Jussie Smollett's hate crime hoax exposes America's shocking skepticism shortage

Michael McCaffrey
RT

Jussie Smollett story is a microcosm of what is wrong with America and the mainstream media.

On Thursday, US actor Jussie Smollett was arrested in Chicago after being charged with filing a false police report.

Smollett, a gay African-American actor who stars on the hit TV show Empire, claimed that on January 29 he was the victim of a hate crime when two white men hurled racist and homophobic slurs at him, punched, kicked and poured bleach over him, and then put a noose around his neck while taunting him by proclaiming "this is MAGA (Make America Great Again) country."
Smollett's story was dubious to some because the idea of two Trumpites out at 2am in progressive Chicago hunting gay black men with a noose and bleach in minus 20 degree weather seemed far-fetched, as does the idea that they would be pop-culturally aware enough to have watched Empire and recognize a marginal celebrity like Smollett in the first place.

In the wake of Smollett's unusual claims, the media uncritically accepted his story and numerous celebrities such as Emma Watson, Katy Perry, Olivia Munn, and Ariana Grande tweeted vociferous support. Actress Ellen Page gave a heartfelt speech on The Late Show with Colbert laying the blame for Smollett's attack at the feet of "homophobic" Vice President Mike Pence.

Democratic presidential hopefuls chimed as well, with Kamala Harris and Cory Booker both calling the attack a "modern-day lynching," and a cavalcade of other politicians who tweeted their unquestioning support for Jussie and devout belief in his story.
The problem with all of the belief in Smollett is that, like Ms. Page's impassioned Late Show rant, it was entirely based on emotion and not reason. 

Read more

No imaginary transgression is too small for the mob of virtue-signalling SJWs on Instagram

Kathrine Jebsen Moore
Quillette

"Knitting is just so white. Let's hope it gets better." I overheard this puzzling remark in my local yarn store in Edinburgh, Scotland, last week. The store is in the affluent area of Marchmont, just outside the city centre. Its Edwardian and Victorian tenement flats, adjacent to huge green spaces, are popular with students and families alike. Two customers were chatting to the store owner: "It's about time we had the conversation," one of them offered. Her companion nodded in solemn agreement.

Knitting, which helps lower the blood pressure and keep the mind busy, has enjoyed an upsurge in popularity in recent years. The Internet has allowed for the proliferation of new platforms from which to buy yarn and patterns, and has helped connect artisans and hobbyists worldwide. Usually, it's a calming and creative pastime focussed on aesthetics rather than politics. However, a short browse through the knitting posts on Instagram steered me in the direction of the source of the exchange I had overhead and the "conversation" it had produced.

On January 7, Karen Templer, a knitting designer and owner of the online store Fringe Association, published an innocuous blog post on her website entitled "2019: My Year of Colour," in which she enthused about her forthcoming trip to India. To most observers, Templer's post will read like a guileless account of her hopes and aspirations for her upcoming travels:

I've wanted to go to India for as long as I can remember. I've a lifelong obsession with the literature and history of the continent. Photos of India fill me with longing like no other place. One of my closest friends [when I was 12] and her family had offered back then that if I ever wanted to go with them on one of their trips, I could. To a suburban midwestern teenager with a severe anxiety disorder, that was like being offered a seat on a flight to Mars. ... Then about six weeks ago, the opportunity presented itself-a chance to go with a friend who's been. ... I said yes. And I felt like the top of my head was going to fly off, I was so indescribably excited. Within 48 hours, three of those friends of mine who are so much better travelers than me-but who are all equally humbled at the idea of actually going to India-also said yes. There has hardly been a single day since that I haven't said in disbelief, either in my head or out loud, I'm going to India.

And what on earth could be wrong with any of that? Rather a lot, it turns out. After a series of encouraging posts from well-wishers, the comment thread took an aggressively inquisitorial turn. Templer's previous posts had typically garnered between three and 30 comments, but "My Year of Color" has 197 at the time of writing.

One of the first people to attack Templer was a user named Alex J. Klein who wrote:

Karen, I'd ask you to re-read what you wrote and think about how your words feed into a colonial/imperialist mindset toward India and other non-Western countries. Multiple times you compare the idea of going to India to the idea of going to another planet-how do you think a person from India would feel to hear that? 

Read more

Is nouveau racism righteous retribution or just insanity?

Deraphim Hanisch
The Duran

We know that nouveau racism has been on the rise in America, even though no one calls it by this name.

What is it? Nouveau racism is racism. However, it is that racism which is embraced by "minority" groups, like African-Americans, Latin-Americans, feminists, and any group that is not the target group of their invective: the European-originated, white, Christian male.

Tucker Carlson gives a solid introduction to this topic in his own words in his reflection about one of America's leaders in the crusade of identity politics, Stacey Y. Abrams.  

Nouveau racism is often considered as "righteous retribution" by liberals who practice it. The logic is simple: After all that the European white MEN perpetrated upon native American nations, and upon the African peoples who were forcibly seized and brought to the New World as slave labor, women, blacks and native Americans now ought to give the white men a good taste of their own medicine. Let them see how it feels to be treated like we were, the narrative says.

The only thing is that the descendants of those European white men have largely long since renounced racism. The passage of the Civil Rights Law in 1964 marked the turning point that really had already been reached. The Act merely formalized what for many was already a present reality. After that, racism was loudly and strongly denounced in public service advertisements in the 1970's like this one:

Read more

SJW Therapist | We The Internet TV

Join the We The Internet TV team on Patreon!  

https://www.patreon.com/wetheinternettv 

 Louis has been feeling sad, but since he's a straight white cis man, he shouldn't be. Because they don't have problems, right? Have no fear: the Social Justice Warrior therapist is on the case. Sexism, racism, and violence lurk under Louis's meek façade (probably). And only the SJW Therapist can help him. If Louis could just admit his privilege, he would realize how insensitive his depression and thoughts of suicide really are. How PC are your psychological issues? Let us know in the comment section! And don't forget to like the video, share it with your friends, and subscribe to our channel! And click the bell to turn on notifications from us, so you don't miss any of our new videos. Follow us on social media for more videos, memes and other political comedy that makes fun of everyone! 

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/WeTheInternetTV 

Written by Dan Banas and Greg Burke Directed and Edited by Greg Burke

Gillette: The Best an Incel Can Get

Paul Joseph Watson

 The worst an ad can get.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWa... 

Minds: https://www.minds.com/PaulJosephWatson

Where Gillette Went Wrong

Gillette's newest ad, 'The Best a Man Can Be', has created a social media firestorm in the last few days. We sat down to discuss the reaction, the cultural context behind it and our response to the ad. Drawing on our interviews with Warren Farrell, Cassie Jaye and our experience leading men's retreats, we ask whether the ad is helping men or toxic in and of itself.

 

We recently had an article in the Guardian about our men's retreats: 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst... 

 

Our retreats: https://www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/retreats 

 

Gillette 'The Best a Man Can Be': https://youtu.be/koPmuEyP3a0 

 

Warren Farrell ,'Men Have to Speak Up!': https://youtu.be/BC5Cq8Qgy_o 

 

Warren Farrell, 'Men and Women after #metoo': https://youtu.be/ESiyb28fTQ4 

 

'Men and Women after #metoo - A New Conversation': https://youtu.be/9CizXBr91Js 

 

APA masculinity guidelines: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys... 

 

APA's clarification on masculinity guidelines: http://division51.net/homepage-slider... 

 

We're leaving Patreon, so to help us make more films and get access to exclusive content, become a Rebel Wisdom member here: https://www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans

The American Psychological Association goes to war against boys and men

Barbara Kay
The Post Millennial

The American Psychological Association (APA) has, for the first time in its history, come out with Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.

One does not have to have read the entire 30,000 word document to appreciate its thrust: "traditional masculinity" is bad for society as well as to boys and men themselves. Stoicism, competitiveness and risk-taking, the qualities we consider desirable when they result in firefighting, search-and-rescue operations, self-sacrifice for women and children (see under Titanic) and combat in the defence of the nation, are, the APA believes, "psychologically harmful."

In a section called "masculine ideology," the APA says: "Masculine ideology is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive ... cognitions about boys and men (academic citations added). Although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology." This statement seems to have been composed by someone who has to bite her or his tongue in order not to describe manly men as "deplorables."

Let's unpack this a bit. By "anti-femininity," the APA means homophobia, but homophobia as a systematic attitude was not so much a feature of traditional masculinity as of traditional society. Women in a previous era were as likely to mock homosexuals as men. "Violence" was never a yardstick for masculinity in our culture, although physicality is.

The others - achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, adventure, and risk-taking - are indeed masculine qualities, and they are not part of an "ideology," they are inherent. They are the qualities that brought humankind from caves to the Silk Road to global exploration across dangerous seas and to the moon landing. But the monumental accomplishments that can be traced directly to these masculine traits are of no interest to the APA. The Guidelines spew forth all the predictable shibboleths of social-justice warriordom - intersectionality, oppression, privilege, patriarchy, etc. Under the rubrics of Identity Politics, "traditional masculinity" is inherently toxic to women and other fragile people. 

Read more

Through the Looking Glass at Concordia University

Terry Newman
Quillette

It was in a class called Representations of Minorities in Documentary Film, the last elective I needed to receive my BA at Concordia University in Montreal, that I first realized something was very wrong. The class had just watched Sound and Fury, a 2000 Oscar-nominated documentary about deaf culture. The film follows a 6-year-old deaf girl named Heather and her family (several members of whom also are deaf) as they go back and forth on the issue of cochlear implants, a then-new technology that allows some deaf people to hear.

Heather wants cochlear implants so she can talk to people and hear lions. Her mother, too, opts for the implants. But when she discovers the implant will not be as effective for her, she changes her mind, and, without consulting her daughter, decrees that neither of them will be undergoing the procedure.

After the film ended, our professor asked students for their thoughts. When called on, I said that parents should try to make their children’s lives easier. If I remember my words correctly, I added: “They shouldn’t hold their children back from something that will help them grow.”

“You just feel that way because you’re white, cisgendered, abled, and privileged,” came the snarl from somewhere below. I looked down a few aisles to the front of the dark screening room. I saw the back of a mostly shaved head, with a lock of hair tied on top. I had never seen the back of this head before. And I never saw the front of it either, because the responder didn’t bother to look at me.

You don’t know me, I thought. What gives you the right to comment on who I am? My inner monologue started racing in my privileged Cape Breton accent. Ya, I’m right some privileged, b’y. I was abandoned by my mother, y’arse! I never knew my father. I grew up under a staircase, like Harry Potter. My hand shot up so I could respond. The professor ignored it. I kept it up and locked eyes with him, agitated. He looked away. The last few minutes of the class rolled on, with others talking about things I can’t even remember. The attack on my identity just hung there over the space, unchallenged, floating, settling into the upholstery of the chairs. Then the class was dismissed.

I walked out of the screening room feeling kind of shell-shocked. What was I to take from this? What were the other students to take from this? That the attack on my character warranted no rebuttal? That my race, my gender, and my sexual identity had all disqualified me from participating? The lesson seemed clear. My status as a mother of two young girls—unimportant. My opinions—unwanted. I learned the lesson so well that I did not again participate in that class for the rest of the semester.

My experience in that undergraduate film class was just a taste, an appetizer if you will, for the full-fledged graduate feast I was to consume at Concordia once my undergrad was finished. 

Read more

Make no mistake, we are living under a diversity dictatorship

Zoe Strimpel
The Telegraph

When a Cambridge don of Indian heritage announced last week that she would no longer teach for a certain college in protest at “racist profiling and aggression” by the college porters, some onlookers – including yours truly – recoiled.

Among other things, the don was enraged and felt racially insulted that the porters had insisted on calling her “Madam”, as they do all women, rather than “Doctor”, as she’d demanded.

To certain friends and I, however, it seemed highly likely that the porters’ surliness was less racism and more a natural response to an obnoxious, arrogant and imperious member of the intellectual elite telling them what to do.

But these days, that sort of argument counts for nothing – worse, it could get you sacked, exiled, barred, no-platformed, bullied or worse. Those who cry repression and oppression – racism, sexism, transphobism – have become judge, jury and executioner.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

We’ve seen countless times in the past year or so how anyone accused of an outrage against identity will immediately pay the price, from classicist Mary Beard accused of racism and mauled on Twitter as a result, to Germaine Greer, ceaselessly attacked for her unorthodox views on transsexual women and #MeToo.

Read more

Students may need counseling after 'required' diversity training

Celine Ryan
campusreform.org

Minnesota State University will have counselors standing by to comfort “student leaders” who have an “emotional response” after being required to attend a new diversity training.

MSU announced Wednesday that it is rolling out two new diversity trainings this fall, saying it is "expected" that faculty supervisors will "make this training required for student leaders."

Minnesota State University will have counselors standing by to comfort “student leaders” who have an “emotional response” after being required to attend a new diversity training.

MSU announced Wednesday that two new 90-minute workshops on social justice and diversity are being implemented for “student leaders" this fall, noting that staff/faculty supervisors are expected to “make this training required.”

While the announcement does not provide a comprehensive definition of what constitutes a student leader, it does state that "examples of student leaders/workers include: Student Athlete Advisory Committee, Office Assistants, Resident Assistants, Student Orientation Counselors, etc."

The announcement itself does not explicitly state that the workshops will be mandatory, saying only that “we encourage faculty and staff to send their student leaders and student workers to both training sessions.”

A supplementary document provided within the announcement, however, states that staff and faculty supervisors are "expected" to "make this training required for student leaders and stress the importance," as well as “encourage student interaction during the trainings” and "require students to complete pre- and post-training surveys." 

Read more

White privilege versus racial paranoia

Steve Salerno
Quillette

If you are white and enjoy any level of public platform - politician, professor, policy wonk - and you use said platform to address social issues, you are certain to be accused of seeing life through the distortive prism of white privilege. Black leaders and social justice firebrands will make the allegation in the most austere terms - witness that spicy moment during a recent debate on political correctness when Michael Eric Dyson bluntly labeled his conservative adversary, Jordan Peterson, a "mean, mad white man." Even those on the Left, such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, have not enjoyed immunity from this charge. Privilege is framed as a condition that, once acquired, can never be cured. However, it defies credulity to propose that Dyson and other leading social justice voices are alone in seeing life for what it really is, stripped of all parochial subtexts. Common sense suggests the existence of a complementary malady afflicting the accusers: racial paranoia, one might call it.

If some are inclined to miss the unfairness around them, is it not equally possible that others see unfairness where none exists? Nowhere in the public arena do paranoia and privilege collide more explosively than on the topic of unequal treatment under the law. In making their case, black advocates uniformly cite the videotaped incidents that by now have become an eponymous part of the national conversation on race: Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Philando Castile. All gave oxygen to Black Lives Matter, and later to the NFL's take-a-knee protests. Surely videos can be dramatic exhibits in mounting a case for extrajudicial violence. What a video cannot do, of course, is show us whether excessive force is excessively applied or racially motivated. For that we must turn to facts and figures.

A study out last week suggests that the view of law enforcement as a hotbed of racism is indeed highly inflected by paranoia. "Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police Use of Deadly Force?" examines available data from police shootings in 2015 and 2016. The authors observe that determinations of bias normally are made simply by "comparing the odds of being fatally shot for Blacks and Whites, with odds benchmarked against each group's population proportion." That necessarily yields an incomplete picture, the authors assert, because of the substantial per capita difference in crime among blacks: "When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects."

Read more 

US Liberals Are Clinically Insane and Care Nothing for the American People

Robert Bridge
Strategic Culture

Even before Donald Trump won the White House, there were strong indications that something was not quite right with the Liberal mindset. Today, all doubt on the matter has been cleared away.

The mass hysteria that swept across Liberal America, like one giant tear tsunami, following Hillary Clinton’s ‘surprise’ loss in the 2016 presidential election has reached a new level of madness and can now be described as a deep-seated psychosis.

There are some understandable reasons for the Left’s collective mental breakdown. Briefly, ‘Russiagate’ is disintegrating into a burlesque theater of the absurd, while Trump – from jump-starting the Heartland’s industrial sector, to making peace with a nuclear-armed dictator, to ‘winning’ the World Cup – is on a serious roll. If the momentum continues, it may give the Republicans a crucial victory in November congressional midterms. The Democrats, acutely aware as to what is at stake yet unable to stop Trump, are showing a side of their character that can be best described as treacherous. And in order to see the symptoms of a disintegrating Democratic Party one only need look at the US entertainment industry.

For example, actor Robert DeNiro, one of the most outspoken Hollywood critics of Trump, forced his captive audience at the recent Tony Awards to sit through an invective against the US leader, which started with the juvenile comment, “F*ck Trump!” Just in case his audience - which may have included some minors, not to mention Republicans - did not hear him the first time, DeNiro repeated it. The pathetic outburst, which was certainly not the first time a fading Hollywood star has used the pulpit at an awards ceremony to make a weak political impression, won DeNiro a cheap standing ovation.

Read more

The Truth About Virtue-Signalling

Paul Joseph Watson

Rewilding: a rotten idea

Comment: SJW Environmentalism? Or just another symptom of Dark Green?

----------------------------
Steve Brenner
Spiked

'Hey kids, let’s go and see the animals at the Oostvaardersplassen nature reserve’, is not something any Dutch parent is likely to say to their children, these days. Last winter, they might have seen park rangers shooting thousands of skeletal animals, rotting animal carcasses, and a barren landscape dotted with dead trees. Rather than a place of natural harmony, the reserve now resembles the nightmarish visions of Hieronymus Bosch. A new report by Amsterdam’s provincial government has called for fundamental changes. A petition for the reserve’s closure has been signed by over 125,000 people. 

Events in the reserve this winter have attracted attention not only from concerned Dutch citizens, but also from around the world. The park has hitherto been held up as a model for rewilding – the planned introduction of plant and animal species, which are then left to develop independently of human influence. But events at Oostvaardersplassen have revealed that the misanthropic ideology that lies behind rewilding is fundamentally flawed. 

 The Oostvaardersplassen consists of 56 square kilometres of land reclaimed from the sea, a short drive away from Amsterdam. Originally intended as an industrial zone, it long laid undeveloped and abandoned. Under the influence of the Dutch ecologist Frans Vera, it was reinvented during the 1980s and 1990s, ostensibly as a safe haven for nature. Natural processes would be allowed to take their course and human intervention would be eliminated as much as possible. Human intervention, rewilding advocates argue, is arrogant and destructive to natural ends. As British ecologist George Monbiot argues, rewilding is the perfect antidote to ‘the Biblical doctrine of dominion’ – the destructive basis of the modern human relationship to nature. 

Read more

Canada's gender-neutral pronoun bill should be a warning for Americans

Jordan Peterson
The Hill

 Two weeks ago I posted three YouTube videos about legislative threats to Canadian freedom of speech. I singled out Canada's Federal Bill C-16, which adds legal protection for "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal code.

I noted that the policy statements surrounding similar legislation - most particularly those on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website - were dangerously vague and ill-formulated. I also indicated my refusal to apply what are now known as "preferred" pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone "he" or "she" in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).

These videos attracted a disproportionate amount of attention - online, in the Canadian national media, and beyond. A demonstration at the University of Toronto protested my statements. Another was held in support of free speech. The latter was met by counter-demonstrators who drowned out the speakers with white noise and assaulted a young female journalist - an act now viewed by half a million people on YouTube overall:

If you are wondering, reasonably, why any of this might be relevant to Americans, you might note that legislation very similar to Bill C-16 has already been passed in New York City.

Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of "mis-gendering" - referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).

"They" is also a popular choice, transforming the plural into a new singular, with its advocates arguing (misleadingly, in my opinion) that such use reaches back several hundred years. I have been taken to task for my refusal to abide by the wishes of those demanding such changes to my speech. What are my reasons?

First, most simply, are the practical problems. The Big Apple now legally protects a non-exhaustive list of 31 gender identities.  

Read more

Violent "Color Revolution" in America? Attempted overthrow of Trump threatens to shred fabric of American society

Larry Chin
Global Research

What is now unfolding in America is a process of engineered dissent which is controlled by the corporate elites. This process precludes the formation of a real mass movement against racism, social injustice and US led wars.

This article by Larry Chin analyzes how the elite opponents of Donald Trump are manipulating public opinion with the support of the mainstream corporate media. Through staged protest events funded by corporate foundations, the unspoken objective is to create profound divisions within American society. These divisions preclude the formation of a meaningful and united protest movement.

The objective of these staged protest movements against Trump is not to support democracy. Quite the opposite. It is to ensure complete control over the US State apparatus by a competing faction of the corporate establishment. Where is the US antiwar movement? Rarely are these engineered protests against US led wars.

A grassroots and united movement against the Trump presidency and the Neocons, against war and social injustice is what has to be achieved. But this will not occur when several of the organizations which are leading the protest against Trump are supported and funded by Wall Street.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research 2017

***
A race war and a civil war are being incited by the US political establishment and Deep State opponents of Donald Trump, in order to foment violence towards Trump's removal from the White House. The events in Charlottesville, together with "Russia-Gate" are being used as a "defining moment of crisis" and a pretext to justify Trump's overthrow.

Turning American streets into war zones

America has never faced chaos of this nature in modern times: manufactured domestic political terrorism disguised as civil unrest, masking a coup. The stated goal of the agitators is "mass insurrection"and "all forms of violence" to make the country "ungovernable"

Just as the global "war on terrorism" is a criminality and treason disguised as "freedom fighting" and "the defense of liberty", this war against Trump, labelled as the "new Hitler", is part of an unfolding domestic terror operation, which ironically utilizes the propaganda techniques of Hitler and the Third Reich (Goebbels), not to mention the anarchist playbook of Saul Alinsky (and, by extension, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom are Alinsky disciples). (See also Ben Carson quoted in the Washington Post, "Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky and Lucifer, explained", July 20, 2015)

From the violence and propaganda brainwashing to the manipulation and destruction of culture and history (statues and monuments, etc.). what is unfolding is a repeat of familiar institutional terror.

Goals are achieved through the weaponization and mobilization of indoctrinated and deceived masses as well as grassroots activists, coupled with mind-controlled authoritarian thugs.

The larger "resistance" features a toxic combination of professional paid anarchists, brainwashed "social justice warriors", and deluded protestors who are misinformed and invariably ignorant as to who is supporting and funding the "protest movements". There is no rational conversation to be had, no reasoning, in such an atmosphere of ginned-up hysteria.

This large-scale extortion aims to devastate the United States from within, forcing Trump out of office. An already deeply divided and confused nation with an already shredded social fabric will be torn apart.

The mainstream corporate media, the engineers of delusion and mob-manipulating propaganda, is ginning it up, creating mass hysteria and mental affliction.

What is taking place is not simple protests from supporters of a losing political faction, but a domestic terrorism operation planned and executed by the establishment majority-supported by neoliberals as well as neoconservative Republicans-in defense of their system against perceived existential threat from anti-establishment movements. Mob violence has always been a weapon of the oligarchy. It was inaccurate and tactically stupid for Trump to call this insurrection "Alt-Left". It is in fact a mainstream establishment operation, which uses "left", "progressive" and antifa symbols to pursue its political objectives.

The ultimate objective is to create social divisions which prevent the development of a real and independent mass protest movement against the seats of corporate power.

This "chaos agenda"is a "color revolution". The elites and Deep State figures behind today's American anarchy are the same ones that funded and orchestrated "color revolutions" around the world, the toppling of Ukraine and the installation of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Svoboda regime, unrest in Turkey, the destabilization of Syria, the European refugee crisis, and the Arab Spring. What worked overseas is now being applied within US borders.

The Purple Revolution began the night Trump won the presidential election that foiled the installation of Hillary Clinton. This warfare has escalated and intensified in the months ever since, culminating with Charlottesville.

The increasingly failing Trump/Russian hack narrative is being replaced by a variation on an old theme: Nazis. "Trump is a Nazi". Nazis must die.

Trump's repeated denials and long history of standing against Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists, and having nothing to do with them, are to no avail. 

Read more

Post-nihilism, a template for where we are heading

Pierre Lescaudron
Sott.net

Some of you may remember my last article, 'post-imperialism, a template for a new social order' where I described a utopian society. It discussed ideas of community, values, the quest for truth and objective reality. The present article does almost the opposite, it describes the current state of our society and where it is probably heading. More specifically, I will focus on the emergence and predominance of 'organized' minorities, be they homosexuals, atheists, migrants, pagans, modern art enthusiasts, blacks, vegetarians, LGBT advocates, you name it.

The list is long and keeps getting longer, as if we had entered an age of the race for victim-hood. Most of those minorities consider themselves as 'Social justice warriors' or SJWs. I'll try to explain how SJWs ended up imposing their vision of the world on the majority and where this raging proselytism displayed by SJWs comes from.

Many terms have been used to describe the dystopian world in which we find ourselves: materialist, scientist, atheist, individualistic, rationalist, consumerist. They all are valid descriptions, although they only address one of the facets of our global society.

Recently some thinkers attempted to give a more extensive assessment of our society and described it as nihilistic, relativist, post-modern. What those three terms have in common is that they make the claim that there can be no objective truth, no objective meaning and no objective moral values.

But when you observe the vehement proselytism displayed by 'acting' minorities, it seems that they strongly believe they hold truth and they are very willing to fight for it. How can this be in a nihilistic/relativist/postmodern society, where there is no truth, no future and no goal?

Along with tracking the fundamental causes and origins of the fervor and proselytism displayed by 'dominant' minorities, I'll try to describe the current dynamics and show that they go way beyond 'nihilism'. That's why I use the term 'post-nihilism' to account for the society that emerges after the transitory 'nihilistic' phase.  

Read more