Thursday, September 30, 2021

What’s the Idea?

What is America?

We are told that America is not defined by a core racial or ethnic group but is instead defined by an idea. We are told that Americans are not a particular ancestry group but people who agree with this idea.

Putting aside the laughable assertion that all of the competing groups in America actually agree on anything fundamental, we can ask a more basic question – what’s the idea?  What actually IS the idea that defines America?  Can anyone tell me?

Freedom? The current USA is defined by a social control apparatus that commands human behavior via myriad de jure and de facto mechanisms in order to manage the chaos of diversity and multiculturalism. We have numerous civil rights laws (de jure) and an endless array (de facto) of social pricing controls, as well as government-corporate cooperation, all in order to stifle dissent, particularly dissent from the disappearing White majority. Freedom of association does not exist, freedom of speech is being constantly eroded – what is this freedom? Where is this freedom?  It is all a lie; it is all a mirage.

Making a better life? Is that the idea? “The American Dream?” The current American ideology is one of “equity” – enforced equal outcomes, reducing all to the lowest common denominator. The American industrial economy has been outsourced to China and elsewhere, the remaining “economy” is a Ponzi scheme of shuffling money around, the middle class is in decline and income inequality constantly increases (likely a reason the elites, who benefit from this income inequality, push the “equity” nonsense to attack the White middle class/working class that they hate, and whose response to income inequality they fear), and Americans have become a herd of overweight, drug-addicted, dumb, cowardly sheep.

Democracy? We have a System that is essentially an oligarchy, with a suppressed and oppressed White majority, and when the people elect a President (who ends up being a lazy, useless, good-for-nothing) that the elites do not like, the elites conspire against him, and “our” military essentially behaves as if they want to have a coup, and plot treason with foreign governments.

Tolerance? The System is intolerant of Whites, White Identity, and pro-White activism; indeed, the System is defined by its totalitarian intolerance. Treating everyone fairly, everyone treated the same - equality?  No, Whites are a subaltern untouchable under-caste; the whole "equity" paradigm implies treated people non-equally, giving advantages to non-Whites. A half-century of affirmative action disadvantaging White men for the benefit of everyone else apparently hasn't been enough, now the System is really going to show us how to discriminate against Whites, particularly against White men.

So – what’s the idea?  What is the defining idea of America?

Answer: The United States of America is nothing more or less than a group of (mostly fat and stupid) disparate peoples living together in the same territory under the same government, ruled by self-interested, rent-seeking elites who are fearful of losing their hold over a disintegrating nation.

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Falsifying Competing Hypotheses

Sallis vs. the HBD Nordicists.

Consider the competing hypotheses mentioned here – my own theory of intra-European behavioral differences contrasted to that of the HBD Nordicists.  How could one go about testing this, with an eye toward falsification?

One could consider stress responses, particularly that of the amygdala, to different ethnic/racial images.  If Southern and Eastern Europeans simply have stronger responses to alien faces than do Northwest Europeans, and there are no other differences, that would support the HBD Nordicist theory. On the other hand, regardless of possible overall differences in responsiveness, if Northwest Europeans demonstrated relatively greater responses to other Europeans and relatively lesser responses to non-Whites, as compared to Southern and Eastern Europeans who would be expected to exhibit the opposite relative pattern, then that would be more suggestive of my theory.

Note that in the cases of intra-European response measurements, there may need to be input other than just showing the face, such as a statement of the ethnic/racial background of the face (to control for recognition of foreign origin vs. just a difference in phenotype – a Norwegian may object to a German [as in WWII] even if there is phenotypic similarity), and to eliminate the statements as a variable, it should be done in all cases – if shown a Negro face, that could be accompanied by the statement, “this is a Nigerian immigrant.” These are all fine-tuned details.

The extent to which behavioral differences are innate/genetic vs. learned/cultural could be ascertained via twin/adoption/immigrant and descendant studies, and GWAS could be used to attempt to determine gene-phenotype associations.

Unfortunately, such studies, at least each in isolation, may not constitute definitive falsification, but they would provide strong evidence and perhaps in combination could represent reasonably effective falsification tools.

Others may have better ideas on how to approach this – I’m not a “social scientist” (sic) after all – but at least I’m thinking about the falsification problem, which is more than I can say about others with their own theories and hypotheses.

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

Book Review: The Perversion of Normality

By Kerry Bolton.

See this.  It was also reviewed here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

De Sade compared an infant to excrement thus:

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

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

Cultural Marxism:

What is Cultural Marxism?  One explanation:

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

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

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

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

Freudo-Marxian Synthesis

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

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

New School & Frankfurt School

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

Sounds like the rhetoric of your typical American academic institution.

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

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


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


Funding for Social Sciences

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

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

Social Science Research Council

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

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

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

Social control, indeed.

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

Of course not.


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

Bolton quotes Caroline Glick, an excerpt is here:

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

No surprise there.

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

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

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

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

London School of Economics and Political Science

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

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

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

Carnegie Corporation

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

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

An American Dilemma

This section investigates the legacy of Herrenvolk Swede Gunnar Myrdal:

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

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

‘Social Control’ & ‘Social Engineering’

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

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

Sorokin’s Critique of Sociological Methodology

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


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

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

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

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

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

Pavlov and Lenin

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

That’s the Left for you. This led to:

Konrad Lorenz’s Critique

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

Lorenz was right.

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

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

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

Pathologising Morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Conspiracy Theory’ as Personality Disorder?

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

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

Sounds about right to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasonable questions.

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

Psychiatry & Dissent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilhelm Reich’s Sexual Reductionism

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

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

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

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

Victimising Dissent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marginalising Dissidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Non-Communist Manifesto: Rostow’s Dialectics

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

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

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

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

We then can consider: Individuation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother, Child, Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Children as Consumers

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

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

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

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

Schadenfreude alert!

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

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

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

‘Patriarchal Repression’

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

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

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

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

Lessons from Samoa: Margaret Mead

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

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

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

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

Perennial Character of Primary Ties

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

I agree.

Jung & Nietzsche

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Actualising with Charles Manson

James Mason and Siege?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity Politics

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


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

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

Reconstructing Genders

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

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

Magnus Hirschfeld: Father of Transvestism and Transgenderism

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

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

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

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

Bolton continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this there will be - No Choice.

Progressive Regression Return of the Eunuchs

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

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

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

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

Toxicity of ‘Traditional Masculine Ideology’

The revived cult of the Castrating Goddess…

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gays vs Queers

An issue for certain precincts of the “movement?”

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

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

Muslims vs Gays

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

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

Political Agendas

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

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

Straight White Leftists seem like a dying breed.

The Myth of ‘White Privilege’

A bit of Spenglerism:

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

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

Population Control, including eugenics is covered:

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

Rockefeller’s Population Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The analysis continues - Frederick Jaffe Memo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Behind the U.N. Global Compact?

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

Universal ‘General Will’

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

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

Julian Huxley’s Brave New World

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

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

UNESCO Doctrine

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

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

Global Aesthetics: Formless, Rootless

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

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

Classifying Castes

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

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

Soros’ ‘Brave New World’

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

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

Piecemeal Social Engineering’ continued the narrative.

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

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

That is a lie.

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

That is true.

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

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

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

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

The Corporation Ideal

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

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

Meta Estimated continues the analysis. Thus:


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

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

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

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

Why White people put up with this is beyond me.

‘Unconscious Bias’

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

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

Rev. Jones’ Socialist Paradise Based on Group Therapy

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

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

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

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

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

Posthuman Cyberfeminism & Postgender

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

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


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

No one on the Right would support this.

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

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

Thar’s fine as far as it goes, but:

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

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

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

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

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