Hearts of Darkness: Minority Worship and the Scandal at “Kids Company”

Over the past nineteen years Britain’s liberal elite, including three prime ministers, the Creative Director of the BBC, and the rock band Coldplay, have regularly been asked for money by a female Iranian psychotherapist who dresses like a Nigerian transvestite and has the exotic name of Camila Batmanghelidjh. The liberal elite have responded by giving Camila many millions of pounds. After all, what could possibly go wrong?

Camila Batmanghelidjh: “Feed me!”
Camila Batmanghelidjh: “Feed me!”

A lot, it now transpires. Camila’s lavishly funded children’s charity, the emetically named “Kids Company,” has closed its doors amid allegations of gross financial mismanagement and waste. “More than 36,000” of its vulnerable charges will now have to fend for themselves in a cruel and uncaring world. Or so Camila claims. Unfortunately for her, even the devoutly liberal Guardian and Independent have begun to raise serious doubts about the reliability of her statements. When inconvenient facts and self-serving delusion meet between Camila Batmanghelidjh’s ears, your money should always be on self-serving delusion to carry the day.

Kid and Ego

In fact, she reminds me of a cross between Tony Blair and the late Princess Diana. Like Blair, she is a narcissistic confidence-trickster with an unwavering faith in her own saintliness. Like Diana, she is a manipulative autocrat who advances a raging ego by pretending a passionate devotion to children’s welfare. She is expert at the parasitic manipulation I discussed in the article “Verbal Venom.” Mason wasps paralyse juicy caterpillars by injecting them with neuro-toxin. Camila Batmanghelidjh paralysed juicy donors by injecting them with saccharine sentimentality. One example: “the six-year-old she describes finding in his underpants in the snow, unfed by his crack-addicted mother, surviving off scraps from neighbours.” Read more

Obama: Les mêmes gens à qui on doit l’Irak s’opposent maintenant à l’accord sur l’Iran

Original article: Jew baiter” Obama: The same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran deal

Article d’origine publié le 7 août 2015

Parfois, les commentaires juifs à propos de l’antisémitisme sont si aberrants qu’ils me surprennent moi-même. Un article du site Tablet décrit la rencontre entre Obama et un rassemblement de représentants de la communauté juive à propos de l’accord sur l’Iran (“Obama aux leaders juifs: Fichez la paix à l’Accord d’Iran, et je vous ficherai la paix“).

Les mots ont des conséquences, et quand ils expriment une position officielle, ils peuvent être encore plus dangereux, a-t-on expliqué au président. La communauté a fait beaucoup d’efforts pour éviter que le désaccord prenne un ton personnel, et elle ne s’est pas focalisé sur lui. Le président s’est plaint du lobbying, en affirmant que certaines des mêmes personnes à qui on doit l’Irak s’opposent maintenant à l’accord sur l’Iran. On lui a répondu que cette façon de caractériser les lobbyistes juifs était inexacte. Ils n’avaient pas été favorables à la guerre d’Irak.

Un autre participant qui préférait lui aussi rester anonyme m’a rapporté que certaines personnes avaient exprimé leur malaise concernant “la façon dont on pose le débat —comme si, ‘dès qu’on critiquait l’accord, on était automatiquement pour la guerre’. Il s’ensuit que, si la communauté juive semble être à l’origine du rejet de l’accord par le Congrès, on aura l’impression que la communauté juive nous conduit à une nouvelle guerre au Moyen-Orient”.

Un participant au débat sur l’Iran, haut responsable d’une organisation juive basée à Washington DC, m’a confié: “Devant leur inquiétude, le Président avait dit aux Juifs américains qu’il mettrait fin au flux permanent d’insinuations antisémites en provenance de la Maison Blanche. Et voilà qu’il fait un discours où il insinue que les Juifs mènent les jeunes Américains à la guerre”.

C’est regrettable que le président des États-Unis semble vraiment croire que c’est Israël et la communauté juive américaine qui ont envoyé les Américains faire la guerre en Irak.

Et pourtant, dire que ce sont les mêmes gens qui ont poussé à la guerre d’Irak, et qui font maintenant du lobbying contre l’accord sur l’Iran, c’est dire la simple et évidente vérité. Et Obama n’a sûrement pas eu l’audace de réellement dire que ce sont les Juifs qui ont poussé à la guerre d’Irak. La déclaration d’Obama s’apparente au commentaire d’une personne qui affirmerait que les gens qui contrôlent Hollywood et la télévision sont les mêmes qui tiennent également le New York Times et une bonne partie du reste des mass media: le risque qui inquiète certains est que les gens sachent compléter les pointillés et les mentions manquantes en pensant non pas aux gauchistes blancs [White liberals], mais plutôt aux Juifs dont les attitudes sociales dérivent de leur identité juive et sont typiques du courant juif majoritaire, sans recouper du tout l’opinion de la plupart des Blancs. Read more

Thoughts on the German Dispossession

europe without  borders

Meine Ruh’ ist hin,
Mein Herz ist schwer.

Faust, Wolfgang von Goethe

In the late eighteenth century, German literature bore witness to a tumultuous revolt against the Enlightenment’s sentimentality, objectivism and claims to rationality. The rebellious literary and musical movement that attacked these themes came under the umbrella term Sturm und Drang (‘Storm and Stress’) because of the value it placed on emotional extremes and individualism as encapsulating the European condition. The key figures of the movement included geniuses like Goethe, Herder and Lenz — young men who challenged the conventions of their narrow-minded society in both their writings and their lifestyles. Scholar David Hill writes that “the writers of the Sturm und Drang were impelled by an urge to protest against the aesthetic and moral values of a social world that they felt had become deadeningly oppressive.”[1]

One of the most incisive ‘discoveries’ of the movement was the rejection of the outer forms of national identity — bland bureaucratic ‘citizenship’ and manners — in favor of German  Innerlichkeit (inwardness) and Kultur. It was a rebellion against European man’s habit of becoming entangled in a web woven by his own talent for efficiency and organization. It was, at its most basic level, a rejection of the court system and an elevation of the Volk. Hill describes the movement as “a gesture of dissatisfaction with the properties of a culture that had begun to seem superficial and alien and a wish to discover alternative, more authentic values among the common folk and in nature.”[2] Frustration is arguably the most common experience of the characters of the ‘Storm and Stress’ canon, primarily in reaction to the constraints imposed on the individual by society, its laws and fashions.

I was moved to deeply reflect on these themes of frustration, ‘storm’ and crisis amidst a stifling and misguided society while discussing Germany’s ‘refugee’ crisis with friends from Erlangen. It is a horrifying reality that the entire West is currently under a rapidly escalating assault of mass non-White migration. Make no mistake about it: The gates have been fully breached, and the tide of non-Whites into our nations will only swell further as time progresses. It has already been described as the greatest mass movement of people since World War II, but it’s really much more significant than that. The mass movement of people during and after World War II was largely a European affair, consisting of Europeans moving within Europe. What we are currently witnessing is the largest ever movement in human history of non-Europeans into European territory. Taking into account non-European movement into the more recently claimed European territories of the United States, Canada, South Africa and Australia, the current migration wave is nothing less than beginning of the end for European man. This, and not some putative future disaster or collapse, is the crucial period in the history of our race. This is the hour of our dispossession. Read more

Joel Pollak and Bill Kristol on Obama’s rabid anti-Semitism

Not to be outdone by the Tablet article labeling Obama a “Jew baiter,” Joel Pollak writing in Breitbart came out with “Barack Obama’s Anti-Semitic Rant on the Iran Deal: President Barack Obama is using anti-Jewish language to sell the Iran deal.”

On Thursday, Obama led a conference call with left-wing activists in which he repeatedly railed against his political opponents by using the old canard of rich Jews using their money to exert control.

Accusing critics of the deal of being “opposed to any deal with Iran”–i.e. of advocating war–Obama railed against “well-financed” lobbyists, as well as the “big check writers to political campaigns,” and  “billionaires who happily finance super-PACs.” He complained about “$20 million” being spent on ads against the deal—a subtle reference to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC–whose support he had repeatedly courted when running for office).

Some of Obama’s references were thinly-veiled attacks on specific (Jewish) individuals—columnist Bill Kristol, for example, the Weekly Standard publisher and former New York Times resident conservative who served in the George H.W. Bush administration, and also helps run the Emergency Committee for Israel, which opposes the Iran deal; or billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who is a prodigious Republican benefactor, super PAC donor, and well-known hawk on Israel issues.

So now merely referring to the fact that the opposition to the Iran deal is well-funded makes Obama’s statements into an “anti-Semitic rant.” Calling attention to the deep pockets of political opponents is fair game with a long history in American politics. But if Jews are the ones with the deep pockets, suddenly, it’s “anti-Semitism” — defined I guess as “something Jews dislike because it brings attention to their actions.”  Read more

The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation

Graph
The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation
Max Hartshorn, Artem Kaznatcheev and Thomas Shultz (2013)
Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 16 (3) 7

Abstract

Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

Comment: Ethnocentrism among Whites has been pathologized for decades, while humanitarianism among Whites is constantly encouraged by eliciting spasms of guilt about the White past of colonialism, conquest, slavery, etc., as well as by eliciting the closely related emotion of empathy for non-Whites, particularly refugees and immigrants. Since this anti-White war is massively incentivized, there is no shortage of traitors and selfish Whites willing to aid the ethnocentric strategies of others by, e.g., cooperating with the Israel Lobby, being a cuckservative talking head on Fox News, having a well-paid position with a pro-immigration group, or being a university administrator promoting anti-White indoctrination and special programs for non-Whites — among a myriad of others, even though these are losing strategies in the long run for their people.

At the same time, the ethnocentrism of non-Whites is encouraged and is glaringly obvious. It’s not hard to see the end result.

Science and Politics in Academe: Good Research is Not Enough

At first glance, few people are as disagreeable as individuals with a touch of Asperger’s. Basically, they are high-IQ guys who tend to intuitively grasp things like logic, mathematics, and mechanics, yet are remarkably inept at socializing with other people. Because of their inborn characteristics, people on the Asperger’s end of the spectrum are often “nerds” who spend far more time facing a computer or slaving away in a lab than with other people. We have all seen The Social Network (2010) and its portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg’s alleged personality: a strange mix of raw genius, social clumsiness and lack of scruples, the latter allowing Zuckerberg to rip off the Winklevosses and betray his best friend Eduardo Saverin according to the wish of the gleeful manipulator Sean Parker. (Notice that the shared Jewishness of Zuckerberg and Saverin didn’t prevent the former from betraying the latter. That community has its breakdowns in ethnic networking too.)

Dark Enlightenment figure Nick Land claims that the biodiversity people — those scorned as “racists” by the mainstream media and parasitic class — are endowed with low agreeableness. They tend to have “low verbal inhibition, low empathy, and low social integration, resulting in chronic maladaptation to group expectations. …  Mild autism is typical, sufficient to approach their fellow beings in a spirit of detached, natural-scientific curiosity, but not so advanced as to compel total cosmic disengagement.”

There is a grain of truth here. Trying to understand one’s fellows from the objective, disinterested point of view of science is not a behavior everyone will be attracted to or able to attain. Calm reflection about abstract principles is different from both blind habit and the passionate defense of some dogma — or one’s people. The pure scientist, after all, can never “take his own side.” He must forever be purely objective.

Honest — sometimes excessively; balanced in his epistemology to the point of favoring the groundbreaking — or plain truth in general — to popular dogmas; naively believing that his grand abstractions are an excellent recipe for society, like the Enlightenment thinker Condorcet who believed in an unlimited and exponential progress in future history. Read more

Britain’s migrant invasion summer: Traitors and incentives for treason

What do you do when a story gets so big that you can ignore it no longer — you police the language around it by deploying those tried and trusty weapons; shame and demonization.

Prime Minister David Cameron learned this lesson the hard way on the unlikely location of the roof of the Stock Exchange in Ho Chi Minh City when he was finally cornered into saying something about the growing deluge of illegal immigrants, traversing the English channel on the back of lorries and trains, overwhelming Britain’s flimsy border defences and disappearing into the English countryside.

Look, this is very testing, I accept that, because you have got a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean, seeking a better life, wanting to come to Britain because Britain has got jobs, it’s got a growing economy, it’s an incredible place to live.

Then the world tumbled in on him.  The Refugee Council, the leader of the Labour Party and many others fell on him like jackals on a wounded antelope — all because he used the “dehumanising” word “swarmed.” The BBC, Mirror Telegraph and Guardian  thought the PM’s language angle so hugely important that they diverted their attention from the real crisis of thousands of immigrants trying to illegally get into Britain every night.   Read more