Americanism

The internal feud between the two factions is heating up.

China has tis Social credit System, and the US has its Monetary credit System....IRS is its Gestapo.

This, too, is an indirect attack on traditional families, which are extended families.
Shaming, primarily, males with a American individualism promoting an abandonment of one's family.
This "basement trope" has become a staple, identifying the Americanized manimal.
In the American ideal families live far apart, and come together on holidays - the broken family is their ideal family. The fatherless family is their ideal family.
the single mother family, now becoming the same-sex "family" cultivating future consumers to seek family in corporations or abstractinos, i.e., ideologies, dogmas, cults, gangs, outside bloodlines.

Chas Caledon wrote:

Never Live in Your Parent’s Basement

Living in your parent’s basement is almost as bad as telling everyone your horrible opinions, and everyone assuming from them that you must live in your parent’s basement. Non-whites, especially recent immigrants, are more likely to live with their parents until married, because this is how families work in those cultures. But you can expect no support from family or society. If you live in your parent’s basement, you will be suspected of holding taboo ideas. If forced to live in those conditions, at least don’t tell anyone.

Progs like to speak of their enemies as “living in their parents’ basement.” This is, of course, an attempt to picture them as losers, incapable of making it on their own. But something else is involved: the prog fears that the more time you have at home, free from the pressures of supporting yourself and maintaining a social life, the more likely you are to come across right-wing sites on the internet and learn from them. The prog believes that the working man with a “healthy” social life will be too busy, too uninterested, too happy (i.e., sexually gratified), too responsible, and too aware of the consequences of incorrect opinions on his work and social life to be attracted by the right wing. Yes, you probably also waste time with video games and search for porn that would have given your grandparents generation a heart attack, but that is not the problem from the perspective of the liberal. Of much greater consequence is the possible development of inappropriate political views. This is the hidden underground, a politically incorrect incubator, festering with exciting new ideas that the Left/Gestapo and even their legions of agents has had the most difficulty infiltrating and stamping out.

The fear: If a real counter-culture begins that might threaten the regime, it is quite possible that it will come, first, from this online community and protest, and not meet down on the mall in person as people did in history. Folks used to have to meet in person to know if they had anything in common that wasn’t usual to read in the local newspaper. The old joke about the KKK had it that half of them, at any particular rally, were FBI agents, and the other half were journalists. Perhaps there in the underground there is an individual anonymous protest, it just hasn’t congealed into any kind of a real counter-counter-culture. In any case, the prog is not taking any chances.

The internet has not quite turned out the way the prog imagined it would. In a brief moment of great faith in humanity, during the “new time,” when the world changed forever, as Marshall McLueless would put it, he actually thought that this mass audience would now become a great participating and “creative force.” Instead, most of the time, having the world at our fingertips only reminds us how shallow most people are.  The way people perceive the world is changing, but not always in the way the prog imagined. Another way of looking at it is that the world is being perceived, indeed, but not understood.

It never occurs to the prog that there are countless Chinese cyber-agents doing the same thing: trolling the internet, from their own side of the world. The country employs a “50 Cent Brigade:” thousands of people paid 50 cents for every online post that gives a positive impression of the Chinese Communist Party or China in general. They spew torrents of xenophobic commentary, compared to which the amount coming from the West is a mere trickle. This chauvinist hacking by the Chinese would certainly be enough of a reason to tolerate at least some radical thinking here as a counterbalance. The Leftist should rather encourage a collective defence and opposition to these cyber attacks, as concentrated, determined power loves a vacuum, rather than trying to stab its few young patriots in the back. Of course, this will never happen. What is happening elsewhere in the world has no sway over the prog—he looks for the enemy only in his own society. That’s you.

It is doubtful whether the myopic, close-minded prog can imagine any challenge to himself. He assumes he is right and does not expect change; on the other hand, he is ever on the prowl for you, if only to justify his own existence.

The Globalist is aware this basement lifestyle—the last refuge of free thought in the Western world—is a potential threat, but it is sporadic and faceless. When he does encounter a denizen of the deep, he is likely to try to shut him down. The internet underground is the one place where contrary views might breed rebellion and threaten his rule.

Nobody cares if your basement lair is a dirty hole – all the playing with yourself in the world does not threaten prog hegemony. If you have nothing but sex on the mind all the time, all the better for him. What he fears is the strength, like old Victorians, to resist such temptations and think about more important things. He wants you fantasizing instead of pursuing real girls. Violent, illegal, hard-core porn has never been a problem either.

Once you leave your parents basement and start to have your own life and apartment, the prog assumes you will conform, because you will have less isolation to think clearly and deeply; there is the inevitable social life – the progressive subconscious, big sister, wants this. You will not have the time and freedom from fear anymore to think and write what you want..

More importantly, if you are on your own and have a normal social life, people will assume that you are having lots of sex. And sex is to the prog as prayer is to the Catholic: without it, it no longer is what it is. People who have sex cannot possibly be right-wing—so the thinking goes—because they are happy, and happy people are never “narrow minded.” Just look at Hollywood celebrities!

It is true that the prog fears ex umbra in solem (from the shadow into the light) more than anything. He would rather you were online all the time than out in the world actually doing something. Give him no reason to suspect you of being a “nativist” or “rightist.” Better to spend all your hard-earned money on rent than risk being suspected of holding “unpopular” views. Even if you have to lie, lie through your teeth that you do not live at home, and get your ass out into the real world where (so the prog believes) any interesting opinions you may have will surely be crushed.

Divide and conquer.
Taking the child out of the family forces it to find alternatives in whatever the socioeconomic system considers appropriate.
American ideal is the street savvy "hustler" - individualist, egoist, surviving on his wits in the urban jungles; missing an identity, a sex/race, a tribe, an ethnicity, a culture.....totally dependent on supply/demand to find what is absent.

Another aspect of Americanism, other than tis antipathy to traditional families, would be, what some have described, as a distinctly American musical form, Jazz.

Frank Allen wrote:

Philip Larkin on Jazz:
Invigorating Disagreeableness

The writer Philip Larkin (1922-1985) was born on August 9, 1922, and this essay is part of a commemoration of his centenary. — Ed.

Reading the jazz criticism of the poet Philip Larkin today, the most noticeable feature is how much of the music he did not like. His antipathy towards certain major artists now seems almost incomprehensible. But although the vast majority of contemporary critics, musicians, and fans would be flabbergasted by his various negative judgments, these are often the most fascinating aspects of his work, harkening as they do to a very different world, one in which musical preferences were rooted in ideas about art itself rather than elitist consensus; perhaps even antithetical to it. Jazz was for Larkin a vital artistic force, full of beauty and human warmth, capable of tapping the subconscious in ways other music could not, but it was also a vehicle for the destructive impulses of modernism.

Larkin’s jazz writing is not only interesting as music literature and cultural commentary but as a fascinating documentation of transitional jazz historical phases: the evolution of Dixieland and swing to bebop, bebop to hard bop, and hard bop to free form is charted by Larkin through numerous record reviews and essays. Rather than the dry and matter-of-fact acceptance of it all that one gets in most formal histories and critical literature, we have in Larkin the carefully considered thoughts of an intelligent fan reacting to a changing artistic world with a candor rarely seen at the time — or since. Though it is a challenge to agree with many of his conclusions, as an example of perceptive and witty art criticism from the Right, Larkin’s jazz writing stands out.

By the end of the twentieth century, jazz criticism had been subsumed almost entirely into the morass of carefree equalitarianism that spread virally across white Western cultures in the middle of the century. Divergences of opinion among earlier fans and critics on particular musicians and stylistic trends, which had been both educational and entertaining (e.g., Benny Goodman versus Artie Shaw, Coleman Hawkins versus Lester Young, Buddy Rich versus Gene Krupa) came to be seen as passé and irrelevant. Jazz fans in the early decades of the music’s history often had lists of musicians they did not like as long as the lists of ones they did, but this gradually gave way to the liberal Zeitgeist and a hesitancy to make thoughtful judgments at all. There was no bad genre of jazz, just as there were not really any bad jazz musicians. As with all modern art, those who resisted the self-indulgence and ugliness of the avant-garde were deemed unsophisticated or crudely reactionary. The discordant chaos of free-form jazz was, to critics’ ears, as good and respectable as the orchestral majesty of Stan Kenton or Duke Ellington, the blistering improvisations of Charlie Parker, or the melancholic lyricism of Chet Baker. The “jazz greats” were equally great and equally jazz, with no underlying philosophical differences between them.

You can buy Leo Yankevich’s poetry volume The Hypocrisies of Heaven here.

What we get from Larkin, however, is that this notion is nonsense: Jazz has specific musical characteristics and a specific spiritual value above and beyond music. As such, not all things considered jazz are actually jazz, nor are all jazz musicians equally capable of great art. Larkin immensely dislikes those who try to expand the scope of jazz, narrow its audience, or excuse that which he perceives as philosophically modern. While curmudgeonly, Larkin’s criticism tends to take the music more seriously than does the bulk of jazz writing in subsequent years: jazz means something beyond mere taste and should serve a beneficial spiritual function for its fans. Even those who would now disagree with many of Larkin’s assessments about particular musicians (or jazz itself) cannot help but feel through his writing a reconnection to the music, a desire to rethink and defend one’s opinions intelligently, and a sense that the art form of jazz really does matter.

The first major musical shift within jazz history occurred during the 1940s, when bebop threw a curveball of frenetic technique at the world of tradition. Referred to contemporaneously as “modern jazz,” the new music was decidedly dissimilar to earlier forms, especially the music which had originated in New Orleans in the first years of the twentieth century and spread north to Chicago and New York, and which had enthralled a generation of young men across America and, eventually, Europe. This early jazz (comprising various styles but often lumped together in popular terminology as Dixieland) was what cast its spell over the European Larkin:

Readers of this column may rest assured that as long as there is any swinging or Dixieland jazz in straight two or four on recent records they will hear about it. The rest will be judged by the degree to which it approximates to the excitement produced by the aforesaid swinging or Dixieland jazz.

His reviews frequently proclaim the greatness of Sidney Bechet, Duke Ellington, Bix Beiderbecke, Eddie Condon, and other names one would expect, but are also littered with names of musicians who are not at all well-known today. Reading thoughtful discussions of these artists is of value in itself, but it is the tension between the jazz he loved and his deep distaste for bebop (and most of what followed) that gives his writing a unique energy.

For Larkin, the often blindingly fast tempos and virtuosic improvisations of bebop musicians were an affront not only to jazz, but to art itself. There was a direct connection between the music of Charlie Parker and the poetry of the equally detested Ezra Pound: “. . . I dislike such things not because they are new, but because they are irresponsible exploitations of technique in contradiction of human life as we know it.” Modern jazz was the sound of mystification, violence, and obscenity. It was a novelty, utterly lacking in that which uplifts the soul. From Larkin’s perspective, jazz was deteriorating almost beyond recognition by the 1960s, with only a few stalwarts valiantly defending tradition in a sea of revolutionary dreck. He did everything a critic could to discredit modern jazz and extoll the music and implicit corresponding values of the traditionalists he loved.

What was it about jazz that Larkin, a Rightist with an obvious, if often subtle, race-consciousness, loved enough to devote considerable amounts of time and effort to it? The best place to start is his first unpublished piece on jazz written in 1940 at the age of 18. Though muddled and often pretentious, Larkin in “The Art of Jazz” was clear in his belief that jazz was to be taken seriously: “. . . the unconscious is in a new state, and has a new need, and has produced a new art to satisfy that need, and it is well that we should understand.” Even as a very young man, he recognized the importance of jazz as a shift in man’s relation to the world, a momentous occasion in art. And at the time of writing, jazz had many detractors who saw it is as a savage attack on culture. For Larkin, however, jazz at its best was an expression of previously inarticulable facets of human experience: Its intimate psychological character was apparent in the pronounced vibrato of the clarinets and saxophones, the emotive growling and singing of brass, and the primal “hot” rhythms of the drums (his instrument of choice as a child). These characteristics were entirely unique to jazz, completely unlike classical, “legit” music. Jazz was real-time communication between the souls of the artist and audience, improvised like a conversation, feeding off the back-and-forth energy of the exchange. Jazz was music by and for the common man, and it was good because it made him happy.

“What was so exciting about jazz was the way its unique, simple gaiety instantly communicated itself to such widely differing kinds of human being,” he wrote in response to an author who had suggested that jazz appreciation since bebop required some degree of technical musical knowledge. The post-war retreat of jazz into the world of the mind, inward and away from the audience, from the nightclub to the concert hall, from the street to academia, was, for Larkin, detrimental — perhaps fatal — to the music and helped to render the world from which it sprang to the dustbin. “The effete condition of classical music after 300 years has been reached by jazz itself in under half a century,” he wrote. By the end of the 1950s, modern jazz artists, for whom the audience had become secondary at best and a nuisance at worst (e.g. Miles Davis playing with his back to the crowd or Charles Mingus’ onstage temper tantrums), appeared on the scene, forcing the gradual disappearance of the casual, positive interaction between artist and audience which for Larkin was integral to jazz. The music had stopped being communal, instead becoming academic and elitist.

The insularity and self-indulgence of modernism opened paths for politics to enter the scene and, for jazz, this too often meant that blacks no longer wanted “to entertain the white man.” Long before the recent sacralization of blacks across white cultures, there was in the jazz world a similar phenomenon. Despite overwhelming evidence of a multiracial origin to the music, black jazz musicians were very often given a degree of legitimacy denied to whites. This was largely a result of (often Jewish) critics and historians transposing their racial animus onto the jazz world. For their part, however, fans were generally content to listen to and enjoy the music without much considering the race of the musicians when assessing quality, but the trend of modern jazz was towards racialization and away from earlier (semi-)colorblindness.

Though he had no problem with racial differences per se, which he took as a given and deemed perfectly natural, Larkin did not accept the explicitly hostile racial politicization of modern jazz that had begun creeping into it around 1960. He wrote in 1970: “. . . I still think it’s possible to instance this or that as good white or black jazz, with the implication that the other race could not have done it as well and no offence meant.” From a piece on the blues one year earlier:

I am getting rather tired of the blues boom. Having for thirty years known the blues as a kind of jazz that calls forth a particular sincerity from the player (‘Yeah, he’s all right, but can he play the blues?’), or as a muttering, plangent lingua franca of the southern American Negro, it gives me no pleasure to hear it banged out in unvarying fortissimo by an indistinguishable series of groups and individuals of both races and nations. The blues is tough, resilient, basic, ubiquitous. But it is not indestructible, and if we go on like this the day will come when the whole genre will be as tedious as, say, the Harry Lime theme.

Larkin resists the pollution of the blues by mediocrities with little actual connection to it, even hinting that the white blues musician could be seen as an interloper. Race is seen as a fact of existence which necessarily has an effect on an artist’s soul but does not have to — nor should — drag him into a swamp of politics and messy history. Jazz was supposed to be a refuge from such worldly concerns. And, of course, he was right about the blues. It has devolved into one of the blandest and meaningless of all musical forms. Rightists, as always, have a keen sense of impending destruction.

But mostly Larkin resented the intrusion of anti-whiteness into jazz, perhaps especially so because it was inevitably exhibited by musicians for whom he would have had no respect regardless. Discussing Archie Shepp, for example, Larkin writes of the saxophonist’s “death-to-all-white-men wails”; about John Coltrane, he writes that his late period solos are “the musical equivalent of Stokely Carmichael” and that this music (free form jazz) “appeals to the Black-power boys.” As a jazz fan, he found the music agitating and ugly; as a critic of modernism, it was symptomatic of its inherent ills; and as a white man, he took offense. He writes: “The adjective ‘modern’, when applied to any branch of art, means ‘designed to evoke incomprehension, anger, boredom or laughter’,” and then states that Coltrane and others like him were a part of the transformation of jazz from a pleasure to a duty. Part of the “duty” of jazz had become the inability to avoid burgeoning black race-consciousness. He longed for the old days.

You can buy Collin Cleary’s Wagner’s Ring & the Germanic Tradition here.

While it is refreshing to read criticism from a man who is generally unafraid to express displeasure with icons in a world in which judgment itself is frowned upon — especially the jazz world, which is often an incestuous love-fest of men starved of discernment — it is very hard for contemporary readers to hear with Larkin’s ears. One can understand and even sympathize with his position on modernism in jazz, but a reader rejecting John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Charlie Parker based on his criticism is even more unlikely now than it was then. By definition, then, he is unconvincing, and indeed antiquated.

Much of the music deemed radical at the time by Larkin now sounds conservative, while his treasured early jazz can sound far more wild to contemporary ears than it did in Larkin’s time. The group improvisations of Dixieland are often jarringly raucous to present-day listeners, while John Coltrane’s “sheets of sound” or Charlie Parker’s lightning-fast bebop sound perfectly normal. Does this indicate that the slippery slope of modernism is real or merely that tastes change? I believe, in the case of jazz, it is more often than not the latter. This shift was organic, developing simply from musicians playing music in groups and trying out new sounds and new techniques in their constant quest to create better art. It is, I would suggest, rarely more complex than that. A serious commitment to philosophical modernism by jazz fans and musicians would see Peter Brötzmann selling as many records as Miles Davis, and Evan Parker playing to larger crowds than Scott Hamilton. But this does not happen. There is, clearly, a natural limit to what kind of art the common man appreciates. Within that limit, though, are diverse avenues for artistic expression. There is not one form of jazz uniquely capable of expressing beauty: tonality, order, and emotional sanity still reign in jazz, despite many decades of elitist efforts to valorize the avant-garde. Modern jazz fans — those who enjoy jazz styles connected in some way to the bebop shift — still rarely listen to Archie Shepp. In this way, Larkin was quite possibly correct about modernism but wrong about which jazz musicians were, in fact, modernists.

Modern jazz quite clearly better filled the need for the new “unconscious” Larkin spoke of in his youth than did early jazz. Larkin failed to perceive that his taste in jazz was a product of his age and time, perhaps not realizing just how far removed the world of early jazz was — or would become — from contemporary audiences. Though, like all art, the best of it is timeless, the circumstances in which it is created are fleeting. Art is always contextual. A man of similar temperament to Larkin’s who discovers John Coltrane or Charlie Parker before Bix Beiderbecke or Bessie Smith (as most new jazz fans have since the 1960s) will have a vastly different starting point upon which to base his own version of “traditionalism.” Thus, one cannot help but think that Larkin was somewhat of a nostalgic. The pleasurable days of listening to jazz with his university chums became an ideal to which he longed to return, blinding him to examples of modern jazz that possessed the characteristics of art he appreciated but which were in fact merely stylistically different.

Larkin resented what he felt — and some critics argued — was the need for modern jazz fans to understand music theory in order to appreciate it, but this was never required. People fell in love with Charlie Parker’s music because it was exciting and communicated something relatable to them — the same reason Larkin fell in love with Sidney Bechet’s music. Of course, more knowledge leads to deeper understanding, but the vast majority of people who find enjoyment and meaning in modern jazz are not musicians. Larkin often mistakes taste for philosophy: genuine innovation and organic stylistic shifts do not always arise from philosophical trends, nor are they always a willful rejection of tradition.

Regarding race, it was naïve on Larkin’s part to assume that jazz would somehow remain indifferent to or transcend racial politics. As I have written before, jazz is perhaps the only genuinely positive result of multiracialism, but as a civilizational framework riddled with impossible utopian fictions, it was always doomed to devolve as reality reared its head. The jazz world, despite its relative racial tolerance, is not exempt from reality. It is hardly the fault of Archie Shepp, John Coltrane, or any of the “Black-power boys” that black jazz musicians became publicly and explicitly race-conscious. What is far more surprising is that white jazz musicians almost never did. This is a problem that goes far beyond modernism in jazz.

I believe that the notion of jazz degenerating over time, of which Larkin was convinced, has been proven historically false: Despite its radical origins, good jazz, traditional or modern, elevates the soul, enhances the lives of its fans, and its artistically successful practitioners are necessarily intelligent and sensitive. Though jazz fans have indeed become too accepting of mediocrity and outright hucksters, one finds among them a fairly consistent high level of sophistication and discernment — with or without musical training.

Larkin’s fears, grounded though they were in broader issues of real import, were largely unfounded. Reading his opinions on jazz will, however, always be immensely pleasurable. His honesty and willingness to address issues that almost no one will touch today makes his jazz writing a must-read for jazz fans of the Right, who will doubtless seek out mentioned recordings, listen with fresh ears, and thoroughly enjoy the humanity of jazz — just as Larkin, fundamentally, would have wanted.

there are only two musical styles I completely and utterly dislike: Jazz and Reggae.
I can find some piece, some aspect, I can appreciate and enjoy in all other musical styles - including cRap - but I have not found - nor do I expect to - nothing remotely appealing about Jazz or Reggae.
The style grates at my aesthetic sensitivities whenever I am exposed to it.

Blank slate argument accurately reflects whites born without traditions, kinship networks, and ethnos. This blank slate fact explains why race realists seek a white identity in genes -- while Liberals successfully filled minds of white children with their values. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Blank Slate is the bedrock of Americanism - its individualism.
The delusion that man is born without inherited dispositions, potentials etc. - nature - but is entirely created by culture, social norms, etc. nurture.
Genes/Memes

A delusion that paints the opposition as absolutist so as to justify its own absolutism; that accuses the opposition of ideological motives to conceal its own; that makes eugenics into a curse to hide its own social engineering.

In brief, my positions:
Nature = inherited potentials (range of probability). Determining, approximately, 70% of an individual's identity; Nurture = cultivated potentials. Determining, approximately 30%, where within this inherited range of probability he/she will fall - fluctuating over time.
Mutations - due to interactions between order/chaos - determining the degree to which the inherited potentials will be warped, altered, by unforeseen environmental factors, adjusting the range of probability upwards or downwards and adjusting the environmental effects - other than socioeconomic - on an individual, and his/her reactions to them, during his/her lifetime.

US uncovers Iran 'plot' to kill ex-White House official, Tehran calls the accusation ‘baseless’ – [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Georgi Gotev & EURACTIV.bg (@GeorgiGotev) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't understand why anyone would want to harm such a good goy...

'The racial apocalypse will be the beginning of something better' [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Adam Green - Know More News ️ (@Know_More_News) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They always think about the "benefits" first....never the cost.
Always the profit first.

Full is their glass - the positive nihilists - not even half-full. We are moving towards full-fill-ment, i.e., healing the world, retuning it to its original state of "perfection".
The pure nihilists always see it empty.
Binary.
Bipolar - on one side the absolute one; on the other than absolute nil.

"Spitalnick sees herself as continuing the same fight against white supremacy and “authoritarianism,”... the mainstreaming of the antisemitic Great Replacement theory, the rise of anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ legislation and voter suppression efforts."[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A background into George Soros's malign activity in Ukraine. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you don't see the connection between Soros and Americanism then you have no clue what Americanism is.

Let me help..

Russia is the only geopolitical force whites have to seriously weaken Anglo-Jewish power, the main factor behind the great replacement. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

J-wish gematria numerology being adopted by tons of QAnon zio Christians is part of the Kabbalistic spell that they're chosen by God and possess supernatural powers. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Adam Green - Know More News ️ (@Know_More_News) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Astrology, alchemy, palm reading, tarot cards, numerology, prophesies...the paranormal, supernatural...Messianic. Gypsy parasitical methods and means.

Playing out an end times script spellbinding the deceived nations[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Adam Green - Know More News ️ (@Know_More_News) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Controlled opposition"....binaries.
Imprison the minds of the mediocre masses within the bipolar nihilistic paradigm.
1/0....good/evil.
Bipolar = positive/pure nihilism - absolute order vs. absolute chaos.

I find it comical that the establishment would consider Trump such a threat. He was the perfect tool and lap dog for Israel, perfect controlled opposition. His entire term was fully under the control of the leftist arm, he was kept on a comfortably tight leash, and they virtually never allowed him to get out of hand, other than his seditious rhetoric against their precious media outlets, which wasn't anything they couldn't handle really. He was almost useless as a president, other than bringing attention to certain aspects of government corruption; his campaign slogans and promises were all lies and bullshit, and he lined his administration with neocon faggots and globalist shills who didn't even carry out his executive orders and undermined and circumvented his authority at their will, every step of the way. He was essentially a general without an army. Why wouldn't they confidently think he wouldn't be kept under their firm control again, if he were to get back into the white house?
Preemptive paranoia i suppose, power-mad.
I don't think they view him as a "threat", so much as a bad annoying pest, a nuisance they have to neutralize to prevent further problems. The seditious underground political rightist groups are probably more of a concern for them.

He was the arm of consolidation and conservation.....fighting the hysterics of the Zio-Harpies.
But he was on the same side....from the same deep-state, the same shit-hole where these vermin live.

An orange figurehead to rally the masses of mediocrity - right wing crazies - against the armies of degenerates - left wing crazies - they had cultivated for decades.
Trump was nourished in this shithole, and then selected for a task.
See who his mentor was....

He is of them....only he never started a war and practiced isolationism.
A pulling back.

They fear that if he is re-elected four more years of no wars will be a final nail in the neo-con/Hollywood coffin.

Trump has lost a lot of credibility with a large part of his former voters because he turned out to be a big mouth, playing the foil for the swamp many times. Under his presidency, the crackdown on White opposition to Globohomo was also the toughest in recent memory.

All this Trump hysteria might be just all show to entice his former voters once again and make them get behind him. Re-invest them in the rigged game.

For an audiobook reading of....
ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN - 200 YEARS TOGETHER (AUDIOBOOK) - BEFORE THE 19TH CENTURY

Visit Hyperborea.
It'll offer insight into what is currently happening in the US, in the current Ukraine conflict (and past conflicts, including WWII) - why it is happening and why Peterson never mentions this book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a writer he admires and often refers to.

It can be traced to the Allied imposed post-WW2 White self-hate facilitated by the Christian dogma of the Original Sin & postmodern rousseauristic adulation of “the noble savage”. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Tom Sunic (@Tom_Sunic) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nationalism & ethnocentrism conceive the people or nation as liberalism conceives of the individual: as a fundamentally “free” being deriving its rights as so many attributes of its unlimited “freedom,” & which cannot be obliged except by its own will, within the horizon of

— Alain de Benoist (@Daily_Benoist) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

a calque on the liberal ideal of the autonomy of individuals. From this point of view, the universal struggle of nations & peoples is merely a projection onto a broader scale of interindividual competition in which the tribunal of history plays the role of the market. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Alain de Benoist (@Daily_Benoist) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Peterson's individualism should be supportive of transsexuals, as the ultimate display of an individual's right to self-ienditfy and self-create.
It is his logic pushed to tis ultimate end.
But he is not.
The insanity of where individualism - American individualism - leads, or the underlying ideology is rejected when sex/gender come into question.
Here the contradiction of the ideal and the real is made clear.
So, Peterson falls back to Abrahamism and the divine source of human identity unable to apply this resistance to other biological identifiers, like race.
In this he reminds me of the MRA.
The MRA, back in the day, adopted feminist tactics to push back on feminism's "logic" - fighting fire with fire, in order to preserve male rights.
But it refused to apply its own reasoning to anything other than sex/gender, intuitively know that this would divide men and weaken their arguments, opening them up to the usual accusations of "racism".
Some of them were so naïve that they believed that using sexual tactics - feminine methods - to pressure females to return to reason, was going to work, e.g., turning their backs on woman and "going their own way".
With Peterson 'tribalism' ethnicity' is the great enemy, so he refuses to acknowledge Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together - exposing a tribal dynamic he refuses to see - but remains fixed on Solzhenitsyn's "genius" in Gulag Archipelago with its ideological focus on how individualism is repressed by collectives.
He sees no connection between his Protestantism and Marxism, and between a secular Jew (Zionist) and an Anglo-Saxon, like himself.....subsequently involving himself with internet relationships that reveal this connection clearly.
His relationship with a homosexual of the tribe is particularly stunning, given his religious/ideological views on male/female genetically determined impulses and the importance of family in the development of children.
His Protestantism is clear.
Individuals are in a personal relationship with the divine, with no mediation, no earthly authorities imposing themselves within these personal relationships.
But then, is not transsexuality also a protest of sexual/gender roles?
Of course it is, but he correctly identifies gender as the ideological extension of a biological identity, i.e., sex, and considers it divine in origin.
Abrahamics are the only ones that are pushing back on this insanity, e.g., Walsh, Crowder, Shapiro, E. Michael Jones.....etc.
Abrahamism erased racial divisions with their anti-biology dogma, but refuse to erase sexual divisions, because this threatens their existence.
So, they fight to justify why their own "logic" ought not to go further.
The only "enemy" they acknowledge is an ideological one, because their own positions are ideological/dogmatic and not biologically rooted.

Americanism abstract individualism - personhood - to the point where a corporation is given "individual rights" and treated as a person.
It money is also abstracted referring to nothing tangible.
It's entire existence is abstraction - a melting pot of biological identifiers in an ideological pot, named 'freedom'.
Nothing about it is tangible.
Isn't it obvious why transsexuality bubbles-up in this boiling pot of chaotic nothingness?
How could it not have been forged by Protestants and Jews when both dogmas/ideologies are a revolt against the tangible world - nature?

I heard that whites - miscegenated Americans of predominate mixed-European descent - will become a minority in the US around 2045.
That's around the period I've predicted the second American Civil war will occur.
Here is my prediction - dates are give as a median - (+) (-) a decade or two, since these events happen in generational periods: 25-30 year intervals.

1775 (approx.) - start
1870 (approx.) - Civil War (midpoint)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970 (approx.) - Pinnacle of American Hegemony
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2070 (approx. est.) - Second Civil War (midpoint) ({+} {-} 10-20 years)
2175  (approx. est.) - end ({+} {-} 10-20 years)

Satyr wrote:

I heard that whites - miscegenated Americans of predominate mixed-European descent - will become a minority in the US around 2045.

What is your opinion on potential social strife in France around this topic? The French passed a law in 1872 prohibiting the collection of data on race so only estimates can be made regarding ethnic demographics. One such estimate is based on Sickle Cell disease testing. This doesn't affect Europeans so they're usually not tested. The latest data (2018) suggests that already 40.3% of all births in France are to non-white parents. This seems to contrast quite sharply with estimates given by French media/marketing companies and think tanks that suggest it is far less (about 12%).


Sickle Cell testing:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

All Americanised peoples - after 70 years of American media and Hollywood, will have demographic issues.
The US is not an ethnostate, so nothing other than bloodlines, will be lost.
France,. Germany, all of Europe, are ethnostate. There, this trend will substitute their culture with America's culture-of-no-culture.

Euroepans will face a third near-extinction event.
Only the few will pass on their genes, and these will be the cleverest, strongest-willed, and those with the clearest sense of identity.
The rest will be filtered out of the gene pool.

Dugin IS most threatening thinker to globohomo order. Read his excellent essay "Liberalism 2.0" written soon after the overthrow of Trump. It is the best analysis of the current political philosophical divide in the West from the perspective of his 4PT. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Alexander Dugin at the site near Moscow where his daughter Darya was killed tonight in a car bombing.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dugin is the only dissident who has conceptualized a program with a grand politics identifying Eurasia as the site within which the Dasein of traditional peoples is instantiated with a historical mission to defeat American transsexual melting pot globalism. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dugin....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception

Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).

Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars – not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" – as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 – that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."
As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his – and student Allen Bloom's – many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world – as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.

One of the heads responsible for Britain’s Royal Air Force’s recruitment has resigned after failing to meet the military organization’s diversity targets, which emphasized women and non-white men over white men, believing the orders to be illegal.

MORE: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WE HAVE GOT A PROBLEM: The notion that America is a melting pot of immigrant races is consistent with its foundational natural rights principles --- which is why no conservative would dare question this idea, and its export to Europe, leading to replacement of Whites. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This man, Israel Zangwill, said America was intended to be a "melting pot" to include all races and cultures from the world ---- and today every single intellectual, politician, businessman agrees that to think otherwise goes against the founding principles of the US. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wikipedia wrote:

Israel Zangwill (21 January 1864 – 1 August 1926) was a British author at the forefront of cultural Zionism during the 19th century, and was a close associate of Theodor Herzl. He later rejected the search for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and became the prime thinker behind the territorial movement.

Can you see the pattern?
This parasite-meme reshaped the U.S. and lead it to tis own degeneration.

Cue cRap tunes...

I'll be keepin' it real...and spittin' fax, yo...den you be axing me for more...

Fist Fax....
*People are not "created" and nothing is "equal" especially not humans.

Secund fax...
*No, all do not have the same potentials.
In fact, potentials - probabilities - are inherited.
If it were not so natural selection would be unnecessary because all selections would amount to the same outcome.
This "equity of outcomes" bullshyte is a postmodern lie. It is so ingrained that this fight for equity will never attain its goal, because the goal is not in reality, but is ideological with no referent.

Turd Fax..
*No god.
Ex-slaves need a master, but most are too proud to submit to a real, earthly, master - bein protester.....Protestantized and Judaized...so they need an abstracted master to surrender their will to.

ironically....Dillon is a homosexual. A symptom of decline.
A ideal espouse by Americanism as the epitome of individualism.

What can be more American than a self-made "individual" who rejects all earthly authority, including natural order?
Peterson is now fighting against transsexuality, another example of an American self-made individuals.
A Protestant protesting against all earthly mediating authorities is now protesting against those who's protest is going "too far"; an man who weeps when he mentions the plight of the individual is now imposing a limit on this individualism.

The logic that brings us or the brink of insanity is now setting limits to its own "logic"....seeing where it leads.