The Tarantula's Bite

By Julius Evola

Modern economy and its premises of ceaseless growth, when compared to an older idea of economy, reveals itself as a form of madness.

TRANSLATED BY JOHN BRUCE LEONARD

The following essay is excerpted from Julius Evola’s final book, Recognitions (Arktos, 2017).

Story has it that in the land of an ancient civilization far from Europe, an American expedition, bemoaning the poor competitivity of the native inhabitants who had been recruited for work, believed a suitable means could be found for spurring them on: the Americans doubled the hourly pay. Failure: following this raise, the better part of the workers came to work only half the hours of before. Since the natives held that the original reward was sufficient for the natural needs of their life, they now thought it altogether absurd that they should have to seek more for themselves than that which, on the basis of the new criterion, sufficed for the procuring of those needs.¹

This is the antithesis of what we have recently begun to call Stakhanovism.² This anecdote might act as a testing stone for two worlds, two mindsets, two civilizations, by which one of them might be judged sane and normal, and the other deviant and psychotic.

Before the advent in Europe of ‘mercantile economy’, out of which modern capitalism would rapidly develop, it was the fundamental criterion of economy that the pursuit of wealth should be excused and licit only as it served to guarantee a subsistence corresponding to one’s state.

In referring to a non-European mentality, let no one adduced any commonplaces here, regarding the inertia and the indolence of these races, as compared with the ‘active’ and ‘dynamic’ Western ones. In this, as in other spheres, such objections have no raison d’être: it suffices to detach oneself a moment from ‘modern’ civilization to perceive also in us, in the West, the same conceptions of life, the same attitude, the same esteem of lucre and of work.

Before the advent in Europe of what has officially and significantly been called ‘mercantile economy’ (significantly, because one knows in what account the traditional social hierarchy held the ‘merchant’ and the lender of money), out of which modern capitalism would rapidly develop, it was the fundamental criterion of economy that exterior goods must be subject to a certain measure, that the pursuit of wealth should be excused and licit only as it served to guarantee a subsistence corresponding to one’s state. Subsistence economy counted as the normal economy. This was also the Thomistic conception and later on even the Lutheran conception.³ It was essential that the single individual recognized that he belonged to a given group, that there existed determinate a fixed or limited framework within which he might develop his possibilities, realize his vocation, tend toward a partial, specific perfection. The same thing held in the ancient corporative ethics, wherein the values of personality and quality were emphasized, and wherein, in any case, the quantity of work was ever a function of a determinate level of natural needs. In general, the concept of progress in those times was applied to an essentially interior plane; it did not indicate leaving one’s station to seek lucre and to multiply the quantity of one’s work in order to reach an exterior economic and social position which did not belong to one.

All of these, however, were once perfectly Western viewpoints – the viewpoints of European man, when he was yet sane, not yet bitten by the tarantula, not yet thrall of the insane agitation and the hypnosis of the ‘economy’, which would conduct him into the disorder, the crises and the paroxysms of the current civilization. And today one trumpets this or that system, one seeks this or that palliative – but no one brings the question back to its origin. To recognize that even in economy the primary factors are spiritual factors, that a change of attitude, a true metanoia,⁴ is the only efficacious means if one would still conceive of halting the slide – this goes beyond the intellect of our technicians, who have by now gathered to proclaim in unison that ‘economy is destiny’.⁵

But we already know where the road shall lead us upon which man betrays himself, subverts every just hierarchy of values and of interests, concentrates himself on exteriorities, and the quest for gain, ‘production’, and economic factors in general form the predominant motive of his soul. Perhaps Sombart⁶ better than anyone has analyzed the entire process. It culminates fatally in those forms of high industrial capitalism in which one is condemned to run without rest, leading to an unlimited expansion of production, because every stop would signify immediately retreat, often being forced out and crushed. Whence comes that chain of economic processes which seize the great entrepreneur body and soul, shackling him more totally than the last of his laborers, even as the stream becomes almost autonomous and drags behind it thousands of beings, finally dictating laws to entire peoples and governments. Fiat productio, pereat homo – precisely as Sombart had already written.⁷

The which reveals, by the way, the backstage work of ‘liberation’ and of American aid in the world. We stand at the fourth of Truman’s points⁸ – the same Truman who, brimming over with disinterested love, wishes ‘ the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas’ of the earth: in other words: carrying to its term the new barbaric invasions, the brutalization in economic trivia even of those countries which by a happy confluence of circumstances are yet preserved from the bite of the tarantula, are yet preserved in a traditional tenor of life, are yet withheld from that economic and ‘productive’ exploitation which carries us to the bitter end of every possibility for man for nature. The system of the Americans, mutatis mutandis, persists in these commercial companies, which carry cannons along with them in order to ‘persuade’ whomever has no interest whatsoever in commerce…

Better to renounce the phantasm of an illusory betterment of the general conditions and to adopt, wherever it is necessary, a system of ‘austerity’, which does not yoke itself to the wagon of foreign interests, which does not let itself become embroiled in the global processes of a hegemony.

That ethic epitomized in the principle ‘abstine et substine’⁹ was a Western one; so was its betrayal in a conception of life which, instead of maintaining need within natural limits toward the pursuit of that which is truly worthy of human striving, takes for its ideal instead the growth and the artificial multiplication of need itself, and also of the means to satisfy this need, with no regard for the growing slavery this must constitute first for the single individual and then for the collective, in accordance with an ineluctable law. No one should marvel that on such a basis there can be no stability, that everything must crumble and the so-called ‘social question’, already prejudged from the start by impossible premises, must intensify to the very point which is desired by communism and Bolshevism…

Moreover, things have gone so far today that any different viewpoint appears ‘anachronistic’, ‘anti-historical’. Beautiful, priceless words! But if ever one were to return to normality, it would become clear that, so far as the individual goes, there is no exterior, ‘economic’ growth worth its price; there is no growth whose seductions one must not absolutely resist, when the counterpart of letting oneself be seduced is the essential crippling of one’s liberty. No price is sufficient to recompense the loss of free space, free breath, such as permit one to find oneself and the being in oneself, and to reach what is possible for one to reach, beyond the conditioned sphere of matter and of the needs of ordinary life.

Nor do matters stand any differently for nations, especially when their resources are limited. Here ‘autarchy’ is an ethical principle, because that which has weight on the scale of values must be identical both for a single individual and for a State. Better to renounce the phantasm of an illusory betterment of the general conditions and to adopt, wherever it is necessary, a system of ‘austerity’,¹⁰ which does not yoke itself to the wagon of foreign interests, which does not let itself become embroiled in the global processes of a hegemony and an economic productivity cast into the void. For such processes, in the end, when they find nothing more to grasp on to, will turn against those same individuals who have woken them to life.

Nothing less than this becomes evident to whomever reflects on the ‘moral’ implicit in the simple anecdote recounted at the beginning of this essay. Two worlds, two mindsets, two destinies. Against the ‘tarantula’s bite’ stand all those who yet remember just activity, right effort, what is worthy of pursuit, and fidelity to themselves. Only they are the ‘realizers’, the beings who truly stand on their feet.

References

1 The source of the story is unknown. As for the title of this chapter, according to an old Italian tradition, the bite of the tarantula supposedly leads to a condition of hysteria and extreme agitation bordering, by certain accounts, on madness. Accordingly the name tarantism was given to this condition, and it was a common condition in the south of Italy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The tarantella dance takes its origin from this sickness, first because those who were gripped by tarantism felt a desperate need for frenetic physical activity, and later because this very need was formalized into a form of dance which was held to be therapeutic for the disease. In the present case, the furious contemporary desire to work, to be productive, to engage in commercial activity, is likened to this old malady.

2 After Alexey Stakhanov, a Russian miner who became renowned throughout Soviet Russia for his remarkable stamina. He set the world record for coal mining, reportedly mining 227 tons of coal in one day. This record was later disputed by some who believed he had been aided by the Soviet authorities themselves in order to produce propaganda for the workers, but Stakhanov’s name remains to this day crystallized in the Italian language in the term staconovista, meaning a man of tireless work ethic.

3 For the Thomistic conception, see Summa Theologica, II-II Q. 66. For example, he says in Article 2, ‘A more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own’. For Luther’s view, see his tract On Trade and Usury. Toward the beginning of this work he says, ‘Therefore some of the merchants, too, have been awakened, and have become aware that in their trading many a wicked trick and hurtful financial practice is in use, and it must be feared that the word of Ecclesiasticus applies here and that ‘merchants can hardly be without sin’. ’ (Translation Charles M. Jacobs.)

4 From the Ancient Greek μετάνοια, ‘changing one’s mind’ (lit. ‘beyond the mind’). This is a prominent Biblical theme, and is generally translated by the word ‘repentance’. Its original meaning, probably also among the Christians, was a change of heart, a spiritual conversion; and this is clearly the meaning it takes on in Evola’s use.

5 These were the words originally of Walter Rathenau (1867-1922), a Jewish German statesman and diplomat during the Weimer Republic. He was the signee of the Treaty of Rapallo, by which Russia and Germany renounced their territorial claims after World War I, leading to increased trade between the two. For his signature to this document, and for his intellectual ideas, which tended toward socialism, Rathenau was held to be a revolutionary in some circles, and he was assassinated in 1922 by the right-wing Organization Consul.

6 Werner Sombart (1863-1941), a German economist and sociologist. He began as a student of Marxist thought (Engels said he was the only German professor to have understood Marx) but by the end of his life had approached the National-Socialism of the Nazis. Throughout his career he was known for his intrepid consideration of the role that race plays in society. His early connections to Marxism and his later connections to Nazism have sadly blackened his memory, and, as Evola states in Chapter 25 (where he considers certain aspects of Sombart’s thought in greater depth), Sombart ‘is an author worthy of more study than we generally give him’.

7 Latin: ‘Let there be production, though man should perish’. Taken from Sombart’s Der Bourgeois (1913), yet to be translated into English.

8 From President Truman’s famous ‘Point Four Program’, as announced in his inaugural address of January 20, 1949. (The subsequent citations in this chapter are also taken from that address.) This program was purportedly a foreign policy of aiding underdeveloped countries and encouraging their growth and industrial progress. As Evola points out here, it is unlikely that the motivations behind this program were really so altruistic.

9 Latin: ‘endure and abstain’, often translated ‘bear and forebear’. It was a saying of the Greek Stoic Epictetus (c. AD 50-135). Epictetus was born a slave, and his main work, The Discourses, is formed of the statements he made to his pupis, which were transcribed and compiled by his student Arrian. Abstine et substine in many ways epitomizes the Stoic philosophy which later had such influence over Roman civilization: to tolerate the ills that come upon us and to refrain from forming attachments to things over which we have no control.

10 Evola here uses the English word ‘austerity’. Quotation marks are Evola’s.

Marvel Comics, Ethnicity, & Race

                                By Ted Sallis

   

German translation here

I’d like to follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Bowden and discuss race and ethnicity in the context of Marvel comics. I used to be a collector, and, ironically enough, share with Bowden an appreciation of the Zukula’s daughter story. There are some who believe that this topic is merely “juvenile drivel,” but I disagree.

While this is not my usual topic of discussion, the truth is that the “culture wars” are fought through varied media, such as pop culture, which includes comic books.  The powers that be have long targeted impressionable youth with multiculturalist messages through the comic book medium.  As the culture is the “sea” in which our genotypes and phenotypes “swim,” it is useful to examine and evaluate aspects of that culture, and therefore comic books are a legitimate topic of analysis.

Stan Lee

It must be noted that the Marvel Comics empire was predominantly built upon the work of two men, both of Jewish ancestry — writer Stan Lee (Stanley Martin Leiber) and artist Jack Kirby (Jacob Kurtzberg).  Of course, other writers and artists, including later younger ones who rose in rank to editor, were important, and many of these were Gentiles.  However, it was Lee and Kirby who laid the groundwork for all that followed, and who set Marvel down the particular ideological paths outlined here, emphasizing racial tolerance, opposition to bigotry, and a wholly aracial form of American constitutional patriotism.

For the record, I’d like to briefly comment on the Lee-Kirby method of story production, which was adopted by Marvel as a whole and revolutionized the creative process.

Jack Kirby

Here, the writer (e.g., Lee) comes up with the general story, and then the artist (e.g., Kirby), based on the original broad outline, draws the panels and by so doing essentially establishes plotline and the details of the story. The writer then comes in and writes the actual script, filling in the text.

In this system, the artist is an equal contributor to plot and storyline, and tensions related to Kirby’s desire for equal credit later caused problems for Marvel, leading to Kirby eventually leaving the company, ending the so-called “Silver Age” of (Marvel) comics.

The Fantastic Four

The Fantastic Four (issue #1 – Nov. 1961) was the first “superhero” comic produced by Marvel and by the famed Lee-Kirby combination; Marvel (including Lee and Kirby) having previously produced a series of monster comics in the 1950s.  Here was a paradigm shift in the comic book world, in that the heroes were portrayed – mentally and emotionally – as “normal” people, not as godlike heroes; we observe characters with all the problems and foibles of ordinary folks, a concept developed to its fullest extent in the subsequent Spider-Man character.

The Fantastic Four movie cast: Left to Right: The Human Torch, the Thing, the Invisible Girl, Mr. Fantastic

The Fantastic Four is led by Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic), a super-genius with the ability to stretch (similar to Plastic Man), and is also composed of his wife Susan Storm Richards (the Invisible Girl), her young brother Johnny Storm (the Human Torch), and their friend, Ben Grimm (the Thing).

Ethnically/racially, they can be described as follows. Richards and the two Storms, based on surname, background, and physical appearance, seem to be founding stock Americans (i.e., of British derivation).  Richards is a brown-haired, brown-eyed, fair-skinned Nord-Atlandid, while the two Storms are blonde, blue-eyed Nordics. I’ll pass over without detailed commentary the casting of half-Mexican (one-eighth Amerindian) actress Jessica Alba as Sue Storm in the Hollywood version of this comic. The Johnny Storm character was also slightly darkened in the movie version as well, but remains White; how he and Alba/Sue Storm make a credible brother/sister combination I do not know.

Ben Grimm, “the Thing,” is an interesting case.  In his super-powered form he is a massive mutate with orange bricks for skin. In his human form, he was a rough-hewn, coarse-featured former football player and war hero. Given these facts, and his surname “Grimm,” it was reasonable to assume he was, perhaps, of German ancestry, with a Borreby phenotype. But, no. Fairly recently, it was revealed that the noble Grimm, college football star and fighter-pilot hero, is Jewish.Indeed, it is said that Kirby modeled Grimm after himself, for whatever that’s worth. Interesting though, that, if this is so, Grimm’s ethnicity was not revealed at the time of the Fantastic Four’s creation, but instead decades later. Were Lee and Kirby afraid this revelation would hurt sales in the 1960s?

From the above link, we read the following, emphasis (and “sic”) added:

“Kirby always thought of the Thing as being Jewish,” said Marvel senior editor Tom Brevoort. According to Brevoort, Kirby (born Jacob Kurtzburg) kept in his house, but never published, an early drawing of the Thing in full rabbinical regalia.

But while Kirby might have intended from day one for the Thing to be Jewish, and fans familiar with Kirby’s career might have suspected as much, the superhero’s Judaism had never been revealed in the pages of Marvel.

“It had never shown up in a Fantastic Four [issue], so was not what we considered canon,” Brevoort said.

The decision to reveal the Thing’s Jewish roots came almost whimsically, he added, when Carl Kesel, the co-author of the recent issue, said that he would like to write a story about the Thing’s past.

Brevoort noted that a high percentage of the early comic book artists were Jewish (Stan Lee, for example was born Stan Lieber). “Quite a few of them disguised themselves — that’s what you did to get your foot in the door,” Brevoort said, adding that the creations of these closeted Jews were, quite often, disguised personal stories.

In “Remembrance of Things Past,” the Thing provides his own explanation for why it took so long for his Judaism to come out.

Mr. Sheckerberg, a pawnbroker from the old neighborhood, says to the Thing: “All these years in the news, they never mention you’re Jewish. I thought maybe you were ashamed of it a little.”

“Nah, that ain’t it,” replies the Thing. “Anyone on the internet can find out, if they want. It’s just . . . I don’t talk it up, is all. Figure there’s enough trouble in this world without people thinkin’ Jews are all monsters like me.”

But, in fact, it seems fans are taking the news quite well, Brevoort said. “We had no idea that the response would be like this,” Brevoort told the Forward.

He said that since the issue came out, Marvel has been inundated with hundreds of positive letters and e-mails, with responses ranging from “Wow! I never knew that — cool, like me!” to “I always suspected.”

“The closest thing we got to a negative response was [a reader who said], ‘It was a good story — but wasn’t there a 1974 issue in which the Fantastic Four were all celebrating Christmas together?'”

But the new issue makes it clear that the Thing is no mere token Jew; he’s not some Jew who’s never seen the inside of a synagogue. Although the Thing no longer attends services, he still remembers his prayers. Kneeling over Mr. Sheckerberg, who appears to be dead, the Thing recites the Sh’ma.

Of course, let’s face it, the Thing doesn’t look Jewish. Nor does he exhibit qualities — studiousness, passivity (sic!), intelligence — that many readers probably associate with Jews.

“He certainly doesn’t fit that stereotype,” Brevoort said.

I find it hard to believe though that Jewish writers and artists had to “disguise themselves” in order to “make it” in the comics world, as individuals of Jewish ancestry were prominent in the field from the earliest days of the “Golden Age” of comics (e.g., creation of Superman by DC comics etc.).

Perhaps not unrelated to this concern for ethnicity, in one early comic the Fantastic Four battled “the Hatemonger,” who incited White Americans to attack (innocent, of course) foreigners. The Hatemonger, when unmasked, turned out to be . . . you guessed it, Adolf Hitler (more on Marvel’s treatment of Hitler below).  Years later, the Fantastic Four battled a different Hate-Monger, but again with the theme of “hate” being evil and psychotic, with the noble heroes battling for “truth, justice, and the American way” – which, according to Marvel, is tolerance, diversity, and constitutional patriotism.

The Fantastic Four’s greatest foe — and one of the greatest villains in comic book history – is Dr. Doom, tormented genius, monarch of the mythical East-Central European nation of “Latveria,” a man hiding behind a metal mask after being allegedly disfigured in an explosion (or by putting the hot mask on his face before it properly cooled).

The interesting thing about Doom from the ethnoracial perspective is that he is supposed to be an ethnic Gypsy. I have traveled in Eastern Europe, and have seen real Gypsies. Unmixed Gypsies are dark-skinned South Asians, who resemble – in physical appearance, dress, and mannerisms – their racial cousins from the Ganges. More admixed Gypsies have a Near Eastern appearance; both types are usually easily distinguishable from the indigenous Eastern European stock.

Doom, however, is portrayed (before his accident) as having a completely (Eastern) European phenotype. Thus, Marvel portrays Gypsies as if they were like, say, Irish Travelers – racially indistinguishable from the host people, but merely characterized by a different lifestyle and culture. Whether this racial distortion is ignorance or malice on the part of Marvel, I do not know.

The Incredible Hulk

  

With respect to The Incredible Hulk (Bruce Banner), Bowden has given an excellent appraisal of the Hulk vs. Leader dynamic. Of particular interest was a comment to that article, concerning Jewish hero Doc Samson:

How about an analysis of the first appearance of the Jewish super-hero Doc Samson? Samson cures the Hulk by draining his gamma radiation, turning him back to Bruce Banner. Samson uses a fraction of that radiation to transform himself into a superhuman muscleman with long green hair. He then starts dating Betty Ross (shiksa), essentially stealing her away from the now scrawny Banner. Banner gets angry, re-irradiates himself, becomes the dumb Hulk, fights Samson, and wins. Betty Ross watches the battles and makes her choice . . . she runs to help the brainy Jew Samson who is being “persecuted” by the dumb brutish gentile Banner/Hulk. The gentile Hulk – too stupid to understand “what it is he has lost” – leaps away, leaving Samson with the shiksa woman. Later of course, Ross returns to Banner, but this story is intriguing. Of course, Samson’s Jewishness was only implied in the first appearance, to make it more palatable to the reader, but was openly revealed later, and the intention of his ancestry was obvious all along.

Another take on this story is here.

Doc Samson

Some more information on Doc Samson is here. Relevant excerpts (emphasis added, except for names at beginning):

Leonard Samson was born Leonard Skivorski, Jr. in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His father, Dr. Leonard “Leo” Skivorski, was a popular psychiatrist in his hometown who specialized in treating young women, often conducting extramarital affairs with them. . . . Mrs. Skivorski had nicknamed her husband “Samson” after his long hair. Leonard Jr. initially expressed disinterest in becoming a psychiatrist, perhaps because he resented his father’s philandering. Despite this, he became a college professor and psychiatrist. After Robert Bruce Banner was temporarily cured of being the Hulk by siphoning off the gamma radiation that caused his transformations, Samson, who had been working with Banner/Hulk in his job as a psychiatrist, exposed himself to some of the siphoned radiation, granting him a superhumanly strong and muscular physique and causing his hair to turn green and to grow long, reminiscent of his biblical namesake. Initially, Samson’s physical strength depends upon the length of his hair, though his gamma mutation eventually stabilized, making the length of his hair no longer a factor. Shortly afterward, his flirting with Betty Ross causes a jealous Banner to re-expose himself to radiation, becoming the Hulk once more to battle Samson.

Samson’s Jewish heritage is discussed in the non-fiction book From Krakow To Krypton

X-Men

 

Another well known Marvel comic is the X-Men, which became wildly popular in the 1980s, and was then characterized by convoluted and “mature” plotlines, often intersecting varied related comic lines, and populated by a whole host of “complex” characters, both heroes and villains.

As mutants (“Homo superior”), viewed with discriminatory hostility by normal human society, the X-Men are put into situations allowing Marvel to explore issues of race, racism, discrimination, and tolerance from the liberal, multiculturalist perspective. After all, the X-Men, who value mutant-human harmony, are heroes, while mutant-hating humans and the elitist, anti-human “evil mutants” are villains. This dynamic carries over to the movie series. In Bowden’s Hulk article, the following comment was left:

This ideological battle between the humanist superheroes and the elitist villains is summed up quite nicely in a dialogue between Professor X and Magneto in the newest X-Men film. Professor X says, “We have it in us to be the better men.” Magneto responds, “We already are.”

Elsewhere in the film Professor X tells Magneto that he can have peace within himself, but he is rebuked with, “Peace was never an option.” A line that recalls Nietzsche’s summation of his morality in The Anti-Christ: “What is good? . . . Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war.”

Note that Magneto is a Jewish Holocaust survivor. Note as well that both the normal human and mutant factions are multi-racial: there are White, Black, Brown, Yellow, and Red humans and White, Black, Brown, Yellow, and Red mutants. Thus, the X-Men comic, in a clever manner, lessens, even eliminates, the importance of actual race. The fundamental human subdivision of race is replaced with a mythical human/mutant boundary, which transcends racial differences and is itself the subject of moralizing about discrimination and tolerance.

Captain America

         

Captain America has always been a rather “political” comic book, with the lead character representing Marvel’s liberal, tolerant, diversity-friendly, constitutional patriotic view of America. Captain America is Steve Rogers, of similar phenotype and ancestry as the Fantastic Four’s Storm siblings. Originally a prototypical “98 pound weakling,” Rogers was transformed into the “perfect physical specimen” by the “super soldier serum” invented by a Jewish scientist. This was during WWII, and Captain American represented Marvel’s America against the dreaded Nazis, Hitler among them.

According to the Marvel Universe, Adolf Hitler is intentionally, knowingly evil. In other words, while the real world Hitler, although reviled by polite society as evil, perceived himself as on the side of good, the Marvel Hitler knows he is evil, revels in it, and bases his actions upon what he believes will not only increase his personal power, but also on what will spread evil. Hence, according to Marvel, Hitler and National Socialism, and the battle of these against liberal democracy, were not the result of Hitler’s  perverted sense of good, or even conflicting worldviews of the ideal society, but, rather, Hitler’s active and knowing embrace of evil, his choice to be bad. Hence, Hitler and his followers are the agents of darkness. The Red Skull (Johann Schmidt) surpasses Hitler, as he rises above Adolf’s “banal evil” to embrace “cosmic evil;” here, coming from Marvel, is the ultimate dehumanization of one’s ideological (and ethnic) opponents as incarnations of evil, rather than as fully formed human beings.

The Red Skull character has often been used by Marvel to score racial-political points. Amusingly, however, the Nazi Skull accused the Jewish Magneto of hypocrisy here; Magneto subsequently used his powers to imprison the Skull in an underground dungeon, where he almost died before being rescued by followers. Also, in the mid-1970s Captain America #185, the Red Skull, enraged by a Black male-White female couple, has the two captured and tortured. Well . . . the Skull is the personification of evil, is he not? Only pure evil would object to such a couple, no? At one point, Captain America had as his sidekick a noble and heroic Black man, the Falcon; at another time, Rogers was dating a Jewish woman. Thus, in the epic Captain America #300, during a showdown between Captain America and the Red Skull, the Skull castigates Rogers as to why a “superior man” (Rogers) associates with minorities and other such inferiors. Johann, Johann, don’t you know the Marvel agenda?

One must also add that most “evil conspiratorial organizations” in Marvel, and always prominent in the pages of Captain America, tend to be right-wing and fascistic, from HYDRA to AIM to the Secret Empire to the racist Sons of the Serpent. Yes indeed, the all-American Steve Rogers deals harshly with such un-American haters!

Thor

               

The comic book Thor is also somewhat interesting, being reasonably true to the ancient Norse legends. In contrast to the movie, the comic’s Asgardians are all essentially of Scandinavian physical appearance, although there are some minor differences between the comic portrayals and the original mythological descriptions. Thor’s main enemy is his adopted “brother” Loki. The comic origin of Loki has the Asgardians, led by Odin, warring against the Giants, slaying all the men, including the Giant King. Surviving this bloodbath is the King’s infant son, Loki, born at normal size and thus scorned by the Giants.

Odin adopts Loki and raises him as his own son, alongside his actual biological son, Thor. Blood wins out, though. In contrast to the cheerful, golden-haired Thor, Loki is a slouched, black-haired, sullen malcontent, savagely jealous of his “brother,” and constantly plotting mischief. Loki grows up to be the “god of evil,” sometimes depicted with a vaguely Semitic countenance – a demonstration of the havoc caused by bringing the alien into the fold, and ignoring differences of blood. This was indeed a remarkable and anomalous story coming from Lee-Kirby and one wonders if either man ever realized the various ways such a story could be interpreted.

Iron Man

                

The Paleo-Atlantid “wealthy playboy industrialist” Tony Stark, apparently of similar ethnic derivation as most of Marvel’s heroes, is the hero known as Iron Man. Originally, a strong Cold War character, Iron Man tended to fight East Asian and Slavic villains, some of whom had communist connections. Later, in the 70s, Stark “reformed” and moved to the “left”;  his company stopped making war supplies and his enemies became less overtly political (although at that time he did fight the revolutionary leftist villain Firebrand, a White man too radical for Marvel’s constitutional patriotic tastes). At one point, Stark became a hopeless drunk and there have been times he has been unable to serve as Iron Man. Never fear! Stark had a noble, tough, powerful, intelligent, charming, and wonderful Black friend who was able to take over the Iron Man role when needed; this individual was once depicted in a sexual relationship with a White woman – perhaps one of the perks of the job?

Marvel on White America

Probably Marvel’s most famous character is Spider-Man, “real name” Peter Parker, apparently of similar ethnic origins and phenotype as Reed Richards. Originally a troubled teen-aged nerd, Peter Parker/Spider-Man was and still is the epitome of Marvel’s attempt to depict their characters as real life “men in the street,” rather than as Superman-like demigods.

Since Spider-Man and many of these other heroes are stationed in New York, one must comment on how Marvel deals with the world’s most cosmopolitan city. Judging from these comics, New York City is overwhelmingly White, Euro-American, with most people apparently being founding stock American. If we look at the surnames of many Spider-Man characters, we see, for example: Parker, May, Stacey, Thompson, Watson, Jameson, Dillon, Osborn, etc. One would never believe New York is actually a city that is predominantly Black, Hispanic, and Jewish, with a sprinkling of Asians and White ethnics. Of course, most of Spider-Man’s villains, as well as street criminals, are White men, and his most persistent foe, Norman Osborn (the Green Goblin) is red-haired.

On the other hand, blind super-hero Daredevil (Matt Murdock) is also red-haired, so perhaps that evens things out? Daredevil is also stationed in New York, and, historically, leading characters in this comic have been surnamed, for example: Murdock, Nelson, Page, Fisk, etc. We see again the general Marvel pattern of obscuring racial realities. It should come as no surprise that most of the villains and criminals that Daredevil encounters are also White men. Who would have ever guessed that New York City is so overrun by White crime?

By the way, and alluded to by Lee himself in one of his books, Stan Lee was a big fan of alliteration in choosing character names: Peter Parker, Susan Storm, Reed Richards, Matt Murdock, Victor von Doom, Bruce Banner, etc. Certainly Lee, with the sure touch of his co-ethnics in Hollywood, knew how to market his brand and make names and images stick in the mind of the reader. In addition, similar to Hollywood, comic book creators understand how to utilize appealing White characters to promote destructive multicultural memes, while making nationalists and preservationists into, literally, the personification of pure evil.

Non-Whites in Marvel’s Universe

Compared to the ever present White criminals and villains, Marvel’s Black characters tend to be noble and heroic, from the Black Panther to “tough guy” Luke Cage, and a whole slew of others. As we can see, Marvel is not shy about promoting Black male-White female coupling/marriage and the consequent production of hybrid offspring. Are we surprised?

The Yellow Claw

On the other hand, Marvel’s East Asian characters had a more troubled history, originally going through the buck-toothed, claw-handed, yellow peril phase, before a more modern interpretation in recent decades. This in a sense parallels Marvel’s take on the Vietnam war and politics in general. In the early-mid 1960s, particularly in Iron Man and Fantastic Four, Lee and Kirby promoted staunch American constitutional patriotism, anti-communism, and support for the Vietnam War. At this time, Oriental racial stereotypes were more common.

Later, younger writers came along with more liberal ideas on war and politics, and East Asian portrayals were adjusted accordingly (although the Mandarin and Yellow Claw continued as buck-toothed villains for a while).

Marvel on White Ethnics

Finally, some words about Marvel’s treatment of “White ethnics.” One amusing case is the mutant Banshee, who is, not surprisingly, Irish. Portrayals of this character back in the 1960s appear to be lifted from anti-Irish nativist cartoons of the mid-19th century – a facial phenotype looking like a hybrid of ape and leprechaun. Later depictions, in more “enlightened” later decades, gave him a more Celtic Brunn, normal human appearance.

With respect to Italians, Marvel’s version of the Mafia is the Italian-staffed “Maggia,”  violent thugs always causing trouble for the heroes. Perhaps the most prominent Italian-American character in Marvel is Frank Castle (Francis Castiglione), of Sicilian ancestry, phenotypically Atlanto-Mediteranean, the vigilante anti-hero known as “The Punisher.”In contrast to the noble Jew Ben Grimm or Negro Black Panther, Castiglione is described thus:

The Punisher is a vigilante who employs murder, kidnapping, extortion, coercion, threats of violence, and torture in his war on crime. . . . The Punisher’s brutal nature and willingness to kill . . .

Brutal and violent.  We see interesting parallels to Hollywood there.

Other “Med” characters include the Daredevil villain “Matador” (Spanish of course) and the Greek-ancestry “Elektra” who is a female assassin (a trend is apparent).  Eastern European/Slavic characters tended to be villains, particularly during the Cold War. These include: the Red Ghost, Titanium Man, Crimson Dynamo, the Abomination, the Gargoyle and his son the Gremlin, Kraven the Hunter, the Black Widow (later a heroine, after defecting), etc. Many of these characters are laughable stereotypes. What to make of “Boris Bullski” (Titanium Man) for example? That’s he’s angry at “moose and squirrel?” No, Slavs have not been treated by Marvel with the respect and sensitivity they’ve given to, say, the Negro.  Or, to Ben Grimm.

Marvel as Multiracial Propaganda

While I will agree that Marvel comics (and comic books in general) have been becoming more multiracial and “politically correct” in recent years (never mind the comics-based  movies, which are often worse), my essay makes clear that I do not believe that Marvel ever was a “bastion of whiteness” in a racial nationalist sense. Sure, most of the characters were, and still are, White, but the most appealing White characters have always been strong supports of aracial constitutional patriotism, with an opposition to the values of “intolerance” (sic) that nationalists would favor.

One can argue that the racially liberal White Marvel of the past set the stage for the more multiracial Marvel of today. If Peter Parker were not such a bleeding heart racial liberal (reflecting the attitudes of his creators), then his “Ultimate” (but not original) version would never have been killed off to make way for a “person of color.” Steve Rogers, Captain America, may represent “Whiteness” physically, but did he ever represent nationalist values? That comic characterized racial nationalists as the very personification of evil, and showed Rogers with a Negro partner and a Jewish lover. “Whiteness”?

Similarities between Marvel Comics and Hollywood with respect to their treatment of ethnicity and race are not surprising, given the similar ethnic origins of both institutions. Films, TV, books, comics, or whatever the medium, the extended phenotypes of particular ethnic groups are always expressed, and it is clear that these extended phenotypes are incompatible with the long-term well-being of European-derived peoples.

An Open Letter To Ben Shapiro

                          By Spencer J. Quinn

        

Dear Ben,

First, I would like to thank you for standing up to leftist academics and the Black Lives Matter crowd over the “white privilege” canard. It was indeed a pleasure to see a mainstream, if somewhat vilified, pundit like yourself smashing a precious liberal trope in such a public and humiliating way. White nationalists, white advocates, and other race realists, I’m sure, all watched on with approval and enjoyed a sort of vicarious thrill as you quite literally spoke Truth to Power. But it was only vicarious because, unlike you, we are not even afforded a seat at the table. If we were to attempt spreading our ideas at universities or BLM meetings, we would be met promptly with mob violence. While they barely tolerate you (for now), they truly hate us.

Which leads me to the point of this letter: your vocal opposition to Donald Trump and the #NeverTrump movement you champion. Of course, you offer many arguments to support your position, and I plan to go through them here in order to debunk them and show you how you are missing the bigger picture on The Donald.

Your main argument, if I am understanding it correctly, goes like this:

1. Donald Trump is not a consistent conservative. You prove this by pointing out his previous support of Hillary Clinton, Planned Parenthood, the Stimulus, campaign finance reform, the Assault Weapons Ban, and other non-conservative policies.

2. By saying no to such a disingenuous candidate, conservatives can shape the GOP so that it will field true conservatives in the future. You support this by drawing a straight, cause-and-effect line from the defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the GOP’s rebellion against Gerald Ford in 1976 to the ascendency of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

3. Therefore, true conservatives should never vote for Donald Trump lest he “destroy” conservatism and the hope for a conservative GOP in the future.

While point A is for the most part correct, you err with point B. First, Ronald Reagan won in 1980 because he was a fine statesman, a charismatic leader, an excellent debater, and was going up against a weak opponent in Jimmy Carter who had overseen some pretty rough economic times. Had any of these conditions been different, Reagan might not have won.

More importantly, America is much different demographically now than it was in the time between 1964 and 1980. I’m sure you have noticed that the proportion of whites in this country has decreased significantly since 1980. In 1980 the proportion of non-Hispanic whites was 79.6%. In 2014 it was 68.8% and shrinking fast. Given that the US government predicts that the Hispanic population will grow at the fastest rate (from 13.0% today versus 25.5% in 2060), that the Asian population will more than double (from 2% to 5%), and that the black population will hold steady at around 13%, we will have a significantly different future than what the Bill Buckley’s of the world could have dreamed of in 1964. In order for the GOP to be politically viable in this future, it will have to attract enough of these “brown” people to compete with a Democratic party which simply imports its constituencies. In the future, relying on the white vote just isn’t going to cut it.

What indication do we have that a return to conservativism would even be possible in such a landscape? And by “conservatism” I am using your definition of “small government and free markets and religious freedom and personal responsibility.” If we look at the Hispanics, the blacks, and the Middle-Eastern Muslims in their own parts of the world, nowhere do they share the same fealty to conservative principles that you do, Ben. In the vast majority of cases you find corrupt governments, crushing poverty, rampant crime, and unfathomable human rights abuses. In some senses, these people are more conservative than you are in that they seem to support strong, centralized, pre-Magna Carta-type governments that basically serve to enrich those who take part in it. Either that, or they are outright communists. From a distance these may seem like modern governments. They have constitutions, separate branches, court systems, elections, and the like. But really, these are only superficial similarities.

Your mistake, Ben, is to assume that large numbers of Hispanics, blacks, and Middle-Eastern Muslims will take to your brand of conservatism and reliably vote Republicans one day.  To put it bluntly, Ben, they will never get it. They never have in the past and, given their present nigh-socialistic voting record here in America, they never will. To people like Locke, Burke, the Founding Fathers, and other great political thinkers, government must allow for the most prosperity and provide the most safety for the most people. To the people who will one day inherit the Republican Party, government is mostly a tool with which to attack one’s opponents, bribe one’s constituency, and make one rich. That’s how it is in the Third World, and that’s how it will be when the Third World comes here.

So this #NeverTrump business is a killer, Ben. You say you are willing to risk a Hillary Clinton presidency in order for the GOP to spend another eight years in the wilderness finding its soul. But what will the Democrats do with the power you are so willing to cede them? They will invite even more brown people to immigrate to the US and they will grant amnesty to the ones that are already here illegally.

Democrats, liberals, leftists, whatever you want to call them, always rig the game in their favor. And the more “brown” people they bring in, the better. To them, we are the enemy. They understand that if diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means, then politics is the continuation of civil war by other means. And in politics, like in war, there is no substitute for victory.

So, why are you recommending a substitute for victory, Ben?

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz right now are the only candidates willing to hold back the brown tide (and, yes, that pun was intended). These two are the only ones that understand that unbridled immigration from the Third World is a bad thing. Maybe not from a race-realist perspective. But who knows? Maybe so. I understand that you like Cruz, but he is not the front-runner. He hasn’t captured the hearts and minds of Americans the way Donald Trump has. The voters just don’t want him as much as they want Donald Trump. And by disavowing Trump, you are not only expressing contempt for the millions of people who support him, you are also depressing the enthusiasm the remainder of the GOP may have on election day. Many of your readers and followers will either stay home or vote libertarian, with both outcomes making it easier for Hillary Clinton or (God help us) Bernie Sanders to win the election. And from that point, given our projected demographic changes, it will only be a matter of time before conservatives like yourself will lose all hope in winning the GOP nomination, let alone the White House.

Another question I would like to ask you: who is your counterpart on the left? What well-known and influential liberal pundit is out there saying #NeverHillary for her lies about Benghazi and her email scandal? What big shot left wing blogger is calling for #NeverBernie because he is a rabid socialist who wants to give away the store in order to bribe his constituency? Yes, these hashtags are out there, but they are tended to mostly by centrist Republicans or nobodies, and not by liberal pundits of your stature.

Now, why is that? It is because liberals aren’t stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot. In their minds, a bad Democrat excels a good Republican always.

So why are you shooting us in the foot, Ben? Why are you trying to sabotage our best hope to maintain a white majority in this country? Why can’t you realize that Donald Trump at his worst is still preferable to any Democrat at their best?

And I get that The Donald has flaws. I agree with your litany of them, so there is no need to recapitulate here. In many ways, a vote for Donald Trump is like a vote for Sonny Corleone. He’s a hothead; a big, swinging, d*ck, as it were. In a world in which the white majority in this country were not under threat, I probably wouldn’t vote for him either.

But as a thought-experiment, let’s analyze the Trump fiasco you predict. Suppose in the worst possible scenario, President Trump gives us higher taxes, higher unemployment, increased inflation, increased debt, increased Obamacare, reckless spending, unbalanced budgets, ham-fisted trade policies, greater restrictions on gun rights, and more funding for Planned Parenthood. If, in the face of such a catastrophe, President Trump were to simply follow through on his promises to 1) deport illegal immigrants, 2) build a wall between the US and Mexico, and 3) begin a precedent of banning Muslim immigration, it would be a net gain.

It will be a net gain because it will be the first step in stemming the tide of nonwhite demographic dominance. After a certain point, this tide will be irreversible. It will also be a net gain because it will issue a new age of mainstream white identity politics. It will signal the time when whites can once again be proud of who they are and what they have done to make this country great. And that includes contributing much to conservatism.

I implore you to dissociate yourself from #NeverTrump. Perhaps you should also apologize to the millions of people you have offended by not acknowledging even one good reason to support Donald Trump. Seriously, by not tipping your hat to any of The Donald’s good qualities, you’re basically saying that his millions of fans are idiots. This is what you’re supposed to do to Democrats, not Republicans.

What particular statements have you made that were so offensive? Here is a particular ripe one:

And if we don’t say “no” to Donald Trump now, we will continue drifting ever further left, diluting conservatism into the vacillating, demagogic absurdity of Trumpism. Conservatism will become the crypto-racist, pseudo-strong, quasi-tyrannical, toxic brew leftists have always accused it of being.

“Crypto-racist,” eh? You find that worse than the overt anti-white racism of the left? You’ve experienced it yourself, Ben. How can you equate a few insults David Duke throws at you over Twitter with the near-riot that ensued at CSULA in which a mob of liberals tried to shut you down? And make no mistake, Ben, that happened because they see you as white, and you had the temerity to say things liberals disagree with.

“Quasi-tyrannical?” What does that even mean? Are you saying that, once elected, Trump will just take over and become a tyrant? Are you willing to stand by such a claim?

“Pseudo-strong?” Really? Are you not aware that Bernie Sanders is more concerned about fighting “Islamophobia” than fighting Islam? Are you not aware of Hillary Clinton’s humiliating apology tour after Benghazi? Our current president can’t even name our enemies as militant Muslims. Does this speak strength to you?  At least Donald Trump stands up for the truth when he says the Muslims hate us. At least he promises to ban at least some Muslim immigration. At least he says he’ll “bomb the sh*t” out of ISIS. Can you imagine any Democrat having chutzpah to speak like that?

And really, Ben, who would you rather have in the White House if there is another 9-11 attack? A Democrat who would respond with focus groups, hashtags, and James Taylor concerts? Or a guy like Donald Trump who won’t hesitate to go medieval on medieval people and get real vindictive about it too.

Oh, and you expressed concern that Donald Trump might order our military to commit war crimes. Would you consider 9-11 a war crime, Ben? How about the London bombings or the Madrid bombings or Boston Marathon bombings or the San Bernardino bombings? Were they war crimes? If we want to win this war on Islamic terror, sooner or later we are going to have to adopt the ruthless tactics of our enemies. Our enemies don’t seem to care too much about war crimes. So why should we? It’s not like ISIS is a signatory of the Geneva Convention.  So if this means overdoing it in some cases, good. It will save more lives in the long run. The point is never to prolong a war but to end it as quickly as possible.

Why are you trying to prolong the war on terror by opposing the one candidate not afraid to end it?

Anyway, I hope you come away from this letter knowing where you went wrong. Please reverse yourself and admit your mistakes. We will forgive you, I promise.

And yes, I understand that as a Jew you have been the recipient of a large amount of anti-Semitic attacks ever since swearing off Donald Trump. I know David Duke has given you a hard time. I am sorry you had to go through that. I have been condemned by liberals for being white, male, and straight enough times to sympathize. I am not going to call you a kike, Ben.

But I will remind you that for every Aaron Copland composition or Yehudi Menuhin recording out there, there were Jews from the Frankfurt School who worked for decades undermining traditional American values. For every successful Jewish department store chain, there were Jews behind the formation of the NAACP and other radical organizations that promote the poisonous lie of racial equality. For every polio and hepatitis B vaccine, there have been Jews dominating major Left-wing political organizations for over a century. For every Jewish high-tech entrepreneur, there have been Jews in government like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein and countless others who want to strip away our rights to defend ourselves and make it easier for us to abort our babies.

I could go on with both the good and the bad, Ben, and I recognize that Jews in America have enhanced our culture in many positive ways. But I think it is reasonable to assume from all this that Jews in government, the media, and academia tend not to like white Americans very much. We get scorned, ridiculed, and maligned by Hollywood. Our traditional values are constantly under attack by our own government. Whenever we have a conflict or altercation with nonwhites, we are treated with extreme suspicion in the mainstream press. We are forbidden to speak the truth about race and act in our own racial interests. And many of the people opposing us are wealthy, influential Jews. Is it anti-Semitic just to notice this, Ben?

So when another political pundit like yourself publicly disavows the first presidential candidate in recent memory whose promises actually coincide with the racial interests of white people, it makes perfect sense that some whites would respond by saying, “Here we go again. Another smarty-pants Jew in the media who hates us and wants to shove us into a corner.” I can’t go to bat for David Duke. But I can go to bat for the millions of Americans who share his pain and are too afraid or powerless to confront you about it.

So, I think there are two ways to solve this. You can recant your Trump bashing and dissociate yourself from this #NeverTrump business (and I hope that whatever anti-Semitism you have experienced coming from the right won’t impede your decision to do this).

Or you can do the following:

In forty years, when all the Muslims brought in by the Democrats you helped usher into power make it too hot for you, as a Jew, to live in America (as is currently the case for Jews in France), and you are forced to make the reasonable decision to flee to Israel, why don’t you take a few million of us white gentiles along with you? Because if it gets too hot for you, it will sooner or later get too hot for us as well.

Oh, what’s that you say? You can’t do that? Israel has walls to keep out illegal immigrants and laws to preserve its racial Jewish majority? Oh, right!

So, remind me again why we shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump?

Sincerely,

Spencer Quinn

The Other Elephant in the Room: Ben Shapiro & the Ace of Spades

                         By Spencer J. Quinn

       

Sometimes I am amazed at how smart people can ignore obvious answers to a problem and instead struggle mightily with convoluted ones. Recently, pundit and activist Ben Shapiro (who is no friend of the Alt-Right) joined conservative blogger The Ace of Spades on his podcast to discuss Donald Trump. You can listen to the podcast here.

Ace opened with the question: “Are we on team Hillary?”

This, of course, is a reference of Mr. Shapiro’s vocal opposition to Mr. Trump and his steadfast adherence to the #NeverTrump movement. If we don’t back the GOP candidate, according to Ace, aren’t we just helping the opposition? The remainder of the discussion consisted mostly of Mr. Shapiro trying to explain to Ace his anti-Trump stance.

And it’s ridiculous.

Mr. Shapiro essentially fears that Mr. Trump will “shift traditional American conservatism to European style populism” which will derail the GOP for the next twenty years. He points to Mr. Trump’s isolationism, his liberal tendencies towards trade, his lack of consistency on certain policy matters, his totalitarian nature, and his constant desire to cut deals and concludes that Mr. Trump would be little better than a Democrat who will later be used as a weapon against the GOP once he fails miserably as President. He also referred to Mr. Trump as a “human pile of filth.”

On the other hand, Mr. Shapiro predicted that if Mr. Trump loses in November, the GOP will be given the golden opportunity to find its conservative soul and be born again.

I find it astonishing that neither of these guys recognized this for the gobbledygook that it is.

First, they didn’t delve into why Mr. Trump has so much appeal. It was almost as if it were beneath them to even ask. Of course, we all know why. Three of Mr. Trump’s main promises (the wall, deportation of illegals, and halting Islamic immigration) are the starting points to getting America back on track to a 90-to-95 percent white majority. The majority of Trump supporters see their country slipping into the Third World and want to stop it before it’s too late. These people quite naturally prefer not to be racial minorities in their own countries. No mystery there. Mr. Trump is the only candidate willing to openly court this powerful and overlooked electorate.

Rather than talk about Trump’s appeal, Ace and Mr. Shapiro preferred to discuss foreign policy, Supreme Court judges, government growth, and the current murky state of conservative ideology . . . as if Trump supporters would care about such things. Of course, they do care, but not nearly as much as they care about Mr. Trump’s top three promises. Unlike these two podcast pundits, Trump supporters understand that any of President Trump’s policy errors short of pushing the button will be reversible. Demographic changes, on the other hand, are not reversible without large amounts of bloodshed.

As racial as the support of and opposition to Mr. Trump is, the Ace of Spades and Mr. Shapiro barely talked about race at all.

Second, neither guy explained how the GOP could be born again after a Trump loss . . . especially if President Hillary offers amnesty to 10-20 million illegal immigrants, the vast majority of whom we know will vote Democrat. Maybe the GOP will find its conservative soul in four years. But what good would that do with the White House permanently beyond their grasp?

Third, they engaged in obscurantist sophistry, as if this has any bearing on anything. Ace spent some time wondering why there wasn’t a coherent conservative ideology outside the NRO offices and why the NRO ideologies weren’t more popular with the electorate.

Meanwhile, Mr. Shapiro served up this astonishingly egg-headed lament:

Number one, what is the purpose of winning victory? And number two, how do you achieve it. I think as a party and as a group of people we’ve reversed the questions now. We’re so used to losing that we’ve now gone to Question One: how do we win? And then Question Two: what is the purpose of winning? And if Question One is answered, we don’t give a crap what the answer to Question Two is.

Um, so what? What good is pontificating on the purpose of winning if you don’t win? Isn’t that, like, putting the cart before the horse? Isn’t winning the very point of politics? Anyway, Question One hasn’t been answered yet, so how does Mr. Shapiro know that Trump supporters will stop caring about Question Two?

Finally, Ace and Mr. Shapiro almost completely blow off the Alt-Right. The one group of people who understand the entirety of the problem and offer workable solutions, and these two professional pundits refuse to even give us a seat at the table. At one point, Mr. Shapiro offhandedly dismissed us as a “sh*tshow.”

Where Ace started to grope in the Alt-Right’s direction by painting Mr. Trump as a possible bulwark against “a powerful racist coalition on the left,” Mr. Shapiro would have none of it. He flatly declared that white nationalism as a response to racial tribalism on the left would be immoral.

And this points to the other elephant in the room: Race. Neither guy wanted to discuss it. If they did, they would be forced to discuss ugly topics such as IQ differences and crime statistics and reproduction rates and then be forced to reach the same race-realist conclusions the Alt-Right has. Instead, they opted for highbrow angst over Mr. Trump like a couple of bookish wallflowers fretting over why he isn’t asking them out on a date.

 

In Mr. Shapiro’s case, the answer is fairly straightforward. He’s Jewish and is made uncomfortable by the anti-Semitism on the Alt-Right. Fair enough. But he should realize that the Anti-Semitism coming from the left, especially if President Hillary gets her way and increases the flow of Muslim “refugees” into this country, will be far worse. In the next fifty years, American Jews would be better to cut a deal with the Alt-Right and others willing to fight to keep America white than be forced to choose between living in a Mexifornian barrio, a crime-ridden black slum, or a New-World caliphate. Without racially conscious whites with the will and wherewithal to resist the “browning” of America, this is the direction in which we are inexorably headed.

In a broader sense, I believe that both Ace and Mr. Shapiro are loath to embrace the Alt-Right because the Alt-Right is a wartime movement. This is not the same to say we are violent. We are not, of course. But, in a figurative sense, we already have our swords drawn. We know there will be another civil war here in America. It could be in our lifetime. Definitely in our children’s. And it will be primarily about race, just like the last one was.

Samuel Huntington describes this in his classic work The Clash of Civilizations. Non-white civilizations attempt to solve the problem of Western modernity by accepting the latter but rejecting the former. According to Huntington, this is especially the case with Muslims. So what would America look like in thirty years when whites are a racial minority and surrounded by nonwhites who are fully modernized but despise the Western traditions?

Pretty scary, huh?

No wonder people avoid thinking about the Alt-Right and would rather prattle on about taxes and unemployment and government spending and conservative ideology as if America is going to remain white forever. To do anything is to seriously contemplate war. And war is hell.

But sometimes, tragically, war is the only solution.

Remember that scene in The Godfather when Michael kept Tom Hagan out of his business dealings in Las Vegas? When Tom asked him why, Michael responded that the Corleone family was going to war and that Tom wasn’t a wartime consigliere.

Well, the Alt-Right is currently white America’s wartime consigliere. We just need to convince our people that war is coming. And the longer we wait to draw swords, the harder it will be for us to ultimately win.

The Burning Of Notre Dame

                              By The Z Man

        

As news spread of the fire consuming the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, the first reaction of most people was shock and sadness. You don’t have to be Catholic or French to feel as if some part of you has been lost. That was not just an old building or a historically important place. It was a symbol of Western civilization. Stand inside a great church and you feel the awe and power that inspired the builders. That cathedral was the primal roar of a people celebrating their creator and the essence of who they were as a people.

Of course, it did not take long for people to notice that its burning was a metaphor for the current crisis in the West. As Europe is swamped by Muslims, promising to replace Europeans in their own lands, it is only a matter of time before the great churches are turned into mosques or destroyed. Despite the endless propaganda from our rulers, most people here and there, are well aware of what’s happening. They don’t know how to articulate it or react to it, but they know. Watching the fire, they knew what it meant.

Not everyone had this reaction. The first reaction of Ben Shapiro was to make jokes about the fire and mock Trump’s tweet about it. This makes perfect sense. He hates Trump and what he represents, so his natural instinct, regardless of the mood of the room, is to attack him. Despite his ridiculous claptrap about Judeo-Christianity, to Ben Shapiro, that cathedral was just a funny looking old building. It meant nothing to him. That fire meant no more to him than seeing an apartment block burn somewhere in Los Angeles.

In the fullness of time, that inability to pipe down and shut up while his target audience mourns the passing of their heritage, will be a turning point in the Potemkin cult of Ben Shapiro. Even the most blinkered of normies was taken aback by such a crude and malicious statement. He was not the only one to slither out of the shadows and reveal his nature in the light of the flames. Those strangers invited in by our rulers were quick to remind us why they should never have been allowed to come to our lands.

That anger people feel is not the sort of barbaric rage our rulers assume is in the heart of every white man. There will be no occidental riots or calls for pogroms against the invaders. It’s a slow buzz as the batteries charge up, waiting for the moment somewhere down the line when the circuit is finally closed. That’s how these things go. Decent people are willing to tolerate what seems like an unlimited amount of deprivation from their rulers, but it reaches a point when the batteries are charged and the circuit is closed.

That’s why it is good to watch the footage and follow the coverage of this thing. Many of us have disconnected from the news, because it’s just propaganda. You can be sure the media will first try to wave it all away as an accident, but we know how they would be reacting if it was a dumpy old mosque or a synagogue that burned, rather than a masterpiece of Western civilization. We know. Everyone knows. Watching it will make you a little angry, but that’s a good thing. We need to charge those batteries.

Obviously, we’ll never know what really caused the fire. A black church burns and the usual suspects tell us there is a rash of hate crimes against black churches. Catholic churches all over France have been burning for years and we’re told it is a racist conspiracy theory to see a pattern. The same will happen here to people who wonder how an unoccupied building that withstood air raids suddenly caught fire in two places. It will be infuriating, but it just charges those batteries a little more each time you hear it.

Even if the cause was recklessness by some workers, that’s probably worse. Like America, this kind of work in Paris is done by foreigners now. The work crews are no doubt Algerians, Tunisians and maybe some Africans. The few French involved spend their time keeping these tribes from murdering one another. To these strangers, that cathedral was as meaningless to them as the fire. There, as here, the cost of cheap labor is the loss of your heritage. Is cheap stuff really worth feeling like this every day?

Of course, the other charging source that comes from consuming the news coverage of this event is the reminder that we cannot believe anything we are told now. Before the roof collapsed, the authorities were telling us it was not arson and not terrorism. In other words, they were more concerned about the feelings of the foreigners than what this event was doing to their own people. These events are a reminder that the West is ruled by strangers, who see no difference between a Tunisian goatherd and patriot from Lyon.

It’s a sad thing and you should be angry. Even though that anger is more like a building charge, it can still be put to good use. When your normie friend brings up Ben Shapiro or his nonsense about Judeo-Christianity, give him a little shot of that charge. When you are preparing for a day of box wine auntie and her nutty talk about the glories of diversity, give yourself a little shot of that charge, so you can be prepared to make her miserable with your mocking of her piety. Put that anger to good use in your daily life.

To borrow a turn of phrase, the burning of Notre Dame is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. These events open eyes and make the minds of our fellows receptive to the arguments we make. The subversive seeks to convince you to look away from the fire, so you don’t see what is happening. The revolutionary wants his people to look into the fire, so they can see what he sees. We’re all revolutionaries now. Our job is to take events like burning of Notre Dame and make more revolutionaries.

Source: http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=17090