The Leftovers has an excellent video series (“Culture of Critique for Normies”) examining Kevin MacDonald’s seminal book The Culture of Critique. I previously posted Part I. Here is Part II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP-kWXglhXY
In Tablet, an interpretation like this is kosher, but transplant the same essay in, say, Occidental Observer, and it would be deemed anti-Semitic:
Some books, vortex-like, pull the surrounding events and memories into them, as they embed themselves in life’s numerous contexts. One such book, for me, was André Aciman’s Call Me By Your Name—a steamy, intellectual, homoerotic novel set in a small Italian town. Now, a decade after the book’s publication, a film by the same name, written by James Ivory and directed by the Italian Luca Guadagnino, is screening in limited release in New York and Los Angeles….
Aciman recalled parallels between closet Jews and closet gays, and how each senses the other or throws signals to the other to intimate ‘I’m like you.’
One thing that has been a real phenomenon, relatively speaking, is the number of A-level conservative pundits who are reaching the end of their Civic Nationalism’s patience. First was Ann Coulter, who quickly and decidedly went from worshipping Chris Christie to embracing VDARE. As a neighbor of Rush Limbaugh’s, she certainly has steered Rush to sites like VDARE, AmRen, and writers such as the unparalleled Steve Sailer.
Tucker Carlson has been getting increasingly red-pilled of late, and now we have Laura Ingraham citing Steve Sailer’s “Elect a new people” meme. Sailer’s ‘New Electorate’ meme has really taken off in the past 12 months, as did his previous ‘invade the world, invite the world’ meme, and before that his famous ‘Sailer Strategy’.
Released on a Friday (aka ‘weekend dumping’), this independent investigation of the police’s shocking and abysmal response to the Charlottesville rally by former U.S. Attorney Timothy J. Heaphy should be headline news, but won’t be, primarily because it reinforces the dastardly Alt Right’s contention that police were deliberately ordered to stand down and let the vastly outnumbered Alt Right contingent get what was coming to them.
In a months long investigation, Heaphy found that “planning and coordination breakdowns” before the rally led to “disastrous results.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM403CAx5fI
The verdict in the Kate Steinle murder case shouldn’t surprise anyone. In time, we’ll learn the demographics of the jury. It’s SF, so we can infer the jury’s political persuasions (whether white or non-white) and their level of anti-white animus (especially if non-white, but probably also white).
20+ years ago, the O.J. Simpson defense team wanted (and got) a jury consisting almost entirely of low-IQ, Democrat ‘minorities’ (i.e., 8 black women, 1 black man, 1 Hispanic man, and 2 white women… not a single while male on the jury. All 12 jurors were Democrats, and only 2 jurors went to college.) It’s why Johnnie Cochran routinely wore African tribal power ties during the trial. (Don Vinson, a reknowned jury trial consultant, has spoken about this. It is also why jury selection consultation is a real, quantitative, serious, and highly lucrative profession.)
For non-whites living in what they construe as AmeriKKKa, racial solidarity is more important than the objective facts of a specific case. Coupled with the ‘deductive-reasoning-challenged’ nature of CA’s new demographics (see Jason Richwine’s work), being a non-white in a high profile, national case means you are obligated to interpret and act accordingly, through a racial lens.
The flip side of the coin was the Rodney King jury, which the media repeatedly bemoaned as being ‘all white’. In that case, the police were rightly acquitted. But because this jury didn’t follow The Narrative, but rather the facts of the case, huge swathes of L.A. temporarily turned into Sierra Leone, with whites like Reginald Denny feeling the full brunt of it.
Flash forward 25 years and we’ve had many doppelganger (e.g., the bogus, media-fueled, ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ narrative surrounding Michael Brown and the outrage when officer Darren Wilson was acquitted.)
Yesterday, Zarate’s defense attorney Matt Gonzalez bizarrely (or not so bizarrely, depending on how one sees these issues) tried to make the verdict about… Trump. “For those who might be critical of this verdict,” Gonzalez said outside the courtroom, “there are a number of people that have commented on this case in the last couple of years — the attorney general of the United States, the president and vice president of the United States — let me just remind them that they are themselves are under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington, D.C.”
Another member of the defense counsel, Jeff Adachi, then said: “From day one, this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division, to foment a program of mass deportation … and I believe today is a vindication for the rights of immigrants.”
Before the trail, we could also glean politicization in the jury selection process. From ABC News:
The jurors who were selected said they did not have negative experiences or views of Latinos or people who have entered the country illegally that would prevent them from keeping an open mind.
“If you learned that a person had illegally entered the country, would you believe he was entitled to the same due process rights as a U.S. citizen?” asked one of the 62 questions posed to the jurors. Responses to the questionnaire were not made public.
Five jury alternates were also seated after being asked their opinion of San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy, which prohibits city officials from cooperating with federal immigration officials.
The jurors were also quizzed about their gun ownership and political views of firearms.
“We are very pleased with the jury,” said Matt Gonzalez, Zarate’s attorney. “We have such great diversity built-in in San Francisco and I think we have a jury that understands a lot of the concerns about the defendant receiving a fair trial.”
IOW, the defense team thoroughly politicized the case and saw its results in national-political terms.
There will be more such cases in the future, high-profile cases that the media and liberals will magnify as The Case of Our Times, and they will similarly fall along racial lines. As non-white demographics become increasingly secured in places like CA, the shape of the racial fault lines will become increasingly clear, and the levels of injustice that SJW-infused juries will mete out on whites (as payback) will make the Zarate case seem like child’s play.
Libs who rationalize their hatred and/or avoidance of whites as being “for justice” (such as Prof. Ekow) are simply invoking a psychological defense mechanism (virtue signaling) to mask evolutionarily-natural, in-group preferences. It’s the group behavior that counts. Underneath the covers of overt leftist ‘philosophy’ is the politics of envy (diagnosed by Nietzsche) delivered through a Marxist program. With each instance of P.C., one must ask “Who Benefits?”
At this point in time, an entire website could be dedicated to growing, liberal, cultural trend towards normalizing violence against ‘Nazis’ (e.g., anyone who disagrees with the NYT’s view of the world and, increasingly, anyone who is white.) One step at a time, this violent Antifa ethos is being embraced by mainstream liberals, such as Matthew Smith’s ‘The antidote to “Nazi next door” profiles’ in Salon:
[W]hat better way to push back against the normalization of white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers than with a video game that normalizes killing (virtual) Nazis?…
… “Wolfenstein 2” is a cathartic outlet for our country’s current crises. The company behind the game also executed the perfect marketing scheme for its brutally violent Nazi-killing simulator. Witness this marketing video depicting a Nazi being punched in-game, accompanied by the text “There is only one side.” Does this remind you of current events?..
Lately, there’s been a creepy trend of media outlets attempting to humanize Nazis and white supremacists; this was evident in the recent brouhaha over a New York Times profile of an avowed white nationalist, which took pains to describe said white nationalist’s love of “Seinfeld” and paint a loving portrait of how he “sauté[ed] minced garlic with chili flakes.” But “Wolfenstein” takes the opposite tack: no humanization here. Just good ol’ fashioned Nazi-killing. Maybe the New York Times should take a page from “Wolfenstein’s” book.
Libs like Smith find it a ‘creepy trend’ for the likes of the NYT (not exactly a paleo publication) presenting Alt Right figures in any context other than a caricature, a mustache-twisting villain.
Things are going to get more violent before they get more peaceful.
Countdown until someone screams ‘anti-Semitism!’ due to this photo accompanying a Fox News story (“NBC execs under fire for silence on Lauer; could they be fired for protecting pervy anchor?”). The photo shows Matt Lauer (who is part Jewish), flanked by NBC News Chairman Andy Lack and NBC News Deputy Chairman Noah Oppenheim (spiker of Ronan Farrow’s HW story).
From OC Weekly, an ‘art exhibit’ that seeks to simultaneously discuss Carl Schmitt’s political philosophy, visually present the horrors of gun ownership, all while stylistically making fun of some MAGA white men who own a gun store in Maine:
Stepping into the dark hallway leading to Omar Mismar’s film installation, “Schmitt, You and Me,” at UC Irvine’s Room Gallery, you see a paper target peppered with seven bullet holes, each hit in areas that would devastate vital organs. It’s difficult to view with perfect clarity, but in the upper-right corner, there’s a complimentary, handwritten note along the lines of “Great Job!” that’s signed and dated by an employee of Staple Gun Shop in Skowhegan, Maine. You can step up to the target and peer through the bullet holes, the film playing on the other side.
The film, screened on the other side of this paper, plays on a loop, its first shots showing the camera lens going in and out of focus on its subjects, two gun-store employees. Like a Central Casting cliché, the duo is middle-aged, white, wearing baseball caps (one with the store logo on it, the other with “Trump Fence Building Co. Free Installation” stitched onto the front panels) and T-shirts in various states of cleanliness or grime, and standing against a row of rifles and semi-automatic weapons. It’s a picture-perfect beginning, the artist literally focusing on the two men and what they’re saying.
Or, to be more specific, what they’re reading. The two fumble their way through several pages from the extraordinarily complex work of German philosopher Carl Schmitt. My superficial understanding of his “friend” and “enemy” paradigm—based on my reading and curator Juli Carson’s incisive, if overwritten, exhibition pamphlet—is that the labels are often inaccurate ways political organizations perpetuate the separation of “us” and “them.” This increasing dissociation is passed to groups of people that are within the organization, eventually leading to factions of people gathering together under one banner or another, with the end result an act of violence. What’s not explained in the film is that Schmitt was an unrepentant Nazi Party member hauled in front of the Nuremberg Trials for his collaboration and that the writings are his defensive apologia for fascism and anti-Semitism.
The men mispronounce words and steamroll through the dense academic text without nuance, and at first, they have no clear understanding of what they’re reading. Sections repeat more than once, with each of the men stopping and starting as they feel more comfortable with the material, have a question for Mismar, or answer phone calls and customer queries. The artist periodically asks them to try to look at the camera as they read, but he otherwise stays relatively silent, respectfully correcting a pronunciation or offering a word definition only when one of the men gets confused and specifically asks for it.
Normism: The Philosophy of Norm Macdonald, a short book I wrote about the late great comedian, is available on Amazon.
