Featured Articles – Page 201 – The Occidental Observer

Kevin MacDonald: “I’m not optimistic about the future of the West”

May 21, 2020/76 Comments/in Featured Articles, General/by Kevin MacDonald

Reposted from Demokracija (Slovenia)

Monday, 18 May 2020 11:35
Written by Andrej Sekulovič
Comments:0 Comments

Kevin MacDonald

We spoke with Kevin MacDonald, a professor emeritus of psychology at Long Beach State University of California. His research focuses primarily on the development of evolutionary perspectives on culture, developmental psychology and personality theory.

You have a long career in psychology, as a Professor at California State University, and have authored many different books and academic articles on that subject, focusing mostly on evolutionary psychology, psychology on ethnocentrism and group evolutionary strategies. Could you give us a brief definition of these concepts?

Evolutionary psychology views the human brain as being shaped by evolution, that is, that over evolutionary time the human mind and underlying neural structures were shaped by natural selection. For example, humans fall in love because there are brain structures that enable this, and it’s adaptive because it motivates men and women to procreate and invest in their children. Genes for this gradually accumulated, and people with more of those genes survived and prospered.

Please tell us when did you first become active within the “right” ideological specter and which of your conclusions and observations led you to become a renowned author within the circles of the Right? Did your studies of Psychology played a major part in this development?

I started being active while writing my book The Culture of Critique in the mid-1990s. The Culture of Critique is about how Jewish intellectuals and political activists have shaped Western culture in the twentieth century. I realized that they were shaping culture in ways that promoted their interests but were detrimental to the interests of Europeans. Throughout my writing, I have used my psychological background. For example, one reason that Jewish intellectuals were so influential was because they were able to obtain positions in elite universities. A part of human psychology is to look up to such people and they have more influence as a result. I also write a lot about ethnic networking among Jews—how they promote each other’s work and promote common goals that satisfy Jewish interests.

You have written extensively about the influence of the Jewish-interests groups within the Western societies and about the role of the Jewish intellectuals within the different subversive movements that came to be known as “Cultural Marxism”, your most famous book on the subject being »Culture of Critique«. Could you please explain to us how do these groups operate, in which areas has their influence been the most effective and for what reasons do you choose to describe them as »Culture of Critique«?

Culture of Critique describes several of the most influential intellectual and political movements of the twentieth century—Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, the general involvement of Jews with the left, and Jewish activism on behalf of immigration. All of these movements had a central core of people who were strongly identified as Jews and thought of their work as advancing Jewish interests in some way. For example, Freud thought of himself as a warrior in opposition to European culture which he hated because of historical anti-Semitism. His work undermined traditional Western sexual mores and family relationships. His movement attracted many other Jews and together they influenced public opinion because they were able to obtain influential positions in academic and professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association, and they were able to spread their messages in the mainstream media—Hollywood, television, and newspapers.

It seems that the breakdown of the Western values and the destruction of the once homogenous European societies that we witness today is a consequence of the ideas and movements that can be traced to the Frankfurt School, whose intellectuals were mostly Jewish, and which was the birthplace of the so called »Cultural Marxism«. Could you give us a brief overview of the ideas and concepts which were the product of the Frankfurt School, and have proven as the most detrimental to our culture and to our European nations? Also would you say that the Frankfurt School represents the beginning of these subversive movements and ideals, or do its roots go further back in time?

The Frankfurt School began in the 1920s as an orthodox Marxist group and continued in that direction until after Hitler came to power after 1933. Marxism did not predict that the working class would vote for a fascist, but many did, and after Hitler came to power, he had high public approval. They reconceptualized the problem as White ethnocentrism because racial identity was central to National Socialism. They reasoned that an anti-Jewish movement could not develop in a country that was not racially homogeneous. As a result, their work claimed that White people who identified as White and attempted to advance the interests of their race had a psychiatric disorder and this was then picked up and promoted very effectively by Jewish activist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League. They did not make an analogous analysis in which identifying as a Jew and advancing Jewish interests were pathological.

Jewish subversion began earlier. Boasian anthropology and psychoanalysis began early in the twentieth century and Jewish activism on the left aimed at toppling gentile power structures dates from the nineteenth century.

The question many people are curious about is, why would certain Jewish-interested groups want the destruction and the breakdown of the Western societies, what is their main motivation and what do they want to achieve through their subversive actions, and influence in culture and in politics?

As noted above, Jews do not feel safe in a homogeneous White society after what happened in Germany in the 1930s. As a result, they have promoted immigration and demographic change so that Whites will be a minority in Western societies and Whites will be less able to organize against Jews. Another major motivation is hatred because of what they see as irrational ant-Semitism throughout history, so that, for example, they oppose Christianity because of the historical role of Christianity in opposition to Jews. They never see their own behavior as contributing to hatred of Jews.

Some people would argue, that the Jews have always been involved in different political movements both on the Left and on the Right, and that while there are quite a few Jews on the Left, it is mostly a coincidence and has nothing to do with them being Jewish, since we can also find Jews among the Conservative Right. What would be your answer to these observations, and what would be your main argument in claiming, that the leftist movements are not just movements which happen to also have a lot of Jewish activists, but that this movements and ideals themselves were created by the Jewish groups to further their own goals and agenda?

I know of no example of a Jew who has advocated for White interests. In general, Jews on the right have been neoconservatives who are mainly motivated by garnering support for Israel within the Republican Party and among conservatives. Neoconservatism, with its roots on the Trotskyist left, has fundamentally acted to combat older forms of conservatism (labeled paleoconservatism) in America and to move the American conservative movement to the left on key issues like immigration (see “Neoconservatism as Jewish Movement“). For example, I cite an American intellectual, Samuel Francis: “There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions.”

My argument that Jews on the left retained strong Jewish identities and a sense of Jewish interests is contained in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique and is too long to quote here. However, it begins with the following:

There is little doubt that the vast majority of the Jews who advocated leftist causes beginning in the late nineteenth century were strongly self-identified as Jews and saw no conflict between Judaism and radicalism (Marcus 1983, 280ff; Levin 1977, 65, 1988, I, 4–5; Mishkinsky 1968, 290, 291; Rothman & Lichter 1982, 92–93; Sorin 1985, passim). Indeed, the largest Jewish radical movements in both Russia and Poland were the Jewish Bunds which had an exclusively Jewish membership and a very clear program of pursuing specifically Jewish interests. The proletarianism of the Polish Bund was really part of an attempt to preserve their national identity as Jews (Marcus 1983, 282). Fraternity with the non-Jewish working class was intended to facilitate their specifically Jewish aims, and a similar statement can be made for the Russian Jewish Bund (Liebman 1979, 111ff). Since the Bunds comprised by far the majority of the Jewish radical movement in these areas, the vast majority of Jews participating in radical movements in this period were strongly identified as Jews.

In Chapter 3 I also provide evidence that Jews on the left were motivated to oppose nationalist movements, as in Poland after World War II where many Jews collaborated with the communist government. Jews in pre-revolutionary Russia saw the Czarist government as oppressive and eagerly joined the Soviet government after the Revolution. Jews in America in the 1920s–1940s realized that Jews were an elite in the USSR and strongly advocated for pro-USSR causes in the U.S. There are many more examples of this.

While »Culture of Critique« is probably your most famous book on this subject, it is just a third book of a trilogy, the other two books being » A People That Shall Dwell Alone« and »Separation and its Discontents«. In these books you also write about Judaism and about the phenomenon of Antisemitism. Could you tell us how would you say Judaism differs from Islam and Christianity? And regarding the topic of Antisemitism, do you believe Jewish groups are using it today to further their own agenda?

As discussed in A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Judaism developed as a very explicit diaspora strategy—they saw themselves as living as a minority group within larger societies. They never sought to be a universal religion. Their writings underscore that they saw themselves as in conflict with the wider society and as having different interests from other groups in the society. For example, a common theme of historical anti-Semitism was that Jews made alliances with kings and other aristocrats and would engage in oppressive business practices that would enrich their aristocratic patrons and themselves at the expense of other sectors of the population.

Jewish groups are constantly exaggerating anti-Semitism as a way to raise money but also to provide reasons for enacting controls on free speech. In the United States it is now basically off-limits to criticize Israel: any criticism of Israel is regarded as anti-Semitism. Another example, according to a recent article in the mainstream media, Jews in the television industry have been producing very Jewish-themed shows emphasizing the Holocaust and other threats to Jewish interests because of a supposed huge increase in anti-Semitism. “There’s been a huge uptick in anti-Semitic hate crimes in the U.S. over the past five years, according to the FBI, in an era when only 45% of U.S adults know that six million Jews died in the Holocaust, according to a Pew Research Center survey published in January.«

How would you assess the work of President Trump since he entered the office?

I was very supportive of Trump during the 2016 election. His record since is mixed. He is certainly doing the bidding of is pro-Israel donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition despite his campaign pledges for an America-First foreign policy. He has not been as good as he promised on immigration. He is building the wall with Mexico but has also approved huge numbers of worker visas that displace American workers, and he has not decreased the huge numbers of legal immigrants that will soon make Whites a minority in the U.S., nor has he ended birthright citizenship according to which anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, leading to illegal aliens establishing families and obtaining welfare benefits, etc.

What are your predictions for the U.S. presidential elections this year? And what are your predictions regarding the future of U.S.A. and the rest of the Western world?

It’s too soon to tell what will happen this year much less the long-term future of the West. Trump will have a good chance against Joe Biden, who is senile and not a candidate that inspires enthusiasm. However, the non-White vote keeps increasing and this will soon make it impossible for any Republican to win. Right now Trump is being blamed for a poor response to the coronavirus and that may be an effective talking point for Biden, especially given what the virus panic has done to the economy. The strength of the economy had been Trump’s major asset.

I am not optimistic on the future of the West. We are importing non-White majorities that will have no interest in maintaining our culture, our institutions, or our traditional freedoms. Unless something drastic changes, the West as we know it will be destroyed.

You are also the Chief Editor of the website »Occidental Observer«, can you tell us a bit about this project?

The Occidental Observer has articles that touch on White identity and interests. Given my writing, we have a lot of discussion of Jewish issues.

We are all aware of the censorship which has been increasing in the last years, regarding ideas that are deemed »politically incorrect«. Did you ever faced any kind of censorship, and did your activities and writings ever affected your professional career as a University Professor? Did you faced any criticism from you colleagues etc.?

Yes, there was a movement to get my university to fire me—the relevant documents are on my website. A left-wing organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), conducted a campaign against me. A representative of the SPLC came to my university from November 12–15 2006 to interview faculty and administrators about me. During the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years there was also a great deal of discussion and debate about my work and associations on faculty email lists. Eventually several departments issued statements dissociating themselves from my work and, in some cases, condemning my work. I was an active participant in these debates, In April, 2008, there was a large meeting conducted by the SPLC representative to denounce me. A speaker from the Anti-Defamation League also participated in this meeting.

Can you tell us for the end a bit about you latest book, titled »Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, and let us know what are your plans for the future?

Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition argues that ethnic influences are important for understanding the West. The prehistoric invasion of the Indo-Europeans had a transformative influence on Western Europe, inaugurating a prolonged period of what is labeled “aristocratic individualism” resulting form variants of Indo-European genetic and cultural influence. However, beginning in the seventeenth century and gradually becoming dominant was a new culture labeled “egalitarian individualism” which was influenced by preexisting egalitarian tendencies of northwest Europeans. Egalitarian individualism ushered in the modern world but may well carry the seeds of its own destruction. I have a chapter on psychological mechanisms that have resulted in so many Westerners accepting the current regime of displacing White populations in favor of massive non-White immigration. This brings in much discussion of evolutionary psychology. For example, I present data that White people are more empathic towards others because we are less ethnocentric than other peoples. This tendency toward empathy has been manipulated by the media to make Westerners empathic to suffering Africans and Asians and make them willing to make these people into citizens. There are also some hopeful signs—e.g., because of all the anti-White hatred we are seeing in the media, more White people are identifying as White and seeing that they have interests as Whites in not becoming a minority. But I conclude the book by suggesting that there may be a civil war brewing in the United States.

The new Red Guards

May 20, 2020/36 Comments/in Featured Articles/by The Irish Savant

Just finished Wild Swans, over 700 pages of densely-packed print but a real page-turner nonetheless. It traces the experiences of a Chinese family spanning three generations up to the late nineties. The author’s description of life during Mao’s Cultural Revolution was particularly harrowing. And instructive because of the similarities between what happened then under the Red Guards and is happening now under the Woke Generation.

Guilt was no longer determined by the rule of law, the presumption of innocence (such as it was) abandoned. Replaced by mob denunciation arising from a perceived lack of ideological purity, or something you said a long time ago, or somebody now out of favour in whose company you were once seen. Just like today in the West ritual denunciation was followed by grovelling confessions – which were never enough. In fact as we see with today’s “liberals” such grovelling – for some reason – seems only to elicit even greater fury, fuelling demands for re-education but with no guarantee of rehabilitation. Humiliation was a powerful weapon, breaking the spirit of even the most resilient. And the more truthful and accurate the defence the more frenzied became the torment, reminding us of Orwell’s “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it”.

Mao’s stated objective was to destroy The Four Olds: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas. Add in the systematic undermining of the family unit, religion and personal loyalty, the lack of privacy and an absolute adherence to the Party Line and his programme takes on chilling similarities to what we see now in our own countries. And worse is headed our way. Unless meaningful opposition arises. [To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” – Dr George Brock Chisholm, who served as the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) from 1948 to 1953]

I’ll leave you with a final thought: Mao’s main instrument of tyranny was not the police, the army or the intelligence services. He controlled the most powerful enforcer of all: The people themselves. The Cultural Revolution turned the Chinese people into the enforcers of their own repression. Neighbour ratted-out neighbour, even family members ratted one another out. Do I hear you say something about pandemic lock-down? The 17th Century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes saw even back then that absolute power come less from an imposition from above and more through people willingly giving up their own freedom in the face of some real or imagined threat.

Reposted from The Irish Savant.

Meditations on Hate

May 18, 2020/86 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

“Nature seems made up of antipathies: without something to hate, we should lose the very spring of thought and action. … Hatred alone is immortal.”
William Hazlitt, 1826

No human feeling has been more maligned, slandered, abused, and misappropriated in contemporary culture than the humble and dignified hatred. Wars have been declared against it. Legislation seeks everywhere to strangle it. It has been presented as the source of all evils, and as the great enemy of our time. This primordial emotion is the red-headed stepchild of our contemporary psychological spectrum and the exile of our political language, ever-present but covered up out of embarrassment, shame, or subterfuge. Entire categories of crime and speech have been segregated under the rubric of Hate, and set aside for especially harsh punishment. “Hate facts” are provable realities allegedly tainted with hate, and thus represent aspects of material existence deemed so awful they are denied despite their evident truth.

Hate, it would seem, just can’t get a break. Few are willing to speak on its behalf, even among those classed primarily as “haters.” The latter are apt to protest to deaf ears that they don’t hate anyone but merely love their own kind. All of this denial and disavowal occurs despite the fact hate is as crucial to human existence, if not more so, as love. It is omnipresent. Without hate, you have no history and no literature, no passion and no capacity for action. The plot of the Iliad essentially revolves around the wait for Achilles to reach an optimal state of hatred that then morphs into martial ecstasy and final victory. Imagine Hamlet merely possessing a mediocre dislike of his uncle Claudius. Without Ahab’s detestation of the whale there is no Moby Dick. Even if it were true that love makes the world go round, it would appear that hate greases the axle. It’s time for an exploration from a justified hater.

The Genealogy of Postmodern Morals

The origin of the contemporary war on hate is worthy of some consideration. Religion, contra Nietzsche, doesn’t offer a complete explanation. Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). The Hebrew god is said to be a hater of lying (Ps. 119:163) and the Psalmist professes to hate his enemies (Ps.139:22) with a “perfect hatred.” Ecclesiastes (Ecc. 3:8) mentions, without judgment or further commentary, that there is “a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” The entire history of the Jewish people can be read as involving a quite shameless hatred for the rest of humanity. The only exception in the Bible is located within the “love thy enemy” section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44) which, given that it was most probably written while the persecutions under Nero were ongoing, was likely inserted to both promote non-violent resistance and represent a further denial that Christians were a danger to Roman authority (alongside “render under Caesar” etc., also in Matthew). It sits uneasily with much of the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, which makes Nietzsche’s critique of the entirety of these religions as exemplifying unique slave moralities, based almost entirely on amplifications of the concepts of loving one’s enemy and “turning the other cheek,” seem rather tendentious.^[1]

Opposition to hatred, and being kind to one’s enemies, can as easily be found among the ancient Stoics and the Buddhists. For Nietzsche, although he focused overwhelmingly on Judaism and Christianity, these were all positions of life-denial, weakness, and dishonesty. Certainly these responses were weaker than simply hating your enemy. For the Stoics, the goal was individual happiness, and resentment and intense dislike were viewed simply as burdensome barriers to that goal — better to be rid of the enemy, yes, but also to be rid of negative feelings for them. For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary, to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.

These positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and engaging in direct competition with opponents. Hatred is only a psychological burden when it can’t be fulfilled, thus involving not only hate of the other for their provocation, but hate of the self for the inability to obtain resolution. The mental burden of hatred is found predominantly in the latter, and many flee from it into perverse and ultimately insincere forms of forgiveness. When they “forgive their enemies” they are rather forgiving themselves for not overcoming their enemies.^[2] The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector. If history tells us only one thing, however, it is that no man, and no religion, is immune to the arising of hate, and few escape it altogether. Differences in outward expression, in Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, or Judaism thereafter are mere points of tactics.

Unlike Nietzsche, I don’t think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion, or even in the distant past. Hate, and the flight from hate among the weak and cowardly, have been with us from the beginning of time, even if it is worsening in the present age. Contemporary hypocrisy and widespread dishonesty in relation to hatred is primarily a result of decadence in modernity, and is related in no small part to duplicitous Jewish activism on behalf of the emotional anaesthetic known widely now as “tolerance.” What is the genealogy of postmodern morals? In ‘The Genius of the Crowd,” Charles Bukowski wrote that “the best at hate are those who preach love,” which couldn’t be more appropriately applied to those now insisting that every country on earth should learn to love their Jews. We live in an age where the problem isn’t that “hate is on the march” but that it marches under innumerable masks, appearing here as “love” and there as “tolerance.” The “war on hate” that we witness today isn’t a war on hate at all, but a hypocritical war on the White capacity to feel and express hate. It should be starkly obvious that every other race on earth is free to hold all the resentments, bitterness, aggression, and calculated coldness it wants, but these qualities are deemed too dangerous, too volatile in Whites. Better that Whites be rendered emotional eunuchs; timid cattle put out to graze in pastures of fast food and mind-blunting entertainment. Stoicism, Buddhism, and interfaith “tolerance” branches of Christianity are enjoying a widespread boom across the West, fueled by a culture that wants Whites to be “the branch that bends.” And rest assured it is only in the West that the “war on hate” is taking place. There is no universal campaign for universal brotherhood and friendship outside ubiquitous Western multicultural propaganda. The campaign against hate, including its legal manifestations, is inseparable from multiculturalism, mass immigration, global capitalism, and the demographic decline of Whites.

War on Hate, War on Whites

It has become an axiom of Western culture that “being strongly against” anything is morally unsound or quasi-fascistic. Everywhere, and in all sections of the political spectrum, groups struggle to avoid being seen as “against” something, lest they be accused of hating what they oppose. Better to be “pro-life” than “anti-abortion,” and better to be “pro-choice” than “anti-foetus”! Better to be “for strong borders” than to be “against immigration.” Better to say you “support the Palestinians” rather than bluntly declare yourself an “anti-Zionist.” Better to say you support the privacy of women than let it be known you despise the notion of gender-bending miscreants entering into bathrooms alongside your wives and daughters. Better to say you are “pro religious freedom” than assert your hatred of the notion that two men can marry each other. Every sinew is strained to couch one’s feelings in positive terminology, so that you might be seen as a “positive” person with “positive” intentions. Even in our own movement I’ve noticed slices of semi-sincere rhetoric where we increasingly preface our assertions of identity and interests with claims that we support the identity and interests of all peoples (I don’t), even the Zionism of the Jews (I don’t)! The rot, my friends, is universal. Everywhere in the West, being “anti” anything is regarded as highly suspect, unless you are “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist,” in which case you are merely against the idea that Whites have the audacity to be against something.

The war on hate is founded on a ridiculous premise — that everything in modern culture is perfectly agreeable and that there are no logical or moral grounds for strongly opposing anything or anyone in our midst. What is hatred? A feeling of intense dislike. Contemporary political and social mores would have you believe that any White man or woman who looked about them and was aroused to a state of intense dislike must be some kind of monster. Merely sharing your feelings of intense dislike, now termed “inciting hatred,” has been deemed criminal conduct in scores of Western countries. Criminal conduct! This despite the fact there has never been a point in our history more deserving of the deepest loathing, the most scathing contempt, and the most vicious hatred. This seething morass of ethnic encroachment, miscegenation, perversion, ignorance, degeneration, degradation, and humiliation is worthy of every last drop of spite and abhorrence that can feasibly be poured upon it. I hate it all, and if you have any genuine natural instincts left, and if you haven’t been conditioned into a perpetual state of consumerist ennui, you will hate it too.

I take particular pleasure in considering the appellation “Hope not Hate,” attached to a UK “anti-fascist” group dedicated to being against the idea that White people are against anything. To be sure, they occasionally pepper their activities with token gestures on Islamic extremism, but really they should be called “Hope not [White] Hate.” I find it especially interesting that they don’t call themselves “Love not Hate,” which would surely be the logical way of presenting an alternative to hate.

And yet it makes sense that they didn’t choose “love” for two reasons. In the first instance, anyone who opposes hate must intrinsically obstruct love. These opposites exist on the same emotional spectrum, and if you distance from one you enter into a type of emotional tunnel vision in which you lose sight of the other. If anyone tells you earnestly that they don’t hate anyone, you can be sure you’re either talking to a liar or a passionless member of the emotionally castrated. Secondly, those behind this group were probably confronted with the reality that what they have designated “hate” — nativism and nationalism — can’t rationally be opposed with “love.” What were activists and supporters supposed to love? Hordes of anonymous third world migrants? Clearly too large an ask, they settled instead on “hope.” What is hope? Hope for what? Hope is optimism at its most irrational extreme. Hope is when you’re chased to the edge of a cliff by a pack of rabid dogs, when you look down at foaming waves, and “hope” that when you jump, you’ll miss the rocks and survive. Hope is what you feel when all options, and all rational grounds for optimism, are exhausted. Truly there can be no better name for an organization dedicated to the flooding of White countries with mass migration. I congratulate the group’s leaders on their decision.

It is a special irony, of course, that the priests of the war on hate are the Jews who, for more than a century now, have posed themselves as angelic warriors against bigotry and hatred. This from a people known since the days of Caesar as world-haters possessing the most extraordinary instinct for misanthropy. And here, perhaps is their greatest strength — that they learned to preach anti-hatred while retaining, protecting, and refining their own hatreds. For what does the Jew possess more intense dislike than the homogeneous White nation? Fingernails running down a chalkboard — this is the traditional White nation to the Jews.

The Jewish campaign against hate is a new attempt at a revolution in values. Those European imbeciles who nibble at this bait, convinced that they are part of some moral crusade for universal brotherhood, are throwing themselves into a campaign supporting Jewish hate. Isn’t it obvious that Europeans who adopt the new values aren’t “against hate” but merely sublimate their instincts and agree to hate themselves? What are speech laws, waves of migrants, and the imposition of new values by outsiders if not a hateful violation of sovereignty and the infliction of a systematic cruelty? Imagine the audacity of introducing these measures under the banner of “fighting hate”! All of these things, to the extent that they restrict and punish the natural feelings of the European, bring obvious pleasure and satisfaction to Jews. It is a matter of great joy to Jews that Whites should sign up by the thousands to purge their own ranks of all capacity for opposition. By preaching “a world without hate,” Jews promote a world of docile and dwindling Whites. And they are considerably advanced in this cause.

What is hate? A feeling of intense dislike, but also something else. Coming to the realiation that one intensely dislikes something is the prelude to action against it. I need to be clear on my meaning here. Contemporary propaganda saturation would have you believe that hate “causes” violence and terrorism. This is a nonsense. Consult the work of any serious terrorism expert and you won’t find “hate” anywhere listed as a serious explanation for any act of terrorism at any point in history. Hate is primarily an understanding, and then a state of mind. One can find terrorism motivated in small part by hate, but also by love, fear, confusion, desperation, tactical consideration, religious enthusiasm, personal anguish, psychopathy, peer pressure, mental illness, drug addiction, greed and even a combination of all of these things. When I say that hate is primarily an understanding I mean that it shapes trajectories of behaviour and conditions responses. Hate is not spontaneously self-creating. It doesn’t arise in a given man simply because that man is “bad.” Hate arises in response to stimuli, some kind of provocation. Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.

The Longest Hatred

Jews have described anti-Semitism as the “longest hatred.” I disagree. It is clear to any educated onlooker that Semitism itself, insofar as Semitism is defined as the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind, represents the oldest hatred in recorded history. The interesting point here is that all Jewish examinations of what they perceive to be the “longest hatred” are conspicuous in their avoidance of the issue of cause and object. Hatred of the Jews is, for Jews, entirely spontaneous and self-creating. Hatred, a human emotion, is often quarantined from reasonable human consideration and represented in Jewish understanding as something not-quite-human — a virus, a theological mutation, or a psychological malfunction. Europeans in Jewish writings are quintessential haters insofar as this involves Europeans giving themselves over to something entirely irrational and inexplicable. Unwilling to examine their own role as cause and object, or to look at their own hatreds in the cold light of day, Jews promote the idea that hate itself, or at least hate among Europeans, is always devoid of cause and object. The White man’s hate is always spontaneous, always irrational, always self-creating, always inexplicable. Ultimately, as we have seen, hate in the European is “criminal.”

If Semitism is, as I have argued, the true “longest hatred,” then what is its cause and object? Causes here are both internal and external to Jews. Judaism, the precise origins of which will remain forever unknown and unknowable, commands a strict separation from other humans and the formation of an ethnic caste above all others. It asserts an ultimate, cosmic superiority, and permits the infliction of a lesser ethics upon presumed inferiors. Jewish hate has arisen from time immemorial in the simple fact that other humans (collectively lumped together simply as goyim) refuse to accept this state of affairs, and that they fail to indulge Judaism’s dominance fantasy. From the beginning of Judaism until the present day, Jews have encountered populations who refuse to see Jews as their superiors. These non-Jewish populations have consistently refused to be subjected to lesser treatment, and they have hated the Jews for attempting to impose it upon them. Jews have responded to this reactionary hatred with a further hatred of their own — a dishonest hatred that hides even from itself and postures as a morose remembering of past injustices. The cycle continues endlessly, with Jewish hatred thus internally and perpetually powered via the momentum of the past.

The lachrymose history of the Jews is in fact the story of frustrated attempts at dominance, and although it presents as a tale of woe, it is in fact a hit-list for revenge. Adam and Gedaliah Afterman have written of the Medieval period as a time in which Jews cultivated a powerful theology/ideology of revenge for perceived wrongs perpetrated by host populations. One Medieval Ashkenazi tale, for example, portrays God as “listing on his garment” the names of all Jewish victims of Gentiles over the course of time so that in the future the deity would have a record of those to be avenged.^[3] Isn’t it clear that this tale is a mere externalizing of deeper instincts? Isn’t Jewish culture and historiography the real “garment” upon which Jews name their “victims,” thereby paving the way for a future vengeance executed not by a deity but by the true object of Jewish worship — the Jews themselves? Every act of Jewish hate is therefore ultimately dishonest, being predicated on false conceptions of vengeance (since the antagonistic Jews were never truly wronged) and therefore incapable of being fulfilled. Jewish hate does not act on immediate causes and objects, but on causes and objects from all nations and from all time periods including the distant past and future. The contemporary infliction of mass migration and cultural degradation on the United States is therefore part of a scheme of vengeance that has its roots in ancient Rome, and in medieval Toledo, and in 1920s Romania, etc. In this kaleidoscopic form of self-denial, Jews seek to fundamentally change your nation not because they “hate” you, and certainly not because they love you, but because they know only too well the dangers of the past. In the midst of such reasoning, their obvious hatred is obscured even to many of their own number.

By contrast, the hatred of the Europeans for the Jews, being honest to itself, has always been capable of fulfilment. European hate for the Jews has been predicated much less on the past than on immediate cause and object, and European resistance to attempts at Jewish dominance has for the most part been satisfied with curtailments of certain monopolies. We have no equivalent of the lachrymose history, and are notable for our lack of any kind of “garment” on which we’ve listed the victims of Jewish machinations. Europeans have never sublimated their hatred for outsiders, or disguised these hatreds to themselves. European hatred doesn’t hide from itself, or take on the aspect of mere resentment. It has always been concerned with action and results. Expulsions, the most radical answer to provocative Jewish causes and objects, were in most cases short-lived, illustrating the lack of serious grudges among Europeans and a willingness to renew the contexts for relations. This alleged “longest hatred” among the Europeans therefore has the remarkable quality of large gaps, resets, reversals, and numerous chances at decent relationships. As a people, we have always lived in the present and, but for the fact that this has been taken advantage of, this forgetfulness has, as Nietzsche observed, been a source of robust health, action, joy, and pride. The only error of the historical Europeans was to assume that the slate had also been wiped clean on the Jewish side, whereas in fact the Judaic garment of vengeance was growing ever-longer.

Conclusion

The current revolution in values is designed to make Whites the “branch that bends.” In giving up hate, Europeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible. Honest hate among the strong is healthy, good, and necessary. It is especially necessary in an environment in which opponents of all kinds are engaged in mass duplicity, disguising their own selfish interests as “love,” their own grudges as “tolerance,” and their own hatred as “kindness.” Surrounded by detestable things lingering under dishonesty, we must embrace a “perfect hatred,” and be at peace in it, in the certain knowledge that, while the weak fall by the way side, we will carry it to its completion.

^[1] I tend to concur with Roger Scruton’s assessment of Nietzsche’s fixation here that it was both “obsessive, if not tedious.” See Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy (1995).

^[2] This kind of thinking has expanded rapidly in modernity because justice has become an increasingly watered down and impersonal affair in which individual access to adequate retribution is frustrated.

^[3] A. Afterman & G. Afterman, “Meir Kahane and Contemporary Jewish Theology of Revenge,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, (2015), 192-217, (197).

The Rule Of Right Versus The Rule Of Law: Pick a side

May 16, 2020/72 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Amalric de Droevig

You either support the rule of law or you do not. Shelley Luther is a law breaker. If you believe in the rule of law, absolutely, as the oligarch puppets at MSNBC would have you do, what else is there to say? If your commitment to the rule of law is bottomless and unyielding, Shelley Luther was thrown in jail where she belonged, end of story. Yet most of us understand, even if in our gut, that this is not the end of the story.

The COVID crisis is a sterling example of how an excessive commitment to the rule of law can easily enable tyranny and serfdom. There are laws in North Korea and Red China, and there were laws in National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union as well. That something is a law, which is to say some rule some low-IQ legislator drew up, is not a sufficient reason to follow it. It just isn’t. Further analysis is necessary.

Conservatives often say that a strict adherence to the rule of law is a powerful prophylactic against tyranny. Is that really so? Doubtful. Tyranny and totalitarianism are at least as likely to emerge via a careful adherence to the law as they are to arise from the flouting, circumvention, or disregarding of it. A general, fairly slender attachment to the law is basically sufficient to preserve the social order. With that said, obeying rules and commands rarely secures essential rights or liberates people. Obedience to rules written by those in power serves the rulers primarily, not the ruled. That seems somewhat self-evident to me.

Moreover, if laws should always be followed, there would be no America. The American Revolution was a revolt against the laws and hegemony of the British crown. Yet all day long the propagandists in the press tell us how we must all obey, how important the rule of law is for keeping us safe and free. But do you think your government is keeping you safe? And do you feel free? I certainly do not feel free going on my third month of house arrest.

To be clear, Shelley Luther is a patriot and a hero. She is also a criminal. And there is nothing paradoxical about those two claims. Because there is a point where government overreach becomes unthinkable and totalitarian. There is a point where following the law means doing something one’s conscience cannot countenance. And there is a point where a regard for the law is nothing more than a command to obey whatever courts or rulers decide, no matter how insane or contrary to your interests or values. At these points, the rule of law ceases to be an asset or an ally to the people, but becomes instead an enemy. That does not mean that a solid respect for the law is not, generally speaking, a good thing. What it means is that we all must recognize lines and exceptions to the general rule. In truth, an excessive deference for the rule of law is at least as dangerous as a lack of deference for it.

Unfortunately, so-called conservatism has become meek, servile, and excessively fond of the rule of law in recent decades. To be fair, not all conservatives have prostrated themselves before government power in this way, but far too many have. Yet there is nothing “conservative” about being a law-fellating peon when the powers that be are dismantling traditional values and traditional modes of living at an epic clip, or when the laws themselves become vicious, outrageous, or totalitarian. Our ruling class has already, largely through the law mind you, dismantled and disfigured America. There is really not much left of the Founding Era, culturally, ethnically, morally, etc. Even America of a mere seventy five years ago, is now all but gone.

So, I am sick and tired of hearing how wonderful the rule of law is. The rule of law is only as wonderful as the laws themselves, and as someone who works in the field of law, I can tell you most laws are not so wonderful. In fact, many, if not most, of the laws set down on paper by American legislatures, are perfectly idiotic. They are garbage.

They often create bigger problems than they resolve. A majority of them could probably be repealed tomorrow at no utility cost to the citizenry and most of those remaining should be rewritten in fundamental ways. The way they are interpreted by American courts is even more shameful. Criminal laws especially, are consistently interpreted by the courts to make prosecutions and convictions as easy as possible. As a whole, our laws enrich the rich and arm the powerful. And the faith most state legislatures have in the benevolence of government power is rather astounding. The Founders would not be pleased. The authority for state governors to issue tyrannical COVID directives originated in state legislatures after all. The American legal system today seeks to monitor, regulate, and control us by and large, rather than benefit and uplift us, as it was supposed to do. It is really not structured for, nor would it be endured by, a free people.

Those maintaining a childish reverence for the rule of law whilst also celebrating this Texas salon owner’s lawless actions, must engage in faulty hair-splitting and intellectual chicanery to do so. They say things like proclamations, directives and executive orders “aren’t really the law.” But they are the law. They carry the force of law. They can be enforced by law enforcement, just like statutes and court orders can. That is the hard reality of things.

Moreover, even if this argument had merit, it would still be a road to nowhere. After all, if Shelley Luther was defying some totalitarian statute instead, would she be any less right? Is a totalitarian decree better or worse than a totalitarian statute? Which should we be more inclined to lie down like dogs before? Thus, this particular argument (“it is not really the law”) is firstly not persuasive, and secondly, misses the point.

The political right needs to reflect deeply on its relationship with the law. Shelley Luther can be a hero or the law can be sacrosanct. Both can not be true. The right can not have it both ways without experiencing some level of cognitive dissonance. For my part, I think there are circumstances when it is quite acceptable, even noble, to be a lawbreaker. Samuel Adams was a lawbreaker. The British wanted to hang him for his crimes. Now I enjoy drinking beer with his shining visage on it. Most crucially though, let us not dance around that acknowledgment. Let us not be intellectual weasels possessive of two logically incompatible thoughts. Let us proclaim it loud and clear, because the times demand it: There are matters and interests that stand above the law, and disobedience to the law is not only tolerable at times, it is morally obligatory.

Finally, what is it with people named Luther and a contempt for corruption and abuse emanating from the echelons of power? When will Ms. Luther be drafting her own 95 theses? God knows America needs its own reformation.

Another innocent black child brutally murdered

May 14, 2020/32 Comments/in Featured Articles/by The Irish Savant

Well judging by the media and political reaction this was the crime of the century. The headlines said it all, even those from “conservative” sites like Drudge which lead for days with “Brutal Murder Shocks The Nation”. (The presumption of innocence has become another casualty of the new woke culture). Even Donald Trump got his spoke in, declaring it to be ‘very,very sad’. We’re talking here about Ahmaud Arbery (left at prayer*) who, if we’re to believe media reports (chuckle) was simply innocently jogging when a pair of rednecks (Gregory McMichael and his son Travis) chased after him in a car before ventilating him with a shotgun. That the authorities took months to bring charges brought the ensuing squeals of outrage to a fever pitch.

But there was a reason for that delay. Mr Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper Jones, said police told her her son had been involved in a burglary before the incident, but the family say they do not believe the keen jogger had committed a crime and he was unarmed. A number of calls were made to the emergency services around the time of the confrontation, CBS reports. In one 911 call, a neighbour said a black man was seen at a home under construction in the area. When asked what the man was doing now, the caller said “running down the street”.

Now that’s a bit different, isn’t it? If you see a black man running in a White neighbourhood any normal person will assume that he’s fleeing the scene of crime. And a number of crimes had just been committed. Any normal person would also assume that black escapee to be armed. In this case he wasn’t armed. But the McMichaels weren’t to know that. Now look at the video and you’ll fully understand why charges had not been brought. Arbery was not ‘gunned down’. He foolishly tried to take the gun from McMichael and during the ensuing struggle a shot was discharged, fatally wounding the thug.

And yes.he was a thug. He had a criminal record. But you know what? The links I looked up are no longer available. Isn’t that amazing? Well no, of course it isn’t. Aubrey will join the long list of future brain surgeons like Freddy Grey and Michael Browne murdered by racist Whites. In fact these thugs were more likely to end up murdering a brain surgeon than becoming one. We can duly expect the media to fan the flames and precipitate another bout of rioting and destruction. You know, ‘give them space to destroy’.

The proverbial visitor from Mars would be scratching his pointed head observing all of this. Wondering why the dominant race prostrates itself before a violent and parasitical minority. And why the dozens of black-on-black murders that take place every hot weekend go unreported while the nation descends into paroxysms of self-flagellation when a black gets killed by a White in a struggle over a gun.

*No, that is not the ‘victim’. I make a joke

Reposted from The Irish Savant.

100-Year Retrospective on the Great Coronavirus Pandemic of 2020

May 12, 2020/31 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Karl Haemers

One hundred years ago, the people of 2020 endured the Great Coronavirus Pandemic which directly propelled us into the health safety campaigns we wage today. We will cast a retrospective analysis one hundred years back to gain perspective on our own current Globaldemic. Before continuing reading, be assured that my comments have been approved by the World Collective Ministry of Public Health and can be freely disseminated.

We acknowledge today that all nations have been absorbed into the World Collective and any existence of distinct sub-races was formally declared GenBlended in 2063. To the analysts examining the Great Cononavirus Pandemic in 2020, these crude ethnic structures still existed, though the beginnings of their benevolent dissolution were under way. Scientists then had not even the beginnings of our theory of disease-causing Quixons, and were still -committed to their false theory of viruses.

It is inconceivable to us today that such theories were taken seriously. People were still allowed to engage in social contact freely. In some cases, they themselves, much less the authorities of the day, did not even know they were infected. The only limited precursor to the World Collective at the time was known as the United Nations, an absurd tautology since the existence of nations precludes unity. Today our World Collective uses the Global Health Field to assess biometric portal sensors, which do no open to allow passage if any Quixons were detected. If a new Quixon emerges, our Syn-Tel avatars would immediately make the appropriate GenVax treatments—treatments that work even when the virus mutates. In 2020 however such common technology was only in preliminary development—the primative beginnings of the GenVax we enjoy today.

2020 is important because the Great Coronavirus Pandemic marked the point in history when the first GenVax application was attempted globally.

Though it went on to meet with significant vax hesitancy, large percentages of certain sub-populations (again, they still had distinct sub-races) received the vaccine. Throughout the 2020s as hesitancy was overcome and mass innoculation was approached, it was possible to examine the effects and begin the process of refining their first attempts. Such approaches as RNA protein coding and DNA geno-morphing may seem amusing to us today, but at the time they were innovations of paradigmatic significance. They led from the highly unsophisticated and inefficient practice of hyperdermic injection which requires social contact, through the brief unsuccessful attempts of MechJect, to directed waveform morphology programs which also had their crude origins around 2020. These developed into personalized a satellite-based intervention known as Individual Directed low-Orbital Satellite Emission (I-DOSE) by 2061. This persists in refined form today.

(See the associated report “2020 Retrospective on 5G Deployment” to analyze this other paradigmatic system shift that occurred in the historic hinge year of 2020 which developed into our Global Health Field of today. Associated review of the biography of Founder Elon Musk also recommended.)

The dissidents of 2020 (I’ll call them the A-2020) examined the belief that disease transference could occur through airborne proximity or physical contact with mutually-handled objects such as doorknobs and elevator buttons, railings, countertops, etc. This started some to question the entire germ theory based on viral exposure which prevailed at the time and persisted in 2020 and partially beyond. (Since terms like ‘elevator buttons’ may be unfamiliar to readers in 2120, I provide a glossary below.)

2020 marked the year when this limited theory of viral contagion which so dominated the world paradigm began to decline.

One of the early studies dismantling the theory was the book (see glossary) Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense (‘industry’, ‘dollar’ and ‘profits’ in glossary). Though it only proposed the easily dismissed replacement theory that various environmental and systemic toxins cause disease, it was considered by the A-2020 team in their analysis. Another work which informed the distrust of the A-2020 was almost impossible for us to find, even with our historic data scan processes. However, the remarkable document “State of Plague: Disease-Mongering as Militarized Trojan Horse for Globalization and Surveillance” finally turned up. This excellent research revealed to the A-2020 team the basics of the outline plan which developed into our World Collective. These dissidents misinterpreted the necessity of having the plans for our World Collective kept classified so that people would not be aware of what was happening until it was essentially in place. Instead the A-2020 assessed these plans as freedom-destroying plots to achieve world totalitarian rule. This rare hit in our search terms led us to such groups as Age of Autism and the Weston A Price Foundation, and Children’s Health Defense and National Health Federation.These became some originators of the movement which transitioned into our current crop of dissenters, the Diss-Generates of today.

The A-2020 were dissidents of their time, and they faced marginalization and persecution for their views similar to those they helped to inspire, the Diss-Generates today. Yet as so often in history, their suffering was redeemed by their contribution to science and progress. Questioning the viral theory generated much resistance and oppressive reaction, but it began the process that led to our knowledge today of the almost universal effects of Quixons in threatening world health. It is our commitment to the war against Quixons—the only form of warfare remaining to humanity—that inspires this retrospective.

The A-2020 analysis of the data contained in Viral Mania, State of Plague and other contemporary sources propelled new theories. People who previously had relatively small followings outside the mainstream media of the time surged in popularity. Such early Diss-Gen leaders as David Icke, Jon Rappoport, Dr. Buttar, Dr. Kaufman, Judy Mikovitz, Gilad Atzmon and others, proposed new theories, although their videos were quickly scrubbed by You Tube (see glossary). The fact that all these figures surged in popularity through their internet (see glossary) access reveals that popular world opinion was changing in a complex interactive dynamic. The further fact that apparently most of them soon after succumbed to the COVID-19 virus suggests suppression efforts by the world controllers of the time, particularly by our Founder Bill Gates. Buttar and Mikovitz were reported deceased late in 2020, but Icke evaded liquidation efforts—if indeed they were—until 2024. His vast network of committed followers allowed him almost continuous movement to evade pursuers, though global travel restrictions confined him to what was formerly known as Great Britain. His remarkable escape by ship to the former Ireland, where he is thought to have finally died officially of COVID-19, is believed to be more entertainment mythology than factual history, but in examining Icke from our perspective it is difficult to ascertain. Atzmon succumbed to COVID-19 by 2021 probably because he had renounced his Jewish identity, something that might have protected him as one Chosen to administer Tikkun (special Jewish obligation to ‘Fix the World’). Some evidence shows that Rappoport and Kaufman survived, but used false reports of their deaths to evade the authorities. Others assert they were enlisted to work for the authorities thereafter, and that the postings of internet hero Sick Semite were actually authored by Rappoport. The authorities of 2020 lacked our Global Health Field systems that makes such terms as evasion virtually inconceivable. In the 2030s some speculation developed that Rappoport and Kaufman were spared due to their Jewish identity, given credibility by the datum that Jews are the only distinct racial type that remains in our otherwise GenBlend world.

Here we shift our analysis to the noble role our Founder Bill Gates played in this critical year of world history. The influence this one man brought propelled developments that led to the GateWay programs of the 2030s which precipitated our World Collective and Global Health Field. Gates’s longevity experiment preserved him in bio-form until 2065 to the age of 110 and allowed him to inseminate many young carriers with his genotype, thus ushering in our World Health Management regime that ensures our safety and well-being today. Gates’ longevity experiment and extensive investment in the science brought about our own selective Horizon longevity program available to Jews and Notables today. The wave load transfer of Gates’s code-translated personality just before he physically died in 2065 provides the model for our Syn-Tel avatar’s almost ubiquitous presence today. Bill Gates is still with us, in spirit if not in body.

Indeed, Gates has risen to iconic status in the years since his physical death. His frequent grins, chuckles and dramatic hand-waving were assessed to best represent a benevolent Big Father to all of humanity. Besides Gates, the few other male forms had to be based on Jewish models. Female Syn-Tel avatars became dominated by the Lipstadt form as best representing the Great Mother.

None of this history could be foreseen by the A-2020 team, though we know that Founder Gates long had the outline plan, passed from Proto-Founder Francis Bacon as depicted in his work New Atlantis of 1620. It was passed along to many such as early “Technocrat” (to use a distasteful term still used by Diss-Generates today) H. G. Wells in the 1930s, depicted especially in his work The Shape of Things to Come, and others. Prior to this, in 1909, the early homosexual (still a designation then) and Humanist E M Forster published (glossary) The Machine Stops, required reading by school children (glossary), which prepared the world for such early transition technology as the internet and cell phones, as well as such public management forms as “social distancing” and “isolation” that are standard today for our health. Other intellicons from history who transmitted the outline plan such as Sydney Gottleib/Joseph Scheider (sadly Jews still had to hide their identity at that time behind assumed names) the founder of the MK Ultra studies that led to our well-regulated, socially harmonious society, are better developed in other files.

A-2020 ignorance of the long-term plan was not total, and some suspected. They closely examined such historic accounts as smallpox “eradication,” polio efforts, and various declared “pandemics” of the 2000s such as Asian Bird Flu, SARS, MERS, Swine Flu, Zika, Ebola, and Measles. This contributed to their growing awareness that something other than the viruses posited by the viral theory was “causing” the “pandemics,” which actually afflicted little of the world population at all. Due to an inadequate sealing of what they called the Internet, growing popular distrust of such prototypical World Collective structures as the World Health Organization, UNICEF, GAVI, CEPI, IDM, IHME (both early disease-modeling centers) and others grew. This was met with fierce condemnation of the A-2020 by national governments, mass media, global organizations and some of the masses. That fact that organizations targeted by A-2020 were generously funded by Founder Gates should not make them immune to our scrutiny, as we are tempted to do today. Our systems of total acquisition and data collection through the Global Health Field were not in place in 2020, and Founder Gates did not possess sufficient clarity for how best to distribute funds and ensure control. The A-2020 were much more critical and distrustful however, joined by increasing masses of people suffering under global “social isolation” policies.

This was indeed a period of vast suffering we now know as the Cull-Gen period, a necessary diminishment of certain strata of the global class system required to achieve our GenBlend complete equality and virtual elimination of suffering.

The first mass field trials of total surveillance, drone and robotic crowd control, widespread aerial dispersal of chemical pacificants, AI analysis (early Syn-Tel), Directed Energy Weapons (DEW, developed into our more humane Wave Hypnotic Impact Projectors WHIP), and then-conventional explosive military operations occurred in late 2020, interrupting such superstitious activities as Thanksgiving and Christmas, further inciting popular unrest. Special orders were encoded into AI programs and human-administered “chains of command” (not to be confused with our field-connected magnetic wrist and ankle bands) ensuring that Hannukah celebrations and synagogues were not targeted. Such technologically effective pacification methods were necessary at a time before (virtual) full acceptance of the peace-affirming and health-supporting structures we live in today were fully installed.

Many global citizens—in 2020 many still thought of themselves as national citizens—they owned and carried explosive firearms and used them in the 2020 “Lockdown Breakouts.” This led to calls for new technologies that were eventually developed and successfully deployed to neutralize rogue and rampant firearms. Nevertheless, many people were killed and maimed by both stray and accurate projectiles on both sides. A careful analysis of the compositions of what is referred to here as “both sides” is beyond this Retrospective. It must be mentioned that for a time in the early 2020s the World Civil War as it was falsely called flared most hotly in the USA due to these firearms enthusiasts. Project Lead Shield was quickly developed, an early technology that went on to stimulate research into our magnetic field forms used so successfully today to eradicate firearms among the masses.

Soon after, Founder Gates was able to deploy his ID2020 immunization tracking program, though not in the target year. By 2022 this early digital identification system was being deployed throughout the world, with significant hold-outs in remote areas, most of whom eventually came under the program as it evolved past subcutaneous microchips to scannable tattoos to injectable nano swarms to the constantly updated GenVax we know today. A long-developing UN program known as Global 2030 had to be aggressively expanded earlier than scheduled in order to direct most of these rural dissidents into Smart cities and the ID2020 program.

Our retrospective has shown that the year 2020AD deserves to be considered the year from which all future years are dated. The Analysts of 2020 unknowingly gave us the critique and eradication of the long-held false viral theory, propelling researchers throughout the twenty-first century to knowledge of Quixons that guides our noble world struggle against disease today. Some of the A-2020 unfortunately went in the wrong direction, toward false superstitious beliefs in long-disproven “remedies” such as diet and nutrition (their practices are too grotesque to mention, from our perspective of NowMeat which evolved from Founder Gates’s Beyond Meat), herbal medicine, exposure to what they called “fresh air and sunshine,” social contacting (!), uninduced “natural” sleep in violation of our scheduled Slyp program, certain “vitamin” therapies, detoxification including immersion in over-heated rooms known as “saunas,” and more. Thankfully such absurdities are all but deleted, only kept alive in new forms by our loathsome Diss-Generates.

We instead have been blessed by the VaxGen programs that also commenced in prototype form in the year 2020AD. Now appropriate genetic enhancements and suppressions can be delivered as immediately as the Syn-Tel avatars working through the GlobalHealth Field detect the need. The GateWay programs of the AD 2030s eventually brought us out of the invasive and highly costly human administered hyperdermic injection process, and fully into the wave form GenVax administration programs of I-DOSE personal satellite treatments we receive almost continually today.

Unfortunately some A-2020 further concluded that the entire global structure was a “hoax” and “scam” (glossary), and that they were being exploited and even systematically liquidated in a dysgenics population control plan. Some even targeted Founder Gates as a world controller with a sinister plan for global dominance and technocratic tyranny.

From some of these A-2020s, in coalition with others mentioned, the various dissident movements were propelled throughout the rest of the century. Most were systematically eliminated and/or assimilated, leaving only our token Diss-Generates today, with their repellent hair, bulky physical characteristics, false arrogance in their muscular fitness, disdain for GenVax causing increased spread of Quixons, repugnant eating habits, grotesque natural sun-exposed skin tones, flagrant dismissal of social distancing norms, and general inversion of all we know to be hygienic, efficient, safe, and peace-supporting. But the early A-2020s also were crucial in destroying the false viral theory, allowing the development of our accurate Quixons knowledge. So we have to give them some credit.

We mean no dissident critique of the Gatesian World Collective Managers. We understand the strategic use of maintaining some Diss-Gens as a focus for the remnants of hate and loathing the Global Health Field has yet to purge from humanity. We know some Diss-Gens must be allowed to persist, if only to remind us all of our blessings and provide a purpose for our efforts to achieve the final perfect World Collective. Still, in looking at the foundations of the Diss-Gen movement through our Retrospective on their forerunners, A-2020s, and reviewing the admirable founding of our otherwise healthy and peaceful global society, we feel we can only join the outcry of almost the entire World Population as expressed through the Global Health Field platform:

“Diss-Gens Gone For Good! Kill the Quixons!”

The Men Who Make the Killings

May 10, 2020/24 Comments/in Featured Articles/by John Q. Publius

The white male has become the monstrous Other in his own nation, a nation he does not recognize and that no longer recognizes him. In America, his invisible suffering finally found a voice after one mention of liberal Hollywood icon Rosie O’Donnell as a fat pig changed everything. Be-cucked and floundering, the Republican establishment looked on in horror as the enigmatic billionaire Donald Trump improbably won, with the commentariat scratching their heads as to how they could’ve missed all of the signs the much-maligned American hinterland was fed up with being the lone societal punching bag. Various “coastal elites” traversed what they regard as the backwoods backwaters of the nation ostensibly looking for answers, but mostly voyeuristically providing “decline porn” and freak show-peeping to the dinner party set back home. There was no attempt to understand who these people are, or why they are not even so much angry, though they are—furious in fact—but more betrayed and dismayed.

The critic Robin Wood argues that horror films usually elicit our interest in, and sympathy for, the monster. Usually these films become the vehicle for the monster, the Other, that is tormenting the normal members of a society. There is typically the moral hero who must stand against this creature. Robin Wood argues that in these horror films, the monster is usually the center of interest and sympathy from the audience. It is the strangeness and the complexity of the monster that elicits the interest in it rather than in the moral character, the character supposedly so like us; however, the argument that the monster is a center of sympathy from the audience is a far more complicated proposition.

Typically cast out of normal society, the monster returns to have its revenge upon those that define the social norms. For example, in John Carpenter’s Halloween, Michael Myers has been sequestered away from society for the grisly murders of his family, confined to an asylum. On the anniversary of these murders he returns home to wreak havoc. He is the Other, the social pariah, rejected by society. He has a seeming singularity of purpose, but there is more to him behind that mask. This elicits interest in the psyche of this monster: what are his motivations, his back-story, et cetera?

As Robin Wood would argue, Myers’s traumatic background should elicit sympathy from the audience. However, this is not wholly accurate. The assertion that horror films elicit interest in the monster is almost wholly true; the assertion that the monster is a source of sympathy from the audience is another issue entirely. Myers is after all a brutal murderer. And how else do we explain the alien in Alien, for example? It is a creature wholly unlike us as humans. Its motivations and back-story are very engaging, as it is so unlike us, and is a complete unknown (or was until Prometheus and Alien: Covenant). Yet the notion that it inspires sympathy from the audience is absurd. When the alien is finally destroyed, it pleases the audience. The creature seems driven to do nothing but kill, feed, and reproduce.

Perhaps there is more, but we are incapable of understanding the actual thought process of such a creature, if there is one. It is seemingly the complete embodiment of the Other. It does not look like us, it does not act like us, it does not communicate like us, and, most critically, it doesn’t think like us—at least not on the surface. The alien is a parasitic organism. It has an incubation period inside of another live organism before killing it and effectively hatching. From there it feeds and grows.

The alien is driven to thrive and survive despite what havoc it may wreak on the ecosystem around it. So is the alien really that much different from the alien spores eating away at and pillaging what was once a civilization? Physically it bears absolutely no resemblance to us, but its will to survive drives it to kill, feed, and reproduce.

Perhaps sympathy could be derived from the fact that it would not survive if it did not feed, but it’s hard to sympathize with something that has to continually destroy multiple lives, human lives in the context of the film, to subsist. And besides, how can we possibly excuse countless unnecessary killings/murders done not to survive but for sport or out of malice, even if one has had a tough lot in life such as Myers?

And what of situations where we may find ourselves subconsciously rooting for the monster as we do in Silence of the Lambs for Hannibal Lecter? Thanks to his intellect and charm, is that more a reflection of Lecter or of the audience? What does that say about us? Additionally, can we truly call what we feel for Lecter sympathy, or perhaps more of a camaraderie?

The point is this: in horror films the monster is virtually always a subject of interest due to its complexity; any resulting sympathy is usually fleeting as a consequence of the function of its existence as the projected Other more than anything else. The monster or Other serves a purpose—in its inscrutability, it is easy to project our fears and anxieties, and as it is so unlike us, it makes it easier to banish or kill. There is a terrific episode of Black Mirror that deals with this notion of “Otherizing” in war-time. As with the alien in Alien, there is perhaps more linking the monster to the audience than the audience would care to admit, depending on who is doing the seeing and their level of honesty about themselves and what they would do to survive. In any case, a feeling of sympathy is a reflection of removal from a situation. Empathy is where one projects oneself into the shoes of another, so to speak.

This is why the study of Alien and Silence of the Lambs is so interesting. The two monsters could, on the surface, not be more different. Yet they both inhabit a similar space in our cultural framework. The alien is truly not us; it is another species. Hannibal Lecter has committed one of the greatest taboos in Western society: cannibalism. Lecter may not be able to help his cannibalistic nature, but in a way he is more inhuman than the alien. There is a certain amount of ritual involved in his killings. He is so cold and calculating on the one hand that he is almost inhuman. Yet he is also the epitome of what humans once aimed for: he is cultured, he is intellectual, and he values things like art and classical music—in this respect the alien has human characteristics. Yet it is motivated by a profoundly base desire of survival. The alien forces us to consider what we would do in order to survive. It is difficult to forgive the alien for surviving when its life costs numerous human lives, members of our tribe so to speak, but the survival of humanity revolves around the consumption of other organisms. How are humans any different to the alien than cattle or chickens are to humans? Does the alien know morality? As it clearly does not, survival or no, the alien must be expelled. To embrace this alien, especially at the expense of one’s own, is to commit suicide.

Hannibal Lecter’s consumption of human flesh is a luxury, as he does not have to eat it strictly from a needs standpoint—there are plenty of other food options available. He is compelled to consume human flesh simply because psychologically he feels that he has to. What would we do if there was no other option to survive other than to consume human flesh? The aversion to cannibalism is quite pronounced in Western culture, and for good reason, but in many non-Western societies, it is still relatively commonplace. The idea of cannibalism sickens us, but it also fascinates us. The multifaceted elements of Lecter absolutely captivate us as an audience. Lecter looks like us in a way that the alien does not, but in many ways he is far more alien.

To my mind, Lecter is the embodiment of the cosmopolitan “elite” occupying positions of power and trying to play God.

Most horror films on the surface are a force of good pitted against a force of evil. Clarice Starling is a force of good—she is moral and she is a servant of the law. She upholds the law and is thus a reflection of our morals as a society. Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill are the Other; their behavior is completely unacceptable according to our cultural values. We do not condone eating people or killing them and fashioning accessories out of their skin, although there seems to be a very odd and deeply disconcerting fascination in the “trans community” with Buffalo Bill.

We do condone bringing people like Buffalo Bill to justice according to our laws and confining them away from the rest of society. In fact, most would favor retributive justice, resulting in execution of the cannibal, belying the notion that liberalism is natural. Regarding the alien, whether it is cognizant of its crimes or not, this does not concern us at the basest level. What concerns us—what should concern us at any rate—is our own survival.

In the case of Silence of the Lambs we have Clarice, who despite getting help from Hannibal Lecter to catch Buffalo Bill, does not deviate from her ultimate goal of catching the killer and bringing him to justice. Despite her relationship with Lecter, when he manages to get free from prison, Clarice does not maintain the collaborative spirit. Rather, despite the long odds, she attempts to get him to reveal something about his location over the phone. She does not compromise her morals. Conversely, Lecter does not have an ideology as a man governed by base desires, yet completely in touch with the most refined aspects of high our culture while, and this is crucial, being himself an alien.

The same fascination with back-story, the unseen, and the monster extends to Silence of the Lambs. We see very little of the true horrors of Hannibal Lecter in the film, and perhaps that is why it is so easy to be seduced by his humor and charm. It isn’t until the countless other sequels that we get more than a glimpse into the depths evil that this man commits. The idea of his actions being off-screen, his past shrouded in mystery, so much of this man unseen, is a very Gothic idea. David Sexton writes:

Another bloodline passes through Stoker’s Dracula. We learn in Hannibal that, like Dracula, Lecter is a central European aristocrat. His father, too, was a count and he believes himself to be descended from a twelfth-century Tuscan named Bevisangue (blood-drinker). Like Dracula, Lecter drains his victims. After meeting him for the first time, Clarice Starling feels ‘suddenly empty, as though she had given blood’. Lecter, like Dracula, has superhuman strength; he commands the beasts; and he lives in the night. Barney, the warder, tells Clarice on her second visit that Lecter is always awake at night, ‘even when his lights are off’. Many of his physical attributes resemble those of Dracula. ‘His cultured voice has a slight metallic rasp beneath it, possibly from disuse’, we are told in The Silence of the Lambs. Dracula, says Stoker, speaks in a ‘harsh, metallic whisper’. Dracula’s eyes are red, Jonathan Harker realises when he first meets him, in the guise of a coachman. Later, when he sees Dracula with his female acolytes, he says: ‘The red light in them was lurid, as if the flames of hell-fire blazed behind them.’ So too: ‘Dr Lecter’s eyes are maroon and they reflect the light in pinpoints of red. Sometimes the points of light seem to fly like sparks to his centre.’[1]

In direct opposition to the red of Dracula and Lecter is the red of consanguinity, or shared blood, the bonds of which, indeed, are thicker than water (typically colored or referred to as blue). The red is a nation’s life-blood, a nation that obviously cannot survive without its people.

The precise point at which all of this alienism radiates outward in the modern world is with a hostile “elite” that is itself alien. Of course the “elite” is not exclusively Jewish, but it has become, by necessity as a survival mechanism, philo-Semitic. In order to understand the illness slowly killing Western civilization it is crucial to trace the symptoms back to the source, to the cause of the illness. To quote Revilo P. Oliver, “The culture of the West, like every viable civilization, is a unity in the sense that its parts are organically interdependent. Although architecture, music, literature, the mimetic arts, science, economics, and religion may seem at first glance more or less unrelated, they are all constituent parts of the cultural whole, and the disease of any one will sooner or later affect all the others.” The illness is in large part born of a unique evolutionary quirk of the White race which has mutated into a self-destructive pathology. This pathology has been encouraged and exploited by a Jewish minority for its own gain in parasitic fashion, but which is ultimately maladaptive, for it causes the death of the host. By understanding Jewish influence and domination of each constituent part of the cultural whole it becomes clear that, be it the music industry, activism in the form of “social justice” and “feminism,” alcohol, opioid-producing pharmaceutical companies, pornography, the retail industry, the movie industry, finance, or the media, the negative Jewish influence is poisoning each and every part, not just one, the over-lap and mutual reinforcement of each “facet” of this imposed and alien anti-culture only serving to hasten the illness into its terminal stages.

The anxiety over the infiltration of borders is consistent throughout history in the rise, decline, and fall of once-mighty world powers. Late Georgian and Victorian England may be considered one example among many. Hyper-aware of their status as the preeminent world power, and thus a highly desirable immigration destination, Victorians in particular became fearful of, or at the very least concerned with, alien resettlement in England, particularly from Eastern Europe (read: Jewish) but also Ireland, and a distinct discourse regarding the so-called Other in poetry and fiction as diverse as Tennyson’s “The Lotus-Eaters” and Bram Stoker’s Dracula ruminated on the changing composition of England.

Though Dracula, for example, pre-dates the post-World War II acceleration in the numbers of “guest workers” in Europe and the recent flood of “migrants” who have proven to be infinitely deleterious to the fabric of society, it spoke specifically to this anxiety of the Other, which in many ways remains prevalent in the general populace, but stands in stark contrast to the elites’ One World narrative. After all, Dracula and Lecter prove themselves to be subversive forces, as opposed to the naked onslaught of a zombie horde or a massive green alien. But for the discerning eye, Lecter and Dracula look just like us, they move among us, they converse with us and assume aristocratic qualities. For Greg Buzwell:

Dracula’s forays into London, for example, and his ability to move unnoticed through the crowded streets while carrying the potential to afflict all in his path with the stain of vampirism, play upon late-Victorian fears of untrammelled immigration. The latter was feared as leading to increased levels of crime and the rise of ghetto communities. Dracula creates several lairs in the metropolis, including one in Chicksand Street, Whitechapel—an area notorious for the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888—and one in Bermondsey, the location of Jacob’s Island—the low-life rookery immortalised by Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist. … Such fears, which Dracula mirrors very closely, ultimately lay behind the introduction of The Aliens Act of 1905, which was put in place largely to stem immigration from Eastern Europe.[2]

The course of events in Britain, from “elite” subversion to the eventual push-back—which came too late—is witnessed almost identically, but at a slight delay, in the United States.

This wave of immigration led to a growing unease in terms of concerns about the degree of (mis- or non-) assimilation of these immigrants into English society, even, in fact, their very presence. Fears of invasion and contamination were not only expressed at this time in public discourse, but also in textual examples of the period. Dracula is a foreign invader, coming to England to buy up land and take women—“Your girls that you all love are mine already.” This invader emerged from the lands where the Huns had initially settled in Europe before their excursions against Rome, and in part evokes the image of the malicious barbarian from beyond the frontier. Dracula the character also embodies the literary trope of the “Wandering Jew.” Dracula is both new and old. As Jonathan Harker writes in his journal: “It is the nineteenth century up-to-date with a vengeance. And yet, unless my senses deceive me, the old centuries had, and have powers of their own which mere ‘modernity’ cannot kill.”

The parallels with today’s situation are striking, and indeed have accelerated even further. On top of the fact that the state of Qatar owns more London real estate than the crown, consider the proliferation of mosques as nodes or alien spores of conquest throughout British cities in general, much as Dracula bought up property throughout London. Victorian fears of the rapacious Other, so lampooned as grotesque exaggeration, have come to be realized in a modern culture unwilling or unable to confront the ramifications of what this might mean. Victorian England articulated a very clear set of norms governing sexual, economic, and social behavior. Breaking them could result in severe consequences (see, for instance, the Oscar Wilde trials in the 1890s). Dracula is the physical, over-determined manifestation of the collective fears of Victorian England. At willful odds with the rigid social code, Dracula literally punctures the surface of Victorian sensibility. For Anthony Wohl: “Popular literature assigned similar characteristics to the Irish, blacks and members of the lower classes. [They] were seen as: having no religion but only superstition, [being] excessively sexual, and [originating from] unknown dark lands or territories.” The id’s drive is at the center of horror, and the prohibitive measures taken to rectify societal transgressions stem from these primal impulses. Indeed, these tensions between societal expectations and basic impulses are at the heart of civilization; the ability to restrain oneself, to delay gratification and behave with morality and purpose for something greater than oneself, is what differentiates civilization from barbarism.

Continues David Sexton, “Lecter is the face that looks back at us out of our own boredom. He is our monster, the evil we embrace for our diversion. And he feeds on us.” Lecter is in the last nothing without the spectacle. Sexton elaborates:

In Hannibal, this idea is made explicit in a manner distinctly reminiscent of the accusation embedded in ‘Au Lecteur’. Lecter attends the exhibition of Atrocious Torture Instruments, but not to look at the exhibits. He faces the other way, back at the spectators, for his thrills. ‘The essence of the worst, the true asafœtida of the human spirit, is not found in the Iron Maiden or the whetted edge; elemental ugliness is found in the faces of the crowd,’ the oracular narrative voice proclaims. … Barney warns Dr Chilton, as he says goodbye to Lecter, that his new guards don’t know how to deal with him. ‘You think they’ll treat him right? You know how he is—you have to threaten him with boredom. That’s all he’s afraid of. Slapping him around’s no good.’ But ennui is not just his fear—‘Any rational society would either kill me or give me my books’—it’s his origin. Lecter uses his own boredom as a threat to others. When he is extracting the story of the silence of the lambs from Clarice and she is not delivering what he wants, he says, ‘If you’re tired, we could talk towards the end of the week. I’m rather bored myself.’[3]

We are pleased when the alien is destroyed, and when Buffalo Bill is brought to justice, but what about the typical response to Lecter? The audience feels a certain camaraderie with him; they delight in his ability to outsmart everyone, and they are seduced by his charms. Yet what if Lecter was a real man, how would the general public regard him? The alien is an outright monster, completely inhuman. Hannibal looks like any of us, yet his crimes are arguably more heinous, more, dare I say, inhuman. In reality, a man like Lecter would delight in the media spectacle that his actions would create; the general public would at once revile him and be drawn to him. In our culture of spectacle, Lecter and the audience alike crave attention and publicity, to “survive,” and one reflects the other insofar as the current culture is constructed, or de-constructed as the case may be.

However, the reality is that the audience would not just survive but thrive without Lecter or Dracula draining them, distracting them, arresting them. Just as the alien needs organisms to survive and reproduce, Dracula and Lecter are also strictly parasites. Without the attention, Lecter exists in a vacuum: his works, his psychological ploys, go unnoticed. He would simply wither away. Similarly, Dracula must seduce, corrupt, and draw “life” from life to sustain his living death, adding to his coterie or harem if you like. As with Lucifer, he is only as strong as others are weak, and very often relies on others to do his bidding or to do the dirty work for him. It is more manipulation than real power. This recalls the modern invention of the “masculine” financier and his violence—“making a killing,” as the case may be, which originated in the 1980s with the explosion in the Jewish-driven “financialization” of the economy, which more often than not took the form of the criminal, often in name but certainly in fact. Jewish conquest of the alien other. Though less culturally-pervasive, this “legacy” remains with us today. As Leigh Claire La Barge writes:

First reporting in 1982 on a new category of businessmen, the corporate raiders, the New York Times noted that “they have even developed their own language laced with images of aggression and sexual conquest.” Soon after, periodicals quit analyzing this language and began employing it. Time’s description of venture capitalist Arthur Rock, the man who arranged the initial financing for Apple, as one of “the men who make the killings,” is one of many examples. … Ellis’s text uses financial, journalistic language to synthesize…different texts, all unified by the representation of the masculine financier and his violence.[4]

This interpretation is almost exactly correct, although the conflation of masculinity and violence through this lens does a disservice to masculinity; it is a displaced masculinity, not a true masculinity, which finds gain as the measure of a man. Such an internal conflation could only occur by a certain kind of man, in a certain set of social, political, and economic conditions, where everything must fall under the aegis of The Market’s overlords, and in this Doppelganger World, it is the anarchists and communists who carry water for global capital.

[1] Sexton, David, “Mr. Harris’s cookbooks,” August 18, 2001. Guardian Saturday Review.

[2] Buzwell, Greg, “Dracula: vampires, perversity and Victorian anxieties,” 2014. Discovering Literature: Romantics and Victorians.

[3] Sexton, David, “Mr. Harris’s cookbooks,” August 18, 2001. Guardian Saturday Review.

[4] La Barge, Leigh Clare, “The Men Who Make the Killings: American Psycho, Financial Masculinity, and 1980s Financial Print Culture,” 2010. Studies in American Fiction 37 (2).