Last of the Kike Wiggers

IMG_2849

I even like a song or two by One Republic

Okay, look: on this blog, I’ve been critical of the alt-right, and I stand by what I’ve said. In my salad days, I even visciously battered a couple of neo-Nazis, and that was back when “neo-Nazi” meant something. I certainly wouldn’t call myself a white nationalist. But…. But but but.

Today, no thinking person (a narrowing demographic, I’ll admit) needs to be told that organic social relations are under assault from the techno-feudal powers that be. White nationalism is a perfectly legitimate (if low grade and one-dimensional) reaction in these circumstances. So while I am not a white nationalist in the sense of subscribing to a party program, I wouldn’t disavow the label.

The most common argument from those on the far right who want to avoid that label is to deride the alt-right as inorganic (i.e., merely an internet phenomenon), its followers as largely mouth-breathing, autistic, and pathetic; and to argue that race is an inadequate criteria to judge people by, because it’s too inclusive, rather than local and pragmatic. Jack Donovan’s variation on this argument, in a 2017 essay entitled “Why I am not a White Nationalist,” is one of the most widely read that I’ve seen.

Why would anyone who might otherwise be associated with white nationalism want to distance himself from it? Having used Richard Spencer’s conferences to promote himself, Jack Donovan now has a pinky toe in the mainstream; there’s nothing mysterious about such a disavowal, whatever the rationale may be. But what about those who have less visibility, and less concern for the opinions of the multitude, with all its potential customers? In my case, as a not self-hating half-Hebrew, my criticisms have tended to focus on bad arguments from anti-semites. But that’s just me personally, and as I said, I wouldn’t disavow the WN label if it was hurled at me. So what about those whites who would, even as they sympathize with alt-right ideas? Clearly, all this demonstrates is the desire to remain neutral on a moving train. Civic nationalists and/or philosophical ultraconservatives who have misgivings about fascism or populism (even the Jewish ones) are nevertheless going to have to stop beating around the bush and acknowledge, sooner or later, that whiteness is an unavoidable distinguishing factor in their views and interests. It may not be the only one, but it’s not the smallest, and if saying so gets me labelled a white nationalist, then turning around and projecting that label on ol’ Neckbeard McJergens, like Donovan does, is bad faith (not to mention collusion with those doing the labelling.)

Look: I’m not a joiner. I readily acknowledge the pathos and hysteria inherent in online discourse. I’m well aware of how feckless and dysgenic white people have become; that they’ve always had distasteful peculiarities; that they’ve always been fighting each other anyway; that you can’t dominate the world forever, and that collectively, the Great Race is in many regards dropping trow voluntarily. I don’t deny the holocaust, or that slavery, colonialism and Jim Crow were cruel. In fact, if I were a baby boomer I’d probably have accepted the logic of all the liberal reforms that occurred over the second half of the 20th century, each of which appeared relatively benign at its inception. I don’t imagine there’ll be a political solution to the problems those changes precipitated—I see all the purity spiraling, and the barking without bite, and I’m well aware of the extent to which alt-right genealogical naval-gazing distracts from dire topics like technocracy and finance. In fact, as a broad category, “white people” is largely comprised of types I don’t like, or wouldn’t like. I dislike most people. But….. But but but. 

There are times when our choices narrow down to either/or, and that time is now. The issue isn’t necessarily political, or global. It’s a question of what mindset to confront the future with. White genocide can only be denied by the blind, even if that monicker sounds hysterical; the unconscionable results of sexual liberation follow from logic that appeared benign a generation ago, and still does to most people; and the assault on teleology cannot be effectively opposed by classical liberalism. White nationalism, on its own, may also be inadequate to oppose it, but to suggest that white nationalists are solely concerned with race is a straw man. In his essay, Donovan draws a distinction between white nationalism as the global, mostly online phenomenon he rejects, and the local, “tribal” networking and self-defense regimen he advocates. But it’s a distinction without a difference: white vigilantism and other symptoms of backlash in communities blighted by capitalism and forced multiculturalism, whether in Europe or the States, is white nationalism.

Mencius Moldbug’s 2007 essay on the subject (like Donovan’s, entitled “Why I am not a White Nationalist”) argues from the class-not-race angle (as if class and race are mutually exclusive considerations), and that white nationalism is inherently ineffective, due to its taboo radioactivity in the mainstream. At the risk of forfeiting all nuance and aloofness, this line of argument avoids the issue.

If someone could surveil my every move, they’d see me pick my nose, and sometimes eat cake at midnight, and hear me make declarations that my actions contradicted. Ultimately, we’re all pathetic creatures, and if the internet amplifies this, so be it. That’s how ideas are being circulated nowadays. Moldbug’s rarified contrarianism doesn’t wash in this environment, it’s a pose; yet living as locally and tribally as Jack Donovan advocates blurs the line between pragmatism and romanticism. As much as I admire the concept of the Wolves of Vinland, I’d be surprised if their collective solipsism doesn’t close in around its individual members and implode the group ethos within a generation. It’s scarcely more tenable in the grand scheme than it would be to form an ethnostate with a bunch of beta anons from 4Chan. Necessity, not principle, is the mother of that kind of invention, and at this point it’s all still just Instagram fodder and selfie-sticking the Kali Yuga.

But we can all see the writing on the wall. So if whiteness and white people per se don’t mean anything to you, then wait and see how you like it when there is no more whiteness to mean anything.

 

Advertisements

Reductio ad Iudeaoram: Conclusion

IMG_2955

Chosen

Part VI of a series; Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here, Part V here

The bottomless self-pity of the Jews renders Zionism, Judaism and Jewish peoplehood utterly devoid of any one coherent, comprehensive ethic. Their only essential components are Darwinian (really, anti-Darwinian) survivalism, rationalized behind the mask of a liberal democracy at best tangential to Zionist aims, and a grudge-nursing, biologically reductionist ancestor worship whose sole transcendent element is an insoluble sense of injury. I’m not against Jewish survival, any more than I’d be against the survival of any ethnic group. But after seventy years of Jewish statehood, you’d think the Jews’ approach to the matter would look a bit less like Chicken Little’s. At once self-aggrandizing and pathetic, Leo Strauss’s conclusion that the purpose of the Jews is to prove there’s no redemption is the reductio ad absurdum of Judaism itself. Who that believes in God could believe it, or want it to be true?

The Hebrew Bible and cosmogony are indeed of singular significance to western civilization; in light of this, the significance of the Jewish revolts against the Seleucids and Rome is generally underrated, historically (though, thankfully, not by Monty Python.) But Zionism was a moment. It was an opportunity that was not fully seized, and instead of turning over a new page and giving way to a new man, it has given way to the same old story in revised form. A few years ago this decade, the dark comedy Bastards (Hebrew, “Nevilot”), an Israeli TV serial, inadvertently captured how hopelessly lost the Zionist moment truly is, what a dead end it has become. After one too many encounters with the present generation’s impudence and narcissism, the protagonists, an elderly pair of lifelong best friends and veterans of Israel’s war of independence, take to murdering young Tel Aviv hipsters in their neighborhood. The plot revolves around their periodic, lifelong love triangle with a gorgeous Holocaust refugee, alternating between the present and flashbacks to the two men’s glory days fighting the British and the Arabs in late 1940s Mandate Palestine (when their mutual love interest first arrives from Europe.) The contrast is stark.

Obviously, I wouldn’t discourage anyone from taking the harsh view of Judaism and Zionism I’ve just outlined. I wouldn’t object if anyone wanted to claim that (for better or worse) the Zionists instigated the Palestine conflict, or to argue that the US relationship with Israel is bad for America, or that Jews are disproportionately influential in public affairs, and that this is a bad thing. But the problem, as I see it, is that many of the critical claims and arguments directed at the Jews are extraordinarily myopic and illogical, and this is historically habitual. I’ve given many demonstrations throughout the present series, but these ideas are so facile that they tend to multiply redundantly. Historian and Catholic apologist E. Michael Jones has claimed, for example, that the Spanish Inquisition was not directed at Jews, but effected Christians only. That’s a neat bit of phariseeism if ever I’ve heard one. He also likes to assert that the source of the Jews’ historic misfortunes is their rejection of Christ, “the logos incarnate,” as detailed in the Gospels. (The phrase “logos incarnate” summarizes the great hang-up many non-Christian monotheists have with Christian theology.) Of course, as a metaphor, there’s something to this claim: Judaism’s rejection of Christianity is singular, emphatic, and embittered. It’s not difficult to comprehend how such jaundice pollutes objectivity. But as a bald statement of fact coming from a scholar, Jones’s claim doesn’t hold up, because there’s no great evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth, much less this detail about the Passover throng preferring Barabass. Due respect for the limits of certitude has never been a quality of anti-semitism. Advocates for the Palestinians likewise, having premised their arguments on solid ground, tend to veer wildly afield, which is one reason why the Palestine conflict is such a tiresome topic.

It would be one thing to pronounce anti-semitism intellectually stultifying, or a kind of bias confirmation. But what it really amounts to is a slander far in excess of the Jews’ ample real-world deficiencies. It’s one thing to say that schizophrenia is a form of mental illness; it’s quite another to claim that the schizophrenic demonstrates his mental illness by reacting violently to being poked with a sharp stick.

There was a time, not long ago, when this topic impassioned me. It no longer does, but as I’m somewhat of an expert on it, I’ll always have a lot to say about it. The purpose of this essay series was merely to document my view of the matter in a comprehensive and final way. I hope someone, somewhere may’ve gotten something out of it.

An Introduction to Hermeticism

Screen Shot 2018-06-17 at 3.51.00 PM

Bapholment

Okay: I’m going to reveal something crazy deep that sounds counter-intuitive. Stay with me. Are you ready?

Hermeticism is bullshit. Conflating dichotomous elements, “seeking for what is lost”―it’s all a grandiose solution to a self-imposed problem. There is no God, but God is in you―just don’t trust your intuition, instead you need to conform, be guided, mentored, initiated, etc. There are no enemies, only opportunities―but replace “enemies” with “souls” or “persons” and you have the same statement. There is no innate morality, but we’re going to make the world a better place. Obsessing over what’s hidden while rejecting what’s revealed in the same sources. Elaborate riddles and intimations of great profundity masking empty smugness and rapacity.

It’s a cool-kids’ circle jerk.

“There is a substance that comes from your…..” wherever, the obvious implication (because Christianity “has been altered”) being that, once revealed, the esoteric is the only real insight in scripture. Various occultists might protest that Jim Carey is not the finest exponent of this thinking, but I don’t have to answer for his availability as an example. They do. As is well known, anybody who’s anybody in this country is a Mason, and that of course includes the Hollywood A-list. Undoubtedly, there is much in scripture that’s not readily apparent, but this self-centered pop-exegesis is at bottom profoundly literalistic and narrow, amounting to what is referred to in Judaism as making use of the Crown (as in Pirke Avot, “He who makes use of the Crown shall perish.”)

Christianity and Islam are at bottom no more universal than Judaism. They highlight boundaries in the world. All three place the believer at odds with corporeality, error, and deceit. Whereas all you need to know about Masonry is its emphasis on secrecy, and personal attainment.

May I humbly suggest the following sources instead?:

“There is no enchantment against Jacob; no divination against Israel.” (Numbers 23:23)

“Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.” (Proverbs 3:7)

“Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” (Mark 10:15)

“Do not be sure of yourself until the day of your death.” ―Pirke Avot

“Understand that for every rule which I have mentioned from the Quran, the Devil has one to match it, which he puts beside the proper rule to cause error.” ―Al-Ghazali

Tomorrow’s Muslims

Screen Shot 2018-06-10 at 9.23.58 PM

How much more submission could you possibly ask for?

Inevitability, as a motif, deserves more scrutiny than can be undertaken for the sake of a single book review. But the overhanging dread that events simply have a formula encoded into them is essential to modernity: trans-humanism, the panopticon, demographic shift, economic collapse, and one-world government are all favorite prognostications of storytelling in recent decades. But so far as I know, the inevitability of Islam was never prominently entertained in fiction, at least not by non-Muslims, until the 2015 publication of French novelist Michel Houellebecq’s Submission.

Because its contents were deemed offensive to Muslims, after the Charlie Hebdo attack (it was published on the same day) Houellebecq was placed under 24-hour police guard; but if you’re an intelligent Muslim fundamentalist, one who harbors any hope for an outcome like the one in Submission, you would have to be quite pleased with the book, which owes nothing to Samuel Huntington and even less to Jean Raspail. It simply takes the presence of a huge Muslim population in the heart of Europe as a fait accompli, and its gradual merging with the host culture as inevitable.

The critical consensus seems to be that Houellebecq treats Islam only secondarily, and that the thrust of his attack is on the fecklessness of the French intellectual and technocratic classes, in the more general context of modern Europe’s dispirited malaise. Adam Gopnik’s review for the New Yorker is typical:

The charge that Houellebecq is Islamophobic seems misplaced. He’s not Islamophobic. He’s Francophobic. The portrait of the Islamic regime is quite fond; he likes the fundamentalists’ suavity and sureness. Ben Abbes’s reform of the educational system is wholesome, and his ambitions to rebuild France are almost a form of neo-Gaullism. (He succeeds in integrating Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Turkey into the European Union, creating a power bloc greater than the American one.) The reform of education, the reinforcement of the family, even the re-domestication of women are all held up for admiration. It’s the shrugging admiration of satire, of course, but neither Ben Abbes nor his government seems meant to be seen as contemptible, the way the French who assist them certainly are.

Liberals like these always need a fine-toothed comb and an unsubtle whiff of mommy-knows-best to justify reading and discussing heterodox literature with even a smidgeon of deference to its virtues. And Gopnik is correct that the book is all about Europe, but it gives Islam a far less neutral treatment than he suggests by calling it “the shrugging admiration of satire.” In Submission, Houellebecq’s characteristic pessimism is really a pessoptimism, because, while the protagonist (a Sorbonne literature professor expert in the works of JK Huysmans) and his faculty colleagues indeed convert to Islam out of career calculations, they seem much happier for it. The dispirited malaise of postmodern Europe is real, and Houellebecq chooses to contrast Islam quite well with it in the form of an early adopter (twenty-plus years early), one Rediger, the university president, whose rationale for converting not only convinces the protagonist, but is good enough that it nearly suspends the satire.

Rediger admires the protagonist’s scholarship, and arranges to have Gallimard offer him the chance to edit a volume of Huysmans, as a ruse to invite him over in an attempt to proselytize him. Rediger is physically strapping, self-assured, a hail-fellow-well-met but essentially honest, and a deep thinker. There’s a prosaic aspect to his conversion which he doesn’t try to conceal, but the sincerity of his faith seems to outweigh it. Certainly the character has his utility to the narrative arch, but this is all quite superfluous to a mere skewering of the French intelligentsia.

After meeting with Rediger, the protagonist reflects:

In general my intellectual life was at a standstill: I was making progress on the footnotes, but I still couldn’t get started on the preface. Oddly enough, it was an internet search on Huysmans that led me to one of Rediger’s most readable articles, this one in the European Review. He mentioned Huysmans only in passing, as the author who best exemplified the dead end of Naturalism and materialism; but the whole article was one long appeal to his old comrades, the traditional nativists. It was a passionate plea. He called it tragic that their irrational hostility to Islam should blind them to the obvious: on every question that really mattered, the nativists and the Muslims were in perfect agreement. When it came to rejecting atheism and humanism, or the necessary submission of women, or the return of patriarchy, they were fighting exactly the same fight. And today this fight, to establish a new organic phase of civilization, could no longer be waged in the name of Christianity. Islam, its sister faith, was newer, simpler, more true (why had Guénon, for example, converted to Islam? he was above all a man of science, and he had chosen Islam on scientific grounds, both for its conceptual economy and to avoid certain marginal, irrational doctrines such as the real presence of Christ in the eucharist), which is why Islam had taken up the torch. Thanks to the simpering seductions and the lewd enticements of the progressives, the Church had lost its ability to oppose moral decadence, to renounce homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and women in the workplace. The facts were plain: Europe had reached a point of such putrid decomposition that it could no longer save itself, any more than fifth-century Rome could have done.

Houellebecq is known for his pessimism. Coming from him, the suggestion that at this point anything (much less Islam, with its inveterate blood feuding and repulsive ganglia of repressed sexuality) could salvage Europe’s spiritual and intellectual life is wildly optimistic.

 

A fig leaf for sanity

Screen Shot 2018-06-04 at 4.07.41 PM

This dude has a problem with homos?

I just read the SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and I have to say, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent—though disingenuous on numerous points—is more logically consistent than the majority opinion. The fact is, gay marriage cannot, and was never meant to coexist with the free exercise of religion. “Well if your stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn’t such a goddamned bigot….” I rest my case. (See also: “Real Jesus loves everybody just the way they are.”)

But Masterpiece is not actually a victory for religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this case does is differentiate conscientious objection from actual freedom. It’s a protracted religious test at the behest of scorned, chubby poofters, with the result that only the inscrutable fig-leaf of religion at its most passive and irrational now merits a carve-out, so long as you can satisfy a roulette wheel of vindictive bureaucrats that it’s all just in your head; whereas a straightforward moral rationale against the enfranchisement of sexual deviance would never, on its face, have stood a chance here. With Obergefell, such uncomfortable questions about public morality were effectively rendered hypothetical, merely philosophical, historical curiosities. With Masterpiece, they’re now conveniently quarantined (unlike AIDS.)

Of course, like killing a fetus, the scope of the Court’s purview is procedural, not moral. So: does a retailer have a right to inquire what I intend to use his product for, as a prerequisite of doing business? If so (a big “if”), does he have a right to refuse if he dislikes my answer? That depends. In Masterpiece, Phillips (the baker) was presumably being asked to include some message (“Congratulations Adam and Steve,” a couple of little plastic grooms, etc.) That would be compelled speech, a matter the Court already settled in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston. But that’s not the issue this decision focuses on. Rather, Masterpiece is about whether Phillip’s religious beliefs were duly taken into account by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (boy, that sure sounds like an impartial body, doesn’t it?)

Indeed, the inverse case cited by Philips’ attorneys—of one William Jack, a hellfire-and-brimstone Okie from Muskogee who submitted complaints to the Commission against three separate bakers for their respective refusals to decorate cakes for him with biblical verses condemning homolingus—is a bad analogy to Masterpiece, because in the latter case, the Commission was considering (or refusing to consider) a religious exemption; whereas, in the former three cases, it was compelled speech that was the issue.

But according to the majority, there was another problem with the way speech was treated by the Commission:

The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.

This is highly telling, and Ginsburg doesn’t really have a rebuttal, so she ultimately addresses another difference between the two cases, one that’s more pliant to her purposes:

The different outcomes the Court features do not evidence hostility to religion of the kind we have previously held to signal a free-exercise violation, nor do the comments by one or two members of one of the four decisionmaking entities considering this case justify reversing the judgment below.

The first half of that sentence seems to me factually sound. But there are two problems here. First, Ginsburg comes very close to saying that the Commission’s rationale is irrelevant. Secondly—of course the different outcomes do not evidence hostility to religion per se. Rather, the peculiar way Phillips’ case was adjudicated evidences hostility to his religion in particular. Obviously, the “love-wins” Unitarian community did not file an amicus brief in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Neither is Phillips alleging that the Commission’s ruling implied disapproval of Reform Jews, androgynous Episcopalians, or anglo-Buddhist hot-tubbers. In fact, the notion that a ruling against Phillips would compromise such peoples’ rights, even just in principle, involves quite a stretch of the imagination. So the Court’s decision necessarily grants “religion” a wide berth because otherwise, we persons of Sodom might have to acknowledge what religion actually is, and this here ain’t America if you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

In any case, the comments Ginsburg is referring to are treated more seriously by the majority:

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

A lot hinges there on the word thus, and Ginsburg’s dissent sidesteps and downplays most of it. But she’s right that a carve-out is being created here for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and to that extent her dissent has greater rhetorical force and logical consistency than the majority opinion.

Ultimately, however, the Masterpiece decision does not merely create a carve-out for religious discrimination against gays. Rather, it creates a carve-out for religious discrimination against gays that affirms the otherwise wholesale banishment of religion from public life; an exception that proves the rule.

Ginsburg again:

Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic.

Again, William Jack wanted a cake with anti-homosexual Bible verses on it; three bakers refused, and were vetted by the Commission. They should no more be compelled to make him a cake than Phillips should be compelled to provide one for Craig and Mullins’ wedding. But if objection to decorating a cake with biblical verses on it—on the basis of what those verses say—isn’t “refusal on the basis of religion,” I don’t know what is. And that’s not a carve-out that will ever require defending before the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the carve-out that Masterpiece provides for is tenuous, and remains open to challenge: Jack Philips is being allowed to discriminate not on account of his sincerely held beliefs, but because those beliefs were belittled and not taken seriously prior to being rejected by the Commission.

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. V

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 1.01.20 AM

The world’s foremost problem

(Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here)

In The Forest Passage (1951), Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) references Oedipus and the Sphinx to illustrate man’s intrinsic prostration before an essentially inner mystery—a fear to be overcome, just as the forest is at once a refuge, and a place of deep foreboding.

Jünger was a radical individualist, a believer in the ultimate prerogative of the rarified spirit—in some sense intensely Christian, yet also a Nietzschean relativist of sorts—and it occurred to me when reading him that Heidegger, in contrast, by asking “Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?” took man’s confrontation with the void in the exact opposite direction, i.e., outward. This suicidally literal-minded question is analogous to Nazism’s misspent intensity and titanic hubris.

Perhaps not incidentally, Heidegger was an enthusiastic party member, while Jünger openly disdained the NSDAP, resigning from his WWI veteran’s association when its Jewish members were expelled.

We’ve covered neofascism quite a bit here at Utter Contempt. It certainly has its virtues. It’s highly transgressive, for one. But is it off the plantation? Well, if you buy the kabuki theater that the Mueller investigation is anything other than a tour bus for Biff Tannen to throw his used-up associates under, that Vince McMahon’s sparing partner was in earnest with his Father Coughlin impersonation (only to slip on a banana peel and wind up co-opted by Jared from Subway), or that white nationalism is a real heavy counterweight to DARPA, the Syndicate and the Bank for International Settlements, then you may just be the type who’ll love Red Ice Radio‘s asinine slogan: “The future is the past.” If fascism was pseudo-reaction, then the alt-right is neo-pseudo-reaction. What a time to be alive, eh?

So I can’t quite take the same attitude toward the multifarious alt-right that Jünger once took to monolithic Nazism. In all fairness, anti-semitism as an online sinkhole for the half-educated predates the alt-right by about a decade. There’s just no pleasing some people without naming the Jew. Which makes it an airtight alibi for sundry charlatans and provocateurs. “You’re not a cop, are you? I mean—a Zionist?” There’s just something so goddamned apoplectically cult-like about the whole thing. Full-retard JQ-woke Asperger’s is to the redpill what farting in the bathtub is to Archimedes’ “Eureka!”

Every alt-right webzine has the obligatory post denouncing “Hollywood Nazis”, bad optics, people who see Jews in their sandwiches, but this is all just bad faith. There are no moderates among pamphleteers and carnival barkers. Of course it’s possible to be a little bit anti-semitic, but not when you’re podcasting about it. If you’re part of the problem, you’re part of the problem. Scapegoating ol’ Cletus McJergens just shows disdain for your intended audience. But then, we’re talking about a movement that distributes its redpills exclusively via the matrix.

For example, the following pile of garble from Chateau Heartiste:

Ted Colt notices,

“One needn’t look further than a Wikipedia article describing NeoConservative history to comprehend the connection between neocons & free trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

EVERY! FUCKING! TIME!

If your Alt-Right brand isn’t ‘anti-semitic’ then you’re not alt-right”

I prefer the more accurate term of art “countersemitic”. (The ADL, unsurprisingly, does not.) We are countering the malicious agenda of a hostile minority intent on drowning us in foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.

Wow. Ted Colt, huh? “No further than Wikipedia,” indeed. (Isn’t that a Jew-run outfit?) “Branding,” while bitching about consumerism in the comments section of a PayPal-panhandler site.

By the way: what is semitism, or counter-semitism? Well, the proto-Semites were South Arabian nomads who settled among the people of the Levant and the fertile crescent some 10,000 years ago, bequeathing their language to the region. This resulted in the emergence of the world’s first alphabetic writing system and the inscription of the Hebrew Bible. Muhammad was a Semite, as was St. Paul, and Hedy Lamarr, and the Son of Sam. Far be it from me to suggest that the word is meaningless—obviously here it applies to the Jews. But even then, calling oneself anti-semitic is about as lucid as calling oneself anti-canine, or anti-bicycle. Replacing “anti-” with “counter-” only compounds the mouth-breathing.

So it tires me to argue with this middle-school caliber copy-pasta; to rattle off litanies of phenomena that are driving world events, other than a conspicuous handful of Jews being wealthy, disgusting, and politically active; to point out that the inception of modernity is not the moment the yid peddler shows up in the village, but the moment that Christian elites realize they were stupid to grant him a monopoly on usury; that the porno industry can only supply an extant demand, or that Zionists are obviously no more sinister than a great many foreign and domestic grifters milling around, raining bukake on the bloated, insensate pudding vagina we have for a system in this country, hoping the next queef out of Congress will blow their direction. Besides, wherever they may choose to wash their money, it’s generally got to be counted in greenbacks—and whose fault is that? All six of those Wise Men were goyim.

But who has time for such obscurities? What interests me is the provenance of this idea, this reductio ad iudeaoram. It has a long history, but let’s start with its underpinnings in the alt-right. If you’re familiar with Chateau Heartiste you know that his writing is incisive and stylish, but as a platform the blog itself is basically one big no-homo “Hot or Not” where beta-anons with anxious delusions of Clevon-like virility outsource their defective instincts to pseudo-ironic support group scientism. So it’s not surprising that the author’s JQ-woke Aspergers is cribbed (or contracted) without blinking from Kevin MacDonald, the evolutionary psychologist infamous for his thesis that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” aimed at weakening Gentile host societies.

Now I’m no fancy-pants evolutionary psychologist, but if by “group evolutionary strategy” we mean anything that involves, you know, not being legally handicapped and regularly massacred for twenty centuries at a stretch everywhere from Malaga to Mosul, then the suggestion that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” is ridiculous on its face. There’s also the obvious, practical question of the scope of Judaism’s (or, if you insist, Zionism’s) aggression. Christianity’s was world wide, and wore itself out (though the Pope still claims to speak for one and all); Islam has now taken up the torch anew. Liberal humanism and communism, also universal faiths, have plenty of blood on their hands; but where was MacDonald’s element of inter-ethnic subversion in Red China, the English Civil War, or Renaissance Florence? It’s ridiculous.

Instead, what you might take from MacDonald’s work is that inter-ethnic enmity is a two-way street—especially if you’ve been fire-hosed your entire life with the liberal narrative of perennial white guilt. But his thesis is the exact inverse of that, so the street is still one-way:

With his thousand-year-old mercantile dexterity he is far superior to the still helpless, and above all boundlessly honest, Aryans…. While he seems to overflow with ‘enlightenment,’ ‘progress,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘humanity,’ etc., he himself practices the severest segregation of his race…. His ultimate goal in this stage is the victory of ‘democracy’…. It is most compatible with his requirements; for it excludes the personality and puts in its place the majority characterized by stupidity, incompetence, and last but not least, cowardice….

….und so weiter. (I guess a plurality’s better than a full majority. As for boundless honesty, that point can probably best be disputed by the Plains Indians. Or Thucydides, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare, or Dale Carnegie. Was PT Barnum of Hebrew descent, or just the bearded lady?)

The full-retard anti-semite will usually balk at being associated with Hitler, calling it a libel although he agrees with der führer entirely. But I didn’t just quote Mein Kampf in order to associate Kevin MacDonald with the Austrian corporal—there’d be no need for that. Rather, I’m quoting Hitler in order to provide the smidgeon of contrast necessary for pointing out how incredibly innovative and thoughtful a theory like MacDonald’s would be, in spite of every flaw—if it was original. But it isn’t. On the contrary, it’s the best attested theory of history in all of history. If you stumbled upon it as if upon a revelation, and felt your scattered erudition suddenly bundle itself tightly into a faggot (or fasces, if you prefer) of clarity and purpose, then you may as well be holding a bouquet of balloons there, luftmensch. Rather than the defensive weapon those who brandish it mistake it for, anti-semitism is a stick they carry around in their ass. Obviously culture is predicative of behavior, and Judaism is inflected with a snide aloofness and a victimology that are eminently distasteful. But if you find all this more sinister than it is pathetic, you’re not working with a full pack of crayons. I’m happy to hear out any conspiracy theory, but if your smoking gun is evolutionary psychology, then we’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

But so far, we’ve only covered the sincere aspects of fulltard JQ-awakening. Meanwhile, the utility of this shibboleth is not lost on up-and-coming merch-pimps and aspiring alt-media gadflies (not to mention PayPal panhandlers like ol’ Chateau.) Getting slapped on an ADL hate list is now marketable martyrdom, such that cookie-cutter manifestos and Hitlerian little memoirs of awakening are regularly produced by figures as varied as Roosh V and Squatting Slav. The former, a self-styled manosphere pick-up artist, writes prolifically at a seventh-grade reading level about his sexual encounters on the road in impoverished countries. Undoubtedly by mawwing the requisite JQ-dribblings, he was able to secure a time slot to hustle his fetid self-publishings one year at Richard Spencer’s NPI conference (a controlled-op termite’s nest if ever there was one), despite being a patently non-white immigrant with a beady-eyed sociopath countenance. Such is the mental caliber of the alt-right. Squatting Slav, meanwhile, hawks T-shirts on a satirical pan-Slavic FB meme-page that can claim the minor feat of having united a few hundred-thousand former-Yugoslav followers, not only despite their own intractable enmities but in spite of the admin’s unabashed Serb-posting. Apparently unaware (or unashamed) of the arming of the Serbs by Israel during the 1990s, and of the singularly barbaric WWII massacres perpetrated against his people by and with the support of the Nazis, even Mr. Squat could not get past the apparent need to clear the air by regurgitating the MacDonald-redux of their theories into a handful of v-log tutorials. Because you can’t understand stupid, repetitive jokes about rakia and pickled tomatoes without JQ-awakening.

Then there’s wall-eyed, man-jawed Lana Lokteff of Red Ice Radio (a real prefrontal butter churn of primo alt-content) whose antipathy to all things yiddish is such that she is able to read rootless cosmopolism into the Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucids, recounting it as an instance of Jewish meddling in the sovereign prerogatives of Gentiles (ROFL.) With logic like this being pervasive on the alt-right, one is entitled to ask whether anti-semitism is the punchbowl, or the turd—which brings us back to Chateau Heartiste, in an essay defending kid-fucking:

Say what you will about Roy Moore, at least his girls agreed to date him (even if they retconned a discomfort 40 years later). The Synagogue of Seediness doesn’t bother with the formality of mutual agreement, they just passive-aggressively jam tongues down throats “to rehearse our lines”.

Of course, Chateau absolutely condones those tactics (that’s what his whole blog is about) unless the perp is tribal—the latter reference being to Al Franken, who at least targeted grown women. But if Chateau really believes that his hypothetical 14-year old daughter is qualified to give Roy Moore consent, then you’ve really got to commend his intra-Gentile solidarity.

But this is all just grist for the infotainment landfill. Anyone who hopes to escape the Tower of Babel the oligarchs have planned for us is going to have to grow up. Just look at the Charlottesville dumpster fire of mouth-breathing self-abusers and agents provocateurs that cemented the alt-right as a webcast-only phenomenon, with Richard Spencer condemning violence in therapeutic lilt as cops and revelers died of tidbit-nipply passive aggression gotten out of hand, and his associates went to jail. Even if he’s a fed (or a lizard person or an ancient alien) so what? You may not consider him your personal führer (who really consciously has leaders nowadays, anyway?) but the fact is, Spencer’s as alt-right as it gets (he’s as white-nationalist as it gets, too, if you insist on the distinction) and the sum total of his activity is to expose himself and a half-dozen sycophants to jeering and tomato throwing at huge cost to municipal resources. He’s nothing more than Milo with street-cred. Pure clownworld.

No—whatever you think the problem is, it doesn’t have a political solution. As Jünger puts it in The Forest Passage:

An assault on the inviolability, on the sacredness of the home, would have been impossible in old Iceland in the way it was carried out in 1933, among a million inhabitants of Berlin, as a purely administrative measure. A laudable exception deserves mention here, that of a young social democrat who shot down half a dozen so-called auxiliary policemen at the entrance of his apartment. He still partook of the substance of the old Germanic freedom, which his enemies only celebrated in theory…. Naturally, he did not get this from his party’s manifesto….

In this analogy, how many people on the alt-right (or Antifa, or any such full-retard ideologues) are the “so-called auxiliary policemen” (“celebrating in theory”) and how many are the young social democrat? To ask the question is to answer it.

Ultimately, what the alt-right specializes in is mystifying the unlettered with cherry-picked Nietzsche and Evola, heedless of what the former actually said about anti-semitism and what the latter actually said about nationalism. It’s high-octane full-retard.

Never go full retard.

Why War?

Screen Shot 2018-05-02 at 4.34.12 PM

known for their fondness of brains

“All things pall after a while—sleep, love, sweet song, and stately dance—still these are things of which a man would surely have his fill rather than of battle, whereas it is of battle that the Trojans are insatiate.” —Homer, Iliad, Book XIII

A group of 250 French public figures signed a statement released last month, decrying the “quiet ethnic cleansing” of French Jews as a result of Muslim extremism. This is a very interesting choice of words.

Strictly speaking, it is correct, and backed by the relevant statistics. Indeed, over the past couple of decades, French Jews have been emigrating (to Israel, to North America) to escape both a steady, irreversible increase in street crime and a campaign of terrorist massacre at the hands of lumpen Muslim banlieue-dwellers (whose fanatical antipathy to Jews undoubtedly exceeds their disdain for other non-Muslims.) 

Certainly this suggests that the machinations of the global inner-oligarchy (behind both the humanitarian disasters in the third world and the mass migration of its denizens into Europe) have little to do with Judaism per se or the welfare of Jews overall—which it appears to consider expendable, in spite of the high proportion of ethnic Jews in its ranks and among its lackeys. But there’s an elephant in the room here: if “quiet ethnic cleansing” in this context entails a precipitous drop in quality of life (particularly in terms of public safety) for the targeted group, their displacement from whole cities, and their being targeted for every kind of violence (on account of their ethnicity and its privileges—real or perceived, legitimate or illegitimate), then the ethnic cleansing thus effected by the mass inflow of third world migrants into Europe touches Jews only incidentally, because its primary target is the native majority. This is obvious. Under the rules of public discourse (unwritten in the United States but partially encoded, as it happens, into actual hate speech legislation in the EU) such a dire warning can really only be issued about Jews. But the fact that it is being issued at all speaks to a subconscious awareness of far larger developments.

Now consider the following scenario:

Country ‘A’ is large and unmatched in wealth and power. Its rulers gain and maintain power in large part by promoting moral corruption around the world* (sexual perversity, intellectually stultifying mass entertainment and, especially, usury) and have boasted openly for decades about their plans for world domination. Beleaguered and near-universally disliked, Country ‘C’ survives and thrives as an appendage of Country ‘A’s warfare industry and has managed to place both its sympathizers and in some cases even its operatives in very high positions in Country ‘A.’

Meanwhile, Country ‘B’ refuses to submit to vassalage under Country ‘A,’ and to that end is covertly developing a nuclear deterrent. Although ‘B’ is in no position to ever strike ‘A’, its venal and repressive rulers make intemperate threats against ‘C,’ which is located nearby, and the two countries fight one another by proxy in neighboring third countries. In addition, every six months for the last decade, the swaggering (but henpecked) little kritarch who runs Country ‘C’ scolds an international body for its inaction against ‘B’, or holds a press conference where he hops up and down in front of a power point presentation, demanding that ‘A’ invade ‘B’ and slaughter its citizens wholesale by aerial bombardment.

This is of course all very tragic and volatile, but what I want to point out about it is that discourses regarding this situation nearly always fail to touch upon at least one of the following three important facts:

(1) ‘C’s pretext for possible further action against ‘B,’ (i.e., the suggestion that the whole world is in real danger from ‘B,’ and therefore needs to preemptively attack it) is laughably incredible, while ‘A’s pretext for possible action against ‘B’ (i.e., the credibility of ‘B’s threats against ‘C’) is critically exacerbated by ‘A’s own explicit designs on ‘B’s sovereignty.

(2) While ‘C’s demands demonstrate an unparalleled solipsism and myopic self-regard on the part of its people and their culture (which is why they’re so widely disliked), ‘A’s rulers are actually leveraging ‘C’s insecurity and playing with the lives of its citizens as surely as ‘C’s leadership is brazenly attempting to manipulate ‘A’ and siphon it’s bloated energy for the purpose of destroying ‘B.’

(3) The resistance by the rulers of ‘B’ to ‘A’ and ‘C,’ no matter how odious either or both may be, is not a redeeming characteristic in itself. Its rulers aren’t interested in their professed beliefs, or their people’s future, to 1/100,000th the degree they’re interested in their own asses, and bank accounts. In our day, the enemies of Rome (and of Judea) are never saints.

So would a US war on Iran be a “war for Israel?” Was Iraq? Was Libya? These memes are incorrect. Vital interests of the global inner-oligarchy are at stake in Iran and Syria, namely the imperatives of great power politics which Zbigniew Brzezinski specified in The Grand ChessboardThe long-term vision of this elite (which you can read about here, here, and here) has nothing to do with Judaism, properly understood. And as I’ve pointed out here already, although many of its ranking members are ethnic Jews and even Zionists, one effect of its strategy is to make regular Jews pawns, and subject them to terror.

Still, the Israeli leadership, along with the Saudis, has its own priorities vis a vis Iran, and can certainly move the ball on a US war, as it has done before. From the perspective of a morally normal, intellectually honest Hebrew this raises disturbing questions. What kind of people believes that others have a limitless moral obligation to defend it? What kind of nation hopes, expects, and sends its leaders abroad demanding that the soldiers of another nation be killed doing so? In Israel’s case, this actually goes against the premise of Zionism, i.e., that the Jews have only ourselves to rely on. Self-defense is a sacred right and a duty, but there has to be a defined objective, a point at which other contending parties’ legitimate interests enter into one’s strategic calculus, or else we are totally solipsistic and unhinged.

However, encouragement of Arab and Muslim disunity and backwardness is the pillar of Israeli foreign policy. So while you may accept the premise of Zionism, when a nation is obliged to help spur destruction on the massive scale we’ve seen in Iraq (a war the Israeli leadership lobbied for vocally, across party lines), Syria (where Israel is directly supporting the scum of humanity), Libya and Yemen, along with the spillover of desperate people from these regions into Europe with all its attendant horrors—well then the reasons why, e.g., the apparently endless sense of victimhood and entitlement of organized Jewry, no longer matter. A faction that cannot envision an attainable end, nor even a plausible reason for an end to its imposition on others simply has no future.

 

(*a phrasing for which I must credit the conservative Catholic historian E. Michael Jones)

Don’t trust this Charlatan

 

“Stay with me here for a minute. I’m going to tell you something that sounds crazy….” Wow-just-wow. This is how they keep you in the Matrix, alt-reichateers, superfluously reveling in the soy-laden tears these kinds of non-events always provoke.

Scott Adams is an admitted hypnosis aficionado who has books and speaking engagements to sell. He knows that Kanye West is a typically impressionable, egomaniacal boogie with a huge Twatter following, who will retweet the living shit out of any smarty-pants cracka who tosses his salad a little; and that the pyramid-scheme caliber of people who follow him will be the first to fall for this shit-tier faux-esoteric slight of hand. If Kanye West is “bringing you the golden age”—on Twitter, “altering reality” and “helping people break out of their mental prisons,” then not only are we dealing with prisons within prisons within prisons, but we’re well past the Golden Age. We missed it, we have to get off at the next stop and walk back a few miles, and what we’ll be looking for is Mad Max Does Johannesburg, where the wife and kiddo get crucified by we-wuz-kangs and the protagonist gets gang raped.

Gaying Away the Prey, Part Trois

IMG_2829.JPG

an allegory of the power of acceptance

(Part 1 here, Part Deux here)

We’ve all heard the refrain:

“There’s no such thing as pure homo- or hetero- sexuality, because sexual preference is spectral, rather than a set of fixed categories.”

The problem with this assumption is that it treats man as monolithic, rather than as a complex suite of sometimes harmonious, sometimes competing impulses and imperatives arising from both genetics (including epigenetics) and environmental (including social) conditioning.

For example, I sometimes have thoughts of self-harm. These thoughts do not arise in response to social situations where I’m upset with myself or with someone else. They hit me quite out of the blue, every several weeks, and I find them momentarily quite disturbing, but basically tolerable. This has been going on for decades, and my theory is that these thoughts reflect my fear of real possibilities, with my brain’s fear-centers overzealously doing their job by magnifying them into eventualities, then taking the additional step of telling me to rip the proverbial band-aid clean off. I’ve never acted on these thoughts—as I mentioned, I find them disturbing, but not the least bit compelling.

Does this make me someone who is prone to self-harm? If those categories are spectral and not fixed, where do I fall on the spectrum? Supposing we all—every member of the species—harbor such thoughts in varying degrees. If the vast majority of us don’t experience them as compelling but find them revolting, never act upon them, and harbor a consistent and far stronger sense of imperative not to commit them, would it still be fair to say that we’re all relatively prone to self-harm, and that no truly fixed categories exist in this regard? Even if it were a true statement, would it be a fair or practically actionable one?

The mythologist Joseph Campbell recounts an ancient Persian myth about a couple who were so enamoured of their toddler offspring that they ate them, and were punished for it by the gods. Abraham, the patriarch of three religions, turned his bastard son and the boy’s mother out to die in the wilderness, and was ready to sacrifice his only heir. Anyone who is minimally self-aware and honest with themselves surely realizes that a great many unspeakable primordial impulses are latent in us, from murder, rape and incest to scapegoating, witch hunting and child sacrifice, but we only categorize people by those impulses who experience them frequently, with deep viscerality, and find them compelling. So pure heterosexuality exists as surely as people who don’t eat their young aren’t child-eaters.

Another problem with this refrain about sexuality being spectral and therefore not truly amenable to standard categorization is that it’s as much a rationale as a plain finding. In any case, the only time anybody feels the need to point it out strictly in regard to non-normative orientations is when they’re trying to assure themselves that they’re normal, (i.e., only a closeted dude who’s in bed with Larry ever says, “You know, there’s no such thing as a true homo, Larry.”) Like Tony Montana’s “Say goodnight to the bad guy” monologue in Scarface, the criminal likes to remind everyone else that in principle they’re no better than he is. Only after you’ve stolen something do you start to ask yourself, “Well, what is theft, really?”

But just as we all harbor certain icky, primordial impulses to some degree, our revulsion toward what we innately feel is repulsive in others is informed by what we ourselves feel ashamed of.

That’s why gay pride parades and now Pride Month are backed by Fortune 100 companies that sponsor compulsory diversity and sensitivity training. It’s why every elite-astroturfed media outlet machinates conspicuously to expose audiences to non-normative sexuality, and why California passed a law in 2012 requiring public schools to teach about “LGBT Americans” in every grade from K through 12. What’s good doesn’t require that anyone be convinced to accept it—other than a colonoscopy.

Shards of a Once-Thunderous Testimony

Screen Shot 2018-02-23 at 11.46.52 PM

Dr. Elsa Schneider

Just fuck me

Make me believe that you’re desperate for my touch and I’ll do anything

Drive my broken soul to a cubicle farm, cart dead bodies out of trailer parks

Wait tables, develop commercial estimates

Provide consistently excellent customer service

We’re given this fleeting breath of life in order to give testimony to the angels

to the gears of eternity

and stymied and chastised and beaten that we might preserve a last glimmer of defiance

I wanted to be a soldier, a stevedore, a shepherd, a coulda-been-a-contender

to give my gaze to Istanbul

and the source of the mighty river

But I gave myself—

a gargoyle, a shattered Jerusalem, a promise of silks—

to you

To lay my dreams upon your sacrificial alter

and bind your flaxen sheaf

and love you just a little longer