Swedish police today confirmed that the letter found in Lundin-Pettersson's home proves that the attack was a planned racist hate crime and that he acted alone.It's fascinating. Lundin-Petterson was willing to die for his people; he literally died defending his nation against invaders, and yet the global media is desperately trying to paint him as some sort of hateful monster. But how is he any different than the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers who died defending their country? Should we regard the sailors and soldiers who died at Pearl Harbor as racist hate criminals who should be denounced as anti-Japanese bigots? The Japanese weren't even planning to invade, let alone colonize Hawaii, after all.
'It was a kind of suicide note, I believe the letter was hand-written,' head of investigation Thord Haraldsson told a press conference earlier today. 'He writes that he has to do something about the immigration politics in Sweden.;
When asked if Lundin-Pettersson made clear in his letter that he did not intend to survive the attack, police said that it 'can be interpreted that he thought he was going to die'.
Security footage from the school in Trollhattan, north of Gothenburg, shows Lundin-Petterson marching through school corridors armed with a sword and a knife, and stopping to talk to light-skinned students. 'He selected his victims and attacked the dark-skinned ones and left the light-skinned ones alone,' Haraldsson said today. 'Everything points to this being a hate crime.'
Lundin-Petterson's second victim, Ahmed Hassan, 15, who died in hospital on Thursday afternoon, had arrived in Sweden with his parents and eight siblings from Somalia in 2012.
Grupos de personas con la cara cubierta han perpetrado ataques contra barcas y lanchas que transportan a refugiados desde Turquía hasta Grecia, en algunos casos inutilizando sus motores o incluso devolviendo estas barcas a aguas turcas.
Eyewitness from a Munich hospital: A friend in Prague has a friend, who, as a retired physician, had returned to work at a Munich area hospital where they needed an anaesthesiologist. I correspond with her and she forwarded me her email. Yesterday, at the hospital we had a meeting about how the situation here and at the other Munich hospitals is unsustainable. Clinics cannot handle emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the hospitals.Reconquista 2.0 is coming. The new Ordo Draconum is coming. And mark my words, this wave of mass migration will mark the end of the West's well-meaning but ill-considered experiment in religious freedom. Forget "European union". It is time to bring back the nations of Christendom.
Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff and, we, women, are refusing to go among those animals, especially from Africa. Relations between the staff and migrants are going from bad to worse. Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units.
Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we, in Europe, do not know how to treat them. If they receive a prescription in the pharmacy, they learn they have to pay cash. This leads to unbelievable outbursts, especially when it is about drugs for the children. They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words: “So, cure them here yourselves!” So the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also large pharmacies.
Truly we said openly: Where are all those who had welcomed in front of TV cameras, with signs at train stations?! Yes, for now, the border has been closed, but a million of them are already here and we will definitely not be able to get rid of them.
Until now, the number of unemployed in Germany was 2.2 million. Now it will be at least 3.5 million. Most of these people are completely unemployable. A bare minimum of them have any education. What is more, their women usually do not work at all. I estimate that one in ten is pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of them have brought along infants and little kids under six, many emaciated and neglected. If this continues and German re-opens its borders, I’m going home to the Czech Republic. Nobody can keep me here in this situation, not even double the salary than at home. I went to Germany, not to Africa or the Middle East.
Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who for 800 Euros cleans every day for years, and then meets young men in the hallways who just wait with their hand outstretched, want everything for free, and when they don’t get it they throw a fit.
I really don’t need this! But I’m afraid that if I return, that at some point it will be the same in the Czech Republic. If the Germans, with their nature cannot handle this, there in Czechia it would be total chaos. Nobody who has not come in contact with them has no idea what kind of animals they are, especially the ones from Africa, and how Muslims act superior to our staff, regarding their religious accommodation.
For now, the local hospital staff has not come down with the diseases they brought here, but, with so many hundreds of patients every day – this is just a question of time.
In a hospital near the Rhine, migrants attacked the staff with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, which they had dragged across half of Europe for three months. The child died in two days, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany. The physician had to undergo surgery and two nurses are laid up in the ICU. Nobody has been punished.
The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we know about it through email. What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed a doctor and nurses with a knife? Or if he had flung his own syphilis-infected urine into a nurse’s face and so threatened her with infection? At a minimum he’d go straight to jail and later to court. With these people – so far, nothing has happened.
And so I ask, where are all those greeters and receivers from the train stations?
Sitting pretty at home, enjoying their non-profits and looking forward to more trains and their next batch of cash from acting like greeters at the stations. If it were up to me I would round up all these greeters and bring them here first to our hospital’s emergency ward, as attendants. Then, into one building with the migrants so they can look after them there themselves, without armed police, without police dogs who today are in every hospital here in Bavaria, and without medical help.
Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” [the leftoids] recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.
Chateau Heartiste, October, 2011.
Equalist leftoid race creationism is bringing the death of the West. It is a sick, suicidal ideology built on a foundation of rank lies. It must be defeated, or it will consume everything good, true, and beautiful in its path.
I worry about the most lethal and emotionally devastating threat to each of my girls — being in a relationship.
Recent statistics show domestic family violence claims more Australian women’s lives and causes more ill health than all other well-known preventable risks.
The topic of sexbots is making the rounds again, and once again the question is how they fit with our new sexual morality. The last time this went around the argument by Dr Helen Driscoll was that using sexbots would become accepted as moral because their users would fall in love with them. This sets up the angry feminist backlash by Dr Kathleen Richardson, who explained to the Daily Express that the problem with robosex is a lack of purifying emotion:
Dr Richardson believes humanoid sex robots reinforce traditional and damaging stereotypes of women.
It also perpetuates the view that a relationship does not need to be more than simply physical.
Drs. Richardson and Driscoll aren’t alone in their modern idea that sexual morality is determined by the amount of emotion involved. Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, uses a very similar argument to explain why men viewing pornography is immoral. Dr. Mohler warns that pornography weakens the power of denial of sex as a tool for wives to control their husbands. As a result of this loss of power by wives, husbands will fail to mix in the purifying emotion which makes sex moral:
…Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same…
The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.
Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed…
…when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Drs. Driscoll, Richardson, and Mohler are all using the same yardstick to determine sexual morality. This is the modern way of thinking, and it is a direct consequence of our replacing traditional marriage with serial monogamy. Under the new view, headship is inverted and sex is purified by romantic love.
All three are looking at this through the wrong lens, but in the narrow disagreement between Drs. Driscoll and Richardson I can only agree with Dr. Driscoll. Dr. Richardson argues that robosex is immoral because it lacks purifying emotion. However, to the extent that robosex is worse than other masturbation tools the problem is the opposite. With vibrators and pornography the misuse is almost entirely physical. With sexbots there will be a much higher risk that romantic love would be misused as well:
“The physical act of sex will only be a small part of the time you spend with a sex robot – the majority of time will be spent socialising and interacting,” Roxxxy’s creator believes.
The biggest problem we have is that having jettisoned real sexual morality, we aren’t able to process the dangers that sexbots will pose in any meaningful way. If romantic love makes sex moral, the proponents of sexbots will always have a seemingly undefeatable argument in their favor. To argue that emotions don’t purify sex would undermine our entire modern edifice of sexual morality. This leaves us arguing over whether having sex with an artificial person involves emotion. If this is the discussion, those in favor of sexbots have the far stronger position.
Aside from the purely moral question, there is another risk regarding sexbots. Our economy is built on the expectation that men will be motivated by marriage to produce in excess of their own needs. As we continue to degrade marriage, sexbots will be there to fill the gaps.
Sexbots don’t even need to become a direct replacement for marriage to have a profound effect on our economy. Our current system relies on young men continuing to prepare to be providers while marriage continues to be further and further delayed. Sexbots will in this context be yet another distraction tempting young men to coast instead of working diligently in anticipation of their future wives tiring of having sex with other men. As each successive cohort of women tires of the carousel and starts looking for husbands, they will increasingly find that the cohort of men they hoped to marry are still willing to marry but fewer and fewer are in a position to play the role of provider. Additionally, sexbots could also accelerate the decline in men’s willingness to remarry after being punished in divorce court.
Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Washington Post, Sept.4th ... "What we've said to our members is that 'Trump is a liability to the future of the nation,' and we've asked them for support for Club for Growth Action to get that message out," Club for Growth President David McIntosh said in a statement to The Washington Post.
Well, that's awkward.
Regardless of how much progressives and “conservatives” drone on about equality, every society has an elite or noble class. The nobility, also known as the aristocracy, is defined as the group of people who belong to the highest social class in a particular country.
In the past, membership in the aristocracy was based on heredity. The nobility was synonymous with duty, honor, education, refinement, and courage. The noble class wasn’t just a group of wealthy do-nothings. They were expected to live by a higher code that included concern for the well being of their country.
Today, we still have an aristocracy, but it is not based on heredity. Instead it is based on wealth, celebrity, and educational background. Unfortunately, our new aristocrats are almost the complete opposites of the old nobility.
Emperor Karl, last of the Hapsburg Emperors
The hereditary nobility of the past was derived from the warrior class of the middle ages. Medieval society was divided into three basic groups: the priests, the nobles, and the peasants. Each group played a role in society. The job of the nobles was to protect the peasants and priests enabling them to complete their daily functions.
The behavior of the English nobility during the First World War is a good example of this. The British aristocracy enlisted in the military to defend the country. The nobility suffered disproportionately greater casualties than any other social class. The staggering losses suffered by the nobility forever changed the political trajectory of Britain. Historian Joanna Bourke writes:
This had a devastating impact: the prime minister’s son was killed, a number of cabinet members’ sons were killed and this meant that in the immediate postwar, those apprentices who were expected in the natural order of things to become leaders – particularly in politics and business – were no longer there.
For the old nobility, fighting for their country wasn’t something to be avoided or just for the lower classes, these wealthy aristocrats felt that it was their primary duty.
And it wasn’t just defense. The old aristocratic codes called upon the nobility to disdain wealth and to be generous with the poor.
Business magnate and supporter of left wing causes George Soros
Flash forward to our present degenerate culture. In today’s twisted society the “nobility” has become a class of wealthy, materialistic, and amoral twits. The concepts duty, bravery, and honor are completely unknown to them.
Who are the new nobility? Well, in the United States, it is the wealthy, liberal political elite such as the Kennedys, Bushs, and Clintons, Silicon Valley billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, reality show nobodies like the Kardashian clan, professional athletes, and the handful of preachy actors and writers that dominate the Hollywood scene.
Political Aristocrats: Revenant Bill Clinton telling President Obama about the horrifying side effects of a vegan diet.
The Clintons are an example of everything that is wrong with American politics. Of course, there are Bill’s notorious affairs while he was in office, and the rumors of dalliances after he left office, but that is really inconsequential when compared to the rest of the Clinton legacy.
The most egregious example is the Clinton Foundation. Author Peter Schweizer, in his book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, alleges that the Clintons amassed hundreds of millions of dollars by doing political favors for their clients.
For example, Schweizer writes that a Saudi sheik who is a high-dollar Clinton Foundation donor had a lucrative relationship with Ethiopia’s repressive government. Even though the State Department found that Ethiopia failed to meet transparency requirements to receive US aid, Hillary, as Secretary of State, conveniently granted Ethiopia a waiver.
If Schweizer is correct, the Clintons have turned the US government into a money making machine for themselves. This is hardly the selfless behavior that one would expect from a true noble.
But I am not singling out the Clintons here. They are only an example of how our political elite no longer has the good of the country as their goal. Their only goals are personal enrichment and power.
New aristocrats Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla
Another glorified American nobleman is Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg. Worth an estimated $38.6 billion, the Internet entrepreneur was listed among Time magazine’s 100 wealthiest and most influential people in the world.
Zuckerberg has put his wealth and influence to use by spending an estimated $25 million for pro-amnesty candidates and causes via his pro-open borders lobbying group FWD.us. Amnesty helps large corporations by increasing the supply of low-income workers, thus driving wages down for those jobs. But lower wages hurt American workers, especially those who are the most vulnerable including poor Hispanic and Black Americans.
But Zuckerberg isn’t only interested in lowering wages for poor Americans. He also wants fewer jobs and lower wages for the middle class. He supports increasing the number of H-1B visas for skilled that will increase the supply of skilled workers for corporations. That means American STEM graduates have fewer and lower paying job opportunities. Some young men despair of ever finding a good job. All this at a time when college costs have skyrocketed and the amount of student loan debt young Americans are carrying is at an all time high.
If the aristocracy is supposed to help the “peasants” of their own country, Zuckerberg is failing miserably. To him and our other corporate elites, what really matters is their own bottom line.
Celebrity Aristocrat Kim Kardashian via Instagram
As a family unit, the Kardashians embody virtually every vice and plague our current culture glorifies: gross materialism, do-it-yourself porn videos, bastardy, multiple divorces, promiscuity, gender fluidity (see Bruce Jenner), and extreme narcissism. The family has built an impressive empire upon Kim’s enormous naked ass and propensity for attention whoring.
But would this “noble” group actually do anything good for our failing country? Would the fabulous Kanye West with his titanic ego, take up arms to defend our nation if the need arose? Or would he simply hide behind one of his overpriced, Yeezy Season 1 creations? After all why worry about the “little people” when Kim can preach body fat acceptance with nude pregnancy selfies? (Warning: what has been seen, cannot be unseen.)
I do have one good thing to say about the Kardashians: as odious as they are, at least they do not lecture me about how I should pay more in taxes to save the world. I respect that.
There was a time when professional athletes weren’t just about their enormous salaries, fame, scores of girlfriends, and going bankrupt five years after retiring from sports. In December 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor many professional athletes were eager to enlist and fight against the Axis of Powers in World War II. And they enlisted despite the fact that serving in the military could have ended their professional athletic careers.
Bob Feller enlisted in the Navy the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, making him the first MLB player to enter the war. He spent 26 months as chief of an anti-aircraft gun crew on the USS Alabama. Likewise, Ted Williams served with the US Navy and US Marines during World War II, where he received his pilot’s wings and commission as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps. After a return to professional baseball he was recalled for active military service in 1952 where he flew 39 combat missions.
Compare the patriotism of these athletes of the past to the fact that only one professional athlete, Pat Tillman, felt the call of duty after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Keep in mind that 9/11 was an attack on the US mainland, something that hasn’t happened since the War of 1812, and that, unlike Pearl Harbor, it was targeted at civilians.
However, to their credit most athletes are content to live their own lives, and they don’t spend much time lecturing the “smallfolk.”
Perhaps the greatest of American noble hypocrites are the actors and writers of the so-called Hollywood Elite. Stephen King, whose novels I actually enjoy, has spent the last few years lecturing the middle class on why they should agree to taxes that will inevitably prevent them from getting wealthy while sitting comfortably upon his own fortune. This idea of “wealth for me, but socialism for the proles” is a familiar trope among our new aristocrats.
Likewise, a slew of Hollywood actors such as Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Natalie Portman preach the evils of global warming. Through an assortment of foundations and publicity stunts like tooling around in a Prius or wearing vegan shoes, these champions of the environment will tell you the importance of taking two-minute, cold showers, and limiting your consumption of toilet paper to one square per bowel movement.
Of course, they will conveniently overlook the fact that they fly in private jets and live in houses that use enough electricity to power a third world country. In short, it’s very much like Jennifer Lawrence preaching morality and abstinence.
C.S. Lewis was prophetic when he wrote: “Where men are forbidden to honor a king, they honor millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
While we can’t do anything at the present time to remove our new aristocrats, we at least can nourish our souls with what is best: high quality art and music, classical philosophy, and sound theology.
I still consider myself pro-choice, as I have for the last 30 years. I staked out this position during my freshmen year in college. Even then, I understood the abortion debate was a tug-of-war between competing rights—those of the mother versus those of an unborn baby. I sided with the mother. And I tried not to think about the baby.The idea that men have to defer to women and permit them to do whatever they want so long as their bodies are involved is both ridiculous and cowardly. There is no "my body" exception to the law; the law that can ban shooting up heroin or drinking unpasteurized milk certainly has the ability to ban the murder, mutilation, and parting-out of prenatal infants.
All this was happening in the 1980s, which was a particularly tense time in the abortion debate. Americans were at each other’s throats. Protesters picketed the offices of abortion providers. Clinics were bombed or set on fire. Doctors who performed abortions were being threatened. The Moral Majority, Operation Rescue, and the Republican Party seemed an intolerant lot. I couldn’t imagine siding with them, so I lined up on the pro-choice side.
I arrived there for a simple reason: Because I’m a man. Many will say that this is not a very good reason, but it is my reason. Lacking the ability to get pregnant, and thus spared what has been for women friends of mine the anguishing decision of whether to stay pregnant, I’ve remained on the sidelines and deferred to the other half of the population.
Over time, I made refinements—going along with waiting periods and parental notification laws at the state level, and coming out against the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.
As I’ve only realized lately, to be a man, and to declare yourself pro-choice, is to proclaim your neutrality. And, as I’ve only recently been willing to admit, even to myself, that’s another name for “wimping out.”
At least that’s how my wife sees it. She’s pro-life, and so she’s been tearing into me every time a new video is released. She’s not buying my argument that, as a man, I have to defer to women and trust them to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies. To her, that’s ridiculous—and cowardly.
“You can’t stand on the sidelines, especially now that you’ve seen these videos,” she told me recently. “That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”
The pro-life advocates behind the five shocking videos exposing Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted babies for research have released a 6th video today that shows how the abortion business sells body parts of aborted babies without patient consent.It is time - it is long past time - to shut down Planned Parenthood. Permanently.
The video features Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist who unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician” at the fetal tissue company and biotech start-up StemExpress in late 2012. That’s the company that acts as a middleman and purchases the body parts of aborted babies from Planned Parenthood to sell to research universities and other places.
The new video includes O’Donnell’s eyewitness narrative of the daily practice of fetal body parts harvesting in Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, describing tissue procurement workers’ coordination with abortion providers, the pressure placed on patients, and disregard for patient consent.
Warn your friends not to bring others with them!!! I had told two friends to bring themselves and their families to my home. They, unknown to me, told half-a-dozen other families to come too - "He's a good guy, I'm sure he won't mind!" Well, I did mind . . . but since the circumstances weren't personally dangerous, I allowed them all to hang around. However, if things had been worse, I would have been very nasty indeed to their friends (and even nastier to them, for inviting others without clearing it with me first!). If you offer a place of refuge for your friends, make sure they know that this applies to them ONLY, not their other friends. Similarly, if you have someone willing to offer you refuge, don't presume on his/her hospitality by arriving with others unforewarned....It's a very good idea to not only be prepared, but make connections with others who are doing the same in order to prevent oneself from being overrun by those who didn't see the need before it was too late.
People who were prepared were frequently mobbed/threatened by those who weren't. This was reported in at least seven incidents, five in Mississippi, two in Louisiana (I suspect that the relative lack of Louisiana incidents was because most of those with any sense got out of Dodge before the storm hit). In each case, the person/family concerned had made preparations for disaster, with supplies, shelter, etc. in good order and ready to go. Several had generators ready and waiting. However, their neighbors who had not prepared all came running after the disaster, wanting food, water and shelter from them. When the prepared families refused, on the grounds that they had very little, and that only enough for themselves, there were many incidents of aggression, attempted assault, and theft of their supplies. Some had to use weapons to deter attack, and in some cases, shots were fired. I understand that in two incidents, attackers and/or would-be thieves were shot. It's also reported that in all of these cases, the prepared families now face threats of retribution from their neighbors, who regarded their refusal to share as an act of selfishness and/or aggression, and are now threatening retaliation. It's reportedly so bad that most of the prepared families are considering moving to other neighborhoods, so as to start afresh, with different neighbors.
Similar incidents are reported by families who got out in time, prepared to spend several days on their own. When they stopped to eat a picnic meal at a rest stop, or an isolated spot along the highway, they report being approached rather aggressively by others wanting food, or fuel, or other essentials. Sometimes they had to be rather aggressive in their turn to deter these insistent requests. Two families report attempts being made to steal their belongings (in one case, their vehicle) while overnighting in camp stops on their way out of the area. They both instituted armed patrols, with one or more family members patrolling while the others slept, to prevent this. Seems to me to be a good argument to form a "bug-out team" with like-minded, security-conscious friends in your area, so that all concerned can provide mutual security and back-up.
Some days, I crawl out of bed and wonder if I’m still living in reality. Reading the news makes me wonder if I’m not lying half-dead in a hospital like in Jacob’s Ladder and the whole world around me isn’t some twisted hallucination. For example, learning that Spokane NAACP President Rachel Dolezal is actually a white woman who’s been pretending to be black makes me want to pinch myself so I can wake up from this nightmare:
A recent investigation into racially charged threats made toward the president of the NAACP chapter in Spokane have raised questions beyond who made the threats.
On Thursday, the chapter president’s parents claimed she had been deceiving people.
Ruthanne and Larry Dolezal said Thursday that they want people to know the truth, including that their daughter Rachel Dolezal is Caucasian. The Dolezals said their daughter is specifically German and Czech.
Ruthanne and Larry Dolezal said their daughter has always identified with the African-American culture and had black siblings who were adopted. They said she went to school in Mississippi and was part of a primarily African-American community.
Dolezal apparently achieved her reverse-Michael Jackson appearance through Snooki-esque tanning techniques and a really good hairdresser. After evading press scrutiny for several days, Dolezal came out defiantly attacking her critics:
Rachel Dolezal, the white NAACP leader who misrepresented herself as black for years, was pictured for the first time since the scandal surrounding her race erupted as she left her home on Friday.
She also gave an interview about the controversy, saying of her detractors; “I don’t give two shi*s what you guys think.” You are so far done, and out, of my life’
When pressed further about her race, she told KREM; ‘I actually don’t like the term African-American. I prefer black, and I would say that if I was asked I would definitely say that yes I do consider myself to be black.’
In addition to her status as Spokane NAACP president, Dolezal also teaches Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University and has falsely claimed to have been the victim of “hate crimes” in the past.
A year ago, I wrote a satirical article about “transracialism” with the intent of making fun of transsexuals, but even then, I had no idea that “transracialism” would actually become a thing. While there’s been a small movement of soi-disant “transniggers” on Tumblr, that well-known repository of mental illness and special snowflaking, Rachel Dolezal is the first example of this phenomenon in the real world.
The revelation of Dolezal’s true racial heritage has triggered a flurry of condemnations from left-wing thought organs such as Salon, the same ones that have normalized transsexuality and a host of other mental disorders. What they don’t realize is that by their own logic, the left has no right to criticize Dolezal for lying about being black.
For decades now, leftists have argued that race and gender are social constructs with no biological basis. This ludicrous line of reasoning allows the left to deny basic, observable physical differences between men and women (such as physical strength) as well as scientific data showing cognitive and behavioral differences between different ethnic groups. It has also been used to justify transsexuality: since there’s no biological basis for gender, a man who takes estrogen and gets his rocket flayed into a pocket is just as female as women who were born that way.
By this logic, on what basis can the left condemn Rachel Dolezal? If race is a social construct, then it doesn’t matter that Dolezal is a homely white girl from Montana; if she feels black on the inside, she is perfectly justified in changing her appearance and acting black. If we’re supposed to celebrate Bruce Jenner for embracing his “true” femininity through surgery and hormones, then we should also celebrate Dolezal for embracing her “true” race.
Rachel Dolezal’s decade-long deception also explodes a popular left-wing myth: the idea of “white privilege.”
According to leftists, American society is deeply racist, advantaging whites over all other races. Yet despite being white, Dolezal chose to reinvent herself as black, a member of a race that is supposedly discriminated against at all levels of society. If white privilege actually existed, Dolezal would never have chosen to deliberately cripple herself by pretending to be a member of an oppressed class.
The truth of “white privilege” is that it not only doesn’t exist, but the reality is the opposite: American society is afflicted with “black privilege,” “minority privilege,” and “female privilege.” As an ordinary white girl, Rachel Dolezal would have never gone anywhere in life. By reinventing herself as black, she not only secured a job teaching at a major university, but she became the president of the local chapter of a powerful political organization.
It remains to be seen whether Dolezal’s exposure will lead to any serious repercussions for her or any changes in the downward trajectory of American culture. All I know is that from here on out, the world is just going to get even more absurd.
Lindsay David – Author Print: The Central Bankers Bubble
If you missed ABC’s The Business last Friday, you missed both HIA’s Chief Economist Harley Dale and Crown Group’s Co-Founder Iwan Sunito’s interview. And boy did they not disappoint with their economic theory on negative gearing. Both Dale and Sunito believe that ending negative gearing would actually reduce “supply” of housing on the market.
Dale said ‘if you do that (end negative gearing) your’e immediately conferring an additional value to those investors and perhaps providing them with a disincentive to actually offload the property.’
Sunito said ‘I think it will have some impact because it will probably reduce the number of supply in the market.’ And then goes on to say ‘ I believe property is the thing that is very solid. Its something that will work for you and grow while you sleep.’
Now straight to the point, it would be hard to find two members of the Australian community with as much vested interest in the housing market than these two gentlemen. And no, when it comes to negative gearing, your investment actually ‘costs’ you money while you sleep. And if you know that your high-risk investment is at risk of getting caught in a regulatory trap that will make housing cheaper… you sell (offload) it!
The reality is that aside from negatively geared property investors, most segments of homebuyers in Sydney and Melbourne are priced out of, or have walked away from the market altogether. If you take away the negative gearers…which buyers are going to cover the shortfall of this artificial leveraged pent up demand? Nobody! And as per one of my previous posts, cities like Sydney and Melbourne do not have a housing shortage, but an artificial leveraged demand problem. This is the worst problem in the world to have for any economy. If there was such a dire shortage as Sunito suggests, why aren’t our local cricket and rugby fields now tent cities??
The reality is that ending negative gearing would burst the credit-fuelled Australian housing bubble and causing arguably one of the greatest economic downturns in Australia’s history. Because it would by all mathematical accounts take out our banking system. Because all of the sudden, you could possibly have more than several hundred thousand property investors who live pay-check to pay-check whilst waiting for the value of their asset to appreciate forced to sell on the fact that it will become unaffordable for them to hold their investment on the back of the banking system unable to lend more to new property investors if they cannot negatively gear their investment. Once again, the maths tell us there will not be enough buyers with the ability to borrow more than today’s leveraged generation of negatively geared property investors which means they could only pay ‘less’ for a particular dwelling versus today’s prices.
And in places like Sydney and Melbourne where property investors make up the absolute majority of current property buyers it takes them out of the game. House prices go down due to credit expansion stalling– leading to a mathematical breakdown similar to that of Bernard Madoff’s ponzi scheme. If that light blue line (Australia’s credit household expansion) in the figure below flatlines like it did with the bright red line (American household credit expansion) Australia has the mother of all property meltdowns.
History tells us that if household credit expansion falls to below 1% in a given economic quarter this means that house prices are falling. And (though we have only been able to witness very short episodes) start to fall fast until Australian government or central bank intervention. 2008 and 2012 were clear examples of government or RBA (or both) taking incredibly aggressive intervention measures when credit expands QOQ less than 1% stopping the Ponzi from breaking down. But now the RBA has run out of bullets. There is no resource available to counteract an end to negative gearing (whether market or regulation driven), and the household debt-to-gdp ratio is already the third highest in the world. Once again, find me a negatively geared property investor who will want to hold on to their property if property prices fall. Hoping to catch Rambo’s falling knife?
If I have the choice to listen to what the maths is telling me or what the pundits are telling me…. i’l take the side of maths every time.
The post Industry pundits talking fertilizer on negative gearing appeared first on Australia: Boom to Bust Blog.
The probability of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession such as Physician, Judge, Professor, Scientist, Corporate Executive, etc. increases with IQ to about 133. It then falls about 1/3 by 140. By 150 IQ the probability has fallen by 97%! In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time or who are responsible for assuring the efficient operation of social, scientific, political and economic institutions.In other words, more than a few PhDs at elite universities are more than two standard deviations below me in IQ terms. And here I am supposed to be impressed by a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy of Language from a second-tier Midwestern university? In fact, given the ability of the Ilk and my Vile Faceless Minions to not only follow my lead in a disciplined manner but also correctly anticipate my intentions without having them explained, the evidence would tend to suggest that the mean intelligence of the regulars here is higher than the Cambridge faculty.
"Over an extensive range of studies and with remarkable consistency, from Physicians to Professors to CEOs, the mean IQ of intellectually elite professions is about 125 and the standard deviation is about 6.5. For example, Gibson and Light found that 148 members of the Cambridge University faculty had a mean IQ of 126 with a standard deviation of 6.3. The highest score was 139."
"From a theoretical standpoint, democratic meritocracies should evolve five IQ defined 'castes', The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded. These castes are natural in that they are the result of how people of different intellectual abilities relate to one another. This is based on research done by Leta Hollingworth in the 1930's and the more recent work of D.K. Simonton."
"Leta Hollingworth studied profoundly gifted children. She reported them as having IQs of 180+, which was a R16 score. As such, on today's tests this equates to 159+. Her conclusion was that when IQ differences are greater than 30 points, leader/follower relationships will break down or will not form. It establishes an absolute limit to the intellectual gulf between leader and followers."
"Woe to you, oh Earth and Sea, for the devil sends the beast with wrath, for he knows the time is short...." - Revelations 13:18
|Got RFID Chips?|
"Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations."Also see the infamous Aaron Russo documentary on YouTube, America: Freedom to Fascism.
|HE IS RISEN|
|When the SHTF, it's TEOTWAWKI|
|The other Lizard Queen|
|Is it camping season yet?|
|It takes a lot to look like this!|
|Osama Bean Laden|
|"Oh beautiful, for gracious skies..."|
|We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...|
|Last known picture of Joel Stein...|
|Who is Keoni Galt?|
|THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!|
|The Typical Manifestation of Your Evangelical Zeal|
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
"Just another post by a mind addled by christianity ..."
"The concepts of christianity are dead & deserve to stay dead, precisely because theyre a creation of Rome & jews, specifically designed to create an ancient form of communism."
"Monogamous marriage is a prime example of the folly of christians."
"Monogamous marriage is incompatible with both men & womens biology & methods of reproduction
"All it does is create a horde of pussified, mangina's optimised for slave labour"
What is marriage for?
Possible answer: Because we love each other. No. We can love someone without marrying them. Without getting involved with them. Without anything formal being involved at all.
Possible answer: Because we're exclusive. No. We can be exclusive with someone without marrying them. That's just a "lets fuck exclusively" arrangement.
Accepted answer: To protect the family.
Yet again: Why was marriage developed?
It was developed to harness the power of Men and to yoke it to the development of civilization for the overall benefit of Men, Women, and Child(ren). When you give somebody skin in the game, then they will work hard at it. To give someone skin in the game, then there must be in their opinion something worthwhile in return.
A phenomenon in Christianity in the last hundred years or so is ecumenism, the belief that Christians should be united despite differences in beliefs. This is especially ubiquitous today and is the major driving force behind all those smug non-denominational churches popping up all over town.
Yet churches today—at least within evangelicalism—are in fierce competition for membership, knowing that churches grow more by migration than by conversion. And a major marketing point for the church on your street corner is their children’s ministries.
You grew up going to church, but you decided that you would rather smoke weed and have sex. So you gradually quit going, giving a reason like how we can’t know with absolute certainty whether God exists. But then you got married and grew too old for recreational drug use. Now you’ve got kids, and you don’t want them to grow up into degenerates. Plus it’s hard to make friends post-college beyond the idiots at work.
So you decided to start going back to church. You saw a billboard advertising the children’s ministry at a church in the area. You’ve met a few people that go there. From all you’ve heard, it sounds like an entertaining place.
The church is huge and doesn’t feel stuffy and outdated. What can it hurt to take your family to church? Seems like a good thing to do, and you’ve got nothing to lose but a few hours of sleep.
Fast-forward twenty years, and you’ve found that of the kids your children grew up with at church, the ones that were the most devout have the worst substance abuse problems and often aren’t Christians at all anymore. Your daughter turned into the church slut, and your son is a complete social retard. What the hell happened?
Most pastors in any Christian sect have no marketable skills beyond public speaking. Protestantism in general has more candidates for pastoral ministry than positions available. So the pastor knows he has to be careful about which sermons he feels God leading him to preach or else he could easily find out that God’s calling in his life has suddenly changed.
People church hop regularly today, in part because of the competitive nature in evangelicalism. So people join churches like they join golf courses. This one is really nice, but that other one has a tennis court, so we’ll pay our dues there instead. You get out of people what you expect out of them, so if churches treat their laity like clientele, then the lay people will act accordingly.
The days of attending the same church your family has attended for generations is gone. This lack of commitment to individual churches correlates with the lack of commitment found in Christian marriages, as divorce is rampant in these nominally pro-family establishments.
Churches also measure their success by quantity of members instead of quality. And to outsiders, a large number of members is a sign of quality, much how people continue to eat at franchise restaurants no matter how awful they taste while ignoring the local restaurants, unless those local restaurants gussy up their atmosphere to look like chain restaurants.
My childhood church, one of the biggest in the area, was famous in high school for having the most back-stabbing youth group. Despite their business mentality, they never thought to judge the product based on its functionality.
Davis Aurini has said before that Christians raise their daughters like sons and raise their sons like maidens. The boys, believing in an objective morality, delay sex for marriage, and the girls, believing in the unconditional forgiveness promised, fornicate with the non-Christians. And God forbid a girl is ever taught not to pursue a career or to submit to her husband’s authority.
Teenagers at church are taught very little about the differences between men and women other than that only men have a sex drive, because the parents—who pay the light bills—are in desperate denial that their daughters experience all seven deadly sins.
And the kids must be taught about human sexuality at church, because parents want to outsource their job to the church. Parents want their kids to have a strong sense of morality, but they don’t want to put the effort into instilling that morality themselves.
Kids are never told that women lose their ability to bond in sex some twenty times faster than men. They are never taught what Biblical masculinity and femininity looks like, and the blatant sexism in the Bible is apologized for and argued around. Your kids will be told that sex is something sacred but that they should save it until age 25.
From the comments section of Edward Thatch’s “Why Christian Men Don’t Deserve Virgins”
But that much is obvious. Another thing your kids will never learn is moderation. Instead they will be taught that they are unable to have self-control and must compensate. This is why Christian girls are absolutely terrified of men even when they are ready to marry.
It’s also the reason many Christians will say, “I don’t think alcohol is a sin, but I would never drink it because I don’t want to cause others to stumble. My great uncle was an alcoholic, so it runs in the family, and I wouldn’t be able to control myself after just one beer.”
Secular music often encourages un-Christian behavior, so churches provide a cheap substitute, assuming that the definition of rock n’ roll is distorted guitars. Christians assume that if you encounter a message, then you will come to believe it by mere osmosis. This Puritan misconception is not unlike the contemporary leftist thought policing.
Our society in general doesn’t place much stock in the notion of consequences. It’s as though people think they have a human right to not have their choices effect the outcome of their life. Churches have bought into this secularism with their preaching of Jesus’s forgiveness. He’s got a free gift of salvation. It won’t require anything from you!
The implication in promising free salvation is that there is nothing required on your end. So your daughter can whore herself around and believe that Jesus will forget all about it just as soon as she’s ready for Him to. And she’s also convinced that part of Jesus’s forgiveness involves still providing the plan for her that He’s had in mind from the beginning—namely that grand fairytale wedding.
Likewise, your son will believe that God will provide him with his fun, kind-hearted virgin bride in God’s own timing. Maybe that timing is when he’s 35, but God knows better than you, so don’t be complaining about your blue balls. And maybe that bride that God provides is a bit less than virginal or less than feminine or less than not divorced.
Doesn’t matter. God has a plan, and you need to marry that slut with the crushing law school debt. Can’t you see the signs? You happened to run into her at the store twice during the week after you first met her. Coincidences are God’s astrology.
Some of you may be thinking, “I was never taught any of that growing up in church! We just preached the Word.” That’s because the most dangerous things in garden-variety Christianity are not the direct teachings but the indirect. Just because nobody ever told you the words “self-esteem is a Biblical virtue” doesn’t mean that you didn’t internalize it from the attitudes surrounding you at church. And yes, often the lessons actually consumed completely contradict the lessons verbally spoken. It’s a broken system, like all things American.
For the rest of you, all that may sound like something from a bad preteen dystopian novel. It’s not. And unfortunately, they are a huge voting bloc, although the only real power they have today is keeping America in support of Israel’s apartheid.
Another great disservice your church will do to your kids is that, for all the talk about the importance of knowing the Bible, they are given a very skewed understanding of the Old Testament. Old Testament stories were taught to us as though they are fun children’s stories, like a real-life Snow White.
Then I got older and read about Gideon’s polygamy and paganism and David’s casual genocide when fighting as a mercenary for the Philistines. Apparently the Old Testament, in its attempt to be a detailed history of a time and place where only the fittest survived and human rights was the butt end of a tavern joke, is pretty bloody and hedonistic.
Turns out that the draconian morality in the Old Testament was just trying to make a stable civilization in a corner of the world with casual rape, sodomy, and infanticide being the Monday morning grind.
Most adult Christians are vaguely aware of the rapey morality in the Old Testament, but few of them understand it, and pastors avoid the topic because it doesn’t mesh with the upbeat vibe of Sunday morning soft rock. Instead pastors just pretend it doesn’t exist, much as they do with the New Testament’s teaching about women shutting up in church.
Few Christians have read much of the Bible beyond isolated verses, and they are uninterested in reading any kind of Bible commentary or systematic theology because of the big words inside. Even seminaries have greatly watered down their curricula so that anyone with a call can change lives for the better or worse. I know more scripture blind drunk than most pastors do on a Sunday.
Christians today are panicking because that their kids grow up to dismiss the Bible as mere fairy tales, but they don’t realize that they themselves were the ones who taught the Bible like it was Dr. Seuss.
There are very few “good church girls” left, and even most virgin girls are drunk on modern secularist idealism. Meanwhile the boys buy into all the equality and soft feminism from their Sunday school teachers and thus come to believe that a real man is a kind and gentle white knight, someone who will sacrifice all of himself on a dime just like Jesus.
Therefore, if you want your kids to grow up with traditional morality, don’t take them to church.
The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage.... all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today.If you read the works of the anti-suffragettes and compare them to the works of the pro-suffragettes, you will rapidly reach the correct conclusion: the anti-suffragettes were right.
Ultimate History Project writes,
One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker…According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”
Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.
Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.
This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.
Dr. Anna Shaw, President of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association called anti-suffragists the “home, hearth and mother crowd.” Obviously, she was not interested in any of these identities. When asked why there was no marriage in heaven, Dr. Shaw brazenly responded, “Because there are no men in heaven.” Like many suffragettes, she felt that men were not necessary and women, banding together could take care of themselves and live happily ever-after in a female-dominated world and after-life.
I spent a long time on the phone last night with a law professor at one of the country’s elite law schools. This professor is a practicing Christian, deeply closeted in the workplace; he is convinced that if his colleagues in academia knew of his faith, they would make it very hard for him. We made contact initially by e-mail — he is a reader of this blog — and last night, by phone. He agreed to speak with me about the Indiana situation on condition that I not identify him by name or by institution. I do know his identity, and when he tells me that he is “well-informed about the academy and the Supreme Court,” I assure you that from where he sits, and teaches, and from his CV, he is telling the truth.It's time for the church leaders and the heads of Christian families to start learning from #GamerGate, to start learning from Sad Puppies, and start leading. Start banding together and stop accommodating the secular world in any way. Don't hire those who hate you. Don't buy from those who wish to destroy you. Don't work with those who denigrate your faith, your traditions, your morals, and your God. Don't tolerate or respect what passes for their morals and values.
I will call him Prof. Kingsfield, after the law professor in The Paper Chase.
What prompted his reaching out to me? “I’m very worried,” he said, of events of the last week. “The constituency for religious liberty just isn’t there anymore.”
Like me, what unnerved Prof. Kingsfield is not so much the details of the Indiana law, but the way the overculture treated the law. “When a perfectly decent, pro-gay marriage religious liberty scholar like Doug Laycock, who is one of the best in the country — when what he says is distorted, you know how crazy it is.”
“Alasdair Macintyre is right,” he said. “It’s like a nuclear bomb went off, but in slow motion.” What he meant by this is that our culture has lost the ability to reason together, because too many of us want and believe radically incompatible things.
But only one side has the power.... A college professor who is already tenured is probably safe. Those who aren’t tenured, are in danger. Those who are believed to be religious, or at least religious in ways the legal overculture believes constitutes bigotry, will likely never be hired. For example, the professor said, he was privy to the debate within a faculty hiring meeting in which the candidacy of a liberal Christian was discussed. Though the candidate appeared in every sense to be quite liberal in her views, the fact that she was an open Christian prompted discussion as to whether or not the university would be hiring a “fundamentalist.”
The result could be that religious schools have to start policing orthodoxy in terms of all their hires — a situation imposing standards far more strict than many schools may wish to live by, but which may be necessary to protect the school’s legal interests.
Kingsfield said homeschooling, and homeschooling-ish things (e.g., co-ops), are going to become increasingly important to orthodox Christians, especially as they see established religious schools folding on this issue.
Businesses, however, are going to have a very hard time resisting what’s coming. Not that they would try. “The big companies have already gone over,” said Kingsfield.
“Most anti-discrimination laws have a certain cut off – they don’t apply if you have 15 employees or less,” he said. “You could have an independent, loosely affiliated network of artisans, working together. If you can refer people to others within the network, that could work. You won’t be able to scale up, but that’s not such a bad thing.”
Kingsfield said religious colleges and universities are going to have to think hard about their identities.
“Colleges that don’t receive federal funding – Hillsdale and Grove City are two I can think of – are going to be in better position, because federal regulations force a lot of crazy stuff on you,” he said. “I think it would be really wise for small religious institutions to think hard if they can cut the cord of federal funding and can find wealthy donors to step in.”
Kingsfield said we are going to have to watch closely the way the law breaks regarding gender identity and transgenderism. If the courts accept the theory that gender is a social construct — and there is a long line of legal theory and jurisprudence that says that it is — then the field of antidiscrimination law is bound to be expanded to cover, for example, people with penises who consider themselves women. The law, in other words, will compel citizens to live as if this were true — and religious liberty will, in general, be no fallback. This may well happen.
What about the big issue that is on the minds of many Christians who pay attention to this fight: the tax-exempt status of churches and religious organizations? Will they be Bob Jones’d over gay rights?
Kingsfield said that this is too deeply embedded in American thought and law to be at serious risk right now, but gay rights proponents will probably push to tie the tax exemption on charities with how closely integrated they are within churches. The closer schools and charities are tied to churches, especially in their hiring, the greater protection they will enjoy.
The accreditation issue is going to be a much stickier wicket. Accreditation is tied to things like the acceptance of financial aid, and the ability to get into graduate schools.
“There was a professor at Penn last year who wrote an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education calling for the end of accrediting religious colleges and universities,” Kingsfield said. “It was a Richard Dawkins kind of thing, just crazy. The fact that someone taking a position this hostile felt very comfortable putting this in the Chronicle tells me that there’s a non-trivial number of professors willing to believe this.”
Gordon College has faced pressure from a regional accrediting authority over its adherence to traditional Christian sexual morals re: gay rights.
“Accreditation is critical to being admitted to law schools and medical schools,” Kingsfield said. “College accreditation will matter for some purposes of sports, federal aid, and for the ability to be admitted by top graduate schools. Ghettoization for Christians could be the result.”
“In California right now, judges can’t belong to the Boy Scouts now. Who knows if in the future, lawyers won’t be able to belong to churches that are considered hate groups?” he said. “It’s certainly true that a lot of law firms will not now hire people who worked on cases defending those on the traditional marriage side. It’s going to close some professional doors. I certainly wouldn’t write about this stuff in my work, not if I wanted to have a chance at tenure. There’s a question among Christian law professors right now: do you write about these issues and risk tenure? This really does distort your scholarship. Christianity could make a distinct contribution to legal discussions, but it’s simply too risky to say what you really think.”
The emerging climate on campus of microaggressions, trigger warnings, and the construal of discourse as a form of violence is driving Christian professors further into the closet, the professor said.
“If I said something that was construed as attacking a gay student, I could have my life made miserable with a year or two of litigation — and if I didn’t have tenure, there could be a chance that my career would be ruined,” he said. “Even if you have tenure, a few people who make allegations of someone being hateful can make a tenured professor’s life miserable.”
“What happened to Brendan Eich” — the tech giant who was driven out of Mozilla for having made a small donation years earlier to the Prop 8 campaign — “is going to start happening to a lot of people, and Christians had better be ready for it. The question I keep thinking about is, why would we want to do that to people? But that’s where we are now.”
I pointed out that the mob hysteria that descended on Memories Pizza, the mom & pop pizza shop in small-town Indiana that had to close its doors (temporarily, one hopes) after its owners answered a reporter’s question truthfully, is highly instructive to the rest of us.
“You’re right,” he said. “Memories Pizza teaches us all a lesson. What is the line between prudently closing our mouths and closeting ourselves, and compromising our faith? Christians have to start thinking about that seriously.”
“We have to fall back to defensive lines and figure out where those lines are. It’s not going to be persecution like the older Romans, or even communist Russia,” he added. “But what’s coming is going cause a lot of people to fall away from the faith, and we are going to have to be careful about how we define and clarify what Christianity is.... The most important question for Christians parents to ask themselves is, do we have a vibrant church?,” he said. “Sadly, only a small number of places have them. My family is in one. Our kids are growing up with good examples that they can look up to, and good older kids who hang on because they can stand together.”
Some people taking the Benedict Option will head for the hills, Kingsfield said, but that will be a trivial number, and that won’t be an answer for most of us.
“We need to study more the experience of Orthodox Jews and Amish,” he said. “None of us are going to be living within an eruv or practicing shunning. What we should focus on is endogamy.”
Endogamy means marriage only within a certain clan or in-group.
“Intermarriage is death,” Kingsfield said. “Not something like Catholic-Orthodox, but Christian-Jew, or high church-low church. I just don’t think Christians are focused on that, but the Orthodox Jews get it. They know how much this matters in creating a culture in which transmitting the faith happens. For us Christians, this is going to mean matchmaking and youth camps and other things like that. It probably means embracing a higher fertility rate, and celebrating bigger families.”
When Pussy Riot invaded Christ the Saviour Cathedral, center of the Russian Orthodox Church, to perform its blasphemous concert and Western leaders reacted with outrage to their entirely justified arrest, Abbot Tryphon of All-Merciful Savior Monastery in Washington remarked that there was now “no such thing as sacrilege in the West.” Every day he is proved more and more thoroughly right.
It has come to my attention, admittedly rather late, that the Cathedral of the Holy Virgin Protection in New York City, a Cathedral of the Orthodox Church in America, to which I belong—the only autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church headquartered in the United States—hosted, near the end of January, a sort of concert. At this concert, representatives of all the local religions in the East Village, including Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and even Muslims (though these last apparently mistook the date and therefore were not in attendance), were invited to come and perform music in the Cathedral, as a kind of show of mutual affection or something.
I suppose in addition to “No such thing as sacrilege,” we can now say that, even for the Orthodox, at least in the East Village, there is no such thing as sacred space in the West. Anglicans have become famous for letting Muslims use their churches as houses of worship—and why not? If, in fact, a church is just a building, and if you worship on Sunday while the Muslims worship on Friday, what could possibly be objectionable in sharing the space?
Except that a church isn’t just a building. “Make not My Father’s house an house of merchandise,” said Our Lord. Why not? Because a temple must be a place set apart for particular people and a particular purpose—to use it for anything else defiles it. To let anyone in who is not part of that purpose defiles it.
In the West, it’s not just our temples that are no longer sacred—it’s our homelands. It’s our homes themselves. Everything must be shared with everyone. It doesn’t matter if our homeland is lost—it’s just dirt, no better or worse than any other dirt. It doesn’t matter if our people are replaced—they’re just Social Security contributors, no better than the Social Security contributors being imported to replace them.
The spirit of equality is fundamentally opposed to the idea of sanctity. Equality wants a mass of identical men, none set apart from the others, while sanctity fundamentally means the state of being set apart. When nothing is special, when nothing is our own, nothing is sacred to us.
For everything that is sacred must be sacred to someone in particular—something we monotheists are perhaps apt to forget and something of which a saint has occasionally reminded us by declaring something sacred to himself (I think in particular of St. Cuthbert and the birds).
A people that cannot preserve the sanctity—that is, the exclusivity—of its temples cannot preserve the exclusivity—that is, the sanctity—of its homeland. There is no longer any such thing as sacrilege in the West. Unless that changes there will no longer be such a thing as the West—just another part of the world, “just as good as any other part.”
Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they—like communist and heretical Christian movements—assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. This is a political siren song; life can never be made perfect, because man is imperfect. (Goldberg 130)
Far too often socialism and communism are compared to what is currently the political embodiment of the modern leftist ideology in the U.S. These leftist and communist ideas include anti-capitalism, total destruction of the individual in favor of the state, and big government takeover. We have all heard this stereotype.
However, I think there is a far more accurate political ideology floating in the minds of modern leftists, thirsty for revolution to take down “the man” and change the “bourgeois system.” I am speaking of fascism.
“What!!” you say as you spit out your soy latte.
“Fascism is reserved only for evil white conservative men who spout evil fascist rhetoric like small government, individualism, self-reliance, capitalism, less dependency on government, traditionalism, and self-responsibility with strong ties to self-sustaining autonomous Christian family units!!!”
Slow down, Che, put down the vegan burger and let me explain…
After peeling back some layers and layers of Orwellian leftist language and indoctrination that fascism is of the evil American Right, closer examination reveals startling comparisons to the modern American leftist.
Fascism could not be any further from the American conservative (Classical Liberalism at it’s heart). Very few realize that fascism by its very nature was an extremely leftist populist movement taking root in Mussolini’s Italy and spreading like wild fire throughout Europe.
Fascism was born out of socialism (the prized ideology among the left) and was an evolved state-centric version of socialism which became popular around the early to mid 1900s. It was “new” and full of revolutionary change. Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (a name consisting almost entirely of Socialist revolutionaries) was raised a charismatic Italian Socialist (his Socialist father being a huge influence on him) (Goldberg 31).
After Mussolini incorporated socialism and nationalism within Italy, fascism spread quickly (without much pretense to race that would come later with German Nazism). Fascism would eventually compete with International Socialism for the young revolutionary, the working man, the poor, and the masses in places such as Germany, France, and Italy.
To many individuals, fascism state-centric ideology seemed far more of a “working system” rather than that delusional idea of “uniting the workers of the world”, which was the motto of the International Socialist. With fascism, as with all large bloated governments that leftists think can cure all our qualms, the utopian lie is propagated by the state which supposedly aims to build a communal National Socialism state-sponsored family.
Fascism was to transcend class differences exactly like socialism preached. Below are first-hand accounts according to working class Germans and their views on Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist ideas:
…Though I was interested in the betterment of the workingman’s plight, I rejected Marxism unconditionally. I often asked myself why socialism had to be tied up with internationalism- why it could not work as well or better in conjunction with nationalism’. Another German states ‘I shuddered at the thought of Germany in the grip of Bolshevism. The slogan ‘Workers of the World Unite!’ made no sense to me. At the same time, however, National Socialism with its promise of community…barring all class struggle, attracted me profoundly’. Another German stated they embraced Nazism because of the ‘uncompromising will to stamp out the class struggle, snobberies of caste and party hatreds. The movement bore the true message of socialism to the German workingman. (Goldberg 74)
Below are key points from Mussolini and the Fasci di Combattimento (a Fascist organization created by Mussolini) circa 1919 (Goldberg 46):
All of this seems like the modern American leftist’s wet dream. Modern American leftist rhetoric is far closer to fascism than the American right’s strong stress on individualism, capitalism, and reduced government intervention.
Fascism stressed huge state governments. This huge fascist government included expanding health services, enforcing anti-elitism, wealth-confiscation, and secularism (Goldberg 46) all in the name of the state and the common good. Fascism offered “anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalistic, and anti-individualist nationalism” (Sternhell 214-220).
The state was always before the individual under fascism; taking from some and redistributing to the many. This is the core of modern American leftist ideology. Many parallels of fascism are closely similar to Obamacare (expanding health services), higher taxes among the elite and wealthy (wealth confiscation), and the most recent; the fascist power grab, by the FCC “Net Neutrality” rules (anti-capitalist).
To illustrate this comparison further, let’s look at just a few of the Nazi Party’s key points (Goldberg 411):
I can’t tell the difference when the Nazi points end and the American leftist points begin. Not to mention, affirmative action (prized among the left) is just race privilege enforced by government intervention. Affirmative action is similar to the notorious government enforced Aryan privilege in Nazi Germany regardless of skill.
In all leftist extremes, be it communism, Nazism, socialism, or Fascism; murder, violence, and censorship are sure to be the eventual outcome of huge government. It is a historic pattern and if history is cyclical, which I believe it is, we are at the beginning of what will be the eventual violence found among extreme Leftist purity tactics dating back to the French Revolution (Jacboins), up through Soviet Russia (Bolsheviks), Ukraine, and Communist China.
Nothing has been more devastating and dangerous politically in the 20th century than leftist thought. If we look at 20th century communism alone we come to a whopping 85-100 million worldwide that perished under such leftist regimes, not to mention the censorship, labor camps, violation of civil liberties, and imprisonment.
One should think of fascism not as the complete opposite of socialism and communism, but yet another kindred spirit in extreme leftist political ideologies that were competing for the hearts and minds of the populous. Not much has changed with fascist ideology of collectivism (another prized belief of the left) were individual twigs bundle together to make a strong piece of collective wood.
Allow this article to be a possible warning sign of modern day ideology, as their quest will devolve into a loss of civility and violence as we move farther and farther left. As the left ideologies become more and more resembling a preacher preaching piety from the pulpit, “action” will be the next conclusive step. Peel back the leftist Orwellian language with nice sounding words like “Obamacare” and “Net Neutrality” to expose it for what it really is; fascist policies and huge government takeover in a pretty wrapper.
Whatever the case, one should keep in mind that socialism, communism, fascism, and Nazism all are of the left; they were just different factions of the left. What is occurring in the U.S. today is not that different from what occurred in Europe some years ago. Though it may be much slower and softer, “American” Fascism echoes European Fascism and is rooted in this very ideology.
Keep this in mind when you are sitting in your cube at the Ministry of Truth, hunched over your keyboard, editing and bowdlerizing Wikipedia pages for “the party”; just remember this article and the quintessential fascist party ideology:
…(the) quest to create an all-caring, all-powerful, all-encompassing state, a state that assumes responsibility for every desirable outcome and takes the blame for every setback on the road to utopia, a state that finally replaces God (Goldberg 20)
“But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
Do not become the protagonist of 1984. Let’s keep fiction for the books and reality for us here in America. The philosophical and political fate of the country depends on it.
Goldberg, Jonah Liberal Fascism. New York: Doubleday, 2007
Sternhell, Zeev Neither Right or Left: Fascist Ideology in France. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995
In 1615, a fleet of 80 Zaporozhian Cossack boats, called chaiky, slipped into the harbor of Constantinople and razed the entire area around the harbor to the ground. This was the culmination of a hundred years of naval raids that the Cossacks were conducting against various ports of the Ottoman Empire.
At that time, the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful state in Europe and was on the offensive on all fronts. That did not deter the Cossacks. They were fearless and in subsequent years conducted a few more raids on Ottoman ports. The bigger the challenge, the more likely they were to attempt it. The Zaporozhians were not afraid to take risks, even doing things that seemed impossible.
The year following that raid on Constantinople, they raided the port of Trebizond. The Ottoman Sultan sent a fleet to the mouth of the Dnieper River in order to try to destroy their fleet. However in a show of the ultimate “f*%k you,” the Cossacks who were returning from their successful raid decided to turn around and once again attacked Constantinople. They caused a lot of havoc, even rampaging through the official palace of the Sultan himself.
The Cossacks were brave warriors who cherished their freedom. They had a strict code of honor and valued courage above all else. A Venetian envoy once compared them to the Spartans, only more drunk: “This republic (the Zaporozhian Sich) could be compared to the Spartan, if the Cossacks respected sobriety as highly as did the Spartans.”
The Cossacks learned how to endure many hardships from early on. Their code of honor preached that they always needed to help a friend in trouble. They would often sacrifice themselves in order to save others. Their skills and abilities in horsemanship and with different arms (swords, guns) were legendary.
They could crawl up on an enemy undetected, as well as charge on horseback gun in hand, being able to hit a far-away target with exact precision. They could ride a horse, go on long marches, but also take an oar in hands and battle on the sea. The Cossacks were masters of multiple ways of warfare.
There were various types of Cossacks. This essay will focus on the Ukrainian Cossacks, particularly the Cossacks of the Zaporozhian Sich. These were probably the most freedom loving and the fiercest of all the Cossack groups.
The first Cossack communities began forming on the wild Ukrainian steppes around the Dnieper River. Many Ukrainian peasants, outlaws, clergy, even nobles began trying to escape from the harsh rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and joined people already inhabiting the area called the Wild Fields. This was a virtual no-man’s land stuck between the lands controlled by the Poles, Russians and the Crimean Tatars.
There they could live free. In order to protect themselves, they began to form fortified camps, one of which was founded on the island of Khortytsia in an area called “beyond the rapids,” Zaporozhie. This was the start of the Zaporozhian Cossacks.
The Zaporozhian society was one based on freedom. Anyone from any walk of life could come in and join the Cossacks. Every Cossack was considered a free man. Their system also relied on elections. All officers were elected for a one year term. This was quite a difference from other systems in Europe at that time, where power was based on feudal relationships. For a Zaporozhian, his freedom was sacred.
Soon after their foundation, the Zaporozhian Cossacks began making raids on the territories of the Crimean Tatars, capturing booty and freeing the slaves. The Cossack way of life also began spreading into the lands controlled by the Polish.
The Poles saw this development and quickly adapted to it, setting up an institution known as the Registered Cossacks. They noticed the advantages of having these types of formations in their armies, especially when guarding their frontier. The Registered Cossacks formed several units in the armies of the Commonwealth. However thousands more unregistered Cossacks continued to exist as well.
What is very important to note about the Cossacks is the fluidity of their identity. Different people floated between the different Cossack groups and it was very easy to join them. While the Ukrainian ethnic predominated among them, the Cossacks were also sometimes joined by Poles, Jews, Moldovans, Tatars, Russians, and Germans from all walks of life, from escaped serfs to nobles.
More and more, the Zaporozhian Cossacks began allying themselves with the Eastern Orthodox clergy and the Ukrainian peasantry, forming a sort of proto-national movement of the Ukrainians.
All these class, national, and religious conflicts culminated in the figure of Bohdan Khmelnitsky and his uprising. In 1648, Khmelnitsky rose up against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Quickly thereafter, he was elected as the Hetman of the Cossacks and led their armies in the fight. The battles were quite bloody and led to heavy losses on both sides.
In 1654, Khmelnitsky made the fateful decision to ally himself with the Russian tsar and signed the Treaty of Peryaslav. This led to the creation of the Cossack Hetmanate, an independent Cossack state, allied with Russia.
This was not to last long however. Ten years after the death of Khmelnitsky, the Hetmanate as an entity spanning both sides of the Dnieper was no more. In 1667, Russia and Poland signed the Treaty of Andrusovo, which divided up the Hetmanate between themselves, forming a Right-Bank Ukraine (for Poland) and a Left-Bank Ukraine (for Russia), each country taking the Cossacks who inhabited those territories for themselves.
The Left-Bank Hetmanate joined the Sloboda Ukraine territory as Cossack territories falling under the Russian tsar. Cossack Hetmans continued to be elected, however now they had to fall under the authority of the Russian tsar.
To the south of those lands, the territories of the Zaporozhian Sich continued to exist, stretching from central Ukraine, through the territories of today’s Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporozhia and Donetsk oblasts all the way to areas above the Sea of Azov. These territories, while in Russian orbit, retained a lot of their independence and served as a beacon of hope for all oppressed Ukrainian peasants.
The period after the death of Khmelnitsky is known by the Ukrainians as the “Ruin.” The entire territory descended into chaos, as the Poles, the Russians and the Ottoman Turks (and their allies the Crimean Tatars), were all vying for supremacy. The Cossacks fought on all sides of the conflict, sometimes switching sides, but oftentimes different Cossack groups standing against each other on the opposite fields of battle.
While the other Cossack lands became more and more repressed, the Cossacks of the Zaporozhian Sich still continued to retain a lot of their freedoms. They were fierce warriors who would never back down from a challenge and continued to guard their territories with a huge ferocity, knowing that they were not fighting just for themselves, but for their comrades as well.
The Zaporozhian Cossacks were also bad-asses who took no shit from anybody. In 1676, the Zaporozhian Sich was led by Ivan Sirko, who had been elected as their kosh otaman. In that year, they won a battle against the Ottoman armies, however the Sultan decided to bring more troops into the Ukraine and subjugate the entire country.
He sent the Zaporozhian Cossacks this letter:
“Sultan Mehmed IV to the Zaporozhian Cossacks:
As the Sultan; son of Muhammad; brother of the sun and moon; grandson and viceroy of God; ruler of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Upper and Lower Egypt; emperor of emperors; sovereign of sovereigns; extraordinary knight, never defeated; steadfast guardian of the tomb of Jesus Christ; trustee chosen by God Himself; the hope and comfort of Muslims; confounder and great defender of Christians – I command you, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, to submit to me voluntarily and without any resistance, and to desist from troubling me with your attacks.
–Turkish Sultan Mehmed IV”
The Cossacks sat down and wrote a reply:
“Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!
O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil’s kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are you, that can’t slay a hedgehog with your naked ass? The devil excretes, and your army eats. You will not, you son of a bitch, make subjects of Christian sons; we’ve no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck your mother.
You Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig’s snout, mare’s ass, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw your own mother!
So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won’t even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we’ll conclude, for we don’t know the date and don’t own a calendar; the moon is in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day is the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our ass!
– Koshovyi Otaman Ivan Sirko, with the whole Zaporozhian Host”
The Zaporozhian Cossacks were not afraid of anyone and were willing to fight to the death to defend their freedom. More than 200 years later, Ilya Repin, a Russian painter, would immortalize this moment in a painting.
Life under the Russian tsar was harsh, as little by little the traditional rights of the Ukrainian Cossacks were taken away. In 1709, the Russian tsar was locked in a war with Sweden. The Cossack Hetman of Left-Bank Ukraine Ivan Mazepa, who until now had been very pro-Russian, however decided to take one last gamble on the independence of the Ukraine and the Cossacks and rebelled against the Russian Empire.
He allied himself with the Swedish King who was campaigning in the Ukraine. The Zaporozhian Cossacks immediately joined the forces of Mazepa.
The rebellion was short-lived, as the combined Swedish and Cossack forces were defeated by the Russian army at the Battle of Poltava. The Swedish King, Mazepa and a few thousand Cossacks (some from the Hetmanate, but most being Zaporozhians) escaped to the town of Bendery in today’s Moldova, then controlled by the Ottomans.
Shortly thereafter, Ivan Mazepa died in exile. After his death, the Cossacks did not give up, but continued to struggle to keep their freedom. The Bendery exile period resulted in one piece of very remarkable history. In 1710, the newly elected Hetman, Pylyp Orlyk, wrote the Constitution of the Zaporozhian Host.
It was one of the oldest democratic constitutions in Europe and established the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, many years before Montesquieu and way before the American Constitution.
From then on, the Ukrainian Cossacks remained under Russian rule. The Zaporozhian Host managed to survive until 1775, when Russian Empress Catherine II ordered a sneak attack on their fort, razing the Sich to the ground. The Cossack Hetmanate was dissolved a few years later.
This ended the free privileges of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, but did not spell the end of the Cossacks. The Cossacks themselves survived and most importantly their legacy lived on. Their courage and love of freedom served as examples to be emulated and their stories continue to be retold from generation to generation.
April 4th, 2003 was the last day of my youth.
I was 17. The school day had ended. The courtyard was full of cheery students rushing off to catch their buses or dash home for an evening of Street Fighter Alpha, Lik-a-Stik candies and ring pops. It was a simple time.
Birds chirped. Squirrels played their little games, the rules of which mankind can ne’er dream to discern. The crisp spring air intertwined with the setting sun, launching the evening’s aura into paroxysms of verisimilitude. The world was a happy place. Or so we had been taught. Our teachers, our parents, the posters in our classrooms all agreed: All people should be treated equally. Diversity is to be celebrated. We’re all OK just the way we are. Ah, those days! Such joy! Would that I could plug back in, and return to the simple pleasure of believing in those empty slogans.
Alas I cannot, because on April 4th, 2003, for the first in my life, I stared deep into the eyes of swole hate. Today, I share my story.
I was making my way to the rugby pitch, when I was accosted by a “friend” of mine from class. Her name was Jennifer. She asked me where I was going. “Practice,” I said, sensing something amiss. Jennifer positioned herself in front of my path, forcing me to stop.
“How late does practice go?” She asked, smiling. “Do you want to hang out after?”
“I’m going to the gym after practice to lift weights,” I replied, avoiding her invasive eye contact. I felt uneasy, like an (incredibly swole for his age) antelope in a cage with a lion.
The next words dripped from her mouth like venom: “Ah, working on these I presume?” Her hand darted out like a scorpion’s tail, and she began massaging my upper arm. Rubbing, squeezing. Not stopping.
“Yes,” I said, tears streaming from my eyes on the inside. “I have to go. Coach makes us run hills when we’re late.”
“Okaaay,” she replied with a pouty face, her hand still resting on my arm. “Wouldn’t want the big strong rugby team captain to be late.”
I jogged past her and towards the pitch, away, away, far away from her caliper-like fingers. My calves burned with pain, because yesterday was a leg day. My heart burned as well, but yesterday wasn’t a heart day.
When I arrived at practice, coach pulled me aside.
“Elihu,” he said, “come here for a second. I’m moving you to the back of the line-out. You had the perfect build for a jumper last year – 6’3 and 165lbs – but you’ve swoled up to almost two hundo since then. The other guys aren’t swole enough to lift you.”
My heart sank. Even coach, a man I’d always trusted to see me as a human being, considered me swole first, Elihu second. After practice, I went to the gym with my swole bros. We lifted in the name of the Father, The Son, and The Swoley Spirit. We lifted, and we saw that we had lifted, and it was good. But the words of coach and the unsolicited touches of Jennifer stayed with me. In their own separate, and possibly even well-meaning ways, they had taught me something: I was The Other.
On that day, my eyes were opened. I saw through the veil of systemic weak privilege and institutional anti-swolism in our society.
But I ignored it. I battled anti-swole prejudice for half of a decade after that day. The looks. The unwanted touching. The soft bigotry of high expectations. The never-ending cries of “show us your ___!”
I tried not to let it get to me. I laughed along with friends when they joked about my swoleness. I accepted the aggressive advances of women, because I was swole, and ‘you know how girls are!’ I paid extra to substitute salad for french fries so many times, I wasn’t even sure I was human anymore.
Worst of all, I thought I was the only one. All day, every day, I bore my cross-shaped torso swolone. My undergrad gym was not a swole safe space, and every day I lived in fear of accidentally grunting or clanging a plate, thus earning the glares of the weak privileged among me.
I pushed through the pain period for a long time. But one day, I couldn’t bear it any longer. I had tolerated swole hatred past my failure point, and my soul was doing forced negatives.
In October 2011, I committed Swolicide.
Fed up with my swolitude, I chose to end it all.
I stopped lifting, moved to Thailand, and spent three months training Muay Thai, partying, and traveling around Southeast Asia. Day by day, the grace of the swole left me.
After that, I moved to an Ashram in India and spent two months eating a strictly vegetarian diet, practicing yoga and meditating. I felt the spirit of the Swole leaving me every day.
Then I moved to Basque country, to surf and party for two months in Hossegor and San Sebastien. By that point, the glares had stopped. The groping had stopped. I experienced the joy of knowing that the girls I met liked me for me, not because I looked like a swole Robert Redford. My heart and swoul were barely clinging to life.
Finally, I hammered the final nail into the coffin of my formerly swole self. I hiked across Spain in the August heat. By the time I finished, I was no longer swole in the slightest degree. I was a regular guy. I had my first taste of weak privilege, and it was sweeter than any aspartame and whey protein shake I’d ever had. I flew back to Canada in an airplane seat that fit me. I ate the meal they served me, rather than bringing my own steamed broccoli, chicken breast and almonds. The cute flight attendant served me like I was any other passenger, instead of leering at me with hungry, objectifying eyes.
When I got home, I thought I had it all. I thought I had cured myself of my self-hatred. I thought I could settle down into a normal life, finally.
But then I discovered the Swole Acceptance Community. At first I thought it was funny. But the more I read, the more I realized that as nice as it is to be a beneficiary of Weak Privilege, nothing on Earth is worth sacrificing your swoul for. And so, I made a decision.
I am undergoing Swole Reassignment Surgery. I am Swole. I was born this way. I’ll die this way. And then I’ll be buried in a coffin that has to be let out in the shoulders.
Because we’re not going away.
Because we’re not going to cave to Weak Privilege.
Because we don’t care how much hate we endure from the Weakcriarchy. With Brodin as our witness: We’re here, and we’re Swole, so get used to it.
Further reading for Swolebros and the Swolecurious:
Swole At Every Height: The premier Swole Acceptance Blog in the ‘sphere
Stay strong, brothers. Stay Swole.
Researchers also have found a peculiar pattern in non-Africans: People in China, Japan and other East Asian countries have about 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than do Europeans.We shouldn't get too carried away with a scientific hypothesis that merely happens to be in line with some computer modeling; if I was inclined to that sort of thing I'd be deeply concerned about global warming. But it is a little ominous; those who think that the third world invasion of the West is harmless should keep in mind the lesson of the Neanderthals. They may have been smarter, but they're not around anymore and Homo sapiens sapiens is.
Last year, Sriram Sankararaman, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues proposed that natural selection was responsible for the difference. Most Neanderthal genes probably had modestly bad effects on the health of our ancestors, Dr. Sankararaman and other researchers have found. People who inherited a Neanderthal version of any given gene would have had fewer children on average than people with the human version.
As a result, Neanderthal DNA became progressively rarer in living humans. Dr. Sankararaman and his colleagues proposed that it disappeared faster in Europeans than in Asians. The early Asian population was small, the researchers suggested, and natural selection eliminates harmful genes more slowly in small groups than in large populations. Today, smaller ethnic groups, like Ashkenazi Jews and the Amish, can have unusually high rates of certain genetic disorders.
Joshua M. Akey, a geneticist at the University of Washington, and the graduate student Benjamin Vernot recently set out to test this hypothesis. They took advantage of the fact that only some parts of our genome have a strong influence on health. Other parts — so-called neutral regions — are less important.
A mutation in a neutral region won’t affect our odds of having children and therefore won't be eliminated by natural selection. If Dr. Sankararaman’s hypothesis were correct, you would expect Europeans to have lost more harmful Neanderthal DNA than neutral DNA. In fact, the scientists did not find this difference in the DNA of living Europeans.
Dr. Akey and Mr. Vernot then tested out other possible explanations for the comparative abundance of Neanderthal DNA in Asians. The theory that made the most sense was that Asians inherited additional Neanderthal DNA at a later time.
In this scenario, the ancestors of Asians and Europeans split, the early Asians migrated east, and there they had a second encounter with Neanderthals. Dr. Akey and Mr. Vernot reported their findings in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
In 1948, the Boer government of South Africa enacted a policy called Apartheid. The main purpose of this policy was to segregate the population of South Africa along racial lines—keeping the blacks, coloureds, Indians, and whites separated from one another. As with any racially influenced debate, opinions on the merit and successes of Apartheid (which ended under intense global pressure in 1994) are sharply divided.
One side of the debate typically argues that the segregation of blacks by the white Boer was a crime against the very decency of humanity, and that the treatment of black people by the Apartheid regime were unforgivable acts of bigotry for which white South Africans should be held accountable for. They view the Apartheid regime as one of censorship, forced relocation, and clandestine murders, all of which are wholly unjustified, and that South Africa was an immoral state for half of the twentieth-century.
The other side counters that, while there were crimes committed by the Apartheid government against the black South Africans, the actions of black South Africans post-Apartheid show that the Boer policy was correct and justified. Crime rates, especially those of rape, have sky rocketed since the end of Apartheid.
Although crimes by the black population against the whites are so pervasive and persistent as to put white South Africans on genocide watch, the exorbitant crime rate affects all peoples—last year, the black captain of the national soccer team was killed in a home invasion. Inequality between the rich and poor has widened, and AIDS and HIV infections have become rampant. To top it all off, members of the (currently) ruling ANC party have sung songs containing lyrics which call for the murder of whites, including leftist cultural hero Nelson Mandela.
It’s obvious to see what side of the debate I’m on.
Unfortunately for myself (and quite fortunately for humanity, probably) my opinion on Apartheid is moot. I was one year old when Apartheid was repealed, and I am not even a citizen of South Africa. My writing only reaches a small segment of the population, and most of those readers are quite likely already on the second side of the Apartheid debate.
So let me bash someone who was a South African citizen, who was anti-Apartheid and who was most definitely influential about the debate; John Maxwell Coetzee: authour, smarmy douchebag, and winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Literature.
Commonly referred to as J.M. Coetzee (and who will be referred to solely as Coetzee for the rest of the article because I’m lazy and you’re already bored), John Maxwell Coetzee was born in South Africa in 1940 to a Afrikaner family with roots in South Africa dating back to the 17th century.
Unlike many white children in South Africa today, Coetzee grew up under the safety of the Apartheid government. His childhood was one of bored safety and prosperity; his memoir of that time is a fictionalized autobiography, which means he basically makes up strife about his privileged childhood to make himself look more disadvantaged then he actually was.
While many modern Afrikaner children have to deal with all manner of harm being inflicted upon them by a desegregated multicultural society, Coetzee had a relatively sheltered upbringing and came of age during the radical 60’s. Coetzee spent most of his 20’s attending universities, first moving to the United Kingdom in 1962 and then to the United States in 1965.
He gathered degree after degree (and likely indulged in the sexual revolution with a bevy of co-eds) and participated in anti-Vietnam protests (which cost him a chance at American citizenship…there once was a time the US didn’t take too kindly to rich foreigners spitting on their veterans). Interestingly, while Coetzee was living a life of plenty and privilege in the US (and protesting the service of the young men of his host country while sleeping with their women), many of his Afrikaner peers were being conscripted to fight in a border war with Angola.
In 1968, at the ripe old age of 28, Coetzee got a cushy job teaching at the State University of New York at Buffalo and shortly thereafter wrote his first book in 1971. Coetzee’s writing, as with most people with too much intelligence and privilege and too little wisdom and experience in the real world, was written from a leftist bent, criticizing what he sees as oppressive systems (the [exaggerated] evils of colonization and closed nations which protect their own people are a recurring theme in his book).
Coetzee claims to be neither leftist nor right, portraying himself as being above both, though as mentioned before Coetzee is a) white; b) privileged; and c) spent most of the 1960’s in universities. I’ll let you judge for yourself if Coetzee comes across as the most intolerable kind of leftist; here is the plot summary from another of his autobiographical books [words bolded by Billy]:
Youth (or Youth: Scenes from Provincial Life II) (2002) is a semi-fictionalised autobiographical novel by J. M. Coetzee, recounting his struggles in 1960s London after fleeing the political unrest of Cape Town.
After graduating in mathematics and English, he moves in the hope of finding inspiration of becoming a poet and finding the woman of his dreams. However he finds none of this and instead, takes up a tedious job as a computer programmer. He feels alienated from the natives and never settles down, always aware of the scorn they see him with. He engages in a series of affairs, none of them fulfilling to him in the slightest. He scorns people’s inabilities to see through his dull exterior into the ‘flame’ inside him; none of the women he meets evokes in him the passion that, according to him, would allow his artistry to flourish and thus produce great poetry.
Here are two quotes from the book itself:
At the Everyman Cinema there is a season of Satyajit Ray. He watches the Apu trilogy on successive nights in a state of rapt absorption. In Apu’s bitter, trapped mother, his engaging, feckless father he recognizes, with a pang of guilt, his own parents. But it is the music above all that grips him, dizzyingly complex interplays between drums and stringed instruments, long arias on the flute whose scale or mode — he does not know enough about music theory to be sure which — catches at his heart, sending him into a mood of sensual melancholy that last long after the film has ended.
You can instantly tell a person’s political affiliation by asking them which of these two movies they would rather watch,
Here is a man who: flees political action in his own country, only to protest safely in another country which cannot charge him with any serious crime for political action or conscript him; who aspires to be a poet; who gets angry at people for not seeing how great he is; who watches “worldly” films from non-white countries; and who hates his parents, who treated him so badly that Coetzee is able to literally travel around the world and waste his youth banging out the burgeoning horde of Anglo sluts.
Oh – and he also is “alienated” from his fellow whites in the white countries he goes to, even though he has no trouble bedding the women of those countries. Coetzee is spoiled, hates his parents, hates his skin colour (though not the women who share his skin colour), is completely self assured of his own genius—though he blames others for not becoming the world’s greatest poet that he knows he is. Remind you of any members of the modern ultra left?
Seriously though; in the last golden age of Hollywood movies, Coetzee finds the Apu Trilogy to be his closest to his soul? Jesus Christ.
In the early 70’s, when the political turmoil had abated somewhat and too old and prestigious to be conscripted into the military to fight he ongoing bush war, Coetzee returned to South Africa and continued his writing career with furor. Coetzee’s anti-white, anti-nationalist, anti-western book themes found a very receptive audience amongst the boomer liberals and Marxists who had taken over the intellectual establishments during the 60’s and 70’s.
During speeches at award ceremonies (the ones he could be bothered going to: Coetzee is infamous for not even bothering to show to collect his awards—unless, of course, they’re top-tier honours), Coetzee would rile on about the social inequalities about the Apartheid regime, especially in relation to its art.
South African literature is a literature in bondage. It is a less than fully human literature. It is exactly the kind of literature you would expect people to write from prison.
Coetzee publicly called for an end to Apartheid. Remember: this is a man who grew up in a safe, nearly all white community, which was provided by the policy of Apartheid. This is a man who fled South Africa’s political turmoil when it might have affected him. Living a life of luxury, living in a community protected by people whom he implied were less than human, Coetzee pushed hard to end Apartheid.
Though not the sole proponent of anti-Apartheid, and certainly not the most important member of the movement, Coetzee’s wish finally came true in 1994. Apartheid, under intense international and local pressure, was ended.
And the crime wave began.
South Africans of all ethnicities came under attack as the stern fist of Apartheid was swept from the land. A terrorist who had signed off on bombings which had killed dozens of people was put in charge, and his thuggish party, openly espousing murderous racial hate, brought in a corrupt regime which to this day continues to expand the gulf between the rich and the poor of all ethnicities in South Africa. Black, Indian, white—for all these people, violence is a very real possibility.
So, Coetzee had finally gotten his wish, and the bondage in South Africa had been lifted. Now it was time for Coetzee to enjoy the fruits of his labours, right? After all, this was exactly what he wanted. He was a moral crusader—nay! He was a liberator! A paragon of human rights! This was a victory for not only him, nor just for South Africa, but for the world!
Yet it turns out that the newly unleashed violent elements of South Africa didn’t quite agree with Coetzee’s ego. They liberally targeted all peoples, the blacks, the whites—even the good whites, like Coetzee and his friends. Coetzee’s final book as a citizen of South Africa was Disgrace (1999), which features an assault on a white man and a white woman being raped pregnant by some black men. Though very popular with the moralist crowd, several black South African politicians were angered and publicly denounced Coetzee.
They needn’t have worried though; Coetzee is a man lacking all moral and ethical fibre. Shortly after Apartheid ended, and his fellow citizens were being subjected to cruelties beyond imagining, Coetzee went house shopping. And by house shopping, I mean he went looking for another country. In 2002, a short 8 years after Apartheid had ended, Coetzee fled to Australia, abandoning post-Apartheid South Africa to its fate. Coetzee gave an incredibly pathetic excuse for doing so:
I did not so much leave South Africa, a country with which I retain strong emotional ties, but come to Australia. I came because from the time of my first visit in 1991, I was attracted by the free and generous spirit of the people, by the beauty of the land itself and – when I first saw Adelaide – by the grace of the city that I now have the honour of calling my home.
Yes, Coetzee didn’t “abandon” South Africa. He just…came, to somewhere else; even though he initially admitted he fled because of the waxing crime rate. It’s amazing that so many people can say with a straight face that Coetzee is one of the premier authors writing today.
Of course the truth of the matter was that Coetzee fled South Africa because of the crime. He wanted to tear down a system which—while admittedly oppressive toward one specific group—kept a semblance of peace amongst all the races in South Africa. Once it was torn down and it was time to rebuild, and it was time for Coetzee’s to put his money where his mouth was and actually do something besides criticize, guilt, and moralize, when he finally got to live in the exact type of society he so virulently professed to wanting to live in, he fled like the coward he is to another country…one which just so happened to be predominantly white. I thought Coetzee was alienated by whites? He professed to feeling a spiritual connection to some Indians. Why not move to India?
No, it was to the white country of Australia that this holier-than-thou man fled, and the next year to award Coetzee for all his moral crusading they gave him the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize in Literature (citing his place of residence as South Africa instead of Australia where it actually was). Since it was so prestigious, Coetzee actually showed up in Stockholm to collect his prize. Instead of a speech he read from Robinson Crusoe.
So now, while many South Africans live in constant fear, facing perpetual violence, J.M. Coetzee is sunning himself in the vastly more peaceful continent of Australia. He’s still writing.
It’s funny how consistent these types are with their hypocrisy. People like Coetzee, and modern leftists and social justice warriors and anti-racists and all these other so called humanists and moral crusaders endlessly spew about the injustices of the world, and how we need to tear down the barriers and throw away the system and start afresh…yet they’re almost always amongst the first ones to flee once those very barriers are taken down and it’s time to get dirty and start the rebuilding.
You see it amongst the democrats in the United States, who vote in slick politicians parroting their democratic ideals—then they flee the state when those ideals are enacted, only to repeat their same idiotic choices while looking down on the less enlightened. White people spouting anti-racist sentiments then moving out of their neighborhood the moment the first non-whites begin showing up is so common it’s a cliché.
I myself am a former Neo-Nazi, and yet I have more brown, black, Asian and [insert race here] friends than the most fervent anti-racist I know, who is a suburban white girl who hasn’t even so much as taken a poking from a penis that wasn’t snow white yet once railed for damn near two hours about the lack of diversity in our university dorm. She’s currently engaged to a white guy and lives in a lily white town of about 3,000 people in rural Canada.
We need to stop tolerating people like Coetzee and all these other goddamn moralizers, because it’s going to be the common people that pay for their self righteousness. When the going gets tough, rich, privileged scum-bags like Coetzee have no problem financially or ethnically about fleeing to greener pastures, and leaving behind their poorer and nobler peers to clean up after them.
It’s time to stop caring about what Coetzee and all the people like him have to say. Because I can guarantee you, at the end of the day, whatever your race, they sure as hell do not care about you. They see all of us as nothing more than pawns to feed their egos. Let them starve.
Leftists are people who have a conscience but act like sociopaths. If the Leftist were really a sociopath, he would not need excuses, justifications, and rationalizations to fill his yammering mouth and empty his wrathful brain.We are all potential Leftists. We are all capable of rationalizing away our own particular sins. How good I am, because I am not a glutton, says the slender whore. How good I am, because I am not a slut, says the obese woman as she stuffs her face. How good I am, because I am not a murderer, says the homosexual. How good I am, because I am not a thief, says the killer.
Please note also that this behavior only surfaces on matters where the Leftist has turned Left and turned off his brain in a vain attempt to turn off his conscience, which he wrongly believes to be lodged in the brain. A Leftist can be a good coworker, even a good friend, if you stick to topics where the Leftist brain-parasite called guilt does not take root and bloom like ghastly fungi expanding from his hypothalamus and medulla oblongata to suck up all his gray matter and ooze sinuously out of eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears.
I have talked with social Leftists about economic issues, for example, without triggering their brain-fungi response. The Leftist will mouth the normal sounding American ideals about Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness provided you do not crowd him too closely to ask him what those things mean, or why their heroes Che and Mao and crystal meth dealer Matthew Shepard slain by his gay lover and fellow drug dealer Aaron McKinney fit into the idea of the American Way, then and only then will the brain fungi erupt, and the human-shaped skull be cracked and flung aside, revealing the fleshy lobes and convolutions of the nonhuman being beneath.
Leftists are reasonable and decent people except in their particular areas of sensitivity, by which I mean, of course, where they are hiding their smothering guilt, and — this point bears emphasizing — not all of them are sensitive about the same thing, because not all of them sold the same section of their brains to the Fungi from Yuggoth for the same reason.
No one has sold all his brain, and no one is an entirely self consistent Leftist, so what triggers one Leftist into frothing inanity is not what triggers another. But the behavior once triggered is the same. That behavior is flight from reason.
As stated above, Leftism is what you get when you stop reasoning.
Their reasoning is marred and crippled because they mar and cripple reason so that reason will not operate properly. They want reason not to operate properly because reason shows them a truth that they cannot abide. They cannot abide the truth because the truth condemns them. Truth condemns them because they do evil.