Downward Dog

Originally published:


Yoga and Cultural Appropriation

“Cultural appropriation of the Other assuages feelings of deprivation and lack that assault the psyches of radical white youth who choose to be disloyal to western civilization.” – bell hooks

Often social media is great because it allows one to glimpse into not only the ideas and opinions of others, but the sources they consume, the media that affects them, the stories and banalities that occupy their attention long enough for a re-post with a one-sentence, hyperbolic hashtag. Occasionally it allows one to trace the web of how Tweetledum and Tweetledee form their opinions and emotional sentiments—that’s how I came across this gem of a blog post on yoga, social justice and cultural approbation—written by one Moonlitmoth.

Now Moonlitmoth looks to be a Gen Xer, and as a child of probable beats or hippies, secular granolas or liberal yuppies—one cannot safely assume that this moniker is a pseudonym. This “yoga and social justice” blogger is the stereotypical Western woman today, vaguely spiritual while consuming the modes of uplift and transcendence from other cultures while shaming herself for appropriating those very practices, and ultimately left both hollow and self-righteous. “White people, who like me, were not aware (aka. blinded by our privilege) to some glaringly obvious problems in my work. My analysis often failed to meaningfully address colonization and my participation in that oppressive system as a culturally appropriating, white yoga teacher.”

There are some real issues at work here, some deep seated problems with our modern womenfolk:

  1. Her lack of historical context: Ignorance.
  2. Her sense of internalizing the shaming she received for “appropriating” some aspect of another’s culture and being white: Shame.
  3. The hole that has been left in our culture by secularism and a thorough American vilifying of our own great spiritual traditions–namely ecumenical Christianity: Spiritual Void.

First, the lack of historical context, women in general tend to form their opinions more on sentiment than rational critique, but this traditional biased assumption is not theirs alone. Our public school system has been devised for one very specific reason, which can be summed up nicely by a George Carlin quote:

“They want OBEDIENT WORKERS. OBEDIENT WORKERS. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.”

On this we are defiantly aligned with the radical leftist critique of the education system. But while Paulo Freire, the widely read Brazilian revolutionary Marxist pedagogue, identifies and rejects the ethos of modern education for: “Their vision of the new man or woman is individualistic; because of their identification with the oppressor, they have no consciousness of themselves as persons or as members of an oppressed class.” For our purposes we would replace the Marxist humanistic terminology of “oppressed class” with that of “race.” And this brings us back to Moonlitmoth and her identification of herself as White solely as a negative—as a culturally appropriating, colonizing, privileged White woman. As the process of modern education in its leftist guise attempts to isolate individuals for better control, whites have internalized their own vilification as the oppressor but not with relish but rather with shame. What has happened is that the traditional role of the bourgeoisie as the enemy of the class struggle, has been slowly and methodically applied to the “white race” as the enemy of humanity, and even more so to the white male in particular—or as Susan Sontag puts it, “the white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone.”

One of the things that radicalized me into White nationalism was the experience of shaming that I received in a university course on diversity—taught by a Black female professor who would ignorantly spew shibboleths that she could not backup.

While the process of individuation and White shaming has Moonlitmoth isolated from her own history, community, and tradition, she begins adopting and appropriating the customs, ideas, and cultural practices of others—and she internalizes their post hoc rage against the success of her ancestors. She identifies with the Other on feminist grounds, thereby joining and swelling their ranks against the real enemy: the dreadful White male. That is essentially the target of these attacks, what bell hooks refers to as: “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.”

The real problem with this is not the obvious feeling of phoniness that accompanies when Whites “go native” as the anthropologists say, the real problem is her lack of understanding of why she feels so hollow, rather than hallow, even after appropriating these spiritual practices.

Moonlitmoth recounts how she was shamed for her online blog by East Indians for appropriating their cultural practice of yoga and that this experience made her feel shameful. She has the vague feeling that the Lululemon-sponsored, glorified stretching class that she was engaged in was a poor commercialized western attempt to appropriate the spiritual practice of another people, and that this desire to consume the exotic Other grew out of the oppressive framework of colonialism. This is what hooks calls Eating the Other.

While Moonlitmoth “taught anti-oppression workshops in yoga studios across north America,” anyone with even a tenuous grasp of history knows yoga grew out of the caste system of Ancient India as a spiritual practice for the Brahman elites, i.e. out of an “oppressive paradigm.” Therefore, she begins by completely contradicting her own premises. True yoga as a spiritual practice was never meant to be performed by the masses, because (as all traditionalist schools teach) spiritual ascension is only reachable by the select few who are inclined towards it. This is what Evola found in the esoteric core of Buddhism, which is assumed to be the egalitarian overcoming of Hindu oppressiveness—the same weak dialectic which is made for European paganism and Christianity. While there is a core unity in all the doctrines of “oneness”—the Hindu Atman, Judeo-Christian monotheism, Catholic universalism, Pagan tolerance, and Buddhist detachment—all function in reality as de facto caste systems.

Furthermore, it is probable that White people invented the practice of yoga to begin with, which means that it’s not really a form of colonial appropriation, but reclaiming a lost aspect of ancient Indo-European spiritual practice. Yes, Whites invented yoga, because it derives from a Vedic-Hindu practice, and Ancient India was conquered by invading Aryans from the north who enslaved the native brown-skinned Dravidians and imposed the caste system upon them. Through miscegenation over the course of many centuries this European blood became diffused with that of the other mixes:

“For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes. In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians. Moreover, the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans. These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank.” [Source: Bamshad, Michael et al. “Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations.” Genome Research 11.6 (2001)]

That is why even today there is a higher amount of Caucasian blood in the Brahman caste. Ergo, Yoga as an ancient practice of the Brahmans was a White invention. This is not appropriation; it is a rediscovery of our Indo-European heritage.

Moonlitmoth again: “It took me a long time to admit this to myself and make the necessary changes this realization entails, but what I know in my heart, my mind and my gut is that what we are doing in western yoga is an entitled, willfully ignorant act of theft.”

The ignorance here is White people not knowing their own history and internalizing a sense of shame for borrowing something from another culture. All cultures borrow–should Whites shame Asians or Blacks for appropriating our technology, our religions, our languages and our cultures? When Christian Filipinos worship a White Christ, are they not committing the same cultural appropriation? Where is the shaming there?

The third theme at work here is perhaps the most important, but all three parts of this unholy triptych function to give us our Moonlitmoths, our New Agers, our vegan-yoga-mat-carrying-miscegenating-radical-feminist-cry-baby-White-women; ignorant, ashamed, and lacking spiritual sustenance–easily bullied by minorities who collectively cast their lot against her, they want her to ‘check her privilege’ and they want to give her the comeuppance of an exaggerated historical grievance. This spiritual void has many guises with which people in the modern world try to compensate. The sexual revolution was one such method. In a world without spiritual transcendence one such solution became eternal imminence—the fall into gross materialism. We’ve seen the phenomenon of White women proving their membership in this hollowed world through militant miscegenation and through the adoption of non-White children as Hollywood PC fashion accessories. And also through promiscuity – as discernment is the first step towards bigotry after all. And finally, through the modern selfishness of the consumerist ‘Sex in the City’ career gal. But this other aspect, not always disentangled from the modern ethos of: open society = open legs, is the one that attempts spiritual ascension, which like its sexual counterpart, results in experimentation with the exotic and unfamiliar – often confusing these elements for mysticism and depth. While the godfather of the New Age, Mexican-American Carlos Castaneda, has been revealed to be more sham-man than shaman, the acolytes of the vague open spiritualism of modernity seem not to have woken up to the facts. And the facts are that when we are taught to hate ourselves, when we are shamed to a facile state of tolerance, and when we dismiss and ridicule our own traditions as Eurocentric, misogynist, patriarchal, hierarchical, colonial, intolerant, oppressive, and all the other code-words for anti-white, we allow ourselves to be hollowed out. While the legacy of the radical 60s is still with us, we could do well to remind ourselves that the problem with having “an open mind”—a euphemism for having liberal, tolerant, and progressive values—is that people insist on putting things inside.

Jung’s Dangerous Theory

Originally published: February 5, 2015


“The Jew who is something of a nomad has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development. The Jews have this peculiarity with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.” – C.G. Jung

I had begun to seriously muse about writing an article on Carl Jung’s anti-Semitism after receiving Jung’s Red Book as a Christmas gift. Although there was an earlier germination of the idea in the instance in which I had rather offhandedly remarked upon the “great divide” between the Gentile Jung and the Jewish Freud in my essay on Robert Casillo’s book on Ezra Pound. As a serendipitous bit of ‘synchronicity’ I had also received Reading the Red Book: An Interpretative Guide to C.G. Jung’s Liber Novus, by Sanford L. Drob which would infuriate me to the point of resolution. While reading Drob’s guide I became increasingly annoyed by his interpretation which superimposed an unnecessary and obfuscating Kabbalistic framework loosely connected to Jung’s experiences as recorded in the Red Book. There was also the persistent pandering to a priori notions of good vs. evil pressed upon historical events that many of us deem opaque. While it seemed that Drob was virtually intending to rewrite Jung as a post-modern existentialist-deconstructionist–in a similar vein to how leftists attempt to salvage and refashion Nietzsche towards their own ideological ends—he focuses on the period in which he wrote the Red Book, which Jung referred to as “the dark night of my soul,” and treats it as a sort of epistemological coming of age in which Jung must accept the godless world around him–devoid of mythos and meaning. Thus, within the same page Drob reads into a passage from the Red Book:

“’Drink your fill of the bloody atrocities of the war, feast upon the killing and destruction, then your eyes will open, you will see that you yourselves are the bearers of such fruit.’” (RB, p. 254a).

Drob’s interpretation:

“Jung will later argue that the dark or barbaric side of the German psyche had been repressed by Christianity, and that the lesson of the First World War was that this ‘blonde beast’ must be acknowledged and affirmed if it is to be brought to a creative rather than a destructive resolution.” (69).

Certainly “the shadow” aspect of the personality was a major construct which Jung had fashioned to deal with the “seething cauldron of excitation” Freud referred to the unconscious. However, the initial problem with this statement is that of a firm dichotomy being drawn between creation and destruction—is not destruction a form of creation and vice versa—the larva feeding upon decomposing matter, the butterfly destroying its chrysalis, and so on? Was not the destruction of the First World War a necessary event to create the liberal democratic states in the countries that had retained their Monarchies and Empires? And was not the Second World War necessary to usher in the globalized usurocracy that now has taken form. Thus, even from the perspective of those democratic adherents of the ‘open society’ a dialectic between creation and destruction is necessary for birthing anew–one must recall the metaphysical similarities between birth and death as the only two human experiences that cannot be duplicated and logically qualified. After this fundamental, propagandistic and willful simplification of the creation/destruction dialectic which serves a narrative purpose for Drob who goes to write that according to one of Jung’s patients:

“Jung made anti-Semitic remarks and encouraged his patients to do the same as a means of staying in touch with one’s ‘shadow.’ The idea here is that by willing evil, rather than projecting it outward onto the other, one is forced to recognize its true source within oneself, and only then will one cease fighting against one’s projections.”

There is a philosophical name for this sort of sophistry that Drob is superimposing on Jung, possibly as a way to save face for Jung, Jungians, and a way to high-jack Jungian psychological and philosophical insight–it is called solipsism. What Drob’s revising and whitewashing is advocating here is the complete denial of the external world of any mediating factors that may cause, in this case, anti-Semitism or any “hateful” reaction. This mode of thinking, of course, absolves Jewish behaviour and all external, historical or objective reasons for any kind of strong emotional volition – but most sacrosanct off all the cardinal sins is anti-Semitism – and regulates them down to “personal projections.” While Jung dealt with the process of “individuation,” of coming into oneself, it was not at the expense or the denial of the external world and their mediating factors, but rather Jung utilized four compass points that intersect equally, as in a western cross, believing that an individual should center oneself between the polarities of inner and outer reality–between thinking and feeling and intuition and knowing.

In a 1934 paper, The State of Psychology Today, in which Jung juxtaposes the Aryan and the Jewish psychology:

“Freud did not understand the Germanic psyche any more than did his Germanic followers. Has the formidable phenomenon of National Socialism, on which the whole world gazes with astonishment, taught them better? Where was that unparalleled tension and energy while as yet no National Socialism existed? Deep in the Germanic psyche, in a pit that is anything but a garbage-bin of unrealizable infantile wishes and unresolved family resentments.”

I think the same statement can be applied to Drob, who does not understand Jung. When you have the eyes to see these intellectual games, you begin to wonder whether every text written by a Jew should be required to undergo a scholastic inquisition. All contemporary Jewish texts seem to rotate around Auschwitz as some transcendent celestial law which verifies their every platitude. As Jung himself believed that the Jewish psyche inherently manifests itself in their works due to the weight of four thousand years, the Jew, even a self-hating, liberal, or reform Jew cannot but carry the hallmarks of their complexes, which impregnate even innocuous venues.

Jung claimed scientific objectivism when dealing with the issue of the “Jewish cultural form”: “The question I broached regarding the peculiarities of Jewish psychology does not presuppose any intention on my part to depreciate Jews, but is merely an attempt to single out and formulate the mental idiosyncrasies that distinguish Jews from other people.” However, Jung would make claims about his finding that lent some credence to anti-Semitism as Andrew Samuels has pointed out:

“The Jews as a group, typified by Freudian psychoanalysis, represent a strain of psychological denationalization, leveling out all national psychological differences. Psychoanalysis therefore occupies a place in Jung’s mind analogous to the place occupied in Hitler’s mind by capitalism and communism. The great fears are, respectively, of ‘leveling’ and of ‘denationalization… the leveling aim of Jewish psychology and the denationalizing aim of Jewish political and economic activity represent a similar threat to each of them.”

At once a moral superiority and a victimization complex which manifests itself as a devious “conspiring” element in a community, if only by virtue of its necessary heterogeneity–which seeks to create in the sense of “denationalization” a homogeneity of heterogeneous parts–i.e. “inclusion,” “diversity,” “liberalism”–the superiority/victimization complex comprises the two major components of what Jung would call the “cultural form” of the race: “There is an uncomfortable echo to Hitler in Jung’s view that each nation has a different and identifiable national psychology of its own that is in some mysterious manner, an innate factor.” (Jung’s psychological approach to culture is similar to Spengler’s notions of weltanschauung–but appearing more fluid by negating Spengler’s notion of the “prime symbol” for archetypical forms, which were universal in their underlying functions but particularized according to the culture.) One can begin to glean a picture of why Jung’s theories are so potentially dangerous that they require this kind of liberal revisionism and obscurantism–partly because they extol the particularism of tribes and also because his concept of archetypes is in some ways fascistic in its eulogizing of the hero, as Jung himself would write:

“The great liberating ideas of world history have sprung from leading personalities and never from the inert mass… The huzzahs of the Italian nation go forth to the personality of the Duce, and the dirges of other nations lament the absence of strong leaders.”

The hero, or leader, archetype would later be popularly explored by Joseph Campbell in his A Hero with a Thousand Faces–Campbell was completely indebted to Jung’s influence and also to Spengler and Frobenius’s “comparable concept that every race has its own paideuma or soul, its own way of feeling and its own spectrum of significant knowledge.”

Jung’s Relationship to Freud

Jung had made the claim that psychology needed rescuing from the Jewish influence and as the president of the International General Medical Society for Psychotherapy, headquartered in Zurich, quotas were put on Jewish membership and attendance to lectures. His defenders point to Jung’s assistance of some Jewish psychologists who fell into trouble during the early rise of the National Socialists. However, these instances seemed to occur well before 1938, when Jewish doctors lost the right to practice in Germany.

We see the Jewish complex inherent in Freud who conflates himself with the historical figure of Hannibal Barca of Carthage–after his father told him of an encounter on the streets with a Christian who knocked his hat off his head–Freud relates that “ever since that time Hannibal had a place in my fantasies.” That he harbored resentment towards Western civilization is hardly surprising:

“Moreover, when I finally came to realize the consequences of belonging to an alien race, and was forced by the anti-Semitic feeling among my classmates to take a definite stand, the figure of the Semitic commander assumed still greater proportions in my imagination. Hannibal and Rome symbolized, in my youthful eyes, the struggle between the tenacity of the Jews and the organization of the Catholic Church. The significance for our emotional life which the anti-Semitic movement has since assumed helped to fix the thoughts and impressions of those earlier days. Thus the desire to go to Rome has in my dream- life become the mask and symbol for a number of warmly cherished wishes, for whose realization one had to work with the tenacity and single-mindedness of the Punic general…”

Jung pointed out, ”As is known, one cannot do anything against stupidity, but in this instance the Aryan people can point out that, with Freud and Adler, specifically Jewish points of view are publicly preached, and as can be proved likewise, points of view that have an essentially corrosive character.” That Jung developed a view of Jewish psychology as “corrosive” should of course have no connection to his personal relationship with Freud–at least according to Drob’s flawed framework. That Freud set out to manipulate and use Jung from the beginning of their acquaintance is not a secret:

The fact that Jung was not Jewish was important to Freud, who placed him in what Sanford Drob calls an ‘unenviable position’ as Gentile guarantor that Freud’s work would not be dismissed as ‘a Jewish national affair.’ Jung was the son of a Protestant pastor. He represented credibility and acceptance for Freud, as he acknowledged in a letter to Karl Abraham as early as 1908: ‘. . . you are closer to my intellectual constitution because of racial kinship,’ Freud wrote, while Jung ‘as a Christian and a pastor’s son finds his way to me against great inner resistances. His association with us is the more valuable for that.’” [Emphasis added]

While Freud provides Jung’s contention of the different psychology of races absolute validation by implying that he and Abraham share a similar “intellectual constitution because of racial kinship”, he also reveals himself as a racially conscious Svengali who set about to deceive, use, and manipulate Jung from the onset. Jung no doubt gradually became aware of the closed tribalism of the Vienna Circle, and the strings which Freud was fastening on the “crown prince” of what he would later dub “Jewish psychology.” Thereafter, Freud ostracized him and ridiculed his theories for his deviation from the rabbinical patriarch–for his wish not be the puppet of Jewish games.

It is beyond a doubt that Jung harbored feelings and opinions of Jews which are less than ambiguous; certainly, there are those like Drob, who try to downplay and legitimize Jung’s anti-Semitism–revise it and pretend that it was a psychological technique. However, Jung’s anti-Semitism was multifaceted–for personal reasons (his relationship with Freud and the Jews of the Vienna Circle), and for supra-personal, theoretical and historical reasons (not unlike Heidegger). The most dangerous aspect of Jung’s views is that they may inevitably garner the question: How come so many notable gentiles are anti-Semitic?

Almost Fascist: A Review of The Canadian Fuhrer: The Life of Adrien Arcand

Originally published: January 26, 2015


Adrien Arcand is an interesting, yet marginal figure nearly unknown in Canadian politics and certainly a persona non grata in today’s political climate, except as an object of curiosity–a P.T. Barnum exhibition brought out of the dustbins of history to be gawked at and prodded by the politically vindicated. Jean-Francois Nadeau’s treatment of Arcand in The Canadian Fuhrer: The Life of Adrien Arcand is one such handling, as a quote plastered on the back of the book cover attests, “we forget too easily that a germ of madness exists in all societies.” Although the book is generally acknowledged as a reasonable treatment, this is in part because there is scarcely little written about the “Canadian Fuhrer,” but one must be mindfully vigilant when confronted with obvious instances of condescending and moralizing language applied to historical research that imagines or implies itself to be objective. Still one can glean a bit of objective history from this otherwise tacit liberal hoopla.

Arcand was an integral part of not only the underground post-war fascist international (Francis Parker Yockey even stayed at his house in Lanoraie for a few days in the 1950s), but also for the prewar advocates of “the Cause.” Arcand cultivated relationships with leading, and marginal far-right figures and organizations. The infamous anti-Semitic novelist Louis-Ferdinand Celine had come to visit Arcand’s movement in 1938, Le Parti National Social Chrétien (PNSC), whose emblem and members bore the swastika surrounded by a sea of French blue. The PNSC would merge with the Canadian Union of Fascists, headed by Toronto-based fascist leader Joseph C. Farr and William Whittaker’s Winnipeg-based Canadian Nationalist Party, to form the National Unity Party of Canada (NUPC). Throughout his life Arcand was a prolific man of letters, keeping correspondences with such notables as Arnold Leese and Henry Hamilton Beamish of the Imperial Fascist League. Along with Beamish, Arcand agreed in the post-war years, that “people are still far too wealthy” for a fascist revolution. This was in the era of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, with a post-war economic boom and liberal cosmopolitan values in ascendency against the church and the land. Arcand was also an early mentor to Ernst Zundel “who had helped him eradicate his belief in the Holocaust” (297).

Brought up in the strict Catholic setting of Quebec at the time when the Church had a prominent role in education, Arcand developed a strong sense of “belonging to Christian civilization shaped by old France.” Like Charles Maurras, Arcand never saw a disjunction or paradox between his religion and his politics. However, for Arcand faith was a sincere expression of his convictions and not just about the maintenance and conditioning of order, hierarchy, respect, community, and tradition as it was for Maurras, although certainty all these elements were present in Arcand as well. Arcand was no mere Francophone nationalist, but instead supported English Imperialism and viewed Canada as the political manifestation of its two founding nations, the French and the English, capable of assimilating only other Europeans into its constitution. In the 1960s when the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) would emerge and demand separation for the province of Quebec from Canada, Arcand would have nothing to do with these youths who were engaging in terrorism inspired by the likes of Franz Fanon, Jean-Paul Sartre, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh. This left-wing and progressive nationalism was sickening to Arcand, who at this point was veteran of the game and was an anglophile who identified with the federal constitution of the nation, and not just Quebec. In this, Arcand was an ardent European nationalist.

In 1940 under the War Measures Act, Arcand and members of his party were imprisoned at Petawawa camp in northern Ontario. Also imprisoned was Montreal’s Mayor Camillien Houde, who was fiercely against conscription and had told an audience, “French Canadians in the province of Quebec are fascists in blood if not in name, and if England were to go to war against Italy, their sympathies would lie with the Italians” (238). Indeed, since the end of the Seven Years’ War (1754-63), many French Canadians had felt as though they were an occupied people. Such, a feeling of national alienation and concession would later fuel the formation of the nationalist Parti Québécois (PQ) who would seek independence from Canada and Ottawa–coming within less 1% of a ‘yes’ vote in the 1995 Referendum–while the ruling Liberal Party played very dirty tricks to turn the tide in their favor. The loss of this referendum is when Jacques Parizeau famously blamed “money and the ethnic vote.”

Indeed it is the dismal science of homo economicus which is presiding over what a Canadian poet recently called “The death of Quebec”. Quebec, like everywhere else in the Western world in which modernism and secularism have taken hold, is faced with a dwindling population–therefore, the dismal science decrees that immigration is key. This is the logical outcome when true patriots like Arcand are ostracized from the establishment, when advertisers do not want to associate themselves with opinions that the owners of the product may actual share for fear of reprisal and a loss of portion of the market–basically when that dismal science rules over all. Instead, we get academic panels wherein minorities who should be kissing the ground for being allowed to enter the country and ingratiating themselves to the foolish Europeans that welcomed them to their community, they lecture about shaming them, about “intersectionality” and about how the host population is “racist” and “privileged” and deserves to be replaced.

Since Arcand’s time, discussion about race in Canada and Quebec has degenerated into the one-way street of political correctness and white guilt. Meanwhile, any socio-political discussion has taken on a crypto indirect approach, to the point that the issue in Quebec is dwindled down to the basis of “language” and thus the issue becomes framed within the context of Francophones vs. Anglophones, or within the PQ’s introduction of the Charter of Quebec Values. Thus, Quebec sought to solve its “language problem,” by adopting English Canada’s policy of multiculturalism and point-based immigration system, with the importation of French speaking Afro-Caribbeans. Thinking that the descendants of the same people whom Napoleon once said, “My decision to destroy the authority of the blacks in Saint Dominque (Haiti) is not so much based on considerations of commerce and money, as on the need to block forever the march of the blacks in the world,” could help the economy and the language problem is foolhardy. Cleary, Napoleon was not such a homo economicus, and nor was Arcand, whose Catholicism promoted large families, such as his own.

Both prior to and following Arcand’s release from prison, Fred Rose (born Rosenberg), who was a MP under the Labour-Progressive Party, the renamed Communist Party of Canada, tried to get Arcand deported from Canada. Although rather infamously, Rose was the one tried, imprisoned, and deported from the country. Rose is the only Member of Parliament ever to be convicted of spying for a foreign country, you can guess which one. Even though, according to Nadeau, “Fascists saw links between Jews and communism everywhere, even when they had to create their own from scratch” (287), clearly all just manifestations of Arcand’s “madness.” One of Rose’s pamphlets Fascism over Canada, is available online, and is ironically filled with such pandering and soapy patriotic declarations such as: “Every Canadian who loves his country and his people, social progress and democracy is duty bound to lend a hand and nip the fascist menace in the bud.” Elsewhere in the pamphlet, Rose declares: “The fascist leaders are plotting to destroy the democratic institutions which enable the people to defend their interests against the greedy multi-millionaires.” Indeed.

Arcand saw in communism a movement that would “do away with traditions, customs and religions,” (56) the same things that Rose was decrying the Fascists of destroying. Of course, history has vindicated Arcand in this regard. Arcand proposed nationalizing private energy companies in the 1930s, which was finally implemented by the Liberal government of Quebec in 1962 and was opposed to the fluoridation of water, an idea which has received a lot of press and activism only forty years hence. Ringing a familiar cord to contemporary Canadians is Arcand’s support for the 1910 “Anti-Yellow Peril League” which stipulated that “Chinese immigrants represented unfair competition to local merchants and workers” (27). The mainstream Maclean’s magazine, for instance published an article in 2010, suggesting that Canadian universities were becoming “too Asian.” Asian overrepresentation in enrollment in Canada’s universities was said to be adding a level of aggressive and rigorous competition to post-secondary enrollment and was subsequently ruining the university experience. While mainstream publications deal with this in a round-about way, never directly engaging in the obvious critique of laissez-fare globalization coupled with racial interests that this demands. Although this subject has been recently broached by the courageous UNB professor Ricardo Duchesne, who has faced enormous backlash for his honesty: “The incoming in Vancouver of Asians and Chinese was too fast, too quick. So essentially, we had a situation in which within a matter of a few years, a very British city, took on a strongly Asian character.”

As a journalist, Arcand was part of a group pushing for free education for the poor and large families, which was formally adopted in 1963. Many of Arcand’s causes would later be adopted by the mainstream, such his advocacy for alternative natural medicines, as many ecological, sustainable, and buy local initiatives would start on the radical right. But foremost within his thoughts was the Jewish Question–which has been much less adoptable or acceptable for the common mind shaped by a monopolized media-at least before the internet. Arcand fought for the marginal viewpoints to be heard, he was an advocate of freedom of speech and launched Le Goglu, a populist paper, filled with cartoons and editorials showcasing Arcand’s anti-Semitism. Which itself launched a movement called the Ordre Patriotique des Goglus, “working ‘on general purification, on preserving our Latin character, our customs and our habits, on protecting our rights and privileges’” (49).

The hardest pill for the masses to swallow is that of the Jewish problem. Continuously and ubiquitously ridiculed and simplified, this has been Arcand’s central pivot throughout his active life. Of all the issues that Arcand fought for and were later mainstreamed and sublimated through detached language, this one facet would just not go down the collect throat of the asinine masses. Perhaps, as Arcand came to believe, it was an idea whose time is yet to come as people were just “too wealthy” in the post-war boom. However, when the poverty of this new age finally dawns upon Western man, recent movements and organizations, such as Radix, make one hopeful that voices in the wilderness like Arcand’s will not continue to be drowned out and forgotten over the dim televisual stimulus of the spectacle society.

Emptying the World Cup

Originally published at:

world cup

1,470 words

“Football now has an immense social responsibility, which it must meet.”

— Anti-discrimination sociologist and “fan researcher” Gerd Dembowski

A recent spate of articles celebrating multiculturalism and FIFA’s World Cup argue that more diverse football squads do better.[1] But one has to ask: Better for whom and for what?

The World Cup offers people from competing nations a chance to display their national pride with minimal bloodshed. It is a safe substitute for war. As Cormac McCarthy’s diabolical character Judge Holden says:

“Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all . . . This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one’s will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at least a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.”[2]

Clearly, Ernst Jünger would have been a sportsman had he no avenue for war, but then he would not have been Ernst Jünger. His metaphysical transcendence would have been replaced with the ersatz glory of a Nike commercial. Sport (especially team sport) not only mimics war, it requires some of the same virtues – strength, discipline, hard work, honor, self-sacrifice, solidarity – although without the risks. Thus the team is a substitute for the tribal warrior band. The team represents its nation. The nation is represented by its team.

This simulacrum of war sometimes culminates in real violence, usually from the fans, in the same way that the World Cup’s simulacrum of nationalism may actually lead to real instances of nationalism. Occasionally, the multibillion dollar “say no to racism” spectacle concedes something to reality, to history, to continuity, to genuine community.

The media in Germany claim that “Most of Germany’s soccer hooligans are now neo-Nazis,” distinguishing between “Ultras” and the right-wing Hooligans, while it also systematically ignores Left-wing acts of violence, aggression, and baiting.

“In the leaflet, there are neo-Nazi codes and how to decode them. In this way, fans can be more aware of [meaning able to snitch on] far-right activities in the stadium. . . . Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, has spoken of a 15 percent overlap between football-affiliated hooligans and right-wing extremists. However, security officials in the Ruhr region of western Germany say the real figure is likely to be much higher.”

And indeed, a leaflet stating football hooligans’ goals is explicitly political: “Top priority: ‘Re-establishing old values.’ Second goal: ‘No anti-fascists in the stadium.’ Third goal: ‘Win back freedom of speech.’”[3]

“At the same time that the football federation was diversifying the national team, the German government was changing its citizenship laws, leading to a more diverse German citizenry.”[4]

While the Center-Left media praised the “diverse” players as adding their ethnic “flair” to the team, the Center-Right media transformed the “diverse” players into “good Germans” because of their hard work and commitment to the team – thus taking a utilitarian approach to identity. If it talks and walks like a German but looks like an African – it’s a German. While columnist Jacqueline S. Gehring, the biased Leftist who wrote the article, has the gall to complain that even though both Center-Left and Center-Right make no bone about the “Germanness” of these players, it is still discriminatory because they have to justify their German identity.

These two perspectives dominate all PC discussion about “diversity”: either it is good because it adds flavor (more falafels in Berlin, more curry in London) or it is good because it is useful, meaning more wage-slave jobs taken from the indigenous population.

dregsOne bit of Leftist trickery is to pose as apolitical common sense: “Whoever plays well should play in the team, whether they have an immigrant background or not,” said Hassan, 42. “It is about football and shouldn’t be about politics.” Thus Leftist ideology is invisible, it is seamless, it is the norm. Only challenges to Leftist hegemony are “political.” Of course the fact that “Hassan” lives in Germany is already political. The fact that his opinion matters is already political.

When Italian nationalism began to form in the 19th century, a phrase began to circulate:  “We’ve created the Italian state. Now we must create Italians.”[5] At various times, it has been attributed to Count Camillo Cavour and Benito Mussolini. “Creating Italians” was similar to other nationalist projects, like Ataturk’s creation of “the Turks” or Bismarck’s creation of “the Germans.” Italians were divided linguistically, ethnically, socially, economically, politically — almost completely. What brought Italians together, partially at least, is the treat of an outside force.

Now that a global political order is being created, we must create global citizens. There must no longer be an “us” and “them.” International sporting events are a problem for globalism, because it is all about “us” and “them.” That is why the establishment is pushing for “diversity” on teams — “diversity” being a code word being indistinguishable, interchangeable, all the same.

Italy's Mario Ballotelli

They’d like to think that the social values of universal humanism and meritocracy are winning out over narrow-minded national bigotry. We’re supposed to act shocked and appalled when an irate fan yells out “fucking nigger”[6] to Mario Balotelli. Why can’t these backwards racists join us in our global consumer paradise?

Balotelli fundamentally challenges the notion of what it means to be an Italian. And this questioning challenges what it means to be a fan of your national sports team. We can draw a parallel from the Roman Empire. When the Romans started to use mercenaries to fight their wars it was a sure bet that the Empire would collapse. And this is exactly what Balotelli represents, a collapse of the 19th-century nation-state towards the triumph of the 21st-century Internationalist Corporate State – a movement that entails deeply chaotic displacements of identity and self.

It is not just that nation-states have become divorced from their ethnic makeup, but also they have become entwined with the processes of globalism, which seeks to undermine any sovereignty, any border, any group, in favor of the free flow of capital and the global marketplace.

Balotelli does not just represent himself or the changing face of Italian identity, but the unsettling of the world in favor of internationalist corporate values. These values want to hollow out culture and identity and replace it with popular culture and individualism – which really is a lack of identity.

Stewardship is a valuable concept. It is the idea that the land does not belong to “one” but to “us.” One cannot use it up for one’s own private interest. One can make a living on it. But one has to improve it and pass it on. Because we are only one generation among many. Cultivation and culture are two concepts that arise out of the same desire: to make something of the world we are thrown into, and to pass it on. If one’s grandfather builds a house, doesn’t he hope that it will be the home of his descendants, not some tribesman from Ghana?[7]

A nation is an extended house for an extended family. It was not created so our generation can throw it away out of short-sighted greed or self-indulgent moralism. We owe it to our ancestors and our descendants to keep it in the family.



[2] For the full text.



[5] The phrase was actually written by Massimo d’Azeglio, a noble of the Piedmont House, so it might as well be attributed to Cavour or Victor Emmanuel.


[7] Clint Eastwood’s Grand Torino was a film which dealt with the idea of family inheritance. In the end the self-sacrificing converted racist white man gives his most prized possession to his Asian neighbor and snubs his family — in part because they have grown apart and see their relationship in materialistic terms, and those traditional qualities of family and kinship ties, homemaking, and hard work that Eastwood’s Polish character identifies with are absent with his own kin. We must rediscover these values!

Ezra Pound on Endless Trial – Book Review

Originally published at:


1,645 words

Robert Casillo
The Genealogy of Demons: Anti-Semitism, Fascism, and the Myths of Ezra Pound
Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1988.

Robert Casillo’s The Genealogy of Demons is unique in Pound studies because the explicit purpose of it is to give critical insight into Pound’s anti-Semitism, and it accomplishes this by way of multiple techniques, which it must employ, because Pound’s anti-Semitism is prismatic. A great many games are played herein to discredit Pound’s views on the Jews, although this is sophistic liberal revisionism and intellectual masturbation at a very high level. For example: “One might view Pound’s anti-Semitism as in part a revolt against the punitive parental rival and superego, a conflict between the religion of the forbidding father Jehovah and that of the messianic son” (Casillo, p. 287).

Casillo often relies on Freudian psycho-babble. Advanced Frankfurt School techniques are not the limit of his probing deconstruction, but they are the preferred method. Nevertheless one can learn much from Casillo’s efforts — specifically his work on detailing the thought of French fellow travelers Charles Maurras and Maurice Bardèche. The earlier chapters are especially rewarding as they are the prologue to the trial, thus they are concerned with establishing the relevant background information, the intellectual anti-Semitic precedents and proto-fascistic streams of thought that foreshadowed and shaped Pound’s thinking. The later chapters then seek to wrap the a priori guilty verdict — of Pound’s insistent “demonological” anti-Semitism — in a nice bow.

As a Ph.D. in literature, you might expect Casillo to shy away from social-historical analysis of the validity of anti-Semitism and instead rely upon highly creative abstract devices to explain away this “irrational phenomenon” — and you would be right. For that is exactly the type of analysis that Casillo employs. Never does Casillo ask is it possible that Pound blamed usury first and those who monopolized the mechanism secondly, or if, by way of studying the Social Credit economic system of Major C. H. Douglas, Pound was led, to what Jonathan Bowden delightfully called, the opposite of philo-Semitism. For Casillo, as for those who refuse to awaken to the reality of Jewish subversion and usury, there is a missing link.

By way of illustration, take a brief snapshot of the current situation in Argentina, which I plan on detailing in a forthcoming essay for Counter-Currents. While Argentina defaulted on $81 billion in 2001, as a result of President Menem’s neoliberal (laissez-faire) reforms, which allowed for the IMF and World Bank to secure short-term investments with the accompanying liberalizing policies of privatizing state enterprises, and constriction of government monetary policy. All this really means is that by breaking down the autarky of the nationalist-socialist strain of Argentina — most fully expressed in Peronism — the IMF and the World Bank enabled the country to slide $155 billion dollars in debt through securing short-term loans which artificially inflated the value of the Peso and simultaneously disabled government control on how the loans could be withdrawn. Essentially, foreign investors poured their money into Argentina only to pull the rug out when the dividends reached a certain level of profitability. This left bonds on the market at heavily discounted prices, which the vulture capitalists (economic terrorists) then acquired.

When we observe the facts, that the debt holders came forward to claim their pound of prime triple A Argentinian flesh, it was none other than the usual suspects: Paul Elliott Singer, a real New York Jew and CEO of Elliott Management Corp, who is described by Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez as a “vulture capitalist” and whose “principal investment strategy is buying distressed debt cheaply and selling it at a profit or suing for full payment,”[1] and another tribesman Mark Brodsky of Aureilus Capital. Fellow tribesman George Soros has emerged as another of the bond buyers who is suing BNY Mellon for withholding funds from the initial settlement with Argentina. Of course calling the whole thing a criminal enterprise, which will negatively impact millions of Argentinians for generations and enrich a few investors like Soros and Singer, is beyond the pale. But not to worry, because the tribe has one of their own inside: Axel Kicillof, the economic minister of Argentina, overseeing the whole transaction of a nation’s wealth into the pockets of some Jewish hedge fund types. It is hard to avoid conclusion that the facts are anti-Semitic.

Unsurprisingly, is quick to join a growing cacophony blaming the victim, Argentina, for the country’s woes.[2] This is not unlike the NSDAP’s post-WWI claim that Germany was stabbed in the back by Jewish financiers, who sought to gain economic leverage over the nation by plundering it into debt and destabilizing the Second Reich. But the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy is, according to the Frankfurt School analysis, the result of projection and scapegoating by the German people because of their loss in the war. Never mind that Bavaria fell to the Reds in 1919, first under a Jewish socialist in Kurt Eisner then into a bloody regime of Bolsheviks under the Jew Eugen Levine, with fellow tribesmen Ernst Toller and Gustav Landauer filling out the vanguard, murdering Countess Heila von Westarp and Prince Gustav of Thurn and Taxis, among others. The strategy detailed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which many commentators have suggested that despite being a “forgery” conforms to reality. But then the facts are anti-Semitic!

Now the Casillo types would point to these assertions of a Jewish strategy of domination as fanatical delusions, processes of psychological projection and scapegoating for failed artistic types (Pound and a certain Austrian corporal come to mind). Liberals (I use the term broadly) like to play the individualist card and don’t employ notions of groups or peoples or essences (stereotypes), which to them seems a highly barbaric and unenlightened form of thinking. Singer, Brodsky, and Soros are individuals who conform to negative stereotypes and not representatives of the Jewish people as a whole — while the Jews refuse to hold their own to the fire. Pound, however, understood the distinction between the “big Kikes” and the “little Yids” but still managed to see the forest as well as the trees.

Individualism vs. collectivism is the great divide between the Semitic Freud and the European Jung. Jung was able to image a collective unconscious that is a social-historical aspect of the psyche, while Freud could only imagine the isolated individual struggling with his neurosis. Jung was social, while Freud was anti-social. Pound sides with Jung, who, like Pound, would likely look upon individual Jewish usurers — Rothschilds, Soros, Kuhn, Warburgs, Sachs, etc. — and see not only individuals but archetypes or mythologized symbols of Jewish subversion of Western civilization as it has morphed into different forms through the centuries. The essence is the constant, or as Jung would write: “Because the behavior of a race takes on its specific character from its underlying images, we can speak of an archetype.”[3]

But Pound was not an individualist thinker. He did not see himself or others as isolated individuals concerned only with their own morality and conscience. Pound was a European thinker, whose thought worked in the poetic language of myth and tradition: “The Pound-Eliot ‘revolution’ was a return to the past in order to renew the links connecting past and present.”[4] Pound was a holistic thinker who entertained a certain amount of essentialism. He concerned himself with European civilization as a living, breathing entity entirely connected to the smallest of its parts, and thus objected to forces undermining its coherence. Thus, his identification of the Jews as bacillus and related imagery is a “natural” thought within the processes of racial and cultural consciousness. Correspondingly, Pound followed “Douglas’s idea that the basis of credit is social and not private.”[5]

The trick of the liberal education/indoctrination establishment today is to isolate the individual from these modes of thinking, to atomize him as a neurotic member of a diffused society – to put him on Freud’s chaise-lounge (or in a psychiatric ward in St. Elizabeths mental hospital) while the Schiffs, Warburgs, Soros, et al. plunder the public purse. Pound sought to bring the diffusion and subsequent confusion together under a fascism which Europe would be reborn (experience a renaissance) under a more unified and pagan directive.

Casillo classifies Pound’s anti-Semitism as a result of personal “pressures” and as a “poetic strategy.” This discards all of Pound’s factual, historical, social, cultural, and spiritual reasons. Pound’s anti-Semitism is thus divorced from any real manifestation of Jewish misconduct and instead grafted onto Pound’s deficient personality complex. Pound is engaged in projecting his own short-coming onto the Jews.

Pound’s anti-Semitism was multifaceted and not just limited to economic exploitation. Pound was a man of the West. He felt not just an identity with the West but a moral responsibility for its preservation. This is “totalitarianism” as viewed by a Confucian: “having a sense of responsibility” and “thinking of the whole social order” and “creating a balanced system” (Casillo, p. 128). He saw our civilization through a fascist lens as “a supra individual spiritual entity capable of infusing with heroism and purpose the lives of those who fight for it.”[6] It is essential to understand these traditional holistic foundations of Pound’s anti-Semitism.

As a general rule, whenever Casillo presents us with a “paradox” of Pound’s or fascist thinking it only appears paradoxical upon willful under-examination of their underlying principles. The Genealogy of Demons represents the most “rigorous” — i.e., niggling — attempt to deconstruct Ezra Pound’s fact-based political philosophy into “thoroughly arbitrary construct” and a psychological malfunction. But it has to be. Because the facts are anti-Semitic.


1. Michael Sheehan, “Vulture funds – the key players,” The Guardian (London).

2. Gil Ronen, “Argentina’s President Sees Jewish Conspiracy?”


4. Stock, Poet in Exile, p. 30. Quoted in Kerry Bolton’s Artists of the Right: Resisting Decadence (San Francisco: Counter-Currents Pub, 2012), p. 98.

5. Tim Redman, Ezra Pound and Italian Fascism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 69.

6. Roger Griffin, Fascism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 43.

Nymphomaniac Film Review

Originally published at:


952 words

Lars von Trier’s Nymphomaniac: Vol. I and II (2013) is the type of pretentious art-house exhibitionism that begs for conservative condemnation and liberal defense against the prudish “man” — at least upon first inspection. The fundamentalist Islamic Turkish government has recently taken the bait by reacting predictably and banning the film, labeling it, what it is only explicitly and superficially, as “pornography.”[1] But is the recent exposition of sex addiction films such as 2011’s Shame, 2013’s Don Jon, and Nymphomaniac symptomatic of the degeneration of any healthy balanced society?

Nymphomaniac’s protagonist, Joe, is played by three actresses: Charlotte Gainsbourg as the middle-aged incarnation, Stacy Martin as a younger Joe, and Anaya Berg as a ten-year-old Joe. In the end, Joe is left self-pityingly alone, with a ruined marriage, abandoned daughter, and a dangerous career — an overall squandered miserable existence — and she knows it. The film begins near its end, when Joe is found beaten in a dingy alleyway, like a drugged-out victim of a gang rape. And the plot unfolds as she recounts her life of debauchery to an erudite priestly old virgin named Seligman, played by Stellan Skarsgard, who has brought her back to his flat for convalescence and “confession.” Indeed, the story is recounted as a confession, but there is no moral growth, repentance, or redemption.

I skimmed through two reviews of the film, one calling it “feminist” and the other “misogynist,” each with anecdotal evidence to support its claim. Both writers were too confined by their worldviews to see the film as it is. Is the film feminist or misogynist? The answer is: who cares?

For Seligman, Joe is a heroine for breaking the double standard of sexuality — “If she does it she’s a whore, but if he does he’s ‘The Man.’” While the other side of the women’s lib ticket sees in von Trier’s lens male fear of female sexuality — the vaginal passage portrayed as sexualized womb envy, as young Joe fucks ten different men a night to get her kicks, something that not even the most sexually voracious man could accomplish. In this capacity, Joe represents a threat to the hackneyed leftist chant of the “hegemonic patriarchy.” Joe acts as a deified sacred whore of the living breathing “Slutwalk” culture.

In today’s polymorphous, perverse, pornographic popular culture, Nymphomaniac fits right in, no lubricant necessary. It’s not art that calls forth idealism or beauty, but neither does our culture at large. Nymphomaniac is intellectually and emotionally challenging, at times disturbing, and ultimately transgressive. The graphic sexuality of the movie, which utilized real “sex doubles,” only reflects the graphic sexuality of our times. We get the art we deserve.

But the work itself is not pornography in the ordinary sense. Yes, the film portrays a lot of sex, and that sex is every bit as debased as pornography. But Nymphomaniac is no more pro-sex than Requiem for a Dream is pro-drug. The purpose of the film is not to get you off. Rather the opposite. It is so depraved and repulsive that it functions as an argument for celibacy.

For example, there is nothing titillating about watching the saggy, paunchy, and menopausal grimacing in orgasm. Nor is the film’s relentless depiction of unfolding tragedies and cathartic emotional outbursts. Uma Thurman’s screaming confrontation with her cheating husband and his paramour, as her children bear witness to the breakdown, is genuinely hard to watch. Likewise Joe’s delirious and incontinent father’s slow, agonizing death in a hospital bed. The breakdown of Joe’s marriage is another of the tragedies that Trier depicts with such relish, especially in his “depression trilogy” (AntiChrist, Melancholia, and Nymphomaniac).[2]

Sexuality was Joe’s means to escape her own existential problems, and hooking up became every bit as addictive as heroin. But Joe refuses to sleep with Seligman at the film’s conclusion. She presumably kills him, but the purity of his virginity, his sacredness in his role as “priest,” and as a man of the higher calling of the mind, is left untainted by her profane nature. By murdering Seligman, Joe keeps the old tribal taboo of the separation of the sacred and profane intact, thereby redeeming the world. This ending — in which Seligman acts completely outside his character, presumably incensed with a mad desire inspired by Joe’s debauched tales — comes off as completely unrealistic and sloppily scripted, but didactic.

While von Trier himself comes off as a snarky art school egomaniac — his production house has dabbled in real “pornography for women,” and he has the word “FUCK” tattooed rebelliously on his knuckles — this self-indulgent P.O.S. actually makes some decent films. Well, films we deserve anyways.


1. Making one Turkish blogger quip, “Las von Trier I wish my country was as free as your mind.”

Therefore, having a “free mind” is equated here with sexual promiscuity (artistic or otherwise) as one “enlightened” bastion of liberalist tolerance; much like having “an open mind” means pretty much the same thing. Or being “reactionary” meant opposing the scientific evolution of society according to Marxist materialism. I mean you don’t want to be a “square,” or a “vanilla” or a “fascist” do you? Often the left, whether militantly political or repugnantly social, conjures up these pejorative distinctions to cripple those who differ from their enlightened perspective.

(It is probably not a coincidence that the pejorative term “vanilla” used by the GLTGB, BDSM, and the general hypersexualized crowd against traditional/conventional types of sexuality and coupling has a racial connotation to it. I mean, you don’t want to be “white” do you?)

2. Contrasted with Scorsese’s same-year Hollywood stylized glorification of the Jewish bacchanalia cult of unregulated stock-market manipulation and profiteering in The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), von Trier’s Nymphomaniac comes off as masterful as a Shakespearean tragedy.


I do not update it as much as when I began it, but it contains a great catalogue of fascist, pro-European, erotic and AltRight aesthetics.tumblr_o5d8lya4FY1r2qr2so1_1280


Heroism, Guts, Glory and Elegant Eroticism! The filthy diatribes of a Fascist mind! Mein European Revolution and Spenglerian Decline.
And Evolian Tiger Rides:
Eurofascism: lebensraum, revanchism , Coriolanus hierarchy, militarism! The Nietz & stuff.