Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism by Douglas Rushkoff Book Review

Nothing+Sacred

I had known about Rushkoff’s treatment of Judaism; Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism, for some time and had always meant to read and review it.[i]

A video of Rushkoff discussing his take on Judaism surfaced online reminiscent of the infamous ‘Barbara Spectre moment’ – that is a political gaffe from the tribe’s mouth. We can say these “Spectre moments” are when a Jewish cultural distorter candidly discusses Jewish cultural distortion on non-Jews and their nations as Rushkoff does:

“The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren’t true, we don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state, we don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people, these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that. In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force, we’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real and that’s very upsetting to people.”

The reason Jews like Rushkoff and Barbara Spectre allow themselves to speak candidly about Jewish social engineering, affirming what their ‘detractors’ accuse Jews of is because they believe that by manipulating gentile societies they are doing the world a service – that they are in fact doing God’s work. By undermining their host nations so as to bring about conditions of disunity, Jews, like Rushkoff and Spectre, believe that in performing this role of ‘a corrosive force;’ “breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people,” that they are performing a mitzvah as part of their god-ordained task of tikkun olam. A mitzvah is translated as a ‘commandment’ but more commonly means a good deed done from religious duty. Rushkoff describes tikkun olam as “a poetic way of expressing the responsibility Jews have to ‘heal the earth.’[ii] In my two part essay on integration Manspreading for Lebestrum, when I discuss the HBO series Show me a Hero, based on a book by Jewish New York Times writer Lisa Belkin about the integration struggle in Yonkers between the NAACP their Jewish lawyers and the ethnic whites of Yonkers, we can discern the same underlying self-justification:

 

“Belkin seeks to frame the issue of integration in terms of a progressive Jewish solution to the Jewish problem, while fully retaining her Jewishness. When asked about the overtly Jewish role in integration, Belkin neither denies nor downplays the Jewish role. Instead she invokes the Jewish religious principle of Tiklun Olam, a Hebrew phrase meaning ‘repairing the world.’ Tiklun Olam, was described by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in terms of a Kehilla (community) of Jews in galut (diaspora) successfully influencing their non-Jewish neighbors.”[iii]

Douglas-Rushkoff-306-306
We’re destroying your culture for your own good, trust us.

What Jews like Rushkoff, Specter and Belkin affirm is that what “anti-semites” claim; that Jewish manipulation is real and corrosive is true; they agree the “Jewish conspiracy” is real but it is a matter of interpretation and the “anti-semite” is simply a gentile with the wrong interpretation simply because Jews know better. “The Jews unique position as perpetual outsiders led them to adopt and promote a wide range of cosmopolitan and inclusive business strategies and ethical standards.”[iv] Thus, diaspora Jews living in host nations seeking to ‘influence’ their non-Jewish neighbors in a manner which is demonstrably detrimental to their hosts (by mudding the authentic bonds of organic society; Tonnies’ Total Gesellschaft) and beneficial to Jews, as Rushkoff acknowledges, “A fluid society with ever-changing boundaries served them better than a closed or static one in which outsiders and new ideas were feared,”[v] is interpreted by Jews as a gift or a service they are rendering onto their Gentile neighbours.

 

Rushkoff and Belkin make Jewish social engineering into a fundamental religious precept inherent in Judaism rather and sometimes partially acknowledged as a diaspora social-political strategy to weaken the host; “It is not only our tradition, but our explicit obligation to act as stewards for the greater society.”[vi] To this end Rushkoff discusses the widely known Jewish role in desegregation and integration; “In 1952, the American Jewish Congress worked with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) to target unfair housing policy. Through a series of legal battles, American Jewish Congress attorneys ended the whites-only policy of New York City’s Stuyvesant Town, setting an important legal precedent against discrimination in housing projects that received any amount of public aid.”[vii]

karl-popper-tolerance-300x169.jpg
You wonder where Antifa gets it from?

What is interesting is that Rushkoff subtly acknowledges the self-serving and contingent strategic basis of such practices, something Karl Popper, the Jewish philosopher of the ‘Open Society,’ never could. Popper in his The Open Society and its Enemies, expressed the same desires for a universalist, cosmopolitan, pluralist, liberal society yet Popper rightly concluded that these values were largely the opposite of the Jewish religion, which according to Popper,[viii] and most all scholars of comparative religions i.e. Hegel, is a tribal supremacist ‘closed society,’ whereas Rushkoff through his deconstructionist self-serving modern revisionist interpretation  Judaism proper becomes the wellspring from which ‘open society’ values spring. While Popper denied the very Jewish strategic basis of his viewpoint, conservative Jew Malachi Haim Hacohen, who is a foremost Popper scholar and critic, points towards Popper’s assimilated Ashkenazi Jewishness as the main source of his political viewpoint: “Cosmopolitanism appealed to Popper and liberal Jews precisely because of their life in between cultures and their indeterminate identity. Claiming membership in an imagined cosmopolitan community, Popper rejected Jewish identity. “I do not consider myself ‘an assimilated German Jew,’” he told a critic of his Autobiography, “this is how ‘the Fuhrer would have considered me.”[ix]

Enlightenment philosophers often portrayed the Jew as the counter-universal, especially Voltaire.[x] Popper refused to see the Jewish basis for his commitment to Kant’s cosmopolitanism, instead he would have sided with Marx and declared, “the question is not the emancipation of the Jews, but, rather, emancipation from the Jews… The emancipation of the Jews . . . is the emancipation of humanity from Judaism.” In so far as Popper admonished Judaism as a tribalist cult of the ‘closed society,’ Rushkoff seeks to re-interpret and thus salvage Judaism by imagining that the social engineering that Jews have been engaged in during modernity is actually the philosophical and moral foundations of Judaism itself. But because Jews are able to successfully carry out radical changes in gentile society because of their internal cohesion; their sense of mission as Jews, the changes they bring about are specifically designed to fragment the internal cohesion, the sense of ‘we’ of their hosts. The very success of the Jews working as groups of Jews undermines their stated purpose towards tolerance and plurality as inherently beneficial. Thus, the changes they established in immigration, desegregation, and integration can only be viewed as acts of subversion.

The problem herein is that Jewish tribalism and secular universalism are antithetical, and hence the assimilated Jew, especially if they are conscious of maintaining their Jewishness, is involved in a kind of fraud and deception. Rushkoff in the face of all prevailing evidence, of which he himself acknowledges, “True enough, my entire premise is contradicted by the many ways our own myths and customs have always been profoundly steeped in racial and ethnic assumptions. There are as many warnings in the Torah to kill our tribal neighbors as there are encouragements to embrace them. A good number of our most observant members ground their faith and pride in the Torah’s plentiful admonitions not to mix with other, lesser people[xi] attempts to transform Judaism into a ‘social justice’ religion. Rushkoff explains the Jewish strategy; “Anti-semites are not entirely unfounded in their claim that Jews are behind a great media conspiracy… If there is an agenda underlying Jews’ dedication to expanding the role of media in people’s lives, it is to promote intellectual perspective and the value of pluralism.”[xii] ‘Intellectual perspective’ herein is a lighter euphemism for the values and perspectives of the Jews. “Media, then, at its best, is a form of mass education” meaning brainwashing. “The more interconnected a society, the more likely it was to engage in complex transactions requiring Jews’ service. And the more inclusive and tolerant a society, the more likely it was to include the Jews, too.” Is this not ‘diversity is good because it is good for the Jews?[xiii]

 

[i] It was some years ago that I first encountered Jewish author Douglas Rushkoff. I read his Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World, and How We Can Take it Back. This was a part of a resurgence of far-left anti-corporatism, such as Jewish author Naomi Klein’s No Logo, and the film The Corporation (2003) by Jewish-Canadian filmmaker Mark Achbar. Having never abandoned a belief in socialist leanings and the negative effects of unbridled capitalism there was something to glean out of these student day forays of mine.

I recall even now that the central problem with Rushkoff’s book was the superficial quality of it; he attempted to fill pages buttressing his specious arguments with name-dropping and platitudes instead of real critical analysis to give the book the illusion of weight rather than internal cohesion. It had the same kind of swindling fraudulent quality as Jonah Lehrer’s work.

[ii] ” Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 36.

 

[iii] “Manspreading for Lebensraum, Part 1 and 2 – Alex Fontana.” 30 Sep. 2017, https://alexfontana.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/manspreading-for-lebensraum-part-1-and-2/. Accessed 28 Feb. 2018.

[iv] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 06.

 

[v] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 07.

[vi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 04.

[vii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 41.

 

[viii] “Hearing as a young boy the biblical story of the Golden Calf, said Popper, he had recognized the roots of religious intolerance in Jewish monotheism. The Hebrew Bible was the fountainhead of tribal nationalism. Oppressed and persecuted, exilic Jews created the doctrine of the Chosen People, presaging modern visions of chosen class and race. Both Roman imperialism and early Christian humanitarianism threatened the Jews’ tribal exclusivism. Jewish orthodoxy reacted by reinforcing tribal bonds, shutting Jews off from the world for two millennia. The ghetto was the ultimate closed society, a “petrified form of Jewish tribalism.” 120 Its inhabitants lived in misery, ignorance, and superstition. Their separate existence evoked the suspicion and hatred of non-Jews and fueled antisemitism.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History, 71(1), 105-149.

[ix] “The ambiguity of Austrian nationality gave Jews an opportunity missing elsewhere for negotiating Jewish and national identity. Jews were the only ethnic group to adopt enthusiastically the official Staatsgedanke.

The politics of Jewish identity was notoriously contentious, but poor Galician traditionalists and re-fined Viennese assimilationists, orthodox rabbis and liberal scholars, Zionists and socialists, all declared their loyalty to the dynasty and the supranational empire. “Jews are the standard-bearers of the Austrian idea of unity,” stated the liberal Viennese rabbi Adolf Jellinek.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History, 71(1), 105-149.

[x] Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243.}

[xi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 176.

[xii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print.  8.

[xiii] If real unity comes from a shared sense of ‘we’ that is internal cohesion,Prior to the changes wrought about by special interests groups in the Anglosphere’s immigration policies (1965 US, 1967 Canada, 1972 Australia) collectively neologized as “globalized integration strategy,” (GIS) immigration was dictated in terms of racial-cultural preference. As such the idea of the melting pot was one based on shared culture, race and civilizational bloc. The idea was to create a melted European-American. As such the bio-politics of Europe have been left behind in favor of what I have elsewhere called “elective affinities.” Elective Affinities denote the linear and interconnected tradition of Western Civilization and peoples – we feel ourselves to be a part of European Civilization. As such the crude biological determinism of Nordic supremacy has betrayed the more rational argument of in-group preference ‘a shared sense of we’ as Charles Maurras put it “Jews threatened the integral nation not by their blood but by their own nonlinear history and alternative tradition, by the disruption to integral form their presence within the nation provoked in the nation-work. The Jew is the ultimate figure of the non-Greek or anti-Greek (and thus the non-French or anti-French…”) See:

Carroll, David. French literary fascism : nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the ideology of culture. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1995. Print. 88.

Maurras is essentially holding the same views held by Voltaire, “The nucleus of Voltaire’s view of the Jews, however, amounts to this: there is a cultural, philosophical, and ethnic tradition of Europe which descended, through the human stock of that continent, from the intellectual values that were taught by the Greeks. Those were in turn carried to all the reaches of the European world by the Romans. This is the normative culture of which Voltaire approved. The Jews are a different family, and their religion is rooted in their character.” See: Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243. It is now only with Rushkoff does the Jew have his cake and gets eat it to.

Advertisements

A Tale of Two Islands: Castaway (1986) and Swept Away (1974)

“Flirtatiousness is fundamental to a woman’s nature, but not all put it into practice because some are restrained by fear or by good sense.” – La Rouchefoucauld

The ‘desert island’ film Castaway (1986), directed by Nicolas Roeg and starring a dipsomaniacal Oliver Reed and a hot young “Ms. Robinson”; Amanda Donohoe, is based on the memoirs of Lucy Irvine. Irvine had responded to an advert placed by writer Gerald Kingsland seeking a mate for a ‘survivor experiment’ to last the duration of a year on a desert island. I was reminded of another film with the same theme of a man and a woman alone together on an island; Swept Away (1974) (Italian: Travolti da un insolito destino nell’azzurro mare d’agosto The full English title is Swept Away… by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August), directed by Lina Wertmuller and starring Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato.

article-0-0A909F70000005DC-135_468x613.jpg
Donohoe and Reed

Both films are really truly vehicles about the sexes and not really about the individuals themselves who in their isolated environments lose track of ‘who they are’ – Donohoe asks Reed in one scene “who am I?” having lost contact with the world in which their identities were built and reflected back to them by their relationships with other people and their social roles. While in Swept Away, the prior identities of the two characters function also as a Marxist critique of capitalist society; Melato as Raffaella the high society capitalist snob and Giannini as Gennarino the proletariat deckhand who works on her yacht despising her, but these political identities are also washed away on the island isolation and also in their physical union with each other. Without the contingencies that ground social identities individuals just become the primordial man and the primordial woman, the necessities of survival account for time spent in cultural and individual attributions.

As Castaway was based on real occurrences in which both participants wrote accounts, the subjects abilities to transcend their identities were limited – that is knowing they were involved in a sort of publicity stunt their behaviors were somewhat kept in line by the knowledge of a mutual Hawthorne effect and the limitations of the experiment. Now of the two Swept Away is the more radical endeavor because it is a work of pure fantasy and the relationship between the sexes is to be read as one of Weberian Ideal Types. There is no expectation for the conditions of their isolation to end they are truly free to lose the vestiges of their social conditioning and return to the primordial garden. Roger Ebert wrote that the film “resists the director’s most determined attempts to make it a fable about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and persists in being about a man and a woman. On that level, it’s a great success.” I agree with Ebert who mentions that the film is a “kinky” updated variation on the desert island theme of films like Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957) in which a nun and a US solider become trapped on together.

MV5BOTE5NzkzYWUtOWM2My00Nzc0LTg2MmQtM2Y5YzMyY2EwMjZiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjUxODE0MDY@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1268,1000_AL_.jpgThe same sexual tensions run through all three ‘scenario’ films but with varying results; in the earliest incarnation Heaven Knows; God, chastity and honour win out. In Swept Away, vital “toxic” masculinity wins. in Castaway it is womanly manipulation triumphant. Now it would be interesting to account for these differences in a comparative treatment. While Heaven Knows certainly reflects the time period in which the Hollywood production code was being enforced and the relative constrained morality of 1950s America, which make it easy to write off as a kind of tamed examination of the ‘Adam and Eve scenario.’ While Swept Away, being a product of the 1970s, European and directed by a woman may help explain its overt patriarchal message, Ebert again:

“that woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male… The more the woman submits, the more ecstasy she finds – until finally she’s offending the hapless Sicilian by suggesting practices he can’t even pronounce.”

The violent culmination is a sadistic sodomy rape that makes the woman the man’s bitch. Wertmuller’s handling of the subject invokes the bestial remnants of centuries of non-consensual sex; when men got women as a prize for victory over a vanished tribe or foe – the film is a misogynistic rape-fantasy and is regarded by feminists and liberals as an abomination. In sharp contrast, in Castaway, Donohoe’s character Lucy refuses to ‘put out,’ and although starving for sexual communion, Reed’s Gerald acquiesces to her sudden frigidity, feigning indignation, again this is tempered by the circumstances; based on real events, an experiment meant to last a year, being the subject of one another’s published chronicles, but  also they are visited multiple times by other groups of people who help them survive (not truly deserted!) – Gerald then in some sense couldn’t just rape her. The transgressions were mitigated. Therefore, this American 1980s turn towards a kind of Lysistrata revolt cannot be said to be without contingent factors within the text itself – (Lucy implies it is because Gerald is not working hard enough at some point, but often uses muddled reasoning). The twelve year period between the two films cannot be said to constitute different epochs of feminism, both being within the confines of the so-called ‘second wave,’ although Castaway seemed to embody the radical feminism of the later period of Andrea Dworkin who argued famously in her 1987 Book Intercourse that “all heterosexual sex is rape.” However, the real account of difference must be one in which the ‘Real scenario’ of Ideal Types is allowed to play out because it is less contingent on mediating factors and the one in which the ‘System’ of mediation cannot interfere to ensure some sense of civil propriety is maintained. Perhaps Dworkin was partially correct, in so far as the primordial sexual communion may well be the forced rape of the female – Lilith be damned.

Now the idea of man and woman alone on an island may also be looked at metaphorically. The monogamous relationship and the globe of psychic, emotional and physical bond between lovers can create a kind of separation between their love and the rest of the world – the idea that love is an island. Curiously in the three films after the ‘island adventure’ all three couples relate their love for one another but ultimately go their separate ways – this is always due to the woman’s decision. Here the ‘island of love’ is revealed to be merely another kind of illusion dependent on contingent circumstances, like that of their identities – Lucy’s “who am I?” and Raffaella and Gennarino’s “class.” Of the three women the only one who remains true throughout is the nun because of her love for God (which should be read as kind of refusal to play the game or her inability to be true to her human nature), the lesson of the other two ‘islands,’ whether radical feminist or patriarchal misogynistic, both agree on one thing; the precariousness of woman – she is an evil thing. Evola, Weininger and the whole of Patriarchal Traditionalism agree that woman is by nature chthonic, devious and ultimately heartless – incapable of spiritual ascent and great works – she is too readily conditioned by exterior contingencies. Recall that when Zeus decided to give humanity a punishing gift Hephaestus molds from the earth the first woman, whom Hesiod calls a “beautiful evil thing” whose descendants would go forth to torment the human race. The lesson with woman then is to sodomize her while you can.

p60291-620x350.jpg
“fucking cunt”

Jordan Peterson: Psychologists are really just Bad Sociologists

Jordan Peterson’s “solutions” are ultimately solipsistic and incredibly specious despite the word salads he brackets them in. That being said lunatic progressives make him look eminently “reasonable” (which I think is his whole socially conservative brand). 26904090_168521640542808_1647420769384827059_n

I do not much enjoy watching people like Jordan Peterson, I frankly and flat out do not find his perspective interesting or unique or especially insightful or intelligent. But despite my personal reservations Peterson has kind of become the Tony Robins of the Alt-Lite: the boomer parent, telling his kid to clean up his room, while his social habitat is being invaded by foreigners. Or rather the boomer parent talking about how great western values like free speech are and then supporting banning someone who gave that cherished right to marginal viewpoints from attending a free speech event. There is a solipsism present within Peterson and his advice to adopt personal responsibility which does come off like the boomer parent making a mess out of Western Civilization, squandering centuries of inheritable wealth and then telling his kids to “deal with it.” Peterson, champions free speech or speech without deceit, and “adoption of responsibility for the conditions of existence and some attempt on your part to rectify them,” – but would Peterson support someone that views the Jews as responsible for the conditions of existence and makes an attempt to rectify it? – no that would be an avoidance of “personal responsibility” and what clinical psychologists would call “scapegoating.” He is not concerned about your right to “speak your truth” or any of the empty platitudes he preaches, but is acting as an establishment stooge meant to divert your interest of the world wit large into your own petty problems.

Every so often I’ll catch a clip that will make me think I might be turning a corner with Peterson, a little bit; such as this one. There are a couple of things that struck me about the interview; firstly; his apparent sincerity. Secondly; that he knows young white men (he largely avoids the word “white,” but given that a male PoC is interviewing him and the language used “the West,” etc are euphemisms we know who they are talking about) are taking a ‘hit’ so to speak.

jtjlnlP.jpg

I may be more open to the kinds of empty pragmatic thinking that Peterson preaches, more than ever before, because I have usually been able to critique from a relatively stable position; but in recent months my more or less secure but low status demeaning job and support network has crumbled, I now find myself close to homeless, broke, hopeless, filled with anger, resentment, regret, bitterness and socially isolated and estranged. I feel these strains, which were always present, more acutely than ever before and I admit to myself and to you as a matter of full disclosure. But where Jordan Peterson seems in my opinion to be ‘wrong’ or less developed is in a sociological critique of our and my own predicament. For a clinical psychologist his primary concern is with the individual and for this reason alone he seems unwilling to conceive of collectivist modes of improvement or solutions to complex problems, despite the fact that he is discussing a particular demographic or group.

safe_imageThis failure of Peterson rests on an overemphasis on personal responsibility and ideological explanations, i.e. toxic feminism and post-colonial discourses and their psychological effects on individual white men subjected to them, and less on the structural changes to our societies – i.e. the importation of mass non-white immigration, the change from assimilation to multiculturalism, the globalization of the world market and the ascendancy of Other groups, internal forces that seek to weaken Western identity and resolve for personal tribalist gain and objectives, impersonal institutional structures spreading anomie and apathy etc. These sorts of things would enrich Peterson’s psychological approach to these issues, but they would make him a real persona non grata, instead of the controlled opposition he in fact represents. In effect he is dealing largely with symptoms instead of with the actual roots of problems. The ethics of boiling things down to “personal responsibility” betrays a larger understanding of the human being as a social and political animal. This is one of the reasons why Ezra Pound considered psychology to be bunk. Pound was concerned with societies, with civilizations, with economics, with races, he was not concerned with theories put forth about Nazism stemming from Adolf Hitler’s ‘single testicle complex’. This is why Pound largely considered psychology to be Jewish in nature; because it socially isolates the individual and treats him as an island to be dissected, obscuring the wider picture to deal with the individual neurosis – such “internal states” cannot ever be conceived comprehensively without the “external” macrocosm as in the feedback loop of the hermeneutic circle.

whole-parts.png
Hermeneutic Circle

Psychologists are really just bad sociologists, who focus on the parts instead of the whole, and that also makes them ideological liberals, who despise wholeness and “totalitarianisms” in favor of radical individualism and existential self-creationisms – they are philosophical nihilists who prefer pragmatic solutions to petty problems than full solutions to major ones. The nearly complete atomization (part of what I call Total Gesellschaft); this demanding and lecturing about “personal responsibility,” allows for collective responsibility, for community, to fall by the wayside. The refrain is always “never mind about them, what have you done?” This is the sneer of the selfish individualist whose only concern is to fill his belly – to stabilize himself. As an anecdotal expression of the sorts of cultural hegemony and psychological gesellschaft involved in such thinking take for example the film Limitless, in which the protagonist takes a drug that allows him to perform at optimal superhuman capabilities – does he change the world? No. Does he help his fellow man? No. He uses his gifts to maximize his self-interest becoming a Soros-like investor like his mentor. Peterson and those who champion the notion of individualism ultimately utilize a fundamental desire of the individual to attain personal mastery, to become a hero and while the egotism and the nobility of such yearning might be irrevocably intertwined Peterson has shown by his actions and philosophy a preference for the baser expression. While this type may give idle consideration to “ideas” his principle concern is the satisfaction he gets from personal gain, wheeling and dealing in “ideas” – not “truth” only attained in the gutter of realpolitik (Christ/Socrates). Peterson solutions are only slightly better than the  “Do something” that is the call of the nihilistic ignoramus, any activity is better than no activity; they despise real spiritual struggle, repose and contemplation or any activity for which there is not a demonstrable gain attached: Bleistein with a cigar. Peterson’s personal philosophy, his advice, does not go much further than that.

BWfLXEW

Authoritas Rising: Death of the Father – Birth of the Monster – Reign of the Undead

The Return of Authoritas at the Helm of Western Destiny

“No ‘enlightenment’ provides a purely rational, universal form. There is no such form.” – Michael Novak, Unmeltable Ethnics

“The bourgeois, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.”  – Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

The major pillar of ‘Western repression’ identified by the Left begins within the basic unit of society, the family, and extends as a corruption of human nature itself, which it centers on the free conscience of the individual – thus making the individual the basic unit of society.

safe_image.jpeg

This is especially problematic for the family, originally conceived as the basic unit of society, now viewed as an instrument or remnant of oppression. The Left’s attacks against patriarchal authority, have morphed the symbol and function of the Father, as something at the very center of the evil ‘authoritarian society’ to be overcome:

“the fundamental shift from the sociological to the psychological level that occurred during the 1940s was motivated by the fact that in Germany the proletariat had succumbed to fascism and in the Soviet Union socialism had not prevented the development of an authoritarian government that failed to guarantee individual autonomy or Jewish group interests. Within the new perspective authoritarianism was viewed as the fundamental problem, its origin traceable to family interactions and ultimately to the suppression of human nature.”

 

23915827_10159565312980099_390768001133489396_n.jpg

Even at its onset, the primordial cry of the child for the freedom of the birds – the cry for individual freedom was heard loudest from men who owed their learning and subsequent indignation to the very forms of authoritarian government that had nourished their genius, Immanuel Kant referred to the Enlightenment as “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage”, tutelage being “man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another”. Of course Kant’s ideas were the result of studiously leaning from the knowledge of other men. Perhaps those men who learn to be shepherds can lead a flock, but not all men become shepherds and philosophers or poet-visionaries, or ‘dreamers of the day,’ like the shepherd, are useless without a flock, just as flocks are aimless without shepherds. One need not look to Milgram-like experimentation to confirm that the majority of people everywhere are sheep. Whether in NAZI Germany or under Maoist communism or within Anglo-American liberal-capitalism, supraindividualist systems, modes of interaction, interrelated recursive systems of symbolic interaction mean that most people just want to get along to get by, most accept the rules of the game, adopting coping mechanisms, and top-down ideologies, accepting that life is unfair while attempting to make the most of it. Thus, the dictation of our current social order, which knowingly and self-deludedly expects shepherds, priests and philosophers of ordinary men and women of no considerable inclination towards such vocation – the ultimate lie of democracy and equality is in attributing noble virtues to the ignoble masses.

“The first great affirmation of modern liberalism: religious freedom.” such injunctions justified its historic attacks against the Church; ‘bless me Father,’ became a form of oppression. Protestantism had broken the sacredness of authority by bestowing priesthood on all believers, the social order that rested on the idea of the Holy Family became a source of exploitation, which have since morphed into attacks upon the social role of men generally, but the European “white male,” in particular. That the crisis of the West has been conceived in terms as a crisis of authority, is most relevant, liberalism like Protestantism is merely a revolt against the sacred principle of authoritas; “Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative–it means in fact, freedom from authority.” To base the society on the abstract principle of freedom necessarily entails always looking to extend the remit, from men, to women, to Negroes, to homosexuals, to transgenders, to animals, etc. The progressive tendency is never satisfied because freedom is limitless in its abstraction and run from authoritas. To base a society on Reason, as the Enlightenment attempted, was to dream ineffectual. The sleep of Reason, produces monsters.

 That Freud’s father figure had to be dislodged from the fall of 20th Century “totalitarianisms,” became a clarion call to dethrone the European man from atop the castle that he built, as Gertrude Stein once said of Hitler, Mussolini and Roosevelt; “There is too much fathering going on just now and there is no doubt about it fathers are depressing” (Blackner 1995). The father is ‘depressing’ because the father represents the Apollonian principle, a Nietzschean disciplined control of the unregulated Dionysian ego (Freud’s Id) through instilling social order – the father expects, the mother accepts.  

12800361_1690476841241949_740675926632074503_n
BIG DADDY

The empty shell of nationalism usurped by the merchant religiosity of economic and social liberalism. Insofar as the guillotine performs its democratic function, with globalized finance underwriting both government debt and the illusion of sovereignty. In attempting to give form to modern man (and woman), the private individual endowed with the right to pursue his own happiness, who is nevertheless under the distrustful surveillance of the national security state, one should recall the figure of the Acephalic employed by that theoretician of ‘sacred sociology,’ George Bataille. The Acephalic is the figure of man and the body politic of his democratic-liberal dispensation = headless, which is Bataille and Andre Masson’s symbolic representation of modern man, as a being “unaware of prohibition” moving beyond god and himself, “made of innocence and crime” holding life in one hand and death in another, losing himself in the labyrinth of his intestines, “in which I discover myself as him, in other words as a monster.” His appetites are his only responsibility, the politics of the ‘free’ individual. 

int1_300x371.jpg
Acephalic Society = Acephalic Man

Bataille’s Acephalic, apparently giving form to the Leftist variant of the Nietzschean ‘Ubermensch’… as “an attempted harnessing of an aggressive libidinal energy to combat the violent ascendancy of Fascism… The community must serve no master, no minister, no Fuhrer, it must be headless.”

 

It was at one point common to speak of the father as the ‘head of the family’ but under the assault of ‘freedom’ and ‘happiness’ only rarely is that possible. The ascension of Trump at least symbolically reinstates such a positionality, as the homosexual-nigger-dick-sucking-Jew-Milo affectionately calls Trump “daddy” it is in fact representational of the primordial need for strong men in leadership positions, to concretize form in the shape of authority to battle the chaos monsters that threaten to relativize the world into the primordial swamp of its birthing.

 

 

 

13888108157_1dbc693ff1_b-e1452790173898.jpg
Return of the King

CHINA JOINS THE ALTRIGHT: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH ITS SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL GURU RICHIE CHOWMEIN

24172530_10155095042221497_61122691_n.jpg
Richie Chowmein

AF – Richie, first of all thanks for joining us.

RC – Sometime I throw Whitey a bone, like you pay  now, but China own your bonds, just remember who gonna be first GDP…

AF – I’ve seen from your Twitter feed that you use the word “Baizuo” quite a bit, I see one Tweet you even referred to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau as a Baizuo, now I had to look it up, but for our audience what does it mean?

RICHIE CHOWMEIN RichieChowmein Twitter

RC – Baizuo mean stupid white liberal cuck phaggots who sell out their own country and let foreigners take over. China have no respect for baizuo who morally try to make themselves look good by betraying their race and nation. China number one! Bitch.

AF – What about all the Chinese that are leaving China and investing their money in Western countries, doesn’t that worry you?

RC – China need aggressive expansion, the Fuedai go and buy, buy, buy, we rule in white country but dumb baizuo like Trudeau say whiteman who serve me food and cook me dinner and shine my car is privileged… lol… If he so stupid I fuck his mother like Castro and he call me daddy.

AF – Richie, that’s not nice.

RC – Fuck nice, nice for phaggot losers, CHINA NUMBER ONE, bitch. You be nice to China now. You see soyboy Trudeau have private dinners with China businessman who invest in his fake-daddy’s foundation and then he lift restrictions… lol… plus China now colonizer, we taking over Africa and niggers slave for us… stupid gweilo – we Faustians now! You never seen Rising Sun? We take over.

AF – I thought Rising Sun was about the Japs?

RC – Chick is chink.

RICHIE CHOWMEIN RichieChowmein Twitter (2)

AF – But not everyone who comes to places like Canada from China and elsewhere is fuedai, some are poor, I’ve seen them picking through trash at night to return bottles to the LCBO.

RC – That because Chinese very smart, high IQ, we come from high like fuedai and buy, buy, buy, but also low like starving Maoist peasant and we take shitty jobs from white people too… But we have communist/Confucius work ethic and we take over your universities, so dumb whites cannot even get in…lol… So everywhere you look Chinese take over… Like in Germany with Hitler, all the German Jews owned everything and the Germans were poor peasants and then the Jews from the East came over and they like the bottom feeders and they become communists because not like rich Jews who bankers, but everywhere they think ‘what is best for Jews’ that why Chinese like Great Jewish rats, you cannot stop us, Hitler no come back, too many soyboy baizuos…lol..

AF – That’s interesting, so you’re saying the Chinese are basically the new Jews? ‘Yellow Jews?’

RC – What you think dumb-dumb, China only care for money, we take skinny white buddha and we make him jolly fat Chinaman because we no suffer like stupid Christians, we do job, like Trump said ‘we make deal now.’ We don’t care about your Christian morality, we like Jews reject Christ as kike on stick, you fucking dumb gweilo, human rights are for white cucks. We use genetic modifications to make the great Han race superior. 

RICHIE CHOWMEIN   RichieChowmein    Twitter (1).jpg

AF – Trump said before he got in office that he was going to nationalize the American economy and he had a lot of bad things to say about China ‘ripping off the American people’ and was against globalism, but now he’s making historic business deals with China, what changed?

RC – Trump is businessman, his skin really yellow, he like Jew, he need China.

AF – How do you feel about North Korea?

RC – Chink is chink, but China number one! If Trump say we put more money in military its good for China… soon we turn on whole world… fuck you, China number one.

AF – How do you feel about white people who have been warning about the yellow peril for decades, even over a century, like Jack London and the German Kaiser?

RC – Of course yellow peril real, we taking over, have you looked at our numbers? The great Han race will not perish from this earth, hail the great Han race, hail Mao, hail victory!

AF – Hail Mao?

g2292-net (1) (1).jpg

RC – Why not, great leap forward, Mao wanted China to match British GDP, but soon we number one! We come to your country and your white youth all fucked up on MTV and ‘finding themselves’ with subculture crap, parents think like phaggot Kevin Spacey in American Beauty… they smoke pot think it cool… and we get good jobs become doctor and lawyer, we marry and fuck and buy your country and your women… we eat red meat now, not empty carb and soy, we drink finest European wine… You’re all fucked… Yellowman is future, even Nietzsche say…lol…

AF – Wow, are there closing remarks to the American AltRight maybe?

RC – Old Chinese proverb, ‘never interrupt baizuo when he make mistake,’ Confusion say.

AF – Thanks for your time.

RC – Yea very busy right now, you lucky.

How Blacks and PoC Ruin Everything

It has only recently come to my attention that back in June, Amber Hikes, the black female Executive Director, of the Office of LGBT Affairs at City of Philadelphia, thought it appropriate to add black and brown stripes to the gay pride flag. Having myself longstanding reservations over the appropriation of the Rainbow for the purposes of promoting sodomy and the degenerate ‘lifestyle choices’ inherent to gay identity welcome Hike’s new additions as adding a touch of realism. The inclusivity of the new stripes, promoting black and brown LGBTQwhatevers, are more representative of the acts and reality of queer-as-folk ‘lifestyle choices’ – black signifying death by AIDS, and brown signifying the leaky prolapsed assholes of the gay community, generally. What’s more these additions highlight how counter-aesthetic black and brown actual are.

prideflag-1024x576.jpg
Gay pride = all about black power

The sheer stupidity of the new additions are not lost on youtube commentators, who point out that the flag itself has nothing to do with race. This is of course symptomatic of how Blacks and PoC generally ruin everything.

pride-flag-meaning
This is obviously racist because it doesn’t have anything to do with race

That is because if something does not highlight them by focusing on race and their victimhood status, granting them special considerations, adulations and reparations the thing in question is deemed to be insensitive and racist and should be amended, revoked or abolished altogether. This ‘pride flag’ example highlights how Blacks hijack everything possible to put themselves at the fore, including other areas of Leftist progressive vanguardism whose ‘rainbow coalition‘ is presently or previously aligned, such as gay rights or women’s rights, and make it about ‘blacks and PoC gay rights’ or ‘blacks and PoC women’s rights,’ etc. Because through the metrics of ‘intersectionality‘ the academic code-word for ‘victimhood status points,’ blacks consider and are considered as the highest scoring representatives most deserved of special considerations, representation and privileges today. This ‘pride flag’ example highlights how what Blacks and other PoC truly want is to be foremost represented, to be sycophantically highlighted, until every last white person acknowledges what special snowflakes they are by licking their boots. The addition of the Black and Brown colours at the top of the flag rather than humbly placing them as new editions on the bottom can no doubt be read as another instance of the innate Black Supremacist tendency to privilege and place themselves as foremost deserving the spotlight and peoples consideration.

The hypocrisy and double-standard becomes apparent because they are imputing these racial signifiers into a flag that has no signifiers for Whites, which points to their future goal of either the eradication or exclusion of Whites from mention or consideration. Blacks complain that the Oscars are too white, while no one complains that the BET Awards are too black. What the politics of representation is really about is demographics and the struggle of races for survival, what Blacks and other PoC really want is to see themselves, or representations of themselves proliferate, which itself is about the proliferation of their genes and their race.

Ahmed Hussen AhmedDHussen Twitter
Canadian Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen – I wonder why he chose this photo for his Twitter? Me, me, me, me, me… oh I see…

Thus when the millionaire basketball-American Lebron James holds a press conference declaring, while millions of White Americans live in near abject poverty, that race is still the real issue affecting America (notice this t-shirt he’s wearing below from the press conference – oh another representation of himself), we can all applaud him for his courageousness.

 

 

Only when we acknowledge who are enemies are and what our predicament is can we overcome and reign supreme in the real world struggle between races, only when we take our own side the same way everyone else does. Because our culture is poisoned by an alien elite we are losing the representation struggle, and if we do not fight back we will lose the demographic struggle as well.

060917-sports-black-panther.jpg
We wuz kangs

 

Storm of Feel: The PMership of the Boy Blunder

Originally published on http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/ in 2015 but removed for thought-crime during a purge of far-right domain names that occurred in 2017 when internet censorship meant curtailing free speech.

This Wednesday, November 4, 2015, Justin Trudeau will become the Canada’s 23rd Prime Minister, replacing the Cuckservative Stephen Harper, with a landslide majority government. The win puts the Liberal Party, which has dominated Canadian politics (they’ve governed Canada roughly 70 percent of the last century) as the prevailing political force, as the move into majority leadership was the largest-ever numerical increase in Canadian election history as the Liberals moved up from third with 36 seats to first 184 seats.

589e5b357ed66.jpeg

Trudeau, has already been labeled the “prime minister of hugs”[1] known for his omnipresent photogenic smile, which draws from the corners of his mouth, and confers a sense of bumpkin-like wonderment, rather than the marks of a piercing intellect – a modern ‘positive’ politician imbued with the essence of goofy boyishness that makes it awkward to call him ‘Mr. Trudeau’ and not just ‘Justin’ – which, in gleeful derision, I shall now commence to do. Justin no doubt inherited that breezy continence – the end result of a life served with a sliver spoon, and that’s not all folks, for Trudeau can also thank daddy dearest for his leadership role: as name recognition and branding had more to do with this election than sheer force of charisma or merit or policy. “Sunny ways my friends. Sunny ways,” Trudeau told his enthusiastic supporters in Montreal. “This is what positive politics can do.”[2] What a dunce.

But Trudeau stood in sharp contrast to PM Stephen Harper, whose general snide demeanor and free market fixation, gave him the popular appeal of a tax consultant working to fix the mob’s books – which is essentially what Harper was. An article at ipolitics.ca had it right, “Stephen Harper has moved beyond being the prime minister of Canada. He’s its CEO, making Canada the first democracy to tacitly embrace global corporate governance.” Harper is as much to blame for the election results as any real policy. Duverger’s Law, was being applied to Canadian politics by political science majors and newspaper columnists prior to the elections sweeping results, detailing the eminent demise of the Liberal Party, to be replaced by the more left-of-center NDP. Harper himself is said to ascribe to this polarizing position:

“Duverger’s law is not merely a matter of academic theory. The leading believer in Duverger’s Law is none other Stephen Harper. Harper’s deepest political goal was not just to defeat the Liberals politically but to eliminate them as a party. Gerry Nicholls, who worked with Harper in the 1990s in the right-wing lobby group the National Citizens Coalition, wrote in a 2011 Globe and Mail column that Harper’s  ‘desire to eliminate the Liberals is something he and I discussed way back in the days when we worked together at the National Citizens Coalition. His theory, as explained to me, was that conservatism would be better served in this country if Canada had a two-party system, one that pitted right against left, free enterprise against socialism, Conservatives against New Democrats. He believed that, in such a polarized political environment, a conservative-oriented party would have a huge advantage over its left-wing rival.’”[3]

Duverger_s+Law+Duverger_s+Law-+If+you+have+single-winner+elections,+you+get+(in+equilibrium)+two+political+parties,+i.e.,
two rival organized attempts, each trying to concentrate votes on a single candidate. Conversely, parliamentary systems using proportional representation in large districts tend to produce and sustain multi-party systems. In part, Duverger’s Law is driven by strategic (or tactical) voting by ordinary voters who are reluctant to waste their votes by voting for third candidates/parties that have no real chance of winning.

What this also tells us is that Harper himself saw no real distinction between the Liberals and the Conservatives, both sitting too firmly in the center to become polarizing forces of the other. When it comes to the major issues, the keystone pipe line, the controversial national security measure Bill C-51, the TPP and other free trade agreements, both the Liberals and the Conservatives are in widespread agreement. In fact the NDP was the only party which expressed any opposition to these positions, but you would never know it by listening to the empty-headed rhetoric of Justin, “Canadians, he said, had sent a clear message that it’s ‘time for change in this country my friends. Real change.’”[4]

But the NDP, Canada’s so-called third option, has never really held considerable political power and has floundered since the death of former Party leader Jack Layton, survived by his Chinese-Canadian wife and fellow MP Olivia Chow, a vacuous and vain ethnic-vote-politician riding in Toronto’s Trinity-Spadina ‘Chinese’ ward, with a tenuous grasp on the English language, who attempted to capitalize upon the widespread sympathy for Layton’s death in an unsuccessful bid to become Toronto’s mayor cast. Meanwhile the NDP’s leadership role had been filled by Thomas Mulcair, who had actually been imported to fill the vacant role from the Liberal Party, and last year, possibly as a response to charges of ‘extremism’ in regards to international trade, the NDP had voted to take ‘socialism’ out of its party’s constitution,[5] making it little more than a Liberal mirror, moving the party to the center and cancelling out the polarization of Duverger’s law, with Muclair at the helm spouting liberal dogma: “I’ve always felt that social democracy was about removing inequalities in our society, so if those battles in past generations have mostly been about working conditions and on the economic, and some on the social side, I think that one of the biggest inequalities in our society today is between generations, and that’s going to be a prime battle for the next election campaign.”[6]

Harper was, if anything, a member of a specific interest group, born into the affluent WASP enclave of Leaside, Toronto, his father worked for Imperial Oil (Exxon), and when Harper moved to Alberta he worked for the major oil companies, whereby his oil links continued well into his administration wherein he basically lobbied for oil interests such as the Keystone pipeline and the tar sands. Harper, in keeping with this Anglo-Franco bourgeois counter-tradition of the Right, represented by the conservation of the most heterodox and volatile dynamism of the free market but sugarcoating it with restoring pictures of the Queen Mother in government buildings and making slide reference to ‘Old Stock.’[7] How the Right came to be regarded as the party of free market economics i.e. classical liberalism is one of those historically situated non sequiturs. The Tories, of merry old England, who became Peel and Disraeli’s ‘Conservatives,’ have forever tarnished the Right with the dishonor of Anglo-Franco laissez fare capitalism. By way of Malthus’ population theorizing, the social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer, the free market profit motive/operant conditioning economics of individualist competition of Adam Smith, all coalescence into a putrid caldron of corporatist free market global capitalism or ‘survival of the Jewiest.’

trudeau-20170129.jpg

In a kind of fitting twist of fate, which reveals the selfishness and pragmatism of political ideology and discourse – Alberta in the 1930s had been the only province, or place in the world, to elect a party based on C.H. Douglas’ system of Social Credit, which had greatly influenced the fascist poet Ezra Pound. Social Credit in Alberta, like the Saskatchewan based Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), which would later become the NDP, ran on a platform critiquing capitalism and regional domination, made by a populist agrarian based petit-bourgeois – that is small independent farmers.  However, when Alberta struck it rich with oil, they all but abandoned the platform of the Alberta Social Credit Party for a pro-business laissez faire government, which itself retained some degree of regional populism – after all why should oil rich Alberta pay for welfare deficits of central Canada? The tables had turned and the beggar had become the lender and their politics had changed with their material status in the world. No one will be surprised when Harper goes to work for an oil subsidiary in the next year or so.

Harper prorogated parliament twice, radically undermining parliamentary democracy and snubbing his nose at the people, his contempt was palpable, but what was it for exactly? “The government’s single objective: pursuing the extraction and export of tar sand oil”[8] while that and increasing the conditions for international trade for the 1-2% of Canadians involved in foreign investment in the first place.

Homo economicus cum laude Harper pushed through a highly criticized Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with the Chinese last year, without Parliamentary oversight – now not only are our goods being produced by China, and our housing market inflated with their speculation, but now our assets will be theirs in our own country.

An apologetic article on the agreement written by Macleans, which would give Chinese companies the right to sue Canadians if their business interest is jeopardized, makes the point, “It makes no sense to claim to be in favour of international trade but against international flows of capital.”[9] But what if we are for neither, what if we support limited balanced trade, and stress self-sufficiency and autarky instead of offshoring and foreign debt accumulation? “Canada runs a fairly large trade deficit with China: roughly $30 Billion per year. This means that as far as China is concerned, trade with Canada is essentially a matter of them accumulating large amounts of Canadian assets… Once you realize that capital flows are essentially the same thing as trade flows, the logic behind FIPAs become clear. Countries that are exporting goods in return for assets can reasonably expect to ask that these assets won’t be effectively expropriated by governments pandering to anti-foreign bias.”[10] God forbid a nation should have ‘anti-foreign bias’ – yuck nationalism, who are you Hitler? Those “Excitable nationalists and their wild imaginations,” except that capital flows and trade flows are not “essentially the same thing,” when a country like first world Canada ostensibly runs a large trade deficit with a country like China, the responsible thing to do would be to balance the trade – no one ever thought they were getting out ahead by incurring debt and giving away their homes and businesses!

Justin with his “positive politics” and Keynesian deficit spending are just going to increase the debt spiral. While James J. O’Meara, writing for Counter-Currents draws parallels between Justin and Donald Trump; from their hair down to their privilege and suggests somewhat teasingly that “One suspects the word has gone out to the Canuck Cucks from their controllers in New York – Get Justin, he’s our worst nightmare: a non-aligned Kennedy.”[11] But Mr. O’Meara himself knows that this is simply not true, one look at the biggest donors of the Liberal Party will convince you otherwise, but there’s always that breezy smile and all manner of hugs.

justin-trudeau-tbt.jpg

 

[1] http://torontolife.com/city/toronto-politics/justin-trudeau-will-be-the-prime-minister-of-hugs/

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-voting-results-polls-1.3278537

[3] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123186/why-canadas-liberal-party-so-dominant

[4] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-voting-results-polls-1.3278537

[5] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-votes-to-take-socialism-out-of-party-constitution-1.1385171

[6] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-votes-to-take-socialism-out-of-party-constitution-1.1385171

[7] http://www.rcinet.ca/harper-canada/en/2013/11/05/harper2/

[8] http://ipolitics.ca/2012/10/31/frances-russell-stephen-harper-and-the-triumph-of-the-corporation-state/

[9] http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/dont-fear-the-fipa/

[10] http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/dont-fear-the-fipa/

[11] http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/shining-pony-wins/