Featured Articles

Who pulls the strings of Femen and Pussy Riot?

/30 Comments/in /by

Christmas is a wonderful time at the Paris city centre church of La Madeleine. The magnificent vaulted ceilings echo to the sounds of baroque organ music and the choir rehearsing for the famous Christmas Eve concerts.  But mainly it is a haven where generations of devout Catholics sit, pray and re-charge their spiritual batteries.

Then last December 20 it became the scene of an obscenity. A young woman, naked to the waist apart from a blue veil, marched to the altar and proceeded to enact an “abortion” using a calf’s liver as a foetus. Then while screaming pro-abortion slogans she proceeded to urinate on the altar.  After striking defiant poses for photographers she walked calmly back out.

Radical feminist street outrage group Femen had struck again and were duly rewarded with a flood of fawning international TV, print and online coverage.  Six years after they were launched in Kiev, Femen have become the one of the most fashionable brands in radical politics with guaranteed coverage for their lurid antics and an endless stream of pretty young women willing to make spectacles of themselves for the cameras.

The toxic combination of narcissism, weaponised female rage and bare breasts has made them media darlings. They now have chapters in nine cities across the world including Rio, London, Frankfurt, Paris and Tel Aviv. Read more

The Maoists of #Ferguson: Why the Media Blackout?

/27 Comments/in , /by

Out of all the photos I have seen of the protests, looting, arson, etc. regarding the recent decision to not indict Officer Darren Wilson, by far the most interesting ones are those featuring Maoists.

No, that was not a typo. In fact it was a very precise descriptor: Maoists, while being Communists, are a specific type of Communist; as their name implies, they are the variety of Communists that particularly admire Mao Zedong, as opposed to Lenin, Trotsky, etc. While not exactly numerous, there are some Maoists in the United States, and they come out in full force in the latest protests sweeping the nation.

They look like regular protesters, I know, but they have little giveaways that are easy to spot once you know a bit more about them. The easiest giveaway is the URL “revcom.us”, which is the website of the Maoist group, Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). Since Conservatism Inc. throws around the slur “Communist” on a fairly regular basis, I fear I might be coming off as a bit hyperbolic by calling these people Communists, so allow me to list a few of the RCP’s beliefs to show that I am not bloviating:

Exploring their website is a wonderland of insanity, perhaps you fine readers could check it out yourselves and post in the comments the zaniest things you can find (my vote is for their claim that “slow genocide” against blacks in Latinos is being committed in the US). What is of course important to remember, is that the RCP is doing its best to advertise their website on the occasion of all this #Ferguson unpleasantness, which is why the URL is always splashed across their banners, posters, etc:

 

Another giveaway that you are looking at RCPers is their t-shirts. Again, you need to know what to look for to spot anything, so let’s take a look at some of their products on their Zazzle page:

Unfortunately, the Zazzle page is a bit out of date, and their website does not seem to have an “apparel” section. However, an immigration restrictionist blogger took some excellent shots of RCP t-shirts at a May Day rally two years ago:

There are several constants you can find in all, or almost all, of the clothing: the word “revolution” in yellow/orange, the phrase “revolution, nothing less”, references to “BA” as in “Bob Avakian”, and “the whole damn system is guilty” and “get with the real revolution,” and more often than not, the URL revcom.us. Let’s take another look at some more protesters:

 

See the “BA Speaks”? Note too the woman in the background with a shirt that has similar lettering and coloring.

Note the “revcom.us” on the banner, and the woman with the fop of blonde hair in the lower left with a “Revolution — Nothing Less” shirt.

For those of you who think I may be “stretching” in assuming what certain apparel says when almost all of the photos leave the matter far from crystal clear, you should explore the revcom.us website once again. Consider how when the RCP released a DVD of Bob Avakian giving a talk, the cover of it read, “BA Speaks: Revolution — Nothing Less” with “Get With It” scrawled along the bottom of the DVD in faux-graffiti style. “Revolution — Nothing Less” is in the same fire-like orange/yellow, as is the word “Revolution” in their official newspaper, which is called “Revolution”. Referencing Bob Avakian as “BA” is very common within the RCP as well, there is even a book they released called BAsics, which is a “greatest hits” compilation of writings by Bob Avakian, and is advertised with the slogan “You can’t change the world if you don’t know the BAsics”.

As you have likely noticed, the RCPers seem more prevalent on the Left Coast generally, and Oakland particularly. Aside from the obvious political reasons for this, the RCP is based in Berkeley as well, and is known to cause trouble during local protests, like five years ago after the shooting of Oscar Grant in San Francisco. Regardless, they certainly get around. Last year they were spotted in Florida to protest the innocent verdict in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair, which the Daily Caller made note of briefly, but got the name of the group wrong, claiming they were with the CPUSA instead of the RCP, as their banners proudly made clear. A more talented journalist at the San Francisco Weekly wrote an interesting piece taking a look at the RCP’s attempts to recruit by way of the anti-Zimmerman verdict protests that took place last year — and their attempts to recruit by way of most any protest that is sweeping the nation.

As they have tried so many times in the past, like with Occupy Wall Street, the RCP is now trying to gain new recruits through the latest leftist craze. I would here like to make clear that I am in no way suggesting that the RCP is behind the protests as a whole — there is no evidence for that — or that they will succeed in co-opting the protests. Their numbers are quite small, and every RCPer that I have met (about six) has been over the age of sixty — except one man who was in his forties, and their obvious over-eagerness to talk to young people about “the revolution” is embarrassingly unappealing. They have also been known to alienate even people who might be inclined to join them. When I lived in Chicago I knew several lefties who loathed the RCP because they made a habit of swarming “spoken word” events and shamelessly trying to recruit even during the presentations.

Even within the Marxian left they have numerous enemies. The “International Communist League”, with is Trotskyist instead of Maoist in pedigree, has repeatedly attacked the RCP for (in their opinion) their puritanical anti-sex beliefs, suffering from a “cult of personality” around Bob Avakian, and being homophobic. Other groups have attacked them for being too sympathetic to the Democrats, and even groups as radical as the “Kasama Project”, who support the Maoist rebels in Nepal, have published lengthy attacks on the RCP. In short, the RCP likes to think of itself as a vanguard – but they have not even managed to unite all of the American Maoists under their banner, making them a candidate for what Greg Johnson has called “Vantardism.”

What the RCP’s presence at all of these protests does show, however, is the shocking extent of the left and the dominant media’s double standard. Not one website I pulled these photos from explained by way of captions what the RCP is or what they represent, presumably because it would conflict with the idea that the protests are entirely a spontaneous grass roots movement by Blacks. I have been watching plenty of CNN these last few days as well, and have seen RCPers protesting live, accompanied by live commentary from newscasters who were invariably mute on the topic of the RCP.

How can this be when any conservative with ties to American Renaissance invariably finds himself purged from “respectable” circles, always to the delight and at the behest of the media? The media loves to do guilt-by-association pieces when the want to go after conservative causes, but we don’t see that here.

Not pointing out that apologists for Mao and Stalin are prominently present at protests against supposed “state violence” is a great example of media bias. Let it serve as another reminder that in the name of their egalitarian agenda, they will justify or ignore just about anything.

A Critical Look at Rush Limbaugh, Part 1 of 2

/48 Comments/in , /by

Part One: “Pursuit of Excellence” vs. Getting Along by Going Along

With his millions of listeners, and the many imitators who in turn influence millions more, Rush Limbaugh has been a major force in shaping American politics for a quarter of a century. Recently when Charles Schumer spoke on the Senate floor about the impending announcement of Obama’s “executive action” benefiting illegal aliens, he specifically referred to Rush Limbaugh as the critic who had been causing the public to regard it as an amnesty. Whether or not one has any respect for Limbaugh, he and the nature of his influence are worth evaluating.

When he began his afternoon radio-show on the ABC Radio Network in 1988, Rush Limbaugh seemed to be a fresh populist voice from Middle America. The most conspicuous fact about him, what was probably most important in winning a loyal following, was his flamboyant rejection of White guilt, especially White male guilt. Limbaugh portrayed a calculated pomposity (behind which he seemed genuinely humble) and ridiculed those who would cow the White man with demands of sensitivity for this or that victimhood-group. At times he could even be “racially insensitive” (although not quite as much as Bob Grant, who aired after Limbaugh locally on WABC during the early years and habitually referred to Negro criminals as “savages”). David Letterman’s quip, “Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have,” which Limbaugh adopted and has repeated thousands of times over the years, is emblematic of Limbaugh’s overall theme of flamboyantly defying and rejecting guilt — especially in the form of demands to show sympathy for various victimhood-groups.

Most of Limbaugh’s targets for insensitive treatment were relatively safe to ridicule — homeless people, feminists, ecologists, sexual deviants, et al.

Regarding Blacks, he would make frequent criticisms, but always maintaining a certain ambiguity — if nothing else, with the pretense that Blacks were potentially equal and could do as well as Whites if only the government would stop setting back their progress by helping them. (Is there anybody who does not understand that the supposed harm done to Blacks is not the real concern there?) It may have been necessary to maintain some ambiguity in his outward attitude toward Blacks in order to continue as a commercial broadcaster touching in a controversial way on racial issues. There can be little doubt that the reason why Limbaugh has retained a Black call-screener for many years is that it creates an impediment to labeling him a racist, despite whatever attitudes might become apparent in his broadcast. Read more

Influencing How Jews Are Seen in China: It’s All about Nobel Prizes and Tolerance of Dissent

/72 Comments/in , /by
Tablet has an article reflecting Jewish angst over the possibility that the Chinese might think that Jews run America (“The Chinese Believe That the Jews Control America. Is That a Good Thing?“). Unlike in the U.S. where the ADL will threaten the livelihood of anyone who says that Jews have any power or influence, one might think that the Chinese are free to make up their own minds about the subject based on rigorous academic research. Think again.

“Do the Jews Really Control America?” asked one Chinese newsweekly headline in 2009. The factoids doled out in such articles and in books about Jews in China—for example: “The world’s wealth is in Americans’ pockets; Americans are in Jews’ pockets”—would rightly be seen to be alarming in other contexts. But in China, where Jews are widely perceived as clever and accomplished, they are meant as compliments. Scan the shelves in any bookstore in China and you are likely to find best-selling self-help books based on Jewish knowledge. Most focus on how to make cash. Titles range from 101 Money Earning Secrets From Jews’ Notebooksto Learn To Make Money With the Jews.

The Chinese recognize, and embrace, common characteristics between their culture and Jewish culture. Both races have a large diaspora spread across the globe. Both place emphasis on family, tradition, and education. Both boast civilizations that date back thousands of years. In Shanghai, I am often told with nods of approval that I must be intelligent, savvy, and quick-witted, simply because of my ethnicity. While it is true that the Chinese I’ve met are fascinated by—rather than fear—the Jews, these assertions make me deeply uncomfortable.

“Deeply uncomfortable.” The author, Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore, is proud that the Chinese understand that Jews are powerful and influential in the U.S. But she sees the situation from the standpoint of an American Jew for whom ideas that Jews have power or control are anathema because such ideas touch on major themes of historical anti-Semitism, such as media control.

Read more

“The Wolf of Wall Street” — the Movie

/19 Comments/in , , /by

As we recently saw with my review of Jordan Belfort’s bestseller The Wolf of Wall Street, there are many pronounced Jewish themes in the memoir. Frankly, I’d never noticed the book, but this year I did get the DVD of the film based on the book, and that alerted me.

Begin with this howler: As the diminutive Jewish stock fraudster Jordan Belfort, director Martin Scorsese chose none other than six-foot-tall, (sometimes) blond-haired Leonardo DiCaprio. This has to go down as one of the most egregious miscastings in Hollywood history.

Why did it happen?

I will argue that this is a classic case of Hollywood deceiving the public, and I have plenty of evidence for this.

In the film, at exactly five minutes into the story — just after DiCaprio’s character has snorted cocaine with a hundred dollar bill and done a little trick by making us think “this shit” (cocaine) will make you invincible, when it fact he means the money he is using as a straw — he launches into a speech as he enters his busy trading floor:

See, money doesn’t just buy you a better life — better food, better cars, better pussy — it also makes you a better person. You can give generously to the church, or political party of your choice. Save the fuckin’ spotted owl with money.  [emphasis added]

“To the church.” In his memoir from which the film springs, Belfort is refreshingly forthright that he is Jewish — and that all but one close associate is Jewish — as are the majority of his traders. Now in the film — which “happened” to open on Christmas Day 2013 — we are informed that rich people like DiCaprio’s Belfort can give “to the church,” not synagogue or ADL or Jewish think tank. It is this kind of subtle deception that would, in my view, prevent the vast, vast majority of Gentile viewers from understanding that these financial criminals are Jewish. Read more

“Vote for Us, You Miserable Scum”: Mammon, Marx and Miliband

/23 Comments/in , /by

“We want your votes, you miserable scum.” That has long been the private attitude of the Labour party to the White working class. Now a senior Labour MP has made it public. No wonder Ed Miliband is said to have been “incandescent.” You’ve heard of point-and-splutter. Here’s some point-and-sneer, a photograph tweeted by a Labour MP called Emily Thornberry during the Rochester by-election, which has just given UKIP its second MP. She was sneering at White working-class patriotism, as expressed by the red cross of St George, England’s patron saint. But there’s more to the photo than that. She was expressing contempt for White working-class men in particular. “White van man” is a shorthand in England for self-employed tradesmen who carry their tools around in a white van. They’re rough, they’re crude and they’re not politically correct.

That’s why the modern Labour party hates them, as a Labour peer called Lord Glasman admitted in 2011:

In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. [Labour’s] commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class. (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)

Read more

Ferguson will speed up the racialization of American politics

/70 Comments/in , /by

Fifty years after the Civil Rights movement and six years into the “post-racial” Obama presidency, we have Ferguson. A TOO theme is that politics in the US and other Western countries is getting steadily more racialized as Whites and non-Whites gravitate to separate political parties with vastly divergent interests and attitudes. Ferguson will accelerate this process. Apart from those Whites who make a living in the bastions of liberal power in the media and academic world (e.g., this incredible piece in Salon [or this one by a non-White professor who complains that the verdict shows that “White supremacy lives on” from her perch at bucolic Hampshire College] or this predictable reaction from a local Black politician), the great majority of Whites will see this as a justified shooting in which an out-of-control, enraged, and very physically imposing Black thug attacked a White police officer.

That’s what the evidence pointed to, and St. Louis prosecuting attorney Robert McCulloch made it clear that some of the testimony implicating Officer Wilson was wildly at odds with the facts of the case. To put it charitably, these people saw what they wanted to see, and the Black underclass and the Black activists went all in with that narrative. Obama’s statement that the anger was “understandable” is outrageous since the anger flies in the face of the evidence. And even if you buy the idea that what happened in the past at least makes the reaction understandable, it certainly doesn’t justify an indictment, much less the shooting, burning and looting.

White America watching the TV coverage once again had its stereotypes of the Black underclass confirmed — irrational, violent, White-hating, and prone to criminality. Implicitly at least, there will be an uptick in race realism. Hollywood’s continuing attempts to stereotype Blacks as intelligent computer experts with the wisdom of Gandhi will face an increasingly uphill battle against reality.  Read more