Views On Genomic Engineering In The US

A 2016 study, US Public Wary Of Biomedical Technologies To ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities by Cary Funk, Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Sciupac of the Pew Research Center, reveals that the US public are more concerned than positively excited at the prospect of biomedical technologies which are meant to enhance the human-soma capability (such as synthetic blood, brain-chip implants and genomic editing).

Some of the key findings include:





Unsurprisingly, the more familiar one was with the listed technology, the more comfortable one was considering the prospect of its future utilization. A more wholesale integration of technics into the spiritual as well as cultural sphere may, however, be required before the mainlining of such procedures.

Logos Eclipsed: The Source of the Dark Idol’s Power, Prt.1

On the 12th of August, 2017, in Bedminster, NJ, President Donald J. Trump gave a public statement regarding the recent violence which erupted during the Unite The Right (UTR) rally in Charlottesville, Virginia – a two-fold event staged to both unifying all portions of the dissident, nationalist right (whether ethno or civic nationalist) and protest the planned demolition of the Robert E. Lee memorial located in Charlottesville’s historic Emancipation Park (formerly, Lee Park).  The POTUS emphantically stated:

“We condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence – on many sides, on many sides.” [D.J.T., August 12th, 2017]

Scathing criticism from his Washington contemporaries swiftly follow starting with Republican senator, Cory Gardner who, with sincerest shallowness declared to the press, “-[Donald Trump] call this white supremacism, this white nationalism, evil. Let the country hear it, let the world hear it. Its something that needs to come from the Oval Office and this White House needs to do it today.”

Trump made another statement two days later on August 14 from the White House where he declared that, “Racism is evil and those who do violence in its name are criminals and thugs – including the KKK, neo-nazis, white supremacist and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything that we hold dear as Americans.” August 15, the POTUS made another public statement on the matter, stating firmly, “-I think there is blame on both sides [regarding the C-ville riots] and I have no doubt about it and you (the press) don’t have any doubt about it either.” Later he remarked, “You had a group on one side that was bad [the UTR marches] and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent [Antifa].” He went on to say of the UTR attendees, “-you had many people in that group other than neo-nazis and white nationalists.”

Trump’s arch-nemisis, the odious, slithering CNN (Cable News Network) utilized his comments as fodder for a libelous campaign so predictable that I shall not even here recount it. Suffice it to say that many anti-Trump pundits in the media self-righteously declared that the POTUS was a deranged water-carrier for “the white supremacists,” despite the fact that, objectively speaking, the POTUS’ statements were entirely accurate – indeed, they were, if anything too even-handed as pertains to the reality of the events of UTR (Trump also, as far as I am aware, failed to mention the cops which were told to stand down from securing the perimeter of the event and preventing the very violence that erupted due to the baying mob of “anti-racist” protesters – this, due the GOP’s deplorable habit of mindlessly deifying police officials).

I shall waste no time in either attacking or defending President Trump or any of the associated defenders and detractors concerning the affair for it has been extensively covered elsewhere and information pertaining thereto is easy found. Rather, I think it would be imminently more useful to turn our attention to the through-line that weaves all the President’s detractors together – “white supremacy” and “racism.” In my article, The ism-Conundrum, I extensively covered the profligate and oft erroneous or otherwise context free usage of the term “racism,” a distortion-tendency which has only re-intensified with the explosive events of Charlottesville that culminated in the deaths of three individuals. Fault was laid rather predictably upon the Dark Idol of racism and foundationless hatred who looms o’er the world like a colossus, straddling the globe and strangling all good mirth and camaraderie with his steely, vice-like grip. No protestation shall avail you once that terrible entity clasps its hands about your throat! All but the bravest (or most foolish!) fall silent beneath the throttling.

The Dark Idol is peculiar in that it is not merely a fable but a real and present force, but yet a force which was borne more of half-truths than clear-and-present reality.

“Race” is a very old word that is theorized to have developed from the Latin radix, meaning a root or, more informally, the source or origin of something. Then there is the German reiza, which denotes one’s familial heredity. The list could go on and on. The connective semantic factor between both words as well as our modern English coinage, race, is a demarcation of “that from which something comes.” This can be witnessed all throughout the ages; there have been a panoply of different commonly utilized words across innumerable cultures (specifically, but not exclusively, western ones) that informally use race (or the foreign, linguistic equivalent thereof) as a synonym for various social norms, both positive and negative but – and surprisingly to modern westerners – generally positive. If one is surprised by this one will be even more surprised to learn it is still common practice in the west to this very day. For instance, consider the courteous compliment to bonny females that can still be heard in some portions of modern-day France, elle est de bonne race, meaning, she is of good breed or character, in Croatia, to say a woman is rasna (raceful) is a another similar compliment. Consider the kind of baleful attention you, dear reader, would attract should you, in passing a attractive young woman, possessed of distinctive ethnic traits, say that she looks “raceful!” Why the very next instant you should be shouted clean from the room, and like as not trounced from your job, deserted by all loose associates – your friends and family may even distance themselves from you – and most assuredly your local reputation would be irrevocably shattered, for you would be – drumroll – a (gasp) racist (shudder!) – and all because you dared to comment upon a starkly manifest reality.

Indeed, this is precisely what has and is happening to numerous individuals (whom are predominately, but by no means exclusively white Europeans) all across the western world. Consider the case of Samuel T. Francis, a notable political columnist who worked extensively and prominently for the widely syndicated, staunchly conservative US publication, The Washington Times.  Many of Francis columns were controversial. In 1994 Francis attended a conference hosted by American Renaissance (Amren) one of the largest and most popular white advocacy groups in the country. A year later the Goan-Dravidic conservative writer, Dinesh D’Souza wrote a column detailing a speech Francis had given at Amren where he had argued strongly against racial intermarriage and asserted that “whites” needed to reawaken their “racial consciousness.” For this commentary he was summarily fired and effectively black-balled from ever again participating not just in journalism or opinion columnism but in many different circles of “polite” society.

Many Americans today (and certainly many in the past), especially those of a left-centrist, leftist progressive or “color-blind” conservative streak (such as D’Douza) may well think his firing justified. Indeed, I’d say that even if he had made no such beyond-the-pale remark his employers at the Times should have been able to fire him for good reasons, bad reasons or no reasons at all – such is the nature of true freedom of association – any other arrangement would require government overreach and to see why that is a bad thing all one has to do is look about at the fractal scorching that mass corporatism has wrought upon the United States of America or most any other industrialized western nation. That being said, all he did was talk, and he didn’t talk violently and he wasn’t argued down. No one came up and said, he you can think what you want just be a doll and don’t put that in the paper. No he was simply X’d off the list. You’re not allowed to think those kinds of things. Most certainly, you cannot dare to talk about them, even if it is only in your own good time!

Course Francis is far from alone in this, there’s James Watson, the scientist who was forced out of his profession and shunned from polite society because he commented on the effects of aggregate IQ on human populations in Africa (a empirical point, mind you), then there is Daniel Dennett who demands that we “just don’t need to know” some things and anything scientific pertaining to race is one of them. Why? Because he is terrified of being called the R-word. Racist. Of course. Why else? Then there is former newman and WH strategist, Steve Bannon and POTUS Donald Trump who both have had a strange imagine project onto them that is entirely incongruent with reality wherein they appear to the left-wing establishment media as some kind of deranged, Nazi-beasts who are rubbing their hands together and grinning at the prospect of annihilating some poor colored folk for no other reason then that they are just that evil. Then there is the Indy 500 race-car driver, Terry Frie who was fired immediately after he posted a message to his social media which stated that he felt “uncomfortable” with a “Japanese driver” winning the Indy 500 on memorial day; a innocuous statement which is in no way different from any of the blacks or hispanic citizens of the country state that they were “afraid” because Steven Bannon or Jeff Sessions was in the White House. Even the ultra-centrist social philosopher and neuroscience, Sam Harris has been accused of “racism” for simply talking to political scientist, Charles Murray (a libertarian) about human IQ measurements and methodologies. It matters not, of course, that one is talking about facts because to the modern American mind, those facts are racist.

Such is the lunacy the Dark Idol inspires. Make not, unto it, any appropriations lest its tenebrous tendrils slither unto your mind.

Yet we must ask, where did all of this madness come from – what is it’s radix? To answer that question we must trace the etymology of the word “racism” itself. For as previously stated “race” is a very old word, yet “racism” and “racist” are quite curiously recent linguistic conventions in the vast weave of history’s loom.

The word “racism” first entered the popular consciousness of the western world in the 1930s with the publication of the posthumous book titled (what else) Racism (1938). The book was written by the German-Jewish sexologist, Magnus Hirschfeld who is today remembered on the website Gendernetwork as the “Father of Transgenderism,” due to his tireless crusading on the behalf of what he considered to be sexual minorities. In fact, Hirshfeld was so dedicated to the cause of sexual liberation of “oppressed” classes that he created a organization called the Scientific Humanitarian Committee (Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee) specifically to further those ends. The SHC was created in Berlin with the primary aim of working for the benefit of homosexuals in the overturning of penal codes which could potentially put them behind bars (Hirshfeld and his associates argued that such laws encourage blackmail and were needlessly hostile towards those who were attracted to the same sex). The motto of the organization was: Justice Through Science, which starkly reflected Hirshfeld and the Komitee’s deeply held belief that a more thorough understanding of the science of sexuality would lead to a more just and affable relationship between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Much like his contemporaries – Alfred Kinsey, Havelock Ellis and Albert Moll – Hirshfeld was not merely a scientist-turned-social-rights-advocate but also a radical ideologue who adhered to the doctrine of “sexual liberation,” i.e. the continuous removal of all sexual norms and taboos in the pursuit of “living the good life” by bringing about an ever greater leveling of persons, institutions, values and traditions.

In his book, Racism, Hirshfeld harshly and scathingly critiques the most prominent racial beliefs of the 19th and 20th centuries. He was often correct in his criticism of racial ideology, though much of what he critiqued was not as he claimed “psuedo-science” but simply, developing science, or in certain fields, pre or non scientific. Such categories bare distinction. It should also be noted that (likely because of demography) the majority of Hirshfeld’s “anti-racism” did not focus on extra-ethnic groups and their interplay with Europeans at large but rather, focused most intensively upon intra-ethnic conflicts within the European peoples such as those which occurred in the then-popular sub-racial Euro-categories: Nordics, Alpines, Dinarics and Mediterraneans. Blacks, hispanics, arabs and other “people of color” occupied little of his time. Also curious about Hirshfeld’s racial critiques was the fact that he paid almost no mind to the rising anti-Jewish attitudes where were becoming evermore pervasive within the Weimar Republic. In point of fact, Hirshfeld was far more critical of his own Jewish kin than the German out-group, oft issuing scathing dissections exposing the Semitic tendency towards extreme ethnocentrism. Indeed, he denounced every form and fashion of ethnocentric attachment, save for one notable exception, that being Stalinist Russia. This spiritual or philosophical orientation towards Stalin’s ostensible paradise was due Hirshfeld own deeply held sense of elemental anti-nationalism and collective humanism. For instance, the sexologist styled himself as a “Pan-Humanist” and his work starkly reflects it, a passage from his book states:

“The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship – that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race.” (Racism, M. H., 1938)

One can here see how very similar Hirschfeld’s notions of human universalism and sexual liberation are to today’s mainstream views on such topics.

Here there are echos. Echoes we must follow as they trammel up the consequences of the age.

[continued in part 2]

Towards A Program of Great Works: The US-Mexican Border Wall

Pertinent First Questions.

Much has been said about the current US President’s proposed border wall, with opposition commentary generally running along the lines of, “A border wall is inherently racist!” Let us, from the start, dispense with such foolishness. Walls, no more than doors, columns or cornices, are in any cogently definable way classically “racist” meaning, presumably, bigoted (not that I think much of the term – it means little enough these days, a symptom of Prog Boy-Who-Cried-Wolfism). Furthermore, there are several very good reasons to wish to tighten border security, the opioid epidemic (covered in my previous article, American Deathscape: The Drug Scourge & It’s Sources) being pushed by the Mexican drug cartels that is currently ravishing the nation being just one prime example among many. Others include the prevention of sex trafficking and contraband smuggling operations and the countless injuries, mutilations, thefts, rapes and murders that come along for the ride, and, perhaps most importantly, the future cultural impact which massive Hispanic immigration will undeniably bring; indeed, it has already brought it (consider the curious case of the NCLR, or, The National Council of La Raza; which, literally translated, means, The Race).

Either a nation is sovereign or it is not; it is axiomatically impossible, given a long enough period of time, for any nation to maintain its sovereignty if it does not secure its selfsame borders. Thus, if the United States secures its borders it is taking a potent step in protecting its sovereignty. Yet, some crucial questions here must be asked, such as:

  • Would a wall really greatly aid in securing the border? That is to say, do fences work?
  • How much would such a construct cost, how long will it take to construct?
  • Would imminent domain be invoked or private property need be governmentally purchased?
  • Who is going to pay for it?
  • How would Mexicans and Americans respond to it during its construction and after its erection?


The Efficacy of Walls.

To answer the first question: Yes.

Yes, walls greatly secure whatever areas they are built upon from unwanted intrusion; that is their sole purpose. For thousands upon thousands of years civilizations have been using walls to deter unwanted migrants, undesirable criminals and warring invaders (ect. Great Wall of China, the walled keeps of the Scottish Lords, Hadrians Wall, The Berlin Wall, The Israeli West Bank Barrier as well as the twisting fences of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, all spring instantly to mind). Clearly they work. This doesn’t mean that they work everywhere, however, as some portions of the US-Mexican border are simply too hilly and uneven for a proper wall to be erected – but where walls can be built and utilized effectively they most certainly should be.

Financing the Project.

Now, unto a trickier topic – the cost. Estimates for the total cost of the wall to be constructed, were initially placed somewhere in the ballpark of the 15-25 billion dollar range (Mitch McConnell, in 2015 placed, the estimate far lower at around 12-15 billion). More recently, the estimated average price has moved to 21.6 billion dollars which is somewhere in between these extremes – still, it isn’t chump-change. Current estimates place threshold for completion at around 3 years. Mexico won’t pay, that is clear. Not directly anyways. Trump’s strong-man approach has utterly failed; Nieto made that clear when he spurned the President’s invitation to meet in January in the White House after Trump said he should only come if he was prepared to pay for the wall. With talks about the US pulling out of NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) the relationship between Mexico and America have only disintegrated further which has left many wondering if US taxpayers will end up drawing the short straw and footing the majority, if not the entirety, of the bill. Not good, but hardly hopeless.

Prospective Solutions.

While Mexico may not pay for the wall directly that does not, however, mean that they can’t be tapped to furnish it. Such a statement might sound both strange and more than a little ominous but such worries are easily remedied by taking a clear-eyed look at the sheer amount of money which the United States of America lavishes upon Mexico. Currently Mexico receives around $ 320 million a year from the US in foreign aid. A hefty sum by any measure. It would therefore be highly advantageous to the security of the American people to cease funding, in some portion or in sum total, to the arid federal republic. While some may cry that this would only grant further power to the various Mexican drug cartels – of which the Sinaloa Cartel is easily the most influential and hence, the most dangerous – this argument falls relatively flat by its very admission. If Mexico, since the la Década Perdida of the 80s, has been unable to crush the cartels, even with massive foreign aid from the United States, one can scarcely be expected to believe they will solve the problem in the immediate future. Funding Mexico IS funding the cartels. Thus one is left with a rather cut-and-dry binary decision: fund a failing state and its attendant criminal shadow-lords or fund the defense and further prosperity of one’s own nation. The proper choice here is clear.

Retracted foreign aid alone, however, will not cover the wall in its entirety as currently proposed so what other avenues of action could the government take that would circumnavigate the US taxpayer footing the bill? Remittances, of course! This is a highly promising area of inquiry for our purposes as Mexican Remittances alone make up around 2% of the countries total GDP, such payments by Mexicans living abroad generated $ 24.8 billion for Mexico in 2015 alone (which is more than the country generates in sum total from all of their oil reserves). If the President where to place a sufficient tax on this revenue source in conjunction with the surplus funds to be had after retracting foreign aid, the wall would be well on its way. This is to say nothing of the billions which our government could potentially utilize from the seized assets of Mexican drug lords such as the infamous Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. Whether or not there is the political will for such a arduous undertaking is, of course, another matter entirely. But as the old adage goes, where there is the political will, there is a way.

It is now lies with us generate that will and foster a return to an era of great public works that, for generations, will reverberate throughout the world. This newest prospective monument should be a codification of our nations strength and pride, of our indelible spirit of industry and order. A signal to noise.

Kaiter Enless is a novelist and a contributing writer for New Media Central & Thermidor Magazine. He is also the founder & chief-editor of The Logos Club. Follow him here.

Morning Joe & The Failure of Form

The internet has recently been awhirl with the barbed, blow-trading occurring between US President, Donald J. Trump and the hosts of MSNBC’s flagship talkshow, Morning Joe (get it, because Joe Scarborough is named Joe and its in the morning when people drink coffee, which is colloquially referred to as “a cup of joe” – mildly clever) which is generally hosted by Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough.

The hub-bub concerns a series of tweets which the POTUS sent out attacking, “low I.Q. Crazy Mika,” claiming that Ms. Brzezinski was, “-bleeding badly from a face-lift,” when she and Scarborough (whom he referred to as, “Psycho Joe”) had visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club during New Year’s Eve.

Here are the messages in question to provide better context:

[POTUS, Jun 29, “I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..”

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump Jun 29:
“…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”]

Naturally, both Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough took the utmost offense to this statement with Ms. Brzezinski playing the swooning damsel in distress and Scarborough donning the armaments of a true white knight; shooting back, just as ruthlessly. I shan’t delve any further into the particulars of their feud as that would merely be a waist of time; it was childish and wholly unnecessary. Rather, I should prefer to grapple with the failure of form demonstrated by our most colorful world leader.

The left is most certainly correct in decrying the POTUS on this particular issue – it was wholly uncalled for – and those few, level-headed public commentators amongst their ranks have issued forth a sentiment of, “Why can’t he act more “Presidential?” The GOP-right and Nu-Right respectively have decried this position; to them, Trump is, “Sticking it to the Lefties!” He’s, “Triggering SJWs.” This is a completely ludicrous position.

It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the Morning Joe team deserved the comments they received the only thing that matters is that they received them. This, as previously stated, is a tremendous failure of form, that is, form of leadership which might, itself, best be described as the ability to restrain oneself from any action which does not project those qualities which one’s offices demands. In the case of the Office of the Presidency, it demands vision, energy, emotional discipline and a tunnel-visioning of objectives, that is to say, a complete and utter disregard for all that is superfluous to those projects under the leader’s purview, both immediate and prospective. A leader in the position of POTUS should be relentlessly engaging in those mammoth undertakings that formed the bread and butter of his or her campaign, informed and modified by the wisdom of his or her advisers. Infrastructure tending, debt reduction, wealth creation, diplomacy with world powers, native political unification, ensuring the security of the US border and ending the sway of the Mexican drug cartels, officiating wars and their prevention where possible; these are the issues which should be absorbing the energies of the leader of the US, a world dominating empire in all but name.

It is irrelevant to all aforementioned “bread & butter” issues that our current president is “triggering” the left or verbally vomiting on annoying news anchors online.

In place of bread and butter the American People have received bread and circus.