Featured Articles

The Plot Against Art, Part 1

“Never before have so few been in a position to make fools, maniacs or criminals of so many.”

HG Wells, The Shape of Things to Come.

I’ll begin with a confession: I am a failed artist. Ever since I can remember, I have wanted to paint. The only thing that stopped me was lack of talent. The first time I did a self-portrait, checking with the mirror in my bedroom to see how I was getting on, my mother put an abrupt end to my artistic ambitions by exclaiming, “Gosh, what a cute little chimp!”

It was a rude awakening for a nine-year-old artist.

About a decade later, I asked myself was art was all about. One day I found this sentence in a biography of Burne-Jones, and I jotted it down in my diary and pondered it for a day or two, “I mean by a picture a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was, never will be — in a better light than any light that ever shone — in a land no one can define or remember, only desire — and from forms divinely beautiful.

Waterhouse, The Lady of Shalott, 1888.

Art as it used to be, when painters knew how to paint. This would now be considered kitsch.

When I read that sentence, I almost fainted. I was a sensitive girl, given to fits of swooning at the slightest opportunity. It was then I realized there was no real difference between poetry and painting, between painting and music. All, in their own ways, sought for God — albeit a God who might not exist — but a God nonetheless. God was beauty. God was longing. God was the fire in the rose.

That’s what I thought then. I was young and foolish.

Art, I found out later, was about making money. Organized Jewry taught me this. Art dealer Paul Rosenberg says, “A painting is only beautiful when it sells.” Jewish president of the Marlborough Gallery, Frank Lloyd, confirms this: “There is only one measure of success in running a gallery: making money.”

The question we need to ask is: Who runs the Art Market and how did it become a freak circus?

Art Should Make You Miserable

Let’s take a little trip round the art world with Israel Shamir. Mr Shamir, after all, is not only well-informed about art but is also a tour guide in Jerusalem. He agrees with me about the sacral nature of art. “No art without Christ,” he says. By “Christ” he means much more than the historical Jesus. He means the Logos, or Christ Principle, the rule of law in a divinely ordered universe.

Since Darwin and Freud, there has been a complete “revaluation of all values.” Everything has been turned upside down. We can mostly attribute this parlous state of affairs to the machinations of organized Jewry, in particular to a group of revolutionary thinkers known as the Frankfurt School.  (For a detailed introduction to the ideas of these neo-Freudian Marxists, most of whom were Jewish refugees from Hitler’s Germany who fled to America, see Chapter 5 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique).

Just as one of these Frankfurters, Theodor Adorno, set out to destroy Western music, assuring the world that atonal music was a good thing because it was discordant and ugly, others in the group set out to destroy art and push it to its reductio ad absurdum: lights going on and off in an empty room, unmade beds with condoms and bloodstained panties strewn around, and sealed cans containing the artist’s own excrement.


Tracey Emin’s  My Bed


Piero Manzoni’s Artist’s Shit

One of the founders of the Frankfurt School, Georg Lukács, asked rhetorically, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” He began the rescue operation himself, convincing himself that the best way to do this was to create “a culture of pessimism” and “a world that has been abandoned by God.” Cool.

Another of these mental giants, Walter Benjamin, believed that the purpose of art was to make people as miserable as possible, for pessimism was an essential preliminary to world revolution. “To organize pessimism,” he pointed out portentously, “means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics.” Benjamin succeeded only too well in making himself miserable. He committed suicide.

Marxist revolutionary Willi Munzenberg made no bones about his mission in life. It was to destroy Western civilization. No kidding. To accomplish this, he said, the Frankfurters would have to “organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have cor­rupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dic­tatorship of the proletariat”. (My italics).

To summarize: Let’s create a culture of pessimism. Let’s make Western civilization stink. Let’s create a godless world and drive people to despair. Let’s corrupt society’s values and make life impossible. In short, let’s create hell on earth.

It will soon become clear to you, if you are a struggling artist, that the art world is dominated by Jews who are only too anxious to bring about this hell on earth. Their control over what now passes for art is as tentacular as it is terrifying. Art has morphed into Anti-Art.  “For Jews,” Israel Shamir points out, “their group interest lies in undermining visual art, for they can’t compete with it. Even deeper group interest is to undermine Christianity, their main enemy.”

To undermine. To corrupt. To create discord. To drive crazy. To destroy. Verbs to remember. Let’s begin our tour of the art world, with Israel Shamir as our guide, and try to gain an insight into what is going on.

Gallery Hopping With Mr Shamir

One day, Shamir finds himself in the Basque capital of Bilbao in Spain. He has come to check out the museum of modern art built by the fabulously rich (Jewish) Guggenheim family. The biggest building in Spain, the Guggenheim Museum impresses Shamir profoundly — it’s like something out of a science-fiction movie — but once he steps inside the building he is acutely disappointed.

Hey, what on earth is all this junk? Pieces of corrugated iron lying around like in a scrap yard. Rusty iron plates in one corner. Video screens blinking away inanely. Bare geometric forms. And, believe it or not, an entire floor devoted to a collection of Armani suits. Boy, I’m outa here! Shamir mutters to himself, making a beeline for the Exit.

And what does he do next? He hops on a plane to Venice, and now we see him poking around the famous Biennale Museum, trying to make sense out of a collection of  trashed cars on display. Mopping his brow feverishly, he needs to sit down to collect his wits. No, don’t sit there, sir — those chairs are a precious work of art! You want to read a good book, Mr Shamir, to take your mind of all this junk? No problem. Here’s a bookcase full of books. Help yourself. Or rather, don’t help yourself! This bookcase, crammed with moldy old books, is also a sublime work of art! Yes, all the way from sublime, artistic Israel!

One might have thought that, after suffering all these disappointments, Mr Shamir would have packed it in and gone back to Jaffa, determined never to set foot in an art gallery again. But no, a glutton for punishment, our art guide now decides to visit a museum in Amsterdam where he is confronted by a collection of decomposed pig trunks. To his astonishment, he learns that a cadaver immersed in formaldehyde, on display in this same museum, has been purchased for $50,000 by a rich American. Wow, a corpse collector!

His disillusionment is total when, on visiting Copenhagen, he finds himself in the church of St Nicholas. Being a convert to Christianity, maybe he goes in there to pray. If so, he is saddened to have his mind polluted by the pictures he sees on the walls of that venerable old church. Here’s a color photograph of a naked old woman, withered and sick. And here, right next to it, is a huge blown-up picture of the female genitalia.  And what’s this? Oh, nothing to worry about! Just a photo of a couple of guys having oral sex.  Hey man, c’mon! This is a healthy and natural act! What better place for the celebration of joyous pagan sexuality than a Christian church?

“Whatever they proclaimed as art, was art,” Shamir concludes ruefully. “In the beginning, these were works of some dubious value like the ‘abstract paintings’ of Jackson Pollock. Eventually we came to rotten swine, corrugated iron, and Armani suits.  Art was destroyed.” [My italics.]

The Jewish Connection

So what does all this have to do with the Jews? Plenty. If you want to play that fascinating game known as Cherchez le Juif, let’s continue our tour of the contemporary art world.

You will meet many artists, quite a few of them pliant and accommodating non-Jews, who are prepared to jump through the hoops set before them by their Masters: the ubiquitous Jews lurking in the shadows. The men who call the shots. The men with the money. The men whom the artist must learn to please and flatter if he hopes to get ahead and become rich and famous.

The ambitious artist will find himself drawn inevitably into a Jewish world. He will learn to pepper his conversation with Yiddish phrases. He will never breathe a word of criticism  against Israel, no matter what atrocities that country is in the process of committing. He will sneer at Muslims, the Qur’an and the Palestinians. He will find it pays dividends to insult Christianity, the religion of his forefathers. He will mention the Holocaust, whenever possible, with moist eyes; and he will paint as many pictures of Auschwitz as he can, preferably with chimneys belching black smoke.

All this has been done by goy artists. The proof for these claims can be found here in this enormous archive of art information. I have drawn upon it heavily.

Even the great Picasso knew he was appeasing the Jews when he embraced his friend Pierre Daix and confided in a low voice, “To think that painters once thought they could paint The Massacre of the Innocents!” He was clearly echoing or anticipating Adorno’s “There can be no poetry after Auschwitz.” If there can be no poetry after Auschwitz, there can be no art either — certainly not Christian art.

Andy Warhol knew better than most how to ingratiate himself with the Jews. His 1980 series, “Ten Portraits of Jews of the Twentieth Century,” features ten portraits of what Warhol referred to as “Jewish geniuses,” one of whom was Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir — the “genius” who said there were no Palestinians, adding with her famous flair for the witty phrase: “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Another “genius” was Sigmund Freud, whom Kevin MacDonald has described as having perpetrated the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century — a fraud that was very useful in constructing the culture of Western suicide.


Warhol’s portraits of Gold Meir and Sigmund Freud, from his Ten Portraits of Jews of the Twentieth Century series

Warhol seems to have put his considerable charm to work with Henry Geldzahler, curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art — an influential Jew who happened, like Warhol, to be homosexual. “Although they were never lovers, the relationship became intimate,” we are assured by one of Warhol’s biographers. “Andy spoke to Henry on the phone every night before he went to sleep and every morning as soon as he woke up.” I am not saying that Warhol and Geldzahler were lovers, though others have said so. That’s of no interest to me. All I’m suggesting is that Warhol, a notorious opportunist, found it helped his career to cultivate the Jews. His appeal, in the words of film critic Carrie Rickey, was to the “synagogue circuit.”

Transvestite potter Grayson Perry — here he is receiving the Turner Prize for his inspired pots — knew his success depended less on his talents than on the advertising genius of his plutocratic patron Charles Saatchi. He was well aware, moreover, that Islamophobia can always be relied on to win friends and influence people in the Judeocentric art world. “The reason I haven’t gone all out to attack Islamism in my art,” he confides fearlessly, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.” Avoiding controversial political statements in the interests of discretion, Perry decided to devote his life to producing ceramic pots depicting “explicit scenes of sexual perversion.” It must have been a tough decision.

The potter wore bobbysox … Grayson Perry poses with his wife Phillippa and daughter Flo after winning the Turner Prize.

Non-Jewish artists such as Anselm Kiefer, Christian Boltanski and Christopher Williams have been almost as prolific in their production of Holocaust paintings as Jewish painter RB Kitaj, a man whose obsession with Auschwitz has often been noted. “The chimney in a Kitaj painting,” art pundit Juliet Steyn informs us, “functions as an indictment on Christianity.” Translation: After Auschwitz, who needs Golgotha?

RB Kitaj’s Passion (1940–45): Cross and Chimney

Entrance through the Gate Exit from the Chimney by Joseph Bau

As for Andres Serrano with his Piss Christ and Chris Ofili with his dung-bedecked Holy Virgin Mary — the Madonna surrounded by pictures of the female genitals cut from pornographic magazines — both these emotionally immature artists were clearly aware that contempt for Christ and his mother is often pleasing to the Jews.


Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary and Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ

Artists? These men are more like circus dogs, trained to jump through hoops and beg for bones from their masters. It’s the men with the money, the Saatchis and the Guggenheims,  who crack the whip.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name.

Permanent link:  http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/2009/09/the-plot-against-art-part-1/

Click here to go to Part 2.

Signs of the Times, Part II: Post-Democracy in the Age of Simulation

Democracy — the exception to the rule in world history — belongs to the unique cultural signature of Western civilization. The societies of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Celts and Germans all shared a similar proto-democratic, tribal organization going back to a common Indo-European social order. In the course of its civilizational history, Western democracy has been transformed from direct city-state democracy to modern representative nation-state democracy. In the final, “globalitarian” state of its evolution, Western democracy resembles a “red giant” running out of fuel, gradually collapsing into a “white dwarf” called post-democracy.

Detail from the Acropolis, Athens

Jacques Rancière observes that the term ‘democracy’ does not strictly designate either a form of society or a form of government. Every state is oligarchic; every democracy contains an “oligarchic nucleus” — consisting of a “creative minority,” whose “creative power,” in Arnold J. Toynbee’sinterpretation, has been crucial to the rise and demise of civilizations throughout history.

Since government is “always exercised by the minority over the majority,” Rancière points out, there is strictly speaking “no such thing as democratic government”:

We do not live in democracies. … We live in States of oligarchic law … where … [oligarchic elites] hold free elections. These elections essentially ensure that the same dominant personnel is reproduced, albeit under interchangeable labels, but the ballot boxes are generally not rigged and one can verify it without risking one’s life. … Peaceful oligarchic government redirects democratic passions toward private pleasures and renders people insensitive to the public sphere. … [T]he multitude, freed of the worry of governing, is left to its private and egotistical passions.

In a post-democratized world run by inevitable oligarchies, Colin Crouch points out, “political elites have learned to manage and manipulate popular demands,” persuading people to vote by “top-down publicity campaigns.”Governing today, says Baudrillard, “is like advertising and it is the same effect that is achieved — commitment to a scenario.” The political world intensively imitates the methods of other more self-confident spheres like show business and the marketing of goods.  From this emerge the familiar paradoxes of contemporary politics:

[B]oth the techniques for manipulating public opinion and the mechanisms for opening politics to scrutiny become ever more sophisticated, while the content of party programmes and the character of party rivalry become ever more bland and vapid.

As Western societies are increasingly “moving towards the post-democratic pole”, politics and government are “slipping back into the control of privileged elites in the manner characteristic of pre-democratic times.” Elections become tightly controlled spectacles, managed by rival teams of professional experts in the techniques of persuasion.

This state of affairs can be illustrated by the last US presidential election. One of the key players in Obama’s election campaign was his chief strategist and “stage director” David Axelrod, the son of Jewish refugees escaping the pogroms of Eastern Europe. In the battle for America 2008, David Axelrod was in command of the successfully orchestrated transformation of “a whisper inSpringfield,” into “a chorus of millions calling for change.” The Obama campaign strategy was the work of a man who knows his trade: the business of astroturfing — i.e., the faking or manipulation of grassroots support, for example by setting up front groups that appear to be independent but are, in fact, backed financially by Axelrod’s corporate clients. One of Axelrod’s companies, the highly secretive ASK Public Strategies has been described as “the gold standard in Astroturf organizing.”

Axelrod has a long history of getting racial and ethnic minority candidates elected into key positions of power, apparently in an attempt to transform Tocqueville’s democratic “tyranny of the majority” into a post-democratic tyranny of the minorities”: Carol Moseley-Braun in Illinois; Dennis Archer in Detroit; Harold Washington in Chicago; Michael R. White in Cleveland; Anthony A. Williamsin Washington, D.C.; Lee P. Brown in Houston; John F. Street in Philadelphia, Eliot Spitzer in New York, Deval Patrick in Massachusetts (introducing the later recycled mantra “Yes, we can”), reaching a crescendo in the swift rise to power of Barack Obama — sometimes portrayed as an African-American parallel to the African-Roman emperor Septimius Severus.

The case of David Axelrod, thus, seems to fit into a larger picture of minority activism, guided by a special relationship — a “Grand Alliance” — between African Americans and American Jews. In this setting, Jews have often seen themselves as shareholders in a moral crusade. According to Hasia Diner, the Jewish cultural construction of Blacks has operated along the lines of a morality tale in which Blacks have been seen as noble victims, who, by virtue of their suffering, fall outside of the usual category of “goyim,” thus occupying a unique locus in the Jewish understanding of the world.

Despite Jewish self-conceptions, the realities “on the ground” have less to do with Jews as moral crusaders than about forming anti-White coalitions of minority groups. Lawrence R. Marcus points out that the coalition of African Americans and Jews came about because “both feared WASPs, non-Jewish white ethnics, and conservative Republicans more than they feared each other.” As Scott Atran notes, Jews have survived over time as a group by “sanctifying and steadfastedly implementing an ‘Us versus Them’ strategy”. Guided by this ancient Manichean instinct, “a highly sophisticated and pernicious two-faced moral system” has been developed, according to which humanist and universalist language games are intended “for show mainly to non-Jews,” while parallel “deeply racist and isolationist” strategies are employed to “maintain moral integrity among Jews alone”:

Jewish cultural and genetic separatism, combined with resource competition and other conflicts of interest, tends to result in division and hatred within the larger society. From this viewpoint, anti-Semitism is a ‘defensive’ response of the larger society from which Jews isolate themselves in order to better dominate it. … Jewish group evolutionary strategies, like those of its competitor groups and even those of other animal species, depend crucially on deception and self-deception […]. In the Jewish case, a key (self?) deception is to deny that proactive Judaism is a direct cause of anti-Semitism.

As Kevin MacDonald points out, “Jewish motivation need not be seen in defensive terms … but rather as aimed at maximizing Jewish power. The reality is that the rise of the Jews in the United States, as well as the rise of their black allies and the millions of post-1965 non-white immigrants has been accompanied by a consequent decline in the power of the old white Protestant elites.”

Indeed, not only was the organized Jewish community the most effective force leading up to the 1965 immigration law that resulted in massive non-White immigration, the organized Jewish community has made alliances with other minority groups (Latinos, Asians) that have established themselves in the US as a result of a liberal immigration policy regime. The result has been a well-established pattern for non-White minorities to cluster in the Democratic Party, while the Republican Party gets over 90% of its votes from Whites. As Donald L. Horowitz confirms:

Where ethnic loyalties are strong, parties tend to organize along ethnic lines for much the same reasons that other organizations, such as trade unions, social clubs, chambers of commerce, and neighborhood associations, tend to be ethnically exclusive. … The communitarian aspect of ethnicity propels group members toward concentrated party loyalties. … In any society, members of various ethnic groups rarely distribute themselves randomly among competing parties. Where conflict levels are high, however, ethnic parties reflect something more than mere affinity and a vague sense of common interest. That something is the mutual incompatibility of ethnic claims to power. Since the party aspires to control the state, and in conflict-prone polities ethnic groups also attempt to exclude others from state power, the emergence of ethnic parties is an integral part of this political struggle.

Ethnic conflict is a continuing reality in world affairs and at the heart of the construction of culture in contemporary Western societies. Issues of cosmopolitanism, tribalism, race and ethnicity have been revived in the aftermath of the descent of the nation states in the West. Global, competing tribes — Jews, Occidental Whites, East Asians etc. — are today’s quintessential cosmopolitans in contrast to the often narrow horizons and infighting passions of the territorial-centred nations of modernity. As Joel Kotkin points out:

Born amidst optimism for the triumph of a rational and universal world order, the twentieth century [ended] with an increased interest in the power of race, ethnicity and religion rather than the long-predicted universal age or the end of history.  The quest for the memory and spirit of the specific ethnic past has once again been renewed; the results will shape the [21st] century.

The “social volcanoes” of racialized tribalism are reportedly erupting. As the fossilized nation-states no longer have a dominant, credible ideology to supply a social cohesiveness for the modern world, we are seeing the nations breaking up into competing ethnic and racial groups. Post-WWII Western states have been transformed into obscure “museums for freedom and the Rights of Man,” reducing the political left to “a pure moral injunction,” in the words of Baudrillard:

A morality of Truth, Rights and good conscience: the zero degree of politics and probably the lowest point of a genealogy of morals as well. This moralization of values was a historic defeat for the left (and for thinking): that the historical truth of any event, the aesthetic quality of any work, the scientific pertinence of any hypothesis would necessarily have to be judged in terms of morals.

A “renaissance of particularisms” is occurring: “regional and tribal identities are being revived.” Samuel E. Heilman describes the way, “following on the heels of a renascent black consciousness, a celebration of ethnicity emerged at the end of the sixties as a response to the decline of the WASP establishment, which the revolutionary atmosphere of the decade had ensured.” The resulting re-emergence of tribalism can be observed in numerous signs of the times, as in the paradoxically race-charged, iconic status and tribal aura of Black leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama. As Grant Farred points out,

what is salient about Obama’s politics is its specifically South African roots. Obama traces his political awakening to the divestment movement [….] Obama locates himself within a radical African-American tradition of internationalist thinking that connects him intimately to black leaders such as W. E. B. Du Bois and theBlack Panthers, both of whom forged links with African anti-colonial or liberation movements.

Ama Mazama argues that “it is evident that race, even when, or especially when its significance is minimized on the surface, remains at the forefront of any meaningful understanding of the Barack Obama phenomenon.” Obama (as well as the hard core of his entourage) seems to personify a post-modern amalgamation of racialized tribalism and cosmopolitanism. In a global age, ethnic or tribal interests are played out on a global scale, transcending the linear borders of the decaying nation states.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Under these circumstances, those who play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules of individual isolation can be easily overrun and outmaneuvered by collective ethnic and tribal cooperation. The dysfunctional asymmetries of elite-promoted “Enlightenmentism” are too obvious to derail Whites from eventually taking part in the same ballgame being played by aggressive minorities with victimological claims to moral, cultural, political and socio-economic hegemony.

The Obama Spectacle as Soap Opera and Reality Show

The “hyper-reality” of “Obamamania” —  a bipolar phenomenon fluctuating between excessive celebration of racial tribalism (dressed up as “post-racial” egalitarianism) and a flagellant masquerade of promiscuous out-group altruism — reveals itself in the fact that the real-life Obama campaign followed the script of the fictional presidential contest in Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing.

Eli Attie, one of the West Wing scriptwriters, modeled his fictitious presidential candidate on Obama, at the time (2004) not even a US senator. Attie consulted Axelrod regarding how he was orchestrating Obama’s approach to his race. Axelrod’s answers helped inform the fictional presidential candidate Matt Santos‘s approach to his Hispanic racial identity. It was an inside joke on theWest Wing that “the show had a prophetic quality”; Axelrod told Attie triumphantly that “we’re living your scripts!

Barack Obama and The West Wing’s Matt Santos

Baudrillard judged Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” to be the key formula of the age of simulation, staging a social world filled with copies of copies for which there is no original — rootless, circulating images and fictions without origin or referent, displacing discursive meaning with a stream of “random intensities” and a fetishism of style and surface.  As noted by Baudrillard:

Indifferent to every truth, reality becomes a sort of sphinx, enigmatic in its hyperconformity, simulating itself as virtuality or reality show. Reality becomes hyperreality — paroxysm and parody all at once.

So, what happens when life starts to look a lot like art? Is Obama a real president, or is he just acting out the sound bites fed him by his handlers? Scriptwriters, spin-doctors and benefactors dwelling in the shadows of the West Wing would probably have reacted to observations of empty rhetoric with a shrug: “The medium is the message is Obama,” or, in Eli Attie’s twist of words, “art imitates life imitates art advises life“ — a situation described by Baudrillard as trans-aesthetic, effecting “the dissolution of television into life” and “the dissolution of life into television.” Obama – also known as the “HBO president” – was reportedly so addicted to Entourage and The Wire that he rearranged his campaign commitments in order not to miss an episode —apparently spellbound by the media world’s ability to be more real than “ordinary life.”  As Baudrillard notes,

[T]he truth of mass media is that they function to neutralize the unique character of actual world events by replacing them with a multiple universe of mutually reinforcing and self-referential media. At the very limit, they become each other’s reciprocal content — and this constitutes the totalitarian ‘message’ of the consumer society.

Turning life into escapist entertainment is, as Neal Gabler points out, “a perversely ingenious adaptation to the turbulence and tumult of modern existence.” Celebrities are “the icons of media culture, the gods and goddesses of everyday life.” In the world of spectacle, celebrity encompasses every major social domain from entertainment to politics to sports to business. Celebrity has become the post-modern state of grace, “the condition in the life movie to which nearly everyone aspires.”

It is not any ism but entertainment that is arguably the most pervasive, powerful and ineluctable force of our time — a force so overwhelming that it has finally metastasized into life. As a tool of analysis, entertainment may just be what undergirds and unites ideas as disparate as Boorstin’s theory of manufactured reality, Marshall McLuhan’s doctrine of media determinism, the deconstructionist notion that culture is actually a collectively scripted text, and so much of the general perspective we call postmodernism.

Welcome to “the world of post-reality”: Life as the biggest, most entertaining, most realistic, omni-ever-present movie of all. Politics was, according to Gabler, among the very first arenas (after journalism) to adopt “the stratagems of show business” — a “Hollywoodization” marked bycommercialization … the disregard of privacy, the trivialization of the serious … the erosion of the boundaries between the real and the imagined, between fact and fiction, and between news and entertainment.“

Both journalism and politics have modeled themselves on advertising copy: very brief messages — visual images and sound bites — requiring extremely low concentration spans; the use of words to form high-impact images instead of arguments appealing to the intellect. As Colin Crouch points out:

Advertising is not a form of rational dialogue. It does not build up a case based on evidence, but associates its products with a particular imagery. … Its aim is not to engage in discussion but to persuade to buy.  Adoption of its methods has helped politicians to cope with the problem of communicating to a mass public; but it has not served the cause of democracy itself.

The post-WWII-era politician has, according to Gabler, “simply become another kind of star, the political process another form of show, and television its best stage.” In the early 1960s, Norman Mailer prophesied  — with JFK in mind — that “America’s politics would now be also America’s favorite movie.” Interestingly, JFK’s father Joe Kennedy was a film producer, as well as an ambassador, financier, and bootlegger. Reagan – “the acting president – compared his daily routine at the White House with the routine of an actor: preparing at night for the next day’s lines and scenes.  Clinton was labeled the “Entertainer-in-Chief”, providing “cheap entertainment”: sex scandals, soap opera, melodrama, impeachment, survival under constant adversity etc. Politics has been transformed into “politainment” — presidentialized, “Hollywoodized,” “post-democratized.”

By the new politics of entertainment, “the presidency has become the circus, the media are the ringmasters and we all sit in the bleachers clapping, stamping and cheering for the show to go on.” Silence is banished as media images and texts never fall silent: “Images and messages must follow one upon the other without interruption,” as Baudrillard points out. In order to “hit the jackpot” in this entertainment-driven, celebrity-oriented climate, Neal Gabler notes, it becomes vital to grab and hold the public’s attention:

It is a society in which those things that do not conform — for example, serious literature, serious political debate, serious ideas, serious anything — are more likely to be compromised or marginalized than ever before.  It is a society in which celebrities become paragons because they are the ones who have learned how to steal the spotlight, no matter what they have done to steal it. … [I]t is a society in which individuals have learned to prize social skills that permit them, like actors, to assume whatever role the occasion demands and to ‘perform’ their lives rather than just live them. The result is that Homo sapiens is rapidly becoming Homoscaenicus — man the entertainer.

Obama the entertainer is expected to be a combination of scoutmaster, Delphic oracle, hero of the silver screen and father of the multitudes.” Gene Healy has observed the unrealistic expectations Americans have of their presidents, predicting that Obama will end up as a failed president. The decreasingly hagiographic media reports largely seem to tell the same story, portraying an increasingly fading icon elevated to the pinnacle of power by elite-orchestrated mass hysteria:

People scream and faint at [Obama’s] rallies. Some wear T-shirts proclaiming him “The One” and noting that “Jesus was a community organiser.” An editor at Newsweek described him as “above the country, above the world; he’s sort of God.” … Perhaps Mr Obama inwardly cringes at the personality cult that surrounds him. But he has hardly discouraged it. As a campaigner, he promised to “change the world,” to “transform this country” and even (in front of a church full of evangelicals) to “create a Kingdom right here on earth.”

In an age of spectacle politics, as Douglas Kellner points out, US presidencies are staged to the public in cinematic terms, using media spectacle to sell the image of the president to a vast, diverse but seducible public. Politics is reduced to image, display and story in the forms of entertainment and drama. The presidential culture of personality and the swing toward mediatized politainment reflects a shift from a culture of individualism, with self-directed people shaping their own lives, to an “other-directed culture of conformity in which people are guided by the media and external social authorities.”

Aviopolis: Hyper-Surveillance as a Risk Management Strategy

As demonstrated in The Culture of Critique, aggressive minority activism can have a destabilizing and even transformational effect on a civilization’s oligarchic nucleus (its elites), gradually being transmitted by mimesis into mainstream culture. With growing degrees of coherence, structural complexity and heterogeneity, minuscule causes and self-catalyzing reactions can sometimes have fatal, long-term effects.

As Gregory G. Brunk points out, the greater the level of complexity, the closer a system (e.g., a civilization) is to a completely critical state. As societal structures become so inter-connected and hyper-sensitive that failure in one important subsystem affects all others, the whole hierarchy sometimes comes crashing down like a house of cards, as demonstrated by the financial collapse of 2008.

Under the instability of the system, orchestrating social control becomes crucial in order to keep the centrifugal forces at bay. Post-democratized states in the West address the control issue by imploding into “risk-avoidance organizations,” in which security displaces freedom and equality in the hierarchies of values and priorities. The quest for security occurs in a heated atmosphere of constant stress characterized by apocalypticism, alarm, excessive media spin, dialectical extremes of heaven and hell, epidemic hysteria and moral panics.

Under such extreme conditions, radical surveillance and risk-management strategies are in great demand and good supply — facilitating, as Clive Norrisobserves, “the power of the watchers over the watched not only by enabling swift intervention to displays of non-conformity but also through the promotion of habituated anticipatory conformity.”

As a consequence of the post-9-11 implementation and generalization of the airport surveillance model, normalizing a constant state of emergency in the name of “seamless security”, whole societies become soaked up in the gravitational field of the airport version of Orwellian dystopia, the exception thus becoming the rule: “levered into position through the politics of crisis and fear, biometrics quietly moves out of the spaces of exception into the open circuits of capital and regulation, becoming part of the information architecture of everyday life. Anyone who resists patching their body into a global network of tracking and control will simply not gain access.”

Passenger screening becomes citizen screening (employee identification, controlled access, perimeter security, biometrics etc.).  Secure areas, “sterile areas”, exclusive areas, security identification display areas (SIDA) – with their impressive arsenals of magnetometers, x-ray machines, ETD and EDS systems, and high-tech surveillance – are swelling and expanding far beyond the compounds of traditional airports: enter the dystopian world of “Aviopolis” – the catapults of globalization:

The airport has evolved into a complex techno-cultural machine. … Planes, people, cars, aviation fuel, freight, and catering are constantly plugging in, peeling off or just passing through the airport. Airports are multi-platform, multi-dimensional, multi-tasking movement machines. Like a complex overlapping of co-evolving biotechnical systems, airports around the world process millions of things (people, messages, cargo, missions, procedures) in unlimited combinations every day. … The variety of internationalist protocols, immigration, flight path routing, safety standards, corporate ‘customer focus’, airside management, signage systems, landside access and flow management converge and create architectures of global logistics.

Airports are sites of routinized paranoia (every passenger is a suspect, a potential security threat). Nowhere else is the post-democratic order more unveiled. Distinctions between private space and public space have collapsed to create spaces in which the airport is “a logistical node in a global network”:

Visible to all, only our thoughts move in private (though soon neuroscience and brain imaging may put an end to even that). Our baggage, our bodies, our movements are all part of an encompassing spectacle. … Flesh to image to code and back again, security machines scan us both inside and out. … Flesh, body and name are matched simultaneously to info-body and database — a body of electronic traces, image archives and credit card purchases, social security information, and travel itineraries, each hooked into another body (of information). … The increase of biometric technologies (along with DNA mapping and a whole range of biotech industries) seems to signal a new development in the very ancient ‘sympathetic magic’ of mimesis – a shift away from the visual to a more intimate form of contact based on manipulating a variable databody (and not on representing the body as an image). … With the rise of biometric systems of control access, life becomes quite literally a pattern match, and identity politics starts looking very weird. No longer just concerned with gross categories like race, gender, sexuality and the like, the apparatuses of state capture have gone cellular and the biological caesuras that race once ensured can be refined into other areas. … Identity in a biometric world of code is … now a data match fractured across multiple programmes in n-dimensional space: identity becomes a roaming oscillation, looking for a pattern match in a machine. In a world of global movement where global migrations and mass media have troubled the once easy attribution of race with otherness, regulative technologies move beyond the skin to code life itself: everyone is captured in this net.

Biometrics is a method of controlling the chaos of movement, of keeping people in or out: of buildings, of websites, or countries. Biometrics is part of traffic management. Traffic management is part of security and security is part of service. Accelerating surveillance becomes “fluid” and omnipresent — even merging with show-business in the form of “Big Brother”-style reality TV, a radical transmutation of Orwell’s totalitarian nightmare. As Daniel Boorstin observed, entertainment has – like a cultural Ebola virus – “invaded organisms no one would ever have imagined could provide amusement.” Indeed, the “liquid” stage of late modernity as a phase of civilizational transition is characterized by a “spinning vortex of events,” “gigantic circumvolution” and circular flow:politics and government – increasingly becoming bureaucratized and “re-feudalized” through nepotism, clannishness, and the circulation of elites – retreat into paranoid risk-management and omniscient surveillance. Surveillance penetrates everyday existence and entertainment. Showbiz flows and soaks into politics (“politainment”). And democracy dissolves into diffuse post-democracy as Western civilization undergoes a process of obscuration and hybridization. The wheel has turned full circle.

E. R. E. Knutsson (email him) is a freelance writer.

Is America, Too, Breaking Up? Or, Nothing Succeeds Like Secession

To say that the last few generations have been a demographic disaster for many White populations around the world is an understatement. That Whites in America are now slated to fall to a mere half of the population by 2042 is but one of the more telling signs of this sad truth.

Firebrand Pat Buchanan has been aware of this threat for a long time and even wrote a searing book on the subject, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization.

Recently, while returning from a conference in Europe, he had the chance to reflect on trends in America, and came to a possibly pessimistic conclusion, “Is America Coming Apart?

We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others’ throats….

In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?

Tellingly — for those who didn’t already know — Buchanan is talking about what most of us think of when we say “Whites.” And this pointedly excludes Jews, as indicated by the following: “The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking.” Trust me, he has my full agreement on that definition of Whites.

Buchanan then asks us, “If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago.”

And that, in short, is what I would like to write about today: Should America break up into more homogeneous parts, in large measure to assure the survival and eventual prosperity of Whites? In other words, is secession of one or more sectors of America a viable option?

Writers for The Occidental Quarterly (print and online) as well as those here at TOO have weighed in on the issue before. For example, a year ago editor Kevin MacDonald explicitly stated his case in the editorial “Secession and implicit whiteness,” writing, “Secession is certainly an option that has occurred to whites intent on preserving the traditional people and culture of the US.”

A chief reason that secession is an option is the widespread sense that the American system is beyond repair, at least with respect to the interests of Whites. As the TOO editorial noted, “44% agreed that ‘the United States’ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.’” Further, in a 2006 poll released by CNN, 71% of Americans agreed that “our system of government is broken and cannot be fixed.”

The present system is indeed broken and cannot be fixed. And like it or not, it will continue to get worse either at the present rate or at an increasing rate as far as Whites are concerned. What to do, then?

First, study the problem and consider options. One could do worse than turn to Michael O’Meara’s award-winning TOQ essay “Toward the White Republic” for both. He wrote that “white nationalists at present have no hope of actually mobilizing the white populace in opposition to the existing anti-white regime. Rather, their immediate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it — in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.”

Sam Dickson’s point at last year’s American Renaissance conference parallels this: “What I want is a homeland for my race, on this continent, and homelands for our people in Europe, in our lands of ancestral origin. . . . Is it extreme for us to ask for a homeland for our own people?”

Note O’Meara’s take on how the system broke:

When the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired “mandate of heaven,” endeavored to turn Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state system into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic identity — an assault whose overarching aim has been to undermine the population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices facilitating its “demographic” reconstitution. The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve as an instrument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.

O’Meara offers a growing framework for addressing this problem:

Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival — and the prospect of being able to fight another day.

To do that, one must live. But where, how?

For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, we are surrounded by armed forces seeking our destruction; we are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being ordered in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if we’re doomed.

Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life.

In the last sixty years, absolutely NOTHING — not one little thing — has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America. . . .

But even if [reform is] feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for.

The next question is, which sections should break away? Having grown up in one of the thousands of small White towns still left in America (look at the figures for Whites in such places even now: 94.25%, 95.41%, 98.14%, 93.13%), I know there is an enormous pool of potential recruits in this struggle, since these towns are at a minimum full of “implicit Whiteness” — the often unconscious attraction of Whites to other White people and to White culture. We were and are the people Buchanan and others are writing about. We’re part of “Red State” America, the landlocked eastern sector of “flyover country,” derisively named by those who think only New York, Los Angeles and possibly San Francisco are worth their time.

Frankly, where I grew up, people didn’t think a whole lot of New York and New Yorkers, pretty much considering it and its inhabitants a foreign country — the John Rocker worldview, if you’d like.

Oh, I understand that our contempt for much of the Blue State world is returned by those who despise us. Sadly, they are largely in control of our culture (or what’s left of it, as they say) and we’ve had to endure their open hatred for decades now. Take novelist Philip Roth, for example. Today the geriatric Roth has become the paranoid and hate-filled Jew he had railed against forty years ago. This was abundantly clear by the time he released The Plot Against America (2005). Never mind that white Christian boys and men went to die for the Jews’ enemy in World War II in a very unnecessary war. Roth is still consumed with a vision of a Jew-hating goyish nation led by Charles Lindbergh.

Roth’s hatred has become so palpable that the review of The Plot Against America in The American Conservative concluded, “This is a repellent novel, bigoted and libelous of the dead, dripping with hatred of rural America, of Catholics, of any Middle American who has ever dared stand against the war machine.”

Last year we were treated to yet more goy hatred in Roth’s latest, Indignation, a book that even half-Jewish Christopher Hitchens hated. Attending a college in small-town America not unlike the ones I wrote about above, Roth’s Jewish protagonist can barely stand the locals:

More than a few times during the first weeks, I thought I heard myself being summoned to one of the rowdier tables with the words “Hey, Jew! Over here!” But, preferring to believe the words spoken had been simply “Hey, you! Over here!” I persisted with my duties, determined to abide by the butcher-shop lesson learned from my father: slit the ass open and stick your hand up and grab the viscera and pull them out; nauseating and disgusting, but it had to be done.

Years ago, Hollywood insider Ben Stein detailed what the coastal elites thought about the rest of the country. In his essay, “Whatever happened to small-town America?” he explored television’s pronounced hostility toward rural (read Christian) America. Overwhelmingly Jewish, the television elite, like its Hollywood counterpart, imagined that small-town goyim naturally meant harm to the Jews. “As a result, when he [a Jewish TV writer] gets the chance, he attacks the small town on television or the movies.” (See here for my thoughts on this phenomenon.)

As I said, it is Jews of Stein’s and Roth’s milieu that rule America, occupying the top ranks of academia, journalism, the legal system, Wall Street, Washington, as well as Hollywood and TV. Doesn’t this represent the kind of broken marriage Pat Buchanan alluded to? Might not it be past time for a divorce?

Respected military strategist William S. Lind thinks such split — secession in political terms — has a future in America. His important article, “Calling President Davis,” begins succinctly: ”Secession is in the air.” One of the many good points he makes is this: “If America breaks up it is likely to do so along non-geographic lines. Fourth Generation theory suggests that the new primary identities for which people are likely to vote, work and fight will not be geographical. Rather, they will be cultural, religious, racial or ethnic, ideological, etc. Following the sorts of massacres, ethnic cleansings, pogroms and genocides such Fourth Generation civil wars usually involve, new geographically defined states may emerge. But their borders will derive from cultural divides more than geographic ones.”

Several White Nationalist thinkers such as the late National Alliance leader William Pierce, have turned to fiction to reach an audience not likely to sit through measured rational arguments calling for rebellion against the forces that oppress them. Lind too turned to the novel. Called Victoria, it incorporated Lind’s ideas about Fourth Generation warfare, positing a second American Civil War. It never found a publisher, however, which Lind blamed on Political Correctness. Be that as it may, “the idea of an American break-up,” he wrote, “is no longer off the charts.”

While Lind feels secession will come about along non-geographical fault lines, most other secessionists feel it will be based on contiguous territory. One of the leading writers in this camp is Harold Covington, a rather unusual individual, to say the least. Still, if we can learn from his novels, then it might be worth taking his ideas seriously. Besides, numerous pro-White bloggers have been making the case that reasoned argument will never move the masses. What is needed is style, or myth, as O’Meara argued:

All great movements . . . are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths . . . For it is myth — and the memories and hopes animating it — that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

TOQ editor Greg Johnson recently wrote a brilliant review of Covington’s secessionist novels, the so-called Northwest Quartet. Like O’Meara, he sees working within the current American system as a dead end:

Fortunately, we know that the US system is moving full steam toward catastrophes on a number of different tracks. The political system is captive to minority and foreign interests and cannot pursue the common good. Our Israel-first foreign adventurism and profligate welfare spending are economically unsustainable. Multiculturalism and non-white immigration are leading to the ever-intensified degradation and dispossession of whites, which can only lead to increased ethnic conflict. Affirmative action and corruption have filled the government with incompetent employees who are parasites at best and actively throttle productivity and sow social chaos at worst. Education and popular culture continue their descent. The system is dependent on ever-increasing technological sophistication to exploit diminishing natural resources, yet the demographic trends are profoundly dysgenic. Morons are reproducing faster than geniuses, and the political system enfranchises and caters to the morons, with their high time preferences and ignorance of the causes of order and wealth. Furthermore, as Sam Dickson has pointed out, the system apparently has no brakes. For example, even before Social Security was enacted, it was known to be unsustainable, but nothing has been done to solve the problem, only to postpone the final crash by a few election cycles. Of course the system might be able to survive one crisis at a time. But eventually several crises will converge, and the United States will not be able to survive intact.

I’ve begun A Mighty Fortress, the novel Johnson recommends as a good introduction to Covington’s work. One thing is for sure — Covington knows how to turn a phrase. For instance, he describes an attack on Federal troops this way: “The other major tickle out on Highway 169 was a simple Baghdad banger in a recycle bin beside the road. Humvee blown off the asphalt just out of Maplewood Heights. Three dead Fatties [Federal troops]. Pyrotechnics courtesy of Doctor Doom, some good old bathtub gelignite just like Mom used to make.”

Or this rebel’s dialogue: “We may have to do another off-Broadway production, sir, as in offing somebody on Broadway.”

Or this apt contrast between the America of old and now. Rebels are fighting so that a girl “can grow up in the world of Jane Austen again, instead of A Clockwork Orange.”

Like other White Nationalist fiction writers, Covington notes the target of the current liberal regime: White males. He writes: “In the America of the early twenty-first century, it didn’t pay for a white man to look too sharp. White males weren’t supposed to hold their heads up, especially in the Northwest, where some alert FBI agent or Fattie might wonder just what the hell a white boy was looking so chipper about.” Ain’t that the truth.

To say Covington is politically incorrect is an understatement, at least judging by his prose. The worldview he creates in A Mighty Fortress is one in which Whites and Jews are at war with each other, as indicated in this dialogue about dealing with the U.S. government:

Some people might advocate that we accept some kind of half a loaf as a springboard for something better in the future, but history proves that doesn’t work with ZOG. With liberal democracy, you start at a certain level of moral and decent existence and then everything decays from there, kind of like radioactive half life. The United States started at an exalted level in 1783 and it decayed from that point on. Anywhere there are Jews, things only go downhill. The only hope that our people have for any kind of continued existence is the absolute removal of the Jew and everything the Jew has created from our lives, our consciousnesses, our hearts and our souls. We’re like the wolves, the buffalo, the damned spotted owls. We’re an endangered species. White people have to have their own safe habitat, clean and uncontaminated, if we are to raise our young, build up our numbers and thrive once again.

(Speaking of ZOG, readers have to see former Congressman James Traficant’s first post-prison interview on Fox. Beginning at about 6:30 he says “I believe that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They control both members of the House, the House and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don’t beat you at the poll, they’ll put you in prison.” See full transcript here.)

From what I’ve read so far in this novel, the rebel movement is heavily composed of working class Whites, which is not a surprise considering how hard they have been hit by globalization. I can sympathize because small towns like mine have been decimated by the offshoring of so much of our industry.

Still, there is a resilience that was echoed in a previous TOO editorial on secession:

An excellent recent example is the video A Country Boy Can Survive by Hank Williams Jr. All the people in the video are working class whites from ‘little towns all around this land’ far from the city: ‘You only get mugged if you go downtown.’ And there is the confederate flag—a remnant of traditional Southern culture. The theme is that country people can survive because of their ability to live off the land. The US political system is broken and can’t be fixed within the present political structure. But they will survive.

So too in A Mighty Fortress. The fighters are men like “Farmer Brown” who have paid a heavy price under the current regime. Meanwhile, elite Whites such as cardiologist Edward Shipman support the system because they benefit from it. I suspect, however, that as the novels progress, more and more high status Whites will join the secession movement as they realize that at a minimum the lives of the children and grandchildren will be greatly diminished under an anti-White regime.

Lest the point about the reality of the anti-White regime in North America is not getting through, I will offer three versions of it, in increasing severity.

  • First, Kevin MacDonald wrote, “In the multicultural America of the near future, gulags and anti-White totalitarian controls are at least as likely as [a] multicultural utopia …. And if they can’t be ruled out, there is a compelling moral case to be made that Whites should not enter willingly into such a world. If there is one thing we should have learned by thinking about the history of the 20th century, it’s that we should not believe in utopias.”
  • Next, as Sam Dickson said at last year’s American Renaissance conference, “We need to understand that as far as the establishment that misrules our people all over the world is concerned, the only acceptable position on the future of the white race is genocide.”
  • Finally, consider the words of Andrew Hamilton: “Whether white survival ultimately takes the form of secession, reconquest, or even some newly-evolved type of genetically-based, non-territorial “peoplehood” . . . is less important, perhaps, than the realization of the obsessive hatred of the System for the white race. Whites can actively or passively accept it — and die — or they can fight it. The essential thing is to recognize with absolute clarity the uncompromising, nonnegotiable, genocidal character of the alien, anti-white System, and to oppose it with every fiber of one’s being on moral grounds.”

Personally, I take these descriptions literally, as I’ve written about before (see also here).

But I wonder what could serve as a catalyst for the break-up of America, a galvanizing event that would set spark to fuel? A commentator on O’Meara’s essay painted this scenario:

What may be a true catalyst for Whites to find their opening to rebel —without fear of looking back and seeing no one behind them, is a full economic collapse, as simplistic as that may appear. Once some pot-bellied, PC-brainwashed, NFL-following White fool is scrambling to find a quart of milk for his children while seeing Uncle Sam take care of non-Whites to ensure their breeding, along with comfortable, arrogant Jews who will not be able to abstain from rubbing it in, all bets are off. I have been surprised over the last 18 months as to how many “regular people”— Whites whom I would not have thought aware of the level of Jewish responsibility for our current situation — remark privately on things that show they do have a grasp of what’s up, and who’s the major force behind it. People need a situation as catalyst, they need to feel a good number of people are in it with them, and they need leaders. Right now, it is tough for Whites to speak up, as “The Machine” goes in high gear against them. There goes your job. There go your friends. They might agree, but they have to feed their kids.

The time may indeed be near for that break-up. As Buchanan concluded: “E pluribus unum” — out of many, one — was the national motto the men of ‘76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?”

When he asks, “Is America, too, breaking up?” one suspects the answer is “Yes.” But maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Time will tell.

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Racist Babies? Not a Joke — An Actual Concern of the MSM

Major newsmagazines like Time and Newsweek have descended into increasing irrelevance over the years, each one looking more like People magazine than a serious journal of the times.  Shorter articles, more fluff. But I could not resist picking up the latest Newsweek.  With a picture of white baby’s face on the cover, it asks in black lettering, “Is Your Baby Racist? Even in today’s political climate, I was taken aback.  Is it supposed to be humorous, like this? Well, no.  Like this article from the British press about kids who don’t like ethnic food, it’s serious. Your baby might actually be… racist. Just like your dog. Who knew that the $PLC and the SPCA would one day need to merge? The article itself is actually an excerpt from a book titled NurtureShock:  New Thinking About Children, by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman.  According to their bios, he’s a novelist in San Francisco with two children, while she runs a “church-based tutoring program” in Los Angeles’ inner city… and is apparently childless. Though the excerpt references the work of psychologists and research professors, neither Bronson nor Merryman appear to have any scientific credentials. But never mind.  Whatever else they’re preaching in NurtureShock, the MSM loves it, which of course only makes me deeply skeptical. In a nutshell, the research recounted by Bronson and Merryman shows that children as young as 6 months are able to distinguish among the races, that they’re troubled or puzzled by other races, and that as toddlers, they like to make generalizations and prefer the company of their own racial group. In other words, everything that we as racially conscious whites could have predicted. As Kevin MacDonald has written, this stuff goes all the way down to the amygdala. And it tracks the research of figures like Harvard’s Robert Putnam, who’s found that racial diversity, rather than making us happier, makes us all anxious and distrustful —even of persons in our racial group. Talk about inconvenient truths. Discovery that decades of multiracial propaganda, from Sesame Street to Dora the Explorer, have been useless exercises must be confounding. Amazingly, writers like Bronson and Merryman take this information and use it as a reason double-up racial mindwashing. Where, pray tell, is the “naturalism” so beloved by liberals?  The “let nature take its course” attitude that they apply to sexuality, for instance?  Can you imagine a sharp concern about “is your baby gay?” and efforts to uproot that? I can only hope that someone out there — unaware of the racial consciousness movement and its literature, but otherwise discerning — will take note of the concern over racist babies and dogs and think, “Wait, isn’t this all just a little bit crazy?” A pillar of the multiracialist movement is that “racism” is a conscious and evil choice, and that all that’s needed to cure it is more “education.”  Racist babies complicate that narrative.   Nobody really believes that babies are evil. How nicely the absurdity of multiracialism is revealed, then. Take this little gem from the Newsweek excerpt:  “Prone to categorization, children’s brains can’t help but attempt to generalize rules from the examples they see.” Of course, scientists also have brains that are “prone to categorization,” and if they didn’t, they wouldn’t make good scientists.  This is something children are to be faulted for? How to fix these racist babies?  You must be explicit with your child, Bronson and Merryman say, approvingly quoting one mother who hammered her child with “Remember, everybody’s equal” over and over. “Remember, everyone’s equal.”  Can’t anyone call this for what it is, brainwashing?  The error that needs force and constant propaganda rather than the truth that stands alone?  Winston Smith and the number of fingers being held up? It is fun to watch the scientific data collide so spectacularly with multiracial dogma.  As I see it, this collision splits off in only two directions:  one, a recognition of racial reality that leads to an informed discussion about the problems of multiracialism (and benefits Whites), or two, efforts to censor the information or provide increasingly desperate spins, all of which will be noted by smarter folks who might otherwise remain racially unconscious. In other words, talk of racist babies is “good for Whites.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Christopher Donovan (email him) is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Resurrecting Woodstock?

Sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. A time-proven recipe for poor choices. Forty years ago this summer a group of young promoters organized what is regarded as a milestone in popular music history. The result was a celebration of free love and tuning out.

The Woodstock Music Festival’s original producer Michael Lang had planned a revival for its 40th anniversary. The festival was canceled at the last minute due to lack of interest from sponsors.

If the festival was simply a money-making scheme, it was spectacularly ill-advised. The last minute rollback was unprofessional and unexpected considering Lang’s seasoned career. Could it be that the revival was aiming at something more?

The hippie generation was the death knell of what remained of traditional America. Woodstock was an advertisement glorifying that betrayal. So why do we need to relive it? Because the Obama-rose is fading.

What was Lang Selling?

The counterculture of the 1960s celebrated self-destructive behavior. Young people were told not to trust their parents, but to trust their university professors and pop culture figures instead. It was the flowering of Saul Alinsky and his anti-Western propaganda campaign. But behind the mask of flowers there was a warped and twisted face.

The 1960s drug culture has its roots in the US government’s truth-drug experiments for the MK-ULTRA program. The CIA contracted professors to test out various drugs, often on student volunteers. These programs were carried out at almost every elite US university.[1]

John Marks, a former officer of the United States Department of State, argues that the 1960s LSD craze was at least in part started by drugs leaked from University laboratories. The coordinators of these student-guinea-pig projects were Sidney Gottleib and Harold Abramson.

It is ironic that the generation which claimed to be rejecting ‘the man’ was actually “the man’s” most abject stooge.

The Piper Gets Paid

In Anger in White America — Again, Prof. Kevin MacDonald points out a political trend that isn’t going away soon: disenfranchised Whites getting mad and hitting the streets. The situation has come to the point where the powers that be can no longer ignore it — see Lexington’s recent Economist editorial, Still Crazy After All These Years. Yes Micklethwait, we do want our country back.

Trick question: if your tax base is angry enough to make The Economist nervous, what do you do? More of the same, of course. Enter Mr. Lang and his magical mystery bus.

Mr. Lang promotes events — he is a professional crowd-manipulator. He made his name advertising the same lifestyle choices as Theodor Adorno and Ahmet Ertegun.  Atlantic Records was keen to help the Woodstock project: The firm issued the original “live” festival album. Ertegun had money coming out of his ears — and so did Lang!

In fact, the creators of Woodstock had the money before they had the vision. On March 22, 1967, two of the festival’s four founders, John Roberts and Joel Rosenman, put the following advertisement in the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal: “Young Men with Unlimited Capital looking for interesting, legitimate investment opportunities and business propositions.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Lo and behold, an investment opportunity found them — by way of Ray Charles’ lawyer Miles Lourie. (Charles was Atlantic Records’ star performer.) Lourie sent Artie Kornfeld and Michael Lang to meet the pair. In February 1969 the quartet embarked on the project that would become The Woodstock Music and Art Fair. Incidentally, Artie Kornfeld was a friend of Alan Livingston, president of Capitol Records.

Despite limited festival experience, the boys signed up a roster of A-list performers. 300,000 people turned up to get baked and express their collective individuality. It was an orgy of expressive individualism.

Woodstock Attendees Expressing Themselves

In the candid words of Woodstock MC Wavy Gravy, “The whole world was watching us, and we had a chance to show the world how it could be if we ran things.”

Let’s take a closer look at what Messieurs Lang, Kornfeld, Roberts and Rosenman were promoting: Jimi Hendrix, Ravi Shankar, Arlo Guthrie, The Who — a little something for everyone. But whatever the flavor, the message is the same: sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.

Turn on, Tune in, Drop out

I am not being facetious when I say that sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll create the perfect cocktail for poor decisions. Political philosophers have recognized this for millennia. In Homer’s Odyssey, the Sirens and the Lotus Eaters were not mere literary fancy. They were an open warning to Greeks about the dangers of opting out of life in a competitive world. Ulysses lost his reason to the Sirens’ seductive songs; the Lotus Eaters lost all thoughts of their home. “Having lost all thoughts of their home, tradition and identity” is an apt description of the Hippie generation and their progeny.

Most people don’t want to think. Jean Cocteau, a French philosopher and the originator of many of Theodor Adorno’s ideas on music and culture, had this to say about what the masses want from music:

The crowd likes works which impose their melody, which hypnotise, which hypertrophy its sensibility to the point of putting the critical sense to sleep. The crowd is feminine; it likes to obey or bite.(Opium: The Illustrated Diary of His Cure, Cocteau, 1930.)

We live in the age of crowds; and the crowd must be told what to believe. Their instruction is not an exercise in reason or logic. Alex Kurtagic hit the nail on the head in “What Will It Take?”:

In previous articles I have argued . . . that superiority of argument is a necessary but insufficient condition for inspiring a change in the status quo, and that mastery of style trumps superiority of argument every time.

Every day Messieurs Lang, Kornfield, Roberts and Rosenman thank G*d for the above fact. It has made them rich men.

Mr. Lang is hyper-aware that crowds must be engaged on an emotional level. The naive students from the Summer of Love were putty in his hands. If he didn’t sell them Herbert Marcuse’s “return of the repressed” through their libidos, he would do it through frying their limbic system or through the persuasive power of music.

It is almost comic how the popular music industry took on the slogan “sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.” It might as well be “We’ll make sure they don’t think!”

But why is this cocktail so effective?

Sex is a revolutionary tool in the democratic age. De Sade wrote repeatedly about how the perfect revolutionary agents are sex-sated: They will be too distracted, and yes, too tired to identify and pursue their political interests. If you can convince a young person that free love is the way to go, you could very well set them on an emotionally unstable track for the rest of their lives. Not a bad plan when you’ve a democracy to manage.

Sex is only one prong of a three-pronged attack.

Anthony Damasio has done fantastic work looking at how the “emotional brain,” more properly the limbic system, helps us reason efficiently. Our limbic system is delineated by a higher concentration of dopamine, serotonin, and other chemical receptors which are very susceptible to the influence of illegal drugs like LSD. Taking these drugs alters the chemical balance in the part of your brain that is responsible for effective decision-making. As everyone knows, upsetting this balance will impair one’s judgment, sometimes permanently. If we can’t sate the voters, let’s fry ’em.

The final ingredient is persuasive sound.

I have written a lot about the emotional power of music and its usefulness in propaganda. Suffice it to say that beautiful music is an unusually powerful advertising tool. The music presented at Woodstock was beautiful — and often easy to listen to. It did a great job at making the ideas of Lang and his friends look good.

Jean Cocteau had remarkable insight about manipulating people. In his 1918 essay Cock and Harlequin, he makes the following suggestion to men who wish to lead the crowd through music:

CONCERNING A CERTAIN FRIVOLOUS ATTITUDE. If you feel you have a missionary’s vocation, don’t hide your head like an ostrich; go amongst the negroes and fill your pockets with worthless bric-a-brac.

NEGROES. It is only by distributing lots of bric-a-brac and by much imitation of the phonograph that you will succeed in taming the negroes and making yourself understood.

Then substitute gradually your own voice for the phonograph and raw metal for the trinkets.(Cock and Harlequin, Cocteau, 1918; emphasis in text)

The reader should not assume that by “NEGROES” Cocteau means just the Blacks. Rather, his advice on how to control people through music applies to anyone without musical education. Free men take responsibility for their choices and actions. Cocteau was not in the business of flattering slaves.

Woodstock was a smorgasbord of the popular music that Adorno credited to the “culture industry.” Adorno knew all about It — see The Mysterious German Professor.

Mr. Lang’s glaring error was assuming that the ‘flower power’ would still work today.

In 1960s America, kids could play on the streets and college grads could get jobs. Things are different now — it is much harder to be naive. No matter how many movies are made, no matter how many Rolling Stones articles are printed, and no matter how many Twitter plugs are sent, ‘hippie’ is now synonymous with ”loser’. Turning on and dropping out is not likely to appeal to today’s young people in a society where the elites are busy importing a new people. Hence the lack of interest in Woodstock II.

Some few of the hippies did go on to achieve something, but their record is not pretty. Bill Clinton and his fratricidal war in Yugoslavia (not to mention his sex addiction). Mrs. Clinton and her myriad of scandals. Or the out-of-touch Tom Hayden , still “hating the man” while Los Angeles sinks into the abyss. The list is long and uninspiring.

Bill and Hillary Being Hip in the 60s

But before Mr. Lang embarks on his next venture, he may want to consider  what Cocteau had to say to the music-manipulators:

Take care to conceal your capacity to work miracles, for “if they knew you were a missionary they would tear out your tongue and nails.”(Cock and Harlequin, Cocteau, 1918.)

And Lang’s fans should consider what Cocteau had to say about the slavish crowd:

What are the thoughts of the canvas on which a masterpiece is being painted? “I am being soiled, brutally treated and concealed from view.” Thus men grumble at their destiny, however fair.(Cock and Harlequin,Cocteau, 1918.)

So what do I predict? The New York Times will rave over Woodstock-inspired flotsam, festival or no. Burnt-out sixty-somethings will try to recapture their youth. And there will be many, many more sleepless nights at The Economist.

Elizabeth Whitcombe (email her) is a graduate of MIT in Economics with a concentration in International Economics. She is a financial analyst and free-lance writer living in New York City. Visit her website.

National Security ArchivesJohn Marks Collection. Accessed October,2008. [Return to article.]

The CIA is often portrayed as a WASPish, right-wing organization. A careful reading of John Mark’s book shows that the truth is quite different.Sidney Gottlieb and Harold Abramson were both Jews; Gottlieb had unmatched and consistent control over the LSD  projects as head of the Technical Services Staff. He and Abramson had no scruples about using the flower of 1950s American youth for drug testing.

Mark’s book lists many left-wing notables who collaborated with the research (although sometimes claiming ignorance of where the money came from), including the notorious Boasian fellow traveler Margaret MeadJay Schulman (Rutgers, sociology), Adolf A Berle (high government official in the FDR Administration and New York Liberal Party Chairman). The same goes for Francis Stonor Saunders in her book The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. She mentions Jean CocteauNicolas NabokovArthur KoestlerArthur Schlesinger, and Bertrand Russell In fact, WASPish right-wingers in influential positions at the CIA look quite thin on the ground. [Return to article.]

The Morality of Majority Rights and Interests

Assertions that Whites have interests are met with a firestorm of moral condemnation and ostracism. These moral panics warrant any and all actions against the miscreant, including removal from one’s livelihood, or even physical assault.

So what is the morality of ethnic self interest? There are at least two ways to think about. One is that many of the people who are most eager to create moral panics about such ideas also have strong ethnic identities and interests of their own. This is one of the first things that struck me about Jewish political and intellectual rhetoric — that they managed to create a culture of critique in which only Whites had a moral obligation to disappear as a racial/ethnic entity while minority cultures such as their own were encouraged to hold on to their traditions and group cohesiveness.

This way of thinking goes back to Horace Kallen, an important Jewish intellectual who was the first to develop a vision of multicultural America, combining this vision with a deep attachment to Zionism. Obviously, Kallen’s prescription for America is quite the opposite of his vision of the Jewish state as a state for the Jews. The only thing these beliefs have in common  is that they serve Jewish interests. This is an example of Jewish moral particularism — the age old “Is it good for the Jews?.” Kallen appeals to the tradition of Western moral universalism to attain the interests of his ethnic group.

Kallen had a major influence on Randolph Bourne whowrote a classic statement of a multicultural ideal for America in his famous “Trans-National America that appeared in Atlantic Monthly in 1916. All other ethnic groups would be allowed to retain their identity and cohesion. It is only the Anglo-Saxon that is implored to be cosmopolitan.

Randolph Bourne: High-minded Anglo-Saxon

This is a prescription for racial/ethnic suicide. However, at the time he wrote it, Anglo-Saxons like Bourne may have been confident enough to believe that they could safely allow others to have an ethnic identity and retain their cultures while shedding their own. Bourne’s implicit view of the world is that the ethnic identities of non-WASPs would make his world more colorful and interesting but not really threaten his basic interests. Like his mentor Kallen, he envisions of world of peaceful harmony amidst ethnic diversity:

America is already the world-federation in miniature, the continent where for the first time in history has been achieved that miracle of hope, the peaceful living side by side, with character substantially preserved, of the most heterogeneous peoples under the sun. Nowhere else has such contiguity been anything but the breeder of misery. Here, notwithstanding our tragic failures of adjustment, the outlines are already too clear not to give us a new vision and a new orientation of the American mind in the world.

I rather doubt that Bourne would have written what he did if he was aware that carrying out his recommendations would ultimately mean that Anglo-Saxons would lose control of their culture and their political destiny — and that even basic institutions like democracy and constitutional government would be in jeopardy.

What is the moral status of such a principled abdication of normal human strivings? Whites give up any claim to political and cultural control and hope that we will all enter a never-never land where we’ll all live happily ever after — White people expressing their individualism and everyone else advancing their ethnic interests.

The problem is that there is no way to rule out racial oppression and violence where Whites will be in a relatively powerless situation — at the mercy of people with festering historical grudges. Jewish historical memory about the 1924 immigration law and anti-Jewish attitudes, especially prior to World War II, is particularly bitter. The historical memory of Blacks in America is also especially bitter (Rev. Jeremiah Wright comes to mind), and Mexicans and Asians (see also here) have their own axes to grind.

The fact that Jews are an elite in the US and throughout the West and the fact that Jews have been a hostile elite in other times and places, most notably in the Soviet Union until at least the end of World War II, does not give much confidence in a rosy multicultural future when Whites cease to have the power to assert their interests. The great tragedy of the Russians and Ukrainians in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution is that they came to be ruled by ethnic outsiders with historic grudges against them.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Add to that the fact that Jewish political activism on behalf of a non-White America has often been accompanied by overt expressions of hostility toward White elites and toward Western civilization — even among Jewish “conservatives.” There is no reason to think that such hostility will be eliminated when Whites have less power.

In the multicultural America of the near future, gulags and anti-White totalitarian controls are at least as likely as the multicultural utopia envisioned by Bourne. And if they can’t be ruled out, there is a compelling moral case to be made that Whites should not enter willingly into such a world. If there is one thing we should have learned by thinking about the history of the 20th century, it’s that we should not believe in utopias.

I am reminded of the minister quoted in Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America who stated “Political optimism is one of the vices of the American people…. We deem ourselves a chosen people, and incline to the belief that the Almighty stands pledged to our prosperity. Until within a few years probably not one in a hundred of our population has ever questioned the security of our future. Such optimism is as senseless as pessimism is faithless” (pp. 68–69).

The good minister wrote this in 1885 — definitely ahead of the curve. And he was quite right that the Anglo-Saxons should not have been too confident. That’s why the title of Kaufmann’s book refers to the fall of Anglo-America. Well-meaning White Americans who are not concerned that the future could turn out horribly for people like them are simply not paying attention to all the signs around them.

The good news is that there does seem to be a growing anger and insecurity in White America. Spurred by the Obama presidency, large numbers of Whites seem to be questioning their future. But it’s far too early to guess whether this will lead to effective political action — much less a resurgence of White identity and explicit and confident assertions of White interests. The fact that this White anger will probably benefit Republicans scarcely gives one confidence that it will have a positive long term result.

Another set of moral issues derives from biological differences among humans. If there is one common denominator to leftist activism throughout the last century, it is that biology doesn’t matter: Ethnicity is nothing more than culture. Unwelcome racial and ethnic differences in traits like IQ, academic achievement, and criminality are due to White evil. We are all familiar with this litany.

But this ideology leads to very real moral issues. The healthcare debate is a good example where the left is impervious to very real concerns among Whites that the proposed healthcare system will involve a massive transfer of resources, mainly from Whites to massive numbers of non-Whites, including tens of millions of legal and illegal immigrants imported by hostile elites against their wishes. From an evolutionary perspective, such concerns reflect evolved preferences and willingness to help people who look like them and have similar cultural proclivities.

Affirmative action raises a host of moral issues for the majority. Whites are doubtless concerned about the effects of affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos and competition from Asians, especially in states with high Asian populations, such as California which is ground zero for the multicultural future. By using “holistic” rating systems that deemphasize test scores, Blacks entering UCLA had SAT scores that were on average 300 points below White and Asian students. At the other end of the achievement curve, 46% of the undergraduates at the University of California’s flagship university, UC-Berkeley, are Asians despite the fact that Asians are only 12% of the state population.

Ironically, Whites may be unintended beneficiaries of recent policies put in place to aid Blacks and Latinos in a state where it is illegal to consider race in the admissions process. Even so, they will be underrepresented in elite public universities in a state that they built. Asians, who would be less overrepresented among UC students under the new rules (going from 35% to between 29–32%), are predictably outraged.

Welcome to a very small taste of ethnic politics in California where university admissions are still a zero sum game and political processes complexly interact with individual merit to determine how the pie is cut up.

Cleary Randolph Bourne did not think about what the long term effects of multiculturalism would be. There is simply no moral justification for  unleashing all this ethnic competition on the White citizens of California and the rest of the US without their consent. Indeed, the citizens of California voted for Proposition 187 that would have banned services for illegal aliens, but it was struck down by the courts. These same voters — mainly White and Republican — are now refusing to increase taxes that would keep the state of California afloat without drastic cuts in spending on education and health care for everyone.

Of course, the mainstream media sees this as a massive moral failing on the part of California voters. As an evolutionist, I see it as common sense. Why support a system that is fundamentally geared to support people unlike oneself?

This is the problem of donating to public goods like public education and public health care in a multicultural society. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has shown that increasing ethnic diversity lowers the willingness to contribute to charity or to public goods (including, apropos the current national debate, public healthcare). It also increases social isolation and it lowers trust both within and between races; it also lowers political participation and lessens confidence in political leaders.

Putnam himself is sanguine about the long term effects of immigration. (Such utopian hopes seem to be an occupational hazard of university professors.) These effects are massively unfair to the White people of the US who never voted for this onslaught and will never see any tangible benefits from it —  unless one counts ethnic cuisine as a really important benefit. Couldn’t we just import ethnic cookbooks?

The social isolation, distrust of the political process, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods means that as this process continues, Western societies will be increasingly unlivable for everyone. Civic mindedness and a strong concern about the society as a whole have been a hallmark of healthy Western societies.

On the other hand, one of the most striking aspects of the behavior of Orthodox Jews in Postville, Iowa was that they didn’t have any interest in developing social ties with their new neighbors or conform to community norms — even seemingly trivial ones such as taking care of their lawns, shoveling their sidewalks, or raking their leaves. They had no concern about the community as a whole; they treated their neighbors like strangers.

Civic mindedness and trust have been noted as unique features of Western culture. As I noted elsewhere,

Trust is really a way of emphasizing the importance of moral universalism as a trait of individualist societies. In collectivist, family-oriented societies, trust ends at the border of the family and kinship group. Social organization, whether in political culture or in economic enterprise, tends to be a family affair. Morality is defined as what is good for the group—typically the kinship group (e.g., the notorious line, “Is it good for the Jews?”).

This lack of ability to develop a civil society is the fundamental problem of societies in the Middle East and Africa, where divisions into opposing religious and ultimately kinship groups define the political landscape. The movement of the West toward multiculturalism really means the end of individualist Western culture.

In individualist cultures, on the other hand, organizations include nonfamily members in positions of trust. Morality is defined in terms of universal moral principles that are independent of kinship connections or group membership. Trust therefore is of critical importance to individualist society.

Yet, as Putnam has shown, trust and civic mindedness are the first casualties of ethnic diversity.

To inflict the White populations of the West with multiculturalism — especially when support for multiculturalism and support for their own demographic and political eclipse have never been majority views among Whites — is profoundly immoral. Imagine what happens when White Americans begin to behave toward their communities in the same way the Hassidic Jews behaved toward Postville.

What is needed is to pay more attention to the morality of infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the White majority. Everyone has rights and everyone has interests. The interests and rights of Whites as a majority are no less morally legitimate than anyone else’s rights. Whites must jettison the ideal of moral universalism and ask what is good for the future of Whites.

We have to seek a world in which Whites attempting to atone for their personal transgressions would seek moral legitimacy by working even harder on behalf of their own people.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Speaking Truth to the Emperor

Most children have read (one hopes!) Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (and if you have not read it in a while, read it again; it will pay dividends).  Our modern-day emperor (think of all those in positions of authority or influence within the media, politics, entertainment, academia, etc.) has no clothes either, but he continues to strut around like a peacock while all of his servants, that is, us, do him obeisance.

Because we do not wish to be thought of as stupid, we continue to bow the knee.  Furthermore, we do not want to be regarded as morally evil.  And since our modern-day swindlers have added moral depravity to the list of negative traits for those who cannot see the swindlers’ “priceless” clothing, we continue to scrape and grovel.

Indeed, we often purr our approval, as did the emperor’s old minister, when he saw no actual clothing: “Oh, it is very pretty, exceedingly beautiful.  What a beautiful pattern, what brilliant colors! I shall tell the emperor that I like the cloth very much.”

One place that you can find the king parading around in all his naked glory is in academia.  And one example of an invisible piece of cloth, designed, it can be argued, to cover the emperor’s backside, is the pretty slogan, “Diversity is our Strength!”

When I went to graduate school I saw this shibboleth plastered everywhere.  It was stuck on the bumpers of cars.  It was stuck on professors’ doors.  It was used in conversation in half the classes that I took.  Its content had been thoroughly absorbed by all, from the president of the university down to the lowly janitor. “Diversity is our Strength!  Diversity is our Strength!  Diversity is our Strength!”

And what if you happened to question this slogan?  You would be instantly classified as evil, stupid, and unfit for any position that you occupied.  You then would be persecuted (you might lose your job, for instance).  I mean, diversity is our strength, right?

Let us use just one example to prove our point: The Jews.  We know, don’t we, that the ancient Hebrews and Egyptians had a very cozy relationship?  Was diversity the Egyptians’ strength?  Or, consider the relationship between the Jews and the Canaanites.  They got along swimmingly, right?  By the way, when is the last time that you met a Canaanite? Indeed, the God of the Israelites does not seem to have had much appreciation for diversity:

When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you — Hittites,Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you — and hedelivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate them. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy! You must not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the Lord will erupt against you and he will quickly destroy you. Instead, this is what you must do to them: You must tear down their altars, shatter their sacred pillars, cut down their sacred Asherah poles, and burn up their idols. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. He has chosen you to be his people, prized above all others on the face of the earth.(Deuteronomy 7:1–4)

Additionally, we are cognizant that the Southern Kingdom, Judah had a very smooth relationship with their kin in the Northern Kingdom, Israel, the land of the ten tribes.  And surely, the Assyrians and the Babylonians were on friendly terms with the Hebrews.  Likewise, the great love between the Samaritans and the Jews has become proverbial (I think Jesus might have said a few things about it) (Luke 10:25–37).  Clearly, the Jews considered the Samaritan contribution to diversity a valuable one (Ezra 4:1–24).

Further, are we not familiar with the ancient relationship between the Jews and the Christians?  It established a reservoir of goodwill that lasts to this day. Similarly with the Romans, except for that destruction of Jerusalem thing.  We also can recall that diversity was a strength in Alexandria, Egypt, where the Jews settled in large numbers alongside the Greeks, and in Cyprus, and in Cyrene, where the Jews exterminated the Roman and Greek population (i.e., the Kitos War). Yes, there was no friction at all, at least after the massacre.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Even today, it is easy to grasp that diversity is a strength in Israel, where the Jews have a wonderfully diverse relationship with their fellow human beings, the Palestinians.

But, assuredly, we do not have to restrict our historical inquiry to the Jews alone to demonstrate the truth of that malevolent banality, “Diversity is our Strength!” We can chose other examples as well.  For example, is not everyone acquainted with the long history of concord and cooperation between Muslims and Christians?  Or, for that matter, between Muslims and Muslims (e.g., Sunni and Shiite)?  In fact, is it not true that wherever Muslims seem to go, they bring only sweetness and light?  Remember that Iran used to be Zoroastrian, Israel Christian, and Byzantium Christian, prior to being conquered by the “enlightened” Muslims.

And we can all appreciate the fact that Blacks and Whites get along quite splendidly, but that Hispanics and Blacks get along even better!  Undoubtedly, we all realize that the Irish love the English, that Catholics love the Protestants (e.g.,Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre), that Mormons adore the Christians, (e.g., Mountain Meadows Massacre), and that both Protestants and Catholicsdoted on the Mennonites.

If we are historically literate, cannot we recall the love between the Goth and the Roman, the Armenian and the Turk, the Hutu and the Tutsi, the Russian and the Pole, the Atheist and the Theist, the smart and the stupid, the rich and the poor, the Chinese and the Muslim, the French Canadian and the English Canadian, etc., etc., etc.

Hmm, come to think about it, what historical examples do we have that support the conclusion that racial and/or religious diversity is a strength to the nation in which these diversities reside?  Indeed, do we have any examples of two or more truly diverse peoples living side by side not only peacefully, but where both groups actually strengthen each other (and without a unifying external threat)? Has such a state, if there ever was one, existed for any length of time?

Of course, it is all a lie.  “Diversity is our Strength!” is a thunderously stupid and pernicious statement.  The evidence for its truth is non-existent.  Additionally, does not simple common sense indicate that it cannot be true?  For example, would Saudi Arabians find strength with a million Mormons streaming into their country every year?  No?  How about a million Mexicans, even if they were Muslim?  Would the Jews find strength with thousands more Samaritans, Arabs, or Christians in Israel?  Does an increasingly diverse racial, cultural, and religious America strengthen, or weaken, a White, Christian America?

The reality of it is, of course, that diversity is not “our” strength if by “our” we mean any dominant racial or religious group, and if by “strength” we mean something that gives durability and unity to that dominant group.

Diversity is a strength, however, if by “our” we mean any competing, minority group and if by “strength” we mean something that allows the minority to gain the upper hand over the majority.  The lie, then, comes from convincing those who are dominant that by weakening themselves they will be strong.

Consequently, diversity is a strength to the minority group that uses it, if only temporarily, as a sword to dissect the dominant group (in this case, White, Christian America).  This allegiance to “diversity” is nothing but a mask  for ethnic competition against the White majority.

In addition, this doctrine of diversity is inherently hypocritical.  For, in order to stay diverse, each minority group must claim for itself a right that it does not grant to the majority.  That is, the majority group is forced to allow itself to be repeatedly penetrated by the foreigner, without being able to either prevent the foreign intrusion or to colonize the lands of the foreigner in return.  Nobody seems to think that there is a moral imperative for Korea or Zimbabwe to allow mass immigration that would swamp the native peoples.

In conclusion, it is instructive to note that at each stage in Andersen’s tale it became harder and harder for any adult to point out that the king had no clothes. If the king, for instance, was not so vain and greedy to begin with, the swindlers’ offer would not have appealed to him.  Or, if his “old” and “honest” minister had more confidence in himself, he would have scoffed at the swindlers’ ridiculous imposture, and convinced the king that there were no clothes.

If the minister had done his duty, the king would have doubtless punished the swindlers, but, more importantly, he would not have lost a fortune, nor his honor.

What does it require to fight the swindlers?  Courage and intelligence.  We must not rely on the innocence and honesty of a young boy to speak the truth.  As mature men and women, we must have the courage to do it ourselves.

Jack Spence (email him) is a family man, Westerner (with Southern sympathies!), and Protestant.