Sunday, October 15, 2017

Convene the Sanhedrin, Call the Heathen, it's Torah Time



Luke opens with description of recently concluded Sukkot festivities: "another day with God"

1:45 Special Needs Dennis

2:30 The Pernicious Professor and our Safe American Home

4:35 Masturbation, alas.
8:00 The Joy of Abstinence

20:25 Casey and Mrs. Robinson

22:50 the "Love Map" and other insidious Jewish ideas

28:50 the "power differential" in sexual fantasy

40:00 Porn, degradation and power

43:05 Mike Enoch and the New Yorker

57:45 Singapore and civic nationalism

1:05:15 Where are the Jewish apologists?
Luke asks where are the critiques of the alt right from great Jewish minds. He cites Steve Sailer: there are no incentives for introspection of this sort by Jews.
There's also no will on the non-Jewish side to demand it. As I said to Luke, we on the right would benefit from a coherent, objective critique of our movement by an outsider. Maybe that's another reason.
But mostly white America, as a group without an identity (an anti-group), doesn't demand it.
Considering the legal status of Jews in Europe, Napoleon convened a "Grand Sanhedrin" compelling Europe's rabbis to present themselves and answer a set of 12 questions. Some of their answers on trickier questions were described by one anti-Semitic thinker as fine examples of Talmudic obscurantism:
Is it lawful for Jews to have more than one wife?
Is divorce allowed by the Jewish religion?
Is divorce valid, although pronounced not by courts of justice but by virtue of laws in contradiction to the French code?
May a Jewess marry a Christian, or [May] a Jew [marry] a Christian woman? or does Jewish law order that the Jews should only intermarry among themselves?
In the eyes of Jews are Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion considered as brethren or as strangers?
What conduct does Jewish law prescribe toward Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion?
Do the Jews born in France, and treated by the law as French citizens, acknowledge France as their country?
Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and follow the directions of the civil code?
Who elects the rabbis? What kind of police jurisdiction do the rabbis exercise over the Jews? What judicial power do they exercise over them? Are the police jurisdiction of the rabbis and the forms of the election regulated by Jewish law, or are they only sanctioned by custom?
Are there professions from which the Jews are excluded by their law?
Does Jewish law forbid the Jews to take usury from their brethren? Does it forbid, or does it allow, usury in dealings with strangers?
Reconvene the Sanhedrin. Let's have a conversation.

1:08:28 Normies don't understand what the Mike Enoch New Yorker article is all about. Casey says Enoch's dad comes off as a jerk. The old man is tragically pozzed, whatever the case:

On Sunday, after he got home from church, he saw that a relative had e-mailed him a YouTube link. He clicked on it: his son and David Duke, standing shoulder to shoulder. “It turned my stomach,” he said. “Until that moment, I had imagined that, whatever had caused him to go down this path, it could somehow be reversed, and he could come home again.”

Enoch's dad is suggesting he's disowned his son, or at least that he doesn't expect to speak to him again. Seems a tad extreme, but that's the last we hear of it.

1:14 Thomas Paine's Age of Reason

Pederasty
Vimeo is airing a documentary about gay Hollywood grooming that can't find a distributor:

AN OPEN SECRET. Official PG-13 version. Copyright Esponda Productions LLC #AnOpenSecret from Matt Valentinas on Vimeo.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Climates of Cluelessness

Political hate creates its own "climate" or "environment" according to those protesting (and reporting on) the seemingly endless acts of racist terror, many of them not proven hoaxes, occurring on college campuses.

There's irony in how the actual physical environment of the American university, itself a product of that demonic white supremacy (Steve Sailer has pointed out recently the American college campus is an architectural innovation of that whitest of supremacists, Thomas Jefferson), are being progressively turned into the sort of hostile, dangerous environment angry blacks and allies saw in the earlier calm.

Spiked Online on an ambitious black anti-scholar who held her Northwestern school hostage one year:
I arrived in Portland on a hot Sunday afternoon on the day before classes started. I walked across one of the pedestrian bridges that spans the school’s 28-acre canyon and sat down at a picnic table in the quad. Students sat eating lunch on tables nearby, chatting excitedly about the new school year, a few of them barefoot. A stream of corgis and their owners strolled by on their way to the annual corgi parade. In the old student union, a dozen students were folk dancing to the same scratchy recordings I’d heard decades ago. I began to doubt what I’d heard about Reed. This couldn’t possibly be the nasty place described in the alumni letter.
Reed College has an excellent reputation (for the time being) and a beautiful campus. Northwestern summers are ideal: not too hot, no humidity, lush green and long northern days. Another irony is the weather brings out the protesters, whose outrage would not doubt be dampened the moment their hoodies were, if they took to the streets in grey, mossy winter.

The Evergreen State College in Washington State was overtaken by a black tranny (eventually bestowed with the title of "presidential equity adviser" by the conquered school) at the head of a gang of adoring lesbians like something straight out of a John Waters movie. The weather was perfect, conveniently for the professor holding class in a nearby park on the advice of campus police.

Remarkable how all these enclaves of white supremacy and black terror look so calm, outwardly. It's always been this way. This was thirteen years ago:
...after visiting Claremont Colleges to check out one of those false flag attacks (a liberal feminist professor trashed her car, then told the FBI it was likely committed by her white male students) that are such a commonplace on contemporary campuses:

Another advertised: "Queer Dreams and Nightmares: What is it like to be a student at the Claremont Colleges? Student panel discussion addressing the current climate at the 5-Cs, both academically and socially." This was part of a conference entitled, with that profusion of punctuation that is the secret fraternity handshake of post-modern academics, "[Re]Defining a Queer Space at the Claremont Colleges."
It was 72 degrees with a gentle breeze blowing, so the climate seemed okay to me, but a flier on Pitzer bulletin boards made the local idée fixe a little clearer: "Diversity and Campus Climate: You are invited to participate in a discussion about campus climate." 
Presumably, when one of these places is convulsed by the latest poc/sjw tantrum, underneath they are placid, calm, Frisbee-friendly places.

As for Evergreen, that small school was founded in 1967 on an economically progressive model--a place where kids with some smarts but no money could get an education--that if administered properly could be providing useful college educations to one genuinely underrepresented group, working class white guys, with a better payoff for society, I suspect, than the countless poc identity-studies majors that are lugged along by their schools like chimeras. I remember thinking that at least, when I first learned of the school through the controversy.

But of course white guys are The Problem and thus pretext for the various humanities programs that exist like prospectors descending on the institutions and professions in multicultural America now in what Steve Sailer calls the "scramble for America". Back at Reed, Spiked reports on the white guy who got in the way:
Hunter Dillman agreed to meet me on campus before we went to lunch in a barbeque joint a few blocks away. He was 6’2”, drove a beat-up black pickup and had pale blue eyes and blond hair parted in the center. He was eager to talk to somebody who wanted to hear his story in detail, somebody who didn’t believe he had simply fucked up his freshman year. He told me his father was a construction worker who owned a farm and raised cows and chickens on the side. Hunter had taken four advanced placement (AP) science courses his senior year, getting all fives, and planned to get a degree in chemistry.
Dillman was run off under the usual race-baiting duress when he spoke out of turn, which is impossible to discern, exactly.

Long ago the precursor to the EEOC argued employment discrimination left vast reservoirs of black talent untapped, this concept was
captured in the workaday concept of "underutilization," a term that Vice President Lyndon Johnson and his associates on the PCEEO had rather casually accepted as early as 1961...
This assumption, reliant upon the prior assumption talent is equally distributed, was eventually developed into the rationale for affirmative action and disparate impact
But the distance between the vague notion of underutilization and a conscious theory of proportional representation was politically vast in the fall of 1963.
The concept was necessitated by too many discrimination cases being dismissed for having no merit. The commission was an "ineffectual agent of social change". A dearth of talented blacks showing up individually necessitated what would eventually become known as disparate impact, arising from
...a growing conviction among fair employment activists that the individual complaint model's deliberate due process in determining was irrelevant to the root problem of "institutional racism."
 In the newly evolving view of institutionalized racism, individual intent was at best a secondary consideration. Instead, employment discrimination should be defined and attacked statistically as a differential, rather than traditionally as an invidious and injurious act of prejudice. Its measure was simply the gap between the white and minority employment rates.
Lovely environments denounced as hellscapes, mediocrity praised as talent. It goes on and on.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Conformity is Good, Apathy is Great

The New Yorker has published an interesting and dangerously close to fair profile of Mike Enoch of The Right Stuff broadcast.
Enoch:
"If you’re a liberal, you’ve never thought twice, you’ve never reconsidered, you’ve absorbed what you were taught in the government schools and by the TV.”

A liberal now is simply someone who has stopped thinking about certain things. For him a set of settled questions form the basis of his quasi-religion. All we know about sex and race we learned by 1973, at which point the collective liberal brain was freeze-dried while taking in an episode of All in the Family.

This is normal. We aren't biologically conditioned to a life of perpetual questioning of social and religious convention. A society made up entirely of conformists would become stagnant and implode; one made up entirely of individual free-thinkers would become chaotic and explode.

 The average person and society both need the hard ground of unquestioned and broadly accepted fundamental beliefs concerning the nature of life and Man. It would be madness if every single individual was a moral free agent to his last, a skeptic of all to the end.

An apolitical and conformist population is a virtuous one--if they are given a sane social order in which to conform. If you have what we have now that virtue of the mass is turned against itself, just as that individual liberal, eager if oblivious conformist, is a victim of his own blind, dumb virtue.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Knowing What the In-Crowd Knows

Via Luke Ford, a young man's experience with powerful gay men:
The complete contempt gay men had for other gay men in that era was stunning. If you were a self-identified homosexual in the industry, the assumption was you had no qualms about being used and sleeping your way to the top. You wouldn’t get as much blowback as straight women, and there was no risk of getting pregnant. But the downside was, back then, that you had to accept a public identity of a highly paid whore, one of the thousands upon thousands of gay men with low self-esteem wanting to overcome their lack of masculinity by making it big in entertainment. [bold added]
Sodomy's probably been with us the whole time, but "gay" is a very new identity. In our last Torah Talk Casey the Classicist pointed out the unique nature of "gay": the first pathology transferred into a social and political identity. Its nature is unprecedented and absurd. It's also unquestioned.

So nobody really knows where this ends. Homosexual Americans now constitute a nation with the nation, like everyone (except the white core of the Nation). As a group, as a part of their political movement of normalization erasing the age-old restrictions on them, they are expanding their ranks.

Despite the biological determinism that is the central tenet of the movement ("born this way"), evolution would seem to be opposed to homosexuality. I suspect homosexuality has only survived because until very recently it's been practiced by bisexuals--men attracted to men but marrying. If that's true, the creation of a homosexual identity suddenly creates a crisis for homosexuals; the necessity to "closet" oneself is gone, and more and more gay men and lesbians will gravitate away from marriage.

In a state of prohibition recruitment is probably a necessity--"pederasty begets pederasty"--but after emancipation it conceivably becomes a matter of life and death.

Normalization itself steps into the breach. It is now an option: respectable, presented as glamorous, attractive, heroic even. In the chaos of the post sexual revolution, with the cads, lesbianism and general alienation decimating the ranks of available women, the always adaptable male has this bitter option.

He has more and more options in fact, thanks to the "trans rights" movement. Any young man stranded in his masculinity can now, he's told, abandon it.
But these new converts, there to buttress numbers and supply fodder for the Narrative, are a problem. They are overwhelmingly disturbed psychologically, and they've always been disdained, to say the least, by other gays. Likewise the poorer, younger and especially more effeminate gay man: the "twinks" and "marys" exploited and abused in a way curiously similar to the way a straight lech like Harvey Weinstein exploits women. With more political impunity, of course: imagine the power he wielded, clad with political correctness.

Indeed, if the greater levels of promiscuity in homosexual life can be attributed to the fact there are no women in the role of discriminating regulator, but all men on the prowl (as I think undeniable), the greater cruelty (I suspect) with which powerful gay men treat other gay men is likely attributable to the same thing: the lack of women. It's easier for a man to abuse a man: the prohibition against it is less severe, the weakness of a man lacks charm and inspires disgust.

There is no real gay identity; it is a rickety construct.

Luke Ford interviews Andrew Joyce



Luke Ford interviews Andrew Joyce about being banned entry into the US (just hours before his flight) and other things. Joyce was going to visit Richard Spencer's National Policy Institute.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Convention is a Cult

Evangelical Christianity surged in the wake of the Sixties, providing a home for that decade's first casualties, and others. By 1976 it was mainstream enough that liberal Jimmy Carter could claim it without harm (there was a bit of snickering, I recall, as well as at the new term "Born Again Christianity").

At the time in my old neighborhood if someone turned up in this state he was viewed with horror. The transformation--early on, destined to wear off in most cases--was such that it seemed to leave little of the "old" person behind.

That it was often the more dissolute who found God in this way made the change all the more jarring. Suddenly an overnight spiritual wonder appears, all enthusiasm and warmth as he declares you hell-bound for your degenerate ways--and he knows all about it, having been there last week.

But that nauseating sense of alienation, sometimes from close friends, came to mind reading this New Yorker article about doxxed alt-righter Mike Enoch:
Billie wondered aloud how to tell their friends and family about Mike E. “What do you do?” she said. “Send a letter to your cousins—‘Haven’t spoken to you in twenty years, hope you’re doing well, and, oh, P.S., our son’s a Nazi now’?” She worried that people would wonder what she and Mike, Sr., had done wrong as parents. “Everyone wants it to be simple, to know who to blame,” one of Mike E.’s relatives told me later. “But lots of kids have parents who get divorced when they’re young. Lots of white kids have difficult personalities. They don’t all become Nazis.” 
A few people around town had already heard the news, mostly through Facebook, and some of them were talking about Mike E. as if he had been abducted by a cult, or tied down and injected with a serum of pure hatred. Other people assumed that there must be some key biographical fact—a chemical imbalance, a history of abuse—that would neatly unlock the mystery. But Mike E.’s conversion was more quotidian than that, and therefore more unsettling; somehow, over time, he had fallen into a particularly dark rabbit hole, where some of the most disturbing and discredited ideas in modern history were repackaged as the solution to twenty-first-century malaise.
"Racists" are the new child molesters, somebody has written elsewhere (I can't find it). That's the deliberate work of generations. But there's the little problem of the truth. It's easy to hold child molesters in low regard. The Narrative groans under the stress of contradicting reality even as the net dehumanizing "racists" is cast ever wider. Yet still, it holds somehow. Mike E could have robbed a bank and caused his family less embarrassment.

Way back when I endured entreaties from converted friends, and sat through those awful born-again sermons, what I could never shake was my resistance to the story of Christ as Messiah. I could see the value of belief, but I could not believe this. For me at the center of my alienation from my born-again peers was this idea that I found incomprehensible--that Jesus suffered on the cross for my sins.

That sense of alienation--I suspect--was there for most people, for the same reason: the converts believed something crazy. People didn't say this. The average person was nominally religious, even if he didn't practice. He said he believed in God. He appreciated the church. He appreciated and understood the need for moral order and saw the church's role there. But, again I suspect, he secretly saw the convert's obsession with Jesus on the Cross a little, or a lot, crazy.

Conventional, publicly enforced views on race are approaching the mythical, that is to say objectively they could be called crazy.

So the "racist" alienated from his family now is a sort of inversion of the zealot alienated from his family then. The latter was a source of concern because he was seen as believing crazy things. The former is a source of concern because he's seen as not believing crazy things.

And, per one of my pet crackpot peeves, widespread belief in the Resurrection demands no disbelief in the realities of the world we inhabit. I don't mean to belittle it when I say it is harmless. Whereas the widespread belief in Equality demands just that. It has implications in every aspect of life, everywhere, always, that depend on its truth. Its failure is evident in every aspect of life everywhere, always. Jesus is benignly absent, and Christians see their relationship to him as "personal"--that is private. Contrast that with the demands of Equality now, which intrude further into the private sphere.

The Christian's profession of belief is ritualized and set aside from from the worldly. Thus the mythology of Christianity is benignly absent from the practical. Marxism has sought to absorb everything from agriculture to mathematics, of course. Christianity might have felt threatened by scientific discovery, but it never saw the need for such as a Christian agriculture or physics.

The problem with the new civic religion is it's all worldly. If we could perform some ritual sacrifice to Equality and get on with our lives, it would be harmless.

This is why political correctness is far more severe than religion as it's been practiced in the West. Galileo, whose discoveries upended conventional and biblical interpretations of the natural world, had defenders even in the Church. The narrative of equality allows no such equanimity because it can't survive it. It can't survive it because it's a lie.

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Two Goys and a Jew




Good Torah Talk with the irrepressible iconoclast Luke Ford and Casey the Classicist. Prominent guests next week.

0:15 Sukkot.

2:15 The subject today, Andrew Joyce's essay, The Alt Right and the Homosexual Question.

3:05 Luke opens talking about Dennis Prager's essay from 1989, Judaism, Homosexuality and Civilization:
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.
 This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.
8:10 Is heterosexual marriage the basis of society?

14:00 Sexual rage and its role in society.

16:05 Dennis' sexual rage. White Sharia Now.

18:20 More Prager.
It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man's life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society. 
 Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women's garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman's disembodied voice (e.g., "phone sex"); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. 
There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another's man's wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the "un-sublimated," sex drive can lead to.
Prager is right but in the West chastity and sexual morality arise from the same evolutionary pressures that shaped other behaviors. In the West Christianity developed into a relatively strict sexual morality because of the people adopting it, as of course is true for its other aspects.

20:50 A Surviving Remnant.

36:45 Betrayal as an aspect of American life.

39:00 Shouting Africans.

41:30 The amazing turnabout of the AIDS narrative.

46:20 Bad news in the War on Frapping.

49:55 Our senior masturbation correspondent Casey reports on Harvey Weinstein.

1:26:15 Aunt Mary Wants You. The problem of homosexual recruitment.

1:28:48 Luke riles up the powerful.

1:31:40 Paddock's motivation.


Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Speaking dead of the ill

Hugh Hefner went with neither a bang nor a whimper, but an exhausted meh. I confess I haven't the heart to read any of the boilerplate fill-in-the-name send-offs that collect like plates of food brought to the mourning family--which is supposed to be us--when one of these "icons" passes.

A boomer's fate is to age out of this world to an unending series of such requiems for "pioneers" who "broke boundaries" and "ignored the rules" (as if this is inherently good).

The long-ago routed objections to sexual liberation aren't even brought up to mock now.

Neither are the original arguments on its behalf ever revisited.

The arguments for sexual liberation are forgotten in the post-coital haze like smooth reassurances of a seduction. They're frankly a little embarrassing now. Sexual mores were born of nothing more than neuroses, sexism and Freudian angst (this was taken to be proven by science) went the line; their removal would return us to a natural, healthy state.
But we now know Freud was a fraud who made no account of biology and evolution.
That is to say, the liberation we celebrate is based on a pack of lies.

The objections to the sexual revolution--that it would destroy the family and create misery--have been borne out. But the Freudian presumptions still hold cultural sway, and the objections are discredited there still.We foisted a fait accompli on future generations.

This is a pattern in progressive movements: witness civil rights' journey from fight for equality to microaggressions, safe spaces and cultural appropriation.

Hefner was a pimp, and when he started out that was an insult. As much as anyone else he contributed to turning that phrase and the practice into a joke, even a boast. We are to congratulate ourselves on having lightened up regarding the trafficking of women, as well as sexual disease, parental abandonment, infidelity, the ever-shrinking world of the perverse.

Ross Douthat dared go there:

Hef was the grinning pimp of the sexual revolution, with quaaludes for the ladies and Viagra for himself — a father of smut addictions and eating disorders, abortions and divorce and syphilis, a pretentious huckster who published Updike stories no one read while doing flesh procurement for celebrities, a revolutionary whose revolution chiefly benefited men much like himself.

Hefner's shtick was outdated from the start, a sophomoric and immature aesthetic of cool, decked-out in all the latest from the previous decade and wading obliviously into the water ahead of the tsunami that was the Sixties. The magazine printed quality authors who wrote quality articles, but had no editorial personality; the liberal consensus of the moment was the magazine's. A glossy, technical marvel with no character and a whiff of obliviousness.

In mainstreaming pornography it led the way culturally; ever since it's followed the trend.

Hef's James Bond vision of an encompassing lifestyle, rich in pleasures, gadgets and consumer goods, failed utterly, of course. He was fashioning a "brand" before the concept was created (I think), and that brand failed even as the magazine rolled on.
So the venereal became venerable. The mansion and Hefner enjoyed a sort of resurgence in later years, owing to the ironic condescension of such as Howard Stern. When the mansion was featured on Entourage it was too perfect, the lineage from obscene parent to mediocre spawn too direct.

Hefner would follow the same failed course he plotted for his generation, as described by Roger Devlin in his Sexual Utopia in Power

A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for examples. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon.

The entertainment industry turns out endless unrealistic images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage. Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem.

 Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Report and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement. This characteristically male sexual utopianism was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about fundamental changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sexuality.

In helping set loose the sexual revolution he of course helped strand countless men left out of the bacchanal. The magazine promised to lead them to a sexual utopia of never-ending delights--while they engaged in the lonely, pathetic act of masturbation. It was, fittingly, jacking them off the whole time with this con. Now, all that's left is the masturbation, literal and figurative. The lesson of Playboy isn't that sexual liberation is freedom, but that it is a prison.

To the extent the average American male took him seriously he was ill-served, but Hefner managed to create that utopia for himself. He championed it his whole life. And its yield was a long dotage of drugs, pornography, mental illness, cuckoldry and masturbation.

His life was a testament to the stupidity and destructiveness of the life he celebrated.

Monday, October 02, 2017

Torah Today: Sexual Utopia in Power


8:30 Jewish stories from Luke

11:50 Casey: What is the nature of religious authority?

13:40 Where have the miracles gone?
Here Casey has come upon a problem outlined in Dostoyevsky's The Grand Inquisitor (an anti-Pope short story within The Brothers Karamazov; I parodied it here). A powerful Bishop rejects a returned Christ, because He's been silent too long.

 "There are three Powers, three unique Forces upon earth, capable of conquering for ever by charming the conscience of these weak rebels—men—for their own good; and these Forces are: Miracle, Mystery and Authority" the Bishop says. In His long absence Christ has abdicated His authority to the Church. He can't just come back now and wreck the program! The Bishop dares condemn Him for withholding miracles and demanding man come to Him of free will in His absence:

"Thy refusal to come down from the cross when people, mocking and wagging their heads were saying to Thee—'Save Thyself if Thou be the son of God, and we will believe in Thee,' was due to the same determination—not to enslave man through miracle, but to obtain faith in Thee freely and apart from any miraculous influence."

15:30 Dumb movies. Casey mentions a Dumb Comedy out there, written by Jews. How is it intelligent people make such dumb crap? Luke, ever the cruel Jew, points out the dumb stuff is for the goyim. Jews don't partake. Furthermore, I would add (and rue), it's the dumber Jews making dumb culture perverting our dumber goys, while the smart Jews get to keep their hands clean. The Jews are siccing their dummies on us. Witness Seth Rogan, a sort of Jewish  on Twitter:


The NFL isn't the only institution that's become a malicious force. Take a knee, Hollywood.

18:30 We are all Masters of our Domain here.

19:00 Luke marvels that the goyim aren't actively masturbating and doing drugs as he speaks to us.

21:10 Thank God we're off the subject and talking about Roger Devlin's remarkable essay, Sexual Utopia in Power

Luke quotes from it:

A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for examples. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon.

The entertainment industry turns out endless unrealistic images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage. Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem.

 Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Report and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement. This characteristically male sexual utopianism was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about fundamental changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sexuality.

We forgot about Hugh Hefner! He pioneered, represented and literally embodied the failed vision of sexual liberation--the masculine Nakba, We are all Hugh Hefner now, alas.

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Science and Religion

It strikes me Western society in the post-Enlightenment was far less devout in enforcing the belief in
Christianity than it is now in enforcing the belief in racial and sexual equality.

But it's really in the nature of our new quasi-religion. You didn't have to accost your fellows at work, school, or on the street to demand their views. Your church may have compelled you, but your government and other institutions weren't accosting you at various points to ask you the equivalent of "tell me why you're passionate about social justice". Our new order is closer to a pre-Enlightenment model, replacing the Church with the Narrative.

You were left alone for the most part by Christianity.

It's in the nature of the new quasi-religion, in the fact that it isn't a coherent faith but a jumble. One of my crackpot pet peeves is the difference between myth-based religious faith and the post-religious order that displaced it: believing such as the creation myth is far less onerous to liberty than believing such as racial and sexual equality, as there are daily, practical implications to believing the latter.

The creation myth imposed no impossible requirements on society; Equality does in every aspect.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

The Wrath of Kwon

This is a remarkable video.



Gastonbury of the Faith & Heritage website transcribed the thing entire and compiled the highlights
[Presbyterian minister Duke] Kwon isn’t some nobody – he’s a highly respected minister. Duke Kwon preached at the worship service at the PCA’s most recent General Assembly, meaning that he represents mainstream thought in the Reformed world. 
 Here are some of the things you’ll learn today:
 Blacks are the “prophet people of God.” 
 It’s time to start “speaking the truth in love” about the urgent need for whites to start paying reparations to blacks. 
Ephesians 2-4 is all about the need for reparations to blacks. 
The story of Zacchaeus is all about the need for reparations to blacks. 
Whites who disagree are “fools,” “trolls,” and “enemies.” 
White people are “the oppressor.” 
It seems the Presbyterian Church is on a mission to become multi-ethnic (and "multi-spiritual", says Minister Kwon) while putting black identity politics forefront. Indeed, placing black rights forefront seems to be the point, despite a lot of censer-smoke about "diversity" and a "multi-ethnic" church.
Gastonbury:
The talk begins at at 5:42. Kwon opens by declaring that his black and brown brothers and sisters in Christ are wonderfully made in the image of God, specifically excluding the many white people in the audience. In the last sentence of the sermon, Kwon calls blacks “the prophet people of God.”
Kwon:
[racial justice] might include a denomination setting aside a more radical amount of money to subsidize its cross-cultural or specifically African-American ministries. Again, the idea is that of repairing and recovering what was lost by the historic exclusion of African-Americans from our churches.
And so, ecclesiastical reparations might also include new approaches to leadership and polity that isn’t simply more inclusive of African Americans, but that centers on their gifts and abilities. [Lots of crowd approval] 
It would involve a restructuring of community practices, say, amplifying minority voices, rewriting our liturgies, reconsidering come contours of our confessional theology, rearranging our hymnody, all guided by a repentance imagination that pictures what ecclesial life might have been like today, had African-Americans been part of our churches for the last 300 years. [Crowd loves this] 
Mimicking the dulcet tones of the black Church he learned, kind of like Barack Obama, during an apprenticeship in the Community (DC, where he now has his own church) Minister Kwon praises "black and brown" as made in the image of God [conspicuously excluding whites], and as he will explain throughout, blacks exist as a sort of primus inter pares among this blessed group, with whites excluded but for their responsibility to support this scheme. But it really is all about Black and White, Who and Whom, despite and attested to by Kwon being Asian. Kwon is happily assimilating to black America, almost with a smirk.

It's important to follow the money, and power, to see what's ultimately at work here. Sure, Minister Kwon et al may actually believe their nonsense, or not (Kwon was in management consulting before being called), it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they sit down in secret and map it all out. Incentivization expresses the will of the elite, and the Church, like virtually every other American institution, is undergoing a transfer of power, under the guise of "equality", via heavy incentivization.

The point here is to take over the Church, using its white history as condemnation--which is of course the broader "civil rights" movement as a whole, essentially, using whites' "racist" past to condemn them to handing over their civilizations while quietly expiring.

It's one front in what Steve Sailer calls the "scramble for America", the descent of opportunists such as Kwon, surfing the Narrative, upon the professions, institutions, even culture to seize as much as they can before the ruin runs out.
Kwon is not a controversial figure in the Church, despite his posturing as a revolutionary. The general assembly mentioned by Gastonbury above featured two other speakers along with him, both equally committed to the program.
It's important to remember conspiracy isn't necessary. All that needed to happen in the Church was for the displacement of its whites and history to be incentivized. Ambition in the aggregate will do the rest.

Kwon's sermon is a model of the Narrative itself. And what Divine providence! Minister Kwon's spiritual journey just-so-happened to land him gently in step with the latest Theory coming out of the universities and the political-culutral push to carve up and parcel out America's institutions to her enemies. I guess that means God's on the side of Social Justice after all.

After opening with the folk classic Numinous Negro routine, it's a laundry list of recent themes launched by the Left.

There's the Danger Black Bodies! theme, making the insane claim that black people are unsafe in such as a Presbyterian church. Kwon actually invokes "strange fruit", and the gasps suggest he's in trouble at first, but, like an aerobatic pilot pulling out of his dive in the nick of time before hitting the ground he flawlessly turns toward sky and, yes, they're right there with him.

There's the Just Imagine (last seen: "Just imagine if these sexist Internet giants had equal gender representation from the start"--the assumption being, in one instance, they'd be more profitable, in another I saw, that this would have saved us from Internet bullying) is employed, and whites are determined to be in a deficit against this presumed richer, better Church that would have existed, if they had only been better people when they were laboring to build the Church; now it is only about "...recovering what was lost by the historic exclusion of African Americans..."--turning that church over.

There's the Emotional Labor scam, by which it's asserted black people, in assailing white America for ever-more favor, are spending their emotional labor on behalf of us all (like slaves, get it?), for which they should be recompensed, maybe materially, and for which we should feel shame.
This is an important one. Kwon knows where black America's pleasure center is, its enormous self-pity:
10:51 Now some of you, understandably, you [black dialect for you’re] not so sure. It’s been an exhausting year, hasn’t it? You’ve heard it several times already, just a few minutes ago and throughout the weekend. Many of you are tyud [black dialect for tired]. The church’s ambivalence about its commitment to interracial solidarity has been unmasked. Divisions, especially across racial lines, have been exposed, EXPOSED, not created, exposed [lots of whooping and applauding from the audience] and amplified. 
Remember that Chris Rock punchline "want a cookie?"? He had no idea.

There's the Shut Up Whitey/Ally theme, where speech isn't controlled, but "prophetic":
First, limitations of prophetic speech, first, we must embrace the value of prophetic silence. There is a time not to speak. Oftentimes, it’s simple – that time is when you don’t know what you’re talking about. [Crowd goes nuts again, clearly understanding Kwon to be referring to ignorant white people] Some of y’all need to listen up. Sometimes I need to listen up. You don’t know what you’re talking about or you know you need more time to reflect and pray. Do you know you do not need to have an opinion on every racial issue and incident? And you do not need to immediately share your take on it all the time. Silence is not always proof of complicity; it can also be an expression of prophetic humility. 
Obeisance is not humiliation, but humility, you see. Upon which follows naturally what I would call Don't Engage or Don't Normalize theme, demanding no engagement with ideological opposition (they are, effectively, "Nazis"):
I mean the sort of person that Proverbs 26:4 is describing when it says, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him yourself.”  That’s referring to the stubborn-hearted person, who’s speaking to you, but not really listenin’.  Who’s interrogating you but isn’t really interested in answers or, more importantly, in hearing God’s truth.
17:12 You know, so a person hears you talk about racism and then they respond by rolling their eyes and calling you a Marxist [loud agreement from crowd], refusing, REFUSING to engage the things you’ve actually said, and the places in Scripture from which you have spoken. Though you try and try and try, do you know that you have permission to walk away?  Beloved, you do not have to respond to every troll.  Jesus did.  Remember how he was silent on trial before Herod? There is a time to walk away. Practice prophetic silence. 
I'm sure the Bible, and not the Salon-o-sphere, is the wellspring of all this. But then again, as part of "reconsidering some contours" the Church, once Kwon is in charge he may well wish to consider including some of those theorists, maybe some Ta Ne'hisi Coates, in the Gospel. Presbyterians will lead us there.

The "LDR Weekend" sponsored by the "Leadership Development Resource Initiative", at which Kwon was speaking appears to be modeled on Maoist university conclaves. Their goal is--what else?--to bring more blacks into leadership positions and blacken the Church, so to speak.
This has a sort of secondary retconning effect: blacks may have been nowhere around when the Church was being built in reality, but they were there the whole time spiritually. Their physical absence (absence of "black bodies") is a moral and material deficit against a natural order that's been suppressed all this time by racism.

It's amazing how few, apparently, see this all as sinister. Spending his early effusions raising the black congregation above the white, Minister Kwon then demands our integration. What could go wrong?  I mean, other than the daily carnage we see on World Star Hip Hop and Colin Flaherty.

In his reliance on Christian kitsch he lays it all out a little too clearly. One, blacks are better than you because they have a profound, legitimate beef with you. Two, you will have to give them money. Three, you will have to live with them, on the terms outlined in One.

So once we've reformed the Church, everything will be cool?  What role can I, a penitent white ally, assume in this order?

The verse just after that Kwon uses to justify this hierarchy of color and shame, Ephesians 4:28 might provide guidance for us in our role as whites in the Church and, of course, in society: Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labor with his hands the the thing that which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs.

 I'd be willing to wager Minister Kwon read that one with a faint smile.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

All NFL all the time, without the annoying ex-jocks or football

Strange New Respect is fleeting, and with regard to the NFL owners' remarkable commitment to "social justice" over profits or patriotism, the NYT is determined it shall have wide-receiver speed:

Beyond the appearance of unity, though, is a far different reality: The owners have done little to support players who protest to fight social injustice. A few owners have told their players that kneeling for the anthem is inappropriate.
The owners by and large are a white, conservative group of billionaires, several of them big-dollar donors to President Trump. They have generally discouraged their players, about three quarters of whom are African-American, from anything that overshadows throwing passes and making tackles.
All the talk about freedom of expression is a dodge around the fact it's black America calling out white America as racist, and--this is the real shock to the system--the not-quite subdued half of white America calling bullshit right back.

This thing needs to end quickly for both the NFL and the Narrative.
I think it's going to be the best season ever.

More on the NFL




The military has long used spectator sports to target mostly young white men for recruitment. This is coupled with a strong emphasis on patriotism in such as truck commercials--appealing to the fathers of those same young men. After 9/11 and through the second Iraq invasion this grew in intensity and became just one more reason, for me, to tune out. There is an obvious affinity between the military the violent sport of the NFL, which is probably second only to NASCAR in its patriotic effusions.

People have cited this in defense of the anthem protests, and if the anthem protests had anything to do with the anthem that would mean something. But that doesn't mean it's right. The militarization of sports hardly went unnoticed or unremarked upon, but it hasn't been much opposed.

Today's Washington Post reports:

government oversight report released Wednesday by Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake offers new details about how the Department of Defense paid professional sports teams and leagues for patriotic displays honoring American soldiers.
The report expands on one that became public last May and resulted in changes to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016, prohibiting the expenditures and calling on leagues and teams to donate the money to organizations that support the military, veterans and their families.
“What we take issue with,” wrote Flake, who, like McCain, is a Republican from Arizona, “is the average fan thinking teams are doing this on behalf of the military.”
Flake and McCain are objecting to the way the money was spent, treating it as a boondoggle for the most part, and the military does look to drive a very soft bargain:

In 2013, a roaring crowd cheered as the Atlanta Falcons welcomed 80 National Guard members who unfurled an American flag across the Georgia Dome’s turf. Little did those fans—or millions of other Americans—know that the National Guard had actually paid the Atlanta Falcons for this display of patriotism as part of a $315,000 marketing contract. 

The remunerative militaristic patriotism of the NFL is perfectly consistent with its more genuine multicultural patriotism. Our wars have served an internationalist agenda at the expense of national interest since the first Iraq invasion. It's been especially gruesome watching this for the past decade, as that group to which globalism is overtly hostile--and, yes, those Christian-descended whites Jews like Peter Beinart find so enraging--is fed into its grinder.

It's in those godawful commercial breaks, combining the multicultural and feminist cheerleading with crude patriotic kitsch, that you see the contradiction. Do people see it?

But the point right now is this: that anthem might represent what the players hate--white America--but it's been used, for a long time now, as part of the disingenuous military recruitment of whites that is "paid patriotism", to advance a worldview and agenda that has been very, very good to them.
Of course, if you can't see the net benefit of being born in America versus being born in, say, West Africa, then you're never going to catch on to something as relatively nuanced as that.

Monday, September 25, 2017

A Note on the NFL

But for a shocking exposure to it last Thanksgiving, I haven't watched the NFL on television for years as part of a deliberate decision to cut spectator sports entirely out of my life, finally. Football was the last to go. Objectively I love the game, even in its perverse aspects: its violence, its physical specialization, with sumo wrestlers on the lines, sprinters at receiver, captain-archers at quarterback. It is the American sport, for good or ill.

It was the fans who drove me away at first. I found the hoopla, commercialism and what I would now identify as cuckery increasingly unbearable. Now it's the players who keep me away. Sometimes we have to spend time away from those we love to realize we hate them--and they hate us.

Watching football on Thanksgiving was bracing for me because of the commercials, which apparently have become endless iterations of multicultural, feminist and commercial pozzing, or conditioning.

One standard format television commercial now goes something like one I recall for a VR headset: we are treated to a series of families, each a different ethnicity with whites deliberately not prominent, enjoying the product to what is supposed to be heartwarming delight. Watching what was supposed to be the Muslim family I was repulsed by their very joy. Not because I'm ignorant--precisely because I'm not, and I understand the threat Muslims represent to me.

 It's a sick feeling, in part because their joy isn't any less human, isn't any less valid and does indicate a common bond. The effect on me is only to emphasize their role in replacing me; they will have grandchildren, they will experience joy, they will see the wonders the world we created produces. And we won't.

Because we will not be.

Am I alone in feeling this way?

Sunday, September 24, 2017



24:44 I am master of my domain.

25:40 Frapping and the Single Goy

26:55 Phillip Roth

30:05 Hillary's Book

32:10 Regina Spektor song Laughing With



1:04:45 Make America White Again, after a fashion

1:08:50 Us, Us, Us, and Them, Them, Them...

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Oregon Oddities

The hike around Our Lady of Guadalupe Trappist Abbey in rural Oregon is fittingly peaceful and doesn't feel like the geography around the Columbia River Gorge where we've done most of our hiking this (very) warm season. It isn't dominated by the towering evergreens that are everywhere here. (Not so towering in our Gorge stomping grounds now, after a massive forest fire set off by a kid with fireworks took out tens of thousands of acres a couple of weeks ago.)

Apparently the monks are out there on riding mowers maintaining the broad lawns that buffer the retreat from the forest:


These fields would otherwise be tall, dry grass right now, so mowing them is probably a wise fire control measure. The effect is lovely either way:


We came upon something strange while we were there. Someone had set up a small camp/shrine of sports memorabilia, cut-out silhouettes of children and religious objects:









Inside the tin was a pristine copy of a sports magazine.



All this appeared to have been out there in the elements a while and was just off the trail. For some reason the monks allowed it and leave it alone. The effect is unsettling.



All I could think of was Ace Ventura: "Finkel, Einhorn, Einhorn, Finkel..."

Friday, September 22, 2017

Take my Culture, Please

Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles might be the funniest movie of all time, unfortunately. One of the more enduring anti-white, anti-American cultural tropes, the cool black guy (here leading a diverse gang in) outfoxing the dim white rednecks, around which the story is based, derives from this wellspring along with others. An enduring attitude can be seen taking shape in this movie. Now Brooks says his film couldn't be made today, and it seems undeniable.

It's important to note what's happened: the film contributed about as much as a film can to the shaping of the present cultural and political milieu. And that milieu is one in which it could never possibly be made.

When Harvey Korman's villain sends a motley horde of Bad Guys (bikers, Nazis, pirates, etc) forth to "stamp out runaway decency in the West" I can't help but find it ironic, now.

Mel Brooks was never a guy you suspected of malice. He went after what was essentially the pc of his time. And that pc ain't nothing like our pc. Our pc rules. With an iron fist.

Brooks likes to tell the story of how he got away with simply ignoring the studio's instructions to edit out certain scenes. When the film was released and became a hit, no one at the studio so much as mentioned it.

Today if he somehow got it past the studio in the first place, the industry as a whole would come down on him, along with polite society, cable news, militant protesters and an outraged Jewish community. Moral and financial shake-downs would ensue. The term "political correctness" really does indicate something fundamentally different from the usual restrictions on expression a society and culture might impose on opposition.

This is a whole new world. Virtually all of Hollywood now is on board with the presumed objections to a Blazing Saddles in the Current Year. More remarkable: Blazing Saddles' Current Year equivalent could not occur to the well-conditioned mind of any Current Year Mel Brooks.

We shouldn't lose the narrative thread: cultural-sexual revolution assails prevailing order through free artistic expression, becomes prevailing order, restricts artistic expression.

It was already cool in the Seventies to look down your nose at your "racist" white parents; but they were still in charge, too. That's why comedy was still possible:
The 1974 comedy western starring Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder featured a black sheriff in a racist town. Brooks said it was the racial prejudice portrayed within the film that was the mechanism behind its cultural significance.
"Without that the movie would not have had nearly the significance, the force, the dynamism and the stakes that were contained in it,” he said.
Presumably the setting-up of the white fall guys as bigots would be too much now--a grandmotherly type, for instance, greeting the black sheriff with an unexpected "up yours, nigger" certainly wouldn't fly. Making light of lynching. Anything that might disturb white liberals, er, black folk. None of this would be allowed. The film's essential message, summed up by Gene Wilder's description of frontier settlers as "...people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know . . . morons”, is safe. It would have to be magnified, perhaps. There would be issues around casting maybe. The routine about the busty secretary...are you kidding?

What Brooks is (or should be) getting at here ultimately is that comedy requires a shared point of view between audience and performer. Shared frames of reference, assumptions, language, culture. Comedy is bias. Drama too relies on these shared biases.

Blazing Saddles skewered "racism" but it was made when the country was overwhelmingly white and even in its transgressions assumed a point of view that was white American. And that's precisely the part that would make the film so objectionable now.

Basically, take out the point of view, the bias, the prejudice, the identity of the audience really. We're left with empty gags and sentimental kitsch with nothing to latch on to.  Instead of shared values we have shared cliches.

The film has its own dynamic narrative. It began as an impulse in the same narrative that will (if left unchecked, I assert) eventually require its censoring. Gotta love it.

Mr Brooks shouldn't feel bad. Yes his work would be rejected now. But that's only possible because of his work.

[title lifted from a Bumbling American tweet]

Next stop Chi Town, Lido put the money down...

They're building the Barack Obama library on Chicago's South Side where he started out as a community organizer. The project is being challenged by community organizers.

They're seeking some sort of comprehensive agreement of set asides for local activist groups. This common practice is something the Obama Administration effected from above when in office. Barry's enthusiasm for the practice has waned.
Obama opened the door to the backlash when he appeared on a video at the foundation's first public meeting last week and said flat-out that there would be no community benefits agreement.
Such a legal document, he said, would force the foundation to side with certain activist groups and leave others out. And, he added, it would open the door for other groups to step up and start making demands.
Some things are too important to be bogged down by every one with a gripe. Sure, let them line up to carve up Silicon Valley, the Ivy League, corporate America, but this is the One's legacy here!
Furthermore, they only have a half a billion dollars to build something for which no one has any real expectations.

I suspect citizen Obama won't be doing a lot of interaction with the Community, and that it will be of the alienating type as his video remote. Obama will likely lose his sainted status with black America with surprising speed because of the very same furious, militant state his eight years left it in. Black America's anger isn't waning any time soon.

Indeed, Obama's long demagogy ensured two things: Donald Trump's rise and the violent reaction to it. Barack Obama will likely live to see his own image thrown into the fire from which he's drawn so much warmth.
At a community forum Wednesday night, a discussion about the proposed agreement morphed into a shouting match over whether Obama actually loves black people. One man in the audience yelled, “No,” while others said he wasn’t necessarily “their brother.” 
 Hip-hop artist and community activist Che “Rhymefest” Smith tried to defend the president — but only to a point.  
 “I’m not saying he understands everything ... I believe the brother is reasonable,” Smith said. “When you marry a black woman and have black children ... she is going to talk to her man and say we have got to do something.” 
 While Smith said he doesn't believe Obama has ill intentions, he said South Siders have to hold him accountable.  
"Not as a God, but as a politician," he said. "Not as a king, but as a politician."
That's a hard concept for a lot of African-Americans to grasp. But it's time for blacks to accept the truth.
The truth comes a lot easier when it doesn't cost anything. Barry is going to learn that the "inheritance" in his "race and inheritance" comes with a tax, and it grows, over time. First off, don't even think about divorcing Michelle...

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Torah Time

1994

The lineup for something called the JoCo Cruise does not inspire.


Torah Tomorrow

I'll face the Jew again tomorrow for Torah Talk with Luke Ford via Google Hangouts, where you can log in and ask questions. 9:00 AM Pacific.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Harry Dean Stanton, 1926 to 2017

Harry Dean Stanton in 1978's Straight Time with Dustin Hoffman (spoiler):

 

Friday, September 15, 2017

Built like a brick temple

It's taking them longer than planned to demolish the United Workmen Temple in downtown Portland, also known as the Tourney Building, built in 1895.




They had to bring in a bigger crane to take down the elevator shaft I believe. I think I saw it arrive this afternoon. They've been picking away at her innards in the meantime.




The building behind it is the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse, 1992. I know nothing of architecture, but to me this suggests brutalist style tempered by the slightest postmodern whimsy:





I have no idea what the conning tower like thing is supposed to represent. It's a little unsettling at this historical point that progressive Portland has a Stalin-esque courthouse.
The federal building is even less reassuring. It evokes secrecy and opacity, facing off against City Hall directly across from it, it's literally shrouded from view by a confusing array of what look like wrought-iron shutters:



United Workmen Temple

A post shared by Dennis Dale (@eladsinned) on

A post shared by Dennis Dale (@eladsinned) on

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Torah, Torah, Torah



Luke opens with a funny news item about a rabbi turned real estate hustler that is totally lost on my goyishe kopf.
At 4:20 I reveal my ethnicity to the Jew.
Luke sets himself up for a Holocaust joke at 4:40
Goy v goy at 5:50
At 9:20 I am propositioned by the Jew.
At 16:30 we talk about art.
At 21:50 I report on recent Orc sightings.
24:40: I tell a tale of a Lyft ride from hell and a social justice three-way that cannot be unheard.
At 28:05 Luke wonders if the coming Diversitopia will be Good for the Jews.
At 33:30 I congratulate a woman on her "beautiful white baby".
44:00: "What kind of Becky are you?"
46:20: The Pet Rock of Social Justice and other great ideas.
1:05:05: Pretty girl blows me off.
1:24:15: The Torah is anti-Diversity

Thursday, September 07, 2017

Shabbos Goy, of a sort

I'll join Luke Ford again this Sunday for his weekly Torah Talk, at 9:00 AM Pacific Time, live-streamed here, on Twitter and at Luke's.

Tuesday, September 05, 2017

Tangled up in Who

We're long conditioned to social and political questions being decided by identity, not action. It isn't who did what but who's who. That conditioning is considerable. Witness the divide between true-believing media elites and the public over the "appropriateness" of President Trump's remarks on Charlottesville. Media types seemed genuinely oblivious to the clear narrative emerging from their cacophony: on one side you had Nazis (ffs!), on the other, not; it doesn't matter who did what!

We still use the language of objective universal rights, but, politically and culturally, the question of who's right (and who has rights) is a Sailerian who, whom calculation increasingly complicated by the growing number and diversity of America's grasping aggrieved.

Critical theory's "intersectionality" is an attempt to manage these inevitable conflicts and stresses like a system of traffic lights, while harnessing its energy--anger--like a power utility. It appears inherently unstable.

Good people are grappling with the problems of intersectionality. That's why you have to so often read between the lines in news reports and analyses, sometimes to find a thing represented as its opposite.
If the only two words you read in a news report was"Islamophobic backlash", for instance, you'd confidently guess that article to be about an attack by Muslims on others.

 That's why you have to suss out with some effort what the subject of this Washington Post article really is:
When Kate Ross first came out, she would go to lesbian bars and parties by herself. She didn’t exactly get a warm welcome. At the lesbian dance party She Rex, which used to pop up at Chief Ike’s Mambo Room, she says a fellow partygoer took one look at her high heels and long hair and called her a “confused straight girl.” 
“I shaved off all my hair and had a mohawk,” she says. “No one questioned me after that.”
Well, looks like we got us quite a story about discrimination, intimidation, conformity even, within the underground lesbian dance scene (is there a more depressing phrase?). Great! Not so fast.
Moments such as those led the 33-year-old, who works in small-business management, to help found the Coven, a safe space that has expanded to include a monthly dance party, a book club, theater trips and panel discussions over the past few years. Though the concept has gotten backlash on college campuses for potentially threatening free speech, safe spaces have become increasingly important at bars and nightclubs, activists say, particularly in the aftermath of last year’s attack at the LGBT nightclub Pulse in Orlando.
I suspect what used to be called a "lipstick lesbian"--straight-looking--is increasingly unwelcome in the lesbian club scene (perhaps as it hardens around a more militant identity in the post-Obama era) and this Ross woman created an alternative "safe space" free of violence and intimidation where one isn't expected to look (or act) like Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver to be safe.

Mentioning the college safe space phenomenon and the Pulse massacre (with the automatically implied inference it constitutes the threat of "homophobia", not Islamic terrorism) are deliberate obfuscations of the reality that the butches are intimidating the bourgeois.
But what constitutes a safe space isn’t the same for everyone, and organizers such as Ross — who seek to welcome all, regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender identification — are facing resistance, including from the very community they’re trying to welcome. Critics have accused Ross’s parties of not being “really queer,” raising the question of whether safe spaces must be exclusive to be truly “safe.” For some, it’s a requirement; for others, a space can’t be safe if it isn’t exclusive to the audience it represents.
For everyone, it seems to be a conversation in progress. [bold added]
If by "conversation" a progressive means sit still while I dictate my terms, then "conversation in progress" has to mean those terms are fluid and subject to whim.
Reporting these internecine squabbles is trouble for the Narrative. Freedom of association is anathema to it, yet the divisions it produces as a necessity produce ever more fissioning of groups into hostile camps.
The same heated demagogy dividing whites from blacks, straights from gays, men from women, and on, can only have some collateral negative effect on relations between these favored identity groups, straining already alliances that are far more conceptual than real (such as between blacks and gays).

Sunday, September 03, 2017

Goy and Yid, God forbid...

I joined Luke Ford for his weekly Torah Talk broadcast. We discussed this week's Torah reading, Deuteronomy 26-29:8, and how it relates to the present.

Saturday, September 02, 2017

A post shared by Dennis Dale (@eladsinned) on
"Get out there, enjoy the view..."

Friday, September 01, 2017

Goy, hi!

I'll be on Luke Ford's weekly Torah Talk this Sunday at 9:00 AM Pacific Time.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Before and Crasser

The United Workmen Temple in Portland was built in the 1890s for the Ancient Order of Workmen, and eventually became the Tourney Building. Falling into disrepair it was declared unsafe and taken off the historical register in 2015. The city cited the cost of earthquake retrofitting and now it's under demolition.








Yesterday
Today


The style is something called Richardsonian Romanesque, the exemplar of which is Trinity Church in Boston:



It's a mashup of styles, yielding such as upper floor exterior columns:


























A hotel will go up in its place: