Where The Wild Boys Are

2012-01-19T18:12:00.000-08:00

“Our bodies come and go, but this blood stays forever” — Otis B. Driftwood

Another free sneak peek at our forthcoming Super Terrific Happy Book -- enjoy!

More Aryan than Human: The Return of Repressed White Wisdom in Rob Zombie’s Firefly Family Films

0.14 - Dwight Schrute!

2012-01-05T04:18:00.000-08:00

Shameless Public Posturing

Interview with James J. O’Meara

Editor’s Note:

Before beginning this interview, I knew very little about James J. O’Meara. Based simply on his writings, I would describe him as a New Right/Radial Traditionalist-oriented literary and cultural critic residing in New York City. He is a highly valued contributor to Counter-Currents/North American New Right. He has also published in journals ranging from Alexandria to FringeWare Review to Judaic Book News. His own blog is Where the Wild Boys Are, with the arresting subtitle “Aryan Futurism, Heavy Metal Entheogenic Mysticism, and pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs.” At the very least, I hope to get an explanation of that!

2011-12-25T09:35:00.000-08:00

Thank You, Mask Man!

A busy end of the year, with temp, at least, employment, and the final writings for the forthcoming book. Start saving your nickles and dimes!

I had wanted to respond to Justin Raimondo's disgusting attempt to throw the early, good ol' National Review under the integrated bus in order to "defend" his boy Ron Paul from charges of ray-zism from the current, neo-conned rag posing as its descendent, but here Stuff Black People Don't Like comes to my aid by saying much the same as I would about a similar smear from LewRockwell.com [hmm, co-ordination from the libertarian echo chamber, anyone?]

So, in closing, Dr. LiLorenzo is a useful idiot of the strange Ron Paul Cult. He wrote a glowing review of a book that argued the dismantling of South Africa's Apartheid system had horrible consequences for white people there, and he stated that that will soon happen in America for white people too. Yet he chastises National Review for daring to have once defended white rights. You know, one of these days people are going to start asking when an actual group will come along that dares does defend white rights in Black-Run America (BRA). It will happen spontaneously, and it will happen without any contributions from those bemoaning collectivism as some form of racism.
The Libertarians may not be neo-conned, but always remember, they are thoroughly Judeo-Conned as they proceed to tear down every vestige of White culture in the name of "individual rights" defined exclusively as the Judaic "right to buy and sell" anything and everything.

Including, the USA.

The Paulites are "against" government-sponsored pro-Black measures, but equally against pro-White measures. Thus, as SBPDL says, at best, useful idiots.

As we've pointed out here before, Paulites may be "radical" enough to oppose the Fed Reserve, but their "solution" is not the Prussian Socialism of Spengler or Hitler, but rather, precisely the opposite: a return to the "gold standard."

And who owns the gold?

Thanks for the blog, Mask Man!

2011-12-15T17:56:00.000-08:00

Fuck You, GI Joe

Never heard of "re-hypothecation" before? [Microsoft spellchecker hasn't]. Ho Hum. Surely you've read our blog's insistence, over and over, that the so-called "science" of economics is simply Talmudic hocus-pocus to loot the goyim?

That's right, you have to pay the bankers real money, earned by the sweat of your brow [if you're lucky] while they take your property -- real estate, brokerage accounts, retirement funds -- and re-mortgage it infinitely. And if the bets they make with your property turn sour, you pay the bookie.

What's interesting is, the City of London connection. I recall some internet conspiracy talk about the City being not part of the UK, etc. but it hardly matters, as Max notes. In the bigger picture, though, it's sweet to note that

UK = City of London = Rothschilds

NS Germany = enemy of bankers = "greatest evil in history"

Now do you understand what WWII was all about?

Update:

The City is a feudal relic that escapes all genuine regulation within the United Kingdom. Even if only because it is a huge financial center that too few controllers "control", supported by the extensive network of tax havens created from the confetti of the former British Empire. For information, France Télévisions has just broadcast a remarkable report on the City on 11/2011. One could say that the City is a kind of “pirate” base like the Barbary corsairs that the European powers finally mastered by military campaigns in the nineteenth century, after centuries of piracy and smuggling of all kinds.

2011-12-04T08:29:00.000-08:00

The Reign of the Biker

[I]t is only the roughness of the eye that makes two persons, things, situations, seem alike. -- Pater

Today's Daily News gives us a splendid sample of the Liberal Mind ever fatuous and self-satisfied, even -- especially -- in dissolution:

Bike lane fan sez: Bad Bramhall

Brooklyn: Re Bramhall’s World (Dec. 1): The rise of cycling in New York City will continue to make our streets safer. Of the 269 traffic deaths in 2010, only 18 related to bicycle crashes.

A DOT report from August 2010 states that the addition of 200 miles of new bike lanes improved pedestrian safety. Controlling for other factors, crashes involving pedestrians on streets with bike lanes were 40% less deadly than on other streets. The study goes on to note that bike lanes have a “traffic calming effect, lowering speeds and increasing driver attention.”

So I ask: Why does Bramhall continue to demonize cyclists, even in the context of accident prevention and awareness programs such as Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan’s new safety signs?

Bramhall’s perspective is stuffy and outdated. Let him long for New York City before the DOT addressed these safety issues if he likes. I’ll continue to grow in the 21st century with the rest of the 99%. Weston Ulfig

First of all, Weston Ulfig? Really?

But anyway, one notes the triumphant note of "progressive-ism" and "chronological bigotry," as if "continual growth" were ipso facto good [rather than, as Baron Evola notes, the mark of an inferior temporality unworthy of the attention of the superior Aryan individual, oriented to the Timeless and Complete] and one was self-evidently correct by dint of having been born yet further into the Kali Yuga.

But note as well the Liberal love of "statistics," at least when they can be found, or bent, to support their side.

René Guénon has already exploded the "Illusion of Statistics" in Chapter Ten of his Reign of Quantity, noting the evident absurdity of treating supposedly separate things, to say nothing of persons, as absolutely identical and interchangeable, the key prerequisite to the whole idea -- itself emblematic of the Reign of Quantity -- of adding them up and "analyzing" them with mathematics.

"Ulfig" -- if that is his name -- fails to grasp, or else tries to rhetorically hide -- the reason for the citizen's outrage at the antics of his "biker" buddies; as noted here before, New York cyclists like to call themselves "bikers" as if they were Hells Angels, and that by itself should give you a clue as to the problem. "Ulfig" should learn that auto accidents and bike accidents are entirely different and cannot be statistically compared.

Auto accidents are, well, largely accidents. Few are the sociopaths that go around causing them deliberately -- except, admittedly, on Wall Street:

When one is hit by a biker, however, one can be 100% positive you were hit, not by a temporarily distracted soccer mom but rather by a smug bastard who thinks he has the right to roll at top speed through a pedestrian crosswalk in the wrong direction because of his "low carbon footprint."

Jeez, even Fred Armisten gets it.

Glad to hear you like "living in the 21st century," "Ulfig." What's not to like? 9/11, War on Terra, collapse of the middle class, etc. Sounds like you were made for each other.

2011-11-30T19:56:00.000-08:00

Another Free Peek at Our Forthcoming Book

I’ll Have a White Rock, Please: Implicit Whiteness, Aryan Futurism, and the Godlike Genius of Scott Walker

2011-11-23T19:38:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I Just Say, "Wow"

Cause the United State of America ‘government’ corporation of DC may want to murder more citizens of the world for the death-cult of psychotic degenerate barbarian British-Zionist hell-raisers. By now they are foaming at the mouths like a bunch of rabid mad-dog animals seeking their next fix of dark-ecstasy hyper-drama. These Fabian pieces of dog-shit can never stop. They really think they are hot-shit when they murder innocents. They love to kill children that are not a threat to anyone except the Zionist mentality. The place a mark on the citizens that they will one day become aggressive enemies. They use their religion to justify death and carnage for their Satanic master — an alien agenda of moronic primitives who’s greatest fear is world peace. It’s nothing but a massive ego trip for the corrupted warriors who have taken their oaths deep within dark caves and worship demon gods. They even find the word Christmas offensive, for the hate anything that represents moral or spiritual development beyond there own demonology death-cult. These perpetrators of continual war are merely worthless pieces of dog shit who never grew-up. They dream up all kinds of reasons to seek revenge against those who have done nothing to them other than try to modernize their own society and reject the ways of the Bum-Heads.

Fabian?

2011-11-21T07:58:00.000-08:00

A Special Treat: An Excerpt from My Forthcoming Book

The Gilmore Girls

Occupy Wall Str eet

2011-11-14T13:17:00.000-08:00

Spengler: Accept No Substitutes!

The Judaic "talent" for cultural mimicry -- Spengler called it "pseudomorphism" -- and outright bare-faced impudence is well known and seemingly bottomless. A new low was reached when tribesman David Goldman appropriated the nom de plume of "Spengler" for his periodic meditations published in the Asia Times. Purporting to offer "hard headed" or "hard nosed" [get it?] analyses of "how civilizations die," I was initially intrigued, but soon cooled off on the whole set-up when it became apparent these were just excuses for the same old ethnocentric back-patting and Arab Haß that passes for "scholarship" among the neocons, such as Bernard Lewis has been profitably retailing for years now. Indeed, one might have thought that this was old Bernie himself, finding an outlet for Cleesian tantrums too obviously self-serving for publication under his own name.

Bernard Lewis discusses the Arab problem

[Speaking of Cleese, he may have a few words about Rosenberg's tribe himself:

John Cleese is furious he has to go back on tour to pay for his divorce. The 'Monty Python' comedian - who was ordered to pay $20.6million in his divorce settlement with third wife Alyce Faye Eichelberger - starts his one-man show in Olso, Norway, tonight (02.10.09), returning to the theatre for the first time in four years.]

Anywho, another tribal characteristic is to never let anything go to waste, so Dave has now repackaged his online meditations as a book [Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't go there....] along with a special edition of his Arab Haß called Die, Arab scum, Die! [I kid! I kid because I love!]

I notice he's given the important position of last item to a piece on how supposedly "objective criteria" [hoo-boy, calling Dr. Feyerabend!] prove that Israel is "the happiest nation on Earth."

I can't tell you what his "analysis" details -- hey, buy the book, boychick! -- because I can't be bothered to page through some Talmudic hocus-pocus purporting to 'prove' that shitty little country could possibly be the Shangri-La of the XXIst century. Here we have another in the ever-increasing load of guano that we've been being buried under

Tribesman Joseph Wiseman wears protective gear against the guano

since Irving Kristol put his people's 'cleverness' to the task of promoting a host of "surprising paradoxes"such as:

Unemployment benefits cause unemployment
Altruism is selfish [or, selfishness is altruistic, I forget which]

and of course:

Lowering tax rates raises tax revenue

A quick googling of "israel happiest nation on earth" reveals that the only "news" sources to have picked up on this revelation -- if you pardon the expression -- are... Israeli! So I suppose this belongs as well in the class of those "national urban myths" that purport to be 'obvious' or even "scientific" yet seem to exist only within one nation's borders; usually such havens of superstition as the US or... Israel:

Scientology is a religion
Fluoride is good for you
Circumcision is a harmless and indeed beneficial medical procedure
Waterboarding isn't torture
We can't possibly bring terrorists to justice without secret "courts" in foreign locations (just ask Britain, Spain, Germany...)
No one lived in Palestine when the Jews began to arrive in the 1890s
Israel is a harmless, defenseless David surrounded by irrationally murderous crazies

Of course, all real surveys, as we've documented here from time to time, invariably show that general welfare is directly correlated to Aryan nations, such as the Nordic countries; this holds true even within countries, such as Minnesota or Vermont vs. areas afflicted with the "black undertow."

It's especially rich for pseudo-Spengler to promulgate such nonsense, since one can only imagine the fulminating wrath the real Spengler would direct at the idea of using 'happiness' as a criterion for nations or peoples. As Nietzsche said, "man does not strive for happiness, only the Englishman." meaning not the nation of Shakespeare and Drake but Disraeli's 'nation of shopkeepers.'

Indeed, any 'happiness' to be found in Israel no doubt arises from the same Nordic factor: racial homogeneity, which cuts down on all the dangers and hassles of dealing with The Others, and allows for the kind of Prussian Socialism that Spengler promoted: free healthcare, free education, etc., along with a heroic ideal of service to the State.

What White person wouldn't be happy to live in The White State? Well, we know who: DWL's.

As we know there's nothing wrong with ethnic solidarity, from Israel itself to tribesman Goldman's puffery, as long as it benefits their tribe. But the rest of us must forswear such "ethnocentrism" in favor of multiculturalism, affirmative action, etc. etc. , according to the Judaic Left [to see how the American Left handles "undocumented aliens," or what Israel calls "infiltrators," consider this from today's Wall Street Journal], while Goldman's own Judaic Right counsels outsourcing and "free market" healthcare.

Why shouldn't the Israelis be happy? Americans [increasingly unhappy, by "objective criteria" as detailed here and here] have become the Golem under the control of ... Them.

Indeed, who could be happier than a remorseless, amoral sociopath?

Typical "Happy" Israeli

Of course, David might regret ending his book by revisiting "happy Israel":

Tent protest in polls: One big unhappy middle class

Recently published polls regarding the social protest reveal potential for major political changes in Israel

2011-11-12T05:36:00.001-08:00

Not Bad for an Old Geezer

Over the years I've been inclined to loathe Greil Marcus as a -- indeed, the epitome of a -- pompous, self-involved, hipster douchebag [I mean, just look at him], and of course so Berzerkley PC as to make MIT's Chomsky sound like Herman Cain giving dating tips, and in general his new book, THE DOORS: A Lifetime of Listening to Five Wild Years [PublicAffairs, 210 pp., illustrated, $21.99] does nothing to change that impression. It is, as Saul Austerlitz says [though he gets the title wrong, "Five Wild Years," reminding me of Rüdiger Safranski's Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy] a mixtape book, where Marcus's lifetime gets equal weigh to the listening, various Doors songs and concert moments being springboards for his reflections on, well, just about anything.

Then, when he's writing about Oliver Stone's movie, and veers off into talking about Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" or, specifically, the 1989 live, acoustic version, which he's apparently been writing about since 1994 -- see what I mean about 'douchebag'? -- he gets of this line, paragraph really, that is so great it reminds me of the days of Creem Magazine, which come to think of it, had a lot of younger, less douchebaggy Marcus in it:

...the audience is as present in the sound as the singer, violently ignoring the singer's every violent denunciation of what he country has come to. As Young sings about a dead crack baby -- if those lines aren't rock 'n' roll, what is? -- the people in the crowd cheer, yell, stomp, raise fists, pump arms in the air: Free World! Alright! We won! They're so excited that this Sixties person is right there in the flesh, they can tell someone they saw him before he died. The audience sounds as if it's tossing a beach ball back and forth as the guy on stage sings about the death of all he hold dear.

Damn that's some good writin'! I feel like pushing back from the tiki bar, brushing the nacho crumbs off my Hawaiian shirt, and buying this guy another margarita.

Oh, and you can get it as a ringtone, too. What's that, son?

2011-11-04T18:12:00.001-07:00

Poor Rachel Maddow Just Don't Get Herman Cain; or, 99% versus the 1%, or 90% versus 10%?

Uber-dyke Rachel Maddow, who for some reason has a show on the little-viewed MSNBC "network," makes a fool out of herself tonight by smirking through a headline segment on how Herman Cain's bizarre campaign is actually "performance art.'

As always, the ladies, especially the Angry Dykes, just don't 'get' funny.

Rather than reaching for strained, tired graduate school "media/cultural studies" tropes about "performance art," the fact [unmentionable if not unthinkable among Goodthinkers] is that Herman Cain fits into a much more established mold: the dopey negro.

See, until PC took over, negroes were objects of fun! Their dim-witted imitations of White [i.e., human ] behavior were a staple of literature, theatre, etc.

This, unfortunately, is exactly how they infiltrated our culture, sneaking up to our campfires like the equally primitive wolf and cat.

Now, of course, we're supposed to take them seriously -- indeed, regard them as uniquely Wise and Saintly [the "Magic Negro," as impersonated by Morgan Freeman, Denzel, Will, etc.].

Of course, one occasionally must look away from unseemly manifestations, such as Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" campaign, or Louis Farrakhan's Masonic musings.

If they're on, or serve, the Liberal agenda. Otherwise, the gloves are off.

We've already seen a bit of this on Obama's part, what with his "57 states" gaffe,

an old canard from the Bill Cosby-style "School of Education" Phd's that I encountered years ago in Detroit; there's a whole buncha "real knowing" that Black Folks keep among themsaves lest the White Boss mock they learnin'. And you ain't finding none o' that in no book learnin' neether [as an official of Detroit's City Council once said to me].

Are all negroes buffoons? Of course not. Some -- Obama, our Half-Blood Prince, for example -- belong to what W. E. B. Dubois designated as "the Talented Tenth" [like all such theorists, such as Randians, he believed himself to belong to said Tenth]. As Robert Penn Warren observed in his essay "The Briar Patch" in the Southern Agrarian's manifesto, I'll Take My Stand, segregation benefited the negro precisely by confining the Talented Tenth [not using the phrase] to its own race, while integration inevitably led to the Tenth leaving for the greener pastures of the White world.

Although like many beaten-down Whites Warren apparently "repudiated" the essay, the truth of his position can be seen today in the well-documented dysfunction of "Black Run America" as opposed to the slick assimilation as Establishment puppets pulled off by the likes of Obama.

2011-11-04T11:01:00.000-07:00

The "B" Team

Flipping channels to find something to watch over lunch, I caught the last segment of The Andrea Mitchell Show. La Mitchell, of course, is the wife of the filthy monster Greenspan -- no conflict of interest there, of course -- and must have been at home feeding The Maestro some navy bean soup or something.

"I like my yankee bean..."

Anywho, I beheld on my telescreen the following:

The guest host, a negro or some kinda mulatto;

Interviewing the reporter, a negro;

Regarding the latest scandal involving Herman Cain, negro;

As it affects his campaign to replace the Preznit, B. Obama, negro.

All we needed was a cut to that every-15 minutes on cable AllState commercial.

But Amy Goodman told me Whitey was still cruelly oppressing the Black Man!

Cain and Obama, by the way, are of course multi-millionaires, and I'll be hornswoggled if the other two talking heads don't pull down a low 6 figures.

Republican Presidential Debate

Suggested further reading:

In his 1968 collection of essays, The Bow and the Club, there is a chapter on “America Negrizzata,” which argues that, while there was relatively little miscegenation in the United States, the Telluric or Negro spirit has had considerable influence on the quality of American culture.

2011-11-04T07:06:00.000-07:00

Half the News, that Fits

It's nice of the Times to pass these along, but as usual, their pricey "commentary" obfuscates things nicely.

[A] former employee of Steven J. Baum recently sent me snapshots of last year’s party. In an e-mail, she said that she wanted me to see them because they showed an appalling lack of compassion toward the homeowners — invariably poor and down on their luck — that the Baum firm had brought foreclosure proceedings against. ...

Let me describe a few of the photos. In one, two Baum employees are dressed like homeless people. One is holding a bottle of liquor. The other has a sign around her neck that reads: “3rd party squatter. I lost my home and I was never served.” My source said that “I was never served” is meant to mock “the typical excuse” of the homeowner trying to evade a foreclosure proceeding.

Of course, "lack of compassion" is not quite the half of it. Notice that the sign in question does not merely mock the foreclosed, but rather, explicitly describes one of the crimes the firm commits: "foreclosing" on homes for which it doesn't even have title!

Max Keiser [here, starting at 7:53], also as usual, gets a little closer to the truth, calling them psychopaths who, as Stacy adds [at 9:55], secretly want to be caught, and so deliberately call attention to their crimes.

"Girl, you'll be a woman... soon..."

Reveal, yes. Get caught? Hardly.

Another name for what we have frequently [yesterday, for example] called "Talmudic Finance" is Masonic Finance. Masons, rabbis, lawyers, bankers -- same people, same M.O.

You know, this kinda paper-shuffling shit:

For the past two years, MF Global Holdings Ltd. may have disguised its debt levels to investors by temporarily slashing the debt it was carrying before publicly reporting its finances each quarter, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal.

The activity, referred to in the financial industry as "window dressing," suggests that the troubled financial firm was shouldering more risk and using more borrowed funds to facilitate its trading than investors could easily detect from the firm's regulatory filings.

Remember James J[ew] Cramer, back in 2000, ever so kindly unlocking his hedge fund experience hoard to tell you the 10 dot.com stock you must buy?

You want winners? You want me to put my Cramer Berkowitz hedge fund hat on and just discuss what my fund is buying today to try to make money tomorrow and the next day and the next? You want my top 10 stocks for who is going to make it in the New World? You know what? I am going to give them to you. Right here. Right now.

Get it? He's selling you the stocks he owns. Goyische kopf!

So what's so great about these stocks anyway?

Most of these companies don't even have earnings per share, so we won't have to be constrained by that methodology for quarters to come.

Demonstrating the Cramer Berkowitz hedge fund hat

Or this:

1) Politically-forced FASB accounting changes in 2009 allow banks to value worthless securities as if they actually retain their original value.

[Remember, the unemployed are lazy bums living on handouts, according to our previous source on "window dressing," the WSJ. Remember?]

2) To fund The Great Ponzi, TBTF banks borrow unlimited funds from the Fed at 0.00%. They then "invest" this free money into treasuries at 2-3%. They book the risk-free, taxpayer-supplied spread as "profit". They have used these "profits" in the charade of "paying back TARP". Additionally, this process allows the Fed to mask their quantitative easing efforts by having the TBTF banks do the dirty work for them. The process of QE2 and POMO was just an overt process of funding the U.S. government while at the same time injecting massive amounts of capital directly into the Fed's primary dealer banks.

"Overt" is the key word.

Ever wonder why every day a new crime is "uncovered" and talked to death on CNBS, yet no one ever fucking goes to jail?

Ever wonder why "smart money" keeps piling into "hedge funds" run by PhD's and Nobel Prizers that keep blowing up week after week [talking down your 401k with them]?

What we have hear is a classic example of the Masonic mind control technique known as The Revelation of the Method.

Revelation of the Method concerns mind control in the last stages and at a high level. When you tell someone what you are doing to them - murder, mayhem, kidnap, rape, you name it - and they do nothing to stop you or protect themselves, you have created a doubly enslaved subject.

Under the guise of bemoaning the bankers' "lack of compassion" the Times actually keeps you in the dark; that's the function of the "liberal" media.

Max, who used to be banker himself, gets half the story.

Remember, Constant Readers -- keep stopping here for the whole story!

2011-11-01T15:48:00.000-07:00

Our Meme Make It to MarketWatch!

The implosion of Obama's billionaire buddy's MF Global, apart from exposing the appalling crimes of Wall St. -- yet again, anyone listening? Buehler?-- also has lead many to adopt our meme of the Talmudic Economy.

Of course, they can't say that, not publicly.

But they try. Oh, they try.

At 1:14

6 things no one will tell you about MF Global

Commentary: This is what’s wrong with the economy

By Brett Arends, MarketWatch

6. We are all Marxists now

But no, I’m not talking about Karl Marx. I’m talking about Groucho: He’s the guy who really predicted how the modern economy would evolve.

[Get it? "Groucho's parents were Minnie Schoenberg Marx and Sam Marx"]

We're all "Marxists" now. Or at least, if you count, you are.

MF Global says that it employs about 3,000 people. And these were good — meaning high-paying— jobs. According to the latest filings, the average MF Global employee earned about $46,000 last quarter — or $184,000 a year.

That’s the average. Account for the support staff and so on, and the traders and risk-takers were pocketing serious coin.

It’s pretty much the same across Wall Street. But what are they actually doing? They’re just playing poker against each other. They’re engaged in an “industry” that produces neither iPhones nor brain scans nor pizzas. There is no output. There is no wider social purpose. They just trade paper against one another. Like most of Wall Street, it’s just a zero sum game.

"Just a show about nothing!"

Hard to believe, but there are actual people — lots of people — who think that what the U.S. economy needs is more MF Globals to trade against one another. Then our employment problem would be solved!

Abby Joseph Cohen, MF Global CEO Jon Corzine's former co-"worker" at Goldman Sachs

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan

once told a crowd in Boston that America should pretty much leave manufacturing to China and concentrate on our “core competence” of running financial firms. Like MF Global, no doubt. Or Lehman Brothers.

"What you mean 'our' competencies"?

Me? It just reminds me of the opening sequence of the Marx Brothers classic, “A Night At The Opera.” It was filmed in 1934, at another time when jobs were in desperately short supply.

Margaret Dumont, playing a rich, social-climbing widow, is rebuking Grouch Marx, who plays an adventurer called Otis B. Driftwood. “Mr. Driftwood,” she says severely, “Three months ago you promised to put me in ‘society.’ In all that time, you have done nothing but draw a very handsome salary!”

Grouch looks at her in astonishment. “You call that not working?"

Uh, yeah, wise ass, I do. Mayhap it's time for another "Otis B. Driftwood" to pay a visit to Wall St.

"Boy, the next word that comes out of your mouth better be some brilliant fuckin' Mark Twain shit. 'Cause it's definitely getting chiseled on your tombstone."

2011-11-01T07:37:00.000-07:00

New Post from Forthcoming Book

The Corner at the Center of the World:Traditional Metaphysics in a Late Tale of Henry James

J. P. Morgan, of whom photographer Edward Steichen is quoted as saying “Meeting his black eyes was like confronting the headlights of an express train bearing down on you”

2011-10-19T15:12:00.000-07:00

Right, But Not Profound

The headline is adapted from an opinion on Walter Kaufmann's Hegel : Text and Commentary, given by the great Canadian Neoplatonist, John Deck, while teaching a class using the text; pay no attention to the commentary, "Kaufmann is usually right but never profound."

From another Canadian source comes this post mortem on the fraud known as "economics." Nothing here that Constant Readers haven't already seen in our posts on Arrighi and Keynes, but nice to see it in Canada's own NYT. Hey, he even mentions our meme of pointing out that there is no "Nobel Prize" in economics!

Economics has met the enemy, and it is economics
by Ira Basen - Globe And Mail

In their desire to have their field be recognized as a science, economists increasingly decided to speak the language of science. From Smith's innovations through John Maynard Keynes's work in the 1930s, economics was argued in words. Now, it would go by the numbers....

And that may have been the greatest mistake of all: In a post-crisis, 2009 essay in The New York Times Magazine, Princeton economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote, "The central cause of the profession's failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess."...

The prize also has helped to transform one particular ideology into economic orthodoxy. Prof. Mirowski, who is co-writing a book on the history of the economics prize, notes that throughout the 1970s and 1980s, economists whose work supported neoclassical, pro-market, laissez-faire ideas won a disproportionate number of those honours, as well as support from the increasing numbers of well-funded think tanks and foundations that cleaved to the same lines.

People who rejected those ideas, or were skeptical of the natural sciences model, were quickly marginalized, and their road to academic advancement often blocked. The result was a homogenization of economic thought that Prof. Mirowski believes "has been pretty deleterious for economics on the whole." ...

After an elegant exposition of the way mathematical notions of "rational expectations" and "efficient market" have served not just to "dress up" economics as a "science, but also to provide justification for "pro-market" i.e., anti-people policies, the author ventures a diagnosis:

Critics point out that both these theories tend to ignore what John Maynard Keynes called the "animal spirits" – playing down human irrationality, inefficiency, venality and ignorance. Those are qualities that are hard to plug into a mathematical equation that purports to model human behaviour.

Like Kaufmann's Hegel, true enough, but Constant Readers will no doubt find our theory -- that what has been "ignored" by modern academic barbarians is how Keynes's work was actually based on intellectual intuition, similar to the sort tapped by Rene Guenon and commonly accessed in the Old Days by even Cambridge economists, not just yogis, and only used mathematics symbolically, unlike today's mathematical clowns who "take the finger for the moon" and can only conceive the alternative to mathematics as irrational Cartesian "spirits" -- to be a tad more profound.

Deck had a word for it: approfondissement.

2011-10-19T09:06:00.000-07:00

More "Traditionalist" Miserabilism

While the experience of coming into contact with the original generation of Traditionalists, Guenon, Evola, and Coomaraswamy, has often been characterized by a kind of intellectual joy, a sense of being able to finally breathe freely in the stifling modern world, a sense, as Stephen Mackenna described reading Plotinus, of "great doors flung open," the phenomenon already descried by Evola as "Guenonian scholasticism" has continued to solidify itself around us.

A few days ago, I spoke of the scholastic yet bourgeois treatment of homosexuality by the current Traditionalist hierarchy [undeterred to speak on sexual matters by the spectacle of their prophet, Schuon, dancing about in his "mini-loincloth"]. Another such public nuisance is one "Gornahoor" who performs a useful service by providing translations of various documents by Evola and others, yet in the process cannot help posting screeds dealing with his various hobbyhorses, larded with cut-and-past Evola-isms.

One recent post deals with the enticing subject of Aztec human sacrifice, and the suggestion, owing much to de Maistre, that the Spaniards had little right to hold themselves superior and qualified to suppress such public rites.

Yet no sooner do we reach this point than G. is on his hobby horse again, this time "WN's", by which he means [I think] White Nationalists. The use of such initialisms is always suspicious [see Marcuse's discussion of the use of such blank slugs as CIA, AFL-CIO, CP-USA and others to elide past controversies and questionable assumptions from the public discussion in One Dimensional Man] and indeed we find it curious that G. has not once ever so much as named a "WN" or quoted any of his writings. One might think his animus arising not from reading or discussion with WN's but from an unfortunate encounter with a skinhead. It may be an imitation of Schuon's irritating preciosity of never naming a living opponent, but it sure does make winning the argument easier, now don't it now?

G. has a bugbear about "rites" which he does, authentically, get from Evola. I won't go into it here, and suggest instead that you look up his "The Concept of Initiation" online, or else read the relevant sections of Ride the Tiger. Suffice it to say that modern man, even of the "differentiated" sort apt to read and identify with Evola, will not have access to the authentic rites that conferred initiation and hence immortality in traditional societies.

G. twists this around to serve his obsession: WN's are usually materialists and Darwinists, certainly post-Enlightenment creatures, who base their WN on the supposed preeminence of their genes, while the true basis of the Aryan Elite lies in the performance of rites [becoming 'twice-born' and thus a true Brahmin], which the WN has no access to and doesn't even know he needs! Thus, "he will not be able to achieve his goal;" i.e., no true Aryan hierarchy can be constructed. Hence, the invidious comparison to the Aztecs; a real, though somewhat degenerated, traditional society of wogs, by contrast with the falsely puffed up "White Race."

True as far as it goes, but one fails to see how the WN, lacking any spiritual awareness, can "fail to reach his goal," constructing a spiritual hierarchy not being on the table. If the WN is concerned with "throwing out the Jews and spics," let's say, it's clear he could do it without reconstituting the traditional Aryan hierarchy, since he did it in 1924, closing the door until the 1965 Immigration "Reform" Act re-opened it.

Moreover, Evola is certainly an odd ally to bring out for this. Rather than quoting from the works I cited above, G. quotes from Pagan Imperialism [perhaps do to his having a translation for sale?], a book that Evola wrote specifically to join, but also "correct," the Fascist movement! So much for "in the absence of rites pagan nationalism has no hope"! In fact, Evola later translated the book into German, eliding the pro-Italian rhetoric and replacing it with praise of the Nordic spirit, in order to curry favor with the Gestapo. Obviously, in some sense both movements 'failed' but Evola was hardly led by his words in Pagan Imperialism to eschew contact with such groups.

[Evola's contacts with the Fascisti, of course, were around the same time as the closing of the immigration door, and the reader should be reminded that at the time, the main influence on the Italian and German fascists was the "progressive" legislation in the USA, dealing with immigration, "Indian" assimilation [including death camps run by the Catholic and Anglican Churchs], eugenics, sterilization of the unfit, etc. Far from the WN goal being some unattainable spiritual utopia, it merely involves turning the clock back a few decades within our, admittedly, degenerate time. As Uncle Jim Kunstler says in another context, the end of fossil fuel would take us back to the time of The Magnificent Ambersons, surely no great hardship and with much to say for it culturally].

Evola, basically, rather than concluding, like G., that nothing could be done in the absence of the "bureaucratic" notion of "initiatory regularity" that obsessed Guenon, counselled exactly the opposite: action, preferably, risking and death-defying ["the relation between initiation and death being clear"]. And what better course to choose than to throw oneself into the fight to push back the "black undertow"?

War Zone, USA: The Black Undertow Provides Multiple Cities the Opportunity to Train Military Emergency Personnel to Deal with the Horrors of War

Of course, a prior, personal "initiatory qualification" is needed; the death in battle of today's mercenary is nothing like the magnificent death of a Roland or a Templar.

And speaking of initiatory qualification, the whole point of paganism is that it is the authentic, genetic, if you will, religious tradition of the White People. As the Situationists said, "Beneath the pavement, the beach." As Colin Ward said of anarchism, we don't need to figure out "how to create it;" it already exists, as the natural, really functioning under-structure of society, we just need to throw off the chains of the State and life will go on, only better.

Rather than waiting around for some kind of "new revelation," which G. and Guenon both believe to be impossible anyway, Evola counsels action in the modern, really existing world, cracking off the Semitic carapace and letting Nature take its course. And if we fail, it will be glorious!

And are WN's in fact mere Enlightenment insects, spiritually indiscernible from their Semitic masters? Here, just yesterday, is a blog post that suggests otherwise:

And so I suppose this essay is for those few who wish to be part of history, those who are honest enough to admit the genie has been let out of the bottle and cannot be put back, that we must plant anew as our past cannot be re-forged. These are the ones who shall be instrumental in bringing about the post-American, post-Western renaissance of the Aryan people. They remember the words of yesteryear: Cattle die and kinsmen die and so one dies oneself. But I know of one thing that never dies — the fame of a dead man’s deeds. Indeed, it is these few who shall transcend the limitations set by the mortality of their own existence. You have already been born.

It is these few who have returned to Nature, who of choice spend at least as many hours in the outdoors, without electronic gadgetry, per week as they spend watching TV or on the internet, for they prefer the natural over the unnatural. They know there is a Higher Power, and they recognize it is the Will of this Power that life shall go up, not down, that it shall reach ever higher levels, even as it has in eons past. They know all things that follow Mother Nature’s Laws play a part in seeing that creation shall evolve higher, and not devolve lower. For this is the hallmark of all good creatures: they have no trouble justifying their existence to this Higher Power. They know it is a war — figuratively and literally — between light and darkness. The darkness wants the light extinguished, and the light wants to shine and chase away the darkness.

Those few Aryans, that refined remnant, who survive Mother Nature’s purifying fire — Natural Selection — shall be a new folk, a higher type of humanity. The Jew’s intelligence and ethnocentrism shall pale before their wisdom and zealous folk loyalty. The spirit of the regenerated Aryan shall embrace all that is good with righteous love, and shall confront all that is evil with ruthless hate. And, they shall have no trouble telling the difference between the two. And, unlike the nature-hating Jew who was commanded by his god from the beginning to replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth (Genesis 1:28), the new folk shall grace the earth with better but fewer folk — quality over quantity. We will not allow the Jewish values that call for the subjugation of our loving mother earth and dominion over her creatures to continue — nor can our precious planet and her dwellers survive many more years of the atrocities waged against her by the Urban Men. We shall live in harmony and respect with our earth and her fish and fowl and all other creatures that dwell therein. They wait for us, and we shall make peace with them, and cherish them with all our hearts.

Or, you could sit at a computer and wait for a "dream initiation."

2011-10-15T12:13:00.000-07:00

The Princess and the Maggot

Although apparently written back in 2008, long before I began writing about James and Lovecraft, I only recently stumbled across this quote from pioneer Lovecraft scholar S. T. Joshi, which might be said to encapsulate my concern in this series of articles:

The history of Lovecraft’s reputation -- his initial rejection by Edmund Wilson and others as a pulp hack; the championing of his work by Derleth, Fritz Leiber, and George T. Wetzel; the revolution in scholarship as a result of the work of such critics as Dirk W. Mosig and Donald R. Burleson; and his final acceptance as a canonical author with the publication of his work in Penguins Classics and the Library of America -- would make for an interesting chapter in the evolution of literary taste. Lovecraft remains unique in being simultaneously a figure commanding respect among highbrow critics and a significant figure in popular culture, the source of films, role-playing games, and other media adoptions. -- “Introduction” to H. P. Lovecraft: The Complete Fiction. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2008.

Having just read Maxwell Geismar’s admittedly idiosyncratic Henry James and the Jacobites, [1] a futile and almost obsessive attempt from the early 60s to “cry stinking fish” and deflate the effete James ‘fad’ in the name of an alternative American tradition of manly Marxists like Twain, Wolfe and London, it struck me that, allowing for Joshi’s justifiable boosterism, there was at least one other author, an America author, an author of [for at least part of] the same XXth century, that could tell the same story: Henry James.

While James certainly never thought of himself as a pulp or other genre writer, his reputation had many more ups and downs over his lifetime than his secure place in the literary Pantheon today would lead you to expect [for example, publishers thought a Collected Edition was called for, but it was a legendary dud]. And after his death, he was a forgotten as Lovecraft always was, dismissed as both a hack [his melodramatic plots] and an possessing an unreadable verbose and precious style. Then, a new generation of critics, led by the partisans of the so-called “New Criticism” discovered James for their own purposes, elevated him into “The Master,” and even cobbled together an aesthetic for the novel from his self-serving Prefaces he added to that collected edition. James was part of the Penguin Modern Classics from the beginning, along with the Library of America. One might even compare the mammoth editing and biographical work of Leon Edel to Joshi himself. As for popular media, James has long become a staple of the Merchant-Ivory film or Masterpiece Theatre TV genres, and my copy of “The Turn of the Screw” has an appendix listing three pages of various adaptations, including operas -- although I must grant Joshi that no role-playing games have appeared.

With this parallel in mind, I’d like to explore some additional similarities of their lives and careers as reflected in their writings -- admittedly, in a rather chiastic fashion -- by taking a look at an early Lovecraft tale, and an early James novel, as James reflects on it years later.

My coming to New York had been a mistake; for whereas I had looked for poignant wonder and inspiration in the teeming labyrinths of ancient streets that twist endlessly from forgotten courts and squares and waterfronts to courts and squares and waterfronts equally forgotten, and in the Cyclopean modern towers and pinnacles that rise blackly Babylonian under waning moons, I had found instead only a sense of horror and oppression which threatened to master, paralyze, and annihilate me. -- “He” 1925

Although permanently associated with New England [his gravestone reads “I am Providence”] Lovecraft’s life, and work, took a weird turn in 30s, when for reasons still unclear he married one Sonia Greene, a Russian Jewish immigrant, and moved to Brooklyn, NY. She promptly lost her job and left for the Midwest to find work, leaving Lovecraft to shift for himself, unemployed and unemployable, until his return to Providence in 1926.

Surrounded by alien beings -- “I’ll be shot if three out of every four persons – nay, full nine out of every ten – weren’t flabby, pungent, grinning, chattering niggers! Help!” [2] -- Lovecraft consoled himself with visits to a handful of simpatico friends, such as Samuel Loveman, and long, sometimes all-night walks among such districts as preserved enough Federal architecture to spur his historical interests. “He” was the result of one such walk, that started in Brooklyn and ended, next morning, in Elizabeth, New Jersey.

During his increasingly desperate stay, he composed a whole series of stories reflecting his traumatic life in New York -- recently collected, with photos of the actual locales, as From the Pest Zone. These stories, such as “The Horror at Red Hook” and the one we are looking at, “He,” were something new for Lovecraft; more, shall we say, “Lovecraftian”. As Michel Houellebeq says in his invaluable monograph H. P. Lovecraft – Against the world, against life :

New York had marked him definitively. His hatred for the “stinking, amorphous hybridity” of this modern Babel, for the “giant strangers, ill-born and deformed, who gabble and shout vulgarly, destitute of dreams, within its confines” did not cease, during the course of 1925 , to exasperate him to the point of delirium. Once might even say that one of the fundamental figures of his work – the idea of a titanic and grandiose city, in the fundaments of which swarm repugnant creatures of nightmare – was inspired directly by his experience of New York. [p.32]

New York helped him. He, who was so polite, so courteous, had discovered hate. Returning to Providence he composed magnificent stories, vibrant like incantations, precise as dissections. [37]

Indeed, it was soon after his return to Providence that he produced … “The Call of Cthulhu.”

Here we reach the first of our chiastic parallels: Lovecraft left New England for New York; James left New York for [Old] England.

Of course, there are more than few important differences. James, for one, was already an established author, although in the early period we’ll be looking at he had had a string of ‘bombs’ and would eventually face utter defeat and even public humiliation [booed from the stage on opening night] when he attempted a new career in drama.

James was fleeing what he judged to be a colonial culture too “thin” to really produce art [see his infamous essay on Hawthorne, where he lists all the things America lacks]. Lovecraft would have demurred, but as a dogmatic “materialist,” he by no means agreed with his Puritan ancestors’ theology; he merely respected them for sternly believing in something. In any event, the “New” England Lovecraft loved was definitely rooted in the 17th century England he took as his literary and intellectual model. As we shall see, when James returned to New York many years later, he found is as loathsome as Lovecraft did.

Moreover, Geismar emphasizes that James’ idea of “England” was largely imaginary, as literature-inspired as the hermetic Lovecraft’s ideas of everywhere outside Providence, and so he was just as likely to find the reality, at least at first, to be alien. And he had the artistic skill to be able to imagine what London, or any great metropolis, would be like to someone who lacked the “entrée“ James had through his money, fame and family connections -- everything Lovecraft lacked.

In short, Lovecraft idolized the “England” of New England, while James left New York, and America, precisely to immerse himself in a similarly unreal Albion of the mind.

While Joshi has covered more than adequately the background of nearly hysterical street wandering out of which “He” emerged, we have in the case of James his own account, in the “Preface” included in the doomed New York Edition, of the circumstances in which The Princess Casamassima came to be.

The simplest account of the origin of The Princess Casamassima is, I think, that this fiction proceeded quite directly, during the first year of a long residence in London, from the habit and the interest of walking the streets. I walked a great deal – for exercise, for amusement, for acquisition, and above all I always walked home at the evening’s end, when the evening had been spent elsewhere, as happened more often than not; and as to do this was to receive many impressions, so the impressions worked and sought an issue, so the book after a time was born. It is a fact that, as I look back, the attentive exploration of London, the assault directly made by the great city upon an imagination quick to react, fully explains a large part of it. There is a minor element that refers itself to another source, of which I shall presently speak; but the prime idea was unmistakeably the ripe round fruit of perambulation. One walked of course with one’s eyes greatly open, and I hasten to declare that such a practice, carried on for a long time and over a considerable space, positively provokes, all round, a mystic solicitation, the urgent appeal, on the part of everything, to be interpreted and, so far as may be, reproduced. ‘Subjects’ and situations, character and history, the tragedy and comedy of life, are things of which the common air, in such conditions, seems pungently to taste; and to a mind curious, before the human scene, of meanings and revelations the great grey Babylon easily becomes, on its face, a garden bristling with an immense illustrative flora. Possible stories, presentable figures, rise from the thick jungle as the observer moves, fluttering up like startled game, and before he knows it indeed he has fairly to guard himself against the brush of importunate wings. He goes on as with his head in a cloud of humming presences – especially during the younger, the initiatory time, the fresh, the sharply-apprehensive months or years, more or less numerous. We use our material up, we use up even the thick tribute of the London streets – if perception and attention but sufficiently light our steps. But I think of them as lasting, for myself, quite sufficiently long; I think of them as even still – dreadfully changed for the worse in respect to any romantic idea as I find them – breaking out on occasion into eloquence, throwing out deep notes from their vast vague murmur.

There was a moment at any rate when they offered me no image more vivid than that of some individual sensitive nature or fine mind, some small obscure intelligent creature whose education should have been almost wholly derived from them, capable of profiting by all the civilisation, all the accumulations to which they testify, yet condemned to see these things only from outside – in mere quickened consideration, mere wistfulness and envy and despair. It seemed to me I had only to imagine such a spirit intent enough and troubled enough, and to place it in presence of the comings and goings, the great gregarious company, of the more fortunate than himself – all on the scale on which London could show them – to get possession of an interesting theme. I arrived so at the history of little Hyacinth Robinson – he sprang up for me out of the London pavement. To find his possible adventure interesting I had only to conceive his watching the same public show, the same innumerable appearances, I had watched myself, and of his watching very much as I had watched; save indeed for one little difference. This difference would be that so far as all the swarming facts should speak of freedom and ease, knowledge and power, money, opportunity and satiety, he should be able to revolve round them but at the most respectful of distances and with every door of approach shut in his face. For one’s self, all conveniently, there had been doors that opened – opened into light and warmth and cheer, into good and charming relations; and if the place as a whole lay heavy on one’s consciousness there was yet always for relief this implication of one’s own lucky share of the freedom and ease, lucky acquaintance with the number of lurking springs at light pressure of which particular vistas would begin to recede, great lighted, furnished, peopled galleries, sending forth gusts of agreeable sound….

Truly, of course, there are London mysteries (dense categories of dark arcana) for every spectator, and it ’s in a degree an exclusion and a state of weakness to be without experience of the meaner conditions, the lower manners and types, the general sordid struggle, the weight of the burden of labour, the ignorance, the misery and the vice. With such matters as those my tormented young man would have had contact – they would have formed, fundamentally, from the first, his natural and immediate London. But the reward of a romantic curiosity would be the question of what the total assault, that of the world of his work-a-day life and the world of his divination and his envy together, would have made of him, and what in especial he would have made of them. As tormented, I say, I thought of him, and that would be the point – if one could only see him feel enough to be interesting without his feeling so much as not to be natural.

I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the particularly “Lovecraftian” wording. James seems to have verily conjured up in his powerful imagination the near destitute, near starving, near friendless [though technically ‘married’ and with many correspondents] Lovecraft. What James makes of Hyacinth, what he imagines Hyacinth would make of himself in such a position, is an anarchist; his imagination, though powerful, was, as Geismar insists, too snobbish to let him imagine someone like Lovecraft who could have picked himself up, returned to Providence, and used his experience to make himself a writer; a writer, perhaps, like Henry James.

The other notable thing about “He” is the famous “racism.” [5] Lovecraft loathes the buildings and streets, but also, perhaps more so, the people in them. You could say he loathes the mongrel New Yorkers first and last; in that same opening passage:

[T]he throngs of people that seethed through the flume-like streets were squat, swarthy strangers with hardened faces and narrow eyes, shrewd strangers without dreams and without kinship to the scenes about them, who could never mean aught to a blue-eyed man of the old folk, with the love of fair green lanes and white New England village steeples in his heart.

And in the climactic, terrifying vision of the Babylon of the future:

I saw the heavens verminous with strange flying things, and beneath them a hellish black city of giant stone terraces with impious pyramids flung savagely to the moon, and devil-lights burning from unnumbered windows. And swarming loathsomely on aërial galleries I saw the yellow, squint-eyed people of that city, robed horribly in orange and red, and dancing insanely to the pounding of fevered kettle-drums, the clatter of obscene crotala, and the maniacal moaning of muted horns whose ceaseless dirges rose and fell undulantly like the waves of an unhallowed ocean of bitumen.

Lovecraft loathed New York’s “multicultural tapestry” [and any New Yorker of today will recognize those pounding drums, from subway platforms to parks to “Occupy Wall Street“]. "Whenever we found ourselves in the racially mixed crowds which characterize New York, Howard would become livid with rage," Greene later wrote. "He seemed almost to lose his mind." [6]

“When you see my new tale “The Horror at Red Hook”, you will see what I make of this idea in connexion with the gangs of young loafers and herds of evil-looking foreigners that one sees everywhere” (Lord p176).

“New York is dead, and the brilliancy which so impresses one from the outside is the phosphorescence of a maggoty corpse” (Lord p198).

James’s London, though the center of a world-wide empire, was still sufficiently White to afford no such horrors; it was still at least if one had, like James, entrée to the right circles. “The Great Good Place” is perhaps the reductio ad absurdum of James’s idea of Paradise as a well-appointed London club.

But James, near the end of his career, returned to New York, and found that “all had changed, changed utterly,“ as Yeats might have said. .In the relevant chapters of The American Scene James records his incomprehension and horror, again in very recognizably Lovecraftian terms which I have highlighted:

One's supreme relation, as one had always put it, was one's relation to one's country--a conception made up so largely of one's countrymen and one's countrywomen. Thus it was as if, all the while, with such a fond tradition of what these products predominantly were, the idea of the country itself underwent something of that profane overhauling through which it appears to suffer the indignity of change. Is not our instinct in this matter, in general, essentially the safe one--that of keeping the idea simple and strong and continuous, so that it shall be perfectly sound? To touch it overmuch, to pull it about, is to put it in peril of weakening; yet on this free assault upon it, this readjustment of it in their monstrous, presumptuous interest, the aliens, in New York, seemed perpetually to insist. The combination there of their quantity and their quality--that loud primary stage of alienism which New York most offers to sight--operates, for the native, as their note of settled possession, something they have nobody to thank for; so that unsettled possession is what we, on our side, seem reduced to--the implication of which, in its turn, is that, to recover confidence and regain lost ground, we, not they, must make the surrender and accept the orientation....

The carful, again and again, is a foreign carful; a row of faces, up and down, testifying, without exception, to alienism unmistakable, alienism undisguised and unashamed. You do here, in a manner perhaps, discriminate; the launched condition, as I have called it, is more developed in some types than in others; but I remember observing how, in the Broadway and the Bowery conveyances in especial, they tended, almost alike, to make the observer gasp with the sense of isolation. It was not for this that the observer on whose behalf I more particularly write had sought to take up again the sweet sense of the natal air.

And of course, the most alien are the Jews, who call to mind nothing so much as the fish-spawn of Lovecraft's Innsmouth:

The sense of this quality was already strong in my drive, with a companion, through the long, warm June twilight, from a comparatively conventional neighbourhood; it was the sense, after all, of a great swarming, a swarming that had begun to thicken, infinitely, as soon as we had crossed to the East side and long before we had got to Rutgers Street. There is no swarming like that of Israel when once Israel has got a start, and the scene here bristled, at every step, with the signs and sounds, immitigable, unmistakable, of a Jewry that had burst all bounds. That it has burst all bounds in New York, almost any combination of figures or of objects taken at hazard sufficiently proclaims; but I remember how the rising waters, on this summer night, rose, to the imagination, even above the housetops and seemed to sound their murmur to the pale distant stars. It was as if we had been thus, in the crowded, hustled roadway, where multiplication, multiplication of everything, was the dominant note, at the bottom of some vast sallow aquarium in which innumerable fish, of over-developed proboscis, were to bump together, for ever, amid heaped spoils of the sea. ...

There are small strange animals, known to natural history, snakes or worms, I believe, who, when cut into pieces, wriggle away contentedly and live in the snippet as completely as in the whole. So the denizens of the New York Ghetto, heaped as thick as the splinters on the table of a glass-blower, had each, like the fine glass particle, his or her individual share of the whole hard glitter of Israel. This diffused intensity, as I have called it, causes any array of Jews to resemble (if I may be allowed another image) some long nocturnal street where every window in every house shows a maintained light. The advanced age of so many of the figures, the ubiquity of the children, carried out in fact this analogy; they were all there for race, and not, as it were, for reason: that excess of lurid meaning, in some of the old men's and old women's faces in particular, would have been absurd, in the conditions, as a really directed attention--it could only be the gathered past of Israel mechanically pushing through. The way, at the same time, this chapter of history did, all that evening, seem to push, was a matter that made the "ethnic" apparition again sit like a skeleton at the feast. It was fairly as if I could see the spectre grin while the talk of the hour gave me, across the board, facts and figures, chapter and verse, for the extent of the Hebrew conquest of New York....

Phantasmagoric for me, accordingly, in a high degree, are the interesting hours I here glance at content to remain--setting in this respect, I recognize, an excellent example to all the rest of the New York phantasmagoria. Let me speak of the remainder only as phantasmagoric too, so that I may both the more kindly recall it and the sooner have done with it.

The very “scientific” nature of the change, what others might laud with the cliché of “the march of progress” paradoxically emphasizes the ancient Babylonian aspect, rather like Lang’s Metropolis recalls Moloch -- scientific progress as a genocidal trap:

I remember the evolved fire-proof staircase, a thing of scientific surfaces, impenetrable to the microbe, and above all plated, against side friction, with white marble of a goodly grain. The white marble was surely the New Jerusalem note, and we followed that note, up and down the district, the rest of the evening, through more happy changes than I may take time to count. What struck me in the flaring streets (over and beyond the everywhere insistent, defiant, unhumorous, exotic face) was the blaze of the shops addressed to the New Jerusalem wants and the splendour with which these were taken for granted; the only thing indeed a little ambiguous was just this look of the trap too brilliantly, too candidly baited for the wary side of Israel itself. It is not for Israel, in general, that Israel so artfully shines--yet its being moved to do so, at last, in that luxurious style, might be precisely the grand side of the city of redemption. Who can ever tell, moreover, in any conditions and in presence of any apparent anomaly, what the genius of Israel may, or may not, really be "up to"?

The New Jerusalem is the new Babylon enslaving the former masters.

So finally, James came to the realization that his New York, revisited after years abroad, had changed as much, become as alienated a maggot-ridden corpse, as Lovecraft’s New York of the near and distant Future; returning now to the beginning of Lovecraft's story, do we not hear the Jamesian voice?

So instead of the poems I had hoped for, there came only a shuddering blankness and ineffable loneliness; and I saw at last a fearful truth which no one had ever dared to breathe before—the unwhisperable secret of secrets—the fact that this city of stone and stridor is not a sentient perpetuation of Old New York as London is of Old London and Paris of Old Paris, but that it is in fact quite dead, its sprawling body imperfectly embalmed and infested with queer animate things which have nothing to do with it as it was in life. Upon making this discovery I ceased to sleep comfortably; though something of resigned tranquility came back as I gradually formed the habit of keeping off the streets by day and venturing abroad only at night, when darkness calls forth what little of the past still hovers wraith-like about, and old white doorways remember the stalwart forms that once passed through them. With this mode of relief I even wrote a few poems, and still refrained from going home to my people lest I seem to crawl back ignobly in defeat. -- “He”

One measure of how the cultural climate has changed -- and not to Lovecraft’s advantage -- is that such passages as the ones in James could be published not by some squalid pulp magazine, but by Harper in 1904, and republished by Scribner in 1944, and today in the Library of America, and reprinted and excerpted in critical works ever since -- without any real outrage or even notice [even from Auden, in his introduction to the 1944 reprint] except from the aforementioned Geismar, who sneers at James‘s unmanly whining about his elite group being shoved aside, rather than joining the New Americans on the right side of History. [Before attacking the effete James “cult” in the 60s, Geismar had been instrumental in returning Jack London to critical favor, in the process needing to provide a similar though more forgiving Freudian interpretation of his “racism” -- see Rebels and Ancestors: The American Novel 1890-1915 (1953)]
.
“Lovecraft’s racism” by contrast is a research theme in itself, constantly condemned or exculpated; Joshi’s short note to “He” in the collection cited finds room to warn that it is “disturbingly racist” [332] and dealing with an earlier story he denigrates Lovecraft’s obvious distinction between earlier English and Dutch immigrants, what might be called the Founding Race, and the later “wretched refuse” as a “sophism” that allows him to recast the latter as “maggots” [8]

James’ New York experience produced, of course, stories of his own, one of which, “The Jolly Corner,” is not only perhaps his last good work, but also one of his “ghost stories,” frequently anthologized alongside Lovecraft. In this tale, the narrator does not so bluntly "gasp" at the swarming aliens; in good WASP fashion, he has retreated to his ancestral townhouse, where he directs his loathing inward. By this time, his loathing of what New York had become had extended to a loathing of what -- he -- might have become if New York had claimed him.

But that will be the subject of another post.

Published in England as Henry James and His Cult (London: Chatto and Windus, 1964)
Lovecraft, Howard Phillips. Lord of a Visible World: an Autobiography by S.T. Joshi and David E. Schultz. Athens, OH: Ohio UP, 2000, p179.
H.P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life. New York: McSweeney’s, 2005 [also available online here.
Frequently reprinted, and available online here.
See the letters collected as “The Racial Worldview of H. P. Lovecraft at Counter Currents: Part One, Part Two, Part Three.
Lin Carter, Lovecraft: A Look Behind the Cthulhu Mythos, p. 45.
Again, frequently reprinted, and available online here.
A dreamer and a visionary: H.P. Lovecraft in his time, p.224.

2011-10-07T08:35:00.001-07:00

Homosexuality, “Traditionalism” and Really Existing Tradition

It’s a rare experience to find one’s self battling bourgeois "Traditionalism" at the side of Baron Julius Evola, and I gotta say, I like it!

Shortly after the war, Baron Evola found himself the target of some aspersions from self-styled “Traditionalists” which led him to these valuable reflections [1] on:

…the danger of a Guénonian "scholasticism" (in the negative sense of the term), which can reduce everything to something which is both inoperative and abstract, despite the claims (without a proof) advanced by many followers of Guénon, of having attained a knowledge which should be "realizing" as well. The proof that such a danger is real, is given by the orientation taken by some Guénonian cliques of "strict observance." An example is also found in Italy, by the periodical "Review of Traditional Studies," which was started last year in Turin, and which imitates the French Guénonian periodical Études traditionnelles even in its editorial contents. The translations made in it of old articles written by Guénon, along with some texts or theoretical orientations, may be helpful. However the tone of this review is a pedantic one. One can frequently notice in it an academic inclination, namely the style of speaking ex cathedra and ex tripode in a final and pedagogical tone, and with an authority which no member of the editorial staff possesses, either because of spiritual stature or because of valid works being published.

What Guénon had to say in an unfortunate essay concerning "The Need for a Traditional Exotericism," must also be rejected, since it offers dangerous incentives and alibis to a reactionary and petty-bourgeois conformism. The pedantic representatives of Guénonian scholasticism should rather strive to reach a deeper understanding of the true meaning of the Way of the Left Hand, which is not any less traditional than the Way of Right Hand, and which has the advantage of emphasizing the transcendent dimension proper of every truly initiatory realization and aspiration. An abstract and intellectualizing Guénonian scholasticism, typical of "research institutes," may well ignore the real meaning of the Way of the Left Hand.

"Traditionalists" are soooo boring...

The Timeless Relevance of Traditional Wisdom [Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom, 2010] purports to “rediscover the sacred worldview of Tradition, governed by truth, virtue, and beauty, as [it] addresses some of the most pressing issues today, including fundamentalism, gender and sexuality, religious diversity and pluralism, faith and science, and the problem of evil.” And while there is much good here [and well worth the $3.00 it‘s going for on Amazon, such is the modern world‘s disinterest] I find it discouraging, though predicable, to find this quote from the august Whitall Perry:

The homosexual error is, among other things, that of isolating one pole of a binary cognate and treating it as an absolute, which does violence to the imperatives of the cosmic order. [p.76]

Well!

This sort of flummery posing as profundity [what is a “pole of a binary cognate,” and how does a limp-wristed queen “do violence” to imperatives of no less than a “cosmic order”?] happens too often when Traditionalists attempt to pontificate [“ex cathedra” indeed] on subjects without, as Guénon would say, the proper data. The data, in this case, being knowledge of traditional societies, and knowledge of homosexuality. How then can they apply Traditional principles to either, or especially to their supposed interaction?

A conclusion is reached, supposedly by long and profound meditation of “principles” but really based on caricatures and stereotypes [“dangerous incentives and alibis to a reactionary and petty-bourgeois conformism“], and then merely dressed up, post hoc, in “deduction from principles.” Reading such comments, I am reminded of Peter Damian, the “inventor“ of the concept of “sodomy,” which has had a peculiar quality through centuries of discussion: it cannot be described, because though “unnatural” it is so delectable that a description would increase its occurrence -- especially among the clergy themselves! By the XIXth century, this theological scruple would produce “the Love that dare not speak its name.” [2]

This is all the more unfortunates, and unacceptable, since a man with the requisite knowledge of Tradition, and experience living in a traditional society, and experience of homosexuality, is available within the Traditionalist fold, indeed, among the very First Generation, a friend and correspondent of Guenon himself, and published alongside Evola by Inner Traditions: Alain Daniélou.

Daniélou, unlike any other Traditionalist, actually lived, “full time,” in a traditional society, rural India of the 1930s, where he became fluent in Sanskrit and Hindi, initiated into several local cults, attended the lectures of authentic traditional teachers, and, in short, acquired a knowledge, unavailable to Westerners or from “anglicized” Brahmins, of India art and philosophy that, unlike the “cult” status of Guenon’s work, was recognized by the scholarly world as unsurpassed.

He did all this while traveling the back roads of India in a Gulfstream trailer with his “long time companion,” as we would say, Raymond Burnier. While this lifestyle would have had him arrested in England, and even today in parts of the USA, he found that in India it was a non-issue: his French birth made him an outcaste, and since marriage was out of the question, his private life was ignored. [3]

Eventually, Daniélou learned that even theoretically [or ’principially’ as Traditionalists might say] there was no ’objection’ to homosexuality; quite the contrary:

Homosexuality is recognized [in the Hindu tradition] as a biological fact, given the necessity for all the intermediate degrees between masculine and feminine, and has never been persecuted. Its various practices are described in the classical treatises on the art of love, which every young scholar must study in just the same way as the other traditional sciences. Even today, boy prostitutes have their niche in society and certain privileges, in particular, that of playing female roles -- dressed as women -- at major religious performances, organized by the temples in each town or village, and representing episodes in the epics that recount the lives of the divine heroes Rama and Krishna. [4]

Such passages occur throughout his writing, but this one is interesting for containing both points I want to draw attention to. Traditionalists, by and large, are born and raised in modernized Western societies, and acquire their knowledge of Tradition largely through books. Daniélou is unique in having, admittedly at a later age, undergone the education of a traditional young man, and lived in a traditional society. He is thus fully aware of both the actual role played by homosexuals in such societies, as well as the objective, technical knowledge of it possessed by every educated man. [He is also the author of the standard modern English translation of the Kama Sutra].

Even on a “principial” level, Daniélou has no patience with such simple-minded shuffling of “archetypes”, pointing out that if there are two basic principles, light and dark, male and female, etc., then there must be many “resultant intermediate states.” Shiva, for example, is not merely paired with Shakti, but manifests in many forms, some bisexual or hermaphroditic, which are the subject of numerous homosexual cults. [5]

All this is in contrast to say, Guenon, who learned his “Eastern Metaphysics” in Paris, from some traveling Hindus. The dangers of this were immediately apparent in his condemnation of Buddhism as a heresy in his early works [unlike Evola, whose Doctrine of Awakening promoted Pali Buddhism as a true Aryan path].

Just as Guenon learned his anti-Buddhism prejudice from bigoted Hindus, and then “derived it from the Principles of Tradition,” so Perry and company read their Western, Semitic prejudices into their discussion of homosexuality.

Daniélou reveals that when Guénon eventually felt the need for some “hands on” experience, and wanted to settle in India, the British refused him a visa. Thus his “seeking refuge in traditional Egypt” was actually to his second choice. Daniélou regrets that Guénon was unable to avail himself of living Hindu traditions, which might have lent more nuance to his overly intellectual and abstract works. [6] Indeed, how different the overly-Islamized world of "Traditionalism" would be had he been able to join Daniélou in India; and how uncomfortable the "Traditionalists" must be today, stuck with their "last valid revelation" in post-911 America.

But perhaps they have only their petty-bourgeois conformism to blame. For what kind of world would Guénon have actually found in Cairo? Fortunately, we have the more recent work of John R. Bradley [7] to set the record straight on homosexuality and traditional Islamic societies. His journalistic account of really existing traditional Arab societies [where boys proudly seek wealthy patrons, and gay-bashing is as unknown as “Gay Pride” parades] parallels Daniélou’s account of how reasonable and homo-friendly Tradition was [8] until challenged by imported notions of “vice”, first Victorian, then “modernist” [and now, perhaps, “Traditionalist”].

For a more “academic” perspective, F Sadar surveys the Qur’an and haddith and concludes:
Given the Qur'an's emphasis on diversity, it seems strange to me that the sacred text would not recognise sexual diversity. When we are asked, in 17:84, to "Say, 'Everyone does things in their own way, but your Lord is fully aware of who follows the best-guided path", should we not include homosexuals in 'everyone'?

It seems that the Prophet Muhammad did. One reason the Qur'an mentions "men who are not attracted to women" is that such men existed in Medina during the time of the prophet. They lived outside the dominant patriarchal economy but moved freely amongst the women. The prophet accepted these men as citizens of the diverse society that was Medina with the usual stipulation that they should not break the ethical and moral codes of society. [9]

Apart from ritual abjuring of any approval of “negative treatment” of homosexuals [viz., murdering them on sight] there is still much of substance that we agree with in the rest of the essay by Ali Lakhani, from which the Perry quote was extracted, such as the absurdity of “gay marriage” and the evils of the consumerism that “the gay lifestyle” seems to bring with it. However, this all is covered by our distinction [first adumbrated by the late Alisdair Clarke on his blog, Aryan Futurism], between the Leftist-concocted “gay” identity and real homosexuality as it has existed throughout history. The later, much to the chagrin of the Leftist, has been largely on the side of the Right, from the ancient Männerbund [to which Evola traced the origins of Aryan culture] to the pre-War “Masculinist Movement” of Germany to William Burroughs‘ Wild Boys and pirate utopias. His comments on modesty and consumerism recall Sardar as well as Bradley:

Reading the Qur'an in terms of contemporary circumstances, is it not right to question whether the commodification of sexuality, the constant bombardment with sexualised images in advertising, for example, as well as the insistence on explicit display of sexual behaviour on tv and in the movies, has taken things to absurd limits and got the balance totally wrong? The pressure such commodification puts on people, especially young girls, to conform to the current fashion in body form, behaviour and acquisition of male company, far from being a "liberation", can be a nightmare. It is the kind of waking nightmare that far from encouraging personal fulfilment of the whole of our being emphasises one aspect of our nature to the detriment of all others. So, it seems to me modesty and privacy would have a large role to play in countering the excesses of consumer culture while they present no impediment to fulfilling our sexual nature in the privacy of our own homes. [10]

You would think that after the revelations about Schuon’s later activities, and even Evola’s remarks on whipping and deflowering virgins, the Traditionalists would steer clear of offering advice on sexuality. [11]

Still, we find much wisdom in an argument Schuon used in a different context, and with suitable though slight modifications, it can serve as our warning to Traditionalists [12] who would enter these topics:

[H]ow is it possible to brush aside entirely the intellectual and moral qualities of the ancient sages [who treated homosexuality as unimportant or even as particularly sacred] and to put oneself blithely on the other side of the balance? If a maximum of intelligence and virtue and a maximum of error could coincide in one and the same consciousness, as [Perry and company] take for granted, then man would be nothing, and the emergence of [these traditional sages and societies] - supposing them to be such - would by the same token be impossible. ... [T]his conjecture bespeaks a monstrous lack of imagination and sensitivity and is belied at every turn - we repeat - by the intellectual and moral eminence of the men at whom it is aimed. One almost feels the need to apologize for drawing attention to something so obvious. [13]

Notes

1. “René Guénon and the Guénonian Scholasticism” (from René Guénon: a Teacher for Modern Times) available at http://web.mac.com/juliusevola/iWeb/excerpts/Rene%20Guénon%20and%20the%20Guénonian%20Scholasticism.html
2. See Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, especially chapter 3 on Peter Damian.
3. See his autobiography, The Way to the Labyrinth, New Directions, 1987.
4. India: A Civilization of Differences, Inner Traditions, 2003, p. 11.
5. See Virtue, Success, Pleasure & Liberation: The Four Aims of Life in the Tradition of Ancient India, Inner Traditions, 1993, pp. 95-96]
6. Evola makes a similar criticism of Guénon, in the article cited, and elsewhere.
7. Behind the Veil of Vice. Macmillan, 2010.
8. Islam, though an “Abrahamic” religion, purports to “correct” the distortions and lies that the Jews and Christians have added to Allah’s pure revelation; rather than wallowing in smug “folly” like the Christians, the Arabs preserved and developed Greek wisdom; reasonably enough, they took over Greek pederasty as well as pedagogy [see William A. Percy: Pederasty and Pedagogy in Ancient Greece].
9. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/2008/09/homosexuality_part_1.html See also his Reading the Qur'an: The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam, Oxford, 2011.
10. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/2008/09/homosexuality_2.html
11. Leaving aside the charges of child molestation, as “unproven,” Schuon on his own evidence seems almost to have, after moving to Indiana, come under the influence of fellow Midwesterner William Burroughs, devising a synthesis [despite Guénon’s condemnation of such ‘syncretism’] of Islam and Native American rites, which among other things required him to dance about clothed only in a “specially designed mini-loincloth.” One might even welcome him as a prototypical Wild Boys were it not for the hypocrisy of his animus towards homosexuality.
12. Is Perry “unqualified” as Evola calls his tormentors? Perhaps not; he is the author of some incisive essays, reprinted in Challenges to a Secular Societ,. Oakton, VA: Foundation for Traditional Studies, 1996, as well as the editor of monumental and invaluable Treasury of Traditional Wisdom [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971; Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2000].. In the latter work, the titular excerpts of wisdom are arranged by topics, within an overall structure, not unlike Mortimer Adler’s Syntopicon, while modern Traditionalists are quoted in the introductions, really mini-essays, to each topic, thereby avoiding the danger of seeming to elevate them to the level of revelation. However, curiously enough, Perry chooses to quote, along with the expected Guénon, Schuon and Coomaraswami -- Daniélou! Thus, if Perry is qualified, then so is Daniélou, with the latter having the additional qualification of actual experience, of both traditional society… and homosexuality.
13. Logic and Transcendence, p. 33.

2011-10-04T20:21:00.000-07:00

Darwin Denial

With apologies to the author, Gilad Atzmon, and the reviewer, Kevin MacDonald:

Atzmon notes that the [Darwin] cult has all the features of a religion and none of the features of a [scientific theory]:

It has priests (e.g., Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) and prophets (those who warn of the "dangers" of Creationism and Intelligent Design). It has commandments and dogmas ('random mutation' 'natural selection') It has an established, esoteric symbolic order (naked apes, grey moths, missing links, blind watchmakers, black boxes). ... The [Darwin] religion is also financed by a massive global financial network …. This new religion is coherent enough to define its ‘antichrists’ ("Creationists") and powerful enough to persecute them (through firings, publication bans, compulsory texts and curricula). (pp. 148–149)

[Darwinism] has therefore achieved “meta-historical status” — beyond factual inquiry, its “’factuality’ sealed by draconian laws, and its reasoning secured by social and political institutions” (p. 149). It is a powerful political force on behalf of Jewish interests (p. 152)....

Atzmon is not so much a [evolution] denier as someone who denies the metaphysical status that the [theory of natural selection] has achieved—its uniqueness, its being beyond questioning, and its historical transcendence—all of which have made it into an enormously powerful weapon for achieving Jewish interests.

2011-10-03T14:55:00.000-07:00

Sardar the Not-so Magnificent

For the second time this year, a fancy new book from Oxford confirms my views on homosexuality in the Islamic world!

Ziauddin Sardar has collected up his blog posts [“Each week, writer, broadcaster and cultural critic Ziauddin Sardar will blog a different verse or theme of the Qur'an. Guardian columnist Madeleine Bunting will help frame the debate. For more about the project and the authors, click here.”] and talked Oxford into republishing them.

[Hmm, first that French guy yesterday, now this A-rab. I should look into this “republish your blog posts" deal myself…]

Here’s his take-away on homos; for some reason, this only appears in the print version; if he thinks that’s “added content” I should be happy to pay for, I retort that now I’m pissed off for having to type it in, so we’re even.

It is quite clear to me that the widespread and rampant homophobia of Muslim societies cannot be justified either on the basis of Qur’anic teachings or the example of the Prophet Muhammad. On the contrary, the Qur’an portrays homosexuality as a natural dispositions and the Sunna is exemplary in its toleration of sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, he then goes on to blame “fabricated traditions and the unreconstituted prejudice harbored by most Muslim societies,” while John Bradley, as we’ve previously blogged, as correctly identified the culprit as Western Puritanism imported along with “science” and “modernity,” while the later “gay liberation” nonsense of rubbing spandex booty-shorts up against crucifixes has, in turn, led homosexuality to be identified with the West and hence abhorred by traditionalists.

Oddly, Sardar sort of gets the last part:

Reading the Qur'an in terms of contemporary circumstances, is it not right to question whether the commodification of sexuality, the constant bombardment with sexualised images in advertising, for example, as well as the insistence on explicit display of sexual behaviour on tv and in the movies, has taken things to absurd limits and got the balance totally wrong? The pressure such commodification puts on people, especially young girls, to conform to the current fashion in body form, behaviour and acquisition of male company, far from being a "liberation", can be a nightmare. It is the kind of waking nightmare that far from encouraging personal fulfilment of the whole of our being emphasises one aspect of our nature to the detriment of all others. So, it seems to me modesty and privacy would have a large role to play in countering the excesses of consumer culture while they present no impediment to fulfilling our sexual nature in the privacy of our own homes.

[This passage made my spellchecker go nutzo, but that’s just how I pasted it up off his blog, so there].

This could be usefully read against Bradley on-the-scene account of how "liberation" has created, not eliminated, homophobia, both in the Arab world and the West itself; "gay bashing" exists only in the "free and open" West. As always, the West offers "solutions" to "problems" that didn't exist until the Westies showed up.

I must confess, though, that a quick look at my other favorite topic, Evil-ution, gives me some doubts about Dr. Sardar’s smarts, or else his honesty. The chapter is a very model of the old scam of using “evolution” to mean simply ‘change.’ Anyway, by this time it would be hard to tell if the producers of a TV “science” show called “The Evolution of a Star” [ meaning, of course, mere growth, indeed, growth conforming to inherent design, hence predictable, with nary a hint of “survival of the fittest”] are part of the conspiracy or merely the long since duped themselves.

Who on Earth denies “change”? I’m not sure if anyone since Zeno or Parmenides has doubted change, although it’s hard to “mis-underestimate” the stupidity of a Bible-thumper.

Anyway, the argument isn’t about change, but the mechanism driving it. Evolution as a systematic theory goes back to, in the West, the Neo-Platonist [and hence, in a more poetic way, Plato] and exists wherever true metaphysics can be found; in Islam, certainly among the Sufis.

What puts Plotinus, Goethe, and Emerson on one side, and Darwin and Dawkins on the other, is the hocus-pocus of random chance producing a result that Emerson ascribed to man being “a god in ruins.”

And that’s the point: natural selection is metaphysically absurd and vastly improbably, but the need to assume it arises not from the data but, as Dennett admitted in his younger and more honest days, [see the discussion in the relevant chapter of his then-MIT-colleague Huston Smith’s Forgotten Truth, where you’ll also find Sir Peter Medawar’s devastating dismissal of Teilhard de Chardin‘s illusion that his “evolving God“ was “read off the data“] the psychological need to deny any role for the spiritual in science or the world.

Of course, one doesn’t expect to find the word “natural selection” in the Koran [although it does explicitly use the word “create” in Prof. ‘Sardar’s own quotes, not that he notices] but we do need to find the idea. Now, where in the Koran do we find the idea that the existence of animal species is the result of blind, random, chance events? I won’t even open the book, to say nothing of learn Arabic myself; I know enough about the Koran right now to answer: nowhere, since the whole point of the Koran is to deliver the word of Allah, which assuredly isn’t “Hey, I don’t exist!”

The saddest part about these attempts to “reconcile” religion and science is that the scientists, like the pretty girls in school, don’t care about the dork’s attempts to placate them. The hapless Teilhard de Chardin is only the most famous recent attempt [he even faked a fossil for them!] and who reads him today? One also thinks of Andre Breton, who, when he wasn’t purging his Surrealist “movement” spend his time in fruitless attempts to convince the big-shots in various fields that surrealism “really was” psychoanalysis, or Communism, or alchemy.

Rather than having Oxford publish his blog posts, Prof. Sardar would be advised to stroll across the quad or whatever and have a talk with his colleague, Prof. Dawkins. I don’t think he’ll be very interested in any “compatibility” between “evolution” and some book of Arab fairy tales. In fact, he most likely won’t give him the time of day.

2011-10-03T08:35:00.000-07:00

Help Me, Help the Right

An appeal to Constant Readers; no, not for money [although that would be welcome, of course] but for you suggestions.

I'm trying to put together a list of the Best of Wild Boys or some such thing, and would appreciate any suggestions for favorite posts.

Make a suggestion, and who knows, you may contribute to the shaping of the future mind of the young!

2011-10-02T09:04:00.000-07:00

Hyper Sympa: Stuff Our Betters Like

Stuff Parisians Like: Discovering the Quoi in the Je Ne Sais Quoi
Olivier Magny
New York: Berkley, 2011.

Rich People Things : Real Life Secrets of the Predator Class
Chris Lehmann
Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2011.

Considering how Christian Lander’s Stuff White People Like, first the blog, then the book, then the sequel, created more than a little frisson among the NPR crowd [see Greg Johnson’s reviews here and here] it’s surprising we haven’t seen more knock-offs or outright parodies [along the lines of The Job of Sex or Bored of the Rings]; in fact, as far as I know, these are the very first [not counting the rather differently intended but invaluable provocateur of White consciousness, Stuff Black People Don‘t Like].

Stuff Parisians Like shares its title and numbered format with SWPL Turns out, it’s an excellent format for studying le vie Parisiene, since “reaching a form of happiness in Paris” [the Parisiene is never just “happy” like an American -- despite “the fact that all Parisians deliberately wear American clothes, watch American movies, listen to American music, use American words or fantasize about American celebrities… when hearing the phrase "Les Américains", the Parisian will implacably … just be taken over by one overpowering thought … "Oui, mais les Américains, ils sont cons".] entails “internalizing certain codes and refusing certain habits.” [75]

But while Lander writes as a mildly cynical member of the group, establishing, as the more perceptive reviewers noted, his credentials precisely by gently mocking but never really challenging his group’s tastes and ideas [WASPs do love self-criticism and faux objectivity, after all!], Magny writes as a Parisian, oui, [apparently a restaurateur and oenophile no less, to judge from his website, where you can “Optimize your future interactions with Homo Parisianus [by] browsing the full list of Stuff Parisians Like...”], but with a difference; he disagrees heartily with his confreres, and seems to be something of a… well, conservative, I guess. Horreurs!

Which comes first, the dyspeptic view or the conservatism, is a toss up. Suffice to say, it makes for some very penetrating observations about an urban type that has not only fascinated Americans, but also seems remarkably like some of our own domestic species.

Thus while filled with cultural tidbits such as

Fans of “continental dining” should beware that the cheese course has given way to just coffee, although the addition of a little beurre sale will make the sweetest concoction acceptably ascetic;

Wine, too is passé; lunch means water – San Pellegrino, or San-Pé, to the American’s amusement – dinner perhaps beer, a party definitely only hard liquor;

License plate numbers reveal the driver’s place of origin as well as their character; the very best is 75 – Paris, of course – and the others ‘smell of mud’ or ‘depression’ in various numerical ratios, while also revealing their driving habits -- “C’est ce con de 27 qui bloque tout le monde depuis deux heures”.

along with some surprises -- the Parisian despises artists, who are perceived as lazy and un-credentialed [state-funded art degrees are almost unknown, a pretty good idea it seems to me] unlike the busy graduates of the grandes Ecoles; the Parisian loves not art but his idea of France’s cultural heritage -- and stuff you only need to have read an Edmund White to know -- the L’ile Saint-Louis is the place to be! The Luxembourg Gardens are the place to be seen! -- we also learn that

Parisians have an opinion about most things, thus making it clear they have a significant knowledge about most things in life.

Having theories takes this to the next level.

Theories prove that not only does the Parisian have more information and knowledge than other people, but he also processed that information through his own personal filter. The superiority filter. Parisians will use theory after theory but never warning that these are theories. Other people, including Parisians, will be fooled and will inevitably reach the conclusion that this Parisian is extremely cultivé and intelligent.

It is important to realize that very few Parisians form their own theories. Most Parisians repeat theories they heard on TV, or from their really smart uncle. No actual credit is ever given to the actual source. The actual source is always the Parisian. [89-90]

Theories, of course, are not facts; who needs facts when you have theories?

The Parisian, no matter how much he is into freedom of mind and against propaganda, rarely bothers to double-check his facts. He remains vastly foreign to elements that might otherwise feed and qualify his reflections. [254]

While the American Leftist might have an opinion about, say, the Dalai Lama, the Parisian has a theory:

Le Dalai Lama is good. China is bad. Amen.

And that leads to some stuff those on the Alternative Right, or even non-Democrats, will recognize:

Worldwide, a fascist is a follower or an admirer of the pre-WWII Italian Fascist regime.

In Paris, a fascist is anyone who disagrees with a Parisian and makes a point.

The rarest use of the word facho is to define extreme right wing people. More common use of the word is to be found in situations when someone expresses beliefs and thoughts that are unacceptable to Parisians. The more brutally true the statement is, the more facho the person who says it is.

Calling someone a facho is a fantastic way for Parisians to win a conversation. [See “Winning Conversations”]. When a Parisian’s dabbling is countered by superior, non-PC, implacable reasoning, the opponent will be called a facho. To seal the victory, the Parisian will say, “On peut pas discuter avec toi”. And walk away. Victory. [169-70]

Or, as Charlie Sheen would say, “Winning!”

Interestingly, both “Calling People Fachos” and “Le Dalai Lama” are not part of the “complete” list on his website; as he says himself:

If your opinion is susceptible to reach a significant number of people through a given media, Parisians will start a petition against you. It’s best to behave really…

One reviewer has suggested that the book’s disparaging remarks about Parisian nightlife and parties are a cheap attempt to drum up business for his wine bar. These more political passages, and his reticence about them, lead me to think he knows his Parisians too well.

Do not support small businesses -- that will make you a fascist.

Dressed in black and lacking testosterone [There are three types of males in Paris: the gay-looking homosexuals, the gay-looking heterosexuals, and men over fifty], the Parisian may seem familiar; didn’t we meet them that time in New York?

Calling people beaufs is a wonderful thing for Parisians. It allows them to assert conveniently their superiority while not going through the trouble of enduring a painstaking analysis that might lead them to interrogations about themselves or others.

But of course, it would be too easy to mock the beauf [the "redneck" if you will] for wearing white socks or liking football.

Superior perceived social status is acquired by mocking habits and attitudes that are typical of upper class or even better – rich people. “He’s spending the weekend in Deauville? Can’t believe it, quel beauf!”, “Is he really driving a Hummer? Quel gros beauf!”. By striking his audience with an unsuspected beauf designation, the Parisian scores serious social points: “Did he really take his nephew to Disney Land? Quel beauf!”. The ultimate goal is to make all the people surrounding the Parisian wonder if, compared to him, they are not ultimately complete beaufs. [7]

Le Beauf Americain

Yes, indeed, the New York State of Mind, and the feeling is mutual:

Paris is every Parisians’ wife. New York is their mistress. Parisians know how living with your wife gets old.

NY gear is very popular, especially amongst the younger generation of Parisians. The I Love New York T-shirt is a must. Worn properly, it is considered very chic in Paris. Less stylish people will opt for a NYPD T shirt. FDNY gear is exclusively reserved for the gay community in Paris. [130]

Each section ends with a Helpful Tip [“When in doubt, just say putain”] and instructions on how to “Sound Like a Parisian” [which, I am sure, must contain its share of booby traps].

***

Chris Lehmann’s Rich People Things, from its title to its cover to its number system, is clearly another SWPL title, but he and even his publishers make no mention of the earlier books; Lehmann claims his online column “began life as an afterthought title without any particular mission statement.” It’s a bit odd, considering his [well deserved] savaging of Chris Anderson [11. Wired Magazine] for mistaking his upstream rent-seeking for a new paradigm of free information.

Whatever. Lehmann seems part of what we might call the ‘unattached Left;’ unattached, that is, to the conventional Democratic Party and its personality cult. No Obama-worshiping minion, he. [Unlike the Parisian, who very much likes Obama: his election proves the Parisian is right, there is no problem with immigrants, only racist fachos -- see Magny‘s penultimate item].

Thus, his targets and criticisms will be shared by many on the Alternative Right. He even quotes Steven Pinker -- favorably! No paradox this; if one thinks of the traditional Left/Right field as a ping pong table, those not playing the game and just standing around share a space around it, and thus have more in common with each other than with either “player.”

He takes as his theme class analysis, not identity politics, and Americans’ peculiar lack thereof [boasted about, as Americans always find their limitations to be a source of perverse pride, as “our Exceptionalism;” Americans are proud to let everyone know they are very ‘special’ as they ride on the short bus of nations]. And his targets are what takes the place -- literally displaces, as a obscuring ideology -- of class analysis: the “free markets and free men” mythology. So his topics tend to fall into two categories: economic myths [low taxes create jobs] , and the mythical triumphant “individuals” [from Ayn Rand to Facebook and the aforementioned Wired] whose stories are thrown out by the system like squid ink.

Speaking of Rand, his chapter strikes me as one of the best objective [if you will] analyses of her work. His analysis hits the exact point where Rand gains her influence; starting out from the rather conventional standpoint of Nietzschean individualism, [We the Living could even be filmed in Mussolini’s Italy] she hits the jackpot when she connects to the Horatio Alger myth of the Robber Baron era. By transposing individualism from the deterministic realm of nature to the marketplace of “free choice,” she allows her readers to vicariously imagine themselves [of course, who thinks of the Master Race without thinking oneself part of it?] being able, not so much to be heroes as to recognize them [most of us, after all, are mediocre but loyal Bennies not heroic Galts] and by serving them [buying their products and lowering their taxes] avoid the unforgivable sin of siding with the looters.

In general, Lehmann seems to be able to mouth the usual PC cliches, say, about the “genuine virtues of openness and diversity” while pointing out that

These qualities form the basis of the twenty-first century’s corporate managerial mindset … a more diverse and culturally tolerant world is also a far more market-friendly world. It’s also, far from coincidentally, a world in which wealth and income disparity never seem to achieve the same vaunted status as cultural and gender diversity. [82-83]

This is not to say that Lehmann is a Traditionalist. For one thing, his good-thinking Liberal credentials show in an obsession with the Catholic Church as the citadel, or at least syneccdoche, of evil. The very first line reads:

American class privilege is very much like the idea of sex in a Catholic school -- it’s not supposed to exist in the first place, but once it presents itself in your mind’s eye you realize that it’s everywhere.

My, what an original trope!

Later, he can’t even express his loathing and contempt for corporate [and, he fails to observe, Judaicly] backed frauds like Damien Hirst without making this outburst:

[W]e have entered an aesthetic universe every bit as blinkered and morally obtuse as that of the Catholic Church, when it elected to suppress classical composers in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars out of the conviction that they presented an urgent Jacobin threat to the established order of things. [104]

This makes Lehmann think of Palestrina

I can’t be bothered to research this, but does anyone remember some papal bull condemning equal temperament? Myself, I get my history from fiction, and I remember Huysmans, in his Catholic phase, bemoaning the Church’s replacement of Gregorian chant with half-assed operatics by Gonoud and Faure [long before the LP-driven fashion for it, Huysmans was promoting the reconstruction work of the Abbey of Solesmes, which contributed to our more recent “early music” revival]. One wants to say, like one of Lehmann’s landsmen, “from your mouth to God’s ear;” if only the Church had, successfully, stamped out that demonic manifestation known as “classical music;” see Evola in Ride the Tiger, or even Colin Wilson: passing from Mozart to Beethoven, one is wearied by all the table-pounding; or Delius: a preference for Mozart over Beethoven was his test of a new acquaintance’s cultural level.

If you can ignore the weird, unmotivated Catholic bashing, and the recurrent genuflection to PC orthodoxy, the reader on the Alternative or Traditionalist Right will be able to find much useful historical and critical discussion of our most contemporary economic and cultural busybodies and nuisances, from Malcolm Gladwell to Alan Greenspan to Frank Gehry.

However, it lacks any information on food and drink, and above all, don’t quote any of it to a Parisian.

2011-10-01T11:22:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Club Nazi

Little Artie Magida is the Judaic author of The Nazi Séance: The Strange Story of the Jewish Psychic in Hitler's Circle [not to be confused with Eric Jan Hanussen: Hitler's Jewish Clairvoyant by one Mel Gordon; whatever happened to the famous Judaic "originality"?] which gives us the heavily ironic tale of one Eric Jan Hanussen, "a Jewish mind reader originally from Vienna who became so popular in Berlin that he rubbed elbows with high ranking Nazis, became close with top Storm Troopers, and even advised Hitler."

As you might guess, even without being a mentalist, it's equally heavy on the equal dose of fear and loathing all good-thinking historians must direct at history's official losers, the Nutzis. Descent into madness, unheard-of terror, blood-drenched apocalypse, blah blah blah. At what point do people start asking "Was this all possibly so unique?" and "Even so, especially so, are Jews really then capable of any kind of objectivity on this?"

Let's start.

When the Nazis finally tire of their little trained monkey and "take him for a ride" [or as Magida says, "In the new Berlin...a ride in a car with strangers never ended well"] we get this little bit of Nazi-porn [a Judaic specialty] on the subject of "wild prisons":

The prison where Hanussen was taken was among the 150 or so that the Storm Troopers had started running after the Reichstag fire. The thousands of people arrested after a national emergency had been declared... had to be put somewhere... and anyway these "enemies of the revolution" needed "lessons" they couldn't get in the existing facilities -- lessons beyond the law and the morals and the rules of the established prisons. For these improvised prisons, the most vicious Storm Troopers were chosen, men hardened by years of street fighting [and not the video kind] .... These places were concentration camps ... before that word was invented.

That's the wind-up, and here's the pitch, as Artie almost soils himself writhing in orgasms of prurience:

They were crude prototypes of the Nazi's factories of death -- the beginnings of the Nazi terror that, in a few years, would be hammered into the minds and hearts of every German in every city and town and village and, beyond that, to the world at large which was shock, for how could a civilization end so suddenly and so barbarically?

We then get a catalog of nasties -- sticks in the anus, hands chopped off, acid injected into the penis, etc. And the payoff for Hanussen [who is, after all, supposed to be the subject of our interest]?

He returned home a few hours later -- shaken, but unharmed.

Brr! Those Nazis make the blood run cold!

I mean, really; couldn't he at least have been stirred, if not shaken?

After cleaning ourselves off, a few questions occur to one. For example, was these "wild camps" indeed the very first 'concentration camps,' before that word was invented? I'll let him get away with 'word,' presumably he means 'phrase.' But at the risk of offending Doug Rushkoff, let's see what WikiPedia tells us; why, looky here:

Earliest usage of concentration camps and origins of the term=== Polish historian Władysław Konopczyński has suggested the first concentration camps were created in Poland in the 18th century, during the Bar Confederation rebellion, when the Russian Empire established three concentration camps for Polish rebel captives awaiting deportation to Siberia.^[5]

The earliest of these camps may have been those set up in the United States for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s; however, the term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878) and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).^[6]

The English term "concentration camp" grew in prominence during the Second Boer War (1899–1902), when they were operated by the British in South Africa.^[6]^[7]

Poor Artie gets so worked up about the uniquely evil Nazis that he starts spouting easily refutable canards. Why, I learned about the Boer camps just by watching that Mr. Chips knock-off, To Serve Them All My Days on Masterpiece Theatre in the 70s! [The evil new headmaster is South African, and the noble Powett-Jones accuses him of trying to turn the school into "one of those camps you had back home, what did they call them, 'concentration camp'?"]

More importantly, if we call Artie's bluff and actually address the question of how could a civilization end so suddenly and so barbarically?, we might begin by asking Artie about Stalin and the Soviet terror, far longer, more widespread, and conducted by a disproportionate number of his own ethno-buds.

And just as Hitler took his "uniquely evil" eugenics laws from those already on the books in the USA, so he patterned his "final solution" on the American reservations system.

Indeed, a more recent experiment in population control via reservations [with the South African Bantustan model in between] is found in... Israel-occupied West Bank and Gaza.

In fact, that paragraph about special prisons set up for special prisoners, in the wake of a national emergency, where unusual methods could be freely indulged... sounds kinda familiar:

Oh yeah, the NeoCon war. And we all know who they are:

Neoconservatism is better described in general as a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel. As such, neoconservatism should be considered a semicovert branch of the massive and highly effective pro-Israel lobby, which includes organizations like the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the most powerful lobbying group in Washington—and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Indeed, as discussed below, prominent neoconservatives have been associated with such overtly pro-Israel organizations as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and ZOA.

Kevin MacDonald Understanding Jewish Influence 3

Jews in Russia, Jews in Israel... Jews in America; funny how they keep popping up whenever genocide and torture occur [and ever ready to justify it]. Perhaps that's why Artie wants to keep you distracted with the Nazi bogey; a magician's trick he found, perhaps, in his study of Hanussen's "tricks" [aided, apparently, by discussions with Teller of "Penn &" fame].

As they say in Poland, the Jew cries ... when he hits you.

Just to be clear: the point, as revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes put it in his classic essay, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," [written in 1966, [pdf here] and incredibly, reprinted by CATO in 1980, I guess before the great post-Pat "anti-Semite" purge] is not to

seek to present Hitler as any combination of Little Lord Fauntleroy, George Washington at the cherry tree, Clara Barton, and Jane Addams. He could be as devious, shrewd, inconsistent, self-contradictory, cruel, and brutal as the leaders among his enemies, although he did balk at saturation bombing of civilians until he was compelled by Britain to do so in retaliation. The main point here is that, unlike Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, he did not wish to have a war break out in 1939.

As Barnes makes clear, the conduct of the "Allies" during, and the consequences Germany's defeat after, the war [which Celine called "the finish of Europe. There was a cataclysm. The core of it all was Stalingrad. There you can say it was finished and well finished, the white civilization,"] make the admittedly brutal conditions of the "wild camps" in 1932 piddling in comparison. Has any nations conducted itself "so suddenly and so barbarically" as to conduct saturation bombing of civilian targets, repatriate millions of exiles to death in unprecedentedly vast Gulag, or [easy one] used atomic bombs on civilians?

To apply retroactive "justification" for a war fought not to "liberate" Germans or "save" Jews, but because, as Churchill told General Robert E. Wood in November, 1936, that "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her," a new propaganda technique was needed:

The fundamental :aim has now become to emphasize the allegation that Hitler and the national socialist leaders were such vile, debased, brutal, and bloodthirsty gangsters that Great Britain had an overwhelming moral obligation to plan a war to exterminate them, and that the United States , was compelled to enter this conflict to aid and abet this British crusade because of a moral imperative that could not be evaded to engage in a campaign of political, social, and cultural sanitation.

The method: the "smotherout" strategy, as ably practiced [it is, of course, by now second nature to our "historians"]:

To implement and reinforce this new smotherout strategy, American journalism, radio, motion pictures,. and television have been flooded with profuse and persistent alleged examples and "proofs"of national socialist turpitude and Hitler's personal diabolism, far exceeding anything known in wartime and ever increasing in frequency, volume, and venom. Lest the public become "fed up" and bored by the repetition, the material handed out has to be made more unceasing, exaggerated, and inflammatory. Scholarly revisionist materials are smothered beneath a flood of sensational horror literature.

And they've never stopped.

WMD, anyone? Despite its slightly different kind of "sensationalistic" subject, the book under examination is just another minor rivulet in the shoddy stream of lies called "mainstream history."

2011-09-28T07:49:00.000-07:00

A Day Without Judaism -- It's Easy If You Try

Program or Be Programed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age
Soft Skull, Sept. 2011

I'm sure the various Judaics on the back cover are right and that Douglas Rushkoff is a smart guy. Reading this set of short, punchy chapters produces many 'a-ha' moments about how digital and human lives interact, or not. And reading about the relatively leisurely nature of BBS and email in the pre-broadband days of modems and usage charges, or the subtle but important differences between digital and analog sound, are like a nice warm bath on this rainy day.

But I'm starting to choke on the stench of old kashka that wafts up from the floorboards now and then.

Rushkoff is the kind of guy who can't reference the alphabet without bringing in the Juden:

The Axial Age invention of the twenty-two-letter alphabet did not lead to a society of literate Israelite readers, but a society of hears, who would gather int he town square to listen to the Torah scroll read to them by a rabbi.

This is the kind of "goes without saying" thing that people nod their heads at, unless someone raises a few points. Someone like me, for instance.

This seems like a confused memory of the scene in Ezra [?] where the returning Babylonian exiles discover that in the interim, while they were getting crazier and crazier on Persian dualism, the bulk of Israel, which stayed behind, had reverted to the pagan ways of their neighbors. So the ex-exiles "find" a copy of the so-called Torah in the Temple, have everyone assemble, and read it aloud [and can you imagine what a leg-numbingly boring experience that was?] and then "solicit" [no doubt at sword-point] their allegiance to the new, Old Way.

There were no "town squares" with "rabbis" until the Jews infiltrated Medieval Europe. The Torah was in the local place of worship, and all men were expected to be able to take a turn reading it. [The modern bar mitzvah has turned this into a joke, but that's irrelevant]. When Jesus visits his hometown, people are "amazed" not by his ability to read the Torah but by his ability to zip through the scroll [no mean feat] and find an exact passage to make his point.

More importantly, Jews, contrary to the cliche that they invented everything, did not invent the alphabet. In fact, not to belabor the point, they invented nothing at all. At the risk of violating Rushkoff's strictures on citing Wikipedia:

In the Middle Bronze Age an apparently "alphabetic" system known as the Proto-Sinaitic script is thought by some to have been developed in the Sinai peninsula during the 19th century BCE, by Canaanite workers in the Egyptian turquoise mines.^[7] Others suggest the alphabet was developed in central Egypt during the 15th century BCE for or by Semitic workers, but only one of these early writings has been deciphered and their exact nature remains open to interpretation.^[8] Based on letter appearances and names, it is believed to be based on Egyptian hieroglyphs.^[8] This script had no characters representing vowels.

Of course, a non-vocalic script made it easy to hide the real meaning of the words, a trait still followed by Jews today. So forget Rushkoff's 22-letters:

An alphabetic cuneiform script with 30 signs including three which indicate the following vowel was invented in Ugarit before the 15th century BCE. This script was not used after the destruction of Ugarit.^[9] The Proto-Sinaitic script eventually developed into the Phoenician alphabet, which is conventionally called "Proto-Canaanite" before ca. 1050 BCE.^[10] The oldest text in Phoenician script is an inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram. This script is the parent script of all western alphabets.

And no, 'Canaanite' does not mean "Hebrew':

By the tenth century two other forms can be distinguished namely Canaanite and Aramaic. The Aramaic gave rise to Hebrew.

Hebrew Technology

Rushkoff would no doubt reply that [1] this is irrelevant to his point and [2] he didn't actually say the Jews invented the alphabet. To which I retort [1] I know, but I have a different point and [2] that's my point, by 'harmlessly' 'just happening' to use the Jews to make his point, rather than the Egyptians or Phoenicians, he insinuates their undying importance.

Insinuation is the method, timeless, still used by the culture-distorting Jews today. You don't say, "Worship the Negro!" which would just be laughed at 50 years ago; instead, you make sure that every appearance of the Negro is such that the audience anticipates a street-wise partner, scientist of genius, world-saving hero, noble president, etc.

Reading further, Rushkoff talks about how media promote "promote the agendas of long distance interests over those of people in localities" we are treated to this non-sequitor:

This bias toward non-local thinking can be threatening to parochial interests, and explains much of the origins of resentment for the Judeo-Christian traditions and its text-inspired emphasis on a universal deity and ethics over the local gods and laws of particular regions.

As examples of this "universal ethics" we are offered such "great thing[s]" as:

[A]llows an entire nation to rally around an issue or idea, forces everyone to notice an injustice that might be happening far away, and even shows how all people are on some level the same.

To paraphrase Charley Kane to Mr. Thatcher, this is everything I hate.

Let's start at the end. "Some level"? What level, Doug? The molecular? And the chutzpah! This of course is the culture-distorting Judaic idea that WASPs should treat everyone as equals, while at the same time preserving the Jews' own sense of superiority.

And this leads to concern for injustice "far away." Not, of course, when involving Palestinians, of course. And besides, why the fuck should I care about something happening to, as David Hume said, "an Indian or someone else completely unknown to me"? Well, first, to distract the WASP's attention from evils at home, and waste our blood and treasure abroad, and secondly, to fight for the Jews.

And that leads us to rallying the nation. Yes, as always, the crusade abroad to save the Jews, from WWI to WWII to Iraq etc.

Oh, but all that is smeared as "parochial interests" feeling "threatened" and reacting with irrational "resentment" to wise Judeo-Christianity.

Sound familiar?

Notice also how "Judeo-Christianity" is slipped in as a blind for Judaism, and how Nietzsche's diagnosis of ressentiment is turned on its head; as always, the Jew is always innocent, his opponents motivated by "irrational fears" and even madness. In short, the "lachrymose theory of anti-Semitism."

I mean, it's not as if universalist monotheism was just wrong, and, in practice, simply the phony attempt to substitute the compulsory worship of one tribal god, JHVH-1, for ours, under the lie of "the god of all," right?

With his hidden message of "Worship the Jew," it's no surprise that little digging on the 'net finds this [no doubt, again, why he disparages Wikipedia]:

He spent several years exploring Judaism as a primer for media literacy, going so far as to publish a book inviting Jews to restore the religion to its "open source" roots.^[29] He founded a movement for progressive Judaism called Reboot, but subsequently left when he felt its funders had become more concerned with marketing and publicity of Judaism than its actual improvement and evolution.^[25] ... He has dedicated himself most recently to the issues of media literacy,...

As "holocaust denier" Michael Hoffman II has said, the first victim of the rabbis is the Jews themselves [cf. Madoff]. I wonder how long it took Rushie to figure out that Judaism isn't a religion at all but rather an international crime syndicate, concerned with marketing and publicity?

Rushkoff may have "moved on" to media theory or whatever Judaic-invented paper-shuffling pseudo-subject, but as always, the Inner Jew lurks, leading to subtle and not so subtle culture-distortion. This is exactly why the academy resisted letting in Jews -- no matter how "smart" or "qualified," they were not fit to teach English or other culturally significant subjects; the sort of "parochial resentment" that Rushkoff now mock from his position of cultural dominance.

This is exactly why, as I've said before, I prefer to read books prior to WWII; I can do without what Rushkoff, in another setting, might recognize as the Judaic "programming".

Postscript:

Just to show how open-minded I am, here's an example of a "call for a nation to rally" that truly was a "great thing":

Her next book, A Warning to the Hindus (Calcutta: Hindu Mission, 1939), is her manifesto of Hindu Nationalism. Hinduism is a radically pluralistic and tolerant religion, and this often blinds Hindus to the dangers posed by the intolerant Biblical religions and their secular offshoots: liberal democracy and communism. Savitri seeks to awaken Hindus to this danger and demonstrate the necessity of cultivating a unified Hindu national consciousness that cuts across yet respects and preserves India’s myriad communal and caste distinctions. Savitri also clearly thought that such a Hindu national consciousness was a necessary condition for Indian independence. A Warning to the Hindus was translated into six Indian languages and remains in print today.

Woman Against Time: Remembering Savitri Devi’s 100th Birthday

2011-09-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

You Say ‘Churchill,’ I Say ‘Psycho’

Clued in by Greg Johnson’s typically excellent review on Counter-Currents, I picked up a proof copy of Nassir Ghaemi's A First-Rate Madness.

Normally, books like this set my teeth on edge; it’s the combination of already wonky science [he refers to the latest “cutting edge” brain and drug research, but by applying it to the biographies of long dead politicos he’s no more “scientific” than the unlamented “psycho-historians” of the 70s, who use crap Freudianism to the same end; even Hari Seldon, to say nothing of Paul Krugman, knew that psychohistory could only be practiced on whole galaxies, not names picked at random from history] to an even wonkier PC agenda [which Greg correctly describes as seemingly formed by listening to NPR].

As Greg points out, though, it is fun to read just how crazy cultural icons like Churchill or JFK really were.

The peroration to his Churchill chapter neatly states the problem with the whole book:

[Being nuttier than an outhouse rat] guided Churchill and Lincoln to realize that war was necessary; it led Gandhi and King to reject violence.

War was necessary? In what sense was WWII “necessary”? Readers of Pat Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War might suggest that word, again, applied not to the millions of soldier and civilian deaths but to Churchill’s need to mess around in politics enough to create a big conflict he could be brought back from his disgrace to “solve.” If you don't like Pat, try Nicholas Baker's Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, The End of Civilization.

Earlier, Ghaemi talks of Churchill “failing in the naval battle at Gallipoli" which is a neat way to put it, making it sound like he had personally blundered cooking a souffle, rather than sent thousands of troops to their deaths through his strategic bungling.

With the best will in the world [mine, for instance] it's hard to read Churchill's record as anything but that of someone feverishly plotting one conflict after another, both to keep himself in the spotlight, and to redeem himself from the last debacle. But that's OK with Ghaemi, since he was fighting against the "bad" psycho, Hitler.

Really, is this infantile yah-boo dialectic what passes for thought among the intelligentsia these days?

Ghaemi should have listened to his source, Montague Brown:

He felt that everything that he had done had ended in disaster. He had won the war [again, he!] but lost the Empire, communism had swallowed up half of Europe, and socialism was threatening the world he loved at home.

If I'm not mistaken, every one of those items was something Hitler was fighting against. Who's the "good" psycho again?

Or, as he told his daughter [who later committed suicide]:

I have achieved a great deal to achieve nothing in the end.

Translation: I achieved my goal, the big baby who's the center of attention; too bad I destroyed the world doing it. No problem, Winnie. Glad to have helped you with your "cyclothymia" [or, in layman's terms, "need to be a colossal, egotistical asshole."]

One might just as well ask the same of Lincoln.

And what of the other happy pair, King and Gandhi? Ghaemi’s method serves to immunize King, like the others, from new and existing revelations of what a scumbag he was -- “Yeah, he was crazy, but good crazy!” The rollback of segregation started long before King, with the Brown decision, and had nothing to do with his marches, just as the Viet Nam war wasn’t ended by protest marches, despite the hazy memories of the Boomers. In both cases, the Establishment went on blithely, until deciding in its own sweet time to end the status quo for its own reasons. But even if we grant him his agency, what of it? A perusal of any number of internet sites along the lines of Stuff Black People Don’t Like will tell you what the MSM won’t: BRA [Black Run America] is a violent, failing joke.

On a practical note, isn't it funny to see, decades later, those one the Left who still don't "get it" marching and "protesting"? Like a cargo cult, those whining about "no justice" and those opposed to some imperial adventure both seem to think that marching will make the problem go away; after all, it "worked" before, didn't it?

As for that little stinker Gandhi, his egomaniacal sideshows had just as little to do with “liberating” India, as Ghaemi accidentally admits when quoting Churchill:

...a war weary nation cringed when Churchill wanted to send more troops to India rather than negotiate peaceful independence with that "half-naked little fakir," Mohandas Gandhi.

"Cringe" is good; I take it they "cringed" at Churchill's rare, all to true description of Gandhi [again, the NPR mindset of "bad words"] but also, cringed at the idea of going to war at all, after Winnie nearly killed everyone the last two times.

Right; England left because it had no more stomach for war, as Christopher Hitchens put it, disputing the idea that the earlier British appeasers were sincere pacifists rather than pro-Hitler, “When was the British establishment ever afraid of war?" After Dunkirk, not so much. And again, if we grant Gandhi his agency, what of it? Horrifying communal violence, thousands dead, the nation divided into two warring states, both armed with nukes. "Negotiate peaceful independence" indeed. Good show, Gandhi!

Alas for his thesis, anyone willing to think for themselves can easily find enough evidence to show that Ghaemi’s “good” psychos are selected less by brain structure and more by, well, spending too many nights falling asleep to NPR.

2011-09-23T10:05:00.001-07:00

Flash: Einstein Not So Smart After All

Turns out that Judaic icon and alleged "greatest mind of the XXth Century" was wrong about the speed of light:

UPDATE 1-Particles found to break speed of light

* Finding could overturn laws of physics

* Scientists confident measurements correct

Now, I personally couldn't care less, but the natural inference, natural at least to those of us who used to get a basic grounding in the philosophy of science or logic [or the work of perhaps the true "greatest mind of the XXth Century, American division, W. V. O. Quine [short version: no, there are not statements so "logically true" or "highly confirmed" that they cannot be doubted, come what may, and yes, that included "A is A" you Libertarian fucktards], is to ask why, if scientists operating in a field as "hard" as physics can entertain doubts about such a "universal constant," product of the afore-supposed "greatest mind," then why cannot scientists in the far squishier field of biology be allowed to doubt the existence of natural selection?

Of course, they do, every day, all over the planet, but mostly they keep quiet about it, since to publicly do so risks [a very certain risk] being publicly denounced and mocked by their "colleagues," the lame-stream media, and self-appointed [or in Dawkins case, Oxford-appointed] "professors of the public knowledge of science," as knuckle-dragging creationists.

In the same way, btw. America's largest anti-war movement is to this day derisively referred to as "isolationism" and "anti-Semitism."

How on Earth can a paltry "law" of biology come to be regarded [along the lines of "Who is the President?" or "Methodith-Epithcopal"] as a test of sanity?

Especially since, being empiricistic, materialistic, reductionistic, historicistic, nominalistic and relativistic, it is a veritable Hydra-headed source of all modern heresy.

Or is that precisely the non-rational motive for why it's been selected as the last line in the sand, rather than the speed of light or even "A is A"?

2011-09-17T11:19:00.000-07:00

Spengler ... Arrighi ... Keynes?

I've previously observed that Spengler's "non-scientific" method of "physiognomic tact," at least as described by H. Stuart Hughes, is remarkably like René Guénon's method of "intellectual intuition." the point being that Guénon can aid in understanding what Spengler was up to, while the naturalistic "fact grubbing" scholars never will, and yet consider that a refutation of Spengler rather than of themselves. They are like the deaf, demanding a "proof" of Mozart.

More recently, this Arrighi chap has crossed my radar, thanks to a long review article by Joshua Clover. where we find a return to cyclical history, a la Guénon. Clover, who seems to be an English boffin studying the "construction of empistemes" among economists, would normally set off our gag reflex, but he too has interesting things to say on what makes Arrighi tower over the fact-grubbers:

Arrighi, notably, came to world-systems analysis as an economist, bearing a doctorate from one of the most esteemed business schools in Europe, Milan’s Bocconi University. Yet he ended his career in the sociology department at Johns Hopkins, and was occasionally derided by academic economists for trespassing on their turf. Along with Duncan and Brenner, Arrighi was finally alien to the discipline, or to its self-definition, which determines who participates in the policy debates, sets agendas, and wins Nobels. None of the three authors discussed here appears in the lists of those who predicted the crisis — though all of them did, laying out its grand mechanics, its global context and historical logic, and its absolute inevitability. What they didn’t do was think to offer a punctual date. Not even a month or a year; they didn’t try, or feel compelled to do so (well, Duncan may have, in his guise as an analyst, but not as an author).

This absence clarifies certain matters all too well. When we talk casually about “who predicted the crisis,” we habitually don’t mean those who understood the mechanisms, who had an analytic method that might help us understand the future that crashes in upon us. We don’t mean to discover who is capable of historical thought, or what that thought might be. We mean stock pickers, more or less. We mean those whose insights could direct us when to get in and when to get out. This is the only mode of thought recognized by The Economist and the economists sanctioned by the guild’s conventions. Such thought has moved from being a hobby of speculators to an entire episteme, a mode of knowledge that dominates all others.

In short, "historical thought" requires physiognomic tact, or intellectual intuition.

Remarkably, sticking with the dreary science of economics, comes now a new book on Keynes, which would have us understand him as a Capitalist Revolutionary.

Explaining how Keynes has been misunderstood even by his "disciples", giving rise to numerous competing "schools," the authors observe that, trained as a statistician, Keynes habitually used mathematics to set up his arguments, but unlike the fact-grubbing model-makers that have taken over academic economics in his supposed name, Keynes never used mathematics as a complete explanation.

Keynes did not follow this approach. His mathematics was embedded in text in which he drew conclusions that went beyond what would have followed solely from the algebra. Keynes was trying to use mathematical symbols in order to obtain a first approximation of insights that could not be fully captured in his mathematical formalism.

Keynes attached prime importance to clear thinking and to intuition. Intuition was central to the way he approached economic reasoning, for the first and fundamental stage in the construction of an argument was ... what he called the "grey, fuzzy, woolly monster " in one's head.... The second stage was to make precise the concepts and relations involved. The progression was thus from intuition to clear thought.

"Equations are symbolic rather than algebraic."

In Zen terms, Keynes' disciples have mistaken the finger for the moon; more importantly, they have taken over the profession and imposed their blunder on their students, considering it as being "scientific."

"Man, can you believe these fools?"

Essentially the same could be said of Guénon; trained as a mathematician, he habitually called upon mathematical symbolism to make or develop his metaphysical ideas; unfortunately, "economics" if you will, prevented his books from appearing with the appropriate diagrams, which were thus "left to the student as an exercise" as they used to say.

One major difference, of course, is shown by the phrase "grey, fuzzy, woolly monster." Nothing could be less true of true metaphysical intuition, which is, by contrast, the epitome of clarity. Of course, by Guénon's own principle of "the inversion of symbols," the extreme of darkness may be the best symbol for the intense, blinding light of Truth; cf. the tradition of "mystical darkness" from Dionysus through the Spanish and English mystics [The Cloud of Unknowing, for example].

More importantly, and ironically, Keynes, like his fellow Bloomsberries, set himself up specifically as an enemy of the idea of Tradition. Faced with not so much refutations as reasonable inquiries, such as "Aren't you setting yourselves up as a new Tradition, and on what basis should be believe you?" he and they could only give the lame response of ... silence.

The authors consider this the only consistent response, an implicit demand that the reader "think for himself" rather than follow some new anti-tradition.

However, the poor results obtained by Keynes's own disciples, to say nothing of the influence of the Bloomsberries on society at large, give this approach poor marks.

We have here a case of a too common modern phenomenon, the attempt to engage in metaphysical thought de novo, without what Schuon calls "traditional data" as a guide. Often, as in the case of Steiner, the dupe actually preens himself on his "freedom" from dogma and "independence," styling himself as a "scientific investigator of the unseen" and drawing analogies to "scientific progress" and, of course, "the evolution of man" which supposedly requires new, "more suitable" [i.e, easier] method.

Something like this may have lain behind Guénon's initial negative attitude to Buddhism [which died out in India, and elsewhere "evolved" into increasingly bizarre forms], as well as to Steiner's effusions. Evola, however, presented a positive version of Buddhism, at least in its original form, as an appropriatel appeal to Aryan self-reliance in response to the decadence of official Hinduism. while frequently publishing Steienerian essays, hanging out in Steinerian circles, and even using two pictures of Steiner to illustrate the "Aryan spiritual type" in his treatise on racial theory. Perhaps a similarly positive spin could be given to Keynes' metaphysical economics.

John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes, CB FBA : Man of Aryan Vision?

Krugman: Despite his "Nobel" Prize, just another beady-eyed Judaic genetically unable to rise to Keynes' level of insight

Keynes' access to Intuition places him closer to Guénon than to Krugman or his other cockroach 'disciples.' It's another instance of what we've frequently called attention to: the further back one goes, the more even those who are the root or inspiration of the most modern heresies and idiocies are pretty cool guys. Go back far enough, and everyone, even "socialist" Orwell and "reactionary" Waugh become The Same Man.

As we've also observed, most recently here, this may account for the "trans-ideological" friendships that were a feature of intellectual life before PC and Facebook snooping. Thus, we learn, to my surprise at least, that Keynes and Hayek were best buds, and Hayek even mourned the loss, with Keynes' death, of his personal influence for good in the government and the profession.

Don't let Glenn Beck know, it might be the last straw before he finally cracks... on second thought....

2011-09-17T08:34:00.001-07:00

Conservatives vs. "Conservatives"

This morning, on TakiMag [one is tempted to say, "of course"] we find another "conservative" .grousing about those dam' kids and their language, why it just don't make no sense.

Fresh from renewing my acquaintance with Sanskrit [who says the unemployed are lazy?] I commented thus:

As usual, the phony "conservatives" are spokesmen for dying bourgeois conventions, whilst we true or radical conservatives, Traditionalists if you will, are left to defend the young when they rediscover old truths.

Those of us [me, for instance] with at least a nodding acquaintance with the ancient and perfect language of Sanskrit know that such languages use "rhythmical filler" to pad out the metre in verses; this is essential in an oral culture. A glance at the Bhagavad Gita, say, will show that just about every quatrain contains a superfluous 'ca' [and] or 'evam' [even] or 'iti' [thus] and even 'caivam' [and even]. Similar conventions, of course, are found in Greek, e.g., Homer.

Even conversations with a modern Hindu are punctuated with a recurrent 'Isn't it?' which directly translates the Sanskrit "nasti'.

The idea that spoken language should consist of nice, rounded Ciceronian periods, like some ideal classicist speaking in Parliament, is a function of literacy, which, as Socrates tells us, is the true symptom of decadence.

Later, refreshing my mind with a perusal of Gracian's Worldly Wisdom [whom Nietzsche praised and which Schopenhauer went so far as to translate -- how many Schopenhauer-quoting immigrant bashers have bothered to learn Spanish?] I came across this advice, which could stand as a manifesto for the kind of dealing with "pop culture" that, say, Greg Johnson has been doing on Counter-Currents or myself, on a smaller scale, in preference to the "grouchy old man" technique:

270. Don't be the only one to condemn what is popular. There has to be something good about it, for it pleases so many, and -- however inexplicably -- is enjoyed. Eccentricity is always odious : when wrong, ridiculous. Scorn something that is popular and you'll be scorned yourself, and left alone with your bad taste. If you don't know how to find what's good, hide your dullness, and don't condemn things en masse; for bad taste is usually born from ignorance. What everyone says either is or wants to be.

TakiMag in the news!

2011-09-15T11:40:00.000-07:00

Gloria! Gloria!

Further to our post below, am I the only one noticing that ramming down the US Dollar to support European banks is, by definition, treason?

Mein Obama thinks only ignorant crackers would, and admonishes them to "speak more carefully".

Dr. Goebbels couldn't have said it better:

"One day we'll lose patience and shut their lying Jewish mouths"

Oh well, this guy get it, and gets us:

the "Bail us out or else..." threat is, by definition, an act of terrorism.

The fact that the Fed has supposedly decided to provide "unlimited dollar loans" to the worlds banks and thus intentionally devaluing (if not outright threatening the existence of the US dollar) is, by definition, an act of treason ( or at least it used to be when the constitution was more than just a "goddamn piece of paper).

The fact that Americans take these things in stride is testament to the utter idiocy and subservience that has plagued the nation.

There will be no protest in America. Only neighbors turning on neighbors for a bounty.

The illusion of democracy has been striped away revealing nothing more than a supine and frightened citizenry...that will never find the courage to stand up to the fraud that has taken over this country because that courage, just like democracy, never really existed here.

Sounds like he's got our number.

Laura Branigan explains the "situation" the dollar has "gotten into"

And she's on Solid Gold! You can't make this stuff up.

It's also appropriate to go back to 1982 for this, since Charles Hugh Smith once more provides the data that prove our long held, Philip Dickian premise: the world ended when Nixon, the last Fighting Liberal, was forced out, and it's been sinking into a Guenonian realm of Talmudic klippoth ever since.

Yesterday we considered the possibility that it was not coincidence that the U.S. abandoned the gold standard at almost the precise point that domestic oil production topped out, launching a need for vast quantities of imported and increasingly costly oil.

Today we further that idea by suggesting that labor's share of the national income--a more important metric of household fiscal health than the widely trumpeted GDP--also topped out in that same timeframe for the same reason: the economic wealth was all based on abundant cheap domestic oil. Once that foundation eroded, then a multitude of tricks were needed to create the illusion of advancing household wealth.

Now that the legerdemain and financial trickery has come to an end, the truth is revealed: households are poorer than "managed perceptions" would have us believe, and labor's share of the national income has plummeted to multi-decade lows stretching back to the end of World War II.

And we know who supplied the "tricks" don't we?

2011-09-15T07:35:00.001-07:00

A World Hitler Never Made

He tried to warn you. Tried to stop Them. But your granddad wouldn't listen. The "Greatest Generation" -- of the brainwashed -- teamed up with the Greatest Mass Murderer of all time to stop him.

How's that working out for ya?

From: The Hard Right Edge

For some, the upcoming dollar extinction event will be completely unexpected. For others, the coming days may be seen as the unraveling of the greatest silent oppression story humanity has ever had the displeasure of calling reality. Mislead by the deceitful words from generations of countless "professional politicians", the lives of all Americans will be forever changed over the next two years, no person to be excluded?

We now live in a society where lies are presented as truth, military imperialism is justified in the name of humanitarianism, and more debt continues to be issued to "promote" economic health and stability. The long-run is not in focus, and short-term perspective is constantly subject to manipulation.

The staples of life, such as the food we eat, the water we drink, the education we receive, and the medical practices developed have all fallen victim to the hands of profiteer-ism, lacking respect for the well-being of [White majority of] the population, better known as crony capitalism.

America's children have been taught to memorize, repeat, and to be entertained. We have been told that we are nothing without a college degree,

[you know, in the schools They dominate as teachers and pupils]

in which many [us, the White majority] are forced to take out student loans [from whom?]in which opens the precedent to a life of debt. What sort of precedent is this setting our future up for? (Approaching one trillion dollars... larger than all credit card debt).

[Vide: The $1 trillion student loan market begins to implode – Department of Education shows two-year default rates at for-profit colleges up to 15 percent. Student loan debt increasing at a rate of $170,000 per minute.]

Our media has been hijacked, as responsible journalism has all but vanished from the mainstream arena. Many complain about specific networks or mediums, when in truth it matters not which different "race"of news one mentions, for they are all fed by the two dominant mainstream news sources, Reuters and Associated Press.

Our economy has been morphed from a goods producing private sector, into a government subsidized welfare state. The basis for what is left of the American economy depends on consuming cheap goods, many in which come from China and other openly oppressed nations. Regardless of this known fact, the American Public and the U.S. government adopt the "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy with respect to ethics and morality of the exploited labor. If this was truly the land of the free, why do we play benefactor to the exploitation of labor trade?

So it is no wonder why in these times, so many are confused, angry, and even frightened about what the future holds. For those who are opening up to the world, they are greeted by the many harsh unspoken realities in which this world is founded upon. And for those who remain unaware, the life they have known seems to be changing at an increasing rate. Both types of people are left asking why?

The answer is quite straightforward, yet elegantly complicated in its delicacies. ...

Well, maybe not Ron Paul, but certainly the National Socialist German Workers Party had a few good ideas about how to deal with bankers, the cost of eduction, healthcare, food, the exploitation of workers by foreign interests, the need for a productive not financial economy, etc.

Ever wonder why Homer's father's name is "Abe"? D'oh!

2011-09-13T06:39:00.000-07:00

Mishima: The Emperor as Joker

Further to my post a few days ago mentioning "trans-ideological" friendships and their being characteristic of the Right rather than the Left [which despite its "caring" self-image exiles anyone manifesting non-PC thought to Siberia, while reserving its empathy for serial killers and pimps], I came across this in The Life and Death of Yukio Misima by Henry Scott-Stokes [irritatingly "personal" and intrusively excentric -- Stokes, not Mishima].

Mishima has just had a "debate" with a group of "ultra Left wing students at his old university." Although having a moment of paranoia as he walked in, imagining the students had lured him there to murder him, he found they "showed a remarkable interest in the subject of the Emperor." After a debate that succeeded "as entertainment" he comments:

I found we had much in common -- a rigorous ideology and a taste for violence. Both they and I represent new species in Japan today. I felt a friendship for them. We are friends between whom there is a barbed wire fence. We smile at one another but we can't kiss.

Zengakuren, or Japanese left-wing student movements, in action

He then adds a comment that reminds me of John Lebedoff's account of Waugh and Orwell, despising alike the modern world but with diametrically opposed prescriptions:

What the students and I stand for is almost identical. We have the same cards on the table, but I have a joker -- the Emperor.

2011-09-11T09:37:00.000-07:00

The Age of Dawkins

Weekend Reading: Psychopaths Among Us, the Madness Rises Again, and the Necessity of Law

It can take a little while to catch on, because they can seem so normal, so charming. Good people think most people are rational and basically honest, just like them.

But they wrong, there are very sick people out there, but they do not seem sick, and do not ask for help. They do not want help, or rules, or anything else that gets in their way. Their sickness does not always manifest itself sexually, but can be expressed in other means of domination and acquisition. There is a high correlation with substance abuse, especially stimulants, and other obsessively risky behaviours, including chronic lying and flouting social conventions. There is a negative correlations with depression.

Some can be particularly good at bending the rules to shape the system to help fulfill their need to feed on whatever their diet demands. They are naturally drawn to positions of power, frequently faking their credentials and results, and are often verbally acute, willing to say and do almost anything to get their way. If they come from wealth they may be able to buy their way into positions of power and protection and manage their environments very effectively, except their family relationships and children would rarely be described as normal. Psychopathy breeds a multitude of other disorders.

And they seem to be gaining traction, getting better, and finding kindred spirits in the growing partnership between corporations and the government.

Robert Hercz, Psychopaths Among Us :

"Three decades of these studies, by Hare and others, has confirmed that psychopaths' brains work differently from ours, especially when processing emotion and language. Hare once illustrated this for Nicole Kidman, who had invited him to Hollywood to help her prepare for a role as a psychopath in Malice. How, she wondered, could she show the audience there was something fundamentally wrong with her character?

"I said, 'Here's a scene that you can use,' " Hare says. " 'You're walking down a street and there's an accident. A car has hit a child in the crosswalk. A crowd of people gather round. You walk up, the child's lying on the ground and there's blood running all over the place. You get a little blood on your shoes and you look down and say, "Oh shit."

You look over at the child, kind of interested, but you're not repelled or horrified. You're just interested. Then you look at the mother, and you're really fascinated by the mother, who's emoting, crying out, doing all these different things. After a few minutes you turn away and go back to your house. You go into the bathroom and practice mimicking the facial expressions of the mother.' " He then pauses and says, "That's the psychopath: somebody who doesn't understand what's going on emotionally, but understands that something important has happened...

Richard Dawkins is planning to write a book warning children about the possible dangers of fantasy novels and fairytales:

Psychopathy may prove to be as important a construct in this century as IQ was in the last (and just as susceptible to abuse), because, thanks to Hare, we now understand that the great majority of psychopaths are not violent criminals and never will be. Hundreds of thousands of psychopaths live and work and prey among us. Your boss, your boyfriend, your mother could be what Hare calls a "subclinical" psychopath, someone who leaves a path of destruction and pain without a single pang of conscience. Even more worrisome is the fact that, at this stage, no one -- not even Bob Hare -- is quite sure what to do about it...

Are these people qualitatively different from us? "I would think yes," says Hare. "Do they form a discrete taxon or category? I would say probably -- the evidence is suggesting that. But does this mean that's because they have a broken motor? I don't know. It could be a natural variation." True saints, completely selfless individuals, are rare and unnatural too, he points out, but we don't talk about their being diseased..."

Unless you're Dawkins.

2011-09-10T08:23:00.000-07:00

How to Win Friends and Influence People: Be Like Larry!

I found a $1.99 advance copy of Dale Carnegie’s famous How To Win Friends and Influence People, or rather, the latest update, HTWFAIP In the Digital Age. [Simon & Schuster, Oct. 2011]. Like the works of such popular notables as Napoleon Hill, Edgar Cayce, Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, etc., it seems to have acquired immortality by becoming an industry unto itself, with periodic ‘updates’ and re-writes emerging from shadowy and vaguely frightening impersonal entities calling themselves ‘The Foundation’ or ‘The Institute’ or, in this case, “Dale Carnegie & Associates.’

Never having read the original, but sensitive to its, well, influence, as demonstrated by the quotes on the back from Warren Buffet, Lee Iacocca, and especially lit-crit Jonathan Yardley, who named it one of “Ten Books that Shaped the American Character’ along with Hemingway and Whitman [and I think that goes a long way to explaining the mess we’re in today, does it not?], I decided to give it a read.

Now, not having read the original, I’m going by what I can see and infer, and I infer that the process of being ‘adapted from the timeless bestseller’ involves not correcting their ‘timeless’ principles, but rather demonstrating that they are ‘still valid’ as one says by putting them in a modern setting. But this is less an exercise in empirical validation than a sales technique, designed to continue marketing an old book by reassuring and comforting the modern reader.

Unlike your Friendly Blogger, who, as I have noted on occasion, positively seeks out and delves into “old” books, expecting to find wisdom and even just sanity, the modern lumpen-reader must be convinced that a book from 1935 has more of relevance to him than say a book on how to run a speakeasy. Modern language must be used [no references to a "nigger in the woodpile" or "old wives’ tales"] and modern attitudes accepted [women can run big companies too!]

Thus, in filming Lord of the Rings, Erowyn must be given a sword so she can kick ass, Aragon will use a shield as a boogie-board, and at the battle of Helm’s End the armies must include a few contingents of vaguely Middle Eastern sort, along with a suicide bomber.

The process starts right on line one, chapter one [after the reassuring new introduction called “Why Carnegie’s Advice Still Matters’] where we are asked to contemplate the diverse figures of Adolf Hitler and… Martin Luther King, Jr. [What, weren’t any women available, Mr. Man?] Quotations from each are proffered to show that one was a “cunning, condescending cynic” and the other a “trustworthy agent of the common good.” And guess which is which!

Of course, it would be easy enough to find one or two quotations to show that Hitler was a wise leader who brought his country out from under economic ruin, from 1934 to 1939, while England and the US were still mired in the Great Depression, building great public works such as the Autobahn, using only state-issued money, not a drop of gold, thus doing so without ruinous inflation. On the other hand, King’s ‘nonviolence’ was a sad and self-defeating [i.e., violence-promoting] joke, his economic ideal the monstrous evil of Communism [which again, doesn’t even work], his private life a hypocritical stew of drink and adultery, and his much vaunted “works” from grad school to Memphis nothing but a tissue of plagiarisms.

But then, they wouldn’t sell many books, would they?

Of course, to be in the know, it helps to have a brother-in-law who's Attorney General, and can provide you with taped FBI evidence:

Former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy described King as "phony" and "tricky" in a 1964 interview just made public in a new book about White House life with her husband. Kennedy, in one of seven Q&A sessions with former JFK aide Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., said King had mocked her slain husband's funeral Mass and its celebrant, Cardinal Richard Cushing. "He made fun of Cardinal Cushing and said he was drunk at it," Kennedy recounted. "And things about they almost dropped the coffin. I just can't see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, 'That man's terrible.'" Kennedy's negative impression of King was forged in part when she heard about FBI tapes that captured the married activist in a hotel room with another woman.

Once again, Homo Hoover and Homo Icon Jackie pursue the truth, while today's Liberal Gay just dreams of MLK's mythical BBC.

To back up to our main point; these ‘self-help’ guys [a term, we are told, Carnegie would have abhorred] tend to work with a bunch of not that secret or subtle principles [in this case, don’t try to get your way by attacking others but by finding ways to praise and co-opt your opponents] and then filling out the book with lots of examples and anecdotes. The process of ‘updating’ involves changing these: change stories involving stock tickers and hat blocking to texting and iPhones, use examples like Halle Berry not Hattie McDaniels.

"You know, Eddie, that might be just a tad harsh for womenswear. Let's just replace "hail of shrapnel" and "scar tissue" with "string of pearls" and "raspberry scones."

1935 might have been too early for Hitler, but I just bet King replaced Abe Lincoln. Lincoln seems an obsession with Carnegie, bringing him up again and again, giving long, loving quotes from his speeches and even unpublished letters [this is all in the first 20pp., btw!]. But instead of two stories about Lincoln’s wise leadership, why not one about Robert E. Lee as a leader of men? Um, no, not gonna happen.

In fact, Carnegie's very principle here -- something like: all men have good and evil parts to them, and you will get ahead better if you appeal to their good parts [Lincoln’s “better angels of our natures”] rather than rant about their evil parts -- displays the problem with the whole ‘teach by real examples’ method. Any given figure is going to raise problems, any problematic figure will be denied his place in the sun. [1]

Both Lincoln examples illustrate his principle, but only if you buy the official, PC version. Was Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address an example of reaching out to the South, or the typical work of a life-long political hypocrite, a “cunning and condescending cynic” if you will? Was his reluctance to rebuke Gen. Meade after the latter’s dilly-dallying let Lee escape after Gettysburg an example too, or is it another instance of Lincoln’s micro-managing yet wishy-washy style, which nearly led the Union to defeat against the vastly outnumbered and outgunned South?

Once you start PC-ing, the sky’s the limit, and every figure a booby trap. Lincoln, freer of slaves, or quasi-dictator whose suspension of habeas corpus inspired George Bush? Margaret Sanger, pioneer of women’s right to chose, or hysterical anti-immigration knuckle-dragger?

Best to hew as close to the mainstream as one can, I guess.

There’s also something else here. When it comes to more modern figures, ripped from the headlines, as it were, we find ourselves with Mel Gibson. Gibson, of course, is an example of something like “think before opening your mouth when using modern technology” for leaving a “profane” message on his ex-wife’s machine, rather than his I think more famous “Jews cause every war” outburst. Surely the latter is an example of the more general “don’t pick out one bad habit to criticize” principle, no?

Except, of course, Jews have no bad qualities, and that's why "anti-Semitism" is "irrational." Phew, that was a close one -- I almost did a Gibson!

And then we get “the Rev.” Jackson, for his famous open mike performance. Again, an example of the ramified principle, “don’t criticize especially since there’s always a microphone somewhere.” Of course, what Jackson was pilloried for was what he actually said, namely, proposing to “cut Obama’s nuts off” rather than merely “criticizing” him. After all, what else does a political opponent do? The idea seems to be “Never criticized anyone, even if they deserve it” -- as in “Obama is misleading the black nation” -- and “Besides, the mike might be on and you’ll get caught” -- as in, "I‘ll cut his nuts off.”

Here we see root of the “hypocrisy” Carnegie and his acolytes have been accused of [which is why we are told he rejected the “selfish” implications of ’self-help’], as well as an example of the maddening modern “non-partisan” ideal, where no disagreement is allowed, thus, well, cutting the nuts off all political debate and discussion.

The chapter wraps up with two pages on the friendship of Chesterton and Shaw. This is the second time in a week that I’ve been startled to see references to Chesterton in a just published work [see my review of They Live] but then, it must be left over from the 1935 edition. It’s odd, in that is surely begs to be re-done; most people don’t even know Shaw these days, or at most as “the guy what wrote that musical the fags like,” and Chesterton is a complete mystery to anyone who didn’t get sentenced to spend time at a campus Newman Center.

The most obvious reason, I think, is that such “trans-ideological friendships” as William F. Buckley describes his relations with J. K. Galbraith, are characteristic of “conservatives” in general, and perhaps “liberals” of the old, pre-New Left school as well, but today, not so much.

A bit further back, one could take the example of Evelyn Waugh and George Orwell, whose shared distaste for the modern world might lead one to think them The Same Man, while of course differing entirely in their diagnosis and proposed cure.

It is perhaps the most characteristic aspect of today’s world, that while “nonpartisan” is the watchword in ideological debate, in personal relations, one wrong, non-PC word and one becomes an un-person, “racist,” “fascist,” “Nazi” etc.

All this is a special case of the principle we started with, speaking to the good in another rather than criticizing his faults. Baltasar Gracián wrote of this 300 years ago, in a book recommended by Nietzsche and even translated by Schopenhauer:

lxxvii Be all Things to all Men

—a discreet Proteus, learned with the learned, saintly with the sainted. It is the great art to gain every one's suffrages; their goodwill gains general agreement. Notice men's moods and adapt yourself to each, genial or serious as the case may be. Follow their lead, glossing over the changes as cunningly as possible. This is an indispensable art for dependent persons. But this savoir faire calls for great cleverness. He only will find no difficulty who has a universal genius in his knowledge and universal ingenuity in his wit.

while also, unlike Carnegie, warning us of falling for the trick ourselves:

lxxx Take care to get Information.

We live by information, not by sight. We exist by faith in others. The ear is the area-gate of truth but the front-door of lies. The truth is generally seen, rarely heard; seldom she comes in elemental purity, especially from afar; there is always some admixture of the moods of those through whom she has passed. The passions tinge her with their colours wherever they touch her, sometimes favourably, sometimes the reverse. She always brings out the disposition, therefore receive her with caution from him that praises, with more caution from him that blames. Pay attention to the intention of the speaker; you should know beforehand on what footing he comes. Let reflection assay falsity and exaggeration.

What’s also interesting about Gibson and Jackson not being upbraided for their “anti-Semitic” comments [remember “Hymie-Town”?], is that they must be in the back of everyone's mind, and hence don't need to be explicitly mentioned. It's you-know-who's technique of insinuation. I’m sure they must be in the back of the reviser’s mind; after all, why not use Gibson as an example of "perseverance in what you believe" vis a vis films like The Passion of the Christ, and why doesn't Jackson's skin color give him carte blanche, as well as his [self-mytholgizing] story of his t-shirt stained with the blood of MLK? It's their "anti-Semitism" that makes them fair game for being turned into Goofuses to Carnegies Gallant.

And so it's no surprise that another feature of the book is a plethora of Judaica. The author[s] love to attribute anything they can to “Jewish wisdom” or “a Jewish proverb,” in the latter case the footnote revealing that the proverb came from the mouth of one Jesus Christ! [2] The only anecdote from an explicitly Christian source is some typically creepy Evangelical, since Protestantism is just crypto-Judaism anyway.

Hmm... hypocritically attacking others as "inauthentic" while reading and writing books of rules on how to seem sincere; promoting hypocritical Icons of Freedom, preferably of the darker persuasion; hating Hitler as the ultimate evil and considering "anti-Semitic" remarks worthy of permanent banishment; all the while "shaping America's character;" sounds like a certain ethnic group [or, as some suggest calling them, transnational crime family].

Here's one:

Actual quote: "Hi, I'm Cramer. Welcome to Cramerica! Some people want to make friends, I just want to make money. Let's go!"

Welcome to Cramerica indeed.

So I guess the basic lesson of success is: don’t say anything the Jews disapprove of, at least don‘t get caught doing it. Somehow, I can’t get it out of my mind that this is the image of How to Win Friends and Influence People:

As for me, I’m done, I’m out of here. I’ve seen how this movie ends. I imagine this must be what it’s like to be in some low-key but insistent PC “sensitivity” class, a kind of driver’s ed for the soul.

[1] Hitler as a good guy? Well, it actually doesn’t matter much, since it wasn’t about him anyway. It was probably because they opted out of the Anglo-American debt-based monetary system that led Winston Churchill to make the following pronouncement you won't here from the Churchill-waving neos whining about "appeasement" and "the next Hitler":

"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." (Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 145)

Of course, just like Lincoln has become “the Great Emancipator” and thus any critic is a ‘racist,’ so WWII has become “the war to save the Jews” and any critic of Roosevelt, or someone daring to address out Hitler’s good points, is an “anti-Semite.”

[2] Yes, I know, there’s good evidence that the ‘do unto others’ line is a commonplace of various wisdom schools, including Hillel, but then why bother to cite scripture for it?

2011-09-06T20:33:00.000-07:00

Doing YHVH's Work

Take away the fraud and US GDP would shrink to negative 20%

The Wall Street Journal reviewed data showing that a $38 million subprime-mortgage bond created in June 2006 was referenced in more than 30 debt pool causing around$280 million in losses to investors by 2008. In other words, Goldman kept repackaging, reselling or protecting (buying credit default protection on) losers. It took the wrong kind of nerve for Goldman's CEO to say he was doing "God's work."

The 'wrong kind of nerve'? It's called חֻצְפָּה.

2011-09-06T16:20:00.000-07:00

The End of Dawkinsian Economics

It's all coming together, my droogies.

Following our morose delectation of the "discovery" by Arrighi and others of Spengler-Guenon's cyclical analysis of history, at least as applied to economics, the ever-insightful Charles Hughs Smith puts the boot in:

Conventional economics has failed on a grand scale. Not only has its policies failed, its account of what's really going on fails to explain the underlying dynamics because it is fundamentally self-referential, parochial, mechanistic, blind to broader forces of history and soaked in the quasi-religious hubris that reductionist equations and quant models can not only explicate reality, they can predict human behavior.

The catastrophic failure of its policies result not from poor policy choices but from a tragically inadequate intellectual foundation. Hubris, indeed.

Huh. Quasi-religiously hubristic reductionism? Pretending to explicate all of reality? Sounds familiar:

Of course; legally mandated, NPR-compelled belief in "natural selection" as the be-all, end-all of all human thought.

Even South Park hates Dawkins; here he is with his butt-buddy, Krugman

So, what does that make me? Some Rick Perry loving wingnut? I guess; but no more than the holy Goddam New York Review of Books, bitchez!

One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins’s book is why it was written. Why does Dawkins feel he has anything significant to say about religion and what gives him the sense of authority presumably needed to say it at book length? The God Delusion certainly establishes that Dawkins has little new to offer. … Dawkins is obviously entitled to his views on God, ballet, and currency markets. But I doubt he feels much need to pen books on the last two topics.

Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur.

Amateur "philosopher," professional she-male?

2011-09-03T14:12:00.000-07:00

He Writes! You Read!

Jonathan Lethem
They Live
Soft Skull Press, 2010
Paperback, 208 pp. $13.95

Constant readers will know that I not infrequently make use of images or lines from John Carpenter’s schlock-cult classic They Live. But it was only the other day, my financial situation being but a few steps away from Roddy Piper’s in the film, that I had to luck to find a $1.99 proof copy of Jonathan Lethem’s excellent book, part of the “Deep Focus” series, from which I also recommend the one on Death Wish.

Both are written from the Default Liberal Position [otherwise they wouldn’t be published] but both is relatively free of ideological cant and more than a little willing to contemplate, for example, whether Bronson’s vigilante might have a point or two to make, so they make easy enough reading for those who might actually have a Bronson poster on the wall.

It’s only 200 pages, and moreover it’s a small-sized book, so you can probably read it in one relatively short sitting. In fact, a movie time code appears throughout, so you can probably read it along with your NetFlix stream. So in the spirit of such brevity, let’s do so, and I’ll just make a few bullet points along the way.

Carpenter’s screenplay pseudonym, ‘Frank Armitage,’ alludes to Lovecraft’s "Dunwich Horror," while the originating short story is by an obscure author best known as one of the few to collaborate with Philip Dick, thus linking “two now esteemed artists situated in disreputable genres.” I would myself add, as noted here before, that these are the two greatest American writers of the XXth century, one in each half. Lethem does note, however, the irony that Lovecraft’s trans-dimensional Elder Gods have now become yuppies shopping for blue corn tortillas.

He also notes that in the summer between the film’s production and release saw the riots in NYC’s Tompkins Square Park, which calls to mind the homeless encampment at the start of the film. However, not so much; these are “sheepish, demoralized, obedient” and seem to want to do nothing but watch television all day, which is convenient for the plot points, of course. More on these losers later.

The use of 50s sci-fi clips on the TV’s leads him to speculate if, to Carpenter, the 50s “seem a whole lot deeper than the 80s,” which is a nice way to put what a lot of us here have been thinking. As Lethem later says, the glasses reveal that “color is lies, black and white the truth” or, as one revolutionary shouts, “They colorized it!”

Lethem is all upset that of the various ways the phrase “Hoffman Lenses” has been mutated in pop culture; Albert Hoffman? Abbie Hoffman? He likes pop culture re-appropriation, but like most good-thinkers, thinks some standards -- his -- should apply. Some people have dared to associate them with “holocaust denier” Michael A. Hoffman II, which he take as a warning to those who would set their memes loose on the world: “Free your mind, and an ass may follow.” Har-de-har-har. However, just to blow Lethem’s mind, here’s another: entheogenic drug researcher and cultural historian [and Heavy Metal theorist] Michael [no relation to Hoffman II] Hoffman. Take that!

Now back to those hapless homeless. Lethem notes at various points one of the most interesting memes in the movie, quoting at length [as we will here] no less than NPR poster-boy, Slavoj Žižek:

[I]t totally turns around the usual new age idea of critique of ideology, which would be: “in everyday life we have ideological glasses, learn to put down, take off, the glasses, and see with your own eyes reality the way it is.” No, unfortunately, it doesn’t work like this. Liberation hurts. You have to be forced to put your glasses on.” (Slavoj Žižek, "They Live! Hollywood as an Ideological Machine")

This is in reference to the [in]famous “longest fight scene in movie history” but it also crops up throughout the film. Lethem notes that Frank is not a “Magic Negro” [even using the term!] but more of a Danny Glover sidekick, then goes on to point out that while the White hero, Nada [which makes me recall Showgirls’ ‘Nomi’] is naïve, the black guy is too-knowing in his cynicism: “a nice twist is in the works: Nada will eventually have to bludgeon his black friend into seeing the truth Frank seemingly already possesses.” The “twist” being on the now-audience-expected theme, White guy learns grudging respect for the street wisdom of black partner forced on him. In general, “knowledge in They Live is associated with head pain, grogginess and eyestrain… It’s more comfortable not to see.” Moral? Even the most obvious victims of the system are more likely to just “tune in for more” as they used to say during station breaks, than rise up and throw off their mental chains.

If the good ol’ American family won’t rise up [I think that’s why, along with budget restraints, Carpenter makes use of suspiciously normal looking families among his homeless group], then what to do? Who you gonna call? The Männerbund!

Excursus on the Männerbund

Lethem starts off by calling to our attention that once we get away from the homeless camp, the LA scenes, especially Holly’s apartment, look like porn sets. True, but I’d just say that all of Southern California looks like a porn set to these New York eyes and leave it at that; Curb Your Enthusiasm, for example, looks like a porn shoot to me; but Lethem wants to use this to set up his notion that there’s some kinda homoeroticism going on between Frank and Nada. Noting their obvious racial polarity, he trots out the tired Huck and Jim thesis of Judaic critic Leslie Fiedler, who tried to reduce all American literature to variations on boys on the raft.

[The ne plus ultra of this was probably the Penguin English Library volume of Moby Dick, where critic Harry Beaver [!] created a 300 page text with 200 pages of endnotes detailing line by line Melville’s “phallic imagination” -- Harpoons! Coffins! Peg-legs! Oysters! Dogs and cats living together!]

I take Frank’s invitation to introduce Nada to the homeless encampment [hot food and showers!] as recruitment not into a sexual liaison but into a proto-Männerbund of working class types banding together in the economic chaos [though, as we have seen, not a very lively one, but serving to get him across the street to the fake church were he meets the real revolutionaries]. Nada will return the favor when he later beats the truth into Frank, Fight Club style.

Lethem would have saved himself some idle speculations, and real puzzlements, such as why Nada later takes a younger version of himself under his wing, if he had understood better that, as he says: “If it’s not that kind of hookup scene, it’s still a hookup scene.” As he says later, when Nada spews stupid, supposedly clever one-liners about ugly female ghouls, “this man of the people is more of the male than the female people.” And later, during the shoot-em-up at the Cable 54 offices, “He really shouldn’t be looking for Holly; he’s got no knack with women.”

The Männerbund theme continues even when Nada “hooks up” with Holly, played by the “eerie” and ineffable Meg Foster.

Lethem is correct to point out she is indeed strikingly “mannish” for a nevertheless attractive woman [originally cast in TV’s Cagney and Lacey, she was dropped because she made Tyne Daly look too feminine!], which may have something to do with Nada’s oddly unmotivated rage against how ugly the female ghouls appear to him; he has firm though offbeat ideas about beauty.

And though dark haired she has eyes that “are such a pale shade of blue they’re nearly a special effect“ by themselves He alludes to her roles in The Scarlet Letter [19th century American lit again!] and The Osterman Weekend but I find it more interesting to compare her role just the year before in the otherwise atrocious Masters of the Universe, where her hard face and unearthly eyes work well for the straightforwardly and extra-dimensionally evil character called Evil-lyn [it’s that kind of movie], playing against another muscular blonde hero, Sam Jones as He-Man.

Mannish though she is, Holly will, of course, turn out to be the femme fatale to infiltrate the group and betray everyone, even killing Frank. Lethem nicely points out that this unexpected turn makes it seem like genre conventions are attacking our poor heroes; like Full Metal Jacket or The Shining, halfway through the sci-fi metaphysics stop and suddenly it's an action flick, then a film noir.

Throughout the book, Lethem comments on the oddly pedestrian, that is, walk-around, flâneur -like LA in the film, so unlike the freeway-LA we think we know, and comes up with various explanations, including budget restraints. To me, the answer is simple; Carpenter sets the whole film in some kind of post-Reagan hyper-recession; jobs have disappeared, workers are migratory [Frank from Detroit, Nada from Denver], riding the rails, working under the counter, etc. Who can afford to drive, except the “Well Dressed Man” at the newsstand, who’s a ghoul, or Holly, who’s a mole for the ghouls. The supposed “real face” of Reagan’s Morning in America.

Making the film as early as 1988 gives it the look of Leftist hysteria, but in fact the process was underway, it just took 30 years and two busted bubbles to make everyone realize that while we were putting everything on the card, the real jobs were shipped out and the real money was siphoned off, not so much by yuppies [who are as mortgage-strapped as the rest of us, just with bigger houses] but the really big guys, the bankers. Frank and Nada’s car-less wanderings, and the packed streets, give the film a contemporary, not a dated, look.

Another theme dear to the New Right: the ghouls are outright colonizers and parasites, not even illegal aliens [like District Nine] you might work up some Ellis Island sympathy for, like the sociopathic Sicilians we know welcome as "Italian American patriots," and they’re coruscating ugly, and even worse, they want to wear our best clothes [like “Well Dressed Man”] and make it with our smooth, pink bodies. There’s no chance for the “traditional science-fiction platitude, with its overtones of Franz Boas cultural relativism.” When a ghoul cop tries the Good Cop routine and suggests “You look just as ugly to us” Nada responds with Randian certitude and contempt: “Impossible.“ It reminds me of the scene where Toohey tries to confront Roark but Roark just walks away. Lethem refers to Carpenter’s 50s film outlook again, and he’s right. Not for nothing does Carpenter idolize John Ford, and admire the Ford-influenced The Thing enough to remake it. The comparable exchange in the 50s Thing: “What do you do with a carrot? You cook it.”

Lethem contrasts this with another late 80s sci-fi film, Blade Runner, where the replicants are more sympathetic than the humans, and the controversies over whether Dekkard himself is a replicant. I would again match him with Lovecraft. Lovecraft certainly loathed furriners, especially immigrants. The Old Ones certainly seem to covet warm human flesh, and several characters are half-breeds of such couplings, who, in accordance with Lovecraft’s strict morality [or bigotry] must be evil and come to bad ends, like Wilbur in "The Dunwich Horror" that Carpenter’s pseudonym alludes to. His brother, “who looked more like the father,” is a monster killed by the scientists at the end; the narrator of Shadow over Innsmouth gradually realizes he is one of the fish-people himself and presumably will shoot himself at the end; the eponymous Arthur Jermyn discovers he is the offspring of an ape mother, and burns himself alive [although this might be one of the Darwinian Lovecraft’s little jokes]. Poor Akeley, beset by Plutonian immigrant miners in "The Whisperer in Darkness" is fooled into joining the Plutonian race, having his brain boxed up with the promise of being shipped off to see the sights of the galaxy, perhaps the ones Roy recalls at the end of Blade Runner. Most notably, Prof. Peasley in The Shadow out of Time has his mind “kidnapped” and transferred into the “rugose cone” body of a Cyclopean prehistoric race -- brain rape!-- when he finally works up the courage to look in a mirror at his new body, he shrieks and faints, as does “The Outsider” when a mirror reveals that he is a rotting corpse. Nada, Lethem points out, never turns the glasses on himself in a mirror. But there is another vein in Lovecraft, part of his “cosmic awe”. Peaslee learns to appreciate and admire the super-intelligent cones, rugose or not; the narrator in At the Mountains of Madness sympathizes with the specimens of the ancient race dug out of the ice only to be attacked by dogs. As the Templars came to admire the Moslem warriors they fought, anyone who peers deeply into a religion or culture of his own may be able to recognize the value of an alien’s, but at such a deep, shared level that talk of conversion or “relativism” is inane. But still, not with these guys. They’re space yuppies, practicing planetary gentrification, and ugly as cheese dip from 1957. Nada kills the cop and steals his weapons.

As a boomer myself, I find it mind-boggling that Lethem attributes the line “ten thousand hole in Blackburn, Lancashire” to "Yellow Submarine;" in fact, since “A Day in the Life” is usually held up as some kind of “classic work of timeless genius,” to mis-attribute an image, and to such a dopey song, seems unforgivable in general; or is he deliberately thumbing his nose at the middle-brows?

But, just a page or two later, he redeems himself with this: “it’s hard to imagine that at the ghouls’ first job fair the position of Fatuous Cocktail-swilling Jackass didn’t have willing applicants lined up around the block.” I can’t wait to use that line myself, maybe even on myself.

Holy cow, now Lethem’s calling the same character "the cockroach of the human spirit.” He’s using my meme!

Lethem’s giving us some freeze-dried lecture on how “post-Freudian, post-Virginia Woolf” readers demand characters that are flawed, even treacherous; he thinks this is an index of how seriously a work is intended, or even, he adds ominously, “how seriously it is likely to be received” -- by the literary gatekeepers, like him, of course. If you don’t know where this is going, he tells us “If Shakespeare had written The Lord of the Rings, its title would be Gollum.” [And I guess if Shakespeare had written Hamlet, its title would have been Rosencrantz and Guildenstern]. And there, in admittedly a neat little phrase, is a perfect example of the Judaic Plan for Culture Distortion; how even already existing classic literature can be “taught” in ways that inculcate the cockroach mentality. And after all, is not the plea that “we” prefer such “complex” and twisted characters simple egotism? Does the Jew not recognize himself in such figures [just as Freud’s so-called science was am impudent projection of the Judaic domestic scene onto all mankind]? Surely Gollum is the Jew of the Ring films; did people not complain of the role’s “anti-Semitism”? It is the Jew who finds such characters “intriguing,” not the Aryan public, which is why normal stories keep getting written and filmed, since they are demanded by the public [adjusted for inflation, the all time box office hit: Gone with the Wind], and the Judaic gatekeepers keep having to push them back underwater and “demand” “more serious” ones.

Lethem keeps trying to insinuate, in that Judaic way, that we really like the bum-turned-traitorous big-shot, Drifter, that we’d really like to be him, in fact, far more than that dumb, boring blond hero. It surfaces again when he discusses the poor Pregnant Woman with Coffee Pot who gets in Nada’s way during the shoot out, specifically connecting her with Frances Dormand’s character in Fargo, the Coen Brothers’ festival of Judaic paranoia, dividing the goyim into two groups, murderous blond beasts and simple-minded law enforcers [who, implicitly, will protect the Jews from the first group]. You want to play that game, Jonathan? OK, Nada embodies both; while we know he’s a simple guy just trying to save us, to the office workers he’s just a murderous workplace psycho. Oh, and your precious Coen Bros. stole Lebowski from... Drifter!

Maybe it was a mistake to try and read this all in one sitting. I’m starting to feel a little woozy, more than a little cranky. If you took my suggestion at the beginning to do this, go back, you fools! Only a few pages of the book, less than two minutes of the film, are left, and Lethem is really working my nerves. First, he quotes G. K. Chesterton -- when’s the last time you saw that, outside the New Oxford Review or maybe that Catholic cable channel. But then, he follows it up some “film curator” guy who says that “we who live in the urban centers” both fear and loathe the denizens of the heartland, whom “we” perceive as “bible-thumping, gun-toting” nut jobs “like the Unabomber.” Uh, Unabomber? Harvard, brilliant mathematician, Manifesto published in The New York Times, oh yeah, that cracker dumbass. Alright buddy, Mr. “Milan Film Festival” jag-off, you’ve asked for it. I’ve run out of bubble gun ... I mean, gum.

But wait, as I move down the hallway for my stolen police rifle, I pass a mirror… look in…My God! The blue skin, the robotic eyes! You others, drop the book, before it’s too late… save yourselves! As for me… I have fallen into the cheese dip….

2011-09-02T07:10:00.000-07:00

The Smell Test

And Orwell fails. What's that about "ideas so stupid only an intellectual would believe them"?

...regarded simply as a politician, and compared with the other leading political figures of our time, how clean a smell he has managed to leave behind! -- George Orwell: ‘Reflections on Gandhi’ First published: Partisan Review. — January 1949.

I found Gandhi quite repulsive and did all I could to avoid him and his entourage. ... He constantly chewed garlic -- someone having told him that this would prolong his life -- and smelled so foul that even his most faithful followers kept their distance. -- The way to the labyrinth: memories of East and West by Alain Daniélou

The whole passage is valuable for some insight into how a real Hindu regarded the demented Modernist Gandhi, still the idol of the idiot "progressives."

Also recommended: this brave piece in Cockburn's Counterpunch [brave because nothing brings out the sharp tongued, sharp clawed shrieking harpies of NPR niceness that questioning [our] authorities] on the complete failure of all "nonviolent struggles," especially Gandhi's:

Gandhi’s nonviolence can’t have been successful, because there was nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi’s priorities may have shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world.

Oh, and he stank to high heaven.

Hey Gandhi, up yours!

2011-08-29T10:27:00.000-07:00

The Worst Movie of All Time Gets The Worst Commentary Track of All Time

This review is from: Monster a Go-Go (DVD)

The only people interested in buying this will be people who have seen it on MST3K and would like to have a [1] good, uncut copy that might make more sense with [2] a commentary track explaining why the movie turned out so rancid.

You know, I bet this is what all of modern Western cultured looked like to Baron Evola

Well, it scores a 5 on the first point. Picture is crisp, a few shots are restored [only the last part of the truck driver sequence contributes to making things clearer], and the muddy soundtrack [which the `bots have a lot of fun with] is clearer -- I was amazed to learn that the `bot's didn't make the bubble pipe noises, Dr. Logan's pipe does sound like that!

The disc itself is nicely produced, with menus not unlike the old Rhino MST3K sets.

But it gets 0 stars [if possible] for the commentary track, as well as the `bonus' interview with director Rebane.

First of all, the "interviewer" and interlocutor on the commentary track admits that he's only seen the movie once!

What? It's obvious this hipster doofus just heard about the movie and decided to make a few bucks, or else was just hired by the DVD company, and he "prepared" for the job by skimming a few blogs or maybe just the Wikipedia site.

As a result, he never asks the questions the rest of us have been asking about this uniquely bad film. Nor is he able to challenge, or even notice, the truly bizarre story Rebane tells.

What's known is that Rebane ran out of money and sold the uncompleted film to his "friend" Herschel Gordon Lewis, who years later shot new scenes, using new actors, along with a "campy" narration by himself, to produce a bottom of the bill filler for Southern drive-ins. Thus, the abysmal quality of the results. People have spent years speculating who shot what, or why certain characters disappear or possibly just get replaced by new actors.

Rebane, however, claims he shot the whole thing, with Lewis contributing only a few shots [along with the "intentionally campy" narration and equally ridiculous title]. Why on Earth would anyone claim to be the auteur of this junk?

What's worse is that Rebane isn't even a reliable narrator. Wow, he can't remember the details of a film he made 50 years ago! Hey, we've all been there, but things would be much better if his interlocutor had seen the film more than once, and was able to ask the obvious follow up questions! [If you haven't, and therefore can't, look here, and here].

For example, it's long been thought that Rebane's film ends at about the 30 minute mark, at which point there's a jump cut, after which several characters disappear and the plot shifts. There's even speculation that the new character called the "brother" of Dr. Logan is actually the same actor who played the now "dead" character in the first part, now balding and with a goatee.

Oh Lucy, I'm dead!

Well, Rebane explains that the "Dr. Manning" character was cut because the actor was lost, due to delays in filming [remember, Rebane succeeded in filming the whole movie, so it was from the length of the shoot, not from starting up years later]. Then, later, he starts to explain how the new actor was found, and how they wrote him in, but it's during a scene where he's across a table from the Dr. Logan's "brother," whom he keeps calling "Dr. Manning's brother" so you soon realize that he's talking about one of the actors, but describing the other actor's character! Here's where a qualified interviewer would say, hey, is Conrad's brother played by the same actor or not, but no such luck.

Hey, this ain't rocket science!

The icing on the cake is that Rebane blames the whole disaster on -- the unions! He really seems to think that if it weren't for those "thugs' he'd have made a movie to rival The Magnificent Ambersons!

Needless to say, since Rebane attributes the film's "quality" to union interference, and the "interviewer" has only seen the film once, neither even notices, less explains, the film's iconic blunders.

For example, the infamous scene with several references to "the music" and dancing, where no actually music was dubbed in, leaving the actors sounding like lunatics; nothing, they just talk right past it.

The most unintentionally "funny" moment is when Bill is gassing about the unions again, and neither one of them even notices the notorious moment when someone makes a "phone" noise offscreen; was this a cue to the actor that was meant to be replaced with Foley, or what?

"Bring-bring! Yellow!"

In short, this is the worst commentary track since the first Fawlty Tower's set, where they couldn't get anyone but some assistant director who snores through each episode, waking up every now and then to deliver some irrelevancy like "Boy, it took a long time to set up that shot."

I'm sorry, we really screwed the pooch on this DVD

Verdict: 5 stars for the quality of the disc and print, 0 for the commentary.

2011-08-25T05:50:00.000-07:00

Jim Rogers, Round Two: Aryan Investor vs. Judaic 'Perfesser'

Having already beaten his Judiac ex=partner and creepy One-worlder George Soros in the investing game, let's see how Aryan Hero Jim Rogers does against equally creepy "Dr. Doom":

Roubini Says Rogers’s $2,000 Gold ‘Utter Nonsense’

Nov. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Nouriel Roubini, the economist who predicted the global economic crisis, said a forecast by investor Jim Rogers that gold will double to at least $2,000 an ounce is “utter nonsense.”

There is no inflation or “near-depression” to drive gold prices that high, Roubini said today at the Inside Commodities Conference in New York. If a severe depression came to pass, with investors buying canned goods and hiding out in log cabins, “maybe you want some gold in that scenario,” Roubini said.

“Maybe it will reach $1,100 or so but $1,500 or $2,000 is nonsense,” Roubini said.

So, how's that prediction doing for ya?

Gold Nears $1,900 - Venezuela Formally Requests Gold Holdings Held By BOE Ship By Sea

You know, maybe the Liberals are right. Stereotypes are wrong.

On the other hand, maybe not. Indeed, anyone who entrusted their money to these sheep-lovers get taken by bunch of clever talk and marketing.

Remember, "the Jew cries when he hits you." "Stereotypes are wrong" means "Stereotypes about us are wrong, you suckers."

2011-08-23T11:44:00.000-07:00

Brigit Brat [1964 - 2011] : She Didn't Need a Religion, She Was Already God's Girlfriend

Actually, a pretty good slogan for esotericism, more Rumi than Schuon.

One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Well, alm ost.

Because they evoke the primordial hermaphrodite, any sexually ambiguous being is of a sacred nature…Every bisexual being can be considered as an emanation of the god’s transcendent aspect…. By virtue of this, they are considered to bring good luck and play a special role in magic and Tantric rites, as also in shamanism.

The magical aspect of interexuality is found in all ancient civilizations. Groups of transvestite prostitutes, united around a guru, had an acknowledged place in society. … The presence of a transvestite prostitute is still considered auspicious, particularly at a marriage ceremony….

Divine androgyny can be evoked as a sadhana, a method spiritual realization. Some mystics seek to untie with the god they worship by becoming a woman, dressing and living as such.

A great number of the wandering monks who transmit magic powers are recruited from among those marked with the seal of the hermaphrodite, who by nature are not inclined to procreation. Being outside the caste system, they act as a bond between the various levels of society. A companion -disciple, who is both lover and servant, often accompanies such monks. --Alain Daniélou with Jean-Louis Gabin. Shiva and the Primordial Tradition: From the Tantras to the Science of Dreams, pp. 42-3

Brigit Brat: Submarine Commander, US Navy
Transgender Dominatrix
Tranny Whore
SheMale Superstar
Heavy Metal Guitar Goddess
Original Wild Boy

2011-08-20T15:45:00.000-07:00

Madman On the Hudson

Is Paul Krugman, the lumpen-Liberals' favorite columnist to read over their bagels and lox, not stupid but nuts?

Krugman explained that he’d become an economist because of science fiction. When he was a boy, he’d read Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” trilogy and become obsessed with the central character, Hari Seldon. Seldon was a “psychohistorian”—a scientist with such a precise understanding of the mechanics of society that he could predict the course of events thousands of years into the future and save mankind from centuries of barbarism.

On Sunday's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," New York Times columnist - and, ahem, Nobel laureate - Paul Krugman actually advocated space aliens attack earth thereby requiring a massive defense buildup by the United States that would stimulate the economy (video follows with transcript and commentary).

Imagine if Michelle Bachman said any of this....

2011-08-20T12:26:00.000-07:00

Tinkers Evers Chance

It’s a triple play of stupidity in Friday's New York Post, courtesy of a trio of our supposed intellectual betters.

First up, Menachem “Would you like to see the whine list?” Rosensaft complains about a handful of people daring to sell Hitler memorabilia -- or what he calls, revealing his people’s charming taste for sniggeringly sexual clinical labels for other people, “naziphilia.”

First, he helpfully defines the unique nastiness of the Nazis as “a regime that killed millions,” which if you stop to think about it, pretty much sums up every major power in history, including the good ol’ US of A.

But Menachem scorns the sage advice of one auctioneer, who asks, are we not to “offer for sale Mao or Stalin” by airily asserting that this is to “ignore the basic difference” between Hitler and the others.

He doesn’t tell us, of course, what the “basic difference” is, but as the “vice president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendents” [and how creepy a name is that?] we can sure guess what it is.

But that doesn’t stop ol’ Menachem from gratefully [or not] accepting his donations and lecture fees and op-ed salary in the form of pieces of paper with pictures of George Slaveowner Washington and Andrew Indian Killer Jackson.

[Paper, certainly not gold. His landsman Bloomberg has officially proclaimed gold to be “dangerous” and sagely advised “Buy stocks!” You know you can trust him. Not like that foolish Chavez].

Posters of the Sino Psycho, such as the one adorning Judaic Jim Cramer’s “Mao Money” set? Che t-shirt worn by the lumpen-hipsters of Billyburg and Cambridge? No problem! Grotesque caricatures of Mohammed? The essence of freedom!

Funny how the “free speech” fetish of the ACLJew Left, and the “free market” fetish of the Kosher Konservatives, go by the wayside when it’s a question of their own delicate sensibilities.

These are, of course, the same people who organize teams to patrol the streets of Jerusalem and spit on women who dare to walk on the wrong side of the street.

AKA, our taxes at work!

Next up, Rick “I’m an icky elf” Lowry serves up another one of those fact-free “Europe is horrible” diatribes that the Americano Snapper Turtle is programmed to respond to like Pavlov’s dog [a mixed metaphor, I know]. This time, instead of ignoring all reason and experience to concoct the usual infantile “paradoxes” of libertarianism, like “Surprisingly, free health care makes you sick” or “Surprisingly, free education makes you stupid” [which, if you think about it, sound a lot more like Big “War is Peace” Brother than any poor Brussels bureaucrat], little Ricky assails the Euro Union, asserting that the poor Euros [the people, that is] have been tricked by a sinister, shadowing elite [no, not Menachem’s] into signing onto a “common currency without a common country,”

And thus “ignoring differences of national culture and national interest.”

One might congratulate Neocon Lickspittle Lowry for discovering the importance of land, roots, tradition, heritage, etc. -- at least for others. Asking about the differences of culture and interest between, say, American and its joined-at-the-hip little buddy, Israel, would of course be anathema at the decidedly anti-anti-Semitic National Review.

Moreover, Lowry also stumbles onto the truth about Menachem’s bugbear, the “basically different” Adolph:

“The euro locks them all into a German-approved currency despite the fact that only one of them is German.”

Le pauvre Adolphe! If only he had schwiegen about the Juden, and just pursued a monetary takeover! Europe united under Germany -- exactly what Menachem’s boys moved Heaven and Earth -- or at least, Britain and the US -- to prevent!

As an article we've suggested you read put it:

[Arrighi] presents three scenarios. The first is a “truly global world empire” formed out of an alliance of the US and its European allies against the rise of East Asia. ...

This is not a promising array. The first is decreasingly likely as Western Europe pursues a geopolitical course that is unsteady but oblique to the fortunes of the U.S., with a German powerhouse intent on leveraging the continental crises to consolidate its role as the unchallenged power of the Eurozone. As Washington lashes out unconvincingly and Berlin plays economic bully, it’s hard to imagine a coordination of interests — much less one that would successfully restart the accumulation cycle by, in effect, reshuffling the present pieces.

The other nascent power, of course is China -- Imperial Japan writ large, again, wisely beating the bankers and capitalists at their own game, rather than challenging them in some half-baked military conquest strategy. I guess the Japanese didn't learn as much from the Taoists as they thought they did. To complete our world tour, Dale McFeatters would use believe that, despite Biden’s pitiful bowing and scraping this week, America is still so culturally powerful that a mere picture of our Ambassador buying a Starbucks [i.e., wasting his tax-payer extorted salary on corporate crap] himself “has stunned and amazed” the Chinese.

For evidence of how this photo “went viral” and will stoke the anger of the Chinese against their own pampered bureaucrats and “the growing class of extremely wealthy” Dale adduces -- a “columnist.” That’s it. Iraqi incubators, WMDs, see a neocon pattern here?

I’ m quite certain that, if the Chinese paid any attention at all to obviously staged photos of the ambassador buying the legal drug caffeine, wearing a backpack, and he and his family schlepping their own luggage, its was with quiet amusement. What, have these round eyes no dignity? Or have they run out of money for servants?

Anyway, Dale, nice try to divert America’s attention from its own “growing class of extremely wealthy.” World record levels of inequality, anyone? But again, like Ricky, Dale doesn’t need no stupid facts.

2011-08-20T08:19:00.000-07:00

Remembrance of Things Past

"It is no less true that the university has been as much a "native" environment for the Fugitives as the South, the one stronghold of European aristocratic culture in the midst of a thriving democratic society. Perhaps, as far as they are concerned, the university is the South, at least the part of it that has seemed most enduring." -- The Fugitive Poets; Modern Southern Poetry in Perspective by William Pratt; Dutton, 1965.

Most enduring, eh?

2011-08-14T12:41:00.001-07:00

Hitler Was Right, Part 987

In the 40s, American's were lured to war against National Socialism by images like these:

And so they returned triumphant, making the world safe for scenes like this:

"A gaggle of liberal “church ladies” fighting back tears of guilt and remorse despite the fact that most of them hadn’t been born when the CRM occurred, took to falling on their knees before black folks at Clayborn Temple to beg forgiveness for the imagined and unspecified “racial sins” of their forefathers and mothers."

2011-08-14T12:18:00.000-07:00

A Band Apart

LOKI’S WAY: THE PATH OF THE SORCERER IN THE 21st CENTURY
WULF GRIMSSON
lulu.com/spotlight/lokisway

A few weeks ago I was privileged to receive this unsolicited manuscript, “the result of over 30 years of research, study and practice,” by Wulf Grimsson. I’ve been trying to read, and then review, the contents ever since, but found it difficult. Not because of the writing -- Wulf is admirably clear and free of both “scholarly” stodginess and “occult” rigmarole -- but precisely because of its dense content of interesting and important ideas. Almost every page gives one something to think about, a source to look up and perhaps reconsider, a inspiration to a new connection made for one’s self.

Why I should have been selected for this privilege is plain from the contents. Loki’s Way covers the whole range of topics we’ve explored on this blog, outside of the more pedestrian political and economic ones, from the Männerbund to mystery traditions to runes, from Nietzsche to Evola to Colin Wilson. I am above all grateful for Wulf’s freeing me from the mild guilt I have felt about all the topics I haven’t done to adequate length, as well as my regret that the late Alisdair Clarke did not live to produce a similar treatise from his path breaking blog, Aryan Futurism. Constant Readers of this blog will find Loki’s Way to be essential reading.

But first let Wulf define his subject:

Loki’s Way is an adaptation of the Left Hand Path or sorcery for the Kali Yuga. This tradition has taken many forms throughout the centuries, in the modern age it must be updated to deal with new discoveries in science and psychology. [62]

The last part there also brings up another reason I’ve had trouble writing about this book. I have grave reservations about much of the material in the first third, and thus, as Wulf expresses it here, in a sense his whole project. I would prefer that he take Guenon’s advice and forget about “reconciling” science and Tradition and especially “updating“ the latter by the former. Not only should the process be reversed, judging Science by the timeless principles of Tradition, but the process is necessarily unending, as Science by contrast is the realm of the amorphous and ever-changing, requiring the “synthesis” [really, as Guenon would point out, syncretism] to be redone over and over -- although I’m sure the publishers appreciate that!

In particular, I think that Wulf’s claim that “the esoteric is the physiological,” i.e. the “discovery” that what esoteric Tradition has been talking about in guarded language can “now be revealed” [as the New Age publishers would shout] as being techniques for manipulating the endocrine and other bodily systems, is really just a misreading of what Evola among others has described as the starting point that remains when all dogmas and theories have been tested and abandoned, in the alchemical abyss:

But then the individual finds himself confronting his body, which is the fundamental nexus of all the conditions of his state. The consideration of the connection between the ego principle in its double form of thought and deed and corporeality …, and the transformation of said connection by means of well-defined, practical, and necessary acts, even though they are essentially interior, constitutes the essential core of the Royal Art of the hermetic masters.

Evola adds:

The latter will be directed first of all to the conquest of the principle of immortality, and then to the total stable nature, no longer transitory or deteriorating… by which the human manifestation is established within the realm of becoming. [The Hermetic Tradition, pp. 98-99]

Immortality! Yes, indeed:

Loki’s Way gives us the opportunity for individual immortality. It means using the very structures that are in place to satisfy the replicators and which sustain collective immortality for our own benefit. We are literally making a u-turn; the very things that sustain the immortality of the collective must be used against the norm to achieve a permanent, discrete and individual self.

This, of course, is extremely difficult and confronting and accordingly the path to immortality is one that only a few will attempt and less will achieve. It is hard to conceptualize just how radical such a process must be. The best way is to seriously consider that absolutely everything you believe, feel and think could be wrong. Your tastes, choices, preferences, likes and dislikes are all conditioned. Nothing about your life is authentically real. It is as though you were conditioned as a government agent and everything you believe to be true about yourself, your life, your career even your family is simply brainwashing. The truth about the human condition is really that terrifying. Most will find such a scenario so frightening and so personally confronting that it is easier to look away and find fault with this book than to wake up and smell the coffee. [58]

What Evola calls alchemy or The Royal Art Wulf calls… sorcery:

What is sorcery? Sorcery is a means by which an individual is able to wretch control of the evolutionary processes to become individually aware and immortal. He or she becomes a discrete, isolate intelligence which exists beyond the confines of the collective processes of eternal re-occurrence. … Within Loki’s Way this change is the transformation of human to post human through the focusing of the Will. [61]

The bit about the Will reminds us that Evola was compelled to treat Crowley with some respect, despite his deplorable life and personality, as someone who Knew Things. Wulf goes Evola one better and brings in Crowley explicitly.

Another thing he brings in explicitly, and much to my heart, is the Männerbund, which Evola only relatively briefly discusses. Wulf connects the dots between the historical Männerbund and the esoteric path to individual immortality followed by the elite -- in contrast to the common fate in store for the followers of the Vedic “path of the fathers,” Evola’s realm of society beneath the State, my own contrast of Family Values and Wild Boys. For Wulf its replicators versus Sorcerers.

The Männerbund or Warrior Band is the origin of the esoteric path, because the latter is, au fond, a battle; which Wulf explains, typically, in equal parts Sufism and Dawkins:

Memetic eugenics is the process whereby we weed out unworthy memes and replace them with memes which will help us evolve. This is what Loki’s Way is all about. We dissolve conditioning and replace it with memes which are conducive to our own process of godmaking. This book is a meme, bringing esoteric traditions in line with science and hopefully awakening the small number of people with the potential to become more than what they are.

Sorcery is found in many ancient traditions. In the Norse we can see that the warrior ethic was an expression of the battle against the flawed aspects of the emotions and psyche to achieve a true Self which would enter Valhalla. The berserker or warrior is a great “type” of the seeker for the Overman. An even more intriguing example is in Sufism where the concept of Jihad is interpreted in a unique way. The outer form of Jihad is a just war but the inner form of Jihad, the more significant, is against the false and flawed aspects of the personality. This model of the internal battle where we wage a sacred war against genes, memes and frames to achieve a Self is an expressive and poetic way to represent our sacred quest. [66]

So, paradoxically, only the Warrior Band, the Group, can provide the context for true individuation:

This is one of the reasons cell, unit or Männerbund work is so significant, it keeps you grounded and stops the fragments of the ego from influencing your worldview. A good group of fellow working sorcerers can bring you to earth quicksmart! [95]

This warrior elite, devoted to realizing a higher principle, is the origin of the Traditional Aryan State, which is oriented to a transcendent principle, in contrast to the common herd and its promiscuous “wants” and “needs” [think: peasant frivolity vs. the Templars] and thus also the social stratification characteristic of Aryan society [72]:

The sorceror and warrior both have the potential to become Overman via different means or by combining paths. Loki's Way is the modern equivalent of [Georges Dumézil‘s] first function combined with a warrior ethic. It can be applied via the mode of the lone wolf, with a blood brother or in a Männerbund. The teaching level of the sorcerer and warrior is esoteric and left hand path. [74]

At this point, the story takes a turn that may give the average reader a turn himself, but not our Constant Readers:

As organic and social memes are dissolved new forms of sexuality and emotional bonding needs to be created. Every man has androphilic potential, it just has to be activated and directed. Since the transition to the Overman is unnatural and works against the normal evolutionary process which favours reproduction then the focus must be on same-sex bonding. [112]

I am not suggesting that every screaming queen or muscle-mary is a spiritual warrior or engaged in Platonic love. I am suggesting that to cultivate a unique form of androphile friendship based on esoteric ideas is the highest form of relationship and for the Overman naught else will do. [109]

Which leads to chapters discussing both historical traditions from India to the Norsemen, and modern theorists from Edward Carpenter to Hans Bluher to Jack Malebranche. Especially important are his careful dissection of the various “models” of homosexuality that have gone into creating the modern notions of “homosexual” and “gay,” and analyzing their usefulness for the Left Hand Path.

The [Uranian] model was popularised by both Ulrichs and Hirschfeld and ultimately proves wanting. It confuses intersex and transgenderism with homosexuality. While this is not surprising due to the early period of their work it is still a view popular today. It seems an ongoing slur in a culture which devalues women and sees them as “less than men” to associate men who take the passive sexual role as female. It could be argued that this identification has its roots in misogyny and was later fed by Judeo Christian thinking. Many also believe that the idea of seeing a homosexual as a woman in a man’s body led to the medicalization of homosexuality which continued right through to the 1960s.

The Intermediate Sex model [Carpenter] is significant as the shaman, priest and androphile warrior existing outside the normal structures of the society. At the same time I think we need to be careful using the term third or intermediate sex as it infers a state which is not quite one or the other, rather than as one which is both. The masculinist model of Brand and others (it is also found represented in the work of Jack Malebranche today, Androphilia) is appealing and certainly relevant.

Personally I we think we need to develop a new model for our sexuality hence terms like Androphilia and the Männerbund need to be understood in a new way. This is especially significant since we are talking about same-sex relations in terms of a unique goal not as an everyday preference. For the Männerbund androphilia is a special form of “sacred” bond which is expressed between warriors, it is also initiatory.

All comrades have a male and female side and clearly since they are working to transcend human restrictions would have no problems exploring passive or active sex roles. The genders within us, so to speak, represent a great source of power and we may use cross dressing or passive techniques for Seidr work but also have no issue with being warriors for Galdr (active runic sorcery) or even in battle.[129]

I think Wulf is on to something important here. All of the existing ‘scientific’ and especially “historical” models seem skewed against the correct understanding of the telos of esotericism being to transcend by uniting male and female, active and passive, etc.

[P]rohibitions against same-sex relations hence the fear of homosexuality comes from an alien desert religion and has little to do with our traditions…. Many of these same phobias were passed down into Christianity and Islam. Many traditions had a very different attitude to same-sex relations prior to their infection by Christianity. Japanese Buddhism had a strong homoerotic element as did the Samurai, it was only Christian missionaries that did away with such traditions. Sadly many of the Eddic references to same-sex relations are negative but that is to be expected considering they have come down through the hands of Christian scribes! [219]

One could add here Danielou’s similar comments on the importation of Victorian and modernist prejudices into Hinduism, as we have frequently quoted on our own blog.

A careful reading of Guenon would lead one to infer that all “Traditions” are products of the Kali Yuga, early, to be sure, but still of the Dark Age. Therefore one might well find some misunderstandings of the wisdom that was being recompiled after the chaos of the last cyclical turn. Combined with the necessarily elite and secret nature of the esoteric path, it should be no surprise that there should be no adequate understanding of male bonding publicly available even in Traditional sources. Here, at least, we find ourselves agreeing with Wulf’s project to “make anew” Tradition.

Each form of the modern world represents a degeneration of the Perennial Tradition… [168]

And quoting Crowley:

Behold! the rituals of the old time are black. Let the evil ones be cast away; let the good ones be purged by the prophet! Then shall this Knowledge go aright. -- Liber AL vel Legis II:5

In this verse we are given clear instructions about how to deal with the old schools of magic, esotericism and their formulae. The “old time” are the Older Aeons. These rituals are black, that is they should not be used until reassessed by New Aeon formula. Since most are based on the sacrificial image of the Dying God they must be purified and cleansed.

Those which cannot be changed will be disposed of, those that can be purified can be adapted. As discussed throughout this book, Traditional forms of spirituality must be radically re-examined both in terms of Loki’s Way. Old age fertility rites must be cast away, let the blood brotherhood of Set and Horus Reign !

A close reading of the passages in Evola’s Hermetic Tradition mentioning ‘androgyne’ would show that the process involves the male becoming and then dominating, becoming so as to dominate, the feminine energies, a process he gives the provocative name “philosophical incest.”

Also useful would be a reading of the essay from UR, “Serpentine Wisdom” reprinted in his Introduction to Magic in which Evola, under a pseudonym, mocks those with a “muscle-bound” understanding of power, and advising them to take on the “power of the feminine” [yes, Evola!]

Later chapters feature a fascinating discussion, new to me, of occult warfare via Aeonic Magick and Time Sorcery and the attempts of Evola, Crowley, and even H. P. Lovecraft to tap into eternal principles in order to literally re-create the conditions of the primordial state in our modern age.

The reader may find himself feeling a bit overwhelmed with all this somewhat theoretical discussion. The last third of the book balances this out with several chapters of “Sorcery in Practice,” the “many forms of sorcery and many models for recognizing the associations between our own inner world and that which is beyond” [205] ranging from runes to sexual sorcery.

The reader must have realized by now that no mere blog review could do justice to the contents of this rich and important book. I hope they will have also realized that the solution is to get their hands on this book for themselves. It is essential reading for those in the modern world who would decide whether to be a nithing or coward or nothing, a member of the herd or crowd or a hero, a warrior, a comrade of the Männerbund, [240]

2011-08-13T12:26:00.000-07:00

Soros in the Saddle

Recently we saw fit to mock the supposed financial "genius" of George Soros, given his fund's lousy performance.

After decades of selfless work behind the scenes, Soros' hands are permanently in "pull the string!" mode

Apparently, the Democrat-media funding, One-World Government promoting "genius" may have had other things on his, uh, mind in recent years:

Soros' jilted ex on their 5-year affair

Lucky in love, unlucky in money. Failing the "good with money" stereotype, how many others does this Son of the Covenant embody? Let's see:

Cheap? Check.

"During the first three years of our relationship, he gave me nothing, not even a birthday present. Nothing," she said.

"After the three years, he gave me some expense money, but that was it. He never paid my rent or gave me an allowance."

Emotionally distant, reptilian? Check.

Then, the curvy cutie said, the day after they signed for the pad in December, he blindsided her.

"We were in bed, and he just replied coldly and bluntly that he had given [the apartment] to his other girlfriend," Ferreyr recalled. "I got emotional and cried . . . He just said, 'I don't care.' "I was in bed with him. It was horrifying for me."

Perfidious? Check.

Before that night, "he told me he wasn't involved romantically with her, that she just was a travel companion and was just like a nurse for him," Ferreyr recalled.

"I wanted to believe it, and that is why it was very, very hurtful when he gave her the apartment and said she was his girlfriend. He had told me, 'She [is] like a butler. She is like a nurse to me. She is a companion . . . I am not sexually involved with her. I am not attracted to her. I prefer to be with you, but you are in school [at Columbia] so I don't travel with you,' " Ferreyr said.

"Then, he gave her my dream apartment. I was completely heartbroken," she said.

Double-dealing? Check.

"Then he invited me for tea at his house. He said to me, 'Go look for an apartment. I owe you an apartment anyway.' "

She said she found another pad -- at $4.3 million, more than twice as much as the other one but in the same building.

But when she told him the news, he pretended to know nothing about it, Ferreyr said.
"What? No, I am not going to buy you an apartment! What are you talking about?" the woman said Soros yelled at her.

Who's the billionaire sex machine for all the chicks?

Brutally misogynistic? Check.

Even then, Ferreyr said, the worst was yet to come. As she tried to reason with him, he physically attacked her, slapping her, choking her and tossing a lamp at her, she said.
"He just snapped. I had never seen him like that before. I was afraid," she said.

Ruthless? Check.

Of her related lawsuit, Ferreyr said: "This isn't about money. He thought he could intimidate me and scare me away, but I won't go away. I want him to explain in front of a jury why he did this to me."

Oh, and finally, Noble Holocaust Survivor.

But Soros' high-powered lawyer, William Zabel, told The Post that's exactly what it's about -- money.

"This is a man who's a great philanthropist and human being, who lived through the Holocaust. You think he hits women? I represented both of his wives, who said he never raised a hand against either of them."

Judaic actor Martin Landau was the perfect choice to play a creepy Hungarian lady-killer: "Pull the string! Pull the string!"

Funny thing about "the" Holocaust. You'd think, wouldn't you, that if "the" Holocaust was 'the greatest evil -- excuse me, EVIL -- of all time," that the "survivors" would be emotionally devastated, crippled, perhaps borderline psychopaths.

Oh, goyim maybe, they're half animals anyway, but not the Jews. God's Chosen Ones respond by become [even greater] Saints.

You wouldn't expect one to be so "traumatized" that he would fabricate a memoir of his supposed survival, specifically to demonize the Polish Catholics who harbored him, eh, Jerzy? Or author multiple inconsistent accounts, including vast trenches of flaming Jews [before the "oven" story was made official], each offered as his "first hand experience" while building a $25,000 a speech career as the world's most vociferous Arab hater, eh Elie?

It's almost as great a puzzle as another paradox Norman Finkelstein calls attention to in his book on The Holocaust Industry: to whit, the ever-increasing supply of "survivors" turned up year after year like clockwork, so as to absorb continuing amount of "reparations," must, logically and mathematically, cause a similar decrease in the number of "victims." Nicht wahr?

Anyway, we salute you, George Soros: wise ruler, patient world guru, worthy incarnation of Mustapha Mond, and all-around class act.

"One World, suckers!"

2011-08-13T08:44:00.000-07:00

Nu, You Call This Winning?

Behold Harvey Weinstein, King of Media:

Incredibly, not from some "racist blog" but the New York Post itself!

So much for "they're crazy for plastic surgery out there."

Although, it's seems that even surgery can't help:

The Wildenstein Judaic Crime Family looted ["erroneously transferred"] millions in art that National Socialism had liberated from other Judaic Crime Families, and wound up paying for this

As I've often said, man, there's a serious price tag to being the Devil's minion.

Horse-faced "beauty" Parker can hide her dead, soul-less eyes but not her hooves

Or else, God sure has a sick sense of humor when "favoring" his Chosen Ones.

Is it worth it, Harvey, all your billions, all your power, corrupting the entire culture of the Western World, when you wind up looking like some Brooklyn Hassid who emigrated to Israel just to shoot up a mosque?

Or perhaps a "cabinet minister," i.e, a racist shitbag:

Ariel Atias. Interior minister. What's he hiding under that hat? His Jew Gold?

Even "Nice Jewish Boy" Jon Stweart admits:

People from the Midwest,no matter what their political stripe, never looks like assholes. They all look very nice. That’s the problem with us here in New York– we’re very pleasant but we all look like assholes.

That may be the first time "pleasant" has been used in that context. And people are apparently voting with their feet:

Census Says: NYC Population Barely Budged In Ten Years

Maybe they're realizing what Ed Abbey said long ago:

"They say that if you can make it in New York you can make it anywhere. But if you could make it anywhere, why live in New York?"

2011-08-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

I Want a Riot of My Own!

Separated at birth?

Howe, originally from Trinidad and Tobago, is a former broadcaster and journalist. He was a member of the British Black Panther movement and was arrested and tried for rioting in 1970. He was acquitted of all charges.

The Phantom Creeps:

You might also enjoy this amuse-bouche:

2011-08-04T14:53:00.000-07:00

"Deutsche, wer soll führen, wer soll Herzog sein?"

A reader of the Financial Times decides to have a little puckish fun with the Wogs [“Wogs begin at Calais”], thus providing us with what the Leftists would call a ‘teachable moment’ regarding the difference between racial profiling and sound, solidly Tradition based racial science. Seems to this Col. Blimp that the differences between the "free and easy" just say a Hail Mary Catholic culture and the stern, conscience-ridden Protestant explains their respective economic situations.

Punishment, puritans and purging excess [subscribers only]

A moment's thought, of course, will crush the gossamer wings of this flight of fancy. The Greeks, who invented geometry, or the pre-Christian Romans, who did all those, well, Roman things.

surely didn’t need the Christians to become the very models of upright probity and stern morality [pater familias, anyone?], in sharp contrast to today’s lazy, scrounging Zorbas and Marios.

Despite their reputation for debauchery, the Roman Emperors were a hard-working bunch, both as military commanders and domestic administrators. Even the most degenerate, Caligula, bemoaned his workload, saying that he wished mankind had but one neck, so that he could cut it and be done with them.

And it was the Venetian merchants, Italian Catholics I suppose, who devised the double-entry book-keeping [man’s greatest invention, according to Goethe] that makes modern commerce possible.

Evola was quite clear about all of this [see here, and here], from the wartime treatise by which he hoped to wean the fascists and NS from their crude, “zoological” racism, to his 50s book for the surviving elite, Men Among the Ruins.

In the former, he clearly emphasized [against the modern “college graduate” who sneers “How can you have racially pure nations, everyone’s a mongrel!”] that, indeed, all nations were products of the interaction of various racial strains; the issue was to choice which would be the dominant one, and encourage it.

In Men, for example, his chapter on “Mediterranean Man” clearly distinguishes the Aryan type of the Roman from the macaroni-eating, mandolin-strumming, “O Sole Mio” - singing type [his examples] that Mussolini tried but failed to stamp out and which now was free to run wild [La Dolce Vita, baby!]

As outlined in his even earlier Revolt Against the Modern World, the whole history of what we can truly call “Roman” was the continuing struggle of the Aryan type to control or repress the downward tending Chthonic elements, only to finally be overwhelmed by the cults of the East -- such as Christianity.

If, as our jolly correspondent would have it, Italy leads the world in the percentage of both nuns and prostitutes, the answer lies in the interaction of these two ancient tendencies, the Roman sobriety of the Vestal Virgins versus Dionysian promiscuity [today wrongly called "paganism" and even lauded as such by soi disant "neo-pagans"].

Subsequently, as he frequently said, anything of value contributed by the Roman Catholic Church could be attributed to its Roman wing, not its Catholic [viz. Christian] wing. The Holy Roman Empire and the Templars, for example, not Papal supremacy or the Cathars [in The Mystery of the Grail, he distinguishes the Papal antipathy to the Templars, as Imperially anti-Catholic, against its antipathy to the Cathars, who were too-Catholic for the Catholics].

Black vs. White: The Two Italies, dissolute, perfidious Freddo and the upstanding Michael

As for the Northmen, while Protestantism does represent the increasing triumph of the “primitive Christian” and thus Judaic element [hence the bizarre delusions from the British Israelites to the Christian Zionists to the White nationalist Identity Church that they are the “real” Jews], that can hardly be the origin of any financial probity; the Jew is synonymous with “sharp dealing”, and more generally, his intense fixation on ingroup/outgroup distinctions [Jew and Goy] in the application of ethics can hardly be squared with any Protestant obsession with “universal moral law.”

Evola, again, points out how the meeting of Roman and Goth was hardly a “clash of civilization” [or civilization and barbarism] but rather a mutually invigorating encounter that energized implicitly Imperial elements of the Germanic tribes, so that they took the lead in the creation of the Holy Empire.

As for the Northmen, their extremely late conversion, mostly for economic reasons rather than some outburst of religious fervor worthy of a “historical novel” read in convents, hardly took; and today, is not this the least religious, least Christian, part of Christendom?

2011-08-02T07:10:00.000-07:00

Imagine There's No ...

Reading Stephen Leeb's excellent new book on why China is a "threat," and why China will win:

Our political and economic systems don't lend themselves to tackling major problems until they reach crisis proportions,

Sound familiar?

whereas the Chinese are relentlessly longterm thinkers (furthermore, their leaders don't have to answer to a fickle electorate). While we have no plan as to how to secure or develop our resources, China does, and its drive for growth means that its leaders will leave carbon reduction (and other initiatives) to the free market.

Another reason for China's rise is readable only between the lines; either he doesn't see it or knows what can and can't be said [so much for "we're free, not like China"]:

Think Tiffany & Co. and you get some idea of how the typical Chinese citizen is treated when buying gold... A Chinese citizen walking into a bank to boy gold will be given the red carpet treatment, literally.

Inconceivable! Citizens treated ... like bankers! By bankers! And buying gold; not like the 24/7 "Sell Gold" scams on CNBS.

But don't think Tiffany's when you consider the profit Tiffany makes compared with the profit a Chines bank makes. For the latter, it is 1 percent or less.

Bankers making 1%!

You can buy gold in the United States too... but your chance of buying it at a smaller discount to its underlying value than the Chinese do is very small, if not nil. And it is much easier to find an honest bank in China than an honest dealer in America.

Huh. So much for our "stable and reliable economic system that is the envy of world."

Wonder why? Let's ask Jweekly.com:

The percentage of China's population that is Jewish is so infinitesimal that I don't even have a calculator that will tell me what it is.

South Park: Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow

"Hand over the real Jew Gold, Kyle!"

2011-07-31T11:27:00.001-07:00

Away With This "Kabuki"!

No, I don't mean the budget deal, I mean the lazy cliche of describing it as "Kabuki."

It's just another example of ignorant, inferior roundeyes using the supposed "inscrutability" of the East [viz, a level of sophistication beyond their tiny minds] as a synedoche; e.g., "like Chinese algebra."

The impending Asian Overlord regime should put an end to this nonsense.

In the mean time, I call your attention to the fact that we already have a home-grown term that's even directly relevant: "Jewish Vaudeville," aka "Jewface."

And here's the Holy New York Times itself to explain:

"Cohen Owes Me Ninety-Seven Dollars," from 1916, concerns a businessman on his deathbed who cannot stop fretting over money still due him. This song and others by long-dead Tin Pan Alley songwriters are featured on a new compact disc, "Jewface." The album, to be released Nov. 14, contains 16 songs salvaged from wax cylinder recordings and scratchy 78s, from a century-old genre that is essentially Jewish minstrelsy. Often known as Jewish dialect music, it was performed in vaudeville houses by singers in hooked putty noses, oversize derbies and tattered overcoats. Highly popular, if controversial, in its day, it has been largely lost to history....

Lost? Hardly. Like many musicians, they just got day jobs:

OK, how about "Kikebuki"?

2011-07-28T15:40:00.000-07:00

AI "Scientists" Re-Inventing the Wheel Again

Instead of funding NASA and pouring trillions into the Sanskrit-based metaphysics of Guenon and the other Traditionalists, Judaic-inspired Ziontists continue their AI boondoggle.

[T]here has recently been an astounding discovery made at the NASA research center. The following quote is from an article which appeared in AI Magazine (Artificial Intelligence) in Spring of 1985 written NASA researcher, Rick Briggs:

In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor.

But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millennia old.

Guenon and Schuon, masters of a language AI scientists are spending billions of your money to "discover"

Deluded by Darwinism, "Ziontists" seek "wisdom" on language from chimps; Zion forbid they should consult the work of Aryan grammarian Pāṇini

2011-07-28T08:20:00.000-07:00

Follow the White Light

An excellent piece on one of our repeated memes: the excellence of White music, as shown by the inevitable gravitation of people to it, when not having "street cred" rap shit forced on them by the media, shown also by the curious need of rap to cannibalize [hmmm, a genetic trait?] said White music for actual melodies [to say nothing, although this post in fact doesn't, about the inability of rap to exist at all without White instruments and White musical concepts; even MTV wouldn't dare try to force actual African ooga-booga music on its hapless audience].

One section does mention something I may not have brought up here, although it exists one of my many notebooks [and no, my apartment does not resemble Ignatius Reilly's or that guy's from Se7en]:

Sentimentality is a distinctly white trait, and though Black people can Act White by trying to enjoy a Power Ballad, it's difficult to find a Black person who can empathize with the emotions that can be drudged up from the hearing of a song 10 or 20 years from when those memories were first created. The Power Ballad is a uniquely white [and primarily American] phenomenon, a manifestation of hope, love, desire and longing that symbolizes one of the last unifying cultural traits left for white people.

What I've noted is that one aspect of the inherent elitism, Aryanism, and Whiteness of homosexuals is the notion of 'icons,' passé pop culture figures, usually from film or music, who have been discarded by mainstream culture in its endless pursuit of 'newness.'

Contrary to the stereotype of homosexuals as superficial, flighty, obsessed with fashion, it is they who continue to respect and even worship such "faded" stars. It is if they instinctively recognize these figures as having achieved a status of 'royalty' which is immune to an industry running on artificially generated 'change' and 'voice of the people.'

BookSense.com: Where did the title of your graphic novel, Box Office Poison, come from?

Alex Robinson: I think I first heard the phrase in the classic film "Mommie Dearest," where Louis Mayer tells Joan Crawford that theater owners "voted her box office poison" because her movies bombed. The idea that theater owners would get together and actually vote on who is box office poison just struck me as a funny idea.

"I want you to leave Metro. ... Your pictures, one after another, are losing money. Theatre owners voted you box-office poison. For years I've paid no attention. You know me, Joan. I don't give up so easily. We'll pay you off. But you can't afford to make more losers for us. ... Listen with your ears, not your pride. With me, feeling is more important than money. You're a great star. You're Hollywood royalty. But styles change. You'll leave. ''We have creative differences.'' ''We don't want to fight or argue, because we love each other.'' Every studio will think they're smarter than LB. They'll try to finesse me. You'll be offered one, two, three, four, five films. You may even get a hit. ... It's time for a change. New faces, new voices, a breath of fresh air. Who knows?"

Such aristocratic concerns, more importantly, are reproduced within the "community" [to use that awful PC word which really negates the whole idea] itself, giving it its structure [as opposed to the crude monetary rankings of "mainstream" society]. Randomly, and up to the minute, consider:

Lady Bunny's Blog

JUNE HAPPENINGS IN NYC!

DON'T MISS THE DOCUMENTARY ON FLORENT MORELLET, THE QUEEN OF THE MEAT MARKET, AT CINEMA VILLAGE. It's closing soon despite great reviews! I burst into tears seeing Lambert sing a bittersweet song to Florent as his wonderful scene came to an end. It's sad to see what NYC has lost but inspiring to see what it could/can be.

Let Julianne Moore, Isaac Mizrahi, Michael Musto and other famous (and infamous) faces take you on a fantastic voyage to New York City's legendary Florent diner.

For 23 years, the all-night eatery in the city's Meat Packing District was prime stomping ground for a surprising mix of A-list celebrities, tourists, families and club kids, and it played an important role in LGBT activism and culture. This wildly entertaining documentary chronicles the history and final days of this outrageous icon!

[For some reason, not mentioned but pictured at right: Florent's annual Bastille block party, featuring Florent himself as Marie Antoinette].

LINDA SIMPSON PRESENTS THE EMPEROR'S NEW CODPIECE, WORLD PREMIERE OF A NEW PLAY. Fri. June 10 and every Friday into July: Laurie Beechman Theatre, 407 West 42nd Street at 9th Ave. One of the world’s most famous fairy tales is given a sexy and campy gay twist in the latest offering by acclaimed drag-queen playwright Linda Simpson. Forsooth! Drag queen royalty battles Medieval go-go dancers! Magic fabric to the rescue! June 10 - July 15, Fridays at 10pm. Tix are $18 (+ $15 food/drink minimum) at 212-352-3101

Speaking of 'community,' all this must be distinguished from the fake, phony "gay" notion of camp, which contains an essential element of contempt or "irony." Someone once made the remark that "Meatloaf's songs [albeit written by Judaic Jim Steinman] were camp for straight people" which just about sums up the difference. Today's hip, "liberated" "gay" can feel nothing but contempt or mockery for honest, dramatic emotions, the courageous display of which was precisely what was honored in the devotion given to a Judy or Liza.

Interestingly, black-but-gay critic Armond White, though recently more black than homo in his hatred of "white superheros" [our take on his Green Hornet review here, SBPDL on his Captain America review at the end of here] never the less was more homo than black in his celebration of simple, White pleasure in his review of Mamma Mia! [the new Mommie Dearest?] as I wrote about here.

Speaking of blackness, SBPDL also alludes to our theme of the opposition of the Negro and the Homo here:

There's something about the 1980s: John Hughes movies were a bridge back to the 1950s; Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics were saving the NBA; Michael Jackson decided his ebony skin needed an ivory overhaul...

In our "manifesto," The Homo and the Negro, we've written of Jackson as emblematic of the tragic self-division of the "negro homosexual," which no doubt also explains Armond's wild swings.

And for those of you wondering how this 'elitism' gibes with the well-known tendency of negroes to have "royal" names, one must say that this is an instance of something Baron Evola has mentioned, the way in which the "same" principle, when applied in a given situation, can result in radically difference manifestations. Here, it must be noted that such names only attach to the most "White-friendly" of musicians ["King" Cole, Duke Ellington, "Count" Basie. Prince, etc.] ; while, when self-applied or given gratuitously at birth, in hopes of having something to 'live up to' ][largely replaced these days by fanciful "African" names], we must remember that White folks only do so when naming pets.

Again, the honest expression of emotion has nothing to do with the Aryan Ideal of reticence, as Baron Evola [and quoting him, this blog] have expressed it. We are, after all, talking about performing artists here. No one had to be more of a "screaming queen" that an actor in antiquity, what with the lack of sound equipment.

The blasé know-it-all hipster goes back to the beatniks and others of that ilk [Norman Mailer's White Negro], and is another example of apparently similar principles producing dissimilar cultural results.

The eyes, Plato said, are the windows of the soul. And soul [another paradox!] is just what the Negro lacks. Compare the admittedly rather startling eyes above with this typical duo of negro "entertainers":

It's all about being "cool." Even Lady Gaga [there's that royalty again] is only allowed one eye at a time, and that's the Eye of Horus.

In fact, the basic method of indicating a character is negro is to given him, though a professor or police captain or architect, a pair of otherwise unnecessary sunglasses. Consider:

Dull, boring old White hero

Hip, smart-ass, cool negro hero

2011-07-28T07:26:00.001-07:00

Another Judaic Fraud

Ohhh, George Soros is so rich! Because he's soooooooooo smart! Let's all join his One World Government!

Ooops.

The $25 billion that Soros had working in the markets returned just 2.5% last year and has lost 6% so far this year.

Duhhhhhhhhh... I'm a in-ves-tor!

Soros' legend is based on his Quantum Fund in the 70s, which was run with his ex-partner, Jim Rogers, a White man. In10 years, working with the Aryan Rogers, the portfolio gained 4200% while the S&P advanced about 47%.

On November 4, 2010, at Oxford University’s Balliol College, White man Rogers delivered this Spenglerian advice: scrap career plans for Wall Street or the City, London’s financial district, and study agriculture and mining instead. “The power is shifting again from the financial centers to the producers of real goods. The place to be is in commodities, raw materials, natural resources.

As we've mentioned before, the Jews are the only race to despise manual labor, and agriculture in particular, preferring paper-shuffling.

Housing wreck? What housing wreck? Unlike Judaic "economist" Robert Reich, Rogers sold his NYC mansion at the top of the market, then moved to Asia.

In December 2007, Rogers sold his mansion in New York City for about 16 million USD and moved to Singapore. Rogers claimed that he moved because now is a ground-breaking time for investment potential in Asian markets. Rogers's first daughter is now being tutored in Mandarin to prepare her for the future. He is quoted as saying: "If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York City, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia."

Read more about Aryan Rogers here and and keep track of his Aryan ideas here.

Or you could be a good little NPR Liberal and send your money to Soros' Orwellian -- oops, I mean Open Society Foundation.

2011-07-28T07:14:00.000-07:00

" It will take about a week, working between visiting hours, to check the mechanism out"

Hat-tip to Anon for finding this fun fact:

Time magazine interviews childhood friend, says this:

He also allegedly attempted to improve his appearance with the help of a plastic surgeon. The friend alluded to the fact that Breivik went under the knife a few years ago in the U.S.: “He was very pleased. He had had surgery on his forehead, nose and chin.”

Oh yeah, touch up the "Aryan" appearance, and a convenient time to add a few implants; brain implants, that is.

"His brain has not only been washed, as they say, it has been dry-cleaned. Thank you, Raymond. You may replace your head bandage."

2011-07-27T15:54:00.000-07:00

They Still Live

What the goodthinking Intellectual sees:

I spent the most time with Barbara DeGenevieve's "Panhandler Project," in which she paid homeless men to pose nude in hotel rooms for her camera. It may be impossible to communicate why this project works: the photographs aren't very interesting, and describing DeGenevieve's interactions with the men, captured on video, makes the piece sound like problematic do-goodie social work.

I mentioned this to On Stellar Rays owner Candice Madey who admitted she found the video very difficult and had previously only shown the photographs. “Well, this is what artists are for,” I told her, knowing that without Owens' provocation, this work would not have been shown.

What We See:

Do You See?