Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial

Mencius Moldbug has taken up my challenge to explain the immigration invasion.

"A theory of the ruling underclass" is flawed, but in an interesting way. Like Lawrence Auster, Mencius criticizes liberals (which he prefers to call universalists or progressives). And like Auster he has a curious blind spot. The difference is that Mencius has been more willing to argue about it, and I have yet to see him dissolve into unhinged anti-anti-semitism ala Auster.

Triggered by the obtuseness of Obama-supporting progressives who shrug off black nationalism while despising White nationalism, Mencius begins by pointing the glaring inconsistency in liberal anti-racist logic:
Which is the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of chauvinist ethnocentrism in America today is not of the vanilla flavor that disturbs them so. If they can explain this, they can explain anything, and we should probably just surrender - if they'll let us.

For example: one of the most popular radio stations in San Francisco, at least to judge by the billboards I see, is called The Race. I am especially fond of the URL. "I am race!" Yes, this means exactly what you think it means.

Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But - as progressives often observe - they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.

So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, "dynamists," and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool? How do you feel when you watch this video?

Please try to express your answer in plain English, not Stalinist boilerplate. Trust us - we know the boilerplate answer.

What's interesting, at least to this antisocial reactionary (if you're looking for another R-word, I also answer to "realist"), is that anti-Europeanism is almost as hard to explain from the other side of the table. I am reasonably, if not comprehensively, familiar with modern racist and white nationalist thought. I must say that it tends to leave me quite unsatisfied - especially as regards the real psychological motivations of Messrs. Wilkinson, Ghertner, et al.

Are they, for instance, in the pay of the Jews? While I certainly cannot disprove this or a variety of similar conjectures, I tend to doubt them. Occam's razor suggests that even if some multiculturalists are tools of the Mossad, surely the vast majority are perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The Rothschilds just don't have that much cash. If we work under the assumption that our opponents believe exactly what they say, we should account for at least most of them. Then we can watch Stormfront go head to head with the Elders of Zion, which should be entertaining if nothing else.

I have an explanation. You may not like it. Feel free to offer your own.
Mencius goes on quite a bit about black and white tribes before reviewing his personal class warfare vocabulary:
Early in UR I suggested a five-caste taxonomy of American society, and described the conflict of American politics as a struggle of three of these castes (Brahmins, Dalits, Helots) against the other two (Optimates, Vaisyas). For those whose time is short, Brahmins are intellectuals, Dalits are what Marx called the lumpenproletariat, and Helots are unskilled laborers. Optimates are the old "upper-crust" aristocracy, and Vaisyas are the petty bourgeoisie.

These castes correspond to social status, not tribe. However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless - classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status. As far as I can tell, in 2008 there is very little chauvinism even among Vaisyas. Among Dalits and Helots, race matters again. Obviously, despite certain Jackie Chan movies, there is no such thing as an interracial gang.
Mencius then attempts to argue how black (and presumably white) tribes don't really matter because they are divided by class.

He inexplicably confounds this argument by recounting the melodramatic story of a sociology student's naive trek into a black housing development and his interactions with the tribal militia there. If for some reason you need an introduction to what desegregation and civil rights of the 1960s "liberated" in every city, read the full post. Or watch this if you'd like to hear it from the militiamen themselves.

One of the many negative consequences of the invasion is that it brings in whole new tribes and militias, many of which are more organized, ruthless, and mobile than the indigenous black militias. If you happen to cherish multiculturalism and think diversity is a strength please go read that link. The last paragraph contains a special message just for you.

After much verbiage Mencius finally comes to his point:
The progressives no longer need muscle. They are in the saddle. There are no more Grayson Kirks, let alone Bull Connors. What they need now is votes, and the biggest vote bank of all is just south of the border. Immigration will keep the progressives in power for the next century. They always have been the American PRI, and they always will be.

And I haven't even stated my theory yet.

Fortunately, it's not my theory. It is a very old theory. Perhaps it even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.

This roughly translates as "using the barbarians to control the barbarians." Typically the implication is that when you have a problem with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians. Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic case of yi yi zhi yi.

Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I'd like to think it's obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.

Basically, the Brahmins have every possible Machiavellian interest in encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native barbarian - the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.

They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize real power, it's lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump they'll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you're a progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies. Yes, we can!

Of course, I'm not saying that the people who believe in peace and love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings where they gloat about how well it's all working. They don't need to. However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they're doing. And you can't exactly call it a failure.

Did you watch that Mandela video? The man next to Mandela is Joe Slovo. One of South Africa's leading progressives active in the liberation struggle. Or, as some might say, Communist terrorists. Do you wonder why this pasty-faced fellow is comfortable in a crowd full of people chanting "kill the whites?"

Actually, the captions on the video are mistranslated. The word in the song is amaBhulu, a Xhosa racial slur which refers not to all whites, but specifically to Afrikaners. Which Slovo (being a cosmopolitan Anglophone) is most definitely not. So the crowd is essentially chanting "kill the rednecks," ie, Slovo's hereditary tribal enemies. No wonder he has a smile on his face. Yi yi zhi yi.
No, I don't like Mencius' explanation. It's certainly less politically correct than anything to be found in the mainstream, but there are several flaws.

The first and least important criticism is that I wish he would put more effort into fleshing out the analysis than weaving so many too-clever phrases. He writes in a way only brahmin are likely to understand, or afford the time to read. Judging from his commenters his eak-way ode-cay is not deflecting their isapproval-day.

A more substantial flaw is that with all he has to say about tribes he pretends as if the most powerful tribe of all doesn't exist:
However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless - classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status.
Come now. No tribalism amongst the upper classes? Between this and his euphemistic description of Joe Slovo as a "cosmopolitan Anglophone" Mencius has a prominent blind spot. The hand-waving about the Rothchilds and Elders of Zion fails to explain. Perhaps he can try waving away the ADL and the Israel Lobby.

Another somewhat related gap is his neglect of the corporatist/globalist/economic angle.

Yes, the cosmopolitan progressives Mencius likes to focus on certainly are addicted to the frisson of stirring shizzle from the safety of their ivory towers. I've sent more than my share of ridicule their way. A thinking person can only do this so long before they begin to wonder why such flimflam, no matter how ridiculous, persists.

For some reason, and despite his considerable economic savvy, Mencius doesn't like to focus on that other, less ridiculous type of one-world universalist. The sober, ultra-rational cosmopolitan globalists. You know, the financial wizards who transform chaos into profit. The ones whose lackeys claimed we needed millions of savages to build all those houses we didn't really need. The ones whose brilliant "industry" boils down to pyramid schemes and government bailouts. The name Soros might ring a bell, though his high profile is rather exceptional.

Without the powerful backing of economic revolutionaries the social revolutionaries would have swung from lampposts long ago. But with the proper financial backing it hardly matters whether a flimflam artist's "logic" makes any sense.

Here's what makes sense to me.

Yes, White elites are certainly betraying their lower-class kinsfolk for both social and financial reasons. They support the invasion over the objections of their kinsfolk. Mencius downplays or ignores the jewish tribe but their elites are obviously less conflicted on this issue. Their kinsfolk are financially and psychologically better prepared to surf the invasion's waves, and they overwhelmingly favor the invasion. Besides the profits of an ever-growing pyramid they also have perfectly understandable sociobiological motivations to dispossess, displace, and ultimately liquidate their de-tribed competitors.

Auster prefers to euphemize the invasion as "liberals" warring on "the Christian majority". He seems not to notice that the invaders are overwhelmingly Christian and the invasion is openly abetted by church leaders. Mencius portrays the invasion as class warfare, and seems not to notice that naming the tactics doesn't explain why his "brahmin" should want or need to attack what he calls "[t]heir real hereditary enemy ... the native barbarian - the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter".

Caste/class make us "hereditary enemies"? Sorry, for my part it's the fact that they're trying to ethnically cleanse me. For their part it's clear that the universalist ideals of egalitarianism and tolerance are a steaming pile of hooey. The genocidal maniacs appear to be motivated by a combination of greed and deep-seated sociobiological passive-aggressive survival instinct.

We don't need to look to Chin for precedents. As any well-educated jew should know, two thousand years before Machiavelli the Assyrians and Babylonians knew how to kill nations by flooding them with aliens.

Labels: , , ,



Anonymous Anonymous said...


Yeah, I recently read Mencius' theory on why the "less civilized" barbarians have been permitted to live amongst us. It was excellent reading (in some sense) but ultimately it was too clever by half and not all that convincing. After engaging in some mild introspection it was not hard to gain the conviction that our crude racial nationalism is somewhere closer to the mark than his academic product.

But, you have to admit, the man has a large vocabulary, loquacious manner, historical depth, and writing talent.

One more thing, he's also wrong in operating under the implicit assumption that his Brahmin can indefinitely keep up the charade. They most certainly will not. Prozium has been doing some excellent blogging on this matter.

Also, the class warfare rhetoric seems painfully wrong. If anything the upper class Brahmin Whites are greedy but I don't detect any atavistic impulse to war with the rest of us.

2/16/2008 02:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, the class warfare rhetoric seems painfully wrong.

Right. It's just a disguise for ethnic warfare. Gentile "socialists", from Welshman Robert Owen (who apparently coined the term) on down to Dewey, spoke of class cooperation. I have a thin volume called "Their Morals, Not Ours", which consists of essays by Dewey and Trotsky in which Dewey's goal of class cooperation is juxtaposed with Trotsky's goal of class conflict. Interesting reading.

2/16/2008 10:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys aren't giving MM enough credit here. His essay is brilliant and I've already thrust it into a number of people's hands.

I find it very interesting to note that Tanstaafl has said in this essay that the vast majority of the invaders/settlers are Christian and completely supported by Church leaders.

Again, given this objective fact, why should I be worried about the 2% of liberals who are Jews and not the 94% who are Catholic and supported, openly, by a Church that has its own foreign state? Whose leaders condemn US politicians openly for "violating migrant rights" for simply enforcing the law? Whose bishops regularly tut-tut about our criminal justice system?

Again, I see bishops and arch-bishops leading the charge here, not rabbis.

You guys are so busy playing spot-the-jew and hidden lobbies of foreign states that your completely bloody ignoring the open Church support and their lobby...which is funded and supported by...yes you guessed it..a foreign state.

2/16/2008 02:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PLEASE, I IMPLORE YOU ALL - do NOT refer to these upper class twits as ELITES anymore! They may occupy offices with impressive titles that in the past had influence and decision making power, but today these are dummypuppets that have no free will and move their lips while someone speaks offstage!
The Washingtongue Puppet Show is going through the phony display of picking cast members for next seasons political tragedy, but we need not pretend that these fools are any different from the dregged up karaoke clowns on American Idol! Like a "reality" show, the participants are chosen based on entertainment value and not personal talent! A mean woman, a vacuous wise-cracking black, and a crotchety old man all vie this November for the title of American Idle...
The real tragedy is that some of these political parasites actually believe they are fooling anyone with half a mind through this clearly absurd process of "nomination" that seems to coincidentally NOT INVOLVE the entire electorate except for nameless faceless "delegates"!? Who the hell picks these "candidates" anyway? Oh, some clown "announces" he will run for President, and the "lucky" ones get media coverage that lead to complete strangers sending hundreds of millions of dollars to an undisclosed bank account somewhere in the vast unknown labyrinth of financial multi-national banking fortunes.
What could POSSIBLY be more democratic and representative than unelected media personalities choosing the people who run and then are financed by hundreds of unnamed unknown plutocrats in veiled secrecy?!
Let's face facts! These "candidates" are not the cream of the crop of their generation - HELL, they're not even cream of corn! It's not surprising that all of them are former drunks or drug addicts or homosexuals or worse is it?
How easy would it be to make a George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, etc. a ventriloquist puppet? The WORST CASE SCENARIO for the crooked nose goblin is not REVOLUTION, but a PINOCCHIO that breaks it's strings and USES the power he has to dispossess them!
Multi-Cultural = divide + conquer

The Eye of Horus sees All.

2/16/2008 04:00:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...


I also find Prozium's analysis insightful. The problem with both marxism and libertarianism is that they focus on class and neglect biology. Marxists know they're lying. Libertarians (like Mencius) delude even themselves.


"Their Morals, Not Ours", I'd love to get a copy. Got a link? I find nothing online except Trotsky's Their Morals and Ours and Dewey's short rebuttal.


Stop playing stick-your-head-in-the-sand and explain why a tribe with such power and influence, especially in light of their small numbers, should be exempt from criticism. The foreign state machinations that so concern you wouldn't exist if it weren't for the treason of people very high in government, business, media, and education. Money and ethnic genetic interests are the driving forces. Religion plays a small and passive role. Morals and ethics are dissolving.

Rabbis and cardinals make no pretense who they are. Countless secular jewish pundits on the other hand pass judgement 24/7 on the "nativists", "xenophobes", "rednecks", "racists", and "yokels". You, if you're anything like I was up until September or so, think you're hearing the opinion of intelligent "white" people. I woke up and realized I'm one of the rednecks those pundits hate. Play a little spot-the-jew and you'll find out this is no game.


Good point.

2/16/2008 06:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Sisyphus,

What MM really got right was the notion that the Latin American peasants serve as a "vote bank" for his Brahmin. California is proof of that.

What he fundamentally got wrong was the characterization of our struggle in terms of class warfare instead of greed and biology. Remember, the Brahmin are letting in the Latin American peasants because they will vote for them and make them money and not because they'll distract us (Optimates and Vaisyas) through barbarism.

Like Prozium, I also take a slightly more moderate stance on the JQ. There can be no doubt that J advocates for very destructive policies from a disproportionate number of privileged perches in the media, academia, and business. But I remain open-minded to the possibility that J and the White anti-White leftists have essentially become one Brahmin and that to focus too much on the J aspect is to miss the whole picture.

2/16/2008 06:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It's really not an either/or question. Yes, the clergy is awful (you are right to emphasize that), but so are the millions of secular Jews out there who inject their poison into our culture on a daily basis. We also have the Money Trust on Wall Street to deal with which overlaps somewhat with the Jewish problem. Ideally, we should dispense with the whole lot of them.

2/16/2008 08:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys are so busy playing spot-the-jew and hidden lobbies of foreign states that your completely bloody ignoring the open Church support and their lobby...which is...

...the result of jewish lobbying, infiltration, indoctrination, and money.

2/16/2008 09:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The book is "Their Morals and Ours: The Marxist View of Morality" (I misstated the name). I think there are 4 essays included, and it looks like you have found two.

2/16/2008 09:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2/16/2008 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...


The mechanism of what is considered to be political correctness originates in the corporate/financial class. The process which they utilize to pass the dogma down is what involves all the other categories, castes or whatever others wish to call it.

There are all types of different groups which respond to the siren wail of money, and the prospect of having the ear of and support from the economically powerful. These often consider each other as the cause and the enemy. They are all right because they break needed cohesion within society.

Jews (usually non-practicing and of a secular Zionist nature) are the most represented segment within the controlling circle of corporatists, especially internationalist financiers. They are dominant within the media. They appear to dominate the left and Marxist or communist classes. They are not alone and have representatives from all racial divisions within their ranks. How far down their direct influence extends into the Jewish community is not known, but the community tends to respond almost as if controlled.

Beyond that point, there is plenty of blame to go around because it is the system for control which determines the success of the various groups (including Jewish and Zionist groups). These are all competing for increased prestige and funds. They all respond to the system which is set up to allow them to obtain what is needed by following principles and actions prescribed from the top.

The top controls government, capital and through the system they control all the other groups. Largely, this has been turned into a system for foundation, NGO, religious coalitions, "secret" societies, educational and philanthropic system lumped under One Term, which operates similarly to the Common Purpose group in Britain (and elsewhere).

This sector is well-established in the US, and so far as I can determine has not been identified previously for what it is. I have not studied it in full detail yet, but it predates (1980) Common Purpose and the upper echelons are as, or more, powerful than any would imajine. It is open and so inconspicuous and has such an obtuse purpose (humanitarian giving) that it has evaded detection for it's strength. In the US it is known as Independent Sector (IS).

All who are subject to it's regulatory power are conforming to the "PC", which governs all. The taxation and operational boundaries are set through this mechanism and individualism, at least that expressed by democratically banded individuals, pass through it's seive of correctness.

If there is doubt, and if your interest lies in the practical aspects of control, google it and check to further connect the dots. There are many to be connected and they all lead to the top, just as the political, governmental and corporate sectors do.

All other individual voices are only a patter of raindrops against a windshield.

2/17/2008 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Larry McDonald, another "conspiracy nut", which apparently means "anyone opposed to one-world gulag".

2/18/2008 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the United States and other Western European Nations have become is a pay for play system. It starts with the mass media controlling all major conduits of information transfer and thus censoring - yes CENSORING any noncompliant voices with the prevailing "Global" view of the Internationalist Banking Cabal. Only by repressing open discussion of CLEARLY ABSURD policies such as job-destroying "FREE TRADE" (an oxymoron) and unlimited migration of disease-carrying illiterate criminal elements can these Fiscal Swindlers continue to abuse White Populations by perpetuating problems that NEED TO BE SOLVED by More Big Government Pyramid Schemes!
Wild Bands of Savages running free through the ruined landscapes of URBAN JUNGLES are the perfect cover for Organized Criminal Underground Operations in that the sheer chaos and violence keeps law-abiding citizens away from the HQ of the Swindlemen.
Plus, there is the added bonus of Protection Rackets by Big Government Goons offering FALSE SECURITY through gun-grabbing "laws" disarming the citizenry and forcing the creation of a POLICE STATE that includes confiscatory TAXES and CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE that protect NO ONE but the MONEY MONGRELS of the FINANCIAL SWINDLE!
Since all Mass Media is controlled, only those with the PERMISSION of the MEDIA OWNERS ever get any exposure to the "Voters" and the MYTH of FREE ELECTIONS is actually merely a staged event that is produced by a ridiculously small and unrepresentative group of EMPLOYEES working for the USUAL SUSPECTS...
Examine the Presidential Candidates from the past and present and you see the FRAUD CLEARLY. George W. was a drunken prodigal son of a most forgettable ex-CIA director one-term Nobody President who only got elected through the coattails of Reagan. Bill Clinton was the bastard son of an Arkansas Whore whose father has never been identified! Hillary is a probable lesbian married to that Bastard and both have a Well-Known Paper Trail of Fraudulent Illegal Business Deals that if prosecuted would lead to LONG PRISON TERMS!
B. Hussein Obama is the son of a little known Marxist woman with a shady past that fornicated with a drunken Kenyan with a criminal history and married an Indonesian Muslim who may have had terrorist connections!
John McCain is a RINO whose only claim to fame is being shot down and captured in Vietnam whose fellow POWs denounce as a traitor for collaborating with the enemy and whose own Party Faithful despise as OPPOSING EVERYTHING THEY STAND FOR!
The Mass Media hasn't EVEN MENTIONED ANY OF THESE INDISPUTABLE FACTS during the Primaries or will they at the Election!


The Eye of Horus sees All.

2/18/2008 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...


I'll leave some revised comments from a previous comment I had done on McDonald.

The book mentioned by Mr. McDonald, "The Tragedy and the Hope", by Carroll Quigley, should be a definate read. Quigley, by the way, was Bill Clinton's favorite instructor at Georgetown. Quigley had written another manuscript which was purchased after he died by unnamed industrialists, presumably to keep it from the public market.

At least 80% of the Presidential cabinet have been CFR members since and including Eisenhower. Clinton's cabinet was 100%. Wikipedia has good basic information on Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission. These are all Rockefeller influenced since their inceptions (CFR - founded about 1915 - went "public" around 1954; Bilderberg 1955; Trilateralists - around 1972). Rockefeller Brothers Foundation is centrally involved as kind of a permanent pusher for NWO and socialistic type thought.

CFR has now spread to many countries. Their sister organization in Britain, the RIIA has, too. There are many NGO's and shell "volunteer" humanitarian groups (note: Independent Sector and associated groups and leadership for possible answers) which are set up by them to extend their power.

Origination for these, including the CFR, was (in the modern era) the Fabian Socialists of England. Basically, these are an oligarchy of "capitalists" and financiers who impose communism from the top/down in an "evolutionary" way (does PC sound familiar?) utilizing "capitalist" inducements.

There were dealings between these "capitalists" and the communists (Revolution by violence from the grassroots) from before the time of the 1917 Revolution and through the cold war. Some, myself included, felt that the communists received much of their orders from the US.

Some believed, too, that Congressman McDonald was a murder victim along with the passengers and crew of the Japanese flight which "somehow strayed" over Soviet territory.

2/18/2008 04:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Sisyphus: Again, I see bishops and arch-bishops leading the charge here, not rabbis.

Interesting read on VDare today:

Moxie and Muscle—Jewish And Catholics Politicos Behind Immigration Enthusiasm

2/19/2008 09:51:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Jews, Catholics ... I can cite the Anglican Communion membership as well. The Presiding Bishop for the Episcopal Church would bring 33 million refugees to America if she had her way.

As much as I enjoy the conspiracy reading, I think most of it is global capitalist not-so-free-marketism being generated by those at the top looking for the payday. The idiot liberal elites and warm and fuzzy religious groups are captivated by kumbaya kool-aid and follow along albeit on separate paths in the same direction.

The dreaded loony-left made a public outcry against Clinton globalist ambitions and they were poo-pooed. The rednecks are disorganized and PC'ed to death. The poor have too much to worry about.

If I missed a group my apologies.

FF- Im not a fan of NFP's (not for profit - what a joke) but "connecting dots" is no different than the Kevin Bacon game. I would bet the independent sector is about milking tax payer dollars not control. Then again I could just be a victim of their mind control and in a country where $$$ equals free speech (thanks Supreme Court) clearly giants like the United Way speak volumes.

I think there is a lot more than a little truth in all the theories.

The philosopher George Peterson once said "its a dog eat dog world ..."

2/28/2008 04:11:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

"Their Morals, Not Ours", I'd love to get a copy. Got a link? I find nothing online except Trotsky's Their Morals and Ours and Dewey's short rebuttal.

Whoops - I got the name wrong. It's "Their Morals and Ours."

6/19/2010 02:12:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

Here's the link to the book on Amazon:

6/19/2010 02:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trotsky invented "racism"

The word “racist” has for a long time been the single most effective fear-word in the leftist and neoconservative arsenal. For decades, they have successfully used it in the political arena to slander traditionalists, shut down debate, and leave opponents running for cover. In the social arena, they have caused even more damage by using it to brainwash impressionable children and young college students, and to teach people to hate their nation, their cultural traditions, and worst of all, themselves.

What surprisingly remains almost totally undiscussed, even on the hard core traditionalist Right, is the word’s origin. Did it come from a liberal sociologist? A 60’s Marxist college professor? Perhaps a politician in the Democratic Party? No. It turns out that the word was invented by none other than one of the principal architects of the 74-year Soviet nightmare, the founder and first leader of the infamous Red Army, Leon Trotsky.

6/21/2010 01:44:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home