May 22, 2015

America Is Now Two Nations: Whites Oppose, but Anti-Whites Support 'Hate Speech' Laws

via National Vanguard

National Vanguard Editor's Note: What’s left of the Constitutional right to free speech would be illegally abrogated if the current Jewish push for “hate speech” laws is successful.

Since 1994 people convicted of federal crimes motivated by the ‘actual or perceived’ identity of victims have faced tougher sentences. Many other states had passed ‘hate crime’ statutes in earlier years, and in recent years many states have been adopting laws which make crimes motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation of gender identity hate crimes which face tougher sentences, something the federal government did in 2009. Unlike much of the rest of the developed world, however, the United States does not make it a criminal offense for people to make statements which encourage hatred of particular groups. For example a prominent British columnist, Katie Hopkins, is being investigated by the police for referring to African migrants crossing the Mediterranean as ‘cockroaches’.

YouGov’s latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups.

hate1

Support for banning hate speech is also particularly strong among racial minorities. 62% of black Americans, and 50% of Hispanics support criminalizing comments which would stir up hatred. White Americans oppose a ban on hate speech 43% to 36%.

hate4

When it comes to crimes motivated by hatred, most Americans do back the current federal hate crime laws, including the expanded definition of hate crime passed in 2009. 56% of Americans back the federal law mandating tougher penalties for crimes motivated by race, religion or gender, and 51% support expanding that to include sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Democrats (68%) tend to be much more supportive of the law than either independents and Republicans. Republicans (38% to 39%) are split over the expanded definition of hate crime, while independent tend to support (46%) rather than oppose (28%) it.

hate3

Virginia Schoolboard Bows to Cultural Marxists with New 'Gender Identity' Policies

via Return of Kings

This month, progressives initiated the use of a blitzkrieg tactic attack against normal men and women. On May 7th, the school board of Fairfax County, Virginia voted to add “gender identity” to the nondiscrimination policy currently enforced at its schools. The school board voted to approve the measure even though a standing-room only crowd of parents turned up to oppose it.

The most obvious ramification of this new policy is that if a male student decides to identify as a girl, he will be able to use the same bathrooms and locker rooms used by real girls. The change is intended to benefit the tiny minority of students who genuinely believe they belong to a different gender than the one they were born with.

As an aside, I think the biggest beneficiaries of the policy will probably be horny, heterosexual boys who want to see their female peers naked. Practically speaking, it will be impossible for school administrators to tell whether they are dealing with a genuinely confused student, or someone who just wants to see some T&A.

Be that as it may, the other (and perhaps more important) outcome of the change is that parents will no longer be able to request a transfer away from a transgender teacher, ensuring that a mentally ill person will be charged with the formation of their child’s studies and character.

“Gender Fluidity”

480px-a_transgender-symbol_plain3_svg

But the Fairfax County School Board is not stopping there in its transgender jihad. The board recently released a report recommending that changes be made to Fairfax County’s family life curriculum for grades 7 through 12 to include the concept of “gender fluidity.”

The report states that “Emphasis will be placed on an understanding that there is a broader, boundless, and fluid spectrum of sexuality that is developed throughout a lifetime. Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences.”

The report adds that “Students will be provided definitions for sexual orientation terms heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality; and the gender identity term transgender.”

Why is this a blitzkrieg tactic?

images


Blitzkrieg is the German term for “lightning war.” Wikipedia defines it as a “tactic designed to create disorganization among enemy forces through the use of mobile forces and locally concentrated firepower.” The Fairfax County School Board’s introduction of the transgender agenda into the public schools fits the definition of blitzkrieg perfectly.

A previous example of social engineering was the campaign to gain public acceptance of homosexuality. This campaign had two fronts. On one front, gay activists introduced court cases to gain legal protections for gay people. But the primary front was by changing public opinion through featuring charming gay characters on popular movies and TV shows. This campaign to change public opinion literally took decades to achieve.

This time, as the Fairfax County School Board actions show, progressives are not waiting for the court cases or a change in public opinion. They are using “locally concentrated firepower” by forcing their transsexual agenda on children in one of the largest school districts in the country. It is certain that we’ll see other school districts soon following suit.

It is important to note that parents are overwhelmingly against the changes that the Fairfax County School Board is introducing. By introducing these changes, the members of the school board are increasing the possibility that they will be voted out of office in the next election. But it doesn’t matter because by then it will be too late—the transsexual agenda will already be firmly in place.

But I was born this way!

bruce-jenner
Bruce Jenner
No doubt, the boldness of forcing the transsexual agenda is encouraged by the success of the gay “I was born this way” message. Heterosexuals have been conditioned to accept anyone at face value who says that he has felt a particular way since he was a child, even if there was no evidence of their preferences.
Recently I forced myself to watch parts of Diane Sawyer’s interview with Bruce Jenner on his transgender journey to becoming a “woman,” and the “born this way” narrative was front and center during the interview. The majority of the interview was devoted to proving that Jenner had always been a woman, and that he knew it, even when he was a child.

For example, when Jenner was eight years old, he snuck into his mother’s closet to try on her clothes. If that is not definitive, scientific proof that he was always a woman trapped in a man’s body, I don’t know what is.

What are progressives trying to achieve?

bronycon_2013___random_pic_by_aleriavilrath-d6h44w2
Picture from BronyCon. Note that women have even infiltrated this one time bastion of “masculinity”

The real question is why are the SJWs within the school board willing to stake their careers on pushing transgender orthodoxy upon innocent children?

For the SJW masses, the answer is that the policy changes will make gender-confused children more comfortable. They will be able to pee in the bathroom that will give them the most validation. However, I suspect that the elite SJWs have darker reasons for supporting this change.

The first reason is that children are very susceptible to being influenced by authority figures like teachers. If a boy or a girl comes from an unstable home life, as is increasingly common, they are more susceptible to being brainwashed.

If the SJWs can indoctrinate these children early enough, they can ensure that the children will remain confused about their sexuality for their entire life.

Although the SJWs claim that they are just keeping up with the new “scientific truth” of gender fluidity, what they are really doing is using the divide and conquer strategy against the wider society. Someone who identifies as being a “transsexual female brony who is attracted to biracial cisgender male furries” will be more likely to be a ward of the state. He will also be a reliable soldier and voter (i.e. useful idiot) in support of future SJW social engineering campaigns.

I think that this support of these future social engineering campaigns is the second reason that SJWs are ramming the transsexual agenda down our throats so quickly.
What might the next battlefront be? The ultimate prize for some progressives may be the lowering of the age of consent for sex with boys. It is not hard to imagine a future where Diane Sawyer will interview a well-known celebrity with a penchant for boys. No doubt, he will claim that he was “born this way.”

Conclusion

Although Fairfax County has been in the news recently due to its gender identity policy changes, it is not the first school system to have implemented changes to accommodate the needs to transgender students. The New York City Department of Education and other progressive school districts already have policies in place.
If you live in a more conservative district, rest assured that the recognition of gender fluidity is coming soon to a school near you.

What to Read, Part 3: Hero and Heretic vs. the System — from Literature to Politics

via The Occidental Observer

Thomas Carlyle, 1795-1881
The nouns ‘hero’ and ‘heretic’ are used as frequent figures of speech in daily communication. Every day, almost every minute of our time, either consciously or subconsciously, we refer to the notion of hero and heretic, albeit by using often different words and expressions. The highly generic nouns ‘hero’ and ‘heretic’ lack a precise common denominator. What may be considered a heretical behavior today may be viewed as heroic behavior tomorrow. The meaning of the noun ‘hero’ is further complicated by its semantic shifts and its awkward equivalents in other languages and cultures. Thus the German word for hero is ‘Held’, although this word conveys a wider meaning in Germanic languages than the English word ‘hero’ or the French ‘héros’, deriving from the ancient Greek, and largely associated with political and military prowess only.

One must also refer to some well-known authors who dealt with the study of heros, such as Joseph Campbell and his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, a book still serving as a primer in religious science courses at universities in the USA, but also a book which influenced many Hollywood moguls.  Although Campbell never addressed the notion of the hero from a racial perspective, the fact that he sat on the editorial board of the Mankind Quarterly  and that he had once upon a distant time allegedly cracked a small joke in front of his colleagues about the Jews earned him the title of “anti-Semite,” , a label not usually associated with heroism.

Also worth mentioning is the book On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History by the 19th-century Scottish author Thomas Carlyle in which he sorts out heroes according to their religious, poetic and military endowments. Carlyle’s rejection of liberal democracy and his good knowledge of German culture predictably earned him a century later, in the aftermath of World War II, the label of “an early fascist thinker.”  Moreover, one must emphasize that historically, the notion of the hero has been differently internalized by thinkers and masses in continental Europe and differently in Great Britain or in the USA.  According to the German sociologist Werner Sombart, who was often quoted in anti-liberal and later on in nationalist academic circles in Germany prior to World War II, the Germans are the “people of heroes”, as opposed to the English being the “people of merchants,” displaying “shopkeepers’ mentality”: “What is of interest here for us is not the swindling of crooked merchants who have always been popular in England, but the swindling of the merchant as such. What we really want to know is how to grasp the birth of entire England from this from this mercantile mindset.(p.38).
The word “Held” was very much in usage in Germany prior and during World War II. Sombart summarizes the notion of the classical Held — hero, as embodied in the German man, vs. his counterpart, the modern anti-hero, as represented by the capitalist Englishman:  “Merchants and hero: they both make the two great opposites; two poles of all human directions on Earth. The merchant, as we saw it, approaches his day to day life with a question: what kind of a life can you offer to me? The hero enters life with a question: what can I offer to life?” (p. 64). 

Death Wish

The sense of sacrifice, the readiness to place the interests of his community above his own private and family interests, the sense of  complete autonomy in carrying out his heroic deeds, have historically been the three main hallmarks of the hero. The hero may have his sidekicks, although his heroic deeds always need to rest solely within his own private and solitary domain. In the German medieval Niebelungensagas we encounter the hero Siegfried and his challenger the hero Hagen, both acting alone with no outside help, yet both willing at a short notice to lay down their life for the benefit of their community.

Hagen killing Siegfried; painting of Schnorr von Carlolsfeld, 1845
Hagen killing Siegfried; painting of
Schnorr von Carlolsfeld, 1845

The same heroic and individualistic pattern of death-wish for the benefit of common good can be observed in Homer’s death challenger, the Greek hero Achilles who besieges the town of Troy and in the equally well death-driven hero Hector who defends his home town Troy.
Hector:  “For me it would be a great deal better to meet Achilles man to man, kill him, and go home, or get killed before the city, dying in glory.” (Iliad, Book XXII, lines 108-110).
The future founder of Rome, Vergil’s mythical Aeneas during his interminable trials in the underworld, acted in a similar communal and death-braving fashion. So did his other mythical counterpart, the seafaring Homer’s Odysseus, always enwrapped in solitary musings, always having his life hovering on the brink of death.
“His eyes were perpetually wet with tears now / His life draining away in homesickness.” (Odysseus, Book V, lines 156–158)
Thousands of similar heroic characters have become household names all over the West. Those mythical heroes stood as symbols for the survival of their tribal, racial or political community, yet strangely enough, all of them always attempted to stay above the fray, always shunning gregarious, communal and folkish behavior of their noisy kinsmen.  Such a freewheeling and autonomous behavior may also help explain today the proverbial failure of modern White nationalist heroes who remain hopeful in search of a functional political or cultural movement. On the one hand all of them passionately speak about the importance of their community; yet on the other, their hyper-individualistic stance can hardly bridge the gap amidst scores of other dissenting would-be White heroes within their community.

Prometheus by Theodoor Rombouts (1597–1637)
Prometheus by Theodoor
Rombouts (1597–1637)
This peculiar individualistic trait among Whites is largely inherited from the primeval ego-archetypes, as observed in the figures of the mythical Titan Prometheus and later in the young truth-seeker Faust, respectively. If one briefly observes the character of the hero Prometheus, whom Zeus had punished for heresy by chaining him to the rock for the next 30,000 years, one can spot a creature constantly complaining, perpetually carping at other mainstream gods, loudly cursing Zeus, and refusing to make any compromise even with his fellow Titans who had come to his rescue.
Prometheus: “I know that Zeus is harsh and keeps justice in his own hands; but nevertheless one day his judgment will soften, when he has been crushed in the way that I know.” ( Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, lines 189–192).
The Titan hero Prometheus knows that the gods’ days, like the days of the mortals, are also numbered and that some eon again the immortal Titans will again rule the universe. Such a titanic-heroic and promethean-inflated ego is also visible in  the would-be heroic young scholar Faust, who is constantly searching for diverse identities, always craving for the transformation of his self into a myriad of other selves:
Alas! Two souls within my breast abide / And each from the other strives to separate. (J. W. Goethe, Faust, lines 1112–1113).
Conversely, we have all been witness, especially over the last two hundred years, to the well-organized and highly communal political activity of the leftists and their offshoot, the modern antifa movements in Europe and America. Their sense of discipline is awesome; their commitment to their communal goals has helped them achieve astounding political and cultural breakthrough over the last decades. Witness for instance the well-organized Bolshevik revolution in early 20th-century Russia spearheaded by a handful of well-disciplined activists who had flocked to Russia from all parts of Europe and the USA—and who subsequently changed the face of the earth. One must also emphasize the astonishing organizational skills of the modern “antifas” on US campuses and their skill in lining up at a short notice a violent crowd in any European city center.

One can tentatively substitute the word ‘heretic’ with the word ‘rebel’ or ‘dissident’. To be sure, the word ‘rebel’ is not a synonym of the word ‘dissident’. There are many dissidents and many self-proclaimed rebels in the contemporary West, such as the bare-chested “Femen” women parading on the streets of Europe, or the Antifas, or  the Anonymous, or even some prominent intellectuals critical of the regime, such as Noam Chomsky. These groups of people and individuals can be labeled as self-serving dissidents within, but not without the System. None of them wants to challenge the supporting egalitarian dogma upholding the System.  A dissident usually aims at modifying the System by relying on the support of other System-affiliated countries; he never tries to remove the root causes of the System. A rebel, by contrast, rejects all modifications of the System. Writers and thinkers, such as the American Ezra Pound and the Russian Alexander Solzhenitsyn, can be tentatively described with the triple label: heroes-rebels-heretics. They both fought the System, whether in its liberal or its communistic form. Solzhenitsyn, after having denounced Soviet communism — an act which earned him briefly a calculated praise from the US ruling class — did not hesitate to denounce in turn the so-called freedom-loving USA. He returned from America to his post-communist Russia. Similarly, Pound, after having been sequestered for several years in an American lunatic asylum for his earlier rebel Fascist stance, when returning in 1958 to Italy declared upon his arrival that he had left America because “all America is an insane asylum.

Seismic Event: Holohoax Exposed on German TV in Major Interview

via Darkmoon

This stunning interview of Ursula Haverbeck on German TV has been described as a “seismic event.” For the first time ever on German TV, a major public figure has had the courage to deny the Holocaust. Don’t miss this 49-minute interview in German with English subtitles.

#WhiteLivesMatter: TradYouth Disrupts the Anti-White Narrative in Cincinnati

via TradYouth

Black Crime has been out of control for decades, especially in Cincinnati. America’s inner city Black communities have been systematically driving Whites out of every major American city with an epidemic of violent crime and harassment, increasingly boiling over into violent race riots. Instead of attempting to fix this crisis in their community, the “leaders” have taken a handful of token incidents of Black criminals being harmed by the police attempting to maintain order to make the conversation about how Black criminals are the real victims of “racism.”

This farcical #BlackLivesMatter narrative frames the felons as the victims and shoves the real (and disproportionately White) victims of violent crime out of the frame altogether. The controlled media not only refuses to challenge their inversion of common decency and common sense; the controlled media actively promotes it, showing up with dozens of cameras to eagerly assist the thug “bishops” and queer “clergy” concocting this anti-White propaganda.

This morning, we strolled up on a gaggle of local media weasels preparing to film a gaggle of Cincinnati’s local race hustlers attempting to shake down the Major League Baseball industry, demanding that the “Black Lives Matter” talking points be crammed into their baseball games. The media wasn’t going to call them out on this naked shakedown. The baseball tycoons aren’t going to call them out on this naked shakedown. Bishop Bobby Hilton and the rest of the nattily dressed grifters expected their “Rally for Racial Justice” to be a home run.

They didn’t expect Robert Ransdell and TradYouth to show up and call them out. A handful of White Activists with a couple of signs not only managed to derail their event, we managed to completely derail their message altogether. One minute, the flustered Bishop Hilton was “challenging” us to a “conversation about race,” the next minute, when I stepped up to have a polite and fact-driven conversation with him about race, he declared me too “ignorant” and “unintelligent” and himself too busy for the conversation he challenged me to participate in.

Robert Ransdell Taking on the Media
Robert Ransdell Taking on the Media
We at TradYouth are more than happy to have a conversation about race with Bishop Hilton in whatever venue or format he prefers. We expect him to go back on his word, to have a hundred and one excuses to deny us a conversation, to insult and ignore us instead of speaking with us frankly and directly about the issues. If he’s a man of his word, he knows how to reach us.

Within minutes of showing up, they had retreated from their “Black Lives Matter” mantra to insisting that “All Lives Matter.” Within minutes of our showing up, their fictional narrative of an epidemic of police brutality was in shambles and they were arguing with us about the root causes of the actual epidemic of Black Crime in America. They insist that Black youths turn to crime because of slavery and segregated water fountains and stuff. Whatever. Honestly, I’m not all that concerned about the historical origins of the problem. I’m just concerned about protecting my folk–my White kinsmen–from violent criminality. I’m concerned about granting a much-needed voice to the silent and silenced victims of murder, rape, and armed robbery who are denied expensive news cameras and adorable journalist hipster girls to broadcast their stories.

This one Black lady repeatedly insisted that we White folks control the media, even in a context where the media was clearly complicit in their shakedown attempt on the MLB. One limp-wristed producer even chased me around in circles, desperately trying to pluck my “Diversity means chasing down the last white person” sign out of my hands. Not only did we prevail against the fruity fellow in getting our message out to both local and national audiences, we managed to engage in several actual conversations about race with local Black folks who respect White identity, understand the Jewish Problem, and genuinely wish to work toward resolving America’s racial problems.

Intelligent and honest Black folks do indeed exist. They just don’t enjoy Wall Street financing and Hollywood coverage like Bishop Hilton and pals.

Robert Ransdell stayed on message the entire time, and the local media repeated our message verbatim, even as they attempted to condemn and ridicule us. We’re happy with that, and we’re happy to report that the comment threads and talk radio call-ins from the locals have actually favored our position over the media’s anti-White drivel. Our movement has developed a bunker mentality where we expect the general public to be against us, but that’s increasingly not the case. It was certainly not the case today, with multiple folks off the street walking up on the theatrics, finding out what’s going on, and personally thanking Robert Ransdell and the rest of us for finally making a stand for the White victims of Black crime.

White lives matter, too, and we delivered that message loud and clear to the good folks of Cincinnati today. We don’t need the mainstream media to push our message. We’ve got our own websites. We’ve got YouTube. We’ve got Daily Stormer. We’ve got Reddit. We’ve got a whole matrix of social media where the usual suspects can’t control the conversation, can’t silence us, and can’t carry on pretending that only Black Lives Matter.

Is America Irredeemable?: Anti-Whites to Canonize Michael Brown in Ferguson

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

A plaque on Canfield Dr. to
commemorate a black criminal
There's a footnote in the Department of Justice's 86 page report on the criminal investigation into the shooting death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson - which 100 percent exonerated Wilson of any wrongdoing and clearly showed he did everything on August 9, 2014 exactly as he had been trained - that will forever serve to indict the mainstream media in their culpability for manufacturing the farce in Ferguson:
[28]: [The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.”]
The #BlackLivesMatter movement utilizes "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" as if it were a battle cry, though a six-months long investigation by the Department of Justice into the affairs of what happened on August 9 turned up this fascinating anecdote.

It was all lie. 

All a lie. 

In reality, Wilson was lucky to survive the encounter with Michael Brown. [Darren Wilson: "I felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan, CBS News, 11-25-14]

But even this doesn't matter, with hatred and envy toward whites fueling the rage powering the #BlackLivesMatter movement. Well... financial help from men such as George Soros helps as well

But the rage had to exist (the same rage and hatred for whites that blacks are constantly taught which ultimately cost Brittany Watts her life) before it could be exploited. 

Michael Brown is the true face of the #BlackLivesMatter movement and it's only fitting he get a plaque - worthy of appearing in Cooperstown - to be placed in the sidewalk on Canfield Drive close to where he nearly murdered Officer Wilson. 

Had he murdered Officer Wilson, would he be an even bigger hero to the black community? 

As it stands, a Walk of Black Martyrs appears to have its first inductee in Ferguson. [Permanent Michael Brown memorial to be built in Ferguson, Fox2Now.com, 5-20-15]:
On what would’ve been Michael Brown Jr.’s 19th birthday, his memorial on Canfield Drive was removed. Michael Brown’s family and the city of Ferguson have come to an agreement about a permanent marker.  The makeshift shrine to Brown in the middle of Canfield Drive cropped up shortly after Michael Brown was killed last August and has remained. 
Officials say that there needs to be a more permanent memorial to the teen and objects in the street are a safety hazard.   The items placed in the middle of the street were removed on Wednesday by Michael Brown Sr. and volunteers.  They will be placed in storage by the Urban League. A paving project to improve Canfield Drive is slated to start soon.   
Michael Brown’s father says a plaque will be placed in the sidewalk on Canfield Drive near where Michael Brown was shot and killed. Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III says a permanent place to remember Michael Brown may be set up near the Canfield Green Apartment complex.
A "permanent place to remember Michael Brown may be set up near the Canfield Green Apartment complex"... so more lies can be spread about a black man who tried to kill a white police officer on August 9, 2014? 

It's only fitting the Canfield Green Apartment complex - a Section 8 paradise - would be the venue birthing the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" lie. 

The Canfield Green Apartment complex is literally the living embodiment of the potential of the Black Undertow. [Why did the Michael Brown shooting happen here?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8-17-2014]:
Angela Shaver has witnessed that sea change since she moved into Canfield Green Apartments 20 years ago. The state employee said she raised a prom queen there and sent her off to college. 
There used to be a swimming pool. Now, there’s a bullet hole in the door below her.That shooting, and many others, happened long before all the vigil candles melted in the middle of the street for Brown. 
Even as Shaver explained the frequency of gunfire, she was cut off by a sudden blast coming from Northwinds Apartments, a hulking spread with more than 400 low-income units. 
Boom! 
Shaver paused to listen. No screams. No more shots. She picked up the interview where she’d left off. 
“I hate to say I got used to them,” she said of the gunshots. 
Ferguson’s crime and poverty rate is lower than some of the other North County municipalities. But the small southeast corner of the city where the apartments are glows bright red on crime maps. 
That area along West Florissant Avenue and just east of it accounted for 18 percent of all serious crimes reported between 2010 and August 2012, according to a Post-Dispatch analysis of crime data provided by St. Louis County. 
The area accounted for 28 percent of all burglaries, 28 percent of all aggravated assaults, 30 percent of all motor vehicle thefts and 40 percent of all robberies reported in the city of 21,000 people. 
It’s a cluster of densely populated complexes that stand apart from the predominantly single-family streets of Ferguson. 
On a map, the area sticks out like an appendage, one that was added to Ferguson by annexation. Many of the children who live there aren’t even part of the Ferguson-Florissant school system. 
Adding to that isolation, police have blocked off nearly all access roads to the apartments with concrete barriers, fences and gates.
 Only in a world as averse to truth as ours would Michael Brown deserve a commemorative plaque to grace the sidewalk lining Canfield Drive, where he attempted to murder a white police officer. 

It's questionable had he succeeded in "Hulking Up" and procuring Officer Wilson's gun and killing him that this act would have made him a bigger hero to the black community (imagine the video that would have been posted on World Star Hip Hop on August 9, courtesy of blacks living in Canfield Green Apartments, of blacks celebrating Wilson's death at the hands of Brown...).

Nonetheless Michael Brown is a hero to the black community in death, though his death was entirely his fault. 

The demise of Michael Brown, courtesy of Officer Wilson, and subsequent canonization of the former and forcing underground of the latter (for fear of being murdered by a #BlackLivesMatter activist) is a reminder America has become irredeemable. 

For those wondering, Brown's plaque reads: 
I would like the memory of Michael Brown to be a happy one," the marker reads, bearing a likeness of Brown in a graduation cap and gown. "He left an afterglow of smiles when life was done. He leaves an echo whispering softly down the ways, of happy and loving times and bright and sunny days. He'd like the tears of those who grieve, to dry before the sun of happy memories that he left behind when life was done.

Never Let a Woman Drive Your War Rig: On Women, Men, Madness, and Mad Max: Fury Road

via Radix

I think of most movies as long, crappy TV shows I watch at home while drinking.
The last big-budget blockbuster I bothered to see in the theater was Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The last film I rented from Amazon that actually moved me was Warrior, starring Tom Hardy. Hardy has been in a lot of my favorite movies in the past few years, notably playing power animal Bane in Dark Knight Rises, the broody bootlegger in Lawless, and the flamboyantly violent British criminal Charles Bronson. I’m the guy who wakes up every morning hoping this despicable civilization has finally collapsed, so when I read that Hardy had been cast in a reboot of the post-apocalyptic Mad Max franchise, I was already in. I don’t think I even bothered to watch a whole trailer, I just knew it was the only movie I cared about seeing this summer.

I’d been ignoring headlines in my feed claiming the film was a “feminist action film” until Aaron Clarey sent me a link to his call for men to boycott “Mad Max: Feminist Road.” While boycotts are a bourgeois form of protest and completely pointless for universally despised fringe groups like “white people” and “men,” the idea that the filmmakers were actually pushing it as a feminist film rubbed me the wrong way. Most of the shows and movies I like have some weasley feminist fantasy woven into them, but if you’re going to open with a big “fuck you” to men in a movie made for men, I figured, “fuck you, too.”

I’d pretty much decided to forgo Fury Road until RADIX asked me to write about it. I took the assignment and went to see it in 3D, and I’m glad I did. I loved it. I’d see it again. I’ve started lifting to the relentless albeit somewhat repetitive Fury Road soundtrack. The film is a fast moving graphic novel, to be sure, but it was an evocative visual spectacle with innovative design and a broad range of grotesque villains and supporting characters. If you can’t lose yourself in a movie dominated by a cult of skull-faced war boys banging on drums and racing through the desert on hot rods, screaming about going to Valhalla...well, chances are we’re probably not going to get along. I will also hook up the first person who comes to my shop asking for a tattoo of the words, “RIDE FOREVER, SHINY AND CHROME.”

Max Max: Fury Road is not a feminist film. Or rather, it’s no more feminist than the hashtag badass shieldmaidens in The “History” Channel’s Vikings, or the wise woman who knows better than a man in basically every sitcom and television commercial made in the past two decades. For that matter, it’s no more feminist than Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, made thirty years ago, with Tina Turner bossing around everybody in Bartertown and yet another naive heroine leading her people to some promised land that doesn’t exist.

That’s a rather polite way to describe any feminist, actually.

A naive heroine leading her people to some promised land that doesn’t exist.
The women calling Fury Road a feminist film have revealed themselves as either cynical opportunists or the useful idiots of marketers. Probably both.

I realized last year, when I read a feminist op-ed arguing that women should never be sent to prison for any reason, that publishers will post just about any damn crazy thing that feminists write. The crazier, the better. While I’m sure they feel “empowered” and they do have far more influence than they should, feminists put on a reliable and apparently irresistible daily freak show for the clickbait Circus Maximus of the mainstream media. “Feminist Freak Out” is a reality TV show that people can’t stop watching.

“What crazy shit will these bitches say next??!!”
 
The disparity between what women actually want and what feminists pretend to want was made clear when, despite the fact that feminists were pushing Fury Road, North American women waddled in waves to see Pitch Perfect 2 instead. Feminists say they are pleased about this, despite the fact that a musical comedy about a female singing group is exactly the kind of movie that studio executives would have expected to be a hit with women...in 1955. That main difference today is that they let women direct movies for women, which is kind of like bankrolling a woman who wants to open a yoga studio or a fancy cupcake shop. It makes a reasonable amount of sense.

George Miller, who also directed the far more convincingly feminist film, The Witches of Eastwick, probably did mean to make the movie more vagina-positive, in a white knight kind of way. He did invite abyss-gazer Eve Ensler to the set, and Miller is apparently so taken by the strong female lead character “Furiosa” that he’s written the next Mad Max film around her. That may turn out to be a truly feminist film, but some of the logical conclusions that men can draw from Fury Road are anything but feminist. Here are three:

Patriarchal Women are Beautiful and Feminine; Matriarchies Make Women Ugly

The wives kept by Immortan Joe in the Citadel are soft and appealing. Save one youthful, exotic, unlikely beauty, the “feminist” women are indistinguishable from a pack of grizzled old sailors. To survive in the wasteland together, they’ve become as hard as men. Despite the “feminist” theme that warlike men are responsible for “killing the world,” one of the women brags that she’s killed everyone she met in the desert and muses gleefully about shooting men right through the medulla. To survive without the protection of men in a dangerous world, a woman must put aside childish pacifism and become as bloodthirsty as a man. Or Hillary Clinton.

The takeaway here is that when women and men have distinct roles, women can afford to be beautiful and feminine. When they have to fend for themselves, they become hard, ugly and manly.

A Woman Really Needs a Man to Punch Her in the Face and Save Her from Herself

I watched Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome before I went to see Fury Road, and this seems to be a recurring theme in Mad Max movies. In Beyond Thunderdome, Max is found in the desert by a young woman named Savannah and taken back to her village of lost children. They think he is a pilot returning to save them, and Savannah wants to lead a group out into the wasteland to find a world that Max knows is long gone. She has an altercation with Max, and he punches her in the face. Savannah eventually leads some of the kids out into the desert anyway, and Max has to go save them. Then he comes up with a plan to get them out of the desert. They escape the desert by following his plan, and Max gets left behind, so Savannah keeps his memory alive by telling the kids how great he was every night.

When Max encounters #badass lady truck driver Furiosa in Fury Road, they fight, and he beats her up. They establish an uneasy truce and work together to escape Immortan Joe and his war boys. Without Max, she probably never would have made it to reach her clan of women, or discover that the “green place” she was taking the wives to no longer exists. She comes up with a new plan to lead all of the women across the salt plains. Max knows they will die on the plains, so he comes up with a plan to save them from themselves.

Never Let a Woman Drive Your War Rig

Women are not men. They see the world as women, and have their own agendas and hierarchies of values. When you put a woman in a male role with substantial authority, she’s likely to take advantage of that opportunity to advance her own agenda. It doesn’t matter if the best man for the job is a woman.

This is a mistake modern, Western men make over and over. They reduce sex roles to mere skill sets, and ignore the inevitable social changes that occur when you put a woman in a male role. A perfect example is the military. So many men are willing to say, “a woman should only serve in infantry if she can meet the same standards as men,” but are unwilling to address the social changes to male groups that occur when females are included--because social changes are more difficult to quantify than pushups and pullups.

Could some woman drive a war rig as good as or better than a man? Conceivably, yes. Furiosa could very well be the Danica Patrick of the post-apocalyptic world. But the moral of Mad Max: Fury Road is that if you let a woman drive your war rig, she’s going to betray you, steal your wives, kill you and destroy your legacy and everything you’ve ever built. The message to men is clear: don’t trust a woman to do a man’s job, especially if she’s good at it.

The sexes work best together when they complement each other and cultivate a mutual respect for their different natures and roles. Women are not men, and putting a woman in the role of a man invites disaster, but that doesn’t mean women deserve to be chained up and raped or milked like cows. There’s a wide berth for compromise between chastity-belted sex slavery and big-rig riding murder dykes. If there is a rational message about women in Fury Road, it is that if you don’t treat your women with some modicum of decency and respect, maybe you deserve to have your whole world ruined.

An American Defense Worker Cautions Us on Asian Immigrants

via VDARE

We who are aware of the “National Question” should be very cautious of embracing Asians for the mere reason that they aren’t as pathology ridden as America’s black population, as Professor Hough got in trouble for pointing out.

I’ve worked with many Asians, especially Koreans, and their culture is fraught with dishonesty, theft, incompetence, and corruption. When a black activist insists that Korean shop keepers are exploiting their customers, the black activists right to a large degree. (As Steve Sailer pointed out in Andrew Young Was Right, Not That Anyone Dare Admit It.)

The way I see it, every Asian who is occupying a university post, corporate job, or other high end specialty in America is a thief who has knocked out a far more able white. Intermarriage is probably exaggerated and is not going to resolve this issue.

We who are concerned with America’s future and the future of the historic American nation cannot look to Asians as much more than a tool cynically used to divide and conquer the Rainbow Coalition as we move to restore our nation and our people’s place in it.

In short we must oppose Asian immigrants like there is no black problem and fight the black problem like there are no Asian Immigrants.

Against Universalism!: An Interview with Alexander Dugin

via Alternative Right

My recent articles have been critical of Eurasianism, and have raised a few questions. Alexander Dugin, the author of the two books referred to in my articles, has kindly offered to answer them.

Rémi Tremblay: In the West, Eurasianism seems to seek to ally itself with nationalists. However, in Russia nationalist groups like the ones that support Russia in the West were crushed and repressed. What can Western nationalists learn from that repression?

Alexander Dugin: Eurasianism works with different groups who are against liberalism, North American hegemony and Modernity as a whole. These groups can be right or left. It is most important to be against liberalism and Atlanticism. But Eurasianism is not nationalistic—it is a Fourth Political Theory, ideologically similar to the European New Right of Alain de Benoist.

In the West there are two kinds of nationalists: (1) that characterized as anti-liberal, continental, anti-USA, and traditionalist; and (2) that characterized as pro-liberal, anticommunist, Atlanticist, pro-American and racist (xenophobe). The Eurasianists are willing to work closely with the former, but have little or nothing in common with the latter.

The same situation exists within Russia. There are Eurasian, imperial, traditionalist patriots who mostly support Putin and are loyal to the state, and the pro-liberal, racist, neo-Nazi extremists manipulated by the USA (like the Right Sector in Ukraine). If the latter are repressed, we enjoy it as much as when repression touches the pro-American liberal. They are a fifth column.

But at the same time Eurasianism is not the Third Path, it is the Fourth one. That means we are beyond right and left, as we refuse the materialism of communists (accepting and supporting their anti-capitalist struggle), while at the same time refusing “Nation,” in the spirit of Julius Evola, as a bourgeois concept based on Imperial-style traditionalism. Nations are now destroyed by the same forces that constructed them on the eve of Modernity. They have served their end [undermining] traditional Stände (elites), ethnic culture, and Medieval forms of society, and now are of no further use to the same Masonic, global, anti-traditional elite that created them. So, everybody from left or right is free to transcend their views and pass from the Second Political Theory or from the Third one to the Fourth.

Tremblay: You call for a multipolar world. However, one gets the impression that a bipolar or even a unipolar world would emerge with Eurasianism. Wouldn’t it be logical for Europeans to support an independent Europe, independent from Moscow and Washington?

Dugin: If we say we want to construct a multipolar world and not a unipolar or bipolar one, we are going to do exactly what we declare. The theory of a multipolar world formulated in my books and in the different documents of Eurasian movements shows clearly that we support exactly a Europe totally independent from Washington and from Moscow. We need to have some fully independent Great Spaces (Grossraum)—North American, South American, European, Islamic, African, Russian-Eurasian, Indian, Chinese and Oceanic—that could be allies or foes, depending on the concrete situation. We are totally against unipolarity and North American hegemony, as well as a bipolar system.

Tremblay: The multicultural super-state that you propose as the model for future states has precedents like Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. Can this model survive without an authoritarian leader? And likewise can multicultural Russia survive in the post-Putin era?

Dugin: The strategically centralized poly-cultural hyper-state is called Empire. Empire should be strong first of all in its ideology, and that ideology cannot be loose or liberal. It should be strong and based on the new aristocracy or ideocracy (as Eurasianists used to say). So, not only an Emperor but also an imperial ideology of a strong idealistic type is needed to grant cohesion to the whole system. I presume that Orthodox Christianity, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Islam are of such types. But they need the spiritual revival. The tri-functional Indo-European model studied by G. Dumezil should be the main platform for the societies of Indo-European origin. The society should be created not from below but from above. The meaning of the State is its spiritual mission. The aristocracy should consist of "Platonic Guards," philosopher-warriors, that grant unity to the different ethnic groups representing the supra-ethnic elites, as was always the case in historic Empires.

But instead of one liberal, decadent North American financial Empire, there should be different Empires with different imperial visions. The Russian vision is obvious—it has its roots in our organic Orthodox tradition and Russian Eurasian Empire. I presume that the future of Europe lies in the restoration of the Charlemagne heritage and of the eschatological anticipation of the return of King Arthur. Possibly some would hope for the new Roman Empire professed by Virgil, who thought that Apollo would return and this time for eternity.


King Arthur: "eschatological expectation."

Tremblay: You claim that non-interventionist politicians like Ron Paul should be supported in the United States. However, you support interventionist politicians in Russia. If non-interventionists take control in the USA and interventionist politicians control the Kremlin, wouldn’t it become a unipolar world directed by Moscow?

Dugin: We have no possibility of exercising unipolarity, nor do we want to. Now there is unipolarity. It should be stopped. Non-interventionists are the only salvation of the USA, which is currently a tool in the hands of an anti-American elite that uses the American people in order to create global government. Without concentrating on inner political problems there will be no USA. The present masters will sacrifice the American people to their globalist agenda.

Russia is on the defense. Globalists attack us on our ground. Where is Ukraine? Is it close to the American borders? No, it is far, far away. But Washington supports Ukrainian liberals and neo-Nazis, pushing them to attack Russia. If some longsighted American politicians see that this is not correct and that it does not serve American interests, they are quite right and are real patriots.

Tremblay: You oppose American Manifest Destiny, but how does Orthodox Messianism differ?

Dugin: We oppose any kind of universalism. USA has its own mission. It is American—North American. Not universal. Manifest Destiny exists, not in the singular but in the plural. We need to use the expression in the plural, Manifest Destinies: American, European (that is quite different), Russian, Islamic, Chinese, and so on. No American dream—liberal and Calvinist—in its secular and materialist version must try to be the only Destiny for all humanity. The American people will pay a terrible price for this titanic presumption. Every great people has its own destiny. The American people are great, but not so great as to be able to deny the greatness of others. The globalist elite that has usurped the power in the USA must repent and surrender this ill-gained dominance.

Tremblay: In Putin Vs Putin, you talk about Putin being moderately Eurasianist based on his first two terms. In light of his third mandate, do you still have this opinion of a half-Western, half-Eurasianist politician?

Dugin: Yes, absolutely. He is half-Eurasianist. He is obliged to be more and more Eurasiniast but that is against his will. He is a liberal-capitalist, but a realist at the same time. Kissinger is much closer to him than we are, but still we support Putin because he will follow the Eurasianist course instead of his own. This is the hard geopolitical logic that binds him, so he will act exactly as we predict, including by the different logic of simply following circumstances and opportunities. He is a realist of pure type. We are not.

Tremblay: In the Great Spaces you propose, Quebec would be part of a bloc otherwise entirely Anglo-Saxon. Wouldn’t that mean the end of our culture and existence as an ethnos in the long term?

Dugin: The Empire conceived in the Eurasianist multipolar vision is never unidimensional, unlike modern nations. They should respect pluralism—ethnic and cultural. There are no fully homogeneous spaces. In Russia we have Muslims, Caucasians, Tartars, Siberians, Finno-Ugrians and so on. North America was built by Anglo-Saxons, Irish, French and Spanish with certain participation from other European nations, notably German, so I suggest the return to the ethnic organization: French Quebec should be French and so on. However, this should not be achieved in the process of creating a new national state, but cultural rights should be granted in the geopolitical context by the Imperial Constitution.

The Era of Impact

via The Archdruid Report

Of all the wistful superstitions that cluster around the concept of the future in contemporary popular culture, the most enduring has to be the notion that somehow, sooner or later, something will happen to shake the majority out of its complacency and get it to take seriously the crisis of our age. Week after week, I field comments and emails that presuppose that belief. People want to know how soon I think the shock of awakening will finally hit, or wonder whether this or that event will do the trick, or simply insist that the moment has to come sooner or later.
To all such inquiries and expostulations I have no scrap of comfort to offer. Quite the contrary, what history shows is that a sudden awakening to the realities of a difficult situation is far and away the least likely result of what I’ve called the era of impact, the second of the five stages of collapse. (The first, for those who missed last week’s post, is the era of pretense; the remaining three, which will be covered in the coming weeks, are the eras of response, breakdown, and dissolution.)
The era of impact is the point at which it becomes clear to most people that something has gone wrong with the most basic narratives of a society—not just a little bit wrong, in the sort of way that requires a little tinkering here and there, but really, massively, spectacularly wrong. It arrives when an asset class that was supposed to keep rising in price forever stops rising, does its Wile E. Coyote moment of hang time, and then drops like a stone. It shows up when an apparently entrenched political system, bristling with soldiers and secret police, implodes in a matter of days or weeks and is replaced by a provisional government whose leaders look just as stunned as everyone else. It comes whenever a state of affairs that was assumed to be permanent runs into serious trouble—but somehow it never seems to succeed in getting people to notice just how temporary that state of affairs always was.
Since history is the best guide we’ve got to how such events work out in the real world, I want to take a couple of examples of the kind just outlined and explore them in a little more detail. The stock market bubble of the 1920s makes a good case study on a relatively small scale. In the years leading up to the crash of 1929, stock values in the US stock market quietly disconnected themselves from the economic fundamentals and began what was, for the time, an epic climb into la-la land. There were important if unmentionable reasons for that airy detachment from reality; the most significant was the increasingly distorted distribution of income in 1920s America, which put more and more of the national wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and thus gutted the national economy.
It’s one of the repeated lessons of economic history that money in the hands of the rich does much less good for the economy as a whole than money in the hands of the working classes and the poor. The reasoning here is as simple as it is inescapable. Industrial economies survive and thrive on consumer expenditures, but consumer expenditures are limited by the ability of consumers to buy the things they want and need. As money is diverted away from the lower end of the economic pyramid, you get demand destruction—the process by which those who can’t afford to buy things stop buying them—and consumer expenditures fall off. The rich, by contrast, divert a large share of their income out of the consumer economy into investments; the richer they get, the more of the national wealth ends up in investments rather than consumer expenditures; and as consumer expenditures falter, and investments linked to the consumer economy falter in turn, more and more money ends up in illiquid speculative vehicles that are disconnected from the productive economy and do nothing to stimulate demand.
That’s what happened in the 1920s. All through the decade in the US, the rich got richer and the poor got screwed, speculation took the place of productive investment throughout the US economy, and the well-to-do wallowed in the wretched excess chronicled in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby while most other people struggled to get by. The whole decade was a classic era of pretense, crowned by the delusional insistence—splashed all over the media of the time—that everyone in the US could invest in the stock market and, since the market was of course going to keep on rising forever, everyone in the US would thus inevitably become rich.
 It’s interesting to note that there were people who saw straight through the nonsense and tried to warn their fellow Americans about the inevitable consequences. They were denounced six ways from Sunday by all right-thinking people, in language identical to that used more recently on those of us who’ve had the effrontery to point out that an infinite supply of oil can’t be extracted from a finite planet.  The people who insisted that the soaring stock values of the late 1920s were the product of one of history’s great speculative bubbles were dead right; they had all the facts and figures on their side, not to mention plain common sense; but nobody wanted to hear it.
When the stock market peaked just before the Labor Day weekend in 1929 and started trending down, therefore, the immediate response of all right-thinking people was to insist at the top of their lungs that nothing of the sort was happening, that the market was simply catching its breath before its next great upward leap, and so on. Each new downward lurch was met by a new round of claims along these lines, louder, more dogmatic, and more strident than the one that preceded it, and nasty personal attacks on anyone who didn’t support the delusional consensus filled the media of the time.
People were still saying those things when the bottom dropped out of the market.
Tuesday, October 29, 1929 can reasonably be taken as the point at which the era of pretense gave way once and for all to the era of impact. That’s not because it was the first day of the crash—there had been ghastly slumps on the previous Thursday and Monday, on the heels of two months of less drastic but still seriously ugly declines—but because, after that day, the pundits and the media pretty much stopped pretending that nothing was wrong. Mind you, next to nobody was willing to talk about what exactly had gone wrong, or why it had gone wrong, but the pretense that the good fairy of capitalism had promised Americans happy days forever was out the window once and for all.
It’s crucial to note, though, that what followed this realization was the immediate and all but universal insistence that happy days would soon be back if only everyone did the right thing. It’s even more crucial to note that what nearly everyone identified as “the right thing”—running right out and buying lots of stocks—was a really bad idea that bankrupted many of those who did it, and didn’t help the imploding US economy at all.
It’s probably necessary to talk about this in a little more detail, since it’s been an article of blind faith in the United States for many decades now that it’s always a good idea to buy and hold stocks. (I suspect that stockbrokers have had a good deal to do with the promulgation of this notion.) It’s been claimed that someone who bought stocks in 1929 at the peak of the bubble, and then held onto them, would have ended up in the black eventually, and for certain values of “eventually,” this is quite true—but it took the Dow Jones industrial average until the mid-1950s to return to its 1929 high, and so for a quarter of a century our investor would have been underwater on his stock purchases.
What’s more, the Dow isn’t necessarily a good measure of stocks generally; many of the darlings of the market in the 1920s either went bankrupt in the Depression or never again returned to their 1929 valuations. Nor did the surge of money into stocks in the wake of the 1929 crash stave off the Great Depression, or do much of anything else other than provide a great example of the folly of throwing good money after bad. The moral to this story? In an era of impact, the advice you hear from everyone around you may not be in your best interest.
That same moral can be shown just as clearly in the second example I have in mind, the French Revolution. We talked briefly in last week’s post about the way that the French monarchy and aristocracy blinded themselves to the convulsive social and economic changes that were pushing France closer and closer to a collective explosion on the grand scale, and pursued business as usual long past the point at which business as usual was anything but a recipe for disaster. Even when the struggle between the Crown and the aristocracy forced Louis XVI to convene the États-Généraux—the rarely-held national parliament of France, which had powers more or less equivalent to a constitutional convention in the US—next to nobody expected anything but long rounds of political horse-trading from which some modest shifts in the balance of power might result.That was before the summer of 1789. On June 17, the deputies of the Third Estate—the representatives of the commoners—declared themselves a National Assembly and staged what amounted to a coup d’etat; on July 14, faced with the threat of a military response from the monarchy, the Parisian mob seized the Bastille, kickstarting a wave of revolt across the country that put government and military facilities in the hands of the revolutionary National Guard and broke the back of the feudal system; on August 4, the National Assembly abolished all feudal rights and legal distinctions between the classes. Over less than two months, a political and social system that had been welded firmly in place for a thousand years all came crashing to the ground.
Those two months marked the end of the era of pretense and the arrival of the era of impact. The immediate response, with a modest number of exceptions among the aristocracy and the inner circles of the monarchy’s supporters, was frantic cheering and an insistence that everything would soon settle into a wonderful new age of peace, prosperity, and liberty. All the overblown dreams of the philosophes about a future age governed by reason were trotted out and treated as self-evident fact. Of course that’s not what happened; once it was firmly in power, the National Assembly used its unchecked authority as abusively as the monarchy had once done; factional struggles spun out of control, and before long mob rule and the guillotine were among the basic facts of life in Revolutionary France. 
Among the most common symptoms of an era of impact, in other words, is the rise of what we may as well call “crackpot optimism”—the enthusiastic and all but universal insistence, in the teeth of the evidence, that the end of business as usual will turn out to be the door to a wonderful new future. In the wake of the 1929 stock market crash, people were urged to pile back into the market in the belief that this would cause the economy to boom again even more spectacularly than before, and most of the people who followed this advice proceeded to lose their shirts. In the wake of the revolution of 1789, likewise, people across France were encouraged to join with their fellow citizens in building the shining new utopia of reason, and a great many of those who followed that advice ended up decapitated or, a little later, dying of gunshot or disease in the brutal era of pan-European warfare that extended almost without a break from the cannonade of Valmy in 1792 to the battle of Waterloo in 1815.
And the present example? That’s a question worth exploring, if only for the utterly pragmatic reason that most of my readers are going to get to see it up close and personal.
That the United States and the industrial world generally are deep in an era of pretense is, I think, pretty much beyond question at this point. We’ve got political authorities, global bankers, and a galaxy of pundits insisting at the top of their lungs that nothing is wrong, everything is fine, and we’ll be on our way to the next great era of prosperity if we just keep pursuing a set of boneheaded policies that have never—not once in the entire span of human history—brought prosperity to the countries that pursued them. We’ve got shelves full of books for sale in upscale bookstores insisting, in the strident language usual to such times, that life is wonderful in this best of all possible worlds, and it’s going to get better forever because, like, we have technology, dude! Across the landscape of the cultural mainstream, you’ll find no shortage of cheerleaders insisting at the top of their lungs that everything’s going to be fine, that even though they said ten years ago that we only have ten years to do something before disaster hits, why, we still have ten years before disaster hits, and when ten more years pass by, why, you can be sure that the same people will be insisting that we have ten more.
This is the classic rhetoric of an era of pretense. Over the last few years, though, it’s seemed to me that the voices of crackpot optimism have gotten more shrill, the diatribes more fact-free, and the logic even shoddier than it was in Bjorn Lomborg’s day, which is saying something. We’ve reached the point that state governments are making it a crime to report on water quality and forbidding officials from using such unwelcome phrases as “climate change.” That’s not the action of people who are confident in their beliefs; it’s the action of a bunch of overgrown children frantically clenching their eyes shut, stuffing their fingers in their ears, and shouting “La, la, la, I can’t hear you.”
That, in turn, suggests that the transition to the era of impact may be fairly close. Exactly when it’s likely to arrive is a complex question, and exactly what’s going to land the blow that will crack the crackpot optimism and make it impossible to ignore the arrival of real trouble is an even more complex one. In 1929, those who hadn’t bought into the bubble could be perfectly sure—and in fact, a good many of them were perfectly sure—that the usual mechanism that brings bubbles to a catastrophic end was about to terminate the boom of the 1920s with extreme prejudice, as indeed it did. In the last decades of the French monarchy, it was by no means clear exactly what sequence of events would bring the Ancien Régime crashing down, but such thoughtful observers as Talleyrand knew that something of the sort was likely to follow the crisis of legitimacy then under way.The problem with trying to predict the trigger that will bring our current situation to a sudden stop is that we’re in such a target-rich environment. Looking over the potential candidates for the sudden shock that will stick a fork in the well-roasted corpse of business as usual, I’m reminded of the old board game Clue. Will Mr. Boddy’s killer turn out to be Colonel Mustard in the library with a lead pipe, Professor Plum in the conservatory with a candlestick, or Miss Scarlet in the dining room with a rope?
In much the same sense, we’ve got a global economy burdened to the breaking point with more than a quadrillion dollars of unpayable debt; we’ve got a global political system coming apart at the seams as the United States slips toward the usual fate of empires and its rivals circle warily, waiting for the kill; we’ve got a domestic political system here in the US entering a classic prerevolutionary condition under the impact of a textbook crisis of legitimacy; we’ve got a global climate that’s hammered by our rank stupidity in treating the atmosphere as a gaseous sewer for our wastes; we’ve got a global fossil fuel industry that’s frantically trying to pretend that scraping the bottom of the barrel means that the barrel is full, and the list goes on. It’s as though Colonel Mustard, Professor Plum, Miss Scarlet, and the rest of them all ganged up on Mr. Boddy at once, and only the most careful autopsy will be able to determine which of them actually dealt the fatal blow.
In the midst of all this uncertainty, there are three things that can, I think, be said for certain about the end of the current era of pretense and the coming of the era of impact. The first is that it’s going to happen. When something is unsustainable, it’s a pretty safe bet that it won’t be sustained indefinitely, and a society that keeps on embracing policies that swap short-term gains for long-term problems will sooner or later end up awash in the consequences of those policies. Timing such transitions is difficult at best; it’s an old adage among stock traders that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Still, points made above—especially the increasingly shrill tone of the defenders of the existing order—suggest to me that the era of impact may be here within a decade or so at the outside.
The end of industrial civilization will be a long, bitter, painful cascade of conflicts, disasters, and accelerating decline in which a vast number of people are going to die before they otherwise would, and a great many things of value will be lost forever. That’s true of any falling civilization, and the misguided decisions of the last forty years have pretty much guaranteed that the current example is going to have an extra helping of all these unwelcome things. I’ve discussed at length, in earlier posts in the Dark Age America sequence here and in other sequences as well, why the sort of apocalyptic sudden stop beloved of Hollywood scriptwriters is the least likely outcome of the predicament of our time; still, insisting on the imminence and inevitability of some such game-ending event will no doubt be as popular as usual in the years immediately ahead.
The third thing that I think can be said for certain about the coming era of impact, though, is the one that counts. If it follows the usual pattern, as I expect it to do, once the crisis hits there will be serious, authoritative, respectable figures telling everyone exactly what they need to do to bring an end to the troubles and get the United States and the world back on track to renewed peace and prosperity. Taking these pronouncements seriously and following their directions will be extremely popular, and it will almost certainly also be a recipe for unmitigated disaster. If forewarned is forearmed, as the saying has it, this is a piece of firepower to keep handy as the era of pretense winds down. In next week’s post, we’ll talk about comparable weaponry relating to the third stage of collapse—the era of response.

Barton Fink

via Counter-Currents

There is little satisfying critical literature on the Coen brothers’ 1991 film Barton Fink. Most viewers are inclined to think that this is because the film is a pretentious, meaningless piece of crap. And Barton Fink is surely the most widely detested film by the Coens. The fact that it swept the 1991 Cannes Film Festival, winning the Palme d’Or, Best Director, and Best Actor (John Tuturro) can simply be chalked up to French perversity and anti-Americanism. These people think Jerry Lewis is a genius, after all.

I don’t wish to discount the meaningless crap theory, but I think there is more to it. Another reason for the dearth of good commentary on Barton Fink is that the conclusions one reaches upon careful viewing are literally unspeakable in polite company, for Barton Fink is a profoundly anti-Semitic film.

The Coens wrote the script of Barton Fink — in which writer’s block is a prominent theme — while experiencing writer’s block on Miller’s Crossing, in which John Tuturro plays the most loathsome Jewish villain since Shylock. Barton Fink was filmed immediately after the completion of Miller’s Crossing with Tuturro in the title role as another Jewish villain.

And make no mistake, the character of Barton Fink really is a fink. He is not just a nebbish and a victim, he is primarily a villain, whose victimhood is both the just desserts for his villainy and perhaps a barrier to future crimes. Fink’s crime is hard to see, though, because he lives primarily in his head. He lives “the life of the mind.” Thus he commits a crime of the mind.

The pretentious and meaningless aspects of Barton Fink basically arise from the fact that the Coens are making an ersatz David Lynch film, which blends the folksy with the grotesque and supernatural. But it doesn’t work, because they are unwilling to make the necessary metaphysical commitments.

As Flannery O’Connor argues in her essay “Some Aspects of the Grotesque in Southern Fiction,” the portrayal of the grotesque has metaphysical assumptions. The Enlightenment envisions a world in which evil and abnormality are progressively eliminated. But the artistic portrayal of the grotesque is equivalent to the assertion that evil and abnormality are metaphysical, that they are aspects of reality that can never be eliminated. Thus, as Thomas Mann says, the grotesque is “anti-bourgeois” — anti-progressive, anti-liberal, anti-enlightenment, and also anti-Marxist.

The Coens use the grotesque as a refutation of Fink’s Marxist progressivism. But it rings false, because one senses that they are unwilling to affirm the more traditional metaphysical alternative that the grotesque presupposes.

Barton Fink is set in 1941. We begin in New York, backstage in a Broadway theater, in the final moments of Bare Ruined Choirs, the new play by the up-and-coming Jewish-Marxist playwright Barton Fink. Fink’s character is loosely modeled on Clifford Odets, but the bits of dialogue are a hilarious send-up of Steinbeck.

The play is a smash, hailed as a “triumph of the common man.” At the celebration, however, Fink is ungracious, boorish, and self-absorbed, reeling off Marxist Popular Front clichés about “real success” being the creation of a “new living theater of and about and for the common man.”

Fink’s reviews attract the attention of Capitol Pictures, who offer him $1,000 per week to write for the movies. Fink’s agent urges him to cash in on his good press, assuring him that the common man will still be waiting for him, and adding prophetically that he might even find one or two of them in Hollywood.

Fink arrives in Hollywood and checks into a dilapidated Art Deco pile the Hotel Earle. With its putrescent palette of greens, mauves, and magentas, its endless empty corridors, its peeling wallpaper, and its grotesque staff, it is pure Lynch. Then Fink meets his new employer, Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner hilariously playing Louis B. Mayer and stealing every scene).

Lipnik seems to know nothing of Fink, but he is convinced that the “Barton Fink feeling” will be a hot commodity and assigns him to write a wrestling movie starring Wallace Beery. It seems a natural fit, given Fink’s pronouncements about “the common man.” But Barton Fink is a Jewish Marxist from New York. For him, the common man is just an abstraction. Naturally, he gets writer’s block.

As he frets in front of his typewriter, he hears laughter from next door. He calls the front desk to complain. The bellman relays the complaint, and the neighbor knocks on the door. Enter Charlie Meadows, traveling insurance salesman, an affable corn-fed Midwestern goy played by Midwestern goy John Goodman.

Their conversation is hilarious. Fink is totally self-absorbed and patronizing, explaining that he writes about “people like you — the average working stiff, the common man.” He mentions that people in New York (fellow Jewish Communists no doubt) are creating a new theater “based on the common man,” but adding that it must not “mean much to you.” Three times Charlie interjects that he could tell Barton some stories, and three times Barton ignores him, ranting on about “empty formalism” and denouncing WASPs and the British class system. Apparently “the life of the mind” precludes empathy for others, or even listening to what they have to say.

The next day, Fink seeks guidance from his director Ben Geisler (Tony Shaloub playing Irving Thalberg) and fellow writer W. P. Mayhew (John Mahoney hilariously playing William Faulkner and stealing every scene). Mayhew is a great Southern novelist who has become a raging alcoholic during his sojourn in the land of the Philistines. When Fink prattles on about writing coming from pain and the desire to help his fellow man, Mayhew replies that he just enjoys making things up.

Fink develops an attraction to Mayhew’s secretary and girlfriend Audrey, who offers to help him get over his writer’s block. When Audrey reveals that she has actually been ghost-writing Mayhew’s recent work, Fink is maniacal in celebrating the unmasking of another WASP hero as a fraud. Audrey chides him for lacking empathy and understanding, but Fink has no idea what she is talking about. Audrey then seduces Fink, and the sounds of their coupling travel the pipes to Charlie’s room.

Fink awakens in the morning to find that Audrey has been murdered in bed while he slept. He goes to Charlie who convinces him that he should not go to the police and offers to dispose of the body. Charlie then leaves town, after giving Barton a package for safekeeping. A few days later, two police detectives, Mastrinotti and Deutsch, come to question Fink. Audrey’s body has turned up without a head, and their suspect is Charlie Meadows, who is apparently Karl “Madman” Mundt, a serial killer. After the police leave, Fink’s writer’s block breaks and he completes the script.

Fink then celebrates the completion of the script at a USO dance. When a square-jawed blonde sailor tries to cut in, Fink begins to rant, “I’m a writer celebrating, you monsters [goyim]! I am a creator! This is where I serve the common man [pointing to his head]!” Jewish metaphysics makes a distinction between the uncreated creator (God), the created creator (man = the Jews), and uncreative creation, which presumably includes the goy monsters. Someone takes a swing at Fink, who falls to the floor and slithers away while the goyim fight among themselves.

When Fink returns to his hotel, the detectives are waiting for him. Mayhew has turned up dead and decapitated; they now know that Audrey was Fink’s friend; and then there is the huge bloodstain on Fink’s mattress. Fink is arrested as Mundt’s accomplice and cuffed to his bed frame.

The hotel becomes as hot as a sauna. Fink announces that Charlie has returned. The hallway is filled with flames. Charlie appears, screaming “I’ll show you the life of the mind!” and kills the detectives with shotgun blasts, saying “Heil Hitler” before dispatching Detective Deutsch.

Charlie then screams at a terrified Barton that “You don’t listen!” and that he is just “a tourist with a typewriter” barging into his world and telling him how to live. Fink naturally thinks the end is at hand and tearfully apologizes. His fury spent, Charlie frees Barton from the handcuffs and goes into his room nonchalantly, as if the building were not on fire.

Are the flames hellfire? Is it all a dream? Is it symbolism? I think it is just a meaningless Jewish jerk job.

Fink gathers up his script and flees the building.

A few days pass. Lipnick has read the script. Fink is summoned into his office, where he finds Lipnick dressed in the uniform of an army colonel. The commission is honorary, he mentions, arranged by Henry Morgenthau. The uniform had been run up by the costume department.

Lipnick hates the script. Fink was assigned to do a wrestling movie, and instead delivered “a fruity movie about suffering” — about a man wrestling with himself. Lipnick has fired Geisler, and he informs Fink that he will remain in Hollywood, writing scripts, but none of his scripts will be produced until he “grows up” and realizes the error of thinking that “the whole world revolves around whatever rattles inside that little kike head of yours.” Devastated, Fink then goes to the beach, where we are treated to some more pretentious symbolism. Then the movie ends.

Barton Fink portrays Jews in an entirely negative light. Fink is a self-absorbed, patronizing, hate-filled, Marxist elitist who talks about the common man, and talks at the common man, but never listens to him. Lipnick is a mercurial, megalomaniacal buffoon. The rest of us are just extras in their neurotic psychodramas. And the terrifying thing is that they have the power to make their dreams real. We are ruled by psychotics.

With the character of the Heil Hitlering Madman Mundt, are the Coens suggesting that anti-Semitism is a predictable reaction to Jewish behavior? The fact that Mundt is ultimately a big sentimental schmuck whose fury can be deflected simply with a tearful apology — sincere or not, we cannot know — takes on new meaning when viewed in light of the tears shed by Tuturro’s Jewish villain in Miller’s Crossing, which is a movie about how Jews have hacked the Aryan mind — and how we can erect a firewall.

Why the lack of good commentary on Barton Fink? Because one of the unspoken rules of today’s society is that if you can’t say anything nice about the Jews, you can’t say anything at all. Perhaps, one day, it will be the law.