Category Archives: Alt-Rightgeist

Reductio ad Iudaeoram: Conclusion

harvey-weinstein-serious

Comes in handy

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

Back in the mid-aughts I was sitting around one weekend with a friend—also Jewish—smoking something stupid and watching one of the hundreds of conspiracy documentaries then mushrooming on the new-fangled YouTube. Up until that time, my conception of Jewish success was that it vaguely confirmed my belief in divine election. But due to events like 9/11, the NSA spying scandals and the 2007 financial crisis it was starting to become painfully clear that the height of success in America is something profoundly dark, and that one’s ethnic group being extra-specially implicated in it can be a very bad thing.

At one point during the documentary my friend turned to me and asked, “How are we supposed to cope with the fact that we come from a race of deceivers?”

What evolutionary biology considers success can be very dangerous from an Epicurean standpoint—and it’s true that a relatively high proportion of powerful assholes are Jews. I wouldn’t discourage anyone, Jew or Gentile, from shying away from this topic per se. But I don’t buy my friend’s supposition.

If—God forbid—a priest rapes an alter boy, do we say that this reflects on Catholicism fundamentally? On the contrary, we would assume such behavior goes against the tenets of Catholicism. Yet it happens with horrifying frequency. And what about a WASP senator who takes kickbacks from corporate fat-cats? Even the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan would have to concede indubitably that a nigger stick-up artist is not behaving the way his momma taught him to. Yet Jews can’t often manage comparable generosity with ourselves. So how can we expect better from anybody else?

Honor, from a diaspora Jewish perspective, is always a matter of living down yiddishkeit, of disproving some dirty stereotype. But what if it’s the baseline?

I live in a city that has a major crime problem. My neighborhood is full of feckless little cop-callers. No robbery committed here has ever been prevented or solved by the police, yet out of some forty households in the immediate vicinity, only myself and one other neighbor have ever had the gumption to confront people casing houses or breaking into vehicles. I’ve done so five times in the last three years, at tremendous risk to my legal and physical safety. In none of those cases was my household specifically being targeted, thank God.

Most recently I intervened to stop a couple of very large, menacing, tattooed boys from hot-wiring the truck of a neighbor who dislikes me intensely and actually tried to fuck me over badly on a separate occasion (we had an altercation over some noise he was making late at night, he hit me and then pressed charges saying I hit him—luckily a third neighbor witnessed the whole thing and testified in my defense.) In any case, I didn’t think before acting to prevent him being robbed. I ended up firing a warning shot out of split-second calculation that the gun itself was not sufficient deterrence. Not only did I stick my neck out physically, I committed a felony, and it was only by the grace of God that none of the several sets of security cameras various neighbors have invested in caught footage sufficient to positively identify me, because several of them called the cops (who showed up two hours later) to report a gunshot, and at least one provided the police with video footage.

The point is, every bit of what I did to defend my neighborhood was yiddishkeit—I acted 100% out of Judaism. What is Judaism, in this case? I was taught growing up that if you let your fellow be abused, you’re next. That if you accommodate a bully whatsoever, he owns you wholly. That if you cower behind third-party protection, you’re worthless. None of these notions are exclusive to Jewish identity as it was taught to me by male relatives, but all of them are crucial to it, even if many Jews eschew this outlook or oppose it. Yes, their outlook is also a species of Judaism, but no culture or creed is one-dimensional. In fact, at root Judaism is an heroic creed. This is not just apparent in the Bible, but is testified to by the activity of Jews in militaries and dangerous occupations all over the world. I personally have been in the Israeli army and worked in EMS in the states. So why is my attitude and behavior always seen as the exception, by Jew and Gentile alike?

Because a lie repeated enough times becomes self-fulfilling. “The Jews are particularists, Europeans are universalists.” I saw that for the umpteenth time the other day, on a comment thread—a variation of an old meme. Kevin MacDonald is fond of it, as are his many acolytes. But the suggestion that there’s nothing in the way of universal ethics in the Hebrew Bible or the Talmud—or that the regimes and cultures of European antiquity meet this standard as a rule, not an exception—is so willfully sub-literate it’s embarrassing to address. Besides, no one who calls himself a “white nationalist” has grounds to preach universality. No one really has grounds to preach universality. If you’re some great, ostentatious humanitarian, you probably have a trust fund, or are too ugly to mate with. Perhaps that explains why so many ugly people are such great humanitarians.

Take this Harvey Weinstein case, for example. Big progressive, big gun control freak. Control freak, period. So none of these rape allegations are the least bit surprising. Powerful men of every background do much worse than going after adult females without consent, and it goes without saying that not one percent of the commentators who’ve been animated by these revelations all week gave a rat’s ass last week when these were open secrets, because they all know that Hollywood stardom has got to be the most venal pursuit on the planet: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yet somehow, the yiddishkeit of the perp did not escape the attention of many who indulged in this cheap schadenfreude. A half-dozen gentile blue-blood dynasties have had the country over a barrel since reconstruction, but a yid striver who came from nothing is what gets the alt-right’s panties in a twist. Of course, who’s fucking who is always a hot topic for the involuntarily celibate, and the alt-right would be as livid about a handsome yid getting consensual pussy as they are about the fishmongeresque Harvey Weinstein taking coercive measures, so you can’t fault them for inconsistency. But as if the usual flock of low IQ/high JQ parakeets wasn’t enough, even the disgusting little leftist naval-gazers over at Tablet Magazine got in on the action—in the finest tradition of Jewish self-abnegation and with the originality of an Oscar Meyer wiener, citing their repulsive, overrated fellow naval-gazer Philip Roth as inspiration to project all their horrible little fetishistic inadequacies onto Judaism itself and the Jewish people as a whole.

Of course, you may assume at this point that I’m defending Harvey Weinstein. But the truth is, I want to submit myself for consideration, here and now, with no ambiguity, as one of Harvey Weinstein’s foremost victims. Not only did Harvey try to fuck me, he lied about it. That’s right: Harvey Weinstein has been trying to disarm me for well nigh a decade. And yet he went on the Howard Stern show a few years back and stated that he’d exec produced Inglorious Basterds because “I like the idea of Jews with guns.”

With landsmen like these, who needs Amalek?

But who is Harvey Weinstein, really? We know that he is amoral, but I would suggest that he is foremost a man who is living in fear.

This may seem counter-intuitive: Harvey Weinstein, living in fear? What fear? The man’s an oligarch. He hobnobbed with world leaders. Until last month he was perhaps the most powerful man in Hollywood. Clearly, he didn’t see his downfall coming, nor did he appreciate its magnitude initially. So what fear could he possibly have been living in?

First of all, as a powerful man, the fear of rivals and fear for his profits. That goes without saying. Second, and most obvious nowadays, the fear of his behavior being uncovered. This was true not just regarding the perversion, but in general, as a filmmaker who tried to put together a Weinstein biopic found out the hard way some years ago. Moreover, as an oligarch—someone who is complicit in the ongoing plunder of the country by the upper crust—he must’ve harbored some trepidation about regular people. That would certainly explain his fixation on the NRA, given that organization’s rank-and-file.

Significantly, in this connection, Weinstein—as a Jew, but also as a wealthy man and a libertine—was deeply fearful of Christianity, certainly (and of course out of all proportion to its reality) as a political force but also, more than likely, as a set of ethical propositions. (Alan Watts once remarked that no religion or ethical system is more fixated on sexual mores than Christianity). After all, Christianity has had a tremendous influence on what Jews feel they have to answer for, particularly in the modern era with regard to questions of citizenship and belonging. But fear of Christianity and fear of God are two different things, especially for a Jew, and if there was one fear that Harvey Weinstein undoubtedly lacked, it was the fear of God Almighty.

As a Hollywood honcho, he wouldn’t be the first: Jewish studio heads in 1930s tinsel town were so venal that they cooperated extensively with the Nazis—going so far as to violate a nationwide boycott organized by American Jews, Catholics and trade unionists—in order to preserve their access to the German movie market. In 2010, Weinstein somewhat continued this tradition by bankrolling and promoting the most unsympathetic portrayal of Israel to ever emerge from a mainstream media organ in the United States, going so far as to screen it at the UN General Assembly (a first for any Hollywood film), telling a reporter that Israelis needed to understand the Palestinian narrative in order that peace might come to the middle east. The missionary hubris of American poobahs accustomed to wielding persons like marionettes (and sexually assaulting them) seems to express itself occasionally in the questing for mideast peace. What is interesting in Weinstein’s case is that so pugilistic, in-your-face a yid could show more forbearant solicitude for his people’s mortal enemies than he ever has for American Christians who’ve never lain a hand on any Jew. What could be behind such self-abnegation?

The simple fact is, a man who doesn’t live in fear and love of the Almighty is going to live in fear and love of many other less worthy things. This is a huge problem for the Jewish people, and Harvey Weinstein’s just the berg of the ice-tip.

The late Edgar Bronfman was a Canadian liquor magnate who devoted his life to pro-Israel lobbying and Jewish philanthropy. His remains the name most strongly associated with Jewish philanthropy in the diaspora. In 2003, a wave of suicide bombings was hitting Israel. Where was Bronfman’s head at?

This is what he told reporters at the time:

If the Palestinian suicide bombers only went to the settlements and told the whole world [the settlers] were wrong, then the whole world would have had a case against Israel, and there would be a two-state solution by now. Instead, they sent [the bombers] into Israel proper, which is ghastly.

Killing Israeli settlers—not ghastly? Maybe I’m missing something. Let’s deconstruct this a bit. A major leader of diaspora Jewry takes it upon himself to advise Israel’s enemies which Jews to kill, because he wants to better enable them to turn the whole world (“making a case”) against Israel, so as to effect the “two-state solution” in the name of which Harvey Weinstein would screen anti-Israel propaganda at the UN a decade later?

Well, what is this two-state solution? Can Bronfman have seriously believed that sacrificing the advance-guard is the way to preserve the rear echelon? Perhaps I’ll let someone better qualified speak to the matter:

If Israel were to relinquish the West Bank, 80 per cent of its population and most of its industry would be within range of light artillery, mortars and even rifles positioned on the high ground of the Samarian and Judean ridges. These ridges cannot be effectively demilitarized or adequately inspected…. Those who claim that modern military technology has made obsolete the need for critical terrain are simply spouting ignorance. As weapons of war become more sophisticated these factors assume a greater and not a lesser importance…

Air defence radar situated on the [West Bank] affords the Israeli Air Force approximately 15 minutes’ warning time in the event of air attack. Without these installations, the IAF would only have about four minutes in which to scramble its fighters. [Furthermore,] no amount of electronic gadgetry could possibly substitute for control of in-place defences against guerrilla forces infiltrating across torturous borders. Between 1949 and 1967 the IDF devoted much of its resources against [such] infiltration. That these efforts were essentially not successful is clearly attested by the large number of Jews killed and wounded and property damage sustained during this period.

As I’ve argued here before: these are the expert analyses of disinterested military professionals, known to US policymakers since 1967. There’s an obvious inference to be made from them: that the moment Israel accepts a two-state solution, its viability, i.e., the lives of its people, becomes wholly dependent on feckless outside brokerage. How well has that worked out for other US collaborators? For the Jews? Consequently, Israel negotiates only in bad faith; it relinquishes territory only under immense outside pressure. As the Christian deity is purported to have told one Nicodemus: does an elder of Israel not know these things? Hello? Anybody? Bronfman? Bronfman? Because…. while clearly this schlub had the best of intentions, he really didn’t know these things—he, a man who devoted his life to Jewish causes. Ain’t that some shit? What could possibly explain it? I’m at a loss.

Perhaps we’ll glean better insight from an additional case study. Exhibit B is Atlantic assistant editor and former Israeli army MP, Jeffery Goldberg, inarguably the most actively, overtly pro-Israel major journalist at any mainstream American news outlet. Goldberg wrote a book about his experience as a young man in the Israeli army, and a friendship he developed there with a Palestinian who came under his supervision as part of his military police duties. It’s called Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide. The tone-deafness of the title (equating a gaoler with his charge) is bad enough. But here’s a bit from the NY Times review:

Rafiq Hijazi [is] the Muslim of the book’s title. The story of their unusual and complicated friendship is at the core of Prisoners, weaving its way through the narrative like a serpentine question mark. It begins with their meeting in 1991 at Ketziot, the Israeli prison filled with thousands of Palestinians arrested during the first Intifada. Rafiq (Fatah-affiliated and deeply religious) was Goldberg’s ”favorite” prisoner. ”I wanted to make Rafiq my friend,” he says. ”I liked that he had the dispassion of an analytical academic in a place notable for its absence of thought. He also had an open-mindedness that to me was a clear sign of inner benevolence.” After their first conversation—separated by a fence—Goldberg had ”a feeling of connection. It was a strange and traitorous feeling, but it was also a true feeling, and it was accompanied by a satisfying frisson of danger and dissent.”

He could be describing an illicit love affair. Except, more than once, and increasingly so as their relationship is tested against the backdrop of violent political developments, it appears to be a case of unrequited love—Rafiq does not seem to be in need of their friendship. They continued to meet, over many years, in different places: at Rafiq’s parents’ home in Gaza, in Washington, where they both lived with their wives and where Rafiq was completing a Ph.D. in statistics, later in Abu Dhabi. There were also frequent long breaks between their meetings, especially after Rafiq—who, Goldberg tells us, had become a fundamentalist—announced that he would not demonstrate against suicide bombings or when he said that if he had to kill his friend, ”it wouldn’t be personal.”

Goldberg is invariably the one to make the next approach: ”I was raised to search out the familiar in the stranger, on the theory that we are all alike. I looked for the familiar in Rafiq, and found it.” The almost pathetic one-sidedness of this friendship, the need to be accepted, liked and understood not only by Rafiq but by other, less moderate political enemies (”I was fascinated by them”) would be almost moving if it didn’t point so obviously back to the old trauma of the rejection by the anti-Semitic bullies in that Long Island playground. Beneath the physical pain and the humiliation, there was always the perennial Jewish question: Why don’t they like me?

Of course, Rafiq doesn’t have this problem. Rafiq has a proper fear of God and a respect for his place in the natural order, as an Arab and a Muslim. His “analytic academic’s dispassion” is a tool, not a ball-and-chain.

But when the pillar of one’s identity has been an object of ruthless, near-universal execration for centuries at a stretch, it becomes an inherent shonda that results in an American Jew, who has the pride and the nerve to enlist in the IDF, nevertheless running home to author a faggoty paean to his would-be murderer. He wanted so badly to “become an Israeli”, but all he needed to do was starch his proverbial shirt a little and there’d have been no need to be anybody but who he is, free and clear, and comfortable. The lesson that Goldberg should’ve taken from Rafiq Hijazi is that it’s possible to confront an enemy dispassionately. For when we harbor a proper respect for God’s ultimate discretion, we don’t need to go chasing power like Harvey Weinstein, or acceptance, like Jeffrey Goldberg, or peace, like Edgar Bronfman—because we’ll know that, as much as possible, we already have it.

 

 

Advertisements

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. IV

Grounded by self-loathing

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

One upshot to the profusion of online Hitler sympathy this past decade is that it shows how brittle American liberal indoctrination really is, despite its insidiousness. Of course, it also shows that older habits tend to die harder.

To wit: every now and again some earnest little yid blogger pokes his head up on an alt-right podcast and tries to explain that we’re not all that bad—while agreeing that indeed, we are all that bad. Contrition itself is supposed to be a point in the Jews’ defense.

Now, if anyone’s experience tells them that Jews tend to be oily, pushy, loud, verbose, solipsistic, dissembling and cheap, well…. They can join the club: so does mine (although only the first five apply to me). But when we refer here to anti-semitism, what we mean is the full-retard pamphleteering variety:

710full-seinfeld-screenshot

There may be human types that experience tells us to be wary of, and so we are—end of story. Self-defense, after all, is a dish best served sparingly, and cold. But for the full-retard anti-ZOG pamphleteer, that isn’t enough. Instead, they feel compelled to go on and on uncovering and examining evidence, rationalizing their suspicions, promulgating their findings, convincing and re-convincing themselves.

A self-proclaimed wise man (we’ll discuss him here, momentarily) once said that a people that’s been persecuted for 2,000 years is doing something wrong. A certain Luke would beg to differ that being persecuted necessarily means you’re in the wrong, but he didn’t much like Jews, either. In any case, a people that beats those kinds of odds has also got to be doing something right.

So you might think it would be worthwhile for the Jews’ own sake to at least engage with our worst critics and try to learn something from them; that conceding part of their argument signals transparency and introspection that might be reciprocated. In certain isolated cases that may be correct. But such nuanced public hesitance to fully recognize an enemy as an enemy can only play as sycophancy and, as Jabotinsky once noted, a man who’s ever-willing to turn out his pockets and consent to a search is only liable to elicit suspicion and scorn. Indeed, when you reach out to full-retard anti-semites (lots of those abroad in the world nowadays) what you’re almost invariably going to find is that the burden of proof falls exclusively upon you. Your every overture is taken both as subterfuge and servility. Your every word short of utter self-abnegation amounts to proof of incorrigibility, no matter what you’ve conceded. There is literally nothing to prove to these types.

In the comments section of our last installment I got into a dust-up with a pair of them. Their M.O. is to harp all the time on yids and yiddishkeit as an unparalleled pox, devote a whopping proportion of their blogs (or whatever materials) to the complicity of Jews in systems of power, and when you point out that this is myopic, they howl that you’re mischaracterizing their views, because of course there are other factors in play—and they never denied it.

Again, you may presume that openness to debate with these types is healthy, that you share alt-right or far-left concerns about the complicity of Jews in systems of power you oppose, but that’s never how anti-semites see you, and the only effective way to deal with ridicule and execration is to ignore it or give it right back. Full-retard anti-semitism (right or left) is not about opposing systems of power per se; rather, it is the vocation of finding fault with yidden. It’s a manichaean template that confers total absolution from shame, and earnestness is poison when you’re dealing with a shameless interlocutor. As soon as you give him the time of day, you’re taking on all the shame in the equation.

Take, for example, the following aside (~29:00-30:00) from alt-right agitator Mike Enoch on an episode of The Daily Shoah podcast. He’s talking about the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm:

We had this conversation today where we were talking about Larry David, that fucking stupid show where he runs around being Jewish…. and someone [some fellow anti-semite] was like, ‘Oh no, but it’s hilarious because he’s so Jewish [that] he’s fucking over even other Jews.‘ And I’m like, yeah, but at some point I just want to be done with this Jewish psychological shit, I don’t want to be sucked into this world of the Jewish fucking inner turmoil, I just want to be done with it.

Um…. excuse me? You guys are the ones with a three-times weekly podcast called The Daily Shoah (“shoah”=Hebrew for holocaust) that’s going on its 200th episode at 2+ hours apiece, and in every single one, you discuss Jews at length. No schtick fatigue? I get that plutocrats and media mandarins are disproportionately Jewish, that such power ought to be accessible to satire, and I admire the alt-right’s irreverence, but…. You “want to be done“? The fuck outta here. What would you even do with yourselves at that point?

Someone who claims to have caught a whiff of sulfuric old Beelzebub is liable to be reminded that whoever smelt it dealt it. Yet the self-flagellating little yid blogger guest on the podcast ends up agreeing with Enoch about yiddishkeit in showbiz: “Right, this is 2% of the population, why is this the thing that’s being constantly put in front of us?” I don’t know, why are there so goddamned many steers in Texas? In the words of the great Marshall McLuhan: if you’re seeing it, it’s for you. Someone got you straightjacketed to a theater seat? Lots of options what to watch nowadays. Last I checked, HBO is premium cable. So I’ve heard a lot of anti-semitic tropes in my day, but as these things go, “wanting to be done with the Jewish inner turmoil” that’s “sucking me in” is revealingly bizarre.

Speaking of Jewish inner turmoil, in our last couple installments we learned, via blogger Henry Makow (a deeply conflicted Jew) about the global Satanic bankers’ conspiracy. We conceded that in all likelihood such a thing exists (more or less) and asked: who in the hell would be in favor of it? Well, we happen to know of a handful of eminently likely candidates. As it happens, one of the more prominent is a Jew: Henry Kissinger.

Like any essential characteristic, Jewishness is utterly intractable—once deposited, it cannot be withdrawn. But that doesn’t mean you have to like it. So what was ol’ Heinrich’s take?

Ambivalence would be a generous way to describe it. The denigrating comments about the Jews that Kissenger has let slip over the years, particularly the ones on the Nixon tapes, are well known. There’s no question that on a number of occasions he leveraged his position in the Nixon administration to help Israel, but he had to be sneaky about it, and in any case, for the most part he disliked the Israelis intensely. They made yiddishkeit conspicuous—they just didn’t share his abashedness. Kissinger, on the other hand, was a Jew maneuvering in the WASP power structure of a WASP society, and he felt the need to live his yiddishkeit down. In fact, he was so conspicuous with these efforts that in 1976 he was actually excommunicated by the supreme rabbinic body in the United States.

What kind of miserable creature evinces no pride—evinces shame—in his own essential characteristics? As his Nixon administration colleague John Ehrlichman (the son of a German-Jewish convert to Christian Scientism) put it, “For Kissinger, being Jewish was a vulnerability as he saw it, and he was not fond of being vulnerable.” Evidently, Kissinger was after power, immense power, and he got it, at the cost of some self-abnegation. It is the position of this blog that compromise on fundamentals is never worthwhile, but no one can deny that Henry Kissinger has been living quite well this past half-century.

Indeed, other Jewish-descended Americans in comparable positions of power have abnegated their heritage to a much higher degree. President Reagan’s half-Jewish defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger—who identified conspicuously as an Episcopalian—was widely regarded as hostile to Israel, and turned out to be instrumental in brokering a deal that crippled Israeli defense aerospace independence (although his Jewish deputy Dov Zakheim played a role in this as well). Nixon’s defense secretary, James R. Schlesinger, a Jewish-born convert to Lutheranism, went so far as to oppose Nixon’s re-supply of Israel during the 1973 War, the moment of greatest mortal danger to the Jewish state as a whole in all of its history. It can be argued that Jewishness represents a conflict of interest that necessitates these kinds of exculpatory gestures on the part of American Jews, but revulsion for one’s own kind is never a healthy sign.

 

 

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. III

We are all Palestinians

(Part I here, Part II here; Part IV here, Part V here)

Almost all Palestinians who fink on other Palestinians to the Israeli security services do so in a limited manner under some form of duress. At worst, they do it for money. Mosab Hassan Yousef, on the other hand, is the only Palestinian to have betrayed his people wholesale, and voluntarily. This is typical: most peoples can count their historic traitors on one hand. After all, betraying us won’t make you one of them. It only nullifies you.

Essential human qualities—those that come from before—are intractable. Others define them for us. The best we can do is to live out the verdict with dignity. Do Jews tend to manage this very well? I’d laugh, but there’s a stabbing pain in my ribcage.

In our previous installment, we were introduced to one Henry Makow, a Jew who, though he isn’t exactly an apostate, feels anything but warm and fuzzy about his heritage. Mr. Makow runs a conspiracy webzine where he alleges that, because (1) prominent Jews and Jewish interests are complicit in a global Satanic bankers’ conspiracy, (2) conspicuous Jewish opposition to that conspiracy would conciliate anti-semitism. Leaving aside certain matters of detail, I’ll readily concede the first of his two contentions. What about the second one?

Well, we know for a fact that there is indeed conspicuous Jewish opposition to the planetary managerial class. There are Jews who denounce the powers that be, in part or in whole. There are Jewish conspiracy theorists of Makow’s ilk. There are even Jews who beat their breasts conspicuously, denounce Zionism wholesale and condemn Jewishness and Judaism in all its forms but the most prophetical, pusillanimous and pacifistic.

Does any of this ameliorate anti-semitism? Of course not. Anti-semitism is the conviction that Jewishness itself is immutable and fundamentally odious. From that perspective, Jewish opposition to any or all of the powers that be, and even to Zionism, is taken as strategic retreat, controlled opposition or ethnic obfuscation; a Jew’s every word short of utter self-abnegation equals dissembling, or proof of incorrigibility—for chrissakes, that’s Internet 101.

For a good illustration of this logic, I’ve dug up an article from an alt-right blog called Aryan Skynet, entitled “Global Rat-Perch: Jewish Misdirection in the Work of Michel Chossudovsky.”

Chossudovsky is an academic and the editor of an anti-war, anti-neoliberal web journal called Global Research. The authors of the article first commend Chossudovsky for his anti-war reporting, but they take him to task for his analysis of Israeli involvement in Western imperialism, which they feel is overly lax toward Israel:

Chossudovsky acknowledges the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and its collusion with the U.S.; but, for him, “Tel Aviv is not a prime mover” for intervention against Iran and “does not have a separate and distinct military agenda” from that of the Pentagon. Israel, for Chossudovsky, is only “part of a military alliance” – practically a pawn – that might “be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of world opinion, a military intervention of the U.S. and NATO with a view to ‘defending Israel’, rather than attacking Iran.”

“Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent. Hence the importance,” Chossudovsky avers, “of the so-called ‘Green Light’ legislation in the U.S. Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attack on Iran.”

“In practice,” he continues, “the proposed legislation was a ‘green light’ to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel” and “constitutes a rubber stamp to a U.S.-sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a…. pretext.”

Of course, if that ever happens, the gentlemen at Aryan Skynet will immediately cease scoffing at the possibility and promptly develop amnesia. But it’s perfectly plausible that the US inner-elite has long term plans involving the removal of the present Iranian regime, that their reasons are different from Israel’s, and that Israel is the junior—and more malleable—party to the partnership. If so, then it’s obvious that Iranian aggression toward Israel will be the most likely pretext for US action. But that’s not what Chossudovsky is alleging.

The authors are correct that Chossudovsky ignores manifest Israeli interests when it comes to Iran—that’s because he doesn’t even credit the Israelis with having their own interests. When a leftist yid doesn’t recognize Jewish power, it’s because he’s not terribly interested in Jewish power. Instead, he’s mired in moralism and victimology:

The real culprits, Chossudovsky alleges, are the “Anglo-American oil giants.”

“The U.S.-led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world’s reserves of oil and natural gas.” The best the professor can produce in the way of evidence for his claim is a Clinton-era National Security Statement citing the strategic interest of the U.S. in ensuring the security of Middle East oil reserves.

Well, that’s not bad evidence, and if it’s all Chossudovsky cites, it doesn’t mean there’s no additional evidence of long-term US geostrategic designs on the Eurasian landmass and its natural resources, designs to which Israeli concerns would obviously be subordinate. But if the authors of this critique can’t recognize Gentile powers and the interests of those parties, it’s because they, too are mired in moralism and victimology:

Dr. James Petras and Muhammad Idrees Ahmad have already lain this lamestream liberal canard to rest. “Through its all-out campaign in the U.S. Congress and Administration,” Petras observes in his book The Power of Israel in the United States, “the U.S.-Jewish-Israeli lobby has created a warlike climate which now goes counter to the interests of all the world’s major oil companies including BP, the UK-based gas company, SASOL (South Africa), Royal Dutch Shell, Total of France, and others.” Chossudovsky is not unaware of the work of Dr. Petras; he is simply engaging in racial and ideological obfuscation.

The oil companies—victims of ethnic obfuscation! I guess that’s one industry not controlled by yids.

Clearly, the authors mistake the mere existence of a counter-argument for a refutation. But if they can detect a dearth of evidence behind Chossudovsky’s claims, why can’t they extend the same incredulity to Petras? Anti-semitism is a deeply cultural legacy. Is a scholar of Catholic background less subject to such biases than the Jew, Chossudovsky? His blood be upon us and upon our children….

Anybody? Bueller?

As for the putatively authoritative role of the U.S. Congress that Chossudovsky cites as evidence of Israel’s lack of agency in America’s foreign policy agenda, that is only a sickening joke in consideration of the fact that those in the know have for decades acknowledged that Israel’s U.S. lobby, AIPAC, grips the House and Senate.

Lemme get this straight: a whore can’t have more than one regular customer? But Chossudovsky doesn’t say Congress is authoritative, he says they gave a rubber stamp.

In any case, Israel’s total GDP was $318.7 billion last year; ExxonMobile’s net worth is $486.4 billion. If the latter’s exertions in lobbying Congress (or those of the aerospace defense industry, or any of the myriad interests behind American imperialism) are less conspicuous than Israel’s, maybe it’s because no intrepid scholars specialize in publishing salacious broadsides characterizing them as the one sinister key to understanding global politics. But speaking of “lack of agency,” if the US enjoys effective veto power over Israel’s most sensitive defense priorities, and Congress is not authoritative, then Israeli lobbying efforts in Congress indicate a rather desperate negotiating position, and the difference between US leverage over Israel (on the one hand) and Israeli influence on the US (on the other) is the difference between a nutsack and a pubic hair.

Reductio ad iudaeoram. It’s the unifying principle of the alt-right; at the street level of the Bush-era anti-war movement it was every part of the iceberg but the tip.

Certainly Aryan Skynet and Colin Kaepernick and George Lopez and Linda Sarsour and whoever keeps authoring all the “We need to talk about white males” clickbait are each aroused by some inchoate sense of life’s unfairness they were never warned about, and want to feel that there are readily identifiable culprits behind it. But if you’re eager to flatter your own intelligence with these monocausal analyses, and can’t tell the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, then no matter how eviscerating your psychoanalytic template may be (the work of Kevin MacDonald doesn’t entirely qualify, but we’ll get to that….), the party misdirecting you is not the obscure likes of a Michel Chossudovsky—it is you. Myopic, autonomic obscurantism: this is the danger of anti-semitism. If you think the JQ is the rug that really ties the room together, you’re easily impressed.

All this brings us to an obvious question we neglected earlier: who in the hell would be in favor of a Satanic bankers’ conspiracy, and what is their relationship to the Jews?

 

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. II

Gaydar hyperdrive

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

I would like to be wealthy, and in better shape. I certainly wouldn’t want to be homeless, or obese.

There are many things that I would like to be, and many things that I would not like to be, but to the extent that there’s anything essential in a human being, something that precedes him, what I want more than anything is to be exactly what I am. I would never want to not be what I am, or to be something else, because that would be a sign of illness.

I want to acquaint you, if you aren’t already familiar, with one Henry Makow, the proprietor of a ranty-ravey webzine concerned with exposing the Illuminati conspiracy, particularly its Jewish elements (Mr. Makow is a deeply conflicted Jew). Here is Mr. Makow’s take on anti-semitism:

Well, you cannot be a Christian if you’re involved in a Satanic conspiracy, but we know what Makow means by “Christian”: he means Gentiles. WASPs, to be precise, and probably also some descendants of traditionally Catholic ethnic groups. Once involved in a Satanic conspiracy, these people lose their essential (or vestigial) Christianity. The same cannot be said of Jewishness, of course, because Jews are a race. But if no one accuses Makow of being anti-WASP when he condemns the Rockefellers, it’s because Makow doesn’t conclude that the prominence of WASPs in this conspiracy implicates all WASPs—nor does he seem to view anyone but Jews as having a need to redeem their national reputation by opposing this conspiracy, even though he has said that the vast majority of Jews aren’t involved in it. Is Makow at least correct in assuming that opposition to it on the part of Jews would mitigate anti-semitism? Of course he isn’t.

Perhaps another exhibit will illustrate why not.

Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of a high-level Hamas operative, one who spent decades in Israeli prisons. He spent decades in Israeli prisons because his son ratted him out. You see, Mosab Hassan Yousef is known for defecting to Israel as an informant, and later immigrating to the United States, converting to Christianity, and authoring a tell-all about his experience, which he has promoted on various television shows.

To give you a very precise idea of where Mr. Yousef stands when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, here he is speaking before the UN Human Rights Council as they deliberate about one of their monthly or weekly resolutions condemning Israel:

Now, as a Zionist, I badly want to relish what Mr. Yousef is telling the committee—but I can’t.

It isn’t that what he says is not true—most of it is, and the part that is true constitutes a neglected message that needs to be heard loud and clear: the PLO is indeed a retrograde kleptocracy, thuggish even in comparison with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. But it is not “the greatest enemy of the Palestinian people,” that’s ridiculous. The greatest enemy of the Palestinian people is Israel, and Mosab Hassan Yousef may be right in every single one of his criticisms of Islam, the Arabs, and the various Palestinian factions. But when all is said and done, this is a man who betrayed his people, his family, his faith, and helped their mortal national adversaries imprison his own father. And now he lets himself be used as a marionette, because there’s no other kind of existence left for him but that of a stool pigeon.

As a Zionist, am I pleased that Yousef helped the Israeli authorities prevent attacks on Jews? Of course I am. I am very pleased by it, I’m even grateful to him. Yet when I look at Mosab Hassan Yousef, I can only feel total revulsion, because what I see is a faggot—and not just because of his textbook gayface. The simple fact is, Mosab Hassan Yousef is a worm, a complete betrayer, the type for whom Dante reserved the lowest circle of hell. We’re not talking about simple political betrayal, either—he’s not a North Korean who defected to the South. This guy betrayed his own blood, not just his family or his people but himself, his heritage, and everything that’s essential about him. As a Zionist, I can absolutely relate to a Palestinian irredentist who’s willing to bleed me bleach-white in the name of his worthy God and his lost homeland. I can respect that, even if I can’t tolerate it. But as much as I want to like him, a Mosab Hassan Yousef is intolerable to my soul.

 

 

 

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. I

Valerie Plame

Jewed for life

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

“What have the Jews not done to prove that they do not stick together?” (Menachem Begin)

This week witnessed media coverage of author and former CIA agent Valerie Plame, who provoked some controversy when she tweeted an article from Unz Review titled, “America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars.” Plame subsequently apologized and resigned in disgrace from a spook-tank called Ploughshares Fund.

Uncouth though she may have been, what’s interesting about this little kerfuffle is that Plame did nothing more than express the establishment position. Of course it can be a matter of degrees, but to assert in a major publication or on a university campus that Israel and her US supporters exercise critical, undue influence on US mideast policy has been uncontroversial for quite some time. I even recall an episode of The Simpsons making a joke to this effect as long ago as the late 1990s. (If I ever find the clip, I’ll hyperlink it.)

If, on the other hand, you really want to know who is running this country, how, and what for, it can be done with surprising ease. So too can Israeli meddling in US domestic affairs be explained with simple common sense: i.e., in order to mitigate overbearing US meddling in their affairs, the Israelis are leveraging the inertia of the American system just like other foreign actors, they just require more brainpower, man-hours and connections to accomplish what others can get done less conspicuously.

Somehow this escapes people, even just as a possibility—the tendency to think in terms of stark moral dichotomies is deeply ingrained. For example: in my hometown, I am known as a Zionist. My father’s family is Jewish, and as a youth I served in the Israeli army. High school classmates and family friends all thought that this was highly eccentric, and in a way I suppose it was. Well, after spending almost four years in Israel, I returned to the US for a year, at a time when Israel was making more headlines than usual, and I was often asked by otherwise very thoughtful people what compelling interest America could possibly have in sticking its neck out for Israel.

Think about the extent of training that impels people to interpret events in this manner. You have to assume at least some of the following: that the US power elite acts (1) altruistically, not just incidentally or as a pretext but in a fundamentally altruistic way; (2) that it acts as a unified whole; (3) that to the extent it can ascertain and arrive at consensus regarding its interests, it acts against them; (4) that except under extraordinary circumstances, the interests of the power elite approximate the interests of the citizenry; and (5) that the involvement of non-Jews in contravening those interests is incidental—as if the interests of American Jews differ significantly from those of the general public, and as though US Jews would tend on the whole to understand this well. Yet we know that their divorce, apostasy and exogamous marriage rates track well over 50%—not to mention childlessness and homosexuality—and poll data shows them expressing ambivalence (at best) about Israel and Zionism, and supporting Palestinian aspirations to statehood by margins of around 60%. So this idea that, due to Jewish pressure, an otherwise cohesive and sober American elite is sticking its neck out for Judaism with no corresponding ROI is pedestrian wisdom masquerading as radical, taboo and esoteric.

In any case, US aid to Israel accounts for about 0.7% of the overall US defense budget ($5 billion versus $640 billion annually). Zionism has as little to do with America’s wars as Lutheranism. The question is, why would that be so counter-intuitive for so well-informed an insider as Valerie Plame? She may only be a lackey, but she’s got to know a thing or two about how the system works.

According to her Twitter profile, “Valerie is a wife, mother of twins, author, anti-nuclear activist, and a former covert CIA ops officer.” In other words, she’s a legally blond soccer mom in the big city. Clearly none of her covert assignments can possibly have involved risking her life. What her CIA career likely involved instead were diplomatic intrigues and make-work analyses. But while nothing a CIA agent (former or otherwise) says can be taken at face value, it does seem as though Plame was very deliberate in tweeting the article. For one thing, she didn’t have to, and there was personal cost involved. In tweeting her subsequent mea culpa she pled ignorance of the article’s contents:

I skimmed this piece, zeroed in on the neocon criticism, and shared it without seeing and considering the rest. I missed gross undercurrents to this article & didn’t do my homework on the platform this piece came from.

This is not only implausible, but irrelevant. I mean, “undercurrents”? The headline reads “America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars.” In the same Twitter thread, Plame tweeted that, “in the past, I have also carelessly retweeted articles from this same site”—clearly she’s well aware of “the platform this piece came from.” Clearly, Plame wants to believe that America’s Jews are behind America’s wars. The question is, why?

Certainly Plame is no innocent lamb when it comes to America’s toxic impact in the world. You don’t even have to be a covert intel operative to know that Congress just proposed a $640 billion defense budget for 2018, a $37 billion increase over the Trump administration’s $603 billion request for the same year and a $57.3 billion increase over the Obama administration’s $582.7 billion defense budget for the prior year. America’s Jews are driving this?

If so, it hardly makes sense that Valerie Plame would condemn them for it, because she can hardly regard the US as anything but a force for good in spite of its all worts. To consider other possibilities would be to confess venality. Ms. Plame, after all, is a product and lifelong servant of the system, and it’s axiomatic that machiavellianism tends to fly under cover of sanctimony. So if resources are placed at the disposal of bad ideas on the basis of bad intelligence, it cannot be because the system itself is oriented toward evil ends—on the contrary, it can only be because some malevolent, alien element has corrupted the otherwise well-intended administration of this exceptional polity. There ought to be a law, a committee, a spirited public debate! But if that doesn’t change anything, then it’s the omelet itself and not this or that aspect of the egg-breaking that would have to be condemned, or condoned—and who’s got the decisiveness for that?

Much more convenient—and well-precedented—to blame the Jews wholesale. But Valerie Plame—neé Plamevotski—is kinda, sorta…. Jewish. What makes Jews denounce their own kind like this? It’s kind of a running phenomenon. Stay tuned for our next installment…..

 

 

 

The Face of Evil

fpr

Turning and turning in the loosening, uh…. gyre

I.

In college I took two semesters of honors Western Civ from an excellent and charismatic instructor who identified very strongly as a Catholic, but also as a dyed-in-the-wool and fairly doctrinaire progressive—not just egalitarian, internationalist, and socialist (which are consistent with Church teaching), but pro-abortion and pro-gay/trans (which aren’t).

On the last day of the second semester, an odd thing happened. By way of farewell, our instructor said some heartfelt words to the class, then recited WB Yeats’ “The Second Coming.” After he got done, he said, “This class is about the power of an idea whose time has come.”

Now, there’s no way to read “The Second Coming” as anything but cold-blooded reactionary, and stubbornly anti-Christian—so why should this man have given pride of place to a poem that goes directly against the twin prongs of his episteme? Was I missing something? I made a mental note. I happened to agree with Yeats, but I liked my professor so much that for years, the thought simply never occurred to me: everything Yeats regarded as evil, my professor thinks is good—so good that with full, shameless cognizance, he felt it not only appropriate but sage to press old William Butler’s prosecutorial brief, kicking and screaming, into the service of a criminal defense.

II.

My wife is Russian Orthodox Christian—irreligious, but wants our youngest son baptized. For her, the sacrament is a tradition that harkens to her ancestral past. But when we went to the nearest Russian Orthodox church for Sunday services, it was the future that confronted us. None other than a dredlocked and tattooed negro cantor was struggling to chant through the liturgy, in English, with the vituperative cadence of rap music. He regarded us, smirking through those swivel eyes capable of registering only suspicion, incomprehension and conceit, as if to say this tradition belongs to him as much as anyone—and of course, he’s right. His woman, also dredlocked, was standing in the front with a gaggle of frog-faced spawn, all dressed in the rastafarian frocks and flip-flops of those batshit nigger separatist cults that never really want to separate.

Clearly pleased with this painfully awkward specimen, the priest introduced him to us after services. By his adopted, pseudo-African name, of course. For (I suppose) he has his reward.

Specters of the Pedantic

volvo-jean-claude-van-dam

Not good enough

“Where is the life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” T.S. Eliot, Choruses from the Rock

“To the perceptive eye the depth of their degeneration was clear enough, but to those whose judgment of true happiness is defective, they seemed, in their pursuit of unbridled ambition and power, to be at the height of their fame and fortune.” Plato, Critias

Life is short, and Jason Reza Jorjani’s Prometheus and Atlas is long. However, I did have the recent good fortune of hearing a one-hour podcast interview of Jorjani with Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Radio, and the discussion was substantive enough to respond to.

There are three prongs to Jorjani’s thesis: a prediction about the future, a conjecture about the past, and an inference from ancient lore that kind of ties the first two together. He also makes extensive use of the term spectral to mean three things: the impending supersession of the Cartesian paradigm (and a blurring of the binary distinctions implied in it) by a more “spectral” episteme; the specter, or psychic dread, of the kind of protean trans-humanism this paradigm shift will give way to; and the daemonic forces or “specters” at the root of it all.

According to Jorjani, humanity stands on the precipice of a spectral revolution centered around ongoing scientific discoveries of clairvoyance and telekinesis. He gives an overview of the research in this area since the 19th century (by William James, the CIA, the Pentagon, Princeton’s Global Consciousness Project, and the Stanford Research Institute, among others), and poses the question of why it hasn’t already resulted in a spectral revolution.

Of course, there’s more than one possible reason, chief among them that the implications of this research aren’t all that Jorjani cracks them up to be. But the only possibility he concedes is the old Foucaultian Kool Aid, i.e., “the inextricability of systems of knowledge from structures of power.” We’re supposed to believe these spooky avenues of inquiry pursued for decades at a stretch and largely in secret by some of the most august personages and lavishly funded institutions in the country represent a threat to the powers that be. Well, so did the atom bomb, and we know who got first dibs.

Granted, the revolution Jorjani anticipates would reorder the exercise of political power as we know it, for as he explains, clairvoyance would threaten to obliterate privacy and secrecy, and the ability to foresee events would alter their manifestation. But Jorjani believes the spectral revolution will alter the order of power as well. How these capabilities will slip the grasp of present elites, who are obviously best positioned to cultivate them, he doesn’t make clear.

Of course, that doesn’t mean there are no extrasensory phenomena (though the production of ectoplasm Jorjani cites is real a knee-slapper, especially if you’re a South Park fan) nor that they may manifest from clairvoyant or telekinetic faculties that are latent in us, and around us. It just isn’t clear how these forces might be cultivated to the point of reliable application, benefit and malleability, without some equal and opposite pitfall arising. But if they can be, clearly the human type this will most empower is the one that is least restrained by conscience, just as psychological tactics are most effectively employed today by the least scrupulous sorts.

Jorjani is unperturbed by this, seeing his spectral revolution as the Nietzschean becoming of who we are. He describes the world our primeval forbears experienced as one of intrinsically meaningful things in places, rather than deconstructible objects in a grid of space-time, but these things aren’t mutually exclusive, at least not for the minimally astute and spirited (fewer and fewer of those nowadays, I’ll admit—perhaps the category doesn’t include intellectuals.) Besides, binary distinctions get made viscerally all the time, no abstraction required—so how would we experience meaning without them?

Jorjani references the apparent extrasensory faculties of animals and primitive man and conflates them with the psychical abilities he foresees being refined in us, describing them as technologies. This is where his term spectral may be particularly apt. Whereas technology is commonly thought to proceed from scientific theory, Jorjani sees the latter as a way of describing and rationalizing the order we already impose on the world with our technological endeavors, and he characterizes man (whose tendency is to impose this order on the natural world, augmenting his organic abilities by developing tools and techniques) as an inherently technological creature. Thus, according to Jorjani, technology itself, as something “more fundamental than science,” isn’t the real culprit in the attenuation of our primeval awareness, but the means by which this attenuation will be overcome and our latent powers of clairvoyance and telekinesis more fully actualized.

He then asserts flatly that there is no theoretical model that can accommodate the data on these phenomena, and that what this tells us is that scientific theory itself is a mere cognitive frame. Can this be so in all cases? Are there no degrees? If not, what would that make the “spectral revolution” itself but theatrical, postmodern luft?

But while this line of reasoning may be high-flown, in a way it doesn’t go far enough. In other words, if scientific theory invariably represents a mere cognitive frame, what species of knowledge, perception, and interaction with nature does not? Because there’s an obvious party (famously arraigned by Nietzsche) to the attenuation of our extrasensory instincts that’s missing from his consideration, namely language—the scarcely perceptible secondary categorization of the things we perceive. The most Jorjani says in this connection is that it’s possible some black swan such as a neurologic mutation took place in the fog of prehistory to attenuate our extrasensory faculties, but this would seem to call for less, not greater certitude about who we really are. It also suggests a sharp technical/pre-technical binary, and in any case it can’t be linguistic because even primitive tribes who still possess extrasensory faculties have language. (Jorjani relates a fascinating anecdote from British explorers about the clairvoyant abilities of South Seas aboriginals that’s too long to recapitulate here; my point is, these aborigines could also talk.)

Yet the characterization of man as a technological creature would serve to qualify language as a technology the way Jorjani uses the word—the refined outgrowth of some innate faculty, which we use to reorder nature and alter perception. Again, this complicates the picture of how we arrive at the kind of advancement Jorjani is predicting, given the fact that in many ways, instinct appears to be sharpest among the least intellectually developed communities of modern people. That’s why the bourgeoisie avoids the hood, right? And the aboriginals.

Jorjani’s thesis itself is spectral as well in another way he neglects to mention. That is its congruence with the symbology of secret societies and the prognostications of tech oligarchs like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and (especially) Ray Kurzweil. Of course, there will be a who and a whom: the political power that imminent technological breakthroughs are liable to impart—whatever they turn out to be—will not be wielded fairly, nor equally by all; not even close. At least Jorjani dispenses with this pretense, for while there’s a great deal of variance to these kinds of projections, Jorjani himself claims to stand at odds with the usual ideological commitments (i.e., liberal-democratic) professed by those who tend to make them (he has actually called himself a national socialist.) So on the surface, his thesis is less depressing than theirs, devoid of paternalistic public policy pablum, appealing instead to inner, organic sources of power as opposed to strictly outward, mechanistic ones. But on reflection, the world that Jorjani anticipates is as stripped of mystery and as dreadful in its utopian hubris as The Singularity, for what they both have in common is amorality.

This brings us to Jorjani’s take on comparative religions, daemons and his “specters of the titanic.” In short, he’s both a Zoroastrian and a Luciferian, claiming that Ahura Mazda, the titan Prometheus and the snake in the Garden of Eden all represent the light of knowledge and our consequent empowerment as a species that the Olympians, the jealous Old Testament God and sticklers for the Cartesian paradigm all wish to deny us. How Zoroastrianism of all things proposes to propel us beyond binaries is beyond my meager familiarity with the subject, but the notion of ever-expanding progress and improvement sounds awfully fatiguing and looks an awful lot like self-help charlatanry—or like tikkun olam, which is to say, carte blanche. He’s mistaken, as well, about the snake, which (as a creature that slithers along the ground) is symbolic of the matriarchal, earth-bound fertility cults of early agricultural societies. When man falls from Eden on account of his woman, he becomes a tiller. The Bible is suggesting that subjection to womanly wiles is a fate beneath man, not his just desserts. Thus, with his first inkling of knowledge Adam doesn’t discover fire nor invent the wheel but experiences shame—both a peculiar burden and a potent weapon of the female. The Jewish God may be highly peculiar, but he’s a virile sky deity (not a matriarchal earth deity) who opposes himself to the forces of self-abasement and cupidity. Adam’s original sin is putting hoes before bros, not knowledge before darkness.

Ironically, monotheism itself is spectral in that it obliterates sharp distinctions between spiritual forces. Sites, symbols, saints—nothing is truly sacred but the one. This conviction is at the root of Atenism, of Jewish aloofness from the classical world, of Islamic and Protestant aniconism, as well as the message that Christian missionaries imported throughout Europe in the early middle ages. To be sure, these are all legacies of intellectual repression, but also certain important advances, and the authors of the Hebrew Bible (who cherry-picked a lot from the pagan cultures around them) may not have subscribed so strictly to such a leveling ethos. Indeed, if we read a bit of tongue-in-cheek into Genesis—and recall in true pagan fashion that an act of creation is also an act of destructionGod seems to be flawed in quite the same way that man is. This is also what the snake represents in the creation story. If man is punished by God for defiance, that’s because it takes one to know one. We’re created in His image, after all, and if the snake is analogous to Prometheus, then it’s awfully strange that in the Greek version mankind is created in the latter’s image. But God’s Will is compromised in much the same way that ours is; it’s an act of negotiation with us. That’s why Abraham walks before God, and perhaps why Prometheus is able to challenge Zeus at all. So this is all far less restrictive than Jorjani’s take gives it credit for. These stories are symbols in the Greek sense, tokens, not abstractions. In other words, they aren’t vindictive admonishments, they’re take-it-or-leave-it insights into the ironclad human condition.

So the message of Genesis is not that exertion of the will or the pursuit of knowledge are wicked, but that they’re tempered by nature, because the ineluctable pull that novelty exerts on the human psyche lends itself to hubris and destruction. If Eden is not suited to our inclinations, neither is Babel hospitable to our constitution. One can even argue that the Bible is in favor of the cultivation of human intellectual capabilities, to which its God gives His blessing. Again, if we avoid reading Genesis too literally, we can see that Jacob, as Prometheus was to the Greeks, is the archetype of foresight, which Genesis portrays as key to human striving (as Jacob strives with an Angel and extracts a blessing) and a fundamental element that distinguishes reflective man from reflexive brute as represented by the archetype of Esau (and from sheer control-freak avarice as represented by Laban in the same several chapters of Genesis.)

Jorjani, on the other hand, holds up Drs. Faustus and Frankenstein as representative of the Promethean struggle for enlightenment. Once this struggle is won, then what? Wasn’t it Goethe himself who said that happiness consists in facing and overcoming difficulties? In any case, this would be an odd kind of enlightenment to extol, because Faust loses his mind and then tries to repent (at least in Marlowe’s version), while Dr. Frankenstein’s creation is repulsively deformed. It will be interesting to find out whether Jorjani addresses these inconsistencies in his book, but in the podcast they seem to elude his awareness.

Those who cast doubt on the possibility of knowledge due to its alleged inextricability from power dynamics seem to always view those dynamics as fixed, the antagonists perennial. For the postmodern left, this means the forces of goyische Ward Cleaver and Cecil Rhodes arrayed against hapless Emmett Till and Lenny Bruce (or something.) Jorjani inverts this dominant paradigm—pointing to the fact that Prometheus was chained by Zeus to a Caucasus mountain—to make his case that Prometheus is the god of the Caucasians, i.e., the Nordic races most in need (due to environmental exigencies) of fire, who’ve made the greatest intellectual and technological leaps lo these past several millennia. Of course, Greece, Italy and Persia aren’t the snowiest lands, and while the suggestion that the disproportionately Semitic forces of ressentiment and priestliness represent the perennial adversary of enlightenment is certainly truer to Nietzsche than the postmodern left, it’s equally oversimplified, and woefully….. binary. The formalist, the nihilist, the post-structuralist, etc. is never sincerely denying that higher truths exist and can be known—these theories simply exist as a pretext for the authority of arbiters and mandarins and know-it-alls. Hitler, for example, once posed the question of why man ought to be less brutal than nature, but it’s telling that (so far as we know) he farted through silk sheets for most of his time as chancellor, and was a vegetarian. So he wasn’t really speaking in general terms. He meant, why shouldn’t I be maximally brutal with my adversaries?

Ironically (for someone so power hungry), Jorjani, a self-proclaimed national socialist, looks as though he’s never been punched, but sounds like he needs to be, his lithe, Dennis the Menace countenance emitting a nasally voice with a smarmy, pedantic inflection. I don’t say this to be mean spirited (not that Mr. Jorjani’s philosophical outlook would deny me that indulgence) but in the spirit of Tyler Durden. That a wheezy, narrow-chested academic with a balled-up sphincter would be an incubator of the Nietzschean actually makes perfect sense. Brilliant though he was, when reading Nietzsche it gives crucial context to recall that the man was a sexually maladjusted autist. Someone strong and self-assured could never call man “a laughingstock and a painful embarrassment,” but neither do school-shooter types and conniving corporate managers revel in themselves, they only anticipate doing so. But I’m not interested in “becoming who I am,” I’m interested in being who I am. If as a species we’re well on our way to anything like Jorjani’s spectral revolution, it’s because the vindictive fantasies of software developer nebbishes and pencil-necked money shufflers are precisely the architecture of our post-meta-narrative, post-binary, peeping Tom corporatocracy. At least the Nazis put real skin in the game.

Jumping the Great Whitegeist: the Alt-Right Viewed from the Right

34651npi-richard-henrik-lana-mike

“You guys feel like going for frozen yogurt?”

“The goyim know?” Bitch, please. Naming is the origin of all particular things, the medium is the message, and—as yours truly predicted—the alt-right is looking a little overcooked nowadays. Yes, thought trends have a life of their own, but brands are destined for tombstones.

The simple fact is, the alt-right is slave morality, and sooner or later, everyone gets tired of listening to bitching and moaning. Other than that, what does the alt-right offer its prospective constituency? Shits and giggles. Circle jerking. Bupkis. The conviction that bloviating is tantamount to action is a peculiar, late-20th century misapprehension, precisely the plush-doll American dream that Occupy Bernie and the alt-right both thought they were rejecting. Onward! The affairs of strangers must be meddled in. I’m all for realism (and vigilantism) in the face of swarthy Idiocracy, but…. an “ethnostate”? How very postmodern. Will there be spandex cycling shorts and fair-trade organic light roast for all us “conquerors and crusaders”? And how, exactly, does getting arrested and bricks thrown at you by Antifa harm (how does it not help) the plutocracy, the MSM, SPLC, “und so weiter”? I know, I know, Never doubt that a small, full-retard vanguard can change the world, and I wish you the best of luck. Come at me personally with that febrile Jewology you like to horrify nursing home yentas with on the Forward comments section and I’ll give your plebeian ass a Greco-Roman colonoscopy like I was Meyer Lansky. But hey, Richard Spencer says it’ll help you get your ideas out, right?

Don’t get me wrong—Spencer’s incisive, he’s got pluck, and neofascism is an overdue rejoinder to the empiricist hubris, intellectual courtesanship and mercenary behaviorism of TED Talk America. The Aryan race is indeed on the ropes, and I quite agree that this is a catastrophe. It’s just that (1) I don’t pick who gets a Darwin award, and (2) as a political program, the alt-right jumps the shark. To wit,

I asked [Spencer] whether I, as someone who is half-Chinese but had a classical Western education, would fit within his group… “I’m a generous guy,” he told me. “If you truly identify with our people, I would not have any problem with that.” But there were genetic deal breakers. “A full-blooded African, no matter how wonderful he might be—I’m not sure that would really work.” (Graeme Wood, Atlantic Monthly, June 2017)

How’s that for “freedom of association“? The pompousness here is far worse than the bigotry. It may be half-joking, but it can never be more than half-serious.

But to its credit, until just before the election the alt-right was the last bastion of real, uncöopted social satire. I mean, what’s less relevant today than SNL? Lately the dominant, left-liberal paradigm begets only humorless ideological directives and “validation” of skin-crawling peccadillos. Like aging pop-stars, Saudi oil-wells and boomer entitlements, the legacy media is an obsolete investment being defended with increasing shamelessness:

6_major_corporations_own_90_communications

Even its Silicon Valley supersessionist heirs (whom you’d think would display more independence of thought, Lord knows they’ve got the requisite leverage) cling to its mid-20th century CFR ideological commitments, such that criminal syndicates that reject the premise get more leeway than political opponents who accept it:

screen-shot-2016-11-30-at-5-58-10-pm

Under the spreading chestnut tree….

Speaking of Vice, myriad popular online outlets affect a cutting-edge veneer these days, but a good general rule is that the more lurid and higher-budget the content, the more wholly owned are its producers by the planetary managerial class. The biggest backers of Vice, for instance, are BofA, Disney, George Soros and Rupert Murdoch. This brackish scene deserves the vilest ridicule, the most acerbic satirization, but there’d be no funding for that, for the same reason nobody ever invades Switzerland. The powerless don’t leverage power, it leverages them, and all the penny-ante social media antics in the world won’t get the alt-right’s fingers unstuck from the pearly gates of the Big Time.

Which is too bad, because some of the most incisive, iconoclastic shit I’ve read or heard in my life was spoken at NPI conferences or published on Radix Journal circa pre-Trump. When the point was to express these ideas (not just expand the audience for them), they were exhilarating. Now that the antiseptic media klieg lights have warmed the alt-right’s obligingly exposed butt cheeks, the fact can’t be concealed that vindictive, half-witted, pathos-laden language (not to mention dry, committee-meeting type knit-picking about activist strategies and doctrinal purity) is rife on Counter-Currents, Radix, TRS, Red Ice and Occidental, and this click-hungry humorlessness has diffused throughout the alt-right punchbowl as the imperative to justify itself to outsiders eclipses insider ribaldry. So what portends the Kali Yuga is not Jews or loose women, it is you, i.e., the inexorable pull that novelty and power exert upon the human psyche, which is why Evola’s advice was to ride the tiger, not stick your head in its mouth.

How sad to be peddling an ethos of order, hierarchy and opposition to commercial vulgarity in the .25 cents’ admission Imagination Land of new media, only to get mere first world pushback as they traffic in ideologies that really punished thought-crime. Now that they’ve had their fifteen minutes, the little D-list leadership will spend the rest of their lives panhandling like a one-hit wonder performing at an Indian casino, “Remember me? Just ten grand more to meet our goals this season.” Even Milo was writing interesting columns as recently as 2015, before the Twitter ban and his election year transition to full-time attention-whoring. Spencer’s criticisms of him are apt, and blissfully un-self-conscious.

So the problem with the 2016 NPI conference wasn’t the menace or poor taste of the coy sieg heiling, it was the quivering bunghole that compliments the kind of toast Spencer delivered. I mean, “Children of the Sun”? That’s what the Times was calling a Nuremberg rally? Sounds more like a Maya Angelou quote over a stock photo. Children of the fucking sun, why not “God’s Chosen People”? Take it from a tribesman, with that approach you’re going to be doing an awful lot of becoming, without ever being much of anything.

large_image

“Hail Trump! Hail our People! Hail victory!”

The fact that the bourgeois American WASP is an over-socialized, emotionally sterile cardboard cutout who masochistically enjoyed deferring this past seventy years to comparatively dysfunctional cultures that have a little more cut-loose panache than his own is as little discussed on the alt-right as Germany’s no-go zones are on MSNBC—though Spencer has acknowledged it, calling it “the white problem.” But to suppose Trump will arrest these developments significantly is pitifully gullible optimism. As Spencer told some pie-faced yenta at Rolling Stone, “I think we’ve leveraged ourselves in an incredible way, but at some point we need to cross the Rubicon and have a footprint.” Translation: OMG, this might even lead to an internship. In a duck costume. At a mall kiosk. For (in the words of the great Marshall McLuhan) when you gaze long into the Facebook, the Facebook gazes also into you.

Power Lunch

screenshot2014-03-30at21-45-36

Let them eat hugely important topics

Media coverage of the alt-right has been profuse in the wake of the recent election. Based on the near-uniform reporting in mainstream outlets, it appears as though journalists covering the phenomenon have little prior familiarity with it. Normies affronted for the first time in generations with a resurgent far-right and a critical mass of unapologetic white racial consciousness originating—no less—with millennials savvily harnessing new media, evince not a little sputtering cognitive dissonance.

Maybe they’re right that this is all just a fresh face on fascism. But if so, such repackaging is not so much a subterfuge on the part of alt-righters, but the peculiar ambiance of the times that have given the alt-right momentum. Either way, one reason we keep hearing that there’s nothing novel about the alt-right is because media and academic conformists simply have no ready vocabulary to describe it that’s worthy of its novelty and moment. If the left-liberal hegemony of late-modern Americanism fails to suppress and supersede this new development, it will be because its pundits and cogitators failed to grasp its implications.

Of all the commentary I’ve seen in any mainstream publication, Atlantic editor David Frum’s comes closest (while failing) to treating the alt-right with any real depth or dispassion:

Over the past two decades, Americans have constructed systems of intellectual silencing that stifle the range of debate among responsible and public-spirited people. They’ve resigned hugely important topics to the domain of cranks and haters. If the only people who’ll talk about the risks and costs of a more diverse society are fascists, then the fascists will gain an audience.

A better way to put it might be, ‘If anyone who ever talks about the risks and costs of a more diverse society gets peremptorily maligned as a fascist in publications like the Atlantic, then anyone who speaks of such things will be a fascist according to the Atlantic which—not incidentally—is now a blog.’ But whaddoo I know? I’m not the editor of the Atlantic.

Obviously, David Frum cannot be arraigned individually on this charge he so richly levels at Americans as a whole, but his CV would seem to indict him quite a ways ahead of most others. What we have here is the unintentional concession from a ranking establishment figure, that public discourse in America is a consensus environment subject to peculiar ideological controls.

But whether ‘we’ or David Frum, or whomever, enable so-called cranks and haters to have a voice is much less interesting a question than whether those cranks and haters are saying anything true and worth hearing. Either Frum takes issue with the message regardless of the messengers, or there’s no need to peremptorily tar anyone as a crank and a hater. Even Frum acknowledges that the alt-right is responding to something. For those unbeholden to the interests he represents, a more interesting approach would be to ask whether other—cogent and visceral—interests are threatened, that the alt-right is advocating for. If so, then you’ve got to figure those interests, being prime targets of ‘systems of intellectual silencing,’ had rather not be serviced by the scarcely-chastened likes of David Frum.

The counter-revolution will not be internetized

trump-clinton-and-the-deplorable-picture-x750

Vanguard of the breadline

Is there anything more transfixing than the lurid, sadistic hubbub in this degenerating land of naked opportunism? If the disgraceful Bernie Sanders stands as proof of far-left futility and co-optation, the alternative right stands for outright rejection of the eyeless smile that is reigning, late-modern Americanism—which is kind of like Emerson devolved to Dr. Phil and Dale Carnegie applied by Curtis Lemay.

What recommends the alt-right is that its targets and detractors are rattled more by its truths than by its falsehoods. Like the fish who in David Foster Wallace’s retelling inquires of his companion, “What the hell is water?”, Americanism’s acolytes carry no party card that they’re aware of. So the alt-right is a genuine red-pill, an unflinching gaze into the post-American abyss. But by giving it its moment, Hillary (who feeds as voraciously on the exsanguinated phantom of flyover fascism as she does upon the stem cells forfending her convalescence) unwittingly plunged the knife in and twisted: naming is the origin of all particular things, and after summer must come autumn. But until the cognitive dissonance of WNs jockeying for publicity at the trough of approved discourse asserts itself, their Apostle to the Gentiles will always be Milo.

Richard Spencer has obviously been reading his James Howard Kunstler and (of course) Julius Evola. If the Kali Yuga is inexorable, why take such pains to subvert the uninspiring dominant paradigm when we could be digging cisterns? As noted here before, there is of course the possibility of managed opposition, witting or un-. That genuinely galvanizing subversion might emerge from the exertions of a grad-school activist peddling online “identity” as he eagerly bottom-feeds for awareness-raising coverage is no less conceivable than, say, a vindictive art school reject conquering half of Europe. Problem is, however potent a tool, however wide it opens epistemic horizons, other than bringing people together in spite of cultural differences what the internet excels at is keeping us all off the streets. Counter-intuitively, this is advantageous for the alt-right, at least in the short term, because the alienation of willing participants (i.e., device-symbiotic telecom consumers) expressed within the ostensibly manageable confines of interactive media platforms cannot simply be excised like Randy Weaver or selectively arraigned like the Ron Paul newsletters.

But while racism may be the Emmanuel Goldstein of the Trayvon administration, it doesn’t follow that race is everythingas Spencer has come close to postulating. What do I care about FBI crime stats when the Percocet addict casing houses on my block is a peckerwood, and the sassy black lady posting black power memes to Facebook is a good neighbor? So the zeitgeist shift is welcome, until it goes full retard.

What is the alt-right really aiming at, anyway? At some point, changing the national conversation is just busywork, but an ethnostate is a tall order when the status quo is liveable and even luxe. When it no longer is, me clinging to my guns, religion and antipathy will not be a committee decision. Meanwhile, what good is subversion of the dominant paradigm if you remain a supplicant for corn pone? Better to buy a seed bank and an Alex Jones water filter while UPS is still delivering.

In any case, the initial burst of these phenomena always gives way to staleness, and power is always crepuscular. Assuming (for the near-term) that her handlers somehow prove incapable of outlawing thoughtcrime—a project you’d better believe is in R&D—at this point only an HRC administration can extend the shelf life of the alt-right’s liberatingly mischievous confrontation with late-modern Americanism. Because—if the God-Emperor frog memes are any indication—a President Trump will almost certainly disappoint. It’s enough to make you nostalgic for the Austrian corporal. The counter-revolution will not be internetized.