Liberalism

Dianne Feinstein: An Exemplar of Our Hostile Elite

Occasionally an example of the embodiment of an abstract idea comes along that is so perfect, one almost wonders if it was invented. Senator Dianne Feinstein is such a case. More than just about anyone, she embodies our hostile elite. Should Whites be lucky enough to one day find a new land of our own, the successful career of California’s current octogenarian senator will be sure to inspire particular shock in students.

Mrs. Feinstein (she has been married several times, and held many different titles, so for simplicity’s sake, “Mrs. Feinstein” will be used throughout this piece) first dipped her toes into politics innocuously enough by way of student government when she was at Stanford. After graduating in 1955, she immediately returned to her native San Francisco and married Jack Berman in 1956. Mr. Berman was a young Jewish lawyer with quite a few political ties throughout the city, and no doubt was instrumental in getting his wife her first official political position — an appointment by Pat Brown to the Women’s Board of Parole of California. Mr. Berman would go on to earn quite the reputation: a civil rights activist, even going to the South to fight Jim Crow, and an obsessive gambler who frequented Las Vegas. The marriage did not pass the five-year mark.

While the Berman marriage was crumbling, a young Black lawyer named Willie Brown from Texas was making a name for himself by defending pimps, prostitutes, and other street criminals. Then in 1961, his career pivoted and he began a campaign of agitation to abolish “housing discrimination” throughout San Francisco. This garnered the attention and support of the young Mrs. Feinstein.

While Mr. Brown and Mrs. Feinstein were both working to defend criminals, crime across the nation was increasing exponentially, and both began their rise to greater and greater prominence. In 1964 Mr. Brown became a state assemblyman, and in 1968 Mrs. Feinstein joined the San Francisco Committee on Crime. The next year she was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and soon became its president.

Simultaneously, San Francisco was changing. Haight Ashbury became notorious for its drug-fueled hippie scene and became the destination for runaways, junkies, and vagrants across the nation. Jim Jones and his “People’s Temple” headed to San Francisco as well. Harvey Milk and the “gay rights” agitators of Castro Street were beginning to get organized and achieve political and cultural clout. By the 1970s, the city had a well-deserved reputation for incredibly high crime, immortalized by the Dirty Harry films, the first of which was released in 1971.

Read more

Silent Sisterhood Revisited: Another Vibrant Rape Gang, Another Liberal Lie-Fest

When you’re studying the behaviour of animals, it’s pointless to look for motives like “truth-seeking” and “compassion.” Animals aren’t interested in discovering the truth and Making the World a Better Place. They’re interested in survival — in eating and not being eaten.

“All white women are only good for one thing…”

Something similar applies when you’re studying the behaviour of liberals. Whatever they might claim, they’re not interested in truth or world-improvement: they’re interested in power — in dominating and not being dominated. As I pointed out in “The Silent Sisterhood,” feminists prefer to ignore sex-crimes committed by non-White men, because such crimes contradict their insistence on the Omnipotent Evil of the Stale Pale Male. Now more proof of feminist double-standards has arrived, because another Muslim rape-gang has hit the headlines in Brave New Britain.

It’s vibrant up north: the Newcastle rape-gang

Newcastle, in north-east England, was the vibro-centre this time. Seventeen Muslim men from “backgrounds” of dazzling diversity — “Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish” — have been found guilty of the “rape and human trafficking” of more than 200 “vulnerable women and girls.” One of those men, Badrul Hussain, is reported to have espoused a shockingly toxic mixture of racism, misogyny and male supremacism. His alleged words, addressed to a White female ticket-inspector, should have set feminist keyboards rattling right around the world. They went like this: “All white women are only good for one thing. For men like me to fuck and use like trash. That’s all women like you are worth.” Read more

The Silent Sisterhood: How Feminists Collaborate with Rape and Murder

In one of the most famous passages of his Summa Theologica, the great Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) considers this delicate question: “Whether the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the damned?” He concludes that, yes, they do: “the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy.”

Xenophobes in charge

Aquinas reached that conclusion many centuries ago, but it has “contemporary resonance,” as the Guardian might say. What do nations like Hungary, Poland and Slovakia feel as they watch the vibrant enrichment of Western Europe? I think they must be rejoicing in “their own deliverance.” No suicide-bombers for Hungary. No rape-gangs for Poland. No FGM and drug-resistant TB for Slovakia. What’s more: Hungary, Poland and Slovakia don’t want to experience any of these things.

Beast in the East: Robert Fico

To the Guardian and other liberal outlets, this merely confirms the depravity and backwardness of politicians like Viktor Orbán, Beata Szydlo and Robert Fico, who are the xenophobic prime ministers of these nations. In a shameless rejection of all decent progressive principles, Orbán, Szydlo and Fico place the welfare of their own citizens above the welfare of the vibrant vulnerable. Indeed, Fico has crystallized his hate into a single shocking phrase: Islam na Slovensku nemá priestor — “Islam has no place in Slovakia.” Ach, if only he would consider what Slovakia is missing:

Indian Muslim woman ‘raped and murdered in honour killing’ after starting relationship with Arab man

An Indian Muslim teenager involved in a relationship with an Arab man was kidnapped, raped and murdered in a suspected “honour killing” in London, a court has heard. The body of Celine Dookhran, 19, was found stuffed in a fridge with her throat slit after a second woman who was also attacked raised the alarm from her hospital bed.

The two women were said to have been bound, gagged and kidnapped by masked men on Wednesday. They were taken to a house in Kingston-upon-Thames, south-west London, where they were both raped and Ms Dookhran was killed.

Mujahid Arshid, 33, of no fixed address, appeared before Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court on Monday charged with the murder, attempted murder, and two counts of rape and kidnap. He appeared alongside Vincent Tappu, 28, of Acton, west London, who stands charged with kidnapping both women. (Indian Muslim woman ‘raped and murdered in honour killing’ after starting relationship with Arab man, The Independent, 25th July 2017)

 

Read more

In Post-Mortem of Election, Clinton Learns Literally Nothing

Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.
New York: Crown, 2017.

The left, Clinton, and the media are defiant, and refuse to learn anything from the 2016 presidential election — root causes, messaging, or anything else which would hint at self-awareness.  They still want us to believe that the Russkies did it. Or they point towards breaches against PC doctrine about race and gender they think somehow proves their case.  How can we get through to people who are at once so sensitive about words and speech, and yet so dull in perceiving cause and effect?

Some documentation has emerged recently which gives us a more intimate look into the Clinton campaign’s strategy and the thought process of Clinton herself, both post-election and during the campaign.  Some of this we already know: that she is arrogant, entitled, and so forth; but what is in particular amusing is that she still seems to think that the “argument” of referring to Trump and his supporters as “racist” is an a priori proposition — no evidence needed, rather than a contentious characterization of which people have grown weary.

For example, it may be underestimated how devastating Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” speech was to her campaign.  This is described in Shattered, a book which gives an inside look at the Clinton campaign (though through an annoyingly partisan Democrat perspective).  The authors, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, compare “basket of deplorables” to Romney’s “47 percent” remark, which may well have cost him the election: “Hillary had become the 2016 cycle’s Mitt Romney […] For all the messaging she’d done on inclusiveness, she now sounded like not only an elite but an elitist” (316).  While it was hard to gauge the political effects at the time due to the constant spin from the MSM, that may well have been the moment that she lost the election.  Shattered shows that the Clinton campaign was more cognizant of her mistake than they let on.  At any rate, the remark certainly demonstrated Clinton’s cavalier attitude towards non-ethnomasochistic Whites (for those who weren’t already aware).   Read more

Death of John Peel: Biology, Brujeria and Big Mother

If you’re a stale pale male of a certain age and intellect, John Peel might at times have been the most important person in your life. Indeed, he may still be. He was the BBC disc-jockey who reigned as Britain’s musical arbiter elegantiarum from the late 1960s until his premature death early in the twentieth-first century. Champion of both the melodic and the discordant, he helped launch the careers of everyone from Altered Images to Zvuki Mu, from Dr Feelgood to The Datsuns. He was regarded as a national treasure at the death of his death in 2004 and his lustre remains undimmed thirteen years later.

White Flight

How could it not? John Peel was on the right side of history. He loved music and hated racism, firmly convinced that there is only one race — the Human Race. He contributed regularly to the Guardian and his shows always contained a healthy quota of Black music. He championed the same things in his politics as he did on the air: vibrancy, diversity and continual change.

But here’s a curious thing. Like his BBC colleague Andy Kershaw, he didn’t live as he listened. Both of them loved Black music while keeping well away from Blacks in their private lives. Peel abandoned ethnically enriched London to live with his attractive White wife and four children in rural Norfolk. Kershaw travelled even further from London, choosing to live on the Isle of Man in the middle of the Irish Sea. Greg Dyke, the former (and possibly Jewish) Director-General of the BBC, once described the corporation as “hideously white,” saying that it needed to employ many more non-Whites. Norfolk and the Isle of Man are much more deserving of that label than the BBC.

So was John Peel’s funeral:

It was a strange sound, coming from somewhere else. It took everyone by surprise. For a moment no one knew what it was. … It was the sound of thousands nearby cheering — a spontaneous, uncontrollable cheer of gratitude, of appreciation of talent, of respect, of love. The people who gave it were not celebrities, but fans. Most of the two thousand people who stood outside the radio DJ John Peel’s funeral at Bury St Edmund’s Cathedral on Friday 12 November 2004 and cheered his coffin as it was borne outside were, simply, his listeners. (The Peel Sessions, Ken Garner, BBC Books 2007)

Stale pale mourners at John Peel’s funeral

Nearly all of those fans were White and most of them were men. It was a stale pale male occasion for a stale pale male icon. John Peel’s show did not appeal to many non-Whites. It was too intelligent, too ironic and too eclectic. But one of the show’s ironies was unintended. John Peel and his BBC producer John Walters were White males who devoted their intelligence and talent to an institution that hates Whites in general and White males in particular. In short, Peel and Walters were suicide liberals and spent their lives sawing at the wrong side of the branch they were sitting on. Read more

Alexander Dugin on the Heartland versus the Heartless: The Neocon and Neoliberal Plan for Russia (and America)

There is a marked difference between freedom and liberty, a distinction which highlights the greatest defect of liberalism (especially as it has come to be understood in postmodern discourse).

“Liberty” implies liberation from something, which marks freedom as a negative category. Because of the connotations of liberty commonly understood in the West before the rise of left-wing concepts like liberation theology (i.e. Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech), the negative functions of liberty aren’t always obvious to people in the Anglosphere, even or perhaps especially those who consider themselves conservative.

The Eurasians don’t struggle with this bind. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political scientist maligned as a fascist in the West, gets to the heart of the matter in his book, Putin vs Putin: Putin viewed from the Right:

Today, in realizing the ‘liberty from’, we understand ever better that this nihilistic agenda is leading us to an abyss.… A declaration of individual freedom in effect means total dependence of the common man on the oligarchy. Individual freedom abolishes all forms of collective identity. One is not allowed to be a supporter of a national state or a religious institution, because this is not politically correct (Dugin 59).

It is not hard to understand why a Russian political scientist is suspicious of liberty as it has been sold by the Atlanticist powers (Western Europe and the U.S.) when too often neoconservative concepts of liberty involve liberating people from their lives, or neoliberal projects result in liberating nations from their resources. This asset-stripping facet of ostensible liberation is also not lost on Dugin: “In a former socialist country, where a capitalist coup was implemented on short notice, state and public property ended up in private hands and social guarantees…were done away with” (Dugin 59-60).

When people are convinced that the responsibilities that bind them to one-another (faith, community, ethnicity) are merely burdens to be shed, when they are sold individualism as a fetishized commodity that atomizes them, they are ripe for plunder and exploitation. Many on the Right cite Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals as a foundational blueprint for how the Left operates (and it is), but no book encapsulates this nihilistic isolation as a desired state of affairs like Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies, which holds that “liberals should fight against any ideology or political philosophy (ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hegel) that suggests human society should have some common goal, common value, or common meaning” (Dugin 297). Billionaire Jewish business magnate George Soros was so apparently taken with the book, which he considers his “personal bible,” that he saw fit to borrow the title for his grant-making network, the Open Society Foundation. Read more

Keeping It Feel: How Liberals Wage War on Reality

donald-trump-nigel-farage

Roger Cohen is one of many Jews supplying guidance to the goyim at the New York Times. He was dripping with contempt after Nigel Farage supported Donald Trump at a rally in Missouri earlier this year. And understandably so. Like Trump, the former UKIP leader is infamous for his vile public statements. For example, he said something “outrageous,” “disgraceful” and “completely unacceptable” in the run-up to the Brexit vote. He was following up his despicable behaviour in January 2015, when he said something “irresponsible,” “sickening” and “utterly wrong.”

So what did he say? Did he suggest the Queen be put to work as a shoe-shine girl on Oxford Street? Did he demand a revival of the worship of Moloch, with live child-sacrifice broadcast twice daily from Westminster Abbey?

The First Law of Western Politics

No, it was far worse than that. Farage spoke the truth about a minority. In doing so, he broke the First Law of Western Politics: “Minorities are always in the right, the majority always in the wrong.” While campaigning for Brexit, Farage said that staying in the European Union increased the chance of women in Britain experiencing sex attacks like those in Cologne at the New Year. In January 2015, he said that the Charlie Hebdo massacre proved there was a Muslim “fifth column living within [Europe], holding our passports, who hate us.” Read more