Category: Marxism & Culture War

The mysterious virtue of homosexual politics

In recent days there have been around a dozen opinion pieces at the Telegraph site addressing the Catholic Church’s defence of marriage from the trespasses of “gay rights” activism.  I’ve participated in a few of the threads (plus one at the Indy which had to be taken down, so shocking is it to the fastidious liberal to encounter opposition).

My usual argument was that the female demand for male fidelity (monogamy) is a European sociobiological trait, so the protection and preservation of marriage as the most efficacious form of monogamy (for raising well-adjusted offspring able to make adaptive life-choices) is a highly important interest for our people.  The effect of its homosexualisation would be to reduce it to the status of a mere lifestyle choice – even more than it is already.  Young women, in particular, would no longer find in it that idealisation of love, sex and family which has drawn them up the church aisle, on their father’s arm, for centuries.

Plainly, homosexual activists are not open to conservative or religious argument.  Even the two most reasonable who did briefly acknowledge that there are more important things to society than homosexual equality never followed that line of reasoning through to its natural conclusion.  The rest of them - and there was an impressive number of homosexuals and leftists commenting on these threads - were hermetically sealed away from all reason.  They denied outright that the homosexualisation of marriage will have the slightest impact on its status.  But the quality of their advocacy generally – it’s arrogance and smugness, its frequent recourse to insult, its hatred of the Church and the Vatican, its refusal to acknowledge any merit in opposing arguments (some of which were unanswerable) – leaves one with precisely the impression that these people will sully and wreck whatever they touch.  The repute of marriage, already in decay, will never recover while they use it to prove their normality to themselves - which is all they are interested in.

It was my intention to go through some of the threads and pick out their more interesting arguments.  I have tried.  This is the result, and it’s not much because there isn’t much that can be used:

from being the minority though I may be in my sexual orientation I am part of a growing MAJORITY of Brits who have no problem at all with homosexuality. There is literally no way marriage equality isn’t going to pass, and when it does you people can all be quiet again.

Just skimmed your verbal diarrhoeal rant.  I’ve checked up, and you have indeed been on these forums for years, and pretty much everyone hates you.  You’ve been written about on blogs, and at all times people always have a problem with you.  You’ve been called a bigot, a homophobe, and intolerant - to just highlight a few terms.

What’s going to happen is this geoffrey1, equal marriage will be here in the next year or two, and nothing some warped and twisted bigoted homophobic intolerant keyboard warrior fanatical fundamentalist like you, .. will have the slightest impact.

Glad we have the Prome Minister and all major political parties on our side though - as well as the majority of the British public.

We’ve grown up in lots of ways.  The fact that society still has a bit of room left for homophobes like you makes me proud that we still tolerant alternative opinions.  But don’t get any ideas that you will be see as anything other than a vile and nasty homophobe and someone the majority doesn’t care to know.  Imagine what a sick world it would be if people like you were in the majority.  I expect you’ll go now and report back to your BNP buddies.

None of these remarks was made to me, incidentally.  I have not selected them because they contain insults.  They are merely representative of the quality of thought that, apparently, goes on in homosexual circles.  Yet these creatures are winning their war for the right to marriage.  Obviously, the reason for that lies elsewhere than in their ability to set out their case, which has no merit whatsoever.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, March 9, 2012 at 08:47 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (45) | Tell-a-Friend

Marxian Illustrations or Marxian Illusions?

by Graham Lister

If there was no difference between essence and appearance, there would be no need for science. - Karl Marx.

“Our discussions of non-purposive elaborations of functional claims suggest ways of filling that lacuna, but it is also necessary to point out that Marxists can be too sensitive to the charge that they perceive conspiracies everywhere. There is more collective design in history than an inflexible rejection of ‘conspiracy theories’ would allow, and richer scope for purposeful elaboration of Marxist functional theses than that posture recognizes. Thus while ideologies are not normally ‘invented’ to to fit the purposes they serve, a fairly deliberate and quite concerned effort to maintain and protect an existing ideology is not unusual. According to Christopher Hill, nobility and gentry in seventeenth-century England doubted they “would still be able to control the state without the help of the church”, and, therefore, “rallied to the defence of the episcopacy in 1641…for explicitly social reasons”. Ruling class persons of no special devotion to an Anglican God frankly professed obedience, and acted on that inspiration. Or, to take another example, when a high state functionary, reflecting on the unequal distribution of information in society, concludes that “this inequality of knowledge has become necessary for the maintenance of all the social inequalities which gave rise to it”, he may be expected to see the persistence of an educational structure which reproduces ignorance in the right places…But sentences beginning “The ruling class have decided…” do not entail the convocation of an assembly. Ruling class persons meet and instruct one another in overlapping milieux of government, recreation, and practical affairs, and a collective policy emerges even when they were never all in one place at one time.

There are, of course, many shades between the cynical handling of ideology just emphasized and an unhypocritical commitment to it, and a division of labour between lucid and engagé defenders of dominant ideas can be quite functional. If awareness of the true nature of the game penetrates too far down the elite, it could leak into the strata beneath them. There is always a mix of manipulation, self-deception, and blind-conviction in adherence to an ideology, the optimal proportions varying with circumstance.

All classes are receptive to whatever ideas are likely to benefit them, and ruling classes are well placed to propagate ideologies particularly congenial to themselves. But before an ideology is received or broadcast it has to be formed. And on that point there are traces in Marx of a Darwinian mechanism, a notion that thought-systems are produced in comparative isolation from social constraint, but persist and gain social life following a filtration process which selects those well-adapted for ideological service…There is a kind of ‘ideological pool’ which yields elements in different configurations as social requirements change.

Yet it is unlikely that ideas fashioned in disconnection from their possible social use will endorse and reject exactly what suits classes receptive to them. Here a Lamarckian element may enter, to make the picture more plausible. In Lamarck’s theory the equipment of the individual organism is somewhat plastic, for it changes under environmental challenge when it is put to novel use. Because of the delicacy of intellectual constructions, sets of ideas enjoy a partly similar plasticity: one change of emphasis, one slurred inference, etc., can alter the import of the whole. Such ‘Lamarckian’ possibilities are intimated in Marx’s review of the numerous uses to which a self-same Christianity is liable, and is it not because ‘Liberalism’ is an ambiguous term that its presumed teaching varies across space and time.”

- from “Karl Marx’s Theory of History – A Defence” by G.A. Cohen.

Let the discussion on ‘top-down versus bottom-up’ processes in the world of ideas and ideology begin.

Note- the act of quotation does not imply approval or agreement.

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 05:30 PM in Activism,  Marxism & Culture War
Comments (22) | Tell-a-Friend

Review of 2083: A European Declaration of Independence

Anders Behring Breivik is said to be a Justiciar Knight, whose badge, depicting what the reincarnated Templar Knights are about, is contrasted with the painting titled “Beat the whites with the red wedge,” a Bolshevist propaganda poster from 1919. Based on this comparison, what can you infer about the manifesto he allegedly wrote? Another clue: the Archeofuturists have shoveled a hole that they’ll enlarge into a massive pit within which they’ll be buried.

Teasers aside, here’s my review of 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, and more. I’m not posting it below because I intend to revise it.

NO OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS, please, and stick to the facts and fact-based inference.

Posted by J Richards on Monday, September 5, 2011 at 08:18 PM in European Nationalism,  Far Right,  Islam & Islamification,  Marxism & Culture War,  Media,  Political analysis,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism,  World Affairs
Comments (42) | Tell-a-Friend

A history of intellectual tyranny

“A substantial section of the chavs ... have become black.  The whites have become black.  A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion, and black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together - this language, which is wholly false, which is a Jamaican patois that’s been intruded in England.  And this is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.”

David Starkey, historian, famously opining on the London riots on the BBC’s Newsnight

Two days ago the Times Literary Supplement carried the response of Starkey’s academic peers, or at least one hundred and three peerless advocates of progressive thinking.  Their letter takes the view that, as a “historian of elites” but not “race and class”, Starkey was the wrong man for the job of debating negro life:

The problem lies in the BBC’s representation of Starkey’s views as those of a “historian”, which implies that they have some basis in research and evidence: but as even the most basic grasp of cultural history would show, Starkey’s views as presented on Newsnight have no basis in either. In particular, his crass generalisations about black culture and white culture as oppositional, monolithic entities demonstrate a failure to grasp the subtleties of race and class that would disgrace a first-year history undergraduate.

What they don’t like (but non-elitist folks do) is Starkey’s implication that a “particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture” is just blacks being black, while the chavs’ immersion in that is whites being black.  Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I estimate that between 30 to 40% of the signatories are not of native British descent.  Some are only post-grads.  The prime movers appear to be Alun Munslow , who has no immediate connection to London’s black or white underclass that I can see, and Paul Gilroy, who is at least black (though a product of Stuart Hall’s Birmingham School).

The letter concludes in suitably repressive style:

We the undersigned would therefore ask that the BBC and other broadcasters think carefully before they next invite Starkey to comment as a historian on matters for which his historical training and record of teaching, research and publication have ill-fitted him to speak. If his celebrity and reputation for giving offence still persuade producers that he is worth the money, we would not seek to censor him nor determine their choices: however, we would ask that he is no longer allowed to bring our profession into disrepute by being introduced as “the historian, David Starkey” when commenting on issues outside his fields of expertise.

Starkey will probably stay silent and rise above this challenge to his well-paid notoriety.  But I suspect that in private his response might go something along the lines of:

A substantial section of the professoriate in the humanities ... has become Jewish.  British academics have become Jewish.  A particular sort of repressive, destructive, relativistic collective culture has long become the intellectual fashion on campus, and every humanities lecturer or student is required to operate in this language together - this language, which is wholly false, which is a Marxist revolutionary product that’s been intruded into higher education.  And this is why so many of us have this sense of the British university as, literally, an anti-white institution.”

That, too, would be all too true.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 26, 2011 at 06:46 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (45) | Tell-a-Friend

Oscar Wilde: the straight truth about a “gay” icon

by Alexander Baron

On October 26, 2010, the headline on page 31 of the London Evening Standard read Anti-gay bullies are taught a lesson or two. This propaganda piece is about a secondary school in North London that is said to have almost eradicated “homophobic bullying” after indoctrinating its pupils with “gay” history lessons. The catalyst for this cynical piece of political correctness gone mad is revealed as the discovery by music teacher Elly Barnes that some of her charges were using the word “gay” as a derogatory term. Perish the thought. So Miss Barnes, sorry, Ms Barnes, set about instigating a scheme to “educate and celebrate” being “gay”, and of course, who better to include in this unsubtle brainwashing exercise than Oscar Wilde, who is of course pictured in the article?

The standard homo line on this degenerate and sexual predator is that he was a victim of Victorian hypocrisy who was driven to ruin by the vengeful father of his “lover”, Lord Alfred Douglas. The slightest critical examination of the undisputed facts of this sordid affair expose this for utter cant, and reveal clearly that Wilde was the author of his own misfortune.

Why anyone should consider Wilde to be any sort of icon remains to be seen, least of all a “gay” one, because in spite of his penchant for both the company and debasement of younger men, he was not strictly speaking homosexual.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, January 21, 2011 at 07:30 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (57) | Tell-a-Friend

How Obama Thinks

From Forbes 9/27/2010. The entire article is available online.

But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father’s time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father’s dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

Dinesh D’Souza, the president of the King’s College in New York City, is the author of the forthcoming book The Roots of Obama’s Rage (Regnery Publishing).

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Friday, September 10, 2010 at 04:07 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Model for the absorption of foreign-sourced critical understandings

by PF

Critiques have consequences. Right now the greatest superpower on Earth, the United States, is faced with fundamental questions about its existence that it just can’t answer. What are we? Who are we? What should our strategic goals be? What are the fundamentals of our culture? All of these questions in my opinion are iterations of the first one: what are we? No satisfactory answer is forthcoming or can be agreed upon.

It is possible to intuit how an entity subject to such mass confusion cannot possibly continue to exist, but rather appears to simply be waiting on a series of transformations which will alter it beyond recognition. This is because an entity that doesn’t understand what it is, cannot maintain itself against the forces of entropy which, necessarily, will pull and push and work on it. Our predecessors in the 60s, 70s and 80s laid the cultural foundation for this dissolution of nationhood. In the late 70s, 80s, and 90s the resulting anomie began to have obvious consequences for the structural aspects of national existence - of which I would mention Ponzi economics and the dumbing down of school curricula and pop culture. Today the only thing that is sure is that the knock-on effects and unintended consequences of these mass movements are likely to carry us past several consecutive points-of-no-return, into a reality unmapped, unplanned, and given what little we can foresee of it, likely very dangerous.

To think, it may one day all end in nuclear war.

(If you have quibbles with the articulation of the preamble, I ask you to holster them, on the grounds that I wish to discuss something besides The General State of Things And How We Got Here)

Probably the most important causal strain underlying this cultural transformation was an act of intellectual warfare summarized in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. The perpetrators of these acts answer to the names of Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and Boasian Anthropology.

Its quite remarkable to experience how these understandings, having trickled-down into knee-jerk reactions of even the intellectual proletariat, infuse every discussion. As Jonathan Bowden put it, they “permeate the ether”. The conclusions and tactics of these critiques have become some of the only common threads of our intellectual discourse, and an unconscious intelligenzia has busily spun itself a whole new cultural tapestry using them as a basis. The more people borrow their thoughts from the hive-mind, the more this ideational lattice-work appears to be independently rediscovered as an underlying facet of reality itself. Of course the observer is pointing to a reality that he himself has unconsciously structured and is calling it “World!”, as is par for the course with us, but it demonstrates that the battle which we lost was, first of all, an intellectual one.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 05:25 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (78) | Tell-a-Friend

Real-life Bismuths on the violent, hate-ridden English countryside

Finally, I have found a picture of I Bismuth, and he looks like this.  I can also reveal that when he gets some time away from the department, he works for that fine body, the Institute of Race Replations, vibrantly led and staffed as it is.  No cause for righteous complaint there.

In any case, the IRR has surpassed itself today by releasing its latest exposé of dark and unacceptable doings in the sheep- and cow-plagued, too unBrixton-like and too too green English countryside:

Racial violence: the buried issue

Research published by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) today, reveals dangerously high levels of racial violence in the UK - a violence which is spreading into new areas.

As mainstream parties compete as to which can reduce immigration fastest - ostensibly to defuse community fears - no one asks who actually bears the immediate fall-out of such tensions - Black and Minority Ethnic, asylum-seeker/refugee and migrant communities.

As far as the authorities are concerned the Macpherson inquiry (set up in the wake of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993) has dealt with racial violence. It no longer exists, it is no longer a problem issue. But the IRR’s report, Racial violence: the buried issue, reveals that, on average, five people a year in the UK have lost their lives to racial violence since Stephen’s death - a total of eight-nine victims in seventeen years.

And analysis of 660 racial attacks in 2009 reveals that certain groups of people are particularly at risk: ‘dispersed’ asylum seekers, newly-arrived migrant workers, those who look Muslim and/or work in isolating trades such as taxi-cabbing, food take-aways, small shops and eateries.

The map of violence has changed quite dramatically since studies were first done a generation ago, when primarily areas like Southall, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham witnessed the most racial attacks and racist murders. Such areas are now, in part through struggles against racism, more ‘at ease’ with their diversity. Today racial violence is on the rise in towns, cities and villages which are only now beginning to change demographically - with the arrival of asylum seekers, migrant workers, overseas students, and the natural movement of settled BME families from the larger conurbations.

According to the report’s authors: ‘The governments’ line that community tension is based solely on new immigration to the UK is partial and opportunistic. The UK is now witnessing an ever-expanding mosaic of different racisms based on different local conditions. And politicians themselves are responsible, through their neglect of poor disadvantaged areas, policies including the demonisation of certain groups and rhetoric around the war on terror, for creating, particularly in areas where competition over scarce resources is keenest, a climate in which racial violence will flourish. The drastic economic cuts of the new government can only make things worse.’

On its tatty little website there is a page about the history of the IRR.  Cogniscenti of anti-white institutional funding will recognise the names there.  I would like to think that Osborne’s budgetary constraints could put an end to this repulsive little hate-fest.  But the IRR has been sponging off Money since 1952, so I doubt it will disappear now.  Bismuth is hard to kill.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, June 25, 2010 at 08:27 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

A question and an answer

A commenter by the philosophically respectable if possible unsuitable name of Zarathustra asked a question on my Black Cab II thread which, whilst it is undoubtedly tawdry and boring, does deserve some elucidation.  And not only from me.  It seems to be addressed to everyone who reads this and is not already really, really convinced that negrifying the European genepool and filling up our living spaces with total aliens is not a Wholly Good Thing.

Here it is:

Could you enlighten me on whether or not you are racist? And what is your definition of racist?

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 09:02 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (51) | Tell-a-Friend

When do we get back to 1983?

One is bound to ask who, in 2009, still doesn’t know that “diversity” “enriches” no one?  Who doesn’t know that blacks fail educationally a little too often, or that the danger of violence is always heightened amid black populations?  Who doesn’t know that Jews are powerful and extremely self-interested?

Well, officially everybody.  And after all, the official version is the only version that counts.

Officially, we live, all of us, in the land of the blind.  The great prepronderance of those around us accept that they are supposed to be blind, and fight off awkward enquiries with a mortified urgency.  But such willingness to put out one’s own eyes is based in fear, of course.  The most fearful are also the most sincerely convinced.  There are those who take as their own the descriptions of the world given them by others.  They believe truth to be lies, and the blindingly obvious to be immoral.  They are not free to think, for they do not begin thinking from the right, but from anything but the right.

Today, The Independent produced a hate-scribble titled “Racist rants of elected BNP man, Andrew Brons, revealed”.

In 1983, when he was in his late twenties, Andrew Brons edited the National Front’s general election manifesto that called for a global apartheid to prevent the “extinction” of whites everywhere.

The Let Britain Live! manifesto was prepared by the party’s policy department, chaired by Brons. It outlined a series of hugely controversial positions ...

These are the “hugely controversial positions” that Mr Brons and the NF advocated.

1. The NF rejects the whole concept of multiracialism.  The NF believes the gradual dismantlement of the apartheid system since the passing of the Race Relations Act in 1976 to be retrograde.  The alternative to apartheid, multiracialism, envisages an extinction of the White man.

2. The NF recognises inherent racial differences in Man.  The races of Man are profoundly unequal in their characteristics, potential and abilities.  Europeans have a greater cognitive ability than non-whites.

3. The UK has been swamped by racially incompatible Afro-Asians.

4. Black muggings of White people, especially elderly ladies, occurs regularly.

5. The eruptions in Bristol in 1980 and Brixton in 1981 were just two examples of the “cultural enrichment” promised to us by the multiracialists.

6. One ethnic, national and religious group whose power and influence has undoubtedly increased has been the Jews.

7. A number of predominantly Zionist organisations control government.

8. It can be no mere coincidence that the number of people of Jewish ethnic origin to be found in internationalist and multiracialist schools of thought and organisations of action is out of all proportion to their numbers in the population.

Shock horror, it’s all here.  The drastic effects of immigration on the native British, the issues of black violence and criminality, black IQ, the Israel lobby and the wider Jewish Question ... these are the holy of holies of thought police everywhere.  In a free land of free-speakers they should be the litmus test for the health of the polity.  But this ain’t a free land, and by finding Brons’ list “hugely controversial” in 1983 when it wasn’t, and when academic political correctness had not yet crossed the pond eastward from America, The Independent demonstrates the completeness of its slavery to the Lie Machine.

Yet despite all this, there is that feeling of fragility to the whole enterprise.  The moment when the image of a Marxised life arose in radical opposition to life itself was a long time ago now.  No one loves thought control.  Nothing so man-made and so damned offensive can last forever.  Official discourse is already vitiated and devalued.  It has become too embarrassing and too cognitively dissonant for politicians to “celebrate diversity”.  It is inevitable that, united in their inability to swallow the customary forms of lying and living in lying, people will rediscover their fearlessness and their freedom.

The only question is when.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, June 14, 2009 at 08:31 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (43) | Tell-a-Friend

Rumble in the Shtetl: Von Mises vs. Marx

By exPF

This is the pilot episode of a new series of posts where rival Jewish theoreticians go head to head in a blood-and-guts extravaganza like nothing else you’ve ever seen! Its incredible, its shocking - at the end of the fight, only one theoretician will be left standing!!! Are you ready?
Predicates will fly, conditional sentences will crunch, assertions will go “snap” under the gruesome, bone-crushing force of Ashkenazi brilliance! Be prepared to be mildly startled!

In the far corner, weighing in at 190 lbs not including the facial hair, German jewry’s gift to Eastern Europe’s smart fraction: KAAARRLL MAAARX!

In the near corner, the reigning champion, 167 lbs of pure Jewish Freedom: LUDWIG VON MISES!!!

LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!! (cue music)

And they’re off! - Mises starts off with a critique from his essay, Marxism Unmasked (pfd). He describes Marxist theory in outline.

Marx developed what he thought was a new system.According to his materialist interpretation of history, the “material productive forces” (this is an exact translation of the German) are the bases of everything. Each stage of the material productive forces corresponds to a definite stage of production relations. The material productive forces determine the production relations, that is, the type of ownership and property which exists in the world. And the production relations determine the superstructure. In the terminology of Marx, capitalism or feudalism are production relations. Each of these was necessarily produced by a particular stage of the material productive forces. In 1859, Karl Marx said a new stage of material productive forces would produce socialism.

But what are these material productive forces? Just as Marx never said what a “class” was, so he never said exactly what the “material productive forces” are. After looking through his writings we find that the material productive forces are the tools and machines. In one of his books [Misère de la philosophie—The Poverty of Philosophy], written in French in 1847, Marx said “the hand mill produces feudalism––the steam mill produces capitalism.”3 He didn’t say it in this book, but in other writings he wrote that other machines will come which will produce socialism.

Its categorically impossible for one historical figure to reply to refutations of his theory which come into being a century after his death! Accordingly, Marx is just standing there, as Mises continues to pummel him with critique. This could get gruesome, folks …

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, April 4, 2009 at 07:44 AM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (41) | Tell-a-Friend

The Social construct

By a Finn

I wrote this text originally as a short comment on Social construction, and its structure reflects that. I was asked that this text would be lifted to main-log form. My acceptance and the text’s present position does not in itself refer to agreement or disagreement with any of the opinions or texts on this site.

This text is about a specific part of Social construction theory, that which is most relevant to pro-Europeans. I develop the theme from part to part. My intention in this post is not to claim that all Social constructionists use their theory to it’s limits (although many have done so). My intention is to define Sc’s abilities and moral “boundaries”.

The information refers to those leftist intellectuals who understand their ideology, not to the useful idiots or emotional hang arounds.

¤ Social construction theory (Sc), although it is often dressed in universal altruism, is in reality one of the most efficient method of acquiring selfish political power to those intellectuals who are skillful in it.

¤ In power games truth, scientific knowledge etc. are often unimportant. For example, an emotional, scientifically false theory about “political time” might be more efficient in a power game than scientific truth about “time”.  In it’s starting point, Sc gives equal value (partly overlapping) to objective, subjective, natural, artificial, socially-constructed (i.e formed in people’s interactions/thoughts), physical, real, unreal, and imagined information, among others.  Any of these could be in some situation useful in gaining power.  In reality though, Sc is heavily weighted away from natural, objective, common sense, scientific knowledge. This is because such knowledge is generally fairly static and immutable, and is the knowledge of normal, non-Sc people, and therefore the base of their power.  Political power is obtained most efficiently when there is great latitude in the information used, which gives larger possibilities in the political game.  It creates dialectical or multi-dimensional contradictions and distances between the existing information of the rulers and it’s Sc opponents.  These contradictions and distances can be utilized in countless of ways in obtaining power - whatever is propitious in a given situation.  Sc chips away at the rulers’ power constantly in small or bigger ways, and channels that power to itself.  If Sc would agree with the information of the rulers, it’s political possibilities would be severely limited.

¤ Sc creates contradictions mainly in the following categories: space (free, limited, taxed, large, small, publicly produced, privately produced, coded entrance, constricted, wide, polluted, clean, living space [e.g. apartment houses], commercial space, crowded, empty, natural, artificial, etc.), language (words, sentences, texts, political, meaningless, scientific, subjective, objective, economy related, language upholding the power structures, powerless, desperate, poverty related, sexual, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, dialects, languages of different ethnicities, advertisement and marketing, cultural, movie language, language in everyday situations, etc.) who is the actor (humans, machines, systems, natural laws, economic laws, market place, rulers, subjects, slave owners, slaves, scientists, lay people, producers, service producers, farmers, skilled workers, officials, man, woman, masculine, feminine, majority, minority, intelligent, wise, stupid, ignorant, progressive, reactionary, native, immigrant, virtuous, evil, moral, immoral, new, old, young, elderly, etc.), time.  I give a list:

* measured vs experienced ~ objective vs subjective
* continuous vs fragmentary vs intervals
* past, present and future in different combinations or contradictions
* experience space vs expectations horizon (Koselleck)
* time in a straight line, cyclical time (repeating events), spiral time (Jean-Paul Sartre’s construct), multi dimensional time (e.g. person contemplating in present time with the help of historical information the future of many people and their time lines)
* continuing, open and ended time
* constant speed, accelerating (e.g. internet and new technology) and decelerating time
* reversible vs irreversible time
* normal vs exceptional time
* natural vs time produced by humans
* life cycles’ different parts
* collision of two different times (e.g memory of similar historical events influences the present situation considerably)
* simultaneous vs happens in or experiences different times
* different multibranching times

Etc.

All these and their constituent parts can be analyzed and combined in dialectical or multipart wholes (parts can oppose, strenghten, harmonise, contradict, coordinate, synchronize, interrupt, prevent, accelerate etc. each other) in ways that produce the most efficient political results.

¤ Because according to Sc almost everything is socially constructed this gives it’s proponents a power that supersedes the power of “gods” and high priests. Two examples:

a) The function of the heart is, according to Sc, socially constructed no matter what medicine, evolutionary biology or other sciences say about it. This means that the function of the heart, in addition to pumping blood, could equally be determined to be giving rythm to drums, or to die (John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality).

b) Science proves that there are differences between races and ethnicities, but socially constructed political correctness (in everyday language, science, media etc.), affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, socialism, soft totalitarianism, free speech monitoring and suppression, etc. win out over science and reality. Thus is constructed the reality that Sc intellectuals want, and which gives them large political power.

¤ Sc also gives other advantages ... or “advantages”.  It is complex and counterintuitive, and this serves to strengthen the Sc intellectuals’ in-group definition, its boundaries and exclusivity, reducing the possibility of free-riding and outside infiltration (e.g. since conservatives regard Sc as non-scientific, not sensible, in fact stupid, this reduces the possibility of infiltratration by them. On the other hand Sc intellectuals infiltrate conservative groups and institutions eagerly and without compunction).

When Sc compels it’s political subjects to declare as “true” things they know to be false, stupid and detrimental to them and their group, this emasculates them psychologically, strenghtens the smothering power of Sc intellectuals and makes their subjects psychological slaves.

Studying and applying Sc includes elements of simpler repeats, so giving it rituals. These move it towards psychologically permanence, exact certain costs and thus reduce free-riding, help to memorise essential “slogans” (thereby giving practical operating instructions), define the in-group/out-group further, etc.  Constant repeating of the “racism” trope in different contexts, ways and intensity is one example. The r-word is a political invective, not a definition of something. If somebody foolishly accepts it is as a defining word for himself, he will be forced to explain it away: “I am a racist, but ...”  Real definitions don’t require that.

Sc gives a license, moral or practical, to do anything, i.e. to construct almost any reality; lie, cheat, murder, infiltrate, extort, to be immoral, make revolutions, rob, etc.  And not only that, it gives the possibility to mass murder and genocide, and regard it as an act of loving kindness towards all humanity.  For example, Finnish stalinists (taistolaiset) and many other cultural marxists, beginning in the sixties and seventies, regarded Stalin’s actions as morally good and loving towards all humanity, enlightened, progressive, etc. They said that the Soviet Union’s weapons are “Weapons of peace and progress” (this was also the official policy of their peace movement).  They said that communists’ wars (i.e. brutal and selfish wholesale murder, torture, rape and pillage to gain political power) are “Altruistic acts towards the betterment of humanity” and “Romantic and exciting, like a love affair”.  On the other hand they said that “Western weapons and wars are brutal reactionary acts of aggression and suppression” and “Selfish capitalists’ wars of exploitation”.

The Sc gives licence to use any need, aspiration, stupidity, knowledge, emotion, group, system, dependence, etc. of the people as a vehicle to power.

In short, the Sc is a secular selfish power religion.

It is necessary to pro-Europeans to study and learn from it and use it, but not, of course, the anti-human elements of it.

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 08:04 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (43) | Tell-a-Friend

Jonathan Bowden on Marxism and the Frankfurt School

Jonathan Bowden speaking to the New Right in London

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 05:44 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (47) | Tell-a-Friend

Lebensraum and Improving the Racial Stock, 21st century style

By David Hamilton

The dominant ideology in the western nations is built around multi-racialism or anti-racism.  But its permissiveness towards white ethnic cleansing carries echoes of its philosophical opposite, Nazism. The motive - for this can only be intentional - is to push “whites” out of their communities, and that is against democratic principles and the rule of law.

More than 50 million African workers are being brought to Europe in a secret immigration agreement. This is on a scale of evil comparable to the herding of Jewish people into gas chambers, which we are constantly told is the greatest crime in history.  It is intended to destroy a people: the whole of western Europe’s native people, and it has been implemented by the evil E.U. This ideology is totalitarian with only one viewpoint allowed. It is very intolerant of any complaint about the cruelty and injustice of it and brands dissidents as “haters”, “bigots”, “fascists” or “Nazis.” It is implemented by deceit and often in secret.

A “job centre” funded by money confiscated from Europe’s tax-payers has been opened in Mali, and is hailed as the beginning of “free movement of people in Africa and the EU”. The report is from the EU statistical agency Eurostat. It rationalises that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population. EU economists in Britain and other EU states will “need” 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe.

That is a lie! If the Civil Service Pensions and in particular parliamentary pensions were scaled down to sensible levels more in line with every other pensioner receiving a pension from HM Government there would be greater equality after retirement. People are paid for doing a job while they are doing it. But I don’t see why the taxpayer should be required to fund a pension which equates to a job when they have left. I know that parts of the private sector do that, but that is private and driven by profits. It is entirely different. Moreover, If we were not transferring billions of pounds in Aid to elites in the Third World, and billions as UK subscriptions to the UN and the EU, we might well be able to give our people a better pension.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 06:42 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (43) | Tell-a-Friend

Nick Nightingale writes a letter

Today the Telegraph ran a mad Marxist horror story on an ambitious attempt by the equality tzars to control our tongues:-

Publishers and universities are outlawing dozens of seemingly innocuous words in case they cause offence.

Banned phrases on the list, which was originally drawn up by sociologists, include Old Masters, which has been used for centuries to refer to great painters - almost all of whom were in fact male.

It is claimed that the term discriminates against women and should be replaced by “classic artists”.

The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers.

The list of allegedly racist words includes immigrants, developing nations and black, while so-called “disablist” terms include patient, the elderly and special needs.

It comes after one council outlawed the allegedly sexist phrase “man on the street”, and another banned staff from saying “brainstorm” in case it offended people with epilepsy.

However the list of “sensitive” language is said by critics to amount to unwarranted censorship and wrongly assume that people are offended by words that have been in use for years.

Well, I’ve had a look at the website of the theologically marxoid British Sociological Association, and found three lists of “Words That Must Never Again Pass Our Sinful Lips”.  Anyone who wants a good laugh can sample these links (at least one of which dates back to 2004, not that you would know it from the Telegraph report): Sex and Gender; Ethnicity and Race, Non-Disablist.

However, this encounter with a malignant academic tumour was but the first of my day.  A little later I came across something called The Anti-Racist Toolkit, a basis, apparently, for “building the Anti-Racist HEI” (High Educational Institution).  It’s dated 2002, and formed the centre-piece of a post-Lawrence Enquiry investigation of Institutional Racism.  It was conceived by three Leeds University sociologists: Laura Turney, Ian Law & Debbie Phillips.  It ventures onto some familiar ground for MR readers:-

Unpicking ‘Whiteness’
For many HEIs, the ‘whiteness’ of the institution goes unnoticed and is simply rationalised into a day-to-day perception of ‘normality’. The research we undertook at the University of Leeds indicated, however, that when forced to identify the ‘face’ of the institution, many people working there described it (with reference to staff) as not only predominantly white, but also predominantly white and male. For the most part, however, people don’t really notice the ‘whiteness’ of an institution and the implications that this normative whiteness has for those staff and students working and studying there. What is more, people tend to over-estimate the numbers of Black and minority ethnic people working and studying in a place and assume that equality policies of any kind work primarily in favour of Black and minority ethnic people, women and disabled candidates (both staff and students). In this way the whiteness of an institution is ignored and downplayed.

... It is only recently that the study of ‘race’, ethnicity and culture has also begun to specifically address questions of whiteness. The study of whiteness has been important for this project for a number of reasons, primarily because the acknowledgement or identification of ‘whiteness’ becomes a way of making unstable its position as the normalised, central space from which ‘others’ (racialised, ethnicised, etc, groups) are differentiated.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 06:27 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (22) | Tell-a-Friend

Save our Children from State Social Engineering

By David Hamilton

Since the rise to power of the New Left in the 1960s and 70s, education has been used for progressive ends and to instil the “correct” attitudes rather than develop the child’s abilities.  The authorities brainwash our children.

History, for example, is reduced to a propaganda of the “acceptable”.  Only certain selected topics can be taught, with the Second World War dominant because Nazism can be used to frighten children away from Nationalist sentiments.  So fluid and Orwellian is the “acceptable” that propaganda can be turned into its opposite at a stroke.  Thus, a Government-funded study in April 2007 uncovered the fact that Schools are stopping teaching the Holocaust in history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils.  It found that some teachers fear upsetting Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.  Likewise, there is fear of teaching children about the 11th century Crusades when Christian armies fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem.  The problem: a different version is taught in mosques.

No such problem with black history, however.  Our children seem likely to be taught an approved version of the development of slavery, colonisation and its links to the British empire and the industrial revolution according to BBC News on 26th August 2008.

Under plans before the Department for Children, Schools and Families, children could be taught sex education from the age of four.

But there is also pressure to make advice on relationships, contraception and sexually transmitted diseases compulsory in all primary and secondary schools.  It is the latest campaign aimed at cutting Britain’s teenage pregnancy rate, which remains among the highest in Europe despite repeated attempts by ministers to reduce it.  Sexually transmitted diseases are becoming increasingly prevalent among youngsters, although this is really being imported from Africa by immigrants.  But rather than face this inconvenient truth, a group of MPs led by Chris Bryant, parliamentary aide to Harriet Harman, has concocted another plan.

Bryant, by the way, is openly homosexual, and the BBC News reported on 2nd December 2003 that he had apologised for e-mailing a picture of himself in his underpants via a gay website. From 1994 to 1996 he was London manager of Common Purpose, the controversial charity.

Bryant says that the solution to the teenage birth rate is to educate children more about sex education from a much earlier age.  The MPs, supported by charities including Terrence Higgins Trust, the Family Planning Association and the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group, claim that children should be given relationship advice ‘in context’ if they are to make informed decisions about when to have sex.

Critics of this notion, such as the Family Education Trust, are non-progressive and so are dismissed.  Many Muslims are also critical, not least because the effect will be to teach that homosexual “relations” are equal to heterosexual relations.  They will simply be allowed to opt out of the lessons.  Our children will not.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 07:52 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (17) | Tell-a-Friend

The State Persecution of Thought Criminals

by David Hamilton

Robin Page,  former presenter of television’s “One Man and His Dog”, a farmer, columnist for The Daily Telegraph, and the chairman of the Countryside Restoration Trust, has set us an example by fighting the new Totalitarian state and winning £2,000 compensation for being wrongly arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred.

He allegedly made a racist remark at a country fair in 2002, which led to him being held in a police cell, and he fought a five-year, one-man campaign to clear his name. He used the Data Protection Act and obtained official documents which showed that there had been no grounds for prosecution. “I believe I have scored a significant victory over the ludicrous and sinister politically-correct ‘hate crime’ culture that is currently doing so much to prevent free speech in this country,” he said.

It was his humorous comments at a country fair in September 2002 that led to his persecution by the police. To gain the attention of the audience at Frampton-upon-Severn, Gloucestershire, he began in a “light-hearted fashion”. “If you are a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” A complaint was later received by police, and another person wrote to say he disagreed with Mr.Page’s remarks. He was arrested the following month, and then five months later was contacted at his farm in Cambridgeshire and asked by two officers from Gloucestershire to attend an interview at a police station. At the station he declined to answer questions without a lawyer and was arrested. He was put in a cell and told that he would have to stay overnight if he wished to wait for his solicitor, but after 40 minutes agreed to be interviewed without legal representation.

Mr Page said: “I was told I had committed a ‘hate crime’, interviewed under caution and given police bail.” The BBC claimed that he had been arrested for a “race speech” and he felt the incident was potentially damaging to him professionally and as a district councillor for 30 years. He was neither charged nor given an explanation. Under Freedom of Information disclosures he discovered that the Attorney General had given the opinion “no crime committed”. His name was secretly put on a “Homo-phobic Incidents Register”. He was due to go to on a journalistic trip to Kenya and requested a change of bail renewal date, and in an internal email from the arresting officer the sergeant wrote: “Let’s hope he gets eaten by a crocodile.”

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 07:49 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (48) | Tell-a-Friend

Nu-history, Nu bill of rights and a letter to Billy Bragg

I was not entirely surprised to see that Mr Cool of the equality game, the diversity gang-banger Trevor Phillips, has been making those smooth, smooth moves again.  He is reported in the Telegraph telling us that we must rewrite the history of Britain to reflect the roles of other cultures.

Parts of British history need to be rewritten to emphasise the roles played by other races and religions like Muslims, a prominent race relations campaigner has said.

Trevor Philips, the chairman of the new Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, said the history of Britain did not properly reflect the contribution of other cultures.

Rewriting the country’s history would demonstrate to Britons in the 21st century how other groups part from Anglo Saxons shaped the nation.

He told a fringe meeting at the Labour conference: “We may need to revisit our national story – we want to rewrite that story to tell the whole story.”

The rewriting should start with the story of how the English fleet led by Sir Francis Drake fought off the Spanish Armada in 1588, he said.

The important role played by the Muslim Turks, who delayed the sailing of the Spanish fleet so that the English ships were better prepared, had been airbrushed out of the story however.

Mr Phillips said: “When we talk about the Armada, it was the Turks who saved us because they held up the Armada after a request from Elizabeth I.

“Let’s rewrite that, so we have an ideal that brings us together so that it can bind us together in stormy times ahead in the next century.”

Mr Phillips, the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, declined to offer any other examples of parts of British history that should be rewritten.

So it wuz the wogs wot done it.  Well I never!

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 06:53 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (6) | Tell-a-Friend

Livingstone in mind

Three day’s ago London’s mayor Ken Livingstone was all a-blubber at his own noblesse oblige.

“You can look across there to see the institutions that still have the benefit of the wealth they created out of slavery,” Livingstone said, pointing through a huge window at the skyscrapers cluttering London’s financial district.

“As mayor, I offer an apology on behalf of London and its institutions for their role in the transatlantic slave trade.”

Livingstone has been an inveterate gesture politician all his career.  To most observers the motivation has looked very like spite.  But I think it does him a disservice to belittle his sincerity in that way.  On Thursday the stirrings in his heart and the tears in his eyes were very likely real.  Tellingly, he informed his audience that:-

“It was the racial murder of not just those who were transported but generations of enslaved African men, women and children.  To justify this murder and torture black people had to be declared inferior or not human.  We live with the consequences today.”

We certainly do, and it’s the replacement of Europe’s people with, among others, the least educationally and civilisationally competent of all the human races.

Livingstone, however, can only relate sympathetically to SSAs - and other foreigners.  Kin-wise, he has his head on the wrong way round.  The “institutions that still have the benefit of the wealth they created out of slavery” and, by extension, all unapologetic Englishmen are irredeemably racist, and just irredeemable, because blacks remain locked in the basement of Western life.  Human bio-diversity does not exist, indeed is yet more racism.  Absolute equality, therefore, is the only political ambition to which Livingstone can aspire.  And for him that means the eager sharing of white living space, for the extinction of racism has no meaning otherwise.  It is a gesture again, no doubt, but one demanded of us ... one of obeisance, and the most final and absolute relinquishment of those high qualities of being which define us, and which in action this neurotic man perceives as the mark of Cain.

Thus, in a speech in 2005 in support of siting a statue of his demi-god, Nelson Mandela, in Trafalgar Square, he said:-

“Nelson Mandela would signify the peaceful transition to a multiracial and multicultural world and I would be proud to have that in London,”

Of course, the “peaceful transition” he lauds is our acquiesecence in our own racial murder.  There can be few more eloquent or more remorseless examples than Ken Livingstone of the Freudian theory of projection.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, August 25, 2007 at 07:46 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (34) | Tell-a-Friend

The QCA are humble men, with a lot to be humble about

Britain’s World War II prime minister Winston Churchill has been cut from a list of key historical figures recommended for teaching in English secondary schools, a government agency says.

The radical overhaul of the school curriculum for 11- to 14-year-olds is designed to bring secondary education up to date and allow teachers more flexibility in the subjects they teach, the Government said.

But although Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Joseph Stalin and Martin Luther King have also been dropped from the detailed guidance accompanying the curriculum, Sir Winston’s exclusion is likely to leave traditionalists aghast.

There’s no suggestion that WW2 as a whole is being dropped from the curriculum, but it does seem a bit difficult to teach it without reference to three of the conflict’s most crucial leaders. Will they say that Britain wanted to appease Germany, and then all of a sudden had a feat of schizophrenia and decided to make war on it? Or will internal politics still be discussed, albeit with Churchill’s name being scrupulously avoided, like the nitty gritty in a prep school sex education class?

Or…or…will it be all about the Holocaust and the 20m…10m…certainly, definitely 6m (or we’ll extradite you to Austria and lock you up for suspected group libel). And the lamps made from Jewish skin, and the incinerators, and all the other relics of essential activities the Germans obviously prioritised, above getting some labour out of their prisoners, whilst fighting a modern war against larger and better financed opponents. But here I am, trying to apply reason to the Nazis’ actions. Don’t I realise the whole Nazi hierarchy was stark, raving mad?!

It’ easy enough to see what the matter, from the point of view of leftie educationalists, with Churchill was. He spoilt the morality story that is the Holocaust. He was a Euro who mustered the resistance to Hitler, suggesting that Jews owe us much to Euros in gratitude as we to them in compensation. No Euro can be shown so much as sheltering Jews, lest we unleash A Second Hitler.

I suppose from now on Jews will be presented as saving themselves. Maybe the role of the three Israelis and one Israeli dog who enlisted will be emphasised (better ignore those nasty Nazi-supporting Zionists - oh, I know, call them British instead). Or maybe we’ll get educational videos like The Great Escape (from Auschwitz). Modern teens barely know what century WW2 was in, so why shouldn’t they swallow this.

Regardless of how it is played, Churchill’s attempts to unite his country against the Nazis will be all but forgotten. Maybe some stray puff of collective guilt for the Nazi crimes will even attach itself to us. Some gratitude.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Sunday, July 15, 2007 at 05:19 PM in Education,  Marxism & Culture War
Comments (22) | Tell-a-Friend

Those Russians

If you want to know what happens when normal, healthy people are sanctioned by their government to defend their way of life against leftist hate-groups, go to Moscow:-

Police arrested Russian gay rights activists and British campaigner Peter Tatchell today as they attempted to stage a banned demonstration in Moscow.

Hundreds of ultra-nationalists hurled abuse and attacked the few dozen gay protestors who had gathered outside the office of the Mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, to mark the 14th anniversary of Russia’s decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Mr Tatchell was punched in the head in front of police and journalists and another protestor was left bleeding from his face after an assault. Riot police eventually moved in to separate the two groups and arrested several far-right protestors.

Nikolai Alexeyev, the organiser of the gay march, and several other protestors, including a German MP, were arrested as they attempted to present a letter to the Mayor’s office signed by scores of European parliamentarians supporting their right to demonstrate.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, May 27, 2007 at 03:00 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (39) | Tell-a-Friend

Serial killer white-out

by GT

One of the little blessings of civil rights and the fight against evil white racism has been an explosion in serial killings.

Note why Marxists and feminists include in their databases serial murderers from as long ago, in some cases as far back as 1800.  They are interested in inflating the number of white males relative, of course, to Africans.  Real life, however, is not that easy to ignore.

An Anatomy of Serial Murder

Fox 2004

Notwithstanding these cautions, Figure 3.1 displays counts of serial killers, partnerships, and teams each year since the beginning of the 20th century, using the midpoint of a killer’s career as a reference point.  That is, for example, Theodore Bundy, whose murders spanned the years 1974 to 1978, having a career midpoint of 1976, is counted in the 1970s. Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, who was at large from 1978 to 1996, had a career midpoint of 1987 and thus is included among killers of the 1980s, even though he operated both before and after this decade.

The trend is relatively flat for the first half of the century, hovering around 10 serial killers per decade. The pattern emerging in the second half of the century is radically different. In the 1960s, the number of killers or killing teams reached nearly 40.  Remarkably, over the course of the next two decades, the 1970s and 1980s, the number of killers or partnerships quadrupled, surpassing the 150 mark in the 1980s.

Although rapid growth into the 1980s clearly suggests significant shifts in the prevalence of serial murder, these results are vulnerable, at least in part, to alternative explanations related to changes in data accessibility and quality of record keeping.  As interest in serial murder increased, so did the likelihood that case histories would be published in some fashion.  Additionally, as law enforcement became better equipped to identify linkages between victims slain by the same killer or killers, the detection of serial crimes and criminals became more likely.  Notwithstanding these concerns, the trend in serial killings into the 1980s is quite consistent with a more general rise in violent crime, including homicide, as well as in resident population, strongly suggesting that the rise in serial murder is more than just an artifact of increased reporting and improved detection.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, March 17, 2007 at 07:36 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (42) | Tell-a-Friend

We does thangs daffrent round here, boy

Everyone familiar with “American” cinema knows the routine: enlightened carpetbaggers take a wrong turn and wind up in a redneck backwater and subjected to its twisted version of the justice system.

But, outside Jewry’s Bizarro World media, one needn’t foray into flyover country to find racist, particularist “justice.”  No, just step out onto the streets of New York.

When a white man is chased by negroids who shout “get the white boy,” and he dies after fleeing into traffick, it’s not a “hate crime.”

When a white couple accidentally bump a mongoloid’s vehicle, and are savagely beaten by the mongoloid shouting “fucking haole,” it’s not a “hate crime.”

When towelheads beat a white man to death after shouting “get that white mother fucker!,” it’s not a “hate crime.”

When a white man chases and beats a negroid for robbing him (who admitted to police he returned to the white neighborhood to steal a car) and shouts “nigger,” it is “hate crime” (the Jew mayor demanded the charges) and he gets 15 years.

Be careful which backwater you wander into; there’s no telling what kind of hillbilly “justice” you’ll be getting.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Saturday, February 24, 2007 at 03:38 PM in Law & Order,  Marxism & Culture War
Comments (33) | Tell-a-Friend

What would happen to homosexual equality if parents could choose to have a normal child?

My thanks to Michael R for the latest on the long-running story of the gay sheep of Oregon:-

Science told: hands off gay sheep

Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

So far so good.  But then the Times reports the reactions from a famous lesbian who won Wimbledon once or twice, a Professor of bioethics who seems, to judge from his blog, terribly interested in homosexuality (and doesn’t much like Iran), Peter Tatchell of the former Bermondsey bedsit tendency, and a spokesperson - or possibly spokes-sheep, it isn’t clear which - from animal rights group, PETA.

For some reason none of these people are advocates of parental rights.  Ovine, yes.  Homosexual, certainly.  Parents?  Children?  Not a chance.

It puts me in mind of a similar “debate” some years ago about a newly discovered and effective means to restore hearing function to certain deaf children.  The outrage from professional deafness advocates was very similar to the story here.  A hitherto undiscovered richness in deaf culture was noisily evoked.  We the public were asked to believe that something profoundly rewarding in signed interaction, something that weighed more heavily in the treasures of the personal life than the very voices of those one loves, would be lost to these children if the treatment was provided.  It was obviously untrue.  But then as now, nobody wanted to point out the reason for the deception: that it is unbearable for the disadvantaged, having fought perhaps all their lives to erect some semblance of self-respect and equal worth, to have this exposed as nothing by the simple mechanism of parental choice.  So unbearable is it, the antis will willingly deny new generations of children a normal life.

For such delusion to attend disability is no cause for our political satisfaction.  It is human farce upon human tragedy.  But it is also not really the point because rights of free speech and free association are taken from the majority not to raise others to some leftist utopia of joyous equality, but to deprive the majority of its healthy and natural cultural hegemony.  There is absolutely no morality in this, and no reason why we should hesitate to prick the “rights” balloon out of some newly learned Marxist sensibility.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 07:38 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (5) | Tell-a-Friend

Moral Cretinism and the Inversion of Reality

From Steve Sailer on Erin Aubrey Kaplan’s The O.J.-Kramer discrepancy:
Dept. of “Huh?”

An LA Times op-ed columnist weights in on two recent brouhahas:

The O.J.-Kramer divide: Recent flaps show that we’re more tolerant of a white man’s blunder.
Erin Aubry Kaplan:

But the reality is that there is far more tolerance for a white person’s unseemly behavior than for similar behavior of somebody who isn’t white, especially if the unseemliness involves race. [Michael] Richards’ “racist rant” has been described as a terrible but isolated incident. O.J., meanwhile, is condemned for his character.

No, OJ’s condemned for damn dear sawing two people’s heads off, plus whatever else he did to Ron Goldman.

“Huh?”?  More like, WTF?

Continued...

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 03:50 PM in Journalism,  Marxism & Culture War,  Media
Comments (1) | Tell-a-Friend