Follow Logical Meme:
- Affirmative Right
- American Affairs
- American Conservative, The
- American Renaissance
- American Thinker
- Arts & Letters Daily
- Audacious Epigone, The
- Buchanan, Pat
- Cato Institute
- City Journal
- Coulter, Ann
- Claremont Review of Books
- Derbyshire, John
- Dissident Right (NRx)
- Dreher, Rod
- Gates of Vienna
- Hanson, Victor Davis
- HBD Chick
- Imaginative Conservative
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Maverick Philosopher
- Murray, Charles
- National Interest, The
- New Criterion
- New Geography
- NRO (Corner)
- Occidental Dissent
- Occidental Observer
- Radix Journal
- Reddit (Dark Enlightenment)
- Reddit (Debate the Alt-Right)
- Reddit (HBD)
- Reddit (New Right)
- Reddit (NRx)
- Sailer, Steve
- Science Daily
- Scruton, Roger
- Social Matter (NRx)
- Steyn, Mark
- Uncouth Reflections
- Unqualified Reservations (Mencius)
- Unz Review
- VOAT (Identitarian)
- Vox Day
- West Hunter
Radio, Podcasts, & Video
- Alex Jones Show
- Alt Right Media
- AltRight (YouTube)
- AmRen (Podcasts)
- Breitbart Podcasts
- Counter-Currents Radio
- Daily Shoah, The
- Derbyshire, John (Radio Derb)
- Fash the Nation
- Freedomain Radio
- Millennial Woes
- Pat Condell
- Paul Joseph Watson
- Political Cesspool
- Red Ice
- Right On
- Right Stuff, The (TRS Radio)
- Weimarica Weekly
- Stefan Molyneux
- Steyn (On The Air)
Dreher writes: “The alt-right in the US can’t stand me, considering me a Christian cuck,” before bemoaning how a prog in Australia (fellow white person Nick Riemer) wants to deplatform him.
We don’t hate you, Rod. We just want you to follow through with where your own logic ought to be taking you: identity politics for white people (aka indigenous Europeans) is not “white supremacism”. Also, the term ‘Alt Right’ has largely become useless: it now means whatever one wants it to mean.
White identitarianism ≠ white nationalism ≠ white supremacism. They are 3 very different things. White identitarianism (WI) is rational, and actually rather benign, given how every other ethnic group actively pursues ethnocentric identity politics. WI implies no superiority-complex. It simply recognizes that, in today’s political climate (and with mass migration rapidly leading to displacement), cognizance that ‘white people’ might have a set of common, collective, group interests is a rational conclusion, and that to then articulate these group interests (using the same tropes and chains-of-reasoning that POCs do) is also a rational reaction.
To pin one’s hopes on an idealized utopia where everyone simultaneously drops ethnocentrism is not only naïve but foolhardy and (given demographic changes) dangerous for Western nations that have been built by ‘whites’. Iterated game theory simulations show that ethnocentrism beats out every other strategy. It is not going away.
Reichstag Fires like the NZ shooting allow the Left to perpetually widen their definition of ‘hate speech’. In their eyes, you are no better than a nutty 1488 poseur like Andrew Anglin. If they have their way, the Left will deplatform you just like they have deplatformed voices like Gavin McInnes, Jared Taylor, and many others.
Get used to it.
Rod Dreher makes some observations about The Atlantic’s recent piece on how wealthy (white) progressive counties (with lots of POCs) are the Most Politically Intolerant, while poorer (white) counties are the Least Politically Intolerant.
As becomes apparent, the most intolerant counties are dominated by white liberals, in superzips where only 2 classes of people can afford to live: wealthy whites (overwhelmingly progressive) & much poor persons of color. White working class individuals and families (less likely to have college degrees and so less likely to be indoctrinated by PC) have simply been squeezed out into the hinterlands.
In Watertown NY, 80% of the population is non-Hispanic white. Estimated median household income in 2016 is $37,134, just over half the avg for NY as a whole. 53% of the population over 15 years of age are married.
The following may be the most salient factors: 93% of Watertown residents speak English; 71% of Watertown residents were born in NY; only 4% were foreign born.
For comparison —
* In NYC, only 51% speak English (national avg = 79%); 48% of NYC residents were born in NY; and 37% were foreign born.
* In Boston, 63% speak English (national avg = 79%); 44% of residents were born in Boston; and 28% were foreign born.
* In SF, 56% speak English (national avg = 79%); 39% of residents were born in SF; and 35% were foreign born.
In these Low Tolerance zips, one begins to see the following dynamic that may be a root cause of High Political Intolerance. Stratification of income by race becomes even more acute, as the income gap between white (liberal) professionals and POCs gets wider. This, in turn, leads to mounting white guilt over POC failure to similarly rise in socioeconomic status. After all, *they* themselves (who dominate local and state level politics) are ‘good people’, so why is this happening? Said white libs than seek an ‘explanation’ for this income gap (and their own personal status in the new aristocracy): “racism”. IOW, it must be due to that tiny minority of Republicans in their geographic area that is the cause.
BO’s presidency was supposed to “heal” the nation racially. Instead, BO did a lot to worsen race relations, despite the fact that many Deplorables in the white working class voted for him. The failure of BO’s presidency then hyper-accentuated the aforementioned prog white wealthy class sense of guilt. Hence, the uptick in radical prog white rhetoric about racism (the spiraling PC madness we are now seeing consume the Democratic Party) really began taking off around 2013, which was during first year of BO’s second term (see Steve Sailer). This was the era of the Trayvonn Martin case, BO’s (and others’) inflammatory response to it. Then, the Ferguson police shooting of Michael Brown took place in 2014, which led to years of additional gasoline poured onto the fire… by the most prominent Dems in the country.
Combine this with the contemptuous attitudes of white liberal elites (e.g., the Thomas Franks of the country and their contempt for the Kansas’s of the country), as well as Robert Putnam’s findings that more diversity means depletion of social capital (erosion of trust across the board), and one can start to see a picture emerge of how Political Intolerance would spike in the wealthiest, whitest, and most progressive zips in the country.
Rod Dreher is upset at the reaction to Esquire magazine’s cover story on Ryan Morgan, a white middle-class teenager form the Midwest. Even though Esquire’s editor says there will be future pieces on the experiences of LGBT teenagers, black teenager experiences, etc., the SJW harpies are upset that Esquire would provide empathetic coverage of a (gasp) white male.
To Rod, I say: They are going to call you a white supremacist for simply pointing out their anti-white animus. This is not going to stop. Ever. Certainly not as perpetual-victim POC groups (with an insatiable appetite for real or imagined historical grievances) grow demographically, with whites slated for minority status circa 2040. There won’t magically be equality of outcomes and the ‘end of racism’ once whites are a minority. Group differences (based on race) will continue and the Last White Man in the room will be not only be blamed, his relative ‘privilege’ serving as prima facia evidence, but will be punished accordingly. In perpetuity.
The only rational response is for whites to do what every other racial bloc does: establish identitarian groups (e.g., Congressional White Caucus, etc.), not to punish or reward persons based on their race, but simply to lobby on behalf of the collective, shared interests of whites… just as Asians, blacks, and Latinos do.
This is not ‘white supremacy’. Nor is it ‘white nationalism’. This is a rational form of ‘white identitarianism’.
There is nothing irrational or defeatist about it.
The alternative is to be the one racial group vainly pretending that race is not a salient factor in culture and domestic politics. One could argue such a position is tantamount to pathological altruism.
We aren’t going to reverse the massive depletion of social capital and trust that multiculturalism engenders (e.g., Robert Putnam’s findings) with pleas to ‘look past race’.
The late founder of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, is famous for observing: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” This axiom led Yew to state, years later, that “multiculturalism will destroy America.”
Excerpt from Abraham Myerson’s “The ‘Nervousness’ of the Jew,” Mental Hygiene 4 (1920): 65–72, reprinted in Hart (ed.) Jews and Race: Writings on Identity & Difference, 1880-1940 (2011):
It is idle, of course, to deny that the Jew has an innate character, different from that of other races, which perhaps predisposes him to psychoneuroses and other mental diseases. Unquestionably deeply emotional, clinging to belief and opinion with a tenacity unparalleled in the history of the world, extremely active mentally, and in point of intellectual achievement to be compared only with the great races of the world, he is curiously passive in his resistance and curiously indomitable in his hold on life and success. Accused of materialism and yet furnishing proportionately more social reformers than any other race; accused of materialism and yet responsible for the two most ethical religions in the world; said to be dominated by love of gain, but the birthplace of the ethics that govern his accusers, the Western peoples; a race of contradictions, inconsistencies, strongly individualistic and extraordinarily social, it may well be that such a soil would produce great failure as well as great success, psychoneurosis as well as genius.
Meanwhile, over at Variety, Peter Debruge finds “The Mule”, Clint Eastwood’s latest film, “problematic”.
There’s a word for people like Earl Stone, and that’s “problematic.” Most white Americans have a relative like Earl, who’s old enough to remember a time when good old boys ran the country and everyone else was their inferior. You sort of tense up in their presence, never knowing what kind of politically incorrect garbage will come spewing out — in this case, when Earl refers to a gang of motorcycle-riding lesbians by the nickname they use for themselves…
Exhibit A, your Honor, is the established fact that Mr. Stone referred to a lesbian biker gang by the nickname they chose for themselves. We rest our case.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with presenting bigoted people on-screen, since heaven knows they exist in real life, but the trouble with “The Mule” is that it invites audiences to laugh along with Earl’s ignorance. From here, it’s no great stretch to imagine a movement — call it “Make Hollywood Great Again” — advocating for movies in which politically incorrect characters like the ones Eastwood has played for most of his career will be free to speak their minds again.
Therefore, we must kill politically incorrect humor.
The other [characters] are almost insultingly flat, which is most troubling when it comes to the Latino characters. A few of them actually have names, but most are little more than reductive stereotypes: generically menacing Mexicans who almost certainly have more nuanced reasons for doing what they do. If only the movie afforded them the same attention it lavishes on understanding where Earl is coming from.
I, for one, also think it’s a travesty we haven’t had a sympathetic portrayal of Cartel sicarios, one that seeks to understand how economic security caused them to decapitate rivals and stitch their carved-off faces onto soccer balls.
Anything less is problematic.
deadline for submissions:
December 15, 2018
full name / name of organization:
ASLE: Association for the Study of Literature and Environment
Immolations: Queer Theory and Environmental Destruction
ASLE: Association for the Study of Literature and Environment
June 26-30, 2019
We’re seeking abstracts for an accepted ASLE panel on queer theory and environmental humanities, to be presented at the annual conference in Davis, CA. We’re excited to see work from any field or discipline on topics including queer theory, ecology, fossil capital, LGBTQ activism, film, literature, performance. Please submit your abstracts to: https://asle.submittable.com/submit/126655/immolations-queer-theory-and-environmental-destruction. Deadline for submission: 12/15.
On April 14, 2018, a lawyer and gay rights activist, David S. Bucknel, was found dead, his body burnt, in Prospect Park. In a note, Bucknel draws a parallel between his death and the disastrous impact of fossil fuel dependency. “Pollution,” he writes, “ravages our planet, oozing [un]inhabitability via air, soil, water, and weather. Most humans on the planet now breathe air made unhealthy by fossil fuels, and many die early deaths as a result—my early death by fossil fuels reflects what we are doing to ourselves.”
Bucknel’s self-immolation accelerates, in an explicitly queer register, the impossibility of life in toxifying atmospheres. Not only does he extinguish life and breath, but also he interrupts the flow of life with “last things” (Khalip 2018)—cinder and ash. These deoxygenated remains confront us today with the ongoing destruction of our planet, what Bucknel likens to a collective suicide. Moreover, within the space of this interruption, or this interval of and without breath, the life that was mixes with nonlife, like “air made unhealthy by fossil fuels,” and so makes space for the kind of queer politics that, for example, Elizabeth Povinelli describes under the heading of “geontopolitics,” in which “life becomes extinction.”
Although typically framed as an environmental act, Bucknel’s self-immolation does not just leave queerness in the antechamber of ecological politics; rather, his sacrifice by fire translates ecological politics into a queer act of self-annihilation, literalized by flames. Bucknel’s self-immolation makes tangible what Michael Marder, in Energy Dreams (2017), describes as another “will to energy” antithetical to the war over resources under carbon capitalism. Instead of seeing energy as a “finite resource,” an object “to be seized in a mad race with others,” self-immolation—as act, as theoretical concept—sets fire to a thinking that is queer. Not by returning to Life, Nature, or Progress, but by insisting on an ethics of the unlivable, where life and nonlife intermingle.
This panel invites scholars to reflect critically on the politics and aesthetics of self-immolation with respect to queer theory and environmentalism. There is a tradition in queer theory, attached to one version of the antisocial thesis, which maps out a politics of negativity through the refusal of reproduction. There is also a queer tradition of performing annihilation or combustion as direct action (in ACT UP, for instance). These traditions gain a particular significance under environmental destruction, where living and thus producing waste get recast as lethal—as adding up to planetary degradation. Immolation, in this sense, appears as a spectacularization of extinction: a way to subtract oneself, in the long term, from the waste-producing mass while dramatizing this mass’ fate.
Although we welcome papers from all disciplines, we are particularly keen to include papers that dynamize the combustibility of these two discourses, environmentalism and queer theory, and that foreground their potential frictions.
Please direct your questions to the panel organizers: Steven Swarbrick, Baruch College, CUNY (firstname.lastname@example.org), and Jean-Thomas Tremblay, New Mexico State University (email@example.com).
A recent piece at Counter-Currents prompted me to reflect on Alfonso Cuarón’s film Children of Men (2006), loosely based on the novel by PD James. The piece by Trevor Lynch confirms that the pregnant woman being black (in the film) is Cuarón’s idea, and was not the case in James’ original novel. I had always wondered that, but never looked into it. This travesty completely changes the arc of the story and the symbolism of the pregnancy. James was an ardent Christian; I don’t know if she harbored a Pope Francis-styled Christianity (“3rd world refugees are our salvation!”) or an Anglophilic (and implicitly white) Christianity.
I’m also curious how other dominant features of the film are depicted in the novel. In the film, the Gestapo-like tactics of the “Homeland Security” police, and the latter’s callous disregard for and disrespect of the illegal immigrants they round up, is ham-fisted, moustache-twirling Hollywood villainy. Many of the illegal immigrants detained (held in small, crowded cages, like animals… get it?) more resemble emaciated, East European, Holocaust survivors than they do Muslim immigrants, an obvious attempt to draw some sort of misplaced historical analogy. (It appears the refugee & DHS themes were entirely Cuarón’s doing.)
As I recall, the radical, Antifa-like, terrorist group called ‘The Fishes’ are a militant group of Leftists claiming to be an ‘immigrants rights’ group. I read it as something of an insurgency-coalition formed between radical Muslims and the radical Leftists. Doing the illegal immigrants’ bidding, they are the source of much of the film’s bloodshed. Thoroughly paranoid in their conspiracy-theorizing, they blame coffee shop bombings not on Muslims (or Leftists) but on the government. (The sequence with the trigger-happy, dreadlocked wigger is particularly terrifying.)
From a purely technical point of view, Children of Men contains some brilliantly choreographed, single-shot sequences, the most famous being a six-minute-plus scene in which the protagonist Theo is first captured by The Fishes, narrowly escapes their clutches, only to flee to an even more dangerous situation involving government tanks and artillery. It is a most impressive sequence and had to have been a nail-biter for the Director and all involved.
I’ll never forget first seeing the movie’s extraordinary, penultimate scene, where we see a Hezbollah-like, ragtag (but uniformed) parade of Muslim insurgents marching through an embattled, mostly destroyed cityscape. Before we actually see them on screen, complete with green, Hezbollah-styled bandanas covering all but their eyes, we hear their uniform chants echo through th ealleyways: “Alluha Akhbar!”
Lynch notes that PD James “predicts the rise of Left-wing terrorist violence, which makes sense, since Leftism is a form of religion for unbelievers.”
I’ve long been surprised we haven’t yet seen leftwing suicide bombers here in the West. (Paul Schrader’s recent film First Reformed,with its radical green agenda, entertains this as a rational course of selfless‘activism’.) The requisite level of religious fervor on the Left certainly exists, as does other religious trappings. If one compares our current socio-political scene to that of the late-1960s/early-1970s, the rhetoric of hate and extremism by the Left then is certainly matched by today’s rhetoric, but there’s a notable deficit in the respective levels of political violence. In today’s scene, we’ve had nothing like the organized terrorist attempts of the Weather Underground and their ilk. (For comparison: in an 18-month period between 1971 &1972, the FBI counted an estimated 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost 5 per day.) Similarly, while BLM has inspired some targeted killings, we are today experiencing nothing like the urban riots of the late 1960s (Watts; Newark; etc.)
Mitigating factors taking place today include the different and plentiful flavors of Soma we now have (internet-based entertainment; Netflix; cellphones), the more decentralized ways in which people ‘meet’ (online groups vs. organized physical meetings), and the embodied narcissism (‘the world revolves around me and my feelings’) intrinsic to leftist identity politics, one that perhaps eclipses necessary levels of self-sacrifice.
In time, though, as the religiosity of Political Correctness (with its dogma of anti-whiteness) intensifies, and the bleak nihilism and meaninglessness of hedonistic ‘expressive individualism’ becomes more readily apparent, extreme political violence will likely become manifest.
Here’s a (relatively tame) article on Cartel violence.
Decapitations by chainsaw? Check.
Peeling off someone’s face and stitching it onto a soccer ball? Check.
Slowly boiling people alive? Check.
Feeding people to hungry lions? Check.
There’s beheading by chainsaw – a rumored favored method of Guzmán, who is said to feature in a 2010 video doing exactly that to murder victim Hugo Hernandez. Even worse, Hernandez’s face was reportedly peeled off after he was killed, and stitched on a football.
Then there is the practice of putting people in drums and either boiling them or setting them on fire, or feeding humans to exotic animals like lions and tigers.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d almost suspect these (predominately) mestizos have Aztec blood flowing through their veins.
In addition to a proclivity for violence that rivals Africa, these low-IQ mestizo Indians have novel ways of expressing their creativity:
Fruth said the cartel’s horrific tactics include the injection of adrenaline and other substances that affect the central nervous system of its victims, “which kept them awake to enhance the responses of pain receptors during slow, prolonged torture.”These tactics are used on women and children, Fruth said, including”family members or rivals or snitches, to elicit information and sow fear. These cartels have a history of sexually assaulting the family members of their target, and forcing the target to observe.”
Thankfully, this sort of primitive, animalistic violence stays south of the border and is most definitely not working its way into the U.S.:
Caine recalled seeing warehouses in Brooklyn loaded with drugs and money, in which the enforced dress code for women was being naked, while mixing bags of crack cocaine on behalf of the cartels. The women would then endure humiliating body searches before leaving,to ensure no product had been pilfered…
And while the vast majority of the barbarity takes place south of the U.S. border, American soil is far from immune. Authorities refer to this as “overflow” violence.
In June, the body of 49-year-old Alabama grandmother Oralia Mendoza and her 13-year-old granddaughter Mariah Lopez, a middle-school student with special needs, were viciously slain – the alleged result of being caught up in Sinaloa cartel violence.
The above simply cannot be true, as the TV keeps telling me we don’t have a border crisis. Neither can the following obvious lie, which implies we have an unprotected and porous border:
”Assassinations are generally carried out by sicarios – professional hitmen,” said Fruth. ”But I surmise it is not uncommon for junior members to be de-sensitized to the violence by showing their loyalty through an initiation that requires the performance of an execution.”
And it’s a threat seemingly not limited by geography.
”The cartels have hit men who will travel anywhere or anytime to take care of their dirty murderous business,”Maltz added. ”The Mexican cartels like Sinaloa should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations and we should apply way more pressure to stop the madness around the world.”
Bottom Line: The clear lesson from all this is that the building of a border wall, as Nancy Pelosi mentioned the other day, would be “immoral”.
From H.P. Lovecraft’s Letters:
“The mass of contemporary Jews [are] hopeless so far as America [because they are the] product of alien blood, and inherit alien ideals, impulses, and emotions which forever preclude the possibility of wholesale assimilation… The fact is, that an Asiatic stock broken and dragged through the dirt for untold centuries cannot possibly meet a Nordic race on an emotional parity. On our side there is a shuddering physical repugnance to most Semitic types, and when we try to be tolerant we are merely blind or hypocritical. Two elements so discordant can never build one society – no feeling of real linkage can exist where so vast a disparity of ancestral memories is concerned – so that wherever the Wandering Jew wanders, he will have to content himself with his own society till he disappears or is killed off in some sudden outburst of physical loathing on our part.”