del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Zondag 9 oktober kan je de integrale lezing van Mina Buts horen die ze op 1 oktober gaf tijdens de bijeenkomst die door de Deltastichting en Radio Rapaille was georganiseerd in De Beest.
Über die 
Jenseits dieser privaten Partydauerstimmung, in der man die eigene Vita der Amüsementsteigerung widmet, weiß der Deutsche von heute aber sehr genau, wo und auf welche Schlüsselworte hin er auf Moll umzuschalten hat: beim Befassen mit dem Düsterdeutschland der Jahre vor Neunzehnhundert-Sie-wissen-schon. Gerät man auf diesem kontaminierten Gelände auch nur unter Verdacht, die geschichtspolitischen Dogmen nicht hinreichend verinnerlicht zu haben oder offenbart man gar Ermüdungserscheinungen bei dem Distanzierungsvolkssport Nummer eins, dem Einprügeln auf die herrlich toten »Nazis«, darf man sich nicht wundern, wenn man eines schönen Tages als »Rechtsextremist« o.ä. aufwacht. Diesem Umstand ist es zu verdanken, daß sich zwischenzeitlich die meisten NS-Forschungsfelder in politisch-psychologische »No-go-areas« verwandelt haben, in denen nicht Erkenntnisdrang, sondern penetranter Dogmatismus den (Buß-)Gang der Dinge bestimmt.
Wer als junger Deutscher zu einem solch aberwitzigen »mourir pour Auschwitz« nicht bereit ist, wird gnadenlos mit der »Hitler-Scheiße« (Martin Walser) zugedeckt und läuft Gefahr, als »Heide der Gedenkreligion des Holokaust« (Peter Furth) über Nacht seine sozialen Beziehungen zu verlieren. Denn wer ein Tabu übertreten hat, wissen wir seit Freud, wird selbst tabu. Die dazu erforderliche braune Lava wurde und wird von den Niemöllers, Eschenburgs, Wehlers, Benz’, Knopps e tutti quanti seit Jahrzehnten am Blubbern gehalten. Ein Solitär wie Nolte, der – ganz ohne den Mundgeruch der Bewältigungstechnokraten – die historischen Abläufe 1917ff. nüchtern und mit luziden Zwischentönen analysiert, könnte bei diesem Simplifizierungsgeschäft nur stören.
Der „zweifache Nationsbegriff“ der Ungarn sei einer der Gründe, warum EU-Alteuropa den Magyaren so sehr mißtraut, führt Georg Paul Hefty in einem lesenswerten, leider nicht kostenfrei zugänglichen Beitrag in der Samstags-FAZ vom 5. Mai aus. Politischen Ausdruck findet der „zweifache Nationsbegriff“ in der neuen ungarischen Verfassung, die zwischen Staatsnation und Volk als Sprach- und Abstammungsgemeinschaft differenziert und vor allem 
Donovan believes that the human male’s environment of evolutionary adaptation explains the modern man’s visceral disgust at flamboyant effeminacy in other men, something which several decades of homosexualist propaganda have not been able to alter. The explanation is that in a lawless situation, a man who rejects the male honor code brings shame upon his group and thereby weakens it. A man might rationalize this aversion or disgust by appealing, e.g., to the biblical condemnation of homosexuality, but his behavior has a much more visceral origin.
The author insists on the distinction between manliness and moral “goodness” in general:
In Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth, the King promises his enemies that unless they surrendered, his men would rape their shrieking daughters, dash the heads of their old men, and impale their naked babies on pikes. [Yet] I can’t call Henry an unmanly character with a straight face.
Hollywood is also well aware of men’s abiding fascination with amoral “tough guys.”
As civilization develops, combat is replaced by the safer, ritualized combat of athletic contests. Many men come to experience masculinity vicariously, for the most part. An increasing number turn their masculine instincts inward, and focus on “self-mastery, impulse control, disciplined behavior and perseverance.” Raw masculinity is tempered into manliness and assigned a place beside justice, temperance and other virtues not specific to the male sex.
It is hard to deny that much of this represents a gain: the Victorian gentleman is surely an improvement over the Paleolithic hunter, not to mention MS-13. But something of masculinity does get sacrificed along the way, and the transition is difficult for many men to make. Donovan cites the Epic of Gilgamesh, composed back in the days when urban life was something new: “Here in the city man dies oppressed at heart, man perishes with despair in his heart.” Another character complains of growing weak and being oppressed by idleness.
As Cochran and Harpending have shown (see The Ten Thousand Year Explosion, pp. 65ff), human beings have adapted to settled civilization to some degree in the ages since Gilgamesh—but few have adapted enough to feel at their ease amid the unprecedented effeminacy of the present age.
In the future that globalists and feminists have imagined, only a few people will do anything worth doing. For most of us there will only be more apologizing, more submission, more asking for permission, more examinations, more certifications, background checks, video safety presentations, counseling and sensitivity training.
In short, we are becoming the society William James predicted “of clerks and teachers, of co-education and zoophily, of consumers’ leagues and associated charities, of industrialism unlimited and feminism unabashed.”
In one of the most interesting sections of his book, Donovan discusses two species of great ape: the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo. These were formerly considered varieties of a single species: they look very similar, are interfertile, and their territories are contiguous. Yet closer examination revealed that they differ radically in their behavior.
The gist of the difference is that Chimp society is organized along male lines while Bonobos behave like proto-feminists. Male Chimps form alliances, females don’t. Among Bonobos, it is females that maintain social networks, while males don’t. Male Chimps batter their mates; male Bonobos don’t. Female Chimps acknowledge male dominance; female Bonobos don’t. Male Chimps patrol the border of their territory and make raids on other groups; male Bonobos do neither.
What causes these differences? It turns out that Chimps must hunt to survive; Gorillas and other rivals take most of the vegetable nourishment in their territory. Bonobos have no such rivals, so they simply live off the abundant vegetable food available to them. Female Bonobos can provide for themselves, so males are less valuable to them and less respected by them. While Chimps mate to produce offspring, Bonobos are “sexually liberated,” mating for pleasure and socialization. (The female great ape is no more “naturally monogamous” than the female human.) Homosexual behavior is also common among them.
In short, the “Bonobo masturbation society,” as Donovan terms it, is the natural end-product of feminism, which is a natural response to a long run of abundance and safety. A lot of effort is being put into selling men on a vision of the future as more of what we have today: more food and drink, more security, more labor-saving devices, more vicarious sex, more vicarious masculinity, more real effeminacy.
The Way of Men closes with some recommendations for men who are not thrilled by this prospect. The author believes that the future mapped out for us is “based on unsustainable illusions and lies about human nature.” It is already falling, and only needs a push. Men will not be able to challenge the system directly, but they can encourage fission around the edges. As central authority loses the loyalty of an increasing number of men, we are likely to witness a kind of social atavism, as men begin forming small groups—gangs, in fact—to protect their interests. Eventually nature will triumph, as it always does, and men will “follow their own way into a future that belongs to men.”
Nous savions déjà que l’Inde a fourni au casting de la seconde guerre mondiale un personnage très original, Subhas Chandra Bose. L’acte final de la seconde guerre mondiale s’est joué sur un front judiciaire et non plus guerrier avec les procès de Nuremberg et Tokyo, où les vainqueurs ont soumis les vaincus à leur jugement. Lors du procès de Tokyo, c’est un autre Indien qui a ravi la vedette, le juge Radhabinod Pal. 
Un récit traditionnel évoque parfois la présence des tribus perdues d’Israël sur le territoire afghan actuel. D’autres parlent de leur présence au Cachemire voisin, où, dit-on, elles auraient reçu la visite d’un certain Jésus de Nazareth. Telle était, de toutes les façons, la thèse d’un aristocrate russe, Nicolaï Notovitch qui l’a consignée dans un ouvrage “Le Voyage de Jésus au Cachemire et ses prêches aux tribus perdues d’Israël”, publié en 1890 après une expédition aventureuse dans l’Himalaya. Notovitch affirmait qu’il avait trouvé un manuscrit de la main même de Jésus dans un monastère lamaïste du Ladakh, la partie ethniquement tibétaine du Cachemire. 
“Il est vrai que je n’ai jamais pensé à une dynastie Horthy et je ne peux que déplorer le fait que certains cercles, en Hongrie, affirment qu’une telle pensée aurait pu exister”. Telles sont les paroles qu’a couchées sur le papier le régent du royaume Miklos Horthy dans ses mémoires, où il exprime son point de vue sur l’éventuelle fondation d’une dynastie. Les faits sont pourtant différents. Très tôt, le régent a cultivé l’idée d’assurer dans le futur le pouvoir aux siens, et surtout à son fils Istvan qu’il adulait. Son épouse Magdolna, très ambitieuse, et la camarilla qui l’entourait confortaient le régent dans ses intentions. 