Borders for Us, Not for You: Higher Status in the Leftist Grievance Hierarchy Means You Can Invade Others’ Borders

Borders for Us, Not for You: Higher Status in the Leftist Grievance Hierarchy Means You Can Invade Others’ Borders

October 13, 2019/16 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Tobias Langdon

 

 

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it. Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

 Rachel Dolezal as White and as Black

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks? Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. 
At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. 
There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.
Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. 
Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” 
Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e., Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.
The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.
This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism.  

Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment.  
When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. 
When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.
And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? 

Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

High and low again

Why did this happen? Because Dolezal, as a White, had lower status than the Blacks whose territory she wanted to enter. When you have higher status, leftists allow you to control your borders. Their cry of “No borders, no nations!” only applies to those of low status. The Black nation is allowed to have borders against non-Black infiltrators, just as Israel is allowed to have borders against non-Jewish infiltrators. There was no way for Dolezal to align herself with a minority with higher status than the Blacks whose territory she wanted to enter. She had to pretend to be truly Black in a way that Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv don’t have to pretend to be truly women. And so Dolezal could be exposed as a fraud in a way that Jenner and Yaniv can’t.

Hey, haters: Karen White is a woman!

For example, a review of a film about Dolezal in the Guardian says that Dolezal “has become a pariah in Spokane, Washington” after she was exposed as having “appropriated blackness and then lied about it.” The film-reviewer, the stereotypically leftist non-White Arwa Mahdawi, says that this deception “seems like peak white privilege.” And that’s exactly what it is, in Mahdawi’s eyes: she thinks that the film “prioritizes a white woman’s feelings over the damage she has caused.” 
But what “damage” has Dolezal actually caused? None whatsoever by comparison with what transgender men have caused. In 2018 the heterosexual male David Thompson (born Stephen Terence Wood) already had “convictions for indecent assault, indecent exposure and gross indecency involving children, violence and dishonesty.” He was on remand for rape in a male jail, but claimed to be a woman called Karen White and was transferred to a female jail. He then sexually assaulted two real women. But Mahdawi would not say that White had “appropriated femaleness” and would not condemn his behaviour as “peak male privilege.” That would be transphobic!

Similarly, the Guardian has ignored the damage done by Jonathan Yaniv as he tries to destroy the livelihoods of real women by dragging them before a Human Rights Tribunal in British Colombia. 
And those real women are non-White. Why have Mahdawi and her anti-racist feminist sisters not leapt to their defence against the “male privilege” and “white privilege” of a White male predator? 
I think I’ve explained this above: it’s because transgender men like Yaniv, by aligning themselves with homosexuals, have won higher status than all ordinary women, even non-White ones. The men can therefore cross the border between male and female, while TERFs who try to defend the border are accused of hate and bigotry.

Parallels with mass immigration

This analysis obviously also applies to mass immigration by non-Whites into Western nations. 
To leftists, Whites have low status and therefore cannot maintain physical borders against non-Whites, who have high status. 
Nor can Whites maintain abstract borders of political identity. In leftist eyes, a Somali, Iraqi or Chinese who emigrates to Britain, America or France thereby becomes just as British, American or French as native Whites whose ancestors have lived there for centuries or millennia and who created the institutions, culture and history of those nations. 
Non-Whites can enter and occupy all White spaces, which is why we now have absurdities like Sir Lancelot, “The Most Gallant Knight,” being played by a Black actor:

A Black Sir Lancelot, courtesy of two Jews

Gallantry is not a Black concept — or a Jewish one. As the image above reveals, the Black Lancelot has been created and imposed on White audiences by the Jews Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz. 
This behaviour represents the later stages not simply of the culture of critique but also of a campaign of dissolution. 
Jews want to destroy all the borders and boundaries, physical, cultural and ideological, whereby Whites maintain their distinct identity and defend their own interests. 
That’s why Jews have long promoted the idea that America is a “nation of immigrants” and a “proposition nation” defined by ideas and ideology, not by the racial identity of its inhabitants.

In a way, characters like the Black Lancelot are a jeer of triumph over Whites, who are being told that they now no longer have the status or the power to maintain the borders of their own identity and culture. 
 All White roles are now open to non-Whites, but non-White roles are closed to Whites. 
It would now be absolutely “unacceptable,” in leftist parlance, for a Black character like Othello to be played by a White. 
The Jewish role in this “appropriation” of White culture is obvious and was condemned by the late Larry Auster, himself a Jew, in his remarkably honest and clear-sighted article “Jews — The Archetypal Multiculturalists”:

Eastern European Jews, with their discontented, irrepressible temperament, were admitted as equals into a culture that had been formed by Anglo-Saxons and other northern European-origin people, with their pacific, self-controlled temperament. The former outsiders then proceeded to make their own sensibility the center of the culture, while diminishing and demonizing the Anglo-Saxon. … To seek to transform America into a Messianic project, to identify with the Other (whoever the Other may be) at the expense of the native majority, to deny to the native majority its ethnic identity while indulging in one’s own ethnic identity — this is not just a bad agenda, it is a Jewish agenda, and it is entirely moral for citizens of a free country to criticize it as such. (See Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America, The Occidental Observer, 13th March 2013)

Auster also condemns the “all-consuming narcissism” and “unmitigated, brazen arrogance” of Jews like the “attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz.” 
Such Jews have conducted both the culture of critique and the campaign of dissolution, striving to throw down all borders and barriers with which Whites have defended their own interests and maintained their own identity. 
And that “all-consuming [Jewish] narcissism” and “arrogance” identified by Auster have never gone away. They have recently been on display in Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Mass Immigration (2019), created by the Jewish economist Bryan Caplan and the Jewish illustrator Zach Weinersmith, who “make a bold case for unrestricted immigration in this fact-filled graphic non-fiction.”

Punims as propaganda: the cover of Open Borders by Jews Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith

You could call the cover of the book “Peculiar Punims as Pro-Migration Propaganda” (punim is Yiddish for “face”). Drawn by Zach Weinersmith, the cover effectively presents migrants of all races as large-nosed Jews overseen by a similarly large-nosed Statue of Liberty. And Lady Liberty is displaying the “glory-hole gape” or “nümale grimace,” that is, the submissive open-mouthed grin identified by hate-thinkers like Chateau Heartiste and Men of the West as characteristic of low-testosterone leftist males (or soy-boys). I find the cover oddly disturbing and unpleasant. The peculiar punims are androgynous and abhuman, like those of robots or people drugged into compliance.

The nümale grimace

But although the diverse migrants to submissive America are presented as Jewish, that isn’t really how Jews regard non-Jewish migrants. 
Rabbi Laura Klausner-Janner, “Senior Rabbi” in British Reform Judaism and daughter of the alleged paederast Greville Janner, has claimed that “When Jewish people look at Calais migrants, we see ourselves.” 
But Rabbi Laura lived in Jerusalem for 15 years and knows perfectly well that Israel does not have open borders for “vulnerable and oppressed” non-Jews. Instead, it has firmly sealed borders equipped with very sturdy fences and very effective surveillance equipment.
It’s a question of high and low status again. As God’s Chosen People, Jews have the highest possible status and are therefore entitled to the best possible borders while being free to invade the spaces of all others. This accounts for phenomena like Jewish anti-White activist Tim Wise titling his book White Like Me and the common Twitter meme in which Jews claiming to be White loudly preach open borders and other liberal pieties that conform to Jewish interests and oppose the interests of Whites.

 

Likud celebrates the creation of Fortress Israel

And the borders maintained by Jews in Israel aren’t just physical. The poster above is read from right-to-left because it’s in Hebrew, the artificially revived language of the new Jewish nation. 
As I described in “Words as Weapons,” Hebrew and its script are barriers to entry by non-Jews and to penetration by foreign intelligence services. But Israeli intelligence finds no difficulty recruiting Jewish speakers of any important gentile language. 
The Jewish message to Whites is very simple: Borders for us, not for you. Leftists have the same message. And that’s why Bruce Jenner can become a woman, but Rachel Dolezal can’t become a Black.
=============
 

Feeding the Dragon: The Left Want Power and Revenge, Not Equality and Justice

Feeding the Dragon: The Left Want Power and Revenge, Not Equality and Justice

November 11, 2019/44 Comments/in Featured Articles, Mainstream Conservatives, The Left /by Tobias Langdon

 

 

Rights for snakes! Yes, imagine that the Western world is swept by a movement for the liberation of snakes, spiders, scorpions and all other creatures whose naturally gentle and harmless natures have been corrupted by millennia of human bigotry and mistreatment. Tough laws are passed making it an offence to discriminate against these historically oppressed animal groups, which begin to enter buildings, cars and all other human spaces in ever larger numbers.

Mad to the Max

After several decades of this snake, spider and scorpion “uplift,” a conservative writer publishes a book called The Madness of Mandibles in which he ponders why snakes, spiders and scorpions are biting and stinging people more than ever, despite being given all they could ever have wished for. “They’ve been granted equality, so why aren’t they behaving like humans?” the conservative writer asks in bewilderment.

The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray

That’s a ridiculous scenario, of course. A conservative writer would never be so stupid. Or would he? I have my doubts, because I’ve based that scenario on a real conservative writer called Douglas Murray, who has just published a book called The Madness of Crowds that seems to be pretty much as stupid as The Madness of Mandibles. Murray’s book was reviewed by the part-Jewish political scientist Eric Kaufman in the Financial Times:

How did our societies become so insane? In The Madness of Crowds, Murray argues that it’s because highly educated people cling to a new religion known variously as “social justice”, “identity politics” or “intersectionality”. Essentially this is the old Marxist faith poured from the class bottle into the race-sex-gender one. Meaning is realised through struggle against those who commit wrongthink.
Identity politics helped reduce prejudice but, having vanquished its foe, began manufacturing phantom enemies. Murray, following the late conservative political theorist Kenneth Minogue, dubs this “St George in retirement” syndrome. Having slain the dragon, he charges off in pursuit of ever-smaller ones and ends by “swinging his sword at thin air, imagining it to contain dragons”. (The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray – Slay the dragon, then stop, The Financial Times, 11th October 2019)

As you can see, Kaufman’s review has the subtitle of “Slay the dragon, then stop.” That is Murray’s injunction to the practitioners of “identity politics.” Once they’d slain the dragon of injustice and oppression, they should have stopped their campaigning and become good little liberally democratic boys and girls (and trans-boys, trans-girls, gender-fluids, etc).

No mistakes by the left

But was this ever a realistic expectation? No, it wasn’t. It’s deeply stupid to think that feminists, Black liberationists, LGBTQ+-rights campaigners et al would ever have “slain the dragon and stopped.” It’s also deeply misleading to summarize what went wrong in that way. The left were never pursuing equality and justice: they were always pursuing power and revenge. The left have never made any mistakes in their pursuit of power: it’s the right who have made all the mistakes. That’s why Murray’s injunction should gone like this: “Feed the dragon, then expect it to stop breathing fire.” Even conservatives could understand that this is stupid advice. Feeding dragons only encourages them. They won’t stop breathing fire, eating virgins and wreaking havoc. On the contrary: they’ll do all of those things more than ever.

No, George! You’re supposed to feed it, not spear it!

Similarly, non-Whites and other “oppressed” groups won’t stop attacking White society as they’re given more power and privilege within it. Millions of deluded American Whites voted for the narcissistic non-entity Barack Obama in the hope that his presidency would create a “post-racial” America where the noble dreams of the plagiarist and rape-enthusiast Martin Luther King would finally be realized. And what did those deluded Whites get in return for their votes? They got Black Lives Matter and an ever-increasing campaign of anti-White violence and vilification. And the violence against Whites highlights another stupidity in Douglas Murray’s — and Kenneth Minogue’s — arguments. The left aren’t suffering from “St George in retirement” syndrome and they aren’t “swinging” their swords “at thin air, imagining it to contain dragons.”

Beaten to death with hammers

No, they’re swinging their swords at real people who suffer real consequences. Just ask James Watson, Richard Lynne, Jason Richwine, Charles Murray, Noah Carl, and others on the ever-lengthening list of mostly White, mostly male bad-thinkers who have been punished with the loss of employment, income and reputation for making entirely reasonable and scientifically credible comments about the differing average abilities of Blacks and Whites or men and women. In many other cases, you can’t ask the victims about the real consequences of the left’s “sword-swinging,” because the victims are dead. 
As Steve Sailer has pointed out, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has helped bring about thousands of extra murders by promoting the false idea that the American police are slaughtering “Black Bodies” on a horrific scale for despicably racist reasons. Sailer has also discussed other victims of BLM’s self-righteous and self-serving nonsense, like the White man in St. Louis who was beaten to death with hammers “by Youth of Color shouting ‘Kill the white people’ in a post-Ferguson wilding.”
The mainstream media don’t care about that kind of explicit anti-White violence, and they care even less about the implicit anti-White violence also discussed by Sailer:

A [Black] Houston armored car robber [called Redrick “Red” Batiste] invented a new wrinkle to speed things up: just immediately kill the messenger carrying the bag of money without asking him to put his hands up. … The total number of homicides in the US went up over 24% from 2014 to 2016. One theory is that policemen were discouraged by all the animosity directed against them. But another would be that the Great Awokening encouraged black criminals, like this fairly intelligent guy [Redrick Batiste], to be more homicidal [against Whites]. (Three Victims of the Great Awokening, The Unz Review, 20th September 2019)

When Blacks behave worse than Whites, leftists don’t care.

Leftism is based on lies and fantasies, which is why there is such a big gap between leftist ideology and leftist behaviour. Leftists claim to believe in equality, but in fact they have a hierarchy of superior and inferior groups. So they will ignore bad behaviour by superior groups, like Blacks, while inventing bad behaviour by inferior groups, like Whites. When superior groups are under-represented in some setting, this is irrefutable proof that White bigotry is holding them back. When superior groups are over-represented, on the other hand, leftists suddenly abandon their belief in equality.

Whites are sinners, non-Whites are saints

For example, women are over-represented at American universities, Blacks are over-represented in American government jobs, and there was not a single representative of the White British majority carrying the Olympic flag at the London Olympics in 2012. Do leftists care about this “inequality” and “injustice”? No, not in the slightest. When superior groups are over-represented, leftists abandon their principles of equality and justice.

This is because those principles were never sincere in the first place. Leftist demands for “equality” and “justice” are merely a tactic in the leftist pursuit of power. After all, leftists can hardly be explicit about their real aims: “We want to crush our political enemies and punish them for their sins against us.” Douglas Murray and other conservatives are extremely naïve to take leftist rhetoric at face value. And worse than naïve, because one of the most successful writers of all time exposed the true nature of leftism long ago. 

In Animal Farm (1945), George Orwell satirized not only Soviet Communism but also its many supporters in the West. Orwell’s novella describes how the animals of Manor Farm overthrow their human oppressors in the name of the principle “All animals are equal.” But after the Revolution, the principle is overturned by the clever and cunning pigs, who represent the bureaucratic elite identified by the former Trotskyist James Burnham (1905-87) at the heart of modern leftism:

And finally there was a tremendous baying of dogs and a shrill crowing from the black cockerel, and out came Napoleon [the chief pig] himself, majestically upright, casting haughty glances from side to side, and with his dogs gambolling round him.
He carried a whip in his trotter.
There was a deadly silence. Amazed, terrified, huddling together, the animals watched the long line of pigs march slowly round the yard. … Benjamin [the donkey] felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover [the horse]. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tatted wall with its white lettering.
“My sight is failing,” she said finally. “Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?”
For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE
EQUAL THAN OTHERS (Animal Farm, chapter X)

That is a perfect summary of what leftists really believe: “All humans are equal, but some humans are more equal than others.” In other words, the leftist demand for equality and justice is not sincere. Identity politics was never intended to make Blacks equal to Whites or women equal to men or homosexuals equal to straights. No, it was intended to make Blacks, women and homosexuals superior to their alleged oppressors — or rather, to make the self-appointed representatives of those groups superior. Black Lives Matter claims to be campaigning for equality and justice, but it hasn’t benefited ordinary Blacks. Quite the contrary: it has sent thousands more of them to the graveyard.

Better than Orwell

 
And the graveyard is also where Western Civilization is heading if leftists are allowed to have their way. By spreading mistaken ideas about leftism, Douglas Murray and other conservatives have actually become its allies. But this is exactly what you should expect of the political movement falsely known as “conservatism,” as was pointed out by Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-98), a theologian from the American South. Dabney is much less known than Orwell but was possibly even more insightful about politics and human psychology. It is astonishing to think that this anti-conservative polemic of his dates from 1871:

It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation.
What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted?
Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip.
No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position. – Robert Lewis Dabney, 1871 (As quoted by Vox Day in “Bowties on the historical battlefield,” Vox Popoli blog, 29th September 2019)

Conservatives like Douglas Murray are behaving in exactly the same way well over a century later: constantly retreating before the forces they claim to oppose. They feed the dragon and expect it to stop breathing fire. Leftists and their favoured groups will never stop attacking Whites and their other alleged oppressors, because they do not want equality and justice. They want power over and revenge on those whom they hate. And if you don’t recognize the true malevolent nature of leftism, you have no hope of defeating it.

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/08/29/john-nolte-antifa-teams-big-business-big-media-corporate-fascist-rampage/

John Nolte: Antifa Teams up With Big Business and Big Media for ‘Corporate Fascist Rampage’

by John Hayward 
29 Aug 2017

Senior Writer John Nolte talked about his return to Breitbart News, the left’s war against free speech, and the current state of Hollywood with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Tuesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily.

Marlow reminisced about how he and Nolte were among the first members of the Breitbart News team, with Nolte serving as inaugural editor for the Big Hollywood section. After a year and a half away, Nolte returned to Breitbart with an article on Monday entitled “5 Reasons Why Trump’s Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio Is Awesome.”

Sizing up the current political environment, Nolte said: 
“There is no bottom the media is not willing to hit in order to take their version of the country back.” “I think that the great definer of how low the media is willing to go is Antifa,” he continued. “You have in Antifa what is basically a left-wing terrorist group, a vigilante group, spreading out across the country to shut down – through chaos, violence, and riots – any opinion they don’t agree with.”

“Now, none of us sympathize with neo-Nazis. But it’s not just neo-Nazis,” he observed. “And by the way, neo-Nazis should have a right to peaceably express themselves, no matter how noxious their views. But it’s not just neo-Nazis, it’s Trump supporters.” 

“One of the great undercovered stories during the whole Charlottesville episode was that the day after Charlottesville, in another city – I think it was Seattle – a bunch of Trump supporters held a rally, and Antifa also went over there and beat the hell out of those people, and shut them down,” Nolte recalled. “Those weren’t neo-Nazis. Those weren’t neo-Confederates. Those were just Trump supporters, and violence was used to shut them up and to stop it, and the media just doesn’t care.”

“This is the same media that freaked out because middle-aged people gathered together for the Tea Party, and I think the most violence we ever saw there was them picking up their own litter,” he said. 

“The media is part of the Antifa conspiracy because you can see it. You can see it across all media platforms: the ever-expanding definition of the ‘alt-right,’ the ever-expanding definition of ‘hate speech,’ the Southern Poverty Law Center labeling opposition to same-sex marriage ‘hate speech’ – which, by extension, labels the Christian church a hate group. As the media says ‘maybe it’s OK to commit violence against Nazis and the alt-right and haters,’ they’re also expanding the definition of the alt-right and hate to include traditional conservative views,” he warned.

Marlow played an astonishing audio clip of CNN hosts implying that Islamic terrorists were somehow inspired to use cars as murder weapons by the man who drove into a crowd in Charlottesville when of course the “car jihad” strategy was pioneered by Muslim terrorists long ago.

“Listen to the language that they use: the white supremacist who allegedly used his vehicle as a weapon, and the alleged white supremacist, they just label that ‘a white supremacist used his car to murder someone.’ But when it came to the Barcelona terror attack, they used the word ‘apparently,’” Nolte pointed out. “That’s another area where you’re seeing the left drift away from due process, from the rights of the accused.”

“We don’t know what happened in Charlottesville,” he elaborated. “We don’t know if that person who used his vehicle in that way, what his intentions were. Now, it looks to me like he’s guilty as hell, because he backed up and did it again. We don’t know what was in his mind, and intent matters.” 

“If I were going to write a headline at Breitbart about this, you would tell me to use the word ‘alleged,’ because he has not been convicted yet, and that’s the word we use,” Nolte told Marlow. “We all learned that during the Richard Jewell case, that no matter how guilty someone looks, you wait. The media’s just not doing that anymore.” 

“So maybe that guy was panicked. I don’t know. I doubt it very, very much. But as a journalist, these are the cautions that you use, and the media is even throwing those away while they wonder what the motive of a guy is who yells ‘Allahu akbar!’ before stabbing a bunch of people. That’s another area where we’re seeing the media devolve into what really is becoming a vigilante group,” he said.

Nolte agreed with Marlow’s proposition that the media has effectively become the party of the left, the primary force behind the left-wing policy agenda, as the actual Democrat Party fades away.

“You just don’t hear from Chuck Schumer. You just don’t hear from Nancy Pelosi,” Nolte noted. “Both of them are so bad on TV. I think that’s why the media said, ‘Okay, you guys need to hold my beer, we’ll take care of this.’”

“Every pretense of objectivity has been thrown out the window. You even have people who defended the objectivity of the media for years admitting that now. It’s just over. The fight now is at least out in the open,” he said. 

“It’s a fight between the media institution, which is still very powerful, and those of us on the Internet. That’s why they’re attacking those of us on the Internet. They’re trying to shut us down. They’re going after our advertisers. They want to give all these left-wing corporations a veto power over the First Amendment,” he cautioned. 

“It’s going to be a pitched battle. Like I said, when you have the media cheering on Antifa, when you have Chuck Todd bringing the guy on Meet the Press and treating him seriously as he talks about how it’s okay to meet peaceful neo-Nazis, peaceful white supremacists, peaceful quote-unquote ‘hate groups’ with force – meaning violence – you can see where this is all headed,” Nolte warned.

Marlow and Nolte discussed a topic of profound mutual interest, the control of free speech by corporate entities – once the subject of dystopian fiction, but now accepted without much complaint by the dominant media culture because the corporations in question have left-wing leadership.

“Corporations are given veto power over the First Amendment,” said Nolte. “It is now okay to fire someone if they went to a rally where a bunch of neo-Nazis got together to protest the taking down of a statue. Even though we don’t know what this person’s personal views are, even if the person is a neo-Nazi, I think the idea of firing someone – we’re not talking about a job where he expresses his opinions, we’re talking about a job where he bags groceries, or whatever it was. It’s a slippery slope of firing someone over his personal political beliefs, and we don’t even know if he’s a neo-Nazi.”

“That gives corporations a veto power over free speech,” Nolte argued. “Corporations that remove their sponsorship, these boycotts, that gives corporations a veto power over free speech.” 

“But the most troubling thing happening is that Twitter and Facebook, and most especially Facebook, have become the Ma Bells of the 21st Century,” he continued. “They’re the telephone. You know, when I grew up, all you had was the telephone. They are the means by which people communicate with one another now.” 

“Those two corporations are, again, aligned with media: expanding the definition of hate speech, expanding the definition of the alt-right, and using that sort of moral imprimatur to monitor our communications, to say ‘No, you can’t say this, and you can’t say that. If you do say that, we’re going to cut your telephone wire, and then you’re not going to communicate with anyone,’” he said.

“The lazy conservative argument to that is that a corporation should be allowed to run its company how it pleases. But what do you do when suddenly we’re living in the world of Robocop, and Demolition Man, where corporations have all this power, all this control, and are so necessary for us to communicate with each other?” Nolte asked.

“How many websites would die without the ability to post their posts on Facebook? And then there’s the issue of the Daily Stormer, which is a disgusting neo-Nazi website. No one will serve their site anymore,” he continued, prompting Marlow to interject with the news that the Daily Stormer has gone offline, evidently for good.
Marlow noted that the Daily Stormer has tried to boycott Breitbart News for employing gay writers. Nolte chuckled that they probably would not have a very high opinion of his own marriage to a Mexican, but the important point is defending free speech for one’s adversaries, not just for friends.

“You have the media ever-expanding these definitions, so if these corporations have the power to make the Daily Stormer disappear, what’s next?” Nolte wondered. “Because we’re slowly all being aligned with the Daily Stormer because of our opinion on gay marriage, or our opinion on statues. That is a huge veto power to give to these mega-corporations. It’s like a dystopia, like Robocop, where these corporations have this unbelievable power. The media goes right along with it and gives them the cover that they need to use that power in ways that continue to be more troubling.”

“No one sympathizes with neo-Nazis. No one sympathizes with the Daily Stormer. But the whole idea of American free speech is that we defend the worst of the worst because we understand the slippery slope argument,” he declared.

“Now that corporations have control of free speech, it’s a very sticky issue. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Facebook and Twitter can’t deny sex offenders a right to their site, so it should be interesting to see if this ends up going to the Supreme Court as well. Maybe it should,” he suggested.

“Whatever happened to that saying that I don’t agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it?” Nolte asked. “The liberal ideal of free speech, it’s gone. The liberal that Big Business is evil, it’s gone. The liberal ideal of due process for the accused, ask George Zimmerman. It’s gone.”

“It’s not Democrats. It’s not rank-and-file Democrats. It’s not everyday people. A lot of Democrats I know are pretty disgusted by this behavior,” he noted. But when you have the media on the side of this stuff, that is everything. That’s all that they need to continue this corporate fascist rampage.” 

“The media is totally out of control. I don’t know how you can fight the media except with more speech. I think the media understands that they’re losing the argument, and that’s why they’ve moved in this direction. That’s why Chuck Todd is giving cover to people who claim that violence is okay. That’s why they’re expanding these definitions and pressuring, pressuring, pressuring Facebook and Twitter, because they can’t win the argument, so they’re going to just shut the argument down,” said Nolte.

Nolte talked about his decision to return to Breitbart News after working happily at the Daily Wire with Ben Shapiro.

“It really was the best job I’ve ever resigned from,” he said. “But the two sites, the Daily Wire and Breitbart News, are two very different sites. Both are successful, both have hit the target of what they want to do. It just felt to me like choosing between the Army and the Navy.” 

“I was over there for about a year and a half. Like I said in my piece at the Daily Wire, I just feel better fighting on the water – in other words, joining the Navy as opposed to the Army. I have nothing but good things to say about Ben, and I have nothing but good things to say about the Daily Wire,” he declared.
“It’s just about where my very narrow skill set, which I think you can sum up with the word ‘belligerence,’ fits best, and where it can be the most effective,” Nolte said with a laugh. 

“I just thought it could be more effective at Breitbart. I think we’re at a point where all hands are on deck. We’re in a pitched battle now. They’re trying to take down Trump – in other words, they’re trying to overturn a duly elected president, remove a duly elected president and overturn an election through fake news, through lies. All hands have to be on deck,” he urged. 

“I just felt that I would be more effective – and I say this in the humblest way possible, I don’t want to pretend that I’m some sort of nuclear weapon or anything like that, but just whatever I can contribute, I would contribute more effectively at Breitbart,” he said. “It’s great to be back. It feels right.”
Speaking as a longtime film fan and critic, Nolte offered a bleak assessment of one of the left’s major cultural power bases, Hollywood. He said film studios have “painted themselves into a corner” with the summer-blockbuster model.
“They killed off the movie star: the idea that a face or a name on a poster can bring in people,” he explained. “They killed off these mid-budget movies, and they put all their marbles into these franchise films that cost $250 million to produce and promote, and they need $650 million in returns to make a profit. There’s only so many franchises out there, only so many universes you can create. People are tired of them.” 

“Now what’s Hollywood going to do? What do they have left? It’s not like they have some sort of a bush-league team out there that they can call up. Hollywood is in very, very big trouble. People are getting out of the habit of going to the movies. That’s their fault, and it’s a quality issue more than any other issue,” Nolte judged.

“It Will Come To Blood”–What Spain’s Civil War Can Teach America’s Patriots

Patrick Cloutier
June 8, 2017,
http://www.vdare.com/articles/snowflakes-spains-international-brigades-and-americas-patriots

Last weekend’s clash in Portland OR was further evidence that the Alt Right, loosely defined, can field force on the streets—a completely new development in recent American politics (Portland Breathes a Sigh of Relief after Weekend Protester Showdown. But Several Questions Persist About Police Tactics| Police cracked down on only one side—the protesters who threw red-stained tampons at officers while chanting, “All cops are bastards!” by Karina Brown and Rachel Monhanan, Williamette Week, June 6, 2017. [This is a real headline!] Which supports VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow’s observation, after the Inauguration Day riots, that “it will come to blood.” The lead-up to Spain’s Civil War provides some pointers to our possible future.


Portland Antifa (by which we mean communists and left-anarchists) had already openly threatened to attack ordinary Republican officials, causing Portland authorities to cancel a parade, and a hysterical media campaign directed against the Right after a recent murder caused Portland’s Mayor to call for a suspension of the Alt Right’s First Amendment rights. Not surprisingly, Republican officials had publicly discussed using organized security forces, which Main Stream Media of course characterized as “militias” .[Portland Republican says party should use militia groups after racial attack, by Jason Wilson, The Guardian, May 29, 2017]
At a time when a “comedian” can post a photo of herself beheading the President of the United States, it’s not a stretch to think America is coming apart. David Hines, in his remarkable “Days of Rage” Storify, posited that America is already in a “cold Civil War” and on the brink of violence. Critically, Hines highlighted the role established institutions play in supporting domestic terrorists on the Left. He argued the Left will have at least the initial advantage in organized violence.


That seemed indisputable—until recently. Conservative speakers have been regularly shut down on college campuses through violence, with no punishment for rioters. Antifa openly urge people to join armed gun clubs such as the John Brown Gun Club. [Lemons: Lefties with Guns Ready to Rumble with Right-Wing Militias, Says Arizona Anarchist, by Stephen Lemons, Phoenix New Times, April 5, 2017] Right-wing conferences are the victims of bomb threats The MSM habitually sides against the victims. And when Richard Spencer was attacked (repeatedly) on Inauguration Day, the MSM cheered it on. [Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi?, By Liam Stack, NYT, January 21, 2017.] With adoring MM coverage, kid gloves from the authorities and heavy institutional support, Antifa were gaining in confidence and a willingness to use violence—until recently.


This pattern has repeated across centuries. In 200 Years Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how Communist revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia  were supported by intellectual circles. Their young leadership often came from the privileged classes, including a significant number of Jews. (Curiously, 200 Years Together, while it is available in French and German, has never been published in English, although bootleg translations circulate on the internet.)


Now, however, there seems to be physical resistance from the American Right. Perhaps the most important case: the “Battle of Berkeley” last month, when a loose alliance of conservatives, “Alt-Lite” free speech supporters and Alt-Right activists fought and beat an Antifa attempt to shut down a demonstration. MSM reports suggest Antifa were generally stunned when patriots fought back.

David Hines urges a “National Divorce” before things get worse. I’d argue a “National Divorce” would simply allow the Left a beachhead from which eventually to secure the entire country. And it is unlikely even to work. It seems more likely there will be a larger-scale conflict and political groups willing to use violence will grow larger and more organized.


the Spanish Civil War.
One of the most likely models of how the polity could collapse into civil strife: the Spanish Civil War. The September/October 2016 edition of Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, featured a review by Sebastian Faber of Adam Hochschild’s Spain in Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, profiling the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (or 15^th International Brigade), a pro-Communist force which fought for the Republic as “shock troops.”

As Faber notes, then-mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom, now a Democratic gubernatorial contender in California, unveiled a monument to the group in 2008 and proclaimed: “The spirit of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade is a legacy we have inherited.”
One can even find praise for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the publications of Conservatism Inc.
Many “Lincolns” went on to support Civil Rights and other Left-wing causes.
Less publicized, they supported Communism as well.
It’s not hard to imagine the Snowflakes in the “John Brown Gun Clubs” of today developing into the “International Brigades” of tomorrow—and receiving similar adoring media coverage.

But what of the Right? If the Spanish Civil War were to serve as a template for a second American Civil War, we should examine the two main rightist paramilitary groups in Spain. They were the Carlists, a monarchist group, whose fighters were known as requetés and considered the most fanatical fighters on the Nationalist side, and the right-wing Falange (= Phalanx). They provided an important source of manpower to the Nationalist Army.

On the eve of the Spanish Civil War, the Falangists numbered about 40,000 men. The Carlists had at least 6,000 men in Pamplona, Navarre and are estimated to have had a minimum of 10,000 men.
All day long on the second day of the war, conservative farmers streamed to Pamplona to volunteer for the Carlist forces.
In the first days of the fighting, the Nationalists relied heavily on such militias: regular soldiers were often outnumbered. At the outset, the Carlists secured the region of Navarre. One column of 1,400 men, mostly requetés, marched to Saragossa, to reinforce the army garrison and secure the town.

Falangists contributed to the defense of the town of Oviedo, in Asturias. The soldiers and Falangists withstood a siege for months, until relieved in mid-October, 1936. In Toledo, Falangists contributed at least 200 men to the 1,300-man force defending the Alcázar Fortress, which held out, until relieved by Franco in late September, 1936. In August in the Saragossa region, they had at least 2,000 men.  In the advance on Madrid, the Falangists contributed a significant portion of the 20,000 men who attacked the city.

Without these highly-motivated militias, it would have been impossible for the Nationalists to succeed in the war against the Leftist government; the rebellion would have collapsed in its first week.

Similarly, should civil war visit America again, it may come down to locally-organized groups of both Left and Right, as the regular U.S. military will be spread thin (and probably divided).

In the Spanish Civil War, militias organized around political factions and regions. In the United States, it seems likely militias on the Right, like some of those which exist today, would be organized legally or quasi-legally along constitutional lines (either by the state constitution or the U.S. Constitution.) This might even go down to the county level.

Of course, there is one major difference. While the MSM and the government tolerates or even celebrates organized Leftist violence, the hammer is always ready to fall on organized forces of the right. [Posse Interruptus, Chateau Heartiste, May 30, 2017]

On an individual level, Western governments often use “exemplary sentencing”—shockingly draconian punishment—to punish Right-wingers, while shrugging at Leftist thugs.

For that reason, as Hines predicted, if there is a second American Civil War, we can expect most of the casualties in the beginning will be on the conservative side.

Finally, there is one other important point: The Right won the Spanish Civil War. Francisco Franco built a great monument to his victory and eventually Spain, saved from Communism, become a democracy. Yet now, the Spanish Left is actually voting to desecrate his grave in the name of Political Correctness. [It’s shameful for Franco’s victims, Spanish MP’s vote to exhume dictator, by Sam Jones, The Guardian, May 11, 2017]

In the end, war is just politics by other means, as Clausewitz said. All war is a media war.
And the battle is never really over.

Patrick Cloutier is the translator of Raciology (reviewed here) and the author of several books of military history.