Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism by Douglas Rushkoff Book Review

Nothing+Sacred

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]

Douglas-Rushkoff-306-306
We’re destroying your culture for your own good, trust us.

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]

karl-popper-tolerance-300x169.jpg
You wonder where Antifa gets it from?

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.

 

[iii] “Manspreading for Lebensraum, Part 1 and 2 – Alex Fontana.” 30 Sep. 2017, https://alexfontana.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/manspreading-for-lebensraum-part-1-and-2/. Accessed 28 Feb. 2018.

[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.

Advertisements

Invasive Species: The Hidden Natural Cost of Mass Immigration and Diversity

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:

“Because Asian carp breed so quickly, they can take over lake and river habitats, pushing out native species and unbalancing the natural ecosystem.

Asian carp also contain parasites not native to our waters, such as the Asian tapeworm.”

 

 

 

Perhaps the other fish are merely ‘inferior species,’ like Brooks’ European Americans. If there is to be a parallel between the species protectionism against Asian carp and the racial protectionism against Asian people, it is because both adhere to the same common sense natural principles of environmental and species protectionism. Common sense was simply not beholden to political correctness back in 1882 when the American government first issued the Chinese Exclusion Act: “Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof…”

In Canada the situation was much the same:

“… 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.

fp0126_vancouver-gs.jpg

What could Hong Kong, Sydney and Vancouver have in common? I’m sure the Austrian consensus revealing that Sydney is now more Asian than European has nothing to do with inflated housing prices and basic affordability.  Nor the claim that Vancouver is “the most Asian city outside of Asia” nor perhaps: “The only major cities outside Asia that come close to Metro Vancouver for their portion of residents with Asian backgrounds are San Francisco (33 per cent Asian), London, England (21 per cent)” also merely coincidentally on the list.

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.

chinese-immigration-exclusion.jpg
Diversity is not a strength.

Spirals

He who delights in her
As boundless spirals outward flowing – the first flowering
Finds joy beyond the skyline towards ineffable possibility
She that abides his courteous manner
Finds her heart softened by what distinguishes a prayer from a plea
Her beauty alone had brought him staggering on bended knee
As both a penitent and as a slave
It would not suffice until he is sovereign-laid
But Solitude terrified him
That looming miserable emptiness of a life
Hung like an effigy run through with a  knife
The bloody torrent of intolerable bitterness
The anguish of a great soul in which there is no altar
The kitchen sink realism leaving no room to falter
But he would not build a monument on her love alone
For he had and found it fickle and fleeting
And in his innermost fountain he was rediscovering himself for himself
And what is more: an eternal spring was stirring in early autumn
As boundless spirals inward flowing – the second flowering
HORNAK0011-267x427

A Tale of Two Islands: Castaway (1986) and Swept Away (1974)

“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.

article-0-0A909F70000005DC-135_468x613.jpg
Donohoe and Reed

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.

MV5BOTE5NzkzYWUtOWM2My00Nzc0LTg2MmQtM2Y5YzMyY2EwMjZiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjUxODE0MDY@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1268,1000_AL_.jpgThe 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.

p60291-620x350.jpg
“fucking cunt”

Jordan Peterson part 2: JP On Hitler and The JQ

Just a couple of days after I published my blog post criticizing Jordan Peterson’s individual reductionist approach to the social problems alienating and detracting from the life expectations of European men, his professional discipline, for his hypocrisy in regards to free speech, and for superficial and vague dodging of the JQ Peterson gets called out by a Jew about the JQ. Times like these it seems Reality herself literally follows my blog. The story was brought to my attention via the Daily Stormer’s write up.

 

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.

 

Stab-in-the-back_postcard
Keep killing each other Goyim, my cousin Bleichroder financed the nation – WE OWN YOU

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: Psychologists are really just Bad Sociologists

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). 26904090_168521640542808_1647420769384827059_n

I do not much enjoy watching people like Jordan Peterson, I frankly and flat out do not find his perspective interesting or unique or especially insightful or intelligent. But despite my personal reservations Peterson has kind of become the Tony Robins of the Alt-Lite: the boomer parent, telling his kid to clean up his room, while his social habitat is being invaded by foreigners. Or rather the boomer parent talking about how great western values like free speech are and then supporting banning someone who gave that cherished right to marginal viewpoints from attending a free speech event. There is a solipsism present within Peterson and his advice to adopt personal responsibility which does come off like the boomer parent making a mess out of Western Civilization, squandering centuries of inheritable wealth and then telling his kids to “deal with it.” Peterson, champions free speech or speech without deceit, and “adoption of responsibility for the conditions of existence and some attempt on your part to rectify them,” – but would Peterson support someone that views the Jews as responsible for the conditions of existence and makes an attempt to rectify it? – no that would be an avoidance of “personal responsibility” and what clinical psychologists would call “scapegoating.” He is not concerned about your right to “speak your truth” or any of the empty platitudes he preaches, but is acting as an establishment stooge meant to divert your interest of the world wit large into your own petty problems.

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.

jtjlnlP.jpg

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.

safe_imageThis 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.

whole-parts.png
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.

BWfLXEW

A Note: Global Cosmopolitanism and it’s Discontents

One of the perennial problems within the Western mind is the embedded notion of ‘fairness.’ This notion of ‘fairness’ has been a catalyst for revolutions and wars. Applied to society the task of statesmanship becomes one of maintaining a system in which everyone agrees to operate within the boundaries set forth on equal terms. Viewed from this pragmatic positionality; even within Catholic Europe, the notion of ‘fair play’ is rendered as equality before the homogenizing edifice of faith – thus economic and class inequalities may be prevalent but at least we are all equal within Christ – rendering unto Caesar. This notion of fairness cannot be reduced or separated from the power politics of institutional control (Foucault), or the hegemonic interplay between the base and the superstructure (Marx-Gramsci), it is an essential component to keep one from going mad, without it life is merely reduced to the Nietzschean struggle of wills and groups. The homogenizing edifice then is always present as a principle of grounding meaning, which simply must exist, thus even within a liberal framework in which for example multiculturalism and other forms of disunity are championed, the homogenizing edifice presents itself in the guise of tolerance and is no less totalitarian than other earlier forms – to be intolerant is to be outside, is to be a pariah. Also the idea is expressed as equality before the impersonal mechanisms of the market, of the law and of the land. Such ideas are no more true than the notion of equality before Christ, but they do placate just as well.

dims.jpeg
Globalization propaganda

In fact such modern notions of ‘fairness’ are demonstrably less true. The net effect of viewing society in such terms is to determine who ‘wins’ and who ‘loses’ by this game theory approach. Who is put outside by the supreme values of the homogenizing edifice and who is brought within? Hence within a nation operating under the homogenizing edifice of Christian universalism, the Jews are potential losers by being potentially marginalized for their particularity. While under the contemporary edifice of liberal-democratic-laissez-faire-multiculturalism-mass-immigration-globalism, the lower classes of the old stock are potential losers by being subsumed under progressive waves of competition into an economy and country built by and for them – invasive species into a habitat. The big winners are those upstart immigrants and PoC and the global elites who own stocks in factories in China and who own real estate in cities like Vancouver and Toronto. Furthermore, those groups who are more adept at operating as collectives will have comparative advantages over the native stock which has been fostered under notions of individualism. In effect multiculturalism is a betrayal of the Enlightenment ethos, by promoting cultures instead of individuals. As the market becomes globalized, immigrants from major economically booming nations, like China and India, will have the comparative advantage of potentially easier access to those markets and prospects as bridges between cultures and markets and often immigrate with more capital than the lower working class native whites themselves. In effect, the recent phenomenon of mass rich non-white immigration is a fundamental betrayal of (mostly) working class white ethnics, who built the infrastructure. Old Stock immigrants who were brought up under the values of explicit or illicit assimilation, in contrast will find themselves at a comparative disadvantage as cosmopolitanism goes full global. People who are easily able to navigate between cultures and languages, not only non-Europeans, but even peripheral groups within Europe, mostly in the ex-communist East, will also attain this advantage; not merely due to the upward mobility so desired by members of marginal groups, as a means to status and wealth, but also in their relatively higher rates of transnational outlook. Global cosmopolitanites, will be less ideological or concretely patriotic, their home is where the bread is, the values they espouse will be the values that make them triumph they will be the most loyal and devote subjects of the homogenizing edifice.

bigstock-Business-Winners-208568.jpg
Loyal member of the Church of Global Cosmopolitanism and a cuck

At the height of Empire, whether Roman, or English or French, the idea of a foreign office with a transnational diplomatic class, meant that the West was creating these hybrid creatures within herself, able to transcend cultural particularity, but never losing their sense of self and loyalty to their people (Kipling comes to mind). These men were to open up markets and roads between Hispania and Rome, or the Indian subcontinent and England – this meant that the nation still maintained a sense of its own in-group preference to a point. But the numbers  of foreign students coming to the West along with non-Western immigrants and labourers has created a reverse tendency in the healthy expansion of a people. Viewed as it was during the process of Empire and colonialism, one must infer from these trends of globalized cosmopolitanism that non-Western groups are in the ascendant. Turks in Germany. Algerians in France. Chinese in Canada. All this points to the West and Europe as in decline as a cultural organism and the ascendancy of Other groups. The big losers in such a complex scenario are the displaced classes of Westerners who are facing a globalized form of (reverse)colonization – their grievances are legitimate and yet they are told that they are privileged? 

maxresdefault (7).jpg
Globalist Elite and his House Nigger