T.S. Eliot and the Culture of Critique, Part Two

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.


‘We must discover what conditions, within our power to bring about, would foster the society that we desire. … Reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.’
 T.S. Eliot, After Strange Gods, 1934.

One of the most striking features of Julius’s T.S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism, and Literary Form is that it is no mere literary critique. This basic and relatively short work is a multi-pronged and vicious ad hominem masquerading, with odious pretentiousness, as criticism. Eliot, the man, is attacked in multiple, often scurrilous, forms throughout.

These are subtle attacks, perpetrated under the cover of a flimsy, indeed petulant, thesis. This thesis, such as it exists, is two-dimensional. Summed up, it consists of two basic arguments. The first is that Eliot drew on “anti-Semitic” themes for some of his poetry, themes that were characterized by their disdainful attitude towards Jews. The second is that “anti-Semitism” was an intrinsic part of Eliot’s art, and therefore Eliot himself was ‘anti-Semitic.’ Of course, in and of itself, the accusation that Eliot wasn’t fond of Jews is hardly damning. However, in the hands of Jewish ethno-activists the accusation of “anti-Semitism” is often loaded with deeper and more insidious aspersions. As such, the thesis and the ad hominem nature of its arguments and content are bound up intricately via a single common thread: Julius’s own corrupt understanding of what “anti-Semitism” is.

Julius’s professed understanding of anti-Semitism is identical to that of other Jewish ethno-activists. In this perception, “anti-Semitism” is a mixture of “incoherent” discourses riddled with “internal contradictions.”[1] It arises, at worst, in the sick, irrational mind. At best, it develops ex nihilo, since, as Julius puts it, “no external factor can induce it.”[2] In this remarkable psychological bubble, Jews are entirely blameless. Ever passive, they lack all agency. They exist merely to register the irrational mental undulations of “the nations,” that confused, miasmic mass of humanity they have been tasked by Jehovah to act as a “light unto.” The problem with such a perception, of course, is the existence of an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence. Read more »

Europa Exsurgo Stand Up and Regain Your Strength
Philip Giraldi on the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act

From Philip Giraldi, “Fake News Versus No News” on Unz.com:

… The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is intended to give the Department of Education investigatory authority over “anti-Jewish incidents” on America’s college campuses. Such “incidents” are not limited to religious bigotry, with the examples cited in the bill’s text including criticism of Israel and claiming that the holocaust was “exaggerated.” It is a thinly disguised assault on the Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, which is non-violent, does not criticize Jews as a religion or ethnicity, and is actually supported by many Jewish American who are concerned about Israel’s apartheid regime.

The Anti-Semitism bill makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class, immune from any criticism. “Free speech” means in practice that you can burn an American flag, sell pornography, attack Christianity in the vilest terms or castigate the government in Washington all you want but criticizing Israel is off limits if you want to avoid falling into the clutches of the legal system. The Act is a major step forward in effectively making any expressed opposition to Israeli actions a hate crime and is similar to punitive legislation that has been enacted in twenty-two states as well as in Canada. It is strongly supported by the Israel Lobby, which quite likely drafted it, and is seeking to use legal challenges to delegitimize and eliminate any opposition to the policies of the state of Israel.

As the Act is clearly intended to restrict First Amendment rights if they are perceived as impacting on broadly defined Jewish sensitivities, it should be opposed on that basis alone, but it is very popular in Congress, which is de facto owned by the Israel Lobby. That the legislation is not being condemned or even discussed in the generally liberal media tells you everything you need to know about the amazing power of one particular unelected and unaccountable lobby in the U.S.

And there is always Iran to worry about. If the United States can successfully avoid a war with Russia, a conflict with the Mullahs could have major consequences even if the all-powerful U.S. military successfully rolls over its Iranian counterpart in less than a week. Iran is physically and in terms of population much larger than Iraq and it has a strong national identity. An attack by Washington would produce a powerful reaction, unleashing terrorist resources and destabilizing an economically and politically important region of the world for years to come. Currently, the nuclear agreement with Iran provides some measure of stability and also pushes backwards any possible program by Tehran to build a weapon. Iran does not threaten the United States, so why walk away from the agreement as some of Trump’s advisors urge? Or violate the agreement’s terms as the U.S. Congress seems to be doing by extending and tightening the sanctions regime with its just passed Iran Sanctions Extension Act? Look no further than the Israel Lobby. Hobbling Iran, a regional competitor, is a possible Israeli interest that should have nothing to do with the United States but yet again the United States government carries the water for the extreme right wing Netanyahu regime.

Israel for its part has welcomed the Trump election by building 500 new and completely illegal settler homes in what was once Arab East Jerusalem. Trump has surrounded himself with advocates for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s expectation that he will have a free hand in dealing with those pesky Palestinians is probably correct. I would like to think that Donald Trump will unpleasantly surprise him based on actual American rather than Israeli interests but am not optimistic.

Indeed, deference to perceived Israeli interests enforced by the Israel Lobby and media permeates the entire American foreign policy and national security structure. Congressman Keith Ellison who is seeking to become Democratic National Committee Chairman is being called an anti-Semite for “implying U.S. policy in the region [the Middle East] favored Israel at the expense of Muslim-majority countries, remarks ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt described as ‘deeply disturbing and disqualifying.’ ” Donald Trump and his senior counselor Steve Bannon have also both been called anti-Semites and several other potential GOP appointees have been subjected to the media’s fidelity-to-Israel litmus test.

The recently nominated Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who can hardly be called a moderate when it comes to Iran, has also been labeled an anti-Semite by the usual players. Why? Because in 2013 he told Wolf Blitzer “So we’ve got to work on [peace talks] with a sense of urgency. I paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and [because of this] moderate Arabs couldn’t be with us because they couldn’t publicly support those who don’t show respect for Arab Palestinians.”

Mattis will no doubt be reminded of his remarks when he is up for Senate confirmation. A predecessor Chuck Hagel was mercilessly grilled by Senators over his reported comment that the “Jewish lobby” intimidates congressmen. But ironically nearly everyone who is not an Israel-firster who is involved in U.S. foreign and security policy knows that aggressive Israeli colonization of the Palestinian West Bank and its siege of Gaza contribute greatly to terrorism against the United States, since Washington is regularly blamed for enabling Netanyahu. When General David Petraeus said pretty much the same thing as Mattis back in 2010 he was forced to “explain” his comments, retract them and then grovel before he was eventually given a pass by the Lobby.

And there is considerable self-censorship related to the alleged sensitivity of “Jewish issues,” not only in the media. I recently attended a conference on the Iraq invasion of 2003 at which the role of Israel manifested through its controlled gaggle of American legislators and bureaucrats as a factor in going to war was not even mentioned. It was as if it would be impolite or, dare I say, anti-Semitic, to do so even though the Israeli role was hardly hidden. Former Bush administration senior official Philip Zelikow has admitted that protecting Israel was the principal reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq and others have speculated that without the persistent neocons’ and Israel’s prodding Washington might not have gone to war at all. That is apparently what then Secretary of State Colin Powell also eventually came around to believe.

So let’s stop talking about what Russia is doing to the United States, which is relatively speaking very little, and start admitting that the lopsided and completely deferential relationship with Israel is the actual central problem in America’s foreign policy. Will the media do that? Not a chance. They would rather obsess about fake news and blame Putin.


The Murder of Maria Ladenburger: A Fatal Lack of Vitamin “R”

I don’t know the exact nature of the death of Maria Ladenberger, the daughter of an EU official who was recently raped and drowned by an Afghan migrant, who had been let into Germany by Angela Merkel, but I suspect that the real cause of death wasn’t an excess of water in the lungs but rather a deficiency of Vitamin-“R”.

Vitamin R, in case you haven’t guessed it, is Vitamin “Racism,” yes, that word again, a word that is applied to everything from Nazi death camps to so-called “microaggressions,” and since we don’t have actual Nazi death camps anymore, or even KKK lynch mobs, it generally refers to people feeling slightly uncomfortable or suspicious of people of other races and cultures whose ways they don’t particularly understand or like.

This may seem somewhat trivial for most of us most of the time, but for a young woman cycling along a deserted path late at night, it has rather a lot of utility. She was apparently returning home from a party after 2:37am.

Like William Blake’s famous Tiger, this crime is almost awe-inspiring in its fearful symmetry, although it is a symmetry of a bleak and unforgiving Manichean kind  —the evil, ingratitude, and brutality of the Afghan is almost perfectly matched by the innocence, generosity, and vulnerability of the “privileged” German girl.

The scene of the rape was a cycle path — created by Germans keen to create a clean, healthy, and well-functioning society, only for it to be used as a sordid and convenient location for the throwaway lust of someone from a savage and brutal society. The manner of Maria’s death seems especially galling — dumped and drowned with apparent contempt, presumably as post-coital Islam reasserted its fake morality over the killer’s temporarily lust-purged mind and manifested itself as shame and disgust with the raped kufar meat.

As for young Maria, it seems clear that she had been steeped in what James Lawrence recently referred to as the Cosmopolitanism of her EU flunky parents, and had fully taken that ideology and identity to heart.

She was studying to be a doctor — yes, Medicin Sans Frontier. etc. — and was, of course, helping out at the local refugee center (yes, every German town now had one thanks to “Mother” Merkel).

This place may be where she first came to the attention of her rapist and killer, or it may not be. But this fact alone points out her glaring naïveté — a young, attractive women placing herself in the vicinity of the deep sexual frustrations of young Muslim men separated from their own women and the substitutes for women that their culture provides out of grim necessity; meanwhile Germany pays for cute little lectures on picking up German girls that succeed in sending out a signal of weakness rather than actually helping Mustafa and Mohammed score with Helga and Hannah down at the local Eurodisco.

It is not just individuals who now lack Vitamin-“R”. Germany and Sweden show that it is also states and societies, especially those marked out for destruction. But it is found in its most tragic form in cases of young women raped and murdered.

It is glaringly obvious that Maria was a person completely lacking in this vital mental vitamin, the age-old antidote to the naive acceptance of dangers we don’t understand. Maybe she had no warning of the actual attack, if her assailant leaped from his hiding place, or maybe she actually stopped for him. But she at least knew the situation, i.e., that her town was full of young male strangers.

To any rational person, it would have seemed an act of extreme foolishness to cycle alone along a deserted path that late at night. But for someone with Maria’s background and clear lack of Vitamin-“R”, to even think like that would have outraged not only her anti-racist sentiments, but probably her feminist ones as well,

Had she lived it is not improbable that her beliefs would merely have pushed her into a different kind of death — a self-sacrificing career in the NGO or public sector, serving the rising invader population, with one to zero children herself.

Sadly but not surprisingly, Maria’s values are shared by her parents. Her father is a senior legal official in the EU whose main goal seems to be to displace the traditional people and culture of Europe. One might think that he would rethink his commitment to importing rapefugees, but in lieu of flowers, he asked that donations be given to Bangladeshi Catholic Church whose homepage states, “We support refugees and asylum seekers with family sponsorships in refugee dormitory Bissierstraße in finding accommodation or employment transitions.”

This is another example of who Christopher Donovan has called the Amy Biehl Syndrome in which altruistic Whites are murdered by the people they are trying to help, followed by parents who forgive and commiserate with the murderers. White pathology indeed.

President Obama’s Final Press Conference


My Fellow Americans,

The recent detonation of a nuclear device in New York City by terrorists acting in the name of one of the world’s great religions of Peace caught us all by surprise. I did not anticipate that 7 million people would be vaporized in an instant while I was on the golf course, or that the scale and nature of the attack would be so unlike the run-of-mill attacks that have become our new normal. This only validates my long standing argument for stricter gun control. Nevertheless I didn’t see this coming, and I take full responsibility for it.

Accordingly my spin doctors did not have a pre-fabricated press release at the ready to ally your fears and combat the greatest threat to civilization as we know it. Islamophobia.

This must not happen again. We must be able to provide a quick response that would nip an anti-Muslim backlash in the bud. We must be able to instantly deflect attention from the dastardly deed to the sorry plight of innocent, decent, law abiding and patriotic Muslims who feel the sting of Islamophobic remarks in the supermarket or out on the street.

The sad fate of Akbar Mohammed, a peaceful citizen of my home town of Chicago, must serve as a reminder that hate is an opportunist waiting for a chance to hurt somebody’s feelings. Akbar, as you may be aware, was brutally assaulted by racist graffiti that leapt off the sidewalk and slapped him in the mouth, with the insinuation that somehow, he was not a real American. No greater calumny has been known to man. And no greater shame has cast its shadow over an American city.

If you are a New Yorker who survived the blast and you think you’ve got it rough with radiation burns, missing limbs and melted eyeballs, try living through an Islamophobic remark. The same goes for the victims of the Boston bombing. It’s time they realized that the real victims in this country are the folks who have to endure hateful speech — sometimes as much as three times a year.

And if you are in charge of Facebook, Twitter and Google, I would implore you to follow through with your stated intentions to shutdown websites and blacklist individuals who purvey fake news. For those who do not understand what fake news is, it is any news that you didn’t hear or read in the mainstream media. As a rule of thumb, if you didn’t hear it on CNN, PBS or NPR, it simply ain’t true. And if you want to read the facts, I recommend that you confine yourself to the Washington Post and the New York Times. They’ve never let me down yet.

As they demonstrated in their objective coverage of the Presidential election, and the accurate prediction of its results, the MSM have their pulse on the nation. We must do everything we can to assist them in eliminating the competition by stifling alternative media outlets.

I would further advise that if we are to survive as a diverse, tolerant and harmonious nation, we must gut the First Amendment and look to Canada as a blueprint for what can be done to exclude and punish those who do not share our vision. Our message must be clear. Words have consequences. Words hurt. And free speech is not hate speech. Hate speech is most often covertly transmitted through dog whistle phrases and fake news stories.

So forget ISIS, the federal debate, our unsecured borders, the disaster of Obamacare and the outsourcing of good American jobs, it is fake news which must demand our urgent attention.

In fact, as we speak, at my behest, the FBI is conducting an investigation as to whether New York City was actually obliterated 48 hours ago, as it was Breitbart, Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs who first broke the story. Don’t take the charred survivors stumbling through the rubble at their word.         According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, many of them are connected to the Alt Right.



Above: White Supremacist posing as a survivor of an atomic attack