Aryan Skynet

Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch

Was Sexual Socialism Dysgenic or Eugenic – and Will It Ever Be Again?

groupies

Is the “New World Order” what we think it is?

“When we survey the modern world, especially of people of European origin and the developed parts of East Asia, there is clearly a problem stemming from certain sexual imbalances,” writes Andrea Ostrov Letania at Paradoxy. “Consider the declining birth rates among white women and the problems of white males in finding worthy partners in marriage.” A specter, it seems, is haunting Europe – the specter of sexual socialism.

A contributor to the Red Pill subreddit celebrates what he terms “The Death of Sexual Socialism”:

It’s a human system (sexual market) the establishment interjected themselves into to become the monopolizers of social order. The Church also did this arm in arm with the prevailing nationalist establishment so as to maintain a permanent monopoly and a means to siphoning the productive powers of men, and or getting money. […] Women were paired with the highest earning beta their parents could arrange even if she hated him and men had to suffer that hell as we know it till their deaths. The social system was rigid, the corruption in these systems absolute and abhorrent to the quality of life of the supra majority because these systems riddled with inefficiencies and big governments which did not represent any economic interest of the people, lacking those basic market principles for a lean, efficient and value driven framework of governance. […]

theredpill

The termination of this system is without a doubt what enables the current day alpha/beta dynamic as it is playing out in the open. It’s this sexual freedom of the sexes which has increased the quality of life of men drastically because beta men are no longer strapped to the instabilities and economic degeneration of a relationship/marriage. Though the function of this freedom is not from personal life choices but the new social economic system (Feminism) which puts a chunk of men below women economically. In order for those men including some of those in wealth to attain a mate they must actually compete in the sexual marketplace. No longer will men be able to ask for a government hand out on women but in actually compete […]

Mentioned before the new sexual market is exclusionary of men who do not compete […]. For whatever reason these men do not want to invest in such a thing to attain women and a result is their disbarment from the market […]

The realization of TRP [i.e., the red pill] is that there is no longer Sexual Socialism, you won’t get a free pussy ticket from a society which was once formed upon weak socio-economic freedom.

Men have to compete in the market, but this competition destroys and weakens those who contribute no value, men and women, though this in the context of only the sexual marketplace.

honeymooners

Sexual socialism in action

Sexual socialism, then, is not the utopian nightmare vision of some perverted Bolshevik, but the de facto order existing in European societies before the sexual revolution of the twentieth century. “Monogamy is sexual socialism,” explains mathematician Nathaniel Hellerstein.

It is well known that monogamy goes against the grain; yet also that it’s needed for civilization. From this I deduce that monogamy is a socialistic intervention into the mating market.

If pure laissez-faire applied in the mating market, then the most likely result would be oligopoly; a few males corner the market and gather large harems, the other males are out of luck. But unattached males without prospects are a danger to themselves and others; this is a political problem; therefore some of the brighter politicians and priests back in the Bronze Age decided to enforce a share-and-share-alike policy. One woman per man, no more nor less; and this rationing is enforced by moral suasion, peer pressure, and failing that, the sword of the Law.

Such a system is called socialism. As usual with socialism, it works approximately as planned, but there are unintended consequences and known systemic failures. Nonetheless, this form of socialism is, all in all, relatively successful.

“In-group altruism,” writes Robert K. Graham in his essay “Devolution by Revolution”, “promoted group survival, and groups which were less inclined to be supportive of their own members competed less effectively against rival populations, and in the long run would be less likely to survive.”

Free love, conceived as an economic model, functions in much the same way that free trade works. The most desirable sexual partners, like the most efficient multinational corporations, will dominate the marketplace, while those who are undesirable for whatever reason will find themselves in the position of the small and undercapitalized business concerns which, unable to compete with their rivals’ efficiencies and economies of scale, are more likely to fail without state intervention. In both free love and free trade, those parties able to game the system (pun intended) are the ones who prevail. Both models, in view of the inequalities given play, will tend to empty the field of all but oligopolies or monopolies. Contrarily, marriage, as Hellerstein indicates, is a form of socialism, and consequently given to “known systemic failures” – infidelity, for instance, which, continuing with the economic analogy, would constitute a species of black market transaction.

corporateharem

Chateau Heartiste cites this remarkable roster as an exemplar of “The Modern Corporate Harem”.

The present sexual economy has given rise to what Chateau Heartise, in a classic essay, has termed “The Modern Corporate Harem”: “Seven women per one high status man.” Those inclined to an anarcho-capitalistic or social Darwinist perspective might see monopoly as a good thing – as the ultimate in meritocracy. Indeed, some identitarians have advocated polygamy as a means of boosting the presently sub-replacement levels of procreation among European populations. Proponents of polygamy could make the argument that the amplified sexual productivity of those males sufficiently handsome and successful to attract and support multiple wives would have a eugenic effect on the overall quality of the gene pool by removing males of lower earning potential and aesthetic appeal. Business Insider notes that “the income gap between attractive and unattractive people is comparable to the gap between genders or ethnicities.”

mindweapon

Sheikh Yermindweapon

Favoring a hybrid socialist-harem model, the white nationalist blogger Mindweapon, in comments under an odd post titled “Islamic Europe; the Ottoman Empire Meets the Third Reich”, has suggested that “the [disingenuously and strategically converted] European Muslims should get on the dole and practice polygamy with White nationalist females who see the logic of converting in exchange for having large families and getting high tech, Saudi funded White madrassas that teach Koran and aerospace engineering and electronics and computer engineering.”

Not all are so enthusiastic. “If I see one more utter moron babble on about how ‘great’ polygamy would be since he presumes he’d get laid a lot, I may scream,” gripes Disenchanted Scholar. “These people are desert-dwelling disease-ridden low-IQ no-impulse control losers, and you see that as a role model? Fucking r-types, honest to Christ. […] Aside from these, do you have enough wealth to support a single wife now? 2.2 kids? No? STFU [i.e., shut the fuck up].” Janet Factor, in an essay treating “the Sexual Motivation of Religious Extremists”, characterizes polygamy as a system which enjoys ancient and longstanding precedents but is deeply flawed and fraught with socially catastrophic ramifications:

factor

Janet Factor

Recent research shows that the global ratio of successful reproduction for the sexes after the advent of agriculture was as much as 17:1 (women:men), and even in more recent times it hovered between four and five to one. It is clear that throughout most of our history only a subset of men managed to reproduce, but almost all women did.

The West can thank the Romans for decisively rejecting this ancestral preference, and codifying a surprisingly modern form of monogamy in their marriage laws. Christianity, which grew up under the Romans, adopted the idea from them; it is not at all Biblical. In fact, a quick perusal of the Old Testament will make it clear why I say the Romans should be thanked. Polygyny may maximize reproductive potential, but it leads to all sorts of social ills. Women are not the only ones who suffer. So do children, and so do many men. So does society at large. And it is all because of those relentless numbers.

Just as a quick and (I must emphasize!) immensely oversimplified demonstration of principle, consider these examples. Because the human population sex ratio is normally 50/50, when one man takes on an extra wife, another man is deprived of the opportunity to have one at all. So if just one man in ten takes a single extra wife, a very modest degree of polygyny, that means fully 10% of men are shut out of the marriage market entirely. This sets off a mad scramble among young men not to end up in that unfortunate bottom 10%. There, the options for obtaining sex (at least with a woman) are reduced to two: subterfuge or rape.

Now, think about the reproductive numbers. Say a woman can be expected to successfully raise ten children in her lifetime. But a man can have that 10 times the number of wives (or concubines) he obtains. What does this mean for parental investment?

idreamofjeannie

The Ottoman Empire Meets the Third Reich

Alt-Left darling Robert Lindsay, meanwhile, disapproves of polygamy on these grounds:

  1. Socially disruptive. Polygamy tends to allow high-status males to monopolize females. This limits the chances for lower ranking males to marry and reproduce. I’m not keen on having a society where Donald [Tokowitz, alias] Sterling has twenty wives while a mathematics prof has none.*

  2. Dysgenic effect: Polygamous societies favor men with capital; hence, older men (who have had more time to accrue wealth and power) tend to have the most wives/children. Older men have higher mutational loads in their sperm. Hence, polygamy diminishes human capital in the long term.

* Another thing to bear to bear in mind is the fact that polygamous societies tend to be both highly dysfunctional and highly authoritarian. Cf , for example the polygamous Mormon enclaves, polygamous societies in Black Africa, etc. I’m not keen on emulating them.

“Not only that,” Lindsay adds, “but polygamous societies are also reactionary. Ever heard of a progressive polygamous society? No such thing.” This last piece of reasoning could, of course, probably sway several readers of this site in favor of polygamous groupings.

Dysgenic trends are a key consideration in evaluating the outcomes of the sexual revolution, which, it is important to remember, was not only about varieties and frequencies of intercourse, but increased educational and vocational opportunities for women. More time spent in study programs and in pursuit of professional success has, in addition to increased economic and sexual freedom, resulted in postponed or preempted parenthood – particularly for more intelligent women. A recent Icelandic study found that “groups of genes that predispose people to spend more years in education became a little rarer in the country from 1910 to 1975.” This decrease in the prevalence of genes predisposing people to more years spent in education was, furthermore, more pronounced among women. “Many other studies indicate that the Flynn effect [of increased IQ with successive generations] has ended or gone into reverse across the developed world around the 2000s by the latest,” notes Anatoly Karlin.

womensstudies

Squandered IQ?

“The complex and genetically heterogeneous modern Western societies face another problem,” writes Robert Graham.

Not only have they for generations promoted the reproduction of the less intelligent, who […] under evolutionary selective processes would have been less inclined to leave progeny behind them, but factors discouraging the reproductive activities of the more intelligent have emerged. The “liberation” of women from their traditional role of motherhood and child-rearing has enabled the more intelligent to devote their interests to professional careers, with the result that they marry late, if at all, and have fewer children.

Andrea Ostrov Letania, while not rejecting every aspect of the sexual revolution, does voice her opposition to it on the basis of what she similarly reasons are the dysgenic effects of women’s liberation.

US-POLITICS-FOOD-CLINTON-AGUILERA

Hillary Clinton: wasted genetic potential, Andrea suggests.

Anyway, returning to the subject of Western liberty and decadence and how they relate to the problems of men and women, we need to consider the true conditions of Western success. Because the rich West has gone through the feminist transformation, many are likely to argue that feminism has been one of the necessary underpinnings of the rise of the West. To the extent that the West provided women of talent the freedom to contribute to the sciences, the arts, and business, this is true enough. After all, there are smart women along with the smart men, and a society that fully utilizes its smart women as well as its smart men will have double the number of smart people in many fields than a society that only allows smart men to contribute while smart women are banned from certain professions. Every society has a limited number of smart people, and smart women are smarter than most men just like smart men are smarter than most women. A social order that favors smart men and less smart men (over smart women) is likely to lag behind one that favors smart men and smart women. But then, in the long run, it could be that the former social arrangement will gain over the latter social order. While the former social order will provide less freedom and choices for its women, the result could be that more smart women will choose to be mothers and give birth to smart children, whereas the latter social arrangement, while utilizing the special talents of smart women in certain fields, will discourage smart women from procreating since their lives are so wrapped up with professional obligations. Whether one likes her or not, Hillary Clinton is a pretty smart woman, but she only had one child. She may have done much in life, but her genetic legacy is only Chelsea. Had she been a cookie-baking mother, she might have left behind five smart kids. So, when smart women are allowed to favor economic production [rather] than biological production, it will lead to [a] short spurt of energy and creativity for a society, but the society may lose out in the long run because many of those smart women will have chosen to have no kids or only one kid. We are seeing this in Europe and advanced parts of East Asia. As the economic door opened up to women, many rose up the ranks in many profession[s], and they added to the economic productivity of society. But as they tend to have few kids or no kids, the future looks bleaker from a HBD and IQ-centric perspective.

andrea

Andrea’s self-description

At any rate, even though the entry of many more women into all kinds of professions and fields may have contributed to recent advances in science, business, media, and so on, it is also true that the West made tremendous advances long before the project of Modern Feminism got underway. Also, science tells us that men tend to be both smarter and dumber than women, i.e. there is a wider range of IQ differences among men than among women. Also, men, far more than women, tend to have the kind of creative energy and individual spirit necessary for powerful breakthroughs in demanding fields. So, one might well surmise that not much was lost in civilizational achievement due to the suppression of female talent in the past. Also, if more women in the past became mothers and had more children, it means they produced more sons, some of whom were destined to become great individuals. Imagine if Werner Heisenberg’s mother decided not to have children or had only one child. As Werner was the second son, he would never have existed. […] Clearly, in the long run at least, a smart woman having many children is better for society than her devoting her life to a profession and having no kids or just one kid. In concentrating on work she may contribute something to society, but, if she had no kids, her talent would have been useful only for the duration of her existence. She would have left no genetic legacy for future generations.

Individualism, in the western tradition, “isn’t an absolute and only goes so far,” she argues. “It is balanced with socialism in the belief that there are certain matters of communal and collective good that take precedence over ideological purity of individual liberty and personal freedom.”

At any rate, the issue of sexuality is problematic to ideology because biology doesn’t play according to moral or intellectual rules. Liberals welcomed the sexual revolution in the idea that increased sexual freedom will make people love one another more across class lines, ethnic divides, and racial barriers. But sexuality is as discriminatory as it is embracing. Libertine sexuality seeks pleasure through open union with many partners, to be sure. But sexuality is not “inclusive” in a universal or egalitarian manner since it has strong natural likes and natural dislikes. Raw sexuality does not like ugly people, “gross” women, “loser” men, and etc. Sexuality is essentially very insulting, nasty, and exclusionary. So many people face rejections while some gain all the attention. Expecting equality in sexuality is like expecting equality in sports or capitalism. Once that cat is out of the bag, it leads to big winners and big losers.

heartiste

“This social and quasi-sexual dynamic [of the corporate harem], playing out across corporate hierarchies all over the West, pollutes the minds of women and renders them less able to appreciate the dull ministrations of the less-than-senior-management beta males that buzz about them outside the office,” Heartiste elaborates on the large-scale implications of the corporate harem society.

In the company of beta males, a de facto corporate harem girl is emotionally aloof, cocksure, unfeminine, petulant and entitled. She has felt the presence of a real modern king, a maestro of the symbol manipulation secret society, and now peasant men simply won’t do. So she lashes out at the piss bucket boys with undirected, malevolent spite, for their naive importunings fill her with disgust. Who are these nobody betas, to consult her? She has warmed the cock…les of a king’s heart! No commoner’s girl is she!

What the corporate West is becoming is a soft concubinage of a few alpha males and many attractive female HR [i.e., Human Resources, not Hipster Racist] drones whose job it is to protect the privilege of the transnational globalists by acting as a gatekeeper against infiltration by wrong-thinking elements and potentially powerful competitors. That’s the real story behind the graphic above: the total disenfranchisement of the West’s beta males. If the poor bastards can’t be disappeared the old-fashioned way, drive them out with “anti-discrimination” sophistry.

“In the modern world, women are advantaged over men, and this is why we need a form of sexual socialism to even things out,” Andrea Ostrov Letania concurs, advocating what amounts to a program of reverse affirmative action:

andrea2

Alt-Right waifu diva

As things stand, it is equally permissible and respectable for a woman to be a full-time wife-and-mother or a full-time worker. Even if a woman decides not to work, no one will look down on her for having chosen wifehood and motherhood. Granted, some feminists might grumble, but most of society will not. Most people will not raise an eyebrow over her decision to devote her time to producing and raising her children. If, on the other hand, she chooses to be a full-time working person and devotes all energies toward her profession, again, her decision will be accepted, even praised, by society. And some women will find ways to balance their personal lives as wife-and-mother and their professional life as careerists. So, such women have the best of both worlds. They can choose the personal life and be respected; they can choose the professional path and be accepted.

But things are different for the men. Though some men choose to opt out of the workforce and be full-time husbands-and-fathers, the choice is not met with admiration or respect by society. And most women have no interest in a man without professional standing in life. Though there has been some effort in certain quarters to make such a choice more acceptable and respectable, it just doesn’t seem right for most people, indeed even those who claim to be okay with that sort of thing. Also, men who find themselves in such a situation feel demoralized and get no respect from their wives. […]

She can choose workplace or home-place. Either way, she is respected/accepted by society. In contrast, men have only one good option. He must choose workplace. If a woman rejects the workplace, she can still find a good husband/mate. If a man rejects the workplace, his chance of finding a woman plummets… unless he’s the type to be satisfied with some black bitchass ho with a fat ass who be leeching off government. So, if a job is open for a man and a woman, it makes more sense to favor the man over the woman because he simply needs it much more than she does. She still has the prospect of a respectable life without a job, whereas he doesn’t. If the woman loses the job, she can still have wifehood and motherhood; she doesn’t lose everything. But if the man loses the job, he loses both; he loses everything. Without a job, he cannot attract women of any quality.

So, taking a purely libertarian-individualist position on this matter would be a huge mistake. If indeed the individual is all that matters, then everyone should be judged according to merit regardless of sex. But if society as a whole taken into consideration, then social policy should favor certain outcomes for the general good. Of course, this would apply to cases where men and women are equal or comparable in their merit/worth. In such cases, men would be favored over women, but women should be chosen in cases where they are obviously more qualified than any man. Obviously, if there’s an opening for a position in the biology department, a woman with advanced knowledge of life sciences should be favored over some guy whose knowledge and experience are considerably inferior. A society would have to be idiotic to choose men over women in every case.

Which system do women prefer? One Red Pill commenter remarks that “women couldn’t be any happier,” to which another replies: “Actually, women are less happy every decade. Because everything they’re told and fed goes against their biological goal.” The latter observation might be supported by “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”, a 2009 study by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, who found:

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries.

Conversely, while today’s women register lower reported levels of personal happiness than those of previous decades, they believe themselves to be happier than their predecessors:

By most objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved dramatically over the past 35 years. Moreover, women believe that their lives are better; in recent polls asking about changes in the status of women over the past 25 or 50 years, around four in five adults state that the overall status of women in the U.S. has gotten better […] Additionally, the 1999 Virginia Slims Poll found that 72% of women believe that “women having more choices in society today gives women more opportunities to be happy” while only 39% thought that having more choices “makes life more complicated for women.” Finally, women today are more likely than men to believe that their opportunities to succeed exceed those of their parents.

These perceptions would tend to militate against the possibility of the majority of western women dispensing with the sexual anarcho-capitalism to which they have become accustomed – even if it has made them less happy. What matters is that, unhappy though they may be, they perceive themselves to be less so than their unfortunate foremothers were.

feminist

Chanty Binx, thanks to a series of high-volume YouTube videos, is for many disgruntled men the face of contemporary American dysfunction (Canadian, actually, but same thing).

What of that “political problem” cited by Hellerstein? Is Daily Stormer’s troll army a threat to the oligarchical establishment’s white genocide agenda? Is the planet about to witness the birth of Alt-Right ISIS? Are these young men a danger to others – or only to themselves? “I have a helpful reminder for the feminists and kingpin ruling elites waving victory signs and placards demanding further concessions from the sexless masses of men who have little left to sacrifice,” Heartiste waxes ominous: “When you lock out 90% of men from productive society, really bad things tend to happen in the wake of your short-sighted selfishness.”

maletears

Social Darwinism – cure or disease?

A circumstance peculiar to the civil disorders that rocked Russia during the early years of the twentieth century is that its cities had only recently undergone industrialization, the factories filled with hordes of rootless, unattached young men without domestic obligations or families. “Amid rampant poverty, drunkenness and diseases in the cities’ slums, typical of early phases of the industrialization, legions of industrial labourers became most susceptible to radical indoctrination,” recounts historian Anna Geifman. “Young (and predominantly single) men from impoverished peasant families, who had migrated from the countryside, swarmed the cities as first generation proletarians and performed at least 50 per cent of all SR [i.e., Socialist Revolutionary Party] terrorist acts, with the percentage of worker-terrorists in other radical groups being even higher.”

beat-the-whites

This famous Soviet propaganda artwork, created in 1919 by Lazar Markovich Lissitzky, is titled Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge.

Does Heartiste’s diagnosis of a mass dispossession of European beta males herald the coming of something on the scale of the Russian Revolution? The testosterone-depleted physical condition of today’s angry and alienated young men, as well as the advent of ubiquitous social media, Netflix, YouTube, and YouPorn as useful distractions from the indignity of their lives, would seem to favor an answer in the negative. If disaffected workers in Petrograd had had the internet in 1905 or 1917, the violent upheavals recorded by history probably never even would have occurred.

Graham, in “Devolution by Revolution”, develops the thesis that groups like the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks effected what amounts to a dysgenic genocide through their programs of political extermination. Was the sexual revolution something on the same order? Have today’s successors to the Bolsheviks – the cultural Marxist oppressor classes officiating under the European and American kakistocracies – perfected the science of dysgenic genocide by rendering it non-violent and therefore apparently non-threatening?

What is to be done?

Rainer Chlodwig von K.

Advertisements

About icareviews

Propaganda Minister of #AryanSkynet

121 comments on “Was Sexual Socialism Dysgenic or Eugenic – and Will It Ever Be Again?

  1. icareviews
    January 22, 2017

    Reblogged this on icareviews.

    Like

  2. icareviews
    January 22, 2017

    Some dissenting views on the idea of sexual socialism from the Blue Pill subreddit:

    Like

    • Hipster Racist
      January 22, 2017

      Of course they simply ignore the fact that “sexual socialism” will also ensure that the “chattel of men is divided more equally, that each woman shall receive a man. So like … slavery, right?”

      The manosphere and feminism are essentially just mirror images of each other – “each thing evokes its opposite.”

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Hipster Racist
    January 22, 2017

    Andrea Ostrov Letania, aka Gubbler Chenova, aka Alt Right Studies, and his/her/its dozens of other handles, is apparently someone extremely obsessed with black male sexuality and its supposed superiority over white masculinity. Letania fairly consistently claims that white women prefer black men over white men – an absurdity that has traditionally been an anti-white talking point promoted by Jews in the media.

    Letania/Chenova/etc. is typical of trolls and “disinfo” (it doesn’t really rise to the level of “disinfo” exactly) in that it posts 50% – 75% obvious truth, spoiled with 25% – 50% bullshit.

    It also seems to be the consensus that Letania is not a “woman” in the sense of “born with two X chromosomes, ovaries, and a vagina.”

    I assume it’s a failed “Milo” type.

    Liked by 2 people

    • icareviews
      January 22, 2017

      Okay, I’d never heard of this person, and this was the first post on that blog I’d read. Anyway, I thought and still think that the portions of that post that I quoted here were reasonable. It just seemed like a typical counter-Semitic/Alt-Right type blog as far as I could tell, albeit way more poop-fixated than the advertised topic required.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 22, 2017

        Like I said, he/she/it often posts some rather insightful stuff, but he/she/it is obviously some sort of nut, likely mentally ill in the textbook sense of the term.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Hipster Racist
    January 22, 2017

    It’s a complete waste of time to engage the /r/TheBluePill type people, who are textbook “Social Justice Warriors.” Their entire “shtick” is essentially the reversal of the “Principle of Charity.”

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Principle_of_charity

    In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker’s statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

    “Social Justice Warriors” do the exact opposite, they “interpret” their opponent’s arguments in the worst possible way assuming the weakest interpretation. Usually they are even worse than that, actually taking sentence fragments out of context and even reversing the meanings of phrases and words. Interestingly, this is exactly how “pilpul” works, and it is considered a valid method of Talmud “interpretation.” Social Justice Warriorism is a kind of extended phenotype of Jewish anti-rationalism.

    Obviously leftists are not the only people who do this – conservatives and right wingers do this as well. But the entire “Social Justice Warrior” mentality is based on this form of anti-rationalism.

    Mostly it’s just a bunch of lefty feminists and their submissive men bitching and whining about Da Evil White Man.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Hipster Racist
    January 22, 2017

    Also, Disenchanted Scholar …

    Very intelligent woman, completely red pilled, racially realist, sexually realist, understands the “JQ” perfectly well.

    She also has excellent taste in bloggers, once referring to Hipster Racist as a “god among men” and a “genius.” Who could argue with that? That lady is one smart cookie.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 22, 2017

      I assembled quite the rogue’s gallery for quotations for this one, didn’t I?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hipster Racist
        January 22, 2017

        LOL – any time you venture into the “manosphere” or “counter-manosphere” stuff – you are going to encounter a rogue’s gallery of freaks – a lesson I learned the hard way.

        I never meant to be a “manosphere” writer. What happened is I wrote an article taking what I thought was a very balanced approach to both /r/TheRedPill and /r/TheBluePill.

        MW used to accuse me of being a crypto-feminist myself. But what happened is that the /r/TheRedPill people thought I had some interesting ideas, and the /r/TheBluePill types immediately attacked me as a loser who couldn’t get laid that hated women and – of course – a “neo-Nazi white supremacist.”

        My one article was linked all over the internet, both pro-manosphere and feminist, I was written about on dozens of blogs.

        So I just went with it, started linking on /r/TheRedPill and got 20,000 hits a day for a while.

        I couldn’t really keep it up because while I do agree with a lot of manosphere type sentiments, I just never really fit into the He-Man Woman Haters-Club, and to be blunt I frankly have a thing for smart, feisty, argumentative women. It makes their eventual submission all the hotter, what can I say?

        Like

  6. Hipster Racist
    January 22, 2017

    I promise I will get to actually commenting on the substance of this post, I just wanted to explain the context and who some of these characters are, as I’m very familiar with most of them.

    Like

  7. Hipster Racist
    January 22, 2017

    beta men are no longer strapped to the instabilities and economic degeneration of a relationship/marriage.

    This is a “tell” that you are dealing with a male that is either very young, or in one way or another defective.

    There is some truth to a lot of the manosphere “red pill” ideas. There is certainly a “sexual marketplace.” Men and women have different “mating strategies.” There are some serious imbalances in contemporary America when it comes to family court, divorce, child custody, etc.

    But the boys on TheRedPill that reduce relationships to “men trade resources for sex and women trade sex for resources” are just that – boys – and boys who have likely never had a relationship with a woman, aside from maybe a teenage “girlfriend” for a few months. Only a narcissist has such a transactional conception of human relationships. Babies and small children are naturally narcissistic, but part of growing up is developing a sense that other people are fully human with their own motivations and objectives.

    At a basic level, there is some truth to the “sex and resources” exchange – just like there is some truth to the idea that “men like big boobies.” But reducing the relationship between men and women to an exchange of sex and resources is like reducing men’s sexual attraction to women as “men like big boobies.”

    Kevin MacDonald has written about European monogamy (“sexual socialism”) from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, and F. Roger Devlin has written about monogamy and related “manosphere” type issues from a cultural perspective.

    MacDonald mentions that Church-enforced sexual mores, including monogamy, had a genetic influence on Europeans. It reduced tribalism (already comparatively low in Europeans compared to other groups) and the suppression of cousin marriage had a eugenic effect. Devlin and many others have written about patriarchal vs. matriarchal societies, and monogamous vs. polygamous societies.

    On paper, matriarchal societies can work – a man’s loyalty would be to his mother’s children and relatives, not his father’s. But in practice, patriarchal societies won out.

    Similarly, polygamous societies do exist, Islamic societies being a contemporary example. But the nature of polygamous societies – lacking that “sexual socialism” – means the higher status men have more than one wife and plenty of children and the lower status men have none. This leave little incentive for the lower status men to contribute meaningfully to the society, necessitating fundamentalist religion and superstition to motive these men. Monogamy has the benefit of giving the lower half of men a stake in the system. Monogamous societies, for whatever reason, appear to win out against polygamous societies. Absent oil wealth, the Islamic world would be near African levels of civilization.

    Considering that “socialism” is basically a slur word in contemporary American usage, calling monogamy “sexual socialism” is just a way to denigrate traditional European/Christian sexual morality.

    Neither men nor women are biologically monogamous – monogamy is very much a “social construct.” But of course social constructs exist for a reason.

    Liked by 2 people

    • icareviews
      January 22, 2017

      That passage you excerpted didn’t make any sense to me, either; and the same guy had also written some other things that were goofier; but I decided to leave that part in the paragraph I snipped to retain some of the flavor of the original poster’s eccentricity.

      “Socialism” is only a slur word if you’re a Republican. That tag didn’t seem to bother Bernie Sanders supporters at all. I think it’s undergone a connotative amelioration, at least with some demographics, over the past several years.

      Liked by 1 person

    • bob saffron
      January 22, 2017

      To further your comment on monogamy as the central social order, an institution unique to the West:
      https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/whatever-happened-to-european-tribes/

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Hipster Racist
    January 22, 2017

    Free love, conceived as an economic model, functions in much the same way that free trade works.

    A very clever analogy. It reminds me of a thought experiment posed by one of the writers at MajorityRights.com.

    He proposed a model of international relations: men were not allowed to cross borders; women were free to cross borders, back and forth, provided the men of a nation accepted them.

    At first glance the model seems simplistic but given a second or third glance it has some very interesting implications and illuminates some common assumptions about nationhood, race, sex, men and women, and reproduction that are seldom fully thought out.

    Liked by 1 person

    • icareviews
      January 22, 2017

      I’d like to hear some perspectives from folks here on free love. Is the genie out of the bottle on this for good or can he be stuffed back into it? Is this a death spiral or can anybody see monogamy making some sort of hip comeback as something the kids are all into? Is Mindweapon’s faux-Islamic fundamentalism a bullshit idea or could that catch on?

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 22, 2017

        I can’t speak for Mindweapon of course but I assumed that idea was a thought experiment in the same way that the MajorityRights.com idea was a thought experiment. It was not some sort of thought out “plan” or strategy, it was meant as an exercise for the reader to consider their own assumptions and future possibilities. That was one of the old blog’s strong suits, we all proposed all sorts of thought experiments and theoretical ideas just to start a discussion about various topics.

        Like

  9. Hipster Racist
    January 22, 2017

    I object to this sleight-of-hand that there is some tradeoff between “education” and fertility. It presupposes that “education” means schooling as a full time job that necessarily postpones child-rearing.

    That is not inherent to “education” – that is inherent to a specific form of schooling. When my parents went to university, they had “married dorms.” It was expected that a number of students would be married and living as a couple. Sometimes only the man was matriculating but often both were attending classes. This concept is unthinkable these days, but why?

    You can hardly overemphasize the disruptive effects of technology and especially the internet in The Current Year, so why must a woman these days postpone marriage and child-rearing in her early 20s, if there ever was a legitimate reason to do so? Why can’t universities simply accommodate pregnant and nursing young mothers?

    Considering the model of schooling where students sit in front of a teacher and listen to a lecture for 45 minutes, then a bell rings, then the students move to a different classroom to sit in front of another teacher lecturing on a completely different subject. This model is an artifact of the “time and motion” studies of the early industrial era and this style of schooling was copied from factories. Is this even a particularly effective model of education?

    Consider one simple change: Monday is devoted to maths, Tuesday to history, Wednesday to athletics, etc. Such an obvious, intuitive, and seemingly trivial change is almost unthinkable – why?

    Women only classrooms where nursing mothers and their children are fully integrated would of course have some complications but we have no problem with foreign professors who speak barely understandable English these days – would some sort of accommodation for nursing mothers maybe having to take a child out to the hallway temporarily really be that difficult?

    This is all just a failure of imagination and likely the result of an anti-natal agenda, conscious or structural. If “society” wanted to promote young family formation, it’s hardly rocket science. At the end of the day, you just stick young men and women in a room together and let nature take its course, it’s not like people have a hard time “doing it.” In fact, it seems that “society” goes out of their way to put any and every obstacle between young men and women forming families quite naturally.

    Young women would be competing with each other to nail down a “beta” guy and get pregnant if the media and the larger society promoted that as the “in” thing to do, if that lifestyle was presented as attractive and desirable. These days, it’s the opposite.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 22, 2017

      The fact remains, however, that most young women aren’t attending institutions like the hypothetical ones you describe. Universities are a screwfest, but it has little to do with procreation; and the “education” (I suppose I should have put it in quotation marks in my article) that so many of them are saddling themselves with debt to acquire is worthless. If some girl is just going to college to get a gender studies degree or something stupid like that, she’s better off being persuaded to skip higher education altogether. The purpose of my article wasn’t to suggest that women shouldn’t learn useful and interesting things and that they shouldn’t be well-rounded people intellectually. It’s just that these represent wasted years from a biological standpoint and in view of Andrea’s point about the relative value of smart men’s and smart women’s contributions to a society. Also, student loans are one of the major economic factors squeezing millennials and making the idea of family formation less appealing.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 22, 2017

        College attendance is mandatory for admission to the respectable middle class, it’s as simple as that. Part of that is because employers are not allowed to give IQ tests as a condition of employment because of racial disparate impact. Part of it is because college is often just a glorified finishing school to make sure that women – and men – are trained in the acceptable social behaviors required of corporate life.

        Plenty of women went to college to meet a higher class of men than she might have otherwise. However, I read an interesting article from a feminist perspective pointing out that feminism never really pushed for co-ed education – male college administrators pushed for women entering traditionally male colleges because the male college students wanted that and were increasingly applying to co-ed institutions. Feminists were apparently quite happy with their women’s colleges.

        Yeah, colleges are fuck-fests, of course. You put young men and young women into a sex desegregated environment with little to no supervision and what do you think is going to happen?

        Interestingly too it seems the latest research suggests that the “IQ genes” are found on the x chromosomes, meaning that the intelligence of the mother is more important at passing down high IQ to both sons and daughters than the father. So that’s even more of a reason to get intelligent women having children.

        In Australia a politician actually suggested raising the “baby bonus” for mothers on a sliding scale with income. This was specifically suggested as a way to encourage the smarter and higher IQ women to have more children, since they would be losing more money by forgoing a higher salary career.

        Of course this cause a shit fest among feminists and lower class people but it’s of course perfectly logical.

        This isn’t an “engineering” problem – the solutions to this problem are extremely simply and straightforward when it comes to logistics and economics.

        It’s a social problem only. It is social expectations more than physical and even economic factors.

        To change the society you have to wrest control of the mass media and the public mind from the anti-whites. That has always been the primary obstacle to the pro-white cause.

        Although I would acknowledge that just after the mass media in importance are social institutions themselves, but social institutions respond to the mass media just like individuals do.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hipster Racist
        January 22, 2017

        To be clear, my objection wasn’t to anything in your article or anything that you, personally, are proposing. My objection is to the assumption apparently shared by the entire society that “education” means “postponing family formation and spending four years in a specific type of college or university.”

        “Education” is one of those weasel words that “the left” and anti-whites use to mean anything and nothing. All problems are solved by “education” and any resistance to the anti-white agenda is caused by a lack of “education.”

        Of course, “education” is a life long process. Plus, as a bone fide techno-optimist and internet-lover, I’m constantly frustrated how little the internet has so far managed to disrupt the education establishment.

        I’ve learned far more from just reading online than I ever did in high school and college, both professionally as well as just in the sense of general knowledge.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        January 23, 2017

        Agreed. Unless you’re doing something highly specialized and technical, which, for instance, requires access to expensive high-tech equipment for training, there’s really no reason to go to college just for the “education”. History would be the perfect example. Access to a university’s archives and that sort of resource would, of course, be useful; but I’ve learned more history through my own readings and internet searches than I ever did in any class.

        Like

    • Sam J.
      January 22, 2017

      Hmmm…Federal funding only for schools, that provide 40% married dorm rooms, if they have student dorms or even more draconian, Federal funding only for married students, period.

      Like

    • Hipster Racist
      January 22, 2017

      Also, as far as the economic disincentives to early family formation, here’s an idea.

      Stop listening to economic conservatives like the CATO Institute. Unfettered capitalism sucks. Welfare states work just great in a White nation.

      A by-the-books financial system that simply did what it’s supposed to do – coordinate the investment of savings into productive enterprise – would likely be no more than a few percentage points in the economy. It would be a highly efficient and low margin business not dissimilar to a public utility.

      But we have a “FIRE” economy where finance makes up something like 20% of the economy. Most of what modern finance actually does these days is to leverage state power and various network effects to extract economic rents from the productive economy.

      While the Ron Paul libertarian types understand that on some level, they are just angry that extracting economic rents sometimes requires lawyers and the democratic process sometimes limits the power of economic rent-seekers.

      The traditional conservatives do everything they can to distract people from the economic rent extractors by dog-whistling about poor dumb black women on food stamps – as if they are the ones getting all those trillion dollar bail outs. The “left” has it right, in a sense, that the “capitalists” use race to distract from the economic interest of the working class. But the left is as bad as the libertarians in the sense they want to forcible integrate all the various working classes into one brown mass – and even bring in more non-whites to take even more jobs away.

      The original US labor union, the Knights of Labor, were Racist White Nationalists that opposed non-white immigration and cheap black labor. The capitalists were always for mass immigration and a multi-racial labor force, precisely because it breaks up class solidarity and you can pit different races of workers against each other.

      Maybe a better system would be something that merged White Nationalism with some sort of partially socialized economy, with a welfare state that encouraged family formation and socially beneficial behavior.

      I don’t know, call it “Socialist Nationalism” or something like that. I can’t believe I’m the first person to think of this, I must be some sort of genius.

      Like

      • bob saffron
        January 22, 2017

        Maybe you can cite Scandinavian evidence on the magnificence of white welfare states.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 23, 2017

        “The ‘left’ has it right, in a sense, that the ‘capitalists’ use race to distract from the economic interest of the working class.”

        I’ve seen such a sentiment expressed at Counterpunch, but for the most part, it seems to me like it’s the “left” distracting from working class interests by focusing on race. Democratic politicians are always going after wedge issues like Donald Trump’s deplorable “racism” or the supposed oppression of women or gays rather than talking about working class interests in any meaningful way. The same is true of most Republicans, too, of course; but I never hear them discussing race apart from cuckservative signalling. When does Al Sharpton or any other supposed lefty, for instance, talk about how immigration affects the black working class? Never. It’s all about “institutional racism” and garbage like that. A lot of blacks, I’m sure, resent the high levels of mestizo immigration, and Trump tapped into that black discontent to a limited degree.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 24, 2017

        “…Welfare states work just great in a White nation…”

        Our problem is we have to many other races. Bob asked about the Scandinavian countries and they do work fairly well. Maybe not perfect. They don’t have the Capitalist highs we have here but they don’t have the lows either. Max GNP measurements as the only measurements that matter for the whole country suck if you’re at the bottom.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 24, 2017

        The average Scandinavian lives better than the average American, and if both countries were fully White, both would be far better off.

        All the Scandinavian countries are capitalist, they just have a functioning welfare state. Welfare exists in both capitalist and socialist economies. It’s not an either-or thing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        January 24, 2017

        Libertarians only like to measure efficiency in terms of time and money made. Genetic infrastructure and national spirit don’t even factor into their equations. I would counter that, just as a person can speak of multiple intelligences, a critic of anarcho-capitalism could speak of multiple efficiencies. Hiring a bunch of illegals might be cost-effective in terms of the wages a motel manager pays his maids; but is it cost-effective for everybody else when the societal costs of mass immigration are considered? Of course not.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 24, 2017

        Libertarians reduce all human activity to economic exchange and absurdly believe that human beings are nothing more than “rational economic actors.”

        Their ideology is proven incorrect by biology, chemistry, neuroscience, and the advertising industry.

        Libertarians are simply wrong about human nature.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 24, 2017

        Part of the problem is that the US is just too big to be a normal country. In theory, the USA was supposed to be a loose federation of sovereign independent states. But between the War of Yankee Aggression, the Warren Court, and the federalization of Civil Rights, the powers of the state governments have been revoked.

        Thus, a normal functional welfare system like the European countries have can’t really work because it has to be federalized.

        Of course, there is also the fact that 10% or more of the USA is a non-white underclass. Multi-racial societies contribute less to the common good because some groups give more to the commons and some races take more from the commons.

        In that sense, the conservatives were right that power should be devolved to the state level, but as long as you have the Commerce clause and related SC ruling enforcing free trade and open borders between the states, there is only so much a state government can do anyway.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 24, 2017

        “I don’t know, call it ‘Socialist Nationalism’ or something like that. I can’t believe I’m the first person to think of this, I must be some sort of genius.”

        Eric Striker’s blog The Social Nationalist was worthwhile the couple of times I visited; but it appears to have disappeared. He had a good contrarian article defending Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution when all the Alt-Righters were poking fun at Venezuela.

        Like

  10. bob saffron
    January 22, 2017

    No mention of the State’s contribution to the destruction of the family. Its historically recent intrusion into marriage, its fostering of divorce with the accompanying issues of child custody and separation of assets, recognition of de facto relationships, weakening of the historic, intergenerational compact via welfare payments (pensions for aged, youth allowances, etc).

    Like

    • Hipster Racist
      January 22, 2017

      “The State” has always regulated marriage, divorce, child care, etc. Sometimes that “State” was the local tribal chief, sometimes it was the clan’s Patriarch backed by his armed sons, sometimes it was the local priest recognized by the king, later it became the bureaucracy. The “State” in the libertarian sense of “the men with guns” has always existed since Oog the Caveman realized he could hit a guy over the head with a rock and steal his woman.

      There has never been a time when the “State” didn’t exist and there was some sort of perfectly efficient free market.

      Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        January 23, 2017

        For the record, I’m only sharing this video to trigger Bob:

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 23, 2017

        Nothing new under the sun…

        https://infogalactic.com/info/Assemblywomen

        The play concerns a group of women, the leader of which is Praxagora. She has decided that the women must convince the men to give them control of Athens, because they could rule it better than the men have been. The women, in the guise of men, sneak into the assembly and vote the measure, convincing some of the men to vote for it because it is the only thing they have not tried.

        The women then institute a communist-like government in which the state feeds, houses, and generally takes care of every Athenian. They enforce an idea of equality by allowing each man to sleep with any woman, provided that he sleeps with every woman in Athens who is uglier first.

        Private property is abolished and all money and property are to go into a common fund. All expenses and purchases by each individual are to come out of the common fund. Any individual with personal property is considered to have stolen from the community.

        In one scene, two men are talking. One of them is going along with the new government, giving his property to the women, and obeying their orders. The other does not wish to give up his property, but he is more than willing to take advantage of the free food.

        The following scene has a pair of young lovers unable to make their tryst as a succession of older and more hideous women attempt to and eventually succeed in dragging the man off to make love to them first, as laid down by the new laws.

        The final scene or epilogue has Praxagora’s husband, Blepyrus, on his way to the communal feast, and inviting the audience to join him.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 23, 2017

        For the record, I have seen The Story of O and Secretary, though I am less well-versed on the subject than HR.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 23, 2017

        By “State” I don’t mean men with guns, I mean a monopoly of force. There was often tension between the religious authority and the secular one. The power of the former to influence the minds of mens with guns shouldn’t be underestimated. Civil marriage is a historically recent institution.

        Like

    • icareviews
      January 23, 2017

      Of course welfare states can and have created gross dysgenic distortions in the natural order of things, but I would expect visitors to this site to be familiar already with the entry-level conservative commentary you can get from the likes of Thomas Sowell or even Glenn Beck.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 23, 2017

        Worse, the arguments about the eugenics and dysgenics of a welfare state rely on “social Darwinism” which is not actual biological Darwinism.

        What is eugenic and dysgenic depends on the environment, and environmental conditions are always changing.

        Under the typical autistic libertarian fundamentalism, Bernie Madoff is the height of human evolution – he should have hundreds of children.

        But without all those goyims to scam off of, Bernie Madoff isn’t very eugenic at all. His progeny would be extremely dysgenic under different circumstances.

        What is eugenic and dysgenic can often only be seen in hindsight and always depends on environmental factors.

        Sure, it seems quite easy to say that sterilizing people with cystic fibrosis is a eugenic policy. But the same genes that cause sickle cell anemia protect against malaria.

        The autistic proponents of libertarian fundamentalism are guilty of one of the most common intellectual failings – taking their analogies too literally.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        January 23, 2017

        Most of the folks visiting this site are probably in overwhelming consensus as to what I mean when I refer to “eugenics” or “dysgenics”. Basically, being the best and most reasonably plentiful Europeans we can be.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 23, 2017

        No, because in autistic/libertarian systems the criminal is punished promptly (see “lynching” for how justice is meted out by citizens). The gallows is a Darwinian dead-end.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 23, 2017

        Like

  11. bob saffron
    January 22, 2017

    Without the Nanny State, big families are the best guarantee of survival to old age. With the Nanny State, the achievers bear the bulk of the tax burden – how could it be otherwise? – and so child-bearing is left to the lesser able, à la Idiocracy.

    Like

    • Hipster Racist
      January 22, 2017

      “Achievers” like Bernie Maddoff and George Soros?

      Like

      • bob saffron
        January 23, 2017

        The super-rich are able to pay quite low percentage rates of tax. The middle class is the achiever class. Successful, but not so affluent that they can use the tax-efficient structures available to the seriously rich. I don’t think economic considerations come into play in their family-creation.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 24, 2017

        Wall St. would be a small fraction of its present size were it not for the Fed and its cheap money, funneled to the commercial banks, The critical battle for the preservation of whites’ dominance was lost in 1913.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 24, 2017

        If you’re interesting in banking, the money supply and taxes you ought to look at this guys ideas. Scott Smith. He ran for President. He’s got some really unique ideas. I’m not all together sure they would work but with the amount of money we’re spending without revenue now we could afford to try it for a few years and see. He says we should tax payments instead of income. It would be a small amount of taxes on a big pool. The numbers.

        Payrolls total $15 trillion.
        Not much for filling a $4 trillion federal spending.

        The base for what he calls payments, (transactions), is 3,600 Trillion. Big difference. So using this big difference he would only take a tax rate of just 1/8 of a percent.

        http://www.scottsmith2016.com/

        He would kill the FED and pay every bit of the debt off in five years. He makes a good case for this. He says that bonds draw interest so we go deeper in debt every day. Also bonds can be monetized and are. If you own bonds you can borrow money on them so you’re really not taking money out of the system. He would really kick the shit out of the banks. Banks would get a loan initiation fee and a small account handling fee. All the rest goes to the government. It’s radical stuff but it’s based on sound ideas. My only problem is that it might be gamed so bad as to not work.

        The government would create money not the FED. Notice the Asian countries essentially do this now. They don’t play by the same rules as we do. All this talk about how bad they are in debt completely side steps the fact that they don’t let the Jews run their currency or banking system. The government can print whatever they need to cover any losses or just wipe them off the books. If bad loans are wiped off the books then as far as financial reports are concerned the banks look great.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 26, 2017

        About Scott Smith. I just found a new page on his sit and HE INVENTED MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES! Wow. He noted that he didn’t believe in the insurance scam portion which is what drove the thing off a cliff. He had a pool of money devoted to failures so his securities were safer as they were vetted properly.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 26, 2017

        Like most things in finance, there are levels here. A government guaranteed mortgage is one thing (Fannie/Freddy.) A mortgage backed security is one thing. A collateralized debt obligation is one thing. Add them all together and you have government guaranteed mortgages packaged into securities sold as collateralized debt obligations being shorted by Goldman Sachs.

        Now you have a situation where everyone profits by giving a $750,000 mortgage with no payments for a year to an illegal alien making minimum wage who will never be able to pay a dime on that mortgage – and the really big players profit when he defaults. At some point, why even bother doing the paperwork on the house itself – it doesn’t matter if the house exists only on paper. Hell it hardly matters if the mortgage exists as anything other than an entry in the spreadsheet, much less if the house exists in physical reality.

        This is what is called “free market capitalism.” And when it blows up, the people who get blamed are the illegal immigrant for being so lazy he didn’t retrain as a highly paid engineer and the government bureaucrats giving the lazy poor people a way to get a house by guaranteeing the profits of the banks if he defaults.

        Meanwhile the secondary traders, Goldman Sachs, and the financial system gets “made whole” by the taxpayers because those lazy minimum wage illegal immigrants didn’t hold up their end of the bargain.

        It was an example of the poor and uneducated taking advantage of the largess of the civic minded Goldman Sachs bankers, don’t you see. Why should Gary Cohn lose money because poor people were so damn lazy and irresponsible? So open your wallets it’s time to bail out Wall Street via the Fed (Maiden Lane I, Maiden Lane II, Maiden Lane III, etc.) and direct cash from the taxpayers.

        Whew! We saved the system from collapse! Capitalism works!

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        “…mortgage backed security…”

        The original idea was great and really helped both the borrowers and people who wanted fixed income type investments that were realities stable.

        Of course liars loans and various leverage (borrowing on the borrowing) screwed the whole thing up.

        Like

  12. Hipster Racist
    January 22, 2017

    Maybe you can cite Scandinavian evidence on the magnificence of white welfare states.

    Sure – Norway minus the Muslims is about paradise on earth even despite its rather unfortunate climate, although I read the skiing can’t be beat.

    Like

    • bob saffron
      January 23, 2017

      Starting off as a rich country helps, as does sitting on an oil fortune.

      The Muslims would never have been permitted to arrive had the populace not already been substantially brainwashed by Cultural Marxism or cowed into submission by the very apparatus that provides the “welfare”.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 23, 2017

        Cultural Marxism has precisely zero to do with a welfare state.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 23, 2017

        Sure it does. Both are financed by the same entity.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 23, 2017

        No, it doesn’t. Cultural Marxism was invented precisely because orthodox Marxism had its main economic appeal taken away by the modern welfare state. The Communist party never got popular in America because of the New Deal. The NSDAP successfully headed off a Communist revolution because of their welfare state policies.

        That is why cultural Marxism was invented – to use cultural, as opposed to economic, issues to promote the revolution.

        Welfare states were promoted by the Catholic Church hundreds of years before Marxism anyway.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 23, 2017

        No, Cultural Marxism came into being after the proles showed themselves to be socially conservative after WWI. Communist theorists such as Gramsci and the Fabians were dismayed by the lack of popular support for their ideas and decided that the slow march through the institutions would be the successful route. And they have been proved right.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 23, 2017

        So you agree with me then? You should have said, “Yes, Cultural Marxism …”

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 24, 2017

        No, communism wasn’t rejected because of the welfare state, but because its cultural values did not mesh with those of the working class, essentially conservative.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 24, 2017

        Orthodox Marxist Communism WAS culturally conservative.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 24, 2017

        I wonder how Lenin would have reacted if confronted with a bunch of hollering topless Femen from the future. He probably would have had them all shot, institutionalized, or put to work in factories.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hipster Racist
        January 24, 2017

        Liked by 1 person

      • bob saffron
        January 24, 2017
      • icareviews
        January 24, 2017

        There were certainly those elements active among the Bolsheviks, but they aren’t necessarily representative of classical Marxism, which was after all supposed to be a movement of the proletariat, which tends to be conservative.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 24, 2017

        There was a socially subversive faction in the Jewish Bolsheviks, but they were a minority even among the other Jewish Bolsheviks and were sidelined after just a few years and almost wholly purged after Stalin came along.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. eyeslevel
    January 23, 2017

    The Alt-Right has spent more time and effort trying to define Alt-Right, arguing about what is and isn’t Alt-Right, arguing about WHO is and isn’t Alt-Right, than they have attacking anti-whites.

    I’m pro-white. Anyone who says they don’t know what that means is either a moron or a liar.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. NoddingHead
    January 24, 2017

    “I’ve learned far more from just reading online than I ever did in high school and college, both professionally as well as just in the sense of general knowledge.”
    Me too.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. NoddingHead
    January 24, 2017

    I feel like a victim. I’m now 53 and unmarried, no kids. I only started waking up about 6-8 years ago when I was already 45. I had my share of meaningless sex before then. But it didn’t seem so meaningless then because sex for sex sake was so powerfully promoted. We used to laugh at our older relatives who told us kids and family was the meaning of life. Not so laughable anymore.

    Like

  16. Pingback: Was Sexual Socialism Dysgenic or Eugenic – and Will It Ever Be Again? | Hipster Racist

  17. guest
    January 25, 2017

    This discussion reminded me how in our former socialist republic here the state would give couples an apartment almost for free if they expected a baby, that’s why knocked up 18 year olds were nothing out of the ordinary, it was done on purpose so people could move out on their own, and that generation has now, if nothing else, at least offspring and some real estate.

    I was such apartment-baby myself, thanks comrades!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sam J.
      January 26, 2017

      “in our former socialist republic…”. Where would that be?

      Also someone, of course, had to mention Hitler. Hitler had a deal that every kid you had would take 25% of the value of a small house you owned. 4 kids, free house.

      Like

      • icareviews
        January 26, 2017

        “4 kids, free house.”

        Sounds great as long as Dae’Shaniqua doesn’t get to take advantage of it. A two-person heterosexual marriage probably ought to be a prerequisite.

        Like

  18. guest
    January 25, 2017

    >I don’t know, call it “Socialist Nationalism” or something like that. I can’t believe I’m the first person to think of this, I must be some sort of genius.

    Or Democratic Fascism!

    While you are joking it did actually work with “Democratic Socialism”, Bernie was like don’t worry it’s not a turd, it’s a polished turd! Even better is how on the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) homepage it states that they will end all but fun jobs, why didn’t anyone think of THAT before, on top of that candy for breakfast and no going to the dentist ever! So if you don’t feel like waking up early, because that’s no fun, is it, you just call the DSA and they will send in a replacement Mexican for the day, no pay docked!

    Someone here takes apart 25 points of the Nazi Party and points out how current it actually is, it’s true when they say that todays sjws will be tomorrows Obersturmführers. As we know, in the thirties hippies in Germany flocked en masse to the the Nazi party as well, it’s not unprecedented, i mean if someone makes his own sauerkraut, he is already halfway there, calling it “kimchi” doesn’t fool anyone, we know what’s up! It’s like racist code, you like kimchi, wink wink, heil heil.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 25, 2017

      “Democratic Fascism” just sounds like a Glenn Beck gripe.

      Like

  19. NoddingHead
    January 26, 2017

    http://www.cpt12.org/911/

    Pretty good 9/11 show run on the more independent of the two public TV stations in Denver. Of course they didn’t date addree the JQ, but still I’m impressed that ot was aired at all.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 26, 2017

      I’ll take a look.

      Like

      • bob saffron
        January 26, 2017

        Maybe someone can explain this – magic Muslim kerosene?

        Liked by 1 person

    • bob saffron
      January 27, 2017

      Still sticks to the aircraft-strike-building story, however.

      Like

      • bob saffron
        January 27, 2017

        The conspiracy extends to the major TV networks (at key executive and ownership level).

        Like

  20. Sam J.
    January 27, 2017

    If you guys are into BIG conspiracies you ought to take a look at these two sites. The first one I trust more and has been right on correct for a long time. His focus is also smaller. His main focus is currency. The basic idea is that bankers are going to discredit the US and the West. Blow up the dollar. Then, as if by magic, they will prop up something called the SDR(Special Drawing Rights) a big basket of currency “value” based on gold, productivity of the country and other metrics used to determine how much currency can circulate in each country. If you look at the Euro for European countries you can see the exact same pattern in the SDR. It’s also, I think, debt based so of course the bankers will screw everyone as usual. The SDR exists now and has been pushed as a West evil dollar control vs. East good make peasants rich SDR.The first site recently went commercial but he has plenty of free stuff too worth reading and covering the basics. Look down his post and see the tag (Freeprom) and if you click on it it will give you the free essays.

    http://philosophyofmetrics.com/

    The next site is weirder but he covers much the same ground but much, much more, what’s the word, “evil” goings on by the deep state, NWO or whatever. It’s harder to believe but in his defense he’s sticking his neck out much farther and making wider predictions. His latest post is a bit shocking but if you’ve been reading his stuff for a while he has been WAY accurate. Here’s the basic gist. Money crash and terrorist incidents bring push for UN security force to control terrorism. Combine this with failure of US and Western leadership in some not exactly specified way and power is strengthened in the UN. The mass movement of Muslims to Europe fits right into this plan if you tie it into “Christians”, Trump and Putin, defeating ISIS, Muslim, in the middle east causing push back by Muslims.

    Both of these guys have poured over the elites documents that they release with super, massive, anal fine toothed combs. They are only sticking together what has been pushed out there. Many of these documents/books/policy papers go way back to Rockefeller stuff. Anyways you get bored read some.

    Some of it is shocking if you haven’t seen how both sites have piece by piece built the case for it over many years. I assure you they didn’t just pop up and start bellowing this stuff like most fake sites.

    http://redefininggod.com/

    Like

    • bob saffron
      January 27, 2017

      I’ll take a look at it. I’m not sure about UN forces, but as per James Landis and others, many of these (((shootings))) seem designed to discredit police and encourage acceptance of a takeover by the feds of that role.

      Like

    • icareviews
      January 27, 2017

      My background and education don’t qualify me to discuss banking and currency with any authority, but I’m confident when I tell you that the second linked site is crap. I’d seen it before, in a link from somewhere, and this person is clearly very intelligent – sort of a Miles Mathis type – but similarly insane and apparently incapable of distinguishing his imaginative powers from his more realistic interpretive acumen: “one wonders if the Roswell incident was the result of an Illuminati electrogravitic craft crashing and being found by the US military. Did the Occulted Powers pull strings to take it away from the military and cover it up?” Seriously, what is the point of squandering our time on ridiculous garbage like this? How does reading about Illuminati UFO conspiracies help white people – even if 100% of that nonsense is true? Look at this joker’s methodology: “It is through Ivanka and her rumored incestuous relationship with her father that the Kabbalists exercise complete control over Trump…” He just sees a picture of Trump’s daughter sitting on her father’s lap (and, admittedly, there are some gross pictures of those two) but then extrapolates it into a mystical End Times blackmail conspiracy with not one shred of evidence. Sometimes I wonder if Miles Mathis and people like this are actually convinced of what they write or are just snickering pranksters having some fun at their keyboards. People like these men contribute nothing to Europe’s counter-Semitic endeavor.

      Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        The first link the guy says he has Aspergers. I suspect the second does also.

        The reason you look at stuff like this is you can disconcern when they go off the deep end but the power of some minds to dig the perfect grain of sand, “the important one”, off the beach mixed in with common silica is not to be denied. You have to make your own judgements. I do the same with fake news. It’s like PRAVDA. The Soviets would be telling their people how wretched the Americans were as they showed scenes of traffic jams. Leading the the question,”where did they get all those cars”?

        So he does go off the deep end sometimes but he has LOTS of quotes cut and paste from the elites that says exactly what they are going to do. I’m not going to read all this stuff they put out but his filtering does highlight the important stuff.

        There’s another guy I like to read that has Aspergers too. He’s a really smart guy but he’s dreadfully wrong about certain aspects of things he believes. He way into Neanderthals and believes that everything good (technology wise)comes from Neanderthal brains of which he conveniently is. Me I’m straight up Cro-Mag. My people whipped the shit out of the Neanderthals, or maybe it was just communicable diseases like in North America).

        http://vault-co.blogspot.com/

        We should remind people who are all in “The White Man is Evil” mode that if the tables were turned and it was Native Americans that came to Europe with diseases that wiped out 90% or better of the population that there would temples all over the planet where they ripped people’s hearts out to worship the gods.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 27, 2017

        “He later implies that for Gentiles to fight this strategy would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to employment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth.”

        And?

        Make racial discrimination great again, I say.

        No offense, but I get really tired of people sending me Miles Mathis stuff. This isn’t the first time somebody has tried to turn me against MacDonald by linking me to this article, which still doesn’t do enough to persuade me. MacDonald isn’t rock-solid on every topic, but is still a major credit to the European cause. Mathis is some creative and semi-brilliant insane person whose ramblings take on an air of authority in the minds of gullible readers because of the intelligent prose and seemingly tasteful presentation. All of this Paul-was-replaced-the-Manson-murders-were-a-hoax garbage has just got to go. It makes alternative media, revisionist history, and identitarianism in particular look like a joke when people mingle it with all of this other cultural flotsam and freakish marginalia. I’m proposing a race-wide boycott of Miles Mathis effective immediately. Traitors to the cause will be locked out of the ethnostate and compelled to drink feminist piss from dog dishes and beg for peelings at the tables of their dysgenic bonobo-like banana-gobbling slavemasters.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 28, 2017

        You’ve quite misinterpreted me. I took it for granted you and I were on the same page regarding MacDonald, I posted the Mathis piece merely to show up his relatively poor scholarship. MacDonald was the touchstone.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        January 28, 2017

        Okay. I’m just tired of seeing people falling for Mathis’s shtick.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 28, 2017

        My artist friend, who had family in the CIA (don’t tell McZOG) told me about Mathis years ago. He was apparently quite infamous in the art world and no one could figure out if his conspiracy writing was conceptual art, his own craziness, or literally true.

        Basically everyone in the art world knows all about Jackson Pollack being paid by the front group Congress for Cultural Freedom and virtually 100% of them are quite open that they would be more than thrilled to be funded by the CIA.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bob saffron
        January 28, 2017

        I never bothered reading the entire Mathis paper on the Sharon Tate case, but the photos of the corpse, as he correctly points out, aren’t realistic. I don’t really care about the rest of the story, but the the photo evidence is garbage.

        Like

    • Hipster Racist
      January 27, 2017

      Special Drawing Rights already exist and have for decades. It’s just a way to coordinate exchange of the major currencies, the dollar, the Euro, China’s yuan, etc. and protect long term international investments from short-term fluctuations.

      The idea that “they” are going to blow up the dollar is sort of a red herring. The US dollar, as a reserve currency, is subject to the Triffin Dilemma.

      https://infogalactic.com/info/Triffin_dilemma

      The Triffin dilemma or paradox is the conflict of economic interests that arises between short-term domestic and long-term international objectives for countries whose currencies serve as global reserve currencies. This dilemma was first identified in the 1960s by Belgian-American economist Robert Triffin, who pointed out that the country whose currency, being the global reserve currency, foreign nations wish to hold, must be willing to supply the world with an extra supply of its currency to fulfill world demand for these foreign exchange reserves, thus leading to a trade deficit.

      The use of a national currency, such as the U.S. dollar, as global reserve currency leads to tension between its national and global monetary policy. This is reflected in fundamental imbalances in the balance of payments, specifically the current account, as some goals require an outflow of dollars from the United States, while others require an overall inflow.

      Specifically, the Triffin dilemma is usually cited to articulate the problems with the role of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency under the Bretton Woods system. John Maynard Keynes had anticipated this difficulty and had advocated the use of a global reserve currency called ‘Bancor’. Currently the IMF’s SDRs [Special Drawing Rights] are the closest thing to the proposed Bancor but they have not been adopted widely enough to replace the dollar as the global reserve currency.

      In the wake of the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the governor of the People’s Bank of China explicitly named the reserve currency status of the US dollar as a contributing factor to global savings and investment imbalances that led to the crisis. As such the Triffin Dilemma is related to the Global Savings Glut hypothesis because the dollar’s reserve currency role exacerbates the U.S. current account deficit due to heightened demand for dollars.

      There’s no “conspiracy” here – this stuff is discussed openly and you can read all about it in Bloomberg News or the Wall Street Journal.

      Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        “There’s no “conspiracy” here – this stuff is discussed openly and you can read all about it in Bloomberg News or the Wall Street Journal.”

        If you mean conspiracy like 9-11, then no but if you mean conspiracy like the FED, then yes there is one.

        I say they are conspiring in a malevolent way to take control of the money supply away from the country and even farther away from the people. If they are conspiring to enrich themselves and harm us I say that’s a conspiracy. Maybe we have different meanings for the word conspiracy?

        I looked up the exact meaning of conspiracy and…yes I’m stretching the term…a lot. Do they commit crimes in the furtherance of some of the NWO agenda? I’m sure they do but they’re difficult to prove.

        I believe the banking crisis was triggered on purpose by the banks. Not that the banks didn’t hold a lot of bad debt. The problem is colluding to draw down money market accounts all at ounce. I think it likely they planned exactly when this would happen.

        I think that will eventually take down the dollar as the world currency and substitute SDR’s. It’s not, like you said, some big secret. The problem is there’s no alternative like, well having each country control their own issue of currency. That’s the conspiracy.

        I also went back and read some of http://redefininggod.com/

        I think maybe in my reading I skip over some of the more inflammatory portions as not being important. When I ask others to read it and they do they look at each sentence as completely effecting the whole and I doesn’t It’s a failure on my part and I should be more careful. Fact is I don’t believe all of much of or any of what I read. I see cracks in just about all writing.

        That being said both of your criticisms of the last two links I posted are fair and I should be more careful and by linking those I weakened any other arguments I might make. I’m going to have to think more critically.

        Actually what’s going through my head right now is maybe I should stop reading any damn thing or posting anything to the internet.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 27, 2017

        “I should be more careful and by linking those I weakened any other arguments I might make.”

        The problem is that identitarians have precious little credibility with the general public. We sort of let it all hang out here on Skynet in terms of conspiracy-related content, but this site is largely geared toward people already awakened to some degree. Otherwise they probably wouldn’t even click on a site with “Aryan” in the name. I definitely wouldn’t link anybody to a site that had anything to say about UFOs. I’m not telling you there’s no such thing as aliens. I neither know nor care. We just have to be careful about squandering our credibility. Sometimes people criticize me for getting a little too out-there with some of my more speculative articles, which I consider valid criticism. My mind works differently from a lot of people’s and it’s also tempting for me to find meaningful patterns in popular culture; but I try not to let my imagination run away with me. I encourage any reader to bring any sloppy thinking of mine to my attention and to engage in constructive criticism of my ideas. None of this ought to be about ego, but ultimately about furthering the cause of our people. Some people don’t care for the way I’ve gone about making my intellectual/journalistic contributions, and that’s fine. Nobody here is immune to criticism and we should all be striving to do our best possible work.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        I goofed

        I ask others to read it and they do they look at each sentence as completely effecting the whole and I doesn’t It’s a failure on my part

        should be,

        I ask others to read it and they do they look at each sentence as completely effecting the whole and I don’t It’s a failure on my part

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        “…The problem is that identitarians have precious little credibility with the general public. We sort of let it all hang out here on Skynet in terms of conspiracy-related content…”

        I agree. Both your and HR criticisms are valid and correct. I was going to try and defend these links and I went back looked again I realized I selectively take portions of articles and ignore some of the more irascible.

        It gives me pause as this is the second time in a couple of months that I linked or screwed up on something like this. I made a long time running mistake on the speed of light, linked elsewhere, and it bothered me a lot. I like to be not necessarily…perfect or politically correct but plausible and logically constructed. I’m going to have to think about this a lot.

        I still stand by the idea that the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths.

        If I’m wrong I will admit it though. Hanging on to false positions is a bad way to go about things.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 27, 2017

        I personally have no problem with “tribe of psychopaths” from a rhetoric standpoint. It probably isn’t very precise from a clinical standpoint, but it does seem to apply in certain discussions, particularly in the way the most radical elements of organized Jewry frequently behave.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        “…None of this ought to be about ego, but ultimately about furthering the cause of our people…”

        I agree whole heartedly and would rather be wrong and admit my mistakes than to argue endlessly for a position that I know is wrong to prop up my ego. For me this is the way to go.

        I must address the thought that this has worked for the Jews. Constant lying.

        On the other hand they’ve been thrown out of every single country they’ve ever been to in any appreciable numbers so…in the long run. Truth is best.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        I should sum up my thoughts by noting that Adolf Hitler was the first pussy hat warrior.

        Like

    • Hipster Racist
      January 27, 2017

      All the “UN forces” stuff is left-over Bircher conspiracy theories. The UN doesn’t have any “forces” – the actual UN forces are just member state’s regular soldiers wearing different uniforms.

      Back in the 1950s, it was understandable that people thought of the UN as a serious potential “One World Government.” Since then, the UN has proven to be a big fat nothingburger – nothing more than a debating society with no real power. The UN Security Council merely exists to give the real major powers, USA, Russia, China, some pretense at partnership.

      At this point in history, most anti-UN stuff is from Israel because the UN sometimes puts symbolic diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop genociding the Palestinians.

      The UN serves the interests of the USA more than anything – that’s why it’s located in New York City, not Moscow, Beijing, or Brussels.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        I’m not saying you’re wrong. Not at all. The Bircher’s were run by the Jews according to Revilo Oliver but damn if a lot of what they said didn’t come true. Doesn’t mean the UN portion was correct.

        In the vein of the Birchers is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that false news has some good points.

        I also realize that it looks stupid to others. I had flash back to when I was a child. I can’t remember how old but maybe 7 or 8. I went to this kids house and he was telling me all this stuff about the John Birch society and showing me literature. I had never been exposed to this sort of stuff and never really was afterwards. At the time I didn’t have the vocabulary or really understand but what I thought at the time was,”something is off about this kid, what the hell is he talking about”. I didn’t hang out with him anymore.

        I’m going to have to much more careful about what I say. I’ve learned to do this about 9-11. I focus on one thing. The fall of building #7 as the same speed as if only air held it up as that can be easily verified by anyone and doesn’t require a lot of supposition to get there. All the other stuff gets too complicated. I’m going to have to learn to reign in what I talk about on other topics and keep it to something simple.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 27, 2017

        @Sam J

        The Birchers saved a lot of important information from the memory hole. But they had a very limited scope in what they understood. It’s easy for us to look back with 50 years of hindsight.

        I think the main problem the Birchers had is that they thought the headquarters of the Communist conspiracy was located in Moscow – in reality, it was located in New York City. The Birchers that DID figure that out eventually all got purged.

        Back in the Bircher’s day, there was every reason to believe that the UN might turn into a communist inspired global government – but that didn’t happen, thankfully. But at the time their concerns were not at all unfounded.

        Like

  21. bob saffron
    January 27, 2017

    Erratum corrige: “James Lancia”

    Like

  22. bob saffron
    January 27, 2017

    http://www.newnationalist.net/2017/01/27/cancer-widespread-among-911-responders/

    The epidemiology of 9/11 was always going to be revelatory.

    Like

  23. NoddingHead
    January 28, 2017

    The Birchers started up their show about the same time that Stalin started really purging Jews from USSR leadership, correct? Also about the same time that the Trotskyites started turning “neocon” en masse, right?

    Like

  24. NoddingHead
    January 28, 2017

    Seems like the US ratched up the Cold War, rhetorically and militarily, mostly after the (((Bolshevik))) killing sprees were already completed. The US and Great Britain were mainly allies of the USSR during the most brutal (((Bolshevik))) period 1917-1945.

    Like

  25. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    There wasn’t even a “Cold War” until after WWII. I wonder if Stalin himself might have been red-pilled in the course of that brutal war. He had to at least see Nazi Germany as a strong opponent. And he must have seen Germany’s massive economic improvement under NSDAP. Did he see the cause at least a little worthy?

    Like

  26. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    Just throwing it out there….WWII red-pilled Stalin. He was dead a few years later.

    Like

  27. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    And then the Cold War started. FDR and a lot of the big media called him “Uncle Joe” until they didn’t.

    Like

  28. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    I might be talking myself into it but seems to me the US governement only started going against the USSR after WWII. After Israel was created. Media was very pro-Soviet until then. Getting clearer and clearer.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 29, 2017

      A lot of the first generation neocons were ex-Trotskyites and hence anti-Stalinists. The Cold War was useful for Zionists because it perpetuated the idea that the U.S. had a permanent role as global police and also provided the pretext for increased aid to Israel as a Cold War ally against Soviet proxies in the Middle East.

      Like

  29. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    I agree. I want to post the following once again here because it comes from a “respectable” mainstream source. No other media has done this anywhere in the country. I think it has good red-pill potential.

    http://www.cpt12.org/911/

    Like

  30. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    The link is Facebookable.

    Like

  31. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    Can’t promote our viewpoint effectively by shouting “the Jews want to kill us!”. Not in the media environment we live in. Baby steps.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 29, 2017

      No, but pointing out the internal inconsistences of Jewish narratives is useful, as is drawing attention to the disproportionate Jewish representation in government and positions of detrimental influence.

      Like

  32. NoddingHead
    January 30, 2017

    I agree. I think many people find their way gradually to that but they need the easier window first. WTC7 is one of those easier windows I think. The CPT public TV video was fantastic. It certainly didn’t go anywhere near the Judy Wood/Fetzer etc disinfo.

    Like

  33. NoddingHead
    January 30, 2017

    They did have a guy who repeatedly focused on the “28 pages” Saudi stuff though. I fast-forwarded through that.

    Like

  34. NoddingHead
    January 30, 2017

    Kudos to you guys for keeping 9/11 fresh in any case. It really is a huge open window.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. NoddingHead
    January 31, 2017

    The MSM is geared exclusively on controlling opinions of white people. They know full well that all their appeals to militant humanitarianism and egalitarianism and altruism won’t make a whit of difference to the BLM and brown immigrants. It appeals to altruistic whites only. I think.

    Like

  36. NoddingHead
    January 31, 2017

    Guess this is already well-known, that only gentile white people are the only ones so susceptible on a large scale to the now-suicidal humanitarian, egalitarian, and altruistic propaganda.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply - Your Comment WILL be Moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on January 22, 2017 by and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
%d bloggers like this: