Category Archives: Alt-Rightgeist

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.

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.

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. IV

harvey-weinstein-serious

Comes in handy

(Part I here, Part II here, Part III 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. It’s a bit like playing dead: contrition itself is supposed to be a point in the Jews’ defense.

Now, if your experience tells you that Jews are oily, pushy, whiny, loud, snide, solipsistic and cheap, well…. Join the club: so does mine (though only a couple of those apply to me). Perhaps you live in a community somewhere back east where the ethnic fault lines are long standing, and over the decades each of the local constituencies has made a certain impression on its neighbors—well and good. If it’s a matter of navigating daily life and real relationships, stereotype away, for all I care. But when we refer here to anti-semitism, what we mean is the full-retard pamphleteering variety, a worldview mediated secondhand, a partial flight of fancy:

710full-seinfeld-screenshot

Though it exposes me as a third-rate intellectual at best, that much is already quite obvious, so I’ll go ahead and quote the late Christopher Hitchens in this connection:

The Nazis thought of Slavs and Gypsies as racial inferiors by all means, but the organizing principle of their racism, the thing that gave it its energy and its consistency was the hatred of the Jew….. Would it be believed by anybody, if it was said that all the Armenians left the World Trade Center before the planes hit, or all the Irish? I don’t think so. It has to be the Jews, it’s not exciting if it’s not. It would be a mere vulgar prejudice; there’s not enough traction and grit and flavor to it, unless it’s the real thing.

Again: if experience recommends wariness of a given human group, then be wary—end of story. Self-defense, after all, is a dish best served cold, and sparingly. And xenophobia is clearly evolutionary—it needs no laborious rationale, no theory, no social approval. But for the full-retard anti-ZOG pamphleteer, there’s no adrenaline in that, no hard-on, no quasi-mystical shivers. For them, the case is so open-and-shut they can never shut up about it.

Henry Kissinger 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.

All the same, you might think it would be worthwhile for the Jews’ own sake to at least engage with their worst critics and try to learn something from them. But hesitance to fully recognize hostility can only play as sycophancy. Indeed, when you reach out to full-retard anti-semites (lots of those abroad in the world nowadays) what you’re invariably going to find is that the burden of proof falls exclusively upon the semite. 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—and so does self-abnegation. There is literally nothing that can be proved to these types. Perhaps 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 execration is with a grin, and a middle finger. 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 that episode of The Daily Shoah podcast I hyperlinked above (the one with the yiddle-diddle blogger guest interviewee.) Here Enoch’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 can at least respect the alt-right for its 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 (it’s called negative transference.) 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. Whether it’s only tortured logic, or also tortured, sub-rosa yiddishkeit, what it reveals about anti-semitism is the same.

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 confirmed the old stereotype about Jewish brains. But due to events like 9/11, the NSA spying scandals and the 2008 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 disproportionately 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?”

You might ascribe that sentiment to the influence of drugs, or to half-baked YouTube documentaries. But would you know who agrees with it? Larry David. Here’s how David treated the Weinstein/#MeToo scandal in the opening monologue of a recent episode of Saturday Night Live he hosted (executive summary here):

What’s awkward about this performance? It isn’t the references to sex, or to genocide. It isn’t the uncouthness, or even David’s openness to discomfort. No, what’s awkward about this performance is its sincerity, its utter lack of irony. It’s a public service announcement concealed behind only the most implausible veneer of comedy. Larry David means exactly what he says: he reflexively feels that allegations against a handful of fellow Jews reflect on him, fundamentally. And what’s ironic about the tenebrous self-awareness he exhibits is not some corollary intellectual benefit, but that it’s avoidable, unnecessary, and entirely self inflicted. A gallery of perennially offended professional Jews squawked a bit online the week after this performance, but that’s because they suffer from the same pathology that David does—they aren’t mad because they disagree with what he said, they’re mad because he said it—they feel that he reflects on them, same as David feels about Weinstein. The assumption of responsibility for another person’s crime speaks to a need to feel rejected in order to feel validated. This is why the vindictive sniveling inherent in so much of Judaism locks Jews into a sadomasochistic relationship with anti-semites—the Purim and (to a lesser extent) Passover holidays are great examples of this. (Only Hanukkah represents a genuine triumph of the will.) So unless you limit your Judaism to a given understanding of the divine, an answer to the need for a certain modicum of ritual, and communion with your ancestors, you’ll always be spinning your wheels in a mud puddle of Talmudic agony like some kind of OCD sufferer. (By the way—I don’t know too much Talmud, but I know there’s at least one volume of it that ought to be as popular as the Gospels or the Tao te Ching. It’s called Pirke Avot. Check it out sometime. Guide for the Perplexed is also very good, for similar reasons.)

Professional Jew Jeffrey Goldberg typifies this masochism. I’ve bagged on him here before, so I hate to do it twice, but he’s just too typical. As a teenager, he served as an MP in the IDF (that part’s atypical), then came back to the US and wrote a stupid memoir about his one-sided friendship with a Palestinian terrorist he guarded in a military jail, entitled Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide. The tone-deafness of the title (equating a gaoler with his charge, conflating people’s religion with their entire being) is bad enough. Per 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?

Who gives a shit? Does Rafiq have this problem, this tortured relationship with gods and men? Of course not. Rafiq has a proper respect for his place in the natural order of things. His “analytic academic’s dispassion” is a tool, not a ball-and-chain. But at least Jeffrey Goldberg has a choice about whether and what kind of ball and chain to carry around. Not all Jews have been so lucky.

Mihail Sebastian was a Romanian-Jewish linguist and novelist who kept a diary of life in Romania between 1935 and 1944. The manuscript was smuggled to Israel by his brother in 1961 and eventually published as a book after the Cold War. What’s interesting about it is that many fellow Romanian intellectuals whom the author maintained friendships with were vehemently pro-Nazi. According to a 2001 book review in The Irish Times, Sebastian had a remarkable tendency to make excuses for them:

Sebastian’s friend, the charismatic philosopher and teacher Nae Ionescu, who enthusiastically supported the Iron Guard, agreed to write a preface to one of Sebastian’s novels, but when he did, it turned out to be vigorously anti-Semitic.

Ionescu warned the younger man against imagining that he could become assimilated into the gentile community, asking of him “Are you . . . a human being from Braila on the Danube? No, you are a Jew from Braila on the Danube.” Sebastian, in typical fashion, continued to look upon his friend and mentor with fondness, regarding him indulgently merely as a rogue and an opportunist whose heart nevertheless was in the right place; when Ionescu died prematurely in 1940, Sebastian wept in sorrow.

He even found excuses for his friend the novelist, and fascist, Camil Petrescu. When the private houses of Jews were confiscated by order of the government, Petrescu complained to Sebastian that he would probably not be given one; Sebastian said that surely, under the circumstances, his friend would not accept a house even if it were offered to him, at which Petrescu stared at him in surprise and asked: “Why not?”

The type of person who countenances this kind of treatment today will be a school shooter tomorrow, or a mental patient, or a Great Gatsby, but he’ll never be content. So is there anyone more pathetic than the person who devotes time and energy to authoring broadsides about his unmatched malevolence? Our next installment will be about Kevin MacDonald, and his acolytes.

Peak Degeneracy

IMG_2584

Spot the non-manjaw

It seems there will never be a time when some half-wit somewhere isn’t being taken in by the Semitic prime mover theory of history, but as I’ve argued here before, the movement alt-right is effectively undead, having shot its exuberant wad in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, when it momentarily entered the glorious street-fray against the genderfluid and semantically-woke handicapped.

Occasionally I see debate on alt-right forums about whether or not Richard Spencer is some kind of shill. The respective positions taken are generally as follows:

(1) Spencer is indeed a deep-cover spook provocateur; or

(2) Spencer is espousing his ideas sincerely.

I want to suggest a third possibility: that Spencer is both a shill, and sincere.

Of course, “shill” is imprecise. Obviously he’s getting his money from somewhere, and being afforded media coverage for some reasons. We can always go deep rabbit hole about this if we want to: is the alt-right a puppet show, or an idea whose time has come? But those possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive. In any case, the question just brings us back to first principles, i.e., what are we really talking about when we talk about the alt-right?

Well, to a large degree we’re talking about explicit white identity, which is a flimsy basis for mutual commitment and self-sacrifice outside of prison, or other such dire circumstances. To the extent that circumstances are dire, I certainly support it, such as I am able being an unwelcome half-breed loner outlier. But class, status, personality and philosophical differences will always be impediments to this kind of unity. Shared fear and loathing are far more powerful unifiers than anything really affirmative. So who do white nationalists consider their greatest enemy? You might want to review Borat for clues.

A quick thought experiment: if we could remove the Jewish Question from alt-right consideration, leaving every other alt-right premise intact, would the movement remain fundamentally unchanged?

Of course not. The JQ is a street-cred litmus test. But when xenophobia (which is healthy, evolutionary, and should require no laborious rationale or social approval) starts coming packaged with demonologic rationalization, then we’re either looking at a reaction against a violent cultural hegemony, or we’re looking at negative transference. More likely both. It doesn’t take any great genius to see that the alt-right is basically American Roadshow trying to pass for Mad Men, with motorcycle goggles and leather-bound classics just for decoration. “Unite the Right” leaders speaking out in the wake of Charlottesville were correct: only a controlled media bent on eliminating any dissent that can’t be cöopted could possibly treat them as a serious menace. They just aren’t serious people, and neither is their message: the cataclysm is immanent, the sensual negro is at the gate, the Jew is making me so dirty. Which may all be true, but it only resonates for the same reason 50 Shades appealed to so many capricious women.

IMG_2626

“He’s gotta be strong/and he’s gotta be fast/and he’s gotta be fresh from the fi-ight”

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. III

We are all Palestinians

(Part I here, Part II here; Part IV 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 (both sides.)

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. I’ll readily grant the first of these two contentions: Weinstein, Epstein, Goldman Sachs, that punk Kushner—pretty greasy stuff. But what about Makow’s second contention?

Well, we know for a fact that there is indeed conspicuous Jewish opposition to the planetary managerial class. There are Jewish journalists, activists and academics who denounce the powers that be, in part or in whole. There are mainstream Jewish authors and historians whose research provides excellent fodder for those on the fringes who are willing to draw bolder conclusions. There are Jewish conspiracy theorists of Makow’s ilk. There are even Jews who beat their breasts denouncing Zionism wholesale and condemning 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. (Antipathy toward Jews short of that threshold, I’m not defining here as anti-semitism.) 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. For full-hilt anti-Semites (not a few of those abroad in the world nowadays) a Jew’s every word short of utter self-abnegation equals dissembling, or proof of incorrigibility—for chrissakes, that’s Internet 101.

In my lifetime, I’ve experienced anti-semitism mostly as a subdued curiosity, lurking in the form of the incorrigible ease with which Jewish culpability can be accepted in various quarters as sufficient explanation for complex and sundry events. But as I grew older and my own material for observation increased, I slowly began to realize that where Jews are disdained and suspected in this manner it is a continuation, never a fresh perspective or a novel analysis. Granted, I’ve habituated to taking accusations of anti-semitism with a grain of salt, because the ancient prejudice appeared to have been so throughly routed in the late 20th century, and because many Jews can be quite oversensitive. But over the past decade and a half of palpable civilizational decline, the attendant profusion of anti-semitic sentiment has given me an inkling of what it must have been like for my father’s people to weather this execration in overt form, day by day, generation after generation. I don’t that these people were holy innocents, but being blamed for the plague is a bit much.

It had been many years since I read Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew when I saw it quoted recently in an article about the alt-right:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. … If then, as we have been able to observe, the anti-Semite is impervious to reason and to experience, it is not because his conviction is strong. Rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen first of all to be impervious.

Granted, these are mere field notes, not hard science: Sartre’s remarks could apply to many progressives I’ve debated with about race and gender (arguing in bad faith, giving ridiculous reasons, etc.) But for a current example of the kind of moving-target anti-semitic logic he’s referring to specifically, 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 obscure 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 culpability in US 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 events ever prove this surmise correct, the gentlemen at Aryan Skynet will promptly develop amnesia so as to go on blaming Jews and Jews alone. But a more benign anti-semitism would simply recognize that the US-Israel relationship is a business partnership, and that if you get into business with Jews, they’re going to get their share. Of course it’s perfectly plausible that the US inner-elite has long term plans involving the removal of the present Iranian regime, that their priorities 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 (real, imagined, or in-between) 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 vis a vis Iran—but 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. Rather, 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 (of Chossudovsky) 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 full refutation. But if they detect a dearth of evidence behind Chossudovsky’s claims due to a possible ethnic dimension to his worldview, 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 a Jewish colleague?

His blood be upon us and upon our children…. 

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.

Quit blaming the Romans, Jew!

Okay, so congressmen are manipulated by AIPAC. What? A whore can’t have more than one regular customer? “Grips the House and Senate” is a tad myopic. 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 there’s no ancient, international subculture of intrepid crackpots specializing in publishing salacious broadsides characterizing them as the one sinister key to understanding world history. 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 an ingrown pubic hair.

Like all hopeless ideologues, the authors of Aryan Skynet are chafing under some inchoate sense of life’s unfairness they were never fully equipped to cope with as children. But if you get your education on YouTube and are readily reeled in by morality tales and faux-esoterica, then the party misdirecting you is not the obscure likes of a Michel Chossudovsky, nor even the Atlantic or the Washington Post—it is you. Reductio ad Iudaeoram is autonomic obscurantism. If you think the JQ is the rug that really ties the room together, you’re easily impressed. And yet, as we have seen, Jews themselves are taken in by this in a remarkably consistent manner.

How can yiddishkeit be untangled from its sadomasochistic relationship—from any relationship—with this sub-species of vindictive mediocrity?

I think, perhaps, it can’t. Judaism is indeed the problem, but not quite the way that anti-semites imagine.

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.

But in the meantime 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 (or an ethnicity, or whatever.) But if no one accuses Makow of being anti-WASP when he condemns the Rockefellers, it’s because Makow doesn’t conclude that the prominent involvement 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 it, even though he has said that the vast majority of Jews aren’t involved. 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—a high-level Hamas operative who spent decades in Israeli prisons. He spent decades in Israeli prisons because his son ratted him out. You see, Mosab Hassan Yousef is best 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, to the extent that I am 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. To the extent that I identify with Israel, 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. As is a guy like Henry Makow, who is so disproportionately mortified by any misdeed committed by a fellow Jew (as if he’s such a fine specimen himself) that, with the best of intentions and no sense of irony whatsoever, he can bring himself to pen an article entitled, “Anti Semitism is Legitimate Self Defense.” Of course, the whole history of anti-Semitism is one of scarcely discriminate massacre of disarmed, enfeebled people. Would Makow like somebody to murder him, or what? Yet perspectives like his really aren’t uncommon among Jews. What could possibly explain this extraordinary masochism? Can it be cured? On to Part III….

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. I

Valerie Plame

veyizmir

(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 saw media coverage of author and (perhaps, former) CIA agent Valerie Plame, who provoked 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.

A CIA agent pointing fingers about who’s driving America’s wars is pretty rich. (In the greater-DC area alone, how many horse faced goyim are dining on steak tonight or driving all-terrain motorized shopping carts out to their hot tubs, courtesy of the military-industrial complex? I guess they just don’t realize how egregiously they’re being taken advantage of.) What’s interesting about this little kerfuffle is that, ironically, 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 what the US is up to in the mideast, it isn’t all that hard to find out. So this idea that, due to Jewish pressure, an otherwise cohesive and sober American elite (or an inept, naïve one) is sticking its neck out for Zionism with no corresponding ROI is pedestrian wisdom masquerading as radical, taboo and esoteric. And the notion that the global power elite is comprised of just so many portfolios being managed out of Tel Aviv by means of seamy Polaroid floppies and Monopoly money may never lose its mystique for the great plurality of intellectual minutemen. But Israeli meddling in US domestic politics, at least, can be explained with simple common sense: i.e., in order to mitigate overbearing US meddling in their affairs (particularly their aerospace defense sector, essentially an ankle-monitored junior partner to its US counterparts) the Israelis are leveraging the labyrinthine 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. For instance: the US puts personnel in actual harm’s way by the tens of thousands to defend Poland, Saudia and South Korea. Yet no one ever thinks to inquire about these arrangements as if they’re particularly fishy, ulterior, or inexplicable.

In any case, US aid to Israel is equivalent to about 0.7% of the overall US defense budget ($5 billion versus $640 billion annually). Zionism has less to do with America’s wars than Lutheranism. (If you think I’m being facetious, click the hyperlink.) 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. 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, apparently, personal cost involved—and before you quote Voltaire (i.e., “If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you cannot criticize”) I’ll have you recall that you’re also not exactly allowed to speak impolitely in public about the mentally retarded, or say nigger, or question the sanity of men who claim they need surgical castration in order to self actualize; but no one seriously believes that transgendered niggers with Down Syndrome are running the government.

In tweeting her subsequent mea culpa Plame 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 (or wants others) to believe that America’s Jews are driving 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 what I just noted above: 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 in our day that machiavellianism tends to fly under cover of sanctimony. Much more convenient—and well-precedented—to blame the Jews wholesale. But Valerie Plame—neé Plamevotski—is kinda, sorta…. Jewish (not to mention Lutheran.)

What makes so many Jews and partial-Jews denounce their own kind like this? The Christian critique of Jewish moral turpitude has long been aped by Jews—in part as a distancing mechanism, a defense against criticism, but also because many Jews love not only to morally agonize, but to remind people how ethnically special they think they are. It is nowhere clear that Valerie Plame is invested enough in Jewishness to make this true in her case. The question remains, however: what makes anyone settle on clandestine Jewish machinations to explain so comprehensively such diverse and multifarious phenomena? The great, torpid ease with which this is so often done ought to offend the meagrest intelligence. Is there nevertheless something about Jewishness that provokes or exacerbates it? (Of course there is.) Is there a way for Jews to mitigate it, without stentorian public self-flagellation over the Palestine question, or who controls Hollywood? (Probably not.) Either way, how should persons of Jewish provenance orient themselves to it?

Stay tuned for our next installment…..

 

 

 

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, essentially, 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 those 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 academics.) 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. Never minding the disjointedness of this construction: can either part be true 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—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, he becomes a tiller. The Bible is suggesting that man’s weakness before woman is something intrinsic but controllable. 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 sets Himself above the feminine forces of earth. 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 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.

Don’t get me wrong—Richard 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. But while I’m all for realism (and vigilantism) in the face of swarthy Idiocracy, the alt-right ain’t it:

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“? I know, I know: he’s talking about membership in his own group. But this is a group that wants to impose the same separation, involuntarily, on society at large. The pompousness here is far worse than the crudeness. It may be half-joking, but it can never be more than half-serious.

Still, to its credit, until just before the election the alt-right was the last bastion of real, uncöopted social satire left in this country. 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 brick-and-mortar 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.

A lot of NPI and Radix Journal materials were deliciously subversive circa pre-Trump, when the point was to express these ideas, not just expand the audience for them. 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 and purity spiraling about activist strategies and doctrinal purity) is rife on Counter-Currents, Radix, TRS, Red Ice and Occidental. This click-hungry humorlessness has diffused throughout the alt-right punchbowl as the imperative to justify itself to outsiders eclipses insider ribaldry.

But who expects humor from fascists? Fascism is always a sign of rigor mortis. what portends the Kali Yuga is not Jews or loose women, it is you, my alt-right friends—e.g., the inexorable pull that novelty and the allure of power exert upon the human psyche, which is why Evola’s advice was to ride the tiger, not stick your head in its mouth. (But how many alt-right personalities have really read all the authors they like to block-quote on social media?) How sad to be peddling an ethos of order, hierarchy and opposition to commercial vulgarity in the 10 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 grandeur-deluded 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 unselfconscious.

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”?

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. 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.