The Ministry of Minority-Worship: Gay Rights and the Goals of Globohomo

/43 Comments/in /by

The mark of a true prophet isn’t perfect accuracy, but powerful ideas. It’s impossible to foresee the future in every detail, but a true prophet should give us the ideas that explain what he doesn’t foresee. For example, in one way George Orwell got the future completely wrong in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). In his totalitarian surveillance state, the Party harshly punishes “sexcrime,” which includes “all sexual misdeeds whatever [including] homosexuality and other perversions.”

Raising the rainbow

So homosexuality is a perversion and a serious crime on Airstrip One, the name Orwell gave to the British Isles. But what do the real British find in their own surveillance state in the 21st century? They find that homosexuality is actively celebrated by the thought-police. The cyber-snoopers at GCHQ (Government Communication Head-Quarters) are “the most extremist and invasive in the West,” according to Glenn Greenwald. In 2014, the cyber-snoopers “raised the rainbow flag on the GCHQ flagpole in Cheltenham for the first time to show all our staff that we value our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) colleagues and are a modern organisation that does not tolerate discrimination in any form.” That last claim is true in one way: GCHQ doesn’t discriminate in its invasion of privacy. It siphons up everything it can on everyone it can, collaborating with the American National Security Agency (NSA) and Israeli cyber-snoopers like Unit 8200. The NSA too actively celebrates homosexuality: in June 2019, which is Gay Pride Month “in much of the US,” it “posted a photo on Twitter of its secretive Maryland headquarters in rainbow colors,” boasting that: “At NSA, talented individuals of all backgrounds, contribute to something bigger than themselves: national security. #PrideMonth.”

Raising the rainbow at the NSA (above) and GCHQ (below)

Orwell didn’t foresee the celebration of homosexuality by totalitarians, but he did explain it. Totalitarian ideologies live by lies and contradiction. For example, the slave-state of North Korea, ruled by a hereditary dictatorship, proclaims itself a Democratic People’s Republic when it is neither democratic, popular, nor a republic. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell wrote of how “the names of the four Ministries by which [the oppressed population is] governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.” Read more

Review: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Part 2

/15 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

Zionist Eugenics

Notions of race and racial competition pervaded Zionist thinking in the early to mid-twentieth century, a time when “volkisch conceptions were firmly established among Zionist intellectuals.”[i] Raphael Falk notes how “Zionist writers appealed to biological conceptions of race and nation and displayed an awareness of their responsibility not only to serve this biologically circumscribed ethnic group but also to propagate and improve it.”[ii] Many Zionists viewed evolutionary theory “as a conceptual framework for understanding the detrimental effects of Diaspora life and argued for the positive benefits that would accrue to Jews in Palestine.” Weikart observes that many “Jewish physicians, feminists and sexual reformers embraced eugenics,” and that leading Jewish anthropologists “embraced scientific racism” in the early twentieth century.”[iii] 

Several leading Jewish physicians and educators became flag bearers of a campaign to promote the eugenic aspects of Zionism. In 1922, the Zionist physician Mordechai Bruchov emphasized that: “In the struggle of nations, in the clandestine ‘cultural’ struggle of one nation with another, the one wins who provides for the improvement of the race, to the benefit of the biological value of the progeny.”[iv] Parental guidance articles and books published in Palestine from the 1920s emphasized “the purity of the race and the quality of children required to improve the nation,” which “subsequently shifted to the need to increase the birthrate in order to catch up with the high birthrate of the neighboring nations.”[v] Jewish biologist Fritz S. Bodenheimer (1897–1959), the son of one of Theodor Herzl’s closest allies, likewise stressed “the external threat posed by the faster reproductive rate of the Arab population.”[vi] Child care in Israel has long been conceived “as part of a national project” where “every mother who raised her child in Israel, in the past and at present, is conscious that this is not only her personal task, but rather a national task the climax of which – at the age of eighteen – is the recruitment of the Zionist baby to the nation’s army.”[vii] Read more

Review: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Part 1

/15 Comments/in , /by

 

Jewish engagement with evolutionary theory is an important dimension of modern Jewish history and thought. While Jewish leaders and intellectuals have used the science of evolution to bolster notions of Jewish identity, they have also confronted and (often fiercely resisted) the use of evolutionary theory to conceptualize conflict between Jews and non-Jews. Published in 2006, Geoffrey Cantor’s Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism,  by Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz, explores the ways Jews – singly and communally – have engaged evolutionary thought in a variety of historical contexts, and the role it has played in modern Jewish history. A central focus of the book is exploring how evolutionary ideas have been deployed, by Jews and others, in the domains of race, anti-Semitism, and Zionism, and the recurrent use over the last century and a half of evolutionary ideas to characterize Jews.

Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) postulated natural selection as the driving force for biological evolution: that individuals in any species show a diversity of inherited characteristics and compete for the scarce resources needed to survive and reproduce. If certain characteristics benefit them in that competition, these are more likely to be passed on to the next generation and, consequently, the species will evolve over time. By the time Darwin’s book was published the transformation of species was a familiar theme, but Darwin was the first to publicly explicate the precise mechanism. While socialists and communists soon deployed Darwinian evolution in their antireligious polemics, it also attracted conservative and nationalistic thinkers. Darwin’s theory could, for example, be seen to justify unfettered capitalism. Indeed, the centrality of competition in the process of natural selection raised a host of moral issues for a Christian West. The advent of Darwinism also spawned a new way of conceptualizing race and racial competition. Read more

A nação global

/2 Comments/in /by

20 de julho de 2019

A Idade Moderna, que começou com a chegada de Cristóvão Colombo à América, caracteriza-se pela ligação cada vez maior entre as sociedades do mundo e pela cada vez menor distinção de seus limites. Esse fenômeno vem ganhando intensidade ao longo do tempo com a disparada tecnológica dos meios de transporte e telecomunicação, o que se fez acompanhar de tendências intelectuais em ascensão, como ideologias internacionalistas e antinacionais. Nós podemos definir o globalismo como a inclinação, ao mesmo tempo consciente e inconsciente, para a destruição da diferença e da autonomia das nações e estados, alegadamente em favor de uma sociedade mundial politicamente mais harmoniosa. O globalismo ignora a realidade das diferenças raciais e a poderosa natureza da identidade étnica, fatores que estão na raiz dos conflitos e tensões inevitáveis em toda sociedade multirracial e multiétnica.

Existem elementos materiais vigorosos conducentes à dissolução dos limes nacionais. Ocorrem ganhos de eficiência quando o trabalho e o comércio podem cruzar fronteiras. Há, além disso, bilhões de seres humanos com vontade de deixar as condições miseráveis de onde vivem no Terceiro Mundo e ingressar nos nossos países para gozar vida mais confortável e segura, o que se compreende. Não será pela inércia da situação ou pela nostalgia conservadora que essas pressões poderão ser anuladas. Até o Japão, ainda homogêneo em grande medida, começa a perceber número significativo de imigrantes fenotipicamente diferentes (principalmente indianos e filipinos). Recentemente, aliás, um indiano saiu vitorioso de eleição local em Tóquio. Na verdade, a oposição à imigração exige consciência e doutrina de resistência em nome do bem-estar econômico e social dos nativos, da preservação de sua identidade cultural e genética e da sua soberania.

Depois da II Guerra Mundial, os internacionalistas pretenderam, compreensivelmente, impedir novos conflitos entre os Estados, engajando-os em  instituições internacionais (Nações Unidas, União Europeia…) e redes comerciais, sob hegemonia ideológica liberal-democrática. Esperava-se que isso fosse criar uma comunidade de interesses que fizesse da guerra entre as grandes nações uma coisa impensável.

No pós-guerra, os dirigentes que criaram essas instituições internacionais, gente como Dwight Eisenhower ou Konrad Adenauer, não tinham a intenção de destruir suas respectivas nações. Ao contrário, estando cientes dos terríveis massacres das guerras étnicas na Europa Oriental, esses homens geralmente viam a existência de estados-nações distintos e homogêneos como fator de paz. Os inúmeros conflitos étnicos no Terceiro Mundo, na Iugoslávia ou nas antigas repúblicas soviéticas e as intratáveis tensões e confrontações em toda sociedade multirracial levam a crer que eles tinham razão. Read more

Jews in Edmund Burke’s Political Philosophy

/79 Comments/in , /by

The story of Jews in England begins with the Norman Conquest of 1066. Jews from Normandy, following in the footsteps of William the Conqueror, traveled to England to make their fortunes in a land that had always been, as far as they were concerned, terra borealis incognita. England was an ideal location for Jews; it was among the few places in Western Europe unaffected by the Crusading frenzy sweeping the continent, a state of affairs that lasted until the middle of the twelfth century  and often involved violence against Jews. Jewish immigration began as a trickle, but their numbers perceptibly increased with the establishment of permanent communities in metropolitan areas.  In medieval England, Jews influenced the English economy was far out of proportion to their small numbers. A growing Jewish population combined with their main occupation of money lending inevitably led to ethnic tensions with the Anglo-Saxon majority (see Andrew Joyce’s article on Jews in medieval England). The Jews practiced strange rites in an unknown tongue and deliberately segregated themselves from the general populace. This created an atmosphere of hostility, leading to occasional eruptions of sporadic anti-Jewish violence.

The Plantagenets, wishing to safeguard an important source of revenue, protected the Jews. The Jew was made a privileged foreigner, who answered to no one else but the king. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon peasant, the Jew had complete freedom of movement. As the king’s property, the royal sheriffs were obligated to ensure the Jew’s safety at all times and enforce collection of unpaid debts from gentile borrowers. Compared to the common people, Jews possessed great wealth and made enormous contributions to the Royal Exchequer. This mercenary relationship between English Crown and Jewry was not to last forever.

The Anglo-Saxon peasant saw the Jew as a predatory, money-grubbing foreigner. The Jew’s narrow- minded focus on the acquisition of wealth and power, regardless of cost, were always at the expense of the wider community. The church saw the Jews as a class of infidel moneylenders who actively resisted conversion to the Christian religion. The lesser barons also came to resent the Jews; they had to surrender land as collateral to Jewish financiers, otherwise they would not be able to cover their expenses while accompanying the king on his foreign military adventures. Many could not pay their loans back in full and became indebted to the Jews. Together, all three estates pressured Edward I into taking action. In 1275, the king enforced the ecclesiastical prohibition against usury; as a result, the Jews were banned from engaging in the practice on English soil. In 1286, Pope Honorius IV issued a bull to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans warning of the dangers of Jewish proselytism. In 1290, Edward, eager for a chance to display his Christian piety, ordered the expulsion of the Jews from England. They were not to return again until 1656, when they were invited back by Oliver Cromwell.

This medieval episode in English history is crucial to understanding Edmund Burke’s scathing denunciation of Richard Price’s 1789 speech on the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Jew as the quintessential moneylender, without national allegiance of any kind, was a popular stereotype that had arisen during the Middle Ages. This conception of Jewish character served as the historical template for Burke’s negative characterization of Jews as greed personified. Like most ethno-racial and sex stereotypes, it was highly accurate. According to Gavin I. Langmuir, who cannot be accused of being biased against Jews:

“Jews had not been known as moneylenders in antiquity, but starting in the twelfth century, they became stereotyped as usurers. Like the Christ-killer stereotype, the usurer stereotype, although obviously an exaggeration, had a solid basis in reality. While medieval Jews were not all moneylenders and also engaged in other kinds of conduct, from the twelfth century onward they were in fact disproportionately concentrated in lending money at interest.”1

Of significance for Burke was Price’s delivery of his pro-Jacobin speech in a Protestant Dissenter’s meeting-house, colloquially known as the Old Jewry, in a part of London historically known by the same name. This was the main road in London’s medieval ghetto, which had been home to the Jews since the time of William the Conqueror, up until their expulsion in 1290. The Great Synagogue of London was located in the Old Jewry, an indication of the ghetto’s importance in medieval Jewish ritual and commercial life. Read more

Dugin Viewed from the Right

/32 Comments/in /by

 

Political Platonism: The Philosophy of Politics
Alexander Dugin
Arktos, 2019.

Ethnosociology: The Foundations
Alexander Dugin
Arktos, 2019.

Until a few months ago, I knew very little about Alexander Dugin despite coming across references to him with increasing frequency. This ignorance was partly the result of the nature of those very references, which have been ambiguous to say the least. “National Bolshevik,” “NazBol,” and “Eurasianist,” were just three of the terms I’d heard in relation to Dugin, each rather arcane yet retaining the definite air of an epithet. I’ll be quite honest that I didn’t really know what a “Eurasianist” was apart from the fact I was somehow pretty sure I didn’t want to be one. In May, however, prompted by the publication by Arktos of two of his latest books, I decided to investigate Dugin and come to my own conclusions. The following essay is not intended as a comprehensive analysis of Dugin and the entirety of his thought (impossible given the duration of my study to date), but rather as a review of these two books and an honest “View from the Right” on the thought contained therein.

I don’t consider myself an overtly political thinker. I have an interest in politics, I have studied political history, and I understand the vast majority of the concepts and ideas involved. But I have very rarely occupied myself with the philosophy of politics, or with conceptualisations of what might constitute the “ideal” political situation. If anything, I have long considered myself a “political anti-Semite” in the same trajectory as the organised anti-Semitic leagues of late nineteenth-century Europe. In the belief of these organizations, politics remains fundamentally distorted and inorganic as long as certain social, cultural, and economic conditions, proceeding from wealthy Jewish lobbies and associated cultural activities, are permitted to prevail. Political anti-Semitism is thus concerned less with the philosophy and mechanics of politics, than with social criticism, the promotion of national-ethnic unity, and the achievement of a small number of very broad political objectives based on ethnocentric principles. Read more

“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”: Tarantino on Masculinity

/18 Comments/in , /by

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is not an homage to the Hollywood of the ‘60s but rather a paean to masculinity using Hollywood as a foil. This fairy tale was created not to praise Hollywood but to censure it.

What drives the movie and constitutes its backbone is the contrast and interplay between two conceptions of what it is to be manly, the one embodied by the mostly Western genre actor Rick (Leonardo DiCaprio) and the other by his stunt man Cliff (Brad Pitt). Rick has been playacting killers and tough guys most of his career. As such he is gritty and fearless and highly skilled in the manly art of self-defense. But, of course, because he is an actor, it is all just an act. The real Rick, the Rick not in front of the cameras, is insecure, and given to weeping, self-loathing and childishness. On the studio grounds he is at one point lectured on the responsibilities of the actor by an eight-year-old girl actor. Later, after doing a scene together, it is the little girl who feels the need to encourage this man much her senior by whispering in his ear, “That was the best acting I’ve ever seen.”

Cliff, by contrast, is fundamentally NOT an actor. He is in movies as a stuntman but his role isn’t to act. It is to fall off roofs and horses and generally help Rick “carry the load,” as Cliff modestly sums up his job the first time we see him. Indeed, Cliff’s modesty, which is fundamentally a self-assurance and far removed from humility, is one of the prominent characteristics that go into defining what it is for Cliff to be manly. The others we will shortly see illustrated: he is confident and exceedingly capable, as exemplified in his genuine ability to defend himself against real threats; he has a pronounced sense of responsibility for his fellow man, even those only distantly related to him, as when he persists at the risk of his own life to enquire about the well being of George Spann; and he is an adult, which is to say mature, not one to give in to the sexual enticements of a girl child. These are some of the jewels in Cliff’s manly crown.

Brad Pitt and Leonardo DeCaprio portray two contrasting types of masculinity in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Read more