(((Dennis Prager))) is a shameless liar

The intensity of the ongoing neoclown campaign against Western nationalism and the shamelessness with which they are attempting to redefine the perfectly straightforward concepts of “nationalism” and “Western civilization” indicates that they know they are on their way out. Again. In his recent column, (((Dennis Prager))) offers the precise opposite of “clarity” about nationalism:

Nationalism is beautiful when it involves commitment to an essentially decent nation and when it welcomes other people’s commitment to their nations. Nationalism is evil when it is used to celebrate an evil regime, when it celebrates a nation as inherently superior to all others and when it denigrates all other national commitments.

One should add that nationalism is evil when it celebrates race, but that is not nationalism; it is racism. Nationalism and racism may be conjoined, as German Nazism did. But they are not definitionally related. While some Americans have conjoined American nationalism with race (such as the Confederacy, the Ku Klux Klan and currently various fringe “white identity” movements), American nationalism, based as it is on the motto “e pluribus unum” (“out of many, one”), by definition includes Americans of all races and ethnicities. That is how conservatives define American nationalism. I have never met a conservative who defined American national identity as definitionally “white.”

Notice the way in which the horrifically deceptive devil’s son completely omits both the most relevant definition of nationalism from the dictionary as well as its etymological roots. He is truly of his father, the deceiver.

the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

Nationalism is, by logic, linguistics, and definition, a subset of racism because nation is a subset of race. The only “nationalism” that is not intrinsically related to race is civic nationalism, which is not nationalism at all, but an ersatz paperwork substitute for it.

The irony, of course, is that these neoclowns are attempting to destroy American nationalism in the interests of their own nation. They are pure and unmitigated evil, all the more so for their attempt to disguise themselves as intellectual wolves in sheep’s clothing. But they are not particularly bright intellectual wolves, as it is more than a little amusing to see how (((Prager)))’s own definition of evil nationalism obviously applies to the Jewish variety.

UPDATE: Phelps points out that (((Prager))) also lies about “e pluribus unum“.

This is an ABSOLUTE lie. It never meant, “out of many races”, it explicitly meant “out of many states, one confederation.” That is why it is the United STATES, not United Races.


The problem of sources

Unauthorized historian RFB points out that the problem of whom to believe is as old as history:

Last week I broke my sabbatical seclusion to attend a panel that my colleagues in the Department of History had organized on “Understanding the Trump Phenomenon.” The panelists covered a range of themes: climate change denialism, white nationalism, the global failure of capitalism, the latent illiberalism of American culture, and world-wide yearnings towards totalitarianism—all the usual -isms. And then they opened the floor to questions. Like a good fencer, I got my hand up first and said something about the need to think of American culture in more regional and long-range terms, particularly the differences in conceptions of liberty that David Hackett Fisher has shown to be in play, but it was already too late. The room was primed to descend into pessimism and despair, although since we’re talking academics here—fellow professors and graduate students in History for the most part—it was subtle and came out mainly in the kinds of questions asked.

One question in particular had my colleagues on the panel stumped. “How,” one of our graduate students asked, after the conversation had ranged round the many ways in which the progressive liberal experiment in America seemed doomed, “do we know what news sources we can trust anymore?” Her voice rose as she spoke, in that way that I have regularly heard my friends’ voices rise over the past few weeks; even men’s voices go up as their anxieties kick in and they start pleading with the universe to make the results of the election go away. “How do we know what news sources we can trust anymore?” My colleagues made a stab at it: “Go with sources that you have to pay a subscription for.” But mainly they sat and shook their heads, clearly at a loss. They wanted to give the students an answer, but were distressed that they couldn’t name news sources that they themselves trusted fully, not even The New York Times. “It is a wild wild world out there,” they seemed to be saying. “Even we aren’t sure whom we can believe.”

Read the whole thing there. It’s intriguing, particularly as concerns the intellectual rivalry between William, a canon of the Augustinian house of Newburgh, and Geoffrey of Monmouth.


Hazony dons the nationalist skinsuit

It’s beyond obvious that Yoram Hazony is attempting to create a new gatekeeping outpost in between civic nationalism and genuine nationalism, but he’s not anywhere nearly smart enough to do so effectively. His posited distinction between “nationalism” and “racialism” is not only absurd, it is very, very easily exploded.

Yoram Hazony
I think it’s as clear as daylight. I wrote a book drawing parallels between Jewish-Israeli nationalism and American, British, and other nationalisms, and arguing for their legitimacy. The book rejects racialism across the boards. All you need to do is to read it.

Yoram Hazony
But my opposition to mixing nationalism with race theories has been explicit every step of the way. It’s explicit in the conference announcement and on the website. You don’t have to agree with me. Still, it takes some nerve to pretend I’ve been anything but open about this.

I read Hazony’s book. Unlike many on the nationalist Right, I saw through him immediately and pointed out that his “National Conservative” conference was an obvious attempt to set up yet another neoclown gatekeeping organization, this one focused on nationalists. Hazony’s further attempts to “defend his ideas” readily reveal him to be not only a gatekeeper, but a shameless liar of the Ben Shapiro variety for two very obvious reasons.

First, to the extent there is any distinction between two terms that have historically been used in a synonymous manner, nation is a subset of race. Necessarily. So to base an argument on the idea that nation is actually a broader category than race is worse than dishonest, it is deeply stupid. It’s a total nonstarter.

Second, the etymology of nation makes it obvious that racialism is, and always will be, an element of nationalism.

1250–1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt(us) (past participle of nāscī to be born) + -iōn- -ion

One’s nationality derives from one’s birth, not one’s geographical location or paperwork. It is an identification based on DNA, blood, and family, not ideology, confession, documents, or current location in the space-time continuum. By appealing to the fact of adoption, Hazony is stupidly attempting to derive a rule from its occasional exception.

UPDATE: Hazony is also a true son of his father:

Yoram Hazony@yhazony
Sorry, there is no such thing as “genetically Jewish.” Jews are a nation, not a race. Anyone on earth can join the Jewish people, as Ruth the Moabite did—by accepting our people as her people, and our God as her God.Yoram Hazony added,

owen cyclops@owenbroadcast
so atheist jews, who reject your god, arent jews then?

Yoram Hazony@yhazony
Atheist Jews remain Jews. We were talking about non-Jews who want to join the Jewish people and what’s involved.


Don’t wait to have kids

And listen to GenX, not the idiot Boomers. You’ll be glad you did:

Kirstie Allsopp has slammed young couples who wait until their thirties to have children.

The Location, Location, Location presenter, 47, took to Twitter on Wednesday to urge women in their twenties not to wait until they ‘have more money or feel ready’, and to save their money for ‘proper childcare’, instead of splashing on lavish weddings and expensive houses.

Expressing her frustration at millennials who tell her they want ‘a few more years of fun’, she argued that ‘nothing will ever be more fun than children’.

Kirstie also revealed her regret at waiting until she was 35 and 37 to have her sons Bay, 11, and Oscar, nine, admitting that she was ‘too old’ to have a third, and had only waited until her thirties to start a family as she hadn’t met the right man.

However her impassioned Twitter thread sparked a heated debate, with many followers warning her that her message was putting unnecessary pressure on young couples, and could panic women into starting families…. Slamming the TV presenter’s message, one follower wrote: ‘Stop telling women in their late 20s they’re running out of time to have kids. It’s so damaging.’ Another argued that millennials should be allowed to live their lives to the full while they were still commitment-free, so they wouldn’t feel they missed out later.

The problem is that no one feels they’ve missed out more than a woman who focuses on having fun during her fertile years only to discover that she missed out on motherhood. Don’t wait. You won’t regret it.


Yoram Hazony is a Fake Nationalist

Hazony  proves to be just another basic bitch neoclown, and his book, The Virtue of Nationalism, is, despite its various merits, little more than an attempt at establishing a gatekeeping post for the civic nationalists.

This personal invitation arrived in my email inbox recently:

Naturally, I was delighted. I had been very impressed with the Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue Of Nationalism and had even had an affable exchange with him via Twitter Direct Message about his publisher’s curious failure to release the book in audio form:

So Lydia and I duly paid our $285 fee (each) to register. But we got this response:

It’s a form letter. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who tried in his frugal way to get press credentials, got exactly the same thing.

Jared very reasonably wrote back to ask if would he be denied press credentials if he were “a socialist or Open-Borders advocate” a.k.a. a typical member of the Main Stream Media.

Needless to say, Hazony and Brog did not have the courtesy to reply.

I’m not even a little bit surprised. You may recall that despite his protestations in his book, Hazony appeared to be more civic nationalist than genuine nationalist, and that has proved to be the case. In spades.

National Conservative = Neoclown Cuckservative.


DBC: Mere Christianity II

This is the quiz for the Darkstream Book Club: Mere Christianity II.

1. What did the older thinkers really mean by “The Law of Nature”.

  • a) The physical laws of Creation.
  • b) The Law of Human Nature.
  • c) The Law of Tooth and Claw.
  • d) Sir Isaac Newton’s three Laws of Thermodynamics

2. What was the reason for the name being given to the Law of Nature?

  • a) The law dealt with the natural world.
  • b) The law was based on the natural environment.
  • c) The law was imposed by human government.
  • d) No one needed to be taught it.

3. In what way does Lewis suggest that the Nazis cannot be criticized for their actions?

  • a) In the absence of an accepted standard for human behavior.
  • b) In the absence of Christianity.
  • c) On the basis of moral relativity.
  • d) Because Lewis more or less agreed with Nazi principles.

4. Why do some people say the Law of Nature is unsound?

  • a) Because the laws of nature can’t apply to artificial social constructs.
  • b) Because different ages have different moralities.
  • c) Because it contradicts the teachings of Christianity.
  • d) Because the Law of Nature is a social construct.

5. What two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves?

  • a) I think, therefore I am.
  • b) The Law of Nature exists and it is broken.
  • c) Right and wrong are illusions in which we must believe in order to have a civil society.
  • d) Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, love under law.

Mere Christianity I


Eliminating student loan debt

President Trump needs to get out in front of this issue in a big way. It is a definite election-winner:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., will propose on Monday eliminating all $1.6 trillion of student debt held in the United States, a significant escalation of the policy fight in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary two days before the candidates’ first debate in Miami.

Sanders is proposing that the federal government pay to wipe clean the student debt held by 45 million Americans – including all private and graduate school debt – as part of a package that also would make public universities, community colleges and trade schools tuition-free.

Sanders is proposing to pay for these plans with a tax on Wall Street his campaign says will raise more than $2 trillion over 10 years, though some tax experts give lower revenue estimates.

Sanders will be joined Monday by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who will introduce legislation in the House to eliminate all student debt in the United States, as well as Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who has championed legislation to make public universities tuition-free.

Politics aside, eliminating student debt is the right thing to do. The power of the banks needs to be broken and this is the most effective way to begin doing that. Student loan debt is intrinsically predatory and cannot be justified, especially in light of the massive endowments of the elite universities.

The fact is that most people should not go to college. But if corporations are going to demand worthless pieces of paper for a job, then those worthless pieces of paper should be provided to everyone who wants one for free.

Remember, periodic debt forgiveness is straight out of the Bible and is even referenced in the Lord’s Prayer. Debtors must be forgiven, concerns about fairness notwithstanding.


Deplatforming Christian morality

Australian rugby star Israel Folau’s legal defense crowdfunding campaign was deplatformed and shut down by GoFundMe:

Israel Folau’s controversial appeal for financial assistance for his legal fight against Rugby Australia has been shut down by GoFundMe Australia, with more than $650,000 in funds donated to the sacked rugby star expected to be refunded.

Rugby Australia terminated Folau’s multimillion-dollar contract last month after he posted a photo to Instagram in April that said homosexuals were destined for hell unless they repented of their sins.

Folau, 30, launched legal proceedings with the Fair Work Commission and said that, if a deal is not struck with RA, he would take the matter to the High Court. He set up the GoFundMe page in the hope of receiving $3 million in donations.

But GoFundMe Australia released a statement to the Herald on Monday saying the Folau appeal breached the organisation’s terms and conditions.

“Today we will be closing Israel Folau’s campaign and issuing full refunds to all donors. After a routine period of evaluation, we have concluded that this campaign violates our terms of service,” GoFundMe Australia regional manager Nicola Britton said.

“As a company, we are absolutely committed to the fight for equality for LGBTIQ+ people and fostering an environment of inclusivity.

“While we welcome GoFundMes engaging in diverse civil debate, we do not tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion.”

It’s always lies, lies, and more lies, with a side order of lies, with these inversives. There was no “routine period of evaluation”. What happened was that a bunch of SJW activists complained and thereby triggered the amenable authorities at GoFundMe, who duly pretended to have reviewed the campaign.

I am not familiar with GoFundMe’s terms of use, particularly not in Australia, but Folau should carefully review them in order to see where their legal vulnerabilities lie. And this is yet another reminder that Christians and everyone who has not submitted to the satanic Narrative needs to build and utilize their own non-SJW platforms.

While Folau’s GoFundMe page soared past the $580,000 mark on Saturday, there were growing calls for the “hypocritical” website, which proudly displays a gay pride flag on its social media accounts, to shut down the fundraising exercise.

As I said, lies and more lies. I hope Mr. Folau will follow through and make the rubble bounce.


Neoclowns are insanely stupid

President Trump confirms that John Bolton is a warmongering idiot:

Donald Trump has confirmed that his top foreign policy adviser wants to embroil the US in multiple international conflicts. But the US president insists he retains final say on whether American missiles are to fly into Iran.

In a sit-down Meet the Press interview broadcast Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked Trump if he was “being pushed into military action against Iran” by his advisers – presumably pointing to the aggressive pronouncements from National Security Advisor John Bolton.

“I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks,” replied Trump. “John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he’d take on the whole world at one time, okay?”

Americans had better pray the neoclowns don’t come to power again, as they did during the Bush years. Because they will start a war with the rest of the world and they will lose it.


Mailvox: it’s only fair

A MGTOW decides that it is only fair to ask me to give practical help and advice to others:

You’ve stated your case against MGTOW’s like me as liars and Satanists, so now I think it’s fair to ask you to now move on to the next step, which is to give practical help and advice to these young men that you are encouraging to get married regarding what sort of women they should be looking for, and how they can be better and more successful husbands and fathers.

You might think it should be obvious, but when people are young and lack life experience they don’t always see things clearly. The gynocentric feminazi world certainly is not helping men and women figure things out.

I’m still MGTOW my self, because that’s what works for me, I was MGTOW decades before it had the name or the militant political and social aspect to it. Even so, I happily concede some of your points, one of which MGTOW’s call NAWALT, not all women are like that. But young men need help seeing and understanding what these unicorns look like, the kind of attitudes and opinions that are peculiar to the unicorns. It’s more than just their notch counts and selfies, I think.

I never found a unicorn my self, but I still allow that they exist, somewhere, out there, in the big world.

So, young men need help recognizing the qualities of a unicorn, and also they need help developing the qualities of leadership that you point out are necessary to maintaining a healthy relationship with a woman.

I think if you provided a positive message toward that end, you would help the cause of promoting the survival of western civilization more effectively than just calling people names.

You called me a liar, but I would be lying if I did not confess and admit that I have made a deliberate and considered choice to eschew relationships with females, and I’d be a liar if I didn’t tell the truth about how and why I made that choice.

I don’t tell young men what to do or not do, I don’t call them names if they make a different choice. Mainly I tell young men, when I tell them anything, to be careful about women, don’t fall for just a pretty face, and make sure they consult with a lawyer before they sign any legal documents of any kind. How is that bad advice? How is that dishonest and Satanic? I’m not seeing it. But never mind on that, just please think about how to actually accomplish what you claim is your intention, which is a good intention in my opinion.

Hey, calling liars and cowards liars and cowards is just me going my own way. How can they possibly object to that? It’s really rather amazing how sensitive these narcissistic creatures are to criticism of their chosen path when they have very publicly declared that they owe nothing to society and refuse to do anything for anyone. What do they care if anyone calls them names anyhow?

Anyhow, I don’t care what they think is fair. I’m not shaming them to try to change their behavior, I am simply observing their contemptible cowardice and their habitual dishonesty. I don’t care what they think is fair. I don’t care what they think at all.

This is all I have to say directly to the MGTOW: You quit. You’re out. You’re done. You ran from the battle. So be it. You don’t count anymore. Now go off and die alone, as you’ve chosen.