My study bible (Zondervan NIV if you’re curious)- carefully qualifies this. It notes that this and other psalms call for extremely violent and cruel retribution by God. It emphasizes however that the psalmist calls on God to execute the punishment; he is not going to do it himself. It compares these to a victim impact statement in court- God invites the victim to pour out the depths of his anguish, rage, and sorrow, and hears it, although he is not going to necessarily inflict the punishment the victim wants.

Hate is of course in our leftist world a thing of privilege- the communist guerillas of El Salvador and other Latin American countries were quite entitled to it, by the lights of Father Ignacio, their victims not. We are daily assured that black rage is quite entirely justified, and we must patiently bear the predations of blacks as our just punishment.

A couple of people have let loose their anger recently. One was a Korean-American songwriter and sometime performer by the name of Jenny Hyun. Her tweets were captured on a group blog of expats in Korea, with the appropriate shocked approbrium of course. She- or a representative- quickly backed off and said she was a paranoid schizophrenic, having an episode, and had been hospitalized. It was speculated this was a way to get her off the hook and away from angry mobs, but people looking over her blog noted a history of serious psychiatric problems requiring medication.

As somebody, I forget who, noted, why is it that crazy and senile people always seem to make such cogent observations? Ms. Hyun’s criticisms of blacks are that they are poor workers, consume charitable and government welfare resources, are “disrespectful, violent, arrogant, stupid”, incapable of advancing on their own, and society would be better off without them. This is harsh, but not without documentary evidence.

She was born and lived for a while in the Los Angeles area, her family then moved to Virginia then New York, then she lived in Los Angeles and New York again. In urban environments especially, Asians catch hell from blacks. I’m sure she has had relatives and friends who have been the victim of violent crime by blacks. Aside from actual crime, black people bully and disrespect Asians in environments where they have domination- any place they are 30% or more, approximately, of the population. In the entertainment industry she has seen how blacks suck up the oxygen in any environment they are in- their childish sense that they should always be the center of attention, demanding it and getting it because blacks are always automatically deferred to.

Rape, robbery, assault, and murder are horrifying experiences that scar the victim for life and cause tremendous pain for their friends and relatives. We are expected to ignore this and pretend blacks are wonderful, but maybe somehow victims have their voice on the internet, just as they do in the Psalms.

Another example is the question raised by Colin Liddell, “Is Black Genocide Right?” He asks it in the context of the vast amount of unusually cruel crime and violence perpetrated against the Afrikaner community of South Africa, as chronicled in the Afrikaner Genocide Archives and the constantly moving South Africa Sucks. Ethnic cleansing and genocide don’t have to operate at a highly organized level, and since these crimes are based on the belief that Afrikaners are evil and inhuman, and have no right to live in South Africa the terms are certainly appropriate.

Liddell asks, why should whites be the victims? Why shouldn’t blacks be the ones on the receiving end? The only decent, moral, human reaction to these crimes is overwhelming ager and rage- not “understanding”, or excuses, or talking about hundreds of years of slavery and oppression- which South Africa never had.

Gramscian Marxism- which many leftist Christian denominations have assimiliated, even the Roman Catholic Church to a significant extent- regards crime as a legitimate understandable response to oppression, and a form of revolution. If it is regrettable in any way, it is because it is disorganized. I think this is where Ignacio Ellacuria really got his theology from, not the Bible. And yet it’s the very essence of Christianity that two wrongs don’t make a right, vengeance belongs to God, and peace demands giving up some things to which we might believe we are entitled.

Ideally, maybe, blacks and whites wouldn’t live together. Whites would suffer virtually no harm, and great benefit. Blacks would suffer great harm, as they are heavily dependent on whites for sustenance and governance. The separation itself would be considered genocide, and blacks would demand huge amounts of food and medical aid. If they would accept white rule in the bargain, that might be reasonable- white-run African and Caribbean colonies have worked alright. But they won’t- Haiti still insists on having its own government, even though it is completely incapable of doing anything.

All we need to really do is apply an objective standard of behavior to all people, including blacks, and not tolerate their bad behavior. Some segregation would be desirable, residential and educational. Whites and Asians could live with much less fear. Hispanics don’t seem to be afraid of blacks, or have much trouble from them, which is a lesson itself.

Hatred and rage toward blacks for the evil behavior widespread among them is to be expected. It may not be pretty, or wise or just but it is not unjust and it is not “racism”. It’s an ugly and inevitable fact of a wicked world.

What did I do this time? I mentioned that Al Sharpton- race hustler of the Tawana Brawley rape hoax fame and Freddy’s Fashion Mart arson/murder fame, still has his own show there. A case of the vapors immediately ensued. He, or one of his numerous flunkies, could have said “This isn’t about Sharpton” or “Tu quoque isn’t a valid argument” but they can’t even manage that- not even directly address the issue of why a man who has engaged in slander and false criminal accusations, and whipped up the frenzy that led to setting a targeted store on fire and the deaths of 8 people, is considered morally fit to be on TV.

The gang rape in Texas last year was talked about there- Chuck Rudd got banned for a relatively innocuous comment- and Coates banned me for bringing up Nathan McCall, a lower-middle class black guy who wrote a book about his criminal history- including gang rapes- and saying that he portrayed himself as a victim of whites all the way. (McCall is now a chaired professor at Emory University.) Coates emailed me and claimed he wasn’t defending McCall in the process- a lot of black woman hate McCall, including possibly Coates’ wife- but didn’t find it appropriate to bring up his excuses. I think McCall is a perfect example of a black man who thinks gang rape is good fun, and one who uses white oppression as an excuse for his behavior. McCall wasn’t even from the ghetto, he had a decent if not affluent life but found rape, robbery and violence to be more appealing than school and work.

If we’re so stupid, so obviously ridiculous, why do they have to shut us up? If we were stupid, and wrong, everything we wrote would prove it, and the more we wrote, the stupider we would look. But clearly that’s not the case.

How did it come to this? Isn’t Christian morality the generally accepted guide to right and wrong in America, if not other Western social democracies? How did something officially immoral become moral?

Back in the old days- not even that long ago, 150 to 200 years- you could let your freak flag fly and nobody cared all that much. In an agricultural society, as I have said, your status is established at birth and you can’t lose it, short of treason or maybe murder. But as society industrialized and commercialized, your status could rise or fall depending on your success and acceptance by the growing business community. And we went from an elite that based its status on the exploits of its mounted knight ancestors, to one where it was based on money earned in trading and banking.

The old elite was nominally Christian, but didn’t much trouble itself about screwing whatever it wanted. The long days at the country estate or the London mansion had to be filled somehow. Servant girls, prostitutes in brothels, your buddy’s wife- well maybe that was a bit frowned upon. The commercial elite, on the other hand, worked for a living and didn’t have time for such shenanigans. Being a businessman depends a great deal on trust and reputation, and being an upstanding member of a conservative church was part of that.

They claimed the right to rule society based on their sober behavior and acumen at business. Republicans and conservatives still use this as a selling point. What they don’t understand is times changed, around the early 1920′s sometime.

The new elite grew rich, but most of their children did not stay in banking and trading. Only one child can inherit a family business, and the others will find their way into genteel professions such as academics, law, maybe medicine- back then it was a noblesse oblige profession- some sort of ministry, or non-profits. The sober life of the black-suited Calvinist businessman did not appeal to them.

This elite was still the moral elite, though. Whatever they wanted to do had to be moral. And they had come to believe that by virtue of who they were, whatever they did was moral, by definition. They had money, and a certain amount of opportunity and leisure, and they wanted to screw around. So the redefined morality- they had and have the power to do that- to allow them to do what they wanted.

E. Michael Jones wrote a book called “Degenerate Moderns” in which he described this process. He doesn’t get into the why, but he explains the how very well. He starts with the gay British spies of Oxford, takes on Margaret Mead- whose stories of casual sexual morality amongst Polynesians were completely fabricated- Albert Kinsey, who used the sexual behavior of underclass criminals as a healthy norm- Picasso, who painted women he hated and had dumped in the abstract, and women he loved realistically- and winds up with Martin Luther, who he accuses of starting the whole thing. And if you’re saved by faith alone, well, you can be flexible about things can’t you?

What is right and wrong in the US- or more generally the Anglosphere, and the West in general- is what the elites feel like doing, or is to their benefit to permit. They began loosening up sexual morality in the 20′s, although this didn’t reach the population in general until the 50′s, and not widely applied until the 70′s. Gays had long been familiar to the rich as service providers of various sorts- dressmakers, florists, theater people, and servants. Gays wanted to be free under the new morality, so they were granted it.

Police vice squads used to shut down gay bars, bathhouses, and steamrooms. Even in the big city it was not safe to be publicly gay. But the proles were getting to enjoy free love, and the argument was made it wasn’t cool to deny this to gays. Bathhouses in San Francisco got shut down in the AIDS scare of the early 80′s, but they still exist in Seattle. Gay sex became legal. Non-discrimination for employment was a stickier issue, but that was swallowed quickly most places as well.

As much privacy and personal latitude as people are willing to grant others for their personal lives, formal acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life- in the form of same-sex marriage- is resisted by most people, who have a visceral disgust for it. But “most people” don’t get to decide what’s right and wrong.

Whatever you want to do, whoever you’re going to snuggle up with tonight is OK- unless you’re a Republican, in which case anything you do is sick and disgusting and a product of your personal repression and you should probably kill yourself. Just kidding!

The pope says even in homosexuality is biological, it’s not OK. As Chuck D said, the parts don’t fit. As I say, I don’t want to pay for your AIDS drugs, so if you can’t stay away from the brown starfish, or you can’t keep guys away from yours, please be careful.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

I saw something today that reminded me of this; a white guy in Austin gets shaken down by the cops while with his black granddaughter. The key clue is early in the article. He doesn’t say, but the easily-winded female cop who stops them the first time is almost certainly a fat lesbian. You don’t see fat male cops or firemen, but I have seen fat, old lesbian police officers and firefighters in my town. Why would a city hire somebody obviously not physically qualified for a job like this?

The obvious answer is “diversity” or “affirmative action”, or punishing working-class white men and rewarding political supporters. But as usual there’s more to it.

Gays do not appear to be like blacks. Blacks, while engaging in a lot of homosexual behavior, don’t accept effeminate behavior, or open homosexuality. Gays, whether they have money or not, like to model upper-class behavior, and probably find black culture uncouth, though they won’t say it. But, both gays and blacks hate the society they live in. Blacks can never really succeed or fit in. Gays will never be more than tolerated by most people, even those who claim to not only accept but love them.

As I have written before, the elite sees blacks and gays as servants, and both groups more or less accept this status. Being a servant is a bit galling in a theoretically egalitarian society, but along with the groveling servility comes protection and mean kind of status- better to be a house negro than a field negro.

But just as the master looks out for his servant, the servant looks out for his master. As an individual affirmative action hire or as a group of political actors, blacks and gays act as a combination of spies and enforcers. Affirmative action hires don’t simply enjoy the fruits of political loyalty, they also watch non-elite whites for politically deviant behavior.

Libertarian-inclined people are more tolerant of gays than blacks. Blacks engage in a lot of aggressive anti-social behavior, while gays don’t. The desire to let other people pursue happiness as they see it is a strong one- it starts the Declaration of Independence. And gays always frame their behavior and political goals in libertarian terms- that they only want to do what other people can do.

But it’s clear gays are not the friends of freedom in any way. Jones is right, they have an instinctive hatred of conventional society. The excuse of discrimination doesn’t hold up- among the upper class of England, homosexuality was a normal part of life, encouraged by putting boys in boarding schools away from their families and girls. And today when homosexuality is more tolerated and accepted than ever, gays devotion to leftism and hostility towards traditional life is stronger than ever.

I’m still a libertarian on some level. I don’t want to tell anybody what they can or can’t do that is only their own business, aside from externalities like the public cost of STDs- or contraception. But if your personal makeup gives you the untameable desire to control the rest of society, your freedom is my slavery.

Half Sigma objected to this, saying he’s tired of HBD bloggers blaming everything on the Jews. If you look at any powerful and significant social movement, you will see Jews, often many Jews. But Jews are never the originators and never really in charge. I talked about this a long time ago.

The system most plausibly associated with Jewish treachery is Soviet communism. It involved many Jews at the highest levels and Jews dominated the secret police. A book on the Holocaust in the Ukraine- obviously sympathetic to Jews- says they were 75% of the NKVD there in 1937, being then reduced somewhat through the purges. The Occidental Observer even quoted a Russian historian describing the purges as a move by Stalin to take back power from the Jews associated with Trotsky. I read the memoir of a defector- I think it was a Soviet diplomat, but I don’t remember his name or the book- who said that despite its fearsome reputation, the KGB was only a mid-level bureaucracy and no one of any importance feared it or paid it any mind.

Jews are a group concerned mainly with their own survival, wealth and power; no ideology interests them except as a means to this. As such starting a political or social movement is not of interest to them. Most fail, and getting involved with failure is stupid. Violent, nihilistic revolution had been a cause in Russia long before 1917. Nechayev was not a Jew. It seems to me that Jews wait until they see something is going to be successful, then jump on board. This prevents them from getting involved with lost causes, but also keeps them from really controlling the winning causes.

There exists a massive dissonance between their prudence and discretion on one hand, and their raging egos on the other. Robert Lindsay says the Jews will always overreach. Jews are certainly elbow-deep in various bad things, along with a lot of other people. But it is a serious mistake to think that because they are there, visible, loud and proud that they are the problem. You have to look deeper, and when you do you’ll find something quite a bit different.

Aleksandr Solzenitsyn is another Russian emigre who was disenchanted with the US. In the end Western social democracy- it’s not “capitalism”, although it has capitalist elements- has much in common with Soviet communism. Both systems offer a certain level of comfort to the masses, provided they are willing to put their trust in technocrats who will manage society and the economy. Soviet communism was certainly totalitarian, and controlled its subjects with force, but to think of it as primarily compulsive it to misunderstand the nature of socialism. The idea that people have rights, of any kind, and those rights must be respected is quite recent. Older forms of social organization saw most people as having duties, not rights. No one was really free; a person higher on the food chain just had different duties. Communism and social democracy both posit that the individual at the bottom has rights, not the least of which is an actual right to have certain basic needs met.

Limonov’s current rage at the Putin oligarchy seems a little off-base. Surkov’s position- that in a mass-oriented society, somebody is always going to be manipulating the masses, they are not going to be thinking critically for themselves- may be cynical, but it is hard to question. The barely-concealed phony parties and the physical intimidation and murder of political opponents are harsh, but only just stronger versions of how things work here. Getting targeted by “Jon” “Stewart” is not like getting stomped by skinheads or shot or poisoned by the new KGB, but you’ll be just as effectively put out of commission.

The powerful and connected pick over the corpse of the Soviet Union, and rape Mother Russia. The common man gets by as best he can. Meanwhile, the US and Western Europe- so proudly triumphant just 15 years ago, face crises of their own. We are assured, repeatedly, that everything will be back to normal any month now, but they have been saying that for a lot of months. Walter Russell Meads begins a series on the replacement of the “blue” social model. Mead is unique among people who belong in polite company in that he recognizes the current crisis is no mere hiccup or setback but the end of an era, demanding serious and permanent change to accommodate new realities.

The Chinese have a concept, “The Mandate of Heaven”, which while sounding exotic as Chinese things often do, is quite pragmatic and practical. If the ruler is competent, he has the Mandate of Heaven; if he is too screwed up he loses it and is deposed. This is just recognition of the basic reality that leaders rule by no more complicated principle than delivering results, even totalitarian rulers. People will put up with a lot if they have food and shelter, and order is maintained. Should these conditions not be met, or if he looks vulnerable, he is toast. The Assad regime in Syria was as firmly entrenched as could be, and kept people in line with the most iron of fists. But even that doesn’t last forever.

(Speaking of Chinese practicality, eating cats seems gross, but is quite practical. They make lousy pets, but have plenty of protein. Into the pot they go!)

The recent history of Russia is not comforting to those contemplating the near future of the West. The people in power don’t care about the mass of the population. They will do what they need to hang on, now largely by importing more malleable immigrants, legal and illegal. They will extract what wealth they can. And as in Russia the common man will get by the best he can. A few will like Eduard Liminov rail against the system, but it will be as futile here as it is there.

In a small town or farming community where there is no anonymity and little privacy, reputation is a critical matter. In another Scandinavian work of fiction, the Emigrants novels of Vilhelm Moberg, the author describes a young man who is destroyed when an older woman implies he had sex with a farm animal. Gossip is excoriated in the Gospels, probably for just this reason. The particular example is Scandinavian, but it seems quite English to me; it could be Japanese as well. These have the common denominator of being societies isolated by water, but human beings are by nature pretty conformist in general.

As people move out of farms and villages into cities, the simple social enforcement of proximity and familiarity lose sway. In the English-speaking world, it was replaced by the Victorian non-conforming churches. These churches promoted a variety of norms, as I have talked about before; but most importantly they promoted a kind of egalitarianism in contrast to the hereditary hierarchy that had ruled before. It’s the spirit of these churches that forms the ethos of our elite today.

That our world is strongly influenced by hymn-singing teetotalers seems far-fetched, but what we have today is the same set of beliefs with the supernatural and formally Christian stripped out. People now are expected to be fundamentally mild-mannered, conformist, deferential to others, especially others labeled as victims, deeply concerned with the poor and oppressed, especially those in Third World countries, and submissive to the authority of the moral arbiters.

Most churches are pretty PC. Far from being enforcers of cultural conservatism and traditionalism, they mostly promote whatever liberal cause is current. Any mainline Protestant church has a fag flag sticker on the sign out front; Catholic and evangelical churches stick with tradition, more or less, on sexual morality but in all other ways- HBD, “civil rights”, money for the poor and minorities, are quite reliably liberal. Baptist minister Mike Huckabee, formally a Republican conservative is a flaming liberal in all practical matters, especially his love of criminals.

The main enforcement mechanism however is the educational system. The typical public school is quite like a Sunday school, gently admonishing young heathens to have love in their hearts for black and brown people and green plants, and to never have any uncharitable or selfish thoughts about them.

All people eventually leave school, except for teachers and professors. Some of them go to PC churches, but the majority don’t. After that TV and popular culture take over, having been a constant presence in their lives of course since they could sit up by themselves. The message continues- be nice, be like everybody else, don’t challenge or resist people classified as victims, learn from your moral betters.

This brings up the question of the widespread non-conformity, consumerism, and individuality of popular culture. Aren’t these things the opposite of the kumbaya conformity primarily mandated? No.

“Non-conformity” is allowed if you are a “victim”- NAM, gay, or female- and expressed in completely harmless ways, like “self-expression”, wearing stupid clothes, talking angrily about the oppressor people, and talking about how because you are “different” you love the moral betters so much because they protect your right to be “different”.

Consumerism is highly egalitarian because it means buying stuff everybody else buys. Cheap, baggy clothes that mask the fat of the slothful and hide something you can actually be proud of, your physical condition; CDs and DVDs containing and TVs displaying popular “artists” promoting “individualism” and “non-conformity” and African athleticism.

Individuality in the system is closely related to non-conformity, but not quite the same. Under the system the most proud and outspoken “individualists” are blacks, the most conformist and herd-oriented people in the world. The “individualist” asserts- ”I am me; I do whatever I want and answer and apologize to no one.” Which is permitted as long as you are black, the EBT card holds out, and you don’t offend a homosexual, who as long as he is white is higher in the hierarchy than you.

Here is something I ran across on Andrew Sullivan. It’s by Chris Christie, the man we are told is the conservative of tomorrow. It shows the strongest tendencies of the Victorian nanny state, which wants to help you, and only for your own good-

Wouldn’t it be nice if the government could cure drug abuse? Golly gee Wally, wouldn’t it be keen? It would, but the first problem is you can’t cure “drug abuse”, which is people taking drugs because they like to. The idea that drug addiction is a disease that can be cured is slightly less far-fetched, but not by much. Plenty of people use drugs and whatever the negative consequences seem to be to others, have no interest in stopping. These people are making a lifestyle choice, not suffering from a disease. There are certainly people who want to stop using drugs, but can’t overcome the compulsion to do so. Medical intervention is of little help to these people. Detoxification will deal with the physical dependence, but not the psychological component. Twelve step programs and other support groups provide some help for the motivated, but these are not medical or even psychological interventions.

The system can’t make everybody the same, but they can make a lot of people want to be the same, and push a lot of people in that direction. It makes life very uncomfortable for people who aren’t interested in going along. People don’t like being uncomfortable, so they make themselves think they are going along voluntarily, even happily.

Blacks in this view are model citizens- highly conformist and group-oriented, responsive to moralistic preachers talking about the need for other people to do more for them, responsive to TV, popular culture and consumerism.

Unfortunately lower-class whites tend to go along with this as well. Lower-class whites have more proximity with blacks and are punished severely for failure to kowtow, which to some extent explains the junk culture, sports obsession, and purchasing of crap. But not entirely.

If you’re reading this you probably don’t really participate in any of this stuff. But it’s worth reviewing some of what white people need to do to disengage themselves. TV is pretty much all crap. There is virtually nothing worth watching. To the extent there is, you can see it on DVD or online. Sports are a complete wasteland. If you want to make an exception for sports not completely dominated by NAMs, like baseball and soccer, or white sports like hockey or motorsports, that’s probably OK. Music and other popular culture obviously you can make your own choices.

The important thing in dealing with the system is to disconnect and disengage, rather than fight it. What tools can we use for this? I will refer to these as “whiteness tools”- I like the term “tools” better than “weapons”- and that is what I want to talk about next.

It has long been my contention that politics is just like professional wrestling. But it’s not just politics, it’s society as a whole that comforts itself with self-willed illusions. Everybody is expected to go along with things that are pretty obviously not true. Just as in wrestling, there are punishments for breaking kayfabe.

Among the official illusions-

-Blacks are wonderful, charming people, made noble and saintly by the suffering of slavery and discrimination. On the other hand, any bad or negative behavior by black people is also due to suffering under slavery and discrimination.

-Lower class white people are sinister, frightening and suspicious. If they haven’t done something bad, they will soon. Despite having little money and no power, they do tremendous harm to blacks and Hispanics.

-The people running things, Ivy League graduates, Wall Street billionaires, Jews, Puritans, and Quakers, are noble and admirable people who have only the best interests of America and the world at stake. Republicans or people of other white ethnic groups who have the same (very rarely) or less money are on the other hand evil, even behaving exactly the same way in the same industries.

It’s a stupid show for stupid people, it gets very boring trying to follow and obey it, and it makes professional wrestling look intellectual by comparison.

Decline at In Mala Fide has posted about his, reporting his experience with the paleo diet. And yet defecation is in truth an interesting subject, for what it says about civilization.

People have been obsessed with bowel movements for all recorded history. In some ancient Egyptian book of medicines, some large portion are laxatives. People have wanted to crap better for a long time.

And yet recorded history, is agricultural history. Egypt was one of the first wheat-based societies. Decline reports he craps better without eating wheat; and yet this is the opposite of commonly accepted knowledge. The Egyptians, eating all those “healthy whole grains” and fiber, should have been crapping great.

A modern example of crap obsession is the breakfast cereal, invented by Kellogg supposedly as a health food to improve bowel functioning. The idea that grain is good for you and meat bad is fairly old. In Kellogg’s case it can be attributed to the loopy doctrines of Seventh Day Adventism. On a more sinister level, grain farmers have huge power in the US and promoting an unhealthy diet based on grain is in their economic interests, and anything that promotes both the economic interests of the powerful and the cultural beliefs of the elite is going to be taken as straight from the mouth of God.

I was reading SPLC Hatewatch- news blog of the Southern Poverty Law Center, linked on the sidebar- go on and on about the evil Leif Parsell, fired for his evil beliefs.

But it occured to me- isn’t the Southern Poverty Law Center a white supremacist organization? It is run by whites, with the goal of keeping certain white people in power by supressing the speech, assembly and political activity of other white people.

All organizations that support or compose the system are white supremacist organizations, because they support the control of society by elite whites. White supremacy is a given, because white people are supreme; it’s only a question of which white people are going to be in control. If you want the Puritans, Quakers and Jews to run the whole world, you’re the purest of the pure; if you want non-elite whites to run their own countries, communities, and families you’re spawn of the devil.