Kevin MacDonald: Is The Family Cut-Off From Kinship The Basis of Western Individualism as well as Liberalism? Chapter 4 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition4

Have you spent countless hours searching for the origins of individualism in the philosophical treatises of the Western Canon? Reading Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition may make you think this was wasted time: the origins of individualism lie in the pedestrian world of family life. Individualism is not an idea, a concept, or a philosophical insight, but, as explained in Part 3 of my extended review of MacDonald’s book, its essence lies in “the cutting off” of the Western family “from the wider kinship group”. And this cutting off was started by illiterate northern European hunter gatherers during the last glacial age in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods. In chapter four, the subject of this article, MacDonald continues his analysis of the “familial basis of European individualism” in response to those who argue that this family was a by-product of individual family ownership in the Middle Ages.

In what follows I will bring out the salient features of MacDonald’s argument, how incredibly different was the Western family, while raising questions about the degree to which we can reduce the essence of Western individualism to family patterns. I will use MacDonald’s argument that Sweden stands as the most extreme case of the Western individualist family to suggest that there are other key principles of individualism which are actually absent in current Sweden. A key principle of the liberal ideal is the realization of the variety of individual personalities, along with institutions that encourage such variety, unpopular opinions and the freedom to advocate them openly without reprisals. By this criteria, it is hard to identify Sweden as a liberal nation notwithstanding its individualist family patterns.

Individualistic Families in the Middle Ages

There has long been “a consensus among historians of the family that the family structure of northwest Europe is unique.” The consensus is no longer, as MacDonald notes, that this family was a by-product of modern capitalism; it is that Europe’s peculiar family patterns were already observable in medieval times. We have seen in Part 3 of my analysis of MacDonald’s book that he goes “back to prehistory” to  explain the primordial “evolutionary/biological” basis of this family. In chapter four, which we are currently examining, he attempts to refute the consensus argument that the Western individualist family sprang out of the manorial system of northwest Europe where land ownership was centered on singular family holdings rather than on kinship groups.

Without getting into MacDonald’s careful argument against the manorial thesis, his counter-argument is that “there were already strong tendencies toward individualism” among north-western hunter-gatherer-derived Europeans and Indo-European-derived cultures. Since there is no direct evidence of genetic selection in prehistoric times of these family patterns, MacDonald accentuates instead how the genetic findings he adumbrated in chapters one to three (regarding strong individualist tendencies among northwest hunter-gatherer Europeans and Indo-Europeans) parallel the well attested existence in Europe of “extreme individualist” families in the northwest, “moderate individualist” families in north-central Europe, and “moderate collectivist” families in the south where more collectivist Anatolian farmers settled.
In other words, the areas in Europe with “extreme individualist” families tend to be the ones that came under the heavy influence of the “egalitarian individualism” of northwest hunter-gatherers (Scandinavia). The ones with “moderate individualism” tend to be the ones heavily influenced by the aristocratic individualism of Indo-Europeans, along with some Nordic egalitarianism influences, namely, France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland. The ones with “moderate collectivism,” where kinship ties remained relatively strong in family patterns, tend to be the ones heavily influenced by collectivist Anatolian farmers, namely Italy, Greece, and Spain, though MacDonald observes a moderate collectivism in eastern Europe and Russia as well.
The protypical “extreme individualist” family is characterized by seven key characteristics:
  • monogamous marriages
  • marriages at a relatively older age than the married teenage girls we see in non-western world
  • similar age of husbands and wives
  • a relatively high proportion of unmarried individuals (women in particular)
  • household settlement independently of parents and extended families
  • rather than marrying a close kin or cousin, exogamy prevailed
  • marriage based on individual choice and romance rather than arranged
While I was aware of the consensus literature contrasting Western and Eastern family patterns, MacDonald’s thesis goes well beyond in its evolutionary/biological perspective and its persistent focus on how this family was cut off from extended family kinship networks, and how this separation is the foundational basis of Western individualism. Individualism is not a theory but a deeply seated behavioral inclination among Whites. This counters the naive conservative supposition that individualism can be exported to the rest of the world and assimilated by cousin-marrying Muslims in Europe.

Because MacDonald presses this incredible contrast between Western and non-Western family patterns, he sometimes uses expressions which may give the misleading impression that, for him, the Western family was “cut-off” altogether from kinship networks. But his point is that there were substantial differences in degree of kinship connections, and that these differences existed within Europe as well. It is not a matter of absence or presence of kinship networks. This becomes clearer in the next chapter, as we will see, when he acknowledges in full the additional, and indispensable, “cultural” role of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages in breaking down to a higher degree extended kinship networks and thus reinforcing the individualist tendencies already present.

It may come as a surprise, and it is a big contrast between the West and the Rest, that the choosing of marriage partners in the West, more so than elsewhere, was based on “warmth and affection, and physical appearance”. “Close relationships based on affection and love…became universally seen [by the 18th century] as the appropriate basis for monogamous marriage in all social classes” including the aristocracy. I am sure there is a strong correlation between these family patterns and the fact that Europeans were responsible for the best romance novels ever written. Only in the West do we find such novels as Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, E.M. Forster’s A Room with a View, Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind, William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Marguerite Duval’s The Lover, D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther.

Is Contemporary Sweden “Individualist” and “Liberal”?

Who is more individualistic and liberal, the feminist or the nationalist?
In a closing section, “State-Supported Extreme Individualism in Scandinavia”, MacDonald addresses the paradoxical convergence in Sweden of a socialist state “supporting egalitarianism…as necessary precisely for achieving individualist autonomy”. It would misleading, he observes, to describe Sweden as a communitarian culture since the function of its socialist state is “precisely” intended to afford greater equality of opportunity to the greatest number of individuals by giving them access to health, education, high wages, and good jobs. Nordic societies generally score very high in “emancipatory self-expression” because the socialist state has afforded the greatest number of individuals the economic wherewithal for self-creation, the ability to develop educationally and physically. Likewise the state has solidified the ability of Swedes to have the most individualistic family patterns by freeing parents from child rearing tasks — not by  discouraging high investment on children, but by helping families with child care and thereby giving couples more time to express themselves creatively as individuals rather than being burdened too many hours with mothering roles.
This freeing of Swedes from all the remaining collective components of the family has indeed entailed a questioning of the notion that there are “fathers” and “mothers”. Families are “voluntary associations” or contracts between private individuals that may come in multiple forms. There are no deep biological differences between boys and girls. Swedes are “free” to decide which gender (among a growing number of possibilities) they prefer to be identified with, rather than being boxed, as feminists like to say, into a “male-female binary.” MacDonald does not get too much into the downside of individualism at this point in his book other than to mention Sweden’s high levels of divorce, lack of filial attachments, sexual promiscuity and drugs — alongside a political culture that discourages any strong attachment to Sweden’s ethnic identity.
As insightful as MacDonald’s emphasis on family patterns is to our understanding of the nature and dynamics of Western individualism, I wonder whether he is pushing too far the argument that Sweden today is “on the extreme end of individualism” based primarily on the criteria that this nation has exhibited, and continues to exhibit, “the most individualist family patterns in all of Europe”. I wonder whether Sweden can be classified as an individualist society given the extremely conformist culture it has engendered. We call Nordics “radical liberals” but they are not liberals anymore, since very little independent thinking and dissent is permitted against politically correct values enforced by the state without dialogue.

It is not as if MacDonald does not recognize the presence of moral communities which regulate the beliefs of its members and limit dissent in the West. As we will see later, this is a key component of MacDonald’s thesis: the very same cultures that minimized in-group kinship ties engendered powerful moral communities to sustain their individual egalitarian behaviors in opprobrium to individuals who did not play by these rules. But if we agree that there is more to liberalism than individualistic families, and that allowing for the realization of the variety of individual personalities and freedom of expression are essential traits, it may be a stretch to call Western societies today, the same ones that prohibit any criticism of diversity, liberal. Expression of one’s inner potentialities and highest talents, in competition with others and against pre-reflective norms, is central to the liberal ideal of freedom.

Although some socialistic measures such as equality of opportunity are consistent with liberal thinking, the egalitarian ideal is not. The fundamental drawback of socialism is that it opposes human variety and divisions, the reality of human conflict and disagreement. Socialism seeks harmonious, well-satisfied citizens well-attended by a nanny state within an ordered whole in a state of happy coexistence. But a cardinal principle of Western liberal thought has been that variety, the right to think for yourself, and to strive in a state of competition with others, is good, for it awakens human talents, allows for individual creativity, and discourages indolence and passivity. Sweden however is striving for egalitarian conformity and uniformity of thought.

While equality before the law, equality of individual rights, including the socialization of education and health care, is consistent with liberal thinking, there is an internal logic within the egalitarian ideal that runs against individualism. The end of egalitarianism is to make all individuals as alike as possible in their attainments, their thoughts, and their standing in society. As John Stuart Mill said, the chief goal of a free society should be the expansion of the expression of individuality, which requires competition of ideas, liberty of opinion, a free press, right of free assembly — the very same traits that are being denied in Sweden and the West at large. Just because we are witnessing in the West indulgent self-expression, disdain for marriage, narcissistic behaviors, breakdown of family patterns for the sake of personal greed and narcissism, it does not mean that Sweden has not become an authoritarian state that is anti-liberal and anti-individualistic.

The West may well be in the worst of all possible worlds, a very weak ethnic identity, breakdown of family relations, confused gender identities, regulated by a nanny state with everyone behaving increasingly alike in their conformity to diversity and lack of individual daring and originality against PC controls.

A Muslim Politician Thinks There Are Too Many Scots in Scotland

One of the most famous lines from Robbie Burns, Scotland’s greatest poet in the (kind of) English language goes thus: “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see ourselves as ithers see us!” Or,  “Oh would some Power the gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us.”  Well Scotland had this wish granted by one Humza Yousaf, the SNP’s spokesman on Justice. And he’s not happy with his adopted land despite – cue toe-curling embarrassment – occasionally decking himself out in a kilt or a Glasgow Celtic shirt. In a recent speech to Parliament he went through a list of Scotland’s most powerful personages and after each one venomously spat out the word ‘White!’.  He ended the tirade by directly addressing the people who elected him “As people of colour, we don’t need your gestures. Don’t just tweet Black Lives Matter. Don’t just post a hashtag. Don’t just take the knee. Don’t just tell us how you’re not a racist – I take that as a bare minimum. You must be anti-racist.”  So now you know.

Mind you he’s doing ok despite that. He’s been a Minister or spokesman for the SNP since he was in his mid-twenties despite his time as an apprentice mechanic being the highlight of his career up to then. But Scotland must do more. He sees his appointed roles as providing a platform to berate his unappreciative hosts. Mastering his brief straggles far behind. This from the Express: “NICOLA Sturgeon’s collapsing government is facing yet another shambles as calls are made for one of her closest aides to be sacked. ‘Humza Yousaf, the prolific twitter using Transport Minister, recently admitted he knew nothing about his brief as he tried to defend the Scottish Government’s failures.’ He had more urgent things in mind. Like tweeting “To our shame [don’t you just love the ‘our’] there are no Black Members of the Scottish Parliament. There was no Black voice in today’s debate on anti-racism, so I wanted to make sure the last words in the debate were the last words uttered by George Floyd – never forget them.

Maybe, just maybe, the proliferation of whites faces (or being Scotland, a fetching shade of grey) is due to the fact that the country is – allegedly – 96% White. It’s really rather simple.

Now if I were a rude person I’d encourage this ungrateful interloper to find a nice brown country to fuck off to. But I’m not a rude person. And there are no nice brown countries. Take the Indian sub-continent whence Yousef and Ireland’s erstwhile PM Varadker (who also thinks there are too many Irish in Ireland) emerged. Here you have more than a billion people shitting on the ground, turds everywhere you step, rivers filled with raw sewage interspersed with bathing humans, millions dying of starvation and disease every year, dead bodies floating in rivers while mangy dogs feast on corpses.
So here’s a thought guys. Maybe your (well-hidden) talents would have greater opportunity to flourish back home given these conditions?
A couple of final observations. The acronym SNP stands for Scottish National Party. You know, the one that wants independence for Scotland, no more of these damn foreigners telling them how to run things. And they parachute this guy into a top position. Same with Ireland’s Sinn Fein Party — aka as the IRA’s political wing. Sinn Fein means ‘ourselves only’ in English. Yet their enthusiasm to get Brits out is exceeded only by a corresponding enthusiasm to flood Ireland with unlimited hordes of Third World parasites.
Reposted from The Irish Savant, with permission.

The Egalitarian Individualism of HG Nordic Europeans and the Origins of WEIRD Whites: Chapter 3 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

The essence of liberalism is individualism, and the primordial evolutionary fact of individualism is the “the cutting off from the wider kinship group”, and the origins of this cutting off can be traced back to northern hunter gatherers in Europe during the last glacial age in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods. This argument becomes transparent in chapter three of Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, which is the subject of Part 3 of my analysis of this book. Here are Parts 1 and 2.

The furthest back historians have gone to explain the origins of Western liberal civilization is Ancient Greece. I traced the uniqueness of this civilization back to the prehistorical Indo-Europeans during the period between 4500 BC to 2500 BC. It makes sense for MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist, to go back in time as early as possible to determine when Europeans may have been selected for those traits he considers to be crucial for the evolution of Western uniqueness. He argues that “egalitarian individualism” has been a crucial characteristic of the West along with the aristocratic individualism of Indo-Europeans, which “dovetailed significantly” with the egalitarianism of the H-Gs they “encountered in northwest Europe” from about 2500 BC.

MacDonald observes that, as members of the same Homo sapiens species, all humans have common biological adaptations, but they do “differ in degree in adaptations” depending on environments, and these differences can generate “major differences” between cultures. Under the “harsh evolutionary pressures of the Ice Age,”  there would have been more pressures to live in small groups and in relative social isolation, rather than to form “extended kinship networks and collectivist groups” competing in close proximity for resources. There were selective pressures for males to provision simple households or nuclear families characterized by monogamy, exogamy, and bilateral kinship, because the ecology and availability of resources could not have selected for large polygynous families. This was in contrast to Near Eastern regions with their long fertile rivers supporting “large tribal groups based on extended kinship relations”. The strategy pursuit by northern Europeans was quite successful, enabling them to develop complex hunting gathering cultures during the Mesolithic era for a long time, 15,000 to 5,000, delaying the advance of farming which was slowly spreading into central and north Europe after Anatolian farmers settled in various parts of southern Europe starting 8000ybp.

Mesolithic cultures in Europe did consist of larger bands of hunter-gatherers due to their more efficient exploitation of resources and improved stone age tools, but  lacking any “stable resource” that could be controlled by an extended lineage group, their residences remained seasonally occupied by relatively small families living in a state of egalitarian monogamy and without one extended family superimposing itself over the others by controlling fertile and stable land areas. In northern Europe, families “were periodically forced to split up into smaller, more family-based groups”. These smaller groups were forced to interact both with related families and with “non-kin and strangers” also moving around from season to season. These interactions were not regulated by kinship norms but instead led to emphasis on “trust and maintaining a good reputation within the larger non-kinship based  group”.

These evolutionary selected behaviors characterized by small families, exogamous and monogamous marriages, and relations based on trust with outsiders, were the primordial ground out of which Western individualism emerged.

In the Near East complex hunting gathering societies soon evolved into agrarian villages controlled by lineage groups in charge of stable resources. I would add, as Jared Diamond observed, that most of the animals and plants susceptible to domestication were found in the Near East, which encouraged or made it easier to develop farming villages with plentiful resources controlled by the stronger kinship groups. Whereas monogamy and exogamy persisted in the West, in the East the tendency was for marrying relatives, even first cousins.

The European practice of marrying outside the extended family meant that marriage was more likely “based on personal attraction”, which meant that there was selection for physical attractiveness, strength, health and personality, in contrast to the East where marriage was arranged within the extended family. Love and intimacy between wife and husband, including greater affection and nurturance of children, MacDonald observes, were a salient trait of Europeans. Whites invented romance, in contrast, for example, to Semitic marriages where marriages were intended to solidify kinship ties, arranged by elders, with love and romance having a far lesser role.

Joseph Henrich on WEIRD Europeans

In the last pages of this chapter, MacDonald shows in quick succession how his evolutionary perspective can effectively explain the origins of the WEIRD traits Joseph Henrich and his colleagues detected among Western individuals. I should explain a bit Henrich’s argument since MacDonald assumes prior knowledge. For Henrich, humans do not have the same cognitive apparatus, the Western mind is more analytic, it separates things from each other, it focuses on what makes objects different rather than seeing objects only in relation to what’s around it. We can’t talk about “the human mind” as such, “human nature” and “human psychology,” because the Western mind is structured differently and perceives reality differently, thinks differently about fairness, cooperation, and judges what is right and wrong differently.

Henrich does not express himself in these blunt terms, but for the sake of immediate clarity, his basic argument about WEIRD people is that they see themselves as individuals rather than as members of collective ingroups. Their individualism is the difference that underlies all the other differences. It is the difference that explains why WEIRD people are less attached to extended families, tribal units, religious groups and even nation states. Because WEIRD people judge others as individuals, they are willing to extend their trust to outsiders, to people from other ethnic backgrounds and nationalities. They are more inclined to be fair to outsiders, judging them on the basis of impersonal standards rather than standards that only serve the interests of their ingroup. WEIRD people are less conformist, more reliant on their own individual judgments and capacities, willing to reason about issues without following the prescribed norms and answers mandated from collective authorities. In the non-Western world, trust is circumscribed within one’s ingroup rather than extended to individuals from outgroups.

The key to the individualism of WEIRD people is their lack of kinship ties. The most important norms and institutions humans have developed to regulate their social behavior revolve around kin groups, which are networks of individuals connected by blood ties, extended families and clans. Humans are born into these kin groups; their survival, identity, status and obligations within society, as well as their sense of right and wrong, who and when they should marry, where they should live, who owns the land and how property should be inherited, are determined by the norms of the kin group.

Given the importance of kinship networks in determining whether people are “normal” or WEIRD, Henrich set out to find what factors may have led to the breakdown of kinship networks in the West. His conclusion was that the Catholic Church was responsible for the “demolition” of kinship networks and the rise of WEIRD people.

The Catholic Church, he says, promoted individualism through the prohibition of cousin marriages, polygyny by powerful males (which weakened kinship households consisting of closely related families) coupled with the Church’s promotion of monogamy and nuclear families. This encouraged the rise of many voluntary associations in the West outside kinship ties, guilds, universities, monasteries, chartered towns. This creating competition for members between voluntary associations combined with rising impersonal markets in which individuals interacted with strangers and learned how to trust each other in the conduct of business ventures.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the traits Henrich identifies as WEIRD have been highlighted by past sociologists and historians. Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer, Ferdinand Tönnies, along with “modernization theorists” in the 1950s and 1960s, all drew clear contrasts, in varying ways, between i) traditional communities (including Europe before the modern era) with their kinship, rigid sanctions, ascription, collectivism, low mobility, obedience, loyalty, and ii) modern (Western) societies with their voluntary contracts, autonomy of private organizations, achievement orientation, inventiveness, free markets. Nevertheless, Henrich should be appreciated for his excellent research, which “synthesizes experimental and analytical tools drawn from behavioral economics and psychology with in-depth quantitative ethnography”.

Although some may argue that MacDonald does not have direct genetic evidence demonstrating that crucial elements of these WEIRD traits were selected in hunting and gathering times, we will see in our examination of Chapter 4 that he does bring up solid findings on the family structure of Europe showing a gradation in family relations, very early on in its history, from an “extreme individualism” in the northwest Europe, where the family was cut off from extended kinship networks, to a “moderate individualism” in central Europe, to a “moderate collectivism” in south and eastern Europe. It stands to reason that an evolutionary psychologist would want to dig far back in time to identify possible environmental conditions that may have selected for individualism, in light of the fact that these traits tend to be exhibited so early in Europe’s history, rather than assume, as Henrich seems to do, that the psychology of human across the planet was identical before individualistic traits made their entry into history with the “demolition” of kinship networks in the medieval era by the Catholic Church.

Henrich likes to insist that his arguments emphasize the “co-evolution” of biological and sociological factors — both natural and cultural selection of genes, not just how people learn and transmit culture but, in his words, “how culture shaped our species genetic evolution, including our physiology, anatomy and psychology”. But if he really is interested in “co-evolution,” why does he avoid thinking about the possibility of deeper psychological-genetic changes among Europeans, rather arguing that the Catholic Church imposed new norms on a psychological profile that was identical across the world? How can the “fundamental aspects” of the “psychology, motivation, and behavior” of Europeans were transformed suddenly in the Middle Ages without any prior genetic dispositions?

MacDonald acknowledges that humans create cultures that select “for different mutations and ultimately for different traits”, which is why he takes seriously the unique culture created by northern European hunters and gatherers before he considers (as we will see in our examination of later chapters) the important role the Catholic Church played in reinforcing the breakdown of kinship networks.
MacDonald observes that, because northern Europeans evolved in the context of small families interacting with outsiders, they were selected to think morally beyond their own kin group about how best to cooperate with strangers, in which breach of trust was shunned and maintaining one’s reputation as honest was important for future dealings. In contrast, the larger kinship groups of the East restricted cooperation with outsiders, and thus felt less pressure to nurture moral principles that would extend beyond their group or that would involve altruistic attitudes towards outsiders. In the East, morality was defined mostly in terms of the needs of the in-group, but northern Europeans began a tradition of moral thinking that would apply to humans generally.
MacDonald hints that the northern environment resulted in the selection of traits for spatial and mechanical ability, a tendency toward analytical thinking, which involves “thinking of oneself as independent” in contrast to the East where thinking remained “linked to thinking of oneself as interdependent with other people”. I will return to this incredibly important point when MacDonald picks it up again in Chapter 9 when dealing with “individualism as a precursor of science”.

A fair criticism, which I am sure MacDonald would welcome, is that much research is still required in support of the thesis that northwestern European h-g cultures were characterized by a bilateral kinship system, nuclear families, exogamous and monogamous marriages, individual choice in marriage and a relatively high position of women. Our side barely has any scholars willing to study European uniqueness, and zero interest if such research is initiated by white identitarians. I think it is a very promising line of research. I wish there was research as well about how the peculiarities of the European environment — its incredible ecological diversity, numerous rivers of all sizes, mountains, variations in temperatures, the longest coastlines in the world, the most seas, the most beautiful landscapes — may have selected for higher analytical abilities and aesthetic sensibilities.

Andrew Joyce’s podcast: Talmud and Taboo

Editor’s note: No surprise, but Spreaker just terminated AJ’s podcast. Stay tuned.

Andrew Joyce has undertaken to do a podcast series, Talmud and Taboo. Enjoy!

A psicologia social é merda antibranca

Para mim, a coisa mais assustadora no 1984, de George Orwell, não é aquele grupo de “homens de uniforme preto” que impiedosamente espanca Winston Smith num recinto do Ministério do Amor, usando os “pulsos”, “cacetetes”, “barras de metal” e “botas de ferradura”. Tampouco é a máquina silenciosa que o inquisidor O’Brien usa para fazer Winston “sentir dor” “a qualquer momento e na medida desejada pelo torturador”. Não é nada disso, trata-se de outra coisa, uma coisa que não faz Winston sentir nenhuma dor:

Duas macias almofadas, meio úmidas, foram fixadas sobre as têmporas de Winston. Ele tremeu. A dor estava para vir, mas de novo tipo. O’Brien pousou sua mão sobre a de Winston, de forma quase gentil, como que para encorajá-lo.

— Desta vez eu não vou machucar você — ele disse. — Fique olhando para os meus olhos.

Nesse momento houve uma devastadora explosão, ou alguma coisa parecida com uma explosão, embora fosse incerto que tivesse havido algum barulho. Ocorreu, sem dúvida, um lampejo ofuscante. Winston não foi ferido, apenas foi prostrado. Embora ele já estivesse em decúbito dorsal quando a coisa aconteceu, ele teve uma curiosa sensação de que fora forçado àquela posição. Um terrível golpe, mas sem dor, deixara-o completamente abatido. Também alguma coisa tinha acontecido dentro de sua cabeça. Enquanto seus olhos recuperavam a nitidez e ele se relembrava de quem era e de onde estava, reconheceu a face que a sua própria face confrontava; mas aqui ou ali havia um vazio, como se alguma parte tivesse sido extraída de seu cérebro. […]

O’Brien levantou os dedos da mão esquerda, escondendo o polegar.

— Estou mostrando cinco dedos para você. Você está vendo cinco dedos?

— Sim.

E ele os viu mesmo, rapidamente, antes que a configuração de sua mente mudasse. Ele viu cinco dedos, sem nenhuma distorção. Depois tudo voltou ao normal de novo, e o velho medo, o ódio e a confusão prevaleceram mais uma vez. Mas houve um momento — ele não sabia quanto havia durado, trinta segundos talvez — de luminosa certeza, quando cada nova sugestão de O’Brien preenchia completamente o vazio, fazendo-se de verdade total, e quando dois mais dois dava três ou, também facilmente, dava cinco, se assim fosse necessário.

— Você percebe agora — disse O’Brien, que de qualquer forma é possível.

— Sim — disse Winston. (1984, parte 3, cap. 2.)

Não era “um novo tipo de dor”, era um novo tipo de horror: a ideia de que o Estado possa penetrar sua cabeça e interferir diretamente na sua mente. Quando 1984 foi publicado pela primeira vez em 1949, essa ideia era só um pesadelo da literatura de ficção. Entretanto, a cada ano passado desde então, o pesadelo de Orwell vai ficando mais perto da realidade.

E que não haja dúvida quanto a isto: hoje existe gente totalitária nos países ocidentais que adoraria usar uma máquina de reorganização cognitiva contra os criminosos intelectuais como esses articulistas do The Occidental Observer. De fato, dia desses eu topei com um desses manipuladores mentais. Trata-se da psicóloga social chamada Amy R. Krosch, da Universidade de Cornell, recentemente “designada” “Rising Star” da Associação Americana de Psicologia (ASA).

O repugnante espírito da maldade branca

Krosch revela na sua rede social que ela é “legebete” e gosta dos pronomes “her ou they”. Também diz que se casou com  “uma mulher e um buldogue”. A psicologia americana percorreu longo caminho: de classificar o lesbianismo como tipo de desordem mental passou a atribuir o status de “Rising Star” a uma fanática lésbica.

E Krosch é mesmo fanática. Uma fanática antibranca, para ser preciso, e por isso mesmo a ASA orgulha-se tanto dessa sua criatura. Krosch não concorda com as famosas palavras atribuídas à rainha Elizabeth I da Inglaterra (1533–1603): “Eu não abriria janelas para a alma dos homens”. Amy Krosch quer abrir janelas na alma das pessoas. Mas só em se tratando das almas de pessoas brancas, e desde que aquilo a ser encontrado nessas almas sirva ao seu propósito de fomentar o ódio à raça branca:

A discriminação pode ocorrer tão rapidamente quanto um piscar de olhos, especialmente durante períodos de crise econômica, segundo revela um novo estudo da Universidade de Cornell. “A influência da escassez na mente pode de fato exacerbar a discriminação”, afirmou Amy Krosch, professora-assistente de Psicologia em Cornell. “Demonstramos que a mínima mudança na fisionomia de grupos minoritários sob condições de escassez resulta em aumento da discriminação.”

No primeiro experimento, 71 estudantes de graduação em Psicologia de uma universidade particular — nenhum dos quais identificado com negro ou afro-americano — foram solicitados a olhar para fotografias de homens brancos e negros expostas numa tela. Os estudantes, então, deveram premiar cada uma das pessoas representadas pelas faces com até US$ 10, conforme o merecimento de cada uma das figuras, de acordo com a “sutil percepção dos estudantes”.

Um grupo de controle foi informado de que cada face poderia receber US$ 10, no máximo. Mas os sujeitos do grupo experimental acreditavam haver recebido US$ 10 de forma aleatória de um total de US$ 100 de que disporiam para as premiações, o que suscitava neles um sentido de escassez.

Eletrodos colocados no couro cabeludo mensuraram o tempo que cada sujeito levou para perceber as figuras como distintas faces humanas. Este processo subconsciente liga-se à atividade cerebral do giro fusiforme e normalmente leva apenas 170 milissegundos, ou seja, menos do que dois décimos de segundo.

No grupo de controle, os sujeitos levaram o mesmo tempo para processar as faces de cada raça e para distribuir igualitariamente o dinário. Mas no grupo para o qual o recurso era escasso, a pesquisa mostrou que os participantes levaram em média “tempo significativamente mais longo” para processar as faces negras do que as faces brancas. Os pesquisadores também mostraram que essa detença perceptiva estava relacionada a preconceito antinegro, razão por que os sujeitos deram menos dinário para as faces negras.

“Eles levaram mais tempo para reconhecer uma face negra como uma face, e essa diferença dá a medida do quanto eles discriminam os indivíduos negros”, disse Krosch.

A equipe de Krosch realizou um segundo conjunto de experiências envolvendo imagens da atividade cerebral para confirmar se o processamento visual alterado das faces negras decorria da desestima dessas faces, ou seja, de comportamento preconceituoso.

O registro neuroimagiológico revelou atividade menos intensa no corpo estriado, região do cérebro responsável pelo processamento de avaliações e recompensas. Isso sugeriu que os sujeitos possam não ter visto as faces negras como faces ou, pelo menos, que as viram, como faces, num certo sentido, menos humanas. A menor atividade do giro fusiforme e do estriado estava correlacionada com a menor quantidade de dinário recebida pelas faces negras. Este estudo foi financiado pela National Science Foundation. (When money is scarce, biased behavior happens faster, ScienceDaily, 29th October 2019).

Essa foi a reportagem sobre o trabalho de Krosch intitulado Scarcity disrupts the neural encoding of Black faces: A socioperceptual pathway to discrimination” (escrito em colaboração com David M. Amodio, da Universidade de Nova Iorque). E esta é uma interessante passagem da reportagem: ”…estudantes de graduação em Psicologia de uma universidade particular — nenhum dos quais identificados como negro ou afro-americano…”. Krosch não quis correr o risco de que se lhe deparasse alguma coisa desagradável no cérebro de negros, assim ela os excluiu do estudo. Eu acho que a pesquisa dela era (e é) motivada pela hostilidade para com os brancos e sua intenção era (e é) a de gerar ainda mais hostilidade. Atente-se na frase “nenhum dos quais”, decerto ditada por Krosch ou alguém do pessoal dela. A frase deveria ser “nenhuma dessas pessoas”, porque os estudantes são seres humanos, não animais ou coisas. Será que a escolha de termos mais reificantes estaria a indicar que alguém da equipe de Krosch despreza os estudantes, vendo-os, “num certo sentido, como menos humanos”? É bem possível.

Festival de “punins”

E se o leitor desejar conhecer a equipe de Krosch, ofereço uma seleção de “punins” (no singular: “punim”, palavra iídiche significando“face” ) postada no Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory, ou, abreviadadmente, Krosch Lab :

Festival de punins: membros do Krosch Lab

A Sra. Krosch está na extrema direita (da fotografia, claro), mas seu punim merece registro mais de perto. Aqui está outra foto dessa fascinante acadêmica:

Amy Krosch, Rising Star da Associação Americana de Psicologia (com Greta Thunberg para comparação)

A ampla punim testosteronizada de Krosch é semelhante àquela da belatriz sueca da cruzada ecológica, a santa Greta Thunberg. Aliás, eu fui repreendido em comentários ao meu último artigo para o TOO por “chamar atenção para mínimas deficiências de beleza física” das jornalistas Stephen Daisley e Tanya Gold, mas não creio que a censura seja procedente. Como o grande Chateau Heartiste [blogue politicamente incorreto] tem ensinado frequentemente: “O fisionomismo é real.” A feiura do esquerdismo como ideologia corresponde, muitas vezes, à feiura do esquerdista enquanto pessoa. Eu também concordo com um artigo fascinante saído na National Vanguard argumentando que “Os judeus são repulsivos e, em geral, um povo feio” e que “Os judeus enquanto grupo opõem-se à beleza”. De fato, o Talmude aconselha os judeus a não considerar a beleza física como importante no casamento: “A graça é falsa e a beleza é vã. Tenha em conta a boa educação, pois a finalidade do casamento está na procriação”. (Tanit 26b e 31a).

Todo o espectro da diversidade humana

Amy Krosch é judia? Não tenho como provar que seja, mas vou adaptar ao caso dela o que eu disse a propósito da jornalista Stephen Daisley no “Jeremy’s Jackboots.” Uma coisa é certa: ela se comporta tal qual um judeu, por sua indefectível hostilidade antibranca e por sua convicção de que a culpa pelos fracassos dos não brancos é dos brancos. E a Sra. Krosch, obviamente, tem recrutado colaboradores para o Krosch Lab pelo critério do ódio. Os candidatos preferenciais são aqueles que mais ódio sentem da raça branca:

Nosso laboratório respeita e valoriza todo o espectro da diversidade humana quanto a raça, etnicidade, religião, identidade e expressão de gênero, orientação sexual, tipo físico, nível socioeconômico, idade, deficiência física e origem nacional. Defendemos a inclusão e a diversidade pela realização de todos em condições sustentáveis de excelência, mediante pesquisa, treinamento e campanhas de serviço e sensibilização em campo, a mais de atuarmos na promoção de pessoas sub-representadas na psicologia. Estimulamos estudantes de cor, mulheres, imigrantes e toda gente sub-representada a que se inscreva como candidato para trabalhar no Laboratório. (Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory / Krosch Lab, November 2019)

Mentira! O Krosch Lab não “respeita e valoriza todo o espectro da diversidade humana”, porque é claramente hostil aos brancos na pesquisa e hostil aos homens no recrutamento. Alguém pode olhar a foto do “time de Krosch” e achar que esses rostinhos bonitos [punins] pertencem a acadêmicos sãos e objetivos no trabalho isento de busca desinteressada da verdade? Espero que não, pois para mim eles não parecem ser nada objetivos nem ter o físico para o papel de perquisidores da verdade. Seus punins não indicam nenhum grau elevado de inteligência, mas isso não é de surpreender. A psicologia é essa coisa mesmo, afinal. Os observadores mais sensíveis já sabiam desde muito tempo antes da atual “crise da condição R & R” [Reprodutibilidade (da experiência) e Repetibilidade (dos resultados): condições do método científico para a determinação dos fenômenos objetivos] que grande parte da psicologia era só merda. A área da psicologia social em que Krosch atua está no coração da crise, mas a psicometria está notavelmente imune a ela.

Espoliação, não compreensão

Eu não sei a quanto chega a crosta merdácea no trabalho da Sra. Krosch, mas de qualquer modo há nele a crosta de Krosch. E ela está tentando melecar todos os brancos com essa sua secreção gosmenta. Eis o que diz o Krosch Lab sobra a sua missão científica:

O nosso objetivo consiste em entender a ampla e persistente desigualdade existente entre os grupos nos Estados Unidos. Nós investigamos os fatores sociais e econômicos que amplificam a discriminação, como também os processos sociocognitivos, perceptivos e emocionais mediante os quais os propósitos e motivações dos decisores influenciam o comportamento deles em relação aos membros de seu próprio grupo e de outros grupos. (Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory/Krosch Lab, November 2019)

De novo, não penso que o Krosch Lab tenha por escopo “entender a ampla e persistente desigualdade existente entre os grupos nos Estados Unidos”. Creio que a real intenção seja explorar a “desigualdade” para colocar a culpa toda nos brancos. Acredito também que o time de Krosch é recrutado, como diria Vox Day [pseudônimo de Theodore Robert Beale, escritor, editor, quadrinista, criador de videojogos e militante da resistência branca], entre “aqueles que nos odeiam, que odeiam os Estados Unidos, que odeiam o Ocidente e querem destruir tudo o que é bom, belo e verdadeiro”.

Como funciona a psicologia

O pessoal de Krosch nunca será capaz de produzir uma máquina mental de correção política do tipo daquela descrita no 1984, mas decerto aquela turma ficaria muito feliz se pudesse usar uma. Acho até que algumas pessoas daquele Laboratório iriam se deleitar operando a máquina de produzir dor descrita no mesmo 1984. Eu posso entender a psicologia que eles fazem à maneira antiga, só de olhar para a cara deles. Amy Krosch, é claro, prefere técnicas mais atualizadas. Ela emprega eletrodos cranianos para provar que no giro fusiforme e no corpo estriado do cérebro doentio dos goins ocorrem atividades correspondentes a estados mentais politicamente incorretos, os quais devem ser sanados.

A branca Cornell contra a vibrante e ricamente negra Nova Iorque

Bem, vamos adaptar as palavras de Jesus Cristo e dizer: “Psicólogo, conhece-te a ti mesmo!”. Amy Krosch mostra muita hostilidade contra brancos e provavelmente também contra cristãos. Gente do tipo dela dirigia e operava as câmaras de tortura, compondo também os esquadrões da morte dos regimes comunistas durante o século XX (cf. “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”, de Kevin MacDonald). Aliás, eu gostaria de saber o que os tais eletrodos poderiam revelar das atitudes dela a propósito dos brancos — e dos negros, também. Um estudo comparativo de judeus, negros e brancos quanto à reação ante judeus, negros e brancos seria dos mais interessantes — mas, evidentemente, nunca será realizado, por muitas razões, a principal é que os judeus teriam avaliação bem diferente da dos brancos, e essa seria uma diferença bem pouco lisonjeira.

Considere-se, por exemplo, o que Krosch disse sobre Cornell: “O que mais me agrada em Cornell é viver numa cidade pequena, tranquila, bonita, principalmente depois dos 10 anos que passei em Nova Iorque”. Ocorre que Nova Iorque é cidade com muito mais diversidade racial do que Ithaca, onde fica Cornell. Os brancos formam 84,14% da população de Ithaca, havendo lá apenas 2,93% de negros ou afro-americanos. A proporção em Nova Iorque é de 44% de brancos (33,3% de brancos não hispânicos) e 25,5% de negros, o que mostra que Amy Krosch segue o padrão de Tim Wise, Michael Moore e muitos outros esquerdistas antibrancos, que vivem criticando o racismo branco mas só moram em lugares de gente branca.

Depois que o porco do Stephen Daisley leu o meu “artigo calunioso” [no original: “hit piece”] contra ele no “Jeremy’s Jackboots”, ele se manifestou: “Eu não sei como é que a descrição que eles fazem de mim como um entusiasmado defensor de organizações muçulmanas tais qual a Tell Mama e do discurso de ódio que articulam possa ser compatível com a acusação de que ‘Ele só se preocupa com o bem-estar dos judeus’”. Ora, ora, ora… Eu explico, a coisa é muito simples. Acontece que elementos como Daisley apoiam tudo o que “é bom para os judeus”, segundo critério deles. Por isso defendem a imigração massiva de maometanos nas nações brancas. Por outro lado, eles odiariam que paquistaneses, somalis e marroquinos se internassem em Israel. E eles também não iriam tolerar que a Tell MAMA abrisse uma franquia em Telavive. Porque isso não seria “bom para os judeus”. Entretanto, todo o mundo da laia de Daisley pode ficar tranquilo: nada disso vai acontecer. Israel, embora nação altamente corrupta, sabe se defender e não busca sua própria destruição. O Estado Judeu não paga a psicólogos para demonizar a maioria judia. Mas as nações brancas, num contraste total, estão atualmente à procura de sua própria exterminação, as nações brancas pagam, sim, a psicólogos para que demonizem suas maiorias brancas.

O repugnante espírito da maldade branca (de novo)

A putativa judia Amy Krosch é só um exemplo. O mais certamente judeu Sheldon Solomon é outro. Este figuro recentemente apareceu no The Guardian explicando que os brancos sentem “medo da vida” e “medo da morte”, razão por que dariam apoio a Donald Trump e seriam contra “os imigrantes, sobretudo aqueles de religiões diferentes, como maometanos e judeus”. A pesquisa de Solomon revelou que os “cristãos” mais angustiados pela consciência da própria morte “tinham atitude mais positiva em relação a outros cristãos e atitude mais negativa em relação a judeus”.

A sábia punim de Sheldon Solomon

Cristãos malvados! Judeus inocentes! Isso é, no mínimo, o que o Professor Solomon of Skidmore University, quer que pensemos. Acho que ele é um propagandista antibranco, não um cientista imparcial. Milhares e milhares de seus colegas acadêmicos também fazem propaganda antibranca. Tudo isso mostra que a psicologia social não passa de mais uma das numerosas e corruptas disciplinas antibrancas que pululam nas universidades ocidentais. Mas se trata da mais perturbadora disciplina antibranca. Que ninguém tenha dúvida: o que Orwell descreveu no 1984 é o que figuras como Amy Krosch e Sheldon Solomon adorariam fazer. E é o que eles farão, se da nossa parte não houver reação.

Fonte: The Occidental Observer. Autor: Tobias Langdon. Título original: Social Psychology as Anti-Write Pseudoscience. Data de publicação: 29 de novembro de 2019. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

On Getting Control in Your Life

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”  

This writing begins with a meditation on the quote above, the slogan of the authoritarian, repressive Party in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, often referred to as 1984, published in 1949.  I’ll let the process take me wherever it does.   I’m not working from an outline.

The word “control” is used four times in the 1984 quote, so it makes sense to define it for the purposes of this exploration.

In this context, control denotes an outcome, or influence.  You have control of something when you make things different than they were before in ways you favor, and only then.  You aren’t in control just because you have the top job and can call the shots, and have everything thought out and have your plans all drawn up and can marshal sound and persuasive arguments for what you want to happen.  You’re in control when you actually get the results you seek: in the way people think and behave, in the way things operate.  By this definition, if you didn’t alter the world, you didn’t control it.  You may be an informed and insightful and wise person, and dedicated and hard-working and articulate and courageous and morally upright, and have the very best intentions, but, as they say in sports, you have to put numbers on the board—hit home runs and strike people out—actually produce, to be in control.

Looking at control as a tangible outcome surfaces three other considerations: power, authority, and intention.  Put together in the right way, these three phenomena produce control.

Power has to do with capability, skill.  You have the personal wherewithal to get the controlling job done.  You’re smart enough, you know enough, you are strategic enough, you’re healthy enough, you’re diligent enough, and you’re resilient enough to make things happen.  You have the ability to hit home runs. That’s not to say you will hit home runs—control something—but you are capable of it, you have the potential.  (Writing that last sentence, I was reminded of what a college football coach told me when I was doing research on successful coaches in my university work.  “Potential,” he confided, “is what I lose with.”)

Authority gets at being in a position, or slot, where you have the green light to make what you want to happen actually occur.   You might be able to chatter away cleverly on social media all day long, but if you aren’t in a place in the scheme of things where people have to take you seriously, your only move might be to heat up a frozen pizza and play “Call of Duty” until bedtime.

Intention has to do with no-kidding commitment, resolve.  Intention is a way of experiencing your mind and body with regard to accomplishing something so that it’s not just a good idea or goal or hope.  It’s something that, dammit, I WILL GET DONE!  I’m not omnipotent, but if I don’t get the results I’m going for, it’s not going to be for a lack of trying.  I’m giving this everything I’ve got.  I intend to make this picture in my head a concrete reality.

How about, right now, taking stock of yourself.  With reference to race, the focus of this magazine, and everything else in your life, how are you doing?

What do you control?  Name it.

How powerful—capable, strong, effective—are you?

How much authority do you have; what are you mandated to make happen?

What do you, for real, intend to accomplish right now?

*   *   *

The opposite of anything worth our attention is invariably also worth our attention.  Similarly, the opposite of anything of value is very likely also of value.  (If you are interested in this kind of thing, I’m working with the Jungian—psychologist Carl Jung—concept of enantiodromia.)  In this case, looking at public control (society, culture, politics, history), which is the focus of Orwell’s book, should remind us to look at private control (health, work, relationships, fulfilment, happiness).  The public and private are complementary, interactive concerns; each affects the other.   What is going on around public control has an impact on what is going on with private control, and vice versa.   As we consider how the “Party” in our time controls public realities, let’s keep in mind that, right now, you and I are controlling, or failing to control, ourselves and our circumstances, and that those are not independent, mutually exclusive, occurrences.  All to say, if you want to control the larger world, one way to go about that is to achieve control in your smaller, personal world.

I’ll add a moral standard to the idea of control.  It not just getting any things done, it’s getting good things done—worthwhile things, decent things.  Now in old age, I can attest to the fact that there’s a time in your life when you are aware that it’s the end and you ask and answer the question, what good did I accomplish in my life?  Depending on the answer to that question, you either experience gratification and peace or despair and regret.

In 1984, the Party depicted the past—history—in a way that supported its current goals and programs.   The Party knew that if the past is viewed by the citizenry as idyllic and inspirational, it will support efforts that continue and build upon it.  If, alternatively, the past is considered nightmarish and evil, people will seek to create new, better circumstances.  The Party portrayed the past as a time of misery and slavery and injustice, and since it was all people heard, it became the accepted Truth.  The Party effectively sold itself as the force that would rectify those historical injustices, and people deferred to it and felt compelled to support its programs.  Sound familiar?

Is there a real-life counterpart to the fictional Party in America in 2020?   (I’m a culture-bound American.  I’ll let non-Americans judge whether anything I write has applicability to their circumstance.)  Yes, there is.  It’s people who in one way or another are in the communication business: they get facts and ideas and values and images across to the masses.  I’m thinking of people in news and entertainment, politicians, educators at all levels, prominent internet figures, clergy, and the owners and managers of companies like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Google.  To understand control, you need to take into account who’s doing the talking (broadly defined) in the main arena of the society and culture and who’s stopping people from talking.

What kind of talk are the talkers talking?  Basically, they are telling stories; another way to put it, they are setting out narratives.  A story, or narrative, says this happened and then this happened and then this happened, and this is what the story is all about.

An example:

In 2014, an 18-year-old black Ferguson, Missouri resident, Michael Brown, was shot and killed by white police officer Darren Wilson.   It was national headline news for months.  The consensus perception was that this was a racist cop-killing of a young innocent black.

However, on November 24th of that year, a grand jury chose not to indict Officer Wilson.  The evidence and testimony the grand jury had reviewed in the process of coming to its decision was released to the public. It put Brown in a very unfavorable light: riveting testimony from Wilson describing his struggle with a 6’4’’, 280-pound assailant bent on killing him; pictures of Wilson’s facial bruises from Brown’s punches; evidence of marihuana in Brown’s blood and urine, which could have caused impairment in his judgment; the incompatibility of the forensic evidence with eye witness accounts that had played time and again in media reports describing Brown being shot in the back by Wilson or with his hands up attempting to surrender, along with eye witness accounts that squared point-by-point with both the forensic evidence and Wilson’s version of what had occurred.

The grand jury’s finding and the newly-released evidence had no impact—zero—on the those who had decided early on that this was an instance of racially motivated police misconduct and part of the larger problem of racial injustice in America.  These people didn’t speak to this new information, they didn’t refute it or explain it away, and they certainly didn’t incorporate it into how they looked at the case.   The talking heads on CNN and the writers in The New York Times never missed a beat: racism!  Rioting and looting erupted in cities across the U.S.

What accounted for this phenomenon?  I’ve decided that a big part of the answer to that question was the way people come to know things.  The word for that process is epistemology.

There are three main epistemologies.

One is to draw conclusions based on concrete reality: what’s right in front of you, what you can discern with your senses, and from detailed accounts of what others have discerned with their senses.  It could be called the empirical, or scientific, method of coming to the truth about something.

Another way of knowing is to use your mind: to carefully consider various positions and arguments and employ reason and logic to come to conclusions about what is true.

The third epistemology is to understand and reach conclusions on the basis of how something fits into a narrative, or story, you have accepted as a valid one.  This epistemology, I believe, was operative in the people who ignored the facts of the Michael Brown case.  They plugged what happened in Ferguson into a story that had been told them by the talkers.

The story went like this: From the earliest days of America, black people have been oppressed by white people.  A big part of that oppression has been the discriminatory and abusive conduct of racist white police officers in urban black communities, especially toward young black men.  It’s a huge problem in this country and something has to be done about it.

A simple story, or tale–no complications, no ambiguities, easy to understand.  Something comes up, say a cop-killing in Missouri.  What does it mean, you ask yourself?  Where does it fit in the scheme of things?  What went on down there in Missouri?  What should be done about it?  The story answers all that for you in a flash.  You’ve got it wired.

Narrative-based epistemologies serve some people’s interests very well.   If reality and logic don’t make your case, a story might do the job.  Let’s say you want to explain black pathologies as coming from something other than their own limitations.  Or MSNBC signs your checks.  Or you’re a politician with a large liberal or black constituency.  Or you want to put on display the one skill you’ve got going for you, running wild and destroying and stealing and setting fire to what other people have created, and get attention and praise to boot.  There is nothing that goes on in the world, including a plague—like the one we’re supposedly having right now—that doesn’t scratch somebody’s back.

Also, narratives don’t require any heavy lifting.  Mucking around in reality and working things through in your mind can get complicated and confusing and turn up qualifications and contingencies, and that can lead to uncertainty, and that can be unpleasant   Poring over grand jury records or reading books and thinking things through from this angle and this other one can give you a headache and insomnia.  Who needs all that work?  Better to fit what happened into a story and get on with eating dinner and watching HBO.  After spending a career studying human behavior as a university academic, I regret to have to report that much of human behavior can be attributed to laziness.   Narratives are a gift to the lazy.

Another upside of narratives is that if you buy into the currently fashionable ones, life goes smoothly for you.  You will be considered in the know and one of the heroes in life’s drama, and that’ll make you feel good about yourself.  People will like you and want you around.  You’ll get good grades and recommendations and awards and jobs and promotions, and romantic interests will invite you to stay a while to “talk” at the end of the evening.

Of course, the obvious parallel to the Michael Brown incident six years ago as this is written is the death in Minneapolis of George Floyd while in the custody of police.  Déjà vu all over again.  Plug the incident into the narrative and let the ranting and finger-pointing and rioting begin.  My daughter is a sophomore in high school on the west coast.   Shortly after the Floyd incident came an oh-so-sincere, pedantic email message from the principal of her school addressed to parents and students deploring the tragic death of George Floyd “and countless others at the hands of the police,” and the “systematic racism that exists in this country.”   This woman knew for a fact what went on 1,500 miles away in Minneapolis and what is going on generally from coast to coast.  I strongly suspect that what she knew about the “countlessness” of that incident and systematic racism (another airy, vague story we’ve all had drilled into us), as my mother use to say, you could put in your eye.  Even though I’m sure she didn’t realize it, she was reciting stories she had been told.   Something else I am sad to report is that it is next to impossible to overstate the gullibility and malleability of the mass public.

On the other hand, my daughter’s principal still has a job.  The high school principal in Windsor, Vermont, the state where I live, dared to contradict the Black Lives Matters story (saints, all of them).  She wrote a social media post criticizing the “coercive behavior” of Black Lives Matter activists.  She expressed her opinion that people shouldn’t be “made to choose the black race over the human race.”  Her school board immediately—as in knee jerk—called her “ignorant and prejudiced” and put her on leave and—speaking of coercion—said they would get rid of her permanently.  Never kid yourself that agreeing with today’s Party stories is an option.  Freedom of speech, you say?  Due process, you say?  Come on.

*   *   *

So, what follows from what I’ve laid out so far?  A lot of things obviously.  I’ve chosen in the space I have available here to focus my attention on you sitting there reading this right now.  You.  With the ideal of living a life characterized by a reasonable amount of control over yourself and your world as the frame of reference, I’ll offer some advice for your consideration.  Realistically, if you are young you will be better able to make use of it than if you are old.  As life goes along, our energy and options steadily diminish.  At some point, they become all but non-existent, and at some point, we become completely non-existent.  But however old you are, you still have some time left.  See if anything I offer is helpful in spending it wisely and well.

As I think about it, that’s my first observation or piece of advice: the only currency that really matters in life is time.  You and I have just so much of it.  We “spend” it however we do, and it is never replenished, and someday—we’re not certain when—it runs out.  Life comes down to how we spend our allotted time.  The challenge is to spend it judiciously and not get to the end of our lives with the painful realization that so many old people have to live with: “I’ve wasted my life.”

The second piece of advice: develop what Ernest Hemingway called “a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.”  This writing has focused on stories that people use to control other people.  The obvious point in that explication was that one way to control the world is get yourself in a position—like behind a university lectern–to tell compelling, easy-to-understand stories.  But there’s that “the opposite of a good thing is also a good thing” idea to keep in mind: one way to get control in your life is to become effective at critically analyzing the stories coming at you.  An inelegant way to put it, à la Hemingway, get good at detecting shit.  And give no story’s, no story-teller’s, shit a pass.  It’s easy enough to detect the shit in the “racist police” narrative.   But look for shit on this site too, including in what you are getting from me right now.  Most often, the spreaders of shit think they are spewing daisies, but it can still be shit–or probably more accurately, daisies with a lot of shit mixed in.

Distinguish between being inside and outside in society.  By inside, I mean you are part of the action, you’re doing it, not watching it and commenting on it.  You’re not over in on the side complaining or amusing yourself or hurting yourself or waiting around hoping somebody will make it all better for you.  By inside, I don’t just mean you are in news and entertainment or a politician or an educator or writer, as it may have come across in the first section.  To me, you’re inside if you are a skilled electrician or own a successful Ford dealership or do a good job of selling cars, or are a committed doctor or a nurse, or effectively manage a McDonald’s franchise, or are a dedicated parent.  My advice is to do what you can to get on the inside.  That’s where the control is.  That’s where the self-respect and gratification and happiness are

In this highly politicized, cancel culture, don’t set yourself up for demonization and marginalization and exclusion.  Be savvy.  Watch what you say on the internet and social media or in an email; if you wouldn’t welcome it being the headline in the newspaper, keep it to yourself.  Be extremely careful how you identify yourself.   There are people around who themselves keep their identities hidden telling you to go public as a far right-winger; it’ll be great, they say.  It makes me cringe.  Look at the fates of people who have gone that route—trashed, fired, relegated to pariah status, on the outside looking in for the rest of their lives.

Play the game that’s on the table.  And what’s the game?  Hard work.  Personal responsibility.  Good grades.  Degrees.  Credentials.  Positive recommendations.  Being respectful and kind to people.  A track record of busting your behind to do the job—any job—you been assigned the very best you can.  No scandals.  My life has brought me into contact with Asians and it’s been eye-opening for me.   They don’t whine or feel sorry for themselves or march with banners or ask anybody for special favors.  They couldn’t care less what you call them; they know damn well who they are, and they are not inferior to you.  They aren’t cynics or wise-asses.  They are sincere and focused on getting good things done and feeling good about themselves as a consequence.  They use family and mutual aid and schooling and they get degrees in fields that pay good money, and they look out for their wives and children.  As far as I’m concerned, there’s more to be learned from them than Lil Wayne.

Hone your instrument.  Your instrument is your body and mind and personal character.   I came out of poverty and a tough home situation.  I realized that I was coming from way back in society and that if I was going to make something out of my life, I had to be like a boxer in training for the big fight.  I couldn’t afford to bring myself down even one degree with drugs and alcohol.  In my day it wasn’t opioids, but you wouldn’t have had to save me from that scourge.  It doesn’t take a genius—which for sure is not me—to see that one thing leads to another in life.  I had a job as a janitor and I was there clear-eyed with my hair combed earlier in the morning than I had to be and swept the hell out of those floors.  One of the best memories I have in my long life is when I was told that I did a really good job cleaning a very dirty recreation room I had been assigned to clean; I used that as a foundation to move forward and upward.  I had trouble looking at people and I was shaky and put myself down and I didn’t pronounce words properly.  I worked on it.  I practiced looking at people by maintaining eye contact with the newscasters on television, and I practiced speaking as they did.  When I was around people, I silently reminded myself to be “calm, confident, in charge.”  I noticed that people who made it in life didn’t numb themselves out with television and watching strangers play with a ball (now it’s video games).  They did things—they read good books, they hunted and fished and hiked, they worked in the garden.  All of that—I mean it—helped give me get control in my life.

Work on being intentional.    Have intentions you can put into words and imagine in your mind’s eye being realized.  Keep commitments you make to yourself.  When you say you are going to do something, do it.  Don’t let reasons and excuses replace results.  You learn anything by practicing, and it doesn’t have to be something big.  If you say you’re getting up at six tomorrow morning, you’re up at six.  Small successes lead to big successes; see the connection.

Become like a top-rank boxer.  I assume you are reading this magazine because you care about the fate of white people.  If you’re going to make anything of consequence happen in this area, be in control of anything in this area, you’re going to have to become a ring warrior.  I did boxing writing in my younger years and was around top boxers.  They were in super condition.  They were tough as leather and could take a punch.  They didn’t just cover up and stay on the defense.  They counterpunched, viciously.   They went on the attack full-out, nothing held back, and they took your head off.  They were battered and scarred, but they were proud and honorable men.

Lorsque des auteurs juifs définissent le racisme

  dans Tour d’horizon
Par Andrew JOYCE. En 1964, à l’issue d’un des procès pour obscénité les plus tristement célèbres d’Amérique, le juge Potter Stewart a absous un film français controversé avec une opinion qui est depuis passée dans le langage courant : “Je ne tenterai pas aujourd’hui de définir plus avant le type de matériel qui, à mon avis, est compris dans cette description abrégée ; et peut-être ne pourrais-je jamais réussir à le faire de manière intelligible. Mais je le sais quand je le vois, et le film dont il est question dans cette affaire n’est pas cela”

Rédaction NSP

Cet avis a été célébré à l’époque comme une victoire pour la liberté d’expression, et a ouvert la voie à un déluge ultérieur de dégradation culturelle occidentale. Mais ce qui est encore plus important, c’est que, près de 60 ans plus tard, “je le sais quand je le vois” est devenu une philosophie politique à part entière, adoptée et poursuivie par une gauche radicale qui entend restreindre cette même liberté en revendiquant une capacité exclusive et inexplicable à définir le fascisme. C’est le message le plus frappant du récent Irish Antifa Project sans précédent de The Burkean , qui a été conçu pour infiltrer et exposer les prétendus réseaux antifas dans le milieu universitaire et politique irlandais.
À mon avis, la révélation la plus prévisible du Irish Antifa Project a été l’étendue de l’ignorance historique et culturelle des militants profilés. Aucun des individus intellectuellement et professionnellement médiocres exposés par The Burkean’s ne semblait capable d’articuler ce que le fascisme était, ou est supposé être aujourd’hui. Le fascisme semble plutôt avoir été adopté par ces non-entités comme un vague fourre-tout pour tout ce qui touche au capitalisme, au conservatisme, à la religion ou à la tradition. Tout aussi vagues sont les méthodes proposées par ces individus, qui vont de la compilation de bases de données avec les noms de ceux qui sont considérés comme fascistes, à un soutien timide mais indéniable à la violence. À l’exception d’un petit nombre de juifs fanatiques comme Jacob Woolf, étudiant au Trinity College, l’”antifascisme” a manifestement été adopté par la majorité des personnes concernées comme une sorte de vertu tiède signalant un hobby ou un rôle politique, bien qu’ayant un sinistre potentiel.
Malheureusement, les problèmes posés par une gauche radicale “antifasciste” non informée, non responsable et non articulée ne sont pas résolus par le fait que la confusion sur la nature du fascisme est endémique dans l’ensemble de la société. Il y a essentiellement trois traditions lorsqu’il s’agit d’expliquer le fascisme. On peut en trouver une au sein même du fascisme, et elle démontre comment les fascistes qui se définissent eux-mêmes se voient. Ce matériel est en grande partie historique. Une autre tradition se retrouve dans le milieu universitaire traditionnel contemporain et, bien que biaisée, elle est au moins de style académique, sérieuse et relativement complète. L’œuvre du regretté Roger Griffin est peut-être la meilleure disponible en langue anglaise en ce qui concerne cette tradition, et elle s’intéresse aussi largement à l’histoire. La troisième tradition, en revanche, est populaire, très politisée, toujours concernée par la politique contemporaine, et est abrégée au point d’être une caricature gauchiste d’études sérieuses sur le fascisme. Elle est particulièrement problématique parce qu’elle a un énorme pouvoir d’attraction auprès des masses et, bien qu’elle fasse de la propagande pour des politiques extrémistes de son propre genre, elle se présente toujours comme objective et neutre.
Les personnes dont le profil est dressé par The Burkean sont sans aucun doute des disciples de cette dernière tradition, dont un exemple récent est How Fascism Works : La politique de nous et d’eux de Jason Stanley (2018). Stanley, un professeur juif de Yale dont la formation est en langue et en épistémologie et non en histoire ou en politique, n’a pas publié de documents évalués par des pairs sur le fascisme ou l’antifascisme, mais son livre de 2018 a fait sensation parce qu’il représentait une attaque à peine voilée contre l’administration Trump. La même administration a suscité des monographies similaires mal conçues et peu utiles sur le fascisme de Cass Sunstein (Can it Happen Here ?)Madeleine Albright (Fascism : A Warning) et du duo de Harvard Steven Levitsky et Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die). Tous ces individus appartiennent au peuple élu. Simple coïncidence. En fait, depuis la production du Fascism : What it is and How to Fight It de Léon Trotsky (compilé entre 1922 et 1933) et le projet de l’école de Francfort sur la “personnalité autoritaire”, les Juifs ont été à l’avant-garde pour ouvrir la voie culturelle, ainsi que politique, à l’activité antifa. Ils le font en troublant la compréhension du public sur la nature de la politique fasciste, façonnant ainsi “l’antifascisme” comme un véhicule pour miner les nations occidentales. En ce qui concerne le fascisme, ces auteurs « le savent quand ils le voient“, une déclaration que nous sommes tous encouragés à accepter sans poser de questions.

Définitions  flottantes du fascisme

Un thème commun à des livres influents comme celui de Stanley, destinés à connaître un minimum de succès sur le marché de masse des livres de poche grâce à des titres dramatiques et à un marketing acharné, est leur définition incroyablement – et délibérément – vague du fascisme. Ces militants sionistes le savent, bien sûr, mais ils vont de l’avant malgré tout. Stanley, par exemple, excuse les lacunes et les sauts logiques inhérents à son étude douteuse en affirmant que “la généralisation est nécessaire dans le moment présent”. Mais s’il définit le “moment présent” comme fasciste selon sa définition généralisée, n’utilise-t-il pas simplement la généralisation pour excuser la même généralisation ? Cela ne revient-il pas à dire à ses lecteurs “Le moment présent est si manifestement fasciste que nous n’avons vraiment pas besoin de définir le fascisme” ? De telles considérations ne ralentissent pas Stanley une seconde, et ce célèbre professeur de Yale s’éclipse pour prononcer, encore plus mal à propos, “J’ai choisi l’étiquette “fascisme” pour un ultranationalisme d’une certaine sorte”. Quelle sorte ? Quelle est sa définition de l’”ultranationalisme” ? Cela n’a pas d’importance. Ce qui est clair dans des textes comme celui de Stanley, c’est que vous n’êtes pas là pour être encouragé à réfléchir ou à poser des questions, mais pour absorber un discours et accepter un dogme. L’autorité derrière de telles demandes provient principalement du chantage émotionnel – Stanley encaisse sa carte en tant que fils de “survivants de l’Holocauste”, et explique que “mes antécédents familiaux m’ont chargé d’un lourd bagage émotionnel. Mais il m’a aussi, de manière cruciale, préparé à écrire ce livre“. Son manque d’éducation et de lecture dans cette matière est donc apparemment plus que compensé par le fait qu’il en est émotionnellement affligé. C’est vrai.

Jason Stanley : Lutter courageusement contre son bagage émotionnel

Non seulement ces définitions du fascisme par des auteurs juifs sont délibérément inadéquates et fallacieuses, mais elles sont souvent complètement erronées. Dans son premier chapitre “Le passé mythique”, par exemple, Stanley décrit la propagande fasciste comme reposant sur un mélange unique d’évocations du passé mythique, romancé et normalement rural, et que cette même propagande offre un retour futur à cette période idyllique. Il va sans dire que cela offre un moyen extrêmement commode aux activistes de gauche et de confession juive d’attaquer presque tous les véritables conservateurs en tant que fascistes. Mais une telle propagande n’est-elle pas elle-même intrinsèquement fasciste ou même de droite ? Nous pourrions considérer la citation suivante d’un personnage historique bien connu : “La position de l’ouvrier agricole anglais de 1770 à 1780, en ce qui concerne sa nourriture et son logement, ainsi que son respect de soi, ses divertissements, etc. est un idéal jamais plus atteint depuis cette époque”. L’idéologue qui se cache derrière cette citation propose un avenir où la communauté nationale des citoyens jouirait d’une sorte de retour à cette idylle pastorale, remplissant leurs journées de travail productif, de musique et de loisirs (“chasser le matin, pêcher l’après-midi, élever du bétail le soir, critiquer [la littérature] le soir”). C’est vraiment une sacrée vision. Mais le problème est que ces propositions ne sont pas issues des travaux de Sir Oswald Mosley, mais du Capital de Karl Marx et de L’idéologie allemande, et elles ont été un aspect clé de la promotion précoce du communisme. L’idée que le fascisme fait uniquement appel aux notions de “make son pays great again” est un trope peu sophistiqué et, en fin de compte, une arme politique.
La vérité est que la nostalgie politisée et les visions de renaissance nationale sont communes aux idéologies de toutes tendances, et sont inutiles comme outils pour examiner la nature spécifique des véritables manifestations politiques et culturelles du fascisme. La seule exception possible est la théorie très nuancée de Roger Griffin sur l’ultrationalisme palingénétique, qui est corrompue et glosée dans les traitements du sujet par  ces auteurs afin d’incriminer toutes les expressions du mécontentement des Blancs dans la modernité. Les présentations de passés et d’avenirs idéaux sont de toute évidence utilisées par tous les acteurs politiques désireux d’exploiter l’instinct public de rejet du statu quo. Les campagnes de Barack Obama basées sur “l’espoir”, “le changement” et “le progrès“, et celle de Trump “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) ne sont pas sensiblement différentes dans leur style ou leur méthode, la seule dissimilitude significative étant la diabolisation de cette dernière et la présentation fiévreuse et irrationnelle de son éthique comme un symptôme précoce d’une prise de pouvoir fasciste imminente. La préoccupation des anthropologues marxistes culturels de décrire des modes de vie putativement utopiques dans les sociétés primitives peut aussi être clairement perçue comme un appel à “rendre la société à nouveau grande” en démolissant le capitalisme, la famille, etc. L’expression politique la plus ancienne et la plus profonde de la résurrection d’un passé glorieux enraciné dans la terre ne se trouve, bien sûr, même pas du tout dans le fascisme européen, mais dans la quintessence de l’ultranationalisme palingénétique du sionisme, un sujet étrangement jamais abordé par nos auteurs juifs, sans doute à cause d’autres “bagages émotionnels difficiles”.
Des définitions similaires du fascisme, cette fois-ci réfractées à travers une lentille de déchets de la pop-culture gauchiste, peuvent être trouvées dans l’ouvrage de Cass Sunstein intitulé 2018 Can It Happen Here?  L’expertise de Sunstein est ostensiblement juridique, bien que son travail le plus réussi soit apparemment The World According to Star Wars (2016). À une autre époque et dans un autre contexte, quelqu’un comme Sunstein ferait une figure ridicule, de la même manière que les Romains trouvaient hilarant que les gens accroupis dans le taudis qu’était la Judée du 1er siècle se considèrent comme une nation supérieure. Sunstein a façonné sa carrière de professeur à la faculté de droit de l’université de Chicago autour d’efforts tels que l’inauguration d’une “journée de célébration des impôts” et la fin de toute reconnaissance du mariage par le gouvernement. Mais au-delà des livres sur la Guerre des étoiles et des combines bizarres, Sunstein est un individu profondément sinistre. Il est particulièrement préoccupé par les “théories de la conspiration” et a élaboré des suggestions politiques selon lesquelles les gouvernements s’engagent dans “l’infiltration cognitive des groupes extrémistes” en pénétrant “dans les salons de discussion, les réseaux sociaux en ligne, ou même les groupes en espace réel et tentent de saper les théories de la conspiration en faisant douter de leurs prémisses factuelles, de leur logique causale ou de leurs implications pour l’action politique“. En d’autres termes, Sunstein est un contributeur majeur au concept de “crime de lèse-pensée” et un défenseur très en vue du même type d’activités de désinformation et d’infiltration en ligne des forces de l’ordre qui piègent régulièrement les adolescents blancs exubérants et les présentent aux médias comme des terroristes de droite.

Cass Sunstein : “Nous avons besoin d’une infiltration cognitive des groupes extrémistes”

Sunstein a édité et contribué à Can It Happen Here ? avec d’autres auteurs juifs, dont Eric PosnerJack BalkinTyler CowenJack GoldsmithTom Ginsburg, Noah FeldmanJonathan Haidt, Bruce Ackerman, Jon ElsterMartha MinowDavid A. Strauss et  Geoffrey R. Stone. En fait, sur les 17 essais composant le volume, 13 sont écrits par des Juifs. L’un des non-juifs est la femme irlando-américaine de Sunstein, la coqueluche de l’ADL (Note du traducteur: Anti Diffamation League, la principale organisation « antiraciste » américaine et émanation du B’naï B’rith), Samantha Power, et deux sont musulmans. Can It Happen Here ? sous-titré Authoritarianism in America, n’est donc guère plus qu’un exercice de paranoïaque et un exemple flagrant de la manière dont certains juifs invoquent de vagues caricatures du fascisme pour s’attaquer aux structures traditionnelles des nations blanches. Posner, par exemple, cite l’hostilité de Trump envers certains éléments de la presse et le fait que son succès initial s’est produit quelque peu en dehors de la structure bipartite de la politique américaine comme preuves suffisantes d’une menace fasciste. En d’autres termes, les groupes qui dominent la presse et ont des intérêts financiers très importants dans les trajectoires des deux grands partis, considèrent que tout ce qui n’est pas entièrement sous leur contrôle équivaut au fascisme.
Le même modèle alarmiste mais vague est suivi par Levitsky et Ziblatt dans How Democracies Die (2018), qui commence par déclarer que l’autoritarisme a été pour eux une “obsession professionnelle“. Levitsky et Ziblatt ont peur… “On s’inquiète.” Ce qui les inquiète le plus, c’est “l’intimidation de la presse” et le fait que certains politiciens “considèrent leurs rivaux comme des ennemis”. L’atout est terrifiant en raison de ses “nettes tendances autoritaires”. On dit qu’il suit une tradition américaine de “démagogues extrémistes” qui comprend “Henry FordHuey Long, Joseph McCarthy et George Wallace”. L’Amérique a “échoué au test” en élisant Trump en novembre 2016. Comme Sunstein et Posner, Levitsky et Ziblatt sont particulièrement préoccupés par “l’extrême polarisation partisane“, ce qui est une autre façon de dire qu’ils sont très inquiets que les deux principaux partis politiques puissent en fait diverger de manière significative l’un de l’autre et donc courir le risque de s’engager dans une véritable politique. Comme Stanley et Sunstein formulent la même plainte, on peut supposer que la communauté juive est plus à l’aise avec les systèmes bipartites dans lesquels les partis et leurs politiques sont presque indissociables et où il existe un haut niveau de consensus idéologique. Tout ce qui est en dehors de cette zone de confort est du fascisme.

Levitsky et Ziblatt : “Nous sommes effrayés… Nous nous inquiétons.”

Tout aussi terrifiée est Madeleine Albright, dont Le fascisme : Un avertissement (2018) est dérivé d’un livre identique à celui utilisé par Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky et Ziblatt. Albright ouvre l’édition 2019 de son livre par une nouvelle préface dans laquelle elle se pose en grand-mère bienveillante, écrivant avec détachement et objectivité, affirme-t-elle, dans sa “ferme” en Virginie. Mamie Albright, qui a déclaré un jour que les Serbes étaient “dégoûtants” et qui a estimé qu’affamer un demi-million d’enfants irakiens par le biais des sanctions de l’ONU “valait le coup”, passe maintenant ses journées à s’occuper de ses tomates et à se demander avec beaucoup d’étonnement pourquoi un journaliste l’a récemment qualifiée de “goule guerrière“. En observant la sérénité des conifères qui l’entourent, elle se demande pourquoi l’Amérique multiculturelle semble être “prise à la gorge”. On pourrait penser que Granny Albright pourrait répondre à une telle question en quittant la Virginie rurale et en s’installant dans le cœur multiculturel de l’Amérique. Mais non, de son point de vue sûr et isolé, elle a tout compris. Sa réponse est simple, et n’a rien à voir avec le fait que le multiculturalisme est lui-même une doctrine empoisonnée – le multiculturalisme ne fonctionne pas parce que Donald Trump et le fascisme sont sur le point de faire l’objet d’une prise de contrôle dévastatrice. Mais qu’est-ce que le fascisme ? Cela n’est jamais clair nulle part dans le livre. Albright explique vaguement que le fascisme est une “propagation de tendances anti-démocratiques“. Les “attitudes” fascistes se développent lorsque “l’impression que tout le monde ment se développe”. Le fascisme est “une doctrine de colère et de peur”. [Traduction : “Je suis inquiet. Arrêtez tout.”]
Andrew Rawnsley, journaliste au Guardian, conscient de cette faiblesse flagrante du livre, a interviewé Albright avant d’écrire sa critique : “Je lui suggère que le livre peine à offrir une définition satisfaisante du fascisme. “Définir le fascisme est difficile, répond-elle. Tout d’abord, je ne pense pas que le fascisme soit une idéologie. Je pense que c’est une méthode, c’est un système”. En d’autres termes, le fascisme est une étiquette qui peut être appliquée à tout type de politique qui déstabilise ces « intellectuels » et offre d’authentiques méthodologies politiques alternatives. En refusant de reconnaître le fascisme comme une idéologie politique historique spécifique aux traits identifiables et fixes, Albright et les autres activistes juifs mentionnés ici peuvent le libérer comme un système de simples “méthodes” qui peuvent ensuite être interprétées en termes généraux afin d’attaquer les éléments de la société blanche jugés opposés à leurs intérêts. Le soi-disant antifascisme, qui tire toute sa puissance culturelle de ce type de propagande, n’est donc pas du tout contre le fascisme, mais contre toute “méthode” ou “tendance” qui ne serait pas favorable à leurs intérêts.

Madeleine Albright a écrit un livre sur un sujet qu’elle ne peut pas définir !

Le livre de Stanley est un excellent guide de la paranoïa concernant les “méthodes” évoquées par Albright. Son texte est divisé en chapitres intitulés “Le passé mythique”, “Propagande”, “Anti-intellectuel”, “Réalité”, “Hiérarchie”, “Victime”, “Ordre public”, “Anxiété sexuelle”, “Sodome et Gomorrhe”, et, puisque ces activistes considèrent inévitablement que toute dissidence par rapport à leurs intérêts conduit en fin de compte à des formes de meurtre de masse extravagantes, le dernier chapitre est intitulé “Arbeit Macht Frei“. Chacun de ces chapitres traite de matériel et d’idées entièrement subjectifs, et il n’y a aucun engagement sérieux avec la littérature scientifique sur le fascisme historique.
Comme nous l’avons vu plus haut, “le passé mythique” n’est un problème que pour les juifs comme Stanley lorsque le passé en question ne favorise pas certains objectifs. Des passés multiculturels fictifs où les anciens Britanniques “Cheddar Man” avaient la peau foncée, où les Africains vivaient en Angleterre avant les Anglais et où les Blancs faisaient preuve d’un mal unique, sont actuellement au sommet de la mode intellectuelle et culturelle. Ce sont les versions du “passé mythique” que  ces intellectuels célèbrent et promeuvent. D’autre part, les conceptions du passé comme impliquant des cultures mono-ethniques, des célébrations de la gloire raciale européenne et la reconnaissance des réalisations du groupe blanc sont qualifiées de fascistes et dépassent l’entendement. Dans cette vision antifasciste, les histoires des Européens sont irrémédiablement honteuses et, par conséquent, toute tentative de rendre sa nation “grande à nouveau” est à la fois irrationnelle (“ils n’ont jamais été grands au départ !”) et menaçante. Dans cette lecture, toutes les réflexions positives sur le passé européen font partie de la méthodologie fasciste et doivent donc être impitoyablement combattues. Lorsque des activistes gauchistes comme Stanley et Albright font référence au “passé mythique” dans leurs “mises en garde” contre le fascisme, ils mettent en fait en garde et font honte aux Blancs contre l’affirmation de leurs propres intérêts et de leur fierté de groupe.Le même cadre est utilisé pour discuter de la prétendue propagande et des qualités “anti-intellectuelles” du fascisme. Stanley soutient que les fascistes “attaquent et dévalorisent l’éducation, l’expertise et la langue”. Cet argument est, au mieux, entièrement subjectif et, au pire, complètement absurde. L’idée que les fascistes ont été contre l’intellectualisme en général est tout simplement ridicule. Comme l’écrit John Whittam dans son Italie fasciste :
«Le fascisme n’a pas souffert du manque d’idées, mais de leur trop grand nombre. Malgré leur rhétorique et leur hostilité prononcée envers les intellectuels de l’ancien establishment libéral, les futuristes, les syndicalistes, les ex-socialistes et même les ras professaient une idéologie et avaient invariablement accès à un journal où leurs opinions pouvaient être exprimées. Après la conquête du pouvoir, l’un des problèmes majeurs a été la formulation d’une idéologie à partir de l’éventail ahurissant d’idéologies distinctives au sein du mouvement fasciste».
a déclaration accusatrice de Stanley repose sur le simple fait que les fascistes s’opposent à l’intellectualisme libéral, de gauche et juif. Les activistes juifs comme Stanley croient, bien sûr, que leurs activités intellectuelles sont les seules légitimes et authentiques dans la sphère publique. Une attaque contre leur position est donc considérée comme une attaque contre tout véritable intellectualisme. L’accusation selon laquelle les fascistes sont anti-intellectuels parle donc d’une profonde arrogance de l’accusateur.
Tout aussi révélateurs sont les chapitres de Stanley sur “l’anxiété sexuelle” et “Sodome et Gomorrhe“. Ces chapitres sont plus ou moins une apologie de la dégénérescence sexuelle à la Weimar, et insinuent que toutes les tentatives pour empêcher la descente dans un tel abîme sont pathologiques et fascistes. Un contexte intéressant à cet égard peut être trouvé en 2016, lorsque Stanley s’est retrouvé mêlé à une controverse après qu’un échange sur Facebook avec un collègue universitaire juif lui aussi, Rebecca Kukla, de l’université de Georgetown, ait été largement diffusé. Les deux hommes avaient discuté de Richard Swinburne, un philosophe chrétien orthodoxe, et étaient furieux après que Swinburne s’était adressé à la Société des Philosophes Chrétiens et avit donné une conférence sur l’éthique chrétienne, y compris la position de la religion sur l’homosexualité. Swinburne a fait valoir que l’homosexualité pouvait être comprise comme une maladie, voire une forme de handicap, puisqu’elle allait à l’encontre de l’impératif de reproduction, par ailleurs naturel. Stanley, dans une conversation avec d’autres universitaires juifs, a accusé Swinburne de “promouvoir l’homophobie“, “ouvrant la voie à un autre  holocauste“, puis a terminé sa tirade par “Il faut baiser ces connards”. Sérieusement.” Le charmant Dr. Kukla, vraisemblablement tout aussi engagée dans l’utilisation d’un intellectualisme vigoureux contre l’empiètement fasciste du Prof. Swinburne, a ajouté : “Ces connards peuvent sucer ma bite géante de queer.”

Rebecca Kukla : Une lutte intellectuelle étonnante et courageuse contre les anti-intellectuels fascistes

Lorsque l’échange est devenu viral, Stanley et Kukla se sont tous deux dispersés comme des cafards sous la lumière des torches, se cachant sous des récits de pitié et des accusations d’antisémitisme. Dans une pièce remarquable qui mérite d’être longuement citée ici, Stanley a écrit peu après : «Je voulais aborder la situation qui est née de la série d’articles sur moi, puis sur moi et le professeur Kukla, publiés dans des médias de droite à la suite d’un échange privé sur Facebook et sortis de leur contexte… J’ai presque toujours été la seule personne juive de ma classe en grandissant. Dans mes lycées, en dixième et onzième année, j’ai été le premier juif à fréquenter l’école. Je connais très bien l’isolement qui en résulte, même lorsqu’il n’y a pas de discrimination ouverte (bien qu’on m’ait demandé en grandissant si j’avais des cornes et autres, c’était de l’ignorance et non de la malveillance). Ma principale préoccupation en ce moment concerne nos collègues homosexuels du monde universitaire qui ont regardé cet épisode avec horreur, craignant à juste titre que toute plainte pour discrimination qu’ils pourraient formuler, même dans des espaces privés, n’entraîne le genre de représailles incroyablement intenses dont Rebecca Kukla et moi-même avons fait l’objet au cours de la semaine dernière. Et ces préoccupations seraient légitimes. Je dois terminer par la question de l’antisémitisme. Sur mon poste public, quelqu’un a publié un commentaire troublant sur la mort de Swinburne. J’ai envisagé de le supprimer, mais j’ai voulu attendre de voir si quelqu’un “aimerait” le supprimer avant d’aborder ses horreurs (personne ne l’a fait). Il est difficile d’éviter le soupçon que la discussion médiatique qui a débuté avec l’article du 28 septembre dans The American Conservative, puis dans le Washington Times, est carrément antisémite. Comment un non-récit sur la complexité de la communication qui résulte de la publication de captures d’écran de conversations privées, est-il devenu une histoire nationale sur deux professeurs juifs de gauche et les dangers qu’ils représentent ? Au début, l’histoire ne concernait que moi. Ensuite, l’autre philosophe juive qui a posté sur ce fil de discussion, Rebecca Kukla, a également été visée. Il s’en est suivi un terrible récit antisémite, canalisant une forme virulente d’antisémitisme du XXe siècle. »
Lorsque j’ai lu cet article pour la première fois, je dois avouer sans exagération que j’ai tellement ri que j’avais littéralement le souffle coupé. Il dégouline positivement  comique  stéréotypé. Considérez la rapidité avec laquelle Stanley explique moralement comment il s’est senti “le seul juif de la classe“. Observez la fausse inquiétude de l’”Autre”, en l’occurrence ses “collègues homosexuels”. Et réfléchissez au dernier exemple, vraiment beau, de son recours éhonté à l’étreinte protectrice de l’accusation d’antisémitisme – et pas n’importe quel antisémitisme, mais ce genre “virulent” infâme. Chaque ingrédient de “crier comme ils vous frappent” est ici présent sous une forme parfaitement distillée.
Lorsque nous lisons donc les chapitres de Stanley sur “l’anxiété sexuelle” et “Sodome et Gomorrhe”, nous savons précisément le genre d’attitudes que notre estimé professeur de Yale apporte à la table. Il avance une théorie selon laquelle les fascistes font simplement semblant d’être contrariés par le viol des femmes blanches afin de renforcer le patriarcat. Prenez, par exemple, son affirmation farfelue selon laquelle “le crime de viol est fondamental pour la politique fasciste parce qu’il suscite l’anxiété sexuelle et un besoin connexe de protection de la virilité de la nation par l’autorité fasciste”. Pour Stanley, toute rhétorique visant à soutenir des familles blanches stables et en pleine croissance est fasciste, de même que toute tentative de contester la “libération” des femmes dans la stérilité, la promiscuité, le carriérisme vide, les “grooming gangs” (Note du traducteur: gangs de viol collectif) et l’avortement. Mais le problème plus profond ici est qu’il n’y a pas de littérature sérieuse sur une telle fixation sur le viol au sein du fascisme, et Stanley semble tirer de nulle part son concept du viol comme “base de la politique fasciste”. En réalité, la propagande antifasciste a été remarquée à maintes reprises dans la littérature scientifique pour son recours à des métaphores de viol pour attaquer l’attrait psychologique du fascisme (par exemple “Le fascisme viole l’esprit des masses” 1). On peut assez facilement supposer que Stanley est probablement conscient que son argument est absurde, et qu’il préfère simplement stigmatiser toute tentative de protection des femmes blanches. La même méthodologie est employée lorsque Stanley propose que l’homosexualité et le mélange des races sont intrinsèquement bons, étant des péchés vaillants “contre l’idéologie fasciste”. Et c’est ce qui passe pour une éducation à Yale !
Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt et Albright ont produit des exemples assez typiques de propagande politique déguisée en littérature “antifasciste”. Les caractéristiques principales de ces œuvres sont invariablement une définition vague du fascisme, une tentative de relier les “avertissements” à un aspect de la politique contemporaine, des admonestations mélodramatiques sur une future catastrophe violente présumée qui doit être évitée, et des appels larmoyants à l’histoire familiale personnelle et au “bagage émotionnel”. Sous le placage de surface, ces travaux sont des efforts très ciblés visant à pathologiser les aspects de la culture et de la politique blanches jugés contraires aux intérêts communautaires. Ces efforts, et leur encadrement, découlent de toute évidence du marxisme culturel, en particulier du travail d’Adorno avec l’école de Francfort (publié en 1950 par le Jewish American Committee) sur la personnalité autoritaire, et de formes antérieures d’activisme juif dont on a été témoin à partir de la fin du XIXe siècle et qui ont culminé dans l’Allemagne de Weimar (par exemple l’œuvre de Magnus Hirschfeld). La famille, la reconnaissance de l’hétérosexualité comme étant culturellement et biologiquement normative et préférentielle, la désirabilité des cultures mono-ethniques et la reconnaissance de l’inégalité entre les êtres humains sont recadrées dans ce genre de “littérature d’avertissement” comme étant intrinsèquement fascistes.
Il est très inquiétant que notre culture ait légué beaucoup de respect et de légitimité à ces intellectuels, en particulier en ce qui concerne le sujet du fascisme. Nous leur avons permis d’affirmer qu’”ils le savent quand ils le voient“. La crise fondamentale de notre civilisation est qu’ils le voient partout, et ils n’auront de cesse que ce fantôme de leur paranoïa, et nous avec lui, ne soit aboli.

Merci au site The Occidental Observer pour ce partenariat.

  1. Voir, par exemple, S. Chakotin, The Rape of the Masses : La psychologie de la propagande politique totalitaire (1940).