Sender Males Carrier Females

Salter’s Blank Slate Hypothesis.

Back in my Legion Europa days I discussed Salter’s “Sender Males Carrier Females” “Blank Slate Hypothesis,” also mentioning how underlying issues in that hypothesis illuminate inconsistencies in certain Nordicist paradigms at that time. I will revisit the Salter paper in this post.

See here.  Abstract:

The article introduces and elaborates the hypothesis of carrier features, characteristics which in females are attractive to males as mate-choice cues. Female carrier features increase paternal resemblance and are ultimately attractive because they help pair-bonded males distinguish genetic offspring from those conceived by mates in extra-pair copulations. The proposed kin recognition mechanism, whether culturally evolved or innate, facilitates discriminatory paternal investment, and hence male fitness. Carrier features would be attractive to males in monogamous species where paternal investment is high, and cuckoldry represents a significant risk to male fitness. Logical space exists for male sender features, which tend to be expressed in offspring regardless of female characteristics. Conflict of genetic interests between the sexes should favor the evolution of carrier, rather than sender, features in both sexes. The argument centers on humans, for whom candidate carrier features are discussed with regard to physiognomy, behavior, recessive traits, and body odor. Criticisms are discussed, and testable predictions enumerated.

The best summary of the hypothesis is in the opening of Salter’s paper itself:

Imagine an individual possessing a heritable characteristic of such a form that when the individual sexually reproduces, offspring tend to show enhanced resemblance to the other parent in that characteristic. To use the metaphor of radio communication, this hypothetical characteristic could be called a carrier feature, because it acts to transmit a distinctive characteristic of a mate to offspring.

Now, males who find carrier features attractive as mate-choice cues in females should be better able to discriminate their own offspring from offspring conceived by their mates in extra-pair copulations (EPCs). Female EPCs lower paired males' objective confidence of paternity. When paternal investment is significant, the phenomenon is often called cuckoldry and the victim a cuckold (a male who does not invest in his mate's young by provisioning or defending territory cannot be cuckolded, because he has nothing to lose) (Trivers 1972; Alexander 1974). Given these factors, males predisposed to choose as mates females with carrier features should experience an increase in relative reproductive fitness over males who are not so predisposed, so long as some anticuckoldry mechanism exists whose efficiency is improved by enhanced recognition of genetic offspring. Assuming these preconditions, genes and/or knowledge predisposing males to choose carrier-females as mates would tend to spread throughout the whole population. By the same logic, enhanced male characteristics that tend to express themselves in the offspring of any female, would be selected. To continue the radio analogy let us call these sender features, meaning characteristics with forms that tend to be expressed in offspring more than alternate forms.

Possible candidate carrier characteristics would be:

Facial appearance – female beauty (male preference) is typically associated with less distinctive faces with more average proportions; indeed, facial averaging methodologies (e.g., overlaying photos, computer morphing of composites, etc.) result in more attractive female faces than actual individual females, suggesting that individual females that have faces that trend more toward the non-distinctive average look would be considered more attractive.  Note that small noses, small chins, etc., are considered attractive in females, while more distinctive and masculine traits like larger noses and chins and the “manjaw” are considered unattractive in females. Symmetrical faces are typically considered attractive, although the data are stronger (as of the time Salter wrote the paper, 1996) for non-distinctive (“average”) features as opposed to symmetry, with respect to female features being more important than that if males.

Note that paternal relatives are typically particularly interested in noticing ostensible father-child resemblance. Further, some researchers have postulated differences in paternal vs. maternal gene expression on offspring, favoring paternal expression and resemblance, as a selected mechanism for assuring paternal investment.  Of course, as sender traits spread in a population, a male cannot be sure the sender traits in offspring are from him or another, similar man – there is no definitive proof of paternity other than genetic analysis. There is merely altered probabilities, and given the immense costs and benefits for fitness, probabilities are sufficient to be the target of selective pressure and altered paternal investment in offspring.

Behavior – attractive female behavior is more subdued and demure, and less idiosyncratic, than male behavior.

Recessiveness – eye, hair, and skin color, etc. Of course, as recessive traits spread in a population, paternity detection via sender traits becomes more difficult. When both the male and female are “monozygotic recessive” for a trait this becomes a problem. Also note that if a dark-eyed male is heterozygotic for that trait, it is of course less dependable than is homozygotic for that trait.  In the absence of gene sequencing, the male would have to look at his extended family – if everyone has dark eyes, without fail, it is more likely he is homozygous; on the other hand, having some number of light-eyed blood relatives increases the probability that he is heterozygous and hence that trait is a less dependable marker of paternity.

Male vs. female strategies would differ based upon how frequent recessive traits are in a population.  In populations that exhibit a high frequency of recessive traits, a female prone to cheat would want a recessive mate and recessive lovers so as to obscure paternity. However, females who want to maximize paternal investment via a “fidelity strategy” would choose a mate with dominant traits to make paternity “less ambiguous.” In populations that exhibit low frequencies of recessive traits, cheating females would want dominant mates (and dominant lovers) to obfuscate paternity; however, here, females choosing fidelity would prefer a recessive mate so the man can be more confident in recessive offspring (given that most potential male lovers for the female would be phenotypically dominant).

Body odor – this has the advantage that it can work subconsciously, without the male needing to even think about paternal investment in a conscious way.

Therefore, males would prefer and select females who have more recessive, more average (less distinctive), and/or less intense physiological (“carrier”) traits so that offspring resulting from mating with such females would reflect the more dominant, distinctive, and intense male (“sender”) traits of the (assumed) father, thus enhancing confidence in paternity (hence, an anti-cuckoldry mechanism). Carrier traits would be selected in females. What about males?  Male behavior would select for male sender traits. If females wanted to assure the male of paternity and enhance paternal investment in offspring, females would choose males with more pronounced sender traits. On the other hand, given female hypergamy, the optimal female strategy would be to choose male mates with carrier traits so paternity is obfuscated; alternatively, evolution of sender traits in females would favor female hypergamy interests by also obfuscating paternity (male paternity confidence is typically maximized by more sender traits in males and more carrier traits in females). Thus, there is a divergence of sex-based interests, resulting in competing selective pressures.  Of course, offspring are a mix of traits, so a sender male would see his sons be “more carrier” than himself (negative), compensated by daughters who are “more carrier” (positive) – for carrier females the calculation is of course different, more unattractive daughters with more sender traits from the father but compensated with sons with more sender traits. There is constant selection and counter-selection here, and it is not difficult to see how recessive carrier traits can spread in a population, particularly in populations in which paternal investment is high and in which the environment favors the maintenance of recessive traits. On the other hand, in societies in which paternal investment in low and cuckoldry doesn’t impose a large fitness cost to males, then there is less selective pressure for carrier traits – that these societies are often in tropical areas like Africa makes the maintenance of recessive traits more problematical in any case.

Patriarchal societies that enforce proper female behavior and control female hypergamy would have less need of the sender-carrier selective pressures, while more matriarchal and/or “liberated” societies would result in more female hypergamy, more cuckoldry, and increased selective pressure for sender-carrier selection.

Salter answers a number of potential criticisms and then makes predictions via testable hypotheses. These testable hypotheses are:

1. Carrier features should be independent of “health signs.”  As we know, many features considered attractive in humans, particularly in females, are markers of health.  Of course, the two may be “additive” – but there should be some additional carrier utility above and beyond health. This needs to be determined.

2. Carrier features in females should promote male sexual desire and mate bonding – this seems to be the case.

3. There’s some question as to whether carrier features would peak at a certain age and then diminish – e.g., at the peak of female youthful fertility – or should continue to ensure long-term mate bonding. This needs to be determined.

4. If strategies to control cuckoldry impose costs, then societies that have other mechanisms for controlling cuckoldry would have less need for the sender-carrier distinction. One can consider Middle Eastern societies that are very patriarchal and in which female sexuality is tightly controlled – females tend not have many carrier features compared to the males. More research is needed.

5. If “displays of fidelity” impose costs as well, one would expect populations that have females with many physiological carrier traits would also have females who feel less need to display behavioral cues of fidelity – the carrier traits are enough.  One could consider phenotypically recessive Northern European populations with “feminist” “liberated” females who are not pressured to act chaste.  Meanwhile, in other, less recessive populations, with fewer female carrier traits, females may be under increased pressure to act chaste to make the man confident in paternity through a (deluded?) perception of female fidelity. More research is needed. On the other hand, Africans have few female carrier traits and also very unchaste female behavior, but there is low paternal investment there (see below), so no need for carrier traits or displays of fidelity.

6. Populations that have more male mate choice of carrier females should exhibit more “paternal discrimination based on resemblance” (behavior that is genetic and/or cultural) than other populations.  This needs to be determined.

7. There may be group differences in sender-carrier features. Societies that have more female choice, then males would have more carrier features, since females would tend to pick carrier males who are easier to cheat on (except in populations that have mostly dominant sender characteristics, see above). Are egalitarian Northern European populations with bossy women examples of this – since the males have recessive features as well?  On the other hand, in societies with low levels of paternal investment, there is less need for the sender-carrier distinction. Note that sexual dimorphism in facial features is less in low-paternal-investment Africans compared to European and South American populations in which paternal investment is higher (particularly among Europeans); see this:

Sexual selection, including mate choice and intrasexual competition, is responsible for the evolution of some of the most elaborated and sexually dimorphic traits in animals. Although there is sexual dimorphism in the shape of human faces, it is not clear whether this is similarly due to mate choice, or whether mate choice affects only part of the facial shape difference between men and women. Here we explore these questions by investigating patterns of both facial shape and facial preference across a diverse set of human populations. We find evidence that human populations vary substantially and unexpectedly in both the magnitude and direction of facial sexually dimorphic traits. In particular, European and South American populations display larger levels of facial sexual dimorphism than African populations. Neither cross-cultural differences in facial shape variation, sex differences in body height, nor differing preferences for facial femininity and masculinity across countries, explain the observed patterns of facial dimorphism. Altogether, the association between sexual shape dimorphism and attractiveness is moderate for women and weak (or absent) for men. Analysis that distinguishes between allometric and non-allometric components reveals that non-allometric facial dimorphism is preferred in women's faces but not in faces of men. This might be due to different regimes of ongoing sexual selection acting on men, such as stronger intersexual selection for body height and more intense intrasexual physical competition, compared with women.

On the other hand, Asians tend to have low sexual dimorphism with higher paternal investment, which brings up issues of mate choice in those populations. These are complex issues with counter-acting selective pressures.

8. High status males should have more sender features and low status males more carrier – high status males have more choice in mates; the low status males have to be content with females who pick carrier males more prone to cuckoldry. There will be of course ethnic and racial considerations here, as some populations have a very high frequency of certain carrier traits. Prediction number eight would be most appropriate for populations that exhibit a higher degree of carrier traits. More study is required.

America is an interesting laboratory for Salter’s entire thesis, as it contains widely varied populations with a spectrum of sender-carrier traits, genetic and phenotypic differences of all types, evolved behavioral differences, differing levels of sexual dimorphism, etc.

On the whole, Salter’s hypothesis has merit and deserves closer examination and testing. This hypothesis compares favorably to related hypotheses, such as that of Frost, and, likely, these various hypotheses are complimentary, rather than in conflict.

As I wrote long ago, this all puts into question certain Nordicist paradigms.  On the one hand, Southern Europeans are said to be phenotypically dark and unassimilable, completely different in appearance from Northern Europeans.  On the other hand, Southern European men are said to be (mostly in America, I presume) engaging in mass cuckoldry of Northern European men via extra-pair copulations between Southern European men and Northern European women (who are the long term mates of Northern European men). But where is the evidence of the cuckoldry, even if we accept the alleged large phenotypic differences?  How can both be true?  If Southern Europeans are so phenotypically different and distinct then the offspring of such cuckoldry would be easily detected and the extent of the cuckoldry would be public knowledge and dealt with in some fashion.  Or, if the cuckoldry is hidden, then the phenotypic differences must be so small that the offspring of the cuckoldry cannot be easily distinguished, and, hence, there is essentially full phenotypic assimilability between the two groups.  Which is it?

The Perfidious Yeastbucket

Behold the female. In all cases, emphasis added.

See this site. A Gab correspondent who is a friend of this blog brought that site to my attention.

See this.

Looking at that basic composite structure of matter - the atom, we cannot help but notice its similarity to the family or "nuclear family" as it is called. The nucleus of the atom contains the "female" protons that passively aggregate together along with the "children" (the neutrons,) which add an element of stability to the atom as children add stability to the family. The "male" electrons actively form a "social" hierarchy as they fill orbitals of different size and shape that surround the nucleus. Also, due to their peripheral location and lesser attachment to the nucleus, they are "free" to become involved in a greater variety of interactions related to the formation of more complex structures (e.g. molecules.) Though electrons have the active roles, it is the protons and neutrons that are the focal point of the atom, it is "they" that the electrons are forced to revolve around. A person unfamiliar with the invisible attractive forces of the protons could easily misinterpret the inner workings of the atom. Here is the way a feminist might have explained things; "Those chauvinistic electrons circle around all day while keeping the protons confined to the nucleus along with the neutrons. They fill up all the orbitals while denying the same opportunities to protons. And whenever they feel like it, they abandon their nucleus and go flying off after some other protons." Fortunately for us, feminists did not establish the laws of physics and chemistry, if only we could say the same about today's social legislation.

See this.

The chief passions that women control begin with sex and expand into sexual love. A strong state of sexual arousal causes the conscious faculties of men to be shunted off - to be literally brainwashed, leaving the void to be filled by manipulative women. The mere anticipation of intercourse produces a tension and craving that has been compared to drug addiction, draining the wealth of men and putting it in the hands of women.

That is why we cannot depend on homosexuals to moralize to us about male-female relations. Only the heterosexual man, subject to “biological sexual harassment” attacks by women, have a complete and comprehensive understanding of the behavior of the perfidious yeastbucket.

Of related interest.

Bettina Arndt is an Australian analyst who has included biological factors in her discussions of sexuality since the 1970s. Her most recent book, What Men Want (2010, chapters 3 and 4), is based on interviews and refers to research in evolutionary psychology, neuroscience and sexual physiology. In a recent article Arndt discussed women’s tactics in attracting men, such as dressing to show breasts.[ii] Her story, appropriate titled “Busted: The Politics of Cleavage and a Glance”, combined anecdote, interviews and behavioural science. She drew on research on male–female differences in sex drive to argue that women who dress sexily in public are flaunting their sexual power…

Meanwhile, homosexual white knighters are more interested in male “Aryan youths in rainbow thongs,” so what do they know about any of this?

See this.

Let us look at the interrelationship of power and voting to understand why only men voted in the past. Before civil society began, men were controlled by "The law of the jungle"; those exerting superior physical force out competed, and often killed, those with inferior abilities. As populations expanded and men were forced to live in closer proximity to each other much of their right to use physical force was transferred to the government. To the extent this was done voluntary, and therefore justly, those men then partook of this power transferred to the government by use of their vote. Physical force is the domain of men, that is the fundamental reason why they should vote and not women. Women never transferred their natural advantages to the government, their power is still used privately, to allow them to exercise 53% of the voting power is to allow them to exercise greater use of physical force than men. Rousseau wrote how some of the feminists of his time being "not content to secure their rights, lead them to usurp ours; for to make women our superior in all all the qualities proper to her sex, and to make her our equal in all the rest, what is this but to transfer to the women the superiority which nature has given to her husband?" The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote is one of the greatest usurpations in the history of the human race, yet there are few people living in this country who perceive things that way, such has been the persuasive power of women.

For those of you that who have managed to retain a little common sense, who still have even a few brain cells that have not been obliterated by feminist propaganda, I will ask you to consider two things. First, if women were "powerless" as feminists claim by not being allowed to vote, and men being oppressive patriarchs and opposed to this right, then how did women manage to acquire this right in the first place? Does not the fact that they did acquire the right suggest that they had means at their disposal more powerful than what men had to oppose them, and does not that imply that women already possessing greater power should not have had their power added to by acquiring the right to vote? Secondly, if the sole, or overwhelming criteria for acquiring one's due from society was from the right to vote, than the condition of children should be lower than the worst slave who ever walked in shackles upon the face of the earth. For not only do they not vote, but they even lack any basic measure of physical strength or knowledge in order to feed and defend themselves; in the feminist way of thinking they should be completely helpless and die of starvation shortly after birth. Nothing of course could be further from the truth, children are not only well taken care of, but they are often afforded protections that even adults do not possess.

That is a cogent analysis of the voting question.

To understand how this can be we observe that in the hierarchical chain of human society, children stand much in the same relation to their mothers as women do to their husbands. Whoever is in need of another to supply their material wants has emotional, and other immaterial power, to compel the delivery of their requirements. Plutarch tells us that the Athenian Themistocles once told his son that he was the the most powerful person in Greece because "The Athenians command the rest of Greece, I command the Athenians, your mother commands me, and you command your mother."

Very true.

See this.

Having addressed things at the most fundamental level we now move to incorporate that quality which separates us from the animals, namely, reason, which is notably pronounced in a patriarchal society and reaches its peak under a republican government. As this type of government displays a marked hierarchical arrangement, which involves a series of  pyramidal lines or "chain of command," it is true that along those lines a strong force is exerted. A more feminine society lacks such a strong hierarchy with its lines of command as the association of individuals in such a society is less rigidly organized, yet, such looseness permits a closer  association among individuals, and association is inherently related to influence, and influence to power. To use a graphic example to illustrate which is more oppressive, consider which circumstances you would prefer to find yourself, in a body of water with a Great White shark or a school of piranhas. With the Great White, no matter how big or how hungry, you have a chance to evade or fend it off, because it is a single animal with a single line of attack at any given time which you can respond to with some hope of success, but the piranhas attack you at a hundred different places at once, and even though their bite is smaller, the collective effect will be almost certainly fatal. What if you were under water without air, which would offer you the least hope, the piranhas or the prospect of drowning? While the piranhas are almost certain death, drowning is even more certain, because the water, even though it offers no violent contact, is everywhere and all around you, like "the absolute will of an entire people" there is no escape. Even on a private one-to-one basis without the all powerful collective effect of numerous individuals, we see that, while a man may occasionally hit his wife, a wife may incessantly "hen-peck" and "smother" her husband, as to which is worse, ask any husband - or piranha.

Seeing now the the two opposite tendencies in men and women, and in their politics, we may now recognize familiar complaints; the male complains that his freedom is being denied to him, while the female complains that she is being "abandoned" by the male exercising his freedom. If legitimate government is by "the consent of the governed" then the female complaint is unjustified, for a man should be allowed to "abandon" any situation that he feels does not sufficiently address his interests, just as women have granted themselves the "right" to do. The proper remedy for women should be to see to it that the "social contract," as with their personal relationships, sufficiently addresses the interests of men, so that they will voluntarily wish to participate. Yet, just as women - as women, have little respect for freedom because it is a quality they do not possess in abundance, so too does their lack of a sense of justice - which is derived from reason, allow them to sufficiently address the interests of men.

We can now view a patriarchal society vis-a-vis the "War of the Sexes"; since a greater population density forces people to associate, and because allowing women to rule would mean certain tyranny, men must assume patriarchal roles as a means of self defense. Consequently, women's claims for "liberation" from the patriarchal state are really their desire to oppress men further then men would be oppressed assuming patriarchal roles, so men are then forced to choose the lesser of the two evils and "oppress the oppressors."

On the abortion issue:

See this.

And this.

And this.

We know that the Fourteenth Amendment, like the Thirteenth, was created with the intent of remedying racial discrimination against black people in this country. Since the Fourteenth Amendment has been extended to cover sex discrimination, then by the same "logic" the Thirteenth Amendment would have to be extended as well.  Therefore, it is illegal for a member of one sex to subject a member of the other sex to involuntary servitude. One must wonder whether people will one day look back from the future and wonder how such a thing as alimony and child support could ever have happened; will they finally learn that slavery is wrong no matter who it happens to.

And this.

A woman who has taken a vow to "love, honor, and obey" her husband "until death do us part" can violate every word of her marriage vows and still make a man pay alimony and child support. When a contract is mutually broken the contracting parties return to their original positions, to make one party continue to honor their contractual obligations while the other party is required to do nothing is a clear interference of "the obligation of contracts."…

…It should be further observed that in a marriage or similar relationship the rewards are different for men than for women; in general, there is more of a material reward for the woman and more of an emotional reward for the man. Within the sphere of material rewards the duties of men tend towards public life as the provider, and for women as the homemaker with its array of domestic duties; cooking, cleaning, etc. as well as such intangibles as love, companionship, and sexual relations. If it had been acknowledged in the past that a woman had a right to support from her husband, it was also acknowledged that the husband was entitled to "wifely duties" consisting of the domestic and intimate matters mentioned above and going under legal expressions such as "consortium" and "society."…

…Someone might wish to point out that forcing women to fulfill their roles from a distance the way men are required to do would involve great difficulty. For an ex-wife to come over every day to cook and clean might well be impractical, particularly if she lived at a distance. As for the more personal side, will an ex-wife be required to have sex with a man she hates; will he even want her to walk in the front door? What would be feasible then, shall the ex-wife be required to pay another woman for such services, or perhaps pay the government to provide her ex-husband with such benefits. I suppose the idea of a "sexual welfare" program might sound rather amusing, but then politicians have no problem prostituting themselves for women…

…The fact that there are complications does not justify ignoring the rights of men, if the government cannot provide equitable relief for both sides then it must step aside and allow people to work out their problems on a private basis. The government has been very creative in finding ways to satisfy women, if it made similar efforts towards men I doubt if it could not achieve similar results.

That is a very interesting argument. Most divorces are initiated by women; they are openly violating their marital contract. Then some of them demand alimony and child support on top of that.  The perfidious yeastbucket, indeed.

Nordicist Confessions Part I

An initial reply.

An individual who runs the Nordicist Confessions blog commented on my Gab account and as promised I present an initial response. I would first like to distinguish Nordicism from a healthy interest that Northern Europeans would have in the ethnic/subracial interests of Northern Europeans and Northern European ethnies. Nordicism is a supremacist ideology with strong animus toward non-Nordic peoples, particularly non-Nordic Europeans (and more especially Southern Europeans), often coupled with Afrocentric-like “poaching” of the history and accomplishments of other people’s past civilizations.

In contrast, a normal and healthy interest in your group's well-being is obviously not supremacism (a point many people do not understand with respect to White nationalism vs. White supremacism). I also would like to point out that every group has its strengths and weaknesses, more or less of each in some cases than in others, and it is normal and healthy for any group, including Northern Europeans, to note and take pride in the strengths and accomplishments of their group. Contrary to the claims of my critics, I have never asserted that all Europeans are fungible and that differences between them do not exist.  But Nordicism is not merely the recognition of difference, but instead makes intra-White differences into a disjunctive, existential, animus-driven “us vs. them” mentality among the European family of peoples. 

Here is the Gab comment and my response:

You fail to take into account the motivation for the Asiaphilia and Medophobia of many Nordicists. East Asian men are not seen as a sexual threat to most Nordicists, particularly those Nordicists who are lower status and consider Asian women a viable alternative. 

To the extent that is true for some people, it suggests that their claim to support preservationism is a fig leaf for sexual anxiety. After all, mating with Asians will negatively affect Nordic traits more than mating with Southern Europeans, yet these people would "consider Asian women a viable alternative." Note that I have previously suggested that HBD is to a large extent motivated by sexual fixations on (East) Asian women, although I haven’t directly connected that sexual fixation to Nordicism.

South Asian men, however, given their greater height and higher level of testosterone than East Asian men, are generally seen as a greater threat. 

Interestingly, Nordicists today seem more amenable to South Asians than to Southern Europeans, perhaps for reasons discussed below (i.e. Southern European  “relative ease in blending” and acceptance in a White ethnostate, see below).

Southern European men, however, are generally regarded as White but have phenotypic traits that are perceived as dominant. Thus, their relative ease in blending in yet genetically somewhat distinct and dominant traits are the cause for concern. 

The “narcissism of minor differences” that I have noted may be in part due to: “Southern European men, however, are generally regarded as White but have phenotypic traits that are perceived as dominant. Thus, their relative ease in blending in yet genetically somewhat distinct and dominant traits are the cause for concern.” This is something I have suspected. Thus, Southern Europeans are viewed as the greater danger compared to non-Whites since they combine a “relative ease in blending” with “genetically somewhat distinct and dominant traits” so the probability of admixture is much greater, even if the effects of that admixture are less (compared to non-Whites). In other words, being European, and considered as White to most people outside of the "movement," Southern Europeans are much more likely to be accepted and assimilated in the White Diaspora than are the various Colored peoples (although the consequences of the admixture would be, on a per capita basis, less). Further, in a pan-European nationalist scheme, the non-Whites would be gone and no longer a threat, while the Southern Europeans would remain, no doubt a rationale for the extreme Nordicist hostility toward pan-European politics.

Not addressing this primal fear that low-status Nordicist men have is thus derailing your message. The fear is real, whether you acknowledge it or not.

I have addressed some of this in the past (see below). The problem is that I am somewhat constrained here – Nordicists would reject my arguments (and have done so) as “self-interested propaganda from an omnidominant Med who wants sexual access to Nordic women.” On the other hand, if I say, truthfully, that I have never dated/mated with Northern European women, then that also would be turned against me – I’m not “assimilated.”  So, I lose either way.  Better the argument comes from people like Nordicist Confessions (although I do suggest “what to do?, below).

East Asians are not regarded as a threat precisely because it is their women who are primarily getting poached. Thus, while from a genetic standpoint this is still miscegenation, from a psychological standpoint it does not *feel* like conquest to Nordicists because White-Asian pairings are almost exclusively White male-Asian female.

Although these various concerns are inter-related, it is important to distinguish concern with the phenotypic effects of admixture with that of male sexual competition for women. In the first instance, that of phenotype, all of those nice East Asian women are obviously a much greater threat than are Southern Europeans. After all, Southern Europeans are European, with “Caucasoid” physical traits, and are in fact often heterozygous for recessive traits (particularly eye color). This heterozygosity is a big difference compared to NECs who, in some cases, may have similar complexions to Southern Europeans, but are much more likely to be homozygous for dominant phenotypic traits. Meanwhile, East Asians are a phenotypically (and genetically of course) completely different race, all homozygous for dark hair and eyes, and with heritable traits incompatible with “Caucasoid” features. Of course, I am more interested in genetic interests, and here the impacts are directly related to relative genetic distance. On the other hand, considering the sexual situation, sexual competition would be based on relative accessibility to females, and the tropism of White males, particularly Nordics, for Asian females is well known, as well as is the stereotype of “darker” males having a fixation for Nordic females. I of course understand that these concerns run together, so the overall concern is anxiety about sexual competition combined with concerns about the physical outcome of mating between more recessive females and more dominant males. However, even though, psychologically, it all runs together, the distinction between the concerns should not be forgotten. I understand that the distinction is somewhat addressed above: "...while from a genetic standpoint this is still miscegenation, from a psychological standpoint it does not *feel* like conquest..."  However, the distinction still needs to be underscored, as it is crucial.

I should add that most Nordic men are not Nordicists. Nordicists tend to be, by their nature, more interested in HBD, a subculture that clearly attracts men with lower testosterone, because higher testosterone young men are too busy playing beer pong and banging chicks to worry about these theoretical matters as a general rule. This mental affinity partly explains the Nordicist-HBD alliance.

Most people of every group are not so focused on group activism. In my case, I was always a racist (or racialist, if you prefer), but before my involvement with the “movement," my main identity was that of “White American.” I of course knew and acknowledged my ethnic identity, but it was not something of much relevance at that time. Only after the “movement” alerted me that these issues of ethnicity and subrace were of such great importance within Der Movement, at least to the Nordicist faction, did I develop, in a defensive manner, more of a realization of, and focus on, being a “swarthoid.” But it is true that sometimes we who are immersed in the “movement” milieu sometimes forget that many or most people outside of the “movement” care little for these issues – even many "normies" who are concerned about race in the broadest sense don’t obsess over intra-racial differences and issues.

Consistent with the issue of sexual anxiety, in the early 2000s I wrote a post for the Legion Europa site about Nordicist accusations of Med vs. Nord cuckoldry and mate poaching (i.e., Med men were cuckolding Nordic men and Med men were “poaching” Nordic women for long-term relationships, including marriage); my argument was based in part on Salter's "blank slate hypothesis." Unfortunately, I do not have that essay anymore, and I am not sure if it is online anywhere. I don't dismiss the concerns indicated above; the question is what to about it. These problems should be a concern only in Euro diaspora nations like the USA.  As far as I am concerned, European nations should be absolutely ethnically homogeneous.

With respect to my Legion Europa argument, Salter’s blank slate hypothesis suggested that (contra Frost and his idea of sexual selection of scarce males picking females with specific fair coloration), recessive genetic characteristics evolved as an anti-cuckoldry mechanism, so that more dominant traits from a biological father would be observed by the cuckolded recessive man via the traits in the offspring. Thus, if two blonde-haired, blue-eyed people are married and the woman gives birth to a dark-haired, dark-eyed infant, cuckoldry could be detected. Other types of recessive traits could be also used for this purpose, although coloration is most obvious. There are some flaws in this argument – e.g., if coloration is the best marker, then why didn’t all groups evolve this, why was this type of phenotypic cuckoldry detection so important in some groups and not in others?  Also, cuckoldry between recessive men wouldn’t be detected by this mechanism, which would weaken its power once recessive traits became common in a population. Maybe Salter addressed these problems in his initial formulation of the hypothesis (that I no longer have), I do not know. My point at the time was that if Meds was so radically different from Nordics that they were unassimilable, then any alleged cuckoldry could be easily detected.  On the other hand, if the cuckoldry was easily hidden (as the Nordicist claims suggested), then how radically different could the Meds really be?  More generally, I examined data on intermarriage to attempt to show that there was not any large sex bias in who was the “more southern” partner in Nord-Med marriage. Insofar as I know, there isn’t really much direct data on this issue (if any direct data at all), and many assumptions, estimates, and projections need to be made (on both sides of the debate). There is of course good data with respect to inter-racial dating and marriage, but for intra-White, not so much.

I would like to point out that it would be unfair to ascribe all (or, in some cases, most or even many) racial, subracial, or ethnic interests and activism to sexual anxieties and “inceldom.” It may be true in a number of cases, and no doubt some degree of sexual anxiety informs such interests and activism, but people can and do have legitimate ethnoracial concerns It is important that we not ape the Left (or Greg Johnson) and pathologize people we disagree with (but to the extent that it is relevant, it should be mentioned).

What to do (in multi-ethnic nations like the USA)? We need to learn how to live together as European-Americans (or wherever in the Diaspora, not just the USA). No group's men should sexually “target” the women of any other group (via fetishization), but of course, “random” inter-European mating is to be expected, and if it occurs naturally and fairly across all boundaries, fine. Separation is possible; however, it has to be fair. I have objected, and continue to object, to Nordicist schemes that would combine a general White American state from which Southern Europeans would be excluded, with those Southern Europeans being herded off into powerless micro-state dependency nations, either alone or forced to live among various non-White groups (after all, the “wogs” are all alike).  My “take” is that if there are some who are not comfortable with a “White America” containing all European-Americans, then it is they who are uncomfortable who can spin off their own small ethnostate(s). Alternatively, let us make European nations racial nationalist and racially and ethnically homogeneous and then White Diaspora people can go back if necessary (putting aside issues of language, culture, and that the Europeans may well not want immigrant Americans, even if they are co-ethnics). But then we have the problem that so many European-Americans are ethnically mixed, and European nations are under no obligation to accept hybrids. This goes back to the idea that we may need to live together in the Diaspora, but allowances can be made for separation, with the onus of separation on those who feel they need it.

More:

This is not a big secret. Yes, there are scientific matters that can be debated. But as Greg Johnson noted, Nordic genes are recessive. I believe the Black Nationalist writer Francis Cress-Welsing...

Who I consider to be an anti-White racist.

...developed a theory about genetic annihilation and how it motivates White Supremacy. Considering that certain Caucasoid traits are recessive, her theory might have some validity. She also had a good debate with William Shockley on television.

There's a difference between "supremacy" and preservationism. Traits that can be eliminated by admixture can inform both attitudes. I am more concerned about genetic interests that affect everyone, regardless of dominant vs. recessive genes/traits - although for interests in functional genes one can make an argument that how the genes are expressed influences how they affect genetic interests (if the genes affect their own replication, and this is influenced by how they are expressed). 

It's no secret about recessive traits - even Stoddard wrote about that in The Rising Tide of Color. There's nothing wrong with honest preservationism and nothing in my writing should be construed as arguing against that. It is the extreme anti-Med animus and overall dishonesty in Nordicism that I object to.  

I think one Majority Rights dweeb penned an article many years ago mentioning how Southern European men in prison were not attacked or raped as much as Northern European men. 

I believe the reference is to Jim Bowery.

This type of stupidity should give readers a hint to the insecurities some of these low-t men have. I'd go as far as to say in the real world most Nordic men would not want to associate with these types.

Well, to be fair, most Whites would look askance at my views (I'm not particularly high-t myself in my estimation).

With the rise of hypergamy in recent decades, women's preferences have shifted to high-t men, particularly in their younger years. Maybe with your age you are not fully aware of this trend. 

Well, I'm not in the dating scene, but I can observe younger family members. 

You might want to address how the HBD movement attracts low-t men. It may be painful for the IQ worshippers to admit, but high IQs generally correlate with "beta" traits. 

I don't know.  MacDonald's HBD-Nordicism sort of accepts this to an extent, although I'm sure he would not formulate the concept precisely the same as that. The fact is that the upper echelon in quality of racial activists - and I'll most humbly put myself in that category - are going to be high IQ, low-t types, although perhaps in some cases more "sigma" than "beta." I'll agree that Asian-worshipping HBDers fit into what you describe.

Women are generally not flocking to Nordicist HBDers, or HBDers generally. 

Or to people like me. Or to racial activists in general.

You might also want to address the Nordicism prevalent in the http://incels.is forum. 

I have no doubt it exists. But I don't to pathologize all racial concerns as deriving from sexual anxiety.  There are legitimate concerns as well.

To be fair, I don't think Nordic alpha males or even most Nordics see Mediterranean (or any other) men as a threat.

Likely true. But perception and reality are not always the same thing.  I'm not defending Nordicism but it is true that people - particularly Whites - are not very good at identifying what is or is not a true threat. I myself do not think the primary threat to Nordic Europeans is coming from non-Nordic Europeans. Both groups are indeed threatened, but not by each other (in any fundamental, existential manner).

More to come about this issue, no doubt.

One correction:

As a mega-successful Italian-American who is a podcast host and UFC color commentator, Rogan is a great model for young men. When he says “man up!”, young men should listen.

Joe Rogan is not Italian. He is a hybrid. Irish are not Italian. I also think that Rogan is, in general, an unmitigated idiot who doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about half the time.

Odds and Ends, 10/16/21

In der news.

Frank Capra directs Jimmy Stewart movies that celebrate Old Stock Americans and the Traditional America.

Ang Lee directs a movie showing Old Stock American cowboys as butt-fucking homosexuals.

Guess which one is the "junior partner of the Jews" to "defame Nordics."

Classic example of "First they came for..."

First they came for the WN Nutzis, and suburban cuckservatives did nothing (or maybe actually applauded).

Then, they came for Trumpian Alt Righters, and the suburban cuckservatives clucked a bit but did nothing.

Finally, they sent the FBI against suburban cuckservatives at school board meetings.

You sow selfish inaction, and you reap government persecution.

In his essays on homosexuality, Andrew Joyce effectively debunked the tired trope that asserts that someone who criticizes a behavior (such as homosexuality) “secretly wants to do it themselves.”  Joyce is of course correct. Imagine applying that silly idea to other behaviors.  If you critique someone having a Chinese wife and mixed-race children, that means you secretly want to marry and reproduce with (and engage in “measured groveling” to) Ms. Wei Fuk Yu. If you cite someone’s stated desire to get a blowjob from a dachshund that means you have amorous intentions toward Fido.  I suppose you can’t condemn pedophilia or mass murder either, because, well, you know.  The concept is stupid and childish and it is not surprising that those involved in a stupid and childish “movement” perpetuate that meme.

See this.

Biden will almost certainly be “removed” within the next 12 months…

On the one hand, given Biden’s rapid cognitive decline, one would not be completely surprised if he must leave office in a year, but the absolute certainty in the statement is moronic and displays the attitude that I so despise in Der Movement.  If this person is right, he’ll remind of his prediction and crow about it; if he’s wrong, we’ll never hear about it again – another statement of “movement” certitude that proved wrong. We’ll see on October 13, 2022.  One would think that the Democrats would do anything possible to avoid this scenario before the 2022 mid-terms, as it would be politically damaging –not only is Harris an unpopular giggling buffoon, but the scenario would underscore that the Democrats knowingly nominated a dementia case for the Presidency.  Whatever happens, to make predictions with absolute certitude reflects the piss-poor judgment that has led Der Movement from one failure to another.

Three points:

1. A possible scenario is that the Chinese, knowing that they would be hit hard by covid-19, did not want to be at a competitive economic and military disadvantage compared to other nations not so hit, so they intentionally allowed international travel to infect other nations as quickly as possible.

2. The political nature of HBD is underscored by this crisis. If the virus had escaped from a lab in, say, Rome, Naples, or Palermo, we would have observed a never-ending series of HBD articles blaming the pandemic on Italian "low-IQ, anxiety, and neurosis." In the case of China, however, they actively collaborated on spreading false narratives about an "American bioweapon" and/or ignored all Chinese culpability in the incident. Similarly, the HBDers got all hot and bothered over Schettino, but ignored a Korean captain doing the same.

3. Perhaps one day, the 2020 election fraud will end up like the Wuhan lab leak - originally dismissed as a "right-wing conspiracy theory" and "fake news" but eventually shown to be true.

Odds and Ends, 10/11/21

In der news.

In a Historas Civilas YouTube video on Julius Caesar, the comment was made that Caesar pushed up against Roman institutions and found nothing there; nothing pushed back. Hence, the road to ultimate power. Similarly, the Left pushed up against traditional American institutions and against the Right and found nothing there; nothing pushed back. Coloreds and Jews pushed against Whites, same result. The homosexual cabal, HBDers, and the Alt Right juvenile jackasses pushed up against the traditional "movement" - same result. Victory is easy when there is no real opposition.

We should always remember that ethnic genetic interests (EGI) are rooted in the present and looks toward the future. What happened in the past was of importance to the EGI of the people at that time, but has no direct relevance on our EGI and that of our posterity. The most important biopolitical metric is genetic kinship of current populations and how may change over time moving forward. Other measurements of current populations, and any measurement of past populations, may be of academic interest, but does not inform rational biopolitics.

Cue Sallis’ Law, incoming…

And can you believe this:

At the same time, he also resents the WASPs who built the country and who (supposedly) look down on ethic whites.

Hood is another Gaslighting Greg (or, more accurately Krazy Kevin). He uses the word “supposedly” while being part of a “movement” that has as its fundamental basis hatred of White ethnics (particularly Italians), he writes for a HBD site that oozes with contempt for White ethnics, and he himself is a crypto-Nordicist who condescendingly tells us which White ethnic group he decides are “White enough” for him. What a dishonest turd.

Quota Queen “Hood” had a pampered, coddled childhood.  Meanwhile, his co-ethnics created a multiracial hell for urban White ethnics, particularly children attending "integrated" schools.

Then arrogant scum like this sit on their racial thrones and pontificate about who is "White enough" for them.

Behold the female. Behold!

I grew up in the 50s and 60s. No one explained male sexuality to me. I enjoyed male attention (we still went on dates then) and let boys take me to dinner, concerts, bowling etc. with the understanding that they were, as a result, entitled to a kiss and maybe a feel.

As I got older I had no compunction about using boys for my own pleasure. Did they want more than they got from me? I didn’t know and didn’t care.

Now, in my late 60s, I am ashamed of how I used all those boys so selfishly. But: I didn’t know what was going on in their heads or their bodies.

I wish now I could apologize to them all.

Read that again:

...let boys take me to dinner, concerts, bowling etc. with the understanding that they were, as a result, entitled to a kiss and maybe a feel.

Exchanging sexual pleasure for economic goods, broadly defined, is commonly known as prostitution. Behold the female.

Only a woman could write something this stupid (about men and men's sexual desires):

To the extent one is tormented by sexual desire, getting sex is not the solution. Reining in sexual desire is the solution. It will have to be done eventually anyway if a man who intends to marry and have children.

First, it is easy to talk about "Reining in sexual desire" when your own desire is simply to exploit men; when you have no sexual desire telling others to "reign it in" sounds so simple.

Second, if men "reigned in" their desires, then why would they "marry and have children?" These yeastbuckets are delusional if they think men pay attention to them for any reason other than their bodies. It's certainly not for the sparkling intellectual conversation, I can tell you that for nothing.

Re: Gabsters getting all hot and bothered with Europe saying young people should not get the Moderna covid vaccine: First, I've never denied that there can be side effects from vaccines, and if young (mostly) men are getting cardiovascular problems from the mRNA vaccines, they can try others. The bulk of the population do not exhibit these problems to any significant extent. Second, people, including the young, can get severe side effects from covid itself. Third, if Europe wants to "ban" anything (and they are very fond of "banning" things), they can start with Chinese, a "ban" that would do more to improve public health than anything else.

Meet Nick Griffin.

…Vercingetorix was dragged from his dungeon to be strangled and beheaded in the Forum for the entertainment of the braying, half-caste mob.

Note: “half-caste.”

More:

In particular, such hope as there is for the future rests with the peoples of the English- and German-speaking world…They are all descended from the “barbarians” who reinvigorated Aryan Europe after the dark, multi-racial centuries of decadent Rome.

How did Griffin survive living with, and being friends with, the “braying, half-caste” Roberto Fiore? Oh the agony!

Putting aside the previous fiascos of Patler and Tommasi, Der Movement had two opportunities in the past generation to genuinely reach out to White ethnics and it failed miserably. First, from 1995-2005, the "movement" was growing, White ethnics were joining, Calabro helped found the EAIF, I started Legion Europa and started writing for various "movement" publications, and there was good ideological contributions on the Right generally, MacDonald's trilogy on the Jews and Salter's work on EGI. But the Nordicists reacted badly and Der Movement, wedded to Nordicism, would not renounce Nordicism. So, we got My Awakening, March of the Titans, The Ethnic Gap, and the rise of HBD. In subsequent years, Amren started attacking White ethnics. Then, in 2015-2020, White ethnics, who formed the basis of conservative Republican politics in the Northeast USA, were attracted to Trumpian right-wing populism, and this could have been leveraged to reach out to, and radicalize, these people. But the Alt Right doubled down with "movement" dogma, coupled with juvenile jackassery. We have to make sure that people don't get fooled a third time.

Questions for Greggy

No answers are expected to be delivered.

See this.

Let’s start with the whole “keeping Richard Spencer’s coke dealer away from an Amren conference” thing.

First, Johnson deftly ignores the point about the homosexual cabal within Der Movement and instead concentrates on his alleged role vetting for Amren, and on Pilleater’s accusations of cocaine use at Amren conferences by the Spencer faction.

By the way, Pilleater’s accusations are either true or false. For the sake of argument, in this post I will assume that they are true (I do not know if this is really the case), but if they are false, then that was slander on the part of Pilleater, a defamation repeated in writing by Johnson.

Is Johnson really vetting people for Amren meetings? Some people claimed in livestreams/podcasts that Amren staff denied that and that Johnson has to apologize to Taylor for stating that, but I do not know if that is true.

What makes Johnson, a victim of the Hermansson and Lewis infiltrations, in any way qualified to vet for anyone about anything?

If Pilleater’s accusations were true, what does that say about Amren conferences and their vetting and about a “movement” that elevated Spencer to positions of leadership, including that of The National Policy Institute (NPI)?

If the cocaine thing is true, given that the System allegedly is hostile to Spencer, Amren, Der Movement, etc., was the whole “illegal drug use at Amren conferences” accusation ever investigated?  If yes, why no charges?  If not, why not? The whole thing seems rather strange. It reminds me of an incident I am aware of (the details of which I will not disclose) in which a past inept Grand Poobah did something wrong that was adjudicated through the legal system in some manner, but was not known to the rank-and-file at large (being a more local incident), and there can be no doubt that the watchdog groups had to know about it, and yet the watchdogs never reported it, and thus protected that “leader” from having his status diminished. It’s almost as if the System doesn’t want to eliminate incompetent Quota Queens filling the leadership niche space of pro-White activism.

Now, let’s turn to Johnson’s characterization of Pilleater’s sexual harassment complaints as “Gay guy meets other gay and flirtation occurs.”  Putting aside the question as to why flirtation of any kind, much less homosexual flirtation, is appropriate for a pro-White meeting, we can ask the following. Doesn’t Pilleater identify as bisexual rather than gay (after all, Johnson thinks it funny that Pilleater brought an Asiatrix girlfriend to a pro-White meeting)?  Didn’t Pilleater complain about actual harassment, rather than just “flirtation?” And what’s Johnson’s comment about “BelieveAllWomen” about? Is he equating bisexual man Pilleater with a woman?  And if Johnson mocks “BelieveAllWomen” why does he believe Spencer’s ex-wife (see below)?

The “LOL. Your absence will not be noted for missed” is juvenile.  Moving on:

Johnson then says “I am sure you witnessed several lifetimes worth of degeneracy at the loft in Alexandria.”

I wonder what Polignano witnessed in a San Francisco apartment, but that’s another story. If Spencer is all that Johnson believes he is then what does it say about Der Movement, Regnery, CMS, and NPI for elevating Spencer to positions of authority?  Affirmative action, anyone?

Johnson nitpicks that he “never used the phrase ‘handsome, blossoming guy.”  OK, but does he deny using the word “blossoming” to describe Pilleater’s brother?  Does he understand why some people would think it strange that a middle-aged man would describe a younger man as “blossoming?”

Johnson then talks about a “psychopath who beat his wife during both of her pregnancies,” which, given the context of the comment, is certainly about Spencer. Johnson then says he believes Nina – BelieveAllWomen?

If Johnson believes this, then please tell us - what qualifications Spencer had to be made the head of NPI?

Johnson then mocks people concerned about “poor Pilleater” (what about “poor Nina?”), who are, he avers, actually interested in smearing poor Greg. But if there is nothing wrong in the Pilleater recording, re: Johnson, then how could he be smeared by it?  What is false about the recording? Johnson then asks if a “Forney livestream” is “the appropriate forum” for people to deal with Pilleater’s complaints. Very well.  What should they do instead?  Perhaps support Pilleater filing a legal complaint about being sexually harassed?  Would that be an appropriate forum?

Some may respond to this by asserting that this focus on people (and events) rather than ideas is indicative of “low thinking.” But, alas, in the end, this is about ideas: That Der Movement is a disaster because of failed leadership (and their poor judgment) and because of the low quality of its personnel, and this is tied to Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action policy. As Nietzsche said, people can be used as lenses through which ideas can be focused upon.

Book Review: The Perversion of Normality

By Kerry Bolton.

See this.  It was also reviewed here.

While I disagree with him on a number of issues, I nevertheless have, at the current time, a generally positive view of Bolton, and appreciate his promotion of Yockey and Yockey’s work. I therefore approached this book with the hope that it would not be as bad as others I have recently reviewed.  Some chapter titles (in bold font) and excerpts, and my comments are as follows:

With respect to Freudianism, the Frankfurt School and Critical Race Theory:

…the doctrines he is describing are those of the Frankfurt School, where the therapeutic state is propounded as necessary to ensure the mental health of mass society, in need of freedom to express instincts that are repressed by the authoritarian patriarchal family. The focus of this neo-Freudianism is on the individual detached from society. It is therefore a means of deconstructing and fracturing the social organism, which is why the Marxian theorists who created the Frankfurt Institute in 1923 found Freudianism to be such a useful ingredient in creating a new revolutionary synthesis. The organic bonds of family, state, faith and ethos, disparaged as ‘primary ties’ in need of cutting, were portrayed as injurious to the individual well-being and as repressing the individual’s path to self-actualisation.

The Frankfurt School, as explained by Dr. Kevin MacDonald, aimed these corrosive memes at the White Gentile society they hated to aid Jewish interests. This poison is part of the Cultural Marxism (see below) aimed at dissolving the ties of organic solidarity holding together (White, Western) society, promoting an atomized individualism better exploited by ethnocentric aliens who are (relatively) immune to the sociopolitical toxins they disseminate.

LaPiere called Freudianism ‘a doctrine of social irresponsibility and personal despair’. In the pursuit of individual meaning through liberation from traditional social bonds, the result is not the universal bliss of oneness with humanity, as the Critical Theorists promise, but the despair of nihilism, of the detached individual who goes toward the light with the promise of eternal fulfilment, only to find that it is one of obliteration within a void.

Nihilism and obliteration is the Jewish-Leftist-Colored objective toward the White West.

LaPiere continues: What Freud secured from his patients might justly have been used to demonstrate how the neurotic individual regards himself and his relation to society. Freud used it, however, as evidence in favor of his humanistic but completely unrealistic idea that the individualism inevitably and inescapably repressed by the inhuman dictates of organized social life. Freud, like his patients, believed that they were victims of social circumstances; and, like them, he was in all respects antagonistic toward society. So strong, apparently, was that antagonism that Freud never pondered the question: If man is by nature contrasocial, how can it be that men have evolved the social systems by which man lives?

Or perhaps Freud did ponder the question and the seeming inconsistency of the answer is a result of anti-Gentile animus, and a will to power manifested toward destruction. Didn’t Freud identify with the “Semitic conqueror” Hannibal?  And guess who “Rome” is in that scenario.

Left free to pursue their natural objectives, the basic instincts of man would be incompatible with all lasting association and preservation: they would destroy even where they unite. The uncontrolled Eros is just as fatal as his deadly counterpart, the death instinct. Their destructive force derives from the fact that they strive for a gratification which culture cannot grant: gratification as such and as an end in itself, at any moment. The instincts must therefore be deflected from their goal, inhibited in their aim. Civilization begins when the primary objective — namely, integral satisfaction of needs — is effectively renounced.

This consideration of an uncontrolled Eros and gratification as an end to itself leads to an analysis of de Sade:

While de Sade touchingly anticipates feminism with his call for the ‘liberation’ of girls from their parents, his motives, true to form, soon follow: to ‘liberate’ girls so that they might be abused by male psychopaths such as himself:

I declare to you, I hold generation in such horror I should cease to be your friend the instant you were to become pregnant. If, however, the misfortune does occur, without yourself having been at fault, notify me within the first seven or eight weeks, and I’ll have it very neatly remedied. Dread not infanticide; the crime is imaginary: we are always mistress of what we carry in our womb.

Rent-seeking self-interest combined with anti-natalism, all in the service of a hedonistic ideology, self-destructively leading to a loss of ethnic genetic (ultimate) interests – supporting infanticide of one’s own ethny in support of short-term proximate interests in (deviant) pleasure.

De Sade compared an infant to excrement thus:

… as we are of the nails we pare from our fingers, or the excrements we eliminate through our bowels, because the one and the other are our own, and because we are absolute proprietors of what emanates from us.

It comes from the body, thus we can dispose of it as we wish.  Anti-natalism at its finest.  Of course, when considering the offspring of certain racial groups, de Sade’s analog may not have been far from the mark, but consider he was addressing a French audience, talking about White babies; thus, the monstrousness of his views comes into full focus.

Cultural Marxism:

What is Cultural Marxism?  One explanation:

…according to Kellner (2013, p. 10) the ‘analysis of culture is intimately bound up with the study of society, politics, and economics’. This theory means that the culture does not have an autonomous life next to the daily concrete lives of individuals and their social relations. It also states that, as a consequence, cultures are built to help the dominance of powerful and ruling social groups. Within the Marxist tradition, which sees dominant ideology as the ideology of the bourgeoisie to control the proletariat and the working class, Cultural Marxism considers cultures and ideologies as inextricably linked to the economic, social, and political context: they are tools in the hands of the powerful to control the people.

The Left, despite the above assumption, is sponsored by ‘powerful and ruling social groups’, the aim being social control, through social engineering.

That sounds about right. Cultural Marxism labels as “controlling tools” the fundamental and traditional tenets that have generated organic solidarity among a people; thus Cultural Marxism dissolves the glue holding together a healthy society, which is what de Sade’s worldview would lead to, and where Critical Race Theory, an outgrowth of Cultural Marxism, is leading today. Thus:

The aim is to fracture traditional, organic identities that are barriers to globalisation and social control, by creating artificial identities that can be manipulated and subjected to social engineering.

Freudo-Marxian Synthesis

…the individual, rather than the class, must be freed from the oppression and repression of ‘bourgeoisie society’, and that this primarily involved the free expression of Eros. This reached such dogmatism that by the time The Authoritarian Personality was published shortly after World War II, one’s mental health was judged on the extent to which one identified with left-wing attitudes. This required a hijacking of Freud.

Unfortunately, the same mentality is also extant on the Right, including the Far Right, where certain “leaders,” angry at legitimate criticism of their poor judgment and constant failure, label their critics as suffering from “insanity.” By their poisoned fruit one recognizes the Frankfurt-influenced tree; the pathologization of dissent is the tactic of the intolerant would-be-totalitarian.

New School & Frankfurt School

…it is the New School that boasts of its relationship with the Frankfurt School, stating: The New School for Social Research believes that research and pedagogy should advance economic justice, promote an understanding of change, and train the next generation to influence public debate. Its commitment to progressive values, academic freedom, rigorous scholarship, and critical theory in the tradition of the Frankfurt School lies at the heart of The New School’s history and draws upon the vital legacy of the University in Exile.

Sounds like the rhetoric of your typical American academic institution.

…the thinkers of the Frankfurt School travelled to America in the 1930s to besmirch traditional American values and destroy Western Civilization.

Of course they did; what’s what Jews do, a four thousand year history of nation-wrecking from Ancient Egypt to modern day America.

Patronage

Is everyone supposed to remain wilfully blind, to keep up the orthodox pretence that plutocracy and the Left are antithetical...

No.

Funding for Social Sciences

When the Frankfurt Institute was relocated to Columbia University, with sponsorship from the Rockefeller Foundation and the State Department, ‘one of the main reasons why the affiliation went smoothly was the abundance of funds the institute had at its disposal and was transferring to these shores’.

The alliance between the Left/Jews, the wealthy (including wealthy Gentiles), and the government obviously has been in place for a long time.

Social Science Research Council

In the USA from 1922, Rockefeller money, through the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial (LSRM), started funding the social sciences. In 1923, ‘social scientists came together to organize the Social Science Research Council, and the Council—under the Memorial’s developing agenda—became an early and prominent recipient of Rockefeller support. Well into the final years of the Second World War, Rockefeller funds provided more than ninety percent of the financing at the Council’.

It is difficult to understand this support by Rockefeller money without concluding that the wealthy wanted to destabilize the organic solidarity of society in order to safeguard – actually increase – their own wealth and power.  Contrary to the general historic public perception of wealthy = conservative, actually rent-seeking wealthy elites have long been allied with the Left against the broad middle class/working class of their own society. Thus:

…aid will be given for objective studies on selected problems of realistic importance in social control.

Social control, indeed.

Despite occasional assumptions as to why the Foundations fund supposedly ‘anti-capitalist’ causes, the oligarchy has never lost control over its funds.

Of course not.

Motives

Why do some of the wealthiest businessmen support the Left with what is termed ‘philanthropy’?

Bolton quotes Caroline Glick, an excerpt is here:

In other words, their goal is to subvert Western democracies and make it impossible for governments to maintain order or for societies to retain their unique identities and values.

No surprise there.

A basic error of so-called ‘right-wing’ critics of the taxexempt foundations in sponsoring Cultural Marxism is to assume that the dichotomy is one of ‘free enterprise versus collectivism’, and that these oligarchic funds have been infiltrated and taken over by Marxists who are using the wealth of their enemies to destroy capitalism.

The “right-wing” is always pathetic; they don’t realize the oligarchy and the Left are both part of the System.

Rather it is plutocracy that has been manipulating the Left in promoting an integrated economy by the use of Leftist doctrines that break down barriers to such an economy.

Perhaps, but I believe the manipulation went, and still goes, in both directions.

London School of Economics and Political Science

…the London School of Economics (LSE) was founded by the Fabians for the purpose of training the public servants that would administer a world state, with endowments from international financiers.

The association between the Rockefellers and the LSE has been close since 1923.

I can imagine Counter-Currents saying that the Rockefellers were good men and we need more men like them.

Carnegie Corporation

Carnegie rejected ‘socialism’, but both he and Marx saw the future, in the name of ‘progress’, as one of increasing economic concentration. Carnegie’s doctrine was that vast wealth created by the free market can be used to reconstruct society, but it must be done not by the state but by those best fitted to organize the redistribution of wealth; those who create it, the oligarchy…Carnegie advocated graduated tax on wealth; particularly tax on inherited wealth. This might seem a puzzling contradiction for an exponent of free market Social Darwinism. Rather, it is an example of the ‘socialism’ of the oligarchy…Carnegie is being disingenuous in referring to the ‘temporary unequal distribution of wealth’. He had explained his doctrine as being one of Social Darwinism and the free market that left in the gutter those who could not ‘survive’, until mitigated, lest the danger of revolt arise, by the charity of the oligarchs.

Carnegie was another of our “betters” who thought that his ability to amass wealth meant he was well suited to decide and, perhaps more accurately, appoint others to decide (through targeted philanthropy, if by no other means), how society should be run. This ignorant arrogance has led us to our current sorry state.

An American Dilemma

This section investigates the legacy of Herrenvolk Swede Gunnar Myrdal:

Myrdal based his moral argument on the discrepancy between the existence of segregation and the ideal of the ‘American Creed’. A primary element was the dilemma of having fought ‘Nazi racism’, while racism remained in American institutions. Cohen writes that a ‘key facet of Myrdal’s argument was to set the study in an international context, predicting that Americans, having defined World War II as a struggle for liberty and equality and against Nazi racism, would force a redefinition and reexamination of race in the United States.’

Of course, to fight “racism” in America we have given up our liberty, and the failure of “equality” to achieve the desired outcomes – because groups are in fact not equal – has led to the adoption of “equity” as a goal – enforced equal outcomes achieved through discrimination against the more competent and more productive individuals and racial groups.

‘Social Control’ & ‘Social Engineering’

Darwinian evolution would eventually destroy whatever vestiges remained of traditional societies. Because evolution is based on ‘variation and adaptation’ as part of a ‘ceaseless process’, humanity will be placed in a continual state of flux, without the roots that tradition maintains. The world is one of ‘unceasing reorganization and readjustment’.

“Darwinian evolution” has nothing to do with social engineering, and any spurious connection is either self-serving excuses made by self-proclaimed social engineers or is anti-scientific gibbering by “traditionalists.” From our modern perspective, the “traditional world” looks like it was static, but I’m sure there were times of stress and change in which the peoples living in those societies perceived “unceasing reorganization and readjustment.” True enough, the rate of change seems to have increased in more recent times, but we always need to be careful about idealization of a purported idyllic “traditional” “Golden Age” that allegedly existed in the past. I agree with Nietzsche that such ages were probably, in many ways, at a lower level than today.  In some ways not lower, of course, and it may be a matter of preference. However, in general, I suspect though that reactionary dreamers in every age viewed their own time as degenerate and harkened back to some “Golden Age” of the past.  

Sorokin’s Critique of Sociological Methodology

Well, I’ll agree that much of the problem with “social science” (itself something of an oxymoron) is in its attempt to imitate the physical science, an imitation doomed to fail since much of “social science” – including the HBD cult if truth be told – is just pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, where the “social scientist” starts out with the desired conclusion and then works backward to justify it “scientifically” in a retroactive fashion.

Behaviourism

Foster described Skinnerian Behaviourism as ‘a behavioural technology’ with a political purpose, that of ‘control’: This view, however, has a significant political implication. Scientific understanding provides the possibility of prediction and control and thus leads to a technology of human affairs. This technology in Marxist terms is a revolutionary activity, in Skinnerian terms a behavioral technology. The scientific objective detachment of Marx and Skinner is linked to social-political commitment. Indeed, the social goals are the ultimate justifications for both systems.

A common theme we see over and over again is that of elites who believe that they know best for society and dictate their vision, often with disastrous results.

Skinner’s proposed transformation of morality into technology is very much analogous to Marx’s vision of the withering away of the state once the productive capacities of society have been transformed.

Implicit in both views is the idea that the greatest human goods will be realized when man acknowledges his being acted upon and shaped by the material world…

What other world should it be shaped by? The “spiritual” world? I see religious and “traditionalist” elites as being as arrogant and guilty of social engineering as the more modern pseudoscientific elites analyzed by Bolton.  The former are not made correct by the errors of the latter.  In my view, both sets of elites have been disastrous.

Pavlov and Lenin

Lenin proclaimed his desire to re-educate the Russian people as an animal trainer would.

That’s the Left for you. This led to:

Konrad Lorenz’s Critique

Lorenz pointed out that the rulers and policy makers in the USA, China and the USSR were unanimous in their insistence on the conditionality of human behaviour. Lorenz described the behaviourist doctrine as ‘pseudodemocratic’, ‘inhuman’ and ‘satanic’, as it enables the ‘dehumanization’ and ‘manipulation’ of mankind. This is the crux of the matter: It is equally important to the capitalist mass producer as to the Soviet functionary to condition people into uniform, unresisting subjects, not very different from those described by Aldous Huxley in his terrifying novel Brave New World. Lorenz warns that if a doctrine based on ‘a lie’ about human behaviour is universally accepted, then the effects will be ‘disastrous’. This doctrine, Lorenz contends, is responsible for much of the ‘moral and cultural collapse that threatens the Western world…

Lorenz was right.

However, Lorenz states that this fallacious science does not cause the West’s ‘cultural diseases’, but is the product of them. That is to say, the position of the social engineers is enabled by a pre-existing weakness in the social organism. If the social organism had not succumbed to age and disease in the first instant, it would have the stamina to resist and repel the social pathologies that are able to enter. The rise of the oligarchy, for example, occurs during the late epoch of a civilisation, as explained by Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West…

This is an interesting interpretation and is likely correct. The sort of insanity that occurs in what used to be the West today is so outrageous that it is impossible for any normal and healthy society to accept any of that nonsense. The hyper-rationalism and narrowly focused utilitarian instrumentalism reflected in social engineering as described in Bolton’s book is a product of the “Winter” phase of a civilization, which we are definitely in with respect to the West. It would seem therefore that, ultimately, the problems discussed in Bolton’s book may revolve around what is discussed here.

Of course, in the short term we must fight the Left’s social engineering in the context of our dying civilization, but in a very real sense that is like a “whack-a-mole” situation; if we deal with and stop social engineering, something else sprouting from the decaying corpse of our civilization will take its place.

Pathologising Morality

The Authoritarian Personality sought to characterize traditional institutions and attitudes as latently ‘F’ for ‘Fascist’, based on surveys that rated individual mental health according to the scale. ‘F’ designated the ‘Fascist’ tendencies of individuals according to how they scored on attitudes, such as respect for parents, and a strong sense of morality. Hence, if question 23 on the ‘F scale’ (‘He is, indeed, contemptible who does not feel an undying love, gratitude, and respect for his parents’) elicits a positive response, this is a symptom of ‘authoritarian submission’, and ‘authoritarian aggression’. The Frankfurt School theory towards the family is summarised by Jay Martin in a semi-official history of the institution: ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change’.

Thus, normal and healthy and personal family relationships are pathologized as abnormal, while immoral, unhealthy, and distorted relationships are deemed “healthy,” thus, destroying society at the level of the nuclear family, implanting dissatisfaction and misery at the core of Western family life and, not coincidently, promoting downward mobility for White Gentiles, handicapping them in their competition with Jews, so as to ensure the mastery of the latter over the former.

Not surprisingly, those of ‘liberal’ persuasion, or the ‘Left’, are considered to be low scorers on the personality tests and surveys for determining the ‘authoritarian personality’. Therefore, liberals, including socialists, are psychologically healthy in contrast to conservatives. However, the definitions of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, or ‘liberalism’ and ‘conservatism’ are reliant on those provided by the authors, and since they came from left-wing persuasions, one might question their objectivity. The ideological definitions once made are then neatly fitted into the survey data to show predictable results.

Newsflash: ALL “social science” – including the HBD cult – is like this.  First, you have the desired results, the carefully delineated “ideological definitions” and rigid dogmas. Then, afterward, you work backward to create a methodology, and cherry pick data (or invent data), to justify the already-established conclusions. It is ALL pure pseudoscience, HBD “race realism” as much as anything else.

…‘high scores’ for ‘authoritarian personality’ or ‘potential fascist’ were related to unhappy childhood and family relationships. There was also found to be a strong relationship with ethnocentrism.

It would seem then that Jews must be enriched in these “authoritarian personalities.”  Is that why they are so neurotic and fond of psychoanalysis?

‘Conspiracy Theory’ as Personality Disorder?

Well, readers of my work know I am generally opposed to conspiracy theorizing, much of which is retarded nonsense, and a deflection from real issues.

The conclusion is that conspiracy theorists have a generalized suspicion of all authority, and thereby believe that any event is the product of a conspiracy by authority.

Sounds about right to me.

Defining ‘Conspiracy’ and Cycles of History continue Bolton’s defense of conspiracy theorizing:

My hypothesis is that the globalist intelligentsia, among whom Brzezinski was prominent, saw Marxism as a dialectical phase in globalisation, in a sense paralleling that of Karl Marx, who conversely saw capitalism as a phase in internationalisation, leading to world Communism. Marx saw Communism as the end of history in this dialectical process; globalist intellectual Francis Fukuyama saw liberal-capitalism as ‘the end of history’. To the rightist, and Spengler saw this a century ago, capitalism and

Communism reflect the same spirit; the same Zeitgeist. It is this convergence of dialectic outlook that explains why arch-capitalists would support organisations and ideologies that are supposedly dedicated to the destruction of capitalism.

Well, that’s a thoughtful hypothesis, regardless of whether or not I agree with it (this is something I need to consider in much greater depth before I offer an opinion). But this underscores the difficulty in discussing “conspiracy theories” because that term means different things to different people.  Bolton’s hypothesis is at least plausible; people gibbering that the medical establishment is (intentionally) killing and sterilizing people with “chipped” and “toxic” covid vaccinations is another thing entirely.

Congressional Investigation and Left-Wing Red Herring: Lyndon LaRouche continue these themes.

What is this ‘Fascist menace’ other than a scapegoat for the consequences of culture-pathogens such as multiculturalism and globalisation?

Is the purpose of this mythical ‘global Fascist conspiracy’ that is hyped by pundits, politicians and news media a diversion tactic to obscure the causes and purposes of social fracture; to delegitimise and demonise criticism of globalist agendas?

Reasonable questions.

Soviets Condemn Cultural Marxism gives examples of Soviet officials critiquing examples of “Cultural Marxism” and its adherents.

Psychiatry & Dissent

Szasz extensively critiqued the uses of ‘institutional psychiatry’ for political purposes. He saw social scientists such as Frankfurtian Erich Fromm as props for the political Establishment, rather than as genuine dissidents. The Soviet intelligentsia discerned the same. Szasz compared the use of psychiatry to the Inquisition, and the finding of witches. In Manufacture of Madness, Szasz states that ‘institutional psychiatry’ provides a ritualistic affirmation for society’s ‘dominant ethic’. This serves to ‘tranquilize’ a society that has too many choices because of its plurality; that is ‘excessively heterogeneous’.

(White) “Racism” is a “mental disorder” requiring treatment, according to the usual suspects. And this is not only targeted against political dissent per se, and not only against normal and adaptive interpersonal and familial behavior (“the authoritarian personality”) but against the normal spectrum of everyday behavior exhibited mostly by (White) boys and men. Hence, “attention deficit disorder” must be treated with drugs – is “toxic masculinity” next?  

Two more points here. First, right-wing supporters of the Soviet Union must concede (see below) that the abuse of psychiatry against dissenters was well established in the USSR, and serves as a model for similar schemes in the West.  Second, pathologization of dissent is not confined to the Left. A prominent Far Right activist who shall go nameless here responded to my criticism of him by labelling me a “paranoid piece of crap” suffering from “insanity.” How is this defamatory drivel any different from the nonsense spewed by the Left?

MK-Ultra & the CIA and ‘Pathology of Normalcy’ continue to delve into these issues.

What is regarded as ‘normal’ in a traditional sense, became pathological, especially after ‘Fascism’ provided the Establishment with a boogeyman, which, according to Fromm and Adorno, was an endemic condition that required mass therapy by way of social revolution.

Nothing new here; this has already been touched on above.

Wilhelm Reich’s Sexual Reductionism

Reich regarded ‘Fascism’ as innate to every race and nationality, because it expressed the repression of innate biological drives. Hence, what is required is a universal freedom of the individual from those bonds that restrict orgasm and result in Fascism.

Indeed, Jews must be liberated and reject their fascist tendencies.

Yet Reich also ruminates on his awareness as forever having ‘besmirched anew with dirt and muck’ his memories of his mother. One evening, as he was heard by mother and tutor outside the bedroom door, he retreated back to his bed, worried that mother and tutor might ‘kill’ him. However, he returned to the bedroom door night after night; ‘the horror disappeared and erotic feelings won the upper hand’. ‘And then the thought came to me to plunge into the room, to have intercourse with my mother…

These are the people who then define normal familial relations as a pathological reflection of an “authoritarian personality.” The sewers of the Levant have overflowed their muck into the West.

Victimising Dissent

IT IS WELL-KNOWN that psychiatry was used by the Soviet bloc against political dissidents to both undermine their credibility and confine them without trial on the pretext of claiming them to be mentally impaired. As we have seen, the Frankfurt School prepared the way for the use of psychiatry against dissidents in the West…

See what I wrote above.  The Soviets really didn’t have much standing criticizing the abuse of “social science” (sic) by anyone else.

Hence, the state has to be eternally vigilant lest in moments of crisis Fascism reemerges to commit genocide. This repression is undertaken in the name of ‘freedom’, and is what Herbert Marcuse meant by ‘repressive tolerance’.

And mainstream conservatives support this “repressive tolerance” against those further to their Right, which they soon regret once they realize that they are the next target.

We see today how far-reaching this repression by liberal states has become in attempts to quell rising tides of national-populism that threaten the ‘open borders’ demanded by capitalist globalisation. In the aftermath of Senator Joseph McCarthy, there was a reaction among American elites seeking to purge the Right from society. In the post-McCarthy era, psychiatry became a means of silencing rightist, conservative opponents of the Establishment.

First, the Fascists and then the Republicans (to some on the Lunatic Left, one and the same).

‘Siberia Bill’, Goldwater on the Couch, and Trump on the Couch all expand on the theme of misusing psychiatry to delegitimize political components; we are most familiar with the last item, them unhinged attacks on Trump by individuals who themselves display behavior that raises questions about psychological fitness (not that I’m pathologizing anyone, of course…). This leads to:

Marginalising Dissidents

There is no longer a requirement to crudely incarcerate dissidents in psychiatric institutions in the manner which seemed to have been quite routine for several decades. The way that Senator Joseph McCarthy was portrayed by CIA-sponsored journalists shows that one can be destroyed to the point of death as surely as cyber-bullying can induce a teenager to commit suicide. The same psychological methods are at work through ever greater means of mass communications and mind-manipulations that are far more invasive and enduring than the blatant propaganda of ‘people’s democracies’. If a dissident becomes too problematic, the media is sufficiently influential, and its consumers sufficiently pliant, to demonize the individual to the point where he becomes a pariah.

Information to target dissidents from groups such as that described in the chapter: Institute for Strategic Dialogue

Cold War Agendas and Anti-Soviet Analyses puts a new spin on things:

To the contrary, the investigations showed that the Foundations, while funding left-liberal ideologies, were an integral part of the Cold War offensive against the USSR, in tandem with the Congress for Cultural Freedom, Gloria Steinem’s ‘feminism’; and the National Student Association (NSA),367 the precursor of the New Left.

In general, I am opposed to pro-Soviet perspectives on the Right, whether from Yockey, Bolton, or anyone else. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. USA, USSR – a pox on both houses.

Foundation Funds, Role of Social Sciences continue this analysis, and I admit there is some truth in this:

The Marxist and liberal intelligentsia flocked to the Congress for Cultural Freedom to fight the Russians in a culture-war, while leftist social scientists served U.S. Cold War programmes.

This was also the genesis of the neoconservatism that continues to plague the American Right.

The Non-Communist Manifesto: Rostow’s Dialectics

The links between Cold War funds and outcomes were often not just nonlinear; at times they were oppositional, as scholars like Andre Gunder Frank and June Nash financed their graduate work, leading to powerful radical critiques, with funds from military-linked projects. While such unintended consequences had real significance in the development of American anthropology, these outcomes do not argue against payoffs for the national security state’s gambit—which still produced knowledge of use to national priorities and helped train generations of younger scholars, including some who would work within these governmental systems. Regardless of the analytical or political orientation of a particular work, anthropological writings informed a larger intellectual zeitgeist and supported the training of a broad universe of area specialists outside the discipline.

This is a useful insight from Bolton and explains why the Establishment, including the Military-Industrial Complex, would fund projects that, at first glance, did nothing bur produce critiques of the Establishment and the Military-Industrial Complex. That’s short-term. The long-term benefits for the Establishment outweighed these short-term costs; the benefits being the knowledge generated that could be used to promote Establishment goals (even if those goals were opposed by those academics who originally generated the knowledge), as well as the training of scholars who would “play ball” with the Establishment. The infrastructure being built was sturdy enough to survive some rumbling form genuine (leftist) dissidents.

Deconstructing the ‘Primary Ties and Organic ‘Freedom’ vs Rootless ‘Freedom’ deal with the loss of organic solidarity from the deconstructivist work of the Left. This deconstruction is discussed in Organic Community vs Contractual Society; thus:

Fromm’s doctrine of liberation from anything of duration, giving the individual total freedom to deconstruct and reconstruct himself without restraint, seeded today’s doctrine of the fluidity of everything, where gender, race and family are social constructs. Nothing need bind, nothing need endure, nothing need be anchored by tradition, custom, law, religion or morality.

We then can consider: Individuation

While Fromm refers to individuation, the concept was explained in a contrary manner by Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology. Jungian individuation proceeds from what is inborn, rather than being cut off. Again it is an organic approach. Individuation is ‘inherited possibilities’, Jung wrote. Where for the Critical Theorists selfactualisation requires revolt, both individually against one’s family and collectively against ‘society’, Jung countered that individuation is a process that unfolds organically. The primary ties, far from suppressing individual growth, provide the sustenance: ‘Insofar as this process [individuation], as a rule, runs its course unconsciously as it has from time immemorial, it means no more than that the acorn becomes an oak, the calf a cow, and the child an adult’. It is a conception that accords with Heidegger’s unfolding of ‘Being’; ‘to let be’…Where Fromm saw the ‘primary ties’ as the continuation of an infantile dependency of the individual, Jung saw in the infant the presence of all the instincts and experiences of his ancestors over millennia, from where potentialities arise. This is not something from which to be dissociated, but to be integrated into the total personality…

Of the beginnings of this individuating process from childhood, Jung stated: Childhood is important not only because various warpings of instinct have their origin there, but because this is the time when, terrifying or encouraging, those far-seeing dreams and images appear before the soul of the child, shaping his whole destiny, as well as those retrospective intuitions which reach back far beyond the range of childhood experience into the life of our ancestors.

This is very compatible with my idea of aspects of “spiritual race” being at least in part inherited.

Next: The Individual and ‘Collective Norms’ and The Danger of ‘Freedom’ continue this:

The Critical Theorists advocate a process of ‘deconstruction’ that must proceed before the world can be reconstituted. But Fromm warns that it is a dangerous course because ‘freedom’ can only be gained by cutting loose from all that is familiar and by leaping into an abyss where self-destruction rather than utopia might await.

Never fear!  The SJW espousing Critical Race Theory is part of a highly collectivist and conformist hive mind society that provides all the utopian – actually, dystopian – security that can ever ask for. Leftist “individualism” has all of the collectivism of an ant hill.

Mother, Child, Fascism

It is notable that the primary factor in the New Left ‘rebellion’ was a revolt against parents, and against the state as a substitute parental authority figure.

This is true, but this begs the question – against who were the Millennials of the Alt-Right, with their embarrassingly juvenile behavior, rebelling against?

Interestingly, a study has found that there is a difference in relationship with the father between those on the Far Left, and those who are ethnic-nationalist separatists. Leftists have a dysfunctional relationship with the father, while ethnic separatists see their rebellion as being in honour of the father; symbolic of one’s forefathers.

The Left’s pathologization of the Right is mostly projection, as most genuine behavioral pathology is found among leftists, as any survey of arrested Antifa makes very clear.

A compensatory display of ‘toughness’ and ruthlessness is, according to findings from the F scale, correlated with antidemocratic social and political beliefs. Yet such motives were found not among ‘Fascists’ but among New Leftists two decades later. The relationship, especially of the Jewish radical to his mother, was a significant factor in his ‘rebellion’. Jewish psychohistorians Stanley Rothman and S. R. Lichter, in their surveys, found the nerdy Jewish kid was trying to prove his masculinity to a mother who had, he felt, emasculated him, while non- Jewish New Leftists were rebelling against both parents.

How much of the social pathologies imposed on Western Man by racial and civilizational aliens has in its genesis the deformed familial lives of these alien degenerates?

Children as Consumers

Constant ‘need’ serves an essential part of the economic process of capitalism. Novelty rather than duration ensures consumer demand, which like everything else is rapidly, fluid. While Marcuse, Fromm et al. intended to critique industrialism and consumerism, and point the way to ‘selfactualisation’, their deconstruction of the organic, the durable, and the traditional could only result in a world of continual flux, which would benefit the capitalist mode of mass production based on ‘planned obsolescence’, whether in music or automobiles. This process explains why there can be a convergence between the Left and the oligarchy…

With the ever-increasing role of “planned obsolescence” and cheap Chinese products, as well as the role of advertising and social cache rather than empirical utility in the choice of products, these comments will be ever-more-salient in the modern economy.

Very satisfying is the tale of how an elderly Adorno fell out of favor with the young, radicalized students of the New Left, who scorned Adorno as an out-of-touch “part of the problem” figure, resulting in:

In April the faction invaded Adorno’s lecture, three female students bared their breasts at him, while leaflets were distributed saying that ‘Adorno as institution is dead’ (sic). ‘Plunged into depression by his various battles against the students Adorno died of a heart attack while on holiday in Switzerland in August’.

Schadenfreude alert!

…the groundwork has been prepared for promising new avenues of left-wing agitation: that of child sexual liberation. If the inhibition of childhood sexuality is a primary cause of mass psychosis and exploitation, ipso facto, according to this premise, the age of consent is a dangerously inhibitive bourgeois law, propped up by religion and custom. Indeed, Danny — ‘The Red’ — Cohn-Bendit, leader of the 1968 New Left Paris student revolt that almost brought down the de Gaulle government, and now co-president of the Federation of Green Parties in the European Parliament, alluded in his 1975 book The Big Madness, to the ‘erotic flirting’ that took place with five year old girls when he was working at an ‘antiauthoritarian kindergarten’ in Germany.

Jewish sexual pathology as ideology, another example of a never-ending series.

In the end, Bolton links the leftist “emancipation” of the child with the promotion of the role of child as just another consumer in the (globalist) economy.

‘Patriarchal Repression’

Jung wrote of those social theorists who attempt to destroy the genuine character of Being in the name of a rootless ‘freedom’ that, The danger that faces us today is that the whole of reality will be replaced by words. This accounts for that terrible lack of instinct in modern man, particularly the city-dweller. He lacks all contact with life and the breath of nature. He knows a rabbit or a cow only from the illustrated paper, the dictionary, or the movies, and thinks he knows what it is really like — and is then amazed that cowsheds ‘smell’, because the dictionary didn’t say so.

All well and good, but if this is used as an excuse to promote “traditionalist” and reactionary “woman in a wheat field” nationalism, then I object.

Lorenz: “Nobody ever identifies with a slavish weakling’ or allows such a person to convey ‘behaviour norms’ or ‘cultural values’ to him.”

Indeed.  That’s why White youth reject the West, why Whites convert to Islam, why the White Man has fallen and can’t get up. The strong horse appeals and attracts; the weak horse disgusts and repels.

Lessons from Samoa: Margaret Mead

“It would be desirable to mitigate, at least in some slight measure, the strong role which parents play in children’s lives, and so eliminate one of the most powerful accidental factors in the choices of any individual life.” – Margaret Mead

We have to have “equity” after all. However, brain transplants for Negroes may work better.

Are we to conclude that Mead believed parental authority is the root of all evil in the West, as do the Critical Theorists, but that a strongly hierarchical society taking the place of parental authority is preferable? It hardly seems to accord with the ideal of the carefree individual self-actualising without restraint. It does accord, however, with the construction of a centralised regime replacing the authority of parents and the independence of the household.

The endgame of leftist socio-psycho-babble in a nutshell. Mead had a role in: Role in Revival of Freudianism

Perennial Character of Primary Ties

“Morality is not imposed from outside; we have it in ourselves from the start — not the law, but our moral nature without which the collective life of human society would be impossible.” – Jung

I agree.

Jung & Nietzsche

While Nietzsche distinguished between ‘slave morality’, and ‘master morality’, this is not defined by a hedonistic and petty rejection of morals and restraint in the quest for the inane ‘self-actualisation’ of pop therapy, but as the quest for higher man as a prelude to the far-off overman. That is as far removed as one can get from the indulgent hippie nirvana of post-Freudian ‘freedom’.

What is Critical Race Theory than ressentiment?  Nietzsche has his positives and negatives, but to make him into a poster boy for the SJW Left is absurd.  Bolton is correct.

With Freud the Critical Theorists are able to deconstruct and fracture ‘civilisation’ in ways more far-reaching than the class struggle of Marxism. They strike at the very root of man’s being, which is far more than simply the economic relations of Marxism.

Indeed.  This is why so-called Cultural Marxism is far worse than Marxism itself.

Jung saw that these modern doctrines had arisen in prior centuries, and pointed to the ‘Age of Reason’, and to ‘American psychologists’ as a product of this epoch: ‘Most of your [American] psychologists, as it looks to me, are still in the 18th century inasmuch as they believe that the human psyche is tabula rasa at birth, while all somewhat differentiated animals are born with specific instincts’.

See this, relating inborn instinct to the Jungian ‘racial soul.”

Dialectics of Critical Theory, Fromm’s Bastards, and Jewish Factor continue to examine these issues and the underlying Jewish core behind them.

Jacobs states that those who were ‘in whole or in part’ of Jewish background formed the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the Institute for Social Research during the Weimar era. The number of non-Jews was ‘rather small’, and one, Paul Massing, felt that being non-Jewish prevented his full acceptance by the Institute’s ‘inner circle’. This was a matter of ‘elective affinity’ between the Jewish leftist intelligentsia; a psycho-sociological factor…

This people has been at war with European man for thousands of years. And they are winning.

Marcuse & the New Left, Increased Production: Meaning of Life, New Conceptions of Family Bonding continue in this vein and also provide to us evidence of the sick, Jewish, Levantine pathological behavior behind the New Left:

New Left spokesman Jerry Rubin, head of the Yippies, reminisced about a ‘psychic therapy session’ in which participants sought liberation from ‘childhood deprivation’, taking on matricidal proportions: I started shouting at my mother for the specific messages she gave me. ‘Thanks, mommy. You white-skinned, no-good sexless asshole captoothed cancerous venom of a snake who destroyed me from birth …. I have your self-righteous right-wrong should not programming… with that stupid JUDGE inside me that I got from you. I don’t see people as they are, but as they fit my standards, my self-righteous beliefs …. Oh, it is so liberating for me to tell the truth. MOMMY I AM GLAD THAT YOU DIED. IF YOU HAD NOT DIED OF CANCER, I WOULD HAVE HAD TO KILL YOU… You taught me to compete and compare, to fear and outdo. I became a ferocious achievement-oriented, compulsive obsessive live-in-my-head asshole… Well, fuck you Mommy, fuck you in the ass with a red hot poker.

Because Jewish nerdlings have twisted relationships with their mothers, Western society must be deconstructed. Thus, the price for having grasping aliens, armed with a malevolent intelligence, in your midst.

Self-Actualising with Charles Manson

James Mason and Siege?

Spawning the New Left, ‘Materialization and Quantification of Values’, Tyranny Means ‘Freedom’ continues this discourse, with Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” being an accurate description of the Left’s views on human relations; as Bolton says: “Marcuse betrays himself as a bigot and a fanatic.”

Lasch Dissents describes Christopher Lasch’s dissent from New Left orthodoxy, followed by The Left Reacts, in which the usual suspects attacked Lasch, and he responded:

Lasch responded to Rubin’s attack with gusto: ‘These stale polemics, full of moral outrage and theoretical hot air, inadvertently show why the Left has no future. …’ Lasch stated that the Left had adopted an elitist position, contemptuous of the common people. He stated that the Left had abandoned ‘the fiction of democracy and to lead the people to the promised land against their own judgment and inclinations’.

We see the modern SJW in what Lasch critiqued in those remarks.

Sexology, Alfred Kinsey, Role of the Kinseyan Sexual Dialectics, and Wilhelm Reich’s ‘Sex-Pol’ discuss the sexual nature of the threat from the Left.

The next sections deal with so-called ”identity politics” – 

Identity Politics

Laclau and Mouffe had written in a preliminary article in 1981 that the enemy could no longer be defined by classical Marxist concepts on class; this had been superseded by power relationships that involve sexism, patriarchy and racism.

Gramscianism

The analysis is neo-Gramscian, after the Italian Communist Party theorist Antonio Gramsci, who has had a major influence on post-Marxist thinking, and underlines the purpose of identity politics as being that of cultural hegemony: ‘The emergence of new contradictions in advanced capitalism requires that socialist forces develop the concept of hegemony even further than its formulation in Gramsci, in order to bring out all its theoretical and political effects.’

Thus, if class is no longer the driving force behind revolution (the White working class having rejected the Left and having been abandoned, scorned, and denounced as “racist” in response), then: Proletariat Reductant as Revolutionary Factor, with the same principals involved: Role of Marcuse. Back to sexuality:

Reconstructing Genders

Freud considered that there was a narcissistic component in homosexuality. Given that the modern epoch is focused on the individual as an isolated being urged to deconstruct and reconstruct the self on the basis of a fad, a whim, or a trend, such sexual-narcissism amounts to perhaps the ultimate expression of self-obsession.

Given the behavior of homosexuals in the “movement,” Freud was undoubtedly correct in this regard.

Magnus Hirschfeld: Father of Transvestism and Transgenderism

‘Gender reassignment’ was pioneered by Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, himself homosexual, whose sexology emerged, like Wilhelm Reich’s, in the moral, social and economic collapse of Germany following World War I.

In that one sentence, we observe the correlation between a degenerate society, such as the Weimer Republic and degeneracy among its populace (a chicken and egg situation as to causation) as well as the association of homosexuality with other aspects of sexual deviancy and degeneracy. The endgame of this agenda:

You can be precisely what you want to be at any given time, or more probably what you are told you want to be by human relations ‘mediators’ and ‘facilitators’, psychiatrists, counsellors; media, advertising, and entertainment industries. There can be no sense of permanence and duration, but rather a perpetual state of fluidity. In the name of ‘identity’, any type of organic identity is destroyed, until everyone becomes as nebulous as to slot into an amorphous mass ‘humanity’ according to the requirements of social engineering and social control.

This program of social destruction is, of course, (primarily) targeted to the West.  There is no such concerted effort to deconstruct and reconstruct identity in other places, or, even if such in tentatively approached, such as in Afghanistan under the American occupation, more traditional attitudes reassert themselves once the degeneracy is not forced upon the population at bayonet point. It is only in the West has this poison become engrained into the majority culture.

Bolton continues:

House of World Cultures: Cold War Origins, Gate-Crashing the APA

At this time, homosexual agitation began to intrude on scientific conferences: ‘Meanwhile, militant political homosexual groups continued to disrupt a number of scientific programs both at the national and local level…

Homosexualism has infiltrated the pro-White “movement” and constitutes a threat to that “movement’s” integrity (such as it is).

The importance of the issue was expressed by Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, who wrote to Socarides: There is an epidemic form of homosexuality, which is more than the usual incidence, which generally occurs in social crises or in declining cultures when license and boundless permissiveness dulls the pain of ceaseless anxiety, universal hostility and divisiveness. Thus in the Betsileo of Madagascar the incidence of homosexuality was visibly increased at a time when the society was under a state of collapse. Supporting the claims of the homosexuals and regarding homosexuality as a normal variant of sexual activity is to deny the social significance of homosexuality. To do this is to give support to the divisive elements in the community. Above all it militates against the family and destroys the function of the latter as the last place in our society where affectivity can still be cultivated. 

If this is true, then, by extension, the homosexual cabal in the pro-White “movement” constitutes an existential threat and must be combated.

Reconditioning Children, Indoctrination in the Schools, What is ‘Relationships and Sexuality Education’ (RSE)?, Revolution in Morals, Deconstruction of Language, Imposed and Enforced, Awareness Raising, Remoulding Generations describe the enforced re-education of the population, particularly the children, in New Left ideas about sex, identity, and culture:

It becomes evident that the aim of RSE is to literally remould children into new, but amorphous beings that will conform to a brave new world, behind the façade of pseudo-identity. Modes of thinking will be re-engineered to conform…

In this there will be - No Choice.

Progressive Regression Return of the Eunuchs

‘Homosexual activity and bestiality were considered ways of having intercourse with the gods and thus affecting the course of nature’.

Once again, we see homosexuality as a central node point, historically speaking, in the deconstruction of traditional male identities.

The abhorrence for the dark god Seth involves the rape of his brother Horus. The act was ‘… certainly looked upon as a mark of ignominy for the sufferer; but it is abominated not as an expression of triumph by the enemy so much as for the shame attached to the act itself, just as the eating of excrement is abominated’. Seth was not only homosexual but was an abortionist, symbolic of Seth as a god of sexual sterility, an aberration of the divine order.

Certain homosexual “pro-White activists” have promoted the work of anti-natalists. Is the “dark god Seth” among us today?

Toxicity of ‘Traditional Masculine Ideology’

The revived cult of the Castrating Goddess…

Who for today’s White male HBDers would no doubt be an East Asian female (“measured groveling” indeed).

…proceeds with a scientific façade; the modern magic. The American Psychological Association promotes transgenderism as the healthy option to resolve identity confusion, while also promoting that confusion. Not only has transsexuality in an ongoing variety become the new ‘normal’, but traditional maleness has been deemed ‘toxic’. According to official APA ideology, there ‘is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology’.

Is the promotion of “Bronyism” in the pro-White scene an example of a homosexualist assault on traditional “toxic” masculinity?

The male no longer has any sense of purpose. Perhaps that is the actual reason for male health issues?

Is it no surprise that prostate cancer research receives only a fraction of the funding as breast cancer research (yes, I know that men can get breast cancer as well, but there’s a huge difference in sex-related incidence; thus, breast cancer is predominantly a female disease)?

Feminism

Politically, one sees the Left embracing the telluric. It is politicised Dionysianism. Historically, Spartacus, leader of the slave revolt against Rome (73 B.C.), was said to be the incarnation of Dionysus, and the Roman Senate sought to prohibit the Dionysian cult as subversive.

What would Nietzsche – a proponent of the Dionysian – have said about that?

Anthropologist Professor Joan Bamberger comments on the theory: Because no matriarchies persist anywhere at the present time, and because primary sources recounting them are totally lacking, both the existence and constitution of female-dominated societies can only be surmised. The absence of this documentation, however, has not been a deterrent to those scholars and popularists who view in the concept of primitive matriarchy a rationale for a new social order, one in which women can and should gain control of important political and economic roles.

“Pro-White” women who are feminists thus constitute an existential threat as do the homosexuals.

Role of Feminism in Post-Cold War Globalism discusses the globalization of the feminist threat, including in the former Soviet bloc.

Intersectionality — The Politics of Bedlam, or, ‘Where Rights Collide’

First there was the LGB Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual triune. This was supplemented by LGBTTIQ, then by LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA. One might suppose that there is an in-house joke to utilise every letter of the English alphabet to describe a newly discovered gender.

I am reminded of Dr. Frank Salter’s essay on sexual degeneracy.

Gays vs Queers

An issue for certain precincts of the “movement?”

TERFing and ‘Just an Exiled Old White Woman’ discuss some feminist opposition to the “trans” hysteria.

Alas, different favored groups of the Left seem to be in conflict, thus:

Muslims vs Gays

What the oligarchs desire is Muslim immigration to serve as part of their agenda for a globalised economy. However, what they do not want are enclaves of Muslims who retain traditional beliefs and resist liberal, globalist agendas. They want secularized Muslims and hence try to seduce uprooted Muslim youth with the West’s culture of decay. They want tamed Muslims like they wanted tamed Blacks, such as Martin Luther King, not Black nationalist ghetto militants.

This is obvious. But it is backfiring, since the Muslims are not behaving as the globalists desire. They are made of sterner stuff than are deracinated Westerners.

Political Agendas

The only way global capitalism can rationalise the breakup of society is if this is intended to be dialectical; to use deconstruction in order to reconstruct society. If the funding of social fracture does not have a dialectical intent, then presumably it means that the financiers who have provided the money for a century to such causes are suicidal. An alternative hypothesis is that the globalist elites are confident of being able to control the forces they unleash, and direct them toward long-term goals. They have a faith in the efficacy of money for the purpose.

I believe that they will fail either way. However, that does not mean we will win. A victory by China and Islam, each in the own sphere, and both dominating the remains of the “West,” seems most likely. The future looks grim.

Straight White Leftists seem like a dying breed.

The Myth of ‘White Privilege’

A bit of Spenglerism:

THE CURRENT LATE EPOCH of Western civilisation is not the whole of Western culture per se; it is a phase of decline. German historicism makes a delineation between Kultur and Zivilisation, which explains this better than Anglo-French positivism: ‘[C]vilization’ does not mean the same thing to different Western nations. Above all, there is a great difference between the English and French use of the word, on the one hand, and the German use of it, on the other. For the former, the concept sums up in a single term their pride in the significance of their own nations for the progress of the West and of humankind. But in German usage, Zivilisation means something which is indeed useful, but nevertheless only a value of the second rank, comprising only the outer appearance of human beings, the surface of human existence. The word through which Germans interpret themselves, which more than any other expresses their pride in their own achievements and their own being, is Kultur.

Engels of British Poverty, Redlegs, The South and the White Worker describe the realities of White poverty and servitude, putting a lie to the idea of White Privilege. 

Population Control, including eugenics is covered:

Soviet Eugenics, Confluence, as well as other aspects of population control:

Rockefeller’s Population Council

As we have seen, eugenics was embraced originally more by the Left than by the Right, which does not have any deep ideological antecedents for it. The concept appealed to the Left because it had a faith in the perfectibility of man. The Right had no such illusions. The Right traditionally does not see man on an upward march of Darwinian evolutionary ‘progress’. It was Marxism and liberalism that happily embraced Darwin. Where Hitlerism embarked on that path delineates where the imports of Darwin, Galton and Malthus overtook the German idealism of Fichte, Hegel and Goethe, in a great historical irony.

As a supporter of eugenics and of the “upward march of Darwinian evolutionary ‘progress” and as opponent of “traditionalism” I obviously oppose the (implied) sentiments behind the comments above.  However, given that the typical reader of Bolton’s works would be so-called “traditionalists” that does not condemn this work from that perspective, although I, personally, am less than thrilled by all f this.

Hugh Moore and International Capitalism ad Draper Committee 1959 continue the analysis of the population control issue, as does Sanger & Planned Parenthood. This relates to the role of women in the realm of “International Capitalism” - Equality of Exploitation. Marx & Malthus further continues along the lines of looking at the population control issue.

Sanger shows herself to be a reductionist, making birth control into a one-dimensional ideology. The title of her book dogmatically states that birth control is the ‘pivot of civilization’, albeit a declaration at odds with millennia of historical experience suggesting that birth control is a symptom of a civilisation in its final states of decay. Oswald Spengler, in his comparative study of civilisations, asserted: The last man of the world city no longer wants to live, he may cling to life as an individual, but as a type, as an aggregate, no…

Will Bolton openly denounce modern anti-natalists and those factions of the “movement” – often associated with homosexualism as noted above – that promote anti-natalism?

And the analysis continues - Birth Control ‘Pivotal,’ with all of these issues correlated together with the general New Left ideology - Intersectionality with the New Left.

Feminism again served an Establishment role, regurgitating what Sanger had advocated over fifty years previously: Easier access to better birth control methods, including repeal of outmoded restrictions, offered a logical and seemingly acceptable alternative to coercion. That tactic coincided with the developing strategies of another movement. Women’s liberationists also demanded greater freedom and an end to all measures that forced women into second-class status. In the field of reproduction, a woman’s right to choose included not only pills and IUDs but also abortion — legal, safe, and inexpensive.

There are some on the Far Right who approve of abortion because of its prevalence among Negroes. I will not comment on this issue here, other than noting that while I oppose abortion for Whites (other than for certain eugenic and/or medical reasons) I am of course not at all opposed to non-White abortion. The more the better!

The analysis continues - Frederick Jaffe Memo.

‘Finally, it is also worth noting that more extreme or controversial proposals tend to legitimate more moderate advances, by shifting the boundaries of discourse’.

But, of course.  This is the “Overton Window” that the Far Right is so fond of mentioning. Population control – obviously an issue of intense interest for Bolton – continues in Good Club: Buffett, Rockefeller,

Gates, et al. and Role of the United Nations Organisation.

OPPOSITION TO what Piotrow alludes to as United Nations ‘Malthusian thinking’ on population control came from the Catholic states and the Soviet bloc. Piotrow’s observations are reminiscent of Sanger’s in regard to Karl Marx on Malthus. She states that the Soviets regarded ‘population control [as] a capitalist stratagem to postpone the real solutions — a reorganization of society and redistribution of wealth’. The Soviet position was broadly accurate, and conservative, and it is such a conservative stance on this and many other issues that placed the Soviet bloc in ‘Cold War’ confrontation with the USA.

I’m not a fan of the Yockey/Bolton view of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc, but this review isn’t the place to get into all of that.

United Nations Global Migration Compact and Nature of U.N. Declarations and Covenants, Labour Market Fodder deal with the United Nation’s promotion of genocidal race replacement immigration, particularly that targeting White nations. And, of course, the host people must be subjected to propaganda to force them to accept their dispossession: Indoctrination.

Objective 17 aims at the remoulding of the attitudes of the host peoples: ‘We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. …’ This is a reiteration of present U.N. covenants, long enacted as human rights and race relations laws in many states. The same passage concludes: ‘We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration’. This is again Orwellian double-speak. Any criticism of open borders and defence of the host people is called ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ by U.N. ‘international human rights law’. Under U.N. Covenants there never has been ‘freedom of expression’ for dissent.

I have written on the free speech issue many times, and often cite this type of hypocrisy – a superficial “commitment” to “freedom of expression” immediately followed by directives to ruthlessly suppress any expression critical of immigration.

Interference in the internal political process is also urged to suppress and smear any sign of political resistance: Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns. Again, this appears to be an appeal to mobilization against political dissidence.

Eric Kaufmann’s work can be construed as part of this agenda to enforce White compliance with their dispossession.

What is Behind the U.N. Global Compact?

Bolton ascribes this to the agenda of “global capital.”

Universal ‘General Will’

Once a universal creed is agreed to by contracting parties, it becomes the legal expression of a universal general will, and anyone who contravenes that general will is liable to punishment or elimination.

That’s the situation that White nationalists and patriots find themselves in.

Julian Huxley’s Brave New World

JULIAN HUXLEY was a most distinguished Darwinian biologist, and remained a zealous advocate for eugenics as first director of UNESCO, regardless of his own mental instability that required electro-shock treatment. His utopian vision for a world state under United Nations auspices is remarkably close to the dystopia described by his brother Aldous in Brave New World, where ‘World Controllers’ would exercise their power by keeping the world citizenry content through consumerism, childless sex, music and narcotics. Where Aldous saw a nightmare, Julian saw utopia.

Criticism of Huxley’s agenda is justified; a problem can occur when that extends to a criticism of eugenics or of science in general.

UNESCO Doctrine

In eschewing any specific religion of the great traditional faiths as inherently sectarian and divisive, Huxley instead proposed scientific humanism that would have ‘spiritual, mental and materialistic aspects’, which would be ‘truly monistic and unitary’. What was essential for a world state was its underpinning by a syncretic world faith that transcended the traditional faiths. This new faith must uphold Man ‘as the sole trustee of further evolutionary progress’.

That doesn’t sound bad to me at face value; the issue of course is that underlying agenda and how it would be implemented. Thus:

Global Aesthetics: Formless, Rootless

The role of UNESCO would be to promote this ‘world political unity’ through its brief in education, science and culture. The role of UNESCO was envisaged to be that of indoctrination. This would include the inauguration of activities that would show how ‘nationality and nationalism can be transcended in shared activity’.

The underlying agenda is therefore unsound. Destabilizing national cultures is not justified by eugenics. One can promote eugenics and scientific progress within the context of national and racial stability.

Classifying Castes

We do not have to read between the lines, when Huxley unequivocally states: Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to ‘overcome the resistance of millions’ to desirable change…Huxley states that the ‘task is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose’.

Family Remains the Target describes how parental authority is being eroded to supplant the family with a “global village” perspective.

Soros’ ‘Brave New World’

GEORGE SOROS is a prominent funder of the New School for Social Research. He has achieved fame or infamy in the name of ‘philanthropy’, lavishing patronage on ‘liberal’ causes, and is a significant factor in promoting ‘colour revolutions’ for ‘regime change’, particularly in the former Soviet bloc. His significance is such that the leadership of Hungary and of Russia have acted to eliminate Soros’ Open Society institutes and numerous fronts and offshoots from their societies. In 2018, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán introduced what was widely called a ‘Stop Soros’ bill in response to Soros’ backing of the Third World population shift to Europe.

I’m sure the reader is very familiar with Soros and his genocidal, destructive agenda

Piecemeal Social Engineering’ continued the narrative.

Social Deconstruction through Ethnic Diversity describes the UNESCO statement on race:

In finale: ‘Lastly, biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood’…

That is a lie.

While the UNESCO Statement assured the world that it is man’s historical destiny to unite into One World, this crass revision and restructuring of history crashes on the rocks of reality.

That is true.

Reality Not on Side of Globalists – very true. Diversity decreases social trust, but leftist academics want to medicate the (White) population to reduce “racism.” The negative effects of diversity was explained, in one of several studies, in Putnam Study.

Unity in Diversity?, The Review, Nature of Discrimination, Discrimination as Cognitive Development continue the analsyis of the costs of diversity and the natural tendency of humans for favor kin and to discriminate:

Inability to discriminate is symptomatic of stunted development. The utopian liberal idyll of Black and White toddlers playing as friends is a retarded image when applied in a generalised and universal way to adults. Perhaps this is why we can discern the retarded character of liberals and leftists…

Very true. There isn’t much for me to add at this point as this is all territory I, and others, have gone over many times.

The Corporation Ideal

Dinesen states that ethnic diversity in the workplace has the same negative impact on social trust as in the neighbourhood context. The more diverse the workplace, the more the social distrust, indicating that ethnic diversity has a causal effect on social trust. The study on the workplace took variables into account, such as educational backgrounds and types of work, and the results were consistent.

Of course, corrupt and mendacious American “social; science” (an oxymoron) “research” cherty picks data and manipulates methodology to make diversity seem a boon to the workplace; while reality reflects the Dinesen data – regardless of whether it is in America, Europe, or anywhere else.

Meta Estimated continues the analysis. Thus:

Conclusion

Dinesen et al. conclude by asking what policy makers might do to mitigate the erosion of social trust by ethnic diversity. What public policies or institutions are available to curb the ‘negative effect’? One might here wonder whether the authors, like Putnam, are loathe to accept the implications of their own findings, and after such scientific rigour, retreat to ideological preconceptions. What is one to make, for example, of their suggestion that there might be a ‘gradual implementation of integration policies within countries as sources of quasi-experimental variation in the moderating variable’?

These authors are evil – they recognize, through their own studies, that diversity is destroying society, but instead of directly addressing the problem, the cause of the pain, they merely try to alleviate the symptoms, allowing the “patient” to eventually die.  This is akin to treating a human patient, suffering from a potentially fata but treatable disease, and merely masking the symptoms while allowing the disease to progress to death. Thus, according to these evil scum, we need:

Behaviour Modification, NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, ‘Racial Confrontation as Transcended Experience discusses attempts to brainwash White people to accept diversity and to accept White dispossession.

The ‘encounter’ took place over three days. The Saturday night session proceeded through without a sleep break, as sleep and other deprivations were considered necessary to break down inhibitions. During physical encounters, reactions included ‘loud sobbing and wailing’. In an ‘encounter’, described by Leonard, between a White schoolteacher, Pam, and a light skinned Negro, Cliff, Pam told Cliff she wanted to be his friend. Her offer was rejected as ‘pitiful, condescending overtures’. She pleaded tearfully, ‘Please, what can I do? I’m trying. Please help me’. Cliff responded: ‘No, baby, I’m not going to help you. I’m not going to take you off the hook. I want you to feel just what I feel. I want you to feel what I’ve felt for twenty one years. Go on. Cry’.

Why White people put up with this is beyond me.

‘Unconscious Bias’

Where in Mao’s time some hapless schoolteacher might suddenly become a ‘class enemy’, ‘reactionary’ or ‘landlord’, in the West an individual might suddenly be publicly ‘named and shamed’ as a ‘racist,’ ‘White supremacist’, ‘neo-Nazi’. The media smears use techniques of criticism drafted at well-funded think tanks. Self-criticism and group conformity are used in business to ensure a compliant workforce, weeding out any nonconformist in the interests of curing ‘unconscious bias’. In psychology, self-criticism is usually regarded as a destructive personality trait leading to depression. Yet it has been introduced into human relations programmes among corporate and government employees as a means of purging the individual of Orwellian thought-crimes; especially those at the sub-conscious level (‘unconscious bias’). What the latter means is that even the most ‘liberal’ White needs thought-processing as the ‘social construct’ of ‘Whiteness’ is premised on ‘White supremacy’, which in turn is the foundation of ‘White privilege’, from which all Whites, no matter what their situation or family legacy, apparently benefit. The White is placed in a no-win situation. For one’s peace of mind, acquiescence is the solution in a situation that has no logic.

Thus, the psychological abuse of Whites as both individuals and as a people.

Rev. Jones’ Socialist Paradise Based on Group Therapy

Rev. Jim Jones, much lauded by the American liberal Establishment as a great civil rights leader, sought to create a socialist paradise in the jungle of Guyana. He convinced over 900 followers to relocate to escape impending earthquakes, drought, Fascist takeover, concentration camps, and the genocide of Afro-Americans. He used fear of false crises as a control mechanism.

Jim Jones as leftist archetype – I suppose mass suicide for Whites would be considered by the Left as a fitting punishment for "White racism."

Transhuman, ‘Naturalistic’, Universal Religion go over issues that can be summarized here:

In justifying the inevitability of a scientific world order, Huxley applies the positivism of Aguste Comte, father of sociology, in seeing a succession of historical stages unfolding: magical, animistic, theological, until the present stage of science has shown that ‘God is becoming an erroneous hypothesis…’ Transhumanism is the religion, by whatever name, of the globalist oligarchy, premised on the use of technology to change humanity.

On the one hand, I oppose leftist, Universalist agendas to use science “to change humanity” in an anti-racist direction. On the other hand, we shouldn’t let leftist abuse of science to embrace reactionary, Luddite, anti-science “traditionalist” nonsense that would leave Whites “snug in their hobbit holes” as Chinamen rocket off to the stars.

Posthuman Cyberfeminism & Postgender

TRANSHUMANISM resolves questions of gender and of race by submerging them into the next stage of evolution: the cyborg. Man becomes machine and can be tailor-made to the requirements of production. This is being zealously advocated among both high-powered think tanks and by socialists and feminists as the means by which the longdesired aim of a high-functioning nebulous entity can be created without recourse to the odious business of childbearing and child-rearing.

That may be the agenda of the “scientific” Left, but I know of no genuine person on the Far Right who embraces futuristic scientific progress and actually supports making humanity into cyborgs.

Postgender

Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without ‘mothers’ and ‘fathers,’ and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction.

No one on the Right would support this.

Conclusion summarizes Bolton’s views on all of these issues.

The sensible predicate for social change is organic growth as distinct from artificial ‘social engineering’, as scientists such as Carl Jung and Konrad Lorenz warned. Jung, from the perspective of analytical psychology, and Lorenz, the founding father of ethology, called the problems afflicting modern civilisation pathological, and the malfunctioning of instincts.

Thar’s fine as far as it goes, but:

What is disparaged by the progressives as ‘superstition’ mostly originated with genuine insights and inventions, which have been maintained over generations by taking on sacred and mythic aspects. ‘Retention’ is even more important than ‘additional acquisition’. What can be discarded as obsolete and useless from a survival perspective and what necessitates preserving as indispensable in the cultural heritage, is not something that should be casually decided. Mircea Eliade pointed out for the same reasons the importance of enduring myths, sacred places and religious rites and ceremonies, in maintaining a sense of a community’s place and purpose in the cosmos. Scorned by the progressives as irrational and useless superstition and ‘magic’, as Julian Huxley put it, or as a plot by the ruling class to keep the people oppressed in the name of ‘God’, as Marx put it, there is a religious element to man’s psyche that is hardwired and should not be causally rejected in the name of ‘progress’ and ‘science’.

Those familiar with my work would know that I object to this outlook from Bolton. I utterly despise tradition and religion and don’t believe we need to sacrifice our future for an adherence to a dead past.

One should look askance at the Critical Theorists and other ‘progressives’ when they dogmatically state that an institution or custom is ‘old fashioned’, ‘reactionary,’ ‘regressive’, and as the cliché goes on so many issues, should not be retained ‘in this day and age’. Removing one element from a multiplicity of traditional, cultural interactions might have devastating consequences, as Lorenz pointed out. ‘Being enlightened is no reason for confronting transmitted tradition with hostile arrogance…’

Again, fine, but one needs to distinguish a genuine tradition that constitutes a people’s culture and history and a hidebound rigid dogma that prevents Western man from overcoming and moving forward.

In summary, this is a generally positive work, at least from a typically “traditionalist” perspective.  There’s nothing here that I found greatly surprising, as I have been familiar with most of the issues for many years, and it was a bit repetitive but nevertheless, it is a useful volume in some ways, and no doubt fans of Bolton’s work will find this book a welcome addition to their library. For myself, I can’t say reading it made an enormous impression on me, but neither was it a total waste of time.  The book is particularly useful for people relatively unfamiliar with tis themes and need to be informed and those who are already infirmed but need more details and references so as to better argue their positions (even though I may disagree with some of those positions).