Thoughts on the Protected Race

/50 Comments/in , /by

“Know that we have taken into our hand, custody, and protection Leo the Jew our goldsmith and all his affairs. And therefore we command that you keep ward and defend the said Leo and all his affairs, doing no hurt or injury to him.”
 Proclamation of King John of England, 10 Nov. 1199

“My office was created by law and designed to protect the Jewish people throughout the world. Think about that. The world’s greatest power is focused, by law and design, on protecting the Jews.”
 Elan Carr, U.S. State Department Envoy on Anti-Semitism, February 2019

By almost every metric, Jews are the most protected ethnic group on earth. At the frontline of this protection, Jewish institutional security is heavily subsidised by taxpayers throughout the West. In Germany, the government provides an annual stipend of $15 million to the Central Council of Jews. In the UK, the government spends around $20 million annually on both security for Jewish institutions and “Holocaust education” designed to combat “anti-Semitic ideas.” This is in addition to the UK pledging almost $70 million for a new Holocaust memorial designed to achieve the same ends. Hungary has promised $3.4 million to “fight anti-Semitism in Europe,” and Sweden has handed over 2 million kronor for increasing security at Jewish institutions. France has invested $107 million in “fighting anti-Semitism” since 2015. This brings us to a grand total of over $215 million in “protecting Jews” and “fighting anti-Semitism,” and doesn’t even take into account spending in the United States (somewhere between $20 million and $50 million annually for frontline security at Jewish institutions), or the spending of Jews on their own defense (the ADL’s annual budget alone is in the region of $58 million). One gets the distinct and remarkable impression that, globally, diaspora Judaism probably requires something approaching $1 billion simply in order to feel safe.

Jews are protected in other ways. Since mid-2018, resolutions and other legal measures against anti-Semitism have been gathering in pace and increasing in spread. In May 2018, South Carolina became the first US state to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which effectively shuts down speech against Israel on college campuses by requiring  South Carolina’s public institutions of higher education to “take into consideration the [State Department’s] definition of anti-Semitism for purposes of determining whether the alleged practice was motivated by anti-Semitic intent” when “investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of a college or university policy prohibiting discriminatory practices on the basis of religion.” In February 2019, President Macron of France announced a “crackdown on anti-Semitism” that would involve dissolving three pro-White organizations, defining anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism, and introducing new laws against “hate speech” targeting Jews on social media. Just a few weeks ago, Florida passed legislation defining anti-Semitism and making it illegal under state law. Tennessee has attempted to pass an Anti-Semitism Awareness Bill, and recently passed a resolution “fighting anti-Semitism” by declaring unequivocal support for Israel. This, of course, follows hot on the heels of the House resolution “condemning anti-Semitism” in the aftermath of Ilhan Omar’s now notorious remarks on the Israel lobby.

There simply isn’t another ethnic group elsewhere on earth that enjoys the same level of financial and legal protections enjoyed by Jews. Of course, the uninformed, when confronted with such a fact, might reply that this level of support is both needed and deserved. According to the received narrative, recent history suggests that Jews are the West’s most vulnerable and victimised group. All of these laws, and all of this funding, is therefore merely a response to an acute need. But recent history has nothing to do with Jewish protection, and nor are these measures responsive to any real immediate threat. In order to gain a full appreciation for what exactly is going on, we need to go much further back in time. Read more

Dragged Across Concrete (2019) and the Art of Cinematic Trolling

/12 Comments/in , /by

 

The author writes at Logical Meme and @Logicalmeme.
9125 words

Since the 1960s, there have been sporadic reactions in film against emergent liberal hegemonies in culture. In the early 1970s, when the social changes borne of the countercultural 1960s were, in very short order, becoming the mainstream culture and translating into the disastrous social policies of that era, there were occasional sympathetic depictions from Hollywood which channeled White discontent and a growing White male anxiety — for example, Dirty Harry (1971), The French Connection (1971), Death Wish (1974), and Taxi Driver (1976) — but by the 1990s, articulation of this anxiety (which, as a sociological phenomenon became hardened, not softened, through decades of collective experience) was largely expressed, ironically, through unsympathetically depicted characters — for example, Falling Down (1993) and American History X (1998)[1].

Since this time, the Hollywood filmmaking pipeline has become thematically constricted by a radical surge of political correctness and leftwing, agenda-driven depictions of race and racial conflict. Unspoken rules ensure that any film dealing with race ultimately settles on the side of predictable, leftwing, social justice platitudes. (Various Oscar-winning films of recent years attest to this.) As such, when it comes to subjects such as racial conflict, the effects of mass immigration, or the plight of Whites in America, there is simply no diversity of opinion coming out of Tinseltown. Creatively, this has led to a metastasizing sameness, a bland and boring creative funk, to mainstream films that touch upon such subjects.

In terms of the sociology of filmmaking, the significance of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) was to demonstrate — in stark, jaw-dropping, financial terms — the profound imbalance between the demand for ‘conservative’ films and the sparse supply of such films coming out of a leftwing, Jewish-dominated Hollywood system. Passion was independently produced and distributed by Gibson’s Icon Productions, going on to earn over $600 million worldwide, and currently stands as the highest-grossing R-rated movie in history. (The film also confronted strong rebuke and charges of anti-Semitism from prominent Jewish individuals and organizations.) Gibson’s next film Apocalypto (2006), also produced by Icon Productions, depicted violent, genocidal, tribal conflict in sixteenth century Mexico, and alluded to the eclipse and decline of Mayan civilization, emphasized in the film’s penultimate scene of Spanish Christian conquistadors arriving by ship to the jungle’s coast, with the indigenous locals looking on in awe. (Not surprisingly, Apocalypto was castigated in some quarters for harboring racist and colonialist apologetics.) Read more

When is the final decadence coming? from Sallust and Juvenal to the present (Part 2)

/21 Comments/in /by

 

Juvenal (55 – 138 AD)  

Interpretations of any text, on any social subject and at any time, including the interpretation of the verses by the Roman poet Juvenal, are also the mirror image of the dominant political ideas — the dominant zeitgeist. But who will control the interpreter if many Western dissident thinkers today are forced to follow the pedagogical ukases set up by politicians after the end of World War II? In this respect one could cite Juvenal and his famous verse in the Sixth satire: “Quis custodet ipsos custodes.” Who will guard the guardians?, or better yet who will control the architects of today’s newspeak which is raging in the Western universities and in the mass media?

More or less the same principle of intellectual censorship and self-censorship reigns today in the study and research on different races. Given the liberal-communist dogma of progress and the belief that races are solely a social construct and not a biological fact, and in view of the climate of self-censorship running rampant in high education and in the media, it must not come as a surprise that scholars who analyze differences between human races are often accused of using “ethnic stereotypes.”

Now, the term “stereotype” has become yet another buzzword today among scores of speech sanitizers in Europe. The same procedure of lexical hygienics is taking

place when a biologist tries to explain the role of genetic differences in affecting the trait distributions of races. A geneticist, should he venture into the demystification of egalitarian dogmas about race and heredity is certain to be demonized as racist, fascist, xenophobe or a proverbial  White supremacist. The newspeak used by the media against the evil-thinking intellectuals  has spread by now in all chancelleries and in all European and American universities.

Admittedly, ideas, in this case false ideas, dominate intellectual discourse in the West and not the other way around. In the same vein, the dominant ideas which lie at the System’s foundations, will be a decisive factor in the interpretation of some new genetic discovery, and not the other way around. Recently we saw a witch hunt of the Nobel Prize winner James Watson, a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. He was attacked in the mainstream media for his allegedly racist remarks made about ten years ago about Africans, stating that “our social policies are based on the fact that their [Black Africans’] intelligence is the same as ours — where all the testing says not really”[1]. What Watson said is shared by thousands of biologists and geneticists, but for reasons already mentioned, they remain silent. Read more

When is the final decadence coming? From Sallust and Juvenal to the present (Part 1)

/2 Comments/in , /by

What follows below is the translation of my speech/paper delivered in the French language at the conference organized by Résistance Helvétique, Geneva, March 9, 2019.

*   *  *

The Ancients, that is, our Greco-German-Gallo-Slavo-Illyro-Roman ancestors, were well aware of hereditary causes of decadence, although they attributed to this notion different names. The idea of decadence, let alone its reality, has always been present, although its current denomination came first into the French language by the eighteenth century in the writings of Montesquieu.[1] Later on, toward the end of the nineteenth century, the so-called “decadent” poets in France were a favorite and highly praised genre in traditionalist literary circles, labelled today in a somewhat derogatory way as “far-right circles.” Subsequently, these so-called decadent poets and writers started to exert a considerable influence on many right-wing rebels despite their own often unbridled, transracial, alcoholic and narcotized manners, or simply put, despite their decadent lifestyles.[2]

Although less common than in France, the term “Dekadenz” was also common in the prose of reactionary and revolutionary conservative writers in Germany by the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century. Like their counterparts in France, these writers had become terrified over the climate of moral decay and capitalist anomie in the cultural and political life of their country. It should be pointed out, however, that the German word “Dekadenz,” which is of French origin, has a different meaning in the German language, a language which prefers tapping into its own lexical treasure trove and where signifiers often yield different meanings. A good German conceptual equivalent of the French word “décadence” would be a very unique German term “Entartung”, a term translated into French and English by a heavy-handed term “degeneracy,” which, because of its biological connotations, does not always match with the original meaning of the German word “Entartung.”

The German word “Entartung,” whose etymology and meaning were originally politically neutral, refers to a process of “de-naturalization,” a process not exclusively linked to biological degeneration. This unique German word, due to its frequent use during the period of the National Socialist rule in Germany, underwent a negative semantic shift in the wake of World War II and following the Allied anti-German propaganda, to the point that it is no longer in use in the realm of culture and politics in contemporary Germany.[3]

In ex-Communist Eastern Europe, during the Cold War, the term decadence was almost non-existent. Instead, the communist commissars blasted Western capitalist mores with a revolutionary and all-purpose term that soon became a derogatory buzzword in the communist vernacular: “bourgeois.” In summary, one can conclude that the most avid users of the term “decadence,” as well as its most ardent critics, have been writers classified as right-wingers or authors on the far right.

Three essential questions need to be raised. When does decadence start to manifest itself, what are its origins, and how does it end? A host of premodern and postmodern writers, from JB Bossuet to Emile Cioran, each in his own way and each resorting to his own mode of literary expression, have provided us with apocalyptic accounts of decadence seen as steering us now toward the end-times of the European world.

Despite this, it seems that Europe is still alive and kicking despite a series of decadences it has encountered over its history, starting with the decadence in ancient Rome all the way to serial decadences in modern times. With one big exception. In view of the large-scale racial replacement of European peoples by the masses of non-European peoples, the old European world seems to be now preordained not to a transient decadence, but rather to a terminal decadence. Read more

Fraser Anning’s Open Letter on the New Zealand Murders

/31 Comments/in /by

Fraser Anning is a Senator from Queensland in the Australian Parliament. His letter appeared in Pickering Post, March 27, 2019.

AN OPEN LETTER TO

PRIME MINISTER SCOTT MORRISON

from

Senator Fraser Anning

Prime Minister Morrison,

You are threatening to censure me in the Australian Parliament for statements I made following the mass murder of New Zealand Muslims on Friday the 15th of March. Labor leader Bill Shorten agrees with your intentions.

You accuse me of blaming the victims in my initial response to the atrocity. This, despite the fact that my statement unequivocally condemned this heinous act of murderous violence.

One of the victims of this rampage was a toddler. All were innocent. The perpetrator is a monster and no sane person would think otherwise.

There are no mitigating factors which could in any way excuse this evil act. The person responsible needs to feel the full force of the law.

After putting the immediate blame where it belongs, I looked for contributing causes. I said: “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand”.

I was referring, obviously, to terrorists and the backlash they potentially incite. Nowhere in that statement did I imply that any of the victims were fanatics. They were hapless victims.

My brief comment was not an academic treatise seeking to identify all the causes. Instead I zeroed in on the New Zealand government’s indiscriminate immigration policies, which are very much in line with your own.

The censure motion is an attempt to deflect attention from your reckless policies, which are causing run-away diversity – a well-documented risk factor for communal conflict. Shame on you.

Your exploitation of the killing has helped open the door to the far left. Now, innocent conservatives and even the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation are being accused of guilt for mass murder on the flimsy basis that the killer’s manifesto opposed Islamic immigration to Europe.

This guilt by association has the same level of honesty as your own accusation against me. As Douglas Murray states, “Beliefs held by millions [are] not rendered invalid by [the] actions of a maniac.”

What distinguished the killer from others concerned about Islamic immigration is that he abandoned politics and took up terrorism. To blame conservatives for Christchurch, as is now happening, is as irrational as blaming democratic socialists for Communist mass murder.

It is completely appropriate to consider contributing causes. This mass murder is clearly a form of inter-ethnic, inter-religious and inter-cultural violence.

It is a matter of fact that in recent times, these kinds of deadly attacks have proliferated in Western countries. Initially, these attacks were mostly committed by Muslims but more recently, have been committed against them.

It is a matter of causation, not moral blame, that until recently we were largely immune to this problem because until the 1970s Western populations were, for the most part, ethnically, culturally and religiously homogenous.

I believe that these changes were initiated by governments, not requested by the people, who generally wished to retain their way of life, as did others around the world.

The Japanese people have no wish to bring in millions of Vietnamese and grant them citizenship. The Chinese don’t want to be swamped with Indians.

No people wish for this. We didn’t vote for it and we weren’t asked. Yet every Prime Minister since Whitlam has embraced the policy of indiscriminate immigration. The only choice has been in how quickly we would become a minority.

“We the people,” were given no democratic option to oppose this madness. Every major party supported it.

For example, you recently critisised Bill Shorten’s refugee policy. You said it was reckless as it would double the number of refugees at a cost of six billion dollars every year.

You implied that your own policy was somehow responsible because you would import only half that number at a cost of three billion dollars per year.

Are Australians supposed to thank you for driving us over the fiscal cliff at half the speed?

As Prime Minister, you must accept the greatest share of the blame. Sadly, you are not alone. Every other mainstream political party subscribes to the ridiculous trope that diversity is a strength. It is not, and the people know it.

You have pursued these policies against the will of the people. Along with the deep state, you have viciously attacked anyone who opposed this madness.

People have been destroyed by accusations of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, white supremacy and an ever-growing number of slurs.

In order to lock-in permanent mass immigration, you multicultural elitists have annihilated the bedrock principle of Free Speech from our society.

This is the foundational principle on which our system of democracy is built.

This deliberate subversion of democratic rights has been ruthlessly efficient in silencing legitimate criticism.

The dogma of multiculturalism has been imposed under cover of threats and intimidation. Had people not been bullied into silence by political correctness and the threat of Government sanction, they would have figured out the truth much earlier.

The fact is, that multiculturalism is simply minority tribalism turbocharged by the Left.

This is part of a wider trend for Western governments to import the “Clash of Civilisations” into once peaceful societies. If this continues the result will be the dissolution of the nation state.

Your policy of multiculturalism encourages all minorities to remain culturally separate. It encourages them to remain loyal to their tribal, religious, ethnic or cultural identities instead of to the Australian nation.

Unless of course it is white Australians who express loyalty to their group, in which case it is referred to the so-called Human Rights Commission under the hated Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Thus, you espouse tribalism from one side of your mouth while decrying it from the other.

The problem is, that minority groups vote for their own interests.

Politicians know this from experience. You are constantly pandering to them. The level of largesse which you offer, is in direct proportion to the numbers of each group in marginal electorates or donations to party coffers.

The key demand of these minority groups is always the same. More migrants from their own “tribe” to bolster the power of their own voting bloc.

Mr. Morrison, you enable this minority supremacism, as did your predecessors. You promote it. And you profit from it. This tribalism is not shared by the majority, who do not yet understand the need to vote for their own ethnic interests.

They are told to think of themselves as individuals, not as parts of a cohesive nation. Unless the majority realise the benefits of voting for their ethnic group interests – democracy will be finished. In its place we will have intractable sectarianism and Australia will be just another failed state.

The horror in New Zealand is so newsworthy because it is not yet a failed state. In the three weeks before the shooting in Christchurch, 120 Christians in Nigeria were shot or hacked to death by Muslims.

This tragedy was not reported in a single Australian news outlet that I am aware of. In January, much closer to home in the Philippines, a cathedral was bombed by Muslims and twenty innocents were killed.

Why did you and your Government not issue statements denouncing the killers? Perhaps because murderous attacks are so common in these countries.

Since September 2001, there have been more than 34,000 terrorist attacks conducted in the name of Islam. This is a staggering number. Most have been committed in countries with large Islamic populations.

As you and your predecessors have increased the Muslim population in our country, we have suffered a growing series of attacks on our soil.

Fortunately, our security forces have thwarted most of them. The Islamic community is expanding rapidly, however. Soon we will not have the resources to control the situation.

The likelihood of a backlash from other groups increases with every attack. As our society splits along racial, religious and ethnic lines, the possibility of escalating conflict increases.

Australia is not the world’s most successful multicultural society. We were once united and peaceful with a secure national identity.

Our children had bright futures. Now cohesion and trust are falling. The data shows it. There is no net benefit to traditional Australians from your multicultural dogma.

Your policies will lead to white Australians – the heart of our nation – becoming a minority within a few decades. Your own figures confirm this.

You, Mr. Morrison, are part of the problem. How dare you judge me. How dare you hold your head up in the light.

You and your cabinet have no real analysis of the national question. Instead you offer vacuous slogans fed to you by equally vacuous senior public servants – “diversity”, “vibrancy”, “inclusion”, “religion of peace”.

You have no vision for Australia situated in our region. No analysis of how to manage diversity and identity in a sustainable, peaceful way. All we get is politics; saying anything to stay in power.

This lack of principle and positive direction indicates that you and your Labor clones are puppets of powerful vested interests. These interests give a damn only for profits, not diversity, identity or belonging.

The present election campaign in New South Wales offers a horrible example of multicultural politics at work. In September of last year, the Labor leader, Michael Daley, gave a speech to a predominantly Anglo audience in the Blue Mountains.

[snip]

This is the tragedy of your beloved diversity, that it weaponises positive human bonds. It turns good people against one another.

Your immigration policies have turned Australia into a squabbling Tower of Babel. Those policies really should be criminalised. They should be made unconstitutional.

The Australian nation is dying in the big cities. Congested, progressively foreign, replaced, colonised, self-segregated, hurt by falling trust and loss of belonging. Why are you doing this to us? Where is your soul? Where is your decency?

Stop thinking about your parliamentary pension and media reputation and start thinking about your people, our people. Isn’t it obvious that the nation is in crisis? Why can you not stand tall and actually lead our people?

Our children and grandchildren will curse you if you are remembered at all. You have no right to transform their society without the people’s permission. You have no right to inflict this legacy on them, to become a minority in their own country.

Let me be doubly clear that I condemn you and Mr. Shorten in the strongest terms imaginable – as traitors to truth and traitors to social cohesion.

You have even turned your back on your Christian faith and values. Multiculturalism means “fewer Christians.” Is that really your intention?

Without mass immigration and multiculturalism, neither the Islamic attacks in Australia or this appalling reaction to them would have occurred.

Without your reckless policies, the Australian people would still be living in a peaceful, stable and secure nation state as the Japanese do today.

The New Zealand government is using this hideous attack to further its cynical agenda. Instead of offering their people a vote on ruinous immigration policies, they are further strangling free speech and suppressing opposition.

Censorship of the media was hardly mentioned after terror attacks on Australian soil. Now however, after an attack by an opponent of multiculturalism, The State is demanding censorship of the internet.

Any website which does not embrace your extreme multicultural agenda is coming under scrutiny.

This foreshadows darkness and tyranny which were once unimaginable to Australians. You and your cohorts are driving us there at full speed.

Australia is on the path to a police state, fomented and legitimised by multiculturalist ideology.

Again, Mr Morrison, your government leads the charge, by allowing people to be persecuted under ill-defined accusations of hate speech, when most just hate oppression.

I implore all politicians to step back and think again about what you are doing to this nation.

Do not oppress us in a knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy born of fanaticism.

Any response must be measured and sane. It must not be at the price of this nation’s cohesion and unity.

Free Speech is always the first target of ham-fisted tyranny. The Christchurch killer’s intent was to topple our traditions by his evil scheme. Do not become pawns in his game.

Australia once trusted its citizens to discuss the most extreme ideas peacefully. We have a long history of rejecting radical ideas.

It is clear that our elites cannot be trusted with controlling our borders. I don’t just mean the few thousand illegals coming in boats but the millions coming legally by jet.

We as a nation need to take a breather. We need time to assimilate those already here. We need a plebiscite on immigration!

We the people, not you the elites, have a right to decide who comes here.

Fraser Anning

On the Liberal/Leftist Mantra:”Our Common Humanity”

/34 Comments/in /by

There is an overabundance of the use of the words “we,” “us,” and “our” in the following polemic. Whites in America have been discouraged from describing themselves with these terms in discussions about race, because we have been discouraged from having a collective identity. In defiance of that convention, I have used the terms often in this essay.

I will begin by stating that America’s Europeans — Europeans everywhere — are experiencing massive displacement by swelling non-White populations, a shift that threatens to make our political and cultural landscapes unrecognizable in the near future. As this happens, public discourse has been reinvented to accommodate the visible changes in our societies. Let us start by examining just a few examples:

  • Demands for redistributions of wealth are now increasingly presented as being reasonable and inevitable; the imported poor must be fed and subsidized.
  • The historical narratives of Western nations are increasingly rewritten to include non-Whites, even if the rewrites are historically inaccurate.
  • The rare acts of violence committed by Whites against non-Whites are extensively examined for any hints that they are “hate crimes,” while vastly more numerous incidences of violence by non-Whites against Whites are generally dismissed being merely criminal in intent.
  • Institutional discrimination against non-Whites is intensely denounced as being unthinkable, while the legalized discrimination routinely directed at Whites in job hires, promotions, and college placements is either ignored or applauded as necessary.

Ironically, all of these things, and similar convolutions of logic and justice, now occur while great to-do is made about a need for “colorblindness,” or the need for “equality under the law,” or “understanding.” As our societies are enthusiastically deconstructed and reinvented, one of the most perpetual refrains that we now hear is the insistence that Whites search within themselves for tolerance by tapping into their sense of the common humanity that they share with all other human beings, and especially human beings of color.

As appealing as this sounds, if we are to examine humankind’s “common humanity,” it may be important that we include in our examination a thorough appraisal of the vast destruction that we humans have repeatedly inflicted on our own species, other species, and the natural environment. We should perhaps intellectually embrace the reality that placing multiple and very different groups in previously homogeneous areas — like the U.S., Canada, Germany, or Australia — greatly increases the potential for intergroup conflict, overpopulation, political upheaval, resource depletion, environmental devastation, and a host of other problems. And let us least of all forego an examination of the potential for this kind of demographic change to rapidly submerge the original populations of those countries. Are the odds of perpetual conflict and collateral devastation not exceedingly high? If they are, is it not exceedingly foolhardy to take these risks?

Fundamentally, it’s because the people who are engineering this transformation and a great many of their followers hate White people far more than they worry about the downsides of multiculturalism. Most of us, whatever our political persuasion, do not look into another man’s face without seeing therein a fellow human being. But seeing a shared humanity in another person’s face requires reciprocity. We are not receiving reciprocity when other individuals and groups condemn us for wanting the historical and cultural and racial continuity of our own lineages and societies to endure into the future. We are not guilty of any sin merely by virtue of having a racial or cultural or religious identity that we desire to perpetuate — just as no other group is guilty for having these things and wanting to perpetuate them. We also are not receiving reciprocity when we are forced to demand the same rights of association or freedom from discrimination that other groups around us consider to be their entitlement. And it again follows that we are guilty of no moral misdeed when we make appeals that the same standards of morality and civic engagement apply to our group — especially when we can see very clearly that they do not. Read more

Kosher Komedy: The Semi-Woke Jokes of Titania McGrath

/37 Comments/in /by

If you’re interested in the wacky world of far-left politics in Britain, you might enjoy “As Soon As This Pub Closes,” a survey of Leninist and Trotskyist parties written from the inside by the late John Sullivan (1932–2003). He was a veteran of revolutionary socialism who somehow kept his sense of humour and absurdity amid the leftist lunacy. This is how he summed up the later career of Tony Cliff, né Yigael Gluckstein (1917–2000), the Israeli-Jewish head of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP): “Once [Cliff] despaired of changing the world he saw little point in trying to understand it.”

Cheap shots and unfunny sneers

That’s a good Marxist in-joke and “As Soon as this Pub Closes,” originally issued as a pamphlet in 1988, is a highly enjoyable read. But an old friend of Sullivan’s made an interesting point in Sullivan’s obituary: “This pamphlet in particular has a unique quality, in that all who read it laugh heartily at what he says about the other organizations, only to become deeply indignant when they come to his descriptions of their own.”

Good satire works like that: the more effective it is, the less amusing it is to its targets. For example, if you’re satirizing SJWs and their absurdities, you don’t want good reviews from the Guardian and New Statesman. Fortunately for the parody poet Titania McGrath, scourge of the modern left, her book Woke: A Guide to Social Justice didn’t get good reviews from those publications. The Guardian said: “Lampooning the language of social justice is a cheap shot.” The New Statesman said: “Titania McGrath’s tired and unfunny ‘joke’ is just the old sneering at the young.”

Titania McGrath, radical intersectionalist poet

Read more