The New York Times, once one of the most highly respected American news outlets, has long gone the way of the rest of the US media and become the servile tool of political and corporate interests. In line with Hilary Clinton's recent attempts to connect the American Alt-Right with Russia, the Times obligingly today posted an article by one Neil MacFarquhar denouncing the Russian media as a global disinformation machine.
MacFarquhar's cites as contributors to his article Lincoln Pigman, a NYT intern specializing in defense issues and Eva Sohlman, an obscure Swedish author, who's apparently written art columns for the Times on occasion.
This is all rather ironic in light of recent revelations that George Soros---with the collusion of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry---pumped millions of dollars into anti-Russian propaganda campaigns. Campaigns which, incidentally, used professional PR firms and networks of paid contacts inside the Corporate Media itself. Nonetheless, MacFarquhar---who to our knowledge, hasn't had a word to say about Soros states that "The Kremlin uses both Sputnik and RT and covert channels that are almost always untraceable." to spread this alleged disinformation.
Aside from the fact that the Russian government does not control the Russian media, MacFarquhar and his cohorts have premised this entire article on the idea that Russia is somehow weaponizing information---claiming that Russian media is a direct extension of Russia's military policy. He quotes at length the opinions of some Swedish politician who is angry at a proliferation of Swedish news articles opposing Sweden's proposal to join NATO.
The only thing that is actually noteworthy about this article is its blatant yellow journalism. A good rebuttal was published by Sputnik, and the authors there point out that no evidence is given for any of MacFarquhar's assertions; the mere say-so of Mr. Lincoln Pigman to the contrary notwithstanding.
Articles like MacFarquhar's are the reason why people turn to non-Western media sources in the first place. Journalism is not about starting with a preconceived bias and then finding 'sources' to corroborate it. Journalism is about collecting facts and arriving at a fair conclusion. The New York Times no longer practices this type of professional journalism any longer; hence its descent into tabloid-style sensationalism and cheap propaganda.
MacFarquhar takes especial issue with what he perceives as negative depictions of the United States "RT often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish." It probably seems that way to the Corporate Media, which seems obsessed with keeping Americans in a permanent state of denial about any of our deep national problems. He goes on claim that both RT and Sputnik "depict the West as grim, divided, brutal, decadent, overrun with violent immigrants and unstable" which actually sounds somewhat like an accurate depiction excepting the violent immigrant part. The Russian media has actually reported on mistreatment of immigrants here and covered pro-immigration rallies and similar events. MacFarquhar probably threw that misstatement in as an afterthought, since the Alt-Right---whom he insinuates is tied to Russia---portrays immigrants in this way.
MacFarquhar also tries to dazzle readers with his supposed knowledge of history and carries on at length about Soviet disinformation campaigns---as though any of those are relevant to 21st Century Russian policies. Naturally he didn't bother to mention that during the Cold War, our government passed the Anti-Propaganda Act of 1948, which forbade the US government from engaging in domestic propaganda itself. Obama repealed that law in 2013 as part of the notorious National Defense Authorization Act. In 1985, former Senator Edward Zorinsky, voting to renew the 1948 law stated, "such propaganda should be kept out of the US, to distinguish America from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."
So which country's news outlets are spreading disinformation here? Maybe instead of attacking RT and Sputnik, the US media ought to do a little more introspection about its own standards and practices.
Probably the most crowning irony of all is that Cultural Marxists in Democratic Party and the Corporate Media point an accusing finger at the Alt-Right as racist and xenophobic; while at the same time accusing Russia---a multiethnic foreign power---of being behind it all. But such is what passes for deep political discourse and high-level journalism in the Prozac Nation.
Hilary Clinton, in her attack on the so-called Alt Right, has taken to tying Russia in with the movement. As we have previously noted, the Alt-Right had its origins in the early 1990s, a fact Mrs. Clinton acknowledged herself then when speaking of a vast, Right-Wing conspiracy. The Clinton Administration was certainly no friend to the emerging Russian Federation; giving asylum to Gorbachev and attacking Russian allies like Serbia. And as we have also seen, Clinton's chief advisor John Podesta had some rather questionable dealings in Ukraine himself---while accusing Trump's former advisor Paul Manafort of the same things.
Robbie Mook, Clinton's campaign has claimed that "the hand of Kremlin is in this election." And Clinton herself called President Putin "the great godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism."
Awkwardly enough for Clinton, the intrepid Julian Assange today published the third set of 2,500 documents leaked from the Soros Foundation. It seems that Hilary Clinton's good friend, Wall Street robber baron George Soros was deeply involved in an attempt to manipulate another election---the 2012 presidential elections in Russia.
And who was US Secretary of State in 2012?
According to the leaked documents, Soros' Open Societies Foundation was organizing Non-Governmental Organizations inside of Russia to foment political disturbances and influence the Russian government. After Putin's re-election, most of the NGOs were thrown out of Russia on the grounds that were viper's-nest of foreign provocateurs. The Soros leaks are proving that Putin's policy was correct.
Frustrated, Soros admitted in the documents that his plot to instigate a Ukraine-style coup in Russia had failed. At a meeting with some of his fellow financial freebooters, he lamented that Russia's policy of publically funding alternative parties undermined the factions he was controlling---a mistake he later corrected in Ukraine. Soros then submitted a plan to destabilize Russia, among the points of which were flooding the country with Moslem refugees and trying to buy influence in the Russian media.
Soros agreed to what he called The Russia Project. He offered that the Soros Foundation establish contacts with anti-Putin elements inside Russia and to foment an anti-Russian smear campaign in the Western Corporate Media prior to the Sochi Olympics. The project concluded with a statement committed to Globalism, which by the definition of the American Left actually means US cultural and economic imperialism.
So it would seem from these revelations that Hilary Clinton and her camarilla are actually the great fairy-godmothers of this national brand of extreme globalism.
In recent statements, Hilary Clinton even went so far as to accuse Russian media outlets of paying the American Alt-Right. Of course, this is simply more Projection of the same stripe. The abject servility of the US Corporate Media to Obama, Clinton, and Soros has become so transparent that the Soros Scandal is barely even mentioned by the American Press. A recent report stated that the birth of a sea-lion in a city zoo got nine times the media coverage than the Soros Foundation document-leak has received.
Which, sadly, in the Prozac Nation is about typical. It's doubtful that a country that considers reality-TV stars and stand-up comedians as deep political thinkers is going to pay much attention to Soros and his crimes. Thankfully, Putin is standing tall and unscathed; and Assange is exposing the truth to the world.
Citizens of the tiny island of Okinawa, a colonial possession of the Japanese Empire and home to a US military base, are in a near state of open revolt. A combination of Obama's treachery and the Empire's arrogance has strained relations with the West in this normally tranquil Pacific island.
Okinawa was an independent country until 1879 when it was annexed by Japan. It was captured by US forces in 1945 and was an American overseas territory until 1972. As part of an economic deal with the Empire, the Nixon Administration returned Okinawa to Japan in exchange for keeping the US military base there as security against then-Maoist China. There were no major problems there until the post-Reagan Era. Clinton's military purges and introducing social progressivism into the military; Bush's outsourcing to civilian defense contractors; and Obama's overt Cultural Marxist transition of the military have made our brave men and women in uniform far below the traditional standards we once expected of our personnel.
The problems opened in the mid-1990s when US Marines gang-raped a 12 year old girl, and the crime wave has been going on unabated ever since. US military personnel account for the overwhelming majority of Okinawa's violent crimes. Worse still have been recent revelations that Pentagon officials openly despise the Okinawan people as inferiors and its political leaders as its subjects.
In a supposedly conciliatory move, Obama agreed last month to repatriate 16 square miles of unused military land to Okinawa and the Tojos agreed to send special police units to maintain order. But Obama, to whom treachery is second nature, secretly agreed with the Empire to construct a new helicopter base near a small village in an ecologically sensitive area. The Japanese agreed to the plan on the condition that the US hire Japanese contractors for the construction. Both governments well knew that the Okinawans opposed the plan, as it had been previously floated and rejected by the Okinawan government.
Okinawans turned out en masse to protest the construction, but the Japanese special police have turned on the Okinawans---under the pretext that they are protecting Japanese construction interests.
"It feels like martial law has been declared here." a protestor stated to the press. "There are large numbers of Japanese police and they often act violently."
But because of the Japanese Empire's huge financial holdings in the US and their influence with Corporate Media, Japan escapes the types of scrutiny other nations receive in terms of human-rights violations.
The Okinawan independence movement is growing, and deserves the support of freedom-loving peoples everywhere. US policy on the island during the last 30 years has been a national disgrace. Colluding first with the Fascist government in Tokyo; then covering up for Pentagon criminals and treating the citizenry like they lived in penal colony is a blot---one of many---on Postmodern America. We came to Okinawa as liberators, and for decades brought peace and prosperity to the island. But our culture changed here and is now having an adverse effect on an innocent people.
This week in the Prozac Nation, we've been treated to a bombardment of propaganda coming from the so-called Alt-Right. These posturing, would-be Alphas who've brought their whole Dark Triad nonsense and other social innovations into the wider social scene, are setting themselves up as representatives of true masculinity.
Our weekend entertainment features are designed to counter this type of deception. Features from earlier generations illustrate for us clearly what our culture once expected of real men. This week, we offer another series that presents a positive masculine character in a high dosage: Cimarron Strip.
Cimarron Strip was a Western that aired on CBS at the end of television's Golden Age from 1967-1968. It was a full 90-minute drama---a feature-film length program---following the exploits of tough US Marshall Jim Crown.
Crown, a former gunfighter who had cleaned up Abilene, is sent to bring order to a federal No-Mans Land in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Because of the region's uncertain legal status, it attracted the worst outlaws, freebooters, and renegades of the Old West. Crown gets no help in this assignment from the government, and very little from the people of Cimarron. Obviously, in such circumstances, it takes more than calling oneself an Alpha to get the job done.
A theme that is clearly brought out in Cimarron Strip is the uncomfortable fact that, beneath the veneer of Civilization, lies a dark undercurrent of unpredictable evil. When that element rises to the surface, what we consider masculine virtues must rise to defeat it. This is the point on which the whole 'Red-Pill Philosophy' completely fails. The Red Pill Philosophy is premised on the idea that what we call civilized social and moral norms is merely an illusion (another notion they've borrowed from Marxism). The chief instigator of the Game Cult in fact even has a header on his blog reading "Where Pretty Lies Perish." Now logically it follows from such a premise that Civilization is not worth defending (another Marxist theme) and that the true Alpha Leader therefore lives for himself.
In their scheme of things, men like Crown are chumps, as only a fool would fight for an illusion. Sex and Status are their highest virtues, so it also follows logically that they rule society as its overlords, while said chumps do their bidding. A few minutes of serious thought ought to show anyone the positive social danger inherent in such a philosophy.
In contrast, a character like that of Jim Crown understands that actions are what really wins respect. He understood that taking responsibility to protect and provide for others who depend upon him is what separates men from boys. When he goes beyond protecting and providing and makes the world a better place, that's what separates ordinary from extraordinary men.
Crown has a love interest in this series, of whom he is especially protective, named Dulcie Coopersmith. To the horror of the Alt-Right, she is both an immigrant and an independent businesswoman. To the horror of the Far Left, she's at half Crown's age. Dulcie in many ways is a strong feminine character type. She's not the typical Western heroine by any means; but a demure beauty with a sweet disposition and a kind heart. In one episode where Crown goes missing and Dulcie can't get help, she enlists a reclusive doctor and brings him back to a sense of duty. In many ways, Dulcie's sweetness and innocence inspires Crown and often brings him back from the disillusionment of his work.
The 90-minute format of Cimarron Strip allows for some highly developed and sophisticated plots and storylines. Though there's no shortage of hard-hitting action, some critics have called this series 'the Western for the thinking man.' The series was also unique for recruiting a number of top Hollywood writers and producers, including some who'd worked for Alfred Hitchcock and on other top films.
Cimarron Strip is available on Youtube and also on DVD format. It's a unique series and in its own way, a captivating one. Moreover, it is a refreshing change from the banal and superficial aspects of our Postmodern Culture. It shows what genuine men and real women can accomplish, even under the most trying circumstances.
The Manosphere Game Cult is beside themselves with glee over Hilary Clinton's speech attacking the Alt-Right. To the Red Pills, this is confirmation that the Radical Feminists---which by their definition is 100% of the female gender---is really engaged in a war with them. What has them so elated is that Clinton has drawn national attention to them; which they imagine will swell their numbers. The Game Cult leader, The Voice of God, among others, harken back to the so-called 'Gamer-Gate' controversy in 2014 which won them lots of recruits.
They've likely already forgotten the 1990s, when the Clintons were continually scapegoating the Far Right for their continual policy failures. Hilary Clinton's speech is actually nothing new. Recall that she herself had brought up the specter of a "vast Right-Wing conspiracy" back in 1994, when Clinton's proposed national healthcare plan failed to generate public support.
Now as we pointed out in another recent article here, that the so-called Alt-Right is really not Right-Wing or Conservative at all; but simply a reactionary movement within the larger Cultural Marxist framework. Traditional Republicans repudiated people like White Nationalists with whom the Alt-Right is rife. Hilary Clinton is not likely to point that out, however.
White Nationalism, which has always been a latent force among these recent reactionary elements, has really come out in the open during the last few years. As we have observed, it is really nothing more than a variant of Leftist so-called Multiculturalism. Some of the extremists on the Left have fantasized about partitioning the US into racial zones; now some on the Alt-Right have taken the idea globally. According to these innovators, Blacks belong in Africa; Arabs in the Middle East; Orientals in Asia; Whites in Europe and America.
But here is a problem, which these Alt-Right racial theorists need to address.
When you speak of racial homelands, aren't you forgetting that the Red Man also needs a home? See, from what anthropology and history teach us---the Americas were originally the American Indians' homeland. We also know from geography that the Central and South Americans are mostly of Indian descent.
Those on the Alt-Right speak of proprietary rights a great deal. It seems to us, by Alt-Right logic, that the Americas are Indian territory and the White Man really has no claim to this continent. As for building a border fence---we know the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, etc., were all descendants of North American tribes. It would seem that, to be consistent, the Alt-Right should welcome Latin American immigrants. For even though they've since evolved to speak Spanish and practice Catholicism, they are more Red and therefore, more indigenous to the continent than we are.
Silly, you say? Of course it is: but it illustrates just how absurd this bogus racial purity movement among the Alt-Right really is. George Bush Jr. came up with the same plan to partition Iraq along cultural lines and look how well that plan worked out. Iraq has been in a near nonstop state of civil war since Bush imposed the plan on them. If it hadn't been for the rise of ISIS as a common enemy, Iraq would still be divided.
Many of the Alt-Right Red Pills are deeply against interracial marriages, although paradoxically they also claim that white women are unfit to be good wives and mothers. That aside, they argue against race-mixing on the grounds that such unions lower the genetic stock. They all base this theory on lower IQs of non-whites without bothering to consider of course that IQ tests are based on Western cultural norms.
The Red Pills go on to claim that these low IQs result from generations of inbreeding, and then proceed to offer inbreeding among Whites as the solution. Isolationism never works in practice. Notice that the most isolated and remote tribes on earth today are the least culturally advanced. Which is also true of isolated nations. Do we really want to look like a white, neo-Christian version of Saudi Arabia in a few decades?
These same Manospherians also claim that reproductive success is the hallmark of the superior 'Alpha' male---apparently forgetting that China's population is 4 times ours; and that the Arabians have 3 times our birthrate. Their White Nationalism---like their Game Theory is in todo a contradiction of itself through-and-through.
Now it is true that Hilary Clinton and other Cultural Marxists have used Multiculturalism as a pretext to institute anti-White policies and discriminate against American Whites. But the truly Conservative way to fight this is to expose the Left's policies for what they are and take a firm stand against all racial and religious discrimination. The true Conservative believes that everyone is entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and that only false religions need to be upheld by the power of the State. Can the Alt-Right White Nationalists explain why they alone are entitled to the blessings of Liberty? "White Men created our values of Liberty." they will answer.
To which we say in response: "No---God created Human Liberty, as our Declaration of Independence itself states. White men may have discovered this truth and put it into practice, but it is to the common good of all mankind."
Julian Assange today began releasing to the public the first batch of US State Department correspondence between Hilary Clinton and her staff. Assange pointed to one especially troubling series concerning Clinton's mental health from 2011.
Assange pointed out that in August 2011, one of Clinton's staffers sent her a medical concerning something called decision fatigue, and expressed concerns about Clinton's health.
"Wow, that is eerily descriptive." Mrs. Clinton replied.
Assange noted that the article claimed that persons in positions of power could experience this alleged syndrome, which made them "reckless, act impulsively, and cause ordinary people to lash out at colleagues." Clinton is of course well-known for her terrible temper. But the e-mails go on to include one from October 2011, by her senior advisor Jacob Sullivan. Sullivan sent Clinton about a drug called Provigil, which is used to treat people suffering neurological conditions like Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Syndrome, Narcolepsy, and Multiple Sclerosis.
This correspondence, Assange further pointed out, occurred prior to her 2012 head injury.
What is especially troubling about this story are two things. First, these concerns about Hilary Clinton's mental state are not coming from her enemies, but from her closest advisors and colleagues. Despite some of the rhetorical jibes coming from the Republican side, this illustrates that concerns about Mrs. Clinton's mental health are indeed legitimate.
The second troubling aspect to this story is that we also know now that Clinton's health have been known to top Democratic Party officials now for at least five years. It is grossly irresponsible of the Democratic leadership to conceal this type. The American electorate have a perfect right to be informed of a potentially debilitating condition in a presidential candidate. If it can proven to the public's satisfaction that the condition is not debilitating, then so be it; but we are owed the opportunity to make that decision.
These issues by themselves might not disqualify Clinton as a president alone; but combined with her policy decisions as Secretary of State that created global chaos; her mishandling of sensitive information; suspicious deaths around her enemies; numerous financial and political scandals---these factors combined lead one to suspect, at least, that her mental state does in fact have a bearing on her ability to serve as president.
This story, though, like others surrounding Clinton, will no doubt be buried by the Corporate Media. Americans seem to prefer to want to live in denial about how bad both leading candidates truly are. The 2016 Elections, more than previous ones, are proving just how badly flawed our electoral process has truly become. The system itself is in need of serious reform.
But given the corruption of our Postmodern culture such reforms are unlikely to occur. Hilary Clinton, unfortunately, is a symbol of what American culture has become: emotionally unstable, irresponsible, and violent. Donald Trump too represents another aspect of the culture: its thuggishness and superficiality. Until we as a society began to change, we cannot expect that our leaders will be any different than what they represent.
The so-called Alt-Right, thanks largely to the political success of Donald Trump, has emerged as a major American sociopolitical movement. Unlike the Reform Party or the Tea Party, it appears that the Alt-Right has some permanence on the political landscape, for better or worse.
The Alt-Right is not ideologically or culturally connected to traditional American Conservatism as we knew it in the last century under the Reagan Administration. The Alt-Right is essentially a reactionary movement. There is no one in the Alt-Right who corresponds to the genteel William F. Buckley who could articulate clearly and succinctly what defined a Conservative position. The Alt-Right does not actually stand for much of anything. It is however, filled with loud and active media figures and bloggers who tell us what they are against.
Their solutions to socioeconomic problems basically can be summarized as whatever goes to opposite extreme of the Far Left. In fact, their positions on nearly issue is identical to those of the Cultural Marxists with the Alt-Right politically correct substitutions. We have seen for example how the Manosphere 'Red Pills' have taken Radical Feminism and applied to men---and not surprisingly the Red Pill/Game Cult are huge supporters of the Alt-Right.
The Alt-Right does the same in a broader sense: their racial politics basically is Leftist Multiculturalism applied to Whites. They claim to oppose hiring quotas, but want to expel immigrant labor and force businesses to hire native-born Americans instead. And so on. In fact, what one sees in every issue that the Alt-Right supports is Political Correctness in reverse. There is nothing Conservative about the segregationism, anti-Semitism, male gender-supremacy, anti-Catholicism, militarism, xenophobia, and crony-cartel capitalism that their pundits advocate on a regular basis. There's nothing traditionally American about any of it either.
Despite their claims to the contrary, the Alt-Right is a product of the post-Reagan Era like the Cultural Marxism it emulates. Its origins come from the early 1990s when political shock-jocks began to dominate AM Radio. These people claimed that the Mainstream Media then had a liberal bias and editorialized rather than reported news. They promptly then copied that very model and have since grown via radio, television, and the Internet. Alt-Right Media engages in all of the worst tactics of the Far Left: shouting down opponents; personal attacks, guilt-by-association, historical revisionism, spreading nonsensical neologisms, etc.
The Alt-Right also has the typically Leftist tendency to regard political opponents as dangerous enemies---illustrating that they've totally internalized the 'personal is political' attitude of the Cultural Marxists. Their derision is not exclusively reserved for the Left either, but also for traditional conservatives whom the Alt-Right doesn't deem sufficiently loyal to the Official Party Line.
This is probably the one thing that most separates the Alt-Right from Traditional Conservatives. Some of us remember the aforementioned William Buckley and others of his political persuasion sitting in quiet studios in easy chairs having polite discussions with their opponents. Today, the commentators are screaming the most vile epithets their fevered imaginations can suggest; their rhetoric filled with references suggestive of warfare; and offering the most extreme and inhuman solutions.
Now let it be understood that the Cultural Marxists are indeed the devoted foes of everything positive about American Culture. But the point is that we don't defeat them by imitating or becoming like them. The one thing that the Cultural Marxists cannot tolerate is truth and the Society they wish to destroy was better than the one they've offered in its place. Fight them with that fact and we'd actually Make America Great Again.
