• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Cry Me a River: Marion Kaplan’s Between Dignity and Despair

June 25, 2024/14 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Spencer J. Quinn

4775 Words

Introduction

If you’re looking for evidence to support some political, ideological, or religious position while studying history, you will probably find it if you want to badly enough. The clues are all there, and it’s all too tempting to prioritize some clues over others or interpret some clues more broadly than others in order to promote a certain worldview. Whenever I study the Jewish Question, I try to avoid this temptation by setting objective standards ahead of time, and then standing by those standards to see whether the mainstream Jewish narrative or the dissident counter narrative is more truthful. I had such standards in mind when opening Between Dignity and Despair, a study of Jewish life in Nazi Germany written in 1998 by Marion Kaplan and published by Oxford University Press.

At stake here is what’s almost always at stake when mainstream academics write about Nazi Germany. The Nazis must be proven, time and time again, to be irredeemably evil and irrational. This is the most expedient way to ensure that the White inhabitants of Europe be as open as possible to Jewish influence moving forward. Unfortunately for Whites, this also necessitates their behaving in maladaptive and dysgenic ways, because strong, healthy, racially aware Whites will compete with Jews as Jews, knowing full well the positives and negatives that Jews brings to any country they inhabit. Thus, opinions on Nazi Germany—to say the least—are important.

But the question remains, were the Nazis evil and irrational? Kaplan seems to think so, and makes her case with a plethora of memoirs and letters written by Jews who lived in Germany during the Nazi period—which for argument’s sake I will assume are truthful. Still, I found Between Dignity and Despair highly unconvincing.

What are my standards?

  1. That Nazi treatment of German Jews was more or less reasonable given the surrounding historical circumstances;
  2. That Nazi treatment of German Jews during wartime must be measured with a different yardstick than during peacetime;
  3. That German Jews indeed suffered, but their suffering was more or less commensurate with gentile suffering in Germany and the disproportionately Jewish-run Soviet Union.

I began Between Dignity and Despair thinking that if Kaplan can offer enough historical evidence to disprove these standards, then she will vindicate the mainstream narrative of Nazi Germany. The problem I encountered right away, however, is that Kaplan doesn’t even try to do this. She is what the lit critics would call an unreliable narrator, in that she is not in the least bit interested in the German perspective unless that German perspective is philo-Semitic. This causes her to omit enough information not to be completely trusted.

This is not to say her work is without merit. Between Dignity and Despair is a readable and coherent account of day-to-day Jewish life in Nazi Germany—distaff-skewed but interesting in its detail and impressive scope. But as an indictment of the Nazis, it is exceedingly weak.

Kaplan As Unreliable Narrator

Kaplan opens her study by asking the obvious but necessary questions:

What did it feel like to be a Jew in Nazi Germany? What kind of Jewish life was there in Germany after 1933? Why did German Jews not leave sooner? What did non-Jewish Germans do, and what did they know?

In answering these questions, Kaplan presumes the existential innocence of Germany Jewry, as well as the fundamental Jewish right to access gentiles. In other words, Jews have the right to exclude gentiles from their communities, but never the other way around. More to the point of the book, she attempts to argue that the “social death” inflicted upon the Jews in Nazi Germany led inevitably to their physical death and then to the genocide of the Jews of Europe. She also attempts to explain why so many Jews never left Germany during the leadup to war. Kaplan has such contempt for racially aware Germans at that time that she refers to them as “Aryan,” always in scare quotes. This contempt leads her to omit extremely important information which would help explain why Germany became so inhospitable to Jews during the Nazi period.

Kaplan begins with the same blind spot found in Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement, first published in 1983—namely, that the German boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933 and the later economic repression of German Jews was not a justifiable retaliation to the worldwide Jewish boycott of Germany, which was then devastating a German economy already crippled by the Great Depression. Of course it was. At least Black discusses the Jewish anti-German boycott. Kaplan doesn’t even do that, and simply relies upon the ignorance of her readership by assuming that the anti-Jewish boycott, like all anti-Jewish measures from the time, sprang only from the black hearts of gentiles.

Another blind spot is the demonstrable connection between Jews and communism. This had proven catastrophic in Russia in 1917 and continued to be so during the 1930s, as was well-known in Germany at the time. This connection became evident in Hungary a few years later under the repressive rule of Béla Kun, and also nearly engendered a German Soviet republic in 1918 when Kurt Eisner and a clique of Jewish intellectuals attempted a violent revolution in Bavaria. Were the Germans supposed to forget about this? Kaplan seems to think so since, early in her work, she attempts to drum up sympathy for the communist Jews of Germany after the Nazis quite rightfully cracked down on them:

Jews jailed as communists—whether the charge was true or false—had the most to dread. They were accused of “preparing for high treason.” Recha Rothschild, a member of the Communist Party, quickly destroyed her files in February 1933. She fled her apartment, returning to it (at the end of March) after the SA had stormed in, stolen her belongings, and shredded all of her books and papers. She hid but was caught and charged with being a courier for the Communist Party, even though there was no hard evidence against her. The Reich court declared the evidence too flimsy, but the Prussian court, under Nazi control, sentenced Rothschild to two years in prison. There, among political prisoners, criminals, and prostitutes, her health deteriorated dangerously. Spitting up blood, she still refused “to drop dead for the Nazis.”

Not admitting what a lethal threat communism was to European nations at the time, and not putting the above sob story (and others like it) in perspective of the Jewish-run Soviet gulag system should make any discerning reader distrust Marion Kaplan. Her credibility diminishes even further when she proclaims that many of the Jews whom the Nazis oppressed throughout the 1930s were patriotic Germans. She cannot have it both ways. One cannot cry crocodile tears over Jewish communists—anti-patriots in theory and practice—and then expect readers to believe in the true-blue loyalty of German Jews. And that’s too bad, because I’m sure many German Jews were patriots, especially the ones who fought in the First World War. But when culling her sources, Kaplan rarely clarifies when a particular Jew was attacked, arrested, or repressed because he was Jewish or because he was a communist troublemaker or for any other perfectly legitimate reason. It’s as if she has something to hide.

Another egregious omission is Kaplan’s retelling of the German mass deportation of Polish Jews in October 1938. Not only does she describe it as a horror show of privation and terror as evil Nazis swooped down upon helpless Jews in their homes and herded them off to the hinterland, but she neglects to mention the perfectly valid reasons why the Germans were deporting Polish Jews in the first place. According to David Hoggan in The Forced War, Poland was striving to rid itself of its Jews and declared in October 1938 that Polish Jews living in Germany would become stateless unless they returned to Poland to get their passports validated, which the Polish government was preventing them from doing—at bayonet point. This was an egregious attempt to dump unwanted citizens onto a neighboring country, and forced the Germans to respond through deportations—which was their right, given that the Polish Jews were not German citizens. According to Hoggan, the Germans treated these deportees quite well.

The German authorities took great pains to act without guilt or blame. They organized the transport of Polish Jews with great care, and they made certain that the travelers had good facilities, including plenty of space and ample good food. The story told years later by the American journalist. William Shirer, about “Jews deported to Poland in boxcars” under brutal conditions, was clearly fictitious. The first trains passed the border to Polish stations before the Poles were prepared to stop them. After that, the unbelievable happened. Although the last day for issuance of the stamps was not until October 29th, and the new exclusion policy was not scheduled to take effect until October 30th, and Polish border police attempted to prevent the Jews from entering Poland. The Germans had made no preparation for this development, and soon thousands of Polish Jews were pouring into a few small border towns in Upper Silesia and elsewhere.

Kaplan does not tell her readership that the Germans were willing to have the Polish Jews re-enter Germany—but only after getting their passports validated in their recalcitrant home country. She does not reveal that the Poles retaliated by deporting large number of German Poles back into Germany. She also does not admit that many of these Polish Jews did indeed return to Germany and actually preferred it there, even as late as eleven months before the war.

In a moment of sheer dishonesty, Kaplan ascribes “despair” as Herschel Grynszpan’s motive to assassinate German diplomat Ernst vom Rath on November 7, 1938 in Paris. This famously set off the violent Kristallnacht pogrom days later. Upon learning that his parents and sister were being held near the Polish border with other deportees, Grynszpan took vom Rath’s life in an act of revenge. Kaplan makes this seem reasonable, yet fails to mention that Grynszpan was a “syphilitic degenerate,” according to Hoggan, who was wanted by the French police. She also does not mention that the postcard Grynszpan received from his deported family did not include any complaints regarding their treatment by the Germans.

Another sin of omission is Kaplan’s recapitulation of Adolf Hitler’s famous Reichstag speech of January30, 1939, which she claimed “ended with the ominous prophesy that this war would not see the ‘Bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’” What she neglects to mention is that this was not prophesy on the part of Hitler, but a warning for the Allies not to declare war on Germany, which given Poland’s abusiveness towards Germany and its own German minority, they had no moral reason to do.

Contradicting Edwin Black

Worst of all in my opinion is Kaplan’s near complete blackout of the Transfer Agreement, otherwise called the Haavara Transfer, in which Nazi Germany worked with Zionist Jews to pave the way for German-Jewish emigration to Palestine throughout the 1930s. According to Kaplan, the Nazi government urged Jews to emigrate, yet set impediments which made it extremely difficult for them to do so.

The Nazis created another major obstacle by restricting the amount of currency and property Jews could take with them. The plunder of Jewish property was part and parcel of all emigration proceedings. The Nazis “pressured Jews to leave the country, but the privilege of leaving was expensive.” The Reich Flight Tax (Reichsfluchtsteuer), a stringent property tax on émigrés, threatened to impoverish prospective emigrants. First passed by the Brüning government in 1931 to prevent capital flight, the Nazis raised it to punitive heights for emigrating Jews. In all, the German treasury may have collected as much as 900 million marks from the Reich Flight Tax alone. Many people had to sell all their belongings simply to pay this one tax. Gerdy Stoppleman, for example, sent her husband, recently released from Sachsenhausen concentration camp, ahead to England while she stayed behind to pay the tax: “To be able to pay the . . . tax I sold our furniture, valuable paintings and carpets . . . all dirt cheap. Many a home of true Aryans, SA, and SS became exceedingly well furnished.”

In other words, either material possessions and wealth meant more to German Jews than their very lives, or Jewish life in Nazi Germany before the war wasn’t quite as bad Kaplan alleges.

Kaplan’s characterization of the Reich Flight Tax is also exaggerated, given that Black in The Transfer Agreement places it at 25 percent—steep, but not prohibitive. The scheme, which was actually encouraged by the Nazis, involved one placing one’s Reichsmarks in a frozen bank account, where they were known as sperrmarks. From there, Black lays it all out:

In practice, then, if a German citizen decided to emigrate, he would sell off all his assets, realizing, say, RM 100,000, equal to $33,000. That entire RM 100,000 would be deposited into a blocked account, and automatically suffer a 25 percent Flight Tax. Of the RM 75,000 that remained, the emigrant would be allowed to take with him only a few hundred reichsmarks, which would be converted to francs, dollars, or whatever currency was needed to satisfy immigrant entry requirements. The emigrant would then own just under RM 75,000 in a blocked German account he could no longer spend. Before departing Germany, he would go to bank and offer to sell his sperrmarks to the highest bidder. A foreign buyer would be found, offering perhaps RM 60,000 for the 75,000 sperrmarks, paying with the equivalent in foreign currency from a foreign bank account. If agreed, the two would simply swap bank accounts. Thus, the foreign buyer would purchase RM 75,000 marks for the foreign equivalent of RM 60,000. And the emigrant would have successfully transferred his money out of Germany, albeit at a loss of about 20 percent after discounts to the buyer and bank commissions.

Not only this, but Black reports on a shady capitalist schemer named Sam Cohen who, for a time at least, streamlined this transfer agreement to enable Jews to expedite their emigration. And the Nazis were happily complicit given how this plan involved middlemen selling German goods abroad—which helped Germany endure the boycotts against them.

Of course, it was never easy. I’m sure there were quite a few German Jews who wanted to get out and could not for some reason or another—and often because of foreign restrictions, not German ones. Exceptions should be made for the aged who could not manage arduous travel and were not wanted in foreign countries in any case. And granted, it got more difficult to emigrate as war continued to grow on the horizon. According to Kaplan, the foreign exchange rate for émigré Jews described above dropped to 4 percent by 1939, an astonishingly low figure not repeated by Black and not clearly footnoted by Kaplan. But by focusing more on those Jews who could not or would not leave, and not the 60,000 who reestablished themselves in Palestine during the 1930s thanks to the Nazi-Zionist transfer agreement (to say nothing of the 200,000-plus other Jews who escaped elsewhere), Kaplan reveals her anti-German bias. At one point, she incidentally mentions how a German-Jewish woman learned how to be a corsetiere in Palestine when visiting her sister for three months. If Nazi Germany was the terrorist state she repeatedly claims, why did the woman come back?

Perhaps because, as Edwin Black writes, “German Jews simply did not want to leave.”

Assessing the Oppression Before the War

Kaplan’s heartfelt—if brazenly partisan—treatment of Jewish life before the war benefits from a rich selection of source material. She shares the statements, memories, and experiences of German Jews from all walks of life, although she focuses mostly on women and girls. Those interested in Jewish history, especially in this particularly difficult chapter in Jewish life, will benefit greatly from her research and compilation. And Jews did suffer greatly in Germany in the 1930s when compared to the preceding Weimar Republic. I don’t wish to downplay any of that. Yet when Kaplan’s metapolitical goals are not simply to document the dignity and despair of Jews in Nazi Germany but also to prejudiciously denounce Nazis as inherently immoral human beings, I must. There are levels to this. There is suffering, and there is suffering. Do Kaplan’s hapless subjects compare in any way to the millions of Whites who suffered at the same time under the boot of the communists in the largely-Jewish controlled Soviet Union? No, they don’t. They’re not even close.

Thanks to the Nuremberg laws of 1935, the official indignities that peaceful and presumably non-communist Jews had to endure within Nazi Germany included racial segregation, anti-Jewish discrimination, and their near-complete removal from mainstream German life. “Social death,” in other words—the kind of ostracism that Jews today force upon White identitarians everywhere. According to Hitler in his January 1939 Reichstag speech, Jews dominated many leading positions in German life and were harming Germany and making it less German. The Nuremburg laws were an attempt to rectify this. Unofficially, however, this sea change led to a wide array of abuses which were heaped on the unfortunate German Jews. These included: insults, intimidation, beatings, boycotts, property confiscations, denunciations, social isolation, and various kinds of humiliations. With a population of 80 million, of course there were some unstable individuals who committed violence upon innocent Jews or who were unscrupulous enough to take advantage of them. This sort of thing was bound to happen. And with their government officially recognizing Jews as second-class citizens, Jews essentially had no choice but to endure or leave.

Yet, life went on.

Throughout the first half of the book, Kaplan complains about hurt feelings, loneliness, and damaged self-esteem. So much of her appeal is emotional that Between Dignity and Despair reads at times like a soap opera. But as I once brought up in an essay entitled “The Woody Allen Fallacy,” it makes no sense to complain about the low quality of something, and then complain further that you don’t get enough of it. If the Nazis were so evil, why were German Jews so crestfallen when they couldn’t associate with them?

For single people, social life outside of the family network became increasingly difficult from 1933 through 1938 unless they were young enough and interested enough to join a Jewish youth organization. One young woman without family connections sought human contact after a hard day’s work. Lonely, she went to cafés in the evening and sat in a corner, reading. “I would have loved to join in” the dancing, she wrote, but she feared the possible repercussions.

Kaplan goes on for pages like this. She expects us hold a pity party for German Jews who must “pass” for German, or be forced to listen to speeches by Hitler and Goebbels, or deal with children throwing stones, or resign themselves to careers as seamstresses and nannies instead of pediatricians and scientists—meanwhile in the Soviet Union, the Jew Lazar Kaganovich was deporting over a quarter million Cossacks to Sibera, and the Jew Naftaly Frenkel was ensuring the deaths of 200,000 souls during the construction of the Belomar Canal, and the Jew Matvei Berman was overseeing the slave labor of political prisoners in his vast gulag system, and the Jew Genrikh Yagoda as chief of the NKVD was ordering the deaths of millions during the Great Terror, and the Jew Filipp Goloshchyokin was collectivizing Kazakhstan and causing a famine responsible for the deaths of over a million people.

As the kids like to say, cry me a river.

According to Kaplan, the only time the Nazis ever approached this level of injustice during the pre-war years was when, in 1938, the Gestapo imprisoned and deported an unspecified number of “foreign Jews” and then initiated its “June Action” in which 1,500 Jewish men deemed “anti-social” were sent to concentration camps until they could prove that they were ready to emigrate. Then there was Kristallnacht—Kaplan calls it the November Pogrom—which took around 100 Jewish lives and caused several hundred million marks of damage. After this, the Nazis imprisoned some 30,000 Jewish men in concentration camps, again until they could prove their readiness to emigrate.

And that’s about it, folks—bad, sure, but amateur hour compared to Stalin’s Jewish hangmen over in the Soviet Union during the pre-war period.

Despite this happening during the Great Depression, Kaplan makes little effort to compare Jewish suffering to gentile suffering, which we know was tremendous, especially in the early 1930s. She does not deign to bring up the 850,000 Germans—many of whom were children—who died from malnutrition thanks to the Allied blockade during the First World War. She does not mention how Germans had to deal with humiliations of their own thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. She does not mention how this Treaty separated millions of Germans from their homeland and forced them to live as second-class citizens outside of Germany. The worst offender here was Poland, whose discriminatory treatment of its German minority throughout the 1930s rivaled Germany’s treatment of Jews during the same period. She also does not explore how the Nazis had reversed the corruption and degeneracy of the Weimar period, which German Jews were disproportionately responsible for. The Nazis had also engineered Germany’s miraculous recovery from the Depression.

Thus, the Nazis were good for Germans. But does this matter to Kaplan? Not at all. For Kaplan, all that matters is whether something is good for Jews. In fact, she seems to judge Germans solely by their xenophilia. A German is a “good” German only if he resisted the Nazis and was friendly to Jews. If a German made altruistic sacrifices for his German family, friends, or nation, that was of no matter at all.

Assessing the Oppression During the War

For those completely ignorant of the peacetime atrocities committed by the Soviet Union, Kaplan’s wartime chapters are her most convincing. She is an able writer, and so lays out her case in an engaging manner, especially considering that anti-Jewish oppression and abuse in Germany increased greatly after the war commenced. She displays her fetish for feminism a little more in these chapters as well.

According to Kaplan, Jews were prohibited from emigrating by 1941. They had their radios confiscated and were banned from all public welfare by 1939.  Also in 1939, German landlords were given permission to evict Jewish tenants for any reason. Once the war began Jews were placed under curfew, banned from public transportation, suffered the loss of many civil rights, and endured more stringent food rationing than ordinary Germans. Hunger became a real problem for many of them. Jews also became subject to often-violent spot checks by the Gestapo and were crammed into overcrowded Judenhäuser. By 1940, they weren’t allowed to own telephones or to shop for clothing. As a result, many went into hiding.

Even worse was the forced labor in factories, farms, and other places. Kaplan writes how this often consisted of ten-hour days of backbreaking labor under dirty and dismal circumstances. I have no doubt that much if not all of what Kaplan presents on this is true. Since when is forced labor during wartime anything other than horrible? Despite this, however, Jews were still getting paid for their efforts, unlike their Soviet counterparts in the gulags above the Arctic Circle.

While anxiously awaiting her visa to the United States, Elisabeth Freund was forced to work in a laundry on the outskirts of Berlin. She was grateful not to be in a munitions factory, since her children were in England and she did not want to produce the munitions that might harm them, or in a battery factory, which she had heard was dangerous and dirty. For backbreaking work at the laundry, unmarried Jewish women earned about 14 marks, while married women earned 12.50 marks weekly. Married women whose husbands also worked were docked some pay for being “double earners.”

Then there were the deportations to concentration camps such as Theresienstadt. These claimed tens of thousands of German-Jewish lives during the later years of the war, according to Kaplan. She has little to say about what went on in places like that, since presumably most people who were sent there did not survive to write memoirs or letters. She also expends little energy discussing the broader Jewish Holocaust, which, fair play to her, is beyond the scope of her book. She does however cite one source claiming that up to 150,000 deported Jews perished, although it’s hard to be sure when Kaplan simply provides before and after figures and expects her readers to connect the dots:

Even as Soviet troops began to liberate concentration camps in the East, the Germans relentlessly rounded up the remnants of German Jewry, sending them to camps closer by. Of the 164,000 Jews in Germany in October 1941, one estimate has only 14,500 left in July 1944, and deportations continued into the spring of 1945.

How many of these people escaped during the war or went into hiding and thus avoided being tallied? Who knows? Either way, these deportations were undoubtedly cruel and tragic, but Kaplan never explores why the Germans would resort to such drastic measures to begin with. Nor does she ever pose the question of what the Germans were supposed to do with 164,000 ethnic aliens living in their midst—many of whom were disloyal to say the least. The Germans were fighting a multi-front war against three super-powers who outnumbered them in total population count by more than five-to-one. And they were fighting to win. Once hostilities commenced, the Nazis had to have greater control over Jewish emigration. How could they allow a mass, disorderly exodus of Jews which would likely involve a fair number eager to join the Reich’s external enemies? So, again, what were they supposed to do?

Conclusion

I am not insensate to the plight of German Jewry during this time. But what happened to them was the kind of tragic injustice often visited upon innocents during war. The greater injustice, however, was the Allied declaration of war upon Germany in the first place, which indeed made it a world war. Kaplan claims that Germany “unleashed the war” on September 1, 1939. But that’s not true. On this date Germany unleashed a border skirmish against Poland which was menacing the German population of Danzig, terrorizing and oppressing its own German minority, and initiating warlike actions against Germany—such as firing upon German civilian airplanes, collaborating behind the scenes with France and England, and ordering minor incursions into Germany territory. And this says nothing of the 58,000 German-Poles the Poles killed once the war began.

All of this must be weighed into the calculus of ascribing blame after the fact. Of course, the Germans are not without blame—during war, who is? In the Second World War, everybody suffered. But by focusing on the suffering of only one relatively small group—and ignoring its prodigious sins—while denying the very humanity of another group and focusing only on its sins, Marion Kaplan reveals herself to be more of a passive-aggressive polemicist than an honest historian. I wonder if she even knows the difference.

Late in her book, she writes tellingly about the Allied bombing of civilian centers in Germany:

Although Jews suffered and died in the bombings, these attacks threatened Jewish lives in an arbitrary manner; the deportations threatened them in a far more direct and systematic one. Thus, when post-war Germans recalled the Nazi era, they emphasized the horrors of the bombings. Jews, on the other hand, did not stress the bombings either during or after the war. They dreaded the Gestapo far more. Freund remarked: “I’m not afraid of the bombings, even if it isn’t exactly pleasant, and one never knows whether one will survive until the next morning. This is a danger we . . . share with many millions. . . . We are only afraid of the Gestapo.”

Most important for Jews, the bombings held out hope. They were signs of a possible German defeat and the end of the Nazi nightmare.

So Marion Kaplan admits that German Jews were disloyal during a time when Germans were fighting for their very survival. From the perspective of a German who wants to win the war, what do you do with such people? This is a serious question. What do you do with them?

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Spencer J. Quinn https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Spencer J. Quinn2024-06-25 13:15:532024-07-01 15:29:21Cry Me a River: Marion Kaplan’s Between Dignity and Despair

Musings on Trump and Why You Should Still Vote for Him

June 25, 2024/20 Comments/in Donald Trump, Featured Articles/by RockaBoatus

Donald Trump is a strange bird. I can’t think of any other recent political figure who has managed to drive half the country into some kind of derangement syndrome while the other half sees him as the savior of this once great republic. Most Americans either love him or hate him. Few people seem to possess the ability to stay neutral or think in a carefully nuanced way about the man.

When it comes to politics, Trump is a mixed bag. At times, his political beliefs parallel progressive thinking while at other times he seems to be thoroughly conservative or even in our camp. Some see him as reflecting the country’s center-right political views. This could be the case. Yet, I’m more inclined to view it as evidence of his ideological immaturity. Although Trump has good political instincts at times — such as when he thought the U.S. invasion of Iraq was wrong, when he challenged U.S. trade policies with China as something inherently unfair and detrimental to America, or when he asked during an immigration meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers why the U.S. was accepting immigrants from “shithole countries” — he seems to lack a solid framework of carefully weighed political opinions by which he can filter different viewpoints.

This was especially evident during Trump’s first administration in which he appointed a host of neocons to his cabinet (e.g., John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo)—and then there’s the abominable appointment of Christopher Wray as head of the FBI. Although some defended Trump’s appointments because he needed seasoned and experienced persons to head strategic positions within his cabinet, it showed poor judgment on his part. Many of the persons whom Trump appointed didn’t like him and were at ideological odds with him. Unlike the neocons he hired, Trump wanted an end to the costly and unnecessary wars that prior presidential administrations supported.

It also became painfully evident that Trump made a horrible V.P. choice in Mike Pence. Not only was Pence an evangelical who expressed his unwavering support for Israel, he proved to be quite the neocon when he showed his support for Ukraine against Russia. Pence was no different than the many Americans who fell for the provocation-of-Russia scheme perpetrated by the American government since the 1990s.

In a 2023 interview while Pence was on the campaign trail for the presidency, Tucker Carlson questioned him on his concern over the Ukrainians not having enough tanks rather than being concerned about the deeper problems that Americans faced. Tucker described how every major city in the U.S. had become much worse in the past three years under the Biden administration, the rapid decline of our economy, including a sharp increase in the suicide rate and skyrocketing levels of crime. The answer Pence gave revealed just how out of touch he is with the American people: “That’s not my concern.” He doubled down on his answer when he repeated it a second time. Pence apologists have tried to downplay his response, but it was not merely a verbal blunder. It showed how dismissive and unconcerned he really was toward the plight of most Americans. No one in touch with the real-life concerns of the average person would dare talk in this manner.

There was also Trump’s “platinum plan” which he unveiled in 2020 to increase voter turnout among Blacks. Trump spoke of building up “peaceful” urban neighborhoods with the “highest standards” of policing, bringing fairness to the justice system, expanding school choice, increasing Black home ownership, and creating a “national clemency project to right wrongful prosecutions and to pardon individuals who have reformed their lives.”

It was nothing more than lofty but empty promises. Seriously, “peaceful” urban neighborhoods among Blacks? When have Blacks ever accepted the police in their communities regardless of whether they had the “highest standards” of policing or not? And didn’t prior efforts at increasing Black home ownership by the federal government fail dismally? Trump’s “platinum plan” amounted to nothing more than releasing convicted Black felons onto the streets of America. If the man seriously thought a significant number of Blacks were going to vote for him because of such pandering, it served as more proof of just how misguided Trump can be at times, although things seem to be looking up for Trump in that regard if recent polling is correct.

And then there was Trump’s pandering to America’s gay and LGBTQ communities. While speaking to the United Nations in 2019, Trump surprised everyone when he announced his administration’s global initiative to decriminalize homosexuality in more than 70 countries where it remains illegal: “My administration is working with other nations to stop criminalizing of homosexuality and we stand in solidarity with LGBTQ people who live in countries that punish, jail or execute individuals based upon sexual orientation.” With all the domestic problems facing Americans, did we really need a president going about trying to outlaw the prosecution of gays and Transgenders in the Middle East and throughout the world? If anything it showed Washington engaged, once again, in international meddling and seeking to impose its degenerate ‘values’ on foreign nations.

Trump has strongly supported Israel in the past and still does today. In a speech he delivered in Florida in 2019, Trump declared that “the Jewish state has never had a better friend in the White House than your president, Donald J. Trump.” He had already proven it in December of 2016, when he formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and stated that the American embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This only managed to stir up more hatred between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Like several American presidents before him, Trump made sure to visit the Wailing Wall showing his homage and commitment to the Jewish people. Even though most Jews despise Trump, he continues to fawn over them and seek their approval at every step of the way. In fact, presumably because of the elite status of Jews in the U.S., a recent survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee “found 61% of voters would likely choose to vote President Biden into office again over 23% who would pick Trump” (“Most Jewish Americans Support President Biden Over Trump, Study Finds,” Scripps News Staff, 6/10/2024).

Although Trump had not initially said much about the current Israeli-Hamas war, he’s recently been more vocal about it and has revealed his support for Israel. NBC News reported that “Former President Donald Trump declared Tuesday that Israel must “finish the problem” in its war against Hamas, his most definitive position on the conflict since the terror group killed 1,200 Israelis and took more than 200 hostages on Oct. 7. “You’ve got to finish the problem,” Trump said on Fox News on Tuesday when asked about the war. “You had a horrible invasion that took place that would have never happened if I was president.” When asked on the program whether he supported a cease-fire in Gaza, Trump demurred, avoiding an explicit position on Israel’s military effort that has now also left more than 30,000 people dead in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. The likely 2024 Republican nominee has not provided his own position on U.S. or Israel’s strategy throughout the five months of the war” (“Trump Breaks Silence on Israel’s Military Campaign in Gaza: Finish the Problem,” by Vaughn Hillyard and Allan Smith, 3/5/2024).

Seems to me that Trump learned nothing about the Jews and Israel’s warmongering ways during his first administration. This is confirmed by Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s national press secretary, who declared that “When President Trump is back in the Oval Office, Israel will once again be protected, Iran will go back to being broke, terrorists will be hunted down, and the bloodshed will end.” Is this an indication of Trump saying things he never intends to fulfill, or evidence that Trump’s second term will be marked by more U.S. military aggression? The more Trump supports Israel, the greater the chance that he will be manipulated by Benjamin Netanyahu to fight more proxy wars on behalf of Israel.

Another of Trump’s poor decisions was his bombing of a Syrian air base in 2017, prompted in part by the pleas of his daughter Ivanka. According to NBC News,

The president launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian government air base he alleged was involved in a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians last week. Trump’s 33-year-old son, Eric, told The Daily Telegraph on Monday that the strike was influenced in part by Ivanka, who he said was “heartbroken and outraged” by the chemical attack (“Eric Trump Says Syria Strike was Swayed by ‘Heartbroken’ Ivanka,” by Alexander Smith, 4/11/2017).

And in 2020, Trump ordered a precision strike against a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani, killing him at the Baghdad airport. A total of ten persons were killed in the drone attack: “Five Iraqi nationals and four other Iranian nationals were killed alongside Soleimani, including the deputy chairman of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and commander of the Iran-backed Kata’ib Hezbollah militia, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis” (see Wikipedia’s entry of the ‘Assassination of Qasem Soleimani’). The assassination of such a widely loved and respected Iranian figure only served to escalate tensions between the U.S. and Iran. It proved to be one more occasion where the U.S. government inflicted death and destruction on a foreign nation which it had no legitimate right to attack. If the U.S. had stayed out of the Middle East and ceased its efforts to impose “democracy” and “Western values” on Islamic nations, most of that region would not have experienced the turmoil that it now does.

Trump failed to build a “big, beautiful wall” as he promised in 2015, and he reiterated this promise several times later during his campaign. And no, Mexico never paid for it as he also promised. While it’s true that portions of the wall were erected, most of it was never completed. Much of the wall-building was simply repairing structures that were in dilapidated condition rather than creating hundreds of miles of a large unassailable border wall that would prevent invaders from entering onto American soil. Scott Nicol, co-chairman of the Sierra Club’s Borderland team, stated that “Trump’s claims that he is ‘almost finished’ [with the Border wall] is ‘absolutely not true, particularly in South Texas,’ where large areas of the border land are privately owned. In South Texas, Nicol said, ‘the need to acquire property on which to build the border wall has stymied construction’ as landowners have tied up the government in the courts” (“Fact Check: Did President Trump Build the ‘Big, Beautiful’ Border Wall as He Promised?” by Lauren Giella, 1/12/2021).

All of this demonstrates, again, that Trump is a mixed bag of both good and bad. At times, he’s very perceptive politically and has a way of making his adversaries look foolish. He often speaks and acts in ways that appeal to the average man and woman. It’s easy to view Trump as ‘one of us’ because of it. On the other hand, as noted, Trump has made a series of poor decisions, particularly during his first term when he chose hard core neocons for his cabinet, including persons who made it known that they did not agree with Trump’s agenda. He has also created government programs that were detrimental to the moral health and safety of Americans (e.g., support of the gay and LGBTQ agenda, interfering in how foreign nations treated gays and transgenders in their own countries, and the ‘platinum plan’ that would encourage the release of large numbers of Black felons into the very communities they victimized).

Whether he will make the same kind of mistakes if given a second term remains to be seen. Trump, it seems to me, has learned from some of his prior political mistakes, but not all of them. He’s still in bed with Israel and this alliance is bound to cause only more grief and misery for him as well as the entire country. If Trump tries to ‘play nice’ with the Democrats, it will only backfire on him. One cannot ‘play nice’ with those who are insane, amoral and determined to destroy you at all costs.

Why, then, should we vote for Trump in 2024?

The first reason is because there’s no other alternative if we intend on preserving our constitutional republic in ways that comport with what our Founders wanted. It has become obvious that if the Biden administration were given four more years, any hope for America for what it once was will likely be forever gone. Whether Joe Biden remains in office or is replaced by another progressive empty suit (many forecasts California Governor, Gavin Newsome, to be the likely choice), the Left’s trajectory to ‘fundamentally transform’ America into the most debased and repugnant entity one could imagine remains steadfast. The Left is unrelenting in its efforts. Whether they gain a second term in the Oval Office by another fraudulent election or by persuading enough low-information Americans to vote for them, they have no intention of just accepting the political process and whatever may be the result of it.

Some have proposed the independent candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as a worthy alternative to either Trump or Biden. Kennedy does indeed have some admirable qualities and he proved how perceptive he could be during the Covid pandemic, especially in exposing what a fraud Anthony Fauci is. Some of his political policies seem fairly reasonable from what I can gather. He is obviously an intelligent man. Unfortunately, Kennedy has been thoroughly duped and manipulated by Jews and the Israeli government. There is little hope that he won’t be conned into funding more American proxy wars on behalf of Israel if elected to the Oval Office.

I view the man as generally, honorable, but weak in this sense. He wants to be ‘nice’ and liked. We don’t currently need ‘nice’ because the American republic is fighting for its very life.

Secondly, Joe Biden’s dementia is so bad that even a growing number of Democrats are calling for his replacement. That the Democrats have kept such a driveling buffoon in the highest office in the land for almost four years shows how little they care for the American people collectively.  Or how little the president matters if he is surrounded by ideologues who are actually making the policies. No sane government does such a thing unless, of course, it’s infested with bad actors bent on personal gain at the expense of the people they claim to serve. And doesn’t that aptly describe our current congress from both parties?

Thirdly, despite his faults, Trump has a way of driving the Left beyond insane. In all my years, I’ve never seen anything like it. Persons who are considered respectable, educated and dignified turn into the most imbecilic people imaginable at the mere mention of Trump’s name. Democrats have become so publicly unhinged over Trump that a sort of mass derangement syndrome has taken root in America that’s virtually impossible to deny. This serves as one more reason to vote for Trump because it reveals the nature of America’s Left — namely, that it’s comprised largely of people who have little self-control and even less basic human decency. The vilest public acts and screeches spewed by Leftists against Trump and his followers show what kind of people we are up against. Whatever the Left may want to transform America into, it will surely reflect at its core these degenerate folks.

Fourthly, Trump is good for the economy, or at least better than any other current candidate. The economy faired significantly better under Trump’s first term than the economy the Biden administration has produced over the past four years. There are good reasons to believe that the overall economy will greatly improve with Trump at the helm in a second term.

Trump, generally, has good business sense, and if he surrounds himself with knowledgeable and wise advisors, the American people stand a better chance of improving their lives. There is no chance of this occurring if Joe Biden is given four more years (or whoever they replace him with).

Fifthly, there can be little doubt that the relentless prosecution of Donald Trump via lawfare for the past several years is nothing more than the Democrats attempting to penalize him for beating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Beginning with claims that he had colluded with the government of Russia prior to the 2016 election in an influence campaign designed to harm Hillary Clinton’s efforts and to undermine the public’s faith in the U.S. democratic election process. Trump was also alleged to have ordered cyber-attacks on both parties, and that his campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents (see the Wikipedia entry).

Although the Mueller Report found no concrete evidence for such assertions, it wasn’t long before a series of criminal cases against Trump began to pile up as one false claim after another was alleged against Trump by prosecutors, especially after he was out of office. Along with fraudulent procedural delays, gag orders, uncorroborated claims based on the flimsiest of evidence, including the wildest speculations among media pundits, the former president found himself spending an inordinate amount of time in the courtroom — all of it according to plan. It was meant to exhaust Trump, demoralize his followers, and to nullify any possibility that he might be elected again.

In the end, Trump was found guilty by a New York jury of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and disguising hush money reimbursement as mere legal expenses. Each count was tied to a different business record that Trump changed to conceal his crimes.

If the convictions were designed to deflate the public’s endorsement of Trump, they surely failed. Not only did donations for Trump’s presidential campaign reach skyrocketing levels overnight, but public endorsement and support for him increased dramatically — even among a growing number of Blacks! Anyone with two brain cells knew that whatever Trump was enduring at the hands of prosecutors was purely political in nature. It was not about the ‘rule of law.’ It was not about holding our elected officials to account the same as any other American. No, it was about trying to ruin a man who dared to challenge, mock and oppose America’s ruling political elite. Many people recognized that whatever Trump did, it was relatively minor and no different than what many other public figures and important people have done – yet were never prosecuted for it!   

Despite Trump’s personal faults, his presidency managed to expose much of the filth and rot of Washington. He got American’s asking the deeper questions about their government. His presidency destroyed the traditional Republican Party and created an entire generation MAGA supporters who discerned the lies of endless wars, unchecked immigration, and decades of wasteful government spending. For this, we must always remain thankful that Donald Trump arrived at a time in our country’s history to help Americans realize just how badly our corrupt government had departed from the vision of our Founders.

Why then should Americans view favorably the Biden administration’s efforts to endlessly prosecute Trump? Isn’t this the same administration and Congress that gave 107 billion of taxpayer dollars to fight an unnecessary and unwinnable war in Ukraine, including an additional 95 billion to Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine at a time when the deficit has skyrocketed to over $33 trillion dollars? Americans suffering from unemployment, rising inflation, poverty, and homelessness have real issues to be concerned over — and Trump isn’t one of them!

Sixthly, a vote for Joe Biden will surely perpetuate the Washington swamp and the loss of our freedoms will be expedited in ways we’ve never seen before. They will make sure of this. If Biden wins a second term, the Democrats will make certain to seal off any possibility of another Trump-like candidate arriving on the political scene to challenge the existing order.

At least with Trump, there’s the possibility and perhaps even the likelihood that the country can be salvaged (however dim it appears now). But it simply will not occur under a Biden presidency or whatever person chosen to replace him.

Lastly, there exists the mindset of many Americans who are deeply frustrated at the declining state of the nation and the widespread corruption of our elected officials. The entire system appears rigged, and they question whether we should even bother to vote. What benefit is there in casting one’s ballot when the process isn’t fully trustworthy and when those overseeing it can be bribed or have an agenda that guarantees the outcome they want? These questions are not easy to answer, and I don’t profess to have definitive solutions to how it can be resolved.

Suffice it to say that if millions of conservative voters refused to vote, it would not negatively affect Democrats in the least. It would, in fact, give them everything they want and more. Democrats would view it as a national ‘mandate’ that proved their ideas to be the right ones. This is precisely how it would be reported in the mainstream news too. It would embolden Democrats in their social and political efforts in ways we haven’t seen before. They would inevitably pass legislation requiring that all ‘dissidents,’ ‘racists,’ ‘anti-Semites,’ and MAGA folks be ushered into government camps. You think the Democrats wouldn’t do it if they knew they would face little political resistance or consequences? Think again.

And how would refusing to vote affect our Second Amendment rights? Democrats would make certain to pass laws that would completely eradicate such foundational rights. It would turn every right-leaning gun owner into an enemy of the state. Gun confiscation, then, would not only be a possibility but an undeniable reality. Our people would fall prey to marauding groups of Black criminals, especially among those who are unable to escape our major cities.

Non-voting amounts to non-resistance in the public sphere, an admission of sorts that the Democrats have better ideas and better solutions to our nation’s problems. Moreover, it’s defeatist in nature, and it will surely give our enemies all that they ever dreamed of having. Those who mock voting as futile with expressions such as “vote harder” rarely if ever provide any practical alternatives. They are largely whiners and complainers offering little more than verbal tantrums. One wonders whose side they are on. Throwing up our hands and giving up is precisely what our enemies would want.

There’s also another important point that should be considered. Although voting has not always delivered all that conservatives have wanted, by the same token neither has it done so for Democrats. On both a federal and local level, conservatives have often been victorious. Leftist heads have more than once exploded and smoked into a collective tizzy because Americans voted contrary to their insane ideas.

As the Biden administration has sought to take away more and more of our rights as Americans, it has provoked a widespread resistance among conservatives. It has caused many more of our people to get involved in the political process and to fight what is obviously government tyranny. This is not the time to give up and hide in some backwoods cabin.

Voting, if anything, allots us time. It provides us time to unite, to organize, and to take important strategic steps to defeat democrats. It also provides a certain amount of gridlock in congress that slows and prevents democrats from passing all that they want.

Voting, then, is merely one tool among many in our arsenal to fight against those who have proven to be ‘enemies within.’ Responsibly exercising our voting rights prevents or at least slows down government tyranny and the Left’s progressive plans for all of us. It provides us with time and, if used wisely and strategically, may afford us opportunities to thwart the efforts of our opponents. History has a way of surprising us, and we ought to be careful not to go full-blown black pilled when there are still avenues available to us in which to resist our possible demise.

 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 RockaBoatus https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png RockaBoatus2024-06-25 09:58:372024-06-25 09:58:37Musings on Trump and Why You Should Still Vote for Him

John Mearsheimer on Russia-Ukraine Peace Prospects: Russia May Be Forced to Launch a Preemptive Nuclear Attack

June 23, 2024/13 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

As noted here many times, both the West and Russia see this conflict as existential, and that opens the door to a nuclear war, especially, as Mearsheimer emphasizes, if one side takes out the early warning systems of the other side. Mearsheimer attacks the myth that Russia wants to conquer Western Europe; Russia wants about 40% of Ukraine, including Crimea, and a neutral Ukraine. Both sides could agree on a neutral Ukraine, but it won’t happen—it’s unacceptable to the West.  Meanwhile, Russia is clearly winning, and public opinion in Western Ukraine is turning against the war. “The least bad alternative now [for Ukraine] is to cut a deal.”

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2024-06-23 11:08:322024-06-23 11:08:32John Mearsheimer on Russia-Ukraine Peace Prospects: Russia May Be Forced to Launch a Preemptive Nuclear Attack

Are Liberal Males Low in Testosterone?

June 23, 2024/15 Comments/in Evolutionary Psychology, Featured Articles/by Edward Dutton

We all know of the stereotype of the “Soy Boy;” the effeminate male with the most progressive possible views who smiles with his mouth open. An internet meme, the Soy Boy embodies so much about the stereotypical liberal male. He is physically weak, he allows himself to dominated by females, he is ultra-Woke; he is low in testosterone. But is this really the case? Most stereotypes contain at least a grain of truth, and a growing body of research indicates that this one contains very much more than that.

As I have discussed in my book The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, a great deal of Wokeness involves being extremely socially conformist. Left-wing people are high in anxiety (as are females compared to males) [Mental Illness and the Left, By E. Kirkegaard, Mankind Quarterly, 2020], which means they fear a fair fight, so they attain status covertly via virtue-signalling. In a leftist society, this means competitively signalling their adherence to liberal values; concern with “Equality” and “Harm Avoidance.”

In fact, more general research has found that in religious societies “extrinsic religiousness” (outward religious conformity) is associated with anxiety [Primary personality trait correlates of religious practice and orientation, By P. Hills et al., Personality and Individual Differences, 2004]. With its Pride Month, emotional public displays, dogmas, martyrs (such as George Floyd) and dominance of all institutions, it can reasonably be argued that Wokeness is a kind of replacement religion.

We would, therefore, expect the Woke to be low in testosterone. Testosterone makes you confident and assertive. High levels of anxiety, unsurprisingly, are associated with low levels of testosterone according to recent cutting edge research [Interplay between hippocampal TACR3 and systemic testosterone in regulating anxiety-associated synaptic plasticity, By M. Wojtas et al., Molecular Psychiatry, 2024]. And what do we find high levels of social conformity are associated with? You guessed it. Low levels of testosterone.

A study in the journal Social Psychologi cal and Personality Science argues that minority positions — that is, standing-up against the opinion of the majority — are perceived as risky options and so, in that testosterone is positively associated with status seeking and risk-taking, it would be likely that people who were high in testosterone would be more likely to be brave enough to adopt minority positions. In two studies, a total of 250 participants were read messages that:

. . . were supported by either a numerical majority or minority. As hypothesized, individuals’ levels of basal testosterone were positively related to susceptibility to minority influence. In contrast, susceptibility to majority influence was unaffected by basal testosterone. Given the importance of minorities for innovation and change within societies, our results suggest that individuals with high levels of testosterone may play an important role as catalysts of social change.

Testosterone also militates against conformity at the group-level. My research group has found that when you control for a nation’s average IQ — and no matter what the critics say, national IQs strongly correlate with other national level indicators of intelligence — then the big predictor of per capita science Nobel Prizes — major, boat-rocking, vested-interests-shattering innovations — is national-level testosterone [National-Level indicators of androgens are related to the global distribution of number of scientific publications and science Nobel prizes, By D. van der Linden et al., Journal of Creative Behavior, 2020]. This is discerned by a number of markers including prevalence of specific forms of a gene, number of sex partners, regularity of sexual intercourse, prostate cancer prevalence, the masculine shape of the hands (2D:4D ratio), hairiness and, in a separate study, the testosterone markers of autism and left-handedness [Why do high IQ societies differ in intellectual achievement? The role of schizophrenia and left-handedness in per capita scientific publications and Nobel prizes, By E. Dutton et al., Journal of Creative Behavior, 2020].

Low testosterone, then, means high conformity, as reflected in Woke males; who are evidently hyper-conformists in a Woke culture. In fact, a different study found that the mere administration of testosterone is sufficient to make people more right-wing in our current leftist society.

A study of males found that when weakly-affiliated Democrats were administered testosterone their support for the Democrats fell; in other words a “Red Shift” was induced, with their feelings of warmth towards the Republicans increasing by 45%. They also reported markedly improved mood, which would make sense because their levels of anxiety would likely have decreased. Before the testosterone administration occurred, the strongly-affiliated Democrats had lower testosterone levels than the weakly-affiliated Democrats, as we might predict.

It’s unclear why testosterone administration did not induce a significant Red Shift in the strong Democrats. Possibilities may include that their leftism is motivated by different aspects of the personality trait Neuroticism (negative feelings). They are not left-wing because they are anxious but, rather, because they are angry and resentful of those whom they see as having power over them. Testosterone, in making them more aggressive, is only going to strengthen these feelings. Leftism is associated not just with anxiety but also with low Agreeableness and poor impulse control; that is psychopathic traits or traits related to psychopathy [Corrigendum to ‘The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes’ [Personal. Individ. Differ. 49 (2010): 306–316], By B. Verhulst et al., Personality and Individual Differences, 2016].

As I have noted elsewhere, in a Republican or strong Democrat, psychological and possibly genetic factors are so robust that testosterone is less influential. However, the psychological make-up in moderate leftists is more environmentally plastic and, thus, testosterone is more influential. Alternatively, testosterone increases risk-taking, which might cause weakly affiliated Democrats — who are similar in testosterone levels to Republicans — to “risk” a “Red Shift” for which they might normally feel guilty given prevailing societal attitudes.

But, overall, the stereotype is cautiously confirmed. Compared to conservative males, liberal males are weak and effete. They are low-testosterone Soy Boys, and this explains their anxiety and their thoroughly cowardly behaviour of virtue-signalling to attain status: The boys who were bullied in the playground are now dictating the social rules in many Western countries.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Edward Dutton https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Edward Dutton2024-06-23 10:40:432024-06-23 10:40:43Are Liberal Males Low in Testosterone?

Alexander Dugin: The Fate of the World Will Be Decided by the American Elections

June 22, 2024/4 Comments/in General/by Alexander Dugin

Excerpt from Arktos

Alexander Dugin argues that come November this year it will either be Trump or the apocalypse.

The upcoming presidential elections in the United States, scheduled for 5 November 2024, hold absolute significance. The outcome of these elections will largely determine the fate not only of the United States and even the entire West, but of humanity as a whole. The world is teetering on the brink of nuclear war, a full-scale and total third world war between Russia and NATO countries, and the decision of who will lead the White House for the next term will ultimately decide whether humanity will continue to exist or not. Therefore, it is crucial to once again survey the two candidates in this election, understand their platforms and positions.

Biden is undoubtedly today a feeble-minded invalid showing clear signs of senile dementia. But, strangely enough, this hardly matters. Biden is merely a facade, a signboard for the firmly entrenched political elites of the Democratic Party in the US, who have reached a solid consensus regarding Biden. Essentially, Biden could govern as a dead body. It would not change a thing. Behind him stands a cohesive group of globalists (sometimes referred to as the ‘world government’), which unites not only a large part of the American deep state, but also the liberal elites in Europe and on a global level.

Ideologically, Biden represents globalism, which is the project of uniting humanity under the rule of liberal technocratic elites, with the abolition of sovereign nation-states and the complete mixing of peoples and beliefs. This is a sort of new Tower of Babel project. Orthodox Christians and many traditionalist Christians of other denominations understandably see this as the ‘coming of the Antichrist’. Globalists (Yuval Harari, Klaus Schwab, Raymond Kurzweil, Maurice Strong) openly talk about the need to replace humanity with artificial intelligence and cyborgs, and the abolition of gender and ethnicity has already become a fact in Western societies. Biden personally has no influence on the realisation of this project. He does not make decisions but merely plays the role of an authorised representative of the international headquarters of globalism.

Politically, Biden relies on the Democratic Party, which, despite the diversity of its positions and the presence of non-globalist poles and figures such as the far-left Bernie Sanders or Robert Kennedy, has reached an internal agreement regarding its support for him. Moreover, Biden’s incapacity scares no one, as the real power lies with entirely different individuals — younger and more rational. But the main point is this: behind Biden stands an ideology that has today become widespread around the world. Most of the world’s political and economic elites are liberal to some extent. Liberalism has deeply penetrated education, science, culture, information, the economy, business, politics, and even technology on a global scale. Biden is merely the focal point of this global web. And within the Democratic Party in the United States, this has taken on its political embodiment. The Democrats in the United States care less and less about Americans themselves and more and more about maintaining their global dominance at any cost — even at the cost of a world war (with Russia and China). In a sense, they are ready to sacrifice the US itself. This makes them extremely dangerous.

American neoconservative circles are in solidarity with the globalist agenda of those behind Biden. These are former Trotskyists who hate Russia and believe that a world revolution is possible only after the complete victory of capitalism, that is, the global West on a worldwide scale. Therefore, they have postponed this goal until the cycle of capitalist globalisation is completed, hoping to return to the topic of proletarian revolution later, after the global victory of the liberal West. The neocons act as hawks, insist on a unipolar world, fully support Israel, and, in particular, the genocide in Gaza. There are neocons among the Democrats, but most of them are concentrated among the Republicans, where they represent a pole opposite to Trump. In a sense, they are the fifth column of the Democrats and Biden’s group within the Republican Party.

And finally, the American deep state. Here we are talking about the non-partisan top tier of government officials, senior bureaucrats, and key figures in the military and intelligence services, who embody a sort of ‘guardians’ of American statehood. Traditionally, there have been two vectors within the American deep state, embodied precisely in the traditional politics of the Democrats and Republicans. One vector is for global dominance and the spread of liberalism on a planetary scale (the policy of the Democrats), and the other is for strengthening the US as a great superpower and hegemon of world politics (the policy of the Republicans). It is easy to see that these are not mutually exclusive lines, but both vectors are aimed at one goal with different nuances. Therefore, the American deep state is the guardian of the overall direction, providing the balance of parties with the choice each time of one of the vectors of development, both of which fundamentally suit the deep state.

At the moment, the Biden group more accurately reflects the interests and values of this highest American bureaucracy.

Biden concentrates a critically important number of power factors — from ideology to the deep state, and, in addition, relies on the support of major financial corporations, the world press, and control over global monopolies. His personal weakness and senile dementia compel the globalists behind him to accelerate undemocratic methods to keep him in power. In one of his recent campaign speeches, Biden bluntly stated that it is time ‘to choose freedom over democracy’. This was not just a slip of the tongue but is the globalists’ plan. If power cannot be maintained by democratic methods, any undemocratic processes may occur under the slogan of ‘freedom’. That is, essentially, the establishment of a globalist dictatorship. The war with Russia will provide legal grounds for this, and Biden may repeat Zelensky’s trick of staying in power after cancelling elections. This could also be chosen by Macron in France, who suffered a crushing defeat from the right in the European Parliament elections, and even Scholz in Germany, who is rapidly losing support. Globalists in the West are clearly considering the scenario of establishing direct dictatorship and abolishing democracy.

For humanity, a Biden victory or simply the fact of his remaining in power in any capacity would be catastrophic. The globalists will continue to build the New Babylon, clinging to the world government, and this is fraught with the escalation of existing conflicts and the start of new ones. Biden means war. Endless and boundless war.

Behind Donald Trump stand completely different forces. He is truly an alternative to Biden and his group of globalists, and much more contrasting. That is why Trump’s first presidential term was a continuous scandal. The American establishment categorically refused to accept him and did not rest until they replaced him with Biden.

…

If Trump, despite everything, manages to win the presidential election in 2024, the relationship with the deep state will undoubtedly change. Realising the significance of his figure, the deep state will clearly try to establish a systematic relationship with him.

Most likely, the globalists behind the weak Biden will try to remove the strong Trump from the election and prevent him from becoming president at any cost. Any methods may be employed here: assassination, imprisonment, organising riots and protests, up to and including a coup or civil war. Or by the end of his term, Biden may start a third world war. This is also quite likely.

Since the globalists have significant support from the deep state, any of these scenarios could be put into action.

However, if we assume that the popular and populist Trump wins and becomes president, this will, of course, seriously affect global politics.

First and foremost, a second term for a US president with such an ideology will show that the first term was not an accident (for the globalists), but a regular occurrence. A unipolar world and the globalist project will be rejected not only by supporters of a multipolar world — Russia, China, Islamic countries — but by Americans themselves. This will deal a powerful blow to the entire network of the liberal-globalist elite. And most likely, they will not recover from such a blow.

Objectively, Trump can become a trigger for a multipolar world order, in which the US will play an important, but not a leading role. ‘America will be great again’, but as a nation-state, not as a globalist world hegemon.

Of course, this will not automatically stop the existing and unleashed conflicts by the globalists today. Trump’s demands on Russia regarding ending the war in Ukraine will be realistic, but generally quite tough. His support for Israel in Gaza will be as unequivocal as in the case of Biden. Moreover, Trump sees a kindred spirit in the right-wing politician Netanyahu. And regarding China, he will pursue a rather tough policy, especially in pressuring Chinese businesses in the US.

The main difference between Trump and Biden is that the former will focus on rationally calculated American national interests (which corresponds to realism in international relations) and do so with a pragmatic consideration of the balance of forces and resources. While the ideology of the globalists behind Biden is, in a certain sense, totalitarian and uncompromising.

For Trump, a nuclear apocalypse is an unacceptable price for anything. For Biden and, more importantly, for those who fancy themselves as rulers of the New Babylon, everything is at stake. Their behaviour, even in a critical situation, is unpredictable.

Whereas Trump is just a player. Very tough and audacious, but restrained by rationality and evaluations of concrete benefits. Trump is hardly persuadable, but you can strike a deal with him. Biden and his handlers are irrational.

The US elections in November 2024 will answer the question of whether humanity has a chance or not. No more, no less.

(translated by Constantin von Hoffmeister)

Despite the unavailability of Alexander Dugin’s books on Amazon in the US, they can still be purchased here.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Alexander Dugin https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Alexander Dugin2024-06-22 08:47:222024-06-22 14:22:16Alexander Dugin: The Fate of the World Will Be Decided by the American Elections

A Commentary on the Life of Jeannette Rankin

June 22, 2024/10 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Robert S. Griffin, Ph.D.

Jeannette Rankin

My daughter Dee, as I’ll call her here, has just finished her sophomore year in college.  One of the jobs I’ve taken on is to direct her to sources and people she’s not encountering in her life—in school, mass entertainment, and the internet (which looks to me to come down to wall-to-wall TikTok).  A couple of weeks ago, I flashed on someone I wrote about in a late 2022 article about Americans from the past who don’t get much if any attention in our time and should, Jeannette Rankin.  About Rankin, I wrote:

Jeannette Rankin (1880–1973) was the first woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent an at-large district in Montana.   After she was elected, she said, “I may be the first woman member of Congress, but I won’t be the last.”  She was the only member of Congress who voted against declaring war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  When asked by incredulous interviewers how she could have done such a thing, she declared that war was a barbaric relic of the past and absurd and immoral, and that there are better ways to resolve international disputes than violence, and that she was not going to send mothers’ sons to be blown to bits in some distant land.  She was mocked, ridiculed, and shunned for her action.

The first woman elected to Congress and the only person to vote against WWII, which on the face of it would seem to merit mention in schools and attention from the media, but no.   The question for us is why the silence.  Nikki Haley writing “Finish Them” on Israeli bombs meant for Gazans is brought to our attention, but not someone akin to Jeannette Rankin.  The big movie of last summer, “Oppenheimer,” was a sympathetic portrayal of a man who devoted his life to creating a horrendous bomb that was dropped on the civilian population on two cities, but there are no Jeannette Rankin movies.  I decided it would be good for Dee to know about Jeannette Rankin.

I knew little about Rankin beyond those few sentences in the 2022 article.  I checked to see if a book has been written about her that I could give to Dee for summer reading.  I found one on Amazon, One Woman Against the War: The Jeannette Rankin Story by Kevin S. Giles.  It was self-published in 2016 by Giles through BookLocker.com, which operates out of Saint Petersburg, Florida.  Jackie Robinson, the first black player in major league baseball warrants innumerable books by major New York publishers, but it’s only by paying a publisher like BookLocker.com that you can get a book in print about the first woman elected to Congress.  As I expected, Giles’ tome is not in the collections of the university and public library near me, but Amazon sells a reasonably-priced paperback if you want to get it.

I read One Woman Against the War this week.  This writing doesn’t offer a review of the book; enough to say here that I think Giles does a solid job and I recommend his book to you.  With the space I have to work with here, I’ll recount what came up for me as I went through the book and what I made of it.  So this is a commentary prompted by reading the book rather than an assessment of its merits.

Until reading the Giles’ book, I wasn’t aware that Jeannette Rankin had voted no on war twice, on WWI as well as WWII.  She served two widely-spaced terms in the House of Representatives as a Republican from Montana, 1917–1919 and 1941–1943.

In April of 1917, President Woodrow Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress asking it to “make the world safe for democracy” by declaring war against Germany.  The clerk of the House began the roll call vote on Wilson’s war resolution.  When he called out “Rankin,” she rose from her chair and spoke softly: “I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war.”  As she sank back into her chair, she said, inaudibly to many, “I vote no.”  Later, she explained, “I felt that the first time a woman had a chance to say no to war, she should say it.”  She wasn’t alone in her no vote: 49 other House members voted as she did, with 373 voting yes and nine abstaining.  Six senators voted against the war resolution.  Wilson quickly signed the resolution and within eighteen months 322,000 American troops had died or suffered wounds.  From the Giles book:

Hundreds of thousands of American troops endured mustard gas, cholera, trench foot, rat bites, and other horrors of trench warfare.  The boys who kept journals wrote of fearing the dreaded whistle calls to charge into cratered fields to face hails of lead.  p. 193

During the period between the world wars, Rankin actively promoted the cause of peace.  She gave college lectures, went on national radio, appeared before Congress, and participated in organizational activities.  “War is the slaughter of human beings who are temporarily enemies,” she declared.   In the late ‘30s, noting the clear signs of an impending war, she asked, “Have we learned nothing from the two decades?  Did the brave boys who went to war in 1917 and never came back actually die in vain?  Must the whole ghastly story be repeated?”  She said that we need to stand up to the people telling us that mass destruction and killing is both necessary and moral, and stop providing them with the wherewithal to carry it out.

Rankin pointed out that American arms manufacturers lobby for military appropriations, bribe government officials, disregard our national interests, sell weapons to anyone who can come up with the money, and rake in excessive profits.  “It’s perfectly possible to take the profit out of war,” she insisted.  “Let’s think about how to get that accomplished.”  She was enamored with the ideas of Ghandhi and Thoreau.  She promoted an International Court of Justice that could marshal the power of world opinion against war.

As I read about Rankin’s International Court suggestion in the Giles book, I thought about the extent to which the internet can be a force for marshalling the power of world opinion in the direction of peace.  In the 1960s those involved in anti-Vietnam War protests chanted “The whole world is watching!”  By that, they meant the three television networks and The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers and Time and Newsweek magazines and that’s about it, or at least what those outlets decided to show.  Now with the internet, the whole world really is watching what’s going on at the time of this writing in Gaza—on websites, YouTube videos, podcasts, X.  More, the internet provides ways of communicating and organizing—texts, Zoom, social media—to get across powerfully to the destroyers and killers and the politicians who direct and support them, “What you’re doing doesn’t play—knock it off!”

Rankin encouraged women to join the cause for peace. “The peace problem is a woman’s problem,” she said.  “It is woman’s work to raise human beings and human beings are being sacrificed in war.  Killing is the antithesis of life.  The love a woman expresses for her children needs to become an ideal in society, incarnated in our daily actions and sustained in adversity and conflict.” Her organizational involvements reflected this perspective.  Two examples, the Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom and the Women’s International Conference for Permanent Peace.

In 1940, Jeannette Rankin was again elected to the House of Representatives from Montana.

“Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

A resolution for war against Japan.

The Senate votes 82-0 for the resolution.

The roll call begins in the House of Representatives.  Through the alphabet: Allen, Anderson Andrews, Arnold–all yes. . . . McLean, McMillan, Maciejewski–yes.  Rankin.  “As a woman, I can’t go to war and I refuse to send anyone else.”  Boos rain down from members on the floor and observers in the gallery.  The House vote is being broadcast on NBC radio.  Commentator Earl Godwin declares, “Jeannette Rankin would just as soon see the Japanese sweep over the country and kill everyone in the streets.”

The final vote counting both the Senate and the House: 470 to 1.

Giles in his book reports that

thousands of letters and telegrams of condemnation flooded Rankin’s office. “You made an ass out of yourself trying to be like a man.  Now come home like a lady.”  “I hope a Jap bomb drops on your head or home.”  “I am shocked and ashamed that the only member of our sex in Congress showed to the world such a total lack of patriotism, courage, and understanding as you did today when you voted ‘NO.’” “When you come to your end you will go down as a blight upon the pages of American history.”  “I was never more ashamed of my sex or more convinced that women are unfit for public office.” p.321.

Rankin was informed by her brother back home that “Montana is 110% against you.”  She confides to a friend, “I have nothing left now except my integrity.”

Rankin accused Roosevelt of conspiring with Churchill to impose an economic blockade that deprived Japan of raw materials until it felt compelled to strike a military target.  She alleged that Churchill had duped Roosevelt into war to protect Britain’s imperial interests in Asia.   She said the decision to go to war was rushed, made without due deliberation.  Her remarks were lost in the war hysteria.

While the responses to Rankin’s no vote were almost all harshly negative, here and there were words of praise.  One woman wrote, “In all of history no man has done so brave, so commendable a thing, let alone a woman.”   Personally, I’m with this correspondent.  In 1956, before he became president, John F. Kennedy nominally wrote (his aide Ted Sorenson did the actual writing) a best-selling book called Profiles in Courage.  The book is made up of short biographies of eight members of Congress who did what they thought was right and suffered severe criticism and losses as a result.  (Her chances of winning slim to none, Rankin didn’t stand for re-election in 1942.)  Jeannette Rankin didn’t make the list in Profiles in Courage, but I consider her WWII no vote to be at least on a par with those included in the book, like John Quincy Adams who broke away from the Federalist Party and Edmund G. Ross who voted for acquittal in the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial.  I would have put her in the book.  In any case, and to me the bottom line, over a million young Americans were killed or wounded on foreign soil in WWII and it wasn’t because of anything Jeannette Rankin did.

Before being elected to Congress in 1916, Jeannette Rankin was prominent in Montana’s women’s suffrage movement.   “The government comes into our homes and tells us what to do but we have nothing to say about it,” she pointed out.  Giles:

Rankin traveled 9,000 miles across Montana’s broad reaches giving speeches.  Her automobile bogged to the axles in the mud of unpaved roads.  She rode in drafty trains that climbed steep mountains that filled with spring snow.  If she wanted to read at night, she sat on stiff furniture in hotel parlors lit by flickering smelly oil lamps.  She was isolated from family and friends and relied on benevolent farmers and ranchers to provide supper and a place to sleep. pp. 75–76

On November 3rd, 1914, a Tuesday, Montanans went to the polls and Montana became the tenth state to grant suffrage to women. Two years later, Jeannette Rankin was elected to represent the state in the U.S. House of Representatives, to great fanfare.  Giles:

From the Shoreham Hotel [in Washington, D.C.], the nation’s first woman in Congress rode to the Suffrage House on Rhode Island Avenue, where she spoke briefly to the crowd on the street.  Then the big moment came to make her debut in Congress.  She climbed into the back seat of an open touring car, smiling at onlookers while the gloved, capped chauffeur eased the automobile into a parade that included suffragists from nearly all forty-eight states.  The flag-draped automobiles swept down Pennsylvania Avenue.  Crowds of people hurrying toward the Capitol cheered and waved as they witnessed the lady from Montana making history.  Rankin, hardly comfortable with the fanfare, waved back.  When the progression stopped near the south entrance to the Capitol, photographers rushed to her car, pushing and shoving for a good picture.  Hundreds of her colleagues waited in the House chambers.  Journalist Ellen Slayden described her as “just a sensible young woman going about her business.  She’s not pretty but has an intellectual face and nice manner.” When Jeannette’s name was bellowed during roll call opening the 65th Congress, the tide of men around her stood and cheered.  Handkerchiefs waved from the galleries. The ovation continued until she rose and bowed first to the Republican side and then to the Democratic side.  Speaker Clark pounded for order.  Before the new Representative Rankin could sit, men jostled to shake her hand.  They stood in line waiting for an introduction to this female creature voted to sit among them.  She returned their courtesies with a direct smile.  pp. 127-128

Rankin had faith that women would change politics.  She believed that women and men have differing basic natures, with women inherently having greater regard for peaceful relations and family and children.  In office, she acted accordingly.  An example, in 1918 she introduced the first-ever federal legislation to provide instruction in female hygiene, maternity, and infant care.

But flip forward to modern times, let’s say since WWII.  There has been no major women’s thrust to put an end to war.   Politically, women have been more focused on career advancement than children and families.  The most visible, vocal public expression of women’s posture toward children has been to be free to kill them in the womb.  The word for it is abortion.  Its reality:

During the second trimester of pregnancy, the fetus is too large to be broken up by suction alone.  Once the cervix is stretched open the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps.  The fetus’ skull is crushed to ease removal.

From twenty weeks to full-term, grasping a leg with forceps, the doctor delivers the fetus up to the head.  Next, scissors are inserted into the base of the skull to create an opening.  A suction catheter is placed into the opening to remove the brain.  The skull collapses and the fetus is removed.

What accounts for this turn of events?  I’ll offer some thoughts for your consideration.

Rankin thought that men and women have different basic natures.  I agree with her.  Men and women are different animals.  Different physiology.  Different brains.  Different chemistry.  Different instincts and impulses.  I’m not a science type, but I think empirical evidence when it isn’t suppressed to serve social/political interests supports those assertions.  Though really, I draw my conclusions from a long life of dealing with men and women.  They aren’t the same.   I’m not talking about better or worse, I’m talking about different.

The story doesn’t end there, however.  Knowing that it’s a woman involved in something doesn’t give you the power to predict thoughts and behaviors.   Rankin thought it did: when women get involved in the political process there are going to be fewer wars and greater attention paid to children and families.  Well, not necessarily.   And why not?   Three major reasons:  1. Women (and men) model other people. 2. Women (and men) have facts and ideas in their heads that guide them.  3. Women (and men) have basic needs they feel pressed to serve.  I’ll discuss the three in turn.

One reason women—and men—do what they do is because other people are doing it.  We model, emulate, copy other people.  If other people think WWII is a good idea and join up to fight, so do we.  If other people like abortion that’s good enough for us.  And that can override inner urges.  Dee can’t model herself after somebody she doesn’t know about, like Jeannette Rankin.

A second reason, women—and men—have what can be called visions that guide their thinking and behavior.  By visions I mean facts—or better, what are assumed to be facts—and ideas that go together, cluster up, in a coherent way that make sense to us.  This has been a brief introduction to Jeannette Rankin, but I think both you and I have a pretty good sense of her vision, about herself and about the world, about what’s worth doing and about what’s worth trying to prevent.

Whatever its merits, Jeannette Rankin’s vision hasn’t been in women’s minds—let’s focus on women in this discussion.   We could speculate about why.  I’ll throw out one possibility.  The people who control the flow of information and ideas in this country really, really like WWII.   They love this picture of German women cleaning up rubble in Berlin at the end of the war and aren’t going to shine the light on anybody who wouldn’t take to it.

I’ll describe someone’s vision who has been in American women’s consciousness even though, particularly if they are young, they may have never heard of her: Betty Friedan.

Betty Friedan (1921–2006) is regarded as the founder of modern, or second wave, feminism in America.  Her 1963 best-seller, The Feminine Mystique, is arguably the most influential book in the area of women’s concerns ever.   In it, she identifies what she calls “the problem that has no name,” an issue experienced by the college-educated, likely suburban, housewife.  It manifests as a stirring within her, a dissatisfaction, a frustration, a yearning.  As she makes the beds and shops for groceries and picks up the children at school a question comes into her awareness . . .  “Is this all there is?”  In 1966, she was elected the first president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), which she helped start. Betty Friedan became very prominent in American life.  Everybody knew about Betty Friedan.

Betty Friedan

Friedan was born Bettye Naomi Goldstein.  She was of Jewish heritage, her family’s roots in Russia. After college, she became active in Marxist causes and worked as a journalist for leftist publications focusing on women’s issues in the workplace—unfair hiring practices, unequal pay, pregnancy discrimination, and the like.  Eventually, she became what she later wrote about: a depressed and frustrated suburban housewife feeling imprisoned by an unsatisfying marriage, three children, and the tedium of domesticity.

Success to Friedan didn’t mean being loving and supportive to your husband and nurturing your children.  Personal fulfillment isn’t found in the home but rather in the business and political arenas.  Love isn’t the answer; power and prestige are.

Friedan had mixed feelings about men.  On the one hand, she envied them—they’ve got it made, they are CEOs.  On the other hand, they are the enemy—sexist, oppressive, pawing around, who needs them.  Rankin had no beef with men.

Friedan was tough, abrasive, imperious, in your face.  She didn’t come on like diffident, soft-spoken Jeannette Rankin.  She came on like a Russian Jew, not like a Scottish Protestant whose people immigrated from Canada.

Friedan wasn’t about to punch up inherent differences between men and   women.  You’re feminine because they put you in a dress and gave you a doll.  Bring it forward to today’s transgender debate, if he says he a woman, he’s a woman.

Friedan’s action was with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Woman’s Political Caucus, not the Women’s International Conference for Permanent Peace.  An avid supporter of Israel, surrounded as it is by hostile Arabs and dependent on American miliary support, she was not about to be pushing pacifism.

Friedan co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.  She sold the idea that abortion was a matter of a woman having control of her body, though it can be argued that there are three other players in the abortion game besides the woman hosting the unborn baby.  One of them is the father.   Another is society.  And the third is the baby.  The baby is getting his or her brain sucked out and that ought to count for something.

Friedan was urban; Rankin rode horses on a farm in Montana.  Friedan was to the far left politically; Rankin wasn’t.

You get where I’m going with this.  Over the past decades, women’s consciousness has been more Friedan-like than Rankin-like and that has influenced their actions.

The third brake on basic nature directing women’s lives (and men’s) is they have basic, fundamental, needs they feel compelled to serve: safety, sustenance, approval, inclusion, good feelings.  If you want to know why someone does what they do, check how it effects the satisfaction of their basic needs.

What are some implications that can be drawn from this last discussion?  I’ll offer three.

The first is my contention that you and I will feel better about our lives to the extent that we live them in alignment with our basic nature.  But to do that we are going to have to clear out what obscures our basic nature: the examples of how other people do things that aren’t right for us; and the facts and ideas in our heads about ourselves and the world that take us in the wrong direction.  And we are going to have to realize that the needs we feel pressed to serve—approval from others and so on—are really wants that we can live without, and that doing what it takes to satisfy those wants may come at too great a personal cost.  When Rankin said “All I have is my integrity,” I don’t think it was in despair.

Whoever gets to put ideas and images in our awareness—Friedan’s over Rankin’s, say– has enormous power.   Steven Spielberg in his movie “Saving Private Ryan” showed us a World War II mother from Iowa lying crumpled at the feet of military personnel, devastated but acquiescent, after they informed her that three of her sons had been killed in the war.  Spielberg didn’t show us a mother like Lyrl Clark Van Hyning—somebody else you’ve never heard of—who a few weeks before the anticipated invasion of Europe that turned out to be at Normandy said defiantly, “Those boys who will be forced to throw their young flesh against that impregnable wall of steel are the same babies mothers cherished and comforted and brought to manhood.  Mother’s kiss healed all hurts of childhood.  But on invasion day no kiss can heal the terrible hurts and mother won’t be there.  Mothers have betrayed their sons to the butchers.”(1)

A third implication, and really, it’s more along the lines of a suggestion.   When you are trying to get a point across to people, get them to see something or do something, direct it at their basic nature.  Amid all the propagandizing and conditioning, it’s there, and if what you offer aligns with it and is true and good, and you are patient and persistent, you’ll get through to them and they’ll respond “Yes.”   There’s hope.

Jeannette Rankin lived a very long life, until 92, and she never gave up the fight. She opposed the war in Vietnam.  She pointed out that the explosives dropped on North Vietnam were greater than the tonnage rained on Germany and Japan during WWII.  “American taxpayers are paying twenty-five billion dollars a year for human destruction,” she proclaimed.  She said that war is a “mad dog that should be locked up” and that women in particular need to oppose the “war habit.”  There was even a Jeannette Rankin Brigade to Stop the War in Vietnam in her honor.

Shortly after Jeannette Rankin’s death, her friend Reita Rivers wrote to Jeannette’s sister Edna.  “How we shall miss her!  And how responsible we felt, having known her, to measure up as best we can to her courage, integrity, and concern for others.”  I hope Dee is inspired by the life example of Jeannette Rankin.

Endnotes

  1. Glen Jeansonne, Women of the Far Right: The Mothers’ Movement and World War II, University of Chicago Press, 1995, p. 94.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Robert S. Griffin, Ph.D. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Robert S. Griffin, Ph.D.2024-06-22 08:20:192024-06-22 14:32:07A Commentary on the Life of Jeannette Rankin

First Amendment Blues: David Cole’s Dubious Doubts about Denial

June 21, 2024/8 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

The subconscious speaks in symbols. Freud wasn’t the first to point that out. And we can see it in ourselves anyway. I saw it again when I first started reading articles by the Jew David Cole and the Russian Anatoly Karlin. I got two messages about them from different levels of my brain. My conscious told me: “They’re interesting and intelligent writers.” My subconscious told me: “They’re trying to pick your pocket!”

Do-Wrong Ron

In other words, my subconscious used the symbol of a pickpocket to tell me that Cole and Karlin were crooks who couldn’t be trusted. I think my subconscious was right. I also think I’m right to attribute Cole’s crookedness to his Jewishness. But I was maybe wrong to decide the same of Karlin. Yes, my subconscious said “Pickpocket!” about him too, but apparently he has little Jewish ancestry. But so what? Someone from Russia doesn’t need Jewish ancestry to be a crook, although the greed-crazed Jewish looting of post-communist Russia proves that it definitely helps. Like all Orthodox nations, Russia scores badly in indexes for corruption. This means that emigration by gentile Russians isn’t good for the West.

But it isn’t anywhere near as bad as Jewish emigration has been. Gentile Russians take advantage of high-trust Westerners, but they don’t wage war on the West in the way that Jews have done. David Cole is himself a good example of why Jews have been bad for the West. He condemns the Jewish presence in the West out of his own mouth, as I’ll try to show later. For now, let’s look at his recent complaints about the attitudes of Elon Musk and Ron Unz to free speech. It’s wrong and illogical, says Cole, that Musk and Unz have allowed their platforms to be flooded with Holocaust denial even though they don’t allow puppy-torture porn the same freedom. Why is this wrong and illogical? Well, Cole argues that Holocaust denial and repulsive pornography are both perfectly legal in America under the First Amendment. So why do Musk and Unz allow one and not the other?

Freedom for Logos, not for lust

I think the answer is obvious. I also think that the Supreme Court was wrong to affirm the legality of videos showing the torture and killing of puppies. Indeed, I think that American courts are wrong to allow any kind of pornography at all under the First Amendment. Here’s the argument. Crudely speaking, you could say that First Amendment is about freedom for words, not for wankers. More precisely, it’s about freedom for Logos, not for lust. In ancient Greek, the word logos literally meant “word,” but also carried the senses of “speech, discourse, reason, rationality, reasoned argument.” That’s why we get the word “logic” from logos. But pornography isn’t about logos: it’s about lust. Pornography isn’t “speech” in the sense intended by the White gentile framers of the First Amendment. It doesn’t appeal to our reason, it appeals to our genitals. And so there’s no contradiction in arguing that Holocaust denial should be legal and pornography shouldn’t. Holocaust denial is often based on logos, pornography isn’t. That’s why Cole is wrong when he says this: “Elon’s coddled buddy Gage (this is the guy baseball legend Curt Schilling retweeted) declared, ‘slay the Jews.’ Does ‘slay the Jews’ have more ‘value’ than ‘slay the puppies’?”

Puppy-torture videos don’t say “Slay the puppies.” Instead, they show puppies being slain in graphic and repulsive detail. They aren’t logos in the way that Holocaust denial is. Yes, Holocaust denial might be bad logos, written by retards for retards. But even if that’s true, Holocaust denial is still logos and still entitled to a hearing. David Cole argues that it’s written by retards for retards, of course. Believe it or not, I can see his point. I’m not a Holocaust denier myself. No, I’m a Holocaust agnostic. I don’t accept the official, ADL-certified story of the Sacred Six Million, but I’m not convinced by Ron Unz’s arguments that it never happened at all. I don’t say that Holocaust denial is right or wrong — I’m agnostic. That said, I’m not agnostic about Holocaustianity, the official cult of the Holocaust. I oppose Holocaustianity and the way it’s used to justify Jewish control of Western politics and to advance a Jewish agenda of minority worship and Third-World migration. I also think Holocaustianity helps Holocaust denial, because the Holocaust-cult reveals the exceptional dishonesty and selfishness of Jews. It’s because Jews are so dishonest and selfish that it becomes plausible to argue that they invented the Holocaust to serve their own ends.

The weaknesses of WASPs

Holocaustianity also reveals the exceptional skill of Jews at manipulation and propaganda. The individual Jew David Cole reveals those things too. Here he is talking about his time as a casting-director in Hollywood and the way it taught him to exploit the “weaknesses” of goyim:

From 1986 to 1992, when I “transitioned” to the exciting new field of Holocaust revisionism because I just knew it would never impact my life in a negative way (maybe I’m not in any position to criticize the intelligence of bimbos), I’d become exceptionally good at reading people. Again, that was the artistry of casting. Twenty minutes in a room with a stranger, taking mental notes about their every move. Asking the right questions to understand their psychology… and their weaknesses. (“Casting My Eyes,” TakiMag, 28th May 2024)

Cole then describes how, on a flight to New York, he sat next to a woman who “was so WASPy, so proper, so Mayflower-descendant nonethnic, she made Ann Coulter look like Nell Carter.” Cole read her shiksa psychology and set to work exploiting her “weakness”:

She had that old Anglo sense of decency, fair play, and Christian sentimentality. It’s the weakness that (as I’ve pointed out before, and as Steve Sailer recently did as well) led “foundational white Americans” to get all weepy and protective of nonwhites long before the 20th-century flood of Eastern European Jewish immigrants.

I knew I could exploit that weakness, and I did. “I’m a Holocaust revisionist Jew oppressed by the forces of censorship and intolerance! I’m just interested in free speech! Fairness! Asking QWESTCHINS! By gosh, shouldn’t we explore the uncomfortable truths?” (“Casting My Eyes”)

The woman had turned out to be the headmistress of a fancy girls’ school. Cole says: “by the time we landed, I had an offer to lecture her history classes.” He presents this manipulated shiksa as proof of something he’d said earlier: “In my revisionist years, I always knew how to present my Holocaust work to a stranger. Give me twenty minutes, I’d know the manipulative angle to employ. It was predatory, and I’m not proud of it.”

Blondes and borders

He’s right. It was predatory. And although David Cole might not be proud of such predation on goyim today, there are many other Jews who are still proudly preying. But not in the service of “Holocaust revisionism,” rather in the service of Jewish power. As Cole himself goes on to say:

But let’s “circle back” (does Psaki still say that?) to that blonde airplane WASP. Yes, I sold her on Holocaust revisionism. But I just as easily could’ve sold her on open borders or prison abolition for black criminals. My message wasn’t what mattered; her weakness was. The ADL and NAACP understand that; they understand whites better than the so-called “white advocates.” While Elon and the Twitter Nazis try to make whites more Nazi, the “other side” realizes that the true power lies in harnessing white sentimentality. You can only bring these WASPs around by appealing to “kindness, decency, and fairness.” (“Casting My Eyes”)

Cole has again shown why Jews should not be permitted power in White societies. Indeed, he’s again shown why Jews should not be permitted any presence at all in White societies. Note how he says that he could just as easily have manipulated the shiksa into embracing “open borders.” Earlier, he’d argued that “foundational white Americans” had got “all weepy and protective of nonwhites long before the 20th-century flood of Eastern European Jewish immigrants.” Well, does that mean White Americans had opened the borders of America to all-comers “long before” Jews acquired power and influence in America? No, it doesn’t. In fact, “foundational white Americans” deliberately blocked immigration by those “nonwhites” of whom, according to Cole, they had gotten “all weepy and protective.” And contra Steve Sailer’s and Curtis Yarvin’s claims about “Protestantism,” it was Catholic frontmen working for Jews who persuaded WASPs to open America’s borders in 1965  (see also Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, Ch. 6 on how WASPs rally around immigration restriction). It won’t change the racial balance of America, promised the Catholic frontmen as the Jews laughed long and hard behind the scenes.

Industrial exploitation of shiksas

If you want to understand the psychology of those Jews, David Cole is an excellent guide. Again and again, his articles supply proof of why Jews are bad for White societies. Cole isn’t “proud” of his “predatory” exploitation of White “weakness” any more, but many thousands of other Jews have preyed, do prey, and will continue to prey. And despite Cole’s diatribes against Ron Unz, I’ve never been told “Pickpocket!” by my subconscious when I’m reading one of Unz’s articles. I’ve also never seen Unz confess anything that confirmed a negative stereotype about Jews. But Cole is always confirming “toxic tropes.” Here he is doing it again:

… I have the extroverted verbal gab-gift jibber-jabber that Ashkenazis are known for. I can convince people I’m smart, which is different from actually being smart. And that extroversional verbose veneer of quick-wittedness reaches across occupational fields. I could write a horror movie, produce it, and persuade the shiksa bimbo actress to blow me. (“Crushing Puppies, Crushing on Nazis!,” TakiMag, 14th May 2024)

Plenty of sleazy gentile men have preyed on aspiring bimbo actresses. But it took Jews to make an industry out of it. Two industries, in fact. It’s behind the scenes in Hollywood and right out in the open in porn. That’s one reason among many that Jews have been very bad for the West and for America in particular. If you want closely argued and copiously referenced proof of that, read Kevin MacDonald. If you’re pressed for time, read David Cole.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Tobias Langdon https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Tobias Langdon2024-06-21 07:29:252024-06-22 01:33:52First Amendment Blues: David Cole’s Dubious Doubts about Denial
Page 2 of 6‹1234›»
Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • A2Z Publications
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Instauration Online
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • National Justice Party
  • Occidental Dissent
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Radix Journal
  • RAMZPAUL
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The European Union Times
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • Third Position Directory
  • VDare
  • Washington Summit Publishers
  • William McKinley Institute
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • X
  • Dribbble
Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only