I suppose it happens everywhere. A famous liberal stays politically correct, blames whites for all the ills of the world, and lavishes praise on all who seek to destroy Europe or the West—only to become the next victim of a PC witch-hunt.
This is a jarring statement at first glance, but I think the evidence is pretty simple and clear. Perhaps to reduce emotionality, replace “slave” with “serf” or “peasant,” which is appropriate since in practice they were the same thing—one system had a Master who owned a slave, the other had a Lord who owned land that a serf was bound to work on.
We have a president who is belligerent towards Iran, who is sending “boots on the ground” to fight ISIS, who loves Israel passionately and who is increasing already bloated defense budgets. If one were a neoconservative, what is there not to like, yet neocons in the media and ensconced comfortably in their multitude of think tanks hate Donald Trump. I suspect it comes down to three reasons. First, it is because Trump knows who was sticking the knife in his back during his campaign in 2016 and he has neither forgiven nor hired them. Nor does he pay any attention to their bleating, denying them the status that they think they deserve because of their self-promoted foreign policy brilliance.
Since the recent CIA claims of Russian interference in the American election, the Left has begun to craft a new narrative. The narrative is that anyone who supports Trump is fundamentally anti-American, while Liberals are the last group in the country which truly loves America—the country’s only remaining patriots.
Plato Republic (Robin Waterfield Trans.)
New York: Oxford University Press, 1994
Egalitarians have argued that notions of nation and race are largely modern constructs. Marxists in particular have typically claimed that Western ruling classes invented these ideas to consolidate the power of bourgeois states or as a mere pretext to divide the working class along (supposedly imaginary) racial lines and to oppress their colonial subjects.
“As Rutter (2002) noted, ‘Any dispassionate reading of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that genetic factors play a substantial role in the origins of individual differences with respect to all psychological traits, both normal and abnormal’ (p. 2). Put concisely, all psychological traits are heritable.”
This is Rebel Yell – a Southern Nationalist podcast of the Alt-Right. I’m your host Musonius Rufus. Joining me are my cohosts Mencken’s Ghost and Ryan McMahon. For our 61st episode, we have two interviews. In the first interview, old Confederate John Sevier talks about the importance of the manosphere red pill. In our second interview, Todd Lewis of Praise of Folly returns to the programme to talk about Alfred Kinsey and the sexual revolution.
In this article, I am going to examine how the Black/White IQ gap has changed over time in the United States. After documenting basic trends, I’ll look at what caused the B/W IQ gap to shrink in the late 20th century. As will be seen, simplistic explanations based on changes in wealth and education are inadequate. We don’t know for sure why this convergence of test scores occurred, but desegregation is the most plausible hypothesis I have been able to come up with. We’ll also see that this narrowing of the IQ gap may have reflected a narrowing in test-taking ability rather than genuine intelligence. Finally, I will consider what implications this data has on the causes of racial intelligence disparities.
An attack on London is an attack on multiculturalism, not the “imperialist West” or the “crusader states.” The great irony is that it is highly likely the diverse victims of the Westminister terrorist would have either met his demands or permitted him and his kind to implement them in the long haul. Liberals never say no to the spread of Islam, so there is no reason to use violence to dominate them if you are a Muslim. You need only wait and take the Houellebecq or the Boumediene approach.
Memes have power. Statistics have power. Which of us have not heard the statistic, bandied around universities, that 1 in 3 female college students will be sexually assaulted? Whether or not that statistic is accurate, it is a demonstration of the great ability of “sticky” facts and figures to permeate and influence the public discourse.
In this day and age of instant communication, such “stickiness” is a tool of unbelievable power for movements able to harness it. As a case in point closer to home, we recently saw a similar example of “stickiness” in the rise of the term “Cuckservative.” The cultivation of such memes allows for a spotlight to be shone on issues and questions of significance within a movement or struggle.
Can you imagine in the Current Year our Cultural Marxists-entrenched media and their Glavlit-inspired approval and publishing apparatus allowing a science-fiction hero to be a (1) white, (2) heterosexual, (3) male and, (4) this is the real icing-on-the-cake, also a brave Confederate war veteran? In 2017, no – no, you cannot. It would be unpublishable today.
A popular argument is that terrorism is fundamentally a reaction to US foreign policy – that even if Islamic terrorists couch their anger in religious sentiments, indeed even if they believe that the US is in fact a “Great Satan” which should be subjugated under a worldwide Islamic caliphate, it is only because of American “imperialism” that they lash out with these ideological responses.
It’s a curious and deeply frustrating experience to see public intellectuals, journalists and academics chat among themselves about how you, your people, do not deserve to even constitute being ”a people” with interests, rights, to be, in effect, removed from the discussion entirely. All you are left with is to watch, to peep through the window as the powerful and not so great decide your fate and the morality within which your group should exist.
This is Rebel Yell – a Southern Nationalist podcast of the Alt-Right. I’m your host Musonius Rufus. Joining me are my cohosts Mencken’s Ghost and Ryan McMahon. For our 60th episode of Rebel Yell, Hunter Wallace, who writes for Occidental Dissent and AltRight.com, joins me to talk to Charlie Stuart of the Thistle and Brier podcast.
Hervé Ryssen The Jewish Mafia
Self-published by the translator, Carlos Porter, 2016
“I believe in America.”
These are the first words spoken in Francis Ford Coppola’s 1972 landmark film, The Godfather. They are spoken by an Italian immigrant, a mortician, who is coming to his local mafia boss for some extra-legal assistance. The double meaning is clear. In America, one can succeed honestly or dishonestly. Either way, there is a lot to believe in.
Jewish-American crime boss Ludwig “Tarzan” Fainberg – pimp, racketeer, drug-dealer, and arms smuggler – had little use for such literary niceties. For him, there was only one meaning of America. “I love this country,” he once enthused. “It’s so easy to steal here!”
All humans love to kiss, so kissing must go back to early hominids and even chimps and bonobos. This is how ethologists and evolutionary psychologists think when they write about the subject.
Just one thing. Even in historic times not all humans loved to kiss. Far from arising millions of years in the past, kissing seems to have arisen no earlier than 40,000 years ago, when modern humans began to enter northern Eurasia.
Directed by James Mangold
Starring Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, & Richard E. Grant
Logan, a film named after its main character, also known as Wolverine of the superhero team, the X-Men, is simply more Hollywood propaganda for perverts who fantasize about killing off white people, on one level at least. Perhaps unintentionally, it is also a warning concerning the decline of Western society. The message is that the white man is either old and dying, or simply evil and deserving of death, while the non-whites are poor, yet brave and fighting against oppression by whites.
The anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss died eight years ago, leaving behind a treasure trove of correspondence and unpublished writings. We can now trace where his ideas came from and how they evolved.
I admired Lévi-Strauss during my time as an anthropology student because he asked questions that Marxist anthropologists would never ask. That’s why I preferred to call myself a Marxisant, and not a full-blown Marxist. I especially admired him for addressing the issue of nature versus nurture, which had once been a leading issue in anthropology but was now studiously ignored. Only he, it seemed, could defy this omertà and not suffer any ill effects, perhaps because of his age and status.
One of these days Harper Lee is going to kick off and have a great big posthumous laugh at our expense. Bwah-hah-hah! Because right there in her Last Notes and Testament, we will find an answer to that puzzlement that has troubled the publishing biz for a half-century or more.
Namely, why didn’t Harper Lee write any more novels after To Kill a Mockingbird?
And the main reason she didn’t, she will aver in words that are coarse and pithy, is that To Kill a Mockingbird was a phoney-baloney contrived piece of fluff. It wasn’t her novel anymore, not after her agent and editors got through tarting it up, to make it modern and popular and sellable. They mutilated her baby, and young Nelle Harper Lee didn’t have the heart to go through that again.
The word itself is problematic. For many, especially those of a Marxist bent, it was an attempt to divert working people from the real cause of their problems. For other, it was a vehicle for anti-Semitism and conspiracy thinking in general. For others still, as George Orwell noted, it was, and still is, a crude insult: “something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class” (Orwell, 1944).
How did fascists define this word? For Benito Mussolini, it was a reaction to liberalism:
We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State. (Mussolini, 1933)
Clausewitz’s presence in this period of German history cannot be reduced to Hitler. As a Prussian patriot and the preeminent theorist of modern war, Clausewitz was unsurprisingly enthusiastically celebrated in the Third Reich. This had obvious benefits for the glorification of both Germany and warfare. Furthermore, the National Socialists were eager to portray their movement as being in the lineage of the Prussian/German tradition of politics and warfare, from Luther through Frederick the Great to Bismarck. Clausewitz was a natural part of this, and the least one can say is that much of his life and work – the dogged resistance to foreign domination, the deference to authority, the enlistment and inspiration of the masses, the necessity of violence, the importance of emotions and “moral forces,” the need for iron will, and so on – are eminently compatible with National Socialism.