Tag: ClashofCivilizations

I’ve always believed that Freud and Freudianism were pure and unmitigated nonsense. But, as it happens, both the man and his pseudoscience were actually a good deal worse than I had ever imagined.

Freud, having stumbled upon the widespread reality of child abuse among his mostly Jewish clientele, covered it up with the theory that all little girls desire their fathers’ penis and all little boys dream of screwing their mothers — and named his theory after a Gentile myth….

Denial means projection: to protect the dirty secret of child abuse in Jewish families—including his own—, Freud projected an imaginary repressed infantile perversion on all mankind. Projection, in turn, means inversion: Freud’s close disciple Otto Rank claimed that Jews had a more primitive, and therefore more healthy sexuality than Gentiles (Rank, “The Essence of Judaism,” 1905). Freudians and Freudo-Marxists have systematically denounced Christian civilization as suffering from sexual repression. According to Wilhelm Reich, anti-Semitism is itself a symptom of sexual frustration, and could be cured by sexual liberation (The Mass Psychology of Fascism, 1934)—an improvement from Leo Pinsker’s theory that Judeophobia was a “hereditary” and “incurable” “disease transmitted for two thousand years.” In order to understand the psychological background of this Reichian messianic mission to cure the Christian West, and in order to see more clearly the projective nature of the psychoanalytical theory of repression, it is helpful to know the personal story of Wilhelm Reich, which reads as a caricature of Freud’s: At ten years old, when he realized that his mother was having an affair with his tutor, the young Wilhelm thought of blackmailing his mother into having sex with him. Eventually, he confided in his father about his mother’s adultery. In 1910, after a period of beatings from his father, his mother committed suicide, for which Reich blamed himself.

One of the most puzzling aspects of Jews’ relationship with their host nations is its ambivalence—patterned on biblical “history”: within Jewish thinking, saving the nations and destroying them are not two sides of the same coin, but one and the same, because what nations are supposed to be cured of is their very identity (their gods, in biblical terms). According to Andrew Heinze, author of Jews and the American Soul, Jews have shaped “American ideas about the mind and soul” with the preoccupation “to purge the evils they associated with Christian civilization.” It really started with Freud. In September 1909, invited to give a series of lectures in New England, Freud jokingly asked his companions, Sandor Ferenczi and Carl Jung: “Don‘t they know we’re bringing them the plague?” An extraordinary statement for a medical doctor pretending to have found a “cure” for neurosis. And a prophetic one: Freudism became a justification for a sexual “liberation” that can be seen in retrospect as a massive sexual abuse of the youth.

Sexual repression is not the problem. And the “sexual liberation” that is sought is nothing less than societal approval for incestuous child rape. Forget the Chinese, forget the Nazis, at this point I would take Quetzalcoatl-worshipping Aztecs over the Freudians and their devil dreams of Babel 2.0. By their fruits, ye shall know them.

And just to make things worse, if you actually trouble to read Keynes’s General Theory, you’ll soon discover that its all-important “animal spirits” are nothing more than Freud applied to economics. What this implies about the foundation of the global macroeconomic perspective of the last eighty years I leave it to the reader to conclude on his own.

It’s fascinating to see that Spengler is no longer writing about the tremendous respect the Chinese harbor for his people and how amazingly similar they are.

The world will become a Chinese company store: Chinese banks will lend the money, Huawei will build the broadband network and sell the handsets, Alibaba and JD.Com will market the products, Ant Financial will make micro-loans, and Chinese companies will build airports and railroads and ports. As an investment banker for a Hong Kong boutique from 2013 to 2016, I saw this first hand, and reported it here. Among other things, Huawei is building most of Mexico’s new national broadband network, including 5G capability, in a consortium with Nokia financed by a group led by Morgan Stanley and the International Finance Corporation. Huawei also dominates telecommunications infrastructure in Brazil and other Latin American countries. China’s tech dominance in America’s neighborhood, remarkably, has occasioned no official comment from Washington.

In my view, this is far more alarming than what Gertz envisions. He writes, “China will control all deals and win any business arrangements it seeks by dominating the information domain and thus learning the positions of bidders and buyers. All Chinese companies will be given advantages in the marketplace.”

That simply isn’t the way things work. China will lock whole countries into Chinese hardware through state-financed national broadband networks, including Brazil and Mexico, where construction is underway. It understands the network effect that made Amazon and Facebook dominant players in the U.S. market, and will use its financial and technological head start to establish the same sort of virtual monopoly for Chinese companies throughout the Global South….

In China’s view, the “Century of Humiliation” that lasted from the First Opium War of 1848 to the Communist Revolution of 1949 was a temporary aberration that displaced China from its dominant position in the world economy, a position the present dynasty seeks to restore. If we do not want this to happen, we will have to dominate critical technologies, including quantum computing, quantum communications, broadband, Artificial Intelligence, and missile defense.

We, David? There is no we. Your short-sighted, self-centered tribe destroyed America and demoralized Western civilization because it harbors pathological hatred for Greece, Rome, and Christianity. But now you’re finally beginning to figure out that the Chinese are going to be considerably less tolerant of your subversive shenanigans than the West ever was and you’re utterly terrified as a result.

But who is going to protect you when you have chopped down all the trees that might have sheltered you? China is demonstrating the salient difference between power and influence, between external competition and internal subversion.

I definitely prefer Western civilization. But if forced to choose between Chung Kuo and Babel 2.0, I’ll take the former every time.

But it’s certainly to be preferred to the defenders of Tolerance, Equality, Progress, Inclusiveness, and Diversity, or TEPID as I have occasionally referred to the satanic veil of Social Justice. And conservatives are understandably alarmed that their incessant irrelevance and defeatist equalitarianism is being rejected by the increasingly nationalist young men of the West:

The reason this book is important is because it speaks directly to a youthful dissatisfaction (especially among white males) with equality as propagandized and imposed in our day: a hectoring, vindictive, resentful, levelling, hypocritical equality that punishes excellence and publicly denies all difference while at the same time elevating and enriching a decadent, incompetent, and corrupt elite.

BAP would say—indeed does say—that this is where the logic of equality inherently and inevitably leads. He even goes so far as to deny that the American Founders meant a word of their rhetoric. I think this is impossible to sustain as a historical matter, but on the larger philosophical question it is possible that the founders meant every word but were still wrong. It’s fair to say, however, that BAP’s followers take for granted that the idea of equality is false. They even have a derisive term for it: “equalism.” They dismiss the language of the founders, of rights, of the American political tradition as “Enlightenment,” which—rest assured—they don’t mean as a compliment.

And I have more bad news for my fellow conservatives: the talented kids who’ve found this book aren’t listening to us. It doesn’t matter whether they aren’t listening because they found the book, or they found the book because they aren’t listening. The fact remains that all our earnest explanations of the true meaning of equality, how it comports with nature, how it can answer their dissatisfactions, and how it’s been corrupted—none of that has made a dent.

Bronze Age Pervert is correct to say this is where the logic of equality inherently and inevitably leads. The historian Martin van Creveld has laid that out quite clearly in Equality: The Impossible Quest. And the Founding Fathers quite clearly didn’t mean their high-flying rhetoric. All men are most certainly not created equal, by God or by Nature, and Thomas Jefferson’s reference to “British Brethren”, “foreign Mercenaries” and “merciless Indian Savages” conclusively prove that the conservative fetish for equality is based on nothing more solid than their imaginations.

But the godless neo-platonic ur-fascism advocated by Bronze Age Pervert is not a viable solution to a very real problem. Lacking as it does any basis in philosophy or objective morality, it is absolutely bound to fail. The Bronze Age Mindset is just that, a mindless primitivist reaction on which it is impossible to build or sustain a functional civilization.

Without Christianity, without the European nations, without the Graeco-Roman legal and philosophic traditions, there is no Western civilization. Which, of course, is why the only solution to the undermining and subversion of the West is to return to the three core pillars of the West.

At least the Babel 2.0 version of it, anyhow:

The hope through these years was that a more prosperous China would also become more democratic and tolerant at home, and less aggressive abroad. But as foreign affairs journalist James Mann pointed out in his 2007 book, “The China Fantasy,” and as longtime Kissingerian Michael Pillsbury wrote in his 2015 book, “The Hundred-Year Marathon,” China’s leaders weren’t interested in following this script.

On the contrary, Pillsbury argued that they had their own scenario, in which China would embark quietly but steadily on a long-term race to world supremacy by 2049, the 100th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek.

China would use strategy and tactics laid out by Sun Tzu 2,500 years ago and restore the state to the primacy it enjoyed before the civil wars and invasions that started with the Taiping rebellion in 1849 and ended with Mao’s death in 1976, costing millions of Chinese lives. Before this strife, China had 40 percent of the world’s population and economic production, and an emperor reigning 60 years, who reportedly told the British envoy Lord Macartney in 1793, “Our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance” and has “no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians.”

Hence the cancellation of the long-planned post-US-collapse leap to China on the part of those who “heal the nations” and have destroyed America as part of that healing process.

“We have so much to teach, so much to share, so much light to shine upon a world that needs it – perhaps now more than ever before.”
– Dennis Prager

如何對小男孩進行雞姦並吃人肉？ 我們會通過，謝謝。

YouTube bans the keyword “Christian” from its advertising:

When the founder of a Christian veterans group tried to upload a YouTube ad for his organization, he received an odd rejection, informing him the keyword “Christian” was no longer acceptable under the site’s ad targeting policy.

Chad Robichaux, founder of the Mighty Oaks Foundation, a charitable group that helps veterans overcome wartime trauma, took to Twitter with a screenshot detailing his encounter with the tech giant.

Do tell us more about this Judeo-Christianity, devil shills….

I realize this is difficult for a lot of Christian fetishists to accept, but the undeniable fact is that people in the United States have not been attacking everything from Christmas to advertising keywords to the definition of Western civilization for decades because they are atheists, or because they just wish to be left alone, but because they specifically hate and fear Jesus Christ.

The USA has followed the historical pattern observed by Hilaire Belloc nearly 100 years ago with a degree of predictive precision that I would not have even imagined possible. Which suggests that the eventual outcome is all but certain, even if it is not yet imminent.

It’s mildly amusing to see the US media’s belated alarm over China’s global ambitions, considering that the Chinese haven’t exactly been hiding them, what with their plans to send 100 million settlers to Africa and their growing number of acquisitions of US cultural high ground in entertainment and education:

What started out two years ago as an effort by President Trump to wring better terms from China on the nuts and bolts of foreign trade now threatens to become a far wider and more ominous confrontation.

The conflict continues to be framed as a “trade war” between the world’s two biggest economies — as Washington and Beijing pursue an escalating series of tariff hikes and other retaliatory measures.

Even as Trump moved Thursday to open a new, potentially damaging trade war with Mexico, however, the conflict with China has widened beyond the original trade-based issues.

Beneath the surface, a new tone has begun to emerge since trade talks broke down in early May and Trump ratcheted up tariffs on imported goods from China, an action met with retaliatory duties from Beijing. Officials on both sides of the Pacific have begun to portray the U.S.-China relationship in nationalistic and emotion-charged terms that suggest a much deeper conflict.

Recently, for example, a private group of American economists and trade experts with long-standing experience in China traveled to Beijing, expecting their usual technical give-and-take with Chinese government officials.

Instead, a member of the Chinese Politburo harangued them for almost an hour, describing the U.S.-China relationship as a “clash of civilizations” and boasting that China’s government-controlled system was far superior to the “Mediterranean culture” of the West, with its internal divisions and aggressive foreign policy.

Translation: the media Jews have finally begun to realize that the Chinese plan to replace them rather than accept them as a ruling elite or permit them to move on to China when the USA breaks up. I’ve been predicting this conflict for years; the Harvard lawsuit was the Fort Sumter of what promises to be an epic struggle for primacy and control over the next 30 years.

I rather doubt it is an accident that this piece was written by a Korean journalist. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s been telling his editors at the LA Times about the situation for years, but been repeatedly told that there was no story there.

Milo addresses the multiple levels of tragedy involved in the Notre Dame fire in FrontPageMag:

Buildings like Notre Dame do not erupt into flames spontaneously. That’s not how God works, even to punish a civilization as deep in moral ruin as ours. My suspicions, and those of almost everyone I know, are hardly calmed when we see Fox News—yes, even Fox—repeatedly refusing to host an honest discussion of the possibility, even as experts tell French TV that eight hundred year old timber simply doesn’t burn that way without an accelerant. I mean, it’s not as though news networks restrain their hosts from wild speculation during other crises.

So, understandably, the first reaction from anyone who has been reading the news lately was: “Muslims, right?” Alas, even Right-wing newsreaders are terrified of saying the wrong thing when the perp might be a member of the Religion of Peace. Attacks on Christian churches in Europe have become so numerous that even Newsweek has had to admit it—though the magazine hilariously claims that no one knows why these attacks are happening, and the words “Islam” and “Muslim” are nowhere to be found in its reporting.

Anyway, as of now, no solid evidence has emerged, and our media refuses to discuss the context in which this fire occurred. And it’s also true that a few of these desecrations have been accompanied by Satanic imagery, more likely the work of feminist anarchists. So, in the interests of being responsible, we are compelled to say we have no idea how this particular fire began. Yet.

We can say, however, that the loss of Notre Dame is an especially Christian tragedy. It is a tragedy emblematic of the rapid destruction of Western civilization in the past few decades, a visual reminder of the inferno that has already gutted the Academy. It’s a wonder they didn’t finish off some of these churches first, though of course the cultural warriors of the Left can only squeal in excitement at the sort of brazen defacement they would never be brave enough to commit themselves. Those watching news coverage on Facebook were tormented—or delighted, depending on their wants—by a sea of Arabic names clicking on smiley faces as the jewel of Paris collapsed into ash, a spectacle that was, in turn, posted on Twitter by gloating social justice warriors.

Every day, it is becoming ever more clear that the answer to Europe’s problems is much more likely to be found in Crusade than in politics.

This picture from inside the ruins of Notre Dame Cathedral is an apt metaphor for the current state of the West. Postchristian modernism, Churchianity, and “Judeo-Christianity” has burned down our structures, our organizations, our countries, and even our families. But the faith remains, and from that seed more mighty oaks will grow.

Owen Benjamin is absolutely right. What passes for Jewish so-called humor isn’t funny at all. I’ve never found Mel Brooks, Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Sarah Silverman, Adam Sandler, Gene Wilder, or Lenny Bruce to be even modestly amusing. Jewish “humor” is nothing more than a degenerate combination of whining, moral and cultural transgressivism, narcissistic posturing, and sexual obsession. It’s so relentlessly stupid that it is borderline retarded.

Is it funny to urinate on a picture of the Holocaust? No, that’s just stupid, disrespectful, and transgressive. And it’s equally stupid to think it’s hilarious to “accidentally” urinate on a picture of Jesus Christ. In fact, all that is necessary to demonstrate the intrinsically idiotic unfunniness of Jewish humor is to change a word or two in their jokes.

Everybody blames the Germans for the Holocaust, and then the Germans try to pass it off on the Nazis. I’m one of the few people who believes it was the blacks. I don’t care. Good. I hope the Germans did do the Holocaust. I’d do it again. I’d fucking do it again in a second.
– Sarah Silverman

Ha very ha. The routine is not unfunny because it’s offensive, it’s simply not a funny construction in the first place. Of course, it will be amusing to see people start flipping out when the Holocaust is treated as a punchline, as it will be given the increasing absurdity of the Holocaustianity being imposed upon yet another generation that neither knows nor cares about a long-dead war that never had anything to do with them or their forebears. And why should anyone treat a historical event with any respect whatsoever, especially from a secular or scientific perspective, in the first place? It would make more sense to build Jurassic Memorial Centers around the world mourning the loss of the dinosaurs.

The reason that comedy is dying is because it was taken over by subversives, and subversives are intrinsically parasitical in nature. They can’t build, create, or even sustain anything on their own. It’s like trying to maintain the financial sector on the basis of nothing except finance.

In truth, the Chinese system sounds considerably more just and rather preferable to the current US system:

Millions of Chinese individuals and businesses have been labelled as untrustworthy on an official blacklist banning them from any number of activities, including accessing financial markets or travelling by air or train, as the use of the government’s social credit system accelerates.

The annual blacklist is part of a broader effort to boost “trustworthiness” in Chinese society and is an extension of China’s social credit system, which is expected to give each of its 1.4 billion citizens a personal score.

The social credit system assigns both positive and negative scores for individual or corporate behaviour in an attempt to pressure citizens into behaving.

Human rights advocates, though, worry that the arbitrary system does not take into account individual circumstances and so often unfairly labels individuals and firms as untrustworthy.

Over 3.59 million Chinese enterprises were added to the official creditworthiness blacklist last year, banning them from a series of activities, including bidding on projects, accessing security markets, taking part in land auctions and issuing corporate bonds, according to the 2018 annual report released by the National Public Credit Information Centre. The centre is backed by the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planner, to run the credit rating system.

According to the report, the authorities collected over 14.21 million pieces of information on the “untrustworthy conduct” of individuals and businesses, including charges of swindling customers, failing to repay loans, illegal fund collection, false and misleading advertising, as well as uncivilised behaviour such as taking reserved seats on trains or causing trouble in hospitals.

About 17.46 million “discredited” people were restricted from buying plane tickets and 5.47 million were restricted from purchasing high-speed train tickets, the report said. Besides restrictions on buying tickets, local authorities also used novel methods to put pressure on untrustworthy subjects, including preventing people from buying premium insurance, wealth management products or real estate, as well as shaming them by exposing their information in public.

Contrast this with the US system, where you can’t go to college or get a job in academia if someone suspects of insufficient enthusiasm for blacks, gays, women, or [fill-in-the-blank], you can’t have a bank account if someone believes you have engaged in hate speech, you can’t raise funds if someone suspects you of insufficient enthusiasm for Jews, and you can’t win government contracts if you don’t agree to do business with Israel.

At least the Chinese know the score and know that the social credit system is based on upholding things the Chinese people traditionally support. Wouldn’t most American people prefer a transparent system that actually benefits normal Americans and American traditions rather than an unpredictable one that benefits foreigners, degenerates, and foreign countries?