Featured Articles

Is Tom Wolfe a Race Realist? Part 2 of 3

/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

bauhausFrom Bauhaus to Our House, a critique of modern architecture, can be considered a companion volume to Painted Word. Wolfe charges modern architecture with causing “sensory deprivation” due to “the whiteness & lightness & leanness & cleanness & bareness & spareness of it all.”[1] Beyond aesthetic criticism, Bauhaus again makes explicit the link between modernism in the arts and left-wing politics. And once again a turning point in the U.S. was the Second World War. After the war the American elites were “willing to accept that glass of ice water in the face, that bracing slap across the mouth, that reprimand for the fat on one’s bourgeois soul, known as modern architecture.”[2]

The Bauhaus in the title refers to the Bauhaus School founded in 1919 in Weimar, Germany by Walter Gropius. This school, according to Wolfe, was the genesis of modern architecture. Ludwig Mies (van der Rohe, “less is more”) taught at Bauhaus. With the ascension of National Socialism, both Gropius and Mies left Germany for the U.S.

Is there a racial angle to Bauhaus? Author and racial theorist Wilmot Robertson used to say, “There’s a racial angle to every story in twentieth-century America.”

The heirs of the Bauhaus were very concerned with post-war worker housing in America. There was a housing shortage after the war so it was a legitimate issue, but the Left completely misread their clientele. Wolfe points out that public housing became known as “the projects,” and workers avoided them as if they “had a smell. The workers — if by workers we mean people who have jobs — headed out instead to the suburbs.”[3]A dramatic example of this phenomenon was seen in St. Louis where post-war working and middle-class Whites left the city as “a vast worker housing project called Pruitt-Igoe” was being built. There is no explicit mention of race (perhaps none was needed), but Wolfe notes that Pruitt-Igoe “filled up mainly with recent migrants from the rural South … where the population density was fifteen to twenty folks per square mile; [and] one rarely got more than ten feet off the ground except by climbing a tree.”[4] It took just seventeen years for the tenants to destroy P-I. The city demolished the dilapidated buildings in July, 1972. Wolfe calls Pruitt-Igoe and other similar projects “American monuments to 1920s Middle European worker housing.”[5] It turns out that people are not interchangeable cogs after all. Read more

Judeus Imperiais e Judeus Internacionais — por Matt Parrot

/in , /by
adl-300x266Matt Parrot: Imperial Jews and International Jews, The Occidental Observer, 1 de fevereiro de 2011
Tradução, links e comentário ao fim do texto: O Ocidental Lusófono
Nota do Tradutor: este texto de Parrot é de 2011, mas o insightsubjacente a ele e expresso no título lhe confere um interesse permanente
O recente artigo de Michael Colhaze Wikileaks Leaks [A vez do Wikileaks vazar] chamou atenção para uma fissura crescente dentro da comunidade judaica global, com os “assumidos” e os “assimilados” [“Hibbies” and “Izzies”] cada vez mais divergindo sobre estratégias, táticas e até objetivos. Pouco tempo depois que este post foi publicado, os protestos egípcios escancararam esta fissura, tornando-a mais visível do que nunca. A dicotomia entre os judeus da Diáspora e os judeus israelenses é a maior falha geológica individual no mundo judaico. Dada a desproporcional influência e alavancagem deles, ela é talvez a mais relevante falha geológica política no mundo contemporâneo.
Esta fissura dentro da Judiaria é tão velha quanto a própria Estratégia Evolutiva Grupal. Na tradicional Europa Oriental, havia um núcleo insular de judeus ultra-ortodoxos nos shtetls, que passava a maior parte de seu tempo estudando a Torá, bem como um subgrupo que fazia uma interface com a população não-judaica. Dos agiotas de outrora aos Madofffs de hoje, este pequeno núcleo de judeus ricos e seculares desempenharam um papel central no apoio ao núcleo reprodutivo dos judeus introspectivos, resultando em uma estratégia reprodutiva bifurcada, onde um componente é altamente fértil e o outro têm baixa fertilidade e um alto investimento.

http://retrogradolusofono.blogspot.com.br/2013/09/judeus-imperiais-e-judeus.html

Helmuth Nyborg sobre o declínio da Civilização Ocidental

/in , /by
Kevin MacDonald: Occidental Observer, 5 de maio de 2011
Helmuth-Nyborg-180O psicólogo dinamarquês Helmuth Nyborg publicará um artigo em breve naPersonality and Individual Differences (“The decay of Western Civilization: Double Relaxed Natural Selection“ [ A decadência da civilização ocidental: seleção natural duplamente relaxada] ). Nyborg é bem conhecido por seu trabalho que mostra uma diferença de QI que favorece os homens, um artigo que resultou em uma investigação de seu trabalho e em uma reprimenda de sua universidade. (Nyborg descreve a “caça às bruxas” por que passou  aqui.)
O último artigo de Nyborg aborda tendências passadas e projeta mudanças de QI na Dinamarca como um resultado de duas tendências: o relaxamento da seleção natural entre os dinamarqueses tradicionais e um influxo de imigrantes com baixo QI. Estas duas tendências juntas resultam no que ele define como um “duplo relaxamento da seleção natural” (DRNS).
Com base na obra Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, de Richard Lynn, acredita-se que o relaxamento da seleção interna tenha começado por volta de 1850, quando a taxa de fertilidade das classes baixas ultrapassou a das classes superiores por causa de melhorias na higiene e da redução nas doenças. Ele cita a estimativa de Lynn de que a Inglaterra perdeu 6.9 pontos de QI nos últimos 90 anos (1920-2010) e estima que o QI médio da Dinamarca caiu cerca de 10 pontos dede 1850, devido ao relaxamento interno da seleção natural.

Is Tom Wolfe a Race Realist? Part 1 of 3

/1 Comment/in , /by
Tom Wolfe

Tom Wolfe

Perhaps it is a product of his Southern heritage — born in Richmond in 1931, B.A. Washington and Lee, 1951. Perhaps it is due to his academic training, Ph.D. in American studies from Yale, 1957, completed before the neo-Marxist hegemony over the humanities and social sciences. Perhaps it is a result of his years as a reporter developing the New Journalism that seeks to tell the larger story. But most likely it is a consequence of his dedication to social realism that has led Tom Wolfe to become the closest thing we have to a mainstream race-realist author.

What is race realism? Ideological labels are often difficult to delineate precisely, but generally a race realist is one who acknowledges the physical reality of race and the significance of human biodiversity in the development of past and present human societies.

This is in contrast to the establishment’s position that insists upon the primacy of the individual while minimizing the importance of race. Races are not naturally occurring phenomena, but merely social constructs grouped around, perhaps, a few superficial physical characteristics. Yet, the inclusion of and advocacy for multiple “social constructs” within White homelands has become a social/political obsession and the basis for the civic religion of the West.

Race realists can also be distinguished from their more radical cousins, racial nationalists, by their embrace of conservatism grounded in patriotism (e.g., American exceptionalism), Christianity, and/or libertarianism. The nationalists are less enamored of Christianity and capitalism, and paradoxically, tend toward internationalism (“our race is our nation”) while advocating for homogeneous ethno-states. Race realists are not separatists, believing instead that a vigorous pursuit of identity politics within a multiracial state is enough to safeguard their people’s interests.

At 82 Wolfe has been writing for over half a century so he has a very lengthy bibliography. By looking at some representative writings we can see if Wolfe fits the race realist mold. Here I will discuss six nonfictions books: Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers (1970), The Painted Word (1975), The Right Stuff (1979), Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine (1976), From Bauhaus to Our House (1981), and Hooking Up (2000); plus three novels: Bonfire of the Vanities (1987), A Man in Full (1998), and Back to Blood (2012).[1] Because Wolfe spent the first 30 years of his career as a journalist and social commentator, we will first consider his nonfiction works in thematic rather than chronological order. Read more

Bombs for a Better World: Syria, Surveillance and the Neo-Crocs

/in , /by

In a sane world, the former “Chief Speechwriter for Tony Blair” would now be a fugitive from justice or serving a life sentence. But it’s not a sane world, so Philip Collins is receiving his thirty pieces of silver from the hostile elite. He has a well-paid post at the London School of Economics and writes for Rupert Murdoch’s London Times, where he displays all the intellectual power and anthropological expertise you would expect of a Blairite:

The most misunderstood book of recent times was lost in a play on words. When Francis Fukuyama called his book The End of History he was not making the foolish claim that history, as 1066 And All That nearly said, had come to a full stop. He was saying that no society better than liberal democracy would ever emerge.

With history unfolding all around us, it is a good moment to point out that Fukuyama was right. The people of Syria, like the people of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, do not wish to buy security at the cost of freedom. The Middle East will, in time, join the league of democratic nations, as Latin America has done since 1970. The fragile Government of Algeria cannot last. The limited reforms sponsored by the kings of Morocco and Jordan will buy a little time. But eventually the people there and the people in Iran will want some of what we have, they being people just like us. (Saving the people of Syria, reproduced in The Australian, 25th February, 2012)

It would be wrong to call those claims “half-witted.” No, “eighth-witted” is more like it. It took centuries for liberal democracy to evolve in Britain. Tony Blair went a long way towards destroying it in a decade. But Philip Collins thinks the Middle East will inevitably embrace it. After all, the Muslims there have no connection with their illiberal and undemocratic governments, which have presumably beamed in from Neptune or the Andromeda Galaxy. Collins thinks that Syrians, Tunisians, Libyans, Moroccans et al. are “people just like us.” Well, apart from a significantly lower average IQ and a long history of inbreeding, clannishness and corruption, that is. And a totalitarian religion that stands no nonsense about female rights and imposes the death penalty for offences like apostasy and blasphemy. Muslims in the Middle East wouldn’t have knighted Salman Rushdie the way Tony Blair did. No, they’d’ve quickly cut his head off. If he’d been lucky.

But apart from those details, Collins thinks that the Middle East is ready to “join the league of democratic nations” as “Latin America” did in 1970. He seems to be forgetting the dictatorships that flourished in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and so on. You’d expect him to remember Chile, because Spain tried to have General Pinochet extradited when Pinochet came here for medical treatment during Blair’s premiership. But Blairites don’t like history: as someone once pointed out, the only certainty in Blairism was the golden future. The past was always changing.

In this, Blairites faithfully reflected their neo-conservative confederates. The neo-cons know no history, just as they know no shame. In a sane world, what happened in Iraq would have discredited them for ever, if not placed them behind bars. But it’s not a sane world and they’re still with us, still lying, still gasbagging, still beating the drums for slaughter. One of the British neo-cons, Norman Geras, called the eighth-witted maunderings of Philip Collins a “thoughtful column.” The quality of Geras’ own thinking is apparent here:

Of course, the whole world is not a death camp, and what is happening in Syria falls far short of the Nazi genocide. Yet the brutal murder of innocent people by a state bears some kinship with all crimes against humanity, of which it is itself one. (“Adolescent” revulsion and moral shame (over Syria), NormBlog, 27th February, 2012)

The Nazis, of course, are the gold standard of evil. Comparing the Syrian government to the Nazis is designed to elicit a reflexive warrant for military action.

But it would be wrong to dismiss Geras as an eighth-witted gasbag. In fact, he’s a bloodthirsty eighth-witted gasbag:

Since it is urgent that we respond somehow, out of solidarity, of our “common human heritage” with the victims, action must be taken even if it means meeting chaos with chaos and (by implication) that the chaos we cause turns out to be worse than the chaos we’re trying to bring to an end. (NormBlog)

Neo-con Norman “Gasbag” Geras

Neo-con Norman “Gasbag” Geras

Read more

The Organized Jewish Community: Wall-to-wall Support for a Strike on Syria

/12 Comments/in , , , /by

One of the self-deceptions of Jewish life is the belief that “two Jews, three opinions” — the idea that Jews are especially likely to disagree with one another. But on critical issues like Israel, immigration, multiculturalism and Christianity in the public square, the Jewish community speaks with one (very powerful) voice. A Bloomberg article illustrates the broad-based support among Jews for a strike on Syria (“Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike). The broad-based Jewish support for a military strike on Syria is breath-taking, especially considering that Congress is finding “record opposition” to an airstrike in the rest of America.

Recent polls already show little appetite among the American people for military intervention in Syria. A Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday found just 29 percent of Americans supported air strikes “in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons,” while a Washington Post/ABC poll out the same day had 36 percent of Americans in favor of air strikes. … Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a vocal opponent of military strikes against the Syrian government, told reporters after Thursday’s briefing that a vote to use military force in Syria would fail. “The House doesn’t want it, the American people don’t want it. People here listen to their constituents,” Grayson said. “First of all, public opinion is entirely against it. Secondly, public opinion is vehemently against it.” (“U.S. Lawmakers Say Constituents Opposed To Syria Intervention, Cite Record Opposition“)

Morris Amitay, former head of AIPAC and who now heads of the Washington Political Action Committee (whose motto is “A strong and secure Israel is America’s best interest”) favors a military strike. Both the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Jewish Democratic Council advocate a military strike. The Bloomberg article also notes that the ADL and the and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations are also on board.

One tactic is to point out that  Jews were gassed in WWII. The Simon Wiesenthal Center began its letter to all U.S. Senators and Representatives: “It was seventy-one years ago in August 1942, just a few weeks before Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, that Gerhard Riegner, the World Jewish Congress representative in Switzerland informed the US and British governments of the diabolical plan to exterminate Europe’s Jews using gas.” A group of 17 rabbis, “descendants of Holocaust survivors and refugees, whose ancestors were gassed to death in concentration camps” and spanning the Jewish religious spectrum endorsed a military strike.

Most importantly, the 800-lb. gorilla (AIPAC) not only released a statement supporting a military strike but now says it is mounting a full-scale campaign to get Congress to approve. 250 activists will descend on Washington to lobby every last senator and representative.

The amount of money the Israel Lobby is able to muster for an effort like this is staggering. The Bloomberg article notes:

The pro-Israel community contributed $14.5 million to federal campaigns for the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s more than the $11.1 million in donations by the defense aerospace industry, one of the biggest and most consistent political contributors.

It bears mentioning that the American aerospace industry is massively intertwined with Israel’s and that they both have a shared interest in getting Congress to cough up money for defense contractors. For example, the Arrow 3 missile is a joint venture between Boeing and Israel Aerospace Industries. David’s Sling, a short-range anti-missile system, was jointly developed by Raytheon and Rafael, another Israeli aerospace company. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (“Securing America, Strengthening Israel”) advocates shared American-Israeli ownership of Iron Dome, which is already deployed in Israel.

Sheldon Adelson’s financial commitment is truly staggering:

While most of the Jewish groups’ donations lean Democratic, Adelson alone transformed the 2012 Republican primary when he and his wife used $15 million in private funds to sustain the unsuccessful candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and then poured $53 million into groups advancing Republican nominee Mitt Romney. In all, Adelson and his wife donated $93 million to Republican causes in the 2012 campaign, center data shows.

Imagine if White advocacy had people like Adelson willing to commit $93 million to the cause.

Instead, Adelson, a board member of the RJC, will now be gearing up his millions for a military strike — no matter what the great majority of Americans want.

Bombas por um mundo melhor: Síria, Monitoramento e os Neocrocodilos — por Tobias Langdon para o Occidental Observer

/in , /by
Tobias Langdon: Bombs for a Better World: Syria, Surveillance and the Neo-Crocs, The Occidental Observer, 8 setembro de 2013
Tradução e links: O Retrógrado Lusófono
Em um mundo são, o ex-“redator-chefe dos discursos de Tony Blair” seria agora um fugitivo da justiça ou estaria cumprindo pena de prisão perpétua. Mas este não é um mundo são, e assim, Philip Collins está recebendo suas trinta peças de prata das mãos da elite hostil. Ele tem um cargo bem-remunerado na London School of Economics e escreve para o London Times de Rubert Murdoch, onde demonstra todo o poder intelectual e erudição antropológica que se esperariam de uma Blairiette:

O livro mais mal-compreendido dos tempos recentes se perdeu em um jogo de palavras. Quando Francis Fukuyama chamou seu livro de The End of History [O fim da História], ele não estava defendendo a tese tola de que a História, como 1066 And All That [1066 e tudo mais] quase disse, tinha chegado a um ponto final. Ele estava dizendo que alguma sociedade melhor do que a democracia liberal jamais surgiria. 

Com a História se desenrolando bem à nossa volta, é um bom momento para se apontar que Fukuyama estava certo. O povo da Síria, como o povo da Tunísia, da Líbia e do Egito não quer comprar segurança ao preço da liberdade. O Oriente Médio vai, com o tempo, juntar-se à liga das nações democráticas, como a América Latina tem se juntado, desde 1970. O frágil governo da Argélia não tem como durar. As reformas limitadas patrocinadas pelos reis do Marrocos e da Jordânia vão ganhar um pouco de tempo. Mas por fim, as pessoas lá e as pessoas no Irã vão querer um pouco do que nós temos, eles sendo gente igual a nós (Saving the people of Syria [Salvando o povo da Síria], reproduzido no The Australian, 25 de fevereiro, 2012).

Seria errado chamar estas alegações de “retardadas” [half-witted]. Não; estão mais para “retardadas-e-meio” [eith-witted]. A democracia liberal levou séculos para se desenvolver na Grã-Bretanha. Tony Blair percorreu um longo caminho rumo a sua destruição em uma década. Mas Phillip Collins acha que o Oriente Médio vai inevitavelmente adotá-la. Afinal de contas, os muçulmanos não têm nenhuma ligação com seus governos antiliberais e antidemocráticos. Collins acha que os sírios, tunisianos, líbios, marroquinos et al. são “gente igual a nós”. Quer dizer, exceto por um QI médio significativamente mais baixo e uma longa história de endocruzamento, tribalismo e corrupção. E uma religião totalitária que não suporta nenhuma bobagem a respeito de direitos das mulheres e impõe a pena de morte para infrações como apostasia e blasfêmia. Os muçulmanos no Oriente Médio não teriam dado o título de Cavaleiro a Salman Rushdie, como fez Tony Blair. Não; eles teriam cortado rapidinho sua cabeça. Se ele tivesse sorte.