Celebrities and ‘change agents’

The recent death of another rock ‘legend’ is still being lamented on social media sites like Tumblr, even though most of the people there are not old enough to remember the latest deceased rocker.

He had something in common with other such rock celebrities who died during the last year or so: he was a rebel against conventional sexual morality. His criminal record, however,  is mostly swept under the rug in recent years, even before his death. And articles like that linked just above, from the ‘History’ channel, seem to downplay the seriousness of the allegations and to minimize Berry’s culpability. The racial aspect of it is highlighted by mentioning that an ”all-White jury” convicted him (of course Whitey is prejudiced and willing to convict a black man at every possible occasion) and the article defends him by saying his intentions were strictly honest and honorable. He ‘offered legitimate employment in his St. Louis nightclub‘ — but to a 14-year-old girl? Maybe she was ‘precocious’ as some euphemistically put it, but in what state can a 14-year-old legally work in a night club? And the laws were more strictly enforced in 1959.

This article from NPR’s website unabashedly blames the Mann Act itself, stating that it was expressly written to be used against people like black boxer Jack Johnson with his White (white?) mistress. The article also implies that the Mann Act was a response to what the biased writers call ‘hysteria’ over what was called ‘white slavery’, or the abduction of young women into prostitution in the early 20th century. The writers imply that many such women were not forced into that life, but were simply ‘sexually active young women’ whom society wished to punish for their ‘sexual freedom.’

The NPR writers attempt to revise history, implying that the attempt to curb prostitution was based on “hysteria.” In the last couple of years, I’ve read a great many books from older eras, books actually written then, not written by (post)modern writers and their tainted point of view, and yes, there was an ‘industry’ if you can call it that involving trapping young women, many of whom were rather sheltered and naive in those days, into a life of prostitution. ‘Inexperienced’ girls were most in demand and drew high prices. There were interstate rings of what would now be called ‘human trafficking’.  Hence the need for the Mann Act. Most of the reports indicated Jewish domination of these rings. Transporting of these girls extended across national borders too, with many girls and women sent across the Pacific to China and elsewhere, where Christian workers found many of them being held literally in cages or cells, disease-ridden and sometimes dying, after having been sold into that life. It is not fantasy or ‘hysteria.’

Now our jaded age thinks that such things are just a matter of personal choice; I’ve had many younger people tell me that prostitution is ‘just another job, a way to make good money’, and as Madonna famously said back in the 80s, ”It’s not exploitation if I’m in charge of it myself.” So prostitution can be ’empowering’ for feminists.

Madonna is another prime example of a celebrity who is serving the function of a ‘change agent’ by altering people’s ideas of what is acceptable, and by helping to subvert traditional morality. Some people, maybe most people, today say that sexual morality is up to the individual; whatever people choose, and/or do in private, has nothing to do with anyone else. But it does. We are social beings. Nobody exists in a vacuum. The consequences of people’s private behavior often affect society, not just the invididual(s) involved.

Celebrities of course have a much-amplified power to affect others’ choices, especially young and gullible people.

People like Madonna, and the recently-deceased David Bowie and Prince — and in his time, Chuck Berry, have had more influence than many like to think.

Michael Jackson, too, with his ‘androgynous’ persona desensitized us to certain behaviors. And celebrity alone enables such people to get away with much, as his story illustrated. People tend, these days, to have almost limitless capacity to overlook aberrant or downright immoral behavior from those that are called ‘talented’ or ‘geniuses’. Society theoretically condemns pedophilia but oddly it can be overlooked if the acccused is a popular public figure. Please notice, at the first link on this page, from a blog which is not at all PC, that the commenters, can only praise Berry.

In 1959, people were not so flexible in their morality and not so forgiving.

In time, though, it seems that Berry has been forgiven. If one wants to be forgiven of anything, it appears, the answer is to be ‘talented and famous.’

Meanwhile society suffers the consequences.

Foretold in 1932

Towardssovietamerica -Money quote - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0315


Towarssovietamerica - money quote 2 - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0316a

The above is from a book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster. The book was titled Towards Soviet America, published in 1932. The writer goes on to describe what the Communist Party planned for America, and for the most part the predictions came true. The feminist movement was part of the agenda, along with the ‘sexual revolution’ which supposedly would ‘free’ women, and allow them a less inhibited sex life, while on the racial front, Foster said that all laws against interracial marriage would be abolished, with racial amalgamation being the goal. Overthrowing traditional attitudes took a few decades to accomplish from the time Foster wrote this book, but they did succeed in making interrracial unions legal. Likewise with their destruction of traditional sexual morality, and they succeeded probably beyond their wildest imaginations there.

However, either Foster was lying or just inaccurate in his predictions about other matters, as when he says that the media will be ‘taken over by the government’ (well, that was probably accomplished as the media appear to be an arm of the leftist establishment) but he further says that the media would then be ‘cleansed of their present trash of sex, crime, sensationalism, and general babbitry‘. On the contrary, the leftist triumph has meant ever more ‘trash of sex, crime, and sensationalism’; they revel in this kind of thing. They have sold it as ‘liberation’ and the ultimate freedom.

Foster seems not to have mentioned one of the fruits of the ‘sexual revolution’, namely the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Did Foster and his generation foresee this part of their plan, or was it just an inevitable result of their destruction of traditional Christian morality and their enshrining ‘personal freedom’ and individual autonomy as a great good?


Female supremacism

After seeing so many ‘International Women’s Day’ stories and memes, I’ve decided that I will refer to ‘feminists’ as female supremacists from now on. For decades, ever since this ‘Women’s Day’ thing has been happening, feminists have becoming ever more strident about their attitude of ‘female superiority.’ So if people who are pro-White, or who believe in nations for White people, are ‘White supremacists’ as the anti-Whites say, then surely the ‘supremacist’ label applies to feminists. They constantly crow about how women are superior to men in various ways, and they openly say that women should rule. There’s a meme going around showing a little girl wearing a t-shirt saying ‘The Future Is Female.’ Imagine if the word ‘Female’ were changed to ‘White.’ What a howl there would be about that, but women get away with that kind of rhetoric, as do non-whites.

Feminists have always railed against the idea that God is male, and we’ve seen this ‘witty saying’: ”When God made man, She was only joking.” So asserting that ‘God’ is female is just fine, while saying God is male is shockingly misogynist.

Feminists don’t see — or do they just not care? — that they are inspiring hatred from many men because of the shrillness of their rhetoric and because of their increasingly obnoxious behavior. The sad thing is that women who are not feminists have to reap what the feminist fanatics have sown.

The other sad thing is that many women on the right have been infected with the loathsome attitudes of feminists. I’ve noticed that online on ‘right-wing’ blogs or forums, where supposedly right-wing women take offense at some comment and go into feminist warrior mode, just like lefties. There are even ‘conservative’ men who defend feminist ideas and who, just like SJWs, take offense on behalf of women if somebody says something anti-feminist or anti-egalitarian.

Feminism has invaded the ‘right’ in various ways, and much of it is unconscious I’m afraid. Because feminism, like the rest of the left’s causes, has gone so far off the rails, people on the right have to be more vigilant, being careful not to let it insinuate itself into our way of thinking.  Egalitarianism is so taken-for-granted that we have to be on our guard against it. It may ‘sound good’ but the devil’s whispers sounded good back in Genesis 3, apparently, and we are forever paying the price.


The ultimate in xenophilia

Some of us have used the term ‘xenophilia’ to describe the attitudes and behaviors of the multicultists, the diversity maniacs, those who value every race and people except their own. But it is not by any means limited to those people, as it is common across the political spectrum, as witness the tendency for men in different parts of the world to seek wives/brood mares from outside their ethny or race. The article tells of Chinese men, facing a shortage of potential mates in their own vast country seeking out Russian women in particular.

‘All the girls who we invited are under 35 years old. Initially men want to see brides with white skin and blue eyes – funnily enough, though, last year the girls who got into a relationship were brunettes with brown eyes.’

It’s odd that we often read how Asian people are ethnocentric and prefer their own kind, but this seems to belie that idea.

Meanwhile, back in Russia, the men seem to passively accept that their women are being spirited off to marry men in far-off countries — including the United States, Australia, and Europe, as well as China. Why this is, I haven’t got a clue; is it because Russian men have learned to devalue their women?

Speaking of devaluing one’s own females, read the first comment below the linked Siberian Times article. A young man from Louisiana states his intention to find a Chinese bride because he is “done with white women.” Does the whole situation not strike anyone as crazy? American men increasingly dislike American women (“fat, ugly, shrewish, masculinized”) while they seek Asian wives while Asian men seek Russian wives, while Russian men — seek what? Talk about games of musical chairs.

I am sure Count Coudenhouve-Kalergi is rejoicing wherever he is. His ‘dream’ for the future of Europeans is now being played out in bizarre ways.

On another blog, Morgoth’s Review I believe, someone expressed the idea that the antagonism and outright antipathy between the sexes seems like part of the cultural Marxist agenda, to drive a wedge between the sexes and thus to decrease intraracial marriages within White countries. Even having European-descended peoples marry outside their ethny (but still vaguely within their race) serves the agenda of mixing people up, breaking bonds of kinship and culture, decreasing the rootedness and stability within nations and ethnic groups. Whether we get the slow treatment of gradually ‘diversifying’ nations by inter-ethnic marriages first, leading to acceptance of further outmarrying, outside racial boundaries, or jump straight to miscegeny, the destination is the same, ultimately. I do believe that the gradual breakdown of boundaries in this country, first, by inter-European marriages and the trend toward people with mixed European heritage over time led to the gradual weakening of kinship loyalties and bonds. The melting pot idea and the idea that ”we’re all Americans, that’s all that matters” led inexorably to the present levels of interracial mating.

On the Al Fin, Next Level blog where I found the link to the Siberian Times story, he discusses the reasons why so many Russian women are being exported (or exporting themselves) to various places around the world,  for the purpose of either sexual exploitation or relatively benign ‘marriage bureaus.’ Why aren’t their men — fathers, brothers, boyfriends, or simply Russian men wanting good wives — making more of a fuss about their women being commodities sought out by foreign men? It sounds as though, from the information presented, the men are demoralized and suffering from what social scientists call ‘anomie’, often alcoholics or using drugs. They seem to be less physically healthy than their women, having a considerably shorter life expectancy. I’ve observed in some Russian immigrants living in our country that they tend to be heavy smokers and drinkers. (Notice I didn’t say ‘most’ or ‘all’, but it’s a noticeable tendency).

It may be that the same propaganda forces are at work there; I do believe that there truly is an effort on the part of the powers-that-be to divide every group in society, and the antagonism between the sexes in our country — even more so than in Europe, as I see it — is being egged on and manipulated. Men blame women; some women blame men. Why can’t we split the difference and say both sides bear their share of blame? Each side, or at least the extremists on both sides of the sexual divide, want to put 110 percent of the blame on the opposite sex. That’s not realistic.

Feminists are wrong, but to some degree so are their male counterparts.

But back to the Russians: Al Fin often describes the demographic decline in Russia. If we, that is we ethnonationalists, want all the various European peoples to survive and flourish, we should care about Russia’s future, and we should hope that their women would be able to stay at home (Russia is their rightful home) and not have to be basically sold off to men on the other side of the planet. We should hope that all Russian men who want to marry Russian women (the optimum choice), then this game of shuffling women around the planet should ideally be stopped.

Or do some of us believe that the Russian men shouldn’t mind their women being poached, as long as the poachers are ‘White’? That seems to be the strange rationalization on the part of many WNs.

As much as I take a contrarian, somewhat skeptical view of Russia, I truly do wish the Russian people well, and hope that they will not have their distinctive heritage, their DNA, and their particular talents and gifts, diluted by being mixed in with many nations. I wish that for all of our European peoples. Ethnicity does matter. Ethnicity is also not a social construct.

Women in science: science is ‘sexist’

At The Federalist, Joy Pullmann quotes from a female PhD candidate who pronounces science to be ‘sexist’ — because it’s not subjective. Apparently women and minorities can’t ‘do’ objectivity and logic.

(An aside: why are ‘women and minorities‘ always lumped together, as over against White males, as if they have some kind of implicit bond, or commonality — other than, say, not being able to handle objectivity, logic and reason, maybe?)

Well, I’ll buy that; many if not most women (and certain minorities) cannot seem to handle logic or objectivity. The thing is, the old feminists, before feminism went completely off the rails, did not admit that women were incapable of being logical or objective. To admit such a thing would be to concede the assertions made by those bad old “male chauvinists”. Incidentally, that term ‘male chauvinist’ was before the term ‘sexist’ was invented. But in any case, feminists wouldn’t admit that women are prone to being subjective, primarily emotion-driven, and prone to illogic.

And I say this as a woman.

Sure, there are exceptions to every rule, though they are sometimes very thin on the ground, and the feminists relied heavily on pointing to some rare exception, a female with a very high IQ, or a woman who accomplished something in a scientific field. Marie Curie comes immediately to mind; she served as an example that was supposed to prove that women could be just as good at science as men. As if an exception ever disproves a rule, though people still resort to that kind of argument more than ever, especially with regard to minorities. Example: George Washington Carver, the black male equivalent of Marie Curie, or is it the other way around.

Recently I was reading a piece about 1940s actress, Hedy Lamarr, in which it was said that she invented something called Spread Spectrum Technology. I admit, that means nothing to me; I was not a science major though I was very interested in science. Now, Miss Lamarr admittedly had a co-inventor there, a George Anthiel. Oddly, he was not a scientist either, but a composer of avant-garde music. So the story is rather strange. In any case it appears she did not produce any other ‘inventions’.

Speaking of Hollywood actresses, there was another actress, Jill St. John, who allegedly had a genius-level IQ, reported to be 170 or so, though some sources said slightly less. However even though later it was reported that the whole ‘genius’ story was cooked up by her publicity agent to set her apart from that year’s current starlets, the story is still repeated as here on the Wikipedia page.  Once lies have been told, they are hard to refute; nobody ever reads the refutations. So I can’t help wondering if Hedy Lamarr’s ‘invention’ was another publicity story.

Maybe I am too suspicious. In Hedy Lamarr’s day, there was not the social pressure to ‘shatter the stereotypes’ about women and minorities, but in today’s climate there is increasing social pressure to exaggerate or hype any accomplishment by a woman or a nonwhite minority in order to “prove” that stereotypes have no basis.

But then feminists like this Laura Parson are perpetuating what they call ”stereotypes” in admitting that women do not have logical or objective minds, as a rule. But instead of saying the obvious, that maybe women (or womenandminorities) are just not made for science careers generally, they recommend that science change to suit womenandminorities.

The writer of the Federalist piece, unfortunately, resorts to egalitarian/liberal arguments, ultimately, but in any event, the point is made that feminists and all egalitarians have to resort to all kinds of convoluted and bizarre flights of rhetoric because the facts are not on their side.


Reconstruction part 3 rolls on


No, this is not the actual proposed 20 dollar bill which will replace the current version, which unfortunately carries the image of a dead White Southron male. There has been talk about who would take Jackson’s place on the currency but I knew (as did most of you, probably) that it would likely be a ”twofer” — a female and a Person Of Color. Voila: Harriet Tubman.

The image that will likely be on the bill is of an angry-looking woman (who at first glance appeared to be a man), and I think that unsmiling face was chosen for a reason: to show that we are under the watchful eyes of Afrocentric America, and Big Sister means business.

The screencap above is from Free Republic. Yes, I know I shouldn’t read that forum, and I do so only to check the pulse of the patient, to see if there is any hope for recovery. The patient is not looking good. There’s an occasional sign of life from a few souls there but the majority of the posters are still trying to position themselves as the Best Friends of Blacks — if only the poor duped blacks would realize that the Democrats (did you know they are the Real Racists?) are keeping them down on the Plantation.

The caption on the image above illustrates how ignorant of history many Republicans are; they think that the Republicans during the War Between the States were the ‘good guys’ and they are proud to claim kinship to those same notorious Radical Republicans who were responsible for the evil known as Reconstruction and for the ensuing vendetta against the South and its people.

The Republicans of today often want to claim the dubious title of ‘Blacks’ best friends’ not realizing that they are thus making themselves out to be part of the ongoing war against our folk, against their own flesh and blood. How ”cucked” does one have to be to fail to see that?

For my part, let these Republicans vie with the Democrats to be the most non-racist party; let them outbid the Democrats, out-PC the Democrats. Let’s see those true colors at last.

And this might prove to be the undoing of the Republican Party.

Now that the Republican Party seems to be self-destructing, committing suicide by Political Correctness, and now that the sheep are being separated from the goats to make it all plain to see — let them rename themselves as the New Radical Republicans, taking up where the original Radical Republicans (almost) left off.

The shameless liars of the Left

From The Other McCain, a post about liberals and rape, pointing out how liberals, true to form, contradict themselves on the subject of rape.

The post is titled ‘Obsessed With Sex?’, and the title reminded me of the late 1990s when the Clinton sex scandals were in the news. Hard as it may be to believe in 2016, there were actually a few lefty journalists who were not happy about Bill Clinton’s behavior, but the Clinton spin doctors were on the 24-hour news channels, spinning like dervishes to deflect blame from Clinton, and one of the main talking points was that special prosecutor Ken Starr was ‘obsessed with sex’, and this was the reason for his persecution of Bill Clinton. Then the talking point was that all conservatives were ‘obsessed with sex’, being hypocritical puritans. So I’m surprised that they are still getting mileage out of that sophomoric accusation. But then again, the left tends to repeat like a broken record; one might think they were reading from a script.

The brazenness of the left knows no bounds; they are possessed of not one iota of shame, and will lie without batting an eye and make the most outrageously hypocritical statements, contradicting their own supposed principles all day long, without any shame. They are not troubled by any scruples.

The blog piece from The Other McCain discusses a debate in Toronto on the subject of the “refugee” flood in Europe and the suspicious increase in rapes that happened to coincide with the arrival of the ”refugees”. When fellow guests Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage alluded to the rape epidemic, “British” [sic] academic and sometime TV talking head Simon Schama (good old Anglo-Saxon name there, professor) sneered:

“I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.”

So yes, they are still using that old accusation against the normal people like Steyn and Farage who have the gall to notice obvious patterns. Again the left projects and accuses people on the right of the very thing they are most guilty of. The left are the most sex-obsessed people on the planet, excluding perhaps their “refugee” mascots.

That’s what’s ‘‘sad, really“, Professor Schama. It would be pitiable if it weren’t so offensive, this shameless finger-pointing from the shameless Schama — and the rest of the conscience-free Left.

The one segment of the Left that has most to answer for here is the feminist brigade. Again harking back to the Clinton years, when this country took a turn for the worse morally, the feminists were shown for what they were in no uncertain terms; whereas they claimed to champion women who were raped, and proclaimed that every rape accusation should be taken seriously, they vilified the women who accused Bill Clinton. Remember the Clintonista’s ”nuts and sluts” defense? The rape accusers had their names dragged through the mud and their character assailed mercilessly. Some even had death threats made against them or their families. How any woman could be fooled by feminists’ claims to be champions of women after that disgusting chapter is beyond my comprehension. But leftists are liars and without any conscience; politics is all to them, and they would, I think, defend even murder if the guilty party were one of their own, one of their political fellow-travelers.

And what’s even worse than helping a rapist evade justice is their more recent practice of actually recommending that some political ‘enemy’ on the right be raped as punishment for being ‘racist’ or just ‘right wing’, like Sarah Palin. I remind you again of how that loathsome Sandra Bernhard, an alleged ‘comedienne’, said publicly that Bristol Palin should be ‘gang-raped’ by some of Bernhard’s black ‘homies’. Have we become so jaded that  we don’t even recoil from such an ugly statement? Yet other leftists have said similar things about people on the right and few people expressed the disgust and shock that such comments should elicit from civilized people.

Leftists are beyond ‘sex-obsessed’; they are politically obsessed. They don’t even regard people to their right, even moderate conservatives, as human beings; such people are subhuman enemies, to whom no mercy is to be shown. As the nice, mild-mannered Canadian audience at this event did, they will laugh at mentions of rape, if the intended victims are political enemies — or just plain White people.

After all, these progressives ought to know that most people in Europe are, sadly, ‘progressives’ like themselves, and by their reckoning, not deserving of rape or murder — but then I suppose being White is enough to make Europeans deserving of such a fate, in the twisted, race-obsessed, amoral mind of ‘progressives.’

The upside-down world

Bruce Charlton is right, here, when he says we are “living in the most bizarre and insane world  — ever.

It’s not news to most of us; for some years I’ve called our present world upside-down, as all the old verities and simple common-sense wisdom have been thrown out the window in exchange for the previously-unthinkable ideas such as ”transsexualism”, females in combat, ”males” giving birth, and of course the attempted obliteration of ethnic and racial categories.

Have any of you ever heard of ”otherkins“? Did you know there is an “otherkin community”? I didn’t know until very recently. As insane as it sounds, someone claiming to be ‘really’ nonhuman or even an inanimate object, is not much weirder than a man claiming he is really a woman in a man’s body. Or vice-versa.

Then there are the trans-racialists who claim to have been born as the wrong race. But I thought race didn’t exist. I suppose eventually some helpful ‘doctor’ like those who claim to transmute men into women or women to men will come up with a procedure to make people another race or ethnicity — just by changing their external appearance. Just as with ‘sex change’ surgery. It’s all make-believe but most of the world now accepts it or at least  tolerates all this pretense and lying.

Bruce Charlton notes that for those of the younger generations, it’s hard to grasp just how insane and bizarre our world has become because they’ve never known any other kind of world. They’ve been taught that the images of a more sane and wholesome past are just lies and propaganda. Look at pictures of mid-20th century ‘happy housewives’; the young have been conditioned to believe that it was all a sinister false front. And as Charlton says, unless one reads old books, or even watches old movies, there is no conception that life was much different and much more coherent and benign in days before this Age of Lies.

It may be near impossible to un-condition the young. Even their parents, who in most cases are old enough to remember a much better and less turbulent world, have been affected by the propaganda and have come to believe that the old, normal world, in which some kind  of time-honored standards still existed, was very flawed and needed to be replaced. But how can anyone with a memory believe that the ‘revised and improved’ reality is preferable?

“The casual assumption , possible because of such gross ignorance and disdain for the past and other societies, is that we, here, now have got things right and at last understand what it is to be human (neither a man nor a woman, for starters!)  – while everybody at every other time and place were being crudely hoodwinked.”

Most egregious are the Christians who, having adopted political correctness in preference to Biblical ethics, obviously believe that every previous generation of Christians got it wrong; we, in our chaotic age, are the epitome of enlightenment; we are the first and only generation of Christians to rightly understand the Bible. What arrogance! By thinking this way, they are in effect condemning their parents, grandparents, and virtually all past Christians because those Christians were not Zionists, Babelists or universalists. How do these Christians reconcile their disrespect for their forefathers with the commandment to ”honor thy father and thy mother?”

Sadly, many people on the ”right” believe, along with the Left, that the past generations got it wrong and that if we had been alive then, we’d have created a far superior world. These people on both ends of the spectrum would prefer that the past be completely obliterated and its memory banished so that we can start from scratch and re-invent the proverbial wheel. This is foolishness regardless of whether it comes from the Left or the ”right.”

Ethnopatriotism or ethnonationalism should mean keeping faith with all our folk, including the generations who went before us, those to whom we owe our very existence. It should mean keeping faith with the past, and preserving what is and was best about it. The present, and all its associations, have the odor of leftist nihilism, and I always hope that one day “this present darkness” will be gone, and will  seem to us like a bad dream.

Substitutes for natural affinities

The Super Bowl is coming up, and in recent years I can’t help reflecting on how people’s natural affinities and impulses are being re-directed into sports. Now, I don’t want to ruffle anyone’s feathers; if people enjoy football, far be it from me to condemn it. In itself, watching sports is an innocuous way to spend one’s time.

But I’ve noticed over the course of my lifetime that sports fans have become a little more emotionally invested in their favorite sports, and their ‘home teams’, than used to be the case. Think of the phenomenon of people painting their faces and even their bodies in garish team colors to show their love for the team. The paint reminds me of the movie ‘Braveheart’, with its somewhat anachronistic images of Scotsmen painted (in the fashion of the Picts, who were many centuries earlier) to go into battle against the Sassenachs. Others may think of the old Western movies, with the Indians adorned with ”war paint” as they rode out to battle the White Eyes, or maybe their neighboring Indian tribal enemies.

There could be many ways of displaying ‘team colors’, as in the UK, the older practice of scarves or hats with team colors. The paint, as we see, has definite ‘battle’ connotations, as well as the scent of tribal practices about it.

And that’s probably not by accident. RamZPaul notes that in his latest, here.

“Rooting for a sports team in the last acceptable form of tribalism that is allowed for White people. You can wear your team’s colors and scream and yell at the television. Grown men end up HATING people who root for the opposing team. At times this hate can result in violence.

The government and media push sports viewership as a way to defuse natural ethnic tribalism.”

Yes. I’ve noticed that too.  It also seems as if the team owners/managers deliberately push ‘diversity’ as a way of getting the majority White male fans to identify with non-Whites. It seems, in my opinion, to have done a lot to break down natural barriers in the Southern states. If you see a sports contest as a battle between ”us” and ”them”, and you identify with your team members as part of ”us”, then there really is no more White or black, at least as long as the game is going on.

As for women sports fans? Traditionally most women are just not as emotionally invested in sports contests as are the men, except maybe for school teams in which your own children are playing, or your kin, or neighbors. Many women who are ‘into’ sports now are interested mostly in the social aspects of it: planning the Super Bowl parties or the tailgate parties, buying all the team merchandise.

Remember when the local teams were really made up of people from that town or area? Then there were natural group-feelings at work. But when team members are all ‘hired guns’ from everywhere, even from other countries, people who don’t speak your language or share your culture, then in what sense do they represent you and your town? But that’s the way the whole world works now.

Women’s ‘tribalism’ exists, though it may not be as strong as with the natural tribalism of men. However it’s not primarily through sports that women’s tribalism is diverted into politically correct channels, but primarily through feminism, through getting women to believe that they have more in common with their ”sisters” on the other side of the world, women of vastly different cultures and genetics, than they have with the men of their own stock. All women are ”sisters” according to the feminist party line, and thus they make alliances with these ”sisters” they’ve never seen against the men of their own folk.

The cultural Marxists are diabolically clever. They’ve split us so many different ways, using our natural impulses to belong to some group, but diverting us away from natural kindred ties, based on genetics, heritage, and culture, and channeled them into more ‘acceptable’ substitutes.

For young people, their group identity is with other young people — only people of their own age ‘speak their language’, share their political obsessions, know all the hip shibboleths created by popular global youth culture. Ever since the early 20th century there has been a conscious effort to split youth from their parents and their elders in general.

Professional sports, feminism, ‘youth’ culture, they are all used to good effect in dividing us against each other. Our enemies have created this situation — with passive help from us. What do we do about it? What’s the old expression — divided we fall?

Women and murder

I don’t usually blog much about crime, although this subject does touch on social and political issues that I do blog about. Besides, I don’t feel inclined to write about the results of the Iowa caucuses just now. I may get to it later.

I’ve just been reading about the murder in Virginia of a 13-year-old girl. The two suspects in this case are an 18-year-old engineering student and athlete, and a 19-year-old female. Some have expressed surprise at the female suspect’s possible role in this murder, with the expressed view that it’s rare that a woman would be involved in this kind of thing, especially a crime in which the victim is another female. I have to take exception: I can think of several cases in which a woman has participated, sometimes with eagerness, in murders (and worse) of other females.

There was the Texas ‘Cadet murder’ case in which a couple, boyfriend and girlfriend, cadets at West Point and the Air Force academy respectively, killed another girl. Then in Canada there was the shocking Paul Bernardo-Karla Homolka killing team. Those are the two cases which come readily to mind, and there are many more.

In the first two cases linked in the previous paragraph, the killers were people who seemed accomplished or well-adjusted, at least on the surface. Not all killers look deranged and dangerous, though they usually do give indications that all is not right with them; most people look only at the surface.

I hesitate to bring up the Amanda Knox case because so many Americans defended her in a knee-jerk way because she was ‘cute’ and because she was American.  Nationalism and patriotism may be dead for most Americans but they seemed to take it as a national affront when Knox was convicted in an Italian court. I believe she is free now.

I’ve blogged before of how women tend to have a lower conviction rate in our justice system.

“Women who murder are rarely recognized as legitimate criminals, usually being characterized as accomplices or victims of persuasion by their male companions.

[…] In medieval courts women were acquitted more often then men for murder and this trend continued throughout the colonial period and 20th century in the U.S. Between World War II and the Vietnam war, female suspects were convicted at a lower rate and for lesser degrees of homicide than males. (Lane, 26,56,256) An example is Florida where all the women sentenced to death from 1926-1991 have been released or had their sentences changed from death to life imprisonment. Women who commit murder are represented as insane more often then men. It is very likely that the general leniency towards women who kill comes from the traditional view the male-dominated legal profession has had of women as the weaker sex.”

And I think women (feminists, specifically) like to have it both ways; they claim that women are the same as men except for the plumbing, and what with the transsexual craze in our society, even that part is subject to surgical modification. The feminists claim that women are the equals of men, and that women are free moral agents, responsible for themselves, autonomous, yet when a woman is accused of a crime, especially when she is the partner of a man in the crime, she is not culpable. The man somehow made her do it; coerced or intimidated her into it, or physically threatened or abused her — which she was powerless to resist, despite being the equal of the man — equal to go into combat or be a police officer or a prison guard or a firefighter — but she is helpless when a man tries to coerce her into a crime.

Either that, or (as the quote above indicates) her lawyers plead insanity for her, because everyone knows that women are basically gentle and nurturing and not at all prone to violence. Women are mommies and grandmas; they don’t inflict harm on others; they are there to kiss it better, not to hurt. But reality is not always so simple.

Surprisingly, on the old blog, when I blogged about this issue, one of my regulars who had a hardline attitude on most things, disagreed with me about women having an easier time in the justice system as well as in the court of public opinion.

I don’t know whether the suspects in the recent Virginia case are guilty; that remains to be seen. I do think that if both are found guilty, the ‘girl’ will likely be treated more gently, based on statistics. And this will again point out how feminists are not really about equality, just as the Civil Rights Revolution was not about equality; it’s about getting one’s own group a preferred position, and exemption from full responsibility. That’s not equality.