Right Now

In my previous article "Defiant Chastity," I asked the plaintive question: Is there anywhere in the debauched landscape of postmodern America where one can still find determined cultural resistance to the wearisome blight of entrenched sexual permissiveness, or stiff defiance against the dully exasperating trend towards enforced tolerance for every conceivable brand of unwholesome carnal perversity?

I then met my own seemingly rhetorical question with a surprisingly concrete answer: Yes, I replied; there IS, in fact, just such an unapologetically unreconstructed, sexually reactionary culture still in existence! It lies in the American West, among the denizens of "Deseret" (that is, Utah), which is to say, among the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons.

Indeed, beyond the so-called "Zion Curtain" of Mormondom, pre-sexual revolution mores still largely hold sway. Girls are taught to dress modestly and always to behave in a ladylike fashion; boys are raised to be chivalrous, courtly, and responsible breadwinners; young couples are expected to put off intimate relations until their Temple marriage—wherein they are "sealed" to one another, not just for life but for eternity (!).

The fact that these quaint old customs still endure in one sector of America must be upsetting enough to the average standard-bearing Zeitgeist enforcer, inclined as such a one is to bouts of hysterical outrage that anyone anywhere might choose not to accept "enlightened" cultural norms as... well, normative.

Yet there was one significant oversight in my "Defiant Chastity" piece, since I neglected to mention a crucial piece of the puzzle, one that goes far to explain the extent of the desperate fear and ardent loathing that Mormonism provokes in the hearts of our modern-day cultural commissars.

What truly renders the Latter-Day Saints beyond the pale is in fact the overwhelming paleness of their sweet, wholesome Latter-Day Saintly complexions.

Not only does LDS culture encourage conventional gender roles and teach traditional sexual morality, but LDS members in America are also overwhelmingly White. And because faithful Mormons tend to have large families, Utah is one of the only places in the world today where White people are actually reproducing in great numbers.

You can almost see the Establishment liberal's arms flailing madly, much like Robby the Robot's, as he contemplates the connotations of such a circumstance. "White, religious, conservative... and fecund too?! Danger, danger, Will Robinson!!!"

Now that one of Mormondom's own is likely to win the GOP's nomination for the presidency, we are probably about to be treated to ever more grotesque displays of our ruling class's deep-seated anti-White effusions. As Richard has pointed out recently, Mitt Romney's unbearable Whiteness clearly gives our betters an incurable case of the shakes, the sputters, and the willies all at once. It matters little that Romney is in truth a rather bland moderate, who should have no real impact in any significant way on any important issue should he manage to win occupancy of the White House this November. It isn't so much who Romney is, but rather what he represents, that makes writers like Lee Siegel view him as sinister and dangerous.

After all, they remonstrate, just LOOK at the guy! Not only is he square-jawed, well-dressed, and otherwise Aryan-ly and Stepford-husbandly handsome, but get a load of his extended family! Look... just look... at all of those unmistakably, undeniably WHITE children of his! Danger, danger..."

In today's drearily ubiquitous, hysteria-drenched Naziphobic, aggressively multiculturalist heterodoxy, a White politician with a large, attractive, well-heeled all-White family, who adheres to a conservative creed whose co-religionists are also predominantly White, can be little else but a calculating crypto-Fascist, poised to orchestrate a chilling production of Auschwitz, Part Deux: The Finaler Solution, should he manage to wrest power away from the Righteous Mulatto Messiah (Peace be upon him), who now rules us wisely and benevolently from on high.

President Obama, of course, being darker-hued and flatter-nosed, obviously deserves at least four more years in the saddle, or so our betters reflexively think; Herr Hope'n'Change's elegant, eloquent Brownness can save us from the catastrophic racism and genocide sure to commence should Middle American red-state bigots elect Romney, who's obviously up to no good...after all, just look at how White the man is And listen to how White his voice sounds, too!! (Shiver.)

It goes without saying, of course, that the Mormon Church isn't anything close to being a sinister secret cabal of Nordic supremacists seeking world domination. In fact, while the sect is growing by leaps and bounds, a great deal of its growth is taking place in the largely non-White "Third World," primarily Central America, South America, and Polynesian Oceania.

Yet... if we examine the history of the Saints, we do, indeed, find much in their past doctrines that is un-kosher by today's narrowly delineated standards of what meets muster for acceptability in consideration of racial matters. If Romney gets the nomination, as he probably will (once the temporary bump in the road of his South Carolina primary loss gets smoothed over), we can expect to hear ad infinitum how Blacks were excluded from the Aaronic priesthood for most of the Mormon Church's history, as well as how the Book of Mormon's weird account of ancient American pseudo-history pits the noble and civilized Nephites, who were blessed by God by being given "white and delightsome" pigmentation, against the sinful and savage Lamanites, who received divine punishment for their ungodly deeds by being cursed with unattractive and displeasing dark skin. (The wording of these passages has been changed by Church authorities in recent years, in order to tone down the blatant racialist appeal of bygone days.)

The inevitable anti-Romney whispering campaign to come will no doubt include a repeated, insistent drumbeat recitation of these facts regarding Mormon lore, in tandem with a lurid and sensationalistic reminder—as if anyone really needs reminding—of the church's widespread 19th-century practice of the "principle" of plural marriage, a practice still kept alive by many breakaway fundamentalist Mormon church bodies today, and, indeed, one of the reasons for the church population's astonishing fecundity through the years.

Through such shameless demagoguery and fear-mongering, much of the gullible, brainwashed, intellectually stupified electorate—most of whom are, ahem, White—will no doubt be persuaded that Romney's kind just don't belong in the corridors of power, because..."oh, well, because we need cultural diversity, and because Hitler was evil, and because Martin Luther King was good, and because the White cheerleading squad in that movie <i>Bring It On</i> stole their routines from the righteously sassy black girl squad from the inner-city, and because Denzel Washington and Will Smith are so badass, and, because of my internalized and indoctrinated White guilt and White shame are so easily exploited by those who rule over me..."

Thus Mitt Romney's unbearable Whiteness—the very thing that, unlike his wishy-washy flimflam platform, he can't change about himself—may just ultimately be his undoing. Only in White America!

The following is an installment in AltRight's ongoing series “So This Is How It Ends” (STIHIE), which chronicles instances of decadence and degeneration so advanced that one can only conclude and hope that we are living in a terminal stage of Western civilization.

"Booty Wave," sung by the fictional artist "K'ronica," is a satirical take on contemporary pop music, a genre which, The Onion reports--channelling STIHIE, no doubt!--likely signals the downfall of civilization.  

The following is an actual, non-parodic product of America's popular music industry--"Stupid Hoe," sung by Trinidadian immigrant Nicki Minaj.  

We seem to have passed some kind of Rubicon, when "Booty Wave" has more redeemable qualities--and is far closer to something one might call "music"--than the creations it is meant to lampoon.       

Kerry Bolton
Revolution from Above
London: Arktos Media, 2011

The popular imagination conceives Marxism and capitalism as opposing forces, imagining that—obviously—Marxists want the capitalists’ money and capitalists do not want Marxists to take it from them.

Kerry Bolton’s Revolution from Above disproves this notion.

As it turns out, and as many readers probably already know, the Marxist revolutions in the East succeeded in many places thanks to the ample funds supplied to them—consciously and voluntarily—by finance-capitalists in the West.

With access to all the money they could wish for and more, the finance-capitalists in Bolton’s narrative were, and are, primarily motivated by a desire for power, and their ultimate aim was not even more money per se, but the enduring ability to shape the world to their convenience, which translates into a collectivised planet of producers and consumers.

Marxism was useful in as much as it was a materialistic ideology that destroyed traditional structures and values and turned citizens into secular, deracinated wage slaves, irrespective of race, gender, age, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.

Capitalism was useful in as much as it made money the measure of all things and created a consumer culture that ultimately turned citizens into debt slaves, also irrespective of race, gender, and so on.

In this manner, Marxism and capitalism were seen as complementary, as well as a method of pacifying the citizenry: too busy labouring in the factory or in the cubicle, and too befuddled by daydreams of shopping and entertainment during their free time, the citizens of this global order, fearful of losing their jobs and not being able to buy things or satisfy their creditors, are left with little inclination to, or energy for, rebellion.

Bolton explains how the finance-capitalist oligarchy is the entity that truly runs our affairs, rather than the national governments. The latter are either financially dependent, or in partnership, with the financiers and the central bankers.

To illustrate this dependency he documents the United States’ government relationship with the Bolsheviks in Russia during the revolution, not to mention the similarity in their goals despite superficial appearances to the contrary and despite alarm or opposition from further down the hierarchy. Bolton shows how genuinely anti-communist efforts were frustrated during the Cold War. And he shows that the close relationship with communist regimes ended when Stalin decided to pursue his own agenda.

The book then goes on to describe the various mechanisms of plutocratic domination. Bolton documents the involvement of a network of prominent, immensely rich, tax-exempt, so-called ‘philanthropic’ organisations in funding subversive movements and think tanks. Marxism has already been mentioned, but it seems these foundations were also interested in promoting feminism and the student revolts of 1968.

Feminism was sold to women as a movement of emancipation. Bolton argues, and documents, that its funders’ real aim was to end women’s independence (from the bankers) and prevent the unregulated education of children: by turning women into wage-slaves they would become dependent on an entity controlled by the plutocrats, double the tax-base, double the size of the market, and create the need for children’s education to be controlled by the government—an entity that is, in turn, controlled by the plutocrats. Betty Friedan, who founded the second wave of feminism with her book The Feminine Mystique, and Gloria Steinem are named as having received avalanches of funding from ‘philanthropic’ foundations.

With regards to the university student revolts of 1968, the book highlights the irony of how, without the activists knowing it, they were backed by the same establishment they thought to be opposing. These students were but ‘useful idiots’ in a covert strategy of subversion and social engineering.

The subversion does not end there, for the plutocracy has global reach and is as actively engaged in global planning today as it ever was. Revolution from Above inevitably deals with George Soros’ involvement in the overthrow of governments or regimes not to his liking. According to Bolton’s account, the reader can take it for granted that any of the velvet or ‘colour revolutions’ we have seen in recent years have been funded in some way or another by George Soros through his extended network of instruments. ‘Regime-changes’ in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine (orange revolution), Kyrgyszstan (pink revolution), Tunisia (jasmine revolution), Egypt (white revolution), Lybia (red, green, black revolution), and Iran (green revolution) were not the result of spontaneous uprisings. Anti-government parties, think tanks, media, campaigns, demonstrations, and even training courses for political agitation—all and in all cases received vast funding from finance-capitalism overseas, not from local collections of petty sums.

In other words, many a modern revolution has not come from below, but from above. And in the context of governments being in a dependent relationship to the stratospherical plutocracy, this aggregates into a pincer strategy, with pressure coming secretly from above and from below, with the pressure from below—however spontaneous and ‘messy’ it may seem when it hits the headlines—being the result of years of careful planning, financing, and preparation by overseas elites.

The reader must ask himself how it is that whenever we see one of these ‘colour revolutions’ somehow someone is able, almost overnight, to overwhelm the streets with a tsunami of well designed, professionally printed, and colour-coordinated merchandise: flags, scarves, placards, posters, leaflets, balloons, headbands, t-shirts, face-paint, you name it, it all seems very slick, aesthetically consistent, and fashion-conscious for uprisings that are supposedly spontaneous demonstrations of popular rage.

Overall Bolton crams in an enormous mass of information within 250 pages. The lists of names and figures—and some of the sums involved are truly staggering—are endless, and the persistent torrent of footnotes considerably expand on parts of the main narrative. The plutocrats’ web of influence and deceit is immensely complicated, not only as a structure but also as a process, since it thrives in double meaning, double think, and ambiguity. Those interested in a detailed knowledge of the machinations behind current and recent events, or even twentieth-century political history, would do well to read this book more than once—at least if they have ambitions of explaining it all to an educable third party.

One aspect of Bolton’s narrative that seems quite amazing is the superficially inoffensive tone of some of the enemy quotes provided. Were it not because Bolton’s findings flow in the same direction as other books uncovering the machinations of the oligarchs and their partners in Western governments, or because the answer to cui bono is provided unequivocally by the unfolding of current and historical events, it would be easy to think that the statements quoted came from deluded idealists. It may be that some truly believe in the goodness of their cause, yet such selfless altruism is hard to believe given the known absence of ethics among our current elite of super-financiers—the banking system they engineered, not to mention many of the opaque financial instruments we have come to known through the still unfolding financial crisis in the West, is a deception designed to obscure a practice of legalised theft.

The lessons are clear: firstly, modern ‘colour revolutions’ are not instigated by public desires for more democratic or liberal governance, but by private desires for increased global power and control; secondly, subversive movements can be given a name and a face—a name and a face averse that hides behind generic institutional names and orchestrates world events at the end of a complex money trail; and thirdly, the those seeking fundamental change should first become proficient capitalists or learn how to gain access to them. These are all obvious, of course, but Revolution from Above is less about teaching those lessons than about documenting how the world is run, by whom, and for what purpose. In other words, this is material with which to back up assertions likely to be challenged by, or in front of, the unaware. Sober and factual in tone, it is also good gift material for those who may benefit from a bit of education.

Politicians will do anything to get elected or re-elected, so it is almost taken as a certainty that sometime between the London Olympics and the US Presidential elections, America will involve itself in a sexy little war with Iran that will rally the nation and help make the autocue-reading incumbent seem less of a brain-dead dweeb than he obviously is.

The war will doubtless have the ostensible goal of "demilitarizing" the Straits of Hormuz and "safeguarding the World economy," while also taking the opportunity to blow up anything that might one day help Iran impinge on Israel’s nuclear weapon monopoly in the Middle East.

Over in the UK, the anointed dweeb is still trying to get his foot in the door.

When he was chosen leader of the opposition Labour Party in 2010, Ed Miliband benefited from the fact that everybody was trying not to elect his better known brother, David, to the position. The next step to power, however, requires persuading a large proportion of the British public to vote for him.