General

Exchange with Gerhard Meisenberg on Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

I replied to a review of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition by Gerhard Meisenberg, editor of Mankind Quarterly, and it ended up being an exchange as he replied to my comments and I replied to him. Issues discussed  include 1. the origin of the ancient Greeks; 2. the genetic basis of individualism; 3. altruism in tribal moral communities; 4. populism and the intellectual elite; 5. tribalism and assimilation as they relate to immigrant communities in the West; 6. whether resisting immigration of genetically dissimilar peoples is adaptive; 7. ethnic genetic interests vs. genetic interests based on social class membership.

Kevin MacDonald: “I’m not optimistic about the future of the West”

Reposted from Demokracija (Slovenia)

  • Written by  Andrej Sekulovič
  • Comments:0 Comments

Kevin MacDonaldKevin MacDonald

We spoke with Kevin MacDonald, a professor emeritus of psychology at Long Beach State University of California. His research focuses primarily on the development of evolutionary perspectives on culture, developmental psychology and personality theory.

You have a long career in psychology, as a Professor at California State University, and have authored many different books and academic articles on that subject, focusing mostly on evolutionary psychology, psychology on ethnocentrism and group evolutionary strategies. Could you give us a brief definition of these concepts? 

Evolutionary psychology views the human brain as being shaped by evolution, that is, that over evolutionary time the human mind and underlying neural structures were shaped by natural selection. For example, humans fall in love because there are brain structures that enable this, and it’s adaptive because it motivates men and women to procreate and invest in their children. Genes for this gradually accumulated, and people with more of those genes survived and prospered. 

Please tell us when did you first become active within the “right” ideological specter and which of your conclusions and observations led you to become a renowned author within the circles of the Right? Did your studies of Psychology played a major part in this development? 

I started being active while writing my book The Culture of Critique in the mid-1990s. The Culture of Critique is about how Jewish intellectuals and political activists have shaped Western culture in the twentieth century. I realized that they were shaping culture in ways that promoted their interests but were detrimental to the interests of Europeans. Throughout my writing, I have used my psychological background. For example, one reason that Jewish intellectuals were so influential was because they were able to obtain positions in elite universities. A part of human psychology is to look up to such people and they have more influence as a result. I also write a lot about ethnic networking among Jews—how they promote each other’s work and promote common goals that satisfy Jewish interests.

You have written extensively about the influence of the Jewish-interests groups within the Western societies and about the role of the Jewish intellectuals within the different subversive movements that came to be known as “Cultural Marxism”, your most famous book on the subject being »Culture of Critique«. Could you please explain to us how do these groups operate, in which areas has their influence been the most effective and for what reasons do you choose to describe them as »Culture of Critique«? 

Culture of Critique describes several of the most influential intellectual and political movements of the twentieth century—Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, the general involvement of Jews with the left, and Jewish activism on behalf of immigration. All of these movements had a central core of people who were strongly identified as Jews and thought of their work as advancing Jewish interests in some way. For example, Freud thought of himself as a warrior in opposition to European culture which he hated because of historical anti-Semitism. His work undermined traditional Western sexual mores and family relationships. His movement attracted many other Jews and together they influenced public opinion because they were able to obtain influential positions in academic and professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association, and they were able to spread their messages in the mainstream media—Hollywood, television, and newspapers.

It seems that the breakdown of the Western values and the destruction of the once homogenous European societies that we witness today is a consequence of the ideas and movements that can be traced to the Frankfurt School, whose intellectuals were mostly Jewish, and which was the birthplace of the so called »Cultural Marxism«. Could you give us a brief overview of the ideas and concepts which were the product of the Frankfurt School, and have proven as the most detrimental to our culture and to our European nations? Also would you say that the Frankfurt School represents the beginning of these subversive movements and ideals, or do its roots go further back in time?

The Frankfurt School began in the 1920s as an orthodox Marxist group and continued in that direction until after Hitler came to power after 1933. Marxism did not predict that the working class would vote for a fascist, but many did, and after Hitler came to power, he had high public approval. They reconceptualized the problem as White ethnocentrism because racial identity was central to National Socialism. They reasoned that an anti-Jewish movement could not develop in a country that was not racially homogeneous. As a result, their work claimed that White people who identified as White and attempted to advance the interests of their race had a psychiatric disorder and this was then picked up and promoted very effectively by Jewish activist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League. They did not make an analogous analysis in which identifying as a Jew and advancing Jewish interests were pathological.

Jewish subversion began earlier. Boasian anthropology and psychoanalysis began early in the twentieth century and Jewish activism on the left aimed at toppling gentile power structures dates from the nineteenth century.

The question many people are curious about is, why would certain Jewish-interested groups want the destruction and the breakdown of the Western societies, what is their main motivation and what do they want to achieve through their subversive actions, and influence in culture and in politics?

As noted above, Jews do not feel safe in a homogeneous White society after what happened in Germany in the 1930s. As a result, they have promoted immigration and demographic change so that Whites will be a minority in Western societies and Whites will be less able to organize against Jews. Another major motivation is hatred because of what they see as irrational ant-Semitism throughout history, so that, for example, they oppose Christianity because of the historical role of Christianity in opposition to Jews. They never see their own behavior as contributing to hatred of Jews.

Some people would argue, that the Jews have always been involved in different political movements both on the Left and on the Right, and that while there are quite a few Jews on the Left, it is mostly a coincidence and has nothing to do with them being Jewish, since we can also find Jews among the Conservative Right. What would be your answer to these observations, and what would be your main argument in claiming, that the leftist movements are not just movements which happen to also have a lot of Jewish activists, but that this movements and ideals themselves were created by the Jewish groups to further their own goals and agenda?

I know of no example of a Jew who has advocated for White interests. In general, Jews on the right have been neoconservatives who are mainly motivated by garnering support for Israel within the Republican Party and among conservatives. Neoconservatism, with its roots on the Trotskyist left, has fundamentally acted to combat older forms of conservatism (labeled paleoconservatism) in America and to move the American conservative movement to the left on key issues like immigration (see “Neoconservatism as Jewish Movement“). For example, I cite an American intellectual, Samuel Francis: “There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions.”

My argument that Jews on the left retained strong Jewish identities and a sense of Jewish interests is contained in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique and is too long to quote here. However, it begins with the following:

There is little doubt that the vast majority of the Jews who advocated leftist causes beginning in the late nineteenth century were strongly self-identified as Jews and saw no conflict between Judaism and radicalism (Marcus 1983, 280ff; Levin 1977, 65, 1988, I, 4–5; Mishkinsky 1968, 290, 291; Rothman & Lichter 1982, 92–93; Sorin 1985, passim). Indeed, the largest Jewish radical movements in both Russia and Poland were the Jewish Bunds which had an exclusively Jewish membership and a very clear program of pursuing specifically Jewish interests. The proletarianism of the Polish Bund was really part of an attempt to preserve their national identity as Jews (Marcus 1983, 282). Fraternity with the non-Jewish working class was intended to facilitate their specifically Jewish aims, and a similar statement can be made for the Russian Jewish Bund (Liebman 1979, 111ff). Since the Bunds comprised by far the majority of the Jewish radical movement in these areas, the vast majority of Jews participating in radical movements in this period were strongly identified as Jews.

In Chapter 3 I also provide evidence that Jews on the left were motivated to oppose nationalist movements, as in Poland after World War II where many Jews collaborated with the communist government. Jews in pre-revolutionary Russia saw the Czarist government as oppressive and eagerly joined the Soviet government after the Revolution. Jews in America in the 1920s–1940s realized that Jews were an elite in the USSR and strongly advocated for pro-USSR causes in the U.S. There are many more examples of this.

While »Culture of Critique« is probably your most famous book on this subject, it is just a third book of a trilogy, the other two books being » A People That Shall Dwell Alone« and »Separation and its Discontents«. In these books you also write about Judaism and about the phenomenon of Antisemitism. Could you tell us how would you say Judaism differs from Islam and Christianity? And regarding the topic of Antisemitism, do you believe Jewish groups are using it today to further their own agenda? 

As discussed in A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Judaism developed as a very explicit diaspora strategy—they saw themselves as living as a minority group within larger societies. They never sought to be a universal religion. Their writings underscore that they saw themselves as in conflict with the wider society and as having different interests from other groups in the society. For example, a common theme of historical anti-Semitism was that Jews made alliances with kings and other aristocrats and would engage in oppressive business practices that would enrich their aristocratic patrons and themselves at the expense of other sectors of the population.

Jewish groups are constantly exaggerating anti-Semitism as a way to raise money but also to provide reasons for enacting controls on free speech. In the United States it is now basically off-limits to criticize Israel: any criticism of Israel is regarded as anti-Semitism. Another example, according to a recent article in the mainstream media, Jews in the television industry have been producing very Jewish-themed shows emphasizing the Holocaust and other threats to Jewish interests because of a supposed huge increase in anti-Semitism. “There’s been a huge uptick in anti-Semitic hate crimes in the U.S. over the past five years, according to the FBI, in an era when only 45% of U.S adults know that six million Jews died in the Holocaust, according to a Pew Research Center survey published in January.«

How would you assess the work of President Trump since he entered the office?

I was very supportive of Trump during the 2016 election. His record since is mixed. He is certainly doing the bidding of is pro-Israel donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition despite his campaign pledges for an America-First foreign policy. He has not been as good as he promised on immigration. He is building the wall with Mexico but has also approved huge numbers of worker visas that displace American workers, and he has not decreased the huge numbers of legal immigrants that will soon make Whites a minority in the U.S., nor has he ended birthright citizenship according to which anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, leading to illegal aliens establishing families and obtaining welfare benefits, etc.

What are your predictions for the U.S. presidential elections this year? And what are your predictions regarding the future of U.S.A. and the rest of the Western world?

It’s too soon to tell what will happen this year much less the long-term future of the West. Trump will have a good chance against Joe Biden, who is senile and not a candidate that inspires enthusiasm. However, the non-White vote keeps increasing and this will soon make it impossible for any Republican to win. Right now Trump is being blamed for a poor response to the coronavirus and that may be an effective talking point for Biden, especially given what the virus panic has done to the economy. The strength of the economy had been Trump’s major asset.

I am not optimistic on the future of the West. We are importing non-White majorities that will have no interest in maintaining our culture, our institutions, or our traditional freedoms. Unless something drastic changes, the West as we know it will be destroyed.

You are also the Chief Editor of the website »Occidental Observer«, can you tell us a bit about this project?

The Occidental Observer has articles that touch on White identity and interests. Given my writing, we have a lot of discussion of Jewish issues.

We are all aware of the censorship which has been increasing in the last years, regarding ideas that are deemed »politically incorrect«. Did you ever faced any kind of censorship, and did your activities and writings ever affected your professional career as a University Professor? Did you faced any criticism from you colleagues etc.?

Yes, there was a movement to get my university to fire me—the relevant documents are on my website. A left-wing organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), conducted a campaign against me.  A representative of the SPLC came to my university from November 12–15 2006 to interview faculty and administrators about me. During the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years there was also a great deal of discussion and debate about my work and associations on faculty email lists. Eventually several departments issued statements dissociating themselves from my work and, in some cases, condemning my work. I was an active participant in these debates, In April, 2008, there was a large meeting conducted by the SPLC representative to denounce me. A speaker from the Anti-Defamation League also participated in this meeting.

Can you tell us for the end a bit about you latest book, titled »Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, and let us know what are your plans for the future? 

Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition argues that ethnic influences are important for understanding the West. The prehistoric invasion of the Indo-Europeans had a transformative influence on Western Europe, inaugurating a prolonged period of what is labeled “aristocratic individualism” resulting form variants of Indo-European genetic and cultural influence. However, beginning in the seventeenth century and gradually becoming dominant was a new culture labeled “egalitarian individualism” which was influenced by preexisting egalitarian tendencies of northwest Europeans. Egalitarian individualism ushered in the modern world but may well carry the seeds of its own destruction. I have a chapter on psychological mechanisms that have resulted in so many Westerners accepting the current regime of displacing White populations in favor of massive non-White immigration. This brings in much discussion of evolutionary psychology. For example, I present data that White people are more empathic towards others because we are less ethnocentric than other peoples. This tendency toward empathy has been manipulated by the media to make Westerners empathic to suffering Africans and Asians and make them willing to make these people into citizens. There are also some hopeful signs—e.g., because of all the anti-White hatred we are seeing in the media, more White people are identifying as White and seeing that they have interests as Whites in not becoming a minority. But I conclude the book by suggesting that there may be a civil war brewing in the United States.

Coronavirus: Consequences of Staggering Magnitude

Excerpts  from the interview, April 2, 2020; translated by Tom Sunic.

..A few years ago I wrote that only in a state of emergency one can take full measure of somebody. Now we know where we are at. A statesman makes decisions, gives orders and requisitions. Macron, however, relies on the advice of “experts” who, as a rule,  never agree with each other.

..There was a wish to include in the logic of the (free) market a sector which  by definition lies outside the free market. Public services have been systematically weakened and destroyed. Now it is us who are paying the price. And this is just the beginning, because the confinement will last for weeks, if not for months. We are not at the end of the beginning, much less at the beginning of the end.

..At the start, as a rule, everyone stands together. However, as we arrive at “the day after” and when the time comes  for accountability, the people’s judgment will show no mercy. If this matter ends up, as I suspect it will,  in a social crisis of huge magnitude, then the Yellow Vests movement will look like, more than ever before, as a dress rehearsal. We can now  clearly see that it will be most difficult for the working class and the middle class to put up with [coronavirus] confinement.

..[The European Union ] didn’t commit suicide for the simple reason that it had already been dead. One of the merits of the crisis has been to allow everybody to see its dead body. Faced with the epidemic the leaders of the European Commission are showing signs of shock. They are now going to release funds  which will be distribute by “helicopter,” after ramping up the monetary printing press. But in real terms nothing comes of it. It was not Europe that came to the rescue of Italy, but China, Russia and Cuba. Fidel Castro’s posthumous revenge!

..[The economic crisis ] will last much longer than the current epidemic; it will do far more damage and kill far more people. If it goes hand in hand with a global financial crisis, we will be witnessing then a tsunami: an economic crisis and therefore a social crisis,  financial crisis, health crisis, ecological crisis, migration crisis. In 2011 I published a book called Au bord du gouffre (On the Brink of the Abyss).  It seems to me that we have arrived there now.

..We should also anticipate political and geopolitical consequences of staggering proportions. The unfolding of the epidemic in a country such as the United States, whose health system, organized of course in a liberal fashion, is one of the world’s least performing, will be challenged to play a decisive role. It must be followed very closely (the global epicenter of the epidemic today is New York). The United States will likely come out of it much weaker than Russia and China, its only two rivals for the time being. Again, we are only at the beginning…

Mark Rothko, Abstract Expressionism, and the Decline of Western Art, Part 2 of 3

Go to Part 1.

Wisconsin landscape by John Steuart Curry (1938-39)

Creating a New “American” Art

Before the rise of Abstract Expressionism in the 1940s, the American art scene was defined by two main currents. The first were the Regionalists (e.g. Grant Wood, Thomas Hart Benton and John Steuart Curry) who used their own signature styles to portray the virtues of the hard-working rural American population. The second group were the artists of Social Realism (e.g. Ben Shahn and Diego Rivera), whose work reflected urban life during the Great Depression and their devotion to international socialism. Neither was interested in abstract art, and despite their political radicalism the Social Realists held rather conservative attitudes to figurative representation. While these two styles dominated, the artists of the nascent New York School “met frequently at the legendary Cedar Bar, where they discussed their radical theses. They argued endlessly about the problems of art, about how to effect a total break with the art of the past, about the mission of creating an abstract art that no longer had anything to do with conventional techniques and motifs.”[i]

The Museum of Modern Art did not yet exist; the Metropolitan Museum tended to “look down its WASP patrician nose at modernism;” and the Whitney favoured exactly the kind of American painting young Rothko most despised: scenic, provincial, anecdotal, and conservative.[ii] For a Jewish outsider like Rothko, who in 1970 declared that he would never feel entirely at home in a land to which he had been transplanted against his will, urban America was his America.

But what was on the mid-town gallery walls was, for the most part, another America altogether: big Skies, fruited plain, purple mountain majesty, the light of providence shining on the prairie. About that America Rothko knew little and cared less. Early on, he had the sense that America ought to offer an art that was as new and vital as its history; but he also wanted that art to play for high stakes, to be hooked up somehow to the universal ideas he was chain-smoking his way through. Just what such an art might look like, however, he had as yet not the slightest idea.[iii]

The New York Intellectuals (who were overwhelmingly Jewish) associated rural America with “nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism.” By contrast, urban America was associated “with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas.” Their basic assumption was that rural America “with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York” had “little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture” and could therefore be dismissed.

Artistic Expression as “Unrelated to Manual Ability or Painterly Technique”

Rothko’s skill in rendering the human form was poor, which is evident in early works like Bathers or Beach Scene (Untitled) (1933/4). Schama admits as much, noting that: “When he [Rothko] stood in the Brooklyn [Jewish Center] classroom [where he taught art classes from 1929–46] it all seemed so easy. He would tell the children not to mind the rules — painting, he said, was as natural as singing. It should be like music but when he tried it came out as a croak. It’s the work of a painfully knotted imagination. No not very good.”[iv] According to the general consensus, Rothko “never stood out as a great draughtsman and could even at times appear clumsy in the execution of his oil paintings.”[v]

Bathers or Beach Scene by Mark Rothko (1933–34)

Rothko, in a speech in the mid-thirties, offered a quasi-philosophical rationale for the unimportance of technical skill, stressing “the difference between sheer skill, and skill that is linked to spirit, expressiveness and personality.” He insisted that artistic expression was “unrelated to manual ability or painterly technique, that it is drawn from an inborn feeling for form; the ideal lies in the spontaneity, simplicity and directness of children.”[vi] Such grandiloquent pronouncements from Rothko were not unusual, with Collings noting that “Rothko was outrageously over-fruity and grandiose in his statements about art and religion and the solemn importance of his own art.”[vii]

This tendency on his part prompted one writer to declare: “What I find amazing … is how a painting which is two rectangles of different colors can somehow prompt thousands upon thousands of words on the human condition, Marxist dialectics, and social construction.” He suggests a good rule of thumb is “the more obtuse terms an artist and his supporters use to describe a work, the less worth the painting has.  By this definition Rothko may be the most worthless artist in the history of humanity.” Another critic humorously observed that:

Rothko needed to be fluent in rationalizing his existence and validating himself as a relevant artist to the average idiot who spent tens of thousands of dollars on paintings which could be easily reproduced by anyone with a pulse and a paint brush. Rothko … learned to garner attention to his paintings by getting into a frenzied drama-queen state and hysterically claiming that his works were deep, profound statements and not just indiscriminate blobs of color. They were expressions that rejected society’s expectation of technical expertise, actual talent and an artist’s evolution over time.

As well as self-interestedly seeking to redefine the nature of great art, Rothko often spoke out for the importance of “artistic freedom,” which in practice meant artistic freedom for those on the left. He became involved in the famed 1934 incident between John D. Rockefeller and the Social Realist painter, Diego Rivera. This began when Rivera was commissioned to paint a huge mural in the lobby of the main building of Rockefeller Center, the newly completed showcase of the oil baron’s ideals. Shortly before Rivera completed his work, Rockefeller dropped in and saw that the mural had a defiantly socialist message based on a heroic depiction of Lenin. He ordered the removal of the mural, resulting in its destruction. After this incident, a group of 200 New York artists gathered to protest against Rockefeller, and Rothko marched with them.[viii]

Part of Diego Rivera’s mural for Rockefeller Center

Jewish Ethnic Networking and “The Ten”

In 1934 Rothko was one of the original 200 founding members of the Art Union and Gallery Secession which was devoted to the newest artistic tendencies. A year later he became a member of the group who called themselves “The Ten” (the minimum number of Jews that can pray together). This unashamed exercise in Jewish ethnic networking was an opportunity for Rothko and his colleagues to engage in mutual admiration and promotion, and agitate in favor of “experimentation” and against “conservatism” in museums, schools and galleries.[ix] Among “The Ten” were Ben Zion, Adolph Gottlieb, Louis Harris, Yankel Kufeld, Louis Schanker, Joseph Solman, Nahum Chazbazov, Ilya Bolotovsky and Rothko. Gottlieb, in describing the group, later recalled: “We were outcasts, roughly expressionist painters. We were not acceptable to most dealers and collectors. We banded together for the purpose of mutual support.” “The Ten” acted as an alliance against the promotion of Regionalist art by the Whitney Museum of American Art, which to them was too “provincial” for words.[x]

Rejecting the local artists’ Regionalist perspectives, they were unable to define themselves as mere U.S. citizens. Instead, they presented themselves as cosmopolitan internationalists, freer and more open to incorporate the intercultural lessons of the European Modernist avant-gardes. When the fascist regimes began to decapitate these new art movements (with the closing of the Bauhaus in 1933 and the mounting of the exhibition Entartete Kunst [Degenerate Art] in Munich in 1937), great masters like Josef Albers and Piet Mondrian made their way to the United States, and American Jewish artists welcomed them with open arms.[xi]

The pronounced ingroup-outgroup mentality of “The Ten” mirrored that within the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed by Kevin MacDonald in Culture of Critique, where he notes how Norman Podhoretz described the group of Jewish intellectuals centered around Partisan Review as a “family” – a sentiment derived from their “feeling of “beleaguered isolation shared with masters of the modernist movement themselves, elitism – the conviction that others are not worth taking into consideration except to attack, and need not be addressed in one’s writing; out of the feeling as well as a sense of hopelessness as to the fate of American culture at large and the correlative conviction that integrity and standards were only possible among ‘us.’”[xii]

Within these alienated and marginalized Jewish groups was an atmosphere of social support that fostered an intense “Jewish ingroup solidarity arrayed against [what they saw as] a morally and intellectually inferior outside world.”[xiii] Despite the ethnic superglue, there were tensions within the Jewish milieu of “The Ten,” with Schama pointing out that, ”Amidst the usual Talmudic bickering of leftist factions, the denunciations and walk-outs, Rothkowitz and his comrades were all burning to make an art that would say something about the alienation, as they saw it, of modern American life.”[xiv] For Rothko, “the whole problem of art was to establish human values in this specific civilization.”[xv]

Isolationism as “Hitlerism”

Jewish gallery owners like Sam Kootz decried the “nationalist” art of the Regionalists and promoted the internationalist art of a rising generation of (often Jewish) expressionist, surrealist and abstract artists. “America’s more important artists are consistently shying away from Regionalism and exploring the virtues of internationalism,” he commented at the time. “This is the painting equivalent of our newly found political and social internationalism.”[xvi] For Rothko, like for most American Jews, the Second World War was a moment of universal moral crisis. He had only become an American citizen in 1938 and like many American Jews, “he was worried about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and the possibility of a revival of anti-Semitism in America, and U.S. Citizenship came to signify security.” Following the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, Rothko along with others left the American Artists’ Congress to protest its continuing support for the Soviet Union.

When on the first anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the Metropolitan Museum organized an exhibition entitled Artists for Victory, consisting of 1,418 works by contemporary artists—John Steuart Curry took first prize—the Federation of Modern painters vehemently criticized the works, denouncing them as “realist and isolationist.”[xvii] Jewish abstract artist Barnett Newman took a clear stand against local American artists, declaring: “Isolationist painting, which they named the American Renaissance, is founded on politics and on an even worse aesthetic. Using the traditional chauvinism, isolationist brand of patriotism, and playing on the natural desire of American artists to have their own art, they succeeded in pushing across a false aesthetic that is inhibiting the production of any true art in this country…. Isolationism, we have learned by now, is Hitlerism.”[xviii]

Jewish artist Barnett Newman with his “true”art untainted by “Hitlerism”

Rothko enthusiastically celebrated American entry into the war, insisting that it represented “an escape from narrow-minded isolation,” and “a reconnection with the destinies of modern history.” Schama observes that:

Now Rothko and his painter friends — so many of them originally European Jews — wanted American art to go the same way. With European civilization annihilated by fascism, it was up to the United States to take the torch and save human culture from a new Dark Ages. It was not just a matter of offering safe haven to the likes of Piet Mondrian or Guernica, but rather the authentic American way — doing something bold and fresh, taking the fight to the enemy which had classified modernism as “degenerate” and had done its best to destroy its partisans. … The Nazis had art (as well as everything else) entirely the wrong way round. The modernism they demonized as “degenerate” was in fact the seed of new growth, and what they glorified as “regenerate” was the stale leavings of neo-classicism. Their mistake was America’s — and particularly New York’s — good fortune.

This was a time when many American Jews were changing or modifying their names to sound less Jewish. In January 1940 Marcus Rothkowitz officially became Mark Rothko. During the war years Rothko’s art changed too: he produced a series of surrealistic pictures inspired by Freud’s interpretations of dreams, C.G. Jung’s theories of the collective unconscious, and ancient Greek mythology. Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy was an important influence at this time.[xix] One source claims that “Amid an era of rising anti-Semitism, such themes enabled Rothko to address the unfolding catastrophe in Europe without publically proclaiming his status as a Jew.”

The Jewish Ethnic Networking Finally Pays Off

In the 1940s, Rothko’s intensive Jewish ethnic networking started to bear tangible fruit. He befriended Peggy Guggenheim, “the most voracious patroness of American avant-garde art,” who had migrated to New York in 1941. Guggenheim’s artistic consultant, Howard Putzel, “convinced her to show Rothko in her Art of This Century gallery, where she had opened in 1942, during the low point of the war.”[xx] In 1945, Guggenheim decided to put on Rothko’s first one-man exhibition at her gallery.[xxi] In 1948, Rothko invited a coterie of mainly Jewish friends and acquaintances to view his new “multiforms.” The prominent Jewish art critic Harold Rosenberg found these works “fantastic,” and called the experience “the most impressive visit to an artist” in his life.”[xxii] Rothko returned the favor, lauding Rosenberg as “one of the best brains that you are likely to encounter, full of wit, humaneness and a genius for getting things impeccably expressed.”[xxiii]

One of Rothko’s “fantastic” multiforms

When, in late 1949, Sam Kootz inaugurated his new gallery, he asked Rosenberg to select the artists for the opening show, and Rothko was inevitably among them. That year Rothko produced his first “color field” paintings, describing his new method as “unknown adventures in unknown space,” free from “direct association with any particular, and the passion of organism.” 1949 was also the year Jewish art critic Clement Greenberg expressed the hope that “national pride will overcome ingrained philistinism and induce our journalists to boast of what they neither understand nor enjoy.” Greenberg’s article appeared in the Nation on June 11, and two months later, journalist Dorothy Seiberling took up Greenberg’s challenge in an article in Life Magazine entitled: “Jackson Pollock: is he the greatest living painter in the United States?” This article, published in a magazine with a circulation of five million, made Pollock and the Abstract Expressionists famous.[xxiv] Subsequent articles by Sieberling sought to “make Abstract Expressionists like Mark Rothko, Willem de Kooning and Franz Kline accessible to a somewhat perplexed public.”

When, in 1950, the Metropolitan Museum announced an exhibition entitled American Painting Today, Rothko’s Jewish colleagues Adolph Gottlieb, Barnett Newman and Ad Reinhardt, in a letter published in the New York Times, lashed out at the curator for being hostile to “advanced art,” accusing the director of “contempt for modern painting,” and lamenting that “a just proportion of advanced art” had not been included in the upcoming exhibition.[xxv] Rothko was moved at the time to flatly reject the “whole tradition of European painting beginning with the Renaissance.” “We have wiped the slate clean,” he declared. “We start new. A new land. We’ve got to forget what the Old Masters did.”[xxvi]

In the 1950s, Rothko had arrived at his mature style, and with Katherine Kuh and Sidney Janis as his professional agents, “enjoyed both fame and material success at last.”[xxvii] Rothko’s professional ascent was fostered by these two eminent personalities of the art world: Kuh was the curator of the Art Institute in Chicago; and Janis an art dealer with the power to make or break reputations. In her biography of Rothko, Annie Cohen-Solal emphasizes the role of Jewish ethnic networking in Rothko’s rise from obscurity to celebrity in the American art scene. “Of all the ‘dynamic players’ instrumental to anchoring Rothko’s position as artist in American society,” she notes, “how not to mention that these two, in particular, were ‘assimilated’ Jews?”[xxviii]

Influential Jewish art dealer Sidney Janis

As soon as she became curator of the Art Institute’s painting department in 1954, Kuh proposed a solo show of Mark Rothko, and following the exhibition, the Institute “proudly announced that the museum had purchased No. 10, 1952, for its permanent collection. ‘It is needless to tell you how greatly this transaction contributes to the peace of mind with which my present work is being done,’ Rothko admitted to Kuh.”[xxix] Meanwhile, taking on Sidney Janis as his dealer in 1954 “marked a shift into higher gear” that resulted in a “spectacular windfall for Rothko.”[xxx] Janis signing up and actively promoting Rothko settled his status “as a protagonist of international importance in the post-war art scene.” After this, Rothko’s art was declared a good investment by Fortune magazine, which led to his relationship with colleagues Clifford Still and Barnet Newman deteriorating to the point where “They accused Rothko of harbouring an unhealthy yearning for a bourgeois existence, and finally stamped him as a traitor.”[xxxi] Sales of Rothko’s work would only improve when, a few years later, Congress passed a new tax law particularly advantageous to art collectors.

The Seagram Murals

In 1958, Rothko received a contract to paint murals for the Four Seasons restaurant in the Seagram’s Building in New York. The man who approved the commission was Seagram’s American subsidiary head Edgar Bronfman Sr.—later to become President of the World Jewish Congress. The fee offered was $35,000 (a huge sum at the time). Rothko was, however, uncomfortable with the commission and the damage it might do to his bohemian reputation, and subsequently refunded the money and asked for the completed murals to be returned. The idea that his “Seagram murals,” conceived as deep metaphysical statements, would become mere background decorations, was intolerable. Nine of them were permanently installed in a room at the Tate Gallery in London in 1970.

According to an unsigned source, Rothko’s color field paintings of the 1950s and beyond “can be seen as profound mediations on the Holocaust,” with their rectangular forms inviting “associations with the haunting images of mass graves seen in American newspapers and magazines during and after the war.” The dark tones of Rothko’s Seagram murals are described as “doorways to Hell” and “likened to the rims of flames: responses with obvious Holocaust resonance.” These paintings are widely held to be Rothko’s greatest achievement. Rothko certainly thought so, immodestly equating them with Michelangelo’s frescoes in the Sistine Chapel.[xxxii]

Rothko’s Seagram Murals at the Tate Modern

1961 marked the climax of Rothko’s public recognition as an artist with a comprehensive exhibition of his work at MoMA. The man responsible, MoMA’s Jewish curator, Peter Selz, raved about “these silent paintings with their enormous, beautiful, opaque surfaces [that] are mirrors, reflecting what the viewer brings with him. In this sense, they can be said to deal directly with human emotions, desires, relationships, for they are mirrors of our fantasies and serve as echoes of our experience.”[xxxiii] Selz, alongside fellow Jew Alan Henry Geldzahler at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, was one of “New York’s reigning curators,” was, like Rothko, “born into a European-Jewish family, but he came from Munich and had immigrated to the United States in 1936, driven out of Germany by the rise of Nazism.”[xxxiv] For Rothko, “who had already encountered various secular Jews in his professional trajectory—from Peggy Guggenheim to Sidney Janis, Katherine Kuh, and Phyllis Lambert”—Peter Selz would be the one to stage Rothko’s most prestigious exhibition in the United States.”[xxxv]

Despite the cheerleading of New York’s Jewish-dominated art establishment, a few critics resisted the enthusiasm for Rothko, most notably the gentile Howard Devree who, regarding Rothko’s paintings, noted that “the impact is merely optical rather than aesthetic, the validity as a work of art negligible. Seemingly it has become necessary for the color group to increase the size of their paintings, with corresponding emptiness; to make impact and size equivalent; and, as a corollary, they escape making any valid statement.” Devree compared Rothko’s paintings with “a set of swatches prepared by a house painter for a housewife who cannot make up her mind.”[xxxvi]

Works of ineffable genius or “a set of swatches prepared by a house painter
for a housewife who cannot make up her mind?”

Critic Emily Genauer described Rothko’s paintings as “primarily decorations,” which for Rothko was the ultimate insult. Rothko’s works were, she opined, “less paintings, as a painting is generally conceived, than theatrical curtains or handsome wall decorations.” Leading art critic and historian, John Canaday, observed “Mr Rothko’s progressive rejection of all the elements that are the conventional ones in painting, such as line, color, movement and defined spatial relationships,” before dismissing his work as “high-flown nonsense.”[xxxvii] Doubtless with Devree, Genauer and Canaday in mind, Rothko, who was intensely protective of his memory and paintings, once declared: “I hate and distrust all art historians, experts and critics.”[xxxviii]

The Rothko Chapel

In 1965 Rothko was commissioned by the oil tycoon John de Menil and his wife Dominique to paint a series of panels for a chapel in Houston, the city where they lived. Rothko adorned this chapel — a small, windowless, geometric, postmodern structure — with a collection of dark (almost black) murals essentially devoid of any content. The Jewish head of MoMA, Peter Selz, inevitably declared these paintings masterpieces, insisting that “like much of Rothko’s work, these murals seem to ask for a special place apart, a kind of sanctuary, where they may perform what is essentially a sacramental function…”[xxxix]  Dominique de Menil claimed to be similarly impressed, asserting that Rothko’s colors “became darker, as if he were bringing us to the threshold of transcendence, the mystery of the cosmos, the tragic mystery of our perishable condition.”[xl]

Rothko Chapel Murals: bringing us to the “threshold of transcendence?”

Rothko’s place at the summit of the New York art world was threatened three years after his MoMA exhibition when the Golden Lion was awarded to Robert Rauschenberg at the Venice Biennale of 1964. This gave prominence to the emerging artists of the Neo-Dada and Pop Art movements, and made Abstract Expressionists like Rothko seem passé.

In 1968, Rothko was diagnosed with a mild aortic aneurysm. Ignoring his doctor’s orders, he continued to drink and smoke heavily, avoid exercise, and ignore dietary prescriptions—which also exacerbated his depression and seclusion. He died in his studio on February 25, 1970 after overdosing on anti-depressants and cutting his right arm with a razor blade. He was 66 years old and left no suicide note. After Rothko’s death, 798 of his works were “procured” by his then dealer, Frank Lloyd, the Jewish director of the Marlborough Gallery, in dubious circumstances. The lengthy legal proceedings this initiated became emblematic of mounting financial corruption in the art world, and led to a growing distrust of art dealers among Americans.[xli]

Conclusion

Opinions vary widely about Rothko’s work and legacy. Many within the Jewish-dominated art establishment hail him as a genius, a creator of transcendental, spiritual works for secular times. Others cannot believe that any sane person would pay hundreds of millions of dollars for what amounts to nothing more than a large, empty canvas occupied by two colors divided into separate rectangles by a third color. What is clear, however, is that Rothko’s career and burgeoning posthumous reputation have been overwhelmingly the result of shameless barracking and hyping on the part of the Jewish intellectual and cultural establishment. Rothko’s son had the chutzpah to draw a parallel between his father’s work and that of Mozart, insisting that his father’s paintings are “the visual embodiment of a Mozart composition.”

Jews have long used their cultural dominance to construct “Jewish geniuses” to foster ethnic pride and group cohesion. It has been (and remains) a standard feature of Jewish intellectual life in the West to wildly exaggerate the significance of Jewish scientists, writers, composers, artists and intellectuals (often while downplaying the achievement of their non-Jewish peers). The absurdly exalted status accorded to Mark Rothko and his oeuvre is emblematic of this practice. Rothko is surely an artist for whom the expression “the emperor has no clothes” is particularly apposite.

Go to Part 3.


[i] Baal-Teshuva, Rothko, 10.

[ii] Schama, Simon Schama’s Power of Art, 403.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Schama, Simon Schama’s Power of Art TV Series.

[v] Cohen-Solal, Mark Rothko, 64.

[vi] Baal-Teshuva, Rothko, 24.

[vii] Matthew Collings, This is Modern Art (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1999), 169.

[viii] Baal-Teshuva, Rothko, 26.

[ix] Schama, Simon Schama’s Power of Art, 405.

[x] Baal-Teshuva, Rothko, 26.

[xi] Cohen-Solal, Mark Rothko, 7

[xii] In MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 217.

[xiii] Ibid., 218.

[xiv] Schama, Simon Schama’s Power of Art, 406.

[xv] Schama, Simon Schama’s Power of Art TV Series.

[xvi] Cohen-Solal, Mark Rothko, 90.

[xvii] Ibid., 79.

[xviii] Ibid., 88.

[xix] Baal-Teshuva, Rothko, 33.

[xx] Ibid., 38.

[xxi] Ibid., 39.

[xxii] Ibid., 45.

[xxiii] Cohen-Solal, Mark Rothko, 97.

[xxiv] Ibid., 116.

[xxv] Ibid., 121.

[xxvi] Ibid., 126.

[xxvii] Ibid., 153.

[xxviii] Ibid., 138.

[xxix] Ibid., 144.

[xxx] Ibid., 117.

[xxxi] Baal-Teshuva, Rothko, 50.

[xxxii] Norbert Lynton, The Story of Modern Art (Oxford: Phaidon, 1989), 242.

[xxxiii] Cohen-Solal, Mark Rothko, 174.

[xxxiv] Ibid., 175.

[xxxv] Ibid.

[xxxvi] Ibid., 147.

[xxxvii] Ibid., 176.

[xxxviii] Ibid., 161.

[xxxix] Ibid., 185.

[xl] Ibid.

[xli] 206

Bernie Bros, Hillary Hoes & Biden Joenestowners

The last time I was in the United States was during the George HW Bush administration. At that time, there was one Yugoslavia, two Germanys and three million dollars on Salman Rushdie’s head. The year was 1990 and the government of South Africa and Michael Jackson were almost finished swapping races. Unbeknown to me at the time of my visit, a freshly amnestied Nelson Mandela was already Black power fisting to sold out arenas from Atlanta to Los Angeles. Black America was, apparently, the model for his own people to emulate, because unlike South African Blacks, American Blacks were no longer “in the grip of White supremacy.” Suffice it to say, political messaging has changed in left-wing circles over the last three decades, though one thing that’s stayed the same is that Joe Biden is still trying to become president.

America has always been a very political country. The breadth of its history as much as its territory seems to act like a convex lens for concentrating unique movements and headways. Political campaigns are so drawn out, perhaps by design, but the level of public participation in these sagas has always astonished me. I find the idea of door-knocking for the sake of political haggling frankly laughable and overly invasive, though in America such volunteerism is considered honorable work.

A vague theory is mine is that politics in the United States is of bloated significance due to a number of historical developments, among which is the lack of a monarchy. Presidential elections are for Americans almost what royal weddings are for the British. The House of Kennedy is America’s most recognizable dynasty, but then there are also the Roosevelts, Bushes and Clintons. A similar phenomenon exists in Europe: the most political country, France, is also the continent’s most famous republic. Monarchism is actually still the norm in Western Europe, whereas Eastern Europe lacks a single one – unless you count fanatically-Catholic Poland’s parliamentary vote to declare Jesus Christ “King of Poland” in 2016.

True royal families, however, barely dent the budgets of Western economies, and in case of the Windsors generate more for the national coffers than they cost – not that such institutions should have their continued existence be dependent on profitability. I suspect that America’s presidential elections are likewise profitable in spite of the apparent internal overkill, since they are also a product for international consumption and help raise the country’s profile.

The way various interest groups, voting factions and moral communities in America manage to politically merchandise themselves has always been something of a marvel. The tokenism can be rather quaint at times, and at other times disturbing. The most perverse instance in recent memory would have to be the syndicate of sex-workers from America’s most famous brothel, who decided to stump for Hillary in 2016. Though it isn’t always clear how such endorsements are procured, politics doesn’t always make strange bedfellows and emeritus president Bill Clinton was known to do some canvassing on the ground that year.

The nuclear hype of the 2016 election was never going to have a worthy sequel, especially not after the anticlimactic Trump presidency. Election cycles involving incumbents invariably have less gusto to them anyway, though the Democratic primaries have brought some new gumption to meet the current year’s political turbulence. Few could have predicted Andrew Yang, and even Bloomberg’s splash was unexpected. But in a way, the most audacious development was the promotion of back to the future Biden, a gamble that could still backfire in the primary stage if cognitive faculties (or immune system) capitulate.

The debut of Tulsi Gabbard was a welcome addition to the race, but to most left-wing voters she was more like an L Ron Hubbard with her crazy ideas of supporting free speech and hated by the Israel Lobby for criticizing endless wars. She has attempted to sue both Hillary Clinton and Google, which has earned her support from the likes of celebrities Susan Sarandon and Oliver Stone to Ron Paul and David Duke. Tulsi, who was given a Hindu name by her hippie parents (father half-Samoan) has ironically become something of an untouchable to the Democratic establishment, and would have been on the debate stage last night were it not for the DNC’s recent changes to the qualification criteria.

The meteoric rise of Andrew Yang was not without its merits also, but reminded me a lot of the flash-in-the-pan hype surrounding Asian-American basketballer Jeremy Lin. A celebrated breaker of barriers one year, a Peking Duck the next. Unfortunately for the Yang Gang, their goose was cooked by Yang himself, who decided rather swiftly after dropping out of the race that he was a free agent and able to sign with CNN as an analyst, even altering his endorsement from Sanders to Biden.

The only person realistically standing in the way of the Biden nomination remains the senator from Vermont Bernie Sander. Bernie Bros once again brought plenty of energy to the campaign trail, but also a whiff of being reheated leftovers from 2016 – a painful defeat capped off with a Sanders sell-out. But primary rigging doesn’t appear to be necessary this time, for the simple reason that Biden is not nearly as loathed as Hillary Clinton.

The center of the American political spectrum, for now, still rests a fair distance from ‘social democracy,’ and is approximately in the hands of low-information voters. There is something to be said about the remarkable ability of Black voters to consolidate around a candidate once there are no Black candidates left in a race. All candidates pander to Blacks, but Biden has been the huge winner in the primaries so far, and it just may have had something to do with him being half of the Ebony and Ivory ticket that swept to power in 2008. Biden was already of pension age back when he was selected to flank Obama, presumably to represent some sort of changing of the guard in American politics. At the time, I couldn’t help but see him as Obama’s ankle bracelet while in the White House.

Joe Biden has not changed in any discernibly positive way over the course of his long and lucrative career in politics. A vote for Biden is unequivocally a vote for machine politics and a return to stability after Trump fatigue, whether unfairly contrived or not. I have a theory that Black Americans are now some of the biggest conservatives in America, and I’m not talking about their opposition to gay marriage but rather their contentment with the new politically correct Americana that is forever endearing their victimhood and appeasing them with perks. White guilt might well be reaching its high water mark, so now might be the time to secure reparations. Demographics are changing rapidly, and that is another reason Sanders had little appeal to Black voters. Sanders’ movement has implicitly become the Brown faction; think Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar and the burgeoning rank and file. Even White support for Sanders is hemorrhaging because of this, but the friction between Blacks and Latinoes cuts much deeper.

A year ago, Virginia Heffernan of the LA Times was decrying Biden to be the “White savior” that the electorate had outgrown in favor of “women and people of color.” But Black people don’t seem to have ever bought into that. Blacks can be incredibly trusting of a White authority figure, especially one that preaches the racial utopia gospel. This is what happened with religious leader, civil rights figure and communist Jim Jones, who led 909 people from his Californian temples to Jonestown, Guyana where they suicided voluntarily or by force. Nobody quite knows why Blacks were so drawn to his cult, but they made up roughly 70% of victims. Jones pushed the idea of ‘rainbow families’ at a time when it referred to race rather than sexuality. The tragedy might have been averted, were it not for the intercession of the first homosexual political figure and inextricably Jewish Harvey Milk, who wrote a letter to President Carter affirming Jones to be “a man of the highest character,” with no mention of his maddening streak.

Like Jones, Biden is a man in cognitive decline still being showered with praise and character references from hacks near and far. One certainly can’t deny that the man has charisma and an unfiltered style of communication — unfiltered, disinhibited speech is a mark of senility. Though there is something darkly comedic about this plucked ostrich of a man challenging young people to push-ups. Or his trash talking a woman as a “lying, dog-faced pony soldier,” when he is a coffin-jockey himself at this stage.

Can politicians use Teslas?

Biden may be the youngest man left in the race, but his early stage dementia and failing vocabulary are getting progressively harder to camouflage. Keep in mind that his ‘working vocabulary’ comprises terms like malarkey, record player, shylock and poppycock. Rumor has it he once requested a teleprompter with a rotary-dial. One wonders what further gaffes will be unearthed in the coming weeks, given at any live and unscripted event where Biden must ad-lib, the second half of his sentences frequently don’t remember what the first half said. For now the smelling salts and vitamins are working wonders at the debates, where the canned preparation pulls the rest of his weight in the controlled environment.

As much as the Democrats have done to lose the 2020 election, an electoral college victory this November remains within their grasp. The baseless Russiagate hoax and impeachment effort are now largely forgotten, even if partisan America was never really at risk of changing its mind. Though there is certainly something cynical, schadenfreudistic and even nihilistic in propping up a semi-senile man for the highest office, on the other hand it is a vote of confidence for the old establishment, the deep state and the faceless men from halls of power who can replace Biden at any moment after the inauguration. Whether Biden will become the Grim Reaper of America, or just the Jim Jones of the Democrats remains to be seen.

Thomas Žaja is a research fellow at the Ulster Institute. 

Students for Western Civilization Charges the CBC with Hate Speech against Whites

Gun Ownership Is Fast Becoming White Supremacy

Last Monday there was a large pro-gun rally in Virginia’s capital. It turns out many freedom-loving Virginians aren’t exactly enamored with state gun laws, and have finally figured out that tyranny is at least as liable to arrive through the rule of law as it is to arrive in spite of it. When it comes to tyranny and totalitarianism, arbitrary rule is as often the exception as the rule. In many, if not most, totalitarian societies, the rule of law is largely intact. It is the laws themselves that are the problem.

Before the rally had even begun, the FBI was arresting White nationalists willy-nilly all over America. And while the FBI was running about the country arresting thought-criminals, the lying press was busy blitzing the air-waves with incessant propaganda regarding the rally. There is something of an ongoing White scare in America, if you haven’t noticed. Todd Gilbert, Leader of Virginia House Republicans and shameless cuckservative, took the opportunity, as any good crypto-bolshevik would, to inform those who think differently on controversial subjects that they are simply not welcome in the State of Virginia. Governor Ralph “occasionally a Black man” Northam, for his part, channeled his inner Nicolas Maduro and instituted a “complete weapon ban”, which, if genuinely respected, would have left rallygoers completely and utterly at the mercy of the Washington establishment’s “anti-fascist” shock troops, had they shown up for the rally, as they often do when Americans take to the streets and dare to assemble peacefully, something our half dead Constitution half guarantees.

Yet despite the hysteria and the hysterical decrees that preceded the rally, when the rally materialized, there was, oddly enough, hardly any law enforcement presence at all. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, democratic representative from the great state of New York, where full-blown communism is apparently very popular, implied that this was because the US Government is on the side of White supremacists. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. White supremacists and White nationalists are the perennial bane of the Cultural Marxist state, probably even more so than oath keepers and militia members (though there is some overlap between these groups/categories). Those folks still by and large accept the core values of the Cultural Marxist state: anti-racism, anti-sexism, equality-worship, diversity-worship, etc. They, like neocons and normiecons, are the unwitting allies of their enemies. They profess to oppose tyranny even as they aggressively defend its ideological foundations. They purport to revere tradition but defend the value system destroying it unconditionally. Those types naturally roamed around Monday’s gun rally, embarrassing themselves thoroughly at every turn, by making themselves available to any journalist who would hear them, as they proceeded to denounce “White supremacy” (but not our White supremacist Founding Fathers of course) and “hate” (always ill-defined) and whatever else the left opposes ad nauseum, as if it was going to get them somewhere with their diabolical leftist overlords, when all it really does, is divide the right, thereby weakening us all.

The real reason there was so little police presence at the rally is almost certainly because the government of Virginia and the federal government both, were genuinely terrified of inadvertently inciting a second civil war by overaggressively confronting a massive, heavily-armed crowd. So, in the end, it was much ado about nothing, all wind and no fire. Rallygoers were remarkably civil and perfectly peaceable. They even cleaned up the streets on their own initiative after the rally was over. I think there was but one arrest in all! One stinking arrest!

It is stunning of course to observe the gulf between the repressive tactics of the US Government, on both the state and federal level, along with the massive propaganda campaign instituted by the media in advance of the rally, and the restrained reality of that rally. The panic and hoopla preceding the event were completely disproportionate to the tranquility of the rally itself. Yet the bizarre chorus of state actors and state shills, shuffling to a common tune and bellowing to a common refrain, had to make any reasonable observer entertain the possibility that it was all orchestrated, a giant psy-op as it were: the multiple FBI arrests of “neo-nazis” on what are most definitely trumped up charges, the media blitz, the fake outrage by fake leaders, religious and political, Ralph Northam’s idiotic autocratic decrees, it was all very curious, and it all seemed eerily coordinated.

Now, in the short term, I think the goal of that likely coordinated campaign to delegitimize the rally is obvious. By making the rally seem infinitely more dangerous than it actually was, and by artificially tethering the rally to the omnipresent and omnimalevolent specter of White supremacy, the powers that be legitimized Ralph Northam’s excessive fiats, which would befit any tin-pot communist dictator anywhere on Earth. Doing so also tainted the rally somewhat in the eyes of common folk, likely undermining its vitality. Yet I think the Cultural Marxist US power structure has long-term goals in mind as well. You see, the Cultural Marxist power class wants to link gun rights themselves, not just this particular gun rally, to White supremacy. That way, they can delegitimize gun rights via a grand fallacy of association. Our leftist overlords believe that if they can link those fundamental liberties to a “pure evil” that isn’t (ethno-nationalist political systems are actually quite commonplace around the world), we will gaily tolerate whatever tyranny they have in store for us. If the last hundred years or so of American history is anything to go by, they may very well be right.

After all, the left has already done something awfully similar when it comes to free speech. The left hasn’t the ability to drastically curtail free speech in the government realm (yet), but it has drastically curtailed free speech on the internet, where most speech occurs nowadays anyway. It achieved this by arguing without pause for a full decade or more, that supporting and defending free speech on the internet was tantamount to White supremacy and White nationalism. Hate speech codes are inescapable on the net today, and deplatforming rightist political dissidents is the new normal. Many prominent rightist political dissidents can not even use payment processors anymore to fund their peaceful democratic activities. Powerful leftists and leftist interest groups pressured and persuaded sympathetic Big Tech oligarchs, to censor and thereby democratically neuter the political right, and they have done precisely that on a scale that easily rivals government action. They presented to those corporate leaders the same basic choice they present to us all: do what you are told, in this case combat “hate speech” (a nonsensical Marxist concept completely incompatible with free speech), or you are abetting White supremacy. They do not need to put their ideological allies to the choice in the same way, or apply the same degree of pressure, but the basic format is the same. Of course, not even this is enough for the ADL which recently asked for government action to rein in so-called “hate speech” on social media.

That is the same bargain the Cultural Marxist power class has been offering Americans since the 1960’s. In truth, it is not so much a bargain as a scam. Either you forfeit your right to hire and fire who you please, or else you’re a racist. Either you forfeit the right to sell your own property to who you please, or else you’re a racist. Either you forfeit your right to freedom of association, or else you’re a racist. It’s the same scam, but the stakes have just been raised. Now the offer is: either you cede your Second Amendment rights and the subject of those rights to your benevolent government, or you are a racist, or at the very least, an enabler of racism and White supremacy. Here are some articles that came up with a Google search for “Second Amendment White Supremacy” (without quotes):

Joshua Manson, “The Second Amendment Has Always Been a Tool of White Supremacy” Teen Vogue (August 12, 2019).

Jeremy Scahill, “White Supremacy and the Church of the Second Amendment,” Intercept (February 28, 2018).

Lois Beckett, “‘Dying of whiteness’: why racism is at the heart of America’s gun inaction,” The Guardian (August 9, 2019).

Nathan Wuertenberg, Gun rights are about keeping White men on top,” Washington Post (March 9, 2018).

Tyranny is not only presented as a reasonable price to pay to defeat [White] racism, it is presented as the only rational option. After all, what can White supremacists do with their essential rights save abuse them? If we are to secure the temple of diversity must we not disarm its enemies? For make no mistake, the Cultural Marxist state would love to disarm and disable those who truly reject its core tenets (White nationalists). Indeed, it would like to disarm and disable even its nominal foes (ordinary conservatives). As a matter of fact, the many new “red flag” laws (like the one recently passed in Virginia, which was being protested against at the gun rally), as they have been termed, will themselves be used as a pretext for law enforcement all over America to confiscate the guns of “dangerous dissidents” (aka any conservative alive). It will not happen to all of us, but understand it will happen to plenty of us, and it could happen to any of us, and if you are expecting due process, don’t, because you won’t be getting any. In the eyes of the US power structure, we are all of us guilty merely by existing, and we are already being disarmed, slowly but surely.

The media blitz and the spate of FBI arrests and the whole coordinated operation are intended to corral us all into the proper pen. Since we supposedly must defeat White supremacy at all costs, and since gun rights uphold White supremacy, what other conclusion could a decent and prudent American peon reach? How could you even entertain any other option? You’re not a White supremacist sympathist are you?

In sum, the left’s depraved attempt to link White supremacy (and White nationalism) with gun rights is a very deliberate thing. And while denouncing White supremacy may make life easier for conservative cowards, it does not advance the interests of the political right or secure gun rights. Right-leaning Americans can not extricate themselves from their association with White supremacy in the minds of the good-thinking liberals who parrot their masters in the elite media and academic world, no matter how much denouncing and disavowing they do. The lying press will never allow it. That is a fruitless trail to tread.

Moreover, if the left succeeds in linking White nationalism to gun rights, even substantially, and it will do everything it can to do so, then every pointless and overzealous denunciation of White nationalism by conservatives and their ilk, inadvertently undermines gun rights. Indeed, if “White nationalism” is truly that evil, and everyone agrees on that (even righties), then how could anyone defend something made to seem so inseparable from it? It would make more sense from a strategic standpoint for righties to rehabilitate White nationalism, given the inchoate association. Ultimately, our leftist overlords are betting that Americans will eventually surrender anything and everything they possess, including their most essential freedoms, to avoid being [labeled] racist. Only time will tell if the Cultural Marxists have finally overplayed their hand.