Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: Tarantino’s Triumph of the Spectacle
There is something of the glimmer of Hollywood in ‘Tarantino,’ there is something of the schlock of Tarantino in ‘Hollywood.’ He has become a legend in his own time. The dream-like trajectory of a video-jockey whose obsession with film leads him to become the most iconic director of his era – “written and directed by Quentin Tarantino” – the cinema of cool. His latest, featuring two of Hollywood’s longest glowing marquee lights in Pitt and DiCaprio, is a homage to itself, to Tinseltown’s magic, the magic that made Tarantino, well, Tarantino. Reviews discuss the alternative historical ending as the most salient feature of the perambulating script; Tarantino’s re-imagining of the Manson family murders. Tate doesn’t die. The Hollywood dream doesn’t die and in fact isn’t even tainted. There is no dark side to “lights, camera, action,” only swanky pool parties in the Hollywood hills. There is only stimulation and enjoyment, there are no relations of domination only atomized ‘projects’ that one would be lucky to be a part of. The Counter-Culture is killed rather than kills – Show Biz wins a flawless victory. Noel Coward alone asks “Why must the show go on?”
Ice Cube answers: “What it is Show Biz.”
“The lights must never go out, The music must always play… Lest we should see where we are, Lost in a haunted wood, Children afraid of the night, Who have never been happy or good.”
The dazzling Spectacle, the shadows on the wall – never mind the Big Picture, look at it phenomenologically – these are people’s triumphs – that’s Marilyn Monroe saying she’ll never have to suck another Jewish cock again![i] – That’s American Idol. That’s Quentin Tarantino.
His reimagining of history in Inglorious Bastards “handed its ahistorical revenge to Jewish characters”[ii] while his reimagining of history in “Once Upon a Time…” hands it’s ahistorical revenge to Hollywood, which really means Jews. In Tarantino Hollywood prevails, Jews prevail and the Spectacle prevails. What Tarantino is saying is that his temple will not burn. Streaming and online platforms may kill the medium, the movie-going experience, as we move further away from communal forms of entertainment into more individual and private ones. Shannon Tate goes to the cinema to see herself.
“‘Once Upon a Time…’ is ideally suited to the fake-news era. Quentin makes the trashing of history look hip. And though the notion that Sharon Tate ‘lives’ is supposed to send us out on a feel-good cloud (when, in fact, it’s arguably a trivialization of her memory), the upshot of the film’s defeat of Charles Manson is that Rick, the fading TV star, gets invited up to Sharon’s pad to hobnob with the Polanski circle. ‘Once Upon a Time…’ immerses us in the mystery and the burbling pop excitement of 1969, but by the end it is every inch a movie of 2019, where even a fantasy as world-altering as the decimation of the Manson family is treated as nothing so much as a rockin’ career move.”[iii]
Tarantino recently married an Israeli, Daniela Pick, making some fine kosher cuts and some excellent career moves.[iv]
“…it must be said that the Jews are the ‘most jealously racist nation in the world and they have even claimed to be more intelligent than the others.’ In a big majority of cases Jews have been capitalist types. The struggle against capitalism must therefore be strongly identified with the struggle against the Jews. A mass campaign against the Jews must be initiated. ‘Hitler is right and we are wrong.’”[i] – Bruno Rizzi, Italian Communist
I have followed Joe Rogan from before the first ‘big incident’ leading to his current status as pop cultural guru and icon. I am thinking of his ‘leaked’ onstage confrontation with fellow comedian Carlos Mencia way back in 2007.[ii] Shortly after this Rogan began his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE first streamed on December 24, 2009), serving as the vehicle to catapult Rogan to the upper-spheres of our pop cultural heights (one guest described Rogan as the “Johnny Carson” of our time).[iii] Although, perhaps Rogan is bigger and more influential than Carson and limiting his influence on the culture to ‘host’ and ‘personality,’ as is my understanding of Carson’s legacy, is an injustice to Rogan’s reach – this despite the fact that in Carson’s time media was more monolithic and concentrated.[iv] In fact the initial impetus for JRE was to remove the middle-man and the old “talk-show” format from interviews. But Rogan loves MONEY and advertisers have infiltrated the Podcast to the point wherein it no longer functions in an antagonistic manner to outmoded media, but is the new format.[v]
Concurrent with Rogan’s meteoric rise to the upper echelons of the Cultural Industry’s[vi] obscurantist edifice, the AltRight became a household term during Trump-Clinton Presidential debates. I heard words I had written come out of Richard Spencer’s mouth as he became the focal point and mouthpiece of ‘the Movement,’ which for tactile reasons I fully endorsed.[vii]
Now to be fair Rogan’s career has always been buttered and buttressed by Jewish agents and management. Rogan’s talent agent The Gersh Agency (TGA) was founded in 1949 by Phil Gersh of Russian Jewish immigrants Ida and Louis Gershowitz. Following Rogan’s on-stage and online-leaked trouncing of fellow Gersh client Carlos “the fake Mexican” Mencia, the Gersh Agency dropped Rogan as a client. As Mencia, a star of Comedy Central’s Mind of Mencia, was a more prized asset than the presumably washed-up former Fear Factor host (despite Rogan calling Mencia out for joke stealing).[viii] Did Rogan learn anything about the Tribe from this incident? Such that shekels> loyalty > truth? Phil Gersh’s sister, Mildred Gersh married Sam Jaffe, another Russian Jewish Hollywood insider whose family connections in ‘the Industry’ attest to the sort of close-knit incestuous tribal cronyism of the Rothschilds.
Figure 1 It’s a small Jewish club and you’re not in it!
This “Neo Nepotism” runs deep; it is in fact part and parcel of Jewish identity which is exclusivist racist tribalism. There is nothing “neo” about Jewish Nepotism, it forms the basis of their identity as a unique tribe which proposes a Deuteronomic Double Standard.[ix] As Adam Bellow, son of Jewish author Saul Bellow, puts it:
“This is America as Adam Bellow sees it, a land where blood loyalty runs deep and the once frowned-upon practice of dynastic succession is no longer the exception but the rule. From politics and business to movies, literature and sports, Mr. Bellow argues in his new book, ‘In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History,’ to be published by Doubleday next month, clannishness increasingly prevails. The United States, he says, is undergoing a vast revival of what he calls ‘the hereditary principle,’ or, more bluntly, nepotism…
It’s a phenomenon in which, as a son of the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow, he says he has some first-hand expertise. ‘I too am an example of the New Nepotism and am thoroughly familiar with the peculiar strains of 21st-century heirship,’ he writes.”[x]
“Elitism” is essentially Jewish entryism and tribalism. If anyone finds it curious that “blood loyalty runs deep” for the Jews, but is vehemently denounced as a practice when Whites engage in it, that’s Wrongthink. Tribalism for (((We))) but not for thee – a position sabbos goy Rogan uncritically upholds.
During the turbulent days of the AltRight’s overnight notoriety Rogan went on a crusade denouncing “tribalism.” Rogan’s oft-repeated talking point for denouncing “white identity politics” is calling out “toxic tribalism.”[xi] But Rogan will never touch Jewish tribalism or Bellow’s “Neo-Nepotism” with a ten-foot-pole. Like his “conspiracy theorizing,” Rogan is hands off Jewish issues: Big Foot; sure, inter-dimensional space elves; OK, did six million really die? Nazi! Does Joe Rogan really question everything?[xii]
Rogan is the Jordan Peterson of knuckle-dragging meatheads, although to be fair Jordan Peterson is the Jordan Peterson of knuckle-dragging meatheads. So watching Rogan time and again denounce tribalism using specious argument after appeal to emotion and sentimental “American values” etc. and then have Roseanne Barr come onto his podcast and claim she is a tribalist because she is Jewish followed by about four and a half seconds of dead air and have Rogan not respond negatively to her is deafening.[xiii] Tribalism for (((We))) but not for thee, Rogan understands the rules, he accepts them and obfuscates the issues by avoiding the JQ adding to the cacophony of mindless chatter diverting consciousness away from reality, distorting power.
After being dropped by his talent agency Rogan next signed with William Morris (WM). WM was founded in 1898 by Zelman Moses, who changed his name to the eponymous Wasp-sounding William Morris. Two years after scoping up Rogan WM merged with Endeavor Talent Agency to become William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC (WME or WME-IMG). Endeavor was founded by four Jews: Ari Emanuel, Rick Rosen, Tom Strickler, and David Greenblatt. If you’re wondering how all these wiz-kid’s managed to start a talent agency look no further than Tom Strickler:
“His first job was a mailroom position at the Creative Artists Agency (CAA) then headed by Mike Ovitz. Strickler found the company to be ‘dynamic’ and ‘lots of fun,’ despite the at-times menial and dull nature of his job. ‘There’s no shortcut’ past mailroom work, he explained to a listener interested in a Hollywood career. But Strickler enjoyed his job, and celebrated the fact that ‘your friends in the mailroom will go on to have interesting careers.’ Strickler was promoted to agent just two years after he began his mailroom position.”[xiv]
Ever been stuck in a dead end job? Do you wear a little hat? Well you can soon be like Rick Rosen fast tracked from mailroom to boardroom with a fluff piece in Variety500 bragging about flipping your newly built Encino Mansion.[xv] According to Jordan Peterson Jews are just smarter than the average goy[xvi] not that even George Soros’ first gig was the result of Jewish tribal nepotism: “Finally, he found work at the London-based merchant bank Singer and Friedlander because, he stated in a rare moment of self-deprecation, the managing director was a fellow Hungarian.”[xvii] (((fellow Hungarian))). Like billionaire pedophile Mossad agent blackmailer Jeffery Epstien, “Epstein, who caught a lucky break tutoring the son of Bear Stearns chairman Alan Greenberg before joining the firm, left the investment bank in 1981 to set up his own financial firm.” (((Lucky break))).[xviii]
WME’s co-CEO’s are two jews Ari Emanuel and Patrick Whitesell. Emanuel is brother to neoliberal former Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel[xix] and was immortalized by Jeremy Piven’s obnoxious Jewish agent Ari Gold in HBO’s cultural sewage tour de force Entourage. In 2016 WME bought Zuffa the parent entity of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) for the price of $4.025 billion. Making Emanuel and Whitesell not only Rogan’s agent, but his boss as well (Rogan has worked as an interviewer and color commentator for the UFC since 1997). The UFC’s story of success, of three gentile friends, two Italian brothers and their childhood Irish friend, investing in something they loved and creating a profitable brand with vision and tenacity only to be bought out by some rich Jewish conglomerate becomes another avenue for the Jewish Establishment.
I came to Rogan through a kind of circuitous path of similarities of interest and natural inclinations. I was a fan of Jan Irvin and his Gnostic Media Podcast (now Logos Media). I was into psychedelics and the counter-culture. I read DMT: The Spirit Molecule and tripped on Ayahuasca in Peru. I was also interested in martial arts and studying Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Lastly, I even tried my hand at standup comedy. All things Joe Rogan. And there was the fact we are both east coast Italians. Holy shit this is my guy. I used to lurk on the Joe Rogan Forums prior to all this, back in the halcyon days when Rogan was a 9/11 and moon landing truther and clips of the “Joe Show” included pornstars spoofing Fear Factor challenges by competing in obstacle courses with dildos in their orifices. When I was a Joe Rogan fan, the Boston-born comedian, was a D-list absurdist on the periphery; shitting on Hollywood and earning his black belt ‘choking dudes out.’
Then I began getting ‘redpilled,’ or rather, the nascent seeds of my growing awareness began to sprout. There were personal dealings with Jews, there was finishing my degree in the humanities and noticing a certain “Jewish taint” to theory and a certain uncritical assumption of values and worldviews. There was the celebrated and public ridiculing of all things; Christian, European and Male. There was Holocaust™ revisionism and the twisting and bending of the legal system to squash dissention. There was reading about the Federal Reserve and the history of Jewish usury and banking, there was discovering Kevin MacDonald’s work and Counter-Currents. There was studying the Jewish Question and our history with the tribe as a nation within a nation. When I began writing it was no longer with the crude perverted reductionist lens of the comedian, what interested me now was in the vein of serious sociological investigation. My first articles were published on Counter-Currents and I began prodding far down the rabbit hole. During this time the JRE took off and I and millions of others watched Rogan morph from outspoken sideliner to shabbas-goy gatekeeper. At some point I launched my own short-lived podcast The Fascist Pigs and of the fifteen or so episodes E Michael Jones became the most recurrent guest and one of the most influential people on the Far-Right and in the culture wars.
I write all this to illustrate that I am an acute observer of the cultural phenomenon of Joe Rogan whose name is now synonymous with a veritable cocktail of associations which can be classified under three primary headings: 1) Counter-Cultural (Drugs, Conspiracy, “the intellectual dark web”), 2) Maleness (Hunting, bow shooting, fitness lifestyle, video games) and 3) “Show Biz” (Podcast, Hosting, Comedy, UFC).There is also a kind of miscellanea of other interests; Egyptology, zoology, among them, etc that add further dimensionality to Rogan’s persona. In the land of the typecast, pigeon-holed and branded, Rogan is seen as a kind of hybrid or chimera, a kind of post-modern renaissance man to whom the fledging masses of confused young men could find a false prophet to assuage real concerns of social and economic dispossession with empty banter about chimps raping frogs, or something a cut below frequent JRE guest and fellow ‘intellectual dark web’ teammate Jordan Peterson’s self-help room cleaning service. When Rogan has “serious” discussions it is usually with the coterie of “intellectual dark web” personalities who are either Jewish or refuse to discuss the JQ like Peterson.[xx]
What critics of the rise of identity politics (specifically of the AltRight variety like Peterson and Rogan) often fail to understand or address is what Francis Fukuyama labelled “prestige battles” in an era of depreciating returns. Globalization has meant off-shoring of production to places where it is cheaper and labour is more subservient and pliable. This has in turn weakened the white working class who are often forced into unsteady, low-paying, service industry McJobs that no longer service primary or tertiary sectors of the economy. Factoring in a hostile elite who control the media and carefully monitor for political dissent, the escapism of the opioid and pornography industries (Drugs, Sex and Rock’n’Roll) and you have a complex matrix of world fuckery sapping the lifeblood out of young men while a parasitic over-class of stock, shareholders and landlords specter over university graduates working two jobs unable to make inflated rents in the cities their ancestors built due to foreign invasions of parvenu races. While cultural products like Crazy Rich Asians make light of the dominance of ascendant races. Simply put this is the recrudescence of the pre-revolution aristocracy on a global scale. Steve Bannon understood the grim reality in a manner that exposed Neo-Cohen David Frum during their Munk Debate: “The millennials are like 18th century Russian serfs. They’re not going to own anything, they live in the gig economy, no pension plans or careers. But they’re better fed and in better health. The millennials will see the logic of the populist movement.”[xxi]
The Munk debate between Bannon and Frum should go down as a key moment in the culture war. Bannon argued on principles deriving from facts; the bailouts the elites gave themselves revealed the crooked rules of the game: “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.”[xxii] Bannon uses the word “Elites” but as Rizzi discovered we know who the elites are. Frum shifts uneasily in the background during Bannon’s opening remarks, his beady eyes probing for anti-semitism. Bannon states a litany of facts, a four trillion dollar deficit, “50% of American families can’t put their hands on $400 cash,” at that point a banner is unveiled by the audience that reads “NO TO HATE,” and at this point it should become clear – “hate” is a word and a mental-prison flung about to distort a weighing of reality and of facts.[xxiii] Soros funds progressive movements for their utility in obscuring parasitism. Frum’s opening statements conform to this tactic, puffed up in his little suit like a show poodle; he begins with a cheap talk-show-host-like-joke delegitimizing and subverting Bannon’s somber and honest invocation of facts and narrative. Satisfied with the home audience’s reaction, Frum goes on… “I want to speak to those of you who see Trump’s politics for what it is and…” now with the hammy overacting of a Jewish thespian, “who resist it.” Frum pulls his hand towards his chest in a theatrical gesture of solidarity, “I know how worried you are, I know the fear that many feel…” And here it comes, “we are nearing the eighth anniversary of Kristallnacht.” Hath not a Jew eyes… Doth not a Jew bleed? Pandering, peddling.
Figure 3 when reality is a Der Sturmer caricature
Bannon is pointing to what Italo-German Sociologist Robert Michel’s referred to as the Iron Law of Oligarchy – globalized. One must add dimensionality to Rizzi, Michels, Burnham and Orwell’s critique of the tendency towards oligarchic collectivism; it is not merely that all large-scale democratic processes are undermined by the problems posed by specialization, monopoly and organization but as Guy Debord put it:
“The totalitarian bureaucracy was not ‘the last owning class in history’ in Bruno Rizzi’s sense; it was merely a substitute ruling class for the commodity economy.” What this means Debord has trouble articulating because his analysis is primarily Marxist – for the commodity economy to be a ruling class means that nebulously manipulated desire rules – libido dominandi. It means liberal-democratic capitalism “the commodity economy,” reduces citizens to consumers.
To Michels’ notion of the bureaucratic “leadership class” – we should add a sub-category namely “the celebrity class.” Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump straddle the line between leadership and celebrity class and reveal the intersection and relation between them – “all the world’s a stage.” As the leadership class performs a function, so does the “Celebrity Class,” the function of the Celebrity Class is to produce Debord’s society of the Spectacle and to promote the narrative of Show Biz of which it is intimately interwoven. Show Biz, narrowly controlled, promotes the values of its mechanism, of capitalism and the Jewish worldview of its studio executives. This Jewish worldview is “liberal universalism” applied through a tribalist particularism. Compare and contrast – non-Jewish ‘intellectual rock-star’ Slavoj Zizek; “Liberal universalism is an illusion, a mask concealing its own particularity which it imposes onto others as universal.”[xxiv] Jewish intellectual Michael Walzer; “Liberal emancipation, liberal universalism; this is the particularism of the Jews.”[xxv]
Your primary job as celebrity is to maintain celebrity and that means maintaining Show Biz. And that means relevancy. The Celebrity Class functions in the political economy of libido in so far as celebrity is fulfilled desire – to ascend to the glamorous world of stardom. People like Rogan, the talking head participants of the ‘all singing, all dancing crap of the world,’ as Tyler Durden put it, cannot help but turn into ‘self-help gurus’ for the politically-socially-economically disenfranchised. As Rogan says to Wiz Kalifa discussing entry into the celebrity class: “not everyone is going to make it, but you can!” Essentially expressing a Spectacle reworking of the class consciousness of the famous Steinbeck quote, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
“’Spectacle’ is a complex term which ‘unifies and explains a great diversity of apparent phenomena’ (#10). In one sense, it refers to a media and consumer society, organized around the consumption of images, commodities, and spectacles, but the concept also refers to the vast institutional and technical apparatus of contemporary capitalism, to all the means and methods power employs, outside of direct force, to relegate subjects passive to societal manipulation and to obscure the nature and effects of capitalism’s power and deprivations.”[xxvi]
This is the crux of the issue and the main reason for Spectacle; the obscuring of power. The basic archetype for laissez-faire is the negligent parent, (“the Boomer”) who has taken the child’s inheritable wealth to “the Woodstocks” of Sex, Drugs[xxvii] and Rock’n’Roll, each roughly equivalent to Rogan’s three basic categorizations and each a selling point of Spectacle with considerable overlap. Broadly speaking each category can be divided into one of two ‘outlooks’ which I dub “Openness” and “Criticality.” This is my preferred dichotomy rather than that of Jewish sociologist Karl Popper’s use of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ societies. My general critique of Popper’s “open society” is that such an orientation leads to the degeneration of the powers of discernment, rather than the opposite argument made by progressives.
Jewish usurer George Soros’ affinity for Popper’s “open society” as Soros himself maintains, “I could choose my tutor, and I chose Karl Popper, the Viennese-born philosopher whose book The Open Society and Its Enemies had made a profound impression on me.” Soros’ The Open Society Foundation, finances and spearheads progressive agendas around the world. The fact that usury and progressive politics march hand-in-hand should give rise to some questions and analysis. However, the most Rogan can muster is having bumbling moron Alex Jones explain that he does not like Soros because Soros was a Nazi and something about human pig hybrids.[xxviii] Alex Jones cannot articulate why George Soros is bad. There is a failure to appreciate the bigger picture. Adolf Hitler joined the German Worker’s Party precisely after listening to a lecture by economist Gottfried Feder in which Feder discerned the difference between parasitic and industrial capital:
“Hitler was instantly fascinated by Feder’s ideas, which he had heard of prior to joining the German Workers Party, as Feder clarified the meaning of the struggle. Hitler attended Feder’s lectures and was taught the difference between loan and industrial capital of which he had been previously unaware. After the first lecture, in which he first heard about stock-exchange and loan capital, he recalled: “I had now found a way to one of the most essential pre-requisites for the founding of a new party.”
Feder with Hitler and Anton Drexler wrote the 25 point programme of the NSDAP in 1920, hence the points on banking stating:
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Soros obscures the reality of his mission by being disingenuous: “That is how I came to write my ﬁrst major essay, ‘The Burden of Consciousness.’ It was an attempt to model Popper’s framework of open and closed societies. It linked organic society with a traditional mode of thinking, closed society with a dogmatic mode, and open society with a critical mode.”[xxx]
Criticality then functions beyond Tonnies’ dichotomy of Community (Gemeinschaft), and Society (Gesellschaft).
Open societies lack the criticality necessary for discernment; they lack the basic mental controls to repeal bad or harmful ideas because the central cultural operating system is geared towards O. Both Openness and Closeness have positive and negative attributes, but O operates in the extremity of excess and C in the extremity of deficiency, while a balance between them achieves a golden mean. As an illustrative example an immigration policy and a country that is open to everyone, without regard to the elective affinities that create natural bonds between people which can move towards Tonnies “community” rather than “society” is operating under an O paradigm that is excessive and whose primary goals are to create confusion for usurers like Soros to continue to profit through parasitic practices. O means a general shift towards both an Eastern mindset of passive reciprocity to “the Reality Principle” and towards usury. But in a globalized McWorld of the free market; the free movement of people, products and capital necessarily engenders a kind of de facto acceptance of the O paradigm – diversity, inclusion and openness are accepted values and modes of being beyond the pale of scrutiny. What replace criticality are empty platitudes designed to warn off thought and reinforce O – “good vibes only.” The height of Spectacle democratized may be a peer-to-peer image-centric platform like Instagram.
When everything is a spectrum you move away from binary thinking, nothing is good or bad, male or female, black or white; the undifferentiated swamp consumes distinctions and blurs lines.
What do I mean by Openness? It is a strange phenomenon that the idiom; “keep an open mind” or someone saying that “they are open-minded,” is understood as a euphemism for holding progressive values. Now, generally the problem with having an “open mind” is that your brain might fall out or at least people will try to fill it with such nonsense that you have lost the critical capacity to effectively evaluate. True “open mindedness” comes from a critical evaluation of what is being presented, but in Plebville certain values override such processes “I don’t want to hear it,” “that’s negative,” “chill.” Progressive values, like the idea that gender is a spectrum, fly in the face of the critical values of taxonomy. “LGBTQ+” is the most visually representative of this trend with the “+,” rather than symbolizing a host of other signifiers (“QIP2SAA”), instead signifies the never-ending, open-ended verities of the spectrum itself, or the signifier signifies the process of self-creation, which is a fundamental axiom of modernity, or the signifier merely signifies the signifier itself which like quantum theory suggests that nothing is in a solid state. Thus, the “plus” stands for a functional definition of something in flux, and the definition is understood as merely a problem of linguistics – the thing is begrudging named. This brings us to the crux of Marx’s conservative critique of Capital in the famous “All that’s solid melts.” O values are solipsistic and subjective – there is talk of “one’s own truth.” All this hinges on the autonomous and alienated subject – Kant’s categorical imperative.
“Love is love” is another progressive slogan that revels in its self-referential solipsism. To define a word as signifier for an emotional-cognitive state by the word itself is to fall back into incoherence. Imagine trying to describe a “ship” by the word “ship” or “the large hadron collider” with “the large hadron collider.” “Love is love” is stupid and open to O; which means a slippery-slope to absolute degradation.
E Michael Jones demonstrated that ‘sexual revolution’ is political control and this is certainly the case but the real control is not in releasing libidinal energy but rather to trap the mind in a mental construction whereby O values are ceaselessly and endlessly reiterated. This mental construction is an undifferentiated mass rather than a prison cell, too narrow a picture, as much concentrated work can be accomplished therein, rather an open sky with infinite possibilities and no anchor or reference point, since everything stands alone – everything only refers back to itself “love is love.”
Both drugs, especially psychedelics, and “Show Biz” function almost exclusively within O. For Show Biz novelty sells, inclusion means a bigger market, more reach, more advertisers, it is best not to be against anything but for everything etc. When Rogan was D-List he flung stones or rather pebbles; at actors, other comedians, questioning official narratives, with people whose convictions he disagreed with, but as his wealth and reach has widened as his Show Biz Capital has increased he has policed his antics, towing a more PC line. The Podcast has become increasingly milquetoast as it has expanded into the realm of being merely another celebrity circle-jerk. Rogan has argued in the past that actors are really fake people because the industry is controlled by so few that they are forced to adopt liberal values and wear social masks. As the Podcast has increased in influence Rogan has come under the same sorts of behaviour-modifying self-regulation that he once bemoaned. The interesting thing is the feedback loop that Rogan is generating self-propels this hypocrisy: as Rogan exhibits more O his bank account produces more $ therefore R rewards O. Therefore we should all be more O. R = the Reality Principle or “the Universe” or “Retard Receptiveness” in the vernacular of new age think.
R thinking has to do with an overemphasis on individual attitudes towards worldly happiness and success. PlebTalk insistently makes reference to “the universe,” as though it were a mechanism responding to the graduations and incremental changes of individual subjectivity like a mood ring forecasting the temperamental fortunes on a hippy. This incremental Taoism is inherently solipsistic and functions on an atomized notion of “self-care,” atomizied selfish solipsism, before responsibility to others. The buzz words of O and R receptiveness include variants of: “the universe,” “journey,” “good vibes only,” “love,” “love is love,” “positive,” “positive thinking,” “the Secret,” “positive vibes,” “energy,” etc.
Celebrities are major proponents of such doctrines in a way that almost divinizes them as super-human. Take for example an exchange between Wiz Kalifa and Rogan during a mutual circle-jerk of O values, “Wiz” at one point says that he is spiritually superior to his peers. The conflation of worldly success and spiritual election, a self-propelling Calvinism – a kind of Judaic materialism, maintains in Show Biz and celebrity culture a convincing hold. After all Oprah Winfred was a major proponent of The Secret. Instead of seeing themselves as the lucky beneficiaries of the Cultural Industry’s “all singing and dancing crap of the world,” they imagine that they are “stars” because they are more luminous than the average person, spiritually or otherwise. Everything is based upon some underlining principles, be they actively understood or subconsciously and vaguely presupposed. The conscious awareness of the underlining principle allows one to dictate action.
Rogan has exhibited R Think, which is a kind of superstitious karmic mental prison, by berating Anthony Cuma for carrying a gun. “Anthony always has a gun on him, he carries a gun everywhere, like he has a concealed carry permit and shit, and I said to him, I said, do you ever worry that maybe you’re putting out this energy and you’re manifesting something, like some sort of attack on you because you’re constantly dwelling on it and you always have this gun.”[xxxi]
But Rogan justifies carrying a knife while jogging because of mountain lions. “It’s not likely, it’s not likely, people are like oh my god you’re paranoid, two people were killed by mountain lions last year… If two people got killed by werewolves would you go out when the moon was full?”[xxxii]
Which is more statistically likely getting “jacked” by a mountain lion or getting “jacked” by a socio-economically disadvantaged minority in an urban setting?
The intellectual dark web
Incidentally, within each overarching categorization there are elements of both “O” and “C,” even within each thing-in-itself. Hence, “Conspiracy” as a subcategory of counter-cultural might contain O in the idea that to entertain a notion that is unpopular, counter-cultural or fringe, one must exhibit a degree of Openness, however, that quality of O is contained within a greater circumference of C, in this sense O exists like a vestibule within a C manor or that spot of ying within the yang. However, due to Rogan’s cowardice, his counter-cultural elements are always kosher hence it is the one category that is both O and C.
Now with both Maleness and Show Biz I’ve simplified their categorization because there is less overlap and ambiguity. Following works like Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personne and Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men, maleness in an age of feminine openness, is conceived as existing on the Apollonian end of the spectrum, that is creating boundaries and distinctions as in the function of critical inquiry and the Aristotelian system of classifications. While Show Biz, following the logic of the market and the merchant, fundamentally stands for the Openness of McWorld’s metanarrative.
Rogan has a bit in his 2007 comedy special Shiny Happy Jihad, in which he discusses “Big Dick Pills” he goes on to say “that’s a ripoff I can get behind, anybody dumb enough to think that the ads for big dick pills would be some weird secret on the backpage of Hustler, fuck that guy, take his shit.” Enter Rogan’s stake in Onnit and specifically it’s “nootropic,” a marketing neologism, product Alpha Brain. Well not claiming to enhance the little head, Alpha Brain is essentially a “big brain pill” claiming to increase neurological functioning in the brain – “that’s a ripoff I can get behind.” The company and its fraudulent scientific claims are well documented in Alpha Brain: A Joe Rogan Documentary. Quoting from it seems to encapsulate Rogan’s opportunism: “the larger his base the safer his positions seem to be, slowly but surely Joe will walk back conspiracy after conspiracy.”[xxxiii] Anyone who has spent any decent amount of time learning anything complex knows there is no royal road to knowledge.
Rogan’s consistent failure to address the JQ has resulted in the critical capacity of his “counter-cultural” dimension to drift further towards O. Rogan has gone into ‘interviewer mode,’ he is the Oprah Winfred of unripe boys and immature men.
With a reach of millions of young impressionable minds Rogan’s gatekeeping and callous false rebel persona are incredibly powerful tools for the Jewish establishment.
Figure 4 “… and I want to be rich, someone important, like an actor…”
[i] Bruno Rizzi quoted by James M. Fenwick. The Mysterious Bruno R.
[v] The JRE is now allegedly no longer live streaming. “For both, the electronic media were a new stage in abstraction where interpersonal relations become technologically mediated. Both saw the media as one-way modes of transmission that reduced audiences to passive spectators;  both were concerned with authentic communication and a more vivid and immediate social reality apart from the functional requirements of a rationalized society. For Baudrillard, this entailed a destruction of all media, for their function is precisely to mediate, to prevent genuine communication, which, in a strangely Rousseauian metaphysics of presence, he conceived to be symbolic and direct, non-mediated.”
[vi] I burrow the term “the cultural industry” from Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment; (1944).
“The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed.”
There is a curious cultural conservative parallel with Richard Wagner’s essay Art and Revolution (1849):
“This is Art, as it now fills the entire civilized world! Its true essence is Industry;
its ethical aim, the gaining of gold; its aesthetic purpose, the entertainment of
those whose time hangs heavily on their hands. From the heart of our modern
society, from the golden calf of wholesale Speculation, stalled at the meeting of
its cross-roads, our art sucks forth its life-juice, borrows a hollow grace from the
lifeless relics of the chivalric conventions of mediaeval times, and—blushing not
to fleece the poor, for all its professions of Christianity—descends to the depths of
the proletariate, enervating, demoralising, and dehumanising everything on which
They described how the “culture industry” defused critical consciousness, providing a key means of distraction and stupefaction, and they developed the first neo-Marxist theories of the media and consumer society (see Kellner 1989a). Debord and the Situationists can thus be interpreted as an attempt to renew the Marxian project under historically specific conditions.
Politically, Debord and the Situationists were deeply influenced by the council communism promoted by the early Lukacs, Korsch, Gramsci, and a tradition taken up in France by both the Socialism or Barbarism and _Arguments_ groups.
Also influenced by Gramsci (1971), the Situationists saw the current forms of social control as based on consensus rather than force, as a cultural hegemony attained through the metamorphoses of the consumer and media society into the “society of the spectacle.” In this society, individuals consume a world fabricated by others rather than producing one of their own.
For Debord, the spectacle is a tool of pacification and depoliticization; it is a “permanent opium war” (#44) which stupefies social subjects and distracts them from the most urgent task of real life — recovering the full range of their human powers through revolutionary change.
Parallel to the Frankfurt School conception of a “totally administered” or “one dimensional” society (Adorno and Horkheimer 1972; Marcuse 1964), Debord states that “The spectacle is the moment when the commodity has attained the total occupation of social life” (#42). Here exploitation is raised to a psychological level; basic physical privation is augmented by “enriched privation” of pseudo-needs; alienation is generalized, made comfortable, and alienated consumption becomes “a duty supplementary to alienated production” (#42).
The shift to a “bureaucratic society of controlled consumption” (Lefebvre 1971 and 1991) organized around the production of spectacles can be seen as the exploitation of use value and needs as a means of advancing profit and gaining ideological control over individuals. Unlike early capitalism, where the structural exigencies lay in the forceful exploitation of labor and nature, and in defining the worker strictly as a producer, the society of the spectacle defines the worker as a consumer and attempts to constitute the worker’s desires and needs, first creating then exploiting them
The spectacle not only expands the profits and power of the capitalist class, but also helps to resolve a legitimation crisis of capitalism. Rather then vent anger against exploitation and injustice, the working class is distracted and mollified by new cultural productions, social services, and wage increases. In consumer capitalism, the working classes abandon the union hall for the shopping mall and celebrate the system that fuels the desires that it ultimately cannot satisfy. But the advanced abstraction of the spectacle brings in its wake a new stage of deprivation. Marx spoke of the degradation of being into having, where creative praxis is reduced to the mere possession of an object, rather than its imaginative transformation, and where need for the other is reduced to greed of the self. Debord speaks of a further reduction, the transformation of having into appearing, where the material object gives way to its semiotic representation and draws “its immediate prestige and ultimate function” (#17) as image — in which look, style, and possession function as signs of social prestige. The production of objects simpliciter gives way to “a growing multitude of image-objects” (#15) whose immediate reality is their symbolic function as image. Within this abstract system, it is the appearance of the commodity that is more decisive than its actual “use value” and the symbolic packaging of commodities — be they cars or presidents — generates an image industry and new commodity aesthetics (see Haug 1986).
As Walter Benjamin argued (1973, discussed in Buck-Morss 1989), the commodity-phantasmagoria of the spectacle began in the Paris Arcades in the 19th century which put on display all the radiant commodities of the day. Department stores soon appeared in Paris and elsewhere which exhibited commodities as a spectacle and soon became coveted temples of consumption.
For Baudrillard, we leave behind the society of the commodity and its stable supports; we transcend the society of the spectacle and its dissembling masks; and we bid farewell to modernity and its regime of production, and enter the postmodern society of the simulacrum, an abstract non-society devoid of cohesive relations, shared meaning, and political struggle.
Until _The Mirror of Production_ (1975), Baudrillard could be described, like Debord, as a neo-Marxist whose project was to retain the basic theoretical framework of Marxism, organized around class and production, while supplementing it to account for the changes in the nature of domination effected by the shift to a society based on mass media, consumption, and what Baudrillard called a “political economy of the sign.”
Debord and Baudrillard were doing sociological studies of the new consumer society and everyday life in France simultaneously in the 1960s; both worked with Henri Lefebvre and were part of a similar political and intellectual milieu at the time. Just as Baudrillard was aware of the work of the Situationists, there is evidence they were aware of his, since in one text they denounced him as a “decrepit modernist-institutionalist”
Yet he soon rejected the Situationist analysis as itself bound to an obsolete modernist framework based on notions like history, reality, and interpretation, and he jumped into a postmodern orbit that declared the death of all modern values and referents under conditions of simulation, implosion, and hyperreality.
Baudrillard’s argument against Debord is that during the phase of political economy theorized by the Situationists in terms of the society of media, consumption, and spectacle, a generalization and complexification of the sign form extended throughout the entire culture and environment leading to a hegemony of sign value in which commodities are produced, distributed, and consumed for their conspicuous social meaning. The object is converted into a mere sign of its use, now abstract and divorced from physical needs. The whole cycle of production, distribution, and consumption, Baudrillard claims, is transformed into a semiotic system of abstract signifiers with no relation to an objective world. In the imaginary world of sign value, one consumes power or prestige through driving a certain type of car or wearing designer clothes.  This is a new stage of abstraction, a dematerialization of the world through semiological (re)processing in which images and signs take on a life of their own and provide new principles of social organization.
Simulation for Baudrillard thus describes a process of replacing “real” with “virtual” or simulated events, as when electronic or digitized images, signs, or spectacles replace “real life” and objects in the real world. Simulation models generate simulacra, representations of the real, that are so omnipresent that it is henceforth impossible to distinguish the real from simulacra. The world of similacra for Baudrillard is precisely a postmodern world of signs without depth, origins, or referent.
There is herein also a parallel with two other notions which criticize “cultural products” in this manner – the first is the Marxist elongation of class consciousness’ submissive awestruck dumbfoundedness in the face of Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle.
[viii] TGA also dropped conservative actor James Woods.
[ix] See my CHURCHILL: SHABBOS GOY PAR EXCELLENCE “The principal concept that must be imparted and understood with regard to the consciousness of Jews and their gentile apologists is the concept of a Jewish double standard, in effect giving them special status above the law. The concept of a Jewish double standard, found in the Torah, (Leviticus 25:37), corresponds to what Benjamin Nelson has labelled the Deuteronomic Double Standard. This allows Jews, specifically in relation to usury, to treat fellow Jews better than non-Jews. This is analogous to the distinction of brother vs. other, or, as Carl Schmitt put it, a well-defined “friend/ enemy” distinction.”
See Also, The Idea of Usury, from Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood
By Benjamin N. Nelson. “Deuteronomy formed a cornerstone of the blood brotherhood morality of the Hebrew tribesmen. It assumed the solidarity of the mishpaha (clan) and the exclusion of the nokri (the foreigner, as contrasted with the ger, the protected sojourner, or the toshab, the resident stranger) from the privileges and obligations of the fraternity.”
“Shakespeare confirmed the Deuteronomic Double Standard not only in the conflicts of moneylending activities but also in the clash between morality and economic interest. According to Yaron Book, usury was regarded as economic immorality because it “takes of something for nothing” and as social immorality as well since usury is “unjust, exploitative against biblical law, selfish….” However, if usury is analyzed based on Jewish interpretation of the Deuteronomic Double Standard, it is neither economically nor socially immoral. Jews lend money with interest only to others those are not descents of Jacob——Christian citizens in Venice—— and thus they follow the law of Deuteronomic brotherhood.”
Barr begins down this road by stating that she believes that (1:07:00) Facebook and Twitter “manufacture consent” Rogan asks what she means by that to which Barr responds with this bit of half digested tautology: “it’s a place where like Noam Chomsky says the press manufactures consent, the consent of the governed. So that’s what they’re doing they’re manufacturing the consent of the governed.” Defining the meaning of your words by endlessly reiterating the words themselves, then Barr speculates that social media also manufactures ‘dissent’ “they control the opposition too. Rogan asks if she thinks there is some sort of grand plan to get people to argue with each other? Barr says she thinks it is a social experiment to turn one group against another, which you know it’s smart, because it’s divide and conquer. And you know there’s all these people getting robbed, all these taxpayers getting robbed sitting there pointing to other taxpayers that are getting robbed and blaming them. But everybody needs to look upward of our government and ask for an audit of our taxes and actually take responsibility for the things our country does, we’re getting judged for it anyway.
Rogan: there’s certain people who are capitalizing on it.
Rosanne Barr: Well we allow it.
Rogan: There are certainly people who are capitalizing on all this chaos and all this and all this conflict but I don’t think it’s manufactured and I don’t think it’s engineered. I just think it’s happening. Because this is a new thing. This ability to interact with each other.
Rosanne Barr: You think it just has a mind of its own?
Rogan: I think people have a mind of their own and people are inherently tribal. There’s almost no way to stop them from being tribal. And they switch tribes.
Barr: Well I like that people are tribal
Rogan: well the problem with tribalism is that you sometimes have enemies that are unnecessary. So you develop this idea that your part of a group…
Barr: Or you can have, or you can have allies on common ground.
Rogan: Yes that would be nice if we all looked at ourselves as a tribal world.
Barr: That how I do look at the world and why I didn’t want Hilary Clinton because her party is very much for corporate law and the Republican Party is very much for tribal law, and I am a tribal person and I think tribal people should you know have their land.
Rogan: Tribal in what way? How are you tribal?
Barr: Well I’m Jewish.
Followed by about four and a half seconds of dead air. Barr scrambles to qualify about going over to Israel and learning from her teachers and then a circuitously non-sequitur steering back towards the common ground of her unceremonious firing. Leaving her admission unacknowledged.
“He may have bought it less than a year ago, via blind trust, for $5.7 million but multiple sources have told this property gossip that William Morris Endeavor partner and board member Rick Rosen already has his newly built mansion in Encino, Calif., back on the open market with an asking price of $5.795 million. Set behind gates on a slight rise in the rich and leafy Royal Oaks neighborhood, the multi-gabled, Colonial-esque mansion measures in, according to current listing…”
“Epstein also built his wealth with Steven J. Hoffenberg and Leslie H. Wexner, the former of whom was convicted of running a giant Ponzi scheme, and the latter a clothing magnate.” Both members of the tribe.
Rahm Immanuel former Obama Chief of Staff and just stepping down after eight years as Mayor of Chicago, has just taken a new position as contributing editor to the Atlantic. This announcement coincided with Emanuel’s debut story for his new job, “It’s Time to Hold American Elites Accountable for Their Abuses.” If Rahm Emanuel; White House insider, former usurer-multimillionaire, brother of billionaire mogul, is not one of America’s Elites, who is?
“After all, it was Emanuel who, while serving in the Clinton administration, helped write NAFTA, the trade agreement which fueled offshoring of jobs, wage stagnation, upward redistribution of income and the collapse of the US manufacturing sector. He similarly helped push through welfare reform, legislation that spiked extreme poverty and cut off a lifeline for millions of working-class Americans, as well as the 1994 crime bill which incited the mass incarceration crisis.
After leaving the White House in 1998, Emanuel entered the world of investment banking where, over the course of four years, he made a staggering $16 million — more than ten times what an average American will earn over their entire lifetime.
Feudal, Militaristic, Bureaucratic, established state power
Orthodox social scientists — Conservatism
(academic insiders: Gierke, Schmoller, Wagner)
New Upper Middle class property owners,
Social Democrats — “Jewish-Socialism”
bankers and professionals, Jews and Lutherans
(Ferdinand Lassalle, August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht)
Old Middle Class of artisans, shopkeepers
Volkish Ideologists — Volk-Socialism
and free peasants, ethnic Germans, Catholics and proto-neopagans
(Lagarde, Meyer, Stocker)
Walzer states bluntly the inherent self-interest of Jewish liberalism:
“In other words, Jews were only able to remain free and make their way in a liberal state and a liberal society. Otherwise, they would be emancipated from orthodoxy only to be victimized by anti-Semitism, which must often have seemed to be the orthodoxy of the gentiles. Jews are liberals, then, from self-interest, but to say this is not to denigrate our commitment. Self-interest is a powerful root from which all sorts of idealisms can grow.”
[xxvii] Jan Irvin was the first person to introduce Rogan to drugs and the lectures of psychedelic cultural gurus like Terrence Mckenna. Irvin was an enthusiastic supporter, researcher and Johnny on the spot of psychedelic culture. As his research into the backgrounds of the big names, the Leary, Watson, Huxley, etc. uncovered CIA connections Irvin became skeptical. According to gurus like Timothy Leary in his book High Priest, which I read when I was an enthusiastic teenager, the drug experience is defined by three criteria; the drug, the setting (the environment), and the set (your mindset). To illustrate as I’ve previously mentioned, I’ve done psychedelics in the past. Doing ayahuasca in Peru taught me a lesson in what Jan calls “suggestibility.” Prior to the trip I had been informed of pachamama, the indigenous earth goddess, while I was experiencing a harrowing descent into Aldous Huxley’s doors of perception, I was handed a bundle of rosemary and told to rub it between my hands and inhale, doing so brought forth kaleidoscopic images of the Virgin Mary and as I stared at this pure being of wondrous compassion and love I was overwhelmed. Afterwards I became a kind of esoteric mariologist for a time. It was only later that I understood that my trip had been “seeded,” Pachamama was Mary, the rosemary triggered Mary, in the state of suggestible psychosis my mind made the appropriate connections – I was now conceived of the awesome power of archetypes. Now it is my contention that this ‘suggestibility’ of psychedelics amounts to a adopting a corresponding O mindset. Drugs, especially psychedelics, create a mental state of psychosis in which the mind seeks refuge in positive thoughts – something that Rogan infers in a joke about calming the Middle East down by gassing them with marijuana and dropping magic mushrooms from his Shiny Happy Jihad special. Incidentally both Drugs and Show Biz operate in a feedback loop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfNCj-UOiE
I had known about Rushkoff’s treatment of Judaism; Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism, for some time and had always meant to read and review it.[i]
A video of Rushkoff discussing his take on Judaism surfaced online reminiscent of the infamous ‘Barbara Spectre moment’ – that is a political gaffe from the tribe’s mouth. We can say these “Spectre moments” are when a Jewish cultural distorter candidly discusses Jewish cultural distortion on non-Jews and their nations as Rushkoff does:
“The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren’t true, we don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state, we don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people, these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that.In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force, we’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real and that’s very upsetting to people.”
The reason Jews like Rushkoff and Barbara Spectre allow themselves to speak candidly about Jewish social engineering, affirming what their ‘detractors’ accuse Jews of is because they believe that by manipulating gentile societies they are doing the world a service – that they are in fact doing God’s work. By undermining their host nations so as to bring about conditions of disunity, Jews, like Rushkoff and Spectre, believe that in performing this role of ‘a corrosive force;’ “breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people,” that they are performing a mitzvah as part of their god-ordained task of tikkun olam. A mitzvah is translated as a ‘commandment’ but more commonly means a good deed done from religious duty. Rushkoff describes tikkun olam as “a poetic way of expressing the responsibility Jews have to ‘heal the earth.’[ii] In my two part essay on integration Manspreading for Lebestrum, when I discuss the HBO series Show me a Hero, based on a book by Jewish New York Times writer Lisa Belkin about the integration struggle in Yonkers between the NAACP their Jewish lawyers and the ethnic whites of Yonkers, we can discern the same underlying self-justification:
“Belkin seeks to frame the issue of integration in terms of a progressive Jewish solution to the Jewish problem, while fully retaining her Jewishness. When asked about the overtly Jewish role in integration, Belkin neither denies nor downplays the Jewish role. Instead she invokes the Jewish religious principle of Tiklun Olam, a Hebrew phrase meaning ‘repairing the world.’ Tiklun Olam, was described by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in terms of a Kehilla (community) of Jews in galut (diaspora) successfully influencing their non-Jewish neighbors.”[iii]
What Jews like Rushkoff, Specter and Belkin affirm is that what “anti-semites” claim; that Jewish manipulation is real and corrosive is true; they agree the “Jewish conspiracy” is real but it is a matter of interpretation and the “anti-semite” is simply a gentile with the wrong interpretation simply because Jews know better. “The Jews unique position as perpetual outsiders led them to adopt and promote a wide range of cosmopolitan and inclusive business strategies and ethical standards.”[iv] Thus, diaspora Jews living in host nations seeking to ‘influence’ their non-Jewish neighbors in a manner which is demonstrably detrimental to their hosts (by mudding the authentic bonds of organic society; Tonnies’ Total Gesellschaft) and beneficial to Jews, as Rushkoff acknowledges, “A fluid society with ever-changing boundaries served them better than a closed or static one in which outsiders and new ideas were feared,”[v] is interpreted by Jews as a gift or a service they are rendering onto their Gentile neighbours.
Rushkoff and Belkin make Jewish social engineering into a fundamental religious precept inherent in Judaism rather and sometimes partially acknowledged as a diaspora social-political strategy to weaken the host; “It is not only our tradition, but our explicit obligation to act as stewards for the greater society.”[vi] To this end Rushkoff discusses the widely known Jewish role in desegregation and integration; “In 1952, the American Jewish Congress worked with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) to target unfair housing policy. Through a series of legal battles, American Jewish Congress attorneys ended the whites-only policy of New York City’s Stuyvesant Town, setting an important legal precedent against discrimination in housing projects that received any amount of public aid.”[vii]
What is interesting is that Rushkoff subtly acknowledges the self-serving and contingent strategic basis of such practices, something Karl Popper, the Jewish philosopher of the ‘Open Society,’ never could. Popper in his The Open Society and its Enemies, expressed the same desires for a universalist, cosmopolitan, pluralist, liberal society yet Popper rightly concluded that these values were largely the opposite of the Jewish religion, which according to Popper,[viii] and most all scholars of comparative religions i.e. Hegel, is a tribal supremacist ‘closed society,’ whereas Rushkoff through his deconstructionist self-serving modern revisionist interpretation Judaism proper becomes the wellspring from which ‘open society’ values spring. While Popper denied the very Jewish strategic basis of his viewpoint, conservative Jew Malachi Haim Hacohen, who is a foremost Popper scholar and critic, points towards Popper’s assimilated Ashkenazi Jewishness as the main source of his political viewpoint: “Cosmopolitanism appealed to Popper and liberal Jews precisely because of their life in between cultures and their indeterminate identity. Claiming membership in an imagined cosmopolitan community, Popper rejected Jewish identity. “I do not consider myself ‘an assimilated German Jew,’” he told a critic of his Autobiography, “this is how ‘the Fuhrer would have considered me.”[ix]
Enlightenment philosophers often portrayed the Jew as the counter-universal, especially Voltaire.[x] Popper refused to see the Jewish basis for his commitment to Kant’s cosmopolitanism, instead he would have sided with Marx and declared, “the question is not the emancipation of the Jews, but, rather, emancipation from the Jews… The emancipation of the Jews . . . is the emancipation of humanity from Judaism.” In so far as Popper admonished Judaism as a tribalist cult of the ‘closed society,’ Rushkoff seeks to re-interpret and thus salvage Judaism by imagining that the social engineering that Jews have been engaged in during modernity is actually the philosophical and moral foundations of Judaism itself. But because Jews are able to successfully carry out radical changes in gentile society because of their internal cohesion; their sense of mission as Jews, the changes they bring about are specifically designed to fragment the internal cohesion, the sense of ‘we’ of their hosts. The very success of the Jews working as groups of Jews undermines their stated purpose towards tolerance and plurality as inherently beneficial. Thus, the changes they established in immigration, desegregation, and integration can only be viewed as acts of subversion.
The problem herein is that Jewish tribalism and secular universalism are antithetical, and hence the assimilated Jew, especially if they are conscious of maintaining their Jewishness, is involved in a kind of fraud and deception. Rushkoff in the face of all prevailing evidence, of which he himself acknowledges, “True enough, my entire premise is contradicted by the many ways our own myths and customs have always been profoundly steeped in racial and ethnic assumptions. There are as many warnings in the Torah to kill our tribal neighbors as there are encouragements to embrace them. A good number of our most observant members ground their faith and pride in the Torah’s plentiful admonitions not to mix with other, lesser people[xi] attempts to transform Judaism into a ‘social justice’ religion. Rushkoff explains the Jewish strategy; “Anti-semites are not entirely unfounded in their claim that Jews are behind a great media conspiracy… If there is an agenda underlying Jews’ dedication to expanding the role of media in people’s lives, it is to promote intellectual perspective and the value of pluralism.”[xii] ‘Intellectual perspective’ herein is a lighter euphemism for the values and perspectives of the Jews. “Media, then, at its best, is a form of mass education” meaning brainwashing. “The more interconnected a society, the more likely it was to engage in complex transactions requiring Jews’ service. And the more inclusive and tolerant a society, the more likely it was to include the Jews, too.” Is this not ‘diversity is good because it is good for the Jews?[xiii]
[i] It was some years ago that I first encountered Jewish author Douglas Rushkoff. I read his Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World, and How We Can Take it Back. This was a part of a resurgence of far-left anti-corporatism, such as Jewish author Naomi Klein’s No Logo, and the film The Corporation (2003) by Jewish-Canadian filmmaker Mark Achbar. Having never abandoned a belief in socialist leanings and the negative effects of unbridled capitalism there was something to glean out of these student day forays of mine.
I recall even now that the central problem with Rushkoff’s book was the superficial quality of it; he attempted to fill pages buttressing his specious arguments with name-dropping and platitudes instead of real critical analysis to give the book the illusion of weight rather than internal cohesion. It had the same kind of swindling fraudulent quality as Jonah Lehrer’s work.
[ii] ” Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 36.
[iv] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 06.
[v] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 07.
[vi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 04.
[vii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 41.
[viii] “Hearing as a young boy the biblical story of the Golden Calf, said Popper, he had recognized the roots of religious intolerance in Jewish monotheism. The Hebrew Bible was the fountainhead of tribal nationalism. Oppressed and persecuted, exilic Jews created the doctrine of the Chosen People, presaging modern visions of chosen class and race. Both Roman imperialism and early Christian humanitarianism threatened the Jews’ tribal exclusivism. Jewish orthodoxy reacted by reinforcing tribal bonds, shutting Jews off from the world for two millennia. The ghetto was the ultimate closed society, a “petrified form of Jewish tribalism.” 120 Its inhabitants lived in misery, ignorance, and superstition. Their separate existence evoked the suspicion and hatred of non-Jews and fueled antisemitism.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History,71(1), 105-149.
[ix] “The ambiguity of Austrian nationality gave Jews an opportunity missing elsewhere for negotiating Jewish and national identity. Jews were the only ethnic group to adopt enthusiastically the official Staatsgedanke.
The politics of Jewish identity was notoriously contentious, but poor Galician traditionalists and re-fined Viennese assimilationists, orthodox rabbis and liberal scholars, Zionists and socialists, all declared their loyalty to the dynasty and the supranational empire. “Jews are the standard-bearers of the Austrian idea of unity,” stated the liberal Viennese rabbi Adolf Jellinek.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History,71(1), 105-149.
[x] Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243.}
[xi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 176.
[xii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 8.
[xiii] If real unity comes from a shared sense of ‘we’ that is internal cohesion,Prior to the changes wrought about by special interests groups in the Anglosphere’s immigration policies (1965 US, 1967 Canada, 1972 Australia) collectively neologized as “globalized integration strategy,” (GIS) immigration was dictated in terms of racial-cultural preference. As such the idea of the melting pot was one based on shared culture, race and civilizational bloc. The idea was to create a melted European-American. As such the bio-politics of Europe have been left behind in favor of what I have elsewhere called “elective affinities.” Elective Affinities denote the linear and interconnected tradition of Western Civilization and peoples – we feel ourselves to be a part of European Civilization. As such the crude biological determinism of Nordic supremacy has betrayed the more rational argument of in-group preference ‘a shared sense of we’ as Charles Maurras put it “Jews threatened the integral nation not by their blood but by their own nonlinear history and alternative tradition, by the disruption to integral form their presence within the nation provoked in the nation-work. The Jew is the ultimate figure of the non-Greek or anti-Greek (and thus the non-French or anti-French…”) See:
Carroll, David. French literary fascism : nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the ideology of culture. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1995. Print. 88.
Maurras is essentially holding the same views held by Voltaire, “The nucleus of Voltaire’s view of the Jews, however, amounts to this: there is a cultural, philosophical, and ethnic tradition of Europe which descended, through the human stock of that continent, from the intellectual values that were taught by the Greeks. Those were in turn carried to all the reaches of the European world by the Romans. This is the normative culture of which Voltaire approved. The Jews are a different family, and their religion is rooted in their character.” See: Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243. It is now only with Rushkoff does the Jew have his cake and gets eat it to.
Breitbart recently published an article citing Jewish York Times columnist David Brooks alleging that immigrants and their children are superior to native born Americans. It quotes from Brooks:
Over all, America is suffering from a loss of dynamism. New business formation is down. Interstate mobility is down. Americans switch jobs less frequently and more Americans go through the day without ever leaving the house.
But these trends are largely within the native population. Immigrants provide the antidote. They start new businesses at twice the rate of nonimmigrants. Roughly 70 percent of immigrants express confidence in the American dream, compared with only 50 percent of the native-born. …
Let us examine some of these statements and look for probable reasons and solutions. We know from empirical evidence and from sources like Robert Putnam’s “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century” that diversity and mass immigration reduce social capital: “immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.” Hence, Americans ‘not leaving the house.’ Ricardo Duchesne wrote a wonderful article on this topic but for Brooks:
“Progressives say Republicans oppose immigration because of bigotry. But it’s not that simple. It’s more accurate to say restrictionists are stuck in a mono-cultural system that undermines their own values: industry, faithfulness and self-discipline. Of course they react with defensive animosity to the immigrants who out-hustle and out-build them. You’d react negatively, too, if confronted with people who are better versions of what you wish you were yourself.”
So if immigrants and their offspring are “better versions” of native populations, let us examine why. Skilled and high preforming minorities, such as East Asians, Indians and middle easterners according to many consensuses done US Consensus Bureau, show that Asian-Americans have consistently out-preformed white Americans at higher rates of median household income.
Whites, for some reason not including Portuguese, are only the eighteenth highest income earners and yet are legally discriminated against because of an imagined “white privileged.” The higher earning groups are virtually all “new immigrants” who were let into the country after the change in the laws in the 1960s. The raw data corresponds to Brooks statements and one reason to explain this is by reference to Putnam’s social science study of the loss of social capital experienced by natives due to diversity and to appeal to the natural sciences for the biological (say Darwinian aspect) for the effects that invasive species have when they move into another’s habitat. Once upon a time common sense nativism and populist racial sentiment was regarded as a natural extension of preserving one’s own species, to preserve one’s own culture, way of life, and most especially living space. The Chinese exclusion acts and head taxes represent this natural form of self-preservation – the Chinese built a Great Wall to keep the Mongols out.
In applying the natural sciences to the social we see today a non-for-profit organization The Invasive Species Centre has launched a campaign against the invasive species of Asian carp, which it deems dangerous to the great lakes:
“… resentment grew among the white working classes, who saw the migrants as cheap labour, the so-called ‘yellow peril’ stealing jobs and sullying society. In 1885, the federal government enacted the first anti-Chinese legislation, imposing a ‘ head tax ‘ of CAN$50 on every migrant worker. Under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923, immigration ground to a halt.”
The disgustingly partisan but objectively pretending BBC, writes that Canada Prepares for an Asian Future, while denying even the obvious economic negative impact of species invasion: “Privately, there have been grumblings. In the safety of living rooms or the anonymity of online forums, old-time Vancouverites blame the Chinese for the city’s sky-high property prices, although experts say there’s little evidence to back up the fears.” – Ayesha Bhatty, the author of the article, of course provides no link to her claim that “experts” have provided little evidence to link property prices with massive Asian immigration – the basic economic principle of supply and demand contradicts her obvious fabrication and distortion of reality. Is it possible that this false claim made by a non-European is meant to obscure and promote the destruction of European homelands and habitats? Anti-colonialism has meant that non-Europeans are entitled to their own countries and living spaces, but Europeans are not.
Of course Brooks does not see the natural world ramifications, or the social and psychological dimensions of the reverse-colonialism and species invasion.
To my own mind one of the main reasons for European under-performance in traditionally European derived and still majority white nations is the presence of a toxic popular culture and lassiez-faire attitudes towards employment, education and child rearing we’ve inherited from the 1960s onward. The anti-authoritarian tendencies of the liberal order is a disease in which immigrants and their offspring are not subjected to – leading to articles with titles such as: Are Chinese Mothers Superior? (the superiority lies in authoritarian parenting). These attitudes and general lassiez-faire approach to life, an increasingly morbid sense of atomistic individualism and existential self-creationism are also to blame. Westerners are concerned with ‘finding themselves’ while Easterners are concerned with success and worldly status – ‘getting ahead.’ Our cultural operating system has become incredibly crippling and dis-empowering.
However, the height of the ‘current year’ absurdity leading to our slow suicide is probably the ideological-politics of ethno-masochism constantly kowtowing to a highly selective, often ahistorical and decontextualized series of ‘injustices,’ prompting our Prime Minister to issue tissue-soaked apologies. This progressive propaganda is meant to promote ‘white guilt,’ a most pernicious form of demoralization that leaves Europeans far from adopting self-preservationist strategies. Wallowing in our own ‘moral inferiority,’ which is the most idiotic ahistorical lie imaginable (the exact opposite of the truth, in fact), presents us with the lack of a natural drive towards self-preservation, to natural protectionist policies. That our governments are apologizing to the very groups that are replacing, out-competing and pricing us out of our habitats, and if you permit me to be truthful to the natural world analogy of invasive species discussed above, without recourse to metaphor, these “Asian Carp” are killing us.
“Flirtatiousness is fundamental to a woman’s nature, but not all put it into practice because some are restrained by fear or by good sense.” – La Rouchefoucauld
The ‘desert island’ film Castaway (1986), directed by Nicolas Roeg and starring a dipsomaniacal Oliver Reed and a hot young “Ms. Robinson”; Amanda Donohoe, is based on the memoirs of Lucy Irvine. Irvine had responded to an advert placed by writer Gerald Kingsland seeking a mate for a ‘survivor experiment’ to last the duration of a year on a desert island. I was reminded of another film with the same theme of a man and a woman alone together on an island; Swept Away (1974) (Italian: Travolti da un insolito destino nell’azzurro mare d’agosto The full English title is Swept Away… by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August), directed by Lina Wertmuller and starring Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato.
Both films are really truly vehicles about the sexes and not really about the individuals themselves who in their isolated environments lose track of ‘who they are’ – Donohoe asks Reed in one scene “who am I?” having lost contact with the world in which their identities were built and reflected back to them by their relationships with other people and their social roles. While in Swept Away, the prior identities of the two characters function also as a Marxist critique of capitalist society; Melato as Raffaella the high society capitalist snob and Giannini as Gennarino the proletariat deckhand who works on her yacht despising her, but these political identities are also washed away on the island isolation and also in their physical union with each other. Without the contingencies that ground social identities individuals just become the primordial man and the primordial woman, the necessities of survival account for time spent in cultural and individual attributions.
As Castaway was based on real occurrences in which both participants wrote accounts, the subjects abilities to transcend their identities were limited – that is knowing they were involved in a sort of publicity stunt their behaviors were somewhat kept in line by the knowledge of a mutual Hawthorne effect and the limitations of the experiment. Now of the two Swept Away is the more radical endeavor because it is a work of pure fantasy and the relationship between the sexes is to be read as one of Weberian Ideal Types. There is no expectation for the conditions of their isolation to end they are truly free to lose the vestiges of their social conditioning and return to the primordial garden. Roger Ebert wrote that the film “resists the director’s most determined attempts to make it a fable about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and persists in being about a man and a woman. On that level, it’s a great success.” I agree with Ebert who mentions that the film is a “kinky” updated variation on the desert island theme of films like Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957) in which a nun and a US solider become trapped on together.
The same sexual tensions run through all three ‘scenario’ films but with varying results; in the earliest incarnation Heaven Knows; God, chastity and honour win out. In Swept Away, vital “toxic” masculinity wins. in Castaway it is womanly manipulation triumphant. Now it would be interesting to account for these differences in a comparative treatment. While Heaven Knows certainly reflects the time period in which the Hollywood production code was being enforced and the relative constrained morality of 1950s America, which make it easy to write off as a kind of tamed examination of the ‘Adam and Eve scenario.’ While Swept Away, being a product of the 1970s, European and directed by a woman may help explain its overt patriarchal message, Ebert again:
“that woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male… The more the woman submits, the more ecstasy she finds – until finally she’s offending the hapless Sicilian by suggesting practices he can’t even pronounce.”
The violent culmination is a sadistic sodomy rape that makes the woman the man’s bitch. Wertmuller’s handling of the subject invokes the bestial remnants of centuries of non-consensual sex; when men got women as a prize for victory over a vanished tribe or foe – the film is a misogynistic rape-fantasy and is regarded by feminists and liberals as an abomination. In sharp contrast, in Castaway, Donohoe’s character Lucy refuses to ‘put out,’ and although starving for sexual communion, Reed’s Gerald acquiesces to her sudden frigidity, feigning indignation, again this is tempered by the circumstances; based on real events, an experiment meant to last a year, being the subject of one another’s published chronicles, but also they are visited multiple times by other groups of people who help them survive (not truly deserted!) – Gerald then in some sense couldn’t just rape her. The transgressions were mitigated. Therefore, this American 1980s turn towards a kind of Lysistrata revolt cannot be said to be without contingent factors within the text itself – (Lucy implies it is because Gerald is not working hard enough at some point, but often uses muddled reasoning). The twelve year period between the two films cannot be said to constitute different epochs of feminism, both being within the confines of the so-called ‘second wave,’ although Castaway seemed to embody the radical feminism of the later period of Andrea Dworkin who argued famously in her 1987 Book Intercourse that “all heterosexual sex is rape.” However, the real account of difference must be one in which the ‘Real scenario’ of Ideal Types is allowed to play out because it is less contingent on mediating factors and the one in which the ‘System’ of mediation cannot interfere to ensure some sense of civil propriety is maintained. Perhaps Dworkin was partially correct, in so far as the primordial sexual communion may well be the forced rape of the female – Lilith be damned.
Now the idea of man and woman alone on an island may also be looked at metaphorically. The monogamous relationship and the globe of psychic, emotional and physical bond between lovers can create a kind of separation between their love and the rest of the world – the idea that love is an island. Curiously in the three films after the ‘island adventure’ all three couples relate their love for one another but ultimately go their separate ways – this is always due to the woman’s decision. Here the ‘island of love’ is revealed to be merely another kind of illusion dependent on contingent circumstances, like that of their identities – Lucy’s “who am I?” and Raffaella and Gennarino’s “class.” Of the three women the only one who remains true throughout is the nun because of her love for God (which should be read as kind of refusal to play the game or her inability to be true to her human nature), the lesson of the other two ‘islands,’ whether radical feminist or patriarchal misogynistic, both agree on one thing; the precariousness of woman – she is an evil thing. Evola, Weininger and the whole of Patriarchal Traditionalism agree that woman is by nature chthonic, devious and ultimately heartless – incapable of spiritual ascent and great works – she is too readily conditioned by exterior contingencies. Recall that when Zeus decided to give humanity a punishing gift Hephaestus molds from the earth the first woman, whom Hesiod calls a “beautiful evil thing” whose descendants would go forth to torment the human race. The lesson with woman then is to sodomize her while you can.
Years ago I read what was available online of Solzhenityn’s 200 Years Together, the book is mentioned and given to Peterson as a gift in the above clip. The book is about the history of the Jews in Russia – and there is certainly a reason this account written by a gulag survivor and world renowned noble prize winning author has not been translated and available in English; because Solzhenityn crushes the myths of Jewish prosecution. That is to say and I am working on memory here; the Jews, like the very one in the video questioning Peterson on the Jewish role in the Holodomor and subsequent control of US media narratives, have long attested to hatred between Gentiles and Jews as arising because of Gentile reprisals for Jewish success. There were many pogroms against the Jews in Ukraine and Russia and all over Eastern Europe and only in the sense that Jewish success was largely based on exploitative practices fueled by their tribal ethnic hatred of the goyim could one make the case for resentment and jealousy. What happens is Jews say they were persecuted by illiterate peasants out of jealousy through no real faults of their own, this is the same line of specious argument that Peterson uses.
You can see in this clip on the JRE that Peterson tries to sheepishly avoid the topic, by saying he might say the wrong thing. If that isn’t an indication of Voltaire’s dictum “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” I don’t know what is.
In the video when discussing the Hitler Question, the Jew Bret Weinstein preambles his position by asking JP, “If I’m cornered will you, (stuttering) come bail me out?” Peterson’s response is “No way man, the knives are coming out.” Weinstein’s ‘controversial’ opinion: “Hitler was a monster (OMG WHAT A REBEL!), as we all know, but he was a rational monster…” Weinstein goes on to say that when austerity hits a society because of loss of opportunity the society looks for some weaker group to blame for its ills. This kind of psychoanalyzing of mass psychology is the same as what I criticized in Peterson’s approach to individual psychology. The question is not raised why did austerity hit? Are there groups who are responsible? and who should be blamed? – that is the question of culpability of problems is not handled rather the symptoms seem to be the products of magical forces worthy of reprieve.
Onto Hitler; the Germans were an upstart nation and within their field of continental thought they had become giants, the new inheritors of the Greeks as Hegel would have put it. But also industrially and scientifically they had begun to displace and replace the British as the major economic power in the world. The theory that the Americans got involved in the war due to a ‘special relationship’ (a more integrated global usury system with leading branches in New York and London) with their one time parent nation, is also mitigated by many other historical factors. But the Balfour Declaration granting Lord Rothschild the two-centuries-longed-for-Jewish-homeland in Palestine surely tipped Jewish support totally in favor of the Anglo-Americans. The Dolchstoßlegende the stab in the back “myth” along with economic warfare perfected against Germany during the Second Moroccan Crisis (the Agadir Crisis) meant that the German nation could not count on even nationally grown Jewish favor and the credit lines to the war backers suddenly dried up.
Now hardly anyone ever mentions any of these factors or looks at them critically, but everyone knows what happened next in the Treaty of Versailles (austerity). (Likewise the 2011 financial crisis just happened Goyim, no one’s to blame, ‘too big to fail’ we just happened to give foreign people our money and jobs while importing millions of them into our countries – that’s just the “market” and the “invisible hand,” no identifiable groups are pulling strings or stabbing backs – we’re all in this together – we are the world, kumbuya).
Now ask yourself did the German nation and people have multiple reasons for “disliking” Jews? (not merely the racial Darwinian one of muh blonde hair, muh blue eyes kin – and this is just the tip of the iceberg off the top of my head and the tip of my tongue). Or was it all according to Weinstein and Peterson; “Hitler was a monster and hard times make people look for scapegoats and they’re just jealous of Jewish success?” – massive psychobabble!
Back to Germany; while at the same time that the nation is brought to financial ruin largely by Jews, Jewish communists in Russia are slaughtering the White Russians, peasants and the Christian clerics and clergy, enforcing a genocide on Ukrainians and centralizing power to turn the nation into a bleak nihilistic dystopia. Making the native Russians obedient workers to a slave run materialist doctrine with Jews as the drivers. In Berlin the Jew Rosa Luxemberg and in Munich the Jew Eisner are fermenting the same Red takeover in Germany. But Hitler was a monster.
This is not the sort of historical nuance you learn in school and my quest to discover the “Why?” ultimately makes one angry at being taught half-truths and distortions, but they say the winners write the history books. But for Weinstein “the opportunity has all been absorbed” as in “it just happened nobody benefited or orchestrated it goys.” The Treaty of Versailles and the harsh austerity doled out to Germany meant that the Allies were able to pay back their (((Money Lenders))) of which the Anglo-French Financial Commission had been arranged through Rothschild agent JP Morgan Jr. But according to Peterson his disagreement with Weinstein over the Hitler Question are not due to any of these historical facts that give the “Why?” meaning, no his “disagreement” is that “Hitler is even more evil than we thought he was.” That’s clinical psychology for you.
Apparently Adolf just didn’t want to clean his room. JP through did have one caveat for Old Uncle and did say he did wonders for the German economy (well that’s what happens when you nationalize the bank, print your own monetary notes backed by public trust in the government, control inflation and kick out the usurious Jews who undermine the nation for tribalist profit). But never mind the tribalism, the nepotism, the usury, the media lies, the manipulation of Gentile society to fit their ‘open society’ curriculum, the quest to degenerate and replace Europeans due to the two thousand years of tribal animus, and the murder of the God of universal love… You’re all just jelly.
Jordan Peterson’s “solutions” are ultimately solipsistic and incredibly specious despite the word salads he brackets them in. That being said lunatic progressives make him look eminently “reasonable” (which I think is his whole socially conservative brand).
Every so often I’ll catch a clip that will make me think I might be turning a corner with Peterson, a little bit; such as this one. There are a couple of things that struck me about the interview; firstly; his apparent sincerity. Secondly; that he knows young white men (he largely avoids the word “white,” but given that a male PoC is interviewing him and the language used “the West,” etc are euphemisms we know who they are talking about) are taking a ‘hit’ so to speak.
I may be more open to the kinds of empty pragmatic thinking that Peterson preaches, more than ever before, because I have usually been able to critique from a relatively stable position; but in recent months my more or less secure but low status demeaning job and support network has crumbled, I now find myself close to homeless, broke, hopeless, filled with anger, resentment, regret, bitterness and socially isolated and estranged. I feel these strains, which were always present, more acutely than ever before and I admit to myself and to you as a matter of full disclosure. But where Jordan Peterson seems in my opinion to be ‘wrong’ or less developed is in a sociological critique of our and my own predicament. For a clinical psychologist his primary concern is with the individual and for this reason alone he seems unwilling to conceive of collectivist modes of improvement or solutions to complex problems, despite the fact that he is discussing a particular demographic or group.
This failure of Peterson rests on an overemphasis on personal responsibility and ideological explanations, i.e. toxic feminism and post-colonial discourses and their psychological effects on individual white men subjected to them, and less on the structural changes to our societies – i.e. the importation of mass non-white immigration, the change from assimilation to multiculturalism, the globalization of the world market and the ascendancy of Other groups, internal forces that seek to weaken Western identity and resolve for personal tribalist gain and objectives, impersonal institutional structures spreading anomie and apathy etc. These sorts of things would enrich Peterson’s psychological approach to these issues, but they would make him a real persona non grata, instead of the controlled opposition he in fact represents. In effect he is dealing largely with symptoms instead of with the actual roots of problems. The ethics of boiling things down to “personal responsibility” betrays a larger understanding of the human being as a social and political animal. This is one of the reasons why Ezra Pound considered psychology to be bunk. Pound was concerned with societies, with civilizations, with economics, with races, he was not concerned with theories put forth about Nazism stemming from Adolf Hitler’s ‘single testicle complex’. This is why Pound largely considered psychology to be Jewish in nature; because it socially isolates the individual and treats him as an island to be dissected, obscuring the wider picture to deal with the individual neurosis – such “internal states” cannot ever be conceived comprehensively without the “external” macrocosm as in the feedback loop of the hermeneutic circle.
Psychologists are really just bad sociologists, who focus on the parts instead of the whole, and that also makes them ideological liberals, who despise wholeness and “totalitarianisms” in favor of radical individualism and existential self-creationisms – they are philosophical nihilists who prefer pragmatic solutions to petty problems than full solutions to major ones. The nearly complete atomization (part of what I call Total Gesellschaft); this demanding and lecturing about “personal responsibility,” allows for collective responsibility, for community, to fall by the wayside. The refrain is always “never mind about them, what have you done?” This is the sneer of the selfish individualist whose only concern is to fill his belly – to stabilize himself. As an anecdotal expression of the sorts of cultural hegemony and psychological gesellschaft involved in such thinking take for example the film Limitless, in which the protagonist takes a drug that allows him to perform at optimal superhuman capabilities – does he change the world? No. Does he help his fellow man? No. He uses his gifts to maximize his self-interest becoming a Soros-like investor like his mentor. Peterson and those who champion the notion of individualism ultimately utilize a fundamental desire of the individual to attain personal mastery, to become a hero and while the egotism and the nobility of such yearning might be irrevocably intertwined Peterson has shown by his actions and philosophy a preference for the baser expression. While this type may give idle consideration to “ideas” his principle concern is the satisfaction he gets from personal gain, wheeling and dealing in “ideas” – not “truth” only attained in the gutter of realpolitik (Christ/Socrates). Peterson solutions are only slightly better than the “Do something” that is the call of the nihilistic ignoramus, any activity is better than no activity; they despise real spiritual struggle, repose and contemplation or any activity for which there is not a demonstrable gain attached: Bleistein with a cigar. Peterson’s personal philosophy, his advice, does not go much further than that.