The Arts and Culture

What to read? (Part 6): A White Character Survey; Envy in Literature and Politics (Part 2)


Carlo Saraceni (“The Fall of Icarus”) 1606, oil

Physical blindness and the verdict of ignorance, meted out to envious politicians in Dante’s epic poem, can often be bliss.  Eyelessness can have advantages, as demonstrated by the blind, poor, uneducated, self-effacing, albeit very intelligent seer, Tiresias, who is brought to the court of King Oedipus, only to announce to him his eyeless future of blind destiny (vv 364-377).

For that matter willful ignorance and dismissal of the brainwashing curriculum in the modern educational system in the US and EU can be a sign of a healthy state of mind. What on earth is to be seen in the political process in multicultural America and Europe today? What good can be learned in multiracial colleges in Europe, whose program consists of lessons on White man’s guilt? For centuries, in order to avoid envy-inducing temptations, high-IQ young introspective White European males opted for monastic life. The harmful side of monasticism was that it prevented good genes to be passed on to future offspring, thus leaving the political arena open to an array of genetic and character misfits: the bad, the ugly and the envious.

Lengthy is the list of authors, usually associated with the heritage of cultural conservatism, who have prodded into the roots of envy-driven politicians. Highly envious politicians are usually very cunning individuals, with above average IQ, possessing, in addition, good skills at camouflaging their moral sleaziness with an aura of tearful humanitarian palaver. They also excel at expressions of sympathy for the plight of their future prey.

This brings to mind is the huge literature on so-called Jewish social mimicry, aka “trickster-do-good-Jews” (“Mauscheljuden”), popularized in National Socialist Germany by the works of Theodor Fritsch and Arthur Trebitsch, and scores of other writers. Read more

What to read? (Part 5) A White Character Survey: Envy in Politics and Literature (Part 1)



Théodore Géricault, “Envious woman,” oil 1822

Among Europeans, since antiquity, envy and jealousy have been main driving forces in the political process, resulting in a treasure trove of different literary genres. All European languages make a fine distinction between envy and jealousy, although both notions often overlap. The Germans have an additional nuanced word for this character aberration, i.e. “Schadenfreude,” a compound noun literally meaning when someone rejoices over someone else’s bad luck.

Today, the notion of schadenfreude may apply to Whites who savor the professional failure of their racial next-of-kin. Schadenfreude has been for centuries a dominant feature among White intellectuals, rulers and politicians, although for obvious reasons, none of them has ever been eager to publicly admit this character defect. Outbursts of poorly concealed envy can be observed today among a number of White nationalists, White self-appointed leaders, and White spokesmen, faking sympathy and compassion for their better-skilled rivals on the one hand, yet gleefully gloating in private over their next-of-kin’s minor faux pas on the other. Over the last half a century envy and jealousy have been the prime reason for the lack of unity among so-called White movements and parties in Europe and the USA.

The most glaring case study of the destructive envy can be observed today among individuals critical of celebrity billionaire Donald Trump and his beautiful wife and intelligent, attractive children, who in turn are now being assaulted by a lethal barrage of pathological envy and jealousy, not only by predictable envy-ridden non-White detractors, but also by more intelligent, jealous White rivals. The late French-Romanian philosopher of gloom and doom, Emile Cioran, a household name among Alt-Right and New-Right intellectuals and sympathizers, describes political rivalry as just another shorthand for the envy contest.

More or less all humans are envious; politicians are absolutely envious. One becomes envious insofar as one can’t stand anybody next to himself or above himself.  Engaging oneself in a project, a project of any kind, even the most trivial one, means sacrificing oneself to envy — the supreme prerogative of all humans (French original, p. 1009).

Read more

Er Ist Wieder Da: The Joke is on You

Look Who's BackIn this humorous film about Hitler’s return to modern-day Berlin, Er ist Wieder Da (English title: Look Who’s Back), Germans are caught on camera saying true things about Germany that are not what our elites want to hear.  And it happens in the current year.   They are so desperate to speak the truth that they are even willing to do so to an actor playing Hitler, Oliver Masucci (Italian and German heritage).  This is remarkable, and it speaks to the desperation of German society.  There must be such an infinite longing when one cannot dare utter the most commonsensical social observation, without reasonable fear of prosecution or at least censorship; and then to proclaim it for a film crew!  It is ironic, and yet also somehow poetic.  One cannot whisper the truth, yet one may broadcast it for millions, so long as they are willing to be cast as the fool in a masque of Cultural Marxism; a fool in the Shakespearean sense, which is to say, one who utters unspeakable truisms to an otherwise intolerant authority.

At times the viewer may cringe, insofar as these civilians are being made fun of, but also the viewer may exalt, in that there is man and frau in Deutschland still capable of rational thought.  Likewise, the character Hitler is capable of speaking to taboo themes in film that would not otherwise be permitted in that diversity-whipped country.   As Gavriel Rosenfield notes in his review of the 2011 bestselling novel on which the film is based, it risks “glamorizing what it means to condemn”: readers can “laugh not merely at Hitler, but also with him.” One may call it artistic license, but in any case, it does make for interesting art. Read more

Nelle Harper Lee, 1926–2016: Minorities Never Lie About Rape

Harper Lee’s death on February 19 drew the international attention one would expect given her status as the Martin Luther King of literature. Her novel To Kill a Mockingbird is annually visited on high schools everywhere with a demand for its reverence equal to the demand for unquestioned veneration of the reverend doctor himself. And yet, the mockingbird cried a complex tune last month, hitting notes not long ago thought to be beyond its range.

As expected, January’s holiday for MLK elicited the sniveling sighs of White supplication. In contrast, February’s eulogies lacked the once-anticipated chorus for Lee’s immediate canonization. The problem last month, of course, was actually the problem of last year with the sinful publication of Lee’s other novel, Go Set a Watchman. In it, Lee revealed that St. Atticus Finch was a segregationist(!)

Progressives and cuckservatives everywhere gasped! But then they remembered they control the narrative. In fact, they invented it. And they can modify it whenever the facts so require. After all, they had been claiming for decades that women never lie about rape while simultaneously Biblicizing a novel in which a woman does in fact lie about rape.

The Mockingbird mainstreamers eventually gathered themselves and saw the error of their initial shock. Unfortunately, Atticus hadn’t been immaculately conceived as they had previously believed. But he still had done right when the faith had been challenged, and if his motives had been mixed, that only demonstrated the nuanced characterization they always claimed to admire in literature. Read more

“The Return of Odysseus” by Michael Walker

return of odysseusThe Return of Odysseus
by Michael Walker

This is a well-written and highly readable play, and I got through it in a couple of normal working days. It tells the famous Homeric tale of the prolonged absence and final return of the eponymous Greek hero to his home island, and the resulting revenge he exacts on the unruly suitors of his wife, Penelope.

Author Michael Walker is well known in nationalist circles as the editor of Scorpion magazine, a publication which first began the not particularly easy task of introducing the ideas of the European New Right to an English-speaking audience back in the 1990s.

For this reason it a may be difficult to read this play as it should be read, namely as a purely “metapolitical” work, that is one in which the message is an indistinguishable part of the art. Instead, like me, you may feel a tendency to read it politically, and to interpret certain lines as referring to specific contemporary nationalist issues.

But while political consciousness and an awareness of the writer’s sympathies may detract from a perfect metapolitical reading, I have to say I rather enjoyed these “political flashes,” and many here will also enjoy them, I am sure.

For example, in Act Two, Scene Two, Mentor, a member of the Assembly of Ithaca, describes the sorry state that the island kingdom has fallen into since the monarch’s absence:

There is not one palace which is plundered, but the entire land. Ithaca is growing sick while the tapeworms of the market grow fat on a land for which they never fought, which they never tend and never loved. The homeland has almost as many immigrants as natives. No one respects the Ithacan customs. The children are hardened and use the lowest language of the streets. The public coffers are plundered by parasites and aliens. Money is made by distortion and usury. Honest work is badly paid. The richest men are middlemen and speculators. The labourer is poor. (p. 128)

Reading these words, it is not ancient Ithaca that rises before your mental eye, but modern Britain, or some other “enriched” part of the West. One is almost surprised not to find a reference to Muslim grooming gangs! But, then, a piece of rhetorical eloquence or a classical reference snaps you back to the ancient story world in which this is set, and, from a thinly disguised satire on our diseased modern times, the story assumes once again the elegance of timeless tragedy. Read more

Hollywood Strikes Again Cultural Marxism through the medium of big box-office movies

Los Angeles in 2154 as depicted in Elysium

Los Angeles in 2154 as depicted in Elysium

A review of Elysium (see also “Elysium: An all too real dystopian vision of the future

It was my misfortune to stumble upon an action movie, that like so many others, did its part in insinuating Cultural Marxist propaganda into the consciousness of young viewers. Despite my disgust, I persisted in watching it because of its blatantly obvious allusions to the issue of illegal immigration. I wanted to see how Hollywood could use a sci-fi flick to convey their “progressive” message on the subject.

The plot was a classic set-up. The rich live in a “gated community”— an opulent space station orbiting the earth—while the global poor, who in this case typically sport Hispanic names (how obvious can it get), are denied access to advanced medical care and the affluent life-style of the rich residing safely above the planet. Those who attempt entry are repelled, and the vehicles they use are identified as “undocumented shuttles,” which in one scene, are ruthlessly destroyed by the order of the head of “Homeland Security.” Again, notice that “undocumented,” the deceitful liberal euphemism for “illegal,” lives on into the middle of the twenty-second century!  I half-expected Hillary Clinton to make a cameo appearance to declare that “No one is illegal!.” The plot is summarized here (see also here):

In the year 2154, two classes of people exist: the very wealthy, who live on a pristine man-made space station called Elysium, and the rest, who live on an overpopulated, ruined Earth. The people of Earth are desperate to escape the planet’s crime and poverty, and they critically need the state-of-the-art medical care available on Elysium — but some in Elysium will stop at nothing to enforce anti-immigration laws and preserve their citizens’ luxurious lifestyle. The only man with the chance bring equality to these worlds is Max (Matt Damon), an ordinary guy in desperate need to get to Elysium. With his life hanging in the balance, he reluctantly takes on a dangerous mission – one that pits him against Elysium’s Secretary Delacourt (Jodie Foster) and her hard-line forces – but if he succeeds, he could save not only his own life, but millions of people on Earth as well.

I wish that Garrett Hardin was alive. I would love him to take this movie’s ridiculous premise apart. Even a simpleton (but alas not a liberal) would understand that “equality” between Elysium and the many, many billions of global poor would do little to elevate the latter’s living standards. There would simply not be enough resources to go around—as is the case on earth today. State-of-the-art medical care could not be affordably dispensed to everyone (as America’s gateway states have discovered !) That would be a fact of life in this dystopian society of 2154 and it is a fact of life now. If “undocumented” intruders or their political allies in office were able to open the floodgates and extend citizenship to everyone— as they are able to do in this movie—as Hardin would put it, “Low standards of living would drive out high standards.” Read more

Frank Auerbach and the transformation of British cultural life by Jewish émigrés

Head of Paula Eyles by Frank Auerbach, 1972

Head of Paula Eyles by Frank Auerbach, 1972

Interesting article in The Spectator by William Cook in the influence of mainly Jewish refugees from Germany who came to the UK in the pre-World War II period and had a transformative effect on British culture (“German Refugees Transformed British Cultural Life — But at a Price“).

Next week Frank Auerbach will be honoured by the British art establishment with a one-man show at Tate Britain. It’s a fitting tribute for an artist who’s widely (and quite rightly) regarded as Britain’s greatest living painter. Yet although Auerbach has spent almost all his life in Britain, what’s striking about his paintings is how Germanic they seem.

I find it difficult to see Auerbach as Germanic, at least not in the sense of what one hopefully would call the German national spirit. This is modernism at its determinedly ugliest, and, as in the UK, it represents an aesthetic that is out of touch with popular tastes.

Auerbach is the featured example of  the “vast wave of Germanic immigration that has transformed British cultural life — mainly for the better, but at a price.” “This wave of immigrants wasn’t just another huddled mass — it was the cultural élite of Central Europe, the best and brightest from every avenue of academia and the arts.” “Although predominantly Jewish, “they were champions of civilised, enlightened values, rather than members of a certain religion, or a certain race.” Read more