The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
Then and Now in Academia
shutterstock_131270519
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Recent troubles at Yale, Missouri, and other campuses have made me think about how the academic culture has changed – much for the worse I believe. But a former colleague (who recently passed) used to tell me how much better the academic world seemed to him now than when he was a graduate student circa 1970.

My friend, as he explained, enjoyed strolling to class from his house a few blocks away and was glad there were no foul-smelling protestors to heckle him as he stepped on campus. Unfortunately, he was comparing unlike things, large state universities during the height of the Vietnam War and the small college in the Pennsylvania Dutch countryside where we taught.

A better comparison would have been between our place of employment in the 1960s and the same institution fifty years later.

Back then we were dealing with a distinctly religious college, with strict dress and behavioral codes, prohibitions against bringing alcohol on to campus, and required prayer sessions. Now the same college barely mentions Christmas (as opposed to Kwanza and Black History Month), has mixed dorms with lots of sexual mingling (in all senses), and features diversity as its highest value.

In the 1960s, students across the country were demonstrating or rioting against the Vietnam War and occupying campus buildings to dramatize their antiwar fervor. Early this November, the president of the University of Missouri had to resign after black students and their supporters (including members of the football team) demanded his immediate resignation. His administration was accused of not having investigated energetically enough alleged racial slurs against blacks.

 

Needless to say, slurs against whites coming from a Black Studies department or against white men coming from a Women’s Studies department would not have made news or occasioned any protest . Those engaging in such differently viewed slurs would be treated as honest scholars calling attention to “social injustice.”

To see how things have changed in the academic world, consider Professor Leonard Jeffries. He chaired the Department of African-American Studies for eons at City University of New York, where he presented the white race as intrinsically inferior “ice men” in relation to spiritually superior black “sun people.” No one, not even Jews who were bothered by Jeffries’s anti-Semitic effusions, demanded that the university chancellor must resign because a handsomely paid faculty member denigrated whites.

These days , officially designated victims on American campuses don’t hold back from venting their anger at “white-bread” Americans. We find racism “institutionalized” as at the University of Delaware, which requires all residence hall students to acknowledge that “all whites are racist” and to attend “therapeutic” classes aimed at curing them of their inborn collective defect.

Black and Latino students are not obliged to attend similar therapy sessions since, as privileged victims, it would be impossible for them to be “racists.” To my knowledge, white parents have not complained about this unequal treatment. How passive the supposed victimizers have become in the face of their own degradation.

Universities today are far less tolerant than they were at the height of the antiwar protest movement. I noticed this lessening of academic freedom and the eroding belief in the value of honest debate during my own academic career.

Allow me to suggest two reasons why this has happened.

First, in the 1960s students and faculty strongly opposed the Vietnam War. Many were soft on communist totalitarianism, but these positions did not seep into everything they said and wrote. Compartmentalization was still possible. I encountered many students and even professors who were frantic antiwar protestors and even fans of the Vietcong but who were still capable of responding in a non-ideological fashion to political theory, artistic movements and historical events.

I had colleagues who opposed the war but described themselves as sympathetic to monarchy. I even knew one “comsymp” (that’s what I called such people back then) who rooted for the Communists everywhere but had written a dissertation favorable to James I in his battles with Puritan parliamentarians.

Moreover, the protesters were addressing the bigness and impersonal nature of universities. Those were and are genuine problems. Traditional conservatives like Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet wrote books that engaged many of the same grievances as those the students highlighted. Such complaints were far more thoughtful than such current academic concerns as microaggressions.”

As a young professor, I noticed that my students and colleagues were sometimes pointing to real issues. Mega-universities processing students in return for rising tuitions and a seemingly endless war in Southeast Asia were serious issues. They didn’t simply bully people into going along with whatever notions came into their heads.

What we hear these days from campus feminists and Social Justice Warrior types are almost always manufactured grievances or pure hoaxes, often pushed by administrators trying to justify the presence of diversity deans and minority consciousness-raisers on their staff. I still recall the manufactured incident of a noose suddenly appearing on the door of an education professor at Columbia in October 2007, who was about to be let go because of plagiarism. Protests were mounted on campus and the apparently outraged prof brought a suit for $200 million. It was soon discovered this outrage was committed by friends of the aggrieved party, but one had to search hard in the New York Times for this embarrassing revelation. I remember speaking to a colleague at the time who indicated that even if this specific incident had not occurred, it was typical of the institutionalized racism and sexism that are rampant on our campuses.

Around the time of my retirement, my college vibrated with excitement, and even a thinly disguised ecstasy, when a gay student discovered that someone had scrawled the word “fag” on his dorm door. The student had been in everyone’s face playing up his lifestyle and alienated even politically sympathetic classmates.

ORDER IT NOW

Still, it was not clear whether a fellow-student had been responsible for the act or whether it had been an outside job. No matter! We had a case of spine-tingling insensitivity without having to invent one, the way some other “institutions of higher learning” have done. Sensitivity classes were organized, and the failure to reveal the “full extent” of the incident, according to some on the faculty, indicated that we had become morally callous.

Around the same time it was reported that someone had scrawled unkind comments on the dorm door of a black student. This was an added reason for required sensitivity training for everyone, although it turned out that the scribbling had been done by someone outside the college sneaking into the dorms.

Second, victimology hysteria together with the loss of academic dignity and intellectual freedom are the results of changes undergone by the Left since the 1960s.

When I started my professorial career, most leftists whom I encountered identified themselves as Marxists. They railed against large corporations and the military-industrial complex and attributed the war in Vietnam to a late form of capitalism. Although I found such thinking to be simplistic, it did follow an internal logic; and one could respond to an opponent’s assertions by showing they were empirically false.

What has happened, as I try to show in my book The Strange Death of Marxism is that traditional Marxist thought has been replaced by an ideology of political correctness and assigned victimhood.

In this post-Marxist leftist worldview, it became impossible to dissent from “sensitive” speech without being attacked as a fascist, racist or something equally negative. This is the ideology that now dominates our universities and increasingly, our political journalism. It excludes discussion of anything that our elites don’t want to hear discussed.

This same ideology assigns rights, including the right to express an opinion, on the basis of who stands higher or lower in a hierarchy of victims. Therefore, black studies professors demeaning whites or feminists belittling the male gender has “educational value,” while whites or males saying abrasive things about those with a higher victim status must be treated as a criminal outrage.

What has been called “cultural Marxism,” (which isn’t really Marxism at all), is now pervasive and I doubt that universities will be free of its influence in the near future.

In the 1960s when universities were being convulsed by protests against the Vietnam War, this now triumphant ideology had just begun to surface among black activists and their white supporters. Their ideas were not powerful enough to snuff out intellectual freedom on American campuses. Now they are.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Political Correctness 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Paradoxically, PC is resilient because it unites those-with-character and those-without-character.

    Crucial to success of PC is the Northern European mindset. It is highly conscientious, moralistic, mindful of good work, entered on integrity, dignity, sobriety.
    The Northern European Mindset wants to do good work around the world. It wants to apologize and make amends. It wants to cleanse the soul, spiritually or ideologically.
    It goes for moral enemas. It is very Kelloggy.

    For the Northern European Mindset–NEM–, PC means doing good work. It means redressing past wrongs. It means being mindful and conscientious and committed and sympathetic and compassionate and determined and etc. It is purist, universalist, and ethical.

    Now, if all people around the world were similarly minded, it would not be so bad.

    But there is another feature to PC.

    [MORE]

    Most peoples around the world don’t share the Northern European Mindset. Japanese and some East Asians may have a Shame Culture that makes them mindful, but it’s a matter of outward behavior than inward morality of ‘sin’ and ‘guilt’.

    Anyway, many non-whites and southern Europeans don’t even feel much in the way of shame. Their view of the world is self-centered, tribal, suspicious, hostile, cunning, and opportunistic. And this is especially problematic among Jews, Homos, and Negroes.
    Jews may be no worse in ethics than the Arab Semites. But because they are smarter, they gain much power and influence. Homos come in all colors, but homos are generally vain, narcissistic, and self-centered. Some homos are hard-working and diligent, but their basic character is me-centric and aristo.
    As for Negroes, no people on Earth are as crazy, wild, jivey, ghastly, loony, and simply ridiculous.

    PC takes two to tango. If all people were like Negroes or other tribal-minded peoples, PC wouldn’t work. After all, Arabs/Muslims practiced slavery over black Africans longer than whites did, but you don’t see any PC between Arabs and blacks. If black Africans were to say to Arab Muslims, “You enslaved us”, Arab Muslims would say, “Go chuck a spear at a hippo, you black savage idiot.” Arab Muslims won’t tango to PC.
    Recently, consider the massive refugee crisis. The problems in Syria were made worse by Saudi Arabia and Gulf States funding ISIS and etc. But notice they take ZERO responsibility. In contrast, Northern Europeans are holding up signs saying ‘Refugees Welcome’. Some say this is a German problem cuz of Holocaust Guilt, but we see the same kind of nuttiness in Sweden and Iceland, two nations that need feel no collective guilt since they didn’t take part in Western Imperialism around the world.

    Even though Brazilian whites traded in black slaves much more than white Americans, there is still far less ‘collective guilt’ about slavery in Brazil than in the US. Latin folks have lower national character and tend to be far less conscientious.

    One reason why the Greeks and Southern Italians tend to be tolerant of mass invasion is because those opportunistic and slimy buggers know they can push the invaders to other parts of Europe, especially UK, Germany, Sweden, and etc. If EU project were to end and if sleazy Greeks and lowlife southern Italians could no longer pass the buck(or the fuc*, as Negroes from Africa love to hump white women) to northern parts of Europe, they wouldn’t be so ‘progressive’ in their handling of migration problems.

    Now, having good national character is a wonderful thing. Indeed, it is one of the best things to have. The reason why so many ideologies failed is cuz they failed to address or fix the problems of national character. It’s like Fascism failed to change Italians from lying greaseballs into something more solid and sturdy. It’s like in Hemingways’ FAREWELL TO ARMS. A couple of Italian deserters join the Americans, eat the cheese and onions… but when gunfire erupts, they just shit their pants and take off. They act like the characters of SEVEN BEAUTIES by Wertmuller. And one would have to be crazy to trust a Eek-it’s-a-Greek. As for Gypsies, by golly, forget it. They are useless.

    People welcome new ideologies and governments, but if the national character remains low, not much could be done. Sure, if the times are good with lots of cash, things may seem good for awhile. When oil prices were sky high, the Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez was looking pretty good. But it was just a temporary fix of market prices. The thing is, even when the cash was flowing in, most Venezuelans were low in national character. They were lazy, corrupt, confused, deceitful, selfish, venal, opportunistic, and etc.
    And this is the problem of Russia as well. Putin did make some real progress, but unless the Russian national character is changed, Russia will always be a shaky wobbly place. Putin has the good fortune of high oil prices. But Russia is now facing a major economic squeeze.
    A people with great national character can weather such a problem and rise again. Now, national character is no guarantee against ideological lunacy. Germans and Japanese have high national character, but they went with crazy politics in the 30s and 40s. Even so, it was because they had such solid national characters that they were able to rebuild their nations really fast after the war. This is all the more remarkable since 1/3 of Japanese industry was destroyed in the war. And Germany was divided, its cities were smashed, and Germany had to take in millions of German refugees uprooted from other parts of Europe. Even so, Germans worked well together and worked hard, and in no time, Germany was once again the biggest economy in Europe. National Character is the real asset to have.

    How is this national character formed? It could partly be racial, i.e. some races have natural personalities that are more conducive to building solid national character while some groups may have natural personalities that are less conducive to building good national character.
    Take someone like Joe Pesci’s characters in Scorsese movies. Though such people could be raised to be decent individuals, they still have natural propensities to act more like Tommy(Goodfellas) or Nicky(Casino). There is something oily and greasy about the southern Italian character. And Greeks are something else when it comes to all sorts of shady behavior. It must be partly genetic.
    Surely, when it comes to Negro, forming national character is like the labor of Sisyphus. The natural mode of the Negro is to holler, jive, shuck, shake booty, and act jungle-like. Toss them a watermelon and you have a riot.

    Even so, national character isn’t just about genetics. After all, we can tell from the yob culture in UK and vodka swilling thug culture from Russia(many of whom are of northern European stock) that ANY PEOPLE can become degraded, trashy, and moronic.
    And there are sane and conscientious communities outside Northern Europe-sphere. On occasion, such even exists among the Negroes who aren’t so ghastly like most others of their kind around the world.

    If a positive national character is formed in a people, it is the most valuable asset along with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history. A society with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history has the solid three elements for survival. But if it lacks national character, it won’t make much economic or social progress. Take Zimbabwe. It is black and proud and homogeneous. But it is a ugabuga land because most blacks in that nation are a bunch of nutjob jivers with low national character.

    National character isn’t the same thing as morality. Germans during the Nazi Era has national character but submitted to a rabid demagogue.
    National character is valuable cuz it instills people with seriousness, diligence, commitment, discipline, sobriety, dedication, communal conscience, loyalty, and etc. So, even if Germans of Nazi era were serving an evil regime, they were working and living in ways that led to mutual respect and understanding among Germans.
    So, Germans could build and run an economy under Nazism. And once Nazism fell, the German national character could rebuild an economy and run it well again.
    National character will not necessarily protect a people from bad politics. But it is something that transcends and outlives fashions in politics.

    A people with good national character and bad politics will do better than people with bad national character and good politics. Germans under even something like Nazism will do better than Greeks under democracy. Of course, ideally, a people should possess good national character and be on the side of liberty and freedom. But the great and resilient thing about national character is it has value whether a society is free or not. Also, if a people have national character, their greatness can remain latent/dormant even if they are not allowed to thrive and succeed. Suppose a Japanese minority in some nation was restricted from economic advancement. It will remain poor surely, but if it holds onto its national character, it has the chance of success IF AND WHEN it is afforded with freedom and opportunity. But if the Japanese community loses its national character, it will be less likely to take advantage of freedom and opportunity.

    In contrast, a people without national character won’t do much even with freedom and democracy. I mean even Germans in communist East Germany ran a better society than blacks in democratic and free Detroit. Even Chinese in undemocratic Singapore do a better job than Greeks in a democracy. Chinese in Singapore have national character. Greeks don’t.

    Singaporean case is interesting cuz it demonstrates the difference between racial character and national character.
    Racial character tends to be fixed. Of course, it can be changed through selective breeding. For example, we know blacks are low in racial character. They prefer basketballs to books. They is full of theyselves. But suppose we do selective breeding whereby blacks like Thomas Sowell are allowed to mate while jive-ass fools like Kanye West are not allowed to breed. Over time, more and more blacks will be like Uncle Thomas Sowell, and black racial character will improve.

    If racial character is something one is born with, national character can be molded by social and cultural forces. And we see this with the Chiners in Singapore. Chinese, on average, may be pretty solid in terms of racial character. But Chinese culture and history have been rather up-and-down, and Chinese national character reflected this. It was uneven.
    So, the success of Singapore cannot be attributed merely to Chinese-ness, especially as there are plenty of Chinese around the world who lack the national character of Singaporeans. Lee of Singapore obviously studied the national character of Northern Europeans, especially that of the Brits. He was critical of British imperialism, but he could tell a good stuff when he saw one.
    It’s like what the British guy(Anthony Quayle) says in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA: “Britain is small but it is great because of discipline”. Omar Sharif says, “Because you got guns”. What a dumbass ragger. But how did the Brits come to make such great guns and ship and trains and stuff? Because they developed a certain mindset that worked well to organize and manage systems of power. The ragger played by Sharif only sees the effect. He fails to see the cause. True, UK is powerful cuz it has guns, but why was it able to have those guns in the first place? While national character isn’t everything, it is important. It is no accident that Northern Europeans with a certain national character achieved more in UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, etc. Some might say it was Protestantism, but this is true only to some extent. After all, all of Italy is mostly Catholic, so how come the northern Italians with lighter skin are more diligent and conscientious than southern Italians who look more like Joe Pesci? How come those who look more oily act more oily?

    Progs say US is a land of haves and have-nots. But so many groups who came to US as have-nots became big haves. And so many who once were haves became have-nots. Lots of blacks in Detroit once had good working jobs with benefits. They were have-somethings. But they became have-nots when they ruined the city with their jivery.

    The more crucial issue is the difference between have-characters and have-not-characters. Of course, have-brains and have-not-brains is also crucial. Smart people have huge advantage over the dummies.
    But most people are neither smart nor dumb. They are mediocre. So, their future depends a lot on character. With good character, they can focus their energies and limited talents on what is essential and constructive. Without character, they can waste their energies and limited talents on trashy behavior, stupidity, dementedness, ass-tattoos, piercings, drugs, and etc.

    But there is no talk of character. The problem with many blacks and browns and Muslims in America is they have lower social/national characters.
    Even among the have-nots, some have more character than others. Mexicans have been known to work hard, keep family together, save money, and etc. But they are less mindful about disposing garbage properly.
    They are less mindful about coming together to do what is right. They are poor in the concept of collective action. If Mexicans were more collectively mindful, they could have done more to combat corruption and crime in Mexico. But most Mexicans just wanna keep their heads down and not get involved. Though Germans made a terrible choice of Nazism, their success owed to German ability for cooperation and unity and collective action. The economy got so bad and things got real desperate. So, Germans came together and called for a new order. Too bad Hitler turned out to be a loony in the end.

    But the fact is Germans did something to address social problems during the Depression. In contrast, Mexicans just keep their heads down and look the other way. That’s why a village of Mexicans need gringos to come and protect them from other Mexicans in MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Mexers cannot do it themselves. But still, Mexers are still with some national character. They get the hard-work part and family part, but they don’t take it to the next level. And so, children of Mexicans in the US end up doing worse than their parents cuz they aren’t immune to the poison of American pop culture.

    National character can be lost, to be sure. We can see this among many Northern European Americans who’ve succumbed to trash culture of tattoos, drugs, piercings, and etc. We see the rise of herbivore hipster garbage in slacker Japan. We see the ugly punk and yob culture of UK.
    But as long as a people have it, it is among the most valuable asset. It is the thing that can lead to economic and social success. It is also the thing that enables a society to recover and revive itself after major crisis.
    Germany and Japan could not have recovered so quickly after WWII without national character. And Japan made a fast recovery after the horrible earthquake. Meanwhile it’s hard to tell the difference between Haiti before earth quake and after earthquake. It is always suffering from a natural disaster called Negremors.

    National character is both toughest to instill and sometimes hardest to lose. Still, it’s easier lost than gained. And once lost, it may be very difficult to recover, espeicallyin a democracy.
    Though communism degraded German national character with excessive socialism, the essential character wasn’t lost among East Germans. Japanese national character has been resilient under feudal system, military era, and democratic era. National character is mutually reinforced in a society that is mostly homogeneous. Even when the political system and culture changes, all the habits, attitudes, norms, values, and manners shared by the community have a way of functioning as a support network of behavioral characteristics. It is more easily lost when one moves to an alien culture where the norms are different. This was one reason why the Japanese-Brazilians who moved back to Japan didn’t cope so well. Having adopted the more easy-going Brazilian ways, they had a hard time re-adapting to the Japanese national character that is more mindful and sober(if also more anal and stifling).

    When societies and nations face big problems, politicians and demagogues come along and promise deliverance through politics and social/economic policies. If, like Chavez, one gets lucky with high oil prices, things can be good for awhile. But if the people lack national character and remain the same in their habits/attitudes, no real progress can be made in the long run. It doesn’t matter how many speeches Mugabe or Zuma gives in Zimbabwe and South Africa or how much wealth they redistribute.
    The fact is black Africans have very low national character.

    But it’s also true of Argentinians and even lots of whites and mulattos in Brazil. They may blame capitalism or gringo or whatever, but the fact is a people with low national character cannot have long term success. Brazil got lucky because of high commodity prices, especially fueled by demands from China. While the cash was flowing in, the Brazilian government provided some economic goodies for the poor.
    But nothing was done to improve the national character.

    Same problem haunts Russia. Now, Putin is smarter and more sensible than the likes of Chavez and the clown princess of Argentina. Putin has a better understanding of history and culture. He has tried to change the Russian character by emphasizing tradition, heritage, discipline, unity, organization, and etc. But the Russian elites, unlike the Prussian elites, don’t practice what they preach. Russia is still a land of rotten oligarchs. Fish rots from the head.

    In the long run, Putin’s legacy will really depend on what he did with Russian character that must change in order for Russia to become a great power.
    Prussia was tiny and with limited resources. But it became a major European power cuz of its national character and top-notch elites.
    Imagine if all of Russia were to follow the Prussian model. Russia needs to look to the Prussian way, just like China needs to look to the Singaporean way. Russia as giant version of Prussia would truly be an awesome power. If China could be like a giant Singapore, it would be the new superpower. Of course, what is easy to do on a small scale is much tougher on a large scale.
    Putin uses the Church to boost social morality and order, but the Russian church is centered around political authority. Russian church must follow the model of the traditional Protestant church. It must develop a separate wing of active clergies who become intimately involved with the people all across Russia. Russian Orthodox’s message to the people has been too fatalist and passive. Resign-and-obey isn’t good enough. Reform-and-advance is what is crucial. And Russia must do this on their own. If US were indeed a decent nation of morality and liberty, it might offer useful advice to Russia. But ‘western-style liberal democracy’ now means the power of globalist Jews and homos to infiltrate and subvert other nations and not to really reform and improve things but to spread the culture of pornography, homo worship, and multi-culti madness to undermine native majority cultures. Pussy Riot and Masha Gessen will do NOTHING for the national character of your people.

    Anyway, Putin senses that the long-term solution to Russia isn’t just a matter of ideology or politics or economics. Chavez the dumbass saw EVERYTHING in terms of the politics of victimhood. Gringo is imperialist, and Latin Americans are victims. Capitalism is bad, socialism is good. So, Chavez thought things would be great if Venezuela just shat on America and provided more free stuff for the poor.
    But the dependent poor only remain the dependent poor with handouts under socialism. Their character is not improved. They can’t do anything on their own. Also, bashing America, though possibly justified, doesn’t do anything for the economy when the main problem isn’t the gringo but the lack of talent, will, initiative, honesty, and integrity among the native population. And the problem isn’t just with white elites of Latin America but with the low national character of the masses who are confused, corrupt, lazy, dishonest, and etc, just like the Eek-it’s-a-Greek.
    Greece could be Switzerland IF Greeks only fixed their national character. But Greek character remains what it is, and Greeks distrust one another, cheat one another, lie endlessly, and thrown tantrums and blame everyone but themselves. It was once great for Greek Drama 1000s of yrs ago, but it aint doing Greeks much good today. You aint gonna fix your nation by killing your pa and screwing your ma and screaming your brains out in the 21st century.

    But there is also the dark side of national character. One result is lowest birthrates in the world in nations with highest national character. Such people may feel too guilty to have kids when ‘so many people are starving around the world’. Or they may have such high standards for themselves that they only wanna have kids if they can be assured that their kids will grow up and go to good schools and do well. (Also, people with high national character can paradoxically become most submissive to an ideology or movement of degradation. Because they are so serious and committed, they may puritanically conform to the latest moral crusade–like ‘gay marriage’–or political fashion, like ‘slut feminism’. It is because Northern Europeans and East Asian take their studies most seriously in college that they succumb most to the depraved idiocies of PC. Their sense of moral commitment and intellectual purity makes them utterly blind to the sheer idiocy of what they are doing. It’s like the British officer in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. He is so into doing the Proper and Honorable Thing that he fails to see that he is betraying his own nation and serving the enemy.)

    Also, Northern European types sometimes think too much about stuff cuz they feel a need to do it to perfection. It must be done just right or none at all.
    It’s like the opening scene of IDIOCRACY where a high IQ white couple think too much about doing it right to ever do it. (Also, the fact that people in Northern Europe live to a ripe old age gives the false impression that those nations still have lots of people. If Europeans now live to around 80 or more, it means European nations are filled with old people who are no longer having kids. Suppose some European nation has 50 million people but 50% of people are past the fertility age. Its stats seem healthy, with a lot of people, but one overlooks the fact that 50% of people are just waiting to die and unable to produce more life. EU should release new stats that only show the number of people who are fertile. There must so many German women who are in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s who are not gonna produce any kids. They are just waiting to die.)

    Development of national character cannot be accomplished in a decade or a single era. It has to be done over a long period. Also, for it to really stick, it must be instilled internally than just applied externally. Stalinism failed in changing the Russian character. It used whip and chain to drive Russians to work hard and do awesome things, but most Russians worked out of physical fear. Some were inspired by socialist ideals, but the idea of working hard for the ‘good of all’ is too idealistic and ideological. Once Stalinism faded, Russians reverted to their old ways of swilling vodka, dancing on tables, and wrestling with bears. Fear will drive people to work. But true national character instills people with a sense of pride associated with hard work, craftsmanship, merit, achievement, service, cooperation.

    To an extent, Russians could be more slovenly cuz they had all the land and huge population and etc. Tiny Prussia had to be the best pound-for-pound cuz it lacked in quantity. It had to squeeze every drop out of quality. Russia, like the Persians in 300 the crazy movie, could just rely on sheer numbers. Prussia had to be more like Sparta where every man and ounce of skill mattered. As the 21st century is about high-tech and ever-tightening forms of organization and efficiency, Russia has to go the Prussian model, and to do this, it needs a new national character.
    How long does it take to build such a national character?
    And is it possible to develop national characters in the age of democracy and freedom?

    As much as we value freedom and liberal democracy, national characters have almost always been formed and hardened under systems of authoritarianism, political-military-spiritual. Jewish character wasn’t formed by libertine-ism. Jewish elders were not a bunch of Ron Jeremies or Mel Brooks. Japanese national character wasn’t formed by Pikachu or Baby Metal. German national character wasn’t formed by R.W. Fassbinder and Kraut rock.
    National characters tend to be stifling and repressive due to their insistence on certain morals, habits, manners, attitudes, and etc. So naturally, the modern forces of liberalism and hedonism and bohemianism ridicule and mock the notion of national character. But all functional societies owe a great deal to national character that has been instilled into the vast majority of the population that, due to this character, are willing to work hard, be honest, be communally mindful and conscientious, and etc.
    I can understand a Japanese bohemian-maverick bitching about the ‘bourgeois’ philistine morality and petty-minded attitudes of his countrymen, but does he really think Japan would be better if the national character were closer to that of free-wheeling Brazilians, rascally Greeks, and oily Italians? The greaseballs may be more fun, but they are trouble. I’d rather watch Joe Pesci cause trouble in CASINO than watch a law-abiding Swedish American, but the fact is Swedes cause less trouble for other people. They have a more solid national character.

    If Swedish-Americans do cause more trouble for others, it is because their national character is overly good. And this is where national character and PC become partners in hell. National character should be conscientious and good enough, but it shouldn’t be too do-goody and puritanical, cuz it then becomes naive, stupid, and demented. As such, in the name of helping rest of humanity(that is really beyond help), it only destroys itself. Look what the Scandinavian-Americans are doing to themselves in Minnesota by trying to save all of Somalia. National Character must not be do-goody as do-goodiness is just a utopian naivete that is always doomed to failure, especially if one is helping out crazy Negroes. Be good, not do-goody.

    Negro national character can be improved somewhat. But such requires authoritarian power. Black American national character was actually better in the past when American society was less free. So, blacks had to work harder instead of depending on welfare. And blacks did believe it was shameful to have kids out of wedlock. It’s like aunt Esther in Sanford and Son calls people ‘heathen’ for being immoral. It’s like the mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN gets awful mad when her daughter dis God in her house, and her daughter better believe it.

    Back then, blacks had to prove that they were as good as white folks. Now, with all this MLK-cult, blacks are automatically seen as holy, and it is whites who must prove theyselves worthy to Negroes even though it is Negroes who be the most immoral bunch of loons in the USA.
    Worse, we live in some crazy nations where both whites and Negroes must prove their moral worth to a bunch of ass-humpers who are worshiped like they are angels or something.

    We want to live in freedom and democracy, but a free society is only as good as the values and habits that dominate in that society, and those values and habits are inherited from a period when society was unfree.
    While bad rulers and spiritual mentors can instill negative characters in the people, good rulers and good spiritual mentors can instill positive characters in the people.

    Democracies are better at instilling negative characteristics than positive ones. For the good characters to gain dominance, the negative ones have to be suppressed. An authoritarian system is more effective at repressing the negative ones. In a democracy, even the degenerates must be tolerated. Worse, tolerance can lead to celebration, as happened with all this homo nonsense in the West.
    It’s problematic enough for us to tolerate deviancy and even degeneracy in a democracy. But must we celebrate it? The powers-that-be now force us to celebrate that stuff.
    And there is rap culture among blacks, porny culture among ‘slut feminists’.
    Since normal morality has been attacked as ‘heteronormative’ and since people have become so accustomed to filth, no one resists anymore. So, the culture just gets trashier and trashier. Those are smart enough to navigate through such junk can still make it in Silicon Valley and Wall Street and Hollywood. But everyone else is degraded or confused in this morass of degeneracy. When people are made to feel morally superior because they think two men doing ass-buggery is so great, this is no kind of moral order.

    And now, there is even an attack on work ethic. In the past, blacks were eager to prove that they too could work hard. Now, black intellectuals say ‘hard work’ is ‘racist’ because it reminds people of slavery and because it gives the false impression that success is a matter of work ethic when it is purely the product of ‘white privilege’.

    One thing for sure, national character and diversity generally don’t go together. It’s difficult to come up with international character. This was evident in the tensions between Germans and Greeks in the EU. The German way and Greek way just don’t get along in terms of outlook, habits, work, integrity, and etc. Also, Germans feel too much historical guilt to tell Greeks to ‘shape up or ship out’, and Greeks are too rascally to ever admit that their lack of national character played a huge role in the dire finances of Greece.

    It’s possible that progs see PC as a force to improve the character of the people. But it does nothing of the kind. PC is about outward attitudes, not about inner values. Also, PC favors those groups that are most problematic in America: Jews, homos, blacks, slut feminists.

    Homos are too vain and decadent to be the standard-bearer of virtue and morality. Blacks are too crazy, lazy, trashy, and dishonest. While blacks do have compelling historical case, their moral degradation and economic failings owe more to racial and cultural/moral factors. Blacks are naturally wilder and more troublesome, and their culture no longer tries to restrain natural black craziness but give vent to it. Negroes are no longer singing the Negro spiritual but ugly trashy rap.

    Slut feminists are nuts. Just think of UVA case and Emma Sulky Bitch.

    Jews are an odd case. They possess the duality of having one of the highest and lowest national characters in the world.
    In terms of work ethic, diligence, commitment, sobriety, and etc, many Jews have strong national character. But as a community, there is too much lies and bullshit vis-a-vis the goyim. I mean how much more crap can we take from Netanyahu, Soros, Foxman, and their ilk? And too many good Jews tolerate the shit behavior of bad Jews like Sabrina Rubin Erdely, truly a monstrous bitch.

    And now, Jews are rewarding Pollard with some plush job. Jewish nationalism isn’t the problem, but Jewish globalist attitude is currently supremacist, and Jews now ironically have attitude like German National Socialists. They are above the law.
    Unlike with Negroes and other colored folks, much of Jewish achievement is genuine and meritocratic. But for whatever reason, even good Jews are very tolerant and protective of bad ones.

    Also, good Jews feel indebted to bad Jews because some of the most powerful Jews who’ve done most for Jewish power are the bad ones. Take Sheldon Adelson and Goldman Sachs Jews. Surely, good Jews must know that such big powerful Jews are a**holes, but one doesn’t get super-rich by being a nice guy. So, it’s not surprising that the richest Jews tend to be those who are intelligent and total a**holes, the Hyman Roths. While good Jews may not respect such Jews morally, they acknowledge that such big-time Jews have done more for the Jewish community and Jewish causes than good Jews have. It is just the nature of power. Even good Jews are obsessed with Jewish power, and one doesn’t gain power by just being good or nice.

    Anyway, PC penalizes the very people—the Northern European folks—who should be the model for most people. Most non-whites should be like Lee of Singapore who, even as he challenged British power, admired and learned a lot from the Brits.

    Instead, PC says everything about Northern Europeans is wrong, wrong, and wrong.
    There is nothing to learn from Northern Europeans, the very people with the best formula for success and progress.
    It says Swedes should beat on bongo drums and Germans should listen to reggae. Now, reggae is good music, but it’s not the sort of stuff that’s gonna build national character. If someone wants to relax with a joint and reggae, okay. But Bob Marley, talented as he was, was no moral paragon.
    People need values of diligence, discipline, integrity, sobriety, propriety, and that stuff. But PC wages war on such values as ‘white privilege’. It assumes that social justice can be achieved by white self-hatred and non-whites bitching about ‘white privilege’. This is a dead end.

    This is why we need Prislam. It may be the only counter-force against PC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    It works best in Protestant lands. Because PC is judaism which is protestantism, roughly, but enough so.
    , @Stick
    Disagree. You are describing a Puritan or Quaker mindset. Most Northern Europeans were interested in bettering their own, not bettering the world. This Puritan/Quaker religious subset are the same archetype that composed the Jacobins and Bolsheviks.
    , @cato
    Amigo, you are something else--you know so much, and can be funny! A small suggestion, not worth anything maybe, but think about it: have your own blog, and try to be concise. People are lazy, their brains get full so quickly--feed them just a little at a time.
    , @AndrewR
    tl;dr
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/then-and-now-in-academia/#comment-1252165
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. As now constructed, ‘identity politics’ in America poses an increasing danger for non-Jewish and non-Hispanic White males. Why? The political playing field has been rigged.

    Non-elite Whites are politically disadvantaged since we are prohibited from openly organizing and collectively advancing our ethno-political interests. Yet others may do so freely.

    Nevertheless, the right of open and free association for self-identified Whites has been curtailed. It’s a restricted political zone. Only ‘minorities’ may apply. And ‘minorities’ are fast becoming majorities.

    This double-standard is a recipe for cultural decline and White dispossession.

    Indeed, it’s Jews, feminists, gays, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians who may coalesce politically along insular self-identities. This may be good news for the Democratic Party, but it does real harm to the descendants of the European-derived peoples who built America and achieved national greatness as its stewards.

    When White (heterosexual, males) do attempt to coalesce in a fashion now reserved for ‘minorities’, it is decried as racism or homophobia or discrimination or antisemitism or misogeny. White men must observe the dominant protocol of ‘inclusiveness’. Whites may coalesce only under the banner of a race-free ideology.

    This political covenant however does not apply to La Raza, the NAACP, or the Congressional Jewish Caucus.

    Who created these legal land mines?

    Who enforces these cultural double-standards? Not Whites.

    Today, it’s Whites–and only Whites–who may never ‘discriminate’ and must always be ‘inclusive’.

    But these double-standards are burdensome, harmful and unfair. Rules, after all, should be applied uniformly.

    Whites are like frogs in a frying pan. And only a few of us have noticed or figured-out that the temperature is rising.

    There’s a quiet and slow-moving war that’s being waged. Often it’s fought in the dark. Usually behind closed doors. And the playing field is uneven.

    Complacent Americans are being encouraged to cheer for military conquests in countries they cannot identify on a map. Alternatively, they are expected to ‘root’ for their favorite football team while their own country is slowly taken from them. Bread and circus. Fools and games go together.

    But who orchestrates the wars? Who owns the pro football teams?

    Meanwhile, an incremental war against the founding stock of America routinely operates beneath the radar and sails smoothly under false flags.

    One flag is called ‘affirmative action’.

    Another is ‘diversity’.

    Another is ‘democracy’.

    Another is ‘Separation of Church and State’.

    Another is ‘equality’.

    But the results are the same: No equality. Gradual White displacement.

    Let it be said that that the extraordinary civilization known as the United States was created by a Western European population. But that America is being transformed, degraded, and turned into a militarized, multicultural empire that serves not the long-term interest of its citizens, but the interests of a few.

    This nefarious agenda requires a number of changes. One essential tool is unchecked immigration. Waves of non-European immigrants facilitate displacement and foments disunity.

    The process is gradual. Then sudden. Entrenched elites benefit. Divide and rule.

    Elevated diversity via illegal immigration has also had the impact of reducing White political influence. Even the life span of white males has declined.

    In order to manage and secure this unsavory transformation, a totalitarian orthodoxy called ‘political correctness’ has been injected into the media, into the courts, into government, and into higher education. Rapid demographic changes are underway. Cultural norms follow.

    Not only is the US being unlawfully overrun by peoples who are vastly different from ourselves, but many of these newcomers do not even aspire for ‘assimilation’ into our nation’s dominant culture. Remember ‘E Pluribus Unum’? (From many, One). Now it’s the ‘salad bowl’ metaphor that rules. America is where separate cultures live side-by-side under one national umbrella. Who benefits? Does not ‘diversity’ blur a nation’s identity and undermine its cohesion?

    Today, English is merely one language among many. Public expressions of Christianity are deemed ‘offensive’. And White men, it is claimed, still have too much power and too much visibility. Whites–especially White males–are in retreat. Did this happen by accident?

    Contrary to politically-correct truisms, rising racial and ethnic diversity might be our road to ruin. Incredibly, it’s our own government(s) that are sometimes leading the way.

    In liberal, Democratic LA for instance, there are freshly-minted and officially-recognized ethnic ghettos now popping up everywhere. I spotted a sign as I entered LA recently directing the visitor to ‘Little Armenia’. Who thought this up?

    Another new highway sign identified a new ethnic neighborhood called ‘Koreatown’.

    Where’s my racial set-aside?

    America is being strategically transformed into non-White ethnic enclaves from above and below. At the same time, White Americans are expected to surrender their racial identities altogether. Says who?

    The Trojan Horse of multiculturalism has passed through the gates and into America’s grandest institutions. These institutions however were created by European-derived peoples with their own racial identity. Now their descendants are being ushered out the back door.

    Balkanization is now underway. The dye is cast. Who caused this? Can it still be reversed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Mark, absolutely spot on.

    Keep it coming.

    Who runs the Federal Reserve?
    Who runs Wall Street?
    Who owns the US Congress
    Who owns the White House?
    Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible '6M & gas chambers'?
    Who promotes gay marriage everywhere except in 'Israel' where it is illegal?
    Who runs the media / entertainment?
    Who dominates 'academia'?
    Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
    Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the "hate speech" canard?
    Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
    Who are the biggest racists on the planet?

    , @Anonymous
    It will be all fine and dandy until there are only scraps left of the pie. When the wild-ass prosperity ends, due to whatever, it will be the Balkans on bath salts. Even before we reach this stage the elites while have to live like a rich white family in a gated Johannesburg neighborhood with unrest all around. The group which has worked indefatigably to bring this about will be affected just as much. But they couldn't help it, it's their nature. Like the scorpion in Aesop's fable. But they will go down with the frog whose back they stung.
    , @boogerbently
    If the white men who built and made America great are now known as the oppressors who built America with slave labor after stealing it from the Indians, how will history view the sexually "tolerant", gender confused, financially socialist, media propagandizing, open border liberals of today ?
  3. @Mark Green
    As now constructed, 'identity politics' in America poses an increasing danger for non-Jewish and non-Hispanic White males. Why? The political playing field has been rigged.

    Non-elite Whites are politically disadvantaged since we are prohibited from openly organizing and collectively advancing our ethno-political interests. Yet others may do so freely.

    Nevertheless, the right of open and free association for self-identified Whites has been curtailed. It's a restricted political zone. Only 'minorities' may apply. And 'minorities' are fast becoming majorities.

    This double-standard is a recipe for cultural decline and White dispossession.

    Indeed, it's Jews, feminists, gays, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians who may coalesce politically along insular self-identities. This may be good news for the Democratic Party, but it does real harm to the descendants of the European-derived peoples who built America and achieved national greatness as its stewards.

    When White (heterosexual, males) do attempt to coalesce in a fashion now reserved for 'minorities', it is decried as racism or homophobia or discrimination or antisemitism or misogeny. White men must observe the dominant protocol of 'inclusiveness'. Whites may coalesce only under the banner of a race-free ideology.

    This political covenant however does not apply to La Raza, the NAACP, or the Congressional Jewish Caucus.

    Who created these legal land mines?

    Who enforces these cultural double-standards? Not Whites.

    Today, it's Whites--and only Whites--who may never 'discriminate' and must always be 'inclusive'.

    But these double-standards are burdensome, harmful and unfair. Rules, after all, should be applied uniformly.

    Whites are like frogs in a frying pan. And only a few of us have noticed or figured-out that the temperature is rising.

    There's a quiet and slow-moving war that's being waged. Often it's fought in the dark. Usually behind closed doors. And the playing field is uneven.

    Complacent Americans are being encouraged to cheer for military conquests in countries they cannot identify on a map. Alternatively, they are expected to 'root' for their favorite football team while their own country is slowly taken from them. Bread and circus. Fools and games go together.

    But who orchestrates the wars? Who owns the pro football teams?

    Meanwhile, an incremental war against the founding stock of America routinely operates beneath the radar and sails smoothly under false flags.

    One flag is called 'affirmative action'.

    Another is 'diversity'.

    Another is 'democracy'.

    Another is 'Separation of Church and State'.

    Another is 'equality'.

    But the results are the same: No equality. Gradual White displacement.

    Let it be said that that the extraordinary civilization known as the United States was created by a Western European population. But that America is being transformed, degraded, and turned into a militarized, multicultural empire that serves not the long-term interest of its citizens, but the interests of a few.

    This nefarious agenda requires a number of changes. One essential tool is unchecked immigration. Waves of non-European immigrants facilitate displacement and foments disunity.

    The process is gradual. Then sudden. Entrenched elites benefit. Divide and rule.

    Elevated diversity via illegal immigration has also had the impact of reducing White political influence. Even the life span of white males has declined.

    In order to manage and secure this unsavory transformation, a totalitarian orthodoxy called 'political correctness' has been injected into the media, into the courts, into government, and into higher education. Rapid demographic changes are underway. Cultural norms follow.

    Not only is the US being unlawfully overrun by peoples who are vastly different from ourselves, but many of these newcomers do not even aspire for 'assimilation' into our nation's dominant culture. Remember 'E Pluribus Unum'? (From many, One). Now it's the 'salad bowl' metaphor that rules. America is where separate cultures live side-by-side under one national umbrella. Who benefits? Does not 'diversity' blur a nation's identity and undermine its cohesion?

    Today, English is merely one language among many. Public expressions of Christianity are deemed 'offensive'. And White men, it is claimed, still have too much power and too much visibility. Whites--especially White males--are in retreat. Did this happen by accident?

    Contrary to politically-correct truisms, rising racial and ethnic diversity might be our road to ruin. Incredibly, it's our own government(s) that are sometimes leading the way.

    In liberal, Democratic LA for instance, there are freshly-minted and officially-recognized ethnic ghettos now popping up everywhere. I spotted a sign as I entered LA recently directing the visitor to 'Little Armenia'. Who thought this up?

    Another new highway sign identified a new ethnic neighborhood called 'Koreatown'.

    Where's my racial set-aside?

    America is being strategically transformed into non-White ethnic enclaves from above and below. At the same time, White Americans are expected to surrender their racial identities altogether. Says who?

    The Trojan Horse of multiculturalism has passed through the gates and into America's grandest institutions. These institutions however were created by European-derived peoples with their own racial identity. Now their descendants are being ushered out the back door.

    Balkanization is now underway. The dye is cast. Who caused this? Can it still be reversed?

    Mark, absolutely spot on.

    Keep it coming.

    Who runs the Federal Reserve?
    Who runs Wall Street?
    Who owns the US Congress
    Who owns the White House?
    Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible ’6M & gas chambers’?
    Who promotes gay marriage everywhere except in ‘Israel’ where it is illegal?
    Who runs the media / entertainment?
    Who dominates ‘academia’?
    Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
    Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the “hate speech” canard?
    Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
    Who are the biggest racists on the planet?

    Read More
  4. @MarkGreen: answer to your question, “who?” (the short form)

    organized, Universalist Tikkun Olams Jewry. Jews do not wish to be pogrom’d. Or ghetto’d. Or holocaust’d. Ever. Again. That means taking down the borders of the White nations, then drowning out the Whites in a rising tide of color: invasive Blacks, Browns, Asians, Muslims. In real (not .gov soporific) numbers, Whites will be a minority in America by the mid-2020′s, Palestine’d by 2050, physically exterminated c. 2070-2090. And who are we to object? Do we want Jews to be pogrom’d, ghetto’d, holocaust’d ever again? Of course we don’t

    Read More
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    How much of left vs right thing has to do with ideology? How much does it have to do with ethnicity?

    Some say the left has an advantage over the right cuz leftism is inherently more intellectual and critical. Maybe this is true to some extent, at least in the historical context where the status quo was challenged by the individuals on the left.

    But when we survey the American intellectual landscape, if leftism intellectually vigorous among all racial/ethnic groups?

    Let’s consider Jewish leftism, black leftism, Asian leftism, Mexican leftism, Arab leftism, hillbilly leftism, Eskimo leftism, Hawaiian leftism, dumb polack leftism, Cuban leftism, Puerto Rican leftism, and etc, etc.

    Most leftisms of most ethnic/racial groups are zero. They are intellectually blank. They are tarded. Arabs produced Edward Said, one of the most influential thinkers(though not to my taste), but who else? Most Mexican-Americans are on the ‘political left’ and vote Democratic, but how many are first-rank intellectuals?
    Blacks have some colorful personalities, but Cornel West is a moron. If anything, the best black thinkers have been on the right: Uncle Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele.
    And Malcolm X, though economically socialist, was a staunch black nationalist.
    MLK is much revered but his yammering was all cliche-ridden nonsense about how he be gonna go to some mountain top and eat chicken and melons.

    Asian leftists are prominent in the academia, but how many are original thinkers? They are just bookish drones and grinds who parrot whatever they heard from their Jewish or homo professors.

    So, the only left that really matters in America is the Jewish left and European-American left.

    The power of leftism in America owes more to ethnicity than ideology. It just so happens that the two most talented and intelligent groups in America tend to be Liberal or ‘left-leaning’.

    Without Jews being on the Left, American Leftism would suffer a huge loss. It’d be like a basketball team losing Wilt Chamberlain or Cream Abdul Jabber. The left would lose the big guns, the star player.

    Indeed, what is interesting about American intellectual life is that even though Neocons or ‘conservative Jews’ are far outnumbered by ‘leftist’ or Liberal Jews, they give one hell of a fight and hold their own. Neocons are smart, feisty, driven, determined, energetic, aggressive, and dogged. They may be dishonest, cunning, venal, and duplicitous, but whoever said intellectual/ideological battles had to be honest or principled? Even the Founding Fathers(the best bunch of political men ever assembled together) spun all sorts of lies and half-truths to de-legitimize British rule over the American colonies. And French Revolutionaries were expert liars and demagogues. But that didn’t prevent them from being intelligent radicals with the drive, determination, and vision to make it work. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were hardly honest thinkers, but they were men of energy, talent, and shrewdness.

    So, ideological battles aren’t so much about left vs right but about which side recruits the best talents especially of the most talented ethnic group?
    Though many Cons are upset with Neocons, GOP has come to rely on the Neocons cuz they got the energy and spirit. There are so many southern Christian Conservatives, but they seem to be intellectually zero. Take that guy in American Sniper. He knew how to handle a gun, but he was shit for brains. (This is Alt Right is so important in invigorating young white people with the culture of thought and discourse.)

    It’s like the matter of who wins the NBA championship is much less an issue of which team is in what city or has what name(knicks or rockets) or wears what jerseys. It’s a matter of which team gets to recruit the best players from the most talented race. In sports, the most talented race is black. So, if a team can recruit the best blacks, it will likely win.

    In intellectualism and ideology, it’s a matter of verbal skills and mental loops. And Jews are best at this. So, ideological battles are won or lost largely on account of which side has the most Jews. Having Jews on your side is like having Michael Jordan on your team.

    Now, someone might say that Jews are more likely to be leftist since people of high intelligence tend to lean ‘left’. To the extent that the left has been more closely associated with the culture of critique, this may be true to some extent.
    But look at Israel. The Israeli Right has taken dominance in just about every field.
    Also, even Jewish Leftism was often fueled by what were essentially rightist instincts.
    Jews, living in gentile majority nations, obviously felt safer with leftism than with rightism that favored the power of the gentile majority. But then, this would be true of any minority. Suppose there is a small white minority in a non-white nation. Suppose these whites are ethnocentric and white nationalist. So, should they support ethnocentrism and nationalism in principle in the nation in which they are small minority? No, because such ideas would mean that the nationalist non-white majority should dominate over the white minority. So, white minority, even if secretly nationalist, should really support Liberalism and universal leftism for their own interests as protection from the non-white majority. The British elites in India, French colonizers in Algeria, and Jews in Germany discovered the power of majority nationalism. They all got dispossessed and kicked out.

    It’s like what Harvey Pekar’s book on Israel says in the opening. He says his mother was a Marxist but, above all, she was a Zionist. She had Marx in her mind but Zion in her heart.

    In Israel where Jews are the majority, many smart Jews have gone over to the right.
    But in the West, even Jews who are into race-consciousness and nationalism, are loathe to come out for such ideas cuz it will justify the power of the white majority.
    They fear that his white majority nationalism will become hostile to Jews. Or even if the white majority isn’t hostile to Jews, it may insist on white majority nation being ruled by the white majority. This is problematic to Jews since they have a supremacist streak that seeks domination over the white majority. Why else are Jews so pissed with Russia? Russia is friendly to Jews and Putin is pro-Jewish. But that simply isn’t enough for globalist-supremacist Jews who insist on controlling Russia like they control the US.

    Anyway, if the American Left were to lose its star power of Jews, it will be finished as most racial and ethnic groups are intellectual zeros. It’d be like having a basketball team called the Leftists without any blacks.

    This is why PC is turning into hysterics. Blacks and others know they are intellectually useless and cannot argue logically or methodically. So, they’ve gone the anti-intellectual route of screaming, ranting, hollering, and shaking fists after rubbing nazi poop on walls. If you can’t win in chess, just take a club and smash the board and then threaten the opponent. It worked for Mao during the Cultural Revolution. With millions of angry Red Guards waving the Little Red Book and shaking fists, all rivals of Mao had to back down. It made no sense to make the better argument against Maoism( a huge failure in the Great Leap Forward) since the Red Guards will tear you limb from limb.

    This kind of ‘leftism’ makes the Jewish intellectual advantage irrelevant.
    Jewish power derived not only from passion and chutzpah but from brilliance and wit. But if winning debates is now about rapping, dancing, shouting, and flipping out, what need for intelligence? This kind of new ‘leftism’ is all about showmanship, and it’s no wonder that homos and negroes are most prominent. Homos are flaming in their style, and Negroes threaten to burn everything down.

    It’s no wonder that some Liberal Jews are troubled by recent developments. A ‘leftism’ that is driven by jivery and volume and floopity-doo antics doesn’t leave much room for the better, more cunning, more clever, more witty, more brilliant argument.

    Even a seasoned debater like Alan Dershowitz is gonna be flustered by an angry black ho who be screaming ‘YOU ARE DISGUSTING!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!’

    Personally, I really think real leftism is dead and has been for awhile.
    I think the Right is still less damaged than the Left. What is now called the ‘left’ isn’t the real left. It is globalism funded by Wall Street. I refuse to see the homo agenda as part of the left. It is just neo-aristocratic decadentism by other means.
    As for all these anti-white multi-culti stuff, it is just the new rightism of color. It’s tribalism in action. It’s not universalism.
    And would any black be bitching about inequality if blacks had the advantage? Do blacks complain about there being too many blacks in sports and music? No, blacks are all about black power. They bitch about ‘equality’ ONLY in cases where blacks are under-represented. Blacks are into black power, not some abstract notion of equality.

    The Right is on the ropes, but it’s still there. There is the white right that is dormant but still alive. And much of ‘people of color’ politics is really rightist because it’s about tribal and racial consciousness. It is masked by leftist rhetoric of ‘social justice’, but it’s just people of color race-ism by another name.
    And Jewish Liberalism is really fueled by Jewish identity and Jewish interests.
    Isn’t it funny that Jews are so rich, so powerful, so influential, so over-represented in elite fields, but even most Liberal Jews dare not talk about Jewish power? And even they go out of their way to destroy someone like Rick Sanchez(a Democrat) who noticed Jewish power?

    It’s not about right vs left. It’s about white right vs Jewish right vs black right vs brown right vs Arab right etc.
    The only outliers in this in America are white Liberals and yellows. White Libs are really dumb enough to believe in the creed of Liberalism and yellows are just grinds/drones who will slavishly suck up to any prevailing power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mad1
    A lot of your comment I agree with but it should be noted that Edward Said was a Christian Palestinian so perhaps not a great example of Arab intellectualism.
    , @acuteness
    Exactly right!!! good job!!

    But i think most of intellectually smart white people are being ostracized. It's not like a fair battle because ''jews' understand how societies are structured and take the power exactly to avoid direct combats with intellectually smart whites or other groups. They become the only official voice of authority in the west and their ''passing white'' strategy work very well for the crowd of intellectually lazy whites. ''Jews'' know how average(s) people(s) works, much more than the current or known intellectual whites. It's not a amateur job, not the first part because eliminate the chicken of golden eggs, aka, whites, and import people with 20% less neurons than him look very very stupid. Other possible causes is that most of intellectual geniuses among whites were or are ''abducted'' by jewry if they have similar desires OR even they are cognitively (and culturally) similar. The average white is christian and conservative while a lot of artistic and intellectual ''geniuses'' are prone to be less compatible with this (white average) profile.

    , @AndrewR
    lmao "yellows"
  6. I think Gottfried is an asshole, but still glad to see him make the distinction between the traditional Marxist Left and the freakshow that is the identity politics based New Left. When I’m in the mood to entertain a conspiracy theory, I wonder if the rise of the New Left didn’t arise from an elite project to channel social activism in a direction that would divide the working class and not threaten the elite. Leveraging identity politics is one strategy people have for attaining elite status. After George McGovern was propelled to the Democratic nomination, largely by adoption of a New Left program and deft use of some decidedly undemocratic party rules, his Youth for McGovern director, Gary Hart, stated “Our whole strategy was to co-opt the Left.” The brief spasm of ultraleft New Leftism in the late 1960s notwithstanding, the co-optation seems to have been well underway before 1972. Of course, more than two thirds of the voters in the 1972 election were not impressed with the New Left program. Thereafter, the New Left has set to attain what they want through the courts, bureaucracies, academia, and influence on the ruling elite. They seem to realize that they will never have broad appeal.

    Whatever else may be said about Marxists, their role in building the labor movement made it powerful enough to force social policy in a direction that allowed the working class to thrive. By comparison, the New Left has accomplished only divisiveness while failing to make any impact on social policy that positively impacts the well-being of the vast majority of the American people. The New Left’s targets are more often the male working class than they are the elite, which shows the milieu that identity politics appeals to.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @iffen
    New Left’s targets are more often the male working class

    And that group pays them back by giving undying support to more better Republicans election after election..

    Why is there no political formation that supports working people within the context of American politics? Is such a political entity, in reality, beyond the grasp and ability of working people?

    The discontent is there, we can see it in the Tea Party and Trump.
    , @dfordoom

    When I’m in the mood to entertain a conspiracy theory, I wonder if the rise of the New Left didn’t arise from an elite project to channel social activism in a direction that would divide the working class and not threaten the elite.
     
    I'd say that's more of an established fact than a conspiracy theory!
  7. I have begun to suspect that Cultural ‘Marxism’ is a secular extension of old school ‘Kingdom of God’ Judaism/Christianity.

    In fact I found a development of exactly such (recently) Mises’ socialism book. Such a development would, in a sense, connect the Frankfurt school secular meddlings and secular Christianity as developed in ‘Multiculturalism:Secular Theocracy’:

    “For our civilization the message of salvation of the Jewish prophets came to have a special importance. The Jewish Prophets promise no salvation in a better world beyond, they proclaim a Kingdom of God on Earth.

    Judaism is full of these ideas at the time when Jesus appears among his people as the Messiah. He comes not only to proclaim an imminent salvation but also, in fulfilment of the prophecy, as the bringer of the Kingdom of God.

    From Christian Chiliasm, which runs through the centuries constantly renewing its strength, a single step leads to the philosophic Chiliasm which in the eighteenth century was the rationalist reinterpretation of Christianity; and thence, through Saint Simon, Hegel, and Weitling to Marx and Lenin.[7] Curiously enough, it is this particular Socialism, derived in this way from mystical ideas whose origin is lost in the darkness of history, which has called itself scientific Socialism, while it has tried to disqualify as “Utopian” the Socialism that is derived from the rational considerations of the philosophers.”

    http://www.1260.org/Mary/Text/Text_Ludwig_von_Mises_Socialistic_Chiliasm_en.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    I didn't quite finish the development: to go from socialism to CM ( Cultural Marxism) goes naturally:

    Feminism: Mises chapter of the family references Babel and shows free love and radical feminism follows:
    Part I chap 4:
    https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Socialism%20An%20Economic%20and%20Sociological%20Analysis_3.pdf

    Free love (1920's):
    http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/244_Bebel_Women%20under%20Socialism_62.pdf

    Queer stuff follows:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights

    Marx (perhaps Engels) himself expresses feminism:
    "the nucleus, the first form, of which lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the husband"
    See
    Private propert section:
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf


    The racial crybabying requires a detour through critical theory, but I would argue that follows straight from Marx's concept (Hegel's perhaps originally?) of the oppressive material history of man as opens the German Ideology (some of these may be Engels).

    I don't quit understand the reluctance to associate Marx and CM. Certainly CM is not about nationalizing production, but the revolutionary logic of Marx seems more important to me dice, as Mises shows, his economic theory never really had any serious integrity anyway. Perhaps Marx is too narrow, but he's the best known from that revolutionary school.
  8. @nickels
    I have begun to suspect that Cultural 'Marxism' is a secular extension of old school 'Kingdom of God' Judaism/Christianity.

    In fact I found a development of exactly such (recently) Mises' socialism book. Such a development would, in a sense, connect the Frankfurt school secular meddlings and secular Christianity as developed in 'Multiculturalism:Secular Theocracy':


    "For our civilization the message of salvation of the Jewish prophets came to have a special importance. The Jewish Prophets promise no salvation in a better world beyond, they proclaim a Kingdom of God on Earth.
    ...
    Judaism is full of these ideas at the time when Jesus appears among his people as the Messiah. He comes not only to proclaim an imminent salvation but also, in fulfilment of the prophecy, as the bringer of the Kingdom of God.
    ...
    From Christian Chiliasm, which runs through the centuries constantly renewing its strength, a single step leads to the philosophic Chiliasm which in the eighteenth century was the rationalist reinterpretation of Christianity; and thence, through Saint Simon, Hegel, and Weitling to Marx and Lenin.[7] Curiously enough, it is this particular Socialism, derived in this way from mystical ideas whose origin is lost in the darkness of history, which has called itself scientific Socialism, while it has tried to disqualify as "Utopian" the Socialism that is derived from the rational considerations of the philosophers."

    http://www.1260.org/Mary/Text/Text_Ludwig_von_Mises_Socialistic_Chiliasm_en.htm

    I didn’t quite finish the development: to go from socialism to CM ( Cultural Marxism) goes naturally:

    Feminism: Mises chapter of the family references Babel and shows free love and radical feminism follows:
    Part I chap 4:

    https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Socialism%20An%20Economic%20and%20Sociological%20Analysis_3.pdf

    Free love (1920′s):

    http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/244_Bebel_Women%20under%20Socialism_62.pdf

    Queer stuff follows:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights

    Marx (perhaps Engels) himself expresses feminism:
    “the nucleus, the first form, of which lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the husband”
    See
    Private propert section:

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf

    The racial crybabying requires a detour through critical theory, but I would argue that follows straight from Marx’s concept (Hegel’s perhaps originally?) of the oppressive material history of man as opens the German Ideology (some of these may be Engels).

    I don’t quit understand the reluctance to associate Marx and CM. Certainly CM is not about nationalizing production, but the revolutionary logic of Marx seems more important to me dice, as Mises shows, his economic theory never really had any serious integrity anyway. Perhaps Marx is too narrow, but he’s the best known from that revolutionary school.

    Read More
  9. @Priss Factor
    Paradoxically, PC is resilient because it unites those-with-character and those-without-character.

    Crucial to success of PC is the Northern European mindset. It is highly conscientious, moralistic, mindful of good work, entered on integrity, dignity, sobriety.
    The Northern European Mindset wants to do good work around the world. It wants to apologize and make amends. It wants to cleanse the soul, spiritually or ideologically.
    It goes for moral enemas. It is very Kelloggy.

    For the Northern European Mindset--NEM--, PC means doing good work. It means redressing past wrongs. It means being mindful and conscientious and committed and sympathetic and compassionate and determined and etc. It is purist, universalist, and ethical.

    Now, if all people around the world were similarly minded, it would not be so bad.

    But there is another feature to PC.

    Most peoples around the world don't share the Northern European Mindset. Japanese and some East Asians may have a Shame Culture that makes them mindful, but it's a matter of outward behavior than inward morality of 'sin' and 'guilt'.

    Anyway, many non-whites and southern Europeans don't even feel much in the way of shame. Their view of the world is self-centered, tribal, suspicious, hostile, cunning, and opportunistic. And this is especially problematic among Jews, Homos, and Negroes.
    Jews may be no worse in ethics than the Arab Semites. But because they are smarter, they gain much power and influence. Homos come in all colors, but homos are generally vain, narcissistic, and self-centered. Some homos are hard-working and diligent, but their basic character is me-centric and aristo.
    As for Negroes, no people on Earth are as crazy, wild, jivey, ghastly, loony, and simply ridiculous.

    PC takes two to tango. If all people were like Negroes or other tribal-minded peoples, PC wouldn't work. After all, Arabs/Muslims practiced slavery over black Africans longer than whites did, but you don't see any PC between Arabs and blacks. If black Africans were to say to Arab Muslims, "You enslaved us", Arab Muslims would say, "Go chuck a spear at a hippo, you black savage idiot." Arab Muslims won't tango to PC.
    Recently, consider the massive refugee crisis. The problems in Syria were made worse by Saudi Arabia and Gulf States funding ISIS and etc. But notice they take ZERO responsibility. In contrast, Northern Europeans are holding up signs saying 'Refugees Welcome'. Some say this is a German problem cuz of Holocaust Guilt, but we see the same kind of nuttiness in Sweden and Iceland, two nations that need feel no collective guilt since they didn't take part in Western Imperialism around the world.

    Even though Brazilian whites traded in black slaves much more than white Americans, there is still far less 'collective guilt' about slavery in Brazil than in the US. Latin folks have lower national character and tend to be far less conscientious.

    One reason why the Greeks and Southern Italians tend to be tolerant of mass invasion is because those opportunistic and slimy buggers know they can push the invaders to other parts of Europe, especially UK, Germany, Sweden, and etc. If EU project were to end and if sleazy Greeks and lowlife southern Italians could no longer pass the buck(or the fuc*, as Negroes from Africa love to hump white women) to northern parts of Europe, they wouldn't be so 'progressive' in their handling of migration problems.

    Now, having good national character is a wonderful thing. Indeed, it is one of the best things to have. The reason why so many ideologies failed is cuz they failed to address or fix the problems of national character. It's like Fascism failed to change Italians from lying greaseballs into something more solid and sturdy. It's like in Hemingways' FAREWELL TO ARMS. A couple of Italian deserters join the Americans, eat the cheese and onions... but when gunfire erupts, they just shit their pants and take off. They act like the characters of SEVEN BEAUTIES by Wertmuller. And one would have to be crazy to trust a Eek-it's-a-Greek. As for Gypsies, by golly, forget it. They are useless.

    People welcome new ideologies and governments, but if the national character remains low, not much could be done. Sure, if the times are good with lots of cash, things may seem good for awhile. When oil prices were sky high, the Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez was looking pretty good. But it was just a temporary fix of market prices. The thing is, even when the cash was flowing in, most Venezuelans were low in national character. They were lazy, corrupt, confused, deceitful, selfish, venal, opportunistic, and etc.
    And this is the problem of Russia as well. Putin did make some real progress, but unless the Russian national character is changed, Russia will always be a shaky wobbly place. Putin has the good fortune of high oil prices. But Russia is now facing a major economic squeeze.
    A people with great national character can weather such a problem and rise again. Now, national character is no guarantee against ideological lunacy. Germans and Japanese have high national character, but they went with crazy politics in the 30s and 40s. Even so, it was because they had such solid national characters that they were able to rebuild their nations really fast after the war. This is all the more remarkable since 1/3 of Japanese industry was destroyed in the war. And Germany was divided, its cities were smashed, and Germany had to take in millions of German refugees uprooted from other parts of Europe. Even so, Germans worked well together and worked hard, and in no time, Germany was once again the biggest economy in Europe. National Character is the real asset to have.

    How is this national character formed? It could partly be racial, i.e. some races have natural personalities that are more conducive to building solid national character while some groups may have natural personalities that are less conducive to building good national character.
    Take someone like Joe Pesci's characters in Scorsese movies. Though such people could be raised to be decent individuals, they still have natural propensities to act more like Tommy(Goodfellas) or Nicky(Casino). There is something oily and greasy about the southern Italian character. And Greeks are something else when it comes to all sorts of shady behavior. It must be partly genetic.
    Surely, when it comes to Negro, forming national character is like the labor of Sisyphus. The natural mode of the Negro is to holler, jive, shuck, shake booty, and act jungle-like. Toss them a watermelon and you have a riot.

    Even so, national character isn't just about genetics. After all, we can tell from the yob culture in UK and vodka swilling thug culture from Russia(many of whom are of northern European stock) that ANY PEOPLE can become degraded, trashy, and moronic.
    And there are sane and conscientious communities outside Northern Europe-sphere. On occasion, such even exists among the Negroes who aren't so ghastly like most others of their kind around the world.

    If a positive national character is formed in a people, it is the most valuable asset along with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history. A society with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history has the solid three elements for survival. But if it lacks national character, it won't make much economic or social progress. Take Zimbabwe. It is black and proud and homogeneous. But it is a ugabuga land because most blacks in that nation are a bunch of nutjob jivers with low national character.

    National character isn't the same thing as morality. Germans during the Nazi Era has national character but submitted to a rabid demagogue.
    National character is valuable cuz it instills people with seriousness, diligence, commitment, discipline, sobriety, dedication, communal conscience, loyalty, and etc. So, even if Germans of Nazi era were serving an evil regime, they were working and living in ways that led to mutual respect and understanding among Germans.
    So, Germans could build and run an economy under Nazism. And once Nazism fell, the German national character could rebuild an economy and run it well again.
    National character will not necessarily protect a people from bad politics. But it is something that transcends and outlives fashions in politics.

    A people with good national character and bad politics will do better than people with bad national character and good politics. Germans under even something like Nazism will do better than Greeks under democracy. Of course, ideally, a people should possess good national character and be on the side of liberty and freedom. But the great and resilient thing about national character is it has value whether a society is free or not. Also, if a people have national character, their greatness can remain latent/dormant even if they are not allowed to thrive and succeed. Suppose a Japanese minority in some nation was restricted from economic advancement. It will remain poor surely, but if it holds onto its national character, it has the chance of success IF AND WHEN it is afforded with freedom and opportunity. But if the Japanese community loses its national character, it will be less likely to take advantage of freedom and opportunity.

    In contrast, a people without national character won't do much even with freedom and democracy. I mean even Germans in communist East Germany ran a better society than blacks in democratic and free Detroit. Even Chinese in undemocratic Singapore do a better job than Greeks in a democracy. Chinese in Singapore have national character. Greeks don't.

    Singaporean case is interesting cuz it demonstrates the difference between racial character and national character.
    Racial character tends to be fixed. Of course, it can be changed through selective breeding. For example, we know blacks are low in racial character. They prefer basketballs to books. They is full of theyselves. But suppose we do selective breeding whereby blacks like Thomas Sowell are allowed to mate while jive-ass fools like Kanye West are not allowed to breed. Over time, more and more blacks will be like Uncle Thomas Sowell, and black racial character will improve.

    If racial character is something one is born with, national character can be molded by social and cultural forces. And we see this with the Chiners in Singapore. Chinese, on average, may be pretty solid in terms of racial character. But Chinese culture and history have been rather up-and-down, and Chinese national character reflected this. It was uneven.
    So, the success of Singapore cannot be attributed merely to Chinese-ness, especially as there are plenty of Chinese around the world who lack the national character of Singaporeans. Lee of Singapore obviously studied the national character of Northern Europeans, especially that of the Brits. He was critical of British imperialism, but he could tell a good stuff when he saw one.
    It's like what the British guy(Anthony Quayle) says in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA: "Britain is small but it is great because of discipline". Omar Sharif says, "Because you got guns". What a dumbass ragger. But how did the Brits come to make such great guns and ship and trains and stuff? Because they developed a certain mindset that worked well to organize and manage systems of power. The ragger played by Sharif only sees the effect. He fails to see the cause. True, UK is powerful cuz it has guns, but why was it able to have those guns in the first place? While national character isn't everything, it is important. It is no accident that Northern Europeans with a certain national character achieved more in UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, etc. Some might say it was Protestantism, but this is true only to some extent. After all, all of Italy is mostly Catholic, so how come the northern Italians with lighter skin are more diligent and conscientious than southern Italians who look more like Joe Pesci? How come those who look more oily act more oily?

    Progs say US is a land of haves and have-nots. But so many groups who came to US as have-nots became big haves. And so many who once were haves became have-nots. Lots of blacks in Detroit once had good working jobs with benefits. They were have-somethings. But they became have-nots when they ruined the city with their jivery.

    The more crucial issue is the difference between have-characters and have-not-characters. Of course, have-brains and have-not-brains is also crucial. Smart people have huge advantage over the dummies.
    But most people are neither smart nor dumb. They are mediocre. So, their future depends a lot on character. With good character, they can focus their energies and limited talents on what is essential and constructive. Without character, they can waste their energies and limited talents on trashy behavior, stupidity, dementedness, ass-tattoos, piercings, drugs, and etc.

    But there is no talk of character. The problem with many blacks and browns and Muslims in America is they have lower social/national characters.
    Even among the have-nots, some have more character than others. Mexicans have been known to work hard, keep family together, save money, and etc. But they are less mindful about disposing garbage properly.
    They are less mindful about coming together to do what is right. They are poor in the concept of collective action. If Mexicans were more collectively mindful, they could have done more to combat corruption and crime in Mexico. But most Mexicans just wanna keep their heads down and not get involved. Though Germans made a terrible choice of Nazism, their success owed to German ability for cooperation and unity and collective action. The economy got so bad and things got real desperate. So, Germans came together and called for a new order. Too bad Hitler turned out to be a loony in the end.

    But the fact is Germans did something to address social problems during the Depression. In contrast, Mexicans just keep their heads down and look the other way. That's why a village of Mexicans need gringos to come and protect them from other Mexicans in MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Mexers cannot do it themselves. But still, Mexers are still with some national character. They get the hard-work part and family part, but they don't take it to the next level. And so, children of Mexicans in the US end up doing worse than their parents cuz they aren't immune to the poison of American pop culture.

    National character can be lost, to be sure. We can see this among many Northern European Americans who've succumbed to trash culture of tattoos, drugs, piercings, and etc. We see the rise of herbivore hipster garbage in slacker Japan. We see the ugly punk and yob culture of UK.
    But as long as a people have it, it is among the most valuable asset. It is the thing that can lead to economic and social success. It is also the thing that enables a society to recover and revive itself after major crisis.
    Germany and Japan could not have recovered so quickly after WWII without national character. And Japan made a fast recovery after the horrible earthquake. Meanwhile it's hard to tell the difference between Haiti before earth quake and after earthquake. It is always suffering from a natural disaster called Negremors.

    National character is both toughest to instill and sometimes hardest to lose. Still, it's easier lost than gained. And once lost, it may be very difficult to recover, espeicallyin a democracy.
    Though communism degraded German national character with excessive socialism, the essential character wasn't lost among East Germans. Japanese national character has been resilient under feudal system, military era, and democratic era. National character is mutually reinforced in a society that is mostly homogeneous. Even when the political system and culture changes, all the habits, attitudes, norms, values, and manners shared by the community have a way of functioning as a support network of behavioral characteristics. It is more easily lost when one moves to an alien culture where the norms are different. This was one reason why the Japanese-Brazilians who moved back to Japan didn't cope so well. Having adopted the more easy-going Brazilian ways, they had a hard time re-adapting to the Japanese national character that is more mindful and sober(if also more anal and stifling).

    When societies and nations face big problems, politicians and demagogues come along and promise deliverance through politics and social/economic policies. If, like Chavez, one gets lucky with high oil prices, things can be good for awhile. But if the people lack national character and remain the same in their habits/attitudes, no real progress can be made in the long run. It doesn't matter how many speeches Mugabe or Zuma gives in Zimbabwe and South Africa or how much wealth they redistribute.
    The fact is black Africans have very low national character.

    But it's also true of Argentinians and even lots of whites and mulattos in Brazil. They may blame capitalism or gringo or whatever, but the fact is a people with low national character cannot have long term success. Brazil got lucky because of high commodity prices, especially fueled by demands from China. While the cash was flowing in, the Brazilian government provided some economic goodies for the poor.
    But nothing was done to improve the national character.

    Same problem haunts Russia. Now, Putin is smarter and more sensible than the likes of Chavez and the clown princess of Argentina. Putin has a better understanding of history and culture. He has tried to change the Russian character by emphasizing tradition, heritage, discipline, unity, organization, and etc. But the Russian elites, unlike the Prussian elites, don't practice what they preach. Russia is still a land of rotten oligarchs. Fish rots from the head.

    In the long run, Putin's legacy will really depend on what he did with Russian character that must change in order for Russia to become a great power.
    Prussia was tiny and with limited resources. But it became a major European power cuz of its national character and top-notch elites.
    Imagine if all of Russia were to follow the Prussian model. Russia needs to look to the Prussian way, just like China needs to look to the Singaporean way. Russia as giant version of Prussia would truly be an awesome power. If China could be like a giant Singapore, it would be the new superpower. Of course, what is easy to do on a small scale is much tougher on a large scale.
    Putin uses the Church to boost social morality and order, but the Russian church is centered around political authority. Russian church must follow the model of the traditional Protestant church. It must develop a separate wing of active clergies who become intimately involved with the people all across Russia. Russian Orthodox's message to the people has been too fatalist and passive. Resign-and-obey isn't good enough. Reform-and-advance is what is crucial. And Russia must do this on their own. If US were indeed a decent nation of morality and liberty, it might offer useful advice to Russia. But 'western-style liberal democracy' now means the power of globalist Jews and homos to infiltrate and subvert other nations and not to really reform and improve things but to spread the culture of pornography, homo worship, and multi-culti madness to undermine native majority cultures. Pussy Riot and Masha Gessen will do NOTHING for the national character of your people.

    Anyway, Putin senses that the long-term solution to Russia isn't just a matter of ideology or politics or economics. Chavez the dumbass saw EVERYTHING in terms of the politics of victimhood. Gringo is imperialist, and Latin Americans are victims. Capitalism is bad, socialism is good. So, Chavez thought things would be great if Venezuela just shat on America and provided more free stuff for the poor.
    But the dependent poor only remain the dependent poor with handouts under socialism. Their character is not improved. They can't do anything on their own. Also, bashing America, though possibly justified, doesn't do anything for the economy when the main problem isn't the gringo but the lack of talent, will, initiative, honesty, and integrity among the native population. And the problem isn't just with white elites of Latin America but with the low national character of the masses who are confused, corrupt, lazy, dishonest, and etc, just like the Eek-it's-a-Greek.
    Greece could be Switzerland IF Greeks only fixed their national character. But Greek character remains what it is, and Greeks distrust one another, cheat one another, lie endlessly, and thrown tantrums and blame everyone but themselves. It was once great for Greek Drama 1000s of yrs ago, but it aint doing Greeks much good today. You aint gonna fix your nation by killing your pa and screwing your ma and screaming your brains out in the 21st century.

    But there is also the dark side of national character. One result is lowest birthrates in the world in nations with highest national character. Such people may feel too guilty to have kids when 'so many people are starving around the world'. Or they may have such high standards for themselves that they only wanna have kids if they can be assured that their kids will grow up and go to good schools and do well. (Also, people with high national character can paradoxically become most submissive to an ideology or movement of degradation. Because they are so serious and committed, they may puritanically conform to the latest moral crusade--like 'gay marriage'--or political fashion, like 'slut feminism'. It is because Northern Europeans and East Asian take their studies most seriously in college that they succumb most to the depraved idiocies of PC. Their sense of moral commitment and intellectual purity makes them utterly blind to the sheer idiocy of what they are doing. It's like the British officer in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. He is so into doing the Proper and Honorable Thing that he fails to see that he is betraying his own nation and serving the enemy.)

    Also, Northern European types sometimes think too much about stuff cuz they feel a need to do it to perfection. It must be done just right or none at all.
    It's like the opening scene of IDIOCRACY where a high IQ white couple think too much about doing it right to ever do it. (Also, the fact that people in Northern Europe live to a ripe old age gives the false impression that those nations still have lots of people. If Europeans now live to around 80 or more, it means European nations are filled with old people who are no longer having kids. Suppose some European nation has 50 million people but 50% of people are past the fertility age. Its stats seem healthy, with a lot of people, but one overlooks the fact that 50% of people are just waiting to die and unable to produce more life. EU should release new stats that only show the number of people who are fertile. There must so many German women who are in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s who are not gonna produce any kids. They are just waiting to die.)

    Development of national character cannot be accomplished in a decade or a single era. It has to be done over a long period. Also, for it to really stick, it must be instilled internally than just applied externally. Stalinism failed in changing the Russian character. It used whip and chain to drive Russians to work hard and do awesome things, but most Russians worked out of physical fear. Some were inspired by socialist ideals, but the idea of working hard for the 'good of all' is too idealistic and ideological. Once Stalinism faded, Russians reverted to their old ways of swilling vodka, dancing on tables, and wrestling with bears. Fear will drive people to work. But true national character instills people with a sense of pride associated with hard work, craftsmanship, merit, achievement, service, cooperation.

    To an extent, Russians could be more slovenly cuz they had all the land and huge population and etc. Tiny Prussia had to be the best pound-for-pound cuz it lacked in quantity. It had to squeeze every drop out of quality. Russia, like the Persians in 300 the crazy movie, could just rely on sheer numbers. Prussia had to be more like Sparta where every man and ounce of skill mattered. As the 21st century is about high-tech and ever-tightening forms of organization and efficiency, Russia has to go the Prussian model, and to do this, it needs a new national character.
    How long does it take to build such a national character?
    And is it possible to develop national characters in the age of democracy and freedom?

    As much as we value freedom and liberal democracy, national characters have almost always been formed and hardened under systems of authoritarianism, political-military-spiritual. Jewish character wasn't formed by libertine-ism. Jewish elders were not a bunch of Ron Jeremies or Mel Brooks. Japanese national character wasn't formed by Pikachu or Baby Metal. German national character wasn't formed by R.W. Fassbinder and Kraut rock.
    National characters tend to be stifling and repressive due to their insistence on certain morals, habits, manners, attitudes, and etc. So naturally, the modern forces of liberalism and hedonism and bohemianism ridicule and mock the notion of national character. But all functional societies owe a great deal to national character that has been instilled into the vast majority of the population that, due to this character, are willing to work hard, be honest, be communally mindful and conscientious, and etc.
    I can understand a Japanese bohemian-maverick bitching about the 'bourgeois' philistine morality and petty-minded attitudes of his countrymen, but does he really think Japan would be better if the national character were closer to that of free-wheeling Brazilians, rascally Greeks, and oily Italians? The greaseballs may be more fun, but they are trouble. I'd rather watch Joe Pesci cause trouble in CASINO than watch a law-abiding Swedish American, but the fact is Swedes cause less trouble for other people. They have a more solid national character.

    If Swedish-Americans do cause more trouble for others, it is because their national character is overly good. And this is where national character and PC become partners in hell. National character should be conscientious and good enough, but it shouldn't be too do-goody and puritanical, cuz it then becomes naive, stupid, and demented. As such, in the name of helping rest of humanity(that is really beyond help), it only destroys itself. Look what the Scandinavian-Americans are doing to themselves in Minnesota by trying to save all of Somalia. National Character must not be do-goody as do-goodiness is just a utopian naivete that is always doomed to failure, especially if one is helping out crazy Negroes. Be good, not do-goody.

    Negro national character can be improved somewhat. But such requires authoritarian power. Black American national character was actually better in the past when American society was less free. So, blacks had to work harder instead of depending on welfare. And blacks did believe it was shameful to have kids out of wedlock. It's like aunt Esther in Sanford and Son calls people 'heathen' for being immoral. It's like the mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN gets awful mad when her daughter dis God in her house, and her daughter better believe it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5em2tOWPV4
    https://youtu.be/SHS9uQVN6uQ?t=2m57s
    Back then, blacks had to prove that they were as good as white folks. Now, with all this MLK-cult, blacks are automatically seen as holy, and it is whites who must prove theyselves worthy to Negroes even though it is Negroes who be the most immoral bunch of loons in the USA.
    Worse, we live in some crazy nations where both whites and Negroes must prove their moral worth to a bunch of ass-humpers who are worshiped like they are angels or something.

    We want to live in freedom and democracy, but a free society is only as good as the values and habits that dominate in that society, and those values and habits are inherited from a period when society was unfree.
    While bad rulers and spiritual mentors can instill negative characters in the people, good rulers and good spiritual mentors can instill positive characters in the people.

    Democracies are better at instilling negative characteristics than positive ones. For the good characters to gain dominance, the negative ones have to be suppressed. An authoritarian system is more effective at repressing the negative ones. In a democracy, even the degenerates must be tolerated. Worse, tolerance can lead to celebration, as happened with all this homo nonsense in the West.
    It's problematic enough for us to tolerate deviancy and even degeneracy in a democracy. But must we celebrate it? The powers-that-be now force us to celebrate that stuff.
    And there is rap culture among blacks, porny culture among 'slut feminists'.
    Since normal morality has been attacked as 'heteronormative' and since people have become so accustomed to filth, no one resists anymore. So, the culture just gets trashier and trashier. Those are smart enough to navigate through such junk can still make it in Silicon Valley and Wall Street and Hollywood. But everyone else is degraded or confused in this morass of degeneracy. When people are made to feel morally superior because they think two men doing ass-buggery is so great, this is no kind of moral order.

    And now, there is even an attack on work ethic. In the past, blacks were eager to prove that they too could work hard. Now, black intellectuals say 'hard work' is 'racist' because it reminds people of slavery and because it gives the false impression that success is a matter of work ethic when it is purely the product of 'white privilege'.

    One thing for sure, national character and diversity generally don't go together. It's difficult to come up with international character. This was evident in the tensions between Germans and Greeks in the EU. The German way and Greek way just don't get along in terms of outlook, habits, work, integrity, and etc. Also, Germans feel too much historical guilt to tell Greeks to 'shape up or ship out', and Greeks are too rascally to ever admit that their lack of national character played a huge role in the dire finances of Greece.

    It's possible that progs see PC as a force to improve the character of the people. But it does nothing of the kind. PC is about outward attitudes, not about inner values. Also, PC favors those groups that are most problematic in America: Jews, homos, blacks, slut feminists.

    Homos are too vain and decadent to be the standard-bearer of virtue and morality. Blacks are too crazy, lazy, trashy, and dishonest. While blacks do have compelling historical case, their moral degradation and economic failings owe more to racial and cultural/moral factors. Blacks are naturally wilder and more troublesome, and their culture no longer tries to restrain natural black craziness but give vent to it. Negroes are no longer singing the Negro spiritual but ugly trashy rap.

    Slut feminists are nuts. Just think of UVA case and Emma Sulky Bitch.

    Jews are an odd case. They possess the duality of having one of the highest and lowest national characters in the world.
    In terms of work ethic, diligence, commitment, sobriety, and etc, many Jews have strong national character. But as a community, there is too much lies and bullshit vis-a-vis the goyim. I mean how much more crap can we take from Netanyahu, Soros, Foxman, and their ilk? And too many good Jews tolerate the shit behavior of bad Jews like Sabrina Rubin Erdely, truly a monstrous bitch.

    And now, Jews are rewarding Pollard with some plush job. Jewish nationalism isn't the problem, but Jewish globalist attitude is currently supremacist, and Jews now ironically have attitude like German National Socialists. They are above the law.
    Unlike with Negroes and other colored folks, much of Jewish achievement is genuine and meritocratic. But for whatever reason, even good Jews are very tolerant and protective of bad ones.

    Also, good Jews feel indebted to bad Jews because some of the most powerful Jews who've done most for Jewish power are the bad ones. Take Sheldon Adelson and Goldman Sachs Jews. Surely, good Jews must know that such big powerful Jews are a**holes, but one doesn't get super-rich by being a nice guy. So, it's not surprising that the richest Jews tend to be those who are intelligent and total a**holes, the Hyman Roths. While good Jews may not respect such Jews morally, they acknowledge that such big-time Jews have done more for the Jewish community and Jewish causes than good Jews have. It is just the nature of power. Even good Jews are obsessed with Jewish power, and one doesn't gain power by just being good or nice.

    Anyway, PC penalizes the very people---the Northern European folks---who should be the model for most people. Most non-whites should be like Lee of Singapore who, even as he challenged British power, admired and learned a lot from the Brits.

    Instead, PC says everything about Northern Europeans is wrong, wrong, and wrong.
    There is nothing to learn from Northern Europeans, the very people with the best formula for success and progress.
    It says Swedes should beat on bongo drums and Germans should listen to reggae. Now, reggae is good music, but it's not the sort of stuff that's gonna build national character. If someone wants to relax with a joint and reggae, okay. But Bob Marley, talented as he was, was no moral paragon.
    People need values of diligence, discipline, integrity, sobriety, propriety, and that stuff. But PC wages war on such values as 'white privilege'. It assumes that social justice can be achieved by white self-hatred and non-whites bitching about 'white privilege'. This is a dead end.

    This is why we need Prislam. It may be the only counter-force against PC.

    It works best in Protestant lands. Because PC is judaism which is protestantism, roughly, but enough so.

    Read More
  10. The fix to all this nonsense is to simply pull the money.

    The question is, how?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok
    The education bubble will have to burst, or deflate, eventually. That will take care of some of it.

    As for the sport money - any ideas?
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    How to do the money fix? Well, we can start with a few little things:

    1- Encourage college football and basketball thug-a-letes to unionize.

    2- Quit watching Thug-a-Letics live and on TV and quit buying the sponsors' products.

    3- Stop alumni donations and tell the solicitors why.
  11. Eustace Tilley (not) [AKA "Schiller/Nietzsche"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Hey, Professor: It’s spelled “Kwanzaa”. Might as well get the spelling right before it fades into total (and richly deserved) obscurity, along with the rest of fake black culture.

    Read More
  12. @Thirdeye
    I think Gottfried is an asshole, but still glad to see him make the distinction between the traditional Marxist Left and the freakshow that is the identity politics based New Left. When I'm in the mood to entertain a conspiracy theory, I wonder if the rise of the New Left didn't arise from an elite project to channel social activism in a direction that would divide the working class and not threaten the elite. Leveraging identity politics is one strategy people have for attaining elite status. After George McGovern was propelled to the Democratic nomination, largely by adoption of a New Left program and deft use of some decidedly undemocratic party rules, his Youth for McGovern director, Gary Hart, stated "Our whole strategy was to co-opt the Left." The brief spasm of ultraleft New Leftism in the late 1960s notwithstanding, the co-optation seems to have been well underway before 1972. Of course, more than two thirds of the voters in the 1972 election were not impressed with the New Left program. Thereafter, the New Left has set to attain what they want through the courts, bureaucracies, academia, and influence on the ruling elite. They seem to realize that they will never have broad appeal.

    Whatever else may be said about Marxists, their role in building the labor movement made it powerful enough to force social policy in a direction that allowed the working class to thrive. By comparison, the New Left has accomplished only divisiveness while failing to make any impact on social policy that positively impacts the well-being of the vast majority of the American people. The New Left's targets are more often the male working class than they are the elite, which shows the milieu that identity politics appeals to.

    New Left’s targets are more often the male working class

    And that group pays them back by giving undying support to more better Republicans election after election..

    Why is there no political formation that supports working people within the context of American politics? Is such a political entity, in reality, beyond the grasp and ability of working people?

    The discontent is there, we can see it in the Tea Party and Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Traditionally in the industrial Midwest, that was the labor unions. Pat Buchanan hoped in his '92 campaign that those voters would cross over to the GOP primary to vote for him, but the unions put all the muscle into supporting the Democrats with the black Detroit pols.

    As such, the rising opinion on the right was that the working class would always vote D by virtue of being in unions. Due to changes in the economy, and later the spread of the right-to-work laws after 2010, this is no longer the case. But the establishment GOP never expected to have these voters, they were itching for suburban UMC moderates concerned about taxes, which explains the anti-labor moves after 2010, which backfired in the presidential election of 2012.

    The Tea Party isn't really a working class phenomenon, it's a reaction by the more credentialed and active conservatives along with former Ron Paul supporters. Behind it is the Koch Brothers, and their groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.

    It's important to note that white males in the working class don't vote GOP in the proportions that black males do for the Democrats, so there is still a challenge for the nationalists like us.
    , @Thirdeye
    I can think of a few things that led to the decline of the labor movement. Destroying it was task #1 for a large segment of the ruling class in the postwar years and the response within the leadership of the labor movement was completely inadequate. The leadership of the movement was under the illusion that it had established a place at the table in terms of labor policy through wheeling and dealing within the Democratic Party. The more independent leadership was hounded out during the McCarthy era, leaving a large cadre of complacent and self-interested bureaucrats in charge. In foregoing their willingness to act independently, or even antagonistically, to the two-party system, they bargained away their best cards. Union leadership concerned mainly with its niche in the power structure had little initiative for dealing with structural changes in the economy, leading to further decline.

    The rift between the labor Democrats and the developing New Left was tremendously damaging. Some of that was the fault of the labor Democrats, following from their sucking up to the Cold War establishment. But the base of the New Left among academics and students had a broader contempt for the working class in general, regarding it as culturally backward and unaware. The New Left's notion that minorities and assorted grievance groups could replace class interest as a basis for egalitarian social change was wrong, wrong, wrong, and the belligerent antics of New Left protest movements alienated all but a few. The 1972 election illustrated that failure spectacularly. A "silent majority" of black voters voted for Nixon (blacks voting Republican used to be the norm). The base of the McGovern vote was among disaffected youth and upscale whites.

    We've seen plenty of lip service to labor issues from those trying to revitalize the left, but it's difficult to see any meaningful left coalition happening as long as those efforts are beholden to identity politics interests that are manifestly hostile to male workers. I agree that those same workers often align against their own interests, but neither option in the two party system is truly aligned with their interests.
  13. @iffen
    New Left’s targets are more often the male working class

    And that group pays them back by giving undying support to more better Republicans election after election..

    Why is there no political formation that supports working people within the context of American politics? Is such a political entity, in reality, beyond the grasp and ability of working people?

    The discontent is there, we can see it in the Tea Party and Trump.

    Traditionally in the industrial Midwest, that was the labor unions. Pat Buchanan hoped in his ’92 campaign that those voters would cross over to the GOP primary to vote for him, but the unions put all the muscle into supporting the Democrats with the black Detroit pols.

    As such, the rising opinion on the right was that the working class would always vote D by virtue of being in unions. Due to changes in the economy, and later the spread of the right-to-work laws after 2010, this is no longer the case. But the establishment GOP never expected to have these voters, they were itching for suburban UMC moderates concerned about taxes, which explains the anti-labor moves after 2010, which backfired in the presidential election of 2012.

    The Tea Party isn’t really a working class phenomenon, it’s a reaction by the more credentialed and active conservatives along with former Ron Paul supporters. Behind it is the Koch Brothers, and their groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.

    It’s important to note that white males in the working class don’t vote GOP in the proportions that black males do for the Democrats, so there is still a challenge for the nationalists like us.

    Read More
  14. I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore. To my understanding, the contrarian view was from William Lind, who linked Gramsci to the Frankfurt School.

    Marx was an economic determinist, who thought we would have world revolution when the capitalists ran out of new markets and a need for labor. The more orthodox Marxists will claim the latter has yet to occur, and that communism could happen if robotics displaces a vast majority of workers.

    The left in 1914 was shocked that the working classes did not rise up in revolution against the war, and instead backed nationalist passions. To an even bigger shock, the revolution occured in the underdeveloped Russia, rather than Germany. In the same Germany, the communists were crushed by those fearing an attack on their nation and Christianity. Similar events occurred in Hungary.

    Marx thought culture was the superstructure of society, and had no essence. What the cultural Marxists theorized, was that it creates “false consciousness” that makes you think you are not an oppressed proletariat. So, if you remove Christianity and nations, class consciousness will occur and world revolution will follow.

    While it may be true that the Frankfrut School ideas have become so common as to be not even recognized as to their origins, one only needs to look at the Occupy Wall Street movement, and Black Lives Matter, to see that the real goal of world revolution still remains. Both movements were clearly inspired by the cultural marxism of academia, and funded by George Soros who whatever many billions he made in finance is an admirer of Herbert Marcuse. His foundation, the Open Society, claims inspiration from Karl Popper, but a cursory look reveals the influence of the ideas of “repressive tolerance”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore.
     
    When it's funded by billionaires you have to question just how marxist it is.

    And neocons push cultural marxism and I don't think neocons are aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They're aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the rich.
    , @Thirdeye
    When Marcuse advanced the thesis that the proletariat had become so commodity-identified that they lost the ability to function as a center of opposition, he was indeed declaring the irrelevance of Marxism. Postmodernist "Cultural Marxists" take that notion a step further and define the proletariat as an "oppressor group" on the basis of their adherence to the norms of a supposedly exclusionary dominant culture. Never mind that culture is a morphing, melding thing in the age of mass exchange, and the cultures that thrive are the ones that adapt and toss their excess baggage - witness the adaptations of Far Eastern cultures when their choice was to either evolve or get steamrolled by the West. Those who whine about the oppressiveness of a "dominant culture" are often more oppressed by their own embrace of dysfunctional cultural baggage.

    As oppressive as neoliberalism is, it is an equal opportunity cultural destroyer with a lot in common with the postmodernist approach to culture.
    , @nickels
    Agreed.

    I can understand people who note that CM is not by any stretch orthodox Marxism nor does it have anything with nationalizing the means of production.

    But Marx's true impact was his revolutionary logic (which probably is not his alone, but his name remains from the rubble), not his economic system, which held no water without the revolutionary logic that declared any scientific study of Marxism off limits because of the 'Capitalist mind set making any such investigations biased'.

    To deny that CM is Marxist strictly on technicalities to me leaves it unnecessarily dangling out in space as if it came from nowhere, which is absolutely not the case, as Gottfried's Strange Death of Marxism shows. I think Gottfried makes the case that CM evolves from Marxism, whether we want to mire ourselves in the technicality of it not being part of the Marxist Talmud or not.

    I think the concept of Judaic messianism actually ties both the Marxist angle on CM and the Post-Calvinism of CM quite nicely if one wants to expand the lineage.

    , @Dr. X
    "I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore."

    I second this.

    "Marxism," as we have traditionally understood it -- (meaning Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism) -- may very well have been a major deviation from Marx's theory, properly understood.

    Remember, Marx wrote that bourgeois capitalism, not communism, was the truly "revolutionary" doctrine, and that communism, as he envisioned it, followed on the heels of capitalism. He believed that this was so because he argued that material conditions created consciousness, not the other way around; thus, as capitalist technology and the Industrial Revolution changed people's expectations, they would rise up and demand control of the wealth generated by capitalism.

    I think this is actually what is happening. By contrast, Leninism and Maoism (and for that matter Vietnamese and Cambodian communism) were instituted in pre-capitalist, peasant societies, and, in reality, were not all that different from run-of-the mill bloodthirsty monarchies and dictatorships that have existed for millennia.

    Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society, making demands for equality without making any sort of contribution, or even being able to make any sort of contribution, to that society. That's "communism" in my book, any way you look at it.
  15. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Lots of hysteria. All this Rape Culture hysteria with UVA fraternity and Emma Sulkowicz and etc.

    It’s rather amusing.

    It used to be said that women suffered from HYSTERIA because of sexual repression.

    Now, women suffer from HYSTERIA because of sexual excess.

    Repressed women used to flip out from sexual fantasies.

    Now, indulgent women flip out from sexual fantasies. HAVEN MONAHAN!!!!

    I guess it doesn’t matter. Sexuality will always be problematic and drive people nuts.

    It’s like in THE BIRDS by Hitchcock.

    The woman suffers from both sexual repression AND sexual liberation.

    She presents herself as a classy woman but she is also a modern woman.
    She is restrained and libertine.

    Either way, sexual energies are a big big problem.

    Same in Bergman’s THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY.

    It’s a story of repression and lack of inhibition.

    The woman is married and has a hubby. Certain things are expected of her.
    But she is also mentally ill and indulged by her husband and family. She is free to wander and roam.

    But either way, her nuttery is what it is. Hysteria.

    Psychoanalysts argued that HYSTERIA and PARANOIA were linked with sexual repression. There was a time when Marx was fused with Freud.

    Well, today we have horny-porny stuff all over the culture.

    But PC is all about hysteria about everything. RAPISTS AND RACISTS!!!!
    Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!

    People need to justify their power by creating the Evil Other.

    It’s like the movie THE VILLAGE by M. Night Shyamalan where village elders make the members believe that some monster is haunting and stalking the village.

    Without hysteria and fear, people lose passion and interest.

    The Halloween controversy at Yale is very telling.
    It’s like colleges have been turned by PC into haunted spook houses.
    Students are hysterically inflamed into believing in KKK, Nazis, ‘racists’, and rapists all over the place.

    It’s ghoul school.

    Shhhhhhh. Beware. One wrong step and you will be TRIGGERED!!!!

    Ironically, it is the ones who are making all the fuss who are the real monsters.

    It’s like the movie THE OTHERS. They characters think they are people protecting themselves from ghosts and ghouls… but it turns out that THEY are the ghosts.

    Same in SIXTH SENSE. The guy turns out to be the ghost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tipo 61
    Great series of comments. Don't agree with everything, but I sure do agree with most. BTW, Christendom elegantly handled female hysteria from 500 AD to 1500. Islam handles it inelegantly within their own countries.
  16. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It appears the internet makes this craziness in colleges far far worse.

    Before the internet, this sort of phenom didn’t exist, at least not to this extent.

    People like these were simply nobodies and losers. Everyone ignored them. No one cared.

    They might have joined some close-knit organization and prattled about their problems or causes to a small circle of fellow loonies.

    If they acted like this among peers, they would have been laughed at and ignored.

    But the internet serves as a vast forum. In the past, these losers were isolated from one another.
    Now, we have the gathering of the Loser Tribe on twitter, youtube, facebook, and countless other forums and networks on a nation-wide and even global scale.
    Homo hysteria certainly got a lot of boost from the Net.

    It could be that most millennials are not retarded. They just seem retarded because it is the most shameless and exhibitionist among them that seek constant publicity by making vlogs, blogs, hashtags, and etc. The trashiest and worst of the millennials make the biggest fools and asses of themselves on the internet.

    They are really attention-hogs and publicity-seekers, celebrity-wanna-be’s. They are envious of the ‘popular kids’.
    But they mask their attention-hoggery behind all sorts of lame pet causes about ‘rape awareness’, ‘racism’, ‘social justice’, or whatever happens to be most convenient as an excuse to call attention to oneself.

    The internet can be an excellent forum for people with new ideas and fresh insights.

    But it can also be a worldwide soap box for every dumbass loser and dork who would never gain anyone’s attention if not for the net.

    Read More
  17. @Thirdeye
    I think Gottfried is an asshole, but still glad to see him make the distinction between the traditional Marxist Left and the freakshow that is the identity politics based New Left. When I'm in the mood to entertain a conspiracy theory, I wonder if the rise of the New Left didn't arise from an elite project to channel social activism in a direction that would divide the working class and not threaten the elite. Leveraging identity politics is one strategy people have for attaining elite status. After George McGovern was propelled to the Democratic nomination, largely by adoption of a New Left program and deft use of some decidedly undemocratic party rules, his Youth for McGovern director, Gary Hart, stated "Our whole strategy was to co-opt the Left." The brief spasm of ultraleft New Leftism in the late 1960s notwithstanding, the co-optation seems to have been well underway before 1972. Of course, more than two thirds of the voters in the 1972 election were not impressed with the New Left program. Thereafter, the New Left has set to attain what they want through the courts, bureaucracies, academia, and influence on the ruling elite. They seem to realize that they will never have broad appeal.

    Whatever else may be said about Marxists, their role in building the labor movement made it powerful enough to force social policy in a direction that allowed the working class to thrive. By comparison, the New Left has accomplished only divisiveness while failing to make any impact on social policy that positively impacts the well-being of the vast majority of the American people. The New Left's targets are more often the male working class than they are the elite, which shows the milieu that identity politics appeals to.

    When I’m in the mood to entertain a conspiracy theory, I wonder if the rise of the New Left didn’t arise from an elite project to channel social activism in a direction that would divide the working class and not threaten the elite.

    I’d say that’s more of an established fact than a conspiracy theory!

    Read More
  18. @Maj. Kong
    I respectfully disagree with Gottfried's conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn't actually Marxist anymore. To my understanding, the contrarian view was from William Lind, who linked Gramsci to the Frankfurt School.

    Marx was an economic determinist, who thought we would have world revolution when the capitalists ran out of new markets and a need for labor. The more orthodox Marxists will claim the latter has yet to occur, and that communism could happen if robotics displaces a vast majority of workers.

    The left in 1914 was shocked that the working classes did not rise up in revolution against the war, and instead backed nationalist passions. To an even bigger shock, the revolution occured in the underdeveloped Russia, rather than Germany. In the same Germany, the communists were crushed by those fearing an attack on their nation and Christianity. Similar events occurred in Hungary.

    Marx thought culture was the superstructure of society, and had no essence. What the cultural Marxists theorized, was that it creates "false consciousness" that makes you think you are not an oppressed proletariat. So, if you remove Christianity and nations, class consciousness will occur and world revolution will follow.

    While it may be true that the Frankfrut School ideas have become so common as to be not even recognized as to their origins, one only needs to look at the Occupy Wall Street movement, and Black Lives Matter, to see that the real goal of world revolution still remains. Both movements were clearly inspired by the cultural marxism of academia, and funded by George Soros who whatever many billions he made in finance is an admirer of Herbert Marcuse. His foundation, the Open Society, claims inspiration from Karl Popper, but a cursory look reveals the influence of the ideas of "repressive tolerance".

    I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore.

    When it’s funded by billionaires you have to question just how marxist it is.

    And neocons push cultural marxism and I don’t think neocons are aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They’re aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the rich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The communist society may not be technologically possible, but it isn't going to stop people from trying. It's quite possible that George Soros really believes that socialism will actually benefit the people, and let's not forget the other billionaires who have expressed desires for population reductions. The latter is a key attack against any free market pretense.

    The neoconservatives originated back in the 1940s as Trotskyists that later became funded by the CIA. Today there just a nepotistic job network that opportunistically backs either cultural side as long it will be allied to militarism. The 2000s neocon desire for a democratized Middle East, did aim to replace feudal-like dictatorships, presumably so they could advance to industrialism, the next stage of Marx's development. From a conspiratorial viewpoint, wasting large amounts of borrowed money likely exacerbated inequality in the US, causing the country to tip further toward revolution. But, I'm wary about Grand Unified Theories of politics.
    , @guest
    Marx himself was funded, not by billionaires maybe, but by bourgeois wealth. Engels supported him by getting a position in the textile industry through family connections.
  19. @iffen
    New Left’s targets are more often the male working class

    And that group pays them back by giving undying support to more better Republicans election after election..

    Why is there no political formation that supports working people within the context of American politics? Is such a political entity, in reality, beyond the grasp and ability of working people?

    The discontent is there, we can see it in the Tea Party and Trump.

    I can think of a few things that led to the decline of the labor movement. Destroying it was task #1 for a large segment of the ruling class in the postwar years and the response within the leadership of the labor movement was completely inadequate. The leadership of the movement was under the illusion that it had established a place at the table in terms of labor policy through wheeling and dealing within the Democratic Party. The more independent leadership was hounded out during the McCarthy era, leaving a large cadre of complacent and self-interested bureaucrats in charge. In foregoing their willingness to act independently, or even antagonistically, to the two-party system, they bargained away their best cards. Union leadership concerned mainly with its niche in the power structure had little initiative for dealing with structural changes in the economy, leading to further decline.

    The rift between the labor Democrats and the developing New Left was tremendously damaging. Some of that was the fault of the labor Democrats, following from their sucking up to the Cold War establishment. But the base of the New Left among academics and students had a broader contempt for the working class in general, regarding it as culturally backward and unaware. The New Left’s notion that minorities and assorted grievance groups could replace class interest as a basis for egalitarian social change was wrong, wrong, wrong, and the belligerent antics of New Left protest movements alienated all but a few. The 1972 election illustrated that failure spectacularly. A “silent majority” of black voters voted for Nixon (blacks voting Republican used to be the norm). The base of the McGovern vote was among disaffected youth and upscale whites.

    We’ve seen plenty of lip service to labor issues from those trying to revitalize the left, but it’s difficult to see any meaningful left coalition happening as long as those efforts are beholden to identity politics interests that are manifestly hostile to male workers. I agree that those same workers often align against their own interests, but neither option in the two party system is truly aligned with their interests.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks for the reply. I don’t see anything with which I can disagree. Your post mortem seems to be accurate and extremely well written.

    I think that labor can point to some accomplishments that the Democratic Party achieved which benefited working people and which could not have been put into place without the electoral support provided by organized labor. The possibilities of reviving those sorts of political efforts are nil.

    Organized labor has economic success where it has and can bring to bear some economic power. I am thinking of longshoremen, river and harbor pilots, service workers in a tourist based economy, etc. Trying to exert power in a situation where the factory can be moved or illegal workers can be hired is a lost cause that does nothing but generate frustration for the people involved.

    The idea that working people will spontaneously develop some sort of political solidarity and will act accordingly in the political arena is not supported by the facts. Even more disastrous is the idea that a politically well-informed nucleus can “lead” the masses to political enlightenment.

    I guess I am just hoping against hope that liberal democracy can survive and extend benefits to ordinary people as it has done since coming onto the scene. I just can’t wrap my brain around the idea that knowledgeable people of good will cannot work together politically to effect changes that will benefit ordinary people. I despise the thought that I have that working people, as a group, are never going to be smart enough to defeat the special interests in a liberal democracy.
  20. @Maj. Kong
    I respectfully disagree with Gottfried's conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn't actually Marxist anymore. To my understanding, the contrarian view was from William Lind, who linked Gramsci to the Frankfurt School.

    Marx was an economic determinist, who thought we would have world revolution when the capitalists ran out of new markets and a need for labor. The more orthodox Marxists will claim the latter has yet to occur, and that communism could happen if robotics displaces a vast majority of workers.

    The left in 1914 was shocked that the working classes did not rise up in revolution against the war, and instead backed nationalist passions. To an even bigger shock, the revolution occured in the underdeveloped Russia, rather than Germany. In the same Germany, the communists were crushed by those fearing an attack on their nation and Christianity. Similar events occurred in Hungary.

    Marx thought culture was the superstructure of society, and had no essence. What the cultural Marxists theorized, was that it creates "false consciousness" that makes you think you are not an oppressed proletariat. So, if you remove Christianity and nations, class consciousness will occur and world revolution will follow.

    While it may be true that the Frankfrut School ideas have become so common as to be not even recognized as to their origins, one only needs to look at the Occupy Wall Street movement, and Black Lives Matter, to see that the real goal of world revolution still remains. Both movements were clearly inspired by the cultural marxism of academia, and funded by George Soros who whatever many billions he made in finance is an admirer of Herbert Marcuse. His foundation, the Open Society, claims inspiration from Karl Popper, but a cursory look reveals the influence of the ideas of "repressive tolerance".

    When Marcuse advanced the thesis that the proletariat had become so commodity-identified that they lost the ability to function as a center of opposition, he was indeed declaring the irrelevance of Marxism. Postmodernist “Cultural Marxists” take that notion a step further and define the proletariat as an “oppressor group” on the basis of their adherence to the norms of a supposedly exclusionary dominant culture. Never mind that culture is a morphing, melding thing in the age of mass exchange, and the cultures that thrive are the ones that adapt and toss their excess baggage – witness the adaptations of Far Eastern cultures when their choice was to either evolve or get steamrolled by the West. Those who whine about the oppressiveness of a “dominant culture” are often more oppressed by their own embrace of dysfunctional cultural baggage.

    As oppressive as neoliberalism is, it is an equal opportunity cultural destroyer with a lot in common with the postmodernist approach to culture.

    Read More
  21. @dfordoom

    I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore.
     
    When it's funded by billionaires you have to question just how marxist it is.

    And neocons push cultural marxism and I don't think neocons are aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They're aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the rich.

    The communist society may not be technologically possible, but it isn’t going to stop people from trying. It’s quite possible that George Soros really believes that socialism will actually benefit the people, and let’s not forget the other billionaires who have expressed desires for population reductions. The latter is a key attack against any free market pretense.

    The neoconservatives originated back in the 1940s as Trotskyists that later became funded by the CIA. Today there just a nepotistic job network that opportunistically backs either cultural side as long it will be allied to militarism. The 2000s neocon desire for a democratized Middle East, did aim to replace feudal-like dictatorships, presumably so they could advance to industrialism, the next stage of Marx’s development. From a conspiratorial viewpoint, wasting large amounts of borrowed money likely exacerbated inequality in the US, causing the country to tip further toward revolution. But, I’m wary about Grand Unified Theories of politics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It’s quite possible that George Soros really believes that socialism will actually benefit the people
     
    I wonder what exactly George Soros's vision of socialism looks like. I'm sure he has a vision but I doubt if it's anything that even vaguely resembles socialism. His utopia will certainly benefit some people, especially George Soros.

    Perhaps in the case of billionaire "socialists" like Soros it's simply a form of megalomania. When you have billions of dollars money is no longer a motivating force, but power certainly is. Otherwise what's the point in being a billionaire? What's another billion dollars to someone like Soros? It's irrelevant. But being a king sounds like a lot of fun. Being a kingmaker could be even more fun. To such people any political ideology will do if it brings power and influence. And if you're a megalomaniac you might honestly believe that the world would be a much better place if only you were the person running it.
    , @dfordoom

    The 2000s neocon desire for a democratized Middle East, did aim to replace feudal-like dictatorships
     
    Has there ever been a greater delusion than the desire for a democratized Middle East?
  22. @Maj. Kong
    The communist society may not be technologically possible, but it isn't going to stop people from trying. It's quite possible that George Soros really believes that socialism will actually benefit the people, and let's not forget the other billionaires who have expressed desires for population reductions. The latter is a key attack against any free market pretense.

    The neoconservatives originated back in the 1940s as Trotskyists that later became funded by the CIA. Today there just a nepotistic job network that opportunistically backs either cultural side as long it will be allied to militarism. The 2000s neocon desire for a democratized Middle East, did aim to replace feudal-like dictatorships, presumably so they could advance to industrialism, the next stage of Marx's development. From a conspiratorial viewpoint, wasting large amounts of borrowed money likely exacerbated inequality in the US, causing the country to tip further toward revolution. But, I'm wary about Grand Unified Theories of politics.

    It’s quite possible that George Soros really believes that socialism will actually benefit the people

    I wonder what exactly George Soros’s vision of socialism looks like. I’m sure he has a vision but I doubt if it’s anything that even vaguely resembles socialism. His utopia will certainly benefit some people, especially George Soros.

    Perhaps in the case of billionaire “socialists” like Soros it’s simply a form of megalomania. When you have billions of dollars money is no longer a motivating force, but power certainly is. Otherwise what’s the point in being a billionaire? What’s another billion dollars to someone like Soros? It’s irrelevant. But being a king sounds like a lot of fun. Being a kingmaker could be even more fun. To such people any political ideology will do if it brings power and influence. And if you’re a megalomaniac you might honestly believe that the world would be a much better place if only you were the person running it.

    Read More
  23. @Maj. Kong
    The communist society may not be technologically possible, but it isn't going to stop people from trying. It's quite possible that George Soros really believes that socialism will actually benefit the people, and let's not forget the other billionaires who have expressed desires for population reductions. The latter is a key attack against any free market pretense.

    The neoconservatives originated back in the 1940s as Trotskyists that later became funded by the CIA. Today there just a nepotistic job network that opportunistically backs either cultural side as long it will be allied to militarism. The 2000s neocon desire for a democratized Middle East, did aim to replace feudal-like dictatorships, presumably so they could advance to industrialism, the next stage of Marx's development. From a conspiratorial viewpoint, wasting large amounts of borrowed money likely exacerbated inequality in the US, causing the country to tip further toward revolution. But, I'm wary about Grand Unified Theories of politics.

    The 2000s neocon desire for a democratized Middle East, did aim to replace feudal-like dictatorships

    Has there ever been a greater delusion than the desire for a democratized Middle East?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    It's hard to remember the insane levels of optimism in the 90s, what with Fukuyama speaking about the "end of history". Oil prices were low, and the liberal Khatami was President of Iran. When the terrorists conducted a massacre in Luxor, Egypt, their society turned against them and many Islamists were snitched out. 9/11 did more than commit the US to war, it reinvigorated a hitherto declining Islamist movement.

    I don't think it was unfair for those not well informed about the region's peculiarities, to think that it would follow the "modernization theory" that East Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe had. Now, that isn't the most popular concept for those who think neoconservatism is just a veil for a demonic Israeli land grab, but communism had collapsed and crime was dropping in New York City. For the Commentary gang, they were on a winning streak.
  24. @dfordoom

    The 2000s neocon desire for a democratized Middle East, did aim to replace feudal-like dictatorships
     
    Has there ever been a greater delusion than the desire for a democratized Middle East?

    It’s hard to remember the insane levels of optimism in the 90s, what with Fukuyama speaking about the “end of history”. Oil prices were low, and the liberal Khatami was President of Iran. When the terrorists conducted a massacre in Luxor, Egypt, their society turned against them and many Islamists were snitched out. 9/11 did more than commit the US to war, it reinvigorated a hitherto declining Islamist movement.

    I don’t think it was unfair for those not well informed about the region’s peculiarities, to think that it would follow the “modernization theory” that East Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe had. Now, that isn’t the most popular concept for those who think neoconservatism is just a veil for a demonic Israeli land grab, but communism had collapsed and crime was dropping in New York City. For the Commentary gang, they were on a winning streak.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I don’t think it was unfair for those not well informed about the region’s peculiarities, to think that it would follow the “modernization theory” that East Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe had.
     
    That is kind of true, although foreign policy is something that in an ideal world would be conducted by people who made it their business to inform themselves about regions in which they intend to interfere.

    Of course in an ideal world countries like the US would avoid interfering altogether in regions in which they have no business interfering. Well-intentioned foreign policies generally do a great deal more harm than cynical opportunistic foreign policies.
  25. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    anti-war ideology swept over the campuses because the students did not want to die, and these sentiments found favor in much of the population because many of the public suspected that we should not be over there in the first place.

    But so called cultural marxism (which is indeed not marxism) happens to favor the rich and powerful. Yes, affirmative action, racial integration etc all favor the rich and powerful because cultural marxism increases the number of workers and consumers and diffuses and weaken the expressed will of the electorate. So I suspect that it is not a coincidence that cultural marxism has become the law of the land. Indeed, I suspect that grants given to those academics, writers and activists who favor cultural marxism has caused it to flourish. And who gives the grants? The rich and powerful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Horpor
    Really, You never stop publishing your conspiracy theories on this site.
    Indeed, wherever I look on unz.com, I see You always spouting the same mantra - it's the evil capitalist who creates cultural marxism. But where are your documented proofs ? I mean, do You have at your disposition some real, written proof?
  26. From a history professor of over 25 years: what a bunch of whiners! Get over yourselves; you all come across as frustrated academics. If you are so shocked, shocked, get a PhD, get hired, and get teaching.

    What losers.

    Wordy vituperation is cheap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @shivamonster
    If you are a professor of anything then that is proof of just how deep the rot is.

    "Waah waah waah people don't agree with me I'm going to go to my room and cry about it, you're all losers."

    Ad hominem + a 5 syllable word thrown in just to show off. Nothing of substance whatsoever. God how I loathe academics.

    > get a PhD, get hired, and get teaching.

    Great advice, except for all the PhD's who can't get hired or who have to work for peanuts as adjuncts. I guess you rely more on anecdotal evidence than statistical outcomes when dishing out your sage advice.
    , @Bill
    Speaking as a fellow academic, your last line is pretty funny in the context of the rest of your comment.
  27. @Thirdeye
    I can think of a few things that led to the decline of the labor movement. Destroying it was task #1 for a large segment of the ruling class in the postwar years and the response within the leadership of the labor movement was completely inadequate. The leadership of the movement was under the illusion that it had established a place at the table in terms of labor policy through wheeling and dealing within the Democratic Party. The more independent leadership was hounded out during the McCarthy era, leaving a large cadre of complacent and self-interested bureaucrats in charge. In foregoing their willingness to act independently, or even antagonistically, to the two-party system, they bargained away their best cards. Union leadership concerned mainly with its niche in the power structure had little initiative for dealing with structural changes in the economy, leading to further decline.

    The rift between the labor Democrats and the developing New Left was tremendously damaging. Some of that was the fault of the labor Democrats, following from their sucking up to the Cold War establishment. But the base of the New Left among academics and students had a broader contempt for the working class in general, regarding it as culturally backward and unaware. The New Left's notion that minorities and assorted grievance groups could replace class interest as a basis for egalitarian social change was wrong, wrong, wrong, and the belligerent antics of New Left protest movements alienated all but a few. The 1972 election illustrated that failure spectacularly. A "silent majority" of black voters voted for Nixon (blacks voting Republican used to be the norm). The base of the McGovern vote was among disaffected youth and upscale whites.

    We've seen plenty of lip service to labor issues from those trying to revitalize the left, but it's difficult to see any meaningful left coalition happening as long as those efforts are beholden to identity politics interests that are manifestly hostile to male workers. I agree that those same workers often align against their own interests, but neither option in the two party system is truly aligned with their interests.

    Thanks for the reply. I don’t see anything with which I can disagree. Your post mortem seems to be accurate and extremely well written.

    I think that labor can point to some accomplishments that the Democratic Party achieved which benefited working people and which could not have been put into place without the electoral support provided by organized labor. The possibilities of reviving those sorts of political efforts are nil.

    Organized labor has economic success where it has and can bring to bear some economic power. I am thinking of longshoremen, river and harbor pilots, service workers in a tourist based economy, etc. Trying to exert power in a situation where the factory can be moved or illegal workers can be hired is a lost cause that does nothing but generate frustration for the people involved.

    The idea that working people will spontaneously develop some sort of political solidarity and will act accordingly in the political arena is not supported by the facts. Even more disastrous is the idea that a politically well-informed nucleus can “lead” the masses to political enlightenment.

    I guess I am just hoping against hope that liberal democracy can survive and extend benefits to ordinary people as it has done since coming onto the scene. I just can’t wrap my brain around the idea that knowledgeable people of good will cannot work together politically to effect changes that will benefit ordinary people. I despise the thought that I have that working people, as a group, are never going to be smart enough to defeat the special interests in a liberal democracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Whats in it for the knowledgeable person of goodwill to do so? We live in a country thats bans iq tests, prohibits the usage of gold as money and focuses on transgender activism and gay wedding cakes. Even if you did have a decent platform the people would say what about transgender racism. Until people demand better leaders improvement is impossible. The equalist fantasies of the new left have to be discredited before we can even talk about anything else.
    , @Thirdeye

    I guess I am just hoping against hope that liberal democracy can survive and extend benefits to ordinary people as it has done since coming onto the scene.
     
    It could either evolve into postliberal democracy or go into decline. Contradictions force change. Marx had a sound critique of liberal capitalism but his notion of how it would be replaced has clearly not panned out. We have examples of postliberal (but not necessarily democratic) capitalism that have demonstrated their functional efficacy. They just haven't emerged from individualistic liberal societies.
  28. After a long time as a lurker, thanks to this article and its comments, I’ve decided to add my ha’penny (don’t think I’m up to two cents yet) to the discussion.

    I’m a dual national (US-Ireland) who was born and raised in the US but has lived much of his life abroad. I live in South America now (12 yrs) after five years in Spain. I spent 11 years (’86-’97) in the US working for most of it as an equities trader, but by ’96 I wanted out and left the following year never to return. Graduated from an Ivy school back when they were still worthy of being considered top-flight. My daughter graduated from a Seven Sisters college, my son (the younger) did two years at a liberal arts college considered a peer of an Ivy school, but wisely left to pursue an engineering degree at a top-ranked engineering school after a horrific experience with an ultra-left Gramsci-ite prof, an experience that nearly resulted in a lawsuit I’d happily have initiated had my demands not been met.

    My son (who lives next door) has two boys and our family plan had been to send them to prep school and university in the USA until the events of this year: no more. Unless and until there is a restoration of academic excellence without “affirmative action” and p.c.-pandering, they’ll likely stay in our adoptive homeland that has just rid itself of a long-time “love affair” with the Left. South America may just prove itself to be a viable “last frontier” for North Americans and Europeans who may need to learn a new language but hopefully will find a great deal of opportunity if things down here continue to break right. Quite frankly, I’d rather see my grandsons become technically competent tradesmen than have them exposed to the suicidal nonsense being preached in what were once great secondary schools and universities.

    I am a former colleague of Dr. Gottfried on a well-known libertarian website, but am not an unconditional supporter of the Austrian School of economics, preferring instead the “third way” economic theory as set out by Wilhelm Ropke and Catholic Social Teaching, susbsidiarity in particular. The Frankfurt School (and I include Gramsci in that line of thought) and its teachings are utterly inimical to the traditions of the USA and later of European nations and unless and until this school of thought is utterly discredited, as well it should be, the Northern Hemisphere is not a place in which I would wish to see my grandsons receive an education or later choose to live. Disenchantment? In spades!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    South America may just prove itself to be a viable “last frontier” for North Americans and Europeans who may need to learn a new language but hopefully will find a great deal of opportunity if things down here continue to break right.
     
    I think this is a live possibility myself. At some point, whites (or at least the top 50% of them) are going to start leaving the US in significant numbers. It will happen slowly at first and then all at once. South America is the obvious place to go.
    , @Thirdeye
    I'm curious, what did the Gramsci-ite prof do?
    , @Anonymous
    Agree, "third way" may be a freely chosen way to go.I have been reading the Catholic “Just Third Way” (JTW)- specifically the economic proposals. I avoided the whole idea for years as I suspected it was related to socialism like Catholic Workers Movement, but it’s not. For me, it has taken awhile to understand the ideas and I’m only half way through but I think it is worth the effort.
  29. @Priss Factor
    How much of left vs right thing has to do with ideology? How much does it have to do with ethnicity?

    Some say the left has an advantage over the right cuz leftism is inherently more intellectual and critical. Maybe this is true to some extent, at least in the historical context where the status quo was challenged by the individuals on the left.

    But when we survey the American intellectual landscape, if leftism intellectually vigorous among all racial/ethnic groups?

    Let's consider Jewish leftism, black leftism, Asian leftism, Mexican leftism, Arab leftism, hillbilly leftism, Eskimo leftism, Hawaiian leftism, dumb polack leftism, Cuban leftism, Puerto Rican leftism, and etc, etc.

    Most leftisms of most ethnic/racial groups are zero. They are intellectually blank. They are tarded. Arabs produced Edward Said, one of the most influential thinkers(though not to my taste), but who else? Most Mexican-Americans are on the 'political left' and vote Democratic, but how many are first-rank intellectuals?
    Blacks have some colorful personalities, but Cornel West is a moron. If anything, the best black thinkers have been on the right: Uncle Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele.
    And Malcolm X, though economically socialist, was a staunch black nationalist.
    MLK is much revered but his yammering was all cliche-ridden nonsense about how he be gonna go to some mountain top and eat chicken and melons.

    Asian leftists are prominent in the academia, but how many are original thinkers? They are just bookish drones and grinds who parrot whatever they heard from their Jewish or homo professors.

    So, the only left that really matters in America is the Jewish left and European-American left.

    The power of leftism in America owes more to ethnicity than ideology. It just so happens that the two most talented and intelligent groups in America tend to be Liberal or 'left-leaning'.

    Without Jews being on the Left, American Leftism would suffer a huge loss. It'd be like a basketball team losing Wilt Chamberlain or Cream Abdul Jabber. The left would lose the big guns, the star player.

    Indeed, what is interesting about American intellectual life is that even though Neocons or 'conservative Jews' are far outnumbered by 'leftist' or Liberal Jews, they give one hell of a fight and hold their own. Neocons are smart, feisty, driven, determined, energetic, aggressive, and dogged. They may be dishonest, cunning, venal, and duplicitous, but whoever said intellectual/ideological battles had to be honest or principled? Even the Founding Fathers(the best bunch of political men ever assembled together) spun all sorts of lies and half-truths to de-legitimize British rule over the American colonies. And French Revolutionaries were expert liars and demagogues. But that didn't prevent them from being intelligent radicals with the drive, determination, and vision to make it work. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were hardly honest thinkers, but they were men of energy, talent, and shrewdness.

    So, ideological battles aren't so much about left vs right but about which side recruits the best talents especially of the most talented ethnic group?
    Though many Cons are upset with Neocons, GOP has come to rely on the Neocons cuz they got the energy and spirit. There are so many southern Christian Conservatives, but they seem to be intellectually zero. Take that guy in American Sniper. He knew how to handle a gun, but he was shit for brains. (This is Alt Right is so important in invigorating young white people with the culture of thought and discourse.)

    It's like the matter of who wins the NBA championship is much less an issue of which team is in what city or has what name(knicks or rockets) or wears what jerseys. It's a matter of which team gets to recruit the best players from the most talented race. In sports, the most talented race is black. So, if a team can recruit the best blacks, it will likely win.

    In intellectualism and ideology, it's a matter of verbal skills and mental loops. And Jews are best at this. So, ideological battles are won or lost largely on account of which side has the most Jews. Having Jews on your side is like having Michael Jordan on your team.

    Now, someone might say that Jews are more likely to be leftist since people of high intelligence tend to lean 'left'. To the extent that the left has been more closely associated with the culture of critique, this may be true to some extent.
    But look at Israel. The Israeli Right has taken dominance in just about every field.
    Also, even Jewish Leftism was often fueled by what were essentially rightist instincts.
    Jews, living in gentile majority nations, obviously felt safer with leftism than with rightism that favored the power of the gentile majority. But then, this would be true of any minority. Suppose there is a small white minority in a non-white nation. Suppose these whites are ethnocentric and white nationalist. So, should they support ethnocentrism and nationalism in principle in the nation in which they are small minority? No, because such ideas would mean that the nationalist non-white majority should dominate over the white minority. So, white minority, even if secretly nationalist, should really support Liberalism and universal leftism for their own interests as protection from the non-white majority. The British elites in India, French colonizers in Algeria, and Jews in Germany discovered the power of majority nationalism. They all got dispossessed and kicked out.

    It's like what Harvey Pekar's book on Israel says in the opening. He says his mother was a Marxist but, above all, she was a Zionist. She had Marx in her mind but Zion in her heart.

    In Israel where Jews are the majority, many smart Jews have gone over to the right.
    But in the West, even Jews who are into race-consciousness and nationalism, are loathe to come out for such ideas cuz it will justify the power of the white majority.
    They fear that his white majority nationalism will become hostile to Jews. Or even if the white majority isn't hostile to Jews, it may insist on white majority nation being ruled by the white majority. This is problematic to Jews since they have a supremacist streak that seeks domination over the white majority. Why else are Jews so pissed with Russia? Russia is friendly to Jews and Putin is pro-Jewish. But that simply isn't enough for globalist-supremacist Jews who insist on controlling Russia like they control the US.

    Anyway, if the American Left were to lose its star power of Jews, it will be finished as most racial and ethnic groups are intellectual zeros. It'd be like having a basketball team called the Leftists without any blacks.

    This is why PC is turning into hysterics. Blacks and others know they are intellectually useless and cannot argue logically or methodically. So, they've gone the anti-intellectual route of screaming, ranting, hollering, and shaking fists after rubbing nazi poop on walls. If you can't win in chess, just take a club and smash the board and then threaten the opponent. It worked for Mao during the Cultural Revolution. With millions of angry Red Guards waving the Little Red Book and shaking fists, all rivals of Mao had to back down. It made no sense to make the better argument against Maoism( a huge failure in the Great Leap Forward) since the Red Guards will tear you limb from limb.

    This kind of 'leftism' makes the Jewish intellectual advantage irrelevant.
    Jewish power derived not only from passion and chutzpah but from brilliance and wit. But if winning debates is now about rapping, dancing, shouting, and flipping out, what need for intelligence? This kind of new 'leftism' is all about showmanship, and it's no wonder that homos and negroes are most prominent. Homos are flaming in their style, and Negroes threaten to burn everything down.

    It's no wonder that some Liberal Jews are troubled by recent developments. A 'leftism' that is driven by jivery and volume and floopity-doo antics doesn't leave much room for the better, more cunning, more clever, more witty, more brilliant argument.

    Even a seasoned debater like Alan Dershowitz is gonna be flustered by an angry black ho who be screaming 'YOU ARE DISGUSTING!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!'

    Personally, I really think real leftism is dead and has been for awhile.
    I think the Right is still less damaged than the Left. What is now called the 'left' isn't the real left. It is globalism funded by Wall Street. I refuse to see the homo agenda as part of the left. It is just neo-aristocratic decadentism by other means.
    As for all these anti-white multi-culti stuff, it is just the new rightism of color. It's tribalism in action. It's not universalism.
    And would any black be bitching about inequality if blacks had the advantage? Do blacks complain about there being too many blacks in sports and music? No, blacks are all about black power. They bitch about 'equality' ONLY in cases where blacks are under-represented. Blacks are into black power, not some abstract notion of equality.

    The Right is on the ropes, but it's still there. There is the white right that is dormant but still alive. And much of 'people of color' politics is really rightist because it's about tribal and racial consciousness. It is masked by leftist rhetoric of 'social justice', but it's just people of color race-ism by another name.
    And Jewish Liberalism is really fueled by Jewish identity and Jewish interests.
    Isn't it funny that Jews are so rich, so powerful, so influential, so over-represented in elite fields, but even most Liberal Jews dare not talk about Jewish power? And even they go out of their way to destroy someone like Rick Sanchez(a Democrat) who noticed Jewish power?

    It's not about right vs left. It's about white right vs Jewish right vs black right vs brown right vs Arab right etc.
    The only outliers in this in America are white Liberals and yellows. White Libs are really dumb enough to believe in the creed of Liberalism and yellows are just grinds/drones who will slavishly suck up to any prevailing power.

    A lot of your comment I agree with but it should be noted that Edward Said was a Christian Palestinian so perhaps not a great example of Arab intellectualism.

    Read More
  30. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mark Green
    As now constructed, 'identity politics' in America poses an increasing danger for non-Jewish and non-Hispanic White males. Why? The political playing field has been rigged.

    Non-elite Whites are politically disadvantaged since we are prohibited from openly organizing and collectively advancing our ethno-political interests. Yet others may do so freely.

    Nevertheless, the right of open and free association for self-identified Whites has been curtailed. It's a restricted political zone. Only 'minorities' may apply. And 'minorities' are fast becoming majorities.

    This double-standard is a recipe for cultural decline and White dispossession.

    Indeed, it's Jews, feminists, gays, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians who may coalesce politically along insular self-identities. This may be good news for the Democratic Party, but it does real harm to the descendants of the European-derived peoples who built America and achieved national greatness as its stewards.

    When White (heterosexual, males) do attempt to coalesce in a fashion now reserved for 'minorities', it is decried as racism or homophobia or discrimination or antisemitism or misogeny. White men must observe the dominant protocol of 'inclusiveness'. Whites may coalesce only under the banner of a race-free ideology.

    This political covenant however does not apply to La Raza, the NAACP, or the Congressional Jewish Caucus.

    Who created these legal land mines?

    Who enforces these cultural double-standards? Not Whites.

    Today, it's Whites--and only Whites--who may never 'discriminate' and must always be 'inclusive'.

    But these double-standards are burdensome, harmful and unfair. Rules, after all, should be applied uniformly.

    Whites are like frogs in a frying pan. And only a few of us have noticed or figured-out that the temperature is rising.

    There's a quiet and slow-moving war that's being waged. Often it's fought in the dark. Usually behind closed doors. And the playing field is uneven.

    Complacent Americans are being encouraged to cheer for military conquests in countries they cannot identify on a map. Alternatively, they are expected to 'root' for their favorite football team while their own country is slowly taken from them. Bread and circus. Fools and games go together.

    But who orchestrates the wars? Who owns the pro football teams?

    Meanwhile, an incremental war against the founding stock of America routinely operates beneath the radar and sails smoothly under false flags.

    One flag is called 'affirmative action'.

    Another is 'diversity'.

    Another is 'democracy'.

    Another is 'Separation of Church and State'.

    Another is 'equality'.

    But the results are the same: No equality. Gradual White displacement.

    Let it be said that that the extraordinary civilization known as the United States was created by a Western European population. But that America is being transformed, degraded, and turned into a militarized, multicultural empire that serves not the long-term interest of its citizens, but the interests of a few.

    This nefarious agenda requires a number of changes. One essential tool is unchecked immigration. Waves of non-European immigrants facilitate displacement and foments disunity.

    The process is gradual. Then sudden. Entrenched elites benefit. Divide and rule.

    Elevated diversity via illegal immigration has also had the impact of reducing White political influence. Even the life span of white males has declined.

    In order to manage and secure this unsavory transformation, a totalitarian orthodoxy called 'political correctness' has been injected into the media, into the courts, into government, and into higher education. Rapid demographic changes are underway. Cultural norms follow.

    Not only is the US being unlawfully overrun by peoples who are vastly different from ourselves, but many of these newcomers do not even aspire for 'assimilation' into our nation's dominant culture. Remember 'E Pluribus Unum'? (From many, One). Now it's the 'salad bowl' metaphor that rules. America is where separate cultures live side-by-side under one national umbrella. Who benefits? Does not 'diversity' blur a nation's identity and undermine its cohesion?

    Today, English is merely one language among many. Public expressions of Christianity are deemed 'offensive'. And White men, it is claimed, still have too much power and too much visibility. Whites--especially White males--are in retreat. Did this happen by accident?

    Contrary to politically-correct truisms, rising racial and ethnic diversity might be our road to ruin. Incredibly, it's our own government(s) that are sometimes leading the way.

    In liberal, Democratic LA for instance, there are freshly-minted and officially-recognized ethnic ghettos now popping up everywhere. I spotted a sign as I entered LA recently directing the visitor to 'Little Armenia'. Who thought this up?

    Another new highway sign identified a new ethnic neighborhood called 'Koreatown'.

    Where's my racial set-aside?

    America is being strategically transformed into non-White ethnic enclaves from above and below. At the same time, White Americans are expected to surrender their racial identities altogether. Says who?

    The Trojan Horse of multiculturalism has passed through the gates and into America's grandest institutions. These institutions however were created by European-derived peoples with their own racial identity. Now their descendants are being ushered out the back door.

    Balkanization is now underway. The dye is cast. Who caused this? Can it still be reversed?

    It will be all fine and dandy until there are only scraps left of the pie. When the wild-ass prosperity ends, due to whatever, it will be the Balkans on bath salts. Even before we reach this stage the elites while have to live like a rich white family in a gated Johannesburg neighborhood with unrest all around. The group which has worked indefatigably to bring this about will be affected just as much. But they couldn’t help it, it’s their nature. Like the scorpion in Aesop’s fable. But they will go down with the frog whose back they stung.

    Read More
  31. @Maj. Kong
    It's hard to remember the insane levels of optimism in the 90s, what with Fukuyama speaking about the "end of history". Oil prices were low, and the liberal Khatami was President of Iran. When the terrorists conducted a massacre in Luxor, Egypt, their society turned against them and many Islamists were snitched out. 9/11 did more than commit the US to war, it reinvigorated a hitherto declining Islamist movement.

    I don't think it was unfair for those not well informed about the region's peculiarities, to think that it would follow the "modernization theory" that East Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe had. Now, that isn't the most popular concept for those who think neoconservatism is just a veil for a demonic Israeli land grab, but communism had collapsed and crime was dropping in New York City. For the Commentary gang, they were on a winning streak.

    I don’t think it was unfair for those not well informed about the region’s peculiarities, to think that it would follow the “modernization theory” that East Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe had.

    That is kind of true, although foreign policy is something that in an ideal world would be conducted by people who made it their business to inform themselves about regions in which they intend to interfere.

    Of course in an ideal world countries like the US would avoid interfering altogether in regions in which they have no business interfering. Well-intentioned foreign policies generally do a great deal more harm than cynical opportunistic foreign policies.

    Read More
  32. @Maj. Kong
    I respectfully disagree with Gottfried's conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn't actually Marxist anymore. To my understanding, the contrarian view was from William Lind, who linked Gramsci to the Frankfurt School.

    Marx was an economic determinist, who thought we would have world revolution when the capitalists ran out of new markets and a need for labor. The more orthodox Marxists will claim the latter has yet to occur, and that communism could happen if robotics displaces a vast majority of workers.

    The left in 1914 was shocked that the working classes did not rise up in revolution against the war, and instead backed nationalist passions. To an even bigger shock, the revolution occured in the underdeveloped Russia, rather than Germany. In the same Germany, the communists were crushed by those fearing an attack on their nation and Christianity. Similar events occurred in Hungary.

    Marx thought culture was the superstructure of society, and had no essence. What the cultural Marxists theorized, was that it creates "false consciousness" that makes you think you are not an oppressed proletariat. So, if you remove Christianity and nations, class consciousness will occur and world revolution will follow.

    While it may be true that the Frankfrut School ideas have become so common as to be not even recognized as to their origins, one only needs to look at the Occupy Wall Street movement, and Black Lives Matter, to see that the real goal of world revolution still remains. Both movements were clearly inspired by the cultural marxism of academia, and funded by George Soros who whatever many billions he made in finance is an admirer of Herbert Marcuse. His foundation, the Open Society, claims inspiration from Karl Popper, but a cursory look reveals the influence of the ideas of "repressive tolerance".

    Agreed.

    I can understand people who note that CM is not by any stretch orthodox Marxism nor does it have anything with nationalizing the means of production.

    But Marx’s true impact was his revolutionary logic (which probably is not his alone, but his name remains from the rubble), not his economic system, which held no water without the revolutionary logic that declared any scientific study of Marxism off limits because of the ‘Capitalist mind set making any such investigations biased’.

    To deny that CM is Marxist strictly on technicalities to me leaves it unnecessarily dangling out in space as if it came from nowhere, which is absolutely not the case, as Gottfried’s Strange Death of Marxism shows. I think Gottfried makes the case that CM evolves from Marxism, whether we want to mire ourselves in the technicality of it not being part of the Marxist Talmud or not.

    I think the concept of Judaic messianism actually ties both the Marxist angle on CM and the Post-Calvinism of CM quite nicely if one wants to expand the lineage.

    Read More
  33. @Priss Factor
    Paradoxically, PC is resilient because it unites those-with-character and those-without-character.

    Crucial to success of PC is the Northern European mindset. It is highly conscientious, moralistic, mindful of good work, entered on integrity, dignity, sobriety.
    The Northern European Mindset wants to do good work around the world. It wants to apologize and make amends. It wants to cleanse the soul, spiritually or ideologically.
    It goes for moral enemas. It is very Kelloggy.

    For the Northern European Mindset--NEM--, PC means doing good work. It means redressing past wrongs. It means being mindful and conscientious and committed and sympathetic and compassionate and determined and etc. It is purist, universalist, and ethical.

    Now, if all people around the world were similarly minded, it would not be so bad.

    But there is another feature to PC.

    Most peoples around the world don't share the Northern European Mindset. Japanese and some East Asians may have a Shame Culture that makes them mindful, but it's a matter of outward behavior than inward morality of 'sin' and 'guilt'.

    Anyway, many non-whites and southern Europeans don't even feel much in the way of shame. Their view of the world is self-centered, tribal, suspicious, hostile, cunning, and opportunistic. And this is especially problematic among Jews, Homos, and Negroes.
    Jews may be no worse in ethics than the Arab Semites. But because they are smarter, they gain much power and influence. Homos come in all colors, but homos are generally vain, narcissistic, and self-centered. Some homos are hard-working and diligent, but their basic character is me-centric and aristo.
    As for Negroes, no people on Earth are as crazy, wild, jivey, ghastly, loony, and simply ridiculous.

    PC takes two to tango. If all people were like Negroes or other tribal-minded peoples, PC wouldn't work. After all, Arabs/Muslims practiced slavery over black Africans longer than whites did, but you don't see any PC between Arabs and blacks. If black Africans were to say to Arab Muslims, "You enslaved us", Arab Muslims would say, "Go chuck a spear at a hippo, you black savage idiot." Arab Muslims won't tango to PC.
    Recently, consider the massive refugee crisis. The problems in Syria were made worse by Saudi Arabia and Gulf States funding ISIS and etc. But notice they take ZERO responsibility. In contrast, Northern Europeans are holding up signs saying 'Refugees Welcome'. Some say this is a German problem cuz of Holocaust Guilt, but we see the same kind of nuttiness in Sweden and Iceland, two nations that need feel no collective guilt since they didn't take part in Western Imperialism around the world.

    Even though Brazilian whites traded in black slaves much more than white Americans, there is still far less 'collective guilt' about slavery in Brazil than in the US. Latin folks have lower national character and tend to be far less conscientious.

    One reason why the Greeks and Southern Italians tend to be tolerant of mass invasion is because those opportunistic and slimy buggers know they can push the invaders to other parts of Europe, especially UK, Germany, Sweden, and etc. If EU project were to end and if sleazy Greeks and lowlife southern Italians could no longer pass the buck(or the fuc*, as Negroes from Africa love to hump white women) to northern parts of Europe, they wouldn't be so 'progressive' in their handling of migration problems.

    Now, having good national character is a wonderful thing. Indeed, it is one of the best things to have. The reason why so many ideologies failed is cuz they failed to address or fix the problems of national character. It's like Fascism failed to change Italians from lying greaseballs into something more solid and sturdy. It's like in Hemingways' FAREWELL TO ARMS. A couple of Italian deserters join the Americans, eat the cheese and onions... but when gunfire erupts, they just shit their pants and take off. They act like the characters of SEVEN BEAUTIES by Wertmuller. And one would have to be crazy to trust a Eek-it's-a-Greek. As for Gypsies, by golly, forget it. They are useless.

    People welcome new ideologies and governments, but if the national character remains low, not much could be done. Sure, if the times are good with lots of cash, things may seem good for awhile. When oil prices were sky high, the Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez was looking pretty good. But it was just a temporary fix of market prices. The thing is, even when the cash was flowing in, most Venezuelans were low in national character. They were lazy, corrupt, confused, deceitful, selfish, venal, opportunistic, and etc.
    And this is the problem of Russia as well. Putin did make some real progress, but unless the Russian national character is changed, Russia will always be a shaky wobbly place. Putin has the good fortune of high oil prices. But Russia is now facing a major economic squeeze.
    A people with great national character can weather such a problem and rise again. Now, national character is no guarantee against ideological lunacy. Germans and Japanese have high national character, but they went with crazy politics in the 30s and 40s. Even so, it was because they had such solid national characters that they were able to rebuild their nations really fast after the war. This is all the more remarkable since 1/3 of Japanese industry was destroyed in the war. And Germany was divided, its cities were smashed, and Germany had to take in millions of German refugees uprooted from other parts of Europe. Even so, Germans worked well together and worked hard, and in no time, Germany was once again the biggest economy in Europe. National Character is the real asset to have.

    How is this national character formed? It could partly be racial, i.e. some races have natural personalities that are more conducive to building solid national character while some groups may have natural personalities that are less conducive to building good national character.
    Take someone like Joe Pesci's characters in Scorsese movies. Though such people could be raised to be decent individuals, they still have natural propensities to act more like Tommy(Goodfellas) or Nicky(Casino). There is something oily and greasy about the southern Italian character. And Greeks are something else when it comes to all sorts of shady behavior. It must be partly genetic.
    Surely, when it comes to Negro, forming national character is like the labor of Sisyphus. The natural mode of the Negro is to holler, jive, shuck, shake booty, and act jungle-like. Toss them a watermelon and you have a riot.

    Even so, national character isn't just about genetics. After all, we can tell from the yob culture in UK and vodka swilling thug culture from Russia(many of whom are of northern European stock) that ANY PEOPLE can become degraded, trashy, and moronic.
    And there are sane and conscientious communities outside Northern Europe-sphere. On occasion, such even exists among the Negroes who aren't so ghastly like most others of their kind around the world.

    If a positive national character is formed in a people, it is the most valuable asset along with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history. A society with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history has the solid three elements for survival. But if it lacks national character, it won't make much economic or social progress. Take Zimbabwe. It is black and proud and homogeneous. But it is a ugabuga land because most blacks in that nation are a bunch of nutjob jivers with low national character.

    National character isn't the same thing as morality. Germans during the Nazi Era has national character but submitted to a rabid demagogue.
    National character is valuable cuz it instills people with seriousness, diligence, commitment, discipline, sobriety, dedication, communal conscience, loyalty, and etc. So, even if Germans of Nazi era were serving an evil regime, they were working and living in ways that led to mutual respect and understanding among Germans.
    So, Germans could build and run an economy under Nazism. And once Nazism fell, the German national character could rebuild an economy and run it well again.
    National character will not necessarily protect a people from bad politics. But it is something that transcends and outlives fashions in politics.

    A people with good national character and bad politics will do better than people with bad national character and good politics. Germans under even something like Nazism will do better than Greeks under democracy. Of course, ideally, a people should possess good national character and be on the side of liberty and freedom. But the great and resilient thing about national character is it has value whether a society is free or not. Also, if a people have national character, their greatness can remain latent/dormant even if they are not allowed to thrive and succeed. Suppose a Japanese minority in some nation was restricted from economic advancement. It will remain poor surely, but if it holds onto its national character, it has the chance of success IF AND WHEN it is afforded with freedom and opportunity. But if the Japanese community loses its national character, it will be less likely to take advantage of freedom and opportunity.

    In contrast, a people without national character won't do much even with freedom and democracy. I mean even Germans in communist East Germany ran a better society than blacks in democratic and free Detroit. Even Chinese in undemocratic Singapore do a better job than Greeks in a democracy. Chinese in Singapore have national character. Greeks don't.

    Singaporean case is interesting cuz it demonstrates the difference between racial character and national character.
    Racial character tends to be fixed. Of course, it can be changed through selective breeding. For example, we know blacks are low in racial character. They prefer basketballs to books. They is full of theyselves. But suppose we do selective breeding whereby blacks like Thomas Sowell are allowed to mate while jive-ass fools like Kanye West are not allowed to breed. Over time, more and more blacks will be like Uncle Thomas Sowell, and black racial character will improve.

    If racial character is something one is born with, national character can be molded by social and cultural forces. And we see this with the Chiners in Singapore. Chinese, on average, may be pretty solid in terms of racial character. But Chinese culture and history have been rather up-and-down, and Chinese national character reflected this. It was uneven.
    So, the success of Singapore cannot be attributed merely to Chinese-ness, especially as there are plenty of Chinese around the world who lack the national character of Singaporeans. Lee of Singapore obviously studied the national character of Northern Europeans, especially that of the Brits. He was critical of British imperialism, but he could tell a good stuff when he saw one.
    It's like what the British guy(Anthony Quayle) says in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA: "Britain is small but it is great because of discipline". Omar Sharif says, "Because you got guns". What a dumbass ragger. But how did the Brits come to make such great guns and ship and trains and stuff? Because they developed a certain mindset that worked well to organize and manage systems of power. The ragger played by Sharif only sees the effect. He fails to see the cause. True, UK is powerful cuz it has guns, but why was it able to have those guns in the first place? While national character isn't everything, it is important. It is no accident that Northern Europeans with a certain national character achieved more in UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, etc. Some might say it was Protestantism, but this is true only to some extent. After all, all of Italy is mostly Catholic, so how come the northern Italians with lighter skin are more diligent and conscientious than southern Italians who look more like Joe Pesci? How come those who look more oily act more oily?

    Progs say US is a land of haves and have-nots. But so many groups who came to US as have-nots became big haves. And so many who once were haves became have-nots. Lots of blacks in Detroit once had good working jobs with benefits. They were have-somethings. But they became have-nots when they ruined the city with their jivery.

    The more crucial issue is the difference between have-characters and have-not-characters. Of course, have-brains and have-not-brains is also crucial. Smart people have huge advantage over the dummies.
    But most people are neither smart nor dumb. They are mediocre. So, their future depends a lot on character. With good character, they can focus their energies and limited talents on what is essential and constructive. Without character, they can waste their energies and limited talents on trashy behavior, stupidity, dementedness, ass-tattoos, piercings, drugs, and etc.

    But there is no talk of character. The problem with many blacks and browns and Muslims in America is they have lower social/national characters.
    Even among the have-nots, some have more character than others. Mexicans have been known to work hard, keep family together, save money, and etc. But they are less mindful about disposing garbage properly.
    They are less mindful about coming together to do what is right. They are poor in the concept of collective action. If Mexicans were more collectively mindful, they could have done more to combat corruption and crime in Mexico. But most Mexicans just wanna keep their heads down and not get involved. Though Germans made a terrible choice of Nazism, their success owed to German ability for cooperation and unity and collective action. The economy got so bad and things got real desperate. So, Germans came together and called for a new order. Too bad Hitler turned out to be a loony in the end.

    But the fact is Germans did something to address social problems during the Depression. In contrast, Mexicans just keep their heads down and look the other way. That's why a village of Mexicans need gringos to come and protect them from other Mexicans in MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Mexers cannot do it themselves. But still, Mexers are still with some national character. They get the hard-work part and family part, but they don't take it to the next level. And so, children of Mexicans in the US end up doing worse than their parents cuz they aren't immune to the poison of American pop culture.

    National character can be lost, to be sure. We can see this among many Northern European Americans who've succumbed to trash culture of tattoos, drugs, piercings, and etc. We see the rise of herbivore hipster garbage in slacker Japan. We see the ugly punk and yob culture of UK.
    But as long as a people have it, it is among the most valuable asset. It is the thing that can lead to economic and social success. It is also the thing that enables a society to recover and revive itself after major crisis.
    Germany and Japan could not have recovered so quickly after WWII without national character. And Japan made a fast recovery after the horrible earthquake. Meanwhile it's hard to tell the difference between Haiti before earth quake and after earthquake. It is always suffering from a natural disaster called Negremors.

    National character is both toughest to instill and sometimes hardest to lose. Still, it's easier lost than gained. And once lost, it may be very difficult to recover, espeicallyin a democracy.
    Though communism degraded German national character with excessive socialism, the essential character wasn't lost among East Germans. Japanese national character has been resilient under feudal system, military era, and democratic era. National character is mutually reinforced in a society that is mostly homogeneous. Even when the political system and culture changes, all the habits, attitudes, norms, values, and manners shared by the community have a way of functioning as a support network of behavioral characteristics. It is more easily lost when one moves to an alien culture where the norms are different. This was one reason why the Japanese-Brazilians who moved back to Japan didn't cope so well. Having adopted the more easy-going Brazilian ways, they had a hard time re-adapting to the Japanese national character that is more mindful and sober(if also more anal and stifling).

    When societies and nations face big problems, politicians and demagogues come along and promise deliverance through politics and social/economic policies. If, like Chavez, one gets lucky with high oil prices, things can be good for awhile. But if the people lack national character and remain the same in their habits/attitudes, no real progress can be made in the long run. It doesn't matter how many speeches Mugabe or Zuma gives in Zimbabwe and South Africa or how much wealth they redistribute.
    The fact is black Africans have very low national character.

    But it's also true of Argentinians and even lots of whites and mulattos in Brazil. They may blame capitalism or gringo or whatever, but the fact is a people with low national character cannot have long term success. Brazil got lucky because of high commodity prices, especially fueled by demands from China. While the cash was flowing in, the Brazilian government provided some economic goodies for the poor.
    But nothing was done to improve the national character.

    Same problem haunts Russia. Now, Putin is smarter and more sensible than the likes of Chavez and the clown princess of Argentina. Putin has a better understanding of history and culture. He has tried to change the Russian character by emphasizing tradition, heritage, discipline, unity, organization, and etc. But the Russian elites, unlike the Prussian elites, don't practice what they preach. Russia is still a land of rotten oligarchs. Fish rots from the head.

    In the long run, Putin's legacy will really depend on what he did with Russian character that must change in order for Russia to become a great power.
    Prussia was tiny and with limited resources. But it became a major European power cuz of its national character and top-notch elites.
    Imagine if all of Russia were to follow the Prussian model. Russia needs to look to the Prussian way, just like China needs to look to the Singaporean way. Russia as giant version of Prussia would truly be an awesome power. If China could be like a giant Singapore, it would be the new superpower. Of course, what is easy to do on a small scale is much tougher on a large scale.
    Putin uses the Church to boost social morality and order, but the Russian church is centered around political authority. Russian church must follow the model of the traditional Protestant church. It must develop a separate wing of active clergies who become intimately involved with the people all across Russia. Russian Orthodox's message to the people has been too fatalist and passive. Resign-and-obey isn't good enough. Reform-and-advance is what is crucial. And Russia must do this on their own. If US were indeed a decent nation of morality and liberty, it might offer useful advice to Russia. But 'western-style liberal democracy' now means the power of globalist Jews and homos to infiltrate and subvert other nations and not to really reform and improve things but to spread the culture of pornography, homo worship, and multi-culti madness to undermine native majority cultures. Pussy Riot and Masha Gessen will do NOTHING for the national character of your people.

    Anyway, Putin senses that the long-term solution to Russia isn't just a matter of ideology or politics or economics. Chavez the dumbass saw EVERYTHING in terms of the politics of victimhood. Gringo is imperialist, and Latin Americans are victims. Capitalism is bad, socialism is good. So, Chavez thought things would be great if Venezuela just shat on America and provided more free stuff for the poor.
    But the dependent poor only remain the dependent poor with handouts under socialism. Their character is not improved. They can't do anything on their own. Also, bashing America, though possibly justified, doesn't do anything for the economy when the main problem isn't the gringo but the lack of talent, will, initiative, honesty, and integrity among the native population. And the problem isn't just with white elites of Latin America but with the low national character of the masses who are confused, corrupt, lazy, dishonest, and etc, just like the Eek-it's-a-Greek.
    Greece could be Switzerland IF Greeks only fixed their national character. But Greek character remains what it is, and Greeks distrust one another, cheat one another, lie endlessly, and thrown tantrums and blame everyone but themselves. It was once great for Greek Drama 1000s of yrs ago, but it aint doing Greeks much good today. You aint gonna fix your nation by killing your pa and screwing your ma and screaming your brains out in the 21st century.

    But there is also the dark side of national character. One result is lowest birthrates in the world in nations with highest national character. Such people may feel too guilty to have kids when 'so many people are starving around the world'. Or they may have such high standards for themselves that they only wanna have kids if they can be assured that their kids will grow up and go to good schools and do well. (Also, people with high national character can paradoxically become most submissive to an ideology or movement of degradation. Because they are so serious and committed, they may puritanically conform to the latest moral crusade--like 'gay marriage'--or political fashion, like 'slut feminism'. It is because Northern Europeans and East Asian take their studies most seriously in college that they succumb most to the depraved idiocies of PC. Their sense of moral commitment and intellectual purity makes them utterly blind to the sheer idiocy of what they are doing. It's like the British officer in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. He is so into doing the Proper and Honorable Thing that he fails to see that he is betraying his own nation and serving the enemy.)

    Also, Northern European types sometimes think too much about stuff cuz they feel a need to do it to perfection. It must be done just right or none at all.
    It's like the opening scene of IDIOCRACY where a high IQ white couple think too much about doing it right to ever do it. (Also, the fact that people in Northern Europe live to a ripe old age gives the false impression that those nations still have lots of people. If Europeans now live to around 80 or more, it means European nations are filled with old people who are no longer having kids. Suppose some European nation has 50 million people but 50% of people are past the fertility age. Its stats seem healthy, with a lot of people, but one overlooks the fact that 50% of people are just waiting to die and unable to produce more life. EU should release new stats that only show the number of people who are fertile. There must so many German women who are in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s who are not gonna produce any kids. They are just waiting to die.)

    Development of national character cannot be accomplished in a decade or a single era. It has to be done over a long period. Also, for it to really stick, it must be instilled internally than just applied externally. Stalinism failed in changing the Russian character. It used whip and chain to drive Russians to work hard and do awesome things, but most Russians worked out of physical fear. Some were inspired by socialist ideals, but the idea of working hard for the 'good of all' is too idealistic and ideological. Once Stalinism faded, Russians reverted to their old ways of swilling vodka, dancing on tables, and wrestling with bears. Fear will drive people to work. But true national character instills people with a sense of pride associated with hard work, craftsmanship, merit, achievement, service, cooperation.

    To an extent, Russians could be more slovenly cuz they had all the land and huge population and etc. Tiny Prussia had to be the best pound-for-pound cuz it lacked in quantity. It had to squeeze every drop out of quality. Russia, like the Persians in 300 the crazy movie, could just rely on sheer numbers. Prussia had to be more like Sparta where every man and ounce of skill mattered. As the 21st century is about high-tech and ever-tightening forms of organization and efficiency, Russia has to go the Prussian model, and to do this, it needs a new national character.
    How long does it take to build such a national character?
    And is it possible to develop national characters in the age of democracy and freedom?

    As much as we value freedom and liberal democracy, national characters have almost always been formed and hardened under systems of authoritarianism, political-military-spiritual. Jewish character wasn't formed by libertine-ism. Jewish elders were not a bunch of Ron Jeremies or Mel Brooks. Japanese national character wasn't formed by Pikachu or Baby Metal. German national character wasn't formed by R.W. Fassbinder and Kraut rock.
    National characters tend to be stifling and repressive due to their insistence on certain morals, habits, manners, attitudes, and etc. So naturally, the modern forces of liberalism and hedonism and bohemianism ridicule and mock the notion of national character. But all functional societies owe a great deal to national character that has been instilled into the vast majority of the population that, due to this character, are willing to work hard, be honest, be communally mindful and conscientious, and etc.
    I can understand a Japanese bohemian-maverick bitching about the 'bourgeois' philistine morality and petty-minded attitudes of his countrymen, but does he really think Japan would be better if the national character were closer to that of free-wheeling Brazilians, rascally Greeks, and oily Italians? The greaseballs may be more fun, but they are trouble. I'd rather watch Joe Pesci cause trouble in CASINO than watch a law-abiding Swedish American, but the fact is Swedes cause less trouble for other people. They have a more solid national character.

    If Swedish-Americans do cause more trouble for others, it is because their national character is overly good. And this is where national character and PC become partners in hell. National character should be conscientious and good enough, but it shouldn't be too do-goody and puritanical, cuz it then becomes naive, stupid, and demented. As such, in the name of helping rest of humanity(that is really beyond help), it only destroys itself. Look what the Scandinavian-Americans are doing to themselves in Minnesota by trying to save all of Somalia. National Character must not be do-goody as do-goodiness is just a utopian naivete that is always doomed to failure, especially if one is helping out crazy Negroes. Be good, not do-goody.

    Negro national character can be improved somewhat. But such requires authoritarian power. Black American national character was actually better in the past when American society was less free. So, blacks had to work harder instead of depending on welfare. And blacks did believe it was shameful to have kids out of wedlock. It's like aunt Esther in Sanford and Son calls people 'heathen' for being immoral. It's like the mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN gets awful mad when her daughter dis God in her house, and her daughter better believe it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5em2tOWPV4
    https://youtu.be/SHS9uQVN6uQ?t=2m57s
    Back then, blacks had to prove that they were as good as white folks. Now, with all this MLK-cult, blacks are automatically seen as holy, and it is whites who must prove theyselves worthy to Negroes even though it is Negroes who be the most immoral bunch of loons in the USA.
    Worse, we live in some crazy nations where both whites and Negroes must prove their moral worth to a bunch of ass-humpers who are worshiped like they are angels or something.

    We want to live in freedom and democracy, but a free society is only as good as the values and habits that dominate in that society, and those values and habits are inherited from a period when society was unfree.
    While bad rulers and spiritual mentors can instill negative characters in the people, good rulers and good spiritual mentors can instill positive characters in the people.

    Democracies are better at instilling negative characteristics than positive ones. For the good characters to gain dominance, the negative ones have to be suppressed. An authoritarian system is more effective at repressing the negative ones. In a democracy, even the degenerates must be tolerated. Worse, tolerance can lead to celebration, as happened with all this homo nonsense in the West.
    It's problematic enough for us to tolerate deviancy and even degeneracy in a democracy. But must we celebrate it? The powers-that-be now force us to celebrate that stuff.
    And there is rap culture among blacks, porny culture among 'slut feminists'.
    Since normal morality has been attacked as 'heteronormative' and since people have become so accustomed to filth, no one resists anymore. So, the culture just gets trashier and trashier. Those are smart enough to navigate through such junk can still make it in Silicon Valley and Wall Street and Hollywood. But everyone else is degraded or confused in this morass of degeneracy. When people are made to feel morally superior because they think two men doing ass-buggery is so great, this is no kind of moral order.

    And now, there is even an attack on work ethic. In the past, blacks were eager to prove that they too could work hard. Now, black intellectuals say 'hard work' is 'racist' because it reminds people of slavery and because it gives the false impression that success is a matter of work ethic when it is purely the product of 'white privilege'.

    One thing for sure, national character and diversity generally don't go together. It's difficult to come up with international character. This was evident in the tensions between Germans and Greeks in the EU. The German way and Greek way just don't get along in terms of outlook, habits, work, integrity, and etc. Also, Germans feel too much historical guilt to tell Greeks to 'shape up or ship out', and Greeks are too rascally to ever admit that their lack of national character played a huge role in the dire finances of Greece.

    It's possible that progs see PC as a force to improve the character of the people. But it does nothing of the kind. PC is about outward attitudes, not about inner values. Also, PC favors those groups that are most problematic in America: Jews, homos, blacks, slut feminists.

    Homos are too vain and decadent to be the standard-bearer of virtue and morality. Blacks are too crazy, lazy, trashy, and dishonest. While blacks do have compelling historical case, their moral degradation and economic failings owe more to racial and cultural/moral factors. Blacks are naturally wilder and more troublesome, and their culture no longer tries to restrain natural black craziness but give vent to it. Negroes are no longer singing the Negro spiritual but ugly trashy rap.

    Slut feminists are nuts. Just think of UVA case and Emma Sulky Bitch.

    Jews are an odd case. They possess the duality of having one of the highest and lowest national characters in the world.
    In terms of work ethic, diligence, commitment, sobriety, and etc, many Jews have strong national character. But as a community, there is too much lies and bullshit vis-a-vis the goyim. I mean how much more crap can we take from Netanyahu, Soros, Foxman, and their ilk? And too many good Jews tolerate the shit behavior of bad Jews like Sabrina Rubin Erdely, truly a monstrous bitch.

    And now, Jews are rewarding Pollard with some plush job. Jewish nationalism isn't the problem, but Jewish globalist attitude is currently supremacist, and Jews now ironically have attitude like German National Socialists. They are above the law.
    Unlike with Negroes and other colored folks, much of Jewish achievement is genuine and meritocratic. But for whatever reason, even good Jews are very tolerant and protective of bad ones.

    Also, good Jews feel indebted to bad Jews because some of the most powerful Jews who've done most for Jewish power are the bad ones. Take Sheldon Adelson and Goldman Sachs Jews. Surely, good Jews must know that such big powerful Jews are a**holes, but one doesn't get super-rich by being a nice guy. So, it's not surprising that the richest Jews tend to be those who are intelligent and total a**holes, the Hyman Roths. While good Jews may not respect such Jews morally, they acknowledge that such big-time Jews have done more for the Jewish community and Jewish causes than good Jews have. It is just the nature of power. Even good Jews are obsessed with Jewish power, and one doesn't gain power by just being good or nice.

    Anyway, PC penalizes the very people---the Northern European folks---who should be the model for most people. Most non-whites should be like Lee of Singapore who, even as he challenged British power, admired and learned a lot from the Brits.

    Instead, PC says everything about Northern Europeans is wrong, wrong, and wrong.
    There is nothing to learn from Northern Europeans, the very people with the best formula for success and progress.
    It says Swedes should beat on bongo drums and Germans should listen to reggae. Now, reggae is good music, but it's not the sort of stuff that's gonna build national character. If someone wants to relax with a joint and reggae, okay. But Bob Marley, talented as he was, was no moral paragon.
    People need values of diligence, discipline, integrity, sobriety, propriety, and that stuff. But PC wages war on such values as 'white privilege'. It assumes that social justice can be achieved by white self-hatred and non-whites bitching about 'white privilege'. This is a dead end.

    This is why we need Prislam. It may be the only counter-force against PC.

    Disagree. You are describing a Puritan or Quaker mindset. Most Northern Europeans were interested in bettering their own, not bettering the world. This Puritan/Quaker religious subset are the same archetype that composed the Jacobins and Bolsheviks.

    Read More
  34. @iffen
    Thanks for the reply. I don’t see anything with which I can disagree. Your post mortem seems to be accurate and extremely well written.

    I think that labor can point to some accomplishments that the Democratic Party achieved which benefited working people and which could not have been put into place without the electoral support provided by organized labor. The possibilities of reviving those sorts of political efforts are nil.

    Organized labor has economic success where it has and can bring to bear some economic power. I am thinking of longshoremen, river and harbor pilots, service workers in a tourist based economy, etc. Trying to exert power in a situation where the factory can be moved or illegal workers can be hired is a lost cause that does nothing but generate frustration for the people involved.

    The idea that working people will spontaneously develop some sort of political solidarity and will act accordingly in the political arena is not supported by the facts. Even more disastrous is the idea that a politically well-informed nucleus can “lead” the masses to political enlightenment.

    I guess I am just hoping against hope that liberal democracy can survive and extend benefits to ordinary people as it has done since coming onto the scene. I just can’t wrap my brain around the idea that knowledgeable people of good will cannot work together politically to effect changes that will benefit ordinary people. I despise the thought that I have that working people, as a group, are never going to be smart enough to defeat the special interests in a liberal democracy.

    Whats in it for the knowledgeable person of goodwill to do so? We live in a country thats bans iq tests, prohibits the usage of gold as money and focuses on transgender activism and gay wedding cakes. Even if you did have a decent platform the people would say what about transgender racism. Until people demand better leaders improvement is impossible. The equalist fantasies of the new left have to be discredited before we can even talk about anything else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Even if you did have a decent platform the people would say what about transgender racism.
     
    If you had a decent platform the media would say what about transgender racism. Most people would go along with the media through fear.
  35. @Mark Green
    As now constructed, 'identity politics' in America poses an increasing danger for non-Jewish and non-Hispanic White males. Why? The political playing field has been rigged.

    Non-elite Whites are politically disadvantaged since we are prohibited from openly organizing and collectively advancing our ethno-political interests. Yet others may do so freely.

    Nevertheless, the right of open and free association for self-identified Whites has been curtailed. It's a restricted political zone. Only 'minorities' may apply. And 'minorities' are fast becoming majorities.

    This double-standard is a recipe for cultural decline and White dispossession.

    Indeed, it's Jews, feminists, gays, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians who may coalesce politically along insular self-identities. This may be good news for the Democratic Party, but it does real harm to the descendants of the European-derived peoples who built America and achieved national greatness as its stewards.

    When White (heterosexual, males) do attempt to coalesce in a fashion now reserved for 'minorities', it is decried as racism or homophobia or discrimination or antisemitism or misogeny. White men must observe the dominant protocol of 'inclusiveness'. Whites may coalesce only under the banner of a race-free ideology.

    This political covenant however does not apply to La Raza, the NAACP, or the Congressional Jewish Caucus.

    Who created these legal land mines?

    Who enforces these cultural double-standards? Not Whites.

    Today, it's Whites--and only Whites--who may never 'discriminate' and must always be 'inclusive'.

    But these double-standards are burdensome, harmful and unfair. Rules, after all, should be applied uniformly.

    Whites are like frogs in a frying pan. And only a few of us have noticed or figured-out that the temperature is rising.

    There's a quiet and slow-moving war that's being waged. Often it's fought in the dark. Usually behind closed doors. And the playing field is uneven.

    Complacent Americans are being encouraged to cheer for military conquests in countries they cannot identify on a map. Alternatively, they are expected to 'root' for their favorite football team while their own country is slowly taken from them. Bread and circus. Fools and games go together.

    But who orchestrates the wars? Who owns the pro football teams?

    Meanwhile, an incremental war against the founding stock of America routinely operates beneath the radar and sails smoothly under false flags.

    One flag is called 'affirmative action'.

    Another is 'diversity'.

    Another is 'democracy'.

    Another is 'Separation of Church and State'.

    Another is 'equality'.

    But the results are the same: No equality. Gradual White displacement.

    Let it be said that that the extraordinary civilization known as the United States was created by a Western European population. But that America is being transformed, degraded, and turned into a militarized, multicultural empire that serves not the long-term interest of its citizens, but the interests of a few.

    This nefarious agenda requires a number of changes. One essential tool is unchecked immigration. Waves of non-European immigrants facilitate displacement and foments disunity.

    The process is gradual. Then sudden. Entrenched elites benefit. Divide and rule.

    Elevated diversity via illegal immigration has also had the impact of reducing White political influence. Even the life span of white males has declined.

    In order to manage and secure this unsavory transformation, a totalitarian orthodoxy called 'political correctness' has been injected into the media, into the courts, into government, and into higher education. Rapid demographic changes are underway. Cultural norms follow.

    Not only is the US being unlawfully overrun by peoples who are vastly different from ourselves, but many of these newcomers do not even aspire for 'assimilation' into our nation's dominant culture. Remember 'E Pluribus Unum'? (From many, One). Now it's the 'salad bowl' metaphor that rules. America is where separate cultures live side-by-side under one national umbrella. Who benefits? Does not 'diversity' blur a nation's identity and undermine its cohesion?

    Today, English is merely one language among many. Public expressions of Christianity are deemed 'offensive'. And White men, it is claimed, still have too much power and too much visibility. Whites--especially White males--are in retreat. Did this happen by accident?

    Contrary to politically-correct truisms, rising racial and ethnic diversity might be our road to ruin. Incredibly, it's our own government(s) that are sometimes leading the way.

    In liberal, Democratic LA for instance, there are freshly-minted and officially-recognized ethnic ghettos now popping up everywhere. I spotted a sign as I entered LA recently directing the visitor to 'Little Armenia'. Who thought this up?

    Another new highway sign identified a new ethnic neighborhood called 'Koreatown'.

    Where's my racial set-aside?

    America is being strategically transformed into non-White ethnic enclaves from above and below. At the same time, White Americans are expected to surrender their racial identities altogether. Says who?

    The Trojan Horse of multiculturalism has passed through the gates and into America's grandest institutions. These institutions however were created by European-derived peoples with their own racial identity. Now their descendants are being ushered out the back door.

    Balkanization is now underway. The dye is cast. Who caused this? Can it still be reversed?

    If the white men who built and made America great are now known as the oppressors who built America with slave labor after stealing it from the Indians, how will history view the sexually “tolerant”, gender confused, financially socialist, media propagandizing, open border liberals of today ?

    Read More
  36. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Check out this documentary:

    It is about Chapman, Salinger, and Lennon.

    Salinger and Lennon were famous creative people.

    Chapman was a ‘loser’.

    [MORE]

    Yet, they all had something in common. Lennon once wrote a song called “I’m a loser.”
    If not for his musical talent and good luck, he would have been a nutcase, possibly a sociopath, even psychopath. Read his bio, and he had a wild childhood and uneven personality. His talent made him famous and admired. But deep down inside, he felt empty and bitter. He withdrew from the Beatles and went off with charlatan monster Yoko and drove the other Beatles nuts. After breaking from the Beatles, he had a solo career and took on crazy radical causes–some for violent agendas–and then withdrew again into his NY luxury. (Brian Wilson and Bob Dylan would also have been serious psycho-social cases if not for their talent. Wilson did, for a time, go nuts. Joni Mitchell also went nuts with paranoia. Marvin Gaye and Sam Cooked were gunned down for crazy behavior, but that’s par for the course among Negroes. Michael Jackson became famous for his talent, but he was seriously cuckoo. Elvis got weirder and weirder. So many of these famous entertainers and celebrities are essentially those with ‘loser’ personalities with exceptional talent. If not for the talent, they would have been social outcasts, exiles, or rejects. Art/culture is appealing to lots of people cuz it’s the spectacle of Revenge of the Loser. Nobodies become somebodies.)

    Salinger was also something of a nut. If not for his famous book CATCHER IN THE RYE, he wouldn’t have amounted to much. He might have been like Harvey Pekar of AMERICAN SPLENDOR, a loser as ‘somebody’ due to modicum of celebrity as ‘freako loser’ on Letterman. Salinger lived as a recluse for most of his adult life.

    However, when US was less therapeutic, ‘sensitive’, and PC, such loner-or-loser types were seen as oddballs. The grubby Robert Crumb was seen as a weirdo. His talent was admired by some, but the gunky nature of his work was understood.
    Losers and loners were not protected. They had to be tough or resist on their own. Or they ended up badly. Some of them became interesting in creative ways. They sought vindication through some kind of ambition or success.

    Take Holden Caulfield. He feels misunderstood. The school lets him go because he’s not with the program. The school doesn’t hold his hand, schmooze him, or offer him counseling. He feels awful and confused, but he’s on his own and must find his own meaning in life. He’s not like a duck that knows there’s warmer place in the south in the winter. He must figure it out for himself. He’s not protected by ‘safe spaces’ or from ‘micro-aggressions’. Also, he is no mere victim but a kind of mini-monster. When someone in the dorm says something about some girl, he tries to punch the guy’s toothbrush and have it tear down his throat. There’s violence surging inside Caulfield, and its directed at the world and himself emotionally. But he’s too confused and afraid to act.

    CATCHER IN THE RYE is one of the biggest successes in modern American Literature, but it is about a total loser. (So is Death of a Salesman). Caulfield is, in some ways, even a bigger loser than Raskolnikov in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. Literature has had many loser characters but Caulfield is a loser-loser cuz he’s just a loser. He’s not a special loser or tragic loser or epic loser like Raskolnikov, Jean Valjean, or the Joad Family. Even Willy Loman has something ‘tragic’ about him in that he has this big dream, however hollow it may be.
    But Caulfield is just some middle class kid with all the chance of doing well but chooses to be a bum. But he’s not a happy bum but a very unhappy bum who makes a mountain out of his molehill malaise. Still, he knows that his problem, as important as it is to him, means nothing to society, nor should it.

    But what has therapeutism and PC done to Caulfieldism? It has institutionalized it, especially for the non-white, Jewish, female, or homo Caulfields of the world.
    Caulfield suffered but he knew his problem was his own and he suffered alone. He did have some theory about how adults corrupt kids, but he knew those were his ideas and something he couldn’t force on the world.

    But today, PC has elevated all these infantile Caulfieldisms of Jews, people of color, feminists, and homos to the level of sacred truth. So, if any one of these freaks feel bad about something, the entire world must pay attention.
    It must ‘catch’ them before the fall off the cliff and be crushed by ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘misogyny’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, etc.

    Caulfield, like Kafka’s K, is a roamer at the margins of society after his ‘exile’.
    But if the book were written today, someone like Caulfield(if Jewish, female, black, homo, etc) would not just slink away back home but throw stink bombs of ‘protest’ and the entire world would have to care and do something. We must respond to such ‘protest’ like the execs in MULHOLLAND DR. must apologize for the bad coffee and offer something better.

    To white males, “it’s no longer your film.”

    CATCHER IN THE RYE, like THE CASTLE, is about the loner at the margins of society or of power.
    Today however, the Caulfields of the world get to dictate the ‘truth’ at colleges that they took over in the ‘long march through the institutions’.

    In a way, Caulfield is appealing to us cuz he seems like a free spirit, an independent thinker, a maverick, a rebel, an eccentric. But there is something tyrannical about him cuz he has a such a manichean view of the world between the ‘innocent children’ and ‘corrupt adults’. If someone like that could gain power, he could be more dangerous than the ‘corrupt adults’. In a way, he’s the sort who refuses to grow up.
    Maybe Salinger saw this part in himself and withdrew from the world. As such, he did less harm.

    But many Caulfields became college professors, counselors, sensitivity trainers, and members of institutions. And something about them never grew up. It’s like there are boomer professors who still act like they’re college radicals of the 60s. Just look at some of the people around Obama and you’d think they’d living their Che Guevara Days all over again(despite the fact that they’ve grown even more corrupt than the MAN and Establishment they once lambasted).

    In colleges, we have infantilism. All this stuff about ‘safe spaces’, ‘micro-aggressions’, and etc. It’s like colleges are like kindergartens and child care centers than places of learning where the best minds contend. Colleges should be a battlefield of ideas(fought according to shared rules and principles, of course), but they are now like children’s hospitals. Consider the college where students were offered counseling cuz some of them were triggered by someone’s laptop computer with Confed Flag logo. I mean…

    Colleges are now run by institutional Caulfields who promise to ‘catch’ the ‘pure and innocent’ students from falling over the cliff. It’s like educational welfare. Welfare offers economic safety-nets, colleges offer safe spaces for students who either can’t make the grade or are confronted with ideas that upset their tender feelings.

    The thing about Caulfield is that, even as he bitches about how the adult world is phony, he is an insensitive and self-centered prick himself. A very entertaining and even endearing one at times, but a pain in the arse to anyone who knows him. Even his beloved sister has problems with him.

    And this is true of today’s college culture. All these students and professors who demand sensitivity are utterly lacking in any sensitivity on their part. They are rude, crude, arrogant, demagogic, hysterical, abrasive, nasty, vicious, vile, hideous, and gross. They are like the insufferable nitwit bitch in OLEANNA(the Crucible of the 90s) who plays poor little victim but has the personality of a Stalinist witch-hunter.

    John Lennon too was an awful nasty person. And Yoko was a vile self-obsessed bitch. It’s funny that those two peddled themselves as champions of peace, understanding, love, and compassion. At least back in the 60s and 70s, many people just laughed at their face. But the ‘two virgins’ have been lionized ever since and made into cultural icons of love and truth. Lennon was sufficiently intelligent and self-aware to realize that he was indeed a phony, and that was probably why he decided to withdraw from publicity beginning in the mid 70s. At the very least, Lennon grew up as an outsider, someone outside the institution.

    But now, we have the oddballs who’ve taken over the institutions and favor the ‘losers’ and ‘victims’ over all else.
    And this even clouds our view of winners. By all accounts, Mark Zuckerberg was a go-getter winner who rose quickly and happily. But SOCIAL NETWORK turns him into a sullen Holden Caulfield-like character whose resentment is the reaction to being snubbed by Aryan Neo-Nazi Haven Monahan twins.
    Even a super-winner Jew is refashioned into a poor loser Jew who struggled to win to get even with an unfair world that rejected his kind.

    In our culture of grievance, diversity makes things worse cuz different people have different grievances. Blacks bitch cuz they fall behind academically and must rely on affirmative action. Asians bitch cuz they are seen as ‘geeks’ and ‘model minority’(even though I never heard whites making that case for a long long time). Homos see homophobia in every utterance that isn’t celebratory of homo stuff. Muslims see Islamophobia everywhere. Jews still apparently have nightmares about how their grandfathers weren’t allowed into golf clubs. Feminists see rape culture. Hispanics flip out over tacos being served to celebrate Mexican heritage. In many cases, these gripes are really among themselves. Jews hate Muslims, Muslims hate Jews. Blacks attack Jews, Muslims, Asians, Mexicans, and etc as black crime is universally destructive. And blacks often rape white women. Blacks say nasty things about homos, and homos use gentrification to drive out blacks. And so on. But since PC says all such folks are ‘holy victims’, they pretend to be allies and blame the straight white male for all the grievances. So, if a Muslim kills a Jew, blame the whitey. If Jews blow up the Middle East, blame whitey. If blacks rape feminists, blame whitey. If Asians or Arabs suspect blacks of being thieves, blame whitey. It’s like Oberlin had to create the KKK myth to pull the various aggrieved groups together.
    It’s like, without the Nazi threat, the capitalists and commies couldn’t stick together. Today, the alliance of globalist corporations, the new ‘left’, and minority groups cannot hold together unless there is the bogeyman of the ‘evil white nationalist male’. In some ways, it could be that the progs are giving more attention to someone like Richard Spencer to spread the hysteria that ‘white nationalism’ is spreading like wildfire!!! What better way to keep the coalition together?

    Holden Caulfield wasn’t entirely without self-reflection. He had to think honestly somewhat since he didn’t live in a therapeutic age that made excuses for his kind.
    It’s like the mentally weird guy in LAST DAYS OF DISCO has some degree of self-reflection too since he doesn’t just see himself as a ‘victim’. He has core conservative values that directs him to a life of accountability even though he must struggle against his condition. Stillman’s films have characters who are borderline nutty, but they
    seek and find some degree of equilibrium with adherence to Christian, ‘conservative’, patriotic, or responsible values.

    Therapeutism and PC have raised an entire generation of kids with the idea that they need never to blame themselves or look into their own souls. Jews, homos, blacks, girls, Muslims, Yellows, Browns, and etc can just blame white power and white privilege for all that is wrong with the world.
    As for white males, they need not think as individuals but see the problem as collective. So, if a white male has personal issues, he shouldn’t ask questions and probe as a free-thinking individual but seek to redeem himself by accepting that he probably suffers from excess of ‘white privilege’.
    In other words, ‘white privilege’ hurts non-whites with social oppression, but it also hurts white males with Affluenza.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza

    It’s possible that Paul suffered from something like Affluenza…

    https://www.shsu.edu/~eng_wpf/authors/Cather/Pauls-Case.htm

    But at least he didn’t use it as an excuse. He reveled in what he liked, but he also knew it was a dead end and paid the price himself.

    But today, the blame is never with the individual. So, non-white individuals just blame the system or this phenom called ‘white privilege’.
    Though PC scapegoats whites(especially white males), in some ways it even lets white male individuals off the hook. They are not guilty as individuals but as a group.
    In some ways, this is damning because there’s nothing that white males can do as individuals to fix this problem. But on the other hand, they never need to take any individual blame since it’s just a collective group thing. As long as they support progressive causes, they need do nothing more as individuals.
    So, as individuals, white hipster Libs live the life of privilege, and their idea of ‘taking action’ is collectively voting for Obummer.

    Elliot Rodgers was a frightening case of today’s therapeutic mindset, a combo of Caulfield and Ted Bundy. Therapeutism was originally meant to help those who feel small and weak. But its ego-massaging and esteem-boosting have created a culture of ultra-narcissism, made much worse by the fact that so much of our culture is all about celebrity, fame, sex, glitz, and etc.
    Rodgers’ problem wasn’t the need to feel better. It was the need to feel like he’s the most magnificent person in the world who should be celebrated by everyone. He thought like a homo freak who demands that everyone celebrate homo pride. Or like Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner who has been elevated to ‘woman of the year’.

    Therapy used to be about making a person who feels worthless into a person who feels worthy. Now, it’s about making everyone feel like he or she is god. Why not in the age of Oprah where a fat stupid black woman is hailed the second coming of christ? Or when people fainted all over in rhapsodic worship of Obama?

    Some may say Trump is playing the same game with his outsized ego, and there is some truth to that. But Trump is anti-therapeutic because of his sheer irreverence and willingness to prick holes and hurt sensitive feelings. He’s a phony, but he’s playing the role of Randall McMurphy in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST.

    Read More
  37. @Jay
    From a history professor of over 25 years: what a bunch of whiners! Get over yourselves; you all come across as frustrated academics. If you are so shocked, shocked, get a PhD, get hired, and get teaching.

    What losers.

    Wordy vituperation is cheap.

    If you are a professor of anything then that is proof of just how deep the rot is.

    “Waah waah waah people don’t agree with me I’m going to go to my room and cry about it, you’re all losers.”

    Ad hominem + a 5 syllable word thrown in just to show off. Nothing of substance whatsoever. God how I loathe academics.

    > get a PhD, get hired, and get teaching.

    Great advice, except for all the PhD’s who can’t get hired or who have to work for peanuts as adjuncts. I guess you rely more on anecdotal evidence than statistical outcomes when dishing out your sage advice.

    Read More
  38. @Jay
    From a history professor of over 25 years: what a bunch of whiners! Get over yourselves; you all come across as frustrated academics. If you are so shocked, shocked, get a PhD, get hired, and get teaching.

    What losers.

    Wordy vituperation is cheap.

    Speaking as a fellow academic, your last line is pretty funny in the context of the rest of your comment.

    Read More
  39. @Montefrío
    After a long time as a lurker, thanks to this article and its comments, I've decided to add my ha'penny (don't think I'm up to two cents yet) to the discussion.

    I'm a dual national (US-Ireland) who was born and raised in the US but has lived much of his life abroad. I live in South America now (12 yrs) after five years in Spain. I spent 11 years ('86-'97) in the US working for most of it as an equities trader, but by '96 I wanted out and left the following year never to return. Graduated from an Ivy school back when they were still worthy of being considered top-flight. My daughter graduated from a Seven Sisters college, my son (the younger) did two years at a liberal arts college considered a peer of an Ivy school, but wisely left to pursue an engineering degree at a top-ranked engineering school after a horrific experience with an ultra-left Gramsci-ite prof, an experience that nearly resulted in a lawsuit I'd happily have initiated had my demands not been met.

    My son (who lives next door) has two boys and our family plan had been to send them to prep school and university in the USA until the events of this year: no more. Unless and until there is a restoration of academic excellence without "affirmative action" and p.c.-pandering, they'll likely stay in our adoptive homeland that has just rid itself of a long-time "love affair" with the Left. South America may just prove itself to be a viable "last frontier" for North Americans and Europeans who may need to learn a new language but hopefully will find a great deal of opportunity if things down here continue to break right. Quite frankly, I'd rather see my grandsons become technically competent tradesmen than have them exposed to the suicidal nonsense being preached in what were once great secondary schools and universities.

    I am a former colleague of Dr. Gottfried on a well-known libertarian website, but am not an unconditional supporter of the Austrian School of economics, preferring instead the "third way" economic theory as set out by Wilhelm Ropke and Catholic Social Teaching, susbsidiarity in particular. The Frankfurt School (and I include Gramsci in that line of thought) and its teachings are utterly inimical to the traditions of the USA and later of European nations and unless and until this school of thought is utterly discredited, as well it should be, the Northern Hemisphere is not a place in which I would wish to see my grandsons receive an education or later choose to live. Disenchantment? In spades!

    South America may just prove itself to be a viable “last frontier” for North Americans and Europeans who may need to learn a new language but hopefully will find a great deal of opportunity if things down here continue to break right.

    I think this is a live possibility myself. At some point, whites (or at least the top 50% of them) are going to start leaving the US in significant numbers. It will happen slowly at first and then all at once. South America is the obvious place to go.

    Read More
  40. I don’t see why the bigness and impersonal nature of universities makes them legitimate targets for protest, even if true. The students are there voluntarily, and if they think they’re too big and impersonal they can go to school somewhere else or not at all.

    I don’t really understand why such a thing as the Vietnam War needed to be protested at universities, either, but there is a close relationship between school and state, of course, and certain parts of the academic complex have more power than elected officials. Still, I think it had more to do with who the protesters were (spoiled brats, and not always students) than what they were against.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite

    I don’t really understand why such a thing as the Vietnam War needed to be protested at universities, either, but there is a close relationship between school and state, of c
     
    How old are you? There was a draft on. They drafted college age men. After the lottery, 1968 05 69, they were even drafting college students. There was a damn good reason for protests on campus and there were serious business. People told me of how the Univ. of Maryland was in lockdown and helicopters were circling, after a demonstration about 1969.
    , @iffen
    It was a different time.

    Sandbagged machine gun nests in DC.

    Race riots in the military (dead people). The few black officers were escorted by MPs with sirens blasting to hotspots. There were mutinies on the aircraft carriers.

    The elites had fear in their eyes like Pamploma runners.

    They killed MLK. He was in Memphis to support a strike by sanitation workers. All the civil rights legislation had already been passed.

    Have a nice day.
  41. As someone who participated in the intellectual skirmishes among leftists back in the 70s and forward, what was called Western Marxism more or less identified with Gramsci, took the position that economism had failed, and that some new perspective was needed. What had spurred Gramsci and many left intellectuals was the obvious failure of Actually Existing Socialism, as it was then called.

    The shift was then in the direction of Culture. Also psychology was brought into the discussion.
    Since the only game in town was psychoanalysis, Freud entered stage right actually, but was used as a lever to move the arguments in a psychological direction. Some of the stuff like from Wilhelm Reich (The Function of the Orgasm ) was pretty weird, as in his suggestion that up-tight Germans went fascist because they were not getting laid regularly.

    This fed into the Authoritarian Personality crowd which was, besides being Jewish, was attractive to the 50s generation of leftish intellectuals who were ‘alienated’ and thought that psychotherapy might help them personally, and that Culture was the Problem, if it was not economics.

    So Adorno et al warped the brains of many lefties and liberals, but , yes, culture does play a role, just about always a negative role, when evolutionary thought is abandoned.

    So called cultural marxism was the final product of the Western Marxist intellectual movement that had abandoned Stalinism.

    Irony department: Cultural Stalinism was the inevitable product of cultural marxism. Kill not class enemies, but race enemies….White Men especially, its most vocal expression is the Ignatiev outfit of Death to Whiteness.

    Psychology is nevertheless to be retained as a method for getting at the madness that surrounds us with regard to race.

    The only objective and rational and fact-driven approach is the scientific approach of racialist science. The best single book is Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 2000)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    As someone who participated in the intellectual skirmishes among leftists back in the 70s and forward, what was called Western Marxism more or less identified with Gramsci, took the position that economism had failed, and that some new perspective was needed. What had spurred Gramsci and many left intellectuals was the obvious failure of Actually Existing Socialism, as it was then called.
     
    I agree with your comment, but it's interesting to pause and reflect on this para. Why was a new perspective needed? What had Actually Existing Socialism failed at? It seems like a foolish question. The USSR and Red China were hideous. But, you know, when you rebel against your father in a particular way and find out that your rebellion is wrongheaded, you don't have to look for a new way to rebel against him. You could decide that he was right. Why was a new perspective necessary? What would have been wrong with "I guess we were wrong, let's go back to Throne and Altar. Let's act like the younger son acted once he figured life out"

    Unless rebelling against your father is the point. Unless hatred of Christendom is the point. Unless the random details of why you hate Christendom are just rationalizations. "I hate Christendom because the proletariat" is just as good as "I hate Christendom because the trannies" if the only thing you really care about is "I hate Christendom."
  42. @dfordoom

    I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore.
     
    When it's funded by billionaires you have to question just how marxist it is.

    And neocons push cultural marxism and I don't think neocons are aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They're aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the rich.

    Marx himself was funded, not by billionaires maybe, but by bourgeois wealth. Engels supported him by getting a position in the textile industry through family connections.

    Read More
  43. Good try Paul Gottfried! Showing your White racism while blaming the Organized Jewry. Did you ever noticed, it’s Black and Middle Eastern academics who have stood against Israel Lobby while White academics and politicians never felt shame in licking Organized Jewry’s shoes?

    Professor Jeffries and other Black leaders who dared to cooperate with the Nation of Islam, are always targeted by the pro-Israel media and especially the ADL gangsters.

    The New York Times reported that in an April 1990 class on African heritage, Jeffries said that “rich Jews who financed the development of Europe also financed the slave trade,” and that “the Jewish Holocaust is raised as the only Holocaust.” The Times also reported that Jeffries has taught students in his classes that Blacks are “sun people,” humanistic and communal, and whites are “ice people,” cold, unfeeling oppressors.

    Jeffries exploded onto the public scene in August 1991, when the New York Post published an account of a vitriolic anti-Semitic and racist speech he made on July 20 at the Empire State Black Arts and Cultural Festival in Albany, New York. Jeffries asserted that “rich Jews” controlled the Black slave trade, and that Hollywood was the site of a Jewish-dominated conspiracy to systematically denigrate Blacks. He called then-Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch the “ultimate, supreme, sophisticated, debonair racist” and a “Texas Jew.”

    On October 10, tens of thousands of Americans belonging to different faiths and races gathered at US Capitol to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Million Man March held on October 16, 1995 at the National Mall where African slaves were auctioned in the past.

    The leader of Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, the most hated Afro-American leader by the Jewish Lobby, was the keynote speaker. During his long speech, he chided critics advising the #Justice or Else movement that Black folks should forget their past slavery and move ahead, saying: “Find me a Jew that forgives Hitler, and you say they’re the people of God and they don’t have any forgiveness in them.”

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/10/16/farrakhan-forgiveness-is-not-jewish/

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    wow, the fanatic anti-semites on this list are impressive. Let me suggest to you that Jews are the best western example of a group/race organized in a Darwinian natural and genetic similarity kind of way. The OT is a Darwinian treatise on group/race survival.

    In that way, Jews set the example for Whites.

    Your attack on Gottfried is an example of your misplaced hatreds. Gottfried held the fort, along with a few others who had been purged from National Review by Buckley, and kept the torch lit of anti-Israel sentiment . He is a righteous jew,

    You want Perfection, which is your egoistic non-negotiable demand of a spoilt child.

    Your relative endorsements of blacks and Farrakan, the absolute embodiment of Ralph Ellisons' Ras the Destroyer ( invisible man ) means you are nutty, or just black and revenge driven, with no program of solutions.

    I have a program/solution with regard to blacks: resegregation. You could lead like Marcus Garvey, back to somewhere to get away from White cops. Then you could hack one-another up like Africans do today, and enslave, and slash their women's genitals, and generally run amok like the savages they are, and apparently you too.
    Joe Webb
  44. Just on the topic (perhaps a tedious one for some) of ‘the ‘cultural Marxism’ meme which usually involves some reference to the ‘Frankfurt School’. My impression from within academic social science, is that the Frankfurt School are not that popular with the politically correct left – certainly mentioning Adorno to a politically correct ‘leftist’ is like a red flag to a castrated bull. They hate him as a cultural elitist and defender of western civilization (and he was a defender of high civilization, for all his rhetoric about its implicit violence). The intellectual roots of PC stuff come from watered down Derrida, French feminists and their prudish American imitators and Foucault, not the Frankfurt School.

    I also think it’s a silly meme to suppose that the ‘end goal’ of PC is actual economic equality. In education and government the end goal of PC is the endless expansion of over paid administrative positions devoted to PC in its various forms. It’s as simple as that. Also, any history of PC (I know of no scholarly ones – surprise surprise!) would have to look at the role of corporate human resources and ‘free market’ capitalism’s need for lowest common denominator ‘tolerance’ as a key ingredient in its genesis – not just the over hyped Saul Alinsky’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Yes. In the debate between Adorno and the great Arnold Gehlen one can see that they had much in common.

    https://vimeo.com/5360099
    , @dfordoom

    I also think it’s a silly meme to suppose that the ‘end goal’ of PC is actual economic equality.
     
    The ‘end goal’ of PC is more economic inequality. More wealth to the wealthy elites. More power to the powerful elites.

    It's driven by hatred of ordinary people (especially the working class) and hatred of everything that ordinary people care about.
  45. @Montefrío
    After a long time as a lurker, thanks to this article and its comments, I've decided to add my ha'penny (don't think I'm up to two cents yet) to the discussion.

    I'm a dual national (US-Ireland) who was born and raised in the US but has lived much of his life abroad. I live in South America now (12 yrs) after five years in Spain. I spent 11 years ('86-'97) in the US working for most of it as an equities trader, but by '96 I wanted out and left the following year never to return. Graduated from an Ivy school back when they were still worthy of being considered top-flight. My daughter graduated from a Seven Sisters college, my son (the younger) did two years at a liberal arts college considered a peer of an Ivy school, but wisely left to pursue an engineering degree at a top-ranked engineering school after a horrific experience with an ultra-left Gramsci-ite prof, an experience that nearly resulted in a lawsuit I'd happily have initiated had my demands not been met.

    My son (who lives next door) has two boys and our family plan had been to send them to prep school and university in the USA until the events of this year: no more. Unless and until there is a restoration of academic excellence without "affirmative action" and p.c.-pandering, they'll likely stay in our adoptive homeland that has just rid itself of a long-time "love affair" with the Left. South America may just prove itself to be a viable "last frontier" for North Americans and Europeans who may need to learn a new language but hopefully will find a great deal of opportunity if things down here continue to break right. Quite frankly, I'd rather see my grandsons become technically competent tradesmen than have them exposed to the suicidal nonsense being preached in what were once great secondary schools and universities.

    I am a former colleague of Dr. Gottfried on a well-known libertarian website, but am not an unconditional supporter of the Austrian School of economics, preferring instead the "third way" economic theory as set out by Wilhelm Ropke and Catholic Social Teaching, susbsidiarity in particular. The Frankfurt School (and I include Gramsci in that line of thought) and its teachings are utterly inimical to the traditions of the USA and later of European nations and unless and until this school of thought is utterly discredited, as well it should be, the Northern Hemisphere is not a place in which I would wish to see my grandsons receive an education or later choose to live. Disenchantment? In spades!

    I’m curious, what did the Gramsci-ite prof do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Montefrío
    My son submitted an essay (a final grade must) stating that the proofs of God as postulated by St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas had ontological veracity and the lesbian professor stated aloud in the class that he was a "fail" for supporting that view, commenting that "Jesus Christ was the most evil man in history". My son, a product of a very well known Catholic prep school, was angered and improperly but accurately exclaimed "Yeah, well you're a bitter dyke, so I'm not surprised you think that, but it's not a legitimate reason for failing me". I agreed and told the rector (dean) that if she'd made such a slur about Moses or whomever to a Jewish student, I'd own the school after the lawsuit, but as circumstances had it, the prof had picked on the wrong Irishman and that my lawyer would soon be in touch. He then replied that my son had slandered the professor, to which I replied that a "slander" is a tort only when it is untrue, and I asked if it were true or not that the professor was an openly professed lesbian. I agreed that my son's terminology was despective but insisted upon knowing whether or not it was untrue. The discussion ended and the failing grade was withdrawn. My son told me that he didn't wish to continue at the school and I was all too happy to agree: at the time, $36k/yr for such nonsense didn't seem to me well spent. Two years of studies (and $72k plus) down the drain, but he went on to engineering school (valedictorian in his field) and a PRODUCTIVE career. When he asked me if it was okay to bail out of philosophy, he mentioned a bumper sticker he'd seen: "HI! I have a doctorate in philosophy! Would you like fries with your order?" We have at home all the required philosophy texts and then some, so I was quite content to tell the dean of the "Great Books" school to go take a flying fu... leap at the moon.

    Long-winded reply, please forgive me, but it still pisses me off!
  46. @Rehmat
    Good try Paul Gottfried! Showing your White racism while blaming the Organized Jewry. Did you ever noticed, it's Black and Middle Eastern academics who have stood against Israel Lobby while White academics and politicians never felt shame in licking Organized Jewry's shoes?

    Professor Jeffries and other Black leaders who dared to cooperate with the Nation of Islam, are always targeted by the pro-Israel media and especially the ADL gangsters.

    The New York Times reported that in an April 1990 class on African heritage, Jeffries said that "rich Jews who financed the development of Europe also financed the slave trade," and that "the Jewish Holocaust is raised as the only Holocaust." The Times also reported that Jeffries has taught students in his classes that Blacks are "sun people," humanistic and communal, and whites are "ice people," cold, unfeeling oppressors.

    Jeffries exploded onto the public scene in August 1991, when the New York Post published an account of a vitriolic anti-Semitic and racist speech he made on July 20 at the Empire State Black Arts and Cultural Festival in Albany, New York. Jeffries asserted that "rich Jews" controlled the Black slave trade, and that Hollywood was the site of a Jewish-dominated conspiracy to systematically denigrate Blacks. He called then-Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch the "ultimate, supreme, sophisticated, debonair racist" and a "Texas Jew."

    On October 10, tens of thousands of Americans belonging to different faiths and races gathered at US Capitol to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Million Man March held on October 16, 1995 at the National Mall where African slaves were auctioned in the past.

    The leader of Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, the most hated Afro-American leader by the Jewish Lobby, was the keynote speaker. During his long speech, he chided critics advising the #Justice or Else movement that Black folks should forget their past slavery and move ahead, saying: “Find me a Jew that forgives Hitler, and you say they’re the people of God and they don’t have any forgiveness in them.”

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/10/16/farrakhan-forgiveness-is-not-jewish/

    wow, the fanatic anti-semites on this list are impressive. Let me suggest to you that Jews are the best western example of a group/race organized in a Darwinian natural and genetic similarity kind of way. The OT is a Darwinian treatise on group/race survival.

    In that way, Jews set the example for Whites.

    Your attack on Gottfried is an example of your misplaced hatreds. Gottfried held the fort, along with a few others who had been purged from National Review by Buckley, and kept the torch lit of anti-Israel sentiment . He is a righteous jew,

    You want Perfection, which is your egoistic non-negotiable demand of a spoilt child.

    Your relative endorsements of blacks and Farrakan, the absolute embodiment of Ralph Ellisons’ Ras the Destroyer ( invisible man ) means you are nutty, or just black and revenge driven, with no program of solutions.

    I have a program/solution with regard to blacks: resegregation. You could lead like Marcus Garvey, back to somewhere to get away from White cops. Then you could hack one-another up like Africans do today, and enslave, and slash their women’s genitals, and generally run amok like the savages they are, and apparently you too.
    Joe Webb

    Read More
  47. @Thirdeye
    I'm curious, what did the Gramsci-ite prof do?

    My son submitted an essay (a final grade must) stating that the proofs of God as postulated by St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas had ontological veracity and the lesbian professor stated aloud in the class that he was a “fail” for supporting that view, commenting that “Jesus Christ was the most evil man in history”. My son, a product of a very well known Catholic prep school, was angered and improperly but accurately exclaimed “Yeah, well you’re a bitter dyke, so I’m not surprised you think that, but it’s not a legitimate reason for failing me”. I agreed and told the rector (dean) that if she’d made such a slur about Moses or whomever to a Jewish student, I’d own the school after the lawsuit, but as circumstances had it, the prof had picked on the wrong Irishman and that my lawyer would soon be in touch. He then replied that my son had slandered the professor, to which I replied that a “slander” is a tort only when it is untrue, and I asked if it were true or not that the professor was an openly professed lesbian. I agreed that my son’s terminology was despective but insisted upon knowing whether or not it was untrue. The discussion ended and the failing grade was withdrawn. My son told me that he didn’t wish to continue at the school and I was all too happy to agree: at the time, $36k/yr for such nonsense didn’t seem to me well spent. Two years of studies (and $72k plus) down the drain, but he went on to engineering school (valedictorian in his field) and a PRODUCTIVE career. When he asked me if it was okay to bail out of philosophy, he mentioned a bumper sticker he’d seen: “HI! I have a doctorate in philosophy! Would you like fries with your order?” We have at home all the required philosophy texts and then some, so I was quite content to tell the dean of the “Great Books” school to go take a flying fu… leap at the moon.

    Long-winded reply, please forgive me, but it still pisses me off!

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    Maybe I'm naïve, but that professor, whatever her persuasion, was way out of line. An essay of that nature would be graded on how well you presented your thoughts, not on the content, on which people have different ideas. Strange. She sounds like she had serious problems and maybe the school wanted to get rid of her anyway. I wonder what her background was to think that Jesus Christ, of all people, was the most evil in history. Why exactly?
    , @AndrewR
    I'm not saying you're lying but that almost seems too incredible to believe. "Jesus Christ was the most evil man in history"? I've never heard that even hinted at by anyone ever.
  48. @blankmisgivings
    Just on the topic (perhaps a tedious one for some) of 'the 'cultural Marxism' meme which usually involves some reference to the 'Frankfurt School'. My impression from within academic social science, is that the Frankfurt School are not that popular with the politically correct left - certainly mentioning Adorno to a politically correct 'leftist' is like a red flag to a castrated bull. They hate him as a cultural elitist and defender of western civilization (and he was a defender of high civilization, for all his rhetoric about its implicit violence). The intellectual roots of PC stuff come from watered down Derrida, French feminists and their prudish American imitators and Foucault, not the Frankfurt School.

    I also think it's a silly meme to suppose that the 'end goal' of PC is actual economic equality. In education and government the end goal of PC is the endless expansion of over paid administrative positions devoted to PC in its various forms. It's as simple as that. Also, any history of PC (I know of no scholarly ones - surprise surprise!) would have to look at the role of corporate human resources and 'free market' capitalism's need for lowest common denominator 'tolerance' as a key ingredient in its genesis - not just the over hyped Saul Alinsky's.

    Yes. In the debate between Adorno and the great Arnold Gehlen one can see that they had much in common.

    Read More
  49. @Joe: Please don´t get me started on former neighbor and not-very-close acquaintance William F Buckley, Jr! He was a guest at my wedding (’70) and… But I’ll stop now, because courtesy and respect for the deceased demands it.

    @Blanks… Derrida, etc., are all “evolved” from the Frankfurt School and just as was the progenitor are enemies of Western European Christian-derived culture and civilization. The end game of these folks is a collectivist society in which a supposed intellectual “elite” lords it over the “unwashed” and accrues material benefits for their supposed “beneficence”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    Montrfrio...thanks, correct. Derrida and deconstructionists, and before that the post -structuralists, levi-strauss, Althusser, almost all of these guys were jews.
    By that time I was a family and working man and kept up with this stuff as a leftish guy...all the while complaining to leftie friends that it was pure garbage.

    But i did not know WHY it was garbage....it took me a long time to figure it out because I was raised in a left-wing, probably communist family, and various family friends were jews and always treated me well...etc.

    well, it was garbage because it was jewish and therefore White hating, and also it was garbage because the Darwinian thesis had been hammered into tiny little boxes somewhere in academe. See Carl Degler's In Search of Human Nature for a history of this.

    Poor little me and countless others of a secular nature had nowhere else to go, particularly with that sarcastic twerp, Buckley, who made my skin crawl at the time, still does.

    There was no genuine conservatism here in the US just as there is none now, except for paleos like Gottfried (bless him), Buchanan, The American Conservative magazine, I guess Ron Unz, and of course we White Nationalists, including some screwy hitler types, yes, but most importantly, American Renaissance, The Occidental Quarterly, The Occidental Observer, and Vdare. There are others too but are not reliable from my point of view. Of course the HBD community knows but they have jobs to keep and some of them are partial sell-outs like Steve Pinker, jewish of course.

    When one is pushed out onto the margins, it is easy to get a bit screwy. Of course, the screwiness of liberals is far worse, but it all passes for Conventional and agreed upon lies, and gets a pass, especially when commerce is involved. .so we have been marginalized ....

    Until now when everything we have been saying for many years is turning out to be true.

    Blacks have hit the Wall of their limitations. Eruptions therefore follow. Europe is awakening and smelling the third world, the dispossessed majority whites here are in love with Trump because he says some true things, but mostly because of his big brass balls. The jews etc are shitting bricks ...The German, The Blonde. The liberals ditto as they see their Sky is falling. All their comfortable bed-time stories of peace and love. etc. Dust, and out of the dust arises the Counter-REvoluiton!

    How could this be happening? The time-honored Why Me? type exasperation of all rotten systems starting to fall. Reminds me of Marx's (?) remark that a revolution is really just pushing in a rotten door. Liberalism has been rotting for at least 50 years, maybe longer if you go back to FDR and his friendliness to communism and promotion of jews into the New Deal, who were basically communists and/or zionists. (yes, both because these folks are not rational)

    Ok, thanks, Joe Webb
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    Derrida, etc., are all “evolved” from the Frankfurt School and just as was the progenitor are enemies of Western European Christian-derived culture and civilization.
     
    According to Derrida himself, he developed his notions independently and only later discovered Marcuse. Derrida said that he could have saved a lot of time had he known of Marcuse's work.

    These were parallel projects, joined by others (including Stalinist third worldism) that grew out of the petty bourgeisie's effort to exploit Marxist rhetoric. They all involved deserting the central Marxist premise that the working class is the only vehicle for communism.
  50. @iffen
    Thanks for the reply. I don’t see anything with which I can disagree. Your post mortem seems to be accurate and extremely well written.

    I think that labor can point to some accomplishments that the Democratic Party achieved which benefited working people and which could not have been put into place without the electoral support provided by organized labor. The possibilities of reviving those sorts of political efforts are nil.

    Organized labor has economic success where it has and can bring to bear some economic power. I am thinking of longshoremen, river and harbor pilots, service workers in a tourist based economy, etc. Trying to exert power in a situation where the factory can be moved or illegal workers can be hired is a lost cause that does nothing but generate frustration for the people involved.

    The idea that working people will spontaneously develop some sort of political solidarity and will act accordingly in the political arena is not supported by the facts. Even more disastrous is the idea that a politically well-informed nucleus can “lead” the masses to political enlightenment.

    I guess I am just hoping against hope that liberal democracy can survive and extend benefits to ordinary people as it has done since coming onto the scene. I just can’t wrap my brain around the idea that knowledgeable people of good will cannot work together politically to effect changes that will benefit ordinary people. I despise the thought that I have that working people, as a group, are never going to be smart enough to defeat the special interests in a liberal democracy.

    I guess I am just hoping against hope that liberal democracy can survive and extend benefits to ordinary people as it has done since coming onto the scene.

    It could either evolve into postliberal democracy or go into decline. Contradictions force change. Marx had a sound critique of liberal capitalism but his notion of how it would be replaced has clearly not panned out. We have examples of postliberal (but not necessarily democratic) capitalism that have demonstrated their functional efficacy. They just haven’t emerged from individualistic liberal societies.

    Read More
  51. @Montefrío
    My son submitted an essay (a final grade must) stating that the proofs of God as postulated by St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas had ontological veracity and the lesbian professor stated aloud in the class that he was a "fail" for supporting that view, commenting that "Jesus Christ was the most evil man in history". My son, a product of a very well known Catholic prep school, was angered and improperly but accurately exclaimed "Yeah, well you're a bitter dyke, so I'm not surprised you think that, but it's not a legitimate reason for failing me". I agreed and told the rector (dean) that if she'd made such a slur about Moses or whomever to a Jewish student, I'd own the school after the lawsuit, but as circumstances had it, the prof had picked on the wrong Irishman and that my lawyer would soon be in touch. He then replied that my son had slandered the professor, to which I replied that a "slander" is a tort only when it is untrue, and I asked if it were true or not that the professor was an openly professed lesbian. I agreed that my son's terminology was despective but insisted upon knowing whether or not it was untrue. The discussion ended and the failing grade was withdrawn. My son told me that he didn't wish to continue at the school and I was all too happy to agree: at the time, $36k/yr for such nonsense didn't seem to me well spent. Two years of studies (and $72k plus) down the drain, but he went on to engineering school (valedictorian in his field) and a PRODUCTIVE career. When he asked me if it was okay to bail out of philosophy, he mentioned a bumper sticker he'd seen: "HI! I have a doctorate in philosophy! Would you like fries with your order?" We have at home all the required philosophy texts and then some, so I was quite content to tell the dean of the "Great Books" school to go take a flying fu... leap at the moon.

    Long-winded reply, please forgive me, but it still pisses me off!

    Maybe I’m naïve, but that professor, whatever her persuasion, was way out of line. An essay of that nature would be graded on how well you presented your thoughts, not on the content, on which people have different ideas. Strange. She sounds like she had serious problems and maybe the school wanted to get rid of her anyway. I wonder what her background was to think that Jesus Christ, of all people, was the most evil in history. Why exactly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I wonder what her background was to think that Jesus Christ, of all people, was the most evil in history. Why exactly?
     
    Because she's a lesbian. Homosexuals know deep down that their lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy and self-destructive. It leads to misery and ultimately a bitter lonely old age. Naturally they're angry. Blaming homophobes is easier than blaming themselves.
  52. @guest
    I don't see why the bigness and impersonal nature of universities makes them legitimate targets for protest, even if true. The students are there voluntarily, and if they think they're too big and impersonal they can go to school somewhere else or not at all.

    I don't really understand why such a thing as the Vietnam War needed to be protested at universities, either, but there is a close relationship between school and state, of course, and certain parts of the academic complex have more power than elected officials. Still, I think it had more to do with who the protesters were (spoiled brats, and not always students) than what they were against.

    I don’t really understand why such a thing as the Vietnam War needed to be protested at universities, either, but there is a close relationship between school and state, of c

    How old are you? There was a draft on. They drafted college age men. After the lottery, 1968 05 69, they were even drafting college students. There was a damn good reason for protests on campus and there were serious business. People told me of how the Univ. of Maryland was in lockdown and helicopters were circling, after a demonstration about 1969.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I see the connection between college age kids and the draft, obviously, but not between protesting the draft and protesting the school. Except that draft age males happened to live at universities, and were too lazy to go elsewhere to protest. There may have been a damn good reason for protests, as you say, but I don't see how it's true that there's a damn good reason to protest at the schools. Aside, again, from the fact that that's where the protesters were and that the universities were lilly-livered and in many cases in sympathy. That is what I mean when I say it was more about who they were than what was the object of protest.

    It makes sense that that's where the action would be, or where it'd originate. But revolutionary Frenchmen, for instance, didn't raise hell at their salons. They moved the locus of action.

    , @dfordoom

    There was a draft on. They drafted college age men. After the lottery, 1968 05 69, they were even drafting college students. There was a damn good reason for protests on campus and there were serious business.
     
    Yep. The antiwar movement was not driven by opposition to the war - it was driven by privileged young people who would have been quite happy about the war as long as they didn't have to fight it. Now that there's no draft there's no antiwar movement.
  53. @Bill

    South America may just prove itself to be a viable “last frontier” for North Americans and Europeans who may need to learn a new language but hopefully will find a great deal of opportunity if things down here continue to break right.
     
    I think this is a live possibility myself. At some point, whites (or at least the top 50% of them) are going to start leaving the US in significant numbers. It will happen slowly at first and then all at once. South America is the obvious place to go.

    When do you see this happening?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    The all at once part? Fifty years from now, plus or minus ten years.
  54. Would that the school had wanted to get rid of her, but she was “tenured” as I recall.

    I never inquired as to her “reasons” for the egregious and outrageous comment, but it wasn’t denied, given that there were witnesses. This took place more than a decade ago and of course you are correct that the presentation and reasoning were what should have been considered rather than a forgone conclusion on the part of a person with her own agenda that she believed trumped reason. Suffice it to say that “alum” donations on our part don’t go there and if reason finally prevails in the US, this will be one liberal arts college that goes under and profs such as the one commented upon get their own chance to serve ‘em up supersized. As things stand now, I wouldn’t want to have my grandsons (Latinos! Affirmative action scholarships galore!) attend even if they were paid to do so.

    STEM studies are the last best hope for the USA, but I’m not holding my breath for those either, because my “half-breed” grandsons don’t need to be subjected to silly racial propaganda preached by resentful minority group members and their ridiculous “white” fellow travelers. Merit is the name of the game and now that South American nations are finally wising up and ejecting the populist fantasists, ojala that’ll be the name of the game down here as well.

    I wish I believed there was still hope for the USA, but to be honest, I don’t hold out much. If Pat Buchanan were president, well, maybe, but that ain’t happenin’, so…

    Good luck to all of you and yours!

    Read More
  55. @guest
    I don't see why the bigness and impersonal nature of universities makes them legitimate targets for protest, even if true. The students are there voluntarily, and if they think they're too big and impersonal they can go to school somewhere else or not at all.

    I don't really understand why such a thing as the Vietnam War needed to be protested at universities, either, but there is a close relationship between school and state, of course, and certain parts of the academic complex have more power than elected officials. Still, I think it had more to do with who the protesters were (spoiled brats, and not always students) than what they were against.

    It was a different time.

    Sandbagged machine gun nests in DC.

    Race riots in the military (dead people). The few black officers were escorted by MPs with sirens blasting to hotspots. There were mutinies on the aircraft carriers.

    The elites had fear in their eyes like Pamploma runners.

    They killed MLK. He was in Memphis to support a strike by sanitation workers. All the civil rights legislation had already been passed.

    Have a nice day.

    Read More
  56. @dcite

    I don’t really understand why such a thing as the Vietnam War needed to be protested at universities, either, but there is a close relationship between school and state, of c
     
    How old are you? There was a draft on. They drafted college age men. After the lottery, 1968 05 69, they were even drafting college students. There was a damn good reason for protests on campus and there were serious business. People told me of how the Univ. of Maryland was in lockdown and helicopters were circling, after a demonstration about 1969.

    I see the connection between college age kids and the draft, obviously, but not between protesting the draft and protesting the school. Except that draft age males happened to live at universities, and were too lazy to go elsewhere to protest. There may have been a damn good reason for protests, as you say, but I don’t see how it’s true that there’s a damn good reason to protest at the schools. Aside, again, from the fact that that’s where the protesters were and that the universities were lilly-livered and in many cases in sympathy. That is what I mean when I say it was more about who they were than what was the object of protest.

    It makes sense that that’s where the action would be, or where it’d originate. But revolutionary Frenchmen, for instance, didn’t raise hell at their salons. They moved the locus of action.

    Read More
  57. @epochehusserl
    When do you see this happening?

    The all at once part? Fifty years from now, plus or minus ten years.

    Read More
  58. @joe webb
    As someone who participated in the intellectual skirmishes among leftists back in the 70s and forward, what was called Western Marxism more or less identified with Gramsci, took the position that economism had failed, and that some new perspective was needed. What had spurred Gramsci and many left intellectuals was the obvious failure of Actually Existing Socialism, as it was then called.

    The shift was then in the direction of Culture. Also psychology was brought into the discussion.
    Since the only game in town was psychoanalysis, Freud entered stage right actually, but was used as a lever to move the arguments in a psychological direction. Some of the stuff like from Wilhelm Reich (The Function of the Orgasm ) was pretty weird, as in his suggestion that up-tight Germans went fascist because they were not getting laid regularly.

    This fed into the Authoritarian Personality crowd which was, besides being Jewish, was attractive to the 50s generation of leftish intellectuals who were 'alienated' and thought that psychotherapy might help them personally, and that Culture was the Problem, if it was not economics.

    So Adorno et al warped the brains of many lefties and liberals, but , yes, culture does play a role, just about always a negative role, when evolutionary thought is abandoned.

    So called cultural marxism was the final product of the Western Marxist intellectual movement that had abandoned Stalinism.

    Irony department: Cultural Stalinism was the inevitable product of cultural marxism. Kill not class enemies, but race enemies....White Men especially, its most vocal expression is the Ignatiev outfit of Death to Whiteness.

    Psychology is nevertheless to be retained as a method for getting at the madness that surrounds us with regard to race.

    The only objective and rational and fact-driven approach is the scientific approach of racialist science. The best single book is Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 2000)

    As someone who participated in the intellectual skirmishes among leftists back in the 70s and forward, what was called Western Marxism more or less identified with Gramsci, took the position that economism had failed, and that some new perspective was needed. What had spurred Gramsci and many left intellectuals was the obvious failure of Actually Existing Socialism, as it was then called.

    I agree with your comment, but it’s interesting to pause and reflect on this para. Why was a new perspective needed? What had Actually Existing Socialism failed at? It seems like a foolish question. The USSR and Red China were hideous. But, you know, when you rebel against your father in a particular way and find out that your rebellion is wrongheaded, you don’t have to look for a new way to rebel against him. You could decide that he was right. Why was a new perspective necessary? What would have been wrong with “I guess we were wrong, let’s go back to Throne and Altar. Let’s act like the younger son acted once he figured life out”

    Unless rebelling against your father is the point. Unless hatred of Christendom is the point. Unless the random details of why you hate Christendom are just rationalizations. “I hate Christendom because the proletariat” is just as good as “I hate Christendom because the trannies” if the only thing you really care about is “I hate Christendom.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    Bill, you are absolutely correct, mea culpa. That said, I was and still am a high Altruism quotient kind of male. At the time a left vision of a united humanity and what we called a democratic socialism made a lot of sense to me.

    I finally grew up by studying Israel first, then the Jews, then race, then Darwinism, then WNism, and, not forgetting about Christianity, I hold it in high regard, but ..alas am agnostic, for now.

    In Menlo Park a few nights ago there was a tree lighting in a local park, a secular affair to be sure, so as not to Offend anybody ( offend is a jewish word). So I got a little sign and wrote Merry Christmas on one side, and Happy birthday Jesus, on the other side.

    Given my history with Menlo Park cops, I expected to get ejected from the park, but Stand my Ground on the sidewalk. About 8 compliments, no hassles, no cops (my secret agenda was to make them look like the fools that they are and really stupid as well ), and lots of beautiful White children. (I have a beautiful 15 month old granddaughter, blond hair and blue eyes, and yes I am proud of my race, the only race to have invented everything worthwhile.)

    So, I hope this response gets at least your understanding, if not approval. It is our White pathological Altruism that is mostly to blame, and of course the Jews recognize it as our Achilles Heel.

    They want to protect themselves against whites...normal, and we have to protect ourselves against our own dopiness, Jews, and third worlders.

    Joe Webb
  59. @Priss Factor
    Lots of hysteria. All this Rape Culture hysteria with UVA fraternity and Emma Sulkowicz and etc.

    It's rather amusing.

    It used to be said that women suffered from HYSTERIA because of sexual repression.

    Now, women suffer from HYSTERIA because of sexual excess.

    Repressed women used to flip out from sexual fantasies.

    Now, indulgent women flip out from sexual fantasies. HAVEN MONAHAN!!!!

    I guess it doesn't matter. Sexuality will always be problematic and drive people nuts.

    It's like in THE BIRDS by Hitchcock.

    The woman suffers from both sexual repression AND sexual liberation.

    She presents herself as a classy woman but she is also a modern woman.
    She is restrained and libertine.

    Either way, sexual energies are a big big problem.

    Same in Bergman's THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY.

    It's a story of repression and lack of inhibition.

    The woman is married and has a hubby. Certain things are expected of her.
    But she is also mentally ill and indulged by her husband and family. She is free to wander and roam.

    But either way, her nuttery is what it is. Hysteria.

    Psychoanalysts argued that HYSTERIA and PARANOIA were linked with sexual repression. There was a time when Marx was fused with Freud.

    Well, today we have horny-porny stuff all over the culture.

    But PC is all about hysteria about everything. RAPISTS AND RACISTS!!!!
    Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!

    People need to justify their power by creating the Evil Other.

    It's like the movie THE VILLAGE by M. Night Shyamalan where village elders make the members believe that some monster is haunting and stalking the village.

    Without hysteria and fear, people lose passion and interest.

    The Halloween controversy at Yale is very telling.
    It's like colleges have been turned by PC into haunted spook houses.
    Students are hysterically inflamed into believing in KKK, Nazis, 'racists', and rapists all over the place.

    It's ghoul school.

    Shhhhhhh. Beware. One wrong step and you will be TRIGGERED!!!!

    Ironically, it is the ones who are making all the fuss who are the real monsters.

    It's like the movie THE OTHERS. They characters think they are people protecting themselves from ghosts and ghouls... but it turns out that THEY are the ghosts.

    Same in SIXTH SENSE. The guy turns out to be the ghost.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YQotG1UZ0Y

    Great series of comments. Don’t agree with everything, but I sure do agree with most. BTW, Christendom elegantly handled female hysteria from 500 AD to 1500. Islam handles it inelegantly within their own countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cybele
    How should we handle the current run of male hysteria?

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
  60. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Montefrío
    After a long time as a lurker, thanks to this article and its comments, I've decided to add my ha'penny (don't think I'm up to two cents yet) to the discussion.

    I'm a dual national (US-Ireland) who was born and raised in the US but has lived much of his life abroad. I live in South America now (12 yrs) after five years in Spain. I spent 11 years ('86-'97) in the US working for most of it as an equities trader, but by '96 I wanted out and left the following year never to return. Graduated from an Ivy school back when they were still worthy of being considered top-flight. My daughter graduated from a Seven Sisters college, my son (the younger) did two years at a liberal arts college considered a peer of an Ivy school, but wisely left to pursue an engineering degree at a top-ranked engineering school after a horrific experience with an ultra-left Gramsci-ite prof, an experience that nearly resulted in a lawsuit I'd happily have initiated had my demands not been met.

    My son (who lives next door) has two boys and our family plan had been to send them to prep school and university in the USA until the events of this year: no more. Unless and until there is a restoration of academic excellence without "affirmative action" and p.c.-pandering, they'll likely stay in our adoptive homeland that has just rid itself of a long-time "love affair" with the Left. South America may just prove itself to be a viable "last frontier" for North Americans and Europeans who may need to learn a new language but hopefully will find a great deal of opportunity if things down here continue to break right. Quite frankly, I'd rather see my grandsons become technically competent tradesmen than have them exposed to the suicidal nonsense being preached in what were once great secondary schools and universities.

    I am a former colleague of Dr. Gottfried on a well-known libertarian website, but am not an unconditional supporter of the Austrian School of economics, preferring instead the "third way" economic theory as set out by Wilhelm Ropke and Catholic Social Teaching, susbsidiarity in particular. The Frankfurt School (and I include Gramsci in that line of thought) and its teachings are utterly inimical to the traditions of the USA and later of European nations and unless and until this school of thought is utterly discredited, as well it should be, the Northern Hemisphere is not a place in which I would wish to see my grandsons receive an education or later choose to live. Disenchantment? In spades!

    Agree, “third way” may be a freely chosen way to go.I have been reading the Catholic “Just Third Way” (JTW)- specifically the economic proposals. I avoided the whole idea for years as I suspected it was related to socialism like Catholic Workers Movement, but it’s not. For me, it has taken awhile to understand the ideas and I’m only half way through but I think it is worth the effort.

    Read More
  61. @dcite

    I don’t really understand why such a thing as the Vietnam War needed to be protested at universities, either, but there is a close relationship between school and state, of c
     
    How old are you? There was a draft on. They drafted college age men. After the lottery, 1968 05 69, they were even drafting college students. There was a damn good reason for protests on campus and there were serious business. People told me of how the Univ. of Maryland was in lockdown and helicopters were circling, after a demonstration about 1969.

    There was a draft on. They drafted college age men. After the lottery, 1968 05 69, they were even drafting college students. There was a damn good reason for protests on campus and there were serious business.

    Yep. The antiwar movement was not driven by opposition to the war – it was driven by privileged young people who would have been quite happy about the war as long as they didn’t have to fight it. Now that there’s no draft there’s no antiwar movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The more privileged young males didn't have to worry about getting drafted. Al Gore was the only baby boom vice presidential or presidential candidate who served in the military (and no, the country club National Guard assignments of Dan Quayle and George W. Bush don't count). Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton used their connections. Mitt Romney hid out in France.

    You are apparently are unaware of the rather large antiwar demonstrations in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.
  62. @blankmisgivings
    Just on the topic (perhaps a tedious one for some) of 'the 'cultural Marxism' meme which usually involves some reference to the 'Frankfurt School'. My impression from within academic social science, is that the Frankfurt School are not that popular with the politically correct left - certainly mentioning Adorno to a politically correct 'leftist' is like a red flag to a castrated bull. They hate him as a cultural elitist and defender of western civilization (and he was a defender of high civilization, for all his rhetoric about its implicit violence). The intellectual roots of PC stuff come from watered down Derrida, French feminists and their prudish American imitators and Foucault, not the Frankfurt School.

    I also think it's a silly meme to suppose that the 'end goal' of PC is actual economic equality. In education and government the end goal of PC is the endless expansion of over paid administrative positions devoted to PC in its various forms. It's as simple as that. Also, any history of PC (I know of no scholarly ones - surprise surprise!) would have to look at the role of corporate human resources and 'free market' capitalism's need for lowest common denominator 'tolerance' as a key ingredient in its genesis - not just the over hyped Saul Alinsky's.

    I also think it’s a silly meme to suppose that the ‘end goal’ of PC is actual economic equality.

    The ‘end goal’ of PC is more economic inequality. More wealth to the wealthy elites. More power to the powerful elites.

    It’s driven by hatred of ordinary people (especially the working class) and hatred of everything that ordinary people care about.

    Read More
  63. @Montefrío
    @Joe: Please don´t get me started on former neighbor and not-very-close acquaintance William F Buckley, Jr! He was a guest at my wedding ('70) and... But I'll stop now, because courtesy and respect for the deceased demands it.

    @Blanks... Derrida, etc., are all "evolved" from the Frankfurt School and just as was the progenitor are enemies of Western European Christian-derived culture and civilization. The end game of these folks is a collectivist society in which a supposed intellectual "elite" lords it over the "unwashed" and accrues material benefits for their supposed "beneficence".

    Montrfrio…thanks, correct. Derrida and deconstructionists, and before that the post -structuralists, levi-strauss, Althusser, almost all of these guys were jews.
    By that time I was a family and working man and kept up with this stuff as a leftish guy…all the while complaining to leftie friends that it was pure garbage.

    But i did not know WHY it was garbage….it took me a long time to figure it out because I was raised in a left-wing, probably communist family, and various family friends were jews and always treated me well…etc.

    well, it was garbage because it was jewish and therefore White hating, and also it was garbage because the Darwinian thesis had been hammered into tiny little boxes somewhere in academe. See Carl Degler’s In Search of Human Nature for a history of this.

    Poor little me and countless others of a secular nature had nowhere else to go, particularly with that sarcastic twerp, Buckley, who made my skin crawl at the time, still does.

    There was no genuine conservatism here in the US just as there is none now, except for paleos like Gottfried (bless him), Buchanan, The American Conservative magazine, I guess Ron Unz, and of course we White Nationalists, including some screwy hitler types, yes, but most importantly, American Renaissance, The Occidental Quarterly, The Occidental Observer, and Vdare. There are others too but are not reliable from my point of view. Of course the HBD community knows but they have jobs to keep and some of them are partial sell-outs like Steve Pinker, jewish of course.

    When one is pushed out onto the margins, it is easy to get a bit screwy. Of course, the screwiness of liberals is far worse, but it all passes for Conventional and agreed upon lies, and gets a pass, especially when commerce is involved. .so we have been marginalized ….

    Until now when everything we have been saying for many years is turning out to be true.

    Blacks have hit the Wall of their limitations. Eruptions therefore follow. Europe is awakening and smelling the third world, the dispossessed majority whites here are in love with Trump because he says some true things, but mostly because of his big brass balls. The jews etc are shitting bricks …The German, The Blonde. The liberals ditto as they see their Sky is falling. All their comfortable bed-time stories of peace and love. etc. Dust, and out of the dust arises the Counter-REvoluiton!

    How could this be happening? The time-honored Why Me? type exasperation of all rotten systems starting to fall. Reminds me of Marx’s (?) remark that a revolution is really just pushing in a rotten door. Liberalism has been rotting for at least 50 years, maybe longer if you go back to FDR and his friendliness to communism and promotion of jews into the New Deal, who were basically communists and/or zionists. (yes, both because these folks are not rational)

    Ok, thanks, Joe Webb

    Read More
  64. @epochehusserl
    Whats in it for the knowledgeable person of goodwill to do so? We live in a country thats bans iq tests, prohibits the usage of gold as money and focuses on transgender activism and gay wedding cakes. Even if you did have a decent platform the people would say what about transgender racism. Until people demand better leaders improvement is impossible. The equalist fantasies of the new left have to be discredited before we can even talk about anything else.

    Even if you did have a decent platform the people would say what about transgender racism.

    If you had a decent platform the media would say what about transgender racism. Most people would go along with the media through fear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Then the people at some level need to have the language and vocabulary and courage to denounce this sort of thing. It wouldnt be that hard to come up with a platform that would help the average person. A tax system that supports the small business and small organizations would help racial issues rather than having identity groups fighting over scraps in large organizations. The other thing that would help the average person would be to reform the financial world so that the government stops punishing savers. When we have negative interest rates there are going to be a lot of social problems. But this is not the kind of dialogue people demand. If people tolerate nonsense then they are to blame not the media.
  65. @dcite
    Maybe I'm naïve, but that professor, whatever her persuasion, was way out of line. An essay of that nature would be graded on how well you presented your thoughts, not on the content, on which people have different ideas. Strange. She sounds like she had serious problems and maybe the school wanted to get rid of her anyway. I wonder what her background was to think that Jesus Christ, of all people, was the most evil in history. Why exactly?

    I wonder what her background was to think that Jesus Christ, of all people, was the most evil in history. Why exactly?

    Because she’s a lesbian. Homosexuals know deep down that their lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy and self-destructive. It leads to misery and ultimately a bitter lonely old age. Naturally they’re angry. Blaming homophobes is easier than blaming themselves.

    Read More
  66. @Bill

    As someone who participated in the intellectual skirmishes among leftists back in the 70s and forward, what was called Western Marxism more or less identified with Gramsci, took the position that economism had failed, and that some new perspective was needed. What had spurred Gramsci and many left intellectuals was the obvious failure of Actually Existing Socialism, as it was then called.
     
    I agree with your comment, but it's interesting to pause and reflect on this para. Why was a new perspective needed? What had Actually Existing Socialism failed at? It seems like a foolish question. The USSR and Red China were hideous. But, you know, when you rebel against your father in a particular way and find out that your rebellion is wrongheaded, you don't have to look for a new way to rebel against him. You could decide that he was right. Why was a new perspective necessary? What would have been wrong with "I guess we were wrong, let's go back to Throne and Altar. Let's act like the younger son acted once he figured life out"

    Unless rebelling against your father is the point. Unless hatred of Christendom is the point. Unless the random details of why you hate Christendom are just rationalizations. "I hate Christendom because the proletariat" is just as good as "I hate Christendom because the trannies" if the only thing you really care about is "I hate Christendom."

    Bill, you are absolutely correct, mea culpa. That said, I was and still am a high Altruism quotient kind of male. At the time a left vision of a united humanity and what we called a democratic socialism made a lot of sense to me.

    I finally grew up by studying Israel first, then the Jews, then race, then Darwinism, then WNism, and, not forgetting about Christianity, I hold it in high regard, but ..alas am agnostic, for now.

    In Menlo Park a few nights ago there was a tree lighting in a local park, a secular affair to be sure, so as not to Offend anybody ( offend is a jewish word). So I got a little sign and wrote Merry Christmas on one side, and Happy birthday Jesus, on the other side.

    Given my history with Menlo Park cops, I expected to get ejected from the park, but Stand my Ground on the sidewalk. About 8 compliments, no hassles, no cops (my secret agenda was to make them look like the fools that they are and really stupid as well ), and lots of beautiful White children. (I have a beautiful 15 month old granddaughter, blond hair and blue eyes, and yes I am proud of my race, the only race to have invented everything worthwhile.)

    So, I hope this response gets at least your understanding, if not approval. It is our White pathological Altruism that is mostly to blame, and of course the Jews recognize it as our Achilles Heel.

    They want to protect themselves against whites…normal, and we have to protect ourselves against our own dopiness, Jews, and third worlders.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    That's a nice protest idea.

    I wasn't after you personally in that comment. I was once sperged-out, atheist, nitwit. American culture is a sinister machine for first alienating us from our communities and then turning us against ourselves. It's really quite monstrous, and lots of good people get eaten by it.
  67. by the way, we need a nationalist economics…a kind of socialism I guess, with state monitoring of Capital that goes overseas as well as what used to be called an Industrial Policy domestically.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  68. So white males are going to get sodomized by a PC government?

    So what? Now they can show that they are even more dysfunctional than an abused housewife – they know in their hearts that government isn’t evil and they can fix it.

    They just have to elect their own killer clown to office. And if that one doesn’t end the abuse, the next one will. Or the next one. Or the next.

    ‘Cause they know that government is worth more than all the evil it does. Or at least that’s what a small glob of neurons is telling them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Now they can show that they are even more dysfunctional than an abused housewife – they know in their hearts that government isn’t evil and they can fix it.
     
    Spot on.
  69. @dfordoom

    There was a draft on. They drafted college age men. After the lottery, 1968 05 69, they were even drafting college students. There was a damn good reason for protests on campus and there were serious business.
     
    Yep. The antiwar movement was not driven by opposition to the war - it was driven by privileged young people who would have been quite happy about the war as long as they didn't have to fight it. Now that there's no draft there's no antiwar movement.

    The more privileged young males didn’t have to worry about getting drafted. Al Gore was the only baby boom vice presidential or presidential candidate who served in the military (and no, the country club National Guard assignments of Dan Quayle and George W. Bush don’t count). Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton used their connections. Mitt Romney hid out in France.

    You are apparently are unaware of the rather large antiwar demonstrations in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.

    Read More
  70. @Priss Factor
    Paradoxically, PC is resilient because it unites those-with-character and those-without-character.

    Crucial to success of PC is the Northern European mindset. It is highly conscientious, moralistic, mindful of good work, entered on integrity, dignity, sobriety.
    The Northern European Mindset wants to do good work around the world. It wants to apologize and make amends. It wants to cleanse the soul, spiritually or ideologically.
    It goes for moral enemas. It is very Kelloggy.

    For the Northern European Mindset--NEM--, PC means doing good work. It means redressing past wrongs. It means being mindful and conscientious and committed and sympathetic and compassionate and determined and etc. It is purist, universalist, and ethical.

    Now, if all people around the world were similarly minded, it would not be so bad.

    But there is another feature to PC.

    Most peoples around the world don't share the Northern European Mindset. Japanese and some East Asians may have a Shame Culture that makes them mindful, but it's a matter of outward behavior than inward morality of 'sin' and 'guilt'.

    Anyway, many non-whites and southern Europeans don't even feel much in the way of shame. Their view of the world is self-centered, tribal, suspicious, hostile, cunning, and opportunistic. And this is especially problematic among Jews, Homos, and Negroes.
    Jews may be no worse in ethics than the Arab Semites. But because they are smarter, they gain much power and influence. Homos come in all colors, but homos are generally vain, narcissistic, and self-centered. Some homos are hard-working and diligent, but their basic character is me-centric and aristo.
    As for Negroes, no people on Earth are as crazy, wild, jivey, ghastly, loony, and simply ridiculous.

    PC takes two to tango. If all people were like Negroes or other tribal-minded peoples, PC wouldn't work. After all, Arabs/Muslims practiced slavery over black Africans longer than whites did, but you don't see any PC between Arabs and blacks. If black Africans were to say to Arab Muslims, "You enslaved us", Arab Muslims would say, "Go chuck a spear at a hippo, you black savage idiot." Arab Muslims won't tango to PC.
    Recently, consider the massive refugee crisis. The problems in Syria were made worse by Saudi Arabia and Gulf States funding ISIS and etc. But notice they take ZERO responsibility. In contrast, Northern Europeans are holding up signs saying 'Refugees Welcome'. Some say this is a German problem cuz of Holocaust Guilt, but we see the same kind of nuttiness in Sweden and Iceland, two nations that need feel no collective guilt since they didn't take part in Western Imperialism around the world.

    Even though Brazilian whites traded in black slaves much more than white Americans, there is still far less 'collective guilt' about slavery in Brazil than in the US. Latin folks have lower national character and tend to be far less conscientious.

    One reason why the Greeks and Southern Italians tend to be tolerant of mass invasion is because those opportunistic and slimy buggers know they can push the invaders to other parts of Europe, especially UK, Germany, Sweden, and etc. If EU project were to end and if sleazy Greeks and lowlife southern Italians could no longer pass the buck(or the fuc*, as Negroes from Africa love to hump white women) to northern parts of Europe, they wouldn't be so 'progressive' in their handling of migration problems.

    Now, having good national character is a wonderful thing. Indeed, it is one of the best things to have. The reason why so many ideologies failed is cuz they failed to address or fix the problems of national character. It's like Fascism failed to change Italians from lying greaseballs into something more solid and sturdy. It's like in Hemingways' FAREWELL TO ARMS. A couple of Italian deserters join the Americans, eat the cheese and onions... but when gunfire erupts, they just shit their pants and take off. They act like the characters of SEVEN BEAUTIES by Wertmuller. And one would have to be crazy to trust a Eek-it's-a-Greek. As for Gypsies, by golly, forget it. They are useless.

    People welcome new ideologies and governments, but if the national character remains low, not much could be done. Sure, if the times are good with lots of cash, things may seem good for awhile. When oil prices were sky high, the Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez was looking pretty good. But it was just a temporary fix of market prices. The thing is, even when the cash was flowing in, most Venezuelans were low in national character. They were lazy, corrupt, confused, deceitful, selfish, venal, opportunistic, and etc.
    And this is the problem of Russia as well. Putin did make some real progress, but unless the Russian national character is changed, Russia will always be a shaky wobbly place. Putin has the good fortune of high oil prices. But Russia is now facing a major economic squeeze.
    A people with great national character can weather such a problem and rise again. Now, national character is no guarantee against ideological lunacy. Germans and Japanese have high national character, but they went with crazy politics in the 30s and 40s. Even so, it was because they had such solid national characters that they were able to rebuild their nations really fast after the war. This is all the more remarkable since 1/3 of Japanese industry was destroyed in the war. And Germany was divided, its cities were smashed, and Germany had to take in millions of German refugees uprooted from other parts of Europe. Even so, Germans worked well together and worked hard, and in no time, Germany was once again the biggest economy in Europe. National Character is the real asset to have.

    How is this national character formed? It could partly be racial, i.e. some races have natural personalities that are more conducive to building solid national character while some groups may have natural personalities that are less conducive to building good national character.
    Take someone like Joe Pesci's characters in Scorsese movies. Though such people could be raised to be decent individuals, they still have natural propensities to act more like Tommy(Goodfellas) or Nicky(Casino). There is something oily and greasy about the southern Italian character. And Greeks are something else when it comes to all sorts of shady behavior. It must be partly genetic.
    Surely, when it comes to Negro, forming national character is like the labor of Sisyphus. The natural mode of the Negro is to holler, jive, shuck, shake booty, and act jungle-like. Toss them a watermelon and you have a riot.

    Even so, national character isn't just about genetics. After all, we can tell from the yob culture in UK and vodka swilling thug culture from Russia(many of whom are of northern European stock) that ANY PEOPLE can become degraded, trashy, and moronic.
    And there are sane and conscientious communities outside Northern Europe-sphere. On occasion, such even exists among the Negroes who aren't so ghastly like most others of their kind around the world.

    If a positive national character is formed in a people, it is the most valuable asset along with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history. A society with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history has the solid three elements for survival. But if it lacks national character, it won't make much economic or social progress. Take Zimbabwe. It is black and proud and homogeneous. But it is a ugabuga land because most blacks in that nation are a bunch of nutjob jivers with low national character.

    National character isn't the same thing as morality. Germans during the Nazi Era has national character but submitted to a rabid demagogue.
    National character is valuable cuz it instills people with seriousness, diligence, commitment, discipline, sobriety, dedication, communal conscience, loyalty, and etc. So, even if Germans of Nazi era were serving an evil regime, they were working and living in ways that led to mutual respect and understanding among Germans.
    So, Germans could build and run an economy under Nazism. And once Nazism fell, the German national character could rebuild an economy and run it well again.
    National character will not necessarily protect a people from bad politics. But it is something that transcends and outlives fashions in politics.

    A people with good national character and bad politics will do better than people with bad national character and good politics. Germans under even something like Nazism will do better than Greeks under democracy. Of course, ideally, a people should possess good national character and be on the side of liberty and freedom. But the great and resilient thing about national character is it has value whether a society is free or not. Also, if a people have national character, their greatness can remain latent/dormant even if they are not allowed to thrive and succeed. Suppose a Japanese minority in some nation was restricted from economic advancement. It will remain poor surely, but if it holds onto its national character, it has the chance of success IF AND WHEN it is afforded with freedom and opportunity. But if the Japanese community loses its national character, it will be less likely to take advantage of freedom and opportunity.

    In contrast, a people without national character won't do much even with freedom and democracy. I mean even Germans in communist East Germany ran a better society than blacks in democratic and free Detroit. Even Chinese in undemocratic Singapore do a better job than Greeks in a democracy. Chinese in Singapore have national character. Greeks don't.

    Singaporean case is interesting cuz it demonstrates the difference between racial character and national character.
    Racial character tends to be fixed. Of course, it can be changed through selective breeding. For example, we know blacks are low in racial character. They prefer basketballs to books. They is full of theyselves. But suppose we do selective breeding whereby blacks like Thomas Sowell are allowed to mate while jive-ass fools like Kanye West are not allowed to breed. Over time, more and more blacks will be like Uncle Thomas Sowell, and black racial character will improve.

    If racial character is something one is born with, national character can be molded by social and cultural forces. And we see this with the Chiners in Singapore. Chinese, on average, may be pretty solid in terms of racial character. But Chinese culture and history have been rather up-and-down, and Chinese national character reflected this. It was uneven.
    So, the success of Singapore cannot be attributed merely to Chinese-ness, especially as there are plenty of Chinese around the world who lack the national character of Singaporeans. Lee of Singapore obviously studied the national character of Northern Europeans, especially that of the Brits. He was critical of British imperialism, but he could tell a good stuff when he saw one.
    It's like what the British guy(Anthony Quayle) says in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA: "Britain is small but it is great because of discipline". Omar Sharif says, "Because you got guns". What a dumbass ragger. But how did the Brits come to make such great guns and ship and trains and stuff? Because they developed a certain mindset that worked well to organize and manage systems of power. The ragger played by Sharif only sees the effect. He fails to see the cause. True, UK is powerful cuz it has guns, but why was it able to have those guns in the first place? While national character isn't everything, it is important. It is no accident that Northern Europeans with a certain national character achieved more in UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, etc. Some might say it was Protestantism, but this is true only to some extent. After all, all of Italy is mostly Catholic, so how come the northern Italians with lighter skin are more diligent and conscientious than southern Italians who look more like Joe Pesci? How come those who look more oily act more oily?

    Progs say US is a land of haves and have-nots. But so many groups who came to US as have-nots became big haves. And so many who once were haves became have-nots. Lots of blacks in Detroit once had good working jobs with benefits. They were have-somethings. But they became have-nots when they ruined the city with their jivery.

    The more crucial issue is the difference between have-characters and have-not-characters. Of course, have-brains and have-not-brains is also crucial. Smart people have huge advantage over the dummies.
    But most people are neither smart nor dumb. They are mediocre. So, their future depends a lot on character. With good character, they can focus their energies and limited talents on what is essential and constructive. Without character, they can waste their energies and limited talents on trashy behavior, stupidity, dementedness, ass-tattoos, piercings, drugs, and etc.

    But there is no talk of character. The problem with many blacks and browns and Muslims in America is they have lower social/national characters.
    Even among the have-nots, some have more character than others. Mexicans have been known to work hard, keep family together, save money, and etc. But they are less mindful about disposing garbage properly.
    They are less mindful about coming together to do what is right. They are poor in the concept of collective action. If Mexicans were more collectively mindful, they could have done more to combat corruption and crime in Mexico. But most Mexicans just wanna keep their heads down and not get involved. Though Germans made a terrible choice of Nazism, their success owed to German ability for cooperation and unity and collective action. The economy got so bad and things got real desperate. So, Germans came together and called for a new order. Too bad Hitler turned out to be a loony in the end.

    But the fact is Germans did something to address social problems during the Depression. In contrast, Mexicans just keep their heads down and look the other way. That's why a village of Mexicans need gringos to come and protect them from other Mexicans in MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Mexers cannot do it themselves. But still, Mexers are still with some national character. They get the hard-work part and family part, but they don't take it to the next level. And so, children of Mexicans in the US end up doing worse than their parents cuz they aren't immune to the poison of American pop culture.

    National character can be lost, to be sure. We can see this among many Northern European Americans who've succumbed to trash culture of tattoos, drugs, piercings, and etc. We see the rise of herbivore hipster garbage in slacker Japan. We see the ugly punk and yob culture of UK.
    But as long as a people have it, it is among the most valuable asset. It is the thing that can lead to economic and social success. It is also the thing that enables a society to recover and revive itself after major crisis.
    Germany and Japan could not have recovered so quickly after WWII without national character. And Japan made a fast recovery after the horrible earthquake. Meanwhile it's hard to tell the difference between Haiti before earth quake and after earthquake. It is always suffering from a natural disaster called Negremors.

    National character is both toughest to instill and sometimes hardest to lose. Still, it's easier lost than gained. And once lost, it may be very difficult to recover, espeicallyin a democracy.
    Though communism degraded German national character with excessive socialism, the essential character wasn't lost among East Germans. Japanese national character has been resilient under feudal system, military era, and democratic era. National character is mutually reinforced in a society that is mostly homogeneous. Even when the political system and culture changes, all the habits, attitudes, norms, values, and manners shared by the community have a way of functioning as a support network of behavioral characteristics. It is more easily lost when one moves to an alien culture where the norms are different. This was one reason why the Japanese-Brazilians who moved back to Japan didn't cope so well. Having adopted the more easy-going Brazilian ways, they had a hard time re-adapting to the Japanese national character that is more mindful and sober(if also more anal and stifling).

    When societies and nations face big problems, politicians and demagogues come along and promise deliverance through politics and social/economic policies. If, like Chavez, one gets lucky with high oil prices, things can be good for awhile. But if the people lack national character and remain the same in their habits/attitudes, no real progress can be made in the long run. It doesn't matter how many speeches Mugabe or Zuma gives in Zimbabwe and South Africa or how much wealth they redistribute.
    The fact is black Africans have very low national character.

    But it's also true of Argentinians and even lots of whites and mulattos in Brazil. They may blame capitalism or gringo or whatever, but the fact is a people with low national character cannot have long term success. Brazil got lucky because of high commodity prices, especially fueled by demands from China. While the cash was flowing in, the Brazilian government provided some economic goodies for the poor.
    But nothing was done to improve the national character.

    Same problem haunts Russia. Now, Putin is smarter and more sensible than the likes of Chavez and the clown princess of Argentina. Putin has a better understanding of history and culture. He has tried to change the Russian character by emphasizing tradition, heritage, discipline, unity, organization, and etc. But the Russian elites, unlike the Prussian elites, don't practice what they preach. Russia is still a land of rotten oligarchs. Fish rots from the head.

    In the long run, Putin's legacy will really depend on what he did with Russian character that must change in order for Russia to become a great power.
    Prussia was tiny and with limited resources. But it became a major European power cuz of its national character and top-notch elites.
    Imagine if all of Russia were to follow the Prussian model. Russia needs to look to the Prussian way, just like China needs to look to the Singaporean way. Russia as giant version of Prussia would truly be an awesome power. If China could be like a giant Singapore, it would be the new superpower. Of course, what is easy to do on a small scale is much tougher on a large scale.
    Putin uses the Church to boost social morality and order, but the Russian church is centered around political authority. Russian church must follow the model of the traditional Protestant church. It must develop a separate wing of active clergies who become intimately involved with the people all across Russia. Russian Orthodox's message to the people has been too fatalist and passive. Resign-and-obey isn't good enough. Reform-and-advance is what is crucial. And Russia must do this on their own. If US were indeed a decent nation of morality and liberty, it might offer useful advice to Russia. But 'western-style liberal democracy' now means the power of globalist Jews and homos to infiltrate and subvert other nations and not to really reform and improve things but to spread the culture of pornography, homo worship, and multi-culti madness to undermine native majority cultures. Pussy Riot and Masha Gessen will do NOTHING for the national character of your people.

    Anyway, Putin senses that the long-term solution to Russia isn't just a matter of ideology or politics or economics. Chavez the dumbass saw EVERYTHING in terms of the politics of victimhood. Gringo is imperialist, and Latin Americans are victims. Capitalism is bad, socialism is good. So, Chavez thought things would be great if Venezuela just shat on America and provided more free stuff for the poor.
    But the dependent poor only remain the dependent poor with handouts under socialism. Their character is not improved. They can't do anything on their own. Also, bashing America, though possibly justified, doesn't do anything for the economy when the main problem isn't the gringo but the lack of talent, will, initiative, honesty, and integrity among the native population. And the problem isn't just with white elites of Latin America but with the low national character of the masses who are confused, corrupt, lazy, dishonest, and etc, just like the Eek-it's-a-Greek.
    Greece could be Switzerland IF Greeks only fixed their national character. But Greek character remains what it is, and Greeks distrust one another, cheat one another, lie endlessly, and thrown tantrums and blame everyone but themselves. It was once great for Greek Drama 1000s of yrs ago, but it aint doing Greeks much good today. You aint gonna fix your nation by killing your pa and screwing your ma and screaming your brains out in the 21st century.

    But there is also the dark side of national character. One result is lowest birthrates in the world in nations with highest national character. Such people may feel too guilty to have kids when 'so many people are starving around the world'. Or they may have such high standards for themselves that they only wanna have kids if they can be assured that their kids will grow up and go to good schools and do well. (Also, people with high national character can paradoxically become most submissive to an ideology or movement of degradation. Because they are so serious and committed, they may puritanically conform to the latest moral crusade--like 'gay marriage'--or political fashion, like 'slut feminism'. It is because Northern Europeans and East Asian take their studies most seriously in college that they succumb most to the depraved idiocies of PC. Their sense of moral commitment and intellectual purity makes them utterly blind to the sheer idiocy of what they are doing. It's like the British officer in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. He is so into doing the Proper and Honorable Thing that he fails to see that he is betraying his own nation and serving the enemy.)

    Also, Northern European types sometimes think too much about stuff cuz they feel a need to do it to perfection. It must be done just right or none at all.
    It's like the opening scene of IDIOCRACY where a high IQ white couple think too much about doing it right to ever do it. (Also, the fact that people in Northern Europe live to a ripe old age gives the false impression that those nations still have lots of people. If Europeans now live to around 80 or more, it means European nations are filled with old people who are no longer having kids. Suppose some European nation has 50 million people but 50% of people are past the fertility age. Its stats seem healthy, with a lot of people, but one overlooks the fact that 50% of people are just waiting to die and unable to produce more life. EU should release new stats that only show the number of people who are fertile. There must so many German women who are in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s who are not gonna produce any kids. They are just waiting to die.)

    Development of national character cannot be accomplished in a decade or a single era. It has to be done over a long period. Also, for it to really stick, it must be instilled internally than just applied externally. Stalinism failed in changing the Russian character. It used whip and chain to drive Russians to work hard and do awesome things, but most Russians worked out of physical fear. Some were inspired by socialist ideals, but the idea of working hard for the 'good of all' is too idealistic and ideological. Once Stalinism faded, Russians reverted to their old ways of swilling vodka, dancing on tables, and wrestling with bears. Fear will drive people to work. But true national character instills people with a sense of pride associated with hard work, craftsmanship, merit, achievement, service, cooperation.

    To an extent, Russians could be more slovenly cuz they had all the land and huge population and etc. Tiny Prussia had to be the best pound-for-pound cuz it lacked in quantity. It had to squeeze every drop out of quality. Russia, like the Persians in 300 the crazy movie, could just rely on sheer numbers. Prussia had to be more like Sparta where every man and ounce of skill mattered. As the 21st century is about high-tech and ever-tightening forms of organization and efficiency, Russia has to go the Prussian model, and to do this, it needs a new national character.
    How long does it take to build such a national character?
    And is it possible to develop national characters in the age of democracy and freedom?

    As much as we value freedom and liberal democracy, national characters have almost always been formed and hardened under systems of authoritarianism, political-military-spiritual. Jewish character wasn't formed by libertine-ism. Jewish elders were not a bunch of Ron Jeremies or Mel Brooks. Japanese national character wasn't formed by Pikachu or Baby Metal. German national character wasn't formed by R.W. Fassbinder and Kraut rock.
    National characters tend to be stifling and repressive due to their insistence on certain morals, habits, manners, attitudes, and etc. So naturally, the modern forces of liberalism and hedonism and bohemianism ridicule and mock the notion of national character. But all functional societies owe a great deal to national character that has been instilled into the vast majority of the population that, due to this character, are willing to work hard, be honest, be communally mindful and conscientious, and etc.
    I can understand a Japanese bohemian-maverick bitching about the 'bourgeois' philistine morality and petty-minded attitudes of his countrymen, but does he really think Japan would be better if the national character were closer to that of free-wheeling Brazilians, rascally Greeks, and oily Italians? The greaseballs may be more fun, but they are trouble. I'd rather watch Joe Pesci cause trouble in CASINO than watch a law-abiding Swedish American, but the fact is Swedes cause less trouble for other people. They have a more solid national character.

    If Swedish-Americans do cause more trouble for others, it is because their national character is overly good. And this is where national character and PC become partners in hell. National character should be conscientious and good enough, but it shouldn't be too do-goody and puritanical, cuz it then becomes naive, stupid, and demented. As such, in the name of helping rest of humanity(that is really beyond help), it only destroys itself. Look what the Scandinavian-Americans are doing to themselves in Minnesota by trying to save all of Somalia. National Character must not be do-goody as do-goodiness is just a utopian naivete that is always doomed to failure, especially if one is helping out crazy Negroes. Be good, not do-goody.

    Negro national character can be improved somewhat. But such requires authoritarian power. Black American national character was actually better in the past when American society was less free. So, blacks had to work harder instead of depending on welfare. And blacks did believe it was shameful to have kids out of wedlock. It's like aunt Esther in Sanford and Son calls people 'heathen' for being immoral. It's like the mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN gets awful mad when her daughter dis God in her house, and her daughter better believe it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5em2tOWPV4
    https://youtu.be/SHS9uQVN6uQ?t=2m57s
    Back then, blacks had to prove that they were as good as white folks. Now, with all this MLK-cult, blacks are automatically seen as holy, and it is whites who must prove theyselves worthy to Negroes even though it is Negroes who be the most immoral bunch of loons in the USA.
    Worse, we live in some crazy nations where both whites and Negroes must prove their moral worth to a bunch of ass-humpers who are worshiped like they are angels or something.

    We want to live in freedom and democracy, but a free society is only as good as the values and habits that dominate in that society, and those values and habits are inherited from a period when society was unfree.
    While bad rulers and spiritual mentors can instill negative characters in the people, good rulers and good spiritual mentors can instill positive characters in the people.

    Democracies are better at instilling negative characteristics than positive ones. For the good characters to gain dominance, the negative ones have to be suppressed. An authoritarian system is more effective at repressing the negative ones. In a democracy, even the degenerates must be tolerated. Worse, tolerance can lead to celebration, as happened with all this homo nonsense in the West.
    It's problematic enough for us to tolerate deviancy and even degeneracy in a democracy. But must we celebrate it? The powers-that-be now force us to celebrate that stuff.
    And there is rap culture among blacks, porny culture among 'slut feminists'.
    Since normal morality has been attacked as 'heteronormative' and since people have become so accustomed to filth, no one resists anymore. So, the culture just gets trashier and trashier. Those are smart enough to navigate through such junk can still make it in Silicon Valley and Wall Street and Hollywood. But everyone else is degraded or confused in this morass of degeneracy. When people are made to feel morally superior because they think two men doing ass-buggery is so great, this is no kind of moral order.

    And now, there is even an attack on work ethic. In the past, blacks were eager to prove that they too could work hard. Now, black intellectuals say 'hard work' is 'racist' because it reminds people of slavery and because it gives the false impression that success is a matter of work ethic when it is purely the product of 'white privilege'.

    One thing for sure, national character and diversity generally don't go together. It's difficult to come up with international character. This was evident in the tensions between Germans and Greeks in the EU. The German way and Greek way just don't get along in terms of outlook, habits, work, integrity, and etc. Also, Germans feel too much historical guilt to tell Greeks to 'shape up or ship out', and Greeks are too rascally to ever admit that their lack of national character played a huge role in the dire finances of Greece.

    It's possible that progs see PC as a force to improve the character of the people. But it does nothing of the kind. PC is about outward attitudes, not about inner values. Also, PC favors those groups that are most problematic in America: Jews, homos, blacks, slut feminists.

    Homos are too vain and decadent to be the standard-bearer of virtue and morality. Blacks are too crazy, lazy, trashy, and dishonest. While blacks do have compelling historical case, their moral degradation and economic failings owe more to racial and cultural/moral factors. Blacks are naturally wilder and more troublesome, and their culture no longer tries to restrain natural black craziness but give vent to it. Negroes are no longer singing the Negro spiritual but ugly trashy rap.

    Slut feminists are nuts. Just think of UVA case and Emma Sulky Bitch.

    Jews are an odd case. They possess the duality of having one of the highest and lowest national characters in the world.
    In terms of work ethic, diligence, commitment, sobriety, and etc, many Jews have strong national character. But as a community, there is too much lies and bullshit vis-a-vis the goyim. I mean how much more crap can we take from Netanyahu, Soros, Foxman, and their ilk? And too many good Jews tolerate the shit behavior of bad Jews like Sabrina Rubin Erdely, truly a monstrous bitch.

    And now, Jews are rewarding Pollard with some plush job. Jewish nationalism isn't the problem, but Jewish globalist attitude is currently supremacist, and Jews now ironically have attitude like German National Socialists. They are above the law.
    Unlike with Negroes and other colored folks, much of Jewish achievement is genuine and meritocratic. But for whatever reason, even good Jews are very tolerant and protective of bad ones.

    Also, good Jews feel indebted to bad Jews because some of the most powerful Jews who've done most for Jewish power are the bad ones. Take Sheldon Adelson and Goldman Sachs Jews. Surely, good Jews must know that such big powerful Jews are a**holes, but one doesn't get super-rich by being a nice guy. So, it's not surprising that the richest Jews tend to be those who are intelligent and total a**holes, the Hyman Roths. While good Jews may not respect such Jews morally, they acknowledge that such big-time Jews have done more for the Jewish community and Jewish causes than good Jews have. It is just the nature of power. Even good Jews are obsessed with Jewish power, and one doesn't gain power by just being good or nice.

    Anyway, PC penalizes the very people---the Northern European folks---who should be the model for most people. Most non-whites should be like Lee of Singapore who, even as he challenged British power, admired and learned a lot from the Brits.

    Instead, PC says everything about Northern Europeans is wrong, wrong, and wrong.
    There is nothing to learn from Northern Europeans, the very people with the best formula for success and progress.
    It says Swedes should beat on bongo drums and Germans should listen to reggae. Now, reggae is good music, but it's not the sort of stuff that's gonna build national character. If someone wants to relax with a joint and reggae, okay. But Bob Marley, talented as he was, was no moral paragon.
    People need values of diligence, discipline, integrity, sobriety, propriety, and that stuff. But PC wages war on such values as 'white privilege'. It assumes that social justice can be achieved by white self-hatred and non-whites bitching about 'white privilege'. This is a dead end.

    This is why we need Prislam. It may be the only counter-force against PC.

    Amigo, you are something else–you know so much, and can be funny! A small suggestion, not worth anything maybe, but think about it: have your own blog, and try to be concise. People are lazy, their brains get full so quickly–feed them just a little at a time.

    Read More
  71. @Drapetomaniac
    So white males are going to get sodomized by a PC government?

    So what? Now they can show that they are even more dysfunctional than an abused housewife - they know in their hearts that government isn't evil and they can fix it.

    They just have to elect their own killer clown to office. And if that one doesn't end the abuse, the next one will. Or the next one. Or the next.

    'Cause they know that government is worth more than all the evil it does. Or at least that's what a small glob of neurons is telling them.

    Now they can show that they are even more dysfunctional than an abused housewife – they know in their hearts that government isn’t evil and they can fix it.

    Spot on.

    Read More
  72. @dfordoom

    Even if you did have a decent platform the people would say what about transgender racism.
     
    If you had a decent platform the media would say what about transgender racism. Most people would go along with the media through fear.

    Then the people at some level need to have the language and vocabulary and courage to denounce this sort of thing. It wouldnt be that hard to come up with a platform that would help the average person. A tax system that supports the small business and small organizations would help racial issues rather than having identity groups fighting over scraps in large organizations. The other thing that would help the average person would be to reform the financial world so that the government stops punishing savers. When we have negative interest rates there are going to be a lot of social problems. But this is not the kind of dialogue people demand. If people tolerate nonsense then they are to blame not the media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    If people tolerate nonsense then they are to blame not the media.
     
    There is certainly something to that. The difficulty for the average person is - what can they do? They have been presented with few options. In the US they have a choice of only two political parties, both in practice more or less identical. Effectively there is no alternative. Not surprisingly many don't vote at all, which to be honest is no worse than voting for either of the two parties.

    In Australia we have a choice of two major parties, both in practice more or less identical. You can vote for minor parties but there's no point. Under our preferential voting system your vote still ends up going to one of the two major parties.

    In Britain people have a choice of two major parties, both in practice more or less identical. Under their first past the post voting system there is simply no point at all in voting for a minor party.

    In France with their voting system an alternative party like the FN will always inevitably be defeated in the second round of voting.

    In most western countries there is effectively one-party government. Democracy is an illusion. Most ordinary people are smart enough to figure this out but what can they do about it?
  73. @epochehusserl
    Then the people at some level need to have the language and vocabulary and courage to denounce this sort of thing. It wouldnt be that hard to come up with a platform that would help the average person. A tax system that supports the small business and small organizations would help racial issues rather than having identity groups fighting over scraps in large organizations. The other thing that would help the average person would be to reform the financial world so that the government stops punishing savers. When we have negative interest rates there are going to be a lot of social problems. But this is not the kind of dialogue people demand. If people tolerate nonsense then they are to blame not the media.

    If people tolerate nonsense then they are to blame not the media.

    There is certainly something to that. The difficulty for the average person is – what can they do? They have been presented with few options. In the US they have a choice of only two political parties, both in practice more or less identical. Effectively there is no alternative. Not surprisingly many don’t vote at all, which to be honest is no worse than voting for either of the two parties.

    In Australia we have a choice of two major parties, both in practice more or less identical. You can vote for minor parties but there’s no point. Under our preferential voting system your vote still ends up going to one of the two major parties.

    In Britain people have a choice of two major parties, both in practice more or less identical. Under their first past the post voting system there is simply no point at all in voting for a minor party.

    In France with their voting system an alternative party like the FN will always inevitably be defeated in the second round of voting.

    In most western countries there is effectively one-party government. Democracy is an illusion. Most ordinary people are smart enough to figure this out but what can they do about it?

    Read More
  74. We need better media that asks better questions. If trump loses he should start a media company. It starts there. Where is my gay wedding cake?

    Read More
  75. @joe webb
    Bill, you are absolutely correct, mea culpa. That said, I was and still am a high Altruism quotient kind of male. At the time a left vision of a united humanity and what we called a democratic socialism made a lot of sense to me.

    I finally grew up by studying Israel first, then the Jews, then race, then Darwinism, then WNism, and, not forgetting about Christianity, I hold it in high regard, but ..alas am agnostic, for now.

    In Menlo Park a few nights ago there was a tree lighting in a local park, a secular affair to be sure, so as not to Offend anybody ( offend is a jewish word). So I got a little sign and wrote Merry Christmas on one side, and Happy birthday Jesus, on the other side.

    Given my history with Menlo Park cops, I expected to get ejected from the park, but Stand my Ground on the sidewalk. About 8 compliments, no hassles, no cops (my secret agenda was to make them look like the fools that they are and really stupid as well ), and lots of beautiful White children. (I have a beautiful 15 month old granddaughter, blond hair and blue eyes, and yes I am proud of my race, the only race to have invented everything worthwhile.)

    So, I hope this response gets at least your understanding, if not approval. It is our White pathological Altruism that is mostly to blame, and of course the Jews recognize it as our Achilles Heel.

    They want to protect themselves against whites...normal, and we have to protect ourselves against our own dopiness, Jews, and third worlders.

    Joe Webb

    That’s a nice protest idea.

    I wasn’t after you personally in that comment. I was once sperged-out, atheist, nitwit. American culture is a sinister machine for first alienating us from our communities and then turning us against ourselves. It’s really quite monstrous, and lots of good people get eaten by it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    right Bill, thanks.

    That Oregon guy, whats his name, just called Scalia 'despicable'. How can one get any more agitated in speech? O potty mouth I guess. Liberals are Killers.

    Joe Webb
  76. @Montefrío
    @Joe: Please don´t get me started on former neighbor and not-very-close acquaintance William F Buckley, Jr! He was a guest at my wedding ('70) and... But I'll stop now, because courtesy and respect for the deceased demands it.

    @Blanks... Derrida, etc., are all "evolved" from the Frankfurt School and just as was the progenitor are enemies of Western European Christian-derived culture and civilization. The end game of these folks is a collectivist society in which a supposed intellectual "elite" lords it over the "unwashed" and accrues material benefits for their supposed "beneficence".

    Derrida, etc., are all “evolved” from the Frankfurt School and just as was the progenitor are enemies of Western European Christian-derived culture and civilization.

    According to Derrida himself, he developed his notions independently and only later discovered Marcuse. Derrida said that he could have saved a lot of time had he known of Marcuse’s work.

    These were parallel projects, joined by others (including Stalinist third worldism) that grew out of the petty bourgeisie’s effort to exploit Marxist rhetoric. They all involved deserting the central Marxist premise that the working class is the only vehicle for communism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    the central Marxist premise that the working class is the only vehicle for communism

    The American working class does not need nor will it ever want communism. What it needs to do is take political control of the goose that is laying the golden eggs and make sure that the working class gets its share of eggs rather than goose poop.
  77. @Leftist conservative
    anti-war ideology swept over the campuses because the students did not want to die, and these sentiments found favor in much of the population because many of the public suspected that we should not be over there in the first place.

    But so called cultural marxism (which is indeed not marxism) happens to favor the rich and powerful. Yes, affirmative action, racial integration etc all favor the rich and powerful because cultural marxism increases the number of workers and consumers and diffuses and weaken the expressed will of the electorate. So I suspect that it is not a coincidence that cultural marxism has become the law of the land. Indeed, I suspect that grants given to those academics, writers and activists who favor cultural marxism has caused it to flourish. And who gives the grants? The rich and powerful.

    Really, You never stop publishing your conspiracy theories on this site.
    Indeed, wherever I look on unz.com, I see You always spouting the same mantra – it’s the evil capitalist who creates cultural marxism. But where are your documented proofs ? I mean, do You have at your disposition some real, written proof?

    Read More
  78. @Maj. Kong
    I respectfully disagree with Gottfried's conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn't actually Marxist anymore. To my understanding, the contrarian view was from William Lind, who linked Gramsci to the Frankfurt School.

    Marx was an economic determinist, who thought we would have world revolution when the capitalists ran out of new markets and a need for labor. The more orthodox Marxists will claim the latter has yet to occur, and that communism could happen if robotics displaces a vast majority of workers.

    The left in 1914 was shocked that the working classes did not rise up in revolution against the war, and instead backed nationalist passions. To an even bigger shock, the revolution occured in the underdeveloped Russia, rather than Germany. In the same Germany, the communists were crushed by those fearing an attack on their nation and Christianity. Similar events occurred in Hungary.

    Marx thought culture was the superstructure of society, and had no essence. What the cultural Marxists theorized, was that it creates "false consciousness" that makes you think you are not an oppressed proletariat. So, if you remove Christianity and nations, class consciousness will occur and world revolution will follow.

    While it may be true that the Frankfrut School ideas have become so common as to be not even recognized as to their origins, one only needs to look at the Occupy Wall Street movement, and Black Lives Matter, to see that the real goal of world revolution still remains. Both movements were clearly inspired by the cultural marxism of academia, and funded by George Soros who whatever many billions he made in finance is an admirer of Herbert Marcuse. His foundation, the Open Society, claims inspiration from Karl Popper, but a cursory look reveals the influence of the ideas of "repressive tolerance".

    “I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore.”

    I second this.

    “Marxism,” as we have traditionally understood it — (meaning Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism) — may very well have been a major deviation from Marx’s theory, properly understood.

    Remember, Marx wrote that bourgeois capitalism, not communism, was the truly “revolutionary” doctrine, and that communism, as he envisioned it, followed on the heels of capitalism. He believed that this was so because he argued that material conditions created consciousness, not the other way around; thus, as capitalist technology and the Industrial Revolution changed people’s expectations, they would rise up and demand control of the wealth generated by capitalism.

    I think this is actually what is happening. By contrast, Leninism and Maoism (and for that matter Vietnamese and Cambodian communism) were instituted in pre-capitalist, peasant societies, and, in reality, were not all that different from run-of-the mill bloodthirsty monarchies and dictatorships that have existed for millennia.

    Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society, making demands for equality without making any sort of contribution, or even being able to make any sort of contribution, to that society. That’s “communism” in my book, any way you look at it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society
     
    A remarkable number of these brown and black lumpenproletarians seem to be university students. Some of them attending Yale. That's a strange sort of lumpenproletariat. It looks more like privileged young people (and I don't care what colour you are, if you're at Yale you're privileged) demanding even more privilege.

    The actual lumpenproletariat are too busy stealing cars, robbing convenience stores and dealing crack to worry about storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society.

    I also suspect that the university students in question are merely being used by the leftist establishment in the universities to further their own ends - more money for silly ideological projects and more cushy jobs for the already privileged.
    , @joe webb
    used to be Workers and Peasants. Now it is Blacks and Browns. It was not only the traditional intellegentsia of Russia that was abolished, it was also tens of thousands of Germans who had helped staff the state. All replaced by jew, workers and peasants, and Russian communists.

    New York City sent a few brigades of jews.

    It was FDR who not only stacked the Supreme Court, but ushered in droves of Jews...thus beginning the Jewish Century. Book by that name is solid historiography by Slezkine, half-jew, and half-Russian. However he has a problem: he stated the Jews really were not jews any longer after they became Communists. Joke...Jews only married Jews at the same time. Except when a notable Russian like Stalin needed a wife, etc.

    Comrad, please pass the salt, is it good for the jews? old joke....jewish sense of humor. Not to the point I guess but Slezkine is awol on this feature, but his book is good nevertheless...yess, he says, Jews were the vanguard of the commies, the most energetic, and so on....why you might ask? They hated Russia and the Church and Russians. It was largely a race war...still is.

    Joe WEbb
    , @joe webb
    or Stalinism, particularly as Stalin went after the jews, and while not having Other ethnic minorities that were providing trouble as yet, his economism might have been weakening. I dunno, but a mind-set ...Still he was making more noise as a Russian, than a communist.

    Also he was a Georgian as i recall... so there might be a (weak ) argument that he had the seeds anyway of a Cultural Bolshevik....and then there were all the ethnically defined Soviet states that were supposed to love Mother Russia...and thus the multi-ethnic/race thang was there, and of course all were equal, with a bit more equality for was it "Great Russians"?Joe Webb
  79. @Dr. X
    "I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore."

    I second this.

    "Marxism," as we have traditionally understood it -- (meaning Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism) -- may very well have been a major deviation from Marx's theory, properly understood.

    Remember, Marx wrote that bourgeois capitalism, not communism, was the truly "revolutionary" doctrine, and that communism, as he envisioned it, followed on the heels of capitalism. He believed that this was so because he argued that material conditions created consciousness, not the other way around; thus, as capitalist technology and the Industrial Revolution changed people's expectations, they would rise up and demand control of the wealth generated by capitalism.

    I think this is actually what is happening. By contrast, Leninism and Maoism (and for that matter Vietnamese and Cambodian communism) were instituted in pre-capitalist, peasant societies, and, in reality, were not all that different from run-of-the mill bloodthirsty monarchies and dictatorships that have existed for millennia.

    Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society, making demands for equality without making any sort of contribution, or even being able to make any sort of contribution, to that society. That's "communism" in my book, any way you look at it.

    Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society

    A remarkable number of these brown and black lumpenproletarians seem to be university students. Some of them attending Yale. That’s a strange sort of lumpenproletariat. It looks more like privileged young people (and I don’t care what colour you are, if you’re at Yale you’re privileged) demanding even more privilege.

    The actual lumpenproletariat are too busy stealing cars, robbing convenience stores and dealing crack to worry about storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society.

    I also suspect that the university students in question are merely being used by the leftist establishment in the universities to further their own ends – more money for silly ideological projects and more cushy jobs for the already privileged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X
    If you take a close look at black college football players carping and whining about "racism" (e.g., Mizzou) I suspect you'll observe that a pretty good number of them are indeed the crack-dealing, car-thieving, raping lumpenproles of which you speak...
  80. @Dr. X
    "I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore."

    I second this.

    "Marxism," as we have traditionally understood it -- (meaning Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism) -- may very well have been a major deviation from Marx's theory, properly understood.

    Remember, Marx wrote that bourgeois capitalism, not communism, was the truly "revolutionary" doctrine, and that communism, as he envisioned it, followed on the heels of capitalism. He believed that this was so because he argued that material conditions created consciousness, not the other way around; thus, as capitalist technology and the Industrial Revolution changed people's expectations, they would rise up and demand control of the wealth generated by capitalism.

    I think this is actually what is happening. By contrast, Leninism and Maoism (and for that matter Vietnamese and Cambodian communism) were instituted in pre-capitalist, peasant societies, and, in reality, were not all that different from run-of-the mill bloodthirsty monarchies and dictatorships that have existed for millennia.

    Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society, making demands for equality without making any sort of contribution, or even being able to make any sort of contribution, to that society. That's "communism" in my book, any way you look at it.

    used to be Workers and Peasants. Now it is Blacks and Browns. It was not only the traditional intellegentsia of Russia that was abolished, it was also tens of thousands of Germans who had helped staff the state. All replaced by jew, workers and peasants, and Russian communists.

    New York City sent a few brigades of jews.

    It was FDR who not only stacked the Supreme Court, but ushered in droves of Jews…thus beginning the Jewish Century. Book by that name is solid historiography by Slezkine, half-jew, and half-Russian. However he has a problem: he stated the Jews really were not jews any longer after they became Communists. Joke…Jews only married Jews at the same time. Except when a notable Russian like Stalin needed a wife, etc.

    Comrad, please pass the salt, is it good for the jews? old joke….jewish sense of humor. Not to the point I guess but Slezkine is awol on this feature, but his book is good nevertheless…yess, he says, Jews were the vanguard of the commies, the most energetic, and so on….why you might ask? They hated Russia and the Church and Russians. It was largely a race war…still is.

    Joe WEbb

    Read More
  81. @Bill
    That's a nice protest idea.

    I wasn't after you personally in that comment. I was once sperged-out, atheist, nitwit. American culture is a sinister machine for first alienating us from our communities and then turning us against ourselves. It's really quite monstrous, and lots of good people get eaten by it.

    right Bill, thanks.

    That Oregon guy, whats his name, just called Scalia ‘despicable’. How can one get any more agitated in speech? O potty mouth I guess. Liberals are Killers.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  82. No comments about Kent State.

    As a teenager in South Asia and reading Readers digest, recall how the students who died were called hippies and having lice in their hair.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

    Read More
  83. @Bill Jones
    The fix to all this nonsense is to simply pull the money.

    The question is, how?

    The education bubble will have to burst, or deflate, eventually. That will take care of some of it.

    As for the sport money – any ideas?

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    They keep re-inflating the college bubble by letting students pay as you earn and coming up with ways for people to avoid paying loans back.
  84. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Derrida, etc., are all “evolved” from the Frankfurt School and just as was the progenitor are enemies of Western European Christian-derived culture and civilization.
     
    According to Derrida himself, he developed his notions independently and only later discovered Marcuse. Derrida said that he could have saved a lot of time had he known of Marcuse's work.

    These were parallel projects, joined by others (including Stalinist third worldism) that grew out of the petty bourgeisie's effort to exploit Marxist rhetoric. They all involved deserting the central Marxist premise that the working class is the only vehicle for communism.

    the central Marxist premise that the working class is the only vehicle for communism

    The American working class does not need nor will it ever want communism. What it needs to do is take political control of the goose that is laying the golden eggs and make sure that the working class gets its share of eggs rather than goose poop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    The American working class does not need nor will it ever want communism. What it needs to do is take political control of the goose that is laying the golden eggs and make sure that the working class gets its share of eggs rather than goose poop.
     
    The question is whether this can be accomplished without communism. When has the working class ever gotten its share in a capitalist country?

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight. How do you enact reforms when the capitalists can flee the controls to other countries? The only solution is for the workers internationally to own industry. Anything else is the observed capitalist race to the bottom.

    Since communism is necessary for workers to flourish, and they have the raw power to institute it, they will come to support it.
  85. @Nikolai Vladivostok
    The education bubble will have to burst, or deflate, eventually. That will take care of some of it.

    As for the sport money - any ideas?

    They keep re-inflating the college bubble by letting students pay as you earn and coming up with ways for people to avoid paying loans back.

    Read More
  86. @dfordoom

    Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society
     
    A remarkable number of these brown and black lumpenproletarians seem to be university students. Some of them attending Yale. That's a strange sort of lumpenproletariat. It looks more like privileged young people (and I don't care what colour you are, if you're at Yale you're privileged) demanding even more privilege.

    The actual lumpenproletariat are too busy stealing cars, robbing convenience stores and dealing crack to worry about storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society.

    I also suspect that the university students in question are merely being used by the leftist establishment in the universities to further their own ends - more money for silly ideological projects and more cushy jobs for the already privileged.

    If you take a close look at black college football players carping and whining about “racism” (e.g., Mizzou) I suspect you’ll observe that a pretty good number of them are indeed the crack-dealing, car-thieving, raping lumpenproles of which you speak…

    Read More
  87. @Dr. X
    "I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore."

    I second this.

    "Marxism," as we have traditionally understood it -- (meaning Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism) -- may very well have been a major deviation from Marx's theory, properly understood.

    Remember, Marx wrote that bourgeois capitalism, not communism, was the truly "revolutionary" doctrine, and that communism, as he envisioned it, followed on the heels of capitalism. He believed that this was so because he argued that material conditions created consciousness, not the other way around; thus, as capitalist technology and the Industrial Revolution changed people's expectations, they would rise up and demand control of the wealth generated by capitalism.

    I think this is actually what is happening. By contrast, Leninism and Maoism (and for that matter Vietnamese and Cambodian communism) were instituted in pre-capitalist, peasant societies, and, in reality, were not all that different from run-of-the mill bloodthirsty monarchies and dictatorships that have existed for millennia.

    Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society, making demands for equality without making any sort of contribution, or even being able to make any sort of contribution, to that society. That's "communism" in my book, any way you look at it.

    or Stalinism, particularly as Stalin went after the jews, and while not having Other ethnic minorities that were providing trouble as yet, his economism might have been weakening. I dunno, but a mind-set …Still he was making more noise as a Russian, than a communist.

    Also he was a Georgian as i recall… so there might be a (weak ) argument that he had the seeds anyway of a Cultural Bolshevik….and then there were all the ethnically defined Soviet states that were supposed to love Mother Russia…and thus the multi-ethnic/race thang was there, and of course all were equal, with a bit more equality for was it “Great Russians”?Joe Webb

    Read More
  88. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Dear Professor, because of my interest in comparing cultures of academia and institutions of education in different countries, your brief analysis of the students’ movements in the 60s and the present day situation in the US campuses is quite thought-provoking. I find some of your points certainly relevant and I share your concerns about the obsession with PS (which can be another form of bigotry when it falls into a superficial thinker’s hands), as well as the lack of a constructive dialogue in academia. To my mind we are still juggling with the theories that emerged in the 70s, at least in Cultural studies and Humanities (there hasn’t been a considerable leap in between). Moreover, my conscience doesn’t allow me to categorize the policy of the University of Delaware ( “therapeutic” classes) as academic. I’d dare to say it’s rather obnoxious. I do think that this sort of “hysteria” or PS paranoia, you name it, partly stems in a fear of being misinterpreted and thus labeled as a racist or sexist. I understand that your analysis is mostly based on personal experience. However, in order to avoid purely nostalgic tone, I’d suggest we bring discussion further and in doing so I will ask some questions with regard to the points I found debatable or just curious.
    1) Current Academic concerns are “microagressions”. With the Vietnam war protests and Marxists, it was quite clear what the protesters were demanding. In your opinion, what kind of student protests we should witness to call them macroagressions? I mean in the name of what exactly and the scale (e.g. antiwar, anticorporations, etc)
    2) While explaining the second reason why “Universities today are far less tolerant than they were at the height of the antiwar protest movement”, your argument comes down to the Left activists back then in the 60s who railed against large corporations, the war, etc. You found Marxist thinking “to be simplistic” and “empirically false”. But hasn’t been your opinion as a mindset prevailing in academia in the recent decades up until now? Can it be one of the major preconditions of the fact that macroagresisions were “replaced by PS and assigned victimhood”?
    As the last remark (however not conclusive), I’d also point out that fashion might be at play as well. Since academia consists not only of critically thinking scholars but mostly of those who simply follow the stream often pursuing not really academic purposes.
    With all respect,
    Mr Humble.

    Read More
  89. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    No need to worry!!! Miss Hell Obama will save education!!!

    Black Minds Matter, you see. (Btw, how come Black Lives Matter wasn’t called African-American Lives Matter?)

    Get a load of this video:

    https://www.facebook.com/TELEGRAPH.CO.UK/videos/10153828171454749/

    Dang, she be rapping and shit. Mind be a terrible thing to waste!!!

    Academia be saved now. Blacks all gonna be geniuses now.

    LOL.

    Here’s the great irony.

    We’ve been told a million times that D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION is ‘racist’ and evil.
    It depicted blacks as childish, wild, infantile, ugabuga, jiverish, overly sexual, primitive, and etc. It said IF blacks are not restrained by forces of white civilization, they’re gonna revert to their jungle nature.

    This was thought to be sooooooooooo bigoted and prejudiced. They even came up with a term for such thing: ‘racist’.

    How dare anyone say such things about Negroes? But what about Jack Johnson? Oh, never mind him.

    Because of the stereotype of the wildass Negro in BOAN and other such cultural works, progressives de-sexualized the Negro. Negro was said to be dignified, gentle, kindly, and etc. Negro has no sexual thoughts when he sees a white ho.
    And Negresses be kind and generous and full of dignity.

    But racial nature being what it is, it couldn’t be held back for long. So, there was Ali in the 60s with his big mouth. And there were loud black musical acts. And there were riots and crime.

    Even so, the progressives and anti-’racists’ were able to explain this.
    You see, Ali was speaking out because he was fighting the uncle tom stereotype. He was just being proud.
    And black rioting and crime was just due to poverty. Once blacks get equality, they’ll improve and stop acting crazy.
    And even though black music got more sexual, it still wasn’t porny in the 60s and 70s, at least not blatantly.

    But now, 100 yrs after BOAN, it’s as if mainstream culture has confirmed every racial stereotype in BOAN. And there’s not even any attempt to justify black raunchiness and craziness. We now accept it as natural to blackness, but it’s okay since we are now supposed to admire blacks for their craziness and wildness.
    New feminism has slut pride, black culture has savage pride.

    Feminists no longer say, ‘we are not sex objects; we are souls with minds.’ They now say we got vaginas and we worship orgasms and we are proud to be sluts.

    Blacks no longer say, ‘we are civilized and dignified just like you respectable white folks’. They now say ‘we are loud, proud, crazy, and wanna mess you up and fuc* everything in sight.’ They feel pride in their savagery. And white Libs quietly agree.

    Now, if in 2008, the GOP had made fun of Michelle as a rappin’ fool, it would have been attacked as ‘racist’. But look at Michelle now. Shameless, trashy, infantile, and etc.
    And she looks natural doing it. Some first lady.
    When she tried to sound smart and educated in 2008, it sounded so phony.
    But her jungle act seems real. She’s finally being herself.

    When we survey rap culture, ho culture, and other manifestations of black culture, Griffith and Woodrow Wilson were right about the nature of blacks.
    And look at Black Lives Matter. It’s more like Black Jives Matter.
    And we see interracism all over, with Negro men dominating over white males who’ve been turned into cucky wussies. So much for equality.

    The two most reviled directors in film history are Griffith and Riefenstahl. Film scholars give them credit for their innovations and talent, but the filmmakers are seen as peddlers of lies(Griffith) and aesthetic dead-ends(Riefenstahl).

    But look at racial culture today, and BOAN was the most prophetic movie on race.
    And look at Hollywood blockbuster aesthetics, and it appears Riefenstahl’s fascist-style-spectacle had an aesthetic future, indeed more than any other style.

    So many Hollywood movies feature fascist-like imagery of grandeur, mega-spectacle, and ubermensch heroism.
    And even when the fascist-like forces are supposed to be ‘evil’, they are made awesome and magnificent.
    And even anti-fascist forces and heroes are imbued with fascist charisma, like the warrior-goddess-heroine in HUNGER GAMES. She is not a humanist character but a super-badass ubergirl ass-kicker not much different from the hunter-killer-goddess of RESIDENT EVIL. She is mythic than mortal.

    300 is really about Persian fascists vs Greek fascists.

    Two artists whose visions cast such a long shadow on culture but never given full credit.

    The Michelle Rap video was meant to inspire black kids to study more and look forward to college.
    But the underlying implication is that blacks are dumber, more childish, and idiotic.

    The logic of the video seems to be that blacks are so moronic and infantile that they need to be goaded to study and hit the books with song and dance and jive-ass rhythms and rhymes.

    Read More
  90. @iffen
    the central Marxist premise that the working class is the only vehicle for communism

    The American working class does not need nor will it ever want communism. What it needs to do is take political control of the goose that is laying the golden eggs and make sure that the working class gets its share of eggs rather than goose poop.

    The American working class does not need nor will it ever want communism. What it needs to do is take political control of the goose that is laying the golden eggs and make sure that the working class gets its share of eggs rather than goose poop.

    The question is whether this can be accomplished without communism. When has the working class ever gotten its share in a capitalist country?

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight. How do you enact reforms when the capitalists can flee the controls to other countries? The only solution is for the workers internationally to own industry. Anything else is the observed capitalist race to the bottom.

    Since communism is necessary for workers to flourish, and they have the raw power to institute it, they will come to support it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The question is whether this can be accomplished without communism.

    There is no question here. Communism does not exist and will never exist.

    When has the working class ever gotten its share in a capitalist country?

    Post WWII was pretty good to working people in the West. As it turns out that is apparently going to be a one-time economic event.

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight.

    This is not a problem; just tell them you are not using that currency anymore.

    The only solution is for the workers internationally to own industry.

    If this is the only solution then there is no solution.

    I know working people do not have the smarts to own and operate industry. I still have hope that we have enough smarts to use liberal democracy to control the economy so as to benefit everyone.

    they will come to support it

    If you believe that you can get to communism then you are compelled to believe this.
    , @iffen

    Since communism is necessary for workers to flourish, and they have the raw power to institute it, they will come to support it.
     
    They are going to effect a worldwide revolution that will exceed the accomplishments of agriculture, the Axial Age and the Enlightenment and then, after that, bringing heaven to earth, they will support it. Doesn't even come to the level of not making sense.
  91. @Stephen R. Diamond

    The American working class does not need nor will it ever want communism. What it needs to do is take political control of the goose that is laying the golden eggs and make sure that the working class gets its share of eggs rather than goose poop.
     
    The question is whether this can be accomplished without communism. When has the working class ever gotten its share in a capitalist country?

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight. How do you enact reforms when the capitalists can flee the controls to other countries? The only solution is for the workers internationally to own industry. Anything else is the observed capitalist race to the bottom.

    Since communism is necessary for workers to flourish, and they have the raw power to institute it, they will come to support it.

    The question is whether this can be accomplished without communism.

    There is no question here. Communism does not exist and will never exist.

    When has the working class ever gotten its share in a capitalist country?

    Post WWII was pretty good to working people in the West. As it turns out that is apparently going to be a one-time economic event.

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight.

    This is not a problem; just tell them you are not using that currency anymore.

    The only solution is for the workers internationally to own industry.

    If this is the only solution then there is no solution.

    I know working people do not have the smarts to own and operate industry. I still have hope that we have enough smarts to use liberal democracy to control the economy so as to benefit everyone.

    they will come to support it

    If you believe that you can get to communism then you are compelled to believe this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Post WWII was pretty good to working people in the West. As it turns out that is apparently going to be a one-time economic event.
     
    I was the best there's been. But since you admit it's a one-time event, so what?

    It wasn't so great. Workers didn't fluorish even in America, where they did best. They worked very long hours under speed up conditions to earn decent wages.

    Do you really think the dog-eat-dog world of scarcity is perpetual? We could have a 15-hour day if technology was properly exploited, rather than squandered in competition or the subject of massively wasteful financial speculation, not to speak of armaments.

    Russia did it. Had the revolution spread to Germany, we'd be living under communism. It's not impossible.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight.

    This is not a problem; just tell them you are not using that currency anymore.
     

    I don't understand how this would work, but I think you probably don't see the basic problem. There are ways of temporarily curtailing capital flight: capital controls. They are only temporary because the result is ultimately being outcompeted by other capitalist countries.
  92. @Stephen R. Diamond

    The American working class does not need nor will it ever want communism. What it needs to do is take political control of the goose that is laying the golden eggs and make sure that the working class gets its share of eggs rather than goose poop.
     
    The question is whether this can be accomplished without communism. When has the working class ever gotten its share in a capitalist country?

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight. How do you enact reforms when the capitalists can flee the controls to other countries? The only solution is for the workers internationally to own industry. Anything else is the observed capitalist race to the bottom.

    Since communism is necessary for workers to flourish, and they have the raw power to institute it, they will come to support it.

    Since communism is necessary for workers to flourish, and they have the raw power to institute it, they will come to support it.

    They are going to effect a worldwide revolution that will exceed the accomplishments of agriculture, the Axial Age and the Enlightenment and then, after that, bringing heaven to earth, they will support it. Doesn’t even come to the level of not making sense.

    Read More
  93. @iffen

    Since communism is necessary for workers to flourish, and they have the raw power to institute it, they will come to support it.
     
    They are going to effect a worldwide revolution that will exceed the accomplishments of agriculture, the Axial Age and the Enlightenment and then, after that, bringing heaven to earth, they will support it. Doesn't even come to the level of not making sense.

    I have no idea what you mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I mean that you seem to think that working people can perform a miracle. Then after they perform the miracle, then, and only then, will they believe and support it.
  94. @iffen
    The question is whether this can be accomplished without communism.

    There is no question here. Communism does not exist and will never exist.

    When has the working class ever gotten its share in a capitalist country?

    Post WWII was pretty good to working people in the West. As it turns out that is apparently going to be a one-time economic event.

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight.

    This is not a problem; just tell them you are not using that currency anymore.

    The only solution is for the workers internationally to own industry.

    If this is the only solution then there is no solution.

    I know working people do not have the smarts to own and operate industry. I still have hope that we have enough smarts to use liberal democracy to control the economy so as to benefit everyone.

    they will come to support it

    If you believe that you can get to communism then you are compelled to believe this.

    Post WWII was pretty good to working people in the West. As it turns out that is apparently going to be a one-time economic event.

    I was the best there’s been. But since you admit it’s a one-time event, so what?

    It wasn’t so great. Workers didn’t fluorish even in America, where they did best. They worked very long hours under speed up conditions to earn decent wages.

    Do you really think the dog-eat-dog world of scarcity is perpetual? We could have a 15-hour day if technology was properly exploited, rather than squandered in competition or the subject of massively wasteful financial speculation, not to speak of armaments.

    Russia did it. Had the revolution spread to Germany, we’d be living under communism. It’s not impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    So-what means that unless something changes politically and economically the working class can eat dirt for a few generations.

    If you can't see that post WWII was a Golden Age for the American worker and if you think that communism in Russia was great then I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.

    (This is not the same as saying that serfdom was a better deal than what they got after the Revolution.)
  95. @iffen
    The question is whether this can be accomplished without communism.

    There is no question here. Communism does not exist and will never exist.

    When has the working class ever gotten its share in a capitalist country?

    Post WWII was pretty good to working people in the West. As it turns out that is apparently going to be a one-time economic event.

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight.

    This is not a problem; just tell them you are not using that currency anymore.

    The only solution is for the workers internationally to own industry.

    If this is the only solution then there is no solution.

    I know working people do not have the smarts to own and operate industry. I still have hope that we have enough smarts to use liberal democracy to control the economy so as to benefit everyone.

    they will come to support it

    If you believe that you can get to communism then you are compelled to believe this.

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight.

    This is not a problem; just tell them you are not using that currency anymore.

    I don’t understand how this would work, but I think you probably don’t see the basic problem. There are ways of temporarily curtailing capital flight: capital controls. They are only temporary because the result is ultimately being outcompeted by other capitalist countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t understand how this would work, but I think you probably don’t see the basic problem. There are ways of temporarily curtailing capital flight: capital controls. They are only temporary because the result is ultimately being outcompeted by other capitalist countries.

    The problem is not capitalism. The problem is uncontrolled, monopolistic, globalist and rent-seeking capitalism that destroys our one time, once in a millennium, City on the Hill democracy.
  96. @Stephen R. Diamond
    I have no idea what you mean.

    I mean that you seem to think that working people can perform a miracle. Then after they perform the miracle, then, and only then, will they believe and support it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    My point is that communism is necessary. You deny that-but that's a different argument. If communism is necessary, and if the working class has the power and interests to establish it, then (barring global catastrophe) it is probably inevitable. People come to see their interests and act on them, but it takes time.
  97. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Post WWII was pretty good to working people in the West. As it turns out that is apparently going to be a one-time economic event.
     
    I was the best there's been. But since you admit it's a one-time event, so what?

    It wasn't so great. Workers didn't fluorish even in America, where they did best. They worked very long hours under speed up conditions to earn decent wages.

    Do you really think the dog-eat-dog world of scarcity is perpetual? We could have a 15-hour day if technology was properly exploited, rather than squandered in competition or the subject of massively wasteful financial speculation, not to speak of armaments.

    Russia did it. Had the revolution spread to Germany, we'd be living under communism. It's not impossible.

    So-what means that unless something changes politically and economically the working class can eat dirt for a few generations.

    If you can’t see that post WWII was a Golden Age for the American worker and if you think that communism in Russia was great then I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.

    (This is not the same as saying that serfdom was a better deal than what they got after the Revolution.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    If you can’t see that post WWII was a Golden Age for the American worker and if you think that communism in Russia was great then I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.
     
    I didn't see us trying to convince one another. Just a discussion. You seem not to know much about Marxism: you could be interested. If not, fine.
    , @dfordoom

    This is not the same as saying that serfdom was a better deal than what they got after the Revolution.
     
    Wasn't serfdom abolished long before the Revolution?

    Russia under the Czars was industrialising rapidly. Had the First World War been avoided Czarist Russia could have been a very big success story.
  98. @Stephen R. Diamond

    The basic problem for the working class is capital flight.

    This is not a problem; just tell them you are not using that currency anymore.
     

    I don't understand how this would work, but I think you probably don't see the basic problem. There are ways of temporarily curtailing capital flight: capital controls. They are only temporary because the result is ultimately being outcompeted by other capitalist countries.

    I don’t understand how this would work, but I think you probably don’t see the basic problem. There are ways of temporarily curtailing capital flight: capital controls. They are only temporary because the result is ultimately being outcompeted by other capitalist countries.

    The problem is not capitalism. The problem is uncontrolled, monopolistic, globalist and rent-seeking capitalism that destroys our one time, once in a millennium, City on the Hill democracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    The problem is uncontrolled, monopolistic, globalist and rent-seeking capitalism.
     
    There's no reason to think there can be any other kind. Marxists predicted that the postwar prosperity in America wouldn't last - that dog-eat-dog monopoly capitalism would again impoverish the masses of workers who had been briefly lifted, however slightly.

    Why was the interlude after the war possible? Only because capitalism was temporarily tamed by the global hegemony of America. The U.S. could have reforms and not bankrupt itself because it controlled the terms of international trade. It produced more than half the wealth in the world. This could only be temporary, and it wasn't great at all for the semicolonies, like Vietnam, which struggled for decades to escape imperialist domination. The economy was stimulated, however wastefully! (somehow you think that was a golden age) by military Keynesianism. This is no longer possible because Keynsianism relies on a paucity of international competition.

    Who will "control" the capitalists when they own the wealth? And even if it were possible, the nature of capitalism as an international system precludes reforms except in highly unusal times where one county is dominant and there's a world economy to be rebuilt following an imperialist war (that was itself the product of capitalism).
  99. @iffen
    I mean that you seem to think that working people can perform a miracle. Then after they perform the miracle, then, and only then, will they believe and support it.

    My point is that communism is necessary. You deny that-but that’s a different argument. If communism is necessary, and if the working class has the power and interests to establish it, then (barring global catastrophe) it is probably inevitable. People come to see their interests and act on them, but it takes time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Don't hold your breath.
    , @dfordoom

    People come to see their interests and act on them
     
    You mean the way the working classes refused to fight a capitalist war in 1914 and instead united to overthrow capitalism?

    Democracy is popular with the elites because they have absolute confidence that there is no chance that the people will ever come to see their interests and act on them.
  100. @iffen
    I don’t understand how this would work, but I think you probably don’t see the basic problem. There are ways of temporarily curtailing capital flight: capital controls. They are only temporary because the result is ultimately being outcompeted by other capitalist countries.

    The problem is not capitalism. The problem is uncontrolled, monopolistic, globalist and rent-seeking capitalism that destroys our one time, once in a millennium, City on the Hill democracy.

    The problem is uncontrolled, monopolistic, globalist and rent-seeking capitalism.

    There’s no reason to think there can be any other kind. Marxists predicted that the postwar prosperity in America wouldn’t last – that dog-eat-dog monopoly capitalism would again impoverish the masses of workers who had been briefly lifted, however slightly.

    Why was the interlude after the war possible? Only because capitalism was temporarily tamed by the global hegemony of America. The U.S. could have reforms and not bankrupt itself because it controlled the terms of international trade. It produced more than half the wealth in the world. This could only be temporary, and it wasn’t great at all for the semicolonies, like Vietnam, which struggled for decades to escape imperialist domination. The economy was stimulated, however wastefully! (somehow you think that was a golden age) by military Keynesianism. This is no longer possible because Keynsianism relies on a paucity of international competition.

    Who will “control” the capitalists when they own the wealth? And even if it were possible, the nature of capitalism as an international system precludes reforms except in highly unusal times where one county is dominant and there’s a world economy to be rebuilt following an imperialist war (that was itself the product of capitalism).

    Read More
  101. @iffen
    So-what means that unless something changes politically and economically the working class can eat dirt for a few generations.

    If you can't see that post WWII was a Golden Age for the American worker and if you think that communism in Russia was great then I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.

    (This is not the same as saying that serfdom was a better deal than what they got after the Revolution.)

    If you can’t see that post WWII was a Golden Age for the American worker and if you think that communism in Russia was great then I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.

    I didn’t see us trying to convince one another. Just a discussion. You seem not to know much about Marxism: you could be interested. If not, fine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Marxists predicted that the postwar prosperity in America wouldn’t last.

    Blind pig. Hoover predicted a chicken for every pot, so what.

    Who will “control” the capitalists when they own the wealth?

    People can control capitalism in a liberal democracy. We still have to work it out so as to benefit everyone.

    What’s the point of discussion if you don’t persuade?

    BTW, you don’t know anything about working people.
  102. @Stephen R. Diamond
    My point is that communism is necessary. You deny that-but that's a different argument. If communism is necessary, and if the working class has the power and interests to establish it, then (barring global catastrophe) it is probably inevitable. People come to see their interests and act on them, but it takes time.

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Read More
  103. @Stephen R. Diamond

    If you can’t see that post WWII was a Golden Age for the American worker and if you think that communism in Russia was great then I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.
     
    I didn't see us trying to convince one another. Just a discussion. You seem not to know much about Marxism: you could be interested. If not, fine.

    Marxists predicted that the postwar prosperity in America wouldn’t last.

    Blind pig. Hoover predicted a chicken for every pot, so what.

    Who will “control” the capitalists when they own the wealth?

    People can control capitalism in a liberal democracy. We still have to work it out so as to benefit everyone.

    What’s the point of discussion if you don’t persuade?

    BTW, you don’t know anything about working people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    People can control capitalism in a liberal democracy.
     
    Liberal democracy is an illusion. What we have in the West ain't liberalism (in the old sense of the word) and it ain't democracy.
  104. Dear Stephen Diamond, thanks a lot for the lough! Every post You publish here makes me really merry – You just repeat some marxist rubbish (sorry for the pleonasm) and seriously think that we should listen to You.

    But keep it coming, everyone needs a good cheer.

    P.S. Reading your messianic musings, I frequently find myself thinking about christians and their religious convictions; indeed, just like You and your red kin, they too muse about the Coming of the Golden age and are sure that one day there will be Rapture.
    As a prophet from Western Germany once said – religion is the opiate of the masses. And, as I look to You and your friends, I have to admit that he was right, actually even more right than he thought.

    Read More
  105. @iffen
    So-what means that unless something changes politically and economically the working class can eat dirt for a few generations.

    If you can't see that post WWII was a Golden Age for the American worker and if you think that communism in Russia was great then I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.

    (This is not the same as saying that serfdom was a better deal than what they got after the Revolution.)

    This is not the same as saying that serfdom was a better deal than what they got after the Revolution.

    Wasn’t serfdom abolished long before the Revolution?

    Russia under the Czars was industrialising rapidly. Had the First World War been avoided Czarist Russia could have been a very big success story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Wasn’t serfdom abolished long before the Revolution?

    Yes, I know. I was just using serfdom in the same way that I use prole or peon when referring to my peeps.

    Russia under the Czars was industrialising rapidly. Had the First World War been avoided Czarist Russia could have been a very big success story.

    Lots of what ifs. I sometimes still buy into the idea that Stalin’s forced industrialization let them skip ahead of where they would have otherwise been economically. It’s undeniable that the later years set them back economically and they are just now on the road to catching up.
  106. @Stephen R. Diamond
    My point is that communism is necessary. You deny that-but that's a different argument. If communism is necessary, and if the working class has the power and interests to establish it, then (barring global catastrophe) it is probably inevitable. People come to see their interests and act on them, but it takes time.

    People come to see their interests and act on them

    You mean the way the working classes refused to fight a capitalist war in 1914 and instead united to overthrow capitalism?

    Democracy is popular with the elites because they have absolute confidence that there is no chance that the people will ever come to see their interests and act on them.

    Read More
  107. @iffen
    Marxists predicted that the postwar prosperity in America wouldn’t last.

    Blind pig. Hoover predicted a chicken for every pot, so what.

    Who will “control” the capitalists when they own the wealth?

    People can control capitalism in a liberal democracy. We still have to work it out so as to benefit everyone.

    What’s the point of discussion if you don’t persuade?

    BTW, you don’t know anything about working people.

    People can control capitalism in a liberal democracy.

    Liberal democracy is an illusion. What we have in the West ain’t liberalism (in the old sense of the word) and it ain’t democracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Liberal democracy is an illusion. What we have in the West ain’t liberalism (in the old sense of the word) and it ain’t democracy.

    You may be right but I happen to think that it is a nice illusion.

    I am concerned that it is collapsing and what comes next is going to be very bad for me and mine.
  108. @dfordoom

    This is not the same as saying that serfdom was a better deal than what they got after the Revolution.
     
    Wasn't serfdom abolished long before the Revolution?

    Russia under the Czars was industrialising rapidly. Had the First World War been avoided Czarist Russia could have been a very big success story.

    Wasn’t serfdom abolished long before the Revolution?

    Yes, I know. I was just using serfdom in the same way that I use prole or peon when referring to my peeps.

    Russia under the Czars was industrialising rapidly. Had the First World War been avoided Czarist Russia could have been a very big success story.

    Lots of what ifs. I sometimes still buy into the idea that Stalin’s forced industrialization let them skip ahead of where they would have otherwise been economically. It’s undeniable that the later years set them back economically and they are just now on the road to catching up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Lots of what ifs. I sometimes still buy into the idea that Stalin’s forced industrialization let them skip ahead of where they would have otherwise been economically.
     
    Getting into "what ifs" is always inherently dangerous but to some extent it's necessary. The trouble with history is that we can't conduct controlled experiments. History is a bit like "climate science" - to make meaningful predictions it's necessary to indulge in speculation.

    Without the war Russia might have moved towards constitutional monarchy. Or it might not.
  109. @dfordoom

    People can control capitalism in a liberal democracy.
     
    Liberal democracy is an illusion. What we have in the West ain't liberalism (in the old sense of the word) and it ain't democracy.

    Liberal democracy is an illusion. What we have in the West ain’t liberalism (in the old sense of the word) and it ain’t democracy.

    You may be right but I happen to think that it is a nice illusion.

    I am concerned that it is collapsing and what comes next is going to be very bad for me and mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I am concerned that it is collapsing and what comes next is going to be very bad for me and mine.
     
    Yes, I agree it's quite possible that the next step will be a good deal more unpleasant.

    It could be that the recent French election shows that the elites no longer feel the need to maintain the illusion. That could be a good thing, or a very bad thing.
  110. @iffen
    Liberal democracy is an illusion. What we have in the West ain’t liberalism (in the old sense of the word) and it ain’t democracy.

    You may be right but I happen to think that it is a nice illusion.

    I am concerned that it is collapsing and what comes next is going to be very bad for me and mine.

    I am concerned that it is collapsing and what comes next is going to be very bad for me and mine.

    Yes, I agree it’s quite possible that the next step will be a good deal more unpleasant.

    It could be that the recent French election shows that the elites no longer feel the need to maintain the illusion. That could be a good thing, or a very bad thing.

    Read More
  111. @iffen
    Wasn’t serfdom abolished long before the Revolution?

    Yes, I know. I was just using serfdom in the same way that I use prole or peon when referring to my peeps.

    Russia under the Czars was industrialising rapidly. Had the First World War been avoided Czarist Russia could have been a very big success story.

    Lots of what ifs. I sometimes still buy into the idea that Stalin’s forced industrialization let them skip ahead of where they would have otherwise been economically. It’s undeniable that the later years set them back economically and they are just now on the road to catching up.

    Lots of what ifs. I sometimes still buy into the idea that Stalin’s forced industrialization let them skip ahead of where they would have otherwise been economically.

    Getting into “what ifs” is always inherently dangerous but to some extent it’s necessary. The trouble with history is that we can’t conduct controlled experiments. History is a bit like “climate science” – to make meaningful predictions it’s necessary to indulge in speculation.

    Without the war Russia might have moved towards constitutional monarchy. Or it might not.

    Read More
  112. “Still, it was not clear whether a fellow-student had been responsible for the act or whether it had been an outside job.”

    Or, as is often the case, scrawled by the “victim” himself.

    Read More
  113. I’m sorry to ruin your Christmas, but I thought I’d link to the latest Johah Goldberg piece that was included in today’s RealClearPolitics daily linkfest. An entire column written without a discernible point. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428968/2015-review-smod-presidential-endorsement

    These are the folks that the networks turn to for analysis when seeking a conservative point of view.

    Read More
  114. @Priss Factor
    How much of left vs right thing has to do with ideology? How much does it have to do with ethnicity?

    Some say the left has an advantage over the right cuz leftism is inherently more intellectual and critical. Maybe this is true to some extent, at least in the historical context where the status quo was challenged by the individuals on the left.

    But when we survey the American intellectual landscape, if leftism intellectually vigorous among all racial/ethnic groups?

    Let's consider Jewish leftism, black leftism, Asian leftism, Mexican leftism, Arab leftism, hillbilly leftism, Eskimo leftism, Hawaiian leftism, dumb polack leftism, Cuban leftism, Puerto Rican leftism, and etc, etc.

    Most leftisms of most ethnic/racial groups are zero. They are intellectually blank. They are tarded. Arabs produced Edward Said, one of the most influential thinkers(though not to my taste), but who else? Most Mexican-Americans are on the 'political left' and vote Democratic, but how many are first-rank intellectuals?
    Blacks have some colorful personalities, but Cornel West is a moron. If anything, the best black thinkers have been on the right: Uncle Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele.
    And Malcolm X, though economically socialist, was a staunch black nationalist.
    MLK is much revered but his yammering was all cliche-ridden nonsense about how he be gonna go to some mountain top and eat chicken and melons.

    Asian leftists are prominent in the academia, but how many are original thinkers? They are just bookish drones and grinds who parrot whatever they heard from their Jewish or homo professors.

    So, the only left that really matters in America is the Jewish left and European-American left.

    The power of leftism in America owes more to ethnicity than ideology. It just so happens that the two most talented and intelligent groups in America tend to be Liberal or 'left-leaning'.

    Without Jews being on the Left, American Leftism would suffer a huge loss. It'd be like a basketball team losing Wilt Chamberlain or Cream Abdul Jabber. The left would lose the big guns, the star player.

    Indeed, what is interesting about American intellectual life is that even though Neocons or 'conservative Jews' are far outnumbered by 'leftist' or Liberal Jews, they give one hell of a fight and hold their own. Neocons are smart, feisty, driven, determined, energetic, aggressive, and dogged. They may be dishonest, cunning, venal, and duplicitous, but whoever said intellectual/ideological battles had to be honest or principled? Even the Founding Fathers(the best bunch of political men ever assembled together) spun all sorts of lies and half-truths to de-legitimize British rule over the American colonies. And French Revolutionaries were expert liars and demagogues. But that didn't prevent them from being intelligent radicals with the drive, determination, and vision to make it work. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were hardly honest thinkers, but they were men of energy, talent, and shrewdness.

    So, ideological battles aren't so much about left vs right but about which side recruits the best talents especially of the most talented ethnic group?
    Though many Cons are upset with Neocons, GOP has come to rely on the Neocons cuz they got the energy and spirit. There are so many southern Christian Conservatives, but they seem to be intellectually zero. Take that guy in American Sniper. He knew how to handle a gun, but he was shit for brains. (This is Alt Right is so important in invigorating young white people with the culture of thought and discourse.)

    It's like the matter of who wins the NBA championship is much less an issue of which team is in what city or has what name(knicks or rockets) or wears what jerseys. It's a matter of which team gets to recruit the best players from the most talented race. In sports, the most talented race is black. So, if a team can recruit the best blacks, it will likely win.

    In intellectualism and ideology, it's a matter of verbal skills and mental loops. And Jews are best at this. So, ideological battles are won or lost largely on account of which side has the most Jews. Having Jews on your side is like having Michael Jordan on your team.

    Now, someone might say that Jews are more likely to be leftist since people of high intelligence tend to lean 'left'. To the extent that the left has been more closely associated with the culture of critique, this may be true to some extent.
    But look at Israel. The Israeli Right has taken dominance in just about every field.
    Also, even Jewish Leftism was often fueled by what were essentially rightist instincts.
    Jews, living in gentile majority nations, obviously felt safer with leftism than with rightism that favored the power of the gentile majority. But then, this would be true of any minority. Suppose there is a small white minority in a non-white nation. Suppose these whites are ethnocentric and white nationalist. So, should they support ethnocentrism and nationalism in principle in the nation in which they are small minority? No, because such ideas would mean that the nationalist non-white majority should dominate over the white minority. So, white minority, even if secretly nationalist, should really support Liberalism and universal leftism for their own interests as protection from the non-white majority. The British elites in India, French colonizers in Algeria, and Jews in Germany discovered the power of majority nationalism. They all got dispossessed and kicked out.

    It's like what Harvey Pekar's book on Israel says in the opening. He says his mother was a Marxist but, above all, she was a Zionist. She had Marx in her mind but Zion in her heart.

    In Israel where Jews are the majority, many smart Jews have gone over to the right.
    But in the West, even Jews who are into race-consciousness and nationalism, are loathe to come out for such ideas cuz it will justify the power of the white majority.
    They fear that his white majority nationalism will become hostile to Jews. Or even if the white majority isn't hostile to Jews, it may insist on white majority nation being ruled by the white majority. This is problematic to Jews since they have a supremacist streak that seeks domination over the white majority. Why else are Jews so pissed with Russia? Russia is friendly to Jews and Putin is pro-Jewish. But that simply isn't enough for globalist-supremacist Jews who insist on controlling Russia like they control the US.

    Anyway, if the American Left were to lose its star power of Jews, it will be finished as most racial and ethnic groups are intellectual zeros. It'd be like having a basketball team called the Leftists without any blacks.

    This is why PC is turning into hysterics. Blacks and others know they are intellectually useless and cannot argue logically or methodically. So, they've gone the anti-intellectual route of screaming, ranting, hollering, and shaking fists after rubbing nazi poop on walls. If you can't win in chess, just take a club and smash the board and then threaten the opponent. It worked for Mao during the Cultural Revolution. With millions of angry Red Guards waving the Little Red Book and shaking fists, all rivals of Mao had to back down. It made no sense to make the better argument against Maoism( a huge failure in the Great Leap Forward) since the Red Guards will tear you limb from limb.

    This kind of 'leftism' makes the Jewish intellectual advantage irrelevant.
    Jewish power derived not only from passion and chutzpah but from brilliance and wit. But if winning debates is now about rapping, dancing, shouting, and flipping out, what need for intelligence? This kind of new 'leftism' is all about showmanship, and it's no wonder that homos and negroes are most prominent. Homos are flaming in their style, and Negroes threaten to burn everything down.

    It's no wonder that some Liberal Jews are troubled by recent developments. A 'leftism' that is driven by jivery and volume and floopity-doo antics doesn't leave much room for the better, more cunning, more clever, more witty, more brilliant argument.

    Even a seasoned debater like Alan Dershowitz is gonna be flustered by an angry black ho who be screaming 'YOU ARE DISGUSTING!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!'

    Personally, I really think real leftism is dead and has been for awhile.
    I think the Right is still less damaged than the Left. What is now called the 'left' isn't the real left. It is globalism funded by Wall Street. I refuse to see the homo agenda as part of the left. It is just neo-aristocratic decadentism by other means.
    As for all these anti-white multi-culti stuff, it is just the new rightism of color. It's tribalism in action. It's not universalism.
    And would any black be bitching about inequality if blacks had the advantage? Do blacks complain about there being too many blacks in sports and music? No, blacks are all about black power. They bitch about 'equality' ONLY in cases where blacks are under-represented. Blacks are into black power, not some abstract notion of equality.

    The Right is on the ropes, but it's still there. There is the white right that is dormant but still alive. And much of 'people of color' politics is really rightist because it's about tribal and racial consciousness. It is masked by leftist rhetoric of 'social justice', but it's just people of color race-ism by another name.
    And Jewish Liberalism is really fueled by Jewish identity and Jewish interests.
    Isn't it funny that Jews are so rich, so powerful, so influential, so over-represented in elite fields, but even most Liberal Jews dare not talk about Jewish power? And even they go out of their way to destroy someone like Rick Sanchez(a Democrat) who noticed Jewish power?

    It's not about right vs left. It's about white right vs Jewish right vs black right vs brown right vs Arab right etc.
    The only outliers in this in America are white Liberals and yellows. White Libs are really dumb enough to believe in the creed of Liberalism and yellows are just grinds/drones who will slavishly suck up to any prevailing power.

    Exactly right!!! good job!!

    But i think most of intellectually smart white people are being ostracized. It’s not like a fair battle because ”jews’ understand how societies are structured and take the power exactly to avoid direct combats with intellectually smart whites or other groups. They become the only official voice of authority in the west and their ”passing white” strategy work very well for the crowd of intellectually lazy whites. ”Jews” know how average(s) people(s) works, much more than the current or known intellectual whites. It’s not a amateur job, not the first part because eliminate the chicken of golden eggs, aka, whites, and import people with 20% less neurons than him look very very stupid. Other possible causes is that most of intellectual geniuses among whites were or are ”abducted” by jewry if they have similar desires OR even they are cognitively (and culturally) similar. The average white is christian and conservative while a lot of artistic and intellectual ”geniuses” are prone to be less compatible with this (white average) profile.

    Read More
  115. @Tipo 61
    Great series of comments. Don't agree with everything, but I sure do agree with most. BTW, Christendom elegantly handled female hysteria from 500 AD to 1500. Islam handles it inelegantly within their own countries.

    How should we handle the current run of male hysteria?

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

    Read More
  116. whoever said intellectual/ideological battles had to be honest or principled?

    Confession of moral bankruptcy.

    Read More
  117. @Bill Jones
    The fix to all this nonsense is to simply pull the money.

    The question is, how?

    How to do the money fix? Well, we can start with a few little things:

    1- Encourage college football and basketball thug-a-letes to unionize.

    2- Quit watching Thug-a-Letics live and on TV and quit buying the sponsors’ products.

    3- Stop alumni donations and tell the solicitors why.

    Read More
  118. @Priss Factor
    Paradoxically, PC is resilient because it unites those-with-character and those-without-character.

    Crucial to success of PC is the Northern European mindset. It is highly conscientious, moralistic, mindful of good work, entered on integrity, dignity, sobriety.
    The Northern European Mindset wants to do good work around the world. It wants to apologize and make amends. It wants to cleanse the soul, spiritually or ideologically.
    It goes for moral enemas. It is very Kelloggy.

    For the Northern European Mindset--NEM--, PC means doing good work. It means redressing past wrongs. It means being mindful and conscientious and committed and sympathetic and compassionate and determined and etc. It is purist, universalist, and ethical.

    Now, if all people around the world were similarly minded, it would not be so bad.

    But there is another feature to PC.

    Most peoples around the world don't share the Northern European Mindset. Japanese and some East Asians may have a Shame Culture that makes them mindful, but it's a matter of outward behavior than inward morality of 'sin' and 'guilt'.

    Anyway, many non-whites and southern Europeans don't even feel much in the way of shame. Their view of the world is self-centered, tribal, suspicious, hostile, cunning, and opportunistic. And this is especially problematic among Jews, Homos, and Negroes.
    Jews may be no worse in ethics than the Arab Semites. But because they are smarter, they gain much power and influence. Homos come in all colors, but homos are generally vain, narcissistic, and self-centered. Some homos are hard-working and diligent, but their basic character is me-centric and aristo.
    As for Negroes, no people on Earth are as crazy, wild, jivey, ghastly, loony, and simply ridiculous.

    PC takes two to tango. If all people were like Negroes or other tribal-minded peoples, PC wouldn't work. After all, Arabs/Muslims practiced slavery over black Africans longer than whites did, but you don't see any PC between Arabs and blacks. If black Africans were to say to Arab Muslims, "You enslaved us", Arab Muslims would say, "Go chuck a spear at a hippo, you black savage idiot." Arab Muslims won't tango to PC.
    Recently, consider the massive refugee crisis. The problems in Syria were made worse by Saudi Arabia and Gulf States funding ISIS and etc. But notice they take ZERO responsibility. In contrast, Northern Europeans are holding up signs saying 'Refugees Welcome'. Some say this is a German problem cuz of Holocaust Guilt, but we see the same kind of nuttiness in Sweden and Iceland, two nations that need feel no collective guilt since they didn't take part in Western Imperialism around the world.

    Even though Brazilian whites traded in black slaves much more than white Americans, there is still far less 'collective guilt' about slavery in Brazil than in the US. Latin folks have lower national character and tend to be far less conscientious.

    One reason why the Greeks and Southern Italians tend to be tolerant of mass invasion is because those opportunistic and slimy buggers know they can push the invaders to other parts of Europe, especially UK, Germany, Sweden, and etc. If EU project were to end and if sleazy Greeks and lowlife southern Italians could no longer pass the buck(or the fuc*, as Negroes from Africa love to hump white women) to northern parts of Europe, they wouldn't be so 'progressive' in their handling of migration problems.

    Now, having good national character is a wonderful thing. Indeed, it is one of the best things to have. The reason why so many ideologies failed is cuz they failed to address or fix the problems of national character. It's like Fascism failed to change Italians from lying greaseballs into something more solid and sturdy. It's like in Hemingways' FAREWELL TO ARMS. A couple of Italian deserters join the Americans, eat the cheese and onions... but when gunfire erupts, they just shit their pants and take off. They act like the characters of SEVEN BEAUTIES by Wertmuller. And one would have to be crazy to trust a Eek-it's-a-Greek. As for Gypsies, by golly, forget it. They are useless.

    People welcome new ideologies and governments, but if the national character remains low, not much could be done. Sure, if the times are good with lots of cash, things may seem good for awhile. When oil prices were sky high, the Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez was looking pretty good. But it was just a temporary fix of market prices. The thing is, even when the cash was flowing in, most Venezuelans were low in national character. They were lazy, corrupt, confused, deceitful, selfish, venal, opportunistic, and etc.
    And this is the problem of Russia as well. Putin did make some real progress, but unless the Russian national character is changed, Russia will always be a shaky wobbly place. Putin has the good fortune of high oil prices. But Russia is now facing a major economic squeeze.
    A people with great national character can weather such a problem and rise again. Now, national character is no guarantee against ideological lunacy. Germans and Japanese have high national character, but they went with crazy politics in the 30s and 40s. Even so, it was because they had such solid national characters that they were able to rebuild their nations really fast after the war. This is all the more remarkable since 1/3 of Japanese industry was destroyed in the war. And Germany was divided, its cities were smashed, and Germany had to take in millions of German refugees uprooted from other parts of Europe. Even so, Germans worked well together and worked hard, and in no time, Germany was once again the biggest economy in Europe. National Character is the real asset to have.

    How is this national character formed? It could partly be racial, i.e. some races have natural personalities that are more conducive to building solid national character while some groups may have natural personalities that are less conducive to building good national character.
    Take someone like Joe Pesci's characters in Scorsese movies. Though such people could be raised to be decent individuals, they still have natural propensities to act more like Tommy(Goodfellas) or Nicky(Casino). There is something oily and greasy about the southern Italian character. And Greeks are something else when it comes to all sorts of shady behavior. It must be partly genetic.
    Surely, when it comes to Negro, forming national character is like the labor of Sisyphus. The natural mode of the Negro is to holler, jive, shuck, shake booty, and act jungle-like. Toss them a watermelon and you have a riot.

    Even so, national character isn't just about genetics. After all, we can tell from the yob culture in UK and vodka swilling thug culture from Russia(many of whom are of northern European stock) that ANY PEOPLE can become degraded, trashy, and moronic.
    And there are sane and conscientious communities outside Northern Europe-sphere. On occasion, such even exists among the Negroes who aren't so ghastly like most others of their kind around the world.

    If a positive national character is formed in a people, it is the most valuable asset along with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history. A society with racial unity, possession of land, and pride of history has the solid three elements for survival. But if it lacks national character, it won't make much economic or social progress. Take Zimbabwe. It is black and proud and homogeneous. But it is a ugabuga land because most blacks in that nation are a bunch of nutjob jivers with low national character.

    National character isn't the same thing as morality. Germans during the Nazi Era has national character but submitted to a rabid demagogue.
    National character is valuable cuz it instills people with seriousness, diligence, commitment, discipline, sobriety, dedication, communal conscience, loyalty, and etc. So, even if Germans of Nazi era were serving an evil regime, they were working and living in ways that led to mutual respect and understanding among Germans.
    So, Germans could build and run an economy under Nazism. And once Nazism fell, the German national character could rebuild an economy and run it well again.
    National character will not necessarily protect a people from bad politics. But it is something that transcends and outlives fashions in politics.

    A people with good national character and bad politics will do better than people with bad national character and good politics. Germans under even something like Nazism will do better than Greeks under democracy. Of course, ideally, a people should possess good national character and be on the side of liberty and freedom. But the great and resilient thing about national character is it has value whether a society is free or not. Also, if a people have national character, their greatness can remain latent/dormant even if they are not allowed to thrive and succeed. Suppose a Japanese minority in some nation was restricted from economic advancement. It will remain poor surely, but if it holds onto its national character, it has the chance of success IF AND WHEN it is afforded with freedom and opportunity. But if the Japanese community loses its national character, it will be less likely to take advantage of freedom and opportunity.

    In contrast, a people without national character won't do much even with freedom and democracy. I mean even Germans in communist East Germany ran a better society than blacks in democratic and free Detroit. Even Chinese in undemocratic Singapore do a better job than Greeks in a democracy. Chinese in Singapore have national character. Greeks don't.

    Singaporean case is interesting cuz it demonstrates the difference between racial character and national character.
    Racial character tends to be fixed. Of course, it can be changed through selective breeding. For example, we know blacks are low in racial character. They prefer basketballs to books. They is full of theyselves. But suppose we do selective breeding whereby blacks like Thomas Sowell are allowed to mate while jive-ass fools like Kanye West are not allowed to breed. Over time, more and more blacks will be like Uncle Thomas Sowell, and black racial character will improve.

    If racial character is something one is born with, national character can be molded by social and cultural forces. And we see this with the Chiners in Singapore. Chinese, on average, may be pretty solid in terms of racial character. But Chinese culture and history have been rather up-and-down, and Chinese national character reflected this. It was uneven.
    So, the success of Singapore cannot be attributed merely to Chinese-ness, especially as there are plenty of Chinese around the world who lack the national character of Singaporeans. Lee of Singapore obviously studied the national character of Northern Europeans, especially that of the Brits. He was critical of British imperialism, but he could tell a good stuff when he saw one.
    It's like what the British guy(Anthony Quayle) says in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA: "Britain is small but it is great because of discipline". Omar Sharif says, "Because you got guns". What a dumbass ragger. But how did the Brits come to make such great guns and ship and trains and stuff? Because they developed a certain mindset that worked well to organize and manage systems of power. The ragger played by Sharif only sees the effect. He fails to see the cause. True, UK is powerful cuz it has guns, but why was it able to have those guns in the first place? While national character isn't everything, it is important. It is no accident that Northern Europeans with a certain national character achieved more in UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, etc. Some might say it was Protestantism, but this is true only to some extent. After all, all of Italy is mostly Catholic, so how come the northern Italians with lighter skin are more diligent and conscientious than southern Italians who look more like Joe Pesci? How come those who look more oily act more oily?

    Progs say US is a land of haves and have-nots. But so many groups who came to US as have-nots became big haves. And so many who once were haves became have-nots. Lots of blacks in Detroit once had good working jobs with benefits. They were have-somethings. But they became have-nots when they ruined the city with their jivery.

    The more crucial issue is the difference between have-characters and have-not-characters. Of course, have-brains and have-not-brains is also crucial. Smart people have huge advantage over the dummies.
    But most people are neither smart nor dumb. They are mediocre. So, their future depends a lot on character. With good character, they can focus their energies and limited talents on what is essential and constructive. Without character, they can waste their energies and limited talents on trashy behavior, stupidity, dementedness, ass-tattoos, piercings, drugs, and etc.

    But there is no talk of character. The problem with many blacks and browns and Muslims in America is they have lower social/national characters.
    Even among the have-nots, some have more character than others. Mexicans have been known to work hard, keep family together, save money, and etc. But they are less mindful about disposing garbage properly.
    They are less mindful about coming together to do what is right. They are poor in the concept of collective action. If Mexicans were more collectively mindful, they could have done more to combat corruption and crime in Mexico. But most Mexicans just wanna keep their heads down and not get involved. Though Germans made a terrible choice of Nazism, their success owed to German ability for cooperation and unity and collective action. The economy got so bad and things got real desperate. So, Germans came together and called for a new order. Too bad Hitler turned out to be a loony in the end.

    But the fact is Germans did something to address social problems during the Depression. In contrast, Mexicans just keep their heads down and look the other way. That's why a village of Mexicans need gringos to come and protect them from other Mexicans in MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Mexers cannot do it themselves. But still, Mexers are still with some national character. They get the hard-work part and family part, but they don't take it to the next level. And so, children of Mexicans in the US end up doing worse than their parents cuz they aren't immune to the poison of American pop culture.

    National character can be lost, to be sure. We can see this among many Northern European Americans who've succumbed to trash culture of tattoos, drugs, piercings, and etc. We see the rise of herbivore hipster garbage in slacker Japan. We see the ugly punk and yob culture of UK.
    But as long as a people have it, it is among the most valuable asset. It is the thing that can lead to economic and social success. It is also the thing that enables a society to recover and revive itself after major crisis.
    Germany and Japan could not have recovered so quickly after WWII without national character. And Japan made a fast recovery after the horrible earthquake. Meanwhile it's hard to tell the difference between Haiti before earth quake and after earthquake. It is always suffering from a natural disaster called Negremors.

    National character is both toughest to instill and sometimes hardest to lose. Still, it's easier lost than gained. And once lost, it may be very difficult to recover, espeicallyin a democracy.
    Though communism degraded German national character with excessive socialism, the essential character wasn't lost among East Germans. Japanese national character has been resilient under feudal system, military era, and democratic era. National character is mutually reinforced in a society that is mostly homogeneous. Even when the political system and culture changes, all the habits, attitudes, norms, values, and manners shared by the community have a way of functioning as a support network of behavioral characteristics. It is more easily lost when one moves to an alien culture where the norms are different. This was one reason why the Japanese-Brazilians who moved back to Japan didn't cope so well. Having adopted the more easy-going Brazilian ways, they had a hard time re-adapting to the Japanese national character that is more mindful and sober(if also more anal and stifling).

    When societies and nations face big problems, politicians and demagogues come along and promise deliverance through politics and social/economic policies. If, like Chavez, one gets lucky with high oil prices, things can be good for awhile. But if the people lack national character and remain the same in their habits/attitudes, no real progress can be made in the long run. It doesn't matter how many speeches Mugabe or Zuma gives in Zimbabwe and South Africa or how much wealth they redistribute.
    The fact is black Africans have very low national character.

    But it's also true of Argentinians and even lots of whites and mulattos in Brazil. They may blame capitalism or gringo or whatever, but the fact is a people with low national character cannot have long term success. Brazil got lucky because of high commodity prices, especially fueled by demands from China. While the cash was flowing in, the Brazilian government provided some economic goodies for the poor.
    But nothing was done to improve the national character.

    Same problem haunts Russia. Now, Putin is smarter and more sensible than the likes of Chavez and the clown princess of Argentina. Putin has a better understanding of history and culture. He has tried to change the Russian character by emphasizing tradition, heritage, discipline, unity, organization, and etc. But the Russian elites, unlike the Prussian elites, don't practice what they preach. Russia is still a land of rotten oligarchs. Fish rots from the head.

    In the long run, Putin's legacy will really depend on what he did with Russian character that must change in order for Russia to become a great power.
    Prussia was tiny and with limited resources. But it became a major European power cuz of its national character and top-notch elites.
    Imagine if all of Russia were to follow the Prussian model. Russia needs to look to the Prussian way, just like China needs to look to the Singaporean way. Russia as giant version of Prussia would truly be an awesome power. If China could be like a giant Singapore, it would be the new superpower. Of course, what is easy to do on a small scale is much tougher on a large scale.
    Putin uses the Church to boost social morality and order, but the Russian church is centered around political authority. Russian church must follow the model of the traditional Protestant church. It must develop a separate wing of active clergies who become intimately involved with the people all across Russia. Russian Orthodox's message to the people has been too fatalist and passive. Resign-and-obey isn't good enough. Reform-and-advance is what is crucial. And Russia must do this on their own. If US were indeed a decent nation of morality and liberty, it might offer useful advice to Russia. But 'western-style liberal democracy' now means the power of globalist Jews and homos to infiltrate and subvert other nations and not to really reform and improve things but to spread the culture of pornography, homo worship, and multi-culti madness to undermine native majority cultures. Pussy Riot and Masha Gessen will do NOTHING for the national character of your people.

    Anyway, Putin senses that the long-term solution to Russia isn't just a matter of ideology or politics or economics. Chavez the dumbass saw EVERYTHING in terms of the politics of victimhood. Gringo is imperialist, and Latin Americans are victims. Capitalism is bad, socialism is good. So, Chavez thought things would be great if Venezuela just shat on America and provided more free stuff for the poor.
    But the dependent poor only remain the dependent poor with handouts under socialism. Their character is not improved. They can't do anything on their own. Also, bashing America, though possibly justified, doesn't do anything for the economy when the main problem isn't the gringo but the lack of talent, will, initiative, honesty, and integrity among the native population. And the problem isn't just with white elites of Latin America but with the low national character of the masses who are confused, corrupt, lazy, dishonest, and etc, just like the Eek-it's-a-Greek.
    Greece could be Switzerland IF Greeks only fixed their national character. But Greek character remains what it is, and Greeks distrust one another, cheat one another, lie endlessly, and thrown tantrums and blame everyone but themselves. It was once great for Greek Drama 1000s of yrs ago, but it aint doing Greeks much good today. You aint gonna fix your nation by killing your pa and screwing your ma and screaming your brains out in the 21st century.

    But there is also the dark side of national character. One result is lowest birthrates in the world in nations with highest national character. Such people may feel too guilty to have kids when 'so many people are starving around the world'. Or they may have such high standards for themselves that they only wanna have kids if they can be assured that their kids will grow up and go to good schools and do well. (Also, people with high national character can paradoxically become most submissive to an ideology or movement of degradation. Because they are so serious and committed, they may puritanically conform to the latest moral crusade--like 'gay marriage'--or political fashion, like 'slut feminism'. It is because Northern Europeans and East Asian take their studies most seriously in college that they succumb most to the depraved idiocies of PC. Their sense of moral commitment and intellectual purity makes them utterly blind to the sheer idiocy of what they are doing. It's like the British officer in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. He is so into doing the Proper and Honorable Thing that he fails to see that he is betraying his own nation and serving the enemy.)

    Also, Northern European types sometimes think too much about stuff cuz they feel a need to do it to perfection. It must be done just right or none at all.
    It's like the opening scene of IDIOCRACY where a high IQ white couple think too much about doing it right to ever do it. (Also, the fact that people in Northern Europe live to a ripe old age gives the false impression that those nations still have lots of people. If Europeans now live to around 80 or more, it means European nations are filled with old people who are no longer having kids. Suppose some European nation has 50 million people but 50% of people are past the fertility age. Its stats seem healthy, with a lot of people, but one overlooks the fact that 50% of people are just waiting to die and unable to produce more life. EU should release new stats that only show the number of people who are fertile. There must so many German women who are in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s who are not gonna produce any kids. They are just waiting to die.)

    Development of national character cannot be accomplished in a decade or a single era. It has to be done over a long period. Also, for it to really stick, it must be instilled internally than just applied externally. Stalinism failed in changing the Russian character. It used whip and chain to drive Russians to work hard and do awesome things, but most Russians worked out of physical fear. Some were inspired by socialist ideals, but the idea of working hard for the 'good of all' is too idealistic and ideological. Once Stalinism faded, Russians reverted to their old ways of swilling vodka, dancing on tables, and wrestling with bears. Fear will drive people to work. But true national character instills people with a sense of pride associated with hard work, craftsmanship, merit, achievement, service, cooperation.

    To an extent, Russians could be more slovenly cuz they had all the land and huge population and etc. Tiny Prussia had to be the best pound-for-pound cuz it lacked in quantity. It had to squeeze every drop out of quality. Russia, like the Persians in 300 the crazy movie, could just rely on sheer numbers. Prussia had to be more like Sparta where every man and ounce of skill mattered. As the 21st century is about high-tech and ever-tightening forms of organization and efficiency, Russia has to go the Prussian model, and to do this, it needs a new national character.
    How long does it take to build such a national character?
    And is it possible to develop national characters in the age of democracy and freedom?

    As much as we value freedom and liberal democracy, national characters have almost always been formed and hardened under systems of authoritarianism, political-military-spiritual. Jewish character wasn't formed by libertine-ism. Jewish elders were not a bunch of Ron Jeremies or Mel Brooks. Japanese national character wasn't formed by Pikachu or Baby Metal. German national character wasn't formed by R.W. Fassbinder and Kraut rock.
    National characters tend to be stifling and repressive due to their insistence on certain morals, habits, manners, attitudes, and etc. So naturally, the modern forces of liberalism and hedonism and bohemianism ridicule and mock the notion of national character. But all functional societies owe a great deal to national character that has been instilled into the vast majority of the population that, due to this character, are willing to work hard, be honest, be communally mindful and conscientious, and etc.
    I can understand a Japanese bohemian-maverick bitching about the 'bourgeois' philistine morality and petty-minded attitudes of his countrymen, but does he really think Japan would be better if the national character were closer to that of free-wheeling Brazilians, rascally Greeks, and oily Italians? The greaseballs may be more fun, but they are trouble. I'd rather watch Joe Pesci cause trouble in CASINO than watch a law-abiding Swedish American, but the fact is Swedes cause less trouble for other people. They have a more solid national character.

    If Swedish-Americans do cause more trouble for others, it is because their national character is overly good. And this is where national character and PC become partners in hell. National character should be conscientious and good enough, but it shouldn't be too do-goody and puritanical, cuz it then becomes naive, stupid, and demented. As such, in the name of helping rest of humanity(that is really beyond help), it only destroys itself. Look what the Scandinavian-Americans are doing to themselves in Minnesota by trying to save all of Somalia. National Character must not be do-goody as do-goodiness is just a utopian naivete that is always doomed to failure, especially if one is helping out crazy Negroes. Be good, not do-goody.

    Negro national character can be improved somewhat. But such requires authoritarian power. Black American national character was actually better in the past when American society was less free. So, blacks had to work harder instead of depending on welfare. And blacks did believe it was shameful to have kids out of wedlock. It's like aunt Esther in Sanford and Son calls people 'heathen' for being immoral. It's like the mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN gets awful mad when her daughter dis God in her house, and her daughter better believe it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5em2tOWPV4
    https://youtu.be/SHS9uQVN6uQ?t=2m57s
    Back then, blacks had to prove that they were as good as white folks. Now, with all this MLK-cult, blacks are automatically seen as holy, and it is whites who must prove theyselves worthy to Negroes even though it is Negroes who be the most immoral bunch of loons in the USA.
    Worse, we live in some crazy nations where both whites and Negroes must prove their moral worth to a bunch of ass-humpers who are worshiped like they are angels or something.

    We want to live in freedom and democracy, but a free society is only as good as the values and habits that dominate in that society, and those values and habits are inherited from a period when society was unfree.
    While bad rulers and spiritual mentors can instill negative characters in the people, good rulers and good spiritual mentors can instill positive characters in the people.

    Democracies are better at instilling negative characteristics than positive ones. For the good characters to gain dominance, the negative ones have to be suppressed. An authoritarian system is more effective at repressing the negative ones. In a democracy, even the degenerates must be tolerated. Worse, tolerance can lead to celebration, as happened with all this homo nonsense in the West.
    It's problematic enough for us to tolerate deviancy and even degeneracy in a democracy. But must we celebrate it? The powers-that-be now force us to celebrate that stuff.
    And there is rap culture among blacks, porny culture among 'slut feminists'.
    Since normal morality has been attacked as 'heteronormative' and since people have become so accustomed to filth, no one resists anymore. So, the culture just gets trashier and trashier. Those are smart enough to navigate through such junk can still make it in Silicon Valley and Wall Street and Hollywood. But everyone else is degraded or confused in this morass of degeneracy. When people are made to feel morally superior because they think two men doing ass-buggery is so great, this is no kind of moral order.

    And now, there is even an attack on work ethic. In the past, blacks were eager to prove that they too could work hard. Now, black intellectuals say 'hard work' is 'racist' because it reminds people of slavery and because it gives the false impression that success is a matter of work ethic when it is purely the product of 'white privilege'.

    One thing for sure, national character and diversity generally don't go together. It's difficult to come up with international character. This was evident in the tensions between Germans and Greeks in the EU. The German way and Greek way just don't get along in terms of outlook, habits, work, integrity, and etc. Also, Germans feel too much historical guilt to tell Greeks to 'shape up or ship out', and Greeks are too rascally to ever admit that their lack of national character played a huge role in the dire finances of Greece.

    It's possible that progs see PC as a force to improve the character of the people. But it does nothing of the kind. PC is about outward attitudes, not about inner values. Also, PC favors those groups that are most problematic in America: Jews, homos, blacks, slut feminists.

    Homos are too vain and decadent to be the standard-bearer of virtue and morality. Blacks are too crazy, lazy, trashy, and dishonest. While blacks do have compelling historical case, their moral degradation and economic failings owe more to racial and cultural/moral factors. Blacks are naturally wilder and more troublesome, and their culture no longer tries to restrain natural black craziness but give vent to it. Negroes are no longer singing the Negro spiritual but ugly trashy rap.

    Slut feminists are nuts. Just think of UVA case and Emma Sulky Bitch.

    Jews are an odd case. They possess the duality of having one of the highest and lowest national characters in the world.
    In terms of work ethic, diligence, commitment, sobriety, and etc, many Jews have strong national character. But as a community, there is too much lies and bullshit vis-a-vis the goyim. I mean how much more crap can we take from Netanyahu, Soros, Foxman, and their ilk? And too many good Jews tolerate the shit behavior of bad Jews like Sabrina Rubin Erdely, truly a monstrous bitch.

    And now, Jews are rewarding Pollard with some plush job. Jewish nationalism isn't the problem, but Jewish globalist attitude is currently supremacist, and Jews now ironically have attitude like German National Socialists. They are above the law.
    Unlike with Negroes and other colored folks, much of Jewish achievement is genuine and meritocratic. But for whatever reason, even good Jews are very tolerant and protective of bad ones.

    Also, good Jews feel indebted to bad Jews because some of the most powerful Jews who've done most for Jewish power are the bad ones. Take Sheldon Adelson and Goldman Sachs Jews. Surely, good Jews must know that such big powerful Jews are a**holes, but one doesn't get super-rich by being a nice guy. So, it's not surprising that the richest Jews tend to be those who are intelligent and total a**holes, the Hyman Roths. While good Jews may not respect such Jews morally, they acknowledge that such big-time Jews have done more for the Jewish community and Jewish causes than good Jews have. It is just the nature of power. Even good Jews are obsessed with Jewish power, and one doesn't gain power by just being good or nice.

    Anyway, PC penalizes the very people---the Northern European folks---who should be the model for most people. Most non-whites should be like Lee of Singapore who, even as he challenged British power, admired and learned a lot from the Brits.

    Instead, PC says everything about Northern Europeans is wrong, wrong, and wrong.
    There is nothing to learn from Northern Europeans, the very people with the best formula for success and progress.
    It says Swedes should beat on bongo drums and Germans should listen to reggae. Now, reggae is good music, but it's not the sort of stuff that's gonna build national character. If someone wants to relax with a joint and reggae, okay. But Bob Marley, talented as he was, was no moral paragon.
    People need values of diligence, discipline, integrity, sobriety, propriety, and that stuff. But PC wages war on such values as 'white privilege'. It assumes that social justice can be achieved by white self-hatred and non-whites bitching about 'white privilege'. This is a dead end.

    This is why we need Prislam. It may be the only counter-force against PC.

    tl;dr

    Read More
  119. @Priss Factor
    How much of left vs right thing has to do with ideology? How much does it have to do with ethnicity?

    Some say the left has an advantage over the right cuz leftism is inherently more intellectual and critical. Maybe this is true to some extent, at least in the historical context where the status quo was challenged by the individuals on the left.

    But when we survey the American intellectual landscape, if leftism intellectually vigorous among all racial/ethnic groups?

    Let's consider Jewish leftism, black leftism, Asian leftism, Mexican leftism, Arab leftism, hillbilly leftism, Eskimo leftism, Hawaiian leftism, dumb polack leftism, Cuban leftism, Puerto Rican leftism, and etc, etc.

    Most leftisms of most ethnic/racial groups are zero. They are intellectually blank. They are tarded. Arabs produced Edward Said, one of the most influential thinkers(though not to my taste), but who else? Most Mexican-Americans are on the 'political left' and vote Democratic, but how many are first-rank intellectuals?
    Blacks have some colorful personalities, but Cornel West is a moron. If anything, the best black thinkers have been on the right: Uncle Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele.
    And Malcolm X, though economically socialist, was a staunch black nationalist.
    MLK is much revered but his yammering was all cliche-ridden nonsense about how he be gonna go to some mountain top and eat chicken and melons.

    Asian leftists are prominent in the academia, but how many are original thinkers? They are just bookish drones and grinds who parrot whatever they heard from their Jewish or homo professors.

    So, the only left that really matters in America is the Jewish left and European-American left.

    The power of leftism in America owes more to ethnicity than ideology. It just so happens that the two most talented and intelligent groups in America tend to be Liberal or 'left-leaning'.

    Without Jews being on the Left, American Leftism would suffer a huge loss. It'd be like a basketball team losing Wilt Chamberlain or Cream Abdul Jabber. The left would lose the big guns, the star player.

    Indeed, what is interesting about American intellectual life is that even though Neocons or 'conservative Jews' are far outnumbered by 'leftist' or Liberal Jews, they give one hell of a fight and hold their own. Neocons are smart, feisty, driven, determined, energetic, aggressive, and dogged. They may be dishonest, cunning, venal, and duplicitous, but whoever said intellectual/ideological battles had to be honest or principled? Even the Founding Fathers(the best bunch of political men ever assembled together) spun all sorts of lies and half-truths to de-legitimize British rule over the American colonies. And French Revolutionaries were expert liars and demagogues. But that didn't prevent them from being intelligent radicals with the drive, determination, and vision to make it work. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were hardly honest thinkers, but they were men of energy, talent, and shrewdness.

    So, ideological battles aren't so much about left vs right but about which side recruits the best talents especially of the most talented ethnic group?
    Though many Cons are upset with Neocons, GOP has come to rely on the Neocons cuz they got the energy and spirit. There are so many southern Christian Conservatives, but they seem to be intellectually zero. Take that guy in American Sniper. He knew how to handle a gun, but he was shit for brains. (This is Alt Right is so important in invigorating young white people with the culture of thought and discourse.)

    It's like the matter of who wins the NBA championship is much less an issue of which team is in what city or has what name(knicks or rockets) or wears what jerseys. It's a matter of which team gets to recruit the best players from the most talented race. In sports, the most talented race is black. So, if a team can recruit the best blacks, it will likely win.

    In intellectualism and ideology, it's a matter of verbal skills and mental loops. And Jews are best at this. So, ideological battles are won or lost largely on account of which side has the most Jews. Having Jews on your side is like having Michael Jordan on your team.

    Now, someone might say that Jews are more likely to be leftist since people of high intelligence tend to lean 'left'. To the extent that the left has been more closely associated with the culture of critique, this may be true to some extent.
    But look at Israel. The Israeli Right has taken dominance in just about every field.
    Also, even Jewish Leftism was often fueled by what were essentially rightist instincts.
    Jews, living in gentile majority nations, obviously felt safer with leftism than with rightism that favored the power of the gentile majority. But then, this would be true of any minority. Suppose there is a small white minority in a non-white nation. Suppose these whites are ethnocentric and white nationalist. So, should they support ethnocentrism and nationalism in principle in the nation in which they are small minority? No, because such ideas would mean that the nationalist non-white majority should dominate over the white minority. So, white minority, even if secretly nationalist, should really support Liberalism and universal leftism for their own interests as protection from the non-white majority. The British elites in India, French colonizers in Algeria, and Jews in Germany discovered the power of majority nationalism. They all got dispossessed and kicked out.

    It's like what Harvey Pekar's book on Israel says in the opening. He says his mother was a Marxist but, above all, she was a Zionist. She had Marx in her mind but Zion in her heart.

    In Israel where Jews are the majority, many smart Jews have gone over to the right.
    But in the West, even Jews who are into race-consciousness and nationalism, are loathe to come out for such ideas cuz it will justify the power of the white majority.
    They fear that his white majority nationalism will become hostile to Jews. Or even if the white majority isn't hostile to Jews, it may insist on white majority nation being ruled by the white majority. This is problematic to Jews since they have a supremacist streak that seeks domination over the white majority. Why else are Jews so pissed with Russia? Russia is friendly to Jews and Putin is pro-Jewish. But that simply isn't enough for globalist-supremacist Jews who insist on controlling Russia like they control the US.

    Anyway, if the American Left were to lose its star power of Jews, it will be finished as most racial and ethnic groups are intellectual zeros. It'd be like having a basketball team called the Leftists without any blacks.

    This is why PC is turning into hysterics. Blacks and others know they are intellectually useless and cannot argue logically or methodically. So, they've gone the anti-intellectual route of screaming, ranting, hollering, and shaking fists after rubbing nazi poop on walls. If you can't win in chess, just take a club and smash the board and then threaten the opponent. It worked for Mao during the Cultural Revolution. With millions of angry Red Guards waving the Little Red Book and shaking fists, all rivals of Mao had to back down. It made no sense to make the better argument against Maoism( a huge failure in the Great Leap Forward) since the Red Guards will tear you limb from limb.

    This kind of 'leftism' makes the Jewish intellectual advantage irrelevant.
    Jewish power derived not only from passion and chutzpah but from brilliance and wit. But if winning debates is now about rapping, dancing, shouting, and flipping out, what need for intelligence? This kind of new 'leftism' is all about showmanship, and it's no wonder that homos and negroes are most prominent. Homos are flaming in their style, and Negroes threaten to burn everything down.

    It's no wonder that some Liberal Jews are troubled by recent developments. A 'leftism' that is driven by jivery and volume and floopity-doo antics doesn't leave much room for the better, more cunning, more clever, more witty, more brilliant argument.

    Even a seasoned debater like Alan Dershowitz is gonna be flustered by an angry black ho who be screaming 'YOU ARE DISGUSTING!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!'

    Personally, I really think real leftism is dead and has been for awhile.
    I think the Right is still less damaged than the Left. What is now called the 'left' isn't the real left. It is globalism funded by Wall Street. I refuse to see the homo agenda as part of the left. It is just neo-aristocratic decadentism by other means.
    As for all these anti-white multi-culti stuff, it is just the new rightism of color. It's tribalism in action. It's not universalism.
    And would any black be bitching about inequality if blacks had the advantage? Do blacks complain about there being too many blacks in sports and music? No, blacks are all about black power. They bitch about 'equality' ONLY in cases where blacks are under-represented. Blacks are into black power, not some abstract notion of equality.

    The Right is on the ropes, but it's still there. There is the white right that is dormant but still alive. And much of 'people of color' politics is really rightist because it's about tribal and racial consciousness. It is masked by leftist rhetoric of 'social justice', but it's just people of color race-ism by another name.
    And Jewish Liberalism is really fueled by Jewish identity and Jewish interests.
    Isn't it funny that Jews are so rich, so powerful, so influential, so over-represented in elite fields, but even most Liberal Jews dare not talk about Jewish power? And even they go out of their way to destroy someone like Rick Sanchez(a Democrat) who noticed Jewish power?

    It's not about right vs left. It's about white right vs Jewish right vs black right vs brown right vs Arab right etc.
    The only outliers in this in America are white Liberals and yellows. White Libs are really dumb enough to believe in the creed of Liberalism and yellows are just grinds/drones who will slavishly suck up to any prevailing power.

    lmao “yellows”

    Read More
  120. @Montefrío
    My son submitted an essay (a final grade must) stating that the proofs of God as postulated by St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas had ontological veracity and the lesbian professor stated aloud in the class that he was a "fail" for supporting that view, commenting that "Jesus Christ was the most evil man in history". My son, a product of a very well known Catholic prep school, was angered and improperly but accurately exclaimed "Yeah, well you're a bitter dyke, so I'm not surprised you think that, but it's not a legitimate reason for failing me". I agreed and told the rector (dean) that if she'd made such a slur about Moses or whomever to a Jewish student, I'd own the school after the lawsuit, but as circumstances had it, the prof had picked on the wrong Irishman and that my lawyer would soon be in touch. He then replied that my son had slandered the professor, to which I replied that a "slander" is a tort only when it is untrue, and I asked if it were true or not that the professor was an openly professed lesbian. I agreed that my son's terminology was despective but insisted upon knowing whether or not it was untrue. The discussion ended and the failing grade was withdrawn. My son told me that he didn't wish to continue at the school and I was all too happy to agree: at the time, $36k/yr for such nonsense didn't seem to me well spent. Two years of studies (and $72k plus) down the drain, but he went on to engineering school (valedictorian in his field) and a PRODUCTIVE career. When he asked me if it was okay to bail out of philosophy, he mentioned a bumper sticker he'd seen: "HI! I have a doctorate in philosophy! Would you like fries with your order?" We have at home all the required philosophy texts and then some, so I was quite content to tell the dean of the "Great Books" school to go take a flying fu... leap at the moon.

    Long-winded reply, please forgive me, but it still pisses me off!

    I’m not saying you’re lying but that almost seems too incredible to believe. “Jesus Christ was the most evil man in history”? I’ve never heard that even hinted at by anyone ever.

    Read More
  121. @Stephen R. Diamond

    whoever said intellectual/ideological battles had to be honest or principled?
     
    Confession of moral bankruptcy.

    Moral rectitude is meaningless without power.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS