until after WWII, when they were granted their own state with war-making powers.
  
  The whole "truth" of this assertion therefore rests on the idea that the Jews somehow pushed other countries into starting a war with Hitler. This meme—because that is all it is—almost always comes with a picture of a front page of a British tabloid newspaper, The Daily Express, dated March 24th, 1933, which I will reproduce here again to save you the trouble of scrolling up to the top:
  
  

  

  
  In fact, this appears to be the main evidence for this "story," although other quotes are also sometimes mentioned. So, what exactly does this "declaration of war" consist of? In the Express story, the "war" is essentially a few demonstrations and a call for a boycott of German goods:
  

  "Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!"
  
  "The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people."

  Similar calls were made elsewhere:
  

  "Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping.... we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence  depends." - Samuel Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933. (Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933.)

  As you can see, these were mainly calls for an economic boycott rather than an actual war. But it is also not too difficult to find examples of Jews calling for a war against Germany:
  

  "We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany." - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in "I Testify Against The Jews" by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and "The Jewish War of Survival" by Arnold Leese, page 52).

  And:
  

  "There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

  Once war broke out, some Jews, not surprisingly in my opinion, welcomed it:
  

  "I wish to confirm in the most explicit manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made during the last months, and especially in the last week: that the Jews "stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies." Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations. We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating direction of His Majesty's Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc." - Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, the Times, September 5, 1939, and the London Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939.

  But the fact remains that none of this "declaring" is proof of the Jews declaring an actual war on Germany. In fact, it is simply proof of a desire not to do business with Nazi Germany and an enthusiasm for the war that was later caused by Germany's own actions and Hitler's own pointless declaration of war on the United States.
  
  Also consider the timeline. The initial Jewish "declaration of war" was in 1933, when a widespread Jewish boycott was announced. But no fighting took place until over six years later.
  
  Those who push this meme either want you to believe that this economic boycott made Germany so desperate that it viewed war favourably, or else that the political pressure exerted by Jews made the Allies so aggressive towards Germany that they then "pushed it" into war by being diplomatically aggressive.
  
  Neither of these ideas is supported by any of the evidence. In fact the evidence supports completely opposite conclusions. The economic boycott by the "almighty Jews" was a complete failure. Here is Germany's pre-war trade stats:
  
  

  Source

  
  As you can see, exports fell slightly 1933-1934, which might be the boycott or could be due to National Socialism boosting domestic consumption and investing in infrastructure. Even if it were due to the boycott, the trend from 1934 is rising exports. With imports it is a similar story.
  
  So, were the Jews able to isolate Germany and reduce it to an international pariah? To answer that question, merely look at the above economic data and try to remember what the main global event of 1936 was and where it was held.
  
  

  Hitler in 1936 watching some obscure sporting event called the Berlin Olympics, after Germany had been successfully "isolated" by the all-powerful Jews.

  Well, if economic and political pressure failed to realise "Judea's war against Germany," how about media power? Maybe Jewish-owned periodicals and movie companies were able to whip up the masses into a frenzy of war fever.
  
  Once again there is no evidence of this. Popular anti-war films made before 1933, like Wings (1927) and All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) continued to enjoy wide audiences, except in Germany where Nazi party members disrupted screenings and then banned such films on coming to power.
  
  While a few Nazi baddies appeared here and there in Hollywood movies, there was no real propaganda push until the war actually got under way. Popular support for a war against Germany stayed in the cellar right up to the outbreak of hostilities.
  
  The American public remained isolationist until President Roosevelt was able to "engineer" the attack on the US Pacific fleet by the Japanese, and even then it was Hitler who had to declare war on America! The French meanwhile were so unenthusiastic for war that they built the Maginot Line so they could avoid it. Even the often jingoistic British public had little relish for war, despite numerous provocations by Hitler.
  
  

  Classic Nazi-bit-part actor Walter Slezak (right) got his first Nazi part in 1942's "Once Upon a Honeymoon." Despite Jewish animosity towards Nazi Germany, the public were simply not interested in Nazi bad guys until Hitler declared war on America.

  In every area of supposed Jewish influence—economic, political, media, and cultural—there is no evidence of the 1933 Jewish "Declaration of War" having pushed Europe into war in any measurable or meaningful way. By contrast, what demonstrably did push Europe into war were the actions of Adolf Hitler. Poland did not just jump up and insert itself under the jackboots and tank tracks of the German army. It was invaded, and this invasion was merely the latest in a long line of German provocations.
  
  It is quite possible to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust, and that Hitler was right to some degree in seeking to extricate Germany from it. But the speed and urgency with with which Hitler pushed his agenda and betrayed subsequent agreements, like the one painfully arrived at over Czechoslovakia in 1938, is a sufficient explanation for WWII.
  
  The direct trigger of WWII was Hitler's invasion of Poland, combined with Britain's guarantee to Poland.
  
  Those who wish to excuse Hitler usually say that this British guarantee to Poland was somehow an intrusive act aimed at Germany. It is also absurdly argued that this was just a cynical ploy because Britain subsequently failed to protect Polish sovereignty in the post-war period, when Britain was exhausted by six years of war.
  
  This kind of convoluted self delusion is laughable. The British guarantee to Poland was not an act of aggression, but instead a cautious and conservative response to Hitler's long list of provocations that contravened the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent agreements made to maintain peace. If anything, the British guarantee to Poland was an additional reason for Hitler not to invade Poland, not an excuse to attack it, as Alt-Right Hitler apologists like Gariépy believe.
  
  By taking this step, Hitler was stupidly placing Germany in an extremely dangerous position between Western allies finally pushed into war and an aggressive Soviet Union, with no longer any buffer states to cushion Germany on the East. The German High Command were quite rightly deeply concerned about this at the time, as they had no plan for winning such a conflict. Their later success in France, which gave them some breathing space was the result of initiatives by relatively low-ranking commanders like Heinz Guderian.
  
  Hitler's own reckless behaviour between 1935 and 1939—rearming, occupying the Rhineland, annexing Austria, taking the Sudetenland, annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia, and then attacking Poland, right after an explicit guarantee of protection from the UK—provided more than enough causation for WWII with or without Jewish animosity to Germany.
  
  The fact that Gariépy would promote such a retarded Alt-Right narrative, suggests that he is emotionally heavily invested in hating the Jews personally (elsewhere in the video he mentions how Jews dominated his academic career).
  
  Another very real possibility that should not be discounted is that he might just wish to appear to hate the Jews.
  
  Given that the most virulently "Nazi-presenting" and anti-Semitic members of the Alt-Right have turned out to be Jews themselves, another possibility to keep in mind is that Gariépy may be Jewish, or partly Jewish, himself, rather than someone of Basque French-Canadian origin as he claims. His untruthful presentation of history is entirely consistent with this.
  

  _________________________________________________________

  
  Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here. He is also featured in Arktos's new collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.
  
  Become a Patron!

  

• TRUMP THE TWITTER TIGER AND THE INVERSION OF RELEVANCE

  Posted: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 17:58:00 +0000

  

  by Duns Scotus
  
  

  It is clear by now that salvation will only come from the eclipse of America and its collapse.
  
  This was long suspected within the Alt-Right when it was still an living movement, which had not been subverted and sidetracked by WASP twinkies and Nazi-presenting. self-loathing Jews.
  
  Trump, as we have seen, has run out of road. As RamZPaul noted on a recent Red Ice interview, there are two Trumps—the one who makes based tweets and the one who bathes in the swamp.
  
  His recent failure on the Proudboys shows you just how limited he is. This is not to blame Trump. He has to live with the system as it is, and he is hemmed in by creatures of globalism at every turn, whether it be the media, Big Tech, activist judges, Deep State operatives, in-laws, or backstabbers in his own administration.
  
  Also, the metapolitical war that the Alt-Right was supposed to wage to make Trumpism possible, went about as well as the German attempt to break out of Stalingrad.
  
  

  Charlottesville in Normievision with MSM Surroundsound (image amended to counter bot suppression)

  
  For a time, there was hope that even if Alt-Right ideas did not prevail, at least common sense ideas would gain the upper hand with Trump and the GOP, which is slowly being bulldozed by demographics into the lime pit of history. But the recent migrant caravan crisis is proof that Trump really is hemmed in.
  
  His attempt to deny asylum to the migrant hordes gathering in Tijuana is not panning out as hoped. In fact, it is following a pretty well-worn groove:
  

  A US federal judge has blocked an order issued by President Trump to deny the possibility of asylum to migrants crossing the southern border illegally.
  
  US District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco issued the temporary restraining order after hearing arguments by civil rights groups....
  
  He said Mr Trump's proclamation on 9 November was an "extreme departure" from prior practice.
  
  "Whatever the scope of the president's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Judge Tigar added.
  
  He was responding in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
  
  They argued that Mr Trump's ruling was illegal.
  
  The judge's restraining order comes into immediate effect and remains in place until a court hearing in December to decide on the case.

  This one simple trick—"an 'extreme departure' from prior practice"—can basically be used to sweep away anything Trump does, as everyone agrees that Trump himself was an "extreme departure" from prior practice—even if, as we are now finding out, this is not actually the case.
  
  Whoever came up with the idea of the migrant caravans knew exactly what they were doing. They saw the weakness, and they realised that Trump, while not exactly a Paper Tiger, was a Twitter Tiger.
  
  

  So scary, but can't bite.

  Right now there are tens of thousands of migrants at the border, demanding their right—under present legislation and "prior practice"—namely to be processed as asylum seekers. Ahead of them, already inside America, there are upwards of 20 million illegals already in the country. Behind them hundreds of millions whose interest in a move North is now pricking up.
  
  Trump knows he can't win this. He is too isolated. There are too many Christians, too many Liberals, and especially too many people who simply base their opposition to mass immigration on simply not liking MS13 members or having concerns about the pressures on public transport.
  
  Turn up with a crowd of ten thousand men, including plenty of MS13 members, but fronted by a few women with babies, mixed with few soundbites about just wanting a job and a better life, and this flimsy opposition dissolves.
  
  "The Wall" came into being as a meme, myth, and mirage because it reflected the meta-fact that America no longer had the ability to defend its borders. Rather than an expression of strength, it was in reality an expression of weakness. Sparta, famously, only built its walls when it was deep in decline, having never needed walls when it was a strong, virile state. Yes, there too they didn't work.
  
  

  Strong states don't hide behind walls.

  The surest sign that this one-term President is going down is his latest focus. Instead of dealing with the thousands, millions, and hundreds of millions touched by the immigration issue, he is now focusing on the handful of transgenders who claim they want to serve in the military.
  

  President Donald Trump's administration, in a move to get around the circuit court, on Friday appealed directly to the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the administration's policy that bars transgender people from military service.
  
  The move comes as the president has railed against the Ninth Circuit, which put on a hold on his asylum ban for illegal immigrants.
  
  Several district courts have blocked the policy, including the Ninth Circuit, which heard arguments earlier this fall, and the DC Circuit, which will hear arguments in early December.
  
  But, on Friday, the administration moved to bypass those courts and go straight to the top.

  No doubt Trump's effort to solve this problem is also an "extreme departure" from prior practice and will face the usual obstacles.
  
  Get used to it, Americans, you don't have democracy and you never will until you reel in the courts, neuter the media and Big Tech, and create a system of proportional representation that can support dozens of competing parties.
  
  Imagine going to a supermarket and finding only two varieties of toothpaste and nothing else on the shelves. That is your political system now. What makes it worse is that those two toothpaste companies are owned by the same shareholders.
  
  

  Irrelevant

  The tranny issue is always the surest sign of political irrelevance whenever it emerges.
  
  Yeh, of course it's stupid, to have trannies in the military. But there are two things to bear in mind here. First, the USA is a "post-military" Superpower and is incapable of winning or even fighting actual wars. Afghanistan proves that.
  
  This means that it really doesn't matter who is in the US military now. It is mainly a container of unemployment. And secondly, how many people are we talking about here? My guess is three or four.
  
  Whichever decision is made on this issue is therefore an irrelevance. It should therefore be getting about as much attention as a lost dog story.
  
  The reason Trump goes to an issue like this straight after being fucked hard on the border is because it is an "inverted triangle"—namely an issue which effects hardly anybody on the ground but which has a massive media presence in the air.
  
  By the way, the immigration issue is a kind of polar opposite. Apart from the present drama on the border, immigration, as it is now constituted, represents the racial replacement of America's core population. That effects everybody in the country and will reverberate across centuries, yet this is an issue that is constantly downplayed by the media, while its effects are entirely ignored.
  
  

  While the first issue has a broad effect on Americans, the second has an extremely small footprint on the average Joe.

  
  The "trannies in the miltary" controversy is therefore the perfect smokescreen to back away from the real issue—the existential issue of having a border or not.
  
  Even if Trump is defeated on this issue, that does not detract from its main function of being a meaningless distraction. While "trannies in the military" triggers people on the Left and the Right and is therefore an attention-grabber, it has no real impact on people and has no real relevance. It is the masturbation of politics.
  
  The border and America's control of its demographics, by contrast, is the real issue, the one that called Trump forth and which got him elected. But elected to do what? To become Twitterer-in-Chief, to be the Twitter Tiger?
  
  This is why America is doomed. This is why its fate is inevitable decline. It lazily placed the burden of the revitalising revolution on the shoulders of one man, and outsourced its salvation to the swamp. But in its death and decline hope shines.
  
  Become a Patron!

  

• SHORTPOD (30): "ME AND MY LIBERAL GF" VS. STUFF THAT REALLY MATTERS

  Posted: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:44:00 +0000

  

  Affirmative Right Chief Editor Colin Liddell discusses Richard Spencer's increasingly ludicrous attempts to remain the centre of attention by parading—or being paraded by—his liberal girlfriend.

  
  

  Meanwhile the world heads for greater instability, with migrant invasion armies assembling at the US border with little in the way of moral and ideological resistance, and Britain battling to extricate itself from a deceitful and malevolent European Union. 

  
  

  
  
  Buy Liddell's excellent first book Interviews & Obituaries

  

• POMPEO AND BOLTON: TRUMP'S TAG TEAM OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!

  Posted: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:14:00 +0000

  

  by Antonius Aquinas
  
  

  With the welcome departure of war mongering UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, the Trump Administration’s neocon tag team of death and destruction – Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor (NSA), John Bolton – have enthusiastically taken up where the repellent Haley has left off. It is highly doubtful that the former Ambassador will meekly stay under the rock beneath which she crawled. It seems possible that she will reappear as a primary challenger to her former boss in 2020, and, most certainly, as a Presidential contender in 2024.
  
  Last week, Messrs Pompeo and Bolton were dutifully carrying forth Haley’s promises of mayhem to anyone opposed to US hegemony, even if those “enemies” have never taken hostile action against the US mainland. Of course, threats and attacks against nations which have done nothing to America have never much mattered to the foreign policy establishment!
  
  In one of the most provocative comments ever made by a US diplomat, maniacal Mike threatened Iran with mass starvation of its population (via US sanctions) if it does not submit to Uncle Sam’s outrageous and humiliating demands. In a BBC interview, the Secretary of State warned that:
  

  "[Iran’s] leadership has to make a decision that they want their people to eat."

  Following up on his genocidal warning, the Secretary of State (with a supposedly straight face) said that Iran was a “destabilizing influence” in the Mideast and was a state sponsor of terrorism.
  
  

  Pompeo and Bolton: the gruesome twosome

  Incredibly, the sociopathic Pompeo actually believes that Iran has been the greatest disrupter of peace in the Middle East, when, in fact, it has been the nation which he represents (along with Israel) that has been the real culprit of state sponsored terrorism, with its destruction of Iraq, the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and the attempted regime change in Syria, to name just a few of America’s nefarious activities in the region.
  
  A Brown University study shows the absurdity of Pompeo’s claims. The study estimates that between 480,000 to 507,000 people were killed in America’s post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. For the US, some 60,000 troops have lost their lives or been wounded.
  
  

  After threatening genocide of the Iranian people, Pompeo told an outright lie as he accused Iran for the catastrophe that is taking place in Yemen:
  

  [The] Iranians are responsible for the starvation of Yemen civilians.

  "Friends"

  No one outside of the Western controlled press or among the clueless American populace believes such a claim. Everyone else knows that the starvation which is taking place in Yemen has been caused by the US’s ally, Saudi Arabia, which America has armed for decades. It is not the Iranians, but the US which is guilty as an accomplice for the genocide taking place in that misbegotten land.
  
  Not to be outdone by his fellow merchant of death, John Bolton focused his most recent bellicose talk on Latin American regimes that have not fallen in line with the US Empire’s wishes.  He labeled three countries as “the troika of tyranny in this hemisphere – Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua.” Big Bad John boasted that the three had “finally met [their] match” in the Trump Administration.
  
  Wow, John, you are so tough, but saying that these three hellholes are a “match” for the US is a bit much when it is unlikely that the three combined could even defeat Rhode Island’s National Guard in a pitched battle!
  
  While Bolton ruled out (for now) military intervention, he did say that sanctions would soon be placed on the “troika of tyranny.” Bolton proclaimed that “Under this administration, we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores.”
  
  Yes, by all means! The threat of an invasion by a Cuban/Venezuelan/Nicaraguan juggernaut rolling onto our shores and then sweeping inland should be a concern for all Americans. No telling how much damage could be inflicted and territory conquered by the “Latin American Axis”! We are so fortunate that perceptive and ever vigilant foreign policy experts like John Bolton keep a watchful eye out for such threats!
  
  

  "Enemies"

  These are dangerous and evil men who think nothing of inflicting pain and suffering upon innocent people who have little control over what their nation’s leadership does, just as Americans have little say in the policies and actions of their government.
  
  A global empire attracts personality types like Haley, Pompeo, and Bolton. It needs such sociopaths to provoke others and stir up troubles where there is none to justify its existence. A more peaceful world will only come about with the demise of the American Empire, not changing the personalities who guide it.
  
  Sadly, for Americans who have to fund it and the peoples of the world who are in its path, until there is an economic collapse and/or a dollar crisis, the American Empire will continue to threaten and, in some instances, carry out those threats led by the likes of Michael Pompeo and John Bolton.
  
  Also published at Antonius Aquinas
  
  Become a Patron!

  

• REVIEW: DEFAMATION FACTORY

  Posted: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:25:00 +0000

  

  Defamation Factory
  by Kaiter Enless
  Reconquista Press,
  150 Pages
  
  Reviewed by Rémi Tremblay
  
  

  Since the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting of October 27th, the Anti Defamation League of the B’nai Brith (ADL) has been welcomed in all the major media outlets as a respectable representative of not only the Jewish community, but also of “a world without hate,” a phrase cleverly trademarked by the powerful organization. Somebody with no prior knowledge of the ADL or its director Jonathan Greenblatt could easily believe that they represent and teach tolerance. This has little to do with reality as Kaiter Enless's book Defamation Factory makes clear.
  
  The ADL is a powerful organization that allegedly aims to combat hate and more precisely anti-Semitism. As Tom Sunic puts it in the preface, if anti-Semitism did not exist, the ADL would probably invent it as the outside threat is an important cement for Jewish identity. Without it, the Jewish community would likely lose its cohesion and would eventually erode. This explains why Jewish organizations have sometimes supported the rise of anti-Semitic groups like John Beattie’s Canadian Nazi Party.
  
  As hate and anti-Semitism are concepts difficult to define, the ADL has been fighting anybody on the right who is not an ardent Zionist. Abe Foxman expanded the definition of anti-Semitism to delegitimizing Israel or criticizing the Zionist entity.
  
  As Enless puts it, that would mean equating all Jews to Israel and any Israeli policy to the unified will of all Jews -- an obvious absurdity. A comparison with Quebec could be drawn: using this way of thinking, anyone opposing Quebec’s independence would be considered a Quebecophobe, even if he was himself a Quebecer.
  
  Over the last few decades, religious leaders, political activists, dissident scientists, and generally anyone who does not share the vision of America becoming a jovial multiracial utopia has been targeted by this sinister group that is not ashamed of using smears and outright lies. The fact that this multimillion dollar lobby can bring all its weight to bear on a single individual in order to break him, socially, financially, and legally, is not enough; the ADL admitted in the past to using facts they knew were false in order to crush their opponents.
  
  

  Smears

  The example of the populist Lyndon LaRouche comes to mind. He was boycotted, saw his opponents receive large sums of money, and was eventually prosecuted after being falsely labeled an anti-Semite by the ADL.
  
  Other tricks the ADL have often employed are guilt by association and digging up skeletons in somebody’s past. We can think of many dissidents who were attacked not because of what they said or did, but because of the people they were in touch with. Similarly, even if someone changes and evolves, he can never earn redemption in the eyes of the ADL judges. For the ADL, David Duke will always be the "Louisiana Klansman" even if, since he left the Klan, much has happened and Dr. Duke has changed a great deal.
  
  Some two thousand years ago, Jesus gave us some good advice when he said: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." If the ADL can attack somebody on his having kept company with disreputable people in his past, it must be that it is spotless in these regards!
  
  Endless who has studied the history of the infamous League tells quite a different story. The very foundation of this organization shows a clear lack of morality and demonstrates that, despite its claims, it has never been a paragon of virtue. The League was set up after a trial in which the accused, a Jewish man by the name of Leo M. Frank, had been found guilty of the rape and murder of a 13 year old employee on April 26th 1913 in Atlanta, Georgia.
  
  Despite having tried to put the blame on a Black employee, Frank was found guilty and sentenced to death for this brutal rape. However, some Jewish associates managed to put pressure on officials to commute the death sentence into life imprisonment, a wish that was granted. But this leniency only enraged a band of vigilantes, who proceeded to lynch the rapist in front of his victim's house.
  
  The Anti-Defamation League has thus been founded by the Jewish B’nai Brith not to fight defamation, but to defend Frank whose guilt was confirmed by overwhelming evidence.
  
  The first official campaign of the ADL was launched against the industrialist Henry Ford, who  owned the Dearborn Independent, a newspaper critical of Jewish power. In the early 1920s he published and distributed The International Jew, a four-volume set of booklets outlining the extent of Jewish influence.  It was Aaron Sapiro, an agricultural reformer who launched the judicial crusade against Ford. The industrialist responded by simply retracting his book and leaving the Jewish issue to other advocates.
  
  Presented as a poor victim of Ford’s violent anti-Semitism, it turned out that Sapiro was later arrested and charged with a conspiracy racket, linking him with Al Capone. This "poor victim," it turned out, was deeply involved in the criminal underworld.
  
  

  

  
  This connection with organized crime is documented in the history of the League. For example, during the Second World War, New York’s underworld launched a deadly war against the German Bund and its sympathizers at the request of the mobster Meyer Lansky whose daughter sat on the ADL’s board of directors.
  
  Lansky was not the only underworld superstar to be recognized and praised by the ADL, Moe Dalitz received the Torch of Liberty in 1982 and later the Award of Philanthropist of the Year. More recently the ADL supported its friend March Rich, responsible for the most important tax evasion scandal in American history. Rich, who was a personal friend of the Clinton clan and Abe Foxman, ADL’s former director, was eventually granted pardon, but once again it proves that when it comes to morality the ADL cannot give anyone lessons.
  
  Throughout its history, the ADL was also regularly accused of interfering with federal inquiries and of putting pressure on the FBI. In fact, the ADL was involved in the Jonathan Pollard spy ring that divulged state secrets to Israel. They not only defended him when he was caught, but had helped him actively before. Thus goes the patriotic varnish of the League.
  
  

  Chomsky: ADL "target"

  Furthermore, in 1993, an FBI investigation found that the ADL was a private spy company acting illegally. Over 10,000 people and 600 civic organizations had been investigated by the ADL, which had accumulated huge files on them. Those files contained much information obtained illegally and they were not only targeting people from the right, but also leftists like Noam Chomsky and organizations like La Raza, the NAACP, and the Asian Law Caucus. Caught red-handed, the ADL only got a slap on the wrist and was able to resume its activities. In terms of immorality, Enless could have included the story of Cathy Ainsworth, the pregnant school teacher and KKK member, reportedly killed in a trap set up by the ADL, but it seems that the author decided not to include all the wrongdoings of the League, otherwise the book would have been twice as thick.
  
  More recently, the Internet has become a major focus of the ADL, with the organization working for an effective online censorship to defeat "the Web of Hate." Working in partnership with Google, YouTube and other major Internet players, it has become very influential on what content can be seen, what should be censored,  and what should simply be left in a black hole with no possible reference. But free speech, without restrictions, is the very basis of a healthy democracy, as Thomas Jefferson once said.
  
  The persecution and silencing of dissidents in a Soviet-like way and the imposition of newspeak in the public discourse give us a glimpse into the grim future that is awaiting us if nothing is done to stop the ADL and its totalitarian agenda.
  
  Become a Patron!

  

• ANOMIE BOULEVARD

  Posted: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 07:41:00 +0000

  

  by Brett Stevens
  
  

  Driving around today, it became clear that most people were heavily distracted. They stopped in the middle of the road, randomly, and paused there for a long time. If you honked, they looked at you, bewildering: weren’t you experiencing the same confusion they were? Or fundamentally: is the world not just an extension of myself?
  
  This happens every time there is an election or political upset. People forget their places in line, buy random things, walk slowly, stumble, and fall. They are confused. Their programming has been interrupted; they thought they knew it all, and here comes something anomalous to interrupt their cozy vision of the world.
  
  We see their fear in the moment but forget that this implies an even greater underlying fear. They do not trust life itself. They realize that their position is precarious; like anyone in difficult times, they hope only to make it through the line, and get their bucket of gruel or whatever they need to survive, and then worry about tomorrow in the light of a new day.
  
  This reveals however that no one believes that what we have going on now will last. We know that we are in the late stages of democracy, which is itself a later stage of civilization. We are aware that we are dying as a civilization, and that everything that we have contributed to will become landfill forgotten among the ruins like everything else.
  
  People live adrift. Without any sense of purpose except themselves, they look for options that provide what they think they want, and when those prove insufficient, move on to something else. They connect to nothing. They live in a world of quantity where if one thing fails, they move on to another, never refining something to a state of goodness.
  
  This calls to mind the idea of anomie, or atomized listlessness:
  

  anomie, n. — a state or condition of individuals or society characterized by a breakdown or absence of social norms and values, as in the case of uprooted people.

  We are an uprooted people. Without a culture in common, we rely only on economics and politics, doing what makes sense from a cost/benefit perspective and which does not offend the dominant ideology, upon which we depend for fragile bonds with our fellow citizens.
  
  We know that everything is broken, on some level. Our products and software are glitchy and primitive. Our cities barely function, with sloppy obese employees doing the bare minimum. Even industry bloats and slows down, unable to fire people who perform badly or even figure out what its customers want.
  
  Everything is choked with humanity, the needs of the herd outweighing the need to be good, with each individual demanding autonomy to the point that the task becomes distantly secondary. Our politicians are not just liars, but dumb liars, but since the voters are dumber, they get away with it. Our “culture” is advertising and the lowest common denominator.
  
  We should ask ourselves the vital question, “What is the health of our civilization?”
  
  

  

  
  Sources differ. On the Left, they think everything is going really well, or at least was under Obama; on the Right, we think that Obama was a horror, that America was fundamentally transformed by his reign, and that we have been going down a bad path away from things proven to have good results to things that the Left likes because they think those will bring about more “equality.”
  
  Others see that we have lived in a century of darkness following several centuries of deep confusion. In 1918, with the end of the first world war, most people saw that we were in decline; fifty years later, in 1968, the Left took over and threw out the people who might know better. Fifty years after that, in 2018, we are trying to counteract the decline.
  
  The rise of populism suggests not so much a new idea as a rejection of the Leftist ideas of 1968 and the moribund depression which has gripped the West since 1918.
  
  A good number of people have figured out that the Leftist “fundamental transformation” of America has ruined it and more Leftism will make the problem much worse:
  

  The sense that the nation’s culture and way of life have dramatically changed is reflected in a PRRI “American Values” survey that gauged both political opinions and “cultural alienation.”
  
  It found that 47 percent of Americans now say that things have changed so much, they “feel like a stranger in their own country.” A slim majority (51 percent) disagree.
  
  Nearly six in 10 Republicans say that things have changed so much they feel alienated; 42 percent of Democrats agree.
  
  Was there a better era to live in? Americans are divided on whether the country’s culture and way of life has changed for the better or worse since the 1950s. Fifty percent say such change is for the better, while 47 percent say culture has gotten worse according to the survey.

  The 1950s were our last era before Leftism took over in the early 1960s. The 50s were not an ideal time, perhaps, but they were a time where our society was not managed by Leftist ideals and bureaucrats. For that reason, many look to it as flawed but less flawed than the present day.
  
  In other words, conservatives see their duty as to stop the misguided Leftist revolution of the 1960s more than to have any forward plans of their own, mainly because any forward plans we could conceive of would involve a society so alien to Leftist ideals that civil war would result. This is why conservatives have existed in a de facto condition of surrender since the 1950s, or at least 1957 when desegregation heralded the beginnings of Leftist rule.
  
  Some sources point out that this counter-revolution has become serious now that we can see tangible proof of what the Left wants to do to us:
  

  He was puzzled therefore why a number of thinkers associated with the Claremont school held “that things almost could not be worse” and that it was therefore necessary “to mount a total revolution.”
  
  Levin and like-minded conservatives have matters backwards. Multiculturalism, not Trumpism, is the revolution. Trump’s campaign, and its defense by his intellectual supporters, was not a call for a revolution but a call to stop a revolution. Trump’s intellectual supporters did not say things could not get worse; they said without a sharp change in course there was a good chance we shall never get back home again.
  
  Trump’s entire campaign was a defense of America. The election was fought not so much over policies, character, email servers, or James Comey, as it was over the meaning of America.

  We must ask: what is the meaning of America? For the founding fathers, it meant a chance to live in sanity where Europe had fallen into religious and political wars. For the Left, it means that America becomes a means to the end of their quest for global equality, which always means taking from the successful to give to the unsuccessful.
  
  

  

  America now would not recognize 1950s America and vice-versa. The streets are filled with people from all over the world, crime and corruption are normal, none of our public institutions function reliably, our mass culture is shouted obscenities, our government is mostly run by insane tyrannical bureaucrats with graft on the mind, and we produce little of practical value but keep expanding, forcing us to invent more jobs for everyone who wants to come here, and more useless activity to justify them.
  
  We live in varying degrees of anomie. No one expects the system to do anything good, but everyone hopes that it holds on long enough for them to retire and escape. We have no forward or positive goal, only the backward-looking fear of not maintaining the system long enough for us to gain our egress.
  
  This makes us timorous when elections come around. We do not care if we survive, only that we avoid the next big fear, which would be anything that destabilizes the system. Committed to our own destruction, we fear the chaos and conflict that might break us out of this mold, and as addicts to our own doom, cling to the very thing that bores us and saps any meaning in life.
  
  Also published at Amerika.org
  

  
  Become a Patron!

  

• UKIP GUN IS LOCKED AND LOADED AND POINTING AT THE HEAD OF TORY REMAINERS

  Posted: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 23:05:00 +0000

  

  by Trad News
  
  

  Thanks to the turbulence being caused by the Brexit negotiations, UK politics are particularly unstable at the moment.
  
  This could easily lead to the collapse of Prime Minister Theresa May's shambolic government, and we might even see a general election being announced within weeks or even days. After that, who knows what will happen.
  
  But one thing is certain, it won't be a joyride for those Conservative MPs who have opposed Brexit or have favoured soft Brexit. One reason for this is that UKIP is now in a strong position to be a "spoiler party."
  
  The extremely undemocratic UK electoral system only allows smaller parties to be represented if their support is extremely concentrated in one part of the country. This means that a smaller party can only make an impact by becoming a spoiler party.
  
  UKIP is a classic example. With support spread across the nation, which sometimes topped 15% or even 20%, the party had no chance of getting MPs elected. But their main power was always their ability to take votes away from the two main parties.
  
  In fact it was this threat that persuaded Tory leader David Cameron to agree to the "in-or-out" referendum on EU membership that led to Brexit in 2016.
  
  Now, according to a new poll, UKIP is in a similar position -- able to threaten the anti-Brexit Tories in any coming election. The poll by Opinium Research showed the Tories dropping 5 points to 36%, while UKIP is up 2 points at 8%.
  
  With a lot of constituency races guaranteed to be extremely tight, this means UKIP can basically pick and choose which Conservative MPs to run against and then knock several thousand votes off their majorities, leading to many of them losing their seats in Parliament. By threatening to apply this strategy against Tory Bremainers and Soft Brexiters, UKIP can have a big impact on the Tory Party right now.
  
  In a recent tweet UKIP leader Gerard Batten declared that this is now his party's strategy:
  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  This means that UKIP basically has the power to destroy the Bremainer/ Soft Brexit wing of the Conservative Party in any general election, which is great for "concentrating minds" right now.
  
  In turn this means that Hard Brexit Conservative MPs, who would not be opposed by UKIP, can push all the harder to oppose the latest, unsatisfactory Brexit deal against their Soft and anti-Brexit colleagues.
  
  Right now, no-one in the Conservative Party wants an election, as the extreme-left Labour Party is getting a temporary boost from the Brexit chaos and is leading in the polls. But the people who fear an election the most are Bremainer Tories, as they would become politically extinct.
  
  This means the boot is firmly on the foot of the Hard Brexit Tories. Let's hope they use it to get their way.
  
  Become a Patron!

  

• THE STARK TRUTH: MUFF 19 AND OTHER STUFF

  Posted: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 22:27:00 +0000

  Play Now

  

  Robert Stark and Matthew Pegas talk to Affirmative Right contributor Richard Wolstencroft about the 19th Melbourne Underground Film Festival, of which he is the director. 

  
  

  Among the topics are Robert and Matthew's own documentary Supply, which won the "Best Guerrilla" Film Award, Lauren Southern’s Farmlands, which took the "Best Film" award, and past MUFF alumni like James Wan of  Saw fame. Also under discussion are the populist movements in Europe, the persecution of White South African farmers, the recent Melbourne terror attack, new Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, and the Midterm elections in America.

  
  

  
  

  Listen to other Stark Truth podcasts here.

  

• LET'S DIVIDE THE 'INDIVISIBLE UNION'

  Posted: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 21:22:00 +0000

  
  

  Andy Nowicki considers a provocative new article at mainstream source "The Week," in which the dividing the United States into several separate territories is proposed.

  

• CINEMATIC SINS: DEAD POETS SOCIETY AND "ASSUMING THE POSITION"

  Posted: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 18:59:00 +0000

  Ethan Hawke as prettyboy prep school crybaby

  The following is an excerpt from Andy Nowicki's upcoming publication, tentatively titled Demon in the Rough

  ________________

  
  

  Film is like music in its ability to transfix and captivate its audience. Both the visual and the aural are mediums through which a hypnotic effect can take hold, causing the participant in the medium to “lose himself” temporarily and engage entirely with that which what spills into his ears and assails his eyes.

  
  

  Of course, film needn’t be exploitative, and filmmakers needn’t be bent on propagandistic manipulation. One of my favorite movies, “Stranger Than Paradise” by Jim Jarmusch, steadfastly avoids quick-cut and assault-of-the-senses gimmickry for favor a series of long scenes, each of which consists of exactly one shot. The camera never cuts to a close-up, nor even zooms in on any aspect of the scene, though it does occasionally pan ever so slightly from right to left or left to right. Musical interludes are kept to a minimum and are non-intrusive. The story is a wryly understated, bare-bones narrative (rendered in stark black and white) about the seemingly aimless trek of three young people across the east coast of America. While at times extremely funny and even moving, Jarmusch’s direction never strains to achieve either humor or pathos.

  
  

  
  

  But “Stranger Than Paradise,” and other similarly low-key films of varying quality (such as the “mumblecore” genre that enjoyed a brief vogue among independent filmmakers a few years ago) are exceptions which prove the rule, namely that, as a medium, film doestend to lend itself to manipulation, and as such, frequently traffics in it. 

  
  

  Of course, some manners of cinematic manipulation are more egregious than others. Some, in fact, are almost completely benign: a “cute meet” scene between two romantic leads might be underscored with a gentle little ballad to play up the adorableness of the interaction, or a montage sequence could be used to effectively, if somewhat lazily, to display developing camaraderie between teammates, and so forth.

  
  

  However, certain manipulations are far more glaring, amounting as they do to a wholesale warping of the mind of the credulous viewer to provoke a particular emotional response from him. One of the very worst culprits on this front is the 1989 film “Dead Poets Society,” directed by Peter Weir and starring the compulsively comedic, tediously-schticky, (now sadly late) Robin Williams.

  
  

  In the film, Williams plays Mr. Keating, a boys prep school English teacher who implores his students to fight against reactionary traditionalism and conformism, encouraging them instead to be avid sensualists who “suck the marrow out of life” and regularly indulge in “barbaric yawps,” as per the command of  Keating's hero, the flamboyant sensualist poet (and pre-“Beatnik” bisexual) Walt Whitman. 

  
  

  
  

  Enthused by their teacher’s spirit, the boys form the “Dead Poets Society,” and begin to meet in secret in a cave. At these meetings, they read inspiring poems, adopt exotic pseudonyms, and generally challenge each other to suck copious marrow and yawp barbarically in all facets of their lives.

  
  

  All of this marrow-sucking and barbaric yawping eventually, of course, leads to conflict with authority, and finally, to tear-jerking tragedy.

  
  

  **************

  
  

  The film is notable in how flagrantly it “stacks the deck” in a patently dishonest, thoroughly manipulative manner, removing all complications and ambiguities, in order to soak the viewer in outrage, sadness, and finally a climactic sense of triumph. The boys’ teacher is a wonderful, caring, gracious man with no discernible flaws, while the school’s headmaster Mr. Nolan is an arrogant, one-dimensional, sinister “elderly rich WASP guy” cypher, seemingly motivated by little more than a propensity for tyrannical sadism, who seeks to crush precisely that creative spirit that Williams wants to nurture in his students.

  
  

  The authority-figure bad guy

  This is bad enough, as manipulation goes, but then the ante is upped; one particularly adorable and admirable boy (Robert Sean Leonard) is relentlessly bullied by his overbearing father (played by the always glowering, huge-foreheaded Kurtwood Smith, later “Red” on “That 70s Show”) into committing suicide.

  
  

  Williams’s character is of course scapegoated for the boy’s death, and what is more, a traitor emerges from the group. With a villainous, rat-faced sneer, this turncoat—himself a cypher, his motivation never explained--- gives away that the students have been meeting in a secret hideaway; for this, he blames Keating’s bad influence, thus insuring that this plaster-saint English instructor will get canned by the hateful and ungrateful administrators of the school.

  
  

  In the movie’s final scene, Keating’s boys stage an emotional protest, standing on their desks and hailing their “Captain,” as the glowering, sinister WASP headmaster impotently screams for them to cease their distasteful, desk-(grand)standing impertinence. The audience is invited to congratulate themselves for standing with the adorable underdog students and hating the one-dimensional authority-figure bad guy.

  
  

  
  

  ************* 

  
  

  I recall how angry I felt when I saw “Dead Poets Society.” 

  
  

  My anger was in some ways a meta-fury; I was angry for having been manipulated into being angry.

  
  

  This meta-fury was triggered because I knew that my mind and heart were being messed with. It wasn’t that the manipulation didn’t work on me; rather, it very much did work: indeed, I had successfully been led to hate the glowering, sinister authority-figure bad guys as much as everyone else in the audience, but I was also quite aware that, in so doing, I had been “played,” and this awareness infuriated me.

  
  

  The film was thoroughly shameless in its dishonest narrative deck-stacking and general aversion to nuance or subtlety, yet everyone else in the packed theater seemed to be eating it all up. Women in attendance were weeping, and men were fuming, as if on cue. They had all been played, yet unlike me, they seemed not to notice, or care.

  
  

  Afterwards, when it became clear that I was the only one among my group of friends to feel the way I did, my anger turned to dismay, and eventually to contemplation. People, including my friends, had seemingly developed a reflexive affection for the movie the way a boy might develop a crush on a beautiful but devious girl.

  
  

  For some, the film’s crass manipulations were justified, since (as discussed above, with respect to my dismally maudlin graduation music) they were rooted in emotion, which  therefore ostensibly lent them “authenticity,” or something... For others, the movie’s central message of “seizing the day” and “sucking the marrow out of life” was seen as paramount (“Carpe Diem” T-shirts were soon afterwards printed), outweighing all other considerations, like believable plot, compelling characters, and honest storytelling.

  
  

  *************

  
  

  Those who claim to like “Dead Poets Society” on the basis of its supposed anti-authoritarianism should note that the film is ultimately utterly disingenuous in this regard, since it basically bullies the viewer into buying into its supposed endorsement of nonconformity. 

  
  

  One instructive moment in this regard is the scene in which the ruthless, yet quite geriatric headmaster forces a miscreant student Charlie (Gale Hansen) to “assume the position” before beating his rear end repeatedly with a paddle.

  
  

  
  

  There is much in this scene to induce queasiness in the discerning moviegoer. It strains credulity, for one thing, that such punishment would be meted out in a prep school setting upon a post-adolescent boy, even while allowing that the past was a less litigious time in which corporal punishment was generally favored. The sadomasochistic and homoerotically fetishistic overtones of the scene are undeniable, and they only serve to heighten the humiliation of the boy, with whom we, the audience, are asked to relate.

  
  

  There is another striking detail of this scene, more subtle, but well worth scruntiny. Note how the smack of paddle against bum is racheted up to a grotesque level on the film’s soundtrack, further lending the moment a disproportionately prurient effect. 

  
  

  The scene is instructive, in that it essentially depicts the relationship between the film and the viewer. “Dead Poets Society,” like Headmaster  ­­­­Nolan, preens as a paragon of virtue, but has a deep-seated mean streak; in effect, it demands that the viewer “assume the position” before beating him senseless.

  
  

  That much of the audience emerged enjoying getting so pummeled by the heavy-handed dreck that is “Dead Poets Society” testifies to the flagrant commission of cinematic Stockholm syndrome. They little care about being lied to, manipulated, misled, and generally treated with contempt, so long as they can be convinced afterwards that they had an authentic emotional experience. They “assume the position,” pull down their proverbial pants, and debase themselves, enthusiastically taking their abuse.
  
  Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Affirmative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the Nihil, The Columbine Pilgrim, Considering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. Visit his Soundcloud page and his YouTube channel. His author page is Alt Right Novelist. 
  
  

  Become a Patron!

  
  

  

• JEWISH CHEERLEADERS OF DECLINE

  Posted: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 02:07:00 +0000

  A cheerleader for Tel Aviv's professional basketball team.

  by Andy Nowicki

  
  

  The “JQ,” or “Jewish question,” is a contentious issue in Alt-right-land. I have made my own thoughts known on this matter elsewhere (see here and here), but to summarize: I acknowledge the existence of highly disproportionate Jewish influence in the media, government, and various levels of the entertainment industry, as well as many other notable societal institutions. I chafe against the notion that it’s crass bigotry to observe that Jews do indeed often tend to be rich and powerful people, or to note that Jewish interest groups are quite frequently heavy-handed, obnoxious, and dishonest in their tactics and rhetoric.
  
  Moreover, I fully support freedom of speech when it comes to Holocaust revisionism, and I greatly deprecate the efforts of snitches, scolds and busybodies to ruin the lives and livelihoods of ideological dissenters, whether their dissent stems from questioning the historicity of the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, or the presumed vs. actual final tally of Shoah casualties (i.e., 6 million or less), or anything else.
  
  By the standards of "polite" postmodern society and superstitious contemporary taboos, I am already damning myself as an anti-Semite, or at least an anti-Semite fellow traveler, for publicly espousing the positions mentioned above. However, to many frequenters of this site, I am “soft on Jews” because those hooknosed hebes fail to give me a fatal case of the “hebe-jeebes”; in their minds, I must be a craven kike-cuck since I decline to view the Kosherites as a categorically evil species that must be ruthlessly rooted out in order for Western civilization to be saved from the ashes; moreover, I deserve naught but contempt for refusing to extol the virtues of Hitler’s gang in their quest for a final solution, and for not signing on to the campaign to whitewash National Socialist atrocities against yid and goy alike.
  
  In They Live, Rowdy Roddy Piper (RIP) memorably declares that “the middle of the road is the worst place to drive,” and here that wry wrestler’s metaphor could not possibly be more apt: polite mainstream society declares the likes of me anathema for my alleged appalling Jew-hatred, while the self-styled “edgelords” at large dismiss me for my alleged insufferable Jew-worship.
  
  The first group can’t see past the simply “inexcusable” content of the first paragraph above; with thin-lipped grimaces and passive aggressive exclamations of “Wow, just wow!” they greet my assertions with ostentatious displays of priggish denunciation, cutting me absolutely no slack for the seemingly exculpatory content of the second paragraph above.
  
  The exact opposite circumstance, of course, applies to the second group, who for their part sneer at my absence of aversion to what they take to be the utterly wicked core of kike-dom, while only grudgingly giving me credit for being willing to fearlessly discuss certain delicate JQ-issues, albeit always with an explicit accompanying refusal to demonize Jews collectively.
  
  

  ***********************************

  
  This entire dreary preamble is necessitated by the rather light and amusing, yet also profoundly illuminating account of a cultural clash in the heart of the modern state of Israel. Though the story is five years old, one presumes that it speaks to realities still very much contemporary to the Zionist entity today, (oy to the vey!).
  
  The proverbial sticky wicket in this account applies to the same familiar “culture war” that still rages in the West, particularly America, between secular liberals and religious conservatives; indeed, here it finds expression in two very American institutions of sport and spectatorship: namely, basketball and cheerleading. It seems that the Israeli professional basketball league (the composition of which, amusingly, seems largely composed of expatriate black Americans) recently mandated that all teams must have a cheer squad, which has caused something of a stir in largely Orthodox milieu like Jerusalem. Under intense pressure from community leaders, the local Holy City pompom gals have adopted a “formal and respectful,” (i.e., determinedly un-sexy) style of cheer, specifically tailored to the sensitivities of the locals, as discussed in this fascinating video:
  

  
  

  
  In cosmopolitan Tel Aviv, however, the squad of nubile Shebrews closely resembles that of any NBA dance team in America: skimpy, form-fitting outfits featuring lots of exposed leg and cleavage, and dance routines full of copious floor-humping and frenzied gyrations:
  
  

  
  The fact that such a conspicuous clash of sensibilities exists among Jews highlights a phenomenon that neither anti-Judaics nor philo-Semites are eager to broadcast, since both are more inclined to see a united front of determined kosher resolve, out to crush the enemy, Rachel Corrie-style. (To the antis, this perceived ruthlessness is denounced as a pernicious calamity; for the philos it is rendered as a sure indication of divine righteousness, as when Moses’s staff enabled the Israelites to prevail in battle, or when Joshua put the unfortunate Caananites “to the edge of the sword” to gain possession of the Holy Land).
  
  But the very ubiquity of intense internecine squabbling among members of the Chosen nation, not to mention the irony of its manifestation here in what could be called a “cultural appropriation” context (i.e., neither basketball nor cheerleading are institutions native to the traditions of Jewry), should give both Jewish supremacists and hebe-haters pause.
  
  

  Culture clash! the sexy Tel Aviv Shebrews...

  
  

  vs. the comparatively chaste Jerusalem squad.

  As with the astronomically high rate of mixed marriage among Jews (reckoned by some sources to be around 70 percent among non-Orthodox), this rift between what could be called “blue state” Tel Aviv and “red state” Jerusalem reveals a significant rupture within a kingdom that, for all of its power and influence, proves to be largely united against itself. Like most Western nations, Israel—and by extension, Ashkenazim Jewry—is awash in hedonism and fitfully distracted by “bread and circuses”—as can be seen in the modern-day pastime on display here: that is, watching schwartzes play a foreign sport, in between ogling pretty girls in spandex dancing like brazen shiksas.
  
  In short, Israeli culture has in many places degraded beyond recognition, a manner of decline that perfectly mirrors that of the rest of the Western world. Far from being the true architects of general cultural breakdown, as is often alleged, Jews are in fact the most conspicuous victims of this breakdown, undermined as they are in many instances by their own spiral into decadence. Misidentified by some as the cause of our fall from former glory, they are in fact a bellwether of our spiritual health, or lack thereof.
  
  To put it another way, as Jews go, so goes the West.

  
  
  Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Alternative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the Nihil, The Columbine Pilgrim, Considering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. He occasionally updates his blog when the spirit moves him to do so. Visit his Soundcloud page.
  
  Become a Patron!

  

• LUKE FORD: STEVE SAILER vs. RICHARD SPENCER

  Posted: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:13:00 +0000

  
  

  It's obvious that failed Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer's parents didn't pay much attention to him as a child. Ever since, he's been on a one-man mission to compensate for that by attracting as much attention to himself as possible, either through his amateur dramatics or edgytarian "hot takes" on the issues of the day. Spencer generates a lot of heat but very little light. Steven Sailer, by contrast, is the exact opposite, a self-effacing, data-driven intellect, who makes real change, without attracting pointless drama. YouTuber Luke Ford compares the two.

  

• GAVRILO PRINCIP, AUTOMATIC SCHMUCK

  Posted: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 03:24:00 +0000

  This piece was originally posted on the 100th anniverary of Princip's assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdiand, an event which is widely agreed to have touched off World War I. It is reposted today, on the 100 year anniversary of Armistice Day, which signaled the end of that horrific, tragic, and seemingly pointless conflict.

  
  

  "Baby, you're a firework"... Gavrilo Princip, archduke slayer.

  
  

  by Andy Nowicki

  "I’m on a mission, cuz now I’ve had it
  I watch their system, then spit right at it!
  I was born and plated, a schmuck they created
  I’ll explode, I’ll erode! Yeah, I’ll break your fuckin’ code
  Cuz I’m an automatic schmuck… with a tendency to rock!"
  ～The Hives

  An assassin commits murder, but not just any murder. He kills not for the thrill—though killing may indeed be thrilling for him—but because it is something he must do, either because it is his paid profession, or simply because he views such a task as his grisly responsibility.
  
  However, for the political assassin, shooting or stabbing an unarmed public figure in a public setting serves two very specific functions.
  
  On a psychological level, it serves as an occasion to engage in what is euphemistically called “propaganda of the deed.” That is to say, through carrying out such an appallingly brazen act, in plain sight of the world, the assassins announce loudly that they mean business. A populace is put on notice: blood will be spilt, throats will be slit, bombs will explode, and widows will wail with grief... in short, terror will reign, until the ardent, depraved, and remorseless terror-mongers get exactly what they want. As long as their demands are not met, no one is safe, no matter how rich, powerful, or well-connected he may be.
  
  More obviously, of course, assassination simply brings about the demise of a hated official representative of the ranks of the enemy. After all, in the ideologized assassin’s mindset, individual manifestations of human personality hardly matter—the king, president, prime minister or whoever has been targeted may not be a bad fellow in himself, but this does not deter the assassin one whit from the cold, furiously determined hatred which induces him finally to pull the trigger. The political assassin is a thoroughgoing Manichean at heart; he makes no distinctions between good, better, bad, or worse; he has switched off his mind to such vexing complications, and locked himself in to accomplishing the deadly task at hand. He is a human bomb, bound for violent oblivion, an “automatic schmuck… with a tendency to rock.”
  
  

  ****************

  
  

  By most accounts, Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand was a fair-minded, mild-mannered man, well aware of the complexities inherent in the question of Serbian independence, dedicated to finding solutions to the difficult political problems of a governing a multiethnic empire. He was no blustering, bullying, jingoistic hardliner, but a man of relative temperance, prudence and restraint. Still, as a representative of the hated Austro-Hungarian state, Ferdinand became a convenient target for some of the regime’s more ruthless and implacable foes when he and his beloved wife Duchess Sophie made their ill-fated trip through Sarajevo a century ago today, on June 28. 1914.
  
  

  Archduke Franz and Duchess Sophie

  Early that morning, members of the Black Hand, a notorious Serb terrorist organization, launched an unsuccessful grenade attack on the archduke’s motorcade, which only succeeded in injuring scores of bystanders when the weapon bounced off the car and exploded behind its intended target. After the suspects fled (all save the weak-armed grenadier himself, who was immediately apprehended by police after jumping in the shallow, slow-flowing Milijacka river), Ferd and Sophie generously decided—against all counsel from advisors—to visit the victims of the attack in the main Sarajevo hospital.
  
  Once again, they set off through the perilous city. But this time, there came a fatal hitch. En route, their driver took a wrong turn, and had to pause for a moment before backtracking, because the gears in the vehicle had stubbornly locked.
  
  At that fateful instant, the noble couple’s quite conspicuous cab was sighted by a young man named Gavrilo Princip, who just happened to be standing in front of a nearby restaurant on Franz Josef Street.
  
  

  *************

  
  

  Princip, a gaunt, grubbily mustachioed, wanly tubercular 19-year old, was one of the six Black Hand men who’d traveled to Sarajevo to whack the unfortunate archduke. He’d been unable to take action during the initial attack after crowds rushed in and chaos overtook the scene. Afterwards, he’d apparently wandered over to the Moritz Schiller delicatessen, where some historians say he’d consoled himself by purchasing a sandwich. (Others dispute this claim, calling it suspiciously anachronistic—sandwiches not being a typical staple of early twentieth century Balkan cuisine—as well as chronologically dubious, given that when Gavrilo met Franz, it was only 10:45 a.m, too early for lunch).
  
  One can only guess what must have leapt through the mind of this rabidly radicalized lad as he caught sight of his imperial prey for the second time in just a few hours. That damnably high-and-mighty archduke, representative of the despised regime oppressing his people, had miraculously crept back into his crosshairs; this insufferable personage in the pompously plumed hat now lounged directly before him, entirely helpless; with those feathers in his helmet, in the seat of the stalled-out double phaeton that was to become his death cab, the archduke could quite accurately have been called a sitting duck.
  
  However thunderstruck he may have felt by his luck, however, Gavrilo did not waste any time marveling at the marvelous opportunity thrust upon him by destiny. Instead, he immediately, unthinkingly took advantage of this inexplicable second chance he’d been granted. He strode right up to the car, pulled out his Browning semiautomatic pistol, pointed, and fired twice at point blank range.
  
  

  *************

  
  

  The consumptive killer’s first shot tore through the archduke’s neck, causing him to jerk back spasmodically; his second bullet struck Sophie, who lunged in front of her husband in an effort to protect him from further injury. Fleeing the scene of his crime amidst shouts, cries, and general mayhem, Princip attempted to shoot himself in the head, and thus complete what had all along essentially been a suicide mission, but the gun jammed, and he was immediately seized and pummeled by incensed bystanders before finally getting snatched up and carted off by authorities.
  
  Back in the imperial car, now spattered horrifically with noble blood, Sophie instantly lost consciousness. Princip’s second shot had ripped into her stomach, causing what would prove to be mortal damage.  Her husband, writhing in agony from his own gaping neck wound, nevertheless was heard to implore his wife’s lifeless form, “Sophie, don’t die! Think of our children!”
  
  Later, the frantic driver breathlessly asked Ferdinand if he was okay, and he replied, in a soft, dreamy tone, “It is nothing.” Soon he passed out from the pain and the blood loss. By the time the royal car reached Sarajevo Hospital, the duchess had perished. A few minutes later, after being carted into a hospital bed, the archduke died as well.
  
  

  *************

  
  

  Ferdinand’s poignant plea to his dying wife—which of course went unanswered—is a reminder of the personal damage caused by this generally impersonal act of politically-fueled rage. Because of Gavrilo Princip’s militant heart and itchy trigger finger, two human lives were snuffed out, and the couple’s three children—Ernst, Sophie, and Maximillian—were rendered orphans.
  
  Considered from  a global perspective, the young man’s violent deed proved even more devastating. For it was the killing of the Austrian archduke that sent the principalities and powers of Europe scampering into a cacophonously haphazard formation of clashing alliances, producing such rancor and instability as to fling the continent into the unprecedented catastrophe of World War I.
  
  

  *************

  
  

  Of course, Gavrilo Princip had no notion that his surprisingly quick and easy double murder would lead to such a massively gruesome eventuality. On June 28, 1914, he had no premonition of the brutal trench fighting which would rage over the next four years, killing and maiming millions; he could not envision the furiously cruel chemical attacks which would wreck the life and sanity of many a man; he could not imagine the ghastly sight of piles of rotting bodies stacking up daily along the shores of the blood-stained Somme and elsewhere across the gore-strewn battlefields of Europe.
  
  Princip also couldn’t have foreseen the subsequent rise of destructive, inhuman ideologies like Communism and Nazism, or guessed at the even bloodier conflagration which would again consume his home continent a mere two decades later. Indeed, he had no conception whatsoever of the terrifying future that awaited the world. He only knew he wanted the Austro-Hungarian imperialist regime out of his native land. And to help accomplish this, he was willing to harden his heart enough to kill a man in cold blood. (Princip apparently expressed regret for Sophie’s death, which he claimed was an accident.)
  
  Actions have consequences. It took a bitterly determined automatic schmuck like Gavril to usher in a bitter century of ravagement and horror. A grudging toast to you, young sir, on the 100-year anniversary of your day of glorious infamy.
  
  Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Affirmative Right, is the author of eight books, including Lost Violent Souls, Heart Killer, and The Columbine Pilgrim. Visit his Soundcloud page.
  

  
  Become a Patron!

  

• THE STARK TRUTH: RETURN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ANIMAL

  Posted: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:01:00 +0000

  Play Now

  

  Robert Stark and Matthew Pegas talk to David Cole about his recent Ann Coulter event, and the past, present, and future of the Republican Party. David Cole writes for Takimag and is the author of Republican Party Animal.

  
  

  In 1998, due to death threats and other pressures, holocaust revisionist David Cole faked his own death and began a new life as David Stein, a Hollywood insider and Republican Party activist. In 2014, however, his true identity was revealed, leading to Cole being shunned by his Republican friends and losing work. Now, thanks to the election of Trump, the mood has changed so much in the GOP that Cole has been "rehabilitated" by important figures on the mainstream right like Ann Coulter.
  
  

  
  

  Listen to other Stark Truth podcasts here.

  

• MR YOKO ONO

  Posted: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 23:29:00 +0000

  

  by Colin Liddell
  
  NOTE: I wrote this take-down of John Lennon and the battle over his dubious legacy for Tokyo Journal in 2000, on the twentieth anniversary of his death, after a visit to the John Lennon Museum in Japan. It is one of the 22 pieces included in my first book Interviews and Obituaries, available on Amazon.
  

  ________________________________

  
  

  20 years after he was gunned down outside a New York apartment block, John Lennon is still with us. Here in Japan, he's with us even more, following the recent opening of a museum dedicated to him in Saitama.
  
  Why a singer-songwriter born and raised in Liverpool, who lived and worked mainly in London and New York, should be principally commemorated in a suburb of Tokyo seems baffling to most people, but this is just one more victory by Yoko Ono in the battle to control the Lennon legacy, with all its power, symbolism, and wealth.
  
  Lennon, although a one-time LSD and heroin junkie, a multi-millionaire "working class hero" who spurned his lower-middle-class roots, a man accused of supporting the IRA, spied on by the CIA, who famously said woman is the "nigger of the world," and aligned himself with every radical cause going, has surprisingly become the ultimate compromise figure.
  
  His proclaimed belief in the power of "Peace and Love," his embrace of all the counter-cultures that together make up the majority, the anodyne idealism of such songs as Imagine and Woman, and the fact that he was a white male who sometimes liked to get loaded and get his rocks off, makes him appeal to everybody from Oasis's loutish Gallagher brothers to the editorial committees of Japanese high school textbooks who see profound truth and linguistic simplicity in his song lyrics.
  
  

  

  
  If initial popularity is anything to go by, fellow Beatle Paul was by far the better songwriter with hits like Yesterday, Let It Be and Hey Jude to his credit. However, it was John who was the public persona and voice of the Beatles. After they split up, Paul wrote "silly love songs" and lost touch with the cutting edge of creativity that had defined the Beatles, while John produced ever more challenging music like Jealous Guy, Mother, and Mind Games. It almost seems as if he held his best work back until the Beatles split so that he wouldn’t have to share the royalties.
  
  As the '60s ended, John more than anyone became the symbol of that revolutionary decade, so that when Mark Chapman pumped 3 bullets into him on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, it wasn't just the dollar millions of the Lennon estate that passed into Yoko Ono’s hands, but also custody of a spiritual legacy that embraced everybody who lived through or was influenced by the 60s.
  
  From the early days of their relationship the enigmatic, unsmiling, twice divorced Yoko was reviled. Paul in particular had trouble tolerating her.
  

  "I've always thought," John later accused, "there was this underlying thing in Paul's Get Back. When we were in the studio recording it, every time he sang the line 'Get back to where you once belonged,' he'd look at Yoko."

  But Yoko got her man, and later got Paul into hot water by reputedly tipping off the Japanese authorities when he visited Japan with some marijuana in his luggage. More importantly she became the catalyst for the song with which Lennon’s name is now forever linked, thus getting her first firm hold on his legend.
  

  "With us it's a teacher-pupil relationship," John told an unbelieving world. "That's what people don't understand. She's the teacher and I'm the pupil. I'm the famous one. I'm supposed to know everything. But she taught me everything I fucking know."

  Although this shows a marked lack of gratitude to the likes of Lonnie Donegan, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Dr Arthur Janov and a host of others who all influenced the Lennon mind-set, no one can deny Yoko's part in Lennon’s most famous song, Imagine.
  
  

  Imagine the Communist Manifesto set to music. Lennon did.

  
  The simple list of instructions in the songs lyrics stems directly from Yoko's instruction paintings, where the viewer is requested to imagine a conceptual function. In a recent BBC survey these lyrics were voted the most popular of all time although very few people actually believe in their message of abolishing private property, national states, and religion.
  
  Ono has tightened her grip on the legacy to such an extent that she can now with impunity send the ghost of her husband out to work in Cup Noodle commercials or use his music to promote Nike, a company notorious for paying superstars like Michael Jordan more to endorse its footwear than the entire work force who produce the shoes. In doing this she has faced little opposition. John's son by his first marriage, Julian signally failed to exert any moral authority over the legacy when his own mildly promising career petered out in mediocrity, and as for Sean, despite being weaned by house-husband John, he is very much his mother's child.
  
  In fact, the only challenge recently to Yoko's cozy control and exploitation of the Lennon legend was from the recent parole hearing of Lennon's assassin, Mark Chapman. His release after 20 years in jail would have given the media a new and much juicier focal point to view Lennon’s legacy. It would also have allowed an exploration of the forgiveness and redemption implicit in Lennon's Christ-like message of love. As Lennon himself said: "It's the most violent people who go for love and peace."
  
  With the threat of losing control in this way, it was no surprise that Yoko moved Heaven and Earth to have Chapman's parole refused.
  

  "It was so cruel. So unjust," she wrote in a sob letter to the New York state parole board. "My husband did not deserve this. He was in no way ready to die. He was feeling good with the prospect of doing a concert tour after making the album which became his last."

  The court promptly rejected the application, partly out of fears for Chapman's life, and instead of a media circus focused on Lennon's killer, we had the opening soon afterwards of the John Lennon Museum in Saitama, an event that would otherwise have been overshadowed.
  
  Located in a site inside Saitama's impressive new Super Arena, the Museum claims to be the only one in the World dedicated to Lennon. About 50 minutes out from central Tokyo and costing 1,500 yen to enter, it features staff dressed like elevator girls and 130 items from the life of Lennon, including old guitars, handwritten lyrics, John's Japanese JCB credit card, and several pairs of spectacles. The most interesting exhibit, however, is the slanted view it presents of Lennon.
  
  Although married twice, only John's second wife ever appears. The brief period of sanity that John experienced in 1973 when he broke away from his mother fixation on Yoko and started to behave like a proper rock star again, is trivialized as the "Lost Weekend" and attributed to John "cracking up." Worse than this, almost every song lyric is construed to refer to Yoko in some way.
  
  There are also some serious omissions from the exhibition. For example, there are no samples of Cup Noodle or Dydo Coffee, two products with which the name of John Lennon is now intimately connected thanks to the business acumen of his widow.
  
  

  
  Near the end of the exhibition, you enter the "Quote Temple" with screens running karaoke subtitles to the songs being played, and various quotes from Lennon's career on a giant white block and glass wall. Unfortunately instead of incisive gems of Scouse wit, these are mainly sappy, Yoko-centric ditties like, "East is east and west is west/ The twain shall meet/ East is west and west is east/ Let it be complete."
  
  The final stop is the museum shop where you can buy a notebook for 700 yen, a T-shirt for 3,200 yen, and a framed lithograph of his lyrics for 38,000 yen. On every piece of merchandising are the words "John Lennon is a trademark of Yoko Ono Lennon," just so we don’t forget who the owner is.
  
  Now there is no John Lennon without Yoko Ono. With the opening of this museum she has tightened her grip even further on his legend, but as John once said, "Possession isn't nine-tenths of the law, it's nine-tenths of the problem."
  
  

  

  
  

  Related content:
  Sympathy for Their Satanic Majesties by Colin Liddell
  Depeche Mode's Espirit de Corps by Richard Wolstencroft
  Robert Stark interviews Colin Liddell about David Bowie
  Laibach's Spectre by Colin Liddell
  Come as You Are by Andy Nowicki
  
  

  Become a Patron!

  

• THE MIDTERM MYTH OF CIVIC NATIONALISM

  Posted: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 17:17:00 +0000

  
  

  Echoing the powerful points made in the Trad News articles "Black Voters Punish Trump for Finding Them Jobs" and "Jewish Voters Punish Trump for Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem," Boomer-slash-Gen-X Nationalist RamZPaul points out the mistaken beliefs of those in the Trump camp who thought that Blacks and Jews would reward Trump and the GOP by changing their tribal voting patterns. He also blackpills on the demographic changes that are now sweeping the nation, which will make it increasingly difficult to elect conservative, White-friendly governments in the future.

  

• TWO-YEAR SHITSTORM ON ITS WAY AS ELECTION SPLITS THE COUNTRY DOWN THE MIDDLE

  Posted: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:33:00 +0000

  

  by Trad News
  
  

  The Midterms are in and the results are essentially big wins for Trump and big wins for the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Squeezed out are the lukewarm centrists and some cuckservatives.
  
  Even CNN admits that Trump did very well:
  

  Republicans performed strongly in the deep red states where Trump mounted a frenetic final campaign blitz and proved that despite his low approval rating he remains a potent political force among conservatives. In nearly every state with a key contested Senate or governor's race, the President had a positive approval rating over 50%, according to CNN's preliminary exit poll data.
  
  Keeping hold of the Senate is especially important for Trump, since it will allow him and Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell to press on with one of his major legacy-building initiatives, restocking the federal judiciary with conservatives.

  Meanwhile the GOP lost the House, which saw the election of radical Lefties like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who romped home with 77% of the vote, plus the election of actual female Muslims! There are also a lot more women—so that should really calm things down on the floor of the House:
  

  The House is getting its first two Muslim women and Massachusetts is getting its first black congresswoman while Arizona and Tennessee stand to elect their first woman senators in Tuesday's midterm elections. Democrats Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan won their respective races and will represent their districts in the House of Representatives. Both women ran in strongly Democratic regions.
  
  Tlaib, a Palestinian American, will take over the seat vacated by former Rep. John Conyers. Omar will not only be among the first Muslim women elected to Congress. She is also the first Somali American to win election to national office....
  
  Both Omar and Tlaib were endorsed by Democratic Socialists of America, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that counts among its high-profile members another rising female star - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

  So, how will this play out?
  
  First of all, the House was never very good for Trump. All he managed to get out of it were some tax cuts that mainly benefited billionaires. But it was at least neutral in that it didn't impeach him.
  
  Now it will become more hostile and will seek to hamstring his administration with constant moves for impeachment. The mainstream media will of course amplify these and broadcast them 24-7. This will make cable and network news incredibly tedious and boring for everyone except for the 10 to 20% of the population that will be continually hyperventilating over what a monster Trump is.
  
  

  

  
  Meanwhile, Trump will rule more by executive order. This was okay when Obama did it, because then the media was right behind him and all the hysterical people were on the Left anyway. Now, when Trump does it, there will be pandemonium at every stage.
  
  Essentially we're heading for a two-year shitstorm of triggering, screeching, division, hatred, and—probably—outbreaks of violence. Should be fun!
  
  How this will effect the 2020 elections is anyone's guess. My guess is that it will prepare the way for a Trump landslide.
  
  Become a Patron!

  

FeedBurner delivers the world's subscriptions wherever they need to go. Publish a feed for text or podcasting?
You should try FeedBurner today.