Friday, December 15, 2017

Misogyny and the Alt Right

Spencer Quinn at Counter Currents relates a personal story in relation to prominent alt right women complaining of being attacked online:
My trip to the bank about a month ago was somewhat unusual, and I knew it would require special attention from a teller...I couldn’t believe that this person was the person with whom I was about to interact. What I was seeing was a beautiful woman. She seemed in her mid-twenties, about five feet seven or eight inches tall. She had exquisitely smooth and lustrous brown hair, arresting brown eyes, and a classic movie-star beauty which reminded me of a young Ingrid Bergman. As I was preparing myself to deal with such a stunning specimen of womanhood, I asked myself, “Why is she here? Why is she not working for a modeling agency selling perfume or diamonds?” 
I asked this because in my line of work and the circles in which I travel, you don’t often find jaw-droppingly beautiful women who are just standing there waiting for you to come up and talk to them. During our encounter I had to look away from her a few times because I didn’t want it to seem as if I, a happily-married husband and father, were mooning over a girl practically young enough to be my daughter. (The temptation was there, believe me.)

Anyway, she was perfectly nice and professional, and our entire transaction took about ten minutes. I left the bank satisfied that I had completed that errand and was free to run the next one. Yet as I stepped into the parking lot, I experienced a thoroughly unwelcome emotion, one I hadn’t experienced in a long time: heartache. A nice, jarring stab of it, too. And this wasn’t even mature, manly heartache, the kind no one could really blame me for having. No, no, this was a return of the angsty, juvenile heartache that everyone over thirty wants to forget. This was the heartache that plagued countless lonely nights throughout my pretty goddamn pathetic youth. I remember them well.

I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think that they will sing to me.


Of course, I never once felt any resentment or anger towards the nice girl at the bank. But I knew she was the cause of this heartache. But how? Why? The answer came to me immediately: she never smiled at me. Not once. For me, she was nothing less than a vision, the epitome of what the human form can attain. For her, however, I was just another customer, deserving of prompt service and common courtesy and nothing more. This beautiful creature couldn’t even spare me a single solitary smile. Realizing this made me feel so mean.
One thing feminists didn't conjure entirely out of thin air is misogyny. Males experience evolutionary despair (felt as heartache) at being exposed to desirable females who are not available to them.
Young men now are subjected to endless titillation in an environment, for the regular straight white guy at least, that must feel increasingly competitive and hostile, due to the ongoing migration of females into demographic alternatives.

Sexual liberation has only increased the risk of sexual violence for women in an environment saturated with suggestion. At the same time it subjects young men to a sort of protracted torture of sexual teasing.

Male sexual rage is a biological response to losing out in the evolutionary struggle.
It's evolutionary terror, a mortal fear. Just as you fearfully anticipate your own death you fearfully anticipate your genetic line dying off in the next generation. That feeling in your stomach is a physical epiphany.

Quinn sees in his reaction to the beautiful bank teller--a reaction we all know--the motivation for a recent online campaign against Lauren Southern and Tara McCarthy from some of the rougher corners of the alt right. The charges against the women are silly (I thought I saw someone confidently "exposing" her one eighth Indian ancestry somewhere); I read them, even of Ms Southern's swarthy sojourn, which is a shame don't get me wrong, and I think who are these young men going to hell over this? These guys are going to have to toughen up in the future, because their future is toughening up all the time.

One of the charges against the women is that they're overrated, as we'd expect attractive women in a movement with few of them to be.  I don't doubt it; I think the praise premium by which men overrate the intelligence of attractive women (about ten IQ points) is exceeded in constancy only by white liberals' same application in favor of blacks (about fifteen).

But even if its true, the women are not overrated in what they bring to the movement in charm and grace. I haven't followed either closely, but as far as I can tell Southern has done some fairly brave reporting in the field and McCarthy's podcast is one of the better ones (I've only recently started paying attention to them).
You need women. It helps if they're attractive. Even if they are overrated they are not really; they bring something to the table no man can. They broaden the appeal of ideas only kept underfoot by being made to look unappealing.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

The Current Year is Druggy, Druggy, Druggy

Everybody's high. That's what I'm thinking.

Via Thomas Wictor on Twitter here's a video Seattle Police released regarding an officer-involved shooting.
First we see a confrontation between an apartment manager and a wigger Bonnie and Clyde, presumably the same pair firing at police later. The male's behavior leading up to his shooting appears suicidal, but nothing he's done up to that point makes any sense, so who knows.

 

No doubt they'll find a pharmaceutical cocktail in this guy's blood, and certainly some of the high-grade marijuana you can buy legally in Washington State now, the excessive use of which has introduced a yet-understood illness characterized by "screaming and nausea". This unfortunate couple represents a new feral class; drugs play a large part in their de-socialization.

But I'm beginning to suspect increased drug use is affecting most aspects of life and classes of people now. CNN's recent screw-up--whether bad reporting or bad hoaxing--was so remarkably inept I found myself wondering, like the old joke, what they were smoking over there. Truly.

In his recent interview with Luke Ford Greg Johnson suggests drug use is endemic in the "alt right" (which he doesn't identify with, despite being a white nationalist) and sees the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally as a drug or alcohol induced disaster.



You can't help but wonder nowadays, when you see something sloppy or just inexplicable.

Anderson Cooper elicited minor controversy with a tweet recently mocking President Trump. I really can't keep up, because I would have thought this relatively mild insult was par for the Trump Resistance course, but apparently this is still out of bounds:


Alcohol and a lack of immediate diversion are usually enough to explain such as this. Cooper said his phone was "hacked" at first, and now is just saying it was "taken" and the tweet posted (as if by no human hand). A mischievous twink was one of my first preferred suspicions, and this explanation strengthens it. Whatever the case, you can be sure drugs had something to do with it all.

Perhaps drugs are shaping our political views--they would have to if their use is broad enough. Would white ethno-masochism be possible without them? Are the kinds of drugs, legal and illegal, we've acquired along the way shaping our collective worldview? Certainly drugs are helping white Americans right now with the indignity and anxiety of dispossession, easing them along.
And that's a downer.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Hustling for Justice

Two of today's missives in the "emotional labor" long-con. Lydia appears to be half black-half Jewish and all lesbian. I think she should give the other two points of her identity triad more credit. Jewish lesbians are probably doing more than their share for justice.

But that's eleven thousand retweets for a patently absurd assertion. Speaking of labor, that's not a bad return on it.


Lydia's likely a little more savvy than her tweet suggests, which makes it all the more objectionable, but I actually believe the sisters when they say stuff like this:


Demagogy effects a disparate impact. No group seems more amenable to it than blacks, for their unique historical place in America and their unique character as a people as expressed at the individual level. Indulging black rage has been a prominent feature of civil rights for half a century (Tom Wolfe published "Mau Mauing the Flak Catchers" in 1970), and for a long time it must have seemed it would subside along with improving conditions and opportunities for blacks.

We've seen the opposite happen. Blacks have not only experienced a profound increase in opportunity (though their not taking advantage of it is disguised as discrimination) they have come to dominate culture and politics (or at least black concerns continue to dominate politics).
Black rage has only increased. It increases in tandem with black confidence and dominance--the election of Barack Obama, of all things, crystallized the present, untenable state of black advocacy.

Black people aren't going to be the ones to put the brakes on this humoring of their every resentful whim. Somebody else is going to have to do it.

Saner heads on the Left need to prevail upon their radicals and, yes, blacks, before things get truly ugly with (more) violence in the streets as a result of left wing racial demagogy.

Paid at Last, Paid at Last, Thank God Almighty...

A trend in social justice emerged at some point in the heady last days of Obama, introducing the concept of "emotional labor" to social justice, in particular to black advocacy. Emotional labor is the effort one puts into social interaction, particularly regarding having to "fake" it; the smiling waitress, for instance, is laboring to an extent she wouldn't be if she didn't have to smile. The concept originated in 1983 as a class-based concern of progressives. That smiling waitress, domestic workers, immigrants in foreign lands were all enduring greater loads of emotional labor to get by.

As nobody labors more, emotionally, than blacks, I'm surprised it took this long for the idea to find its natural home as a civil rights hustle. But it's here. Explaining racism to white people is exhausting, say black people making a living explaining racism to white people. Enduring racism is literally giving black people high blood pressure, says the New York Times. So it necessarily follows those angry protesters shutting down speeches and entire schools are being unfairly taxed in the fight for justice. They are not being compensated for their emotional labor. Yeah.

Here's an impromptu lecture on the subject in a college square:


The dog must be one of those service pets for the emotionally fragile.

The professor above had collared some of her white colleagues who had managed to escape an impromptu inquisition going on inside--wherein the students who had shut down Evergreen State College were assailing faculty and administration. The white teachers were shirkers. She's tired of her and the other women of color doing all the emotional labor. The logic is sound--if you accept that social justice seeks the common good. Why shouldn't they be pitching in? That's why the white cucks stand there and nod--to disagree would be to question the whole enterprise.

The professor complains of having to "sit there and fucking wax poetic for your benefit about shit"; she gets the game perfectly, if the gormless whites haven't a clue. She's a performer. She's to be paid for her performance.

Meanwhile inside the same refrain:


Love's Labor Cost

The tranny taking a stand in hotpants on behalf of Proud Black Women was leader of the protests and all but took over the school like a Vandal warlord for a couple of days. The media studies professor and diversity board member lambasting her colleagues was another principle in organizing the school takeover, all leveraged off of--what else?--an email sent by a dissenting professor questioning the latest social justice excess.

The professor hasn't been back to school all year, fearing for her safety after online bullying. She won't be getting any emotional reimbursement for her efforts now, but some financially, at least.
She's leaving the school and settling her lawsuit (did I forget to mention the lawsuit? do I need to mention the lawsuit?):
Powers said the resignation was a condition of a settlement Lowe reached with the college. She will receive $240,000, which includes final wages and attorney fees, to settle her tort claim of discrimination and a hostile work environment, according to Powers.
Speaking of money, the school is reeling (no sympathy for its collective emotional labors) since the shutdown, having already impoverished programs to promote diversity (and of course conceding more money to it following the takeover), losing faculty and students.

Bret Weinstein, the progressive biology professor whose offending email made the black kids angry, as they say, and who's no longer at the school as a result, tells the backstory to the shutdown:
In 2015, Evergreen hired a new president. Trained as a sociologist, George Bridges did two things upon arrival. First, he hired an old friend to talk one-on-one to members of our community — faculty, staff, and students. We talked about our values and our visions for the college. But the benefit of hindsight suggests that he was looking for something else. He was mapping us, assessing our differences, our blind spots, and the social tensions that ran beneath the surface. Second, Bridges fired the provost, Michael Zimmerman. The provost, usually synonymous with the vice president for academics, is the chief academic officer at an institution of higher education. Zimmerman would have disapproved of what Bridges had in mind and would have had some power to stop it. But he was replaced by a timid (though well-liked) insider who became a pawn due to his compromised interim status and his desire not to make waves. 
Having mapped the faculty and fired the provost, Bridges began reworking the college in earnest. Surprise announcements became the norm as opportunities for discussion dwindled.
We know Bridges as the bow-tied, submissive flak-catcher of the protests. That's a very different fellow described above. I bet that describes a lot of these types.
The president took aim at what made Evergreen unique, such as full-time programs. He fattened the administration, creating expensive vice president positions at an unprecedented rate, while budgets tightened elsewhere due to drops in student enrollment and disappearing state dollars. He went after Evergreen’s unparalleled faculty autonomy, which was essential to the unique teaching done by the best professors. 
All of this should have been alarming to a faculty in which professors have traditionally viewed administrative interference in academic matters with great suspicion. But Bridges was strategic and forged an alliance with factions known to be obsessed with race. He draped the “equity” banner around everything he did. Advocating that Evergreen embrace itself as a “College of Social Justice,” he argued that faculty autonomy unjustly puts the focus on teachers rather than students, and that the new VP for Equity and Inclusion would help us serve our underserved populations. 
But no discussion was allowed of students who did not meet the narrow criteria of being “underserved.” Because of the wrapping, concerns about policy changes were dismissed as “anti-equity.” What was in the nicely wrapped box turned out to be something else entirely.
The civil rights movement is now pure plunder--ironic that this is one of Ta Nehisi Coates' favorite words. The fury of protesters, the pettiness of their complaints, these are measures of a sort of how deep into the nation's ruin they are. They'll have to work harder and harder to extract less and less from the American legacy, with more and more identities elbowing up to the trough.

Ever more creative monetization schemes will be required for emotional labor and other degradations.

Should be an interesting time ahead.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Alt Right Torah Talk with Luke Ford





Today's reading is Parasha Mikeitz (Gen. 41:1-44.17)

Casey and I are rather lame early in this one as Luke tries to rouse us from our goyishe torpor to realize the damage to America caused by Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

15:30 John J. Mearscheimer, liberal hegemony and the Jews.

26:30 Has Trump surrendered to the Lobby?

31:15 What's the basis of morality? Greg Johnson versus Richard Spencer.

34:40 Someone on the live chat challenges Luke's history and gets the smack-down. Don't fuck with the Luke.

48:50 The difference between Judaism and Christianity.

58:00 Luke on the superiority of the law over conscience.

1:05:05 Will Trump complete the system of German Idealism?

1:06:25 Yes, Trump will complete the system of German Idealism.

1:26:45 "Religious Jews are asked about the Talmud." A viral video wherein Hasidic Jews speak frankly about the Gentiles. We are not flattered.

1:27:20 The virtues of hypocrisy in the world of ethnic warfare.

1:38:00 Wherein we reason our way to the conclusion Judaism is a proposition religion, motivated solely by our concern for the Jews and humanity.

1:42:25 Is Casey cucked on white identity?

1:45: Joseph the archetypal court Jew.

Luke's notes on the show:

This week’s Torah portion tells the story of “Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt, and Joseph’s testing of his brothers.”
* The story of Joseph illustrates why Jews have rarely been popular with non-Jews but have often been useful to gentile rulers. Joseph was the first court Jew. He became second in power to the Pharoah and he took on, to some degree, an Egyptian point of view. He accuses his brothers of being spies. An ethnocentric group is quick to view outsiders as spies. Jews have sometimes accused me of being a spy in my conversion to Judaism. Anglos, being the least ethno-centric group around, are unlikely to view outsiders as spies.
* Joseph did not learn much from his experience. In Gen. 43:34, he gives Benjamin portions five times as large as the portions given to the rest of his brothers.
* What is the basis of morality? God, the state, evolutionary biology?
Luke: “Do you believe in objective morality and objective good and evil?”
Greg: “Yes. I think that morality and good and evil and things like that are based on nature. I follow the classical Greek notion of Natural Law and Natural Right. I believe those are reasonable views, that we can come up with an ethics that is based on nature, that’s not based simply on social convention or simply on revelation and appeals to religion. Science and socio-biology gives us a lot of useful information for constructing this ethic. Larry Arnhart has written a book called Darwinian Natural Rights. He’s influenced by classical political philosophy and natural right thinking and yet he shows that socio-biology supports a lot of the naturalistic ethical ideas that you find in classical Greek and Roman political philosophy. That is the outlook that I think is most promising. By appealing to science and to classical philosophy, we can come up with a moral consensus and political consensus that is reason-based and science-based and that allows us to sidestep inherently contentious and sometimes violence-inducing things like appeals to religious revelation.”
On November 26, 2017, I asked Richard Spencer: “What is the source of morality?”
Richard: “That’s a very deep question.”
“Morality and theology are ways of building a group consensus without using direct force so that people feel like they are… There’s an evolutionary origin of morality.”

Saturday, December 09, 2017

Potential of Color

[I posted a crappy edit of this earlier. I've cleaned it up and re-posted it. Sorry]

Steve Sailer's Taki column this week is about Raj Chetty's latest analysis of the vast database of anonymized tax data at his disposal. Chetty's takes the angle, as if to appeal, that America is shortchanging not only the underrepresented but itself by by leaving all that Potential of Color out there undeveloped. Sailer:
Should white men be blamed or thanked for inventing most of the technology that makes our lives better? A new study by Stanford economist Raj Chetty exploiting his unique access to your old 1040 tax returns argues that the massive gaps in inventiveness (as measured by patents) seen among the races, the sexes, and the regions of the country represent a tragic case of what he calls “Lost Einsteins: The Innovations We’re Missing”:   
Whites are more than three times as likely to become inventors as blacks. And 82% of 40-year-old inventors today are men. 
Chetty says, based on his study of 452 patent holders who were New York City public school students and for whom he has third-grade test scores: 
High-scoring black kids and Hispanic kids go into innovation at incredibly low rates…. There must be many “lost Einsteins” in those groups—children who appear to have been similarly able at a young age to their white and Asian peers but who never got a chance to deploy their skills. ["a mind is a terrible thing to waste"]
 Chetty writes: A lack of exposure to innovation can help explain why high-ability children in low-income families, minorities, and women are significantly less likely to become inventors. Importantly, such lack of exposure screens out not just marginal inventors but the “Einsteins” who produce innovations that have the greatest impacts on society.
Chetty is a real scientist but still evinces the obliviousness of a new class spawned by America's new diversity: the high-IQ, no-clue Southeast Asian newly arrived in the West, or marinated in its self-abasement in its schools, taking up political correctness and lecturing us with a the sort of confidence that comes from complete ignorance.
By the way, it’s unclear why Chetty’s study of inventors is entitled “Lost Einsteins” rather than “Lost Edisons." 
Chetty, who sometimes seems not all that familiar with his adoptive country, appears to have gotten the European scientific theorist Albert Einstein (who, although he once worked in a patent office, was not much of an inventor) confused with the American inventor Thomas Alva Edison (whose name is on 1,093 U.S. patents). 
Einstein, Edison…they both begin with “E.” Chetty lectures: 
In particular, targeting exposure programs to women, minorities, and children from low-income families who excel in math and science at early ages (e.g., as measured by performance on standardized tests) is likely to maximize their impacts on innovation. The Indian immigrant doesn’t seem all that aware that encouraging blacks (and, to a slightly lesser extent, Hispanics) as well as girls to study science and engineering has been an enormous social priority for the past half century.
Operating from the assumptions of disparate impact--that any disparity (favoring the majority) in achievement is a measure of discrimination, because there can be no disparities in God-given abilities between groups--Chetty purports to reveal a vast reserve of black and brown talent going underutilized, impoverishing the nation. He appeals not to our morality but to our practicality: equality is a material resource of a sort. But like Steve points out, finding and promoting that talent out of political and social concern has been one of the central projects of the United States for longer than Mr Chetty has been alive.

But there's an even bigger problem--somehow--for Chetty's assertion. Discrimination of the sort he imagines could not be maintained in our economy--eventually someone is going to go out there and hire all those talented blacks and browns for less and out-compete their self-hobbling discriminatory competitors. The notion is a non-starter.

The fact is employers are discriminating against blacks, for one group, when they facilitate unskilled immigration, looking for pliable and cheap workers from south of the border so they don't have to deal with, prominently among American groups, blacks.

"Underutilization" as a rhetorical argument was innovated in the early sixties in promoting the EEOC. Following the logic of disparate impact (not yet a term) the undeniable effect of racial discrimination in a population where talent is evenly distributed is a massive mis-allocation of resources.

Already it was argued explicitly that disparities measure discrimination.  We still labor under that misconception, contrived out of political necessity after discrimination law revealed itself unlikely to produce equality of results:
In the newly evolving view of institutional racism, individual intent was at best a secondary consideration. Instead, employment discrimination should be defined and attacked as a differential [disparate impact], rather than...as an act of prejudice. It's measure was simply the gap between the white and minority rates. This presumptive new definition in turn rested on an implicit normative theory of proportional representation absent that institutional racism had built into the workplace,  absent the discrimination that institutional racism had built into the employment structure...It's chief political strength lay in its practical utility as an implicit and self-justifying formula for equity. This was captured in the workaday concept known as "underutilization," a term...accepted as early as 1961. [bold added]
The concept was introduced out of impatience. Anti-discrimination law was not yielding results in achieving proportional representation--which was the whole point, despite the focus on discrimination as an objective wrong.
By the early 1960s...liberal reformers were beginning to question the FEP [Fair Employment Practice] model...Rutgers law professor Alfred W. Blumrosen studied...New Jersey's Civil Rights Commision...a "plaintiff's lawyer" who would spend a sabbatical year in 1965-66 helping the new EEOC organize its enforcement procedures...he brought to his study a "tough minded" model of "maximum enforcement,"...a mental image, a model of how the state agency should operate in order to have maximum impact...Blumrosen concluded...the...commission's enforcement patterns "typified administrative caution...[i]t was a failure.".
When an honest academic studied Massachusetts' enforcement of anti-discrimination law the results could not have been encouraging
Blumrosen's aggressive advocacy in a law review article still did not constitute an objective and comprehensive state study. But Leon Mayhew's Harvard dissertation in sociology did...his dissertation analyzed...the FEP commission in Massachusetts...it concentrated on the years since 1959...it focused more on the complexities of institutional processes than the efficacy of results...
Not that it would have mattered to Blumrosen, but the liberal go-getters of the civil rights movement were getting their first real introduction to black America. I won't say they were just getting to know black America, because they still haven't started that.
Mayhew...was sympathetic to the purpose of the FEP commisions...but unlike Hill [another pit-bull activist government lawyer], Mayhew was bound by the canons of scholarship enforced by a dissertation committee...he closely followed the processing of 118 complaint cases. The pattern he found was surprising. The evidence showed that "complaints developed by individuals whose structural position provides limited perspective are objectively poor...they tend to be based on mere suspicion, they are quite likely to eventuate in a finding of 'no probable cause,' and they tend to be made against firms that do not discriminate"
By 1966 the still-green EEOC had adopted disparate impact as the ultimate criterion, under pressure from feminists as well as the civil rights movement.
 ...the EEOC had inadvertently accelerated the social and political momentum of the civil rights movement toward a result-centered strategy that would equate race and sex in EEO enforcement. The new strategy would seek to determine the extent of both race and gender discrimination, and potentially the extent of any other categories of alleged discrimination, not by attempting to ascertain intent on a case-by-case basis, but rather by broadly applying a proportional model of statistical representation in the workforce.
...an opposing theory was pushed by the Nixon administration...based on an implicit theory of group rather than individual rights. Its core model was one of proportional representation of racial and ethnic groups, and it emphasized substantive rather than procedural equality. By the end of the Johnson administration the proportional or equal-results model was coming to dominate the enforcement strategies of the EEOC...the Nixon administration in its first year revived the moribund Philadelphia Plan...When...Congress reacted in dismay that autumn by trying to strip away the Plan's provision for job quotas, the Nixon administration hurled the full force of its lobbying muscle against them. 
By the Carter administration affirmative action was in effect as a "temporary" expedient in public pronouncements that was quickly (and more or less deliberately) morphing into an institution.
 That same year [1977] Justice Blackmun in Weber agreed that quotas wer
"a temporary tool for remedying past discrimination without attempting to 'maintain' a previously achieved balance." Yet despite these disclaimers from the highest authorities, everything we know about the normal politics of social regulation points in the opposite direction. In pluralist America, interest groups have historically entrenched themselves in the political infrastructure in defense of their claimed rights and entitlements.
Indeed. Groups like, say, Southeast Asians, entitled to entrench themselves in the political infrastructure, claiming their right to explain America to us.

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Princesses and Polemics

Fairy tales and domesticity are anathema to feminism. Indeed, the former's just propaganda for the oppression of the latter. Girls naturally prefer the rigors of astronauts and executives to the luxuries of princesses or the sanctuary of the home.

The image of the princess in Western culture looks a lot like the expression of an evolutionary impulse: the ultimate realization of womanhood by bagging the single most desirable male in the gene pool and retiring to a life of ease, wealth and family.

That young women might desire this is unfathomable to feminism. Like the rest of patriarchy, it's a trick the guys played on the women at some point, from which we've yet to recover. Yet somehow women remain far more interested in the British royal family, particularly in women marrying into it, than men.

Naturally female writers adapt their princess fantasies to feminist language. Meghan Markle--black, feminist, black--gives them cover to indulge their fascination.
At least that's what I think after reading this post in the Daily Beast by a female senior editor.
Activist with a decades-long track record of advocating for women and girls. Coupled with one of the most visible and desirable men in the world. Designers want to dress her. Adoring crowds gather to catch a glimpse of her. A woman for kids to look up to, settling comfortably into her role as pleasant figurehead on the world stage. These are things that Ivanka Trump wants to be. These are things Meghan Markle actually is.
How dare Ivanka claim to be the princess!
Ivanka wanted to be a princess, a denizen of photo-ops and collectible dishes Middle America can order from Parade magazine, like Princess Diana. A person beloved and celebrated like royalty, and immune to the critical eye of the political media. Problem is, there’s no “princess” position in the executive branch.
And, alas, none at the Daily Beast. Women here work for a living I tell you. Like Ms Markle, whose decades of achievement will eventually become legend:
Markle first publicly advocated for women and girls when she was just 11 years old, when she started a letter-writing campaign against an ad that suggested only women perform housework. The campaign got the attention of NickNews. Per the AFP, her role as a global ambassador for World Vision Canada took her to Rwanda and fostered her advocacy for children in other developing countries. She’s written about global stigma around menstruation, and spoken at the UN for International Women’s Day in 2015. During that talk, the self-described feminist said “Women need a seat at the table, they need an invitation to be seated there, and in some cases, where this is not available, they need to create their own table.”
Ivanka as the failed feminist doesn't get to be princess. Markle has put in her time. Like in Beauty and the Beast she's rewarded for loving the homely face of feminism with the handsome prince of domestic luxury.
In contrast [to dowdy old Ivanka], Markle is the fashion industry’s newest muse, in much the same way the Middleton sisters were nearly seven years ago. According, again, to the Times’ Vanessa Friedman, Marklemania has already started. Every outfit she wears inspires crazed levels of imitation. Magazines are already using Markle as a peg in style headlines. The coat she wore during her official engagement announcement crashed its brand’s website. Markle, Friedman notes, will “unquestionably be the most desired guest for any brand” at London Fashion Week this winter. 
Every day features a new Markle wedding dress fanfic piece written with the help of a bevy of designers and speculation. Will she pick Jenny Packham? Oscar de la Renta? She’s already described her perfect dress, says ABC (she actually didn’t describe anything specific at all). Whatever Markle picks, people will go apeshit over it.
"Whatever it is"? You mean, if she walks naked, like a royal figure in a familiar fairy tale, people will enthuse nonetheless?
There’s something uniquely 2017 fever-dreamy about the divergence of Ivanka and Markle’s fates. Markle, a working actress who once held a briefcase on Deal Or No Deal, gets to retire from the thornier parts of politics and into a life of a princess. Meanwhile Ivanka, the telegenic heiress of the man behind The Art of the Deal has found herself queen of the frogs.
Not "fever-dreamy", just dreamy. One little girl's dream, like every girl's dream, to be whisked away...

Comments Elsewhere

Over at Steve Sailer's comment section someone suggested the present sexual inquisition began not with Harvey Weinstein but with Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly and "the host of the Five", and I don't know what's worse, knowing who the "host of the Five" is or not. Maybe that's why he goes unnamed. I responded.

The comparison is lame. Weinstein’s scandal launched the present inquisition overnight, whereas those other guys–political figures always at such risk–all fell in typical if spectacular fashion.

As a putatively non-political but powerful figure, Weinstein enjoyed as we see a much higher degree of license, despite the open secret of his behavior and his connection to the Clintons. They’re reporting today about warnings HRC’s campaign received regarding Weinstein, with Lena Dunham claiming to have told them he’s a “rapist.”

Weinstein’s transitioning into politics would be expected to raise this risk for him. Dunham and others were operating on this reasonable assumption. Having a cable news network at his disposal didn’t save Ailes, but Harvey had the Clintons. More importantly he had a movie studio.

So the guy who’s been getting away with murder all of a sudden goes down and the damn bursts, sexual offense is redefined and broadened, applied retroactively and sparing no one.

The original take-down of Weinstein may have happened simply because his rival/brother saw he was weak after studio revenue started falling off (and Hillary lost the election) and struck. Now this thing is out of anyone’s control.

I’m less interested in why Weinstein now than why the sexual inquisition now, only after Weinstein. Have we simply reached a tipping point? Or, were women primed for it by the “pussy hat” hysterics in response to Trump? I don’t see how they could not have been. Still, O’Reilly and Ailes went down as one-offs. And Harvey sparked a conflagration. Maybe it’s just because Hollywood is the more combustible part of the media, as his antics and energy demonstrate. He went down in the middle of that and it wasn’t very far to the next randy abuser or patsy as the case may be.

And, Hollywood being Hollywood, for nearly every one of these charges there’s a play at work, someone settling a score or someone being taken down. The rules changed overnight and all of these people are armed with bludgeon. Further there’s the encouraging effect of all those examples. Once it gets going and women see they don’t have anything to fear and maybe something to gain (aside from whether or not their charges are genuine) it feeds on itself.

Once Weinstein fell it was as if an ogre had been toppled. They must’ve thought this guy invincible (including Hillary). There’s a “look, it bleeds” aspect to the reaction, cowed people suddenly liberated and running rampant.

That needed to happen in Hollywood, and for it to happen Trump had to happen–specifically, the epic own goal that is the “pussy hat” movement in reaction to–what?–Trump’s tape revealing the depravity and sexual license of show business.

And they say there’s no God!

Monday, December 04, 2017


Balam Acab, Oh Why

Petty Profundities

I opened the front door to the cool slick fall night and the cat raced past my feet. Normally he'd rise, languidly stretch and walk inside with feline nonchalance.

I looked one way then the other, saw nothing, closed the door. Moments later I notice the bird he's brought inside--for some reason he's abandoned it for the moment on the floor. It's a sparrow. Do they come out at night? He's on his  back and gasping for air. I'm conflicted, if mildly--proud of the old cat's hunting prowess and sorry for the bird.

You can go your whole life without confronting death face to face, as it were, in the modern world. I wonder if this makes it harder or easier when you at last have to face it. I'll probably find out myself. I've grown old never having seen a corpse outside of a coffin.

Wearing a plastic bag like a glove I picked him up as gently as I could. He didn't move. I took him outside and laid him down, squeezing the air out of the bag slowly until I was holding him there in between my palms. Now what to do with him?

Putting him in the garbage wouldn't do so I took him out back. There's a creek there, just over a picket fence in a ravine, indicated in the deep dark only by its sound. Throwing him into the creek seemed a respectful enough means. I was compelled by some slight God-is-watching sense of guilt to make a show of it. Also vanity, somehow, as always, the sense that everyone is watching that never goes away if you're me. I'm not sure these are two different things.

He was still warm. I couldn't bury a warm body. What if he's still alive? He seemed to get warmer in fact; does body heat surge as the life passes out? I would wait. If there's some tiny bit of sentience there, of suffering, then perhaps this ameliorates it. You won't die alone I thought, holding this bird that was likely already dead as a boot.

He took his time. I was in a shadow of black between the house and a massive evergreen that emerges improbably from the middle of the little creek. The half-moon and stars appeared three dimensional behind the flat screen of the skeletal bare branches of an oak tree.
I wavered. It's a bird. This is ridiculous, I know it is. But I'm looking for profundity wherever I can find it. I'm also looking for something else. What?

He cooled and I went back inside where it's warm.

Here and There

No comment


Alt Right Torah Talk with Luke Ford



Today's reading is Parasha Vayeshev (Genesis 37:1–40:23)

Luke Ford Talks to Greg Johnson

Just Sayin' you can't Just Say That

Is this for real?

Donald Trump retweeted three video clips of anti-white Muslim aggression, without comment. Instantly the news cycle was convulsed. Trump's tweets course through the neural pathways of the system like dopamine.

The outrage seized on the source, a British woman facing jail for speaking against Muslim immigration. Guilt by association always helps to distract from substance. And of what is she guilty? Stuff like the offending tweets, I imagine.

As for the substance of those tweets, there's always the obscurantist option

  

Glenn Greenwald might be slipping into millennial-speak when he issues the nonsensical phrase "random Muslims", but it helps his argument still. He means presumably random acts by Muslims, but there's nothing random about patterns. These videos are documentary proof of a pattern. They only reach us through the interference of Glenn and his ilk.

(I'm reminded of something I witnessed a few years back. A newly assigned New York Times reporter working in Palestine wrote of her impressions of Palestinians mourning for those killed by Israeli troops. The funerals were outpourings of intense lamentations, but after and beyond that the deaths were taken with a stoicism this western, Jewish woman did not recognize.
The implications were clear, if not to her. A cyber-posse rode out, Glenn and others, I think all Jewish, and she was publicly chastised for the racism of suggesting even a cultural difference between Jews and Palestinians. She quickly pleaded ignorance and apologized. Her impressions were mistaken, coercion made clear to her now.
After this satisfactory conclusion Greenwald observed approvingly "this is how it's supposed to work." What "it" is exactly he didn't say, but I don't think it's journalism.)

It is surreal: the Anglo-descended president of the United States roundly denounced by the West's respectable class for documenting foreigners attacking and humiliating westerners in their home countries. With the vast pozzed middle acquiescing or supporting them. One British luminary promised Trump would be met with massive protests if he dared visit, and he's to be believed. A vast, motley horde is at the globalists' command.

"Delete your account" British pols literally demanded, without the customary humor. Indeed, ashen is the only way I can describe the pallor of one horrified luminary who suggested Trump be charged with hate crimes. The elite appears terrified. Trump's actions are unfathomable.

Trump's re-tweets constitute a revolutionary act.

 As much as it's rustled the gilded jimmies of our degenerate elite, it may--it has to, one thinks--be giving hope to indigenous British caught between a hostile government and hostile Muslims.


Trump's intrusion into British domestic politics subverts and betrays the global elite, talking past them to the white populations they loathe and fear. It's astounding that it's happening, and that it needs to in the first place.

The progressive order is global, and by its very nature. Opposition tends to be local, by its very nature. Beyond the harried and harassed of the alt right there is no global opposition. Trump may have changed all that. Just the--forgive the phrase--raised consciousness of it could be transformative.

What a global alt right would look like is anyone's guess. But just the idea of it, widely held, has the potential to accelerate a showdown with the global elite that seems better coming sooner rather than later.

Ross Douthat called Candidate Trump a "traitor to his class" for his economic nationalism. Now he's a traitor to his time, the Current Year. As for the Brit-pol suggesting Trump could be charged under the same laws as the woman he retweeted, the law is the law. The president isn't above the law in his home. Why should he be above Britain's laws? US citizens have been denied visas for political views. Why not the president?

Leonid Bershidsky is a Jewish Russian expatriate journalist who writes opinion for Bloomberg. Here he makes a show of leaving Russia in 2014, citing Putin's press restrictions and the annexation of Crimea. He's spent a career in Russian media for a western audience, working for such as the Moscow Times.

The New York Times' profile of Tony Hovater, "the Nazi Next Door", went down harsh, from the hard left to the normie middle. Mr Bershidsky offers a chaser:
Tony Hovater, the Ohio man whose profile in The New York Times caused much indignation last weekend, would have been in jail or at least under close police surveillance if he lived in Germany. In the U.S., Hovater is free to keep posting swastika-filled pictures on Facebook — but the writer and editors who published a piece about him that was bleakly neutral in tone face ferocious anger for "normalizing" the Nazi sympathizer. 
A certain part of U.S. society's desire to set rules has been frustrated by the election of Donald Trump as president — though, in fact, it was frustrated even earlier, by years of Republican majorities in Congress. That frustration is manifesting itself as vocal outrage campaigns on the same social networks that have enabled Trump supporters to organize and white supremacists to find like-minded people in other parts of the country. But rather than bring change, the outrage will deepen rifts.
Everyone who's anyone is angry the Nazi in the story is so nice and harmless--but they would be untroubled in Europe, where he would be thrown in jail for dissent no matter how decent. Bershidsky has the profile of the soulless international bug man, and this piece on its face is a common enough type: an author implicitly suggesting a radical solution in ostensible neutrality. But he goes so far I'm tempted to think it a disguised satire or something. If Bershidsky was alt right, a conspiracy theory of his working for the Deep State to make the movement look ridiculous.
After 1945, Germany chose to pass laws that made most radical right propaganda, as well as Nazi symbols, illegal. These laws are still in force. The Constitutional Protection Office watches people who tend to cut it too close. A tourist who throws a Nazi salute in jest can get arrested. It's not just swastikas that are banned — schools routinely forbid the wearing the clothes of certain brands that are associated with the neo-Nazi movement. Hate speech against groups of people, including races, is a crime. A vast majority of Germans approves of these rules. Those who don't — such as members of the far-right NPD party or the most radical elements within the milder Alternative for Germany party — keep quiet about it or run legal risks. Other countries without Germany's history of Nazi rule — such as Sweden and Switzerland — have also legislated against Nazi symbols.
The standard social-media outrage campaign that quickly brought the NYT to heel is nonetheless waged over media that allows "Trump supporters to organize" and frees "white supremacists" from their isolation. The implied argument here is that social media may have to be sacrificed to social justice. The Left isn't winning there, but, as the author realizes, the Left was winning before social media's democratic revolution messed up the program. Social media is a front and fight the powerful don't need because they run everything outside of it.

I expect nostalgia to kick in eventually, for those simpler times.
A citizen who doesn't break the law is protected by society as a whole, however immoral his actions. It isn't writing about Hovater that "normalizes" his behavior; it's the lack of legal consequences when he embraces Nazi symbolism. Trump's election, Hovater told New York Times writer Richard Fausset, helped drive that home. He now brushes off attacks with "Yeah, so?"
That's a mess of a paragraph. I'm not sure how Trump's election freed Hovater from thinking about criminal sanction. It's social sanction that has been lifted, slightly, for those with less to risk. What he seems to be getting at here is that social sanction doesn't cut it anymore, so criminal sanction may be our only recourse. That and not criminalizing a thing is "normalizing" it.
All the outrage campaigns against "normalizing" white nationalism and sexual harassment, two sins of which Trump has been accused, might seem like a call for legislative change. But there is no serious movement for German-style hate speech laws or Nazi symbol bans making their way through Congress. There are no proposals to match this year's German law that requires social networks to remove hate speech or face steep fines.
But there's no support for that here. The noise of these daily controversies is just that for the most part. So far the Left hasn't had to give up its own freedom of expression to silence opposition for the most part, having the socials under their control and applying unashamedly biased policies. But that only goes so far. The Left is losing the Battle of Social Media and may have to call a bomb strike on their own position.

They might not have had to do that if Hillary Clinton had won.
“Research shows that the dynamic that leads to outrage is not the same as that which effects change,” says Ronny Patz, a nongovernmental organization researcher at Munich's Ludwig Maximilian University. “When such waves, such scandals come into focus, it helps when there’s already a process afoot that matches the outrage.” He means a legislative process, and he's right. In response to the criticism of Fausset's piece, The New York Times felt compelled to issue a deftly worded nonapology and to remove from the piece a link to a website selling swastika armbands. But it's a long way from this kind of damage control to real, lasting change.  
Such change would require going through the normal political process: drafting legislation, pushing it through Congress and getting it signed by the president, or overriding his veto. In the U.S., of course, the Supreme Court could also legislate outside this process, as it effectively did with gay marriage — something that wouldn't work in European countries, where referendums and parliamentary majorities have made the decision. 
We have here a chilling vision of what might have been. Hillary Clinton and her Supreme Court instituting controls on speech and media, with a punitive vengeance for our defiance in bringing forth Trump.

Friday, December 01, 2017

Places of our Own

‘For people of color by people of color’ 
The student newspaper at Evergreen State College has a section in its opinion pages described as “for people of color by people of color.”
“This should be a place where we can be us without it being overshadowed by the dark cloud that is living under white supremacy and having to see things from a white perspective. This is why when we do cover these issues it will be in the context and from the perspective of POC and POC only,” according to the section’s editors as they reintroduced it to readers in September.
The anonymous column, known as “POC Talk,” debuted in the bi-weekly Cooper Point Journal last year and returned this fall to the newspaper’s pages following racial unrest that erupted at the public university this past spring.

“Dear White people, please take a step back, this isn’t brown-people-answer-white-people’s-questions-hour, we’re asking specifically for submissions from POC,” the section’s editors added in their September intro. “As being told no seems to be a difficult concept for some of y’all I await your emails about the Irish, how the term white fragility is mean (great example of white fragility) and how we need to view people through a color-blind lens (just lol). You will 100% not get a response!!!”\
Published in the Journal’s Letters Opinion section, POC Talk says it provides “no-holds-barred commentary on local happenings.” In the inaugural POC Talk column, it was suggested that a subject touched on in the column could possibly include “how do I rid myself of white-dread [sic] roommate’s numerous micro-agressions.” Topics the column has discussed include student activism, self care, the local comedy scene as well as the turmoil that upended the college after students in May accused a white biology professor, Bret Weinstein, and the university of perpetuating racism. 
The Cooper Point Journal did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding the column.
This is the same Evergreen College that was being patrolled by a band of lesbians led by a black alpha trannie, all armed with baseball bats, after having shut the school down over some minor offense to their collective pride. Say what you will about the Left, it has the most colorful riff raff. Rightwingers are just embarrassing in comparison.


These guys remind me of Orson Welles' kinky Tijuana street gang in A Touch of Evil. That group featured fifties rock and rollers, a bull dyke and a middle-aged tio with a bad toupee. There is a musical in l'affaire Weinstein if only we can find some gays with both the inclination and willingness to strike this close to their own home.



But home is the thing. Are the kids of color and woe entirely full of it when they lament their status and experience at American universities?

If you leave out the Theory, if you apply the working assumption that rationalization of personal interests is being expressed, however clumsily, by largely self-deluded, immature and mostly unintelligent people who are nonetheless struggling with genuine and powerful emotions--emotions continually aroused by indoctrination--you find something at least honest at the base of it all. And that is the feeling on the part of these kids that they don't "belong" in an academic environment, that they can't compete and that its demands are oppressive.

These things are all true. The university is, perhaps, a microcosm of the minority experience in America, with a particular intensity due to the "white" nature of the university--a white invention. There are two ways minority students can feel alienated from this environment, closely related: they are either incapable scholastically because of affirmative action, or the totality of the environment is oppressive and foreign. As oppressive and foreign as the 'hood would be to the sort of white scholar who thrives in this environment. Because it was literally made for him.

Of course that is changing, by a deliberate process punctuated by the occasional violent whim of students and faculty.

That's what so much of the racial strife is really about right now. People want to fashion the world to conform to their personal and group desires. Black people have made an awful lot of progress, using musical and athletic ability, to shape America in their image. Jews--unashamed of their ethnicity, unlike their WASP counterparts--determine the way we think, laugh and, largely, act.

There is a difference. Jews don't feel the need to lobby for "safe spaces". They simply create them. One could say they're making of the West one giant safe space for the Jews. Blacks, proud as only they can be of their cultural influence, wage culture as ethnic warfare to great effect. But the same suite of stereotypical traits that make black culture seductive ensure blacks will never master the political or social realms to improve their position. But they have managed to change us. The average pozzed normie is a second-rate black person (or Jew) culturally. The first he accepts like a cuck, the second he isn't even aware of.

Sometimes I think a lot of this is payback. Someone like Philip Roth is perpetually offended by the foreign nature of his world. Ralph Ellison's novel Invisible Man transcended the black genre as a tale of the alienation of the man living in an alien and hostile culture. Now it's you're turn, Whitey (Goyim).

Having had the "racism" wrung out of us we can barely conceive the thought, much less the language, to consider the possibility that our world is increasingly ill-suited to the individual white because it isn't his. He laughs at crude black humor because everyone else does. He pretends to "get" thoroughly Jewish stories and themes. Life for him--us--is one long bad evening nodding along to the ramblings of a boor.

He isn't alone: no individual is suited to a society without a single ethnic and cultural core. Indeed, is there any "society" left in such a society?

The peace of mind of genetic and cultural affinity the minority member must seek in the minority community.

At least he has that. What do you have?


Thursday, November 30, 2017

...y luego vinieron a buscar Geraldo...

I speculated yesterday whether Geraldo would fall to the current sexual inquisition for his defense of Matt Lauer, and today Bette Midler, at least, says he should, for an act that was "unseemly" in 1991 (relating a story from the Seventies) and is now a hanging offense.

But most notable is Midler's referencing the Lauer defense. This is what he's being punished for; the transgression is cashed in like a chip in the Narrative casino.


I find it difficult to dislike Bette Midler even when she tries. But watching this one has to be struck by the decline in the quality of female celebrities. Even Barbra Walters comes across better than I remember. What happened to genuinely tough (and funny) broads? That's when women were women.

Older boomers who were adults in the Seventies are compromised as a class by this sudden sexual inquisition. Geraldo wrote a whole book boasting of his sexual escapades. So many out there remain vulnerable, the white ones already undergoing a sort of racial inquisition, with which this one blends seamlessly. The treadmill of white celebrity must be a harrowing experience at the moment. The New Cruelty isn't impressed.



Midler's cavalier attitude about Geraldo's act at the time--and, if true, it is disgraceful--and her bringing it up now reminds me of an earlier celebrity revelation's journey. MacKenzie Phillips, daughter of Michelle Phillips of sixties folk rock act The Mamas and the Papas, who was in a Seventies sitcom before becoming known as a troubled ex-celebrity and, she asserts, incest survivor, told a story on Howard Stern's radio program in the Nineties (I heard it; can't find it) about how, on her eighteenth birthday, she was maneuvered into a room by Mick Jagger, who closed the door behind him and said "I've been waiting for this for years."

She went on to say they spent the night together and it was "pretty terrific." Her attitude was casual and humorous, someone in recovery boasting of an escapade on the path of excess.

Fast forward to years later and Phillips is promoting her book. I see a clip of her on Oprah. She's wiping tears away and saying "...and then he said 'I've been waiting for this for years'..."

They'll never get as far as Mick Jagger though.

Popcorn Purge

Is Geraldo next?


If language is violence "flirty business" is practically a hand wending its way to the proverbial pussy. Geraldo withdrew that hand hastily once he heard the gasp:

If they keep purging they're going to have quite a little fraternity of the ostracized out there to worry about.

Lake--Oh You Gone

Did Garrison Keeler became the latest and unlikeliest casualty of 2017's moral panic/political purge because of a defense of Al Franken in the Washington Post  he published just yesterday?
Al Franken...did USO tours overseas...the show he did was broad comedy of a sort that goes back to the Middle Ages...If you thought that Al stood outdoors at bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and told stories about small-town life in the Midwest, you were wrong. On the flight home, in a spirit of low comedy, Al ogled Miss Tweeden and pretended to grab her and a picture was taken. Eleven years later, a talk show host in LA, she goes public, and there is talk of resignation. This is pure absurdity, and the atrocity it leads to is a code of public deadliness. No kidding.
The mild Minnesotan hasn't the energy to defend himself.
 “It’s some sort of poetic irony to be knocked off the air by a story, having told so many of them myself, but I’m 75 and don’t have any interest in arguing about this,” he said. “And I cannot in conscience bring danger to a great organization I’ve worked hard for since 1969.”
His decency is genuine, his position untenable. At this stage in the panic/purge the accusations are convictions and the convicted gone in a cloud of dust:
Effective immediately, MPR said, it will no longer distribute and broadcast Mr. Keillor’s remaining programs, “The Writer’s Almanac” and “The Best of A Prairie Home Companion Hosted by Garrison Keillor.”
Keilor cancelled his public appearances, and MPR is moving swiftly to remove his trace:
It will also change the name of American Public Media’s current incarnation of the show, which Chris Thile, a songwriter and mandolinist, took over in October 2016, after Mr. Keillor stepped down. 
We're thisclose to airbrushing people out of photos. In announcing the name change it's almost as if they're sending a signal, or rubbing it in at least. In his defense of Franken Keilor ridiculed the practice of renaming things out of political correctness:
 My friend Pastor B.D. Christensen said something so good Sunday morning that I woke up and wrote it down: “[something something] . . . about making peace with the mistakes of the past [blah blah blah] and learning from them. It’s slippery ground, in general, to judge past actions by present standards and with a benefit of hindsight that is, morally, highly questionable.” 
And immediately I thought about the Minneapolis Park Board voting to rename Lake Calhoun as Lake Bde Maka Ska because the man for whom it was named back in the early 1820s was a slavery enthusiast from South Carolina and an author of the Indian Removal Act and also, judging from his pictures, ugly as a mud fence.
Your critique of the effectiveness of renaming will be taken under consideration Mister...uh...Mis-ter...um...?
But that part about projecting present "standards" onto past acts is interesting--are they standards, exactly, we're invoking? Because that past, despite its presumed pre-feminist blight, is distinguishable from this one by people old enough to remember as having considerably higher standards.

“I’ve been fired over a story that I think is more interesting and more complicated than the version MPR heard. Most stories are" Keilor lamented. How true. Diversity and feminism are killing us--through the culture. Ever more groups to offend, to placate with unearned representation. Diversity is a web we're in.

The purge and social justice aren't interested in "interesting". They deplore it. That's a genuine tragedy--the dampening effect of diversity and political correctness on culture, where, just for starters, less and less can be said for greater and greater risk of giving offense.

But Keilor is above all else inoffensive--and liberal. So it makes me think again he's being punished for that op ed, which may soon be memory-holed along with Keilor. The Post attached this disclaimer to the (now) dangerous and suspect words:
Update, 1:14 p.m. Nov. 29: After we published this column, Minnesota Public Radio announced it was terminating its contracts with Garrison Keillor due to “allegations of his inappropriate behavior with an individual who worked with him.” The Post takes allegations of this kind seriously and is seeking more information about them.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Swiftology and the Doctrine of the Present

The Current Year has been going on for years. The meme goes back to 2015, making that the first year of the Current Year. John Oliver's fallacy was born of a broader triumphal attitude on the Left following the ascent of Obama--that multiculturalism was irreversible. If the passage of time trumps all for you it's because you like the way things are going.

Those were the days we measured progress in days.

Then came the Trump "Resistance", postmodern anarcho-tyranny waged from the recording studios of Hollywood and Manhattan.
Despite nothing material changing since the election, and no real challenge to the cultural hegemony--other than that implied by Trump's election--the Left pushes for stricter limits on speech and behavior while doubling down on pro-Narrative propaganda. The genuine hysterics mask the totalitarian power grab. We have the first resistance practicing public purges. It's all very weird.

Having long ago banned too openly "conservative" people from participation in celebrity--yet, somehow, still, Trump!--there is nothing else now but to come for the silent or suspect. Taylor Swift counts as both. But they'd been after her for a long time--since she had the temerity to win one of Beyonce's awards, at least, but then Kanye only took the stage in outrage because Taylor was so provocatively white a persona in the first place. She was greeted with hostility by black America and artists from the get-go.

Black America adopted her as a white icon long before white nationalists, for the same reasons and without irony.

Swift's haters are taking advantage of the new, harsher cultural order mandated by the Resistance, to take her down if they can. Trump was their 9/11. The Resistance spawns various versions of the Iraq War, ginned up to milk the mania. One of those campaigns is turned on Swift. Steve Sailer's law of female journalism is very much in evidence and effect.

(That law, something like "most female journalism is dedicated to creating a world wherein the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking" should come with the corollary that black women demonstrate the effect with a higher level of intensity.)

Along with this a diverse millennial generation is assuming the establishment media reigns. Salon and Slate have long nurtured the SJW thumbsucker genre, where young writers weave warm coats for their vanity out of critical race theory and the latest Current Year fads.

Being well into the Current Year the fossils of the old establishment are sounding more and more like Slate and Salon. Time and Newsweek, grasping for both solvency and relevance, have adopted critical theory and identity politics fads in analyses and editorials.

(It's telling that no mainstream outlet yet has even thought of dipping a toe into the alt right perspective; it's not that they're leaving money on the table, they don't even want to know if it's there.)

So it was perhaps inevitable the Guardian would call out Taylor Swift's racism in its very own editorial voice, and the tone of that voice now has a hint of up-talk.
In the year since Donald Trump was elected, the entertainment world has been largely united in its disdain for his presidency. But a notable voice has been missing from the chorus: that of Taylor Swift, the world’s biggest pop star. Her silence is striking, highlighting the parallels between the singer and the president: their adept use of social media to foster a diehard support base; their solipsism; their laser focus on the bottom line; their support among the “alt-right”.
Is there a name for the "striking parallel" that isn't? Even if Trump and Swift were somehow alone in "adept use of social media" (Kim Kardashian is Hitler) it wouldn't tie them together ideologically.

But what struck me above all was this particle of oblivion:
Swift’s songs echo Mr Trump’s obsession with petty score-settling in their repeated references to her celebrity feuds, or report in painstaking detail on her failed romantic relationships (often, there is crossover). The message is quintessentially Trumpian: everyone is out to get me – but I win anyway. Seeded with clues to the identities of her famous associates, her lyrics reel in and solidify a hardcore fanbase – usually young, female followers known as “Swifties” – who passionately defend her honour on social media by attacking her detractors
As I wrote here before, Swift's "petty score-settling" is her adoption of the black model of popular music. Indeed, the pettiest and most prominent of those scores is that with Kanye West. Trump always appealed to black rappers especially, before he became a political figure in earnest, precisely for his style, which (you want to bang your head against the wall sometimes) he adopted in some part from black popular culture!
But even Trump didn't invent the posse of dedicated friends. That too is Harlem, not Queens or Taylor Swift's Reading, Pennsylvania.

The elite are operating the Megaphone out their ass.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Luke Ford's Torah Talk with Richard Spencer

 Richard Spencer joins us at 47:40

 

48.20
Luke asks about the recent interrupted NPI conference which Richard describes as a success despite being "ejected from the facility" before they were able to finish.

54.15
Spencer tells about being threatened by Poland's defense minister and banned from the entire Schengen Zone.

1.14.30
Vivian asks about Faith Goldy, fired from The Rebel for giving an interview to a Daily Stormer linked podcast.

Spencer:"I think we could all kind of sense she had identitarian leanings...I'm not sure I want to make everyone alt right...I have bashed the alt lite but the reason I bash them is because they attack us...but if an alt lite could exist that wouldn't do that, that could recognize the truth of our movement...but we're still in the conservative matrix, the normie matrix...when I bash the alt lite I bash these particular individuals I don't like..."
Vivian asks about Gavin McGinnis "Well, he's really reaching out to the butt-plug community." He goes on to defend him somewhat, but he has a low opinion of most of the alt lite.

He's not impressed with the alt lite: “These people are not our friends — Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, James O’Keefe, Gavin McInnes. They are all these weird personalities. They’re botched people. The Alt Lite is not sending us their best. They are these strange marginal people. They view us as stealing their thunder. They want to be the edgy no-holds-barred Alt Right. The young hip edgy people. I’ve never viewed them as friends. I viewed them as temporary allies in 2016.”

1.32.16
Luke asks about Jason Jorjani.

1.35.25
Luke: "Why are you the face of the alt right?"

"...I was willing to be out front...I was willing to use my face and name...I have been in this for the long haul, I didn't just jump on this train...I coined the phrase 'alt right'...if I don't say so myself I can be charming and charismatic and provocative..."

1.40.30
Luke asks about Greg Johnson. "He's attacked you fifteen different ways to Sunday...you almost never respond."

Spencer: "I really don't like him as a person, I think he is a bad person, I will be perfectly honest. He is a divisive person who thrives on creating internecine disputes...the kind of things he's done behind my back that are not public that are actually far more poisonous than anything he's written...using someone as your reverse compass...he seems to desire to take the opposite perspective on me even though he's clearly wrong...I actually think I've been rather polite in what I've had to say about him...I don't think people like that are good for any movement, they thrive on division..."

1.44.00
Luke asks if Andrew Joyce's essay "Homosexuality and the Alt Right" changed his "views in any way".

Spencer: "It actually did...I don't think it fundamentally change Andrew in a way was criticizing people like me who would say 'we don't have to talk about the homosexual question'...Joyce actually...did change my views...I was one of those 'live and let live' types."

1.45.10
Luke: "What can the average person who doesn't want to get exposed do to support your cause?"

Spencer: "...our cause generally needs funds...support what you like, there are a lot of personalities in this movement...I would say sharing our material with friends and family...at the very least not counter-signalling us to friends and family...a lot us in 2016 with the election of Trump I think we kind of got out ahead of our skis...we...were going to be mainstream...we were going to have people working in the Trump administration...come out of the shadows...that didn't really happen...we did make a major breakthrough...but...can someone come out to their coworkers as being alt right? ...no...I think people can be much more useful by being secret agents...not attending conferences actually...if they are someone in a position of power or influence...they probably should not even attend a conference...we're in this weird space...our movement is part of the mainstream...millions know there's an alternative...yet we're still taboo, maybe more taboo..."

1.48.25
Paul Gottfried

Carl Schmitt

1.51.15
Luke asks about Andrew Anglin. "...I'm not quite sure I quite know what to make of him...I would say this to a normie though, 'look, he is trolling to a large degree but there's some insight in there as well'...we do fundamentally different things...but I'm also not going to throw him under the bus...I think having a healthy distance between him and me is the best and he'd agree with that..."

White Sharia

1.55.00
The Daily Shoah. "A very down to earth show."
Regarding the "hail Trump, hail victory" controversy: "I certainly knew how provocative that would be...our movement should be about winning...

1.58.50
I ask Richard the "when did you get woke?" question. "I don't think there was one moment."

We talk about eugenics, China, technology. He rejects the rejection of empire. "...we're going to have to be engaged in determining the world order...little nationalist Poland will be bulldozed...by China or some other major power...we need to rule...if we don't someone else will...we need to think geopolitically or someone else will dominate us...we are going to have to think about our civilization on a geopolitical level..."

Luke: "Richard, where do you think Hitler was wrong?"

"I would just ask that we table that for a later time."

Saturday, November 25, 2017

The Last White Celebrity

Taylor Swift hasn't come out and said she's okay with being white, of course, but she hasn't explicitly denied it either, and just look at her.

There is something to the coincidence of the "Okay to be White" trolling and the renewed intensity of the anti-Swift movement now. Like the other components of the Left, black advocacy  is enlivened and a little manic after the election of Trump. An awful lot of people are taking advantage of that to indulge personal prejudices, such as those against skinny white Beckys for instance.

You have to hand it to Swift. She soldiers on, despite having virtually no defenders in a sub-genre of criticism dedicated to her. Somewhere there is a college course dedicated to her, and not the adulatory sort "studying" Beyonce.

It's been almost a decade since black America's campaign against her began in earnest, with Kanye West's public humiliation of her in an act that would have ruined his career not long before. As it is, he demonstrated a new level of acceptable public racial provocation, which continues to grow in malice.

West's cultural guerrilla warfare blew out the Overton Window for anti-white animus.



Indeed, black hostility toward Swift tracks Kanye's periodic acts of hostility toward her, and is subdued but still very evident during periods of Kanye-determined detente, demonstrating the astounding if unacknowledged privilege black America enjoys. Most of Swift's provocations of the black public come from her responses to West's random attacks. Swift's career has become intertwined with his. Every work of hers is scoured for references to him.

Indeed, in her relationship to West and black America Swift is drawn into the black model of popular music based on personal conflicts and self-aggrandizement.

Kanye tested America with his stunt. But the reaction to it--white America's shrug, corporate America's indifference, black America's approval--consecrated the thing. His petty act proved to be of great moment and hastened significantly the present untenable state of anti-white hatred in America.
West's eventual but complete victory over Swift laid waste to implicit limits on giving offense to whites, as well to as white notions of decorum. He thrived after and by the act, establishing a not just viable but attractive option for others. This has the effect of monetizing anti-white animus.

It was a watershed in the present pilfer-and-appropriate phase of the American civil rights movement. At the same time institutions and culture (and wealth) are being separated from their white progenitors in the name of diversity, blacks seek to banish whites from "black" culture, music, fashion. Other ethnicities follow suit--blacks are the real "model minority", in that theirs is the political model for racial group advocacy, universally if unevenly adopted (even by "model minority" Asian and South Asians, astutely seeing no need for their prosperity to deny them their share of American ruin).
Diversity is a spider's web; move this way offend one, move that way offend another. Whites hold still to avoid giving offense. Taking Kanye and his ilk for a joke we are like the man-in-the-burning-room: this is fine.



Even slang becomes proprietary. What's yours is ours, what's ours is ours is the present attitude of non-whites, with the vigorous approval of their white allies.

Trump doesn't challenge black America or its privileged status directly--he seems to accept it--but he challenges a status quo that greatly favors black America. Despite being made up of countless emotional and irrational individual expressions, collectively black resistance to Trump is rational self interest without emotional attachment (or recognition of) a broader national interest.

White spaces are a threat. White faces are a threat.

Where there was condescension for whites as a group safely displaced, if still hanging around and helpfully doing all the work, now there is paranoia. Like the old joke about racist cops finding a criminal conspiracy in three black guys standing on the street corner, any such concentration of whites is a hate crime. The difference of course being the former retains some connection to reality.

The unrealistic characterization of diversity in mainstream media propaganda--and it's all propaganda now--takes on a whole new urgency. White spaces are now potential hamlets of resistance. Individual whites are potential icons of resistance--as the humorous adoption of Taylor Swift by white nationalists demonstrates.

As with everything else the Left seems incapable of keeping track of the sequence of events. Taylor Swift was made into a figure of white supremacy by blacks for being too white long before Trump and the meme wars.

In advertising, film and television it's long been standard practice that no group can be too large without the mediating presence of non-whites. There is a number, probably around six, over which no group presented in a television ad, for instance, can be all white. A single family of whites is still allowed (but nearly discouraged, and balanced now by mixed-race families).

There are rules as well for the individual presentation of blacks and whites in media, all bent on portraying the former superior to the latter.

Against the backdrop of reality, where whites risk murder merely by setting foot in black neighborhoods from which occasionally issue raiding bands of murderous orc-like children, in a reality where the limits of black malice appear limited only by that same indulgence we grant Kanye West; in a time when it's not outrageous to imagine them slaughtering us in the streets if only given the encouragement and means, against these things the ongoing black supremacy kitsch of popular culture is barbaric and sickening.

It can't be much longer tolerated.

It's okay to be white. It's okay to be Taylor Swift.