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.
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.
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.
What was fascism?
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)
Part 2 of 4 (Part One here)
Clausewitz in the Third Reich I: A National Hero
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.
Apartheid officially ended on April 27, 1994. A few years prior, elements of the commonsensical apartheid laws were abolished and in 1994 all of the glorious vibrancy of the South African people were able to vote for the first time in a national election. The world rejoiced! Freedom was at hand – at last, at last, at last! Imagine a black-majority country just handed over the reins of power to a stable infrastructure, economy, military and nation-state? What could possibly go wrong?
Paul Escott, “What Shall We Do With the Negro?” Lincoln, White Racism, and Civil War America, University of Virginia Press, 2009, 304 pp., $29.50
Paul Escott, who teaches history at Wake Forest University has written a fascinating account of Civil-War-era racial attitudes and how they influenced the conduct of the war. This is not a happy account of crusading abolitionist heroes; instead it is a serious attempt to understand what white people thought about race and how that affected their actions.
Prof. Escott puts Lincoln under the microscope, and makes no apologies for dispelling the rosy illusions many Americans have about “the Great Emancipator.” To a lesser degree, he also examines Jefferson Davis’s views on race and slavery, as well as the reasons Southerners gave for leaving the Union. Prof. Escott traces how racial convictions influenced politics, and demonstrates that the North was in many ways just as “racist” as the South. There is probably no other book that gives so well-rounded and unsentimental a picture of the racial thinking that drove decisions both in the North and the South.
Greetings loyal listeners, the triumvirate returns with special guest Giest to discuss the recent wealth of Orwellian information leaked by Wikileaks, Ryan(Obama)Care-Lite: REDUX, Trumps immigration reform bill, the unrivaled autistic power of our greatest NEETs, and another triggering installment of The Anti-White Report. All that and more in episode 7 of The Reactionary Report.
Executive Summary: what liberals have in IQ they lack in common sense. It’s an evolutionary trade-off.
In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’ – and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of ‘Openness to experience’, ‘enlightened’ or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism. Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense.
Can Europeans, and European women in particular, become objects of trade? The idea seems laughable, since the term ‘slave trade’ almost always brings Africans to mind. Yet there was a time not so long ago when Europe exported slaves on a large scale. Between 1500 and 1650, Eastern Europe exported 1.5 million slaves to North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (Fisher, 1972; Kolodziejczyk, 2006). Western Europe exported a little over a million between 1530 and 1780 (Davis, 2004).
These slaves were taken during hit-and-run raids by either Crimean Tatar horsemen or North African corsairs. A raiding party would typically descend on an isolated village and carry away its inhabitants—or rather those who were commercially useful, particularly young women and young boys.
If like me, you’re frequently subjected to commercial radio, or worse still, BBC Radio 1, then it’s extremely likely that you’ve also been subjected to the wobbly warbler known simply as ”Adele”. Last year Adele was the third highest earning pop star on the planet raking in a cool $85 Million, Alt-Right icon Taylor Swift was number one with a boy-band number two. The fact that Taylor took the top slot is a sign that not all is lost, it tells us that there’s still a vast market for white beauty and a, in theory, traditional, gentle conservatism.
So, okay, fine, but why is Adele so popular? what is it she’s selling and why are so many (#not all!) western, white, women connecting with it?
Part 1 of 4
All intellectuals dream that their ideas will not be confined to the dead letters of books accumulating dust on library shelves, but should possess the world. An underexplored but highly fertile field in this respect is the influence of the great Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz upon the German dictator and warlord Adolf Hitler. This is an extremely controversial issue. Clausewitz is the preeminent military theorist, rivaled in fame only by the ancient Chinese sage Sun Tzu. His influence is profound, being cited by figures as varied as Moltke the Elder, Lenin, and Mao, and by military schools and doctrinal publications across the Western world up to the present day.
Emmett Till was killed more than sixty years ago, but he’s a hotter property than ever. Scarcely a year goes by without yet another book or documentary recounting the tale of the hefty black youth from Chicago who got beaten and shot in Mississippi in 1955, for the mild transgression of “whistling at”—and physically molesting—a young white woman in a country store. According to Variety and the New York Times, there are now two feature films in the works, one of them produced by Whoopi Goldberg. We can also look forward to a six-part HBO series on the Till story, brought to us by the eminent Jay-Z and Will Smith.
What is the essence of civilization? This question lurks beneath every report of wartime atrocities, terrorist attacks, and heinous crimes. A conception of civilization is the unspoken presupposition undergirding every instance of moral outrage, virtue signaling and social prejudice. Civilization, more than race, class or ideology, is the unmentionable topic in a liberal multicultural society. After all, behavior differences between the races or psychological differences between the sexes are thrown in such sharp relief precisely because everyone holds in their mind an implicit image of the ideal social organization. Honor, politeness and racism lose all meaning if no one cares how anyone acts.
The modern era is characterized by the steady, at times exponential, growth in the material power of human societies in mastering their world. This has paradoxical consequences in the field of war. The most obvious is an exponential increase in warring states’ means of destruction: nation-states can conscript entire societies, economies, and propaganda apparatuses towards the war effort (“total war”), geographical limits to war are annihilated (aerial bombing), and destructive power becomes god-like (nuclear war). This accounts for the crescendo of violence in the wars of the modern era, beginning with the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, but especially with the world wars and the happily unrealized apocalyptic destructive potential of the Cold War.
No Campus for White Men
WND Books, 2017
The point of American conservatism is misdirection. It is a movement designed to fail, a program organized to lose, a racket masquerading as resistance. For that reason, much of what passes as “intellectual conservatism” is an attempt to disguise the obvious and to funnel political momentum into pointless dead ends. Even as European-America perceives that its country, culture, and future are slipping away, American conservatives are still babbling about the need to give tax cuts to billionaires, abolish Social Security, and start a nuclear war with Russia over Crimea. Be it out of stupidity or malevolence, you can always count on an American conservative to miss the point.
Thus, ordinary college students mired in the open-air lunatic asylums of higher education will greet first-time author Scott Greer’s No Campus for White Men with no small amount of surprise and relief. Greer doesn’t just make the usual conservative complaints about “liberal bias” or lack of attention toward “limited government.” Nor does he create some elaborate theory about an obscure ideology which has mysteriously captured academia. He concisely, passionately, and accurately defines what college is all about today – hating white people.
The North East of England has a local newspaper called ”The Daily Chronicle” and last week the newspaper reported on two separate ”Hate Crimes”. I thought it would be instructive to post both articles in full side by side so the reader can see for themselves the absolutely rancid double standards with which white people, English people, have to live. Pay special attention to the nature of the ”Hate Crimes” and their relative sentences…or lack thereof….