Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Diaspora Nationalism and the Former America

Gateway Pundit is breathlessly passing along a report that AOC's chief of staff in training has a genuine Nazi connection.
...AOC’s Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, the congresswoman-elect may well find herself destined for trouble.
…Saikat Chakrabarti is a highly motivated, smart guy. A Harvard grad, he founded a web tools company, Mockingbird. He is a founder of Justice Democrats, the PAC set up with The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur, was instrumental in getting AOC elected, and is presently going through congressional training to learn how to become an effective chief of staff for the Dems’ golden girl.
Based on a recent clothing choice, Chakrabarti might justifiably be considered a Nazi sympathizer. But really? Well, yes. In his latest love-fest video for AOC, Chakrabarti is sporting a tee-shirt that features a portrait of Subhas Chandra Bose. Not familiar with this former Indian head of state? Here a few facts:
  • Bose was an ally of Adolf Hitler and met with him personally in 1942.
  • Bose founded the Free India Legion (FIL) made up of troops captured by Nazi Field Marshal Rommel’s Afrika Korps.
  • The FIL swore an oath to Hitler and was under SS command.
  • Bose teamed up with the Japanese in 1943.
  • Bose was an admirer of the USSR and sought to implement its authoritarian practices in India.
Bold added.

Bose was an Indian nationalist who allied with Germany and Japan against Britain in World War II. Unlike Gandhi, he pursued armed revolution. We are learning about the man because Cortez' guy Chakrabati was photographed wearing a t-shirt with his likeness, a la the familiar Che Guevara shirt.

The Indian Chakrabati appreciates Bose as an Indian nationalist who fought for independence. As smart as he is I bet he doesn't see the contradiction between his Indian nationalism and his progressive politics which are the antithesis of nationalism.

As a typical progressive he'll work against American nationalism, in the office of a representative who recently made a statement of foreign nationalism remarkable for an elected representative, when she declared the US has no right to immigration restriction because we are on land stolen--from her ethnic group.

Meanwhile the mainstream right can only do what it always does, cry Nazi, in the hope enough powerful American Jews will be motivated to oppose her. Americans can only defend themselves against hostile foreign national sympathies by invoking other foreign national sympathies via their ultimate Bad Guys of nationalism, the Nazis.

In the meantime we can expect the development of national consciousness in more and more Americans of foreign descent, and their attendant political factions, doing battle in the ruins of the American republic, fighting for primacy, seeking to direct foreign policy to favor their homelands and, of course, government set-asides.

To defend against this disaster we're allowed to invoke Nazis, but never double loyalties, because of the outsized power of history's greatest diaspora nationalists.

None of this is new. Hispanics have been stewed in racial politics since the sixties; the only thing that's saved us is the apathy Hispanics have for social or political questions.

Alan Wall reports in VDare on the California Attorney General's Spanish-language response to the State of the Union
[B]ecause as a son of immigrants, I saw my parents struggle and I witnessed all they had to pass through. I believe that the DACA beneficiaries are going to be the best leaders that the United States will have. … It’s very personal. … Everything I do is based on how I grew up. I defend the immigrants with passion because I saw immigrants every day of my life. I know how hard they work. ... when somebody hits an immigrant, he is hitting my father and my mother.
The left has been humoring pan-Hispanic nationalism because no one takes it seriously. The Hispanic voting block is desirable because it's made up of low-information voters who can be expected to vote as they're told (though you might have to send out vans to get them to the polls).

We can't hope for such apathy from the newer groups that are being encouraged by leftist demagogy to embrace their racial nationalism and organize around it in the same way as the Hispanics before them. Groups with higher intelligence aren't going to adopt civic nationalism and assimilate--not while everyone else is striving for preeminence. To stand on principle is to be a sucker. Worse, higher intelligence isn't correlated with political activity; low-IQ groups like Somalis appear to be highly political.

Our dystopian future involves various ethnic political groups striving for their fair share of the spoils of an American empire turned inside-out, self colonizing out of greed and the hostile national sympathies of our most powerful ethnic group.


Friday, February 08, 2019

Caught in the Intertow

In the New York Times Bret Stephens takes on the hydra-headed beast Intersectionality; it appears to have turned its countless bloodshot eyes on the Jews
It happened again last month in Detroit. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators seized the stage of the National L.G.B.T.Q. Task Force’s marquee conference, “Creating Change” and demanded a boycott of Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” they chanted — the tediously malign, thinly veiled call to end Israel as a Jewish state.

They were met with sustained applause by the audience at what is the largest annual conference of L.G.B.T.Q. activists in the United States. Conference organizers did nothing to stop the disruption or disavow the demonstrators.

For Tyler Gregory, neither the behavior of the protesters nor the passivity of the organizers came as a surprise. Gregory is executive director of A Wider Bridge, a North American L.G.B.T.Q. organization that works to support Israel and its gay community. In 2016, his group hosted a reception at the Task Force’s conference in Chicago. The event was mobbed by some 200 aggressive demonstrators, and Gregory and his audience had to barricade themselves in their room while those outside were harassed.

“Whether you believe in the concept of intersectionality is beside the point,” Gregory told me recently, referring to the idea that the oppression of one group is the oppression of all others. “If this is your value system, you are not following it. As Jews we were denied our safe space. We were denied our place in a movement that fights bigotry.”
You may not be interested in intersectionality, but intersectionality is interested in you.

But no, even they can't define intersectionality (oppression of one is oppression of all, the hoary old chestnut that isn't even true, isn't it; in fact, it's more like oppression of me is more than oppression of thee); it's a word they adapt to context: when combining and focusing claims upon the "oppressor" white male--when looting, and when assigning status within the hierarchy of grievance--when divvying up the loot.
But mostly it seems to involve the inevitable infighting of a coalition of interests sustained by shrill demagogy. "Intersectionality" is also a euphemism for that infighting and its vicious nature.

Stephens laments the takeover of the Women's March movement by antisemites and the entrance into Congress of Rashida Tlaib and Ilan Ohmar, and sees in yet another remarkable concession to Israel the stirrings of real trouble:
Progressives — including presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren — also united behind Vermont’s Bernie Sanders in a failed bid to block a Senate bill, passed on Tuesday, that includes an anti-B.D.S. measure prohibiting federal contracts with businesses that boycott Israel, ostensibly on free-speech grounds. One wonders how these same Democrats feel about, say, championing First Amendment protections for bakers who refuse to make cakes for gay couples.
Israel's influence is perhaps stronger than ever, but the Democrats' lurch left might be the beginning of the end.
What’s unsettling is that the far-left’s hostility is now being mainstreamed by the not-so-far left. Anti-Zionism — that is, rejection not just of this or that Israeli policy, but also of the idea of a Jewish state itself — is becoming a respectable position among people who would never support the elimination of any other country in any other circumstance.
How is that not precisely what we have in store for every single Western country? The apparatus of government remains, even some of its traditions, but the ethnic nature is changed--for the better, bigot! The only real rejoinder Zionists have to this is a legalistic argument--the United States wasn't explicit enough in designing itself as an ethno-state. Should've got it in writing, goyim.

The state of Israel does not vanish, obviously, under the one-state solution. Jewish supremacy (a perfectly normal desire of Israeli Jews) likely does, and the country becomes multicultural. Let your imagination run wild: Israel becomes the world's moral superpower, humanity is once and forever cured of antisemitism, Israel is a light unto the nations...

Within Israel Jews will continue to dominate for generations at least, and will be relieved of the moral burden of occupation and the threat of terrorism.
And it is churning up a new wave of nakedly anti-Jewish bigotry in its wake, as when three women holding rainbow flags embossed with a Star of David at the 2017 Chicago Dyke March were ejected on grounds that the star was “a trigger.”
Just as the American flag is now sometimes a "trigger".
The progressive answer is straightforward: Israel and its supporters, they say, did this to themselves. More than a half-century of occupation of Palestinian territories is a massive injustice that fair-minded people can no longer ignore, especially given America’s financial support for Israel. Continued settlement expansion in the West Bank proves Israel has no interest in making peace on equitable terms. And endless occupation makes Israel’s vaunted democracy less about Jewish self-determination than it is about ethnic subjugation.
Self-determination and ethnic subjugation have gone hand-in-hand throughout history. For all the Holocaust kitsch through which we're supposed to understand it, the Palestinian-Israeli fight is the oldest type of struggle: two groups contending over land, with the subsuming of one population a potential outcome (if improbable).
Next is the belief that anti-Zionism is a legitimate political position, and not another form of prejudice.
There are many genuine progressive true-believing Jews who would beg to differ.
By conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism Israel gets to have its cake and eat it too. Anti-nationalism is wrecking Western nations and their attendant ethnic groups, and we're all to pretend it's incidental to, for one, the religion of "white privilege" that intersects. Jews have only Israel. I get it. I support it. But all we ever had were our nations too, and they were the best.
It is one thing to argue, in the moot court of historical what-ifs, that Israel should not have come into being, at least not where it is now. It is also fair to say that there is much to dislike about Israel’s current leadership, just as there’s much not to like about America’s. But nobody claims the election of Donald Trump makes America an illegitimate state.
Actually they kind of do. I'll say they've gone you one better: the "Resistance" holds the state is captured by illegitimate powers (illegitimate because they see the US as a sort of Israel for whites, in this view) and is waging a coup.

In fact, they're using the election of Donald Trump to further pathologize the white history of America. They are claiming the election of Trump negates the moral basis of the US. They are out of control. Brett must not get out much.
Israel is now the home of nearly nine million citizens, with an identity that is as distinctively and proudly Israeli as the Dutch are Dutch or the Danes Danish. Anti-Zionism proposes nothing less than the elimination of that identity and the political dispossession of those who cherish it, with no real thought of what would likely happen to the dispossessed. Do progressives expect the rights of Jews to be protected should Hamas someday assume the leadership of a reconstituted “Palestine”?
Au contraire. The Dutch, as every other western nation, are currently surrendering their nation and identity with enthusiasm, and I would note anti-popular compulsion from an alienated elite.

Do Americans expect the rights of whites to be protected--screw that, are they being protected?
To say, as progressives sometimes do, that Jews are “colonizers” in Israel is anti-Semitic because it advances the lie that there is no ancestral or historic Jewish tie to the land. To claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, when manifestly it is not, is anti-Semitic because it’s an attempt to Nazify the Jewish state. To insist that the only state in the world that has forfeited the moral right to exist just happens to be the Jewish state is anti-Semitic, too: Are Israel’s purported crimes really worse than those of, say, Zimbabwe or China, whose rights to exist are never called into question? "Genocide" is an overused term, and does not "nazify" (idiotic word) anything, Jews in Germany were economically and even politically powerful in the 1920s.
And then they were in Buchenwald.
Indeed. To be powerful but vulnerable was the Jews' misfortune. Zionism answers that vulnerability in the obvious way, establishing a homeland for the Jews, and discrediting the concept of "homeland" outside of Israel via secular progressive politics dominated by diaspora Jews has been the other answer.
Isn't it time for Jew and white gentiles to forge a new agreement, whereby we all get to keep our countries?
 Israel appears powerful vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but considerably less so in the context of a broader Middle East saturated with genocidal anti-Semitism. American Jews are comparatively wealthy. But wealth without political power, as Hannah Arendt understood, is a recipe for hatred. The Jews of the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh are almost surely “privileged” according to various socio-economic measures. But privilege didn’t save the congregants of the Tree of Life synagogue last year.
Indeed, and their political privilege over and above all didn't save them either--from a prototypical "loser" as they would describe him; that is, from someone with no real privilege (just the Orwellian curse of "white privilege", which is not an idea that originated from the underprivileged of any stripe, curiously enough).

The notion of "privilege" based on socio-economic disparities collapses. Whites are supposedly "privileged" in the US, but they're hunted on the streets by blacks, who are described, comically, as a "vulnerable" group. We are in a position not unlike Jews under periods of extreme antisemitism when we attempt to navigate black geographic strongholds, when we endure periodic pogroms and watch as our culture and wealth are appropriated, as privilege (by any other name) is established on behalf of ever angrier and uglier complainants lacking the intelligence and self-awareness to see their absurdity.

We need a new way.

Saturday, February 02, 2019

After Dark

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary

Andrew Sullivan:
It might be a sign of the end-times, or simply a function of our currently scrambled politics, but earlier this week, four feminist activists — three from a self-described radical feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front — appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological, and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected. For this, they were given a rousing round of applause by the Trump supporters, religious-right members, natural law theorists, and conservative intellectuals who comprised much of the crowd. If you think I’ve just discovered an extremely potent strain of weed and am hallucinating, check out the video of the event.

I’ve no doubt that many will see these women as anti-trans bigots, or appeasers of homophobes and transphobes, or simply deranged publicity seekers. (The moderator, Ryan Anderson, said they were speaking at Heritage because no similar liberal or leftist institution would give them space or time to make their case.) And it’s true that trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs, as they are known, are one minority that is actively not tolerated by the LGBTQ establishment, and often demonized by the gay community. It’s also true that they can be inflammatory, offensive, and obsessive. But what interests me is their underlying argument, which deserves to be thought through, regardless of our political allegiances, sexual identities, or tribal attachments. Because it’s an argument that seems to me to contain a seed of truth. Hence, I suspect, the intensity of the urge to suppress it.

The title of the Heritage panel conversation — “The Inequality of the Equality Act” — refers to the main legislative goal for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbbying group in the US. The proposed Equality Act — a federal nondiscrimination bill that has been introduced multiple times over the years in various formulations — would add “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rendering that class protected by anti-discrimination laws, just as sex is. The TERF argument is that viewing “gender identity” as interchangeable with sex, and abolishing clear biological distinctions between men and women, is actually a threat to lesbian identity and even existence — because it calls into question who is actually a woman, and includes in that category human beings who have been or are biologically male, and remain attracted to women. How can lesbianism be redefined as having sex with someone who has a penis, they argue, without undermining the concept of lesbianism as a whole? “Lesbians are female homosexuals, women who love women,” one of the speakers, Julia Beck, wrote last December, “but our spaces, resources and communities are on the verge of extinction.”
Feminism right now seems unassailable, but the way women are handing over their identity to trans "women" suggests they're not really in charge--the men are, still. The gay men, and they like men in dresses. Always have.

No sooner had women established themselves as a political faction than they're giving away the franchise. The Equality Act and the movement from which it emerges says anyone gets to be a woman. Regular women of course were never been consulted.

There is social and, now, political value in being a woman, and the ladies are being conned out of it by gay men, which is kind of funny when you get past the disaster it represents: the charming gay con man swindling a gullible woman out of her fortune is a familiar trope.

Women established themselves politically by destroying the old, putatively limiting definitions of femininity, converting their old social privilege for legal and political privilege. The trans rights movement, should it continue as it is, will render that privilege meaningless, and there's no road back to the oppressive old pedestal.
A culture of you-go-girl propaganda, sexual hysteria, resource looting and demagogy does not a female identity make.

We see now that femininity has always been too important to leave to women.

That Heritage panel is chilling.

The lesbians on this panel point out how the trans movement contradicts what they represent, and liberal secular values generally, identifying femininity with make-up and dresses. The whole drag fixation is just another glaring contradiction we can't see for all the contradictions.

But gay Andrew Sullivan sees the great zombie horde will eventually come for him:
 This is the deeply confusing and incoherent aspect of the entire debate. If you abandon biology in the matter of sex and gender altogether, you may help trans people live fuller, less conflicted lives; but you also undermine the very meaning of homosexuality. If you follow the current ideology of gender as entirely fluid, you actually subvert and undermine core arguments in defense of gay rights. “A gay man loves and desires other men, and a lesbian desires and loves other women,” explains Sky Gilbert, a drag queen. “This defines the existential state of being gay. If there is no such thing as ‘male’ or ‘female,’ the entire self-definition of gay identity, which we have spent generations seeking to validate and protect from bigots, collapses.” Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them.
Faster, harder you might say, if you want to hasten the end. The Narrative really is eating itself, but that doesn't mean it has to lose power--the demographic shift taking place still promises one-party rule, and soon. America faces the prospect of rule by a Democratic Party that can't govern for the same reason it can't be voted out.

Friday, February 01, 2019


Subscribe to my new YouTube channel because how else are you going to detox from all the boring-ass streams you normally listen to?


June 7, 2008

Memento, n.; A hint, suggestion, token, or memorial, to awaken memory; that which reminds or recalls to memory; a souvenir.
[1913 Webster]

I thought to capture my history but was surprised to find it won't stay put; I'm not sure I recognize it. Sometimes it's a faint image, like a 3-D hologram, shimmying and wavering. I reach for it and it flickers out as my hand passes through. I don't know if it isn't just a composite of experience real and imagined, some mine, some stolen from others, some culled from the cultural commons. There are those moments we all have, of sudden temporary displacement, wherein we do not recognize our surroundings, the life that sprung up around us, that is to say moments when we do not recognize ourselves. These leave behind the residue of doubt. 

I'm having trouble neatly separating the experience from the flotsam trapped in the recesses and eddies of my mind, from the residue still building up about the edges of the endless stream of electronic illusion passing through even now. The sticky fragments of no particular relevance left behind in no sensible order. I can no longer clearly demarcate the boundary between the real and the representational. I see now I never really could. Did I live this life? Perhaps I saw it all on TV.

Nothing is stranger than to look in one's past and ask: did this happen? Am I that child, connected to the present by a chain of heart beats? How in the hell can this all be? How can this world be real? All this time spent no more than a blip; inconsequential, yet everything I know.

The truth is a tear of mercury that resists containment. It cannot be seen head-on or appreciated in full. It will not be drawn in from the periphery. We are all reduced to furtive voyeurs of our own lives in the end. Your history is that light smudge in the corner of your eye, that flits away when you look in its direction.
I haven't done anything here, after all. Skirting the issue always; the story of my life, of all our lives, of humanity. All this supposed revelation just circling the periphery like a basketball "rimming out." Nothing.

The real journey I will not make.
Or maybe not. Maybe we all make that journey within, the only real journey there is, eventually. Maybe that's what death is. Going home. The incoherent babble of death's delirium is the purging, surrendering energy back into the ether, in waves of language by way of dissipating will, a chemical reaction rendering our identities inert and final. Only after it can no longer be known, only after it is lost is it made whole; only then does it lose its contingent nature and become complete. Or not. Who knows?

This, this is all just stalking, lurking about outside the fortress of reality in the forest of illusion.
No: illusion is the fortress, reality the forest.

Night Stream