Featured Articles

An Un-Civil War, Part 2

/24 Comments/in , /by

Part 1 of “An Un-Civil War” focused on the MSM’s sins of commission. The Left-leaning MSM (but I repeat myself) has been obsessed with destroying Trump by any means possible. The MSM is quite happy with any tactic at all, whether it’s wiretapping, leaking, indicting, slander, it doesn’t matter what. They would be happy to use his comments on race to impeach him, or maybe the Mueller investigation will pan out, or, if these don’t work we can try sexual harassment charges or some old business deals— it doesn’t matter as long as we get him.

Now I turn to the other side of the story, the MSM’s sins of omission — the Anti-Trump bias represented by what the MSM avoids reporting. For the September-November 2017 period, 91% of the Trump coverage was overtly negative, unchanged from the previous quarter. With the overwhelmingly negative coverage of Trump in the national press one must ask, “What would an authentic report on Trump’s presidency after year one look like”? Nobody knows.

One way to assess the Trump presidency thus far is to look back at his campaign promises and see how he’s doing. Although Obamacare is still stands and the Great Wall does not, Trump has engineered a number of important shifts in policy. A short list includes Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court (an unvarnished success), as well as several things high on the establishment GOP wish list: rolling back Obama-era regulation (e.g., Scott Pruitt’s work at the EPA), Mick Mulvaney’s appointment to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the passage of the tax reform bill.

Other campaign promises that Trump has begun to successfully tackle include lifting restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, lifting the Obama roadblocks to allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward, and cancelling billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs to use the money to upgrade America’s infrastructure. Trump also promised his supporters that he would “restore security and the constitutional rule of law by cancelling every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama” and suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur.

But exhibit A in Trump’s successes in his first year is “it’s the economy, stupid.”

The US Economy under Trump

At the one-year anniversary of the election of Donald Trump, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up by an astounding 30 percent, hitting 87 new highs for since the president was elected. That’s the best post-election, one-year performance for a first-term president since Franklin Roosevelt’s in 1932. The Trump stock market easily beats the first years of his recent predecessors. The election of Barack Obama in 2008 was followed by rise of less than 2 percent. Read more

Towards a Global Biopolitics?: A review of Yuval Harari’s Sapiens, Part 2

/35 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1.

European Restlessness and Dynamism

Harari has much good to say about empire in general and about the European colonial empires in particular: “Modern science flourished in and thanks to European empires” (316). This is a point Harari repeatedly drives home: only Europe had the values and institutions necessary to kick-start the positive feedback loop of science, empire, and capital which could create the modern world as we know it.

Harari’s analysis of Western dynamism is entirely congruent with Prof. Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, particularly in his emphasis on the psychological factors behind European dynamism. Harari:

Both scientist and conqueror began by admitting ignorance — they both said, “I don’t know what’s out there.” They both felt compelled to go out and make new discoveries. And they both hoped the new knowledge thus acquired would make them masters of the world. (317)

Harari also reflects Duchesne’s perspective in his observation that non-Europeans, such as the Turks, Persians, Indians, and Chinese, showed little interest in exploration or in creatively exploiting technological breakthroughs. The Chinese for instance for centuries used gunpowder only for fire-crackers (293, 377). Harari says of the massive treasure ships of the Chinese admiral Zheng He, which explored the Indian Ocean during the fifteenth century:

The Zheng He expeditions proved that Europe did not enjoy an outstanding technological edge. What made Europeans exceptional was their unparalleled and insatiable ambition to explore and conquer. (324)

Compare Duchesne who links the expansionist ethos of the West to Indo-European warrior culture:
The expansionist aggression of the West is an inescapable expression of its roots in aristocratic men who are free and therefore headstrong and ambitious, sure of themselves, easily offended, and unwilling to accept quiet subservience. (The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, 481)

Harari notes, as does Duchesne, that non-Europeans were typically ignorant of their own history and culture, and that it was European imperialists who pioneered historical scholarship in India, Persia, and elsewhere. Harari recognizes the atrocities committed by European empires, while noting that such violence is the norm across the world and that there is no such thing as a sinless, non-violent human civilization (228). Harari repeatedly equates the imperial and scientific drives to conquer: “For the modern European conqueror, like the modern European scientist, plunging into the unknown was exhilarating” (328). Read more

Towards a Global Biopolitics?: A review of Yuval Harari’s Sapiens, Part 1

/60 Comments/in /by

Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens (London: Vintage Books, 2014)

Yuval Noah Harari is an Israeli professor of world history and a best-selling author. He lives in the moshav (agricultural cooperative) of Mesilat Zion (founded on Bayt Mahsir, a “depopulated” Palestinian village). He is remarkable not only because of the breadth of his view of history but for his attempt to ground his history in biological science.

Harari published Sapiens in Hebrew in 2011 and it has since been translated into English, making for a perfect airport paperback. The opening flap breathlessly proclaims: “I encourage all of us, whatever our beliefs, to question the basic narratives of our world, to connect past developments with present concerns, and not to be afraid of controversial issues.” The book is adorned with the most prestigious of blurbs: Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Daniel Kahneman, Chris Evans (an establishment historian specializing in the Third Reich), Jared Diamond (a Jewish author who in his famous Guns, Germs, and Steel simultaneously claimed that race played no role in civilizational differences and that Stone Age Papua-New-Guineans are more intelligent than Europeans). Sapiens has over 4,000 customer reviews on Amazon and has been promoted by influential billionaires such as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

All that is enough to make one suspicious, but Sapiens is in fact a very interesting book. And were it not for a catastrophic chapter denying regional human evolution and attributing all racial inequalities to discrimination, I would say this is a good book. Harari provides a stimulating overview of the biological and social changes in human life over the last 200,000 years, a withering critique of egalitarian liberalism as fundamentally in denial about human biological nature, a positive account of the European empires’ massive contribution to science and human development, and even a rather fair and nuanced account of German National Socialism.

This book has a dark side however. Harari is an advocate not just of empire, but of world-empire, and his work is ultimately an apology for a technologically-advanced world dominated by a small, rootless international elite. Read more

Review: The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews — Part Two

/27 Comments/in , , /by

Everard Mercurian (1514-1580)

“Being children of this world, pompous, cunning, fake, self-seeking, etc., it is certain that they fit religious life very badly and that it is impossible to maintain union with them. If those of this blood are made superiors, they employ almost all their government in external things: they promote genuine mortification and solid virtues very little, and seem to be merchants, seeking first seats and being called rabbis; they are hardly eager to seek perfection that is described in the parts 5 and 6 of the Constitutions; and readily admit others of the same blood who are very unworthy.”
Manuel Rodrigues, Jesuit curia in Rome.

Go to Part 1.

The Racial Struggle for the Jesuit Order

The complaints of native Spanish members of the Society of Jesus, regarding the crypto-Jewish Jesuit elite, are remarkably uniform. Predominant among their concerns was the Jewish tendency towards monopoly, nepotism, arrogance, aggressive ambition, and an air of insincerity in the practice of Christianity. Of particular concern was the fact that the Spanish Jesuit Order was becoming an exclusive enclave of influential Jews that stretched out even into the heart of Rome.

The epigraph above, from Manuel Rodrigues, highlights all of these themes, some of which have been empirically demonstrated. For example, the body of research compiled by Maryks and other scholars, and discussed in Part 1, more than provides sufficient evidence in support of the accusation that crypto-Jews were “readily admitting others of the same blood.” Moreover, Benedetto Palmio, an Italian assistant to two native European Jesuit Superior Generals (Francisco de Borja and Everard Mercurian), complained of the “multitude and insolence of Spanish neophytes,” whom he described as a “pestilence (133).” Stressing that “where a New Christian was found, it was impossible to live in peace,” he added that “those who governed in Rome were almost all neophytes. … This sort of people and almost no other were being admitted in Spain (133).” King Phillip II of Spain had by the 1570s taken to describing the Jesuits as a “Synagogue of Hebrews.” (133)

The method of leadership employed by this crypto-Jewish elite was further described by Palmio as despotic. The crypto-Jewish elite in Rome was behaving “not as fathers but as masters (135).” Reflecting age-old Jewish ethnic networking, there were gross ethnic disparities in promotions to high office, with Palmio stressing that “the neophytes want to dominate everywhere and this is why the Society is agitated by the tempest of discords and acrimonies (138).” Conversos were “overly ambitious, insolent, Janus-faced, pretentious, despotic, astute, terrible, greedy for power, and infamous.” (142) Lorenzo Maggio, an Italian Jesuit curia in Rome, complained that “those from the circumcision subverted the entire house of the Society.” (117) Read more

Review: The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews – Part One

/61 Comments/in , /by

The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews: Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus
Robert Aleksander Maryks
Brill, 2010.
Free Download

“Those from the circumcision subverted the entire house of the Society. As sons of this world who are shrewd in dealing with their own, and avid of new things, they easily excite disorders and destroy the unity of souls and their bond with the government.”
          Lorenzo Maggio, Jesuit Curia in Rome, 1586.

One of the more interesting aspects of Jewish group behavior is the presence of subversive strategies employing crypsis, often facilitated by a combination of deception and self-deception. To date, the most forthright and convincing theoretical framework for understanding cryptic forms of Judaism is found in Kevin MacDonald’s groundbreaking Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. A substantial portion of the fourth chapter of the text (1998/2004: 121–132) is devoted to ‘Reactive Racism in the Period of the Iberian Inquisitions.’ Here MacDonald puts forth the view (147) that the blood purity struggles of the Spanish Inquisition during the 15th and 16th centuries should be seen as “an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.” The historical context lies predominantly in the forced conversion of Jews in Spain in 1391, after which these ‘New Christians’ or conversos assumed (or indeed retained) a dominance in the areas of law, finance, diplomacy, public administration, and a wide range of economic activities. MacDonald argues (148) that despite superficial religious conversions, the New Christians “must be considered a historical Jewish group” that acted in such a way as to continue the advance of its ethnic interests. An integral aspect of this was that Wealthy New Christians purchased and endowed ecclesiastical benefices for their children, with the result that many prelates were of Jewish descent.

Indirectly, and almost certainly unintentionally, MacDonald’s arguments find much in the way of corroboration in The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (2010) by Boston College’s Robert Aleksander Maryks. Examining the same geographical area during the same period, Maryks presents an account of the early years of the Society of Jesus, during which a fierce struggle took place for the soul, fate, and control of the Order; a struggle involving a highly influential crypto-Jewish bloc and a competing network of European Christians. In this unpolished but interesting book, Maryks illuminates this struggle with reference to previously undiscovered material, in the process shedding light on some of the most important recurring themes of reactive anti-Semitism: Jewish ethnocentrism, nepotism, the tendency to monopoly, and the strategic use of alliances with European elites. Perhaps most fascinating of all, Maryks makes significant reference to Jewish responses to European efforts to stifle their influence, some of which are remarkable in the close manner in which they parallel modern examples of Jewish apologetic propaganda. As such, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews is highly recommended for anyone seeking to understand, via an easily-digested historical case study, the dynamics of the ethnic conflict between Jews and Europeans. Read more

Opioids and the Crisis of the White Working Class

/72 Comments/in /by

A sense of betrayal seems to lie just behind today’s political discourse—a feeling of being left behind, a suspicion that those at the top, in media, corporations, politics, academia, and finance, have motives and goals at odds with those of the broader population. Put simply, Americans of all backgrounds fear and loathe a hostile elite. Political memes like “the Deep State,” “the 1%,” “Drain the Swamp,” “the Davos Set,” and “Masters of the Universe” each capture this feeling of alienation, suspicion, and helplessness.

Historically speaking, class rivalry is hardly unusual. But a political situation in which a ruling elite is actively hostile towards the population it governs is quite rare, but not without precedent.

With conservatives, the immigration question brings these feelings of betrayal to the surface, perhaps in their most pronounced form. The popularity of the chant “Build The Wall!” reveals this. “The Wall” is tacitly understood, by those who resonate with it, as a means of re-gaining control over their communities and country. In turn, both liberals and those who could properly described as political and social elites view “The Wall” as far more than a barrier to illegal entry: it is an attack on their values, if not a direct attack on them.

More than any other issue, the immigration question represents a yawning gap between elite and popular opinion, between the Republican establishment and its White voting base. If U.S. immigration policy since 1965—beginning with the Hart-Celler Act of that year—had ever been presented honestly, as leading directly to minority status for Whites by the mid-21st century, and if White people could vote on this basis while they were still some 85-90 percent of the country, it might never have passed. In a very real sense, this policy is illegitimate and we should view its effect in changing the demographic balance of the country as illegitimate. As I have argued based on the historical evidence, U.S. immigration policy stemming from the 1965 sea change is the result of the activism of an ascendant Jewish elite that now holds a dominant position in our culture—dominant in the sense that they are able to severely punish those who dissent from this project of racial replacement by, for example, slanting media coverage and threatening loss of job, and it is able to significantly reward those who go along with it—everyone who has any aspirations to public life understands what can and cannot be said, and great careers await those who go along with the system.[1] This change in the demographic balance of the country was accomplished by promulgating a new “science” of race, stemming ultimately from Franz Boas and his protégés and entrenched in the top academic institutions, by founding and funding lobbying groups and positive media coverage.

The second component of this onslaught is that so many Whites are enthusiastically engaged in this project. They understand the reward-punishment choices and go along with them. Furthermore, many Whites are genuinely motivated by feelings of guilt and a desire to be virtuous—a virtue defined by incessant propaganda emanating from elite universities and media and facilitated by a science of race and by invidious, politically and ethnically motivated historical accounts of the history of White America. Others are motivated by misguided, suicidal dedication to “principles”—especially the individualist inheritance of Constitutional government, individual liberty, etc.

The theme here is the same—betrayal by a hostile elite and complicity of many of our own people targeting a vulnerable population which they hold in contempt. Read more

Lies, Spies and Harvey Weinstein: Thoughts on Jewish Behaviour and the Pervnado

/38 Comments/in /by

As a newspaper committed to improving the world, the Guardian is passionately pro-migrant and anti-racist. If a single migrant’s rights are threatened by racism and xenophobia anywhere in the world, it is swift to report, rebuke and provide a voice for the powerless. Deportation is cruel and unjust, the Guardian insists, and in the closing weeks of 2017 it has published the moving stories of a Jamaican in Britain, an Afghan in Germany and an Iranian in Papua New Guinea. These three vibrant migrants are all threatened with deportation by authoritarian states and, as we would expect, all three find a staunch ally in the Guardian.

40,000 unheard voices

So what happens when not three but forty thousand vibrant migrants are threatened with deportation by an authoritarian state? Have the Guardian’s cries of horror rung to the very heavens? Has it published story after story, defending the migrants’ rights and denouncing the state in question? Strangely, the answer is no. There have been no cries of horror and no stories. When I visited the Guardian’s dedicated section on “Refugees,” I did not find a single word about this heinous assault on migrants’ rights. The Guardian has turned off its principles and closed its eyes, just as it did during the decades of horror inflicted on vulnerable working-class girls in Rotherham.

Israel rejects enrichment

But the Guardian isn’t alone. As VDare has pointed out, this huge assault on migrant rights has been almost ignored by the Western media. Newsweek was one of the rare exceptions:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 28-member executive cabinet [has] voted unanimously to close Israel’s Holot detention center and give African asylum seekers three months to leave the country or face deportation to an undisclosed country. If they refuse to go, they will be imprisoned indefinitely. The proposal will now be considered by the Israeli legislature, where it is expected to pass.

“The infiltrators will have the option to be imprisoned or leave the country,” Israel’s Ministry of Public Security said in a statement. Officials also said that the mass deportations are meant “to protect the Jewish and democratic character” of Israel. The Israeli government says that there are 38,043 African migrants living in the country, most of them hailing from war-torn countries such as Eritrea and South Sudan, having illegally crossed the Israeli border between 2007 and 2012. …

“This is the right policy to ease the suffering of residents in South Tel Aviv and other neighborhoods where the infiltrators reside,” Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, who initiated the deportation proposal, said on Sunday, according to Voice of America.  … Netanyahu has even promised that he will “return South Tel Aviv to the citizens of Israel,” claiming that the African migrants “are not refugees, but infiltrators looking for work.” …

Critics say that Israel’s acceptance rate of asylum seekers from these nations is considerably lower than that of most developed countries; according to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, Israel has recognized only eight Eritrean and two Sudanese asylum seekers as refugees since 2009. … Israel and its partner governments say that it plans to give asylum seekers the basic necessities to start their new lives in a new country. But a 2014 investigation by Haaretz found that asylum seekers who “voluntarily departed” Israel for Rwanda “arrived in the country with no status, no permits and no path to livelihood.” Furthermore, “some were directed from Rwanda to Uganda with no warning and no infrastructure in place.” … (Jewish Groups Denounce Israel’s Plans to Deport 40,000 African Asylum Seekers, Newsweek, 24th November 2017)

Read more