At the request of some of our readers, RidingTheTiger.org has opened a discussion forum.

The discussion forum will serve as an area to discuss politics, current events, religion, philosophy, and science from a Traditionalist and Third Position perspective.  Registration is free, and forum members will be able to post as soon as they are approved by the moderating team.

We hope that you will take advantage of this opportunity, and we hope to see you at the forum.  You can click on the link below to reach the forum:

Recently, the news of a two British lesbians who decided to raise a child in a “gender neutral” environment reached newspapers both here and in England because the couple decided that to finally reveal that the child was a boy.

Only, the child wasn’t being raised to be “gender neutral”.  Despite the claims that they were just trying to encourage him to “avoid stereotypes,” he was encouraged to play with dolls to hide his masculinity, and banned from wearing clothes deemed too masculine.  In other words, the couple who are raising this child are actually obsessed with stereotypes, and wanted to mold him into the stereotype of an effeminate girl, all the while themselves living up to the stereotype of fanatically ultra-leftist and anti-male lesbians who at best will have created a completely confused child who will grow up to be a cross-dresser or transvestite who is unable to hold down a proper relationship.

It does not come as a surprise, that this social experiment was conducted at the expense of a boy, either.  Other instances in which “gender neutral” environments are propped up are always done at the expense of eliminating masculinity.  And in schools where this supposed ideology of “equality” is enforced, the focus is usually on encouraging boys to learn to be submissive, while simultaneously encouraging girls to be “strong and independent”.  Furthermore, we can only imagine the outrage which would be produced by the controlled media if a heterosexual Christian couple refused to allow their young daughter to wear men’s clothing based on the interpretation of the books of Deuteronomy or Leviticus.  The media would be ablaze with stories condemning the supposed “abuse” and decrying the parents for imposing religion on the young girl, and demanding that she be placed in a foster home.

This is not mere speculation; it has already begun.  A couple in England were removed from the list of foster parents refused to indoctrinate their children about homosexuality and take teens to teenagers to gay association meetings.  In America, parents who named their child “Adolf Hitler” had their children kidnapped by the state, despite the lack of abuse, merely because of the children’s given names.  Certainly, not enforcing the state’s ideology on foster children is no worse than inflicting your own ideology on your children.

It was the late leader of Libya, President Mummar Gaddafi once said quite simply that “women are females and men are males“.  He also said, “the male has played the role of the strong and striving not by design, but simply because he is created that way. The female has played the role of the beautiful and the gentle involuntarily because she was created so. This natural rule is just, partly because it is natural, and partly because it is the basic rule for freedom.”  Clearly, Gaddafi understood that there were some things which are characteristic of human behaviour which cannot be modified, unless it is done so forcefully.

This is a simple truth which liberals in the so-called “first world” want to go to utmost lengths to suppress and deny through social engineering and means of tyrannical suppression of human rights.  Liberals do not respect natural law, but rather declare an open revolt against it.  Because even the most radical feminist ideologues can never completely recreate the male personality in a woman, they created an ideology based on the hatred of men, which desires “revenge” through the destruction of Western culture (and indeed all cultures which cannot measure up to their expectations).  This alone shows that ultimately, feminism is a highly fallacious and malicious ethic, but of the decadence of our modern times.

Such is disturbing news, and one of many signs of the ‘beginning of the end’ of the West as we know it.  It was the masculine, heroic, and “Uranian” cultural tradition which gave rise not just to the Western-Atlantic tradition, but the great civilisations of the world.  Historically, Rome reached a peak under an undeniably patriarchal system lasted for 600 years, but declined in its later years because of its social decadence.  When we look back at Rome, it is almost a mirror image of any Western European country today.■

Every so often here at RidingTheTiger, we get messages saying that we’re going too far, and that we need to tone down our rhetoric. Such people sometimes say that we are pushing away allies and making our message less popular through advocating a reactionary or “extreme” platform.  In a word, they wish that we would become more moderate.

In some respects they are correct.  We do not pretend that our message is going to be palatable to the vast majority of the Western public.  Our mission is not to fish for allies, and our message is not meant to be one for the light-hearted. Our goal has never been to appease the misunderstandings of others, nor is it to uphold the status quo of a decadent society. Anyone who has been offended by what we say here fully has the right to feel offended, but we are under no obligation to change our worldview to appease them.

The spirit of Traditionalism embodies the noble Weltanschauung of all which is heroic, masculine, and at times, defiantly reactionary. While the pessimists hold that at worst, any political revival of Tradition may be impossible, there are those who believe that it may be possible to revive some of these traditions on a small scale through mobilising the masses to a truly culturally conservative revolution.  Such a revolution must have clear goals and clear principles around which those taking part should rally.

Today, many self-proclaimed “conservatives” are constantly agitating for compromise with “the other side”.  More often than not, such people are merely opportunists who ignore, at costly effects, the fact that the modernists and bourgeois-liberals have no desire to make any concessions of their own. This is to say that the “true believers” in the secular-liberal system are only interested in using the agents of compromise to sabotage the political process from within. To such people, the only “compromise” that they will accept is that of the opposite side’s values, and whoever disagrees is either a racist, anti-semite, a totalitarian, or mentally ill.  Needless to say, those who do not take a strong stand against such opponents are at a disadvantage.

In what we’ve come to know about politics, compromise is often viewed as a good thing.  Examining the voting records of any politician in the world will expose the fact that the modern politicians are known to waver on an issue in order to gain votes in the next election, as a result of the inverted materialistic, and short-term focus of democracy.  However, after centuries of subversion, even at the most practical level, it is not possible to gain the desired results by “working with the system”.

If we trace the devolution of society, we can contrast the modern world with that of the classical world. In the ancient world, there was a strict hierarchy of socio-political, and religious-spiritual functions.  Masculinity, bravery, honour, and intellectualism were upheld by men of good breeding.  By contrast, today’s world is ruled by financial oligarchs of questionable worth, who in turn rely on the consumers and anti-intellectual “proles” for support, promoting a dysgenic egalitarianism and the reign of quantity over quality.

However, we need not trace the irrationality of “compromise” to its most ancient roots. In fact, the rabid secularism and humanism of today would be at conflict even with the religion and general attitudes of a century ago. Whereas even liberals 100 years ago might have recognized the permission of a church to deny certain persons sacraments, in the ultra-modern era, “conservative” British Parliamentarians are demanding that churches be forced to perform homosexual marriages.

Yet another, but broader, example of where being “moderate” is useless is in the men’s rights movement.  There are surely a few activists who rightly point out the problems with feminism.  Still fewer go further and speak out  meekly voice protest against feminist policy at the highest level of government.  While these are good things to focus on, there relatively few, if any, who would actually dare to touch the Holy Grail of modernity, equality, seemingly forgetting that it was the demand for absolute equality in the first place that feminism was based on.  They also seem to forget that a majority of feminists don’t want equality, but reverse discrimination, and that fourth-wave feminists are anything but moderate.  But, sadly, a large portion of men’s rights activists seem to ignore this, and instead, they focus on minor issues that they face in the modern world, such as having to hold the door open for women (which they incorrectly define as “chivalry”).

Sometimes, non-violence is suicide.  Similarly, compromise is suicide when there are those who want nothing more than to see your downfall.

For these reasons, those who are meekly advocating a half-hearted “compromise” with liberals are doing more harm than good. They are in essence promoting the victory of the decadent liberal gradualists, who have incrementally been destroying Western civilisation, and who also aspire to destroy Eastern civilisation by proxy.  Continued compromise with Only when the liberals, secularists, and modernists disavow and fully condemn their own extremists, such as Andrea Dworkin, Jesse Jackson, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and last but not least, Barack Obama, a host of others, can any talk of mediation and compromise begin.

Until then, we must hold aloft the banner of Traditionalism and Traditionalist thought, and advance without fear.

Robert James Fischer, known to the world and as “Bobby” Fischer, the world chess champion, passed away on this day in 2008.  He was 63 years old.  Widely known as one of the world’s best chess players, he was remembered as perhaps the man who revolutionized the game of chess more than anyone else in the 20th century.

As a child prodigy, Fischer defeated Byrne, then twice his age in the now-famous  ”Game of the Century“.  By the age of 14, he was playing in United States Championships, winning each by at least one point.  And by the age of 15, he was accorded the title of grandmaster, and became the youngest candidate for the World Championship up until that time.  He won the 1963–64 U.S. Championship 11–0, the only perfect score in the history of the tournament..

In 1972, he became the first, and so far only, American to win the official World Chess Championship, defeating defending champion Boris Spassky in a match held in Reykjavík, Iceland. In 1992, he played a rematch with Spassky in Yugoslavia, earning him the wrath of the US government, and forcing him to flee his homeland.

During his later life, he became a controversial figure, due to his critiques of the American government and the Zionist entity.  Never one to shy away from truth, he referred to former President of the United States, George W. Bush as a “war criminal,” and criticized the inordinate amount of power held by the Zionist lobby in America.

Constantly hounded by American authorities, he lived in Hungary, the Philippines and Japan.  After being deported from Japan (which Fischer maintained was a “kidnapping,” he finally settled down in Iceland in the latter years of his life.

His other contributions to the game include the Fischer delay game clock and the creation of Fischer Random chess, a variant of chess which is highly dependent on theory as opposed to the memorization of opening moves.

Today and tomorrow, children all over America, will likely spend some portion of the day eulogizing a modern-day saint, who has been canonized by the media.  Assemblies will be called, guest speakers will be brought in, and even others will be “mobilized” in memory of this supposedly greater-than-life hero.  Likewise, on this day (an honor not even accorded the founder of the United States) the media, on this day, will whip themselves up into a frenzy of praise for the so-called “Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.”

But like all icons of modernity, who are held to lofty heights by the sycophantic politicians and spineless media, let’s take a closer look. Who was Martin Luther King, and is there more to this man than meets the eye?

Let’s start with his titles, “Doctor” and “Reverend”.  According to many sources, King, was a habitual plagiarist.  For instance, in 1947, he delivered his first public sermon.  It is widely acknowledged today that this sermon was plagiarized from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick entitled “Life is What You Make It”. King’s first book, “Stride Toward Freedom,” was plagiarized from numerous sources, all unattributed, according to documentation recently assembled by sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J. Garrow.  As if that weren’t enough, the four senior editors of “The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr” (available here from the University of California Press) admit that: “Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism.”  Even King’s doctoral dissertation, “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman,” for which he was awarded a doctorate in theology, contains more than fifty complete sentences plagiarized from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer, “The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich’s Concept of God”.

So it appears that the “Doctor Reverend King” was neither truly a doctor, nor a reverend, but neither was his real name “Martin Luther”.  Born Michael King, his name was changed by his father to “Martin Luther,” after the Protestant reformer.  He never legally changed his name. To this day, he lived and died as Michael King.  This, however, is a relatively small detail in comparison to other, more shocking details of King’s life.

Michael King, Jr: Human rights hero or fraud?

The late Samuel T. Francis, an iconoclastic columnist of the late 20th century, quotes Charles D. Brennan, the former Assistant Director of the FBI, as saying regarding King’s more intimate life was characterized by “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”  Because King was suspected of links with communist agents (most notably Stanley Levinson), under the order of U. S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, the FBI wired King’s offices and hotel rooms from 1963 to 1968.  The tapes showed that in Las Vegas, King’s aids paid $100 each to prostitutes to join him in orgies; they also show that in New York City, an intoxicated King threatened a young White girl working for civil rights to submit to his strange sexual tastes or he would jump from the 13th floor window.  Despite the fact that this was common knowledge at the time, a federal judge ordered that this damning evidence be sealed until 2027.  It should be noted that this kind of cover-up is not insignificant.  At a time when the media posthumously maligned Osama bin Laden and Colonel Mummar Gaddafi as borderline sexual deviants, even without much evidence, the very same media goes to the utmost lengths to disguise Michael King’s awful conduct.

Today, criticism of King’s lifestyle, even if they are mutually exclusive of his worldview, are met with disdain.  At a time when almost any living or historical figure can be cast as a villain, Michael King still occupies a prominent place in the pantheon of secular religion.  In America, any time a justification for any act is needed, King’s name is invoked, much as the devoutly faithful might invoke a saint’s intercession.  Perhaps we could only expect so much from a society in which the only article of faith is absolute egalitarianism.  As Francis pointed out: “In the new nation and the new creed of which the King holiday serves as symbol, all institutions, values, heroes, and symbols that violate the dogma of equality are dethroned and must be eradicated. Those associated with the South and the Confederacy are merely the most obvious violations of the egalitarian dogma and thereform must be the first to go, but they will by no means be the last.”

However, the iconclasts are finally speaking out, and with their bold new introspection, the myths are finally coming tumbling down.

With the arrival of 2012, the American Presidential election is sure to be a topic which is on many people’s minds, both in America and abroad.

Among the candidates, there is one person in particular who seems to earn the anger and vitriol of the media, special interest groups, and lobbyists.  That person is none other than Dr. Ron Paul, the 76-year old physician and congressman from Texas.

It seems every time there is a news story on the mainstream news regarding his campaign, it is almost always negative.  In contrast, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the media gushed over Barack Obama, and the media coverage of his campaign was almost entirely positive.  What can only be described as an all-out attack on candidate Paul in the media, by both neoconservative and far-left pundits, should be very telling indeed.  While the media is consistently lambasting Ron Paul for supposedly “racist” newsletters published in his name, they hardly ever bring up Obama’s association with a black supremacist church.  Then again, if observation tells us anything about the way that the media operates, the more vociferously the media clamours against something, the better the chance is that there is something half-way decent about that something.  And, when the “left” and the “right” (for the lack of better terms) start agreeing on who to hate, that something might be a very decent thing indeed.

You may already be familiar with some of these criticisms.  On the left, people criticise him for being a “racist” and an “isolationist” who opposes illegal immigration.  They also dislike his views regarding civil liberties, because he would apply civil liberties equally to all American citizens, including European-Americans, African-Americans and Asian-Americans.  Of course, this isn’t good enough for social liberals, who believe that human rights only apply to certain groups.  But while we’re at it, neoconservatives aren’t helping Paul either, citing, among other things, his refusal to become a hard-liner with respect to Iran, and lack of support for Israel (disregarding that he’d end all foreign aid) as a key reason why he is “too extreme” to be a viable candidate.  Even the more liberal wing of the Republican Party seems to think that Paul is “too conservative”.

Ron Paul: Visionary or dangerous man?

It’s far from the purpose of this essay to endorse any candidate in a democratic election.  Moreover, here at RidingTheTiger, we’re far from being libertarians, although we might agree with Ron Paul that the government wastes too much time and money with things that are ultimately non-issues.  However, in one respect, Dr. Paul does deserve credit.  He has been consistent, and stands up for what he believes in.  And he comes across as being an honest man.

Te way that the media, as well as certain non-government agencies view Ron Paul is revealing.  The current front-runner, as the Iowa Caucus would have us believe is Mitt Romney.  But, Romney, it turns out, is not that different from Obama.  His record as governor of Massachusetts was far from what might be called “conservative”.  The American Spectator reported that in 2008, despite his attempts to cast himself as a right-of-center conservative, he had “previously staked out liberal positions on abortion, guns, immigration and a litany of other issues”.  Santorum, who came in second place in Iowa, was originally projected to get only half as many votes as Paul, causing some people to suspect voter fraud.

It is a known fact that most of the media favors the Democratic party.  Because of this, a weak Republican candidate would be seen favourably to the media, if only because it would make Obama look stronger.  For instance, some observers had noted that the choice of McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 was a blunder, which allowed Obama to more easily win the election in that year.  But leaving aside party-politics for a moment, to those who pull the strings on Capitol Hill, if Obama’s not going to win, his opponent should at least be someone who is not that different.

One group has a vested interest in smearing Paul (besides the obvious suspects at the Federal Reserve) seems to be the Zionist lobby.  As the Forward reports, the far-left ADL accuses Paul of having “extreme views on U.S. aid to Israel” and having “racist and homophobic but also anti-Israeli” views.  It should come as no surprise that these are the same accusations being made in the media by both the “mainstream” sources, as well as those who consider themselves more “conservative”.  Meanwhile, a more recent Forward article praises Romney and Santorum for being “professed Israel-lovers,” while hinting that Republicans should jump ship and vote for Obama, in the event that Paul should get the nomination.  The reason for the ADL’s hostility is clear.  Paul’s ideas do not benefit Israel exclusively.  And it follows that the media, which is closely linked, politically speaking, to the ADL is being used to slander him at every possible opportunity.

People who are aware of their situation in America are tired of having their Constitutional rights violated.  Many people have also begun to realise that the liberals and neoconservatives are both two sides of the same coin, and are no longer surprised by any revelation of the government’s hypocrisy or crookedness. Ron Paul, at least in his rhetoric, and to a large extent in his voting record, has shown that unlike the other candidates, who are willing to circumvent the Constitution to either the bankers or foreign interests, he is at least willing to defend the Constitution.  On the other hand, the candidates championed by the media all promote the expansion of Federal power and cater to every possible definable special interest.  Ron Paul clearly opposes such an abomination and the media, as well as special interest groups (namely AIPAC and the ADL) support it.  This is the fundamental difference between Ron Paul and other candidates, and why the media and special interest groups go out of their way to denounce Paul much in the same manner that the Soviet commissars would denounce dissidents.  The great danger for the lobbyists and the special interest groups is that to the average person, Paul represents something of a bye-gone era of American common sense.

So, in perhaps what can only be described as a “Bizarro-like,” down-is-up (or politically speaking, “left-is-right”) fashion, we’re being told that Ron Paul would destroy America, and is somehow going to be bad for us if he wins.  It may ultimately be true, as others have noted here on this site, that America’s collapse is not too far ahead.  While it’s sad that those who choose to vote are voting for the lesser of two evils, I doubt that if Ron Paul wins, it could be any worse than another term of Obama, or a term of Romney or Santorum.  The fact is that if the liberals and neoconservatives are free to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior through social engineering, this process will be far more painful than it already is.   Nearly a century of bad politics have shown that their manifesto is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad ideas which have done more to harm Western civilisation than anything else.

However, for those who believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than the Freudo-Marxist welfare state that America has become.

Ron Paul, however imperfect he may be, is miles ahead of the other candidates.