It would be interesting to hear the opinions of our commentariat of the Global Elite Wiki that is being constructed here.  By definition, the complex and arcane web spun by the power elite is something the little people, the nobodies can know very little about.  But this appears at first glance to be a solid, sober and extremely comprehensive attempt to rectify that.  Have a nose around.  See what you think.

The results of the Iowa Straw Poll are in and the question is whether Ron Paul’s overwhelming Internet popularity translated into not just boots on the ground but effective boots on the ground.

Various humorous (herd of angry cats) and sometimes derogatory (escaped mental institution inmates) epithets have been hurled at Paul’s supporters.  What they really are is a not very well-regulated nascent militia—in the early stages of formation at that—with all of the attendant organizational problems.  But this is not yet a violent revolution—it is still politics where the bottom line is not territory but votes captured.  Given this standard, it is important to look at the most recent “revolution” in America’s conservative movement for comparison:  The Reagan Revolution. 

In 1979, Ronald Reagan garnered 11% of the vote in the Iowa Straw Poll and went on to win not only the Republican nomination but the Presidency whereas Paul garnered 9% in 2007—so they are comparable with Paul at a slight disadvantage in the comparison.

A few things stand out about Reagan in 1979 vs Paul in 2007:
* Reagan was considered by many to be a “favorite son” of Iowa, having started his career in Iowa at the dominant radio station there.
* Paul was one of the earliest supporters of Regan in that Presidential race.
* Reagan’s conservatism was not considered as radical as is Paul’s conservatism.
* Reagan ran a more conventional campaign with more time spent in Iowa than Paul.  For Paul his Iowa Straw Poll campaign was almost entirely a reaction to the rather sudden appearance of Internet support groups subsequent to the May debate with the corresponding boots on the ground showing up late.

What this says is that Paul’s conservative revolution is credible (despite an Old Media blackout that will continue) if during the next few months Paul’s committed boots-on-the-ground Internet militia and Paul’s own commanders learn to better coordinate their mutual resources.

I consider the author of this video to be a grassroots video genius:

This video used to be the second short in the stream to which I linked in my prior post about New Media, but for some reason someone replaced it with a rap video.

READ MORE...

The Times - and, from a cursory on-line inspection, only The Times among mainstream nationals - is running a court report of the end of the trial of Zulfqar Hussain, 46, and Qaiser Naveed, 32.  Described as being from only as far east as “east Lancashire”, the men were:-

each jailed for five years and eight months after exploiting two girls aged under 16 by plying them with alcohol and drugs before having sex with them.

Both men pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to abduction, sexual activity with a child and the supply of a controlled drug.

... Naveed, from Burnley, gave one girl the first of five Ecstasy tablets at a motorway service station before having sex with her on the back seat of the car while the group drove back to Lancashire. The court was told that the two men later took the girls to an address in Blackburn where Hussain, from Blackburn, had sex with the second girl and gave her a total of ten Ecstasy tablets.

The trial is interesting because Asian grooming - it’s not “Asian”, of course, but “Moslem” - has not been investigated with due vigour by the police or publicised by the media for all too predictable reasons.  The only other time I can recall seeing a mainstream newspaper refer to it at all was in relation to Nick Griffin’s Reservoir Tavern speech, for which he was twice put through the courts.  In The Times report today the BNP, which has presented bundles of evidence on Asian grooming to West Yorkshire Police, is not mentioned.  “Womens groups” and the doughty Labour MP Ann Cryer are given the credit.

Here’s Cryer’s very partial understanding of what makes these men pimp English girls:-

READ MORE...

Most of us are aware of how important the New Media is in reducing the impact of the biological war waged by the Old Media against our very genes, with our culture a target only because that protects our genes:  Properly constructed the word is Genocide.  It is therefore heartening to see effective new uses of the New Media fundamentally at odds with Old Media.

To see such a new effective use click this link.

READ MORE...

A long article by Tim Johnstone - almost 3,500 words - has been posted at Welf Herfurth’s New Right Australia/New Zealand blog on Welf himself.  This “standard-issue, 21st century German nationalist” has led an interesting life, including a stint in One Nation Party politics trying to “break the barriers to left-right thinking, attract people of different political camps, and unite them on the issues that concern them.”

After the Australian federal election of 1998, when One Nation “won a million votes but not one seat” and began to self-destruct, Welf withdrew from the political coalface.  Instead, he:-

began to look around for an alternative. He had long been interested in the ideas of Third Positionism and National Anarchism, and now began to apply them to his own activism

READ MORE...

A year ago I put up a brief post which linked to Nathan Abram’s article on Jews in the American porn industry:-

Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism.  According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’.  Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.  ... Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on lukeford.net), ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks.  Catholicism sucks.  We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’

... It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics.  Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry.  Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries.  A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews.  Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish.

And so on.  Here is a Jew, Nathan Abram, writing for other Jews about the Jewish ethno-aggressor in his most secular manifestation.  For me, that is validation enough.  The freely given testamonies of Abram, Ford and Goldstein are more to the point and more persuasive than anything I could write on the subject - which, actually, was the purpose of that particular post.

In this post I am not seeking simply to revisit Abram’s self-described Jewish ethnic interest in societal subversion.  As they say, it takes two to tango ... and here, indeed, three.  The arrayment of forces hasn’t changed since the invention of the brothel, and probably earlier than that.  Today it’s the Jewish pornographer, as elsewhere it is the inevitably foreign “boyfriend” or dealer, trafficker and brothel owner, who plays Gott de Vater.  The absurdly pneumatic girl and the client’s cash complete the scarcely cosmic but nonetheless indivisible trinity.  Given such famous historicity, it might be more interesting and original to reflect on European sexuality and the phenomenon of Jewish pornography from a general evolutionary perspective rather than a merely ethnic or moralistic one.

READ MORE...

There are two basic hypotheses explaining the profound disparity between Ron Paul’s online popularity and his dismal showing in “scientific” polls:

1) New Media users are profoundly different from the populous in their preferences for President.

2) The Old Media is profoundly biased against the populous’s real preferences for President but the populous is so dependent on the Old Media for information that the populous finds itself effectively unrepresented at election time.

What would be a fair test of these two hypotheses?

If #2 is correct, an election isn’t an adequate test since it is merely reflects the anti-democratic biases of the Old Media, so we can’t really conclude anything from an election in which a “long shot” candidate is defeated.

I would suggest that a real scientific poll wouldn’t ask people about which candidate they prefer, but rather work like a dating service, asking people about their preferences: matching the preferences of the people to the positions of the candidates.

By comparing the outcome of this position preference poll to the outcome of the current “scientific” polls of people asked to choose from among candidates, we would see a measure of the degree to which the people were being mislead by the Old Media.

To construct the questionnaire properly, see Why the Political Compass is Inherently Vectorist and How to Correct It.  The result of comparing “scientific” pick-a-candidate polls to such a match up between the policy positions of candidates and voters would be a measure of how much, and in what policy dimensions (and directions in those dimensions), the media is biased.