Review: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960's", by Jonathan Leaf – By eugenicist

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties is a short, entertaining book which aims to set the record straight about life in 1960s America. “For the overwhelming majority of Americans,” Leaf writes, “the 1960s was a conservative decade.” The radical left was neither popular nor valuable, but evidence for this has been shoved down the memory hole. Leaf’s book tries to correct that.
The book is divided into three parts: “The Social Sixties,” “The Cultural Sixties” and “The Political Sixties.” The first part covers student radicalism, feminism, civil rights and other social movements of the decade. The second part covers 1960s music, media, fashion and culture. The third part covers, briefly, the politics of the sixties, including Johnson’s War on Poverty, the Vietnam War and “Camelot as it really was.”
Few readers of this blog will be surprised that black economic progress slowed after the civil rights movement, or that the sexual revolution led to broken families. However, there is much of interest in this book, even if it is unsurprising to you. Here are some examples:

  • The UC Berkeley “Free Speech Movement” led to less freedom of speech in the long run. In 1964, when the movement began, Berkeley students could join the College Democrats or Republicans, but on-campus political activity was otherwise banned. A group of students intimidated the administration into changing this. On-campus activism, mostly liberal, blossomed at Berkeley and around the country, which led to more “civil disobedience” at the expense of academics. Student draft deferment only encouraged radicals to stay in school, where some became professors and “hired their allies…and refused to hire those who didn’t share their beliefs.” A year before the Free Speech Movement protests, UC chancellor Clark Kerr said that even “avowed communists” would be permitted to speak on campus. Would Berkeley’s current president say the same of “avowed racists”? I woudn’t bet on it!
  • The music we associate was not as popular as we’re led to believe. While bands like Jefferson Airplane, the Who and the Grateful Dead had zero number one singles during the 60s, now-forgotten Bobby Vinton had four. Other chart-topping performers included Dean Martin, Pat Boone, Petula Clark and Nat King Cole. Some of the biggest selling albums of the decade were soundtracks to musicals like Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady and West Side Story. Rock was not obscure, but it was not the most popular genre.
  • After President Nixon ended the draft in 1973, campus protests declined sharply. Too, much of the antiwar movement wasn’t so much anti-war as pro-communist. Hence chants like “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win!“

My favorite part of the book covers the resurrection of “Students for a Democratic Society.” In 2006, some young activists and former SDS members revived the organization, but “The group…has had some problems.” Leaf explains:

[W]hat exactly does the reborn SDS stand for? The organization unleashed an extremely long mission statement filled with stilted political jargon…the statement pledges to “target structures of domination,” “build powerful diverse movements for change,” and combat “systems of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, heterosexism, transphobia, and the many other forms of oppression.”
Good luck with that.*

The book is full of this sort of gloomy hilarity. In the 1960s, in many areas of public life, intellectuals––the people who are “always somewhere else when the trigger is pulled“––championed progressive ideals like urban blight, easy divorce, even psychopathy. “So much of left-wing thought,” George Orwell wrote, “is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” Of course, it’s rarely the person playing with fire who gets burned.
This book omits one important myth. The Woodstock music festival is mentioned once, in passing, while the Altamont Free concert merits in-depth coverage. This, to my mind, is a mistake. Altamont is not romanticized; Woodstock is. I think it would have added to the book to have a brief description of, for example, the capitalist impetus that made the Woodstock festival possible.
Jonathan Leaf is an entertaining writer, occasionally witty, but this book offers no sense of what life was like for the “overwhelming majority,”  or even the leftists. Good history books convey something of the atmosphere of a period. Perhaps doing this for an entire country and decade, in just 200 pages, was too tall an order. Still, it makes a disappointing reading experience. In contrast, Joan Didion’s “Slouching Towards Bethlehem,”  by describing day-to-day life for a few San Francisco drop-outs, conveys something of the time that demographic and economic statistics cannot.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties  is a good starting point for those who want to know the truth about this decade. If you have teenage or college-age relatives, I recommend giving them this book to counterbalance whatever lies and half-truths they’re being taught. I wish I had read this book before I went to college; it would have spared me, and my friends, a lot of unnecessary bemusement and aggravation.
*Masochists can read the full mission statement of the “New SDS” here.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, freedom of speech issues, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 16 Comments

The use of violence

I’m going to be out celebrating my grandmother’s 95th birthday, so there probably won’t be anything new until after it’s done.
But I did want to point out a source of some confusion regarding my opinions on violence.  On the one hand, I advocated shooting would-be illegal immigrants but I also condemned the Norway massacre.  Some might interpret this as inconsistency and, indeed, perhaps it is.  But I see a difference between shooting people who are in the midst of invading our country and shooting people who are not harming anybody at the moment.  There are a couple of other distinctions that should be made.
Should we shoot the illegal immigrants – if they’re 15 years old?  I say “yes” (in the legs, at first).  They are just as much a threat to our country as the older ones – probably even more so.  Should we advocate shooting up a La Raza youth rally?  I wouldn’t advocate it – but I would not mourn the victims either.  There is an almost 100% probability that the teenage Hispanics at that rally would all grow up to be adult anti-white activists.  The world would be a better place without them.  As for the white teenagers in Norway, I’ll admit ignorance – but, despite whatever sick ideologies they might have today, they belong to the race that is being dispossessed.  Their attitudes are likely to change.
The blog Unqualified Reservations (linked to by Apuleius in a prior post), by Mencius Moldbug, quotes Breivik’s essay – in which he describes himself, in his earlier years, as an active “tagger” and a hip-hop fan.  He also had gang affiliations (for protection).  If the adult Breivik had met the adolescent Breivik, he might have shot him.  It bugs me that Breivik felt justified in being the judge, jury and executioner for adolescents who were simply products of their upbringing and environment – just as he was.  At that age, we are all products of our circumstances.
This being said, I believe that early adolescents, who murder in cold blood, should be tried and punished as adults.  They are no longer “mislead youth” but real, dangerous, criminals.  Especially the black ones who seem to be married to the lowest part of their genome, and are unlikely to ever divorce it.  “Products of their circumstances or not”, such  creatures have no place among us.
The treatment of violence is a tricky thing.  To openly advocate it invites risks of criminal charges – unless one is advocating that government initiate violence; then it’s okay (sarcasm).  If we completely renounce violence, then we are doomed.  We must protect ourselves (and sometimes the best defense is an effective offense).  As Moldbug says (ibid.):

If you ask a lot of people to be angry about the Bronxification of East Oslo, someone is going to act on it. The goal of trumpeting is to obtain power, and the means of power is violence. To denounce violence is to renounce power. To renounce power is to surrender.

Perhaps, in Breivik’s shoes, I would see things differently – and it’s easy, from the comfort of my Northwest abode, to condemn such acts of desperation.  There’s a lot more to be said about this – and I’ll leave it to the commentators for now.  I’ve got a grandmother who needs visiting!

Posted in crime and violence | 17 Comments

Rap ebonics translated

Thanks to Charles for sending me this humorous video:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6H0i1RAdHk&w=425&h=349]

Posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 2 Comments

Why have I not read/reviewed the manifesto?

What manifesto?  You ask.  You know… THE manifesto.  The one written by that Norwegian guy who mowed down almost 80 young people unlucky enough to have been born to leftist parents.
According to some of my fellow bloggers, Breivik is a good writer when he’s not plagiarizing from others.  At almost 1,500 pages, it contains enough fodder for many a blog post.  Far be it from me to condemn my fellow bloggers who choose to mine it for good material.  To each his own, I say.
I have also refrained from reading the unibomber’s manifesto, the one he practically forced newspapers to print.  I hear he had some pretty good ideas too.  I don’t hold it against other bloggers for utilizing that material either.  To each his own.
But, aside from the fact that the sheer length of Breivik’s manifesto intimidates me, I ask myself:  “If Breivik had not murdered all those people, would I have still been tempted to read it?”  As I recall, this was my reasoning for refraining from reading the unibomber’s manifesto as well.  If ideas are currency, then this is blood money.  I do not want to soil my hands with it – and I do not want to encourage other malcontents to go out and take random lives so that others will read their works.  It sets a bad precedent.
But in reality, that precedent had already been set a long time ago.  There was another man, who lived long before Breivik, and also used violence to promote his ideas.  His name was Muhammad.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, Uncategorized | 19 Comments

"Anything short of shooting them"

U.S. representative Mo Brooks recently attracted attention by stating:

“As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of shooting them.  Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens.”

If the primary job of our military is to protect our borders, and they are issued guns, then why not shoot invaders?  Once, while touring the jungles of Borneo (on the Brunei side of the border) I asked my guide what would happen if I ventured into the Malaysian side of the border.  His answer:  “You would get shot”.  In most of the world, if you violate the borders of a sovereign country, they shoot you.  The military exists to protect the borders of the nation that enlists them.  The guns they carry are not for show.  They are loaded and the soldier is expected to use them.
It is only because Americans are a bunch of pansies, and our so-called “leaders” cowards and sellouts, that we have an illegal immigration problem to begin with.  The hordes of Mexicans that violate our borders every day only dare to do so because they know they have nothing to fear.  If our military did its job, in protecting our borders, there would be no need for a national debate on illegal immigration.  We could, instead, concentrate on other matters, our crime rates would be reduced, we would save a lot of money and we would not be losing our nation’s character.
Very few would-be illegal immigrants would have to be shot before the Mexicans (and others) got the message.  As a matter of fact, much less blood would be spilled than by letting them in.  Shooting them would save lives.  It would save many lives.
I am not a cruel man.  I am not advocating a shoot-to-kill policy.  Shoot them in the legs – at first.

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics | 32 Comments

Was Esau a Neanderthal?

While reading the recent Amren link about non-African humans having some Neanderthal DNA, I remembered one of my old, and silly, theories:  That Esau was a Neanderthal, or more accurately, that he represented Neanderthals in Scripture:

“23”: And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
“24”: And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
“25”: And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.
“26”: And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.
“27”: And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.

Esau is also called Edom, which means “ruddy” (Gen. 36:1).  In Genesis 36:8, it says, “Esau dwelt on Mount Se’ir.  Esau is Edom”.  The word “Se’ir” is the same root as the word for hair.  As we know, Esau was hairy.  Esau was a “cunning hunter”.  The evidence points to Neanderthals being, if not necessarily cunning, certainly effective hunters.  If Esau was Neanderthal, then wouldn’t his brother, Jacob, also have been Neanderthal?  The story is, of course, allegorical, not to be taken literally.  Furthermore, it is possible that one twin inherited more Neanderthal genes than the other, that Esau was a throwback.  Why was Jacob so fearful of Esau?  In Genesis 32: 12 he expresses his fear that Esau will kill his whole family.  But given the immense physical strength of Neanderthals, it is easy to appreciate his fear.
Tradition has it that Europeans are the descendants of Esau, but judging from the names of his descendants in the Bible, most of them seem to be pretty well integrated into the Semitic world.
It has come to my attention that the common transliterations have left the names of these individual practically devoid of their Semitic flavor.  So I’ll list some of the names – but with my own transliterations (the apostrophe and underscore represent gutturals with no Western equivalent.  All vowels are continental and are approximate.  “bh” is a soft “b” as sometimes found in Spanish.  Double/soft Hebrew letters were left out):
Men:  Elifaz, Ya’ish, Ya’alam, Omar, Ga’atam, Qenaz, ‘Amaleq, Zerah, Lotan, Shobhal, ‘Alwan, Manahat, ‘Ebhal, Hemdan, Eshban, Yitran, Bilhan, Za’awan, ‘Aqan, Bela’, Yobhabh, Husham, Hadad, Hanan ben ‘Akhbor, Hadar
Women:  ‘Ada, Aholibhama, Basmat, Timna’, ‘Ana, Mehetabh-el, Matred
These names would be right at home among the Arabs, and some of them are, indeed, still used.  The name “Basmat” would mean “perfume” or “sweet scent” in Hebrew – but it would mean “smile” in Arabic.  Either one is acceptable as a female name.  The meanings of most of these names remain unknown – though we can guess about some of them.  “Zerah” has to do with shining.  “Lotan” would appear to have something to do with a curse, or one who curses (based on Aramaic).  “Yitran” could be “one who has an advantage/wealth”.  “Omar” could be “one who gives commands” (based on Arabic).  “Hanan” could mean “handsome” or “favored”.  Aholibhama means “tent of a lofty place”.  “Manahat” has to do with comfort or relaxation.
According to the research cited at the beginning of this post, all non-Africans have some Neanderthal DNA.  So, even if Esau represents a specifically Mideastern version of Neanderthal, there might have been other Esau’s in Europe and the Far East.   But is it possible that the persona of Esau represents a distant memory of the Neanderthal?  If so, it would have been the longest-lasting tradition ever – spanning tens of thousands of years.  It would be quite remarkable.  Unless, of course, Neanderthals survived until much later than is currently thought.

Credit: Highly Compelling YouTube channel.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, Uncategorized | 9 Comments

We should learn from the Hispanics

Amren recently linked to a story from the NCTimes that read, in part:

A San Diego County sheriff’s deputy pulled over a vehicle with two men inside at 7:40 a.m. after he saw the vehicle violate a traffic law near the 200 block of Civic Center Drive, Lt. Jim Duffy said.
The driver, who was later identified as Ismael Martinez, 51, did not have a license, and neither did his passenger, Francisco Martinez, Sgt. Mike Arens said.
The driver began calling people to come to the scene while the deputy was ticketing him, Duffy said. The driver refused to stop calling people and struck the deputy on the hand, he said.
The deputy was arresting the driver when the passenger got out of the car and attacked the deputy, Arens said. The three struggled.
A tow truck driver who was standing nearby jumped into the fight to help the deputy, Duffy and Arens said. The deputy used his stun gun to shock the passenger during the struggle.
More deputies came to help control the situation and finish the arrests, Arens said.
A few minutes later, about 25 people showed up in response to the driver’s earlier phone call, Arens said. Most of them were men and appeared to be the driver’s relatives.
The people were disruptive and tried to free the driver, but they quickly dispersed and moved to the other side of the street once the deputies started arresting people, the officials said.

All the comments, at Amren, paint the Hispanics in a negative light.  While I can see their point, since they are violently invading our country, I also see an important trait that whites should learn from:  A fearless, and aggressive, solidarity in standing up against government excesses and tyranny.  While it’s true that giving out a traffic ticket may not constitute an “excess” or “tyranny”, it is all too common for U.S. government agents to overstep their authority, enforce unconstitutional laws or otherwise terrorize citizens.  When whites are the victims of such actions, we never read of them reacting as these Hispanics did.  Instead, they might write a letter to the editor of their local newspaper, write their congressman, or complain to their friends and family.
I’d like to take the solidarity, and fighting spirit, of the Hispanics and transplant it onto whites.  That way, government agents will think twice before trampling on our liberties.  The next time a cop knocks over a cyclist for no good reason, or arrests a peaceful citizen for videotaping him, he should be confronted with hordes of angry citizens.
If Russians had the same attitude as the Hispanics in this story, Stalin could never have gained, or kept, power.  The way our liberties are being eroded, we are well on our way to transforming ourselves into something like Stalinist Russia.
It is sad to say, but if Martinez’s friends had been white, each one would probably have responded to the phone call thusly: “Who me?  I’m watching my favorite T.V. show.  Besides, I don’t want to get into trouble…”  But they were not white.  They were Hispanic and their group identity was more important than their individual concerns.  All it took was one phone call to each of them – and 25  showed up.  If a white person was in a difficult situation with the government, how many people could he count on to show up on short notice?  He’d be lucky if one person showed up.
Granted, white people have jobs, families and social sensibilities to worry about.  In other words, they probably have much more to lose than Martinez’s friends.  Nevertheless, I seriously doubt the results would have been as good, even if his white friends were all unemployed and single.
Which brings me to another point:  It appears that women are among the greatest enforcers of the status-quo.  Once given power, women use it to suppress acts of rebellion against the status-quo by their husbands and boyfriends.  Hispanic culture is decidedly more patriarchal than American culture.  Family.jrank describes it well:

The underdevelopment of state systems in most Latin nations led to the dependence on the family for support of the individual. Family systems tended to be patriarchal, and men were the prime protectors, mediators with an often-hostile world outside the bounds of the family. A number of common cultural strategies developed to protect the family. One was simply an extreme form of patriarchal relations, sometimes called the machismo/marianismo dyad, which served to reinforce the prestige of the male in this difficult mediating role.

In such a culture, a man does not ask his wife, girlfriend, for her opinion (or permission) to participate in risky endeavors such as the one described above.  Of course there are pros and cons to such attitudes.  I would say that, given the current predicament of whites, this sort of male independence would be more of an advantage – unless, of course, we can change the nature of women and make them more willing to challenge the status-quo.
There is no doubt that whites used to be more patriarchal than they are now.  But there is a fine line between patriarchy and machismo.  The former gives the man a measure of freedom from his wife, and allows him to effect change in his society (which would otherwise remain stagnant).  The latter is more dangerous and is more likely to be combined with drunkenness and irresponsible behavior.
Can a behavior be both irresponsible, and responsible, at the same time?  I think so.  The 25 Hispanics, who came to the aid of their friend, were acting irresponsibly at the individual level.  But, if such a reaction becomes common and expected, it is not difficult to see how it might bring great advantages to Hispanics as a whole.  Cops would think twice before stopping them, rival ethnicities would avoid confrontation with them, a “jury of their peers” would almost always acquit them and politicians would pander to them*.  It’s a dirty game that Hispanics are playing – but thanks to the multicultural reality that has been forced upon us, we will have to play it as well.
*Of course, all this is already happening to one extent or another.

Posted in activism, immigration/ Hispanics | 10 Comments

Initial thoughts on the Norway massacre

Even though it is still early and the facts are not yet clear, there are a few lessons we can learn from the recent Norway tragedy:
1) “Gun control” is tantamount to murder.  By not allowing citizens to defend themselves effectively, government essentially turns them into sitting ducks.  As American and Proud says:

As the death toll continues to rise in Norway’s apparently related bombing and shooting attacks, a few truths are once again revealed for any who would see:

  • Unarmed victims are defenseless and easy prey for any evil lunatic bent on slaughtering them at will. The adults at the youth camp were utterly unprepared to protect themselves, let alone their charges.
  • People instinctively don’t question an armed man if he appears to be a police officer. Many of the same people react with horror at the sight of an armed citizen.
  • The best defense against an active shooter is others with guns—it was not the unarmed who took the suspect into custody.
  • Once more, “gun control” has proven useless. Many reports, if accurate, say the gunman used “automatic weapons,” which, except for some tightly regulated collector exemptions, are banned from civilian ownership in Norway.
  • Once more, the race is on to tar an entire demographic for the actions of a deranged and monstrous individual, and to conflate “conservatives” with violent extremists.

And once more, expect to hear renewed calls for more citizen disarmament, that is, an expansion of the potential victim pool for those who count on such measures to make their diabolical tasks all the more easily executed.
The fact is if you disarm the public, you must protect that public or slaughter the public. This is what happens time and time again and the same people come out screaming about the gun he used, rather than the laws that prevented OTHER guns to be a deterrent.

2) Governments should not engage in genocidal programs against their citizens; somebody might say, “those government types are destroying my nation!  I refuse to sit by and do nothing.  I know!  I’ll kill a bunch of them.”  According to Wikipedia, 11.4% of Norway is now of immigrant background.  This represents a steady replacement of the native population.  Obviously, some people are upset about this.  There will be lunatics in every population.  There is no need to give them an excuse to murderously lash out.
3) The perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, has probably set back conservative interests in Norway many years.  Just as Timothy McVeigh gravely damaged the ant-government conservative movement in the U.S., so too has Breivik in Norway.  My guess is that Breivik was smart enough to realize that any attack directly on immigrants would hurt his cause, that an attack on white race-traitors would be more “productive”.  It is hard (for me) to see how any such attack can be “productive” – though it is possible that some of those young victims would have grown up to do immense damage to their nation.  Nobody can know.
4) The victims were very young.  How many of us might have attended such a camp in our teenage years?  Did it ever even occur to the murderer that one of his young victims would have grown up to be a Norwegian Jared Taylor?  Now, instead of worrying about the steady destruction of their nation, through immigration, Norwegians will worry about neo-Nazis with guns.  Thanks to Breivik, the face of evil will now be blond-haired and blue-eyed.  This can only contribute to white self-hatred.
5) If I lived in Norway, I would be inclined to distribute leaflets to inform people of the dangers of non-white immigration.  Unfortunately, such leaflets are illegal in Norway; they would be considered “hate-speech”.  By stifling freedom of speech, Norway allows frustration and anger to build up – to the point where it explodes in tragic ways.  The Norwegian government cannot say, “there are better ways to express your displeasure; we can discuss this”.  No, there are no better ways – because they will not allow discussion.  The only options they allow are a) silence or b) violent outbursts – which nobody can do anything about, until it’s too late, due to gun-control laws.
Minds can be changed.  Lost lives can never be brought back.  Norway, if you do not want the latter, then you must allow the former.

Posted in activism, crime and violence, freedom of speech issues, immigration/ Hispanics | 19 Comments

Progress report on "The Ashkenazi Revolution"

I’m feeling under the weather today (and most likely for a few more days) so I’ll just let y’all know that I’ve been working diligently on “The Ashkenazi Revolution”.  The initial translation phase is mostly done; I am now working on chapter 12 (out of 14 chapters).

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 7 Comments

15 "black Jews"

I just found this presentation at Newsone, a black-oriented website.  I guess they subscribe to the “one-drop rule” for both blacks and for Jews.  It is also enough, in their view, if one’s father declares himself a “black Hebrew Israelite” (#14).  It’s funny how both Jew-hating neo-Nazis, and Newsone, have such a low bar for being considered a “Jew”.
As a Jew, I don’t want gentiles hating us too much – or loving us too much.  Either extreme is harmful.  Given the choice, I’d rather have a moderate amount of Antisemitism than rampant Philo-semitism.  We don’t need every Tom, Dick, Harry – or Rasheed, rushing to declare himself  “Jewish” because it’s the “cool thing to be”.  We don’t need “converts” like Modonna, Sammy Davis Junior or Elizabeth Taylor.  We don’t need converts at all.
Contrary to neo-Nazi belief, having “Jewish blood” does not make you Jewish.  In my opinion, even if she was your maternal grandmother, for all practical purposes, you are a gentile.  There is nothing wrong with that; be happy with what you are.  I say the same thing about those “black Jews” in the presentation.  Let them make the most of their blackness – but leave my heritage out of it!

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 14 Comments