Tag Archives: politics

the zeal of the SJW

Posted on by
Reply

At university, twenty odd years ago, I knew a baby boomer ex-professor who had most of the standard Leftist opinions; we got on fairly well because I was more or less apolitical and like me he was generally very conservative about literature, abhorring Literary Theory in good measure. He was also quite brave, in that the university was then relatively conservative, so he was very much swimming against his immediate current.

His great moral touchstones were Hitler and sex, the former being the most evil man of all time, the latter being the only thing worth doing. So, typical r-selected hedonistic boomer. He had a habit of returning to the Holocaust, Nazis, and Hitler at the drop of a small hat, so when I was once ranting semi-seriously about chavs as a degenerate form of human life, he squirmed uncomfortably then expostulated grandly, “The Nazis said exactly the same thing about the Jews.”

I stared at him, thinking, And?

“And sometimes they were right!” he continued, then looked baffled at his own rather odd and (I suppose) anti-semitic remark, before continuing, huffing, “But this kind of language, this is exactly how Hitler referred to the Jews!” and then glared triumphantly as if to say, “I just likened you to Hitler: game, set, match.”

The Reductio ad Hitlerum is by now so common a tactic as to warrant no lengthy explanation; however, I often wondered why my boomer acquaintance would head unerringly and absurdly for a Nazi/Holocaust/Hitler reference, e.g.

Johannes Q: I forced myself to read this ghastly Lit Theory book, I ended up hating it so much I wanted to burn it, but –

Boomer: Johannes, the Nazis burnt books.

Johannes: Oh. Yeah. I guess.

Boomer: Then they burnt Jews.

Johannes: Oh yeah. Sorry. I wasn’t actually going to burn it. I was just –

Boomer: This kind of language is what enabled the Holocaust.

And so on. He was animated by an aggressive zeal to stamp out anything that in any way reminded him of Nazis, an attitude that seemed a bit odd to me at the time, but is now the norm among the twittering elites. I wondered why exactly he was so agitated, so highly-strung, as if he’d gone back in time to 1930s Germany and was just waiting for the jackboots at the door; when in fact he was living in a Leftist paradise of ever-increasing degeneracy and nihilism.

From the moment I met him, in the late 90s, he talked as if the State security services would soon take him away because he was a dangerous dissident who could well bring down the Government; I just assumed he had good cause to think so, since I tend to believe people, but over the next two decades nothing at all happened, the police did not kick his door down and give him a good drubbing, MI5 did not pop him in a sack and dump him in a reservoir, an old school friend did not pop by to gravely warn him that his name was causing terror among the elites, and he should leave the country immediately. Nothing happened at all. He just continued likening everything to the Holocaust, and everyone to Hitler, and occasionally intimating that he would certainly be executed or at the least imprisoned by the State, and the last I heard he’s still doing it, undisturbed by what he (predictably) calls “the Gestapo”.

Why, as the Joker would say, so serious?

Of course Leftists are usually emotionally damaged to begin with, demonstrating Borderline and/or Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but all the same, the frenzied zeal and sense of mission and fear about the Boomer struck me as misplaced and odd. Turning it over in my mind, I recall that his father was wounded in World War 2, and the Boomer grew up in the 50s, no doubt bombarded with war and post-war propaganda about how uniquely moral it had all been, the fight of the good guys against the Ultimate Evil, on behalf of the Ultimate & Forever Victims. Growing up in this atmosphere, knowing that you would never get to fight in such an operatic, allegorical conflict, against so superbly evil an adversary, must have left some curious marks upon his psyche.

He and his generation were trained to think in terms of good vs evil, with evil unambiguously represented by white men who care about their people, their race, their land and their culture. This Manichean worldview left the Boomers with a sense both of a mission, and of being born too late to fulfil said mission. All they had left was to shriek “NAzi! HitleR!!!” and feel, momentarily, as heroic as their soldier parents and grandparents. Like a dog trained to fight an animal that no longer exists, all they can do is maul soft toys and play make-believe.

future war

Posted on by
Reply

In Christopher Nolan’s opaque gem, Tenet, the future is attempting to destroy the present. From what I could understand, in the future environmental degradation endangers the human race; so the men of the future decide to destroy their ancestors, i.e. us. The idea seems to be that by sending signals back in time to Kenneth Branagh’s Ukrainian villain Andrei Sator, they can arrange a temporal reversal which will basically wipe out everything that has existed up until the future, leaving the future humans intact but presumably unmoored from the past and able to remake their planet or something.

It’s pleasingly complex. Sator seems to refer to the Sator square:

I note also that George Tenet was CIA Director from 1997 to 2004, perhaps relevant in such a film as Tenet. Certainly, there is a mysterious note to Christopher Nolan, a memetic resonance; thus the odd prescience in his Batman trilogy.

Reflecting on Tenet, one could say that for the last few decades we have been at war with the past. Most of the Leftists I know would quite happily annihilate everything before they were born; indeed, they usually know nothing about the world before their birth, what they think they know being simple-minded propaganda about slavery and patriarchy and evil Christianity. They grow up watching TV shows like Channel 5’s upcoming Anne Boleyn, starring, well, this as the title character:

The average Leftist, granted access to a time travel machine, would use it to go back in time and kill everyone on the planet. I dare say the Leftist would begin with white men, but then even women in the past are guilty of Wrongthink, so they have to go too; and since Leftism is inherently & necessarily destructive, after wiping out all white people in the past, the good Leftist would need to kill more people, and since the white race apparently evolved from Africans, the only way to be sure is to kill everyone on the planet. And since Africans apparently evolved from apes or something, the apes would need to be exterminated. And so on.

Leftism is often criticised as “utopian thinking”. However, I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with utopian thinking, provided it is modified by contact with reality. Right- and Left-wing utopian thinking can be distinguished by motivation and the measure of pure imaginal content. Right-wing utopian thinking is either about some glorious sci-fi future (Millennial Woes’ One Hour from Now speech) or a wish to return to an earlier time; but it’s mostly the latter, meaning it can draw upon real societies as they recently were, instead of imagining a future wholly different to the present and past.

In addition, most of the Right-wingers I’ve met are motivated by love for a certain form of life (the quiet, safe, homogeneous societies of their youth; or a form of life that ended before they were born) and they are only secondarily hostile to that which would destroy this. Every single Leftist I’ve got to know has turned out to be a venomous reptile, motivated by hatred for European culture and European peoples. In reality, their utopian fantasies of the workers’ paradise are incidental to their hatred for white people and European civilisation and culture. The hatred comes first. Hence, the Leftist makes war upon the present and the past, and the utopian thinking is etymologically so – utopia meaning nowhere; for the Leftist is fighting to destroy the present in order to create nothing and nowhere and no one – utter non-being, the paradise of all such haters.

Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint!
Und das mit Recht; denn alles was entsteht
ist wert daß es zu Grunde geht;
Drum besser wär’s daß nichts entstünde.
So ist denn alles was ihr Sünde,
Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt,
Mein eigentliches Element.

I am the Spirit that Denies!
And justly so: for all things, from the Void
Called forth, deserve to be destroyed:
‘Twere better, then, were naught created.
Thus, all which you as Sin have rated,—
Destruction,—aught with Evil blent,—
That is my proper element.

community

Posted on by
Reply

Here in Italy, the town hall is called the Comune. The word sounds strange to me, amidst a city, for there is little, if anything, of community in any place larger than a village. It occurred to me, the sense of community or lack thereof is one reason city-dwellers are usually Lefties, and country folk on the Right: if we take the following as indicators of the Left:

1. Support for a big government to control as much as possible (child education; what the citizens are allowed to say, eat, drink, read, watch; the health services, etc.)

2. Support for unrestricted, mass immigration from the Third World.

3. Lack of concern for Western civilisation or demographics; indeed, some degree of hostility towards the West.

then cities would naturally attract Lefties, and further encourage these three traits. In a village or small town, there is little need for top-down organisation – everyone knows everyone else, most people naturally cooperate to avoid ostracism & shaming; the group size is small enough that bureaucracy and bureaucrats are unnecessary. In a town of e.g. 200,000 let alone 10 million, organisation takes on a wholly different character & necessity. Extrapolating from the city’s needs, the city dweller tends to think the answer to everything is a government office issuing forms and fines, warnings & adjurations. It is hard, for the city dweller, to accept that there is a limit beyond which bureaucracy becomes cancerous & stultifying; because in the city, things would rapidly disintegrate into Mad Max-style chaos without the police, without the government.

There is no community in the city. A city is an agglomeration of people more or less randomly thrown together, trying to avoid too much contact with each other. The closest one comes to community in the city is the micro-community, e.g. the tennis club, the regulars in their local pub; city dwellers will pay to avoid their neighbours, to have thicker walls, fences, to be able to drive instead of taking public transport. The fantasy of the city dweller is one of isolation amidst variety: to drive through the city in a large car, and if they have to walk anywhere they will immediately plug into an iphone and listen to a TED-talk. For the city man, others exist only to serve or admire him – they are otherwise an inconvenience or a threat.

Without a sense for the community, for the culture (that which underlies civilisation), why should a man appreciate, let alone defend, the West? The community – that slowly-built, nuanced network of relationship & responsibility – is replaced by a large, impersonal bureaucracy; for the meadow, the machine. 

For the city man, community is just an old-fashioned word, a scary Right-wing concept (Blut und Boden). So why object to millions of 3rd-world immigrants? Mohammed and Jamal are willing to work illegally for less than the minimum wage, and so what if crime immediately soars, that’s why you pay more to live in an all-white neighbourhood and drive everywhere in a BMW instead of having to take the train or bus, and eventually you move out of the city altogether because Mohammed and Jamal are basically everywhere now, so you move into a suburb or even into the country and complain about how right-wing everyone is. 

In the city, the only freedom is that of consumption; the city man is free to go shopping, to spend his money in as many ways as the city can dream. He can buy things; his identity is formed not by his actions, by e.g. how well he maintains his property or if he helps his neighbours, but by his brand clothing, his car. In the city, mass immigration merely increases the varieties of consumption, from prostitution to food.

It is telling that for the Leftist, immigration is typically justified by appeal to ethnic cuisine, a mess of pottage. For the man who denies meaning to extended human relationships (extended into time in ancestral respect and care for one’s descendants; extended into space in community), what could possibly have more value than stuffing your face with food? Why not sacrifice a Lebensform, a non-physical form of life, a community comprising not merely those alive today but their ancestors, if you can try a new ethnic dish?

Those who value community recognise that it is a lifeform of sorts, a kind of egregore; not merely a definition of the relations between the physically living, but a definer of their relations and their selves; both a constraint and a blessing; in a sense, even more alive and more precious than the individuals in whom it lives. 

negative buoyancy

Posted on by
Reply

I work, if you can call it that, in a very left-wing field; meaning that most of my colleagues are somewhere between rabid SJWs and what Millennial Woes calls “globeshitters”: pot-smoking drifters who want open borders so they can live wherever they want without a visa.

In Germany, one of my colleagues – a perpetually sour-faced blonde American from Maine, with a face like a slapped arse, as they say – flatly informed me that Trump was inciting white racists to attack “minorities”, and then cited the Nick Sandmann incident as proof. I just sat and stared at her, for by this point the mainstream media were on the backfoot as video footage of Sandmann’s total innocence spread beyond their control. I didn’t bother correcting her; almost all of my colleagues are in the 90-120 IQ range and have read nothing save CNN headlines since they were 5. There is no arguing with such folk.

I am a Q-tard and Trump-fan, although I don’t think Trump is perfect: I however think he is significantly more red-pilled than people realise – he is just aware of what is politically feasible, and of course I think he is at heart a civic nationalist who wants us all to get along.

I wonder sometimes, how would it psychologically affect me, were the Q-business to fall flat, to be revealed as a psy-op or LARP. I would, I think, just revert to my pre-2016 Weltanschauung, regarding politics and worldly power as wholly corrupt; a realm in which the only true way is an avoidance of worldly things, a preservation of the metaphysical and magical foundations. I would most likely just play The Who’s classic ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ every day for a few weeks:

My prog colleagues I would see as so deeply “in” the illusion spun by the mainstream media, that to attempt a breakout would be akin to a Special Boat Squadron operative, clinging to the hull of a submarine which has suddenly sunk a few hundred feet, attempting to cut his ropes and swim to the surface. It is possible, has happened; but below negative buoyancy you don’t naturally rise, you naturally sink, and the more rabid Left are well below negative buoyancy: their entire self depends on a decades’-long illusion.

If the 100,000+ sealed indictments include journalists, it will be interesting to see what befalls in the world of the far-left progressive, after the cogs and motors of their particular illusion stop turning.  My guess is they will be like the Japanese soldiers who continued to fight World War 2 in the jungle for another 40 years: just without the bravery and self-sacrifice and honour.

Beverly Hills Cop

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve decided to spend the evening eating pizza and watching Beverly Hills Cop for the first time in about 30 years. I am struck by the opening shots of an already-ruined Detroit; I thought its ruination was more modern than that but it looks to have been a shithole even in the mid-80s. A George Floyd-related thought: I only hear cases of police brutality in Democrat strongholds like California and Minneapolis; why?

More blacks, of course – that is one explanation. Does it suffice? Why are the cops so prone to fatal violence in Democrat strongholds? Does Democrat rule create conditions so chaotic & bestial that cops necessarily become Punisher-esque enforcers? Or are these incidents even arranged by higher political powers?

outrage inflation

Posted on by
Reply

I awoke to this video today, in which a high school principal has been fired/displaced for disagreeing with rioting and race-grievance. The culprit, Tiffany Riley, is no doubt a Leftie like most teachers, yet had the audacity to state:

“I firmly believe that Black Lives Matter, but I DO NOT agree with the coercive measures taken to get to this point across; some of which are falsified in an attempt to prove a point. While I want to get behind BLM, I do not think people should be made to feel they have to choose black race over human race. While I understand the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives, what about our fellow law enforcement? What about all others who advocate for and demand equity for all? Just because I don’t walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I am a racist [sic]”

She looks like a typically clueless normie who thinks we can all be friends, and she was no doubt a bit taken aback to be fired.

Since the boundaries of acceptable discourse have been rapidly shrinking, and people now say Friends of all things is racist, we are experiencing extreme outrage inflation. The Left know that no one in the public eye would dare say the kinds of things everyone admitted in the 80s or 90s; even sentiments that were common sense in 2012 are now increasingly forbidden. Thus, since the Left is in part animated by the desire to extirpate heresy, and is unable to believe in the innocence of whites, they necessarily zoom in on the tiniest behaviour or utterance of Whitey. For the progressive, to say “you probably shouldn’t burn your own neighbourhoods down” is on a par with flashing a Nazi Party badge while donning a white hood and hefting the noose, because they truly believe that every White Devil is a racist fascist sexist homophobe Nazi etc. etc. – and in the absence of actual proof, of e.g. openly racist and murderous statements, Prog is forced to amplify the smallest of infractions into evidence of that which they inwardly know to be the case.

For Prog, the total sum of racism can not decrease; so as the expression of racism decreases, the significance of each utterance must increase. For Prog, the White Devil is every bit as racist as in the early 19th Century, it’s just he/she has learnt to hide it – to speak in code.

This will continue. As normies shrink from even daring to criticise mass violence & looting, Prog will have to look closer yet; to establish guilt, it will soon be enough to have not praised the beatings and arson; and then, when normie learns to begin each day with a hymn of praise for anti-white murder and destruction, Prog will frown – Prog will look closer yet; then, it will be necessary for the White Devil to join in the rioting, to attack other White Devils; and in time, only suicide will suffice – anything short will be taken as evidence of hate, of being a closet Nazi, a White Supremacist, that most ghastly of things, a living white person.

live vs recorded politics

Posted on by
Reply

Watching older music videos, I was struck by how many were pseudo-live, lip-synch versions where the band pose on a stage pretending to play their instruments & sing as their song is played from a record. For example, Oasis “performed” ‘Roll With It’ on Top of the Pops, but the Gallagher brothers swapped roles, the guitarist Noel pretending to sing Liam’s vocals and the singer Liam pretending to play guitar.

or Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptFegqTOYYc

Live versions are never as perfect, but can have an unsettling energy, e.g. Arcade Fire’s ‘Rebellion’ live in 2006:

or the Beastie Boys’ ‘Sabotage’:

An amusing comment I found to one of their other live ‘Sabotage’ videos:

There is something unnerving about a good live version of a song you only know from the studio. I wondered how someone who grew up watching lip-synch videos would feel, watching something like this:

Much of our post-WW2 world is a man-made and managed “matrix” of advertising and political propaganda. Read the average contemporary writer, then go back and read some work on e.g. beekeeping or a history of church bells by some obscure clergyman or schoolmaster, and one is struck not merely by the far greater erudition and lexical/grammatical range of the latter – there is a sense of earthy grit & grain to the minor schoolmaster, in contrast to our contemporary propagandists.

I feel this is one of the reasons normies are so routinely affronted by Donald Trump; bizarrely – given his extensive background in reality TV – he is the political equivalent of a raw live take in a world of lip-synching fakes. He offends not by his middle-of-the-road civic nationalist opinions (“we are all American!”) but by breaking the illusion; even if he is weaving his own illusion, it is not part of the imprisoning deceit, it indeed violently jars with the narrative of the last three decades. He is his own man; like or dislike it, he’s not suborned to the manmade matrix (or should I rather say, demon-made). In a world of Top of the Pop lip-synching, Trump has the wild, controlled bluster & blister of, for example, Rod Stewart and The Faces performing ‘I’m Losing You’, with 15k likes and, at the time I viewed it, 358 dislikes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOPJXrUWII

– appended to which I found this, presumably when the 358 nay-sayers were at 297:

how long has Cabal been in control?

Posted on by
Reply

Some trace Cabal’s lineage back to ancient Sumeria. I assume Cabal is ultimately answerable to non-human, non-physical intelligences, demons if you will, who would predate our oldest records. In recent human history, I think they were embedded in Great Britain before America, judging from the tradition of homosexual rape and paedophilia in Eton (the principle schooling for UK politicians) and Churchill’s obeisance before the worldly powers that be.

In America, I suspect it could be dated to 1963.

Cabal have (I judge) repeatedly tried to assassinate Trump, without success. But each attempt has been passed off as a vehicular accident or lone maniacs trying to get into the White House with a machete etc. There has been nothing as blatant as JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza.

If one compares the murders of JFK and his brother to the attempts on Trump, I note that Cabal are acting much more discreetly with the God Emperor, and much less successfully. I believe the reasons are: they fear exposure in the internet age, and this time the NSA and shadow factions in CIA and FBI (among others) are actually on Trump’s side – my intuition is that even among those deepest in the darkness, some are supporting Trump for their own reasons.

The outrage Trump has occasioned among Cabal mouthpieces, to a far greater degree than Dubya, suggests he is a genuine outsider and, for all his Israel-pandering, a real threat to Cabal. My theory is that, after JFK, every US President was either a carefully-selected puppet (LBJ, Clinton, Bush, Obama) or tolerated within limits (Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Carter). Nixon, for all his many faults, strikes me as non-Cabal, a merely humanly corrupt individual.

My guess is, that after JFK it was no longer necessary to kill US Presidents – with the exception of Reagan

who presumably came to some accommodation with Cabal after a friend of his Vice President’s shot him in March 1981. The fact that Cabal so openly took out JFK and his brother, took a shot at Reagan, but left Clinton, Bush, Obama etc. untouched suggests they were more or less in control by the mid-60s, Reagan being an aberration whose reign they reined in as much as possible.

As further corroboration, can you imagine a modern POTUS giving a public address like this:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

So, my supposition: regardless of 1913, Cabal had little hold on America in the 50s and early 60s or it wouldn’t have even been possible for Eisenhower or JFK to be elected in the first place, barring a Black Swan event such as attended and feted the God Emperor and still wafts him in his place atop the Cherry Throne to this date; and in such a case, we would have ample evidence of aberration – most of all, in the controlled media.

Cabal being a relatively small number of mega-influencers, if you like, they operate best in a totalitarian society; but they seem to have a preference for totalitarian societies with the illusion of freedom. I get the feeling they enjoy manipulating the well-meaning weak-minded Left to enforce their edicts, at least so far. The mass-media age is perhaps their natural habitat, although they pre-date such methods of control; and, as we see with the Great Meme War, the internet is not as easily controllable as they might wish.

If Cabal only really began its stranglehold upon American politics in the mid-60s, it would take time to transform the institutions of power to Cabal’s will. Accordingly, what we are witnessing with Trump and the Q organisation may be a revolt of the old ways, men formed by pre-Cabal institutions, and we are perhaps in the last time window for such a movement – another generation and the ethics and customs of pre-Cabal America would have faded from living memory.

the right to disagree

Posted on by
Reply

I recently had a heated discussion with a SJW colleague. Merely mentioning (to another colleague, but in her hearing) that I was “right-wing” triggered the creature. I shrugged, “but it’s not important. Everyone has an opinion, it doesn’t mean anything.”

She was not calmed; if anything, she seemed more determined to attack, and ended up trying to get me fired.

Later, I fell to wondering why the “opinions don’t matter” argument only enraged her, and why the Right are much more likely to shrug at a divergent opinion. I believe it’s because we project our own attitudes to form a mental model of others’; and because the Right would mostly just restrict immigration, encourage the nuclear family, classical education, Christianity, and perhaps discourage non-Europeans from having large families, we tend to think “well, the worst that could happen for the other side is a cramping of their style.”

But the Left want the white race to die out completely, Christianity to be exterminated, education to become Maoist indoctrination, the family to be destroyed, the State to rule over all. They want the boot stamping on a human face – for eternity. They call it love and tolerance but in their brittle vegan bones they know this is a war, and they know one side must be destroyed.

It is only the Right who persist in the pleasant belief that we can all sit down & have a jolly chat about our opinions, over a cup of Earl Grey and some Battenberg cake.

For the Left, an opinion is a weapon ready to be fired into the head of an enemy. Thus, when a tweed-clad old chap says well, it’s just my opinion their nostrils flare, they hear the hoofbeats of the Cossacks, they reach for their Makarov. For the Left, an opinion is never just an opinion.

In addition, most of these SJWs do not achieve anything with their lives; if they are “artists” they write shitty poetry such as my colleague; at best, they administer globalist oganisations like the BBC or run human trafficking/sex slavery rings for NGOs and charities. They do not think, they do not create. All they have are their empty, borrowed opinions: for the Leftist, the mark of virtue is to loudly strumpet forth the correct opinions.

Thus, when a tweed-clad fascist smiles apologetically, “well, it’s just an opinion” they are

– because, in part, opinions are all they have. They cannot, in the Materium, do more than destroy, and in the West said destruction is limited to beating people up and throwing rocks and writing shrill Tweets; but in the Immaterium, they can host all the principles of Chaos and insanity; in the Immaterium of their opinion, they are devotees of Slanesh, of Satan.

They are therefore triggered not merely by the idea of a divergent opinion; but by the idea that opinions are not really that significant. Opinions are all they have.

It is thus impossible to debate, to have a civilised chat. There is only war.