Attractive female sees foreign male walking down the street eyeing her.  Female sees native male observing this and doing nothing.  Female evolutionary brain circuits tell her: “Native male either does not want me or is fearful of this foreign male – either way, I test the waters with the foreign male.”  Female eyes foreign male back.  Foreign male’s evolutionary brain circuits sees the female’s reaction and now checks the native male’s reaction.  Native male’s evolutionary brain circuits observe all of this and triggers instinctive fight or flight response.  First instinct:  Challenge foreign male to fight.  The native male’s higher brain functions capture and play out the scenario:  He beats foreign male and although his evolutionary brain circuits tell him, and the female, he passes the test, he himself has participated in building a civilization with the rule of law – law that now protects the foreign male from such fights.  Gangs of police, dishonor and ultimately rape at the hands of gangs of foreign males in prison are to be his fate.  Foreign male sees native male’s fight or flight response short circuit.  Female see’s native male’s fight or flight response short circuit.  Evolutionary brain circuits in both decree:  Native male is a coward.  Make him watch this...

And, so ends civilization: Not with a bang, but a fuck.

On its website Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom, the Movement for a Better Hungary, is displaying a ten-minute video of police violence against its apparently legal and peaceful demonstrations held in 2006.  The video was made for handing out as a DVD to members of the European Parliament at the debate on Iran in which one of Jobbik’s three MEPs, Dr Krisztina Morvai, was making her maiden speech.  It has appeared in various places across the nationalist internet.

We cannot know whether provocations have been edited out.  But based on the evidence of the video it is quite shocking to see what these repulsive creatures in police uniform are willing to do in broad daylight to fellow Hungarians.

The “better Hungary” the party is striving for is one in which government serves the interests of the mass of Hungarians, rather than the elites, foreign interests and ethnic minorities.  Economically, it offers an anti-elitist, anti-neoliberal vision.  The minorities issue seems to come down to the problem of the Roma.

But there is, for Dr Morvai, also a Jewish Question.  She is, as it happens, married to a Jew and has three daughters by him.  The marriage itself appears to be over, though the couple remain together for the children’s sakes. In any event, Morvai famously created a stir when she remarked on a conservative Hungarian internet discussion group:

“I would be glad if those who call themselves proud Hungarian Jews in their spare time would play with their tiny little circumcised tails instead of abusing me. Your kind expect that if you fart our kind stands at attention and caters to all your wishes. It’s time to learn: we no longer oblige! We hold our heads high and no longer tolerate the terror your kind imposes on us. We are taking our country back!”

What a woman!

With thanks to Anarcho Anglo:

READ MORE...

It would be interesting to build up as detailed a picture as possible of selected behavioural traits by race, and even within-race.  We have, I think, a pretty good idea of the sociobiology of Europeans.  We talk a lot about issues of individualism and altruism, intelligence, civilisational capacity, faith, sexual mores, and so on.  The tendency is, though, to see other racial and ethnic groups through the prism of their competition with us - some more than others, of course.  When we contemplate their evolutionarily-selected behavioural traits, which would likely not be adaptive for us, we may be tempted to express the strong emotional signals that necessarily accompany maladaptiveness.

I would like to avoid that kind of “noise” and, if possible, collate through the comments thread as many ideas as we can muster about the traits of Ashkenazics and other Jews, Eurasians, East Asians, South Asians, Mexicans, Arabs, North Africans, Sub-Saharans, and so on.

For example, one can see that Han Chinese place a very high value on conformism which appears to include a strong desire for approval from authority, and on honour which in the negative form of face-saving may be linked to the same desire.  Japanese, which might in large measure mean Yamato, are perhaps weaker than Han on conformism but stronger still on honour.  Even so, Japanese parents will allow school teachers to beat any sign of rebellious individualism out of children who are scarcely more than infants (damn, you see what I mean about moral interpolation).

These are both populations which exhibit the adaptiveness in a northern hemisphere, cold-climate environment of high-K strategies for intelligence.  But how different the outcome is from the European experience, and how fascinating that difference.

How fully can we explicate that difference on its own terms?  And what of other group differences?

From GalliaWatch, quoting Le Parisien:-

Violent incidents erupted Tuesday evening (July 7) between police and about sixty young persons in a neighborhood of Firminy, near Saint-Etienne. These clashes follow the hospitalization of Mohammed Benmoura, 21, a resident of the Grand H neighborhood, who attempted suicide while he was in police custody.

According to a spokesman for the neighborhood, “it all began around nine o’clock. The youths revolted. It was a big riot that lasted four or five hours.” They threw rocks at the police, who, with the assistance of reinforcements from the CRS (riot police), used tear gas and rubber bullets. Calm was not restored until four-thirty in the morning.

Nine persons were arrested. Firemen recorded thirty-two cars torched in Firminy and the surrounding towns of Chambon-Feugerolles and La Ricamarie. Fire trucks and police cars were also damaged by rocks, as was a shop in a business district, a branch of Restos du Coeur (a type of meals on wheels establishment) and an employment agency, according to the prefect.

Mohammed Benmoura tried to hang himself while in custody, Monday night, at police headquarters. Hospitalized in a coma, his prognosis for recovery is very uncertain. According to his family, he suffered severe brain damage.

The rioting ran into a third night.  Given that the young man who died in police custody was probably beaten into unconsciousness and then had a simulated hanging carried out on him, one can’t entirely sympathise with the policemen who had to face the rioters.  Still it is another reminder of how tinder-dry multicultural France is these days.

READ MORE...

Intellectual honesty requires that one address the strongest, not weakest, arguments of one’s opponent. It is called “Devil’s Advocacy” or “Giving the Devil his Due” but it is not really advocacy, nor really even viewing one’s opponent as “the Devil”.  It is simple intellectual honesty.  Now, admittedly, we live in a very intellectually dishonest world—a world in which we are routinely demonized by a theocratic supremacy utterly uninterested in the truth or freedom—so there is very little reciprocation earned from us.  That is the strongest position of those who would not give the Devil his Due:  Why bother with intellectual honesty?

The answer is simply, that we seek the truth.

With that preliminary out of the way, let me address something that has been bothering me for some time about those who continually go on about the Federal Reserve “creating money out of thin air” as though they are counterfieting.  First, the money they create is backed by the threat of punishment—if you don’t obtain their money for payment of taxes, the government will throw you in prisons to experience “sexual awakening”—hence not “out of thin air”.  Now, everyone who uses the phrase “out of thin air” will more or less agree that this “backing” by a promise not to punish you if you present the Federal Reserve tokens is real but, they will object, there is no point in discussing such fine distinctions.

Yes there is.

There is a relatively strong argument from the supporters of fiat money and fractional reserve banking that gets trotted out for the favored few journalists, economics majors and politicians who are trained to ignore the rest of us.  We, the “Paranoid”—We, the “Kooks”—We, the “Extremists”—We, the People, are not exposed to it—until now.

Imagine a world in which people have taken a step up from barter to issuing IOUs for their goods or services—IOUs which can circulate.  Farmer John issues IOUs that say: “I, Farmer John, owe the bearer of this note 1 dozen eggs.”  Tailor James issues IOUs that say:  “I, Tailor James, owe the bearer of this note 1 fitted suit.”  These IOUs are traded around the community and a monetary system is established where the currencies have backing that is as real as the credibility of their issuers.  They are “debt money” in the sense that the issuer has made a promise to the bearer but they do not bear interest to anyone in particular.

Now comes the Banker:

The typical argument you hear from the opponents of Fractional Reserve Banking is that the Banker will have a store of gold that he represents with gold certificates that circulate in the community, and that he issues more certificates than he has gold in a blatant act of fraud.  But let’s go back to Farmer John and his eggs for a moment:  Farmer John doesn’t have the eggs.  He has chickens who lay eggs on a regular basis.  If Farmer John has a “run on the henhouse” by the holders of his IOUs, he’ll be accused of having “created IOUs out of thin air” because he won’t be able to service all the demands for his eggs in a timely manner.

Now is it true that the Banker’s main monetary service is the storage of gold for people, hence issuing tokens for more gold than he has in storage is fraud?

No.  That is not the Banker’s main monetary service.

The Banker’s main monetary service is to simplify the monetary system by accepting the IOUs from others and performing 3 services:

1) Evaluate the credibility of the barter tokens issued by Farmer John and Tailor James, etc.
2) Evaluate the liquid value of the goods and/or services offered by Farmer John and Tailor James, etc.
3) Issuing the bank’s IOUs in exchange for IOUs from Farmer John and Tailor James, etc. so that the community has a single currency.

It’s that simple.

Now, one may ask, where does the banker legitimately charge interest here?

Simply:  Sometimes Farmer John fails to provide eggs.  Sometimes Tailor James fails to fit suits.  The banker needs to charge what amounts to an insurance premium based on the credibility of Farmer John’s promises and another premium based on the credibility of Tailor James’s promises, etc.  Hence, the Banker is merely attempting to do what any honest insurance man does:  Cover his, and your, risks in participating in the monetary system under his responsibility.  No Gold need be involved at all.

Now that we better understand the legitimacy of a “central bank”, let us focus on the real problem:

When the bank links up with the tax collecting agencies, as happened in 1913 with the simultaneous passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, it has acquired the government as collection thugs—thugs who will “break your kneecaps” if you don’t pay up.  At some point—and it isn’t well defined exactly when this occurs—the promises for delivery of goods and services cease to be the primary backing for the banker’s notes and the threat of punishment becomes the primary backing.

That’s the real problem with the Federal Reserve.

When I wrote my post about the Bielski brothers, who are lionised in Edward Zwick’s 2008 film, “Defiance”, I mentioned that a Polish-American reader of this blog had provided me with much of the background material.  The same source has now sent me a chapter from a book by a Polish national hero, Stefan Korbo?ski.  The book is The Jews and the Poles in World War II, and this fifth chapter is titled The Jews in postwar Poland.

In the decade up to 1955 Poland somehow acquired Jewish overlords not only in government and the communist party but in the secret police, in the adminstration of justice, in the machinery of political indoctrination, and so on.  It was the darkest period of the communist era, the period of “the midnight knock at the door, arbitrary arrests, torture, and sometimes secret execution”.  Korbo?ski does not dwell on the horrors that were committed during this time, but explains where political power and responsibility lay.  He leaves us to supply motive.

This is by no means dead history.  The political and legal architecture of the communist state was very different, of course, from the Western democratic model.  But in terms of its ethic nepotism and sheer tribal aggression, Jewish engagement in the “dictatorship of the proletariat” demonstrates how unchanging is the character of Jewry and how singular its interest in the monopoly of power.  As Korbo?ski noted somewhat reservedly of Stalin’s appraisal of Jews, they were “cosmopolitans whose loyalties would be to Zionism rather than the country of their residence.”

I reproduce below the entire Chapter V from The Jews and the Poles in World War II.

THE JEWS IN POSTWAR POLAND

READ MORE...

.. on Léon Degrelle and the heroic in popular culture.  The first 5 min 30 sec are given over to an interesting explication of the London New Right.  I am indebted to reader Anarcho Anglo who kindly provided the link to this video.  He mentions two others that are posted thusfar, and I will embed those and any further videos of this speech as I find them - or someone else kindly does so and supplies the URLs.

And thanks to Texan and Anarcho Anglo here are the next five videos:

READ MORE...