Featured Articles

Natural Born Citizen? Obama and the Fourth American Revolution, Part 1

/34 Comments/in /by

Introduction

Old-stock Americans need to understand the metapolitical significance of the Presidential election in 2012.  On a strict reading of the Constitution (i.e., in accordance with the “original intent” of the framers and as described more fully below), there can be little doubt that Barack Hussein Obama has never been eligible to the Office of President.

During the 2008 election campaign neither the GOP candidate Senator John McCain—whose own eligibility had been questioned as a consequence of his birth in Panama—nor the globalist mainstream media had the incentive or inclination to compel candidate Obama—so obviously a progressive and cosmopolitan   citizen of the world—to establish that he is a natural born American citizen as required by Article II, section I of the Constitution.

But such negligent disregard for foundational constitutional norms is no longer surprising among political, corporate, and legal elites in the United States.  Already in the early Eighties, when I was a graduate student at Harvard Law School, such formalistic constraints were being reduced to fossilized irrelevance.  Decades of legal realism combined with the nascent critical legal studies movement to foster the legal amnesia implicit in the progressive ideal of the “living constitution.”

Three decades on, bien pensant contempt for “originalism” is even more deeply entrenched upon the commanding heights of the Constitutional Republic.  We can be sure, therefore, that the apparently “unconstitutional” re-election of putative President Obama will not be a story of politics as usual.  It will mark instead yet another momentous turning point in American constitutional history; namely, the inauguration of the Fourth (Transnational) Republic. Read more

Johan Galtung on Jews

/494 Comments/in , , , , /by

Johan Galtung

Johan Galtung is a prominent Norwegian academic, the founder of the field of peace studies and author of more than 100 books and more than 1000 scholarly papers. He has also been officially labeled an anti-Semite as a result of recent statements, at least some of which are sensible.

Galtung believes that historical anti-Semitism is based at least partly on Jewish behavior: On the rise of anti-Jewish attitudes in Germany during the 1920s,  he says that it was “not unproblematic that Jews had key niches in a society humiliated by defeat at Versailles.”

He distinguishes between predicting anti-Jewish behavior and justifying it: “In no way, absolutely no way, does this justify the atrocities. But it created anti-Semitism that could have been predicted.” In the same way, he argues that medieval pogroms were motivated by the role of Jews in usury: “The Jews played a role in demanding payment from indebted peasants.”

This of course violates the dogma that all anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior are completely irrational—the result of things like Christian religious ideology or individual psychopathology—rather than reality-based conflicts of interest. In the modern world, Galtung claims that “the Jews control U.S. media, and divert for the sake of Israel.”

“Six Jewish companies control 96% of the media,” wrote Galtung. He included the names of journalists, publishers, TV networks, and movie studios, that he claims are controlled by Jews. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch was also included on the list. “He’s not Jewish, but many of the people under him are,” wrote Galtung, in reference to Murdoch. “Many of them are fanatically pro-Israel,” he pointed out. Immediately following these claims, Galtung wrote that “seventy percent of the professors at the 20 most important American universities are Jewish.” Galtung bases his doctrine on an article written by William Luther Pierce, founder of the “National Alliance,” a white supremacist organization.

In a later article defending his position, Galtung provides some great quotes, as from Ruth Wisse of Harvard: “to young Jewish journalists, that they should not ‘see themselves as seekers after wisdom and truth, but as part of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (13/02/12).”

The  issue of the loyalty of American Jews is a canard?? Read more

Research on Pornography and the Sexualization of Culture

/221 Comments/in , , /by

Lasha Darkmoon’s current TOO article provides case studies illustrating the sexual deviance of some of the main promoters of pornography. The question here is whether the availability of pornography is bad for Whites or, indeed, for any group.

Historically, explicit sexuality was a taboo in all Western societies. Growing up Catholic in the 1950s, one was aware that sexually explicit material was far underground and that it was eminently disreputable. Implicitly and perhaps explicitly in some circles, pornography was seen as incompatible with the social utility of creating social supports for marriage based on love and affection between partners; marriage thus conceived encourages fertility and provides an ideal environment for children.

Implicitly at least, there was a recognition that sex is a strong biological urge, an attitude that no evolutionary psychologist would question. The basic findings of research on pornography fit well with the evolutionary theory of sex: males are naturally more attracted to pornography than females because males benefit from relatively indiscriminate mating, multiple mates, and depersonalized and even coercive sexual encounters.

Females, on the other hand, are expected to place a greater value on relationships of intimacy and love as signals of male investment in them and their children. Females generally suffer huge costs from indiscriminate mating and from sexual coercion (no paternal investment; bad genes). Because of the demands of pregnancy and lactation, they do not benefit from multiple mates with the result that polyandry is vanishingly rare in human societies. Read more

Masters of Porn: The Systematic Promotion of Sexual Deviance

/373 Comments/in /by

Alfred Kinsey, Time Magazine cover, 1953: “The only unnatural act is that which you cannot perform.”

It comes as a big shock to learn that two of the fathers of the Sexual Revolution were both sexual perverts with an evangelical mission in life: to infect society with their wacky ideas and turn the world into a vast masturbatorium.

I refer to the 2oth century’s premier sex researcher Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956) and his notorious contemporary, cult psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957).

Steeped in the dangerous claptrap of the fraudulent Freud—see here and here—both Kinsey and Reich enthusiastically embraced the laissez-faire Freudian philosophy: “I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life”. Like their Viennese mentor, they would have been only too pleased to add, “If only Americans knew—we are bringing them the plague!”

According to Freud and his followers, anti-Semitism was a universal pathology which had its roots in sexual repression. Its cure lay in “sexual liberation”. The theory, in its crudest and simplest form, amounted to this: instead of picking on the Jews, why not just chill out and have sex? Read more

Snow White and the Huntsman

/139 Comments/in , /by

Snow White and the Huntsman
Directed by Rupert Sanders
Produced by Sam Mercer, Palak Patel, Joe Roth
Screenplay by Evan Daugherty

I realize that if a studio is going to spend $170 million on a movie, they are going to do their best to appeal to a wide audience. Movies with mass appeal necessarily have emotional hooks that draw the audience in. In Snow White, there are two such hooks. Read more

Review of Beyond Human Nature, by Jesse J. Prinz

/70 Comments/in , , , /by

Jesse J. Prinz is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York and an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina. His academic specialism is the philosophy of psychology, and he has produced books and articles on emotion, moral psychology, aesthetics and consciousness. His latest book, Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives, was published earlier this year. Like much of his previous work, this new book is an attack on “psychological nativism.” Prinz (who is Jewish) claims that his latest book “concerns the cultural impact on human variation” and is part “of a critique of approaches that oversell the role of biology.”[i] The Jewish ethno-political agenda behind this critique soon becomes clear when the author acknowledges his “intellectual heroes who hover silently in the background. I mention here Franz Boas, whose pioneering work in anthropology has been an inspiration to many who try to establish universal human dignity through the study of diversity.”[ii]

In arguing for the primacy of nurture over nature, Prinz devotes a significant part of his book to attempting to explain why measured racial differences in IQ can be ascribed to environmental rather than genetic factors. He believes that “The IQ controversy is an extreme example of a more general tendency to explain human abilities by appeal to biology,” and regards it as “a particularly egregious case because it legitimates biases against many subjugated groups and mistakes social injustice for biological necessity.”[iii] For Prinz “one of the great tragedies of IQ testing is that researchers have used their results to argue fallaciously that certain groups of people differ in intelligence.”[iv] Introducing his case for an environmental explanation for racial differences in IQ, he notes that

everyone agrees that intelligence can be affected by the genes. The fact that humans are smarter than dogs is clearly a consequence of our biology. Everyone also agrees that differences in human intelligence can be genetic. Some people can be congenitally retarded, and extreme forms of genius are likely to be genetically based as well. But what about the vast majority of us who lie somewhere between Einstein and Tweedledumb [note the standard invocation of the Jewish Einstein as the quintessence of human genius]. Genius and retardation are rare conditions, which may result from genetic mutations. Are the differences between people who fall in the normal range distinguished by the genes? Is the run-of-the-mill dullard biologically different from a garden variety whiz-kid? And if so, are those biological differences fixed, or might they be altered by experience? These questions become even more heated when we turn from individual differences to differences between groups.

Do biological differences in brain power come pre-packaged with biological differences in pigmentation? These are touchy topics, and naturists have felt considerable heat for defending positions that are politically incorrect. I don’t think we should let politics arbitrate in this case, however. I think naturists simply get the science wrong. While some differences in intelligence may be linked to biology, most people have pretty comparable biological endowments. If we want to find an explanation for group-wide social inequity, then we would be better off studying the negative effects of poverty, and the positive effects of cultural practices that encourage learning.[v] Read more

Vladimir Lenin: Syphilitic Mattoid Motivated by PTED

/50 Comments/in /by

In The Pathology of the Left: Part I[1] I aimed to establish an outline for the Psychopathology of the Left in a broad sense, primarily by using seminal figures of the Left as case studies. Drawing on the 19th-century research of pioneer criminologists such as Dr Max Nordau,[2] and the popular rendering of those findings by early 20th-century writer Dr Lothrop Stoddard,[3] it is postulated that a type, the socially-alienated ‘tainted genius’ or mattoids as Nordau called them, seek revenge on civilisation and formulate doctrines and lead revolts of other alienated types at the lower extreme of the cultural and intelligence scale. Their impulse is that of destruction, rationalised by calls to bring down established civil and social norms in the name of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’, as the French Revolutionaries cried, or what today is being called ‘human’ rights’, again predicated on the slogan of ‘equality’.

While there has been some friendly criticism that the citing of 19th-century physiologists such as Nordau would prompt derision,[4] I contend that these pioneers in psychology and neurology have current legitimacy that is confirmed rather than repudiated by neuroscience and the study of personality disorders, and that they are of particular value in establishing the premises of psychology prior to the influx of Left-wing ideologues into the social sciences; in particular sociology and cultural anthropology,[5] mainly as Jewish-Marxist refugees from the Hitler regime. In this category can be included Adorno and others of the so-called Frankfurt School, who immigrated en masse to the USA and took over sociology and concomitant areas of psychology.[6] Read more