April 23, 2014
Pew Research Center on “The Next America”


The Pew Research Center recently published a new study titled “The Next America”. In it, the organization discloses the continued massive demographic shift in the United States, looking at a number of areas from age to race to views on entitlements.

As we’ve reported here at Theden, Whites are slowly ceding ground in the US to other ethnicities, namely Hispanics and Asians. According to Pew’s projections, “our new racial tapestry is being woven by the more than 40 million immigrants who have arrived since 1965, about half of them Hispanics and nearly three-in-ten Asians.”
pewdemographicchart.jpg
Pew’s report continues, reinforcing the fact that massive immigration is the single driving force behind the country’s demographic shift. They note that “our modern immigrants are different from the big waves of newcomers who came in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries. Back then, about nine-in-ten immigrants were from Europe. Today only about 12% are from Europe.”
Interestingly enough, Pew notes something that drew criticism of Jeb Bush recently, when he pointed out that our current immigrants typically have large families and high birthrates:

No matter where they come from, immigrants are strivers. They’re optimists. And they tend to have a lot of kids. Our immigrant stock – that’s immigrants and their children – is projected to make up about 37 percent of our population by mid-century, the highest share in our history.

immigrantshareofpopulation.jpg

One positive aspect, perhaps, of this shift is that fairly soon, cries of “White privilege” will no longer have much relevance. It’s difficult to contend that one group, and one group only, is your oppressor and sole instigator of all the ills that have befallen your group, seeing as that oppressor group is fast becoming a minority in many respects throughout the country. (It doesn’t mean they won’t continue to try, however, as evidenced by a recent ‘anti-racist’ conference in Michigan.)

The Pew study also touches on perceptions of people of mixed race, and mixed-race marriages. A fairly revealing graphic Pew included was how people perceived President Obama. According to their data, the only group that viewed Obama as black and black only were black people themselves, with 55 percent indicating that view of the president. Another interesting reveal is found in the percentages regarding groups and out-marriage:

More than a quarter of Hispanic and Asian newlyweds “marry out”, as do one-in-six blacks and one-in-ten whites. Whites are still the largest race group, so even though they “marry out” at lower rates, they still account for 70% of all interracial marriages.

(You racist White devils, you.)

From a perspective of age, the Pew report touches on Millennials, writing that “they’re the most racially and ethnically diverse generation ever,” with “more than four-in-ten (being) non-White.” Progressive idea promotion has been hard at work with Millennials, according to Pew, who highlighted the fact that “Millennials have voted more Democratic than older voters in the past five national elections.” This is shown by the fact that Millennials, “at least so far, are strong supporters of a more activist government,” and the finding that nearly seven-in-ten “favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry,” while only 48 percent of Baby Boomers do, and just 38 percent of Pew’s Silent Generation grouping.

According to Pew, Millennials will have a hard time reconciling that support of larger, activist government with the reality of the financial means for entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicaid. 10,000 Baby Boomers are expected to join the ranks of Social Security and Medicaid beneficiaries daily from now until 2030, meaning that the US will have “just two workers per beneficiary – down from three-to-one now, five-to-one in 1960, and more than forty-to-one in 1945.”

This means that, according to Pew, the “math of the 20th century simply won’t work in the 21st. Today’s young are paying taxes to support a level of benefits for today’s old that they have no realistic chance of receiving when they become old.” Accordingly,  “just 6% of Millennials say they expect to receive full benefits from Social Security when they retire. Fully half believe they’ll get nothing.”

Pew concludes their report by pointing out that “more than 50 million, a record, are living in multi-generational family households, their fortunes braided together, because that turns out to be a good way to make ends meet in hard times.” For some odd reason, Pew fails to make a connection between the massive wave of immigration starting 50 years ago, and the fact that record numbers of Americans are living in multi-generational households. (A pattern well-known and established throughout most of the undeveloped, or underdeveloped world.)  Instead, Pew tries to put a positive spin on it, hoping that “if Americans can bring to the public square the same genius for generational interdependence they bring to their family lives, the politics will become less toxic and the policy choices less forbidding.”

As always, those in the Cathedral posit diversity and immigration as unquestioned goods, even as data of all kinds tell them otherwise. As evidenced well beyond the US, and as predicted by writers such as Lothrop Stoddard and Jean Raspail, the Western world is being “colonized from below”. So far, given the above as well as our lower social trust and rising class inequality, it’s difficult to call positive in any way at all.


from Pew Research Center on “The Next America”

April 22, 2014
WWI Anti-German Propaganda: A Lesson in Foreign Policy


Check out some WW1 anti-German propaganda posters. This is intense imagery. One poster draws an ape in a German helmet grasping at the globe. A knife has been lodged into Europe with blood spilling out. Other posters have scary imagery of a muddy German clawing his way up, out of the trenches, and over the ocean towards you, safe American! The German is called a Hun. Used by the Anglosphere nations, it was a derogatory term. Propaganda exists but how it is used changes. These posters versus the world of today reveal enough about our leadership to show that our elites are not American but disloyal globalists. America is not a nation among nations, but the seat of empire. It has an imperial management system, not a nationalist leadership class.


What I find interesting is how free America was to use harsh terms for propaganda for what was effectively a war of choice. The Second World War’s propaganda was extremely graphic, but that war was a bit different due to the Pearl Harbor sneak attack (those crafty rat bastards). President Wilson ran on a platform of “He Kept Us Out of the War” to turn around within weeks of his inauguration to plunge us into the war on the side of the Entente. Did it come down to the Entente owing JP Morgan more money than the Central Powers owed Jacob Schiff? Was Bismarck right that it was Americans speaking English and not German that would decide the 20th Century? Eugene Debs, whatever you think of his socialism, was jailed for a speech where he encouraged men not to go to war for the elite. Even John J. Pershing put the brakes on deploying men after arriving in France due to our raw recruits and lack of proper training and equipment. Looking at the timeline, how much of the Entente’s machinations to get the Americans involved stemmed from a need for cannon fodder and to replace the sloppy Russian manpower on the eastern front?


Did the US use posters for our wars of choice like Vietnam, Iraq and even Afghanistan that said “Kill the Gook” or ”Destroy the Towelhead”? I was not around for Vietnam, but I do not recall anything like that for Persian Gulf I or post-9/11 wars. George W. Bush said he wanted Osama Bin Laden dead or alive and the media threw a hissy fit. Terrorism training videos show White guys, and our federal agencies shoot at cutouts of White grannies and teens. The television program 24 that was tailor-made for the post-9/11 world (debuting right after) could not be bothered to have Muslims attempting terror plots. What I remember of post-9/11 media was a rush to calm the population; tame the mighty beast that was American rage at the terrorist attacks. Fear of a backlash on Arabs or Muslims was mentioned in the news. My university sent Muslims to the local schools to teach the kids: “See, Muslims are just like us”. It’s a religion of peace… that stones women and gays and marries cousins to one another. Progressives were baiting Americans to lash out with full on Arab-Muslim hate, accusing the heartland of ‘Islamophobia’ before anyone could even do anything ‘Islamophobic’.

Who defines Islamophobic, anyway? What is wrong with noticing the pattern of Muslim violence? The chattering classes and media say so. They say so and SWPLs (Faceborg example here) parrot their statements and beliefs into mocking reactions to Muslim violence even after events like the Boston Bombing. This ‘Islamophobic’ expectation for Muslim violence was built into the White House’s explanation for the Benghazi attack. It was over a video implies you think so low of Muslims that random Youtube videos will drive them to fire rocket launchers on American assets. Anyone call the State Department Islamophobic? This early ’00s fear of a backlash on Muslims was all in the shadow of a bunch of Muslims committing the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. “This was our Pearl Harbor” was repeated often, but wrong. This was our chance for bloodlust, but it hasn’t been realized. Finally, that conflict that the overstimulated Gen-X crowd bemoaned lacking in Fight Club was here. It has not worked out that way, and I blame our elites and their media who have created our interconnected, globalization-driven era. You think if Muslims are flying planes into towers in Shanghai, the Chinese aren’t marching across the Middle East until they get to Israel, shaking hands with some Jews and marching back across miles of bloody sand? Chinese hotels right now are refusing to take in Japanese patrons over tiny islands in the ocean.

Some commenters on my random posts say modern men wouldn’t fight the Mexican invasion or step up to fight the Muslims. Bullshit. I’ll take the other side of that bet. One condition: I’ll do so if you give me control over the media and freedom to make propaganda posters like the above. Imagine Auster’s small immigrant crime or Muslim dysfunction posts, but writ large. You think men would not rise up to combat the Mexican invasion if I created movies showcasing the terror in the Southwestern US starting in 1986? Clinton would have had to form border patrols by ’97 after I was done with propaganda. Real border patrol efforts unlike his phony ’96 immigration act that was a response to popular anger in California. To play on the Yglesias “Green Lantern Theory” of military power, imagine starting anti-Islam propaganda in the ’90s after the first World Trade Center attacks and bumped it up with the USS Cole. You would never hear “religion of peace”. We would also need to have “ungrateful Muslim shits” reports after saving their asses in the random Balkans police actions (or would we even be fighting there). Starting right after 9/11, blare out non-stop exposes on Muslim dysfunction. At the end of a program when Lee Greenwood’s “Proud to be an American” blared and a bald eagle landed on an American flag, the masses would hold back tears and shoot wherever I pointed.

Doubt there is not an audience for it? Go watch the Hugh Hefner Comedy Central Roast, especially Drew Carey’s bit. Taped weeks after 9/11 in New York, the jokes are on Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but they deal in every stereotype about Muslims one can imagine. These are prog comedians yucking it up. Do you recall George W. Bush throwing out the first pitch (a perfect strike) at the World Series in the Bronx? I do not need to link the video because I can see it now. As dumb as it sounds, my friends and I all hugged, thinking It’s going to be okay. Give me that power over the message and I’ll have the debate be not to bomb or not to bomb, but do we turn the sand to glass or just bomb the cities to rubble and send in the A-10 Warthogs and Apaches vs. holdouts afterwards. Like with crime, those who enable and support the terrorists must feel the effect. Grim, sure, but if you got drunk with your pals after 9/11, I know you had those talks.

Sadly, that is not our system. It’s why they do everything to lull natives to sleep. Nixon’s Silent Majority just needs to be kept asleep until it is no more. Why else would they hyperventilate that Tim Tebow might lead Christians on new crusades instead of concentrating on rappers glorifying crime inspiring little kids for the thug life? That is not our system. Our Army could not do that even if we do have the technological power. The wealthiest of Arabs are important dollar recyclers and debt buyers in the petrodollar system. Our media would not allow it. Fast forward a couple of years after Drew Carey’s Hefner Roast act, and Chris Rock is ringing the bell screaming paraphrased “anti-immigrant leads to anti-Black and anti-Jew”. We live in the flat earth, the global village, the interconnected world. I doubt enough of us have the stomach for a real clash of civilizations as we are conditioned now, but in the right setting with the right conditioning, we are capable of anything.


from WWI Anti-German Propaganda: A Lesson in Foreign Policy

April 21, 2014
Sebelius Resigned Because Obamacare Won


The metrosexual duo of Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein bequeathed to media-watchers a wonderful headline on their new site, Vox, “Kathleen Sebelius is Resigning Because Obamacare has Won“. They may be mostly right, but the final touch goes wrong: the last line says that she can leave with it looking like a success. That is an outright lie unless viewed from a progressive perspective, one that conflates winning and success. Obamacare is a win if one looks at it as the point where every political debate, election cycle or budget discussion was altered to forever involve healthcare and the mortal wounding of the private insurance and healthcare system: a win for progressives and a step toward the nationalization of healthcare.

Using the word “won” is important for it reveals the mindset of progressives and policy wonks like Klein. Vox begins, “Obamacare has won”, and says that Sibelius’ resignation is proof that “the law has won its survival.” They could have used a word like ”success” or “working” in the headline but they chose to use “won”—and that choice is revealing. It is about winning, not positive policies or good governance: politics is a sport; factions are teams, ingroups, thedes of their own; and all that matters to its players is which team wins.

Vox is designed for lazy SWPLs to learn talking points boiled down to 15-second comebacks for cocktail parties and Facebook arguments. “Won” is the cue for a progressive foot soldier to throw in the face of anyone daring to criticize it. Any fool can see that it is not a success. Premiums continue to rise. Millions lost their individual coverage in the last eighteen months, which makes the supposed 7 million enrolled look like a wash. Think of the 7 million number. It is anywhere from 25 to 43 million short of the uninsured. And some are saying it was designed to fail, to set the stage for single-payer with its collapse.

It is thousands of pages of red tape backed up by years of lying. More Obama-Sebelius statements were thrown into the lie column when the post-Obamacare premium numbers showed an increase in annual premiums by $2500 not a decrease (check Politifact’s twisting of a truth meter score). Politifact can deny it, but the increases since Obamacare went into effect are partially driven by Obamacare due to simple changes in the law like removing pre-existing conditions exclusions. The insurers also padded premium levels to set up reserves for the near future hit of the Obamacare landscape. Part of the Obama administration’s rosy GDP projections is due to expectations the underclass will now spend more on healthcare because they are covered now.

Not to defend the Obamacare legislation, but America does need to face some facts with regards to healthcare and insurance costs. We get our insurance primarily through our employers. Therefore, we are subject to group rates derived from the demographic profiles of our workforce. The average American is roughly 7 years older than he/she/zhe was in the 1970s. Older people create more healthcare needs. People are working longer: Zero Hedge often points out that employment for those over 55 has been strong through this depression. Boomers have to work since they did not save anything for retirement. They never thought they would get old. The media discusses the unemployment problem of the under-30 crowd. In this horrible recession, we have employers with older employees and no room for new blood in their firms. This makes the average age of a corporation older, which means insurance based on actuarial tables where age and gender are the prime movers will cost more because the risk pool is older and more likely to use healthservices. We have not slowed down on getting fatter, which creates demand for healthcare (more properly labeled sick care). The US cannot look in the mirror and see that it is the fat, middle aged Prom Queen going to her 25th Year Class Reunion, not the perky 18 year old going to Prom Night.

Yglesias and Klein do not care if insurance costs have risen significantly since the law went into effect, hurting employers and disincentivizing them from hiring new employees. If the per-employee cost jumps by $3,000 (’09-’13 rise), that is roughly 10% of the average salary of an American worker. That hurts producer costs in the middle of a recession. They do not care. The Obama administration is not about an economic recovery. Obamacare is not about covering people. A down economy makes more people dependent on the government, which is their goal. Obamacare is about power and destroying the private system from the progressive perspective. From here on out after the Supreme Court allowed Obamacare to continue, every budget debate will have an Obamacare element. How much? Who? What programs? If you threaten to cut it or take anything away, CBS, ABC and NBC will all have special segments in the news about poor little angels who will be crushed by the cutbacks. If Obamacare destroys the current system, the progressives get to watch the media say the only way to fix the plan is a nationalized system. The health insurer perspective is trying to install a nationalized system administered by private health insurers so they can collect profits. That is the battle, and right now, it looks like the progressives are winning.

Europe is already making changes to their social welfare system, with some nations even looking at privatizing portions of the healthcare system. Progressives do not care. They just want socialized medicine so they can be art history majors and not have their parents get mad at them. Yes, the US system is not perfect and places 37th on international rankings of healthcare systems, but it is 37th because we score poorly on metrics that involve socialized system characteristics. We score poorly compared to OECD nations on infant mortality because we have a 40-million-person African nation and 50-million-person Mexican nation within our borders. Japan and France do not have those populations, but for us, they become ‘problems’ which progressives can ‘fix’ with programs like Obamacare and eventually, Hillarycare. (If you notice that the situation for the Black population has gotten consistently worse ever since the ’60s, well, you’re a racist. If you notice that the Democrats have no incentive to address that, since Blacks will vote over 90% Dem no matter what, you’re a double racist.)

Obamacare is a progressive trick applied to a nation that bears little resemblance to the America that existed when nationalized systems were dreamed up or educated consumers were required. Obamacare did win. No matter how poorly Obamacare does, it is like an NFL lineman taking a 15 yard penalty for roughing the passer on a play where they knock the other team’s quarterback out of the game. It is a shame, but the later victory is all but certain.


from Sebelius Resigned Because Obamacare Won

April 20, 2014
Why Democracy Can’t Tolerate Free Speech


It has become common for supporters of the ideological purges and attempts to silence opposition that have become an increasingly common tactic in the arsenal of progressivism to respond to those who dislike that restriction of the exercise of freedom of speech by saying that “actions have consequences!” As they see it, freedom of speech only applies to the government, and the principle that freedom of speech should be protected does not protect speakers from the negative consequences of their speech. This refrain, that “actions have consequences!”, has been echoed by nearly every media outlet that supported the forced resignation of JavaScript creator Brendan Eich from his role as CEO of Mozilla Corporation over his donation to Proposition 8. The webcomic xkcd has put out a smug stickman tract defending the purge by essentially calling Eich an asshole.

This defense, of course, holds no water.

Randall Munroe, author of xkcd, seems to believe that the First Amendment originated in a vacuum, that it is the only defense of freedom of speech ever to have been authored, or at least that there is no cultural principle behind it that extends beyond government repression of speech. This is a common misconception, and it’s no surprise Munroe thinks it: he studies science and probably never took a philosophy class. If he had, he would have at least heard of John Stuart Mill—who was no idiosyncratic crank, but rather an influential philosopher who originated from and influenced Anglosphere thought.

Here’s what Mill said about freedom of speech:

The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the “liberty of the press” as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear. … Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate.

Mill is quite explicit about taking freedom of speech as not just an issue of government. But it’s also interesting to see, through him, the consensus view of his time: what he says it was concerned with was whether the government was “identified in interest with the people”.

This was written at a time when extragovernmental mechanisms of control were far less developed than they are now: Max Weber defined government in 1919 as the institution that possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, and developments since then have demonstrated just how important the word “physical” is to that description. Few people in America today are threatened with legitimate physical force for giving voice to heresy—and yet the threat still exists, the chilling effect is exerted; and it is not exerted by “the people”, but by a small minority centered around the institutions of academia and the mass media. The fact that Brendan Eich was forced to resign for having donated to a cause that was certified by the (deeply flawed, of course) institutions that this country uses to gauge the will of “the people” demonstrates that this small minority is not identified in interest with the people at all. Were Mill’s contemporaries here today, in a time characterized by the existence and power of this extragovernmental institution, they would probably be worried by the purge of Eich.

And while it is true that actions have consequences, not all consequences follow naturally from the action. There are targeted campaigns carried out by the aforementioned small minority against ideological opponents. There is a pattern of those targeted campaigns—it’s not just Eich, but also Pax Dickinson and Thilo Sarrazin and Ron Unz and Donglegate and many, many more—and when those campaigns are orchestrated by the same small minority, the same separate culture, whose interests do not align with those of the majority in these States, who don’t identify with them at all, who shut them out of elite institutions, it can’t really be said that those campaigns are a natural, organic consequence of the action.

Instead, what those campaigns are is a display of power. This progressive coalition must be able to attract the power-hungry, and there’s no better way to do that than to show them that they will have plenty of nonprogressive skulls to kick in. Even more than that, though, they are part of a strategy: you see, under democracy, those in charge have every reason to care very much about what you hear, what you feel you can safely say without incurring the wrath of the media, what makes you feel good to say, what triggers a reaction of disgust—in short, they have every reason to care what you think.


from Why Democracy Can’t Tolerate Free Speech

April 18, 2014
Finland’s Gay Stamps Send a Misleading Message


The recent news that Finland has issued a set of stamps featuring the work of homo-erotic artist Tom of Finland has been greeted by progressive media as yet another milestone on the road to “full equality.” The fact that Tom of Finland’s work was inspired to by a fetishistic interest in soldiers dressed in Nazi uniforms, whom the young Tom encountered in Finland during WWII, has been less remarked upon.

One of the images used shows a muscular uniformed man sitting with his legs draped over the shoulders of a naked man, who seems to be his prisoner, while another stamp image shows a man’s naked rear with another man’s head looking through his legs.

What makes this seem so shocking is the outdated notion that stamps are still an important way in which a nation projects its identity. It is true that in the past stamps were often used as a way of expressing a country’s identity and a means of carrying its symbols – rather like its flag or money. Are we therefore to conclude that Finland is a nation of gay BDSM practitioners, wearing gimp masks in their daily life, and leading each other around on dog leads? Also is this the kind of image of homosexuals that progressives would actually want to project?

Interestingly, Finland is the only Scandinavian country that does not allow full homosexual marriage, although civil partnerships between homosexuals are allowed. Also interesting is the fact that Finland is in the middle of a push for homosexual marriage.

Like elsewhere in the West, a constant barrage of propaganda in favour of “homosexual marriage” and a live-and-let-live attitude towards the individual’s private sex life have gradually softened the public’s natural antipathy to something that most of them once abhorred.

Advocates of same-sex marriage in Finland have drawn attention to opinion polls to back up their view that an increasing number of people favour same-sex marriage. A poll in March this year showed 65% support with 27% against, and 8% undecided. For purposes of comparison, in 2006 the level of support was only at 45%.

There have been several attempts to change Finnish law to legalize same-sex marriage, the last serious one being a bill that was voted down in a parliamentary committee in February 2013. But, as usual with progressives who wish to overthrow the fundamental norms on which society is based, democracy is only something that is resorted to until the desired outcome is achieved. As soon as the previous campaign was defeated, a new campaign was immediately launched.

Due to a 2012 amendment to the constitution, citizens can petition parliament to consider changes in the law if they get over 50,000 signatories. Accordingly the new civil campaign, called Tahdon2013 (“I do 2013″), managed to find enough people who felt strongly enough to gather sufficient signatures online to make parliament consider the matter again.

The publication of a set of stamps featuring the gay iconography of Tom of Finland must be seen in this context. But it is also important to have a sense of proportion about the issue. In our age of electronic communication stamps have become a lot less important for everyone except philatelists.

Typical Finnish stamps tend to show snowy scenes and wildlife from the Northern forests land. It could be contended that such generally acceptable imagery is a little dull, and is unlikely to stimulate the enthusiasm of collectors, whereas the Tom of Finland stamps have a narrow but deeper appeal for gays and collectors interested, as art collectors typically are, by something edgier and unusual.

The fact remains that these stamps are more likely to be filed away in a stamp album than actually licked on their rears and stuck on letters by normal members of the public. Stamps today are increasingly irrelevant, so what appears on them is largely an irrelevance too. Furthermore, if any of these stamps are ever affixed to a letter mailed to the approximately one-third of the world where homosexuality is still banned, there is a good chance that it won’t reach its intended destination.

The irrelevance of stamps in the age of electronic communication is also a good analogy for gay issues. Just as stamps used to be a vital part of everyday life, so homosexual issues once had the power to shock and engage the passions of the majority. But those days are long gone. From homosexuality being something that most people had passionate views on, it has instead become something that people effectively treat ironically or simply screen out of their lives with platitudes and disinterest. The amount of passion elicited from the public both for and against gay homosexual issues has clearly plummeted. In this sense, it could be said that homosexuality has receded to its ghettos.

Although same-sex marriage may seem to be the burning cause of the day in a few internet-fueled corners of the world, the general public is a lot more apathetic. But if this is the case, why do opinion polls in Finland and the West appear to show growing support for homosexual marriage?

The answer to this is that what they are really showing is merely increasing indifference to the supposed controversy.

To “support” something means to get passionate about it, to desire it, and to even take to the streets to demand it. It is therefore an absurdity to say that 65% of the population of Finland “supports gay marriage.” The vast majority of these so-called supporters would hardly lift a finger in its cause.

It would also be no exaggeration to say that behind this growing indifference there is also an element of repugnance and a strong desire to push the whole set of ideas associated with homosexuality out of mind.

Nothing is more guaranteed to confront non-homosexuals with the repellent aspects of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle than taking a passionate stance against it. So, ironically the best way to be against homosexuality is to be “for” it in a bland, non-committal way.

Sticking your neck out on gay-rights issues in public or on social media means that you will be exposed to all sorts of unpleasantness, including the process of having to actually think and argue about gays, the sexual habits that define them, including male-to-male sodomy, and the medical problems that a gay lifestyle involve, such as the AIDS virus. Rather than face this – and be thought of as a mean-spirited, self-righteous prude into the bargain – most people prefer instead to shrug the whole thing off by accepting the rubric of live-and-let-live.

Opinion polls that claim to show growing support for same-sex marriage are therefore deceptive. The real strength of support has to be gauged by other means. For example, by how many non-gays march in street protests on behalf of gay issues, or how the parties that favour gay marriage are doing.

Among the eight parties in the Finnish Parliament, four have a manifesto commitment to same-sex marriage, namely the Social Democrats, the Greens, the Left Alliance, and the Swedish People’s Party. Interestingly, during the period when polls seem to show growing support for same-sex marriage, all of these parties have been losing support.

Measuring between the 2003 and 2011 parliamentary elections, the Social Democrats dropped from 53 MPs and 24.47% of the vote to 42 MPs and 19.16%. Similar patterns can be seen with the Greens (14 MPs/ 8.01% > 10MPs/ 7.25%); Left Alliance (19 MPs/ 9.93% > 14 MPs/ 8.15%); and even the ethnically-based Swedish People’s Party (8 MPs/ 4.6% > 9 MPs/ 4.3%).

This seems to suggest that rather than actively supporting gay marriage, an increasing number of people see it as a non-issue which has no effect on their vote. They simply wish for it to go away, and they find that the best way to achieve this, at least in their own lives, is to avoid making it a subject of heated contention. For an increasing number of people in the West this is their way of “stamping out” homosexuality.


from Finland’s Gay Stamps Send a Misleading Message

April 18, 2014
CNN Says Jihadis No Match for the Deadly ‘Far Right’


According to Peter Bergen and David Sternman at CNN, “right-wing extremists” have killed more Americans than jihadists have since 9/11, and are therefore more dangerous. The same piece claims that there have been no Americans killed in the name of leftism in the same period.

This is all based on specious analysis. A single incident is enough to show that the latter claim is demonstrably false: Andrew Mickel, a journalist for indymedia.com, murdered a police officer in 2002 in protest of corporate irresponsibility and the police State.

The main claim is that religiously-motivated Muslims have only killed 21 Americans since 9/11. This is also easily debunked: the analysis ignores major incidents of Jihad-motivated homicide in the USA, including the Beltway Sniper attacks (which were also racially motivated). Add those 10 murder victims to the 13 killed at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan, and we already have a higher number than we are given by CNN, with 23 Americans killed in the name of Allah in just two incidents.

Why would someone at CNN be so determined to ignore these numbers? Because they have an image they want to convey. Post-1980s Jihadism is a Muslim issue, and affects the West primarily because of the “invade the world, invite the world” approach taken by its credentialed elite. What is called “right-wing extremism”, on the other hand, is something allegedly homegrown. Showing Jihadis as a definable enemy group would not be very good for the righteous progressive cause of promoting mass immigration from Muslim countries. Lumping various incidents together as “right-wing extremism”, however, implies an enemy image too—that of a disgruntled White American. It makes it easier to look with suspicion at any attempt by non-elite Whites, or Vaisyas, to act in their own interest as a group. Anything too unrighteous, too unprogressive, ‘too White’, can be associated with ‘right-wing extremism’. The question of cui bono? here isn’t hard to answer.

But the two above examples are far from a total number. We then have homicides committed by Abdulhakim MuhammadAbdulsalam al-ZahraniArid UkaMohammed AlayedHesham Hadayet,Naveed HaqHasan AkbarOmeed Popal, and the Tsarnaevs. This brings us to a total of 38 Americans or residents of America killed by Jihad-related homicide since 9/11. There are a number of other incidents that did not result in any fatalities, and a number on top of that in which a religious motivation has not been concretely confirmed but is likelyFurther digging will reveal more, but is not necessary for the purposes of debunking CNN’s anti-Vaisya piece.

So the sloppy analysis by Bergen and Sternman does nothing to clarify or inform, but rather serves to confuse and mislead. The methodology used is arbitrary to the point of being irredeemably flawed, with the authors choosing to focus only on a narrowly defined (and largely invented) “Al-Qaeda” brand of jihad.

Who needs methodological rigor when you have the Cathedral?


from CNN Says Jihadis No Match for the Deadly ‘Far Right’

April 17, 2014

El Gran Tabu - the revisionist film that DESTROYED a film festival!

April 17, 2014
Mechanics of the Race-Hustle Game


Want to run down the rabbit hole of race in the US? Read Doug Glanville’s essay on when he was racially profiled in his driveway. Kafka would be proud of the ludicrous response to a simple police officer’s question by Glanville’s social circle and the community. Glanville steps outside to shovel his driveway and a cop asks him if he is shoveling to make some money, unaware Glanville lives there. The progressive horror follows. Let us review the theater of the absurd.

Glanville was not affected by this cop questioning him—maybe a bit let down, but he went on with his life. The offense meter bumped up when others found out. Forget any anguish if, say, a Black guy in the neighborhood was going around breaking and entering—but hey, the cop “noticed” something was odd, and we know what that means: he is somehow at fault for recognizing patterns. Glanville’s Ivy-educated lawyer wife shot an email to the State Senator that lives near them (the mayor and governor both live nearby too).

As soon as I told my wife what had happened, she sent the senator a furious email under the subject line “Shoveling While Black”:

Doug just got detained by West Hartford Police in front of our house while shoveling our driveway, questioning him about asking to be paid for shoveling. The officer left when Doug told him that it was his house. There were several other people on our street out in front of their houses shoveling snow at the same time. None of them were stopped for questioning. Just wanted to vent to someone whom we know cares and would be equally outraged.

Before I could even digest what happened, my wife’s email had set a machine in motion. A diverse swatch of Hartford influentials banded together to assess the situation, including the chief of police, local attorneys, and security officers from the neighborhood civic association. Within a couple of hours, I had outlined my version of events to the Hartford police department’s internal affairs department. Most told me that I just had to decide how far I wanted to take my complaint.

Our next door neighbor (the one with the snowblower) helped my wife and me sort out the facts and figure out our options. He has a legal resume that covers a wide range of jurisprudence, from parking authorities to boards of African American–centric charter schools. He was in our living room within an hour.

The first step was to articulate exactly what the West Hartford officer had done. He’d been outside his jurisdiction—the representative from internal affairs had confirmed this. That meant a police officer from another town had come to my house, approached me while I was shoveling my own driveway, and—without any introduction—asked me a very presumptuous question.

All of this had put me in an extremely vulnerable situation. In one moment, I went from being an ordinary father and husband, carrying out a simple household chore, to a suspect offering a defense. The inquiry had forced me to check my tone, to avoid sounding smug even when I was stating the obvious: that I was shoveling the driveway because the house belonged to me.

The cop asked a presumptuous question! How dare he! Two weeks ago a cop asked me who I was as I walked out my garage with a phone in my hand. Should I have called the ACLU? This all happened before the crack Black legal team of offended race hustlers could learn the possible motivations of the cop. He was just an evil cop. What might his motivations be?

I soon learned that West Hartford had an ordinance that prohibits door-to-door solicitation. A man whom I allegedly resembled had broken this ordinance. Someone in West Hartford had called the police, and a young officer, believing he was doing his duty, had pursued the complaint to my street. Our block would have been the first stop for the wayward shoveler if he had entered Hartford.

Right away, I noted that the whole thing had been a lot of effort over shoveling. The West Hartford ordinance allowed its residents to call in violations at their own discretion—in effect, letting them decide who belonged in the neighborhood and who did not. That was a problem in itself, but it also put the police in a challenging position. They had to find a way to enforce the problem in a racially neutral way, even if they were receiving complaints only on a small subsection of violators. In my case, the officer had not only spoken to me without respect but had crossed over into a city where West Hartford’s ordinance didn’t even apply.

Right away, Doug? You noticed right away? How about when your wife was cranking out her email? There is no way she did not talk to herself, and occasionally yell out to you, about how fired up she was. She emailed a State Senator about a cop asking a man why he was shoveling when a call had come in. Glanville’s second paragraph reveals the problems of a multicultural democracy run by progressives. Everything must be done in a racially neutral way in the progressive mind, no matter how concentrated complaints are. Sounds like disparate impact applied to policing. This will only get worse, and the authorities in Connecticut reveal to Glanville how.

The mayor of West Hartford assured me that he championed efforts to diversify his town, and the chief of police told me he is active in Connecticut’s statewide Racial and Ethnic Disparity Commission in the Criminal Justice System.

Proving their progressive merit badges were earned, the Mayor and Chief of Police both have spent hours biting their lips and shaking their heads as ethnics tell horrible tales of locked car doors and scowls in elevators. Connecticut: bastion of horrible racism. If you look at the NY Times census maps, West Hartford is where Whites ran to in order to escape the gang problems of Hartford and East Hartford. United Technologies had a lot of employees who lived there. If you look at the race distribution map for Connecticut, it does have a nice financially-arranged apartheid set up for progressives to safely live in small towns and suburbs while all the Blacks live in several cities. It’s okay when progressives segregate with money, just not when Afrikaners or Southerners segregate with laws.

This is pretty pathetic for a racial harassment event. It still becomes an Atlantic article for SWPLs and older liberals to shake their head at or even cry while reading, of course. “*Sniff sniff*, why did we ride those buses decades ago?” This is all an absurd waste of time, money and effort that reveals a lot about the demented situation we have in the American legal system whenever race is involved. Think of what these “experts” Glanville had at his disposal are actually experts in: race harassment, what is and isn’t racist, what tripped the fuzzy grey line, et cetera et cetera. This is how the race hustlers work. Did you hear Glanville got shook down by a cop in his driveway? Oh Lord, it’s Alabama 1954, never mind that Glanville could buy a home in the mayor and governor’s neighborhood. What Glanville and company do not see, what they can never comprehend, is that when a minor question by a concerned cop elicits such a response by dozens of people with real authority, the power is clearly in the hands of people like Glanville, not the evil White cop.


from Mechanics of the Race-Hustle Game

April 16, 2014

(Source: Spotify)

7:05pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZT9zay1DFigDn
(View comments
Filed under: music spotify 
April 16, 2014
Eurovision and the Quest for Sufficiently Progressive Entertainment


Where the States have American Idol, Europe has Eurovision: a televised, vote-driven song contest, held by the members of the European Broadcasting Union every year since 1956. It was originally intended to bring together a war-torn Europe around a “light entertainment program”, but today it’s mostly an opportunity for countries like San Marino to remind the world that they exist.

Groups of countries that tend to vote for each other in Eurovision. (source)</a.

Groups of countries that tend to vote for each other in Eurovision. (source)

While Eurovision is mostly known as a reminder of the tendency of democracy to devolve into competition among ethnic factions—it is well known that countries tend to vote the most points to culturally similar neighbors—and as a producer of occasional entertainment, as with the unexpected victory of the Finnish metal band Lordi in 2006, Latvia’s consistently comically awful entries, the Moldovan saxophone guy, last year’s Romanian pyrotechnic dubstep warlock, and the infamous turkey, it is occasionally politically informative.

The winner of each year’s contest gets to host the next year’s, and with that comes the privilege of choosing the theme and the marketing. It’s common practice for winners to make their own country the focus of the theme, using their access to a Europe-wide audience to promote themselves. For example, when Azerbaijan hosted the contest in 2012—incurring the wrath of Iran, which called Eurovision a “gay parade” and targeted it for terrorist attacks—the theme was Azerbaijan: the clips played before each song were of the country and its history. Sweden won that contest, and the next year’s contest showed a radical departure in marketing from the established pattern its predecessor followed: the slogan of the year was “We Are One”, explained by Sweden’s state TV broadcaster as a way “to take advantage of the wealth of cultures and expression that is unique for the competition; discuss the value of our diversity and underline that we at the end of the day are the same and are all worth the same”.

Mona Sahlin, the leader of the largest political party in Sweden from 2007 to 2011, once said: “I think that’s what makes many Swedes jealous of immigrant groups. You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that brings you together. And what do we have? We have Midsummer’s Eve and such silly things.” Sweden’s break from precedent makes sense in this context—it’s just another example of that country’s progressive masochism.

But this year is even more informative. In the context of the redevelopment of the Cold War over the highly important issue of gays in Russia—World War G, as Steve Sailer calls it—Austria sent to Eurovision a bearded drag queen. Really.

Then there’s the United Kingdom’s entry, with the background singers’ constant refrain: “Power to the people! Power to the people! Power to the people! You know what we want and we’ve gotta get it now!” The official Eurovision page says that “the lyrics promote the universal message of love and unity”; that’s certainly one way to put it, but isn’t it interesting how this “universal message of love and unity” ends up sounding so much like old communist slogans?

Iceland’s entry is even more blatant: its title is “No Prejudice”, and it begins as follows:

Life is way too short for short-sightedness
and tell me who has got the time
for narrow-mindedness
Listen to what I say
cause everybody looks the same on the inside
And it pays to wear a smile

Let’s do away with prejudice
don’t discriminate, tolerance is bliss
we got to get together on this
cross this problem off our list

Eurovision has a rule: “No lyrics, speeches, gestures of a political or similar nature shall be permitted during the ESC.” This rule is applied so broadly that, when the Swiss Salvation Army sent six musicians to compete in last year’s Eurovision, they had to change their name from Heilsarmee (German for “Salvation Army”) to participate—but somehow Iceland gets a pass.

Conquest’s Second Law says: “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” The European Broadcasting Union, which controls Eurovision, is not explicitly right-wing; and, like the rest of the Cathedral, it has become left-wing—enough so that it thinks that the Salvation Army is political but “No Prejudice” isn’t.


from Eurovision and the Quest for Sufficiently Progressive Entertainment

April 15, 2014
Denver Public Schools Hire Illegal Immigrants as Teachers


Denver Public Schools (DPS) happily announced that it has already hired two illegal immigrants as teachers in their district. According to Bizpacreview.com’s story, “the school system is working with the Teach for America program, which strives to bring ‘people of different backgrounds and experiences into the classroom to enhance learning.’”

Bizpac’s story also adds that, oddly enough, this positive development for the students of DPS is bolstered by the fact that these illegal immigrants actually don’t have a full education background, but rather “were issued an alternative license from the State of Colorado to teach. These teachers are currently enrolled in classes to attain their traditional teaching license after one year.”

KDVR.com explains how this remarkable development is possible:

District spokeswoman Kristy Armstrong said the teachers were hired through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals directive. This policy gives temporary deportation relief and work authorization for immigrants who qualify.

To qualify, the candidate must have come to the U.S. while under the age of 16, among other criteria.

It gives a person the chance to live and work in the U.S.

As Bizpac noted, these “teachers” aren’t actually teachers yet, at least in the eyes of the mainstream American education system and community. That doesn’t stop Armstrong from happily chirping that hiring people who came to this country illegally, and who aren’t actually teachers, is a positive for everyone involved:

“This is exciting news for our schools because one of our core strategies is ensuring we have great teachers in every classroom, and it is especially impactful to have educators who have shared the same experiences as our kids. So we’re excited to have this partnership with Teach For America that has cleared the way for educators with deferred-action status to teach in our classrooms.”

Thankfully, at least one group of Coloradans seem to realize that they’re being sold fool’s gold by DPS’ Armstrong and company. According to Bizpac, the “Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform “questioned reducing education and certification standards, saying it may do a disservice to students.”

That same group issued a full statement, showing that they at least understand this policy seems to be mostly about feeling good, rather than education:

“It is unlikely that most of the illegal aliens with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status are trained, qualified, and certified as educators,” the group is quoted as saying in a press release. “Indeed, DACA status requires attainment of only a high school diploma or a GED certificate. Using unqualified individuals as ‘educators’ does a tremendous disservice not only to students of all races and nationalities, but to our entire educational system.”

While not as apocalyptic as the vision presented in Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, this further ceding of ground to peoples from various Third-World countries would seem to deserve a lot more attention than it currently gets. With many believing that most US voters will be non-White within the next generation or two, and with recent reports predicting that California is set to become a majority-Hispanic State this spring, it’s increasingly difficult to deny that the United States and the post-European culture which built them are slowly being colonized by the Third World.  And instead of the appropriate and healthy consternation this should provoke among peoples who identify with Western culture etc., the White bureaucratic class, such as DPS’ Armstrong, happily welcome this shift, instead of questioning it in any way whatever.

Also, it’s worth noting that Jeb Bush, who many seem to think is gearing up for a 2016 presidential run, recently said that many illegal immigrants who come to the United States do so as an “act of love” for their families and friends. Bush seems to be suffering from a case of “feels” much like DPS and Armstrong. Some number of those illegal immigrants are probably responsible for the 2011 Department of Justice report which found that Mexican cartels were operating in at least 1,000 cities at the time the report was compiled.


from Denver Public Schools Hire Illegal Immigrants as Teachers

April 14, 2014
Russia vs. the US: Whose Oligarchs are Better?


Putin and those evil Russian oligarchs are doing a better job than their socially conscious counterparts in the US. Not the good oligarchs that Western interests push to have released from jail to then go to the Ukraine to help the situation there, but the bad ones that Putin defends. Keep being angry at those oligarchs and how a few men control Russia. The media beats that drum consistently and keep silent on America’s oligarchs because our oligarchs own the media. We will not call our elites oligarchs here in the States, but they function in the same way. They fund our politicians, our social causes, hold most of our assets, and live lives of luxury that commoners will never enjoy. Here is a difference: Russia’s oligarchs have allowed the rest of Russia to enjoy the rising tide of their economic growth.

Russia has enjoyed a large natural resource boost since the commodities bull market began, but their Gini Coefficient is about 40. It is reportedly 42 now, but was 39.9 in 2001. Not much movement compared to the move from 41 to 47.7 (pre-taxes) in the US. Part of this may be the source of wealth as America’s gains since 1995 have been through multiple bubbles in financial and land assets. Russia had a hyperinflation that wiped out debts with most Russians living rent free for years. As the article linked below states, while oligarchs hide money in foreign accounts the common Russian avoids banks as 25% of Russians do not have a bank account. The key is that the Russian economy has grown, but not all spoils went to the top 1% (let alone the top 0.1%).

However, the recent decade-long economic boom meant the poor also gut much richer. In dollar terms, Russia’s GDP increased 7.5-fold over the last decade from around $200bn to $1.5 trillion; at the same time, nominal average wages increased 14-fold over the same period from $50 to around $700 a month.

This transformation has created a burgeoning middle class in Russia. When Putin launched his long-term reform plan, he called for moving 60pc of the population into the middle class by 2020. But according to a report released by Russian investment bank Troika Dialog in August, Russia is already there: Troika claims the middle class (defined as income/capita of more than $6,000 a year) already makes up 68pc of the population, against Brazil’s 31pc, China’s 13pc and India’s 3pc.

Now Russia has allowed a middle class to develop and watched as middle class wages have grown with the oil boom. The pie has grown, as has everyone’s share. That is the dream US politicians sell to Americans, but somehow it does not happen. ‘Evil’ Russian oligarchs have allowed this to happen. The same cannot be said of the American elite. Median household income in America is the same as in 1997. The wealth gap is a growing concern in the media, but the obvious fixes are overlooked. Funny how the NY Times makes no mention of immigration depressing wages for the common man or any ideas for wealth taxes. The Sulzbergers are part of the 1% and do not want to share.

Are Russia’s oligarchs perfect? No. Are they corrupt? Sure. Is their corruption overt (whereas we call ours political donations and patronage)? Yes—and so what? Billionaires like George Soros do not supply the Left with millions to see their rent-seeking ideas and insider deals go unfulfilled. There are nations to break, vulture funds to assemble and markets to rig for more money. Zuckerberg netted another $3.3 billion in stock options, so let us light the fire of another stock bubble and import more coders rather than tax wealth above $10 million and end immigration for a decade. But shhh about all that—he designed Facebook, which is full of ‘Like’ buttons and has a female COO who wants to ban the word ‘bossy‘. He is not a ruthless Russian who may or may not have arranged a killing to gain control of a gold mining operation. That is a bad oligarch. Zuckerberg, Soros, and Steyer are elites, sure—but you know they’re good guys, because they support the same moral crusades that the media tells you are good.


from Russia vs. the US: Whose Oligarchs are Better?

April 12, 2014
Interview with the Hestia Society for Social Studies


Aaron Jacob: The Hestia Society for Social Studies describes itself as a neoreactionary organization. Would you describe neoreaction as an ideology, or is it less rigid and assuming than that—perhaps a conceptual toolbox? What are the essential elements of a neoreactionary approach to political thinking, or to anything else? To what degree is neoreaction something new, and to what degree is it an extension or renewal of older political traditions?

Aimless Gromar and Bryce Laliberte: We can’t speak for everybody, but we are of the view that neoreaction is an ideology. It is possessed of particular habits of thought which put it at odds with the reigning modernism. There are a plurality of political philosophies which can be articulated within, or by, its motivating presuppositions. It is usually defined negatively in contrast to late 20th and 21st century articulations of Enlightenment ideals, but this is only a historical accident. Positively, neoreaction is interested in designing systems around and through its constituent parts, rather than the more modern approach which is to impose systems from above and to shape the parts around an ideal of individual rights.

Everything new has something which it owes to what came before. A large debt is owed to Aristotle’s metaphysics and his politics which are part and parcel of that. More recent philosophers and writers such as Marx, Wittgenstein, and Foucault have proven to be formative influences on the approach taken to the explanation of social phenomena.

AJ: Certainly a major part of the neoreactionary approach is the acknowledgement of a general societal decline in the West over at least the last few generations. What are the most obvious and egregious ways in which this decline is manifest? What were and are the central causes, if any can be discerned? Which elements of this decline are the most pressing problems, and which are more ancillary or incidental?

AG/BL: The decline is most manifest in those things that our society tends to take for granted, e.g., the normalization of standardized education, dual-income households, no-fault divorce, suburban sprawl, and lack of religious identification. Each of these are manifestations of the odious atomization of society to individuals who have no purpose outside material consumption. Those things which the West prides itself on for being “first world” are as often measures of society which can only, at best, indirectly tell you of the vitality of a society; just as often, it is assumed that because our societies exhibit some quality disproportionate to materially poorer societies that that quality is a cause of our prosperity.

The cause of these developments cannot be put simply. By the time you’ve removed yourself enough to observe and identify these phenomena for the problems they are, you’re skeptical the causes can be traced to some break in historical continuity. History doesn’t end. We are always in transition between other intermediate equilibria, and the placing of our own time into a narrative is an endeavor beyond the capabilities of any individual or group. At best, we can move forward by looking to sustainable social models and directing our activities to approximating them. Certain vestiges of the present demonstrate regularities of behavior that put us at odds with these models, such as democratic governance, forcible integration, and the disruption of gender norms. What one will say caused these things depends on one’s perspective. It remains an open question as to whether ideas were causative, or the ideas we associate with present trends were caused by underlying features of the social organism.

AJ: What are the Hestia Society’s most important practical objectives?

AG/BL: Hestia Society is intended as a platform for launching practical operations. The first of these, done in collaboration with Free Northerner, is neorxn.com, an aggregator of neoreactionary and associated blogs. We are already at work on future projects. Being a focal point of the neoreactionary community and facilitating the coordination of available social and material capital for these projects is the central purpose of the Society.

AJ: As noted in the ‘About’ section of your site, the Society is named for Hestia, the Greek goddess of domesticity. And as Robert Filmer pointed out in his Patriarcha, the first kings were the fathers of families—the family being, as your site says, “the very elementary building block of society”. These statements, taken together, imply that societal decline and familial decline go hand-in-hand. What might the Hestia Society propose to revive domestic norms; what can be done to reëstablish the father as the head of the Western household? What sort of incentive structure would be necessary? Would it be best for the State to take a hands-off approach, simply removing any incentives it presently creates for men and women alike not to seek the formation of a family unit, or are there important ways for the State to actively encourage healthy family formation?

AG/BL: The single most important policy the state can pursue regarding family formation and maintenance is getting out of the way. The historical norm is that the father is essentially the king of his estate, with the family being a monarchy in miniature. Allowing gender norms to direct themselves back to a natural equilibrium which captures the maximum social utility of the differing advantages of men and women is important to that. This has been achieved in a number of distinct ways by different societies, the most viable model in the West being that of the Church taking on the role of guiding individuals to their purpose within a veritably Catholic worldview. Were natural incentives allowed to take hold, a natural equilibrium between the sexes would reestablish itself within several generations. The product of this natural equilibrium is the family, the reproductive and socializing center of civilization.

AJ: In what areas is academic research most necessary in order to reach these objectives? Would you say that any of these areas are particularly neglected or understudied at present by academia in general?

AG/BL: The pre-conditions for social trust and exchange are a particularly important area for study—but more importantly, we’d like to see much more work on institution/agent causality. That is, are good institutions more important than having the right agents? Do the sorts of agents present in a polity accurately predict the quality, development, and functioning of institutions? Institutions matter, so the research goes, which is certainly true, but a woefully understudied area is the institution:agent relationship. We’d also like to see a resurgence of political economy as a discipline. Politics without economics is utopian; economics without politics is myopic.

AJ: How can readers be of assistance in the Hestia Society’s efforts? What are the skills and media most necessary for furthering those efforts?

AG/BL: Contact us at hestiasociety@gmail.com with a short description of your background. We are most in need of fund raisers, event coordinators, and the like for putting neoreactionary-minded individuals in contact with each other at the direct interpersonal level. However, we are very flexible and can find a purpose for anyone willing to devote his energies and talents.

AJ: Is there anything else you would like to inform readers about the Hestia Society or neoreaction in general?

AG/BL: Keep in mind that the very idea of neoreaction is extremely young, and has grown so quickly through the wonder of the internet. We won’t pretend to know the future or even to have a definite plan. We are seeking to develop a body of knowledge and to maintain a community so that our ideas might be disseminated where they matter. There remains many things to be determined and understood, and the best thing any individual can do is to treat the endeavor with maturity and seriousness, with an eye to cooperation and promoting those among them who show the most promise for forwarding the movement.

AJ: Thanks for your response!

AG/BL: Thank you for reaching out to us. We wish the best to you at Theden.


from Interview with the Hestia Society for Social Studies

April 11, 2014
Detroit Authorities Deny Racial Motivation in Mob Attack


The UK’s Daily Mail is reporting that two suspects in the severe beating of Detroit resident Steve Utash have been arrested. Utash is the victim of a group of 10-12 Black males who savagely beat him after he accidentally hit a 10-year-old boy named David Harris. Utash stopped to check on Harris after the accident, at which time the mob descended on Utash and put him in the hospital, where he still is as of this writing.

Detroit police and community groups are denying any possible racial component to the attack that has Utash on the edge of life and death. (It’s worth noting that Harris is a young Black boy.)

From the Mail’s report:

Community group Detroit 300 was seen in a WJBK report canvassing the neighborhood door to door with flyers and pleas for help tracking down the additional assailants.

Detroit 300 joined police in saying there is no reason to suspect the attack was racially motivated.

‘This is just an issue that happened, we’re not going to put a racial component on it,’ said one member of the group. ‘These sort of things could have happened whether it would have been white on white, black on black, the fact of the matter is that it was wrong and it shouldn’t have happened.

‘This unprovoked attack on Steve is just inexcusable.’

As it turns out, members of the victim’s family seem to have a much firmer grasp of the demographic reality of Detroit:

I think it was all a setup from the gate,’ Joseph Utash, Steve’s son,  told CBS Detroit. ‘My dad’s been driving up and down Morang for 15, 16 years working for the same company… they know he has money and they robbed him.

‘As far as a hate crime, it might be,’ he continued. ‘You go in Detroit and you’re white, you don’t belong.’
Detroit police officer Jennifer Moreno, right on cue, dismissed the notion out of hand, according to the MailOnline report:

“We have no evidence to suggest it’s a hate crime,” Moreno is quoted as saying to MailOnline.

This quick and summary dismissal of Black-on-White crime being motivated by racial hatred unfortunately seems to be another case of progressive ascendancy, same as it ever was. Luckily, the attack on Utash has gotten enough press that generous strangers have already donated $100,000 to help cover medical costs for him and his family.


from Detroit Authorities Deny Racial Motivation in Mob Attack

April 11, 2014
Brandeis University Finds Ayaan Hirsi Ali Insufficiently Oppressed


Brandeis University has recently caused a stir—they offered an honorary degree to the ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then changed their minds after receiving a complaint from a Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

It may even surprise some that Ali was offered an honor by the Cathedral at all, given her role as a lightening rod for the respectably conservative “counterjihad” movement, wherein she confuses the attempts of the Brahmin pundits to frame anti-Islamic sentiment as just another manifestation of the White supremacist patriarchy. Brandeis, however, is an historically Jewish institution, and may thus be more inclined to give patronage to an ‘Islamophobe’ and ardent Zionist like Ali, than would, say, Oberlin.

Brandeis’ statement:

She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook … her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.

Ali is a Somali feminist and atheist, who lives in America by way of the Netherlands with her English husband Niall Ferguson. She would be a poster-child of progress and vibrancy, if only the world’s billion-plus Muslims had white skin and were capable of more efficient socioeconomic organization. Her genitals were mutilated when she was 5 years old, she was brought up in a school of Islam that is today recognizable in Syria and Afghanistan, and she lives under constant threat of death as an apostate, someone whose execution is required by Sharia. To dismiss Ali’s vocal resistence to infibulation and theocracy as “inconsistent with [the] core values” of progressivism is remarkably stupid, and it really lays bare some internal tensions within the progressive coalition.

Just as stupid, however, is the very thing that set this whole struggle session in motion: the attempt to award an African woman an honorary degree in “being oppressed.”


from Brandeis University Finds Ayaan Hirsi Ali Insufficiently Oppressed