Dan Phillips – Donald Trump is a Conservative Where it Counts Despite Middle-of-the-Road Positions on Other Issues

make america great again

via TraditionalRIGHT:

[. . .]

I attempted to explain Trump’s politics in a couple of past essays. His politics are really not as inscrutable as some believe. They just don’t fit tidily into our current Red and Blue boxes. Briefly, the key to understanding Trump’s politics is to focus on his economic nationalism. This has been a part of his rhetoric since he first became a public figure in the 1980s and is undoubtedly authentic. But Trump appears to view this as a common sense, tough minded position, not an ideological one. It is important to recognize that Trump is not an ideologue. His focus is on getting things done, and he is results-oriented. While he has long flirted with politics, he has not historically immersed himself in the conservative milieu, nor the liberal milieu for that matter. He has clearly tailored some of his current positions to fit the base of the party whose nomination he is seeking, such as gun control and abortion, but he has never donned the mantle of purist crusader for laissez-faire economics or government-slashing spending hawk because those positions would conflict with his economic nationalism and his focus on outcomes rather than pure principle.

Consider, for example, Trump’s past support of universal health care, a position often raised by his conservative critics. This was not likely a position he arrived at based on an ideological commitment to liberalism because that wouldn’t fit the known pattern. Rather it likely was an extension of his patriotic economic nationalism, something along the lines of “A great country like America can have a great health care system that takes care of all its citizens.” Remember that before the Affordable Care Act, universal coverage per se polled well. People just don’t seem to like the details when you attach a name to it, like HillaryCare or ObamaCare. The point being that Trump’s position on universal health care was likely not evidence of an ideological liberal disposition, but rather a roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-it-done outcome based approach. What the conservative box checkers need to understand is that a lot of the electorate is similarly non-ideological. They may lean one way or the other and viscerally identify with the Blue Team or the Red Team, but they are not dogmatic ideologues.

Trump’s positions and rhetoric place him firmly in the category of Middle American Radical (MAR), as are many of his supporters. He just happens to also be a billionaire. MARs are a well described and relatively large demographic. It’s curious that so many journalist and pundits have missed this relationship and are still struggling to characterize Trump. Liberal columnist Ezra Klein was one of the first to pick up on Trump’s particular policy mix in this article he wrote for Vox, about which I thought at the time, “In other words, what (late conservative columnist) Sam Francis was saying 20 years ago.” Liberal John Judis expanded on the idea in this essay for the National Journal. Judis cannot resist a little PC finger wagging, but beyond that it is an insightful piece. Of interest, I was informed by someone who was familiar with the relationship that John Judis and Sam Francis were friends despite their political differences, so this may be a reason for Judis’ insights.

As a MAR, his conservative critics are correct that Trump is not your typical cookie cutter “three-legs-of-the-stool” modern conservative ideologue, but the problem for them is that what modern conservatism has become is generally a mishmash of policy positions that are often internally contradictory and as a whole have very little to do with actually conserving anything. The MAR position of opposition to mass immigration and opposition to international “free” trade deals, for example, both of which Trump has seized upon with great success, are more conservative in actual effect, in the most basic sense of the word, than is any amount of babbling about the “invisible hand” of the marketplace and cutting marginal tax rates. Trump’s supporters sense this. “Make America Great Again,” is an inherently conservative, reactionary really, sentiment. It speaks of loss for the worse and a need to restore.

As Russell Kirk reminded us, conservatism is not an ideology or hodgepodge of policy issues. Rather, it is a disposition, the desire to conserve what is or else restore something that has been lost. The angry masses in Flyover Country who are supporting Trump look around and see middle class manufacturing jobs going south of the border or overseas and their neighborhoods changing from mass immigration, more people they and their children and their children’s children will have to compete with for jobs, and they want it to stop. Contrast this to Rep. Paul Ryan’s foolish statement that Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration “is not conservatism.” Well, actually, yes it is. What is not conservatism is throwing open the doors of your country to masses of new dissimilar immigrants, including groups that are known to be hostile to us. Only a muddle-headed modern conservative ideologue could miss which one of these positions expresses a truly conservative sentiment.

[. . .]

Read more at TraditionalRIGHT. . . .


Eric Striker – The Devil Has A Name: Who’s Behind Miley Cyrus’ Antics


via TradYouth:

From circa 2006 to 2011, millions of families throughout our globalized world gathered in front of the Jude-tube to watch the teenage tribute to materialism, feminism, and ugly careerism known as Hannah Montana. The family the show follows is a crude stereotype of the “country bumpkin” Billy Ray worked hard to cultivate and transform into a profitable niche, but in spite of all the passive propaganda (including Miley Cyrus herself claiming it was patterned after Sex in the City, minus the sex ), the show was mostly free of pornography, gore, and suggestiveness–a rare find for parents in the 21st century.

[. . .]

The Annie Liebovitz controversy was an important signal to the Jewish establishment regarding the lack of responsible supervision over Miley Cyrus, and her potential as a vehicle for aggression in their war against mankind. When Hannah Montana came to an end, and Cyrus’ music career began to wane, she signed with the Jew manager Larry Rudolph, and her behavior has gotten more bizarre and viscerally offensive ever since.

Rudolph has specialized in “rejuvenating” the careers of child stars. The sleazy Ashkenazi pimp, in fact, has been credited with the short-lived pop fad of Cyrus’ fellow ex-Disney channel star Britney Spears, who at barely 16 years of age premiered in the 1999 Baby One More Time , where the Jew Nigel Dick collaborated closely with Rudolph to feature the teenage girl gyrating invitingly in pig tails and an erotically tailored catholic school uniform begging men to “hit her” (the song itself was written and produced by almost certain Jew Martin Sandberg aka “Max Martin”, and was played on loop on MTV and the radio until it grew on America’s young shiksas).

The media masters, it appears, get people like Spears and Cyrus into your living room by introducing them as sweet and innocent kids, then once children start looking at them as role models, suddenly “grow them up”. We all know how Spears ended up, and she was eventually retired after a very public and humiliating psychological break down–it is this, not just profits, that Jews seek for the masses.

[. . .]

Many people have commented on the contemporary push for normalizing child molestation, whether it’s the infamous “op ed” from Jew-infested Salon’s in-house pedophile done under the guise of “tolerance”, or the New York Times Jew Margo Kaplan’s “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime” under the thin veneer of science, Jew Louis CK talking about screwing kids shielded by comedy, or mentally ill Yid laughing stock Shia Labeouf in clothes meant to make him look naked putting his face in the crotch of a prepubescent girl done under the cover of “performance art”. Anglo-Saxon semantics-culture is the easiest rubik’s cube the Talmudically trained debaters have ever beaten.

But Miley’s latest music video feels the climate is comfortable enough to not come up with an alibi. The video features Cyrus in a diaper and bonnet opening her legs up to the camera, rolling her tongue all over a pacifier to the lyrics:

I don’t really want an older you
I heard I change my mind with you often
Baby talk is creeping me out
Fuck me so you stop baby talking

[. . .]

Imagine if pedophilia becomes normalized against the people’s will, like “gay marriage” was. No parent will ever be able to share a bed or hug their own children ever again. You won’t be able to have your grandchildren on your lap, or tickle your nieces or nephews without suspicion, or at the very least, people having the depressing thought in the back of their minds. If you think the world is ugly today, it will only get worse unless we get together politically.

It’s impossible to know for sure, but Miley Cyrus’ career evolution was probably planned from the start of Hannah Montana. Imagine being the parent of a 5 year old girl who idolized the tender small town character of 2007 and then being in the awkward spot of forbidding her today from going to gratuitous tributes and promotions of animal behavior, pedophilia, drug use, immaturity, race-mixing, and who knows what else at a contemporary Cyrus performance.

Some people call him devil, others call him “liberal”, even more refer to him as “dangerous people”. But I won’t mince words: his name is Jew. And if we don’t exorcise him out of our country, the gangrenous sore will continue to grow.

Read more at TradYouth. . . .

Ehud Would – My Testimony (Part 2): Racial and Christian Awakenings in 1980’s California


via Faith and Heritage:

[. . .]

As I said, the neighborhood was mostly White when we moved in. Our block, entirely so. But one day when my sister had been down on the next block riding her bike with a friend, she ran into trouble. Two young Black boys came out of nowhere and tried to knock her off her bike, but she kicked them off her and pedaled home as fast as she could. And they gave chase. I don’t recall what I was doing, but I heard her screaming for me as she came riding up into our yard. And sure enough, the two Black boys came running up close behind her. The smaller one was the more aggressive of the two, so I flew into him, knocking him backward. But they were both on me in an instant. And the fight lasted only a few moments before Poppa came out with his belt in hand and my dog Buck (a German Shepherd/Black Lab mix) at his side. The Black kids were terrified of both. What with Buck’s snarling, Poppa only had to lay a couple stripes across their backs before they turned heel and ran back the way they’d come. Buck chased them down the drive nipping at their ankles as they went. They cursed us in terms unknown to me. But they didn’t come back.

The next day Poppa had me start training with him. At eight years old I couldn’t hope to do all the one-armed pushups, finger pushups, or handstand pushups that he did, but he was determined to toughen me up. He said, “Niggers got every bit as much right to live as you do. God made them what they are and you can’t hold that against them, but if they lay hands on your sister, by God, you kill ‘em.”

Later that year a Mexican family moved in next door. Their oldest boy, who was my age, started slapping my little cousin Nikki (my aunt and uncle had moved in around the corner) around for fun. When I heard of it I went straight over to tell him to leave her alone, all my little cousins and my sister trailing along behind me. But reaching his house we saw he had company – two other Mexican boys, also about my age. All I said was, “Please quit hitting my little cousin. She’s not even five.” To which they all took turns replying that they’d hit her anytime they wanted and that they might shoot her. This scenario immediately bridged over in my mind to the indignity of my sister’s attack earlier that year. As the Mexican boys’ words still hung in the air, I punched the main offender in the solar plexus (as Poppa had taught me) as hard as I could, leveling him to the ground. There he lay, gasping for breath. The paramedics were even called and they took him to the hospital to be checked out.

All of this pleased my grandfather greatly. He congratulated me on being a man. But my mother was another story. She was appalled at what I had done and that Poppa had trained me to it. That argument went on a long time. The only word I remember from their exchange, on account of its repetition, was “racist.” But I think he sensed the conflict which my mother’s outrage had seeded in me. The next day Poppa reassured me I’d done right protecting my cousin, rewarding me with my first pocketknife. I cherished that knife.

Though my classes were all in English now, the liberal agenda was sailing full mast there as much as at my previous school. I remember little of the actual curriculum other than the fact that in my third grade year, only one year after my having taught myself to read phonetically, they introduced “Whole Language Reading,” otherwise known as “Sight Reading,” patterned in theory after the Oriental system. This was, of course, totally incompatible with the English language, but that wasn’t why I ignored the new approach. I did so because I had already learned to read phonetically, and no matter how much the teachers tried to undo that foundation, I could not stop seeing the letters as sounds. And in retrospect, I attribute my winning second place in the Los Angeles County Spelling Bee in fifth grade to the fact that I clung to phonetic language, in spite of all instruction to the contrary.

[. . .]

Read more at Faith and Heritage. . . .

Pat Buchanan – Low Fertility, Migrant Invasions, and Sub-National Independence Movements are Fracturing Europe


via Creators.com:

[. . .]

Anti-immigrant, right-wing parties are making strides all across Europe, as the EU is bedeviled by a host of crises.

Europe’s open borders that facilitate free trade also assure freedom of travel to homegrown terrorists.

Mass migration into the EU is causing member nations to put up checkpoints and close borders. The Schengen Agreement on the free movement of goods and people is being ignored or openly violated.

The economic and cultural clash between a rich northern Europe and a less affluent south — Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal — manifest in the bad blood between Athens and Berlin, endures.

Northern Europeans grow weary of repeated bailouts of a south that chafes at constant northern demands for greater austerity.

Then there is the surge of sub-nationalism, as in Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders, and Veneto, where peoples seek to disconnect from distant capitals that no longer speak for them, and reconnect with languages, traditions and cultures that give more meaning to their lives than the economics-uber-alles ideology of Frau Angela Merkel.

Moreover, the migrants entering Europe, predominantly Islamic and Third World, are not assimilating as did the European and largely Christian immigrants to America of a century ago.

The enclaves of Asians in Britain, Africans and Arabs around Paris, and Turks in and around Berlin seem to be British, French and German in name only. And some of their children are now heeding the call to jihad against the Crusaders invading Muslim lands.

The movement toward deeper European integration appears to have halted, and gone into reverse, as the EU seems to be unraveling along ideological, national, tribal and historic lines.

If these trends continue, and they seem to have accelerated in 2015, the idea of a United States of Europe dies, and with it the EU.

And this raises a question about the most successful economic and political union in history — the USA.

How does an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural United States avoid the fate to which Europe appears to be headed, when there is no identifiable racial or ethnic majority here in 2042?

Are our own political and racial divisions disappearing, or do they, too, seem to be deepening?

Read more at Creators.com. . . .

Paul Craig Roberts – Why World War III is on the Horizon


via Global Research:

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to a dangerous American ideology called neoconservativism. The Soviet Union had served as a constraint on US unilateral action. With the removal of this constraint on Washington, neoconservatives declared their agenda of US world hegemony.  America was now the “sole superpower,” the “unipower,” that could act without restraint anywhere in the world.

The Washington Post neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up the “new reality” as follows:

“We have overwhelming global power. We are history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the Soviet Union fell, something new was born, something utterly new–a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a stagering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome. Even Rome was no model for what America is today.”

The staggering unipolar power that history has given to Washington has to be protected at all costs.  In 1992 top Pentagon official Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which became the basis for Washington’s foreign policy.

Paul Wolfowitz

The Wolfowitz Doctrine states that the “first objective” of American foreign and military policy is “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat [to US unilateral action] on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” (A “hostile power” is a country sufficiently strong to have a foreign policy independent from Washington’s.)

The unilateral assertion of American power begin in ernest during the Clinton regime with the interventions in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, and the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq.  In 1997 the neoconservatives penned their “Project for a New American Century.”  In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, the neoconservatives sent a letter to President Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq and “the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.”  Neoconservatives set out their program for removing seven governments in five years.

[. . .]

To avoid war, Putin is non-provocative and low-key in his responses to Western provocations. Putin’s responsible behavior, however, is misinterpreted by neoconservatives as a sign of weakness and fear.  The neoconservatives tell President Obama to keep the pressure on Russia, and Russia will give in.  However, Putin has made it clear that Russia will not give in. Putin has sent this message on many occasions.  For example, on September 28, 2015, at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, Putin said that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later Putin took command of the war against ISIS in Syria.

The European governments, especially Germany and the UK, are complicit in the move toward nuclear war. These two American vassal states enable Washington’s reckless aggression toward Russia by repeating Washington’s propaganda and supporting Washington’s sanctions and interventions against other countries.  As long as Europe remains nothing but an extension of Washington, the prospect of Armegeddon will continue to rise.

At this point in time, nuclear war can only be avoided in two ways.

One way is for Russia and China to surrender and accept Washington’s hegemony.

The other way is for an independent leader in Germany, the UK, or France to rise to office and withdraw from NATO.

That would begin a stampede to leave NATO, which is Washington’s prime tool for causing conflict with Russia and, thereby,  is the most dangerous force on earth to every European country and to the entire world.  If NATO continues to exist, NATO together with the neoconservative ideology of American hegemony will make nuclear war inevitable.

Read more at Global Research. . . .

Ultra-Feminist Founder Of Femen Brazil Declares Herself Pro-Life, Apologizes To Christians

Featured Image

via Life Site News:

Sara Fernanda Giromin first made herself known to Brazil and to the world under the alias “Sara Winter” in 2012, when she became the founding member of Femen Brazil, and led a trio of girls in a number of topless protests that garnered much media attention. However, only three years later, the young activist has done an about-face and has declared war on feminism and abortion, and is apologizing to Christians for her offensive behavior. She has also published a short book detailing the abuse and disappointment she suffered at the hands of fellow feminists.

Giromin’s changing attitudes were first revealed in October of this year, when she expressed her repentance for an abortion that took the life of her first child, and acknowledged that the recent birth of her second child had changed her attitudes regarding the right to life.

“I have repented of having had an abortion and today I ask for forgiveness,” wrote Giromin. “Yesterday marked one month after the birth of my baby and my life has taken on a new meaning. I’m writing this while he sleeps serenely on my lap. It is the greatest sensation in the world.”

“Please, women who are desperate to abort, think carefully about it. I was very sorry I did it. I don’t want the same for you,” she added.

In the months that have followed, Giromin has revealed to her readership her disillusionment with feminism and gender ideology, and has repudiated her “bisexual” orientation. She has also expressed remorse for having offended Christians in January of 2014, when she engaged in a well publicized same-sex kiss with another seminude girl with a cross in the background, in front of the Church of Our Lady of Candelária in Rio de Janeiro. The photo of the two had become iconic in Brazil of homosexual contempt for Christianity.

“Asking for forgiveness is certainly not an easy thing to do,” said Giromin in a YouTube video entitled “I ask Christians for forgiveness for feminist protest.” “We went way too far and ended up offending many religious and non-religious people,” she added, recognizing the stunt as a form of “blasphemy.” She adds that she is making progress in her own spiritual life, although the exact nature of her current beliefs remains unclear.

[. . .]

Read more at Life Site News. . . .

Wikipedia Entry for Abkhazia

File:Georgia high detail map.png

via Wikipedia:

Abkhazia (Abkhaz: Аҧсны́ Apsny [apʰsˈnɨ]; Georgian: აფხაზეთი Apkhazeti [apʰxazɛtʰi]; Russian: Абхазия Abkhaziya) is a partially recognised state controlled by a separatist government on the eastern coast of the Black Sea and the south-western flank of the Caucasus.

Abkhazia considers itself an independent state, called the Republic of Abkhazia or Aphsny.[10][11][12][13][14] This status is recognised by Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru[15] and also by the partially recognised state of South Ossetia and the unrecognised Transnistria[16] and Nagorno-Karabakh.[17]

The Georgian government, the United Nations and the majority of the world’s governments consider Abkhazia a part of Georgia‘s territory, though Georgia does not control it. Under Georgia’s official designation it is an autonomous republic, called the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia.

The status of Abkhazia is a central issue of the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict. The wider region formed part of the Soviet Union until 1991. As the Soviet Union began to disintegrate towards the end of the 1980s, ethnic tensions grew between the Abkhaz and Georgians over Georgia’s moves towards independence. This led to the 1992–1993 War in Abkhazia that resulted in a Georgian military defeat, de facto independence of Abkhazia and the mass exodus and ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population from Abkhazia. In spite of the 1994 ceasefire agreement and years of negotiations, the status dispute has not been resolved, and despite the long-term presence of a United Nations monitoring force and a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) peacekeeping operation, the conflict has flared up on several occasions. In August 2008, the sides again fought during the South Ossetia War, which was followed by the formal recognition of Abkhazia by Russia, the annulment of the 1994 ceasefire agreement and the termination of the UN and OSCE missions.[18][19] On 28 August 2008, the Parliament of Georgia passed a resolution declaring Abkhazia a Russian-occupied territory.[20][21] A major part of the international community considers Abkhazia to be occupied by the Russian military.[22][23][24] Russia does not allow the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) to enter Abkhazia.[25]

Abkhazia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia are post-Soviet “frozen conflict” zones.[26][27] These four states maintain friendly relations with each other and form the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations.[16][28][29]

Read more at Wikipedia. . . .

Abkhazia Officially Bans Abortion


via HumanRights.org:

The Parliament of the unrecognized Republic of Abkhazia passed the bill banning abortion.

The amendment to the Constitution stipulates that “the state shall equally protect the life of a mother and of an unborn child”, Meduza media outlet reports

The bill allows abortion only in case of prenatal death of a baby. In all other cases, the termination of pregnancy will be held criminally liable.

The law also prohibits the clinical trials of human embryos.

Emma Gamisonia, the only female MP in the unrecognized republic, opposed the law. According to her, the bill “will cause corruption in the medical field and lead to prohibited illegal abortions.”

The total ban on abortion without exceptions was passed in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Malta, the Philippines, and the Vatican.

Read more at HumanRights.org. . . .

Andrew Joyce – The Assault on Gender and the Family and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School (Part Two)


via the Occidental Observer:

[. . .]

Even more radical than Moll was Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935). Like Moll, Hirschfeld came from a family of Jewish merchants and, also like Moll, he advanced theories of social and sexual behavior amounting to “the existence of fundamental irreducible sameness in human beings.”[9] Elena Macini writes that Hirschfeld’s Jewishness was “a socially and politically determinant aspect of his life.”[10] A common feature of his work was the hatred he had for Christianity. Indeed, his critique of that religion resembled in many respects that concocted by Freud. To Hirschfeld, Christianity was “essentially sadomasochistic, delighting in the pain of ascetic self-denial.”[11] Western Civilization had thus been “in the grip of anti-hedonist exaggerations for two thousand years,” thereby committing “psychic self-mutilation.”[12] It was therefore Western society, rather than homosexuals and other outsiders, that was sick and degenerate, and Hirschfeld’s prescribed cure was sexual hedonism and the acceptance of a wide array of “identities” and “sexualities.” Although coming from a close-knit, observant, Jewish community, and possessed of an abiding hatred for Christianity, Hirschfeld superficially advocated a “pan-humanistic” outlook and was fond of declaring himself “a world citizen.”[13] (I might agree with Hirschfeld to a certain extent since he appears to me a perfect example of what Henry Ford called an “international Jew.”)

[. . .]

In terms of theory, Hirschfeld had “subverted the notion that romantic love should be orientated toward reproduction,” arguing instead for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and hedonistic, non-reproductive, sexual relations in general.[16] A key element of Hirschfeld’s theory was the deployment of “love as a primary weapon in his ethical and philosophical campaign for the liberation of same-sex relationships.”[17] However, love as a concept was itself altered by Hirschfeld, who imbued it with transcendental and cosmic qualities in an effort to distance it as much as possible from biological, reproductive drives. Mancini writes that “the idea that love had the potential to not only lift the individual but to enrich the broader mission of humanity was articulated in Hirschfeld’s condemnation of theories of racial hygiene and his appeal to Panhumanism to extinguish the hatred among nations and races.”[18]

Such romantic theorizing, of course, had little to do with the actual content of sexological studies of the sexually inverted, where love featured significantly less than pederasty, promiscuity and disease. But it was the idea and “feeling” that mattered most in creating a homosexual movement and public support behind it. As strategy it corresponded perfectly with efforts to achieve “Jewish emancipation.” In this respect Richard Wagner put it most astutely and succinctly when he wrote that “when we strove for emancipation of the Jews we were really more the champions of an abstract principle than of a concrete case: … Our zeal for equal civil rights for Jews was much more the consequence of a general idea than of any real sympathy; for, with all our speaking and writing for Jewish emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” One could easily substitute “homosexuals” for “Jews” and achieve significant insight into the basic psychological processes at work, with Hirschfeld’s “general idea” being a florid abstraction of love around which the fashionable and easily duped may gravitate. It can’t be emphasized enough that Jews have been very adept at framing their arguments in emotional or moral terms that appear to have a unique pull on the consciences of Europeans, and such strategies are very difficult to unseat. One need only acknowledge that Hirschfeld’s work in this regard retains great potency in the present, with the recent “marriage equality” debate neatly side-stepping biological and social imperatives in favor of Hirschfeld-like maudlin non sequiturs about “love.”

[. . .]

Read more at the Occidental Observer. . . .

Andrew Joyce – The Assault on Gender and the Family and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School (Part One)


via the Occidental Observer:

Volkmar Sigusch (1940- ) may not be a familiar name to TOO readers, but for those concerned about the modern assault on traditional attitudes to gender and sexuality it should be. You might have encountered the term ‘cisgender,’ a Sigusch creation that is rapidly gaining traction in common speech. For those unfamiliar with it, it has come to replace “normal” and even the more deviant-friendly term ‘heterosexual.’ Specifically, the term refers to those “who feel there is a match between their assigned sex and the gender they feel themselves to be. You are cisgender if your birth certificate says you’re male and you identify yourself as a man.” The goal behind inventing such a bizarre and convoluted label for that which is natural and healthy is, of course, to further dilute the identity of the present and coming generations, and convince us all that there is no “normal,” only different positions within an ever more colorful spectrum.

By undermining the meaning of what it is to be male and female, one undermines the healthy concept of the family. And when the healthy concept of the family possessed by a given group is undermined, that group is pushed ever closer to genocide via (using the United Nations lexicon) “deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and “imposing measures intended to prevent births.” The bumper crop of terms like ‘cisgender’, cooked up with alarming frequency by the “sexologists,” helps reduce marriage between a man and a woman and the raising of children within that union, to a mere “option” on a veritable menu of possible sexualities, gender identities, and family structures. In this brave new world there is no “normal” or “ideal” since all “models” are allegedly valid and equal.

[. . .]

But who precisely is introducing these terms and ideas, and thus engineering dramatic change in Western society? In our attempt to answer this question, we might first return to Volkmar Sigusch. Sigusch, a German, is a self-described “sexologist,” physician and sociologist. As founder and co-editor of Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung (Journal for Sexual Research), and Director of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Science) at the Goethe University in Frankfurt from 1973 to 2006, Sigusch has been described by Der Spiegel as “one of the main thinkers behind the sexual revolution of the 1960s.” The reasons why the young would-be physician evolved into a cultural radical are quite easy to surmise. After fleeing East Germany, Sigusch studied medicine, psychology and philosophy at Frankfurt. I posit the argument that it was the latter discipline that truly shaped Sigusch and did most to determine his future work. I argue this because he studied philosophy under none other than Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, both of whom had by that date returned from the United States and re-established the notorious Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. Sigusch, a pioneer in the ongoing sexual revolution, is a Frankfurt School protégé.

The following analysis is concerned with the ongoing role of the Jewish-dominated “Culture of Critique” in advancing theories and trends designed to atomize our society. In particular it focusses on Jewish intellectual and political support for the sexually abnormal and explains it as an extension and product of the Frankfurt School’s view that “the unique role of Judaism in world history was to vindicate the concept of difference against the homogenizing forces thought to represent the essence of Western civilization. (My emphasis) ”[1] Kevin MacDonald has noted that the Frankfurt School categorized healthy Western norms, nationalisms, and close family relationships as an indication of psychiatric disorder. By contrast, in the last few decades of the nineteenth century Jewish intellectuals began championing Western society’s outcasts and non-conformers. Using these outcasts, Jewish intellectuals could fight a proxy war against Western homogeneity, and wage a clandestine campaign for the acceptance of pluralism.

Read more at the Occidental Observer. . . .

Wikipedia Entry for Russian Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin


via Wikipedia:

[. . .]

Vsevolod Anatolyevich Chaplin was born on 31 March 1968 to the family of an agnostic professor of radio engineering Anatoly Chaplin (ru) . He went to school in Golyanovo, Moscow.[6]

After he finished secondary education in 1985, he joined the staff of the Publishing Department of the Moscow Patriarchate. On recommendation of Metropolitan Pitirim (other languages), he entered the Moscow Theological Seminary, graduating in 1990.

From October 1990 to March 2009, he was in the Department for External Church Relations (DECR) of the Moscow Patriarchate, beginning as an ordinary staffer (1990-1991) before moving into public affairs (1991-1997), then being secretary (1997-2001) and vice-president (2001-2009).[7] At the same time as being in the DECR, he continued studies at the Moscow Theological Academy, defending his thesis and graduating in 1994.

He was ordained to the diaconate on April 21, 1991, and to the priesthood on January 7, 1992. He was elevated to archpriest in 1999.

In 2009 he was appointed chairman of the newly created synodal department for the Cooperation of Church and Society of the Moscow Patriarchate.

On 24 December 2015, by the decision of the Holy Synod he was released from this position of head of the Department for the Cooperation of Church and Society, the latter being merged with the Information Department headed by Vladimir Legoyda (ru). Chaplin was also removed from the Interconfessional Council of Russia (other languages).[2][8]

Shortly after his dismissal, he gave a series of interviews which were sharply critical of Patriarch Kirill who he said would “not last much longer”.[5][9][10]

[. . .]

Public statements

Fr Vsevolod’s role as Chairman of the Department for the Cooperation of Church and Society means that he makes public statements on religion and ethics, including:

  • Opposing the confusion of the terms ‘religion’ and ‘denomination’, claiming that confessions can be just Christian.[16]
  • Advocating the establishment of ‘Orthodox National Teams’[17]
  • Opposing euthanasia[18]
  • Opposing the anonymity of the Internet[19]
  • Criticised Darwin’s doctrine on the origin of man[20]
  • Criticised idea that faith is a private matter[21]
  • Refuses to pray with Christians of other denominations[22]
  • Considers that, to avoid rape, Russian girls need to be ‘more serious in appearance’. Proposed that a ‘nationwide dress code’ could help.[23][24]
  • Supports the beautification of church buildings, iconostases, ornaments and vestments, as befits a religion at the centre of national life, giving the Church the opportunity to speak to rich and poor alike.[25]
  • Against crimes of the Soviet Bolsheviks[26][27]
  • Against homosexuality and pedophilia[28]
  • His statement made on 30 September 2015, in which he, while talking about the support of the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War on the part of all the religious groups in Russia, referred to the fight against terrorism as a “moral fight, a holy fight if you will”,[29][30][31] was thought to have provoked a harsh reaction from an Islamist forces spokesman in Syria[32][33] as well as dismay on the part of some Christian leaders in Syria.[34]

Relationship with Patriarch Kirill

Vsevolod Chaplin is one of the closest and loyal people of Kirill for many years, said the former Patriarch Alexy II, congratulating him with the birthday in 2008 year. They both were the main developers of The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church (ru).[35][36][37] The Australian Broadcasting Corporation calls Chaplin: “Patriarch Kirill’s right-hand man” (2014 year).[38]

Read more at Wikipedia. . . .

Purge in Russian Church? Ultra-Conservative Archpriest Removed From Position In Orthodox Church

via Fort Russ:

Speaking about the current situation, Chaplin also noted that “the power has changed, the power no longer lies in the hands of security forces, formal state, religious hierarchies or commercial structures”. “The government is being formed now in the world of ideas. Whoever is the first to formulate and express ideas that most adequately will shape the future, will rise to power,” — said the priest.

Chaplin was suspended on Thursday, 24th December, with his structure being dismantled “in order to optimize operations and increase efficiency”, and to avoid parallel processes in the activity of the Synodal institutions.

After retirement he spoke about his disagreements with Patriarch Kirill. The main points of disagreement, he said, was the understanding of the role of the Church in state and society. The Chaplin said that the Church should have greater independence and critical dialogue both with the authorities and with society. In addition, he criticized the management of practices of the ROC. According to him, many of the decisions in the Church accepted the Patriarch “spontaneously, without due consultation” and not “collectively”.

In an interview with RBC Chaplin stated another reason — disagreements with the Patriarch in evaluating the events in Donbass. According to Chaplin, the Russian Orthodox Church was actively supporting the militias and not taking a position of peace, and he stated via official statements about the unacceptability of strife over language and ethnicity.

On Friday, December 25th, Chaplin also predicted an early retirement of Patriarch Kirill. “I think he’s not going to last. I think that this contradiction between belief in personal charisma and the reality will only increase”, — he said in an interview with radio station “Moscow speaking”

Read more at Fort Russ. . . .

Ehud Would – My Testimony (Part 1): Racial and Christian Awakenings


via Faith and Heritage:

[. . .]

My mother, being a product of the time, was appalled at my grandparents’ rationale for moving out of Bell to a safer (Whiter) neighborhood and, after a good deal of fighting, she opted to move my sister and me away from her parents’ bigoted influences. We got an apartment in Bell Gardens where my mother enrolled me in Suva Elementary. Trouble was, even under the circumstance of a 50% White population for the city, the ratios of minority children were far higher than those of Whites. What this meant for my school, believe it or not, is that there were no English-taught classes available. Yes, I attended kindergarten and first grade taught all in Spanish. And as an English-only speaker, this meant that the teachers merely sat me in the corner with crayons while they tended to prepping the foreign legions to commandeer my inheritance.

Sometime in my teenage years it occurred to me that if such a thing had been done to a non-White student (for two years), it would have been considered a scandalous “civil rights” as well as a “human rights” violation, and a matter of international outrage. This realization, among others, would slowly impel me to acknowledge a thing totally at odds with the social narrative I would learn in government school and the network media – that White people had, both socially and legally, somehow become second-class citizens in their own lands.

But when my grandparents learned of the pitiable educational situation to which my mother had resigned me, they insisted we move back in with them at their new Paramount home. From there I could finally attend school taught in English. Her multicultural vision for my education having somehow resulted in no education for me, my mother grudgingly conceded. But not without suggesting that instead of drawing, I should have paid attention in those Spanish-taught classes and learned the language.

The adult population of Paramount (and Hollydale, the adjoining suburb where my new school was located) was at that time still almost exclusively White, but the demographics of my new school itself were tipped slightly in the other direction – probably only 35% White. Obviously, this huge age-correlated disparity spoke to the semi-geriatric and largely childless White community there. But there were other factors in play which would shortly exacerbate that offset further.

My first day we met with my new principal, a Korean woman, and the vice principal, a Black woman. The former spoke clearly, if mechanically, but the latter was nigh unintelligible for her broken English and foreign inflection, which is so characteristic of the Black community and which would shortly be heralded in government schools as an official American dialect: “Ebonics.”

[. . .]

Read more at Faith and Heritage. . . .

15 Years in Afghanistan and the Taliban are Making Gains

via the Washington Post:

[. . .]

With control of — or a significant presence in — roughly 30 percent of districts across the nation, according to Western and Afghan officials, the Taliban now holds more territory than in any year since 2001, when the puritanical Islamists were ousted from power after the 9/11 attacks. For now, the top American and Afghan priority is preventing Helmand, largely secured by U.S. Marines and British forces in 2012, from again falling to the insurgency.

As of last month, about 7,000 members of the Afghan security forces had been killed this year, with 12,000 injured, a 26 percent increase over the total number of dead and wounded in all of 2014, said a Western official with access to the most recent NATO statistics. Attrition rates are soaring. Deserters and injured Afghan soldiers say they are fighting a more sophisticated and well-armed insurgency than they have seen in years.

As Afghan security forces struggle, U.S. Special Operations troops are increasingly being deployed into harm’s way to assist their Afghan counterparts. Since Nov. 4, four members of the U.S.-led coalition have been wounded in Helmand, said U.S. Army Col. Michael Lawhorn, a military spokesman. Officially, U.S. military personnel have a mandate only “to train, advise and assist” Afghan forces.

Read more at the Washington Post. . . .

Female Firefighter Wendy Tapia To Get Seventh Chance To Pass FDNY Physical Test

Wendy Tapia, 34, was allowed to conditionally graduate from the FDNY's Randall's Island training academy in May 2013 - despite failing the required running test

via the Daily Mail:

A female firefighter who has repeatedly failed the fitness test is being given an unprecedented seventh try.

Wendy Tapia, 34, was allowed to conditionally graduate from the FDNY’s Randall’s Island training academy in May 2013 – despite failing the required running test, New York Post reports.

Typically firefighters who fail the exam at the end of academy training don’t graduate and are forced to re-take the entire course in the next academy class.

But Tapia, blaming a foot injury for her failure, was allowed to take it again not once, but five more times over the next six months.

Each time, she failed to run the 1.5 miles in 12 minutes without gear, as required by the academy.

After failing her sixth attempt in November 2013 – without ever working an active duty shift at her assigned Engine No. 316 in East Elmhurst, Queens – she finally quit.

Now Tapia is being given yet another chance to join the Fire Department of New York with a seventh run at the test.

And this time she is sure to pass, claim fellow firefighters.

Read more at the Daily Mail.

City Data: Demographics of Selma, Alabama

L L Anderson Ave. in Selma, Alabama
via City-Data.com:
Population in 2013: 19,912 (100% urban, 0% rural). Population change since 2000: -2.9%
Males: 9,155  (46.0%)
Females: 10,757  (54.0%)
Median resident age:   35.0 years
Alabama median age:   38.3 years
Zip codes:36701, 36703.Selma Zip Code Map
Estimated median household income in 2013: $22,268 (it was $21,261 in 2000)

Selma: $22,268
AL: $42,849

Estimated per capita income in 2013: $16,335 (it was $13,369 in 2000)

Selma city income, earnings, and wages data

Estimated median house or condo value in 2013: $84,037 (it was $61,800 in 2000)

Selma: $84,037
AL: $122,700
Median gross rent in 2013: $475.
[. . .]
Races in Selma, AL (2013)
Selma races chart
[. . .]
For population 25 years and over in Selma:

  • High school or higher: 77.0%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 17.4%
  • Graduate or professional degree: 6.6%
  • Unemployed: 12.2%
  • Mean travel time to work (commute): 18.0 minutes

[. . .]

Selma on our top lists:

  • #12 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the highest number of rapes in 2006 per 10,000 residents, excludes tourist destinations and others with a lot of outsiders visiting based on city industries data (population 5,000+)”
  • #12 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the highest number of burglaries in 2006 per 10,000 residents, excludes tourist destinations and others with a lot of outsiders visiting based on city industries data”
  • #19 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the highest 2006 city-data.com crime index per resident, excludes tourist destinations and others with a lot of outsiders visiting based on city industries data”
  • #21 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the most people below 50% of the poverty level, excluding cities with 15% or more of residents in college and with the median age below 28 (population 5,000+)”
  • #22 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the highest number of thefts in 2006 per 10,000 residents, excludes tourist destinations and others with a lot of outsiders visiting based on city industries data”
  • #24 on the list of “Top 101 cities with largest percentage of males working in industry: Paper (population 5,000+)”
  • #25 on the list of “Top 101 cities with largest percentage of females working in industry: Paper (population 5,000+)”
  • #26 on the list of “Top 101 cities with largest percentage of females working in industry: Gasoline stations (population 5,000+)”
  • #32 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the most people below the poverty level, excluding cities with 15% or more of residents in college and with the median age below 28 (population 5,000+)”
  • #38 on the list of “Top 101 cities with low-earning residents located near cities with high-earning residents”
  • #40 on the list of “Top 101 cities with largest percentage of males in occupations: Librarians, curators, and archivists (population 5,000+)”
  • #42 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the highest number of assaults in 2006 per 10,000 residents, excludes tourist destinations and others with a lot of outsiders visiting based on city industries data (population 5,000+)”
  • #50 on the list of “Top 100 least-safe cities (highest city-data.com crime index)”
  • #51 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the highest number of robberies in 2006 per 10,000 residents, excludes tourist destinations and others with a lot of outsiders visiting based on city industries data”
  • #52 on the list of “Top 101 cities with largest percentage of females in occupations: Engineers (population 5,000+)”
  • #52 on the list of “Top 100 cities with the largest percentage of females (pop. 5,000+)”
  • #62 on the list of “Top 101 cities with the largest percentage of people in homes for the mentally ill (population 5,000+)”
  • #63 on the list of “Top 101 cities with largest percentage of females in occupations: Mathematical science occupations (population 5,000+)”
  • #65 on the list of “Top 101 cities with largest percentage of males in occupations: Architecture and engineering occupations: (population 5,000+)”
  • #84 on the list of “Top 101 cities with largest percentage of males in occupations: Life and physical scientists (population 5,000+)”
  • #40 (36703) on the list of “Top 101 zip codes with the largest percentage of Zimbabwean first ancestries”

Read more at City-Data.com.

Paul Kersey – At What Point Can We Stop the Charade of Celebrating Selma, Alabama?


via SBPDL:

Every March, the eyes of the nation turn to Selma, Alabama and the usually empty St. James Hotel is full, because there still exists mileage out of the white guilt trip the Edmund Pettus Bridge represents.

But for 51 other weeks, the city of Selma – that 80 percent black nightmare in Alabama – represents exactly why white people once dared stand in the way of what white liberals always claim is “progress.”

The “deplorable condition” of the St. James Hotel is a reminder of what happens to the civilization white people built when a proliferation of black people happens all around it.

80 percent black Selma represents the ultimate white liberal yearly pilgrimage, where those pulling the levers of Black-Run America (BRA) can still trot out a few Civil Rights-era blacks and say, “thank god these people walked across the bridge to usher in a equality.”

Funny though: all I see in 2015 Selma, an 80 percent black nightmare, is the exact manifestation of why white people dared stand in the way of what white liberals deem is progress, for it represented the complete regression of the civilization white individuals collectively built.

There’s nothing in Selma to celebrate. All that is left of the civilization white people built long ago in Selma is worth lamenting, a poignant reminder of the failure of forced integration.

Read more at SBPDL.

1st Syrian ‘Refugees’ Arrive In S.C. Despite Governor’s Concerns


via WND:

A pair of Syrians were secretly planted last week in Midlands, near the state capital of Columbia, without even the governor’s office being notified. And more Syrians are on their way to the Palmetto State, the South Carolina Department of Social Services confirmed to WND.

The Syrians are being resettled in South Carolina by Lutheran Services Carolinas, a private agency affiliated with Lutheran Migration and Refugee Service, one of nine contractors who receive hundreds of millions in federal taxpayer money to resettle foreign refugees in the U.S.

[. . .]

The refugees are sent to 180 cities and towns in 49 states under the authority of the Refugee Act of 1980, apparently with little to no oversight required by Congress or even acquiescence from the states, according to Richard’s testimony.

Before the Paris attack, Haley had supported the refugee program even though several counties in her state were protesting and saying they didn’t want the refugees, citing security and financial reasons.

But in South Carolina, just as in many of the other states where governors have protested, it is now clear that the Syrians will continue to arrive without the permission of the governor or the state’s congressional delegations.

All eyes had been on Spartanburg since March, when the evangelical World Relief Corp. said it planned to resettle 60 refugees this year, some of them from Syria. But it turned out to be Columbia, and the Lutherans made the first strike in what activists are describing as an unwelcomed invasion of Middle Eastern Muslims.

More than 97 percent of the nearly 2,300 Syrian refugees resettled in the U.S. since the start of the Syrian civil war have been Muslim, and the vast majority of those are Sunni Muslims, the same sect from which come followers of al-Qaida, ISIS, al-Nusra Front and other terrorist organizations. Almost all of the 85,000 refugees who will be resettled in the U.S. this year will be hand-selected by the United Nations refugee agency.

In South Carolina, five counties – Anderson, Berkeley, Lawrence, Greenville and Pickens – have already passed resolutions saying refugees are not welcome.

Read more at WND.

Milo Yiannopoulos – Neil DeGrasse Tyson is Highly Overrated as a Scientist


via American Renaissance:

Tyson, whom liberals love because they are racists who can’t believe a black guy could be smart enough to be a scientist and so spontaneously ejaculate and soil themselves every time they see him on TV, hasn’t published anything of note for years. The advantage of being a celebrity scientist is that you don’t actually have to do any science. You’re exempted from the usual “publish or perish” rules.

Even when he was making a go of being a proper academic, Tyson didn’t exactly have the most glittering record. He didn’t get the PhD he was studying for at the University of Texas and had to go elsewhere for his qualification. Obviously, rather than take responsibility for his academic performance, Tyson has blamed racism. In reality, Tyson was playing in bands and appearing on stage instead of completing essays. Typical science PhD students are at any given time either studying, teaching or sleeping.

It’s tough to avoid the conclusion that much of what is frustrating about Neil deGrasse Tyson stems from identity politics and the victimhood ideology peddled by leftist academics and journalists. Despite all his media success, Tyson insists that racism is responsible for his academic failures, alluding to sinister “forces” that keep women and ethnic minorities down.

In 2005, he said: “I know these forces are real and I had to survive them in order to get where I am today. So before we start talking about genetic differences, you gotta come up with a system where there’s equal opportunity.” He of course doesn’t address the fact that the only reason Neil deGrasse Tyson is on television at all, given his intellectual shortcomings, is that he is black.

Read more at American Renaissance.

Adi – Slovenians Counter Sodomite Revolution with Historic Vote


via Faith and Heritage:

In what can possibly go down in history as the most catastrophic year in terms of the political destabilization of society’s most fundamental institutions, marriage and the family, there has appeared a light at the end of a very dark tunnel after all. On Sunday, the nation of Slovenia repealed sodomite “marriage” in a landslide victory by 63.4% to 36.6%. The “no” side, backed by the Roman Catholic Church as well as a conservative coalition known as “Children Are at Stake,” eventually received about 400 000 votes, significantly more than the 343 000 votes it needed for the result to be constitutionally binding.12 This follows not only the legalization of this abomination in March this year, but also the attempts by the “democratic” government to ban such a referendum on the issue.

Read more at Faith and Heritage.

  • July 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
%d bloggers like this: