Collectibles

"Of course there are virtually no public art collections containing tainted material remaining in the Free World."
"But it's still illegal for me to view them?"
"Of course. Prosecutions are rare, of course."
"Rare? Not nonexistent?" Herbert regretted his voice carried a hint of concern.
"Well, the Chinese are beginning to cooperate more and more with the International Convention on Hate Speech. Visitors to China have to register to view designated material, say at a museum show, and we're adding more every day."
"So the Chinese are reporting you?'
"No. Not yet at least. Obviously we don't have that kind of influence and can only ask. But the dampening effect of disallowing anonymity alone is remarkable. If someone isn't determined to see these things, views them as curiosities really, why's he going to document an illegal act that might land him in some UN hellhole prison somewhere? And that's most people."
"The Chinese have no problem with all this?"
"I think they like it. I think they like the idea that westerners can be so easily compromised with their home countries."
"Like the ambassador."
"Yes. Anyone of stature is going to stay away from tainted material. The ambassador is the exception proving that rule. Of course the Chinese like it. One more tool. They also love the propaganda yield, to be able to taunt us that our own history from which we cower is kept there under glass, an anthropological curiosity from a dead civilization in the midst of a living, breathing one. At least that's how I've heard it described by one of their own.

"And people here keep getting into trouble for it. Like the ambassador. Why?"
"Yeah. They just can't help themselves." Genero said with slight admiration.
"I've heard of vast private collections."

"Overblown--probably. But private collections are a problem, certainly. We have no idea how many are out there. What constitutes a collection, also, is a legitimate question."
Herbert perked up at this.
"Yes. That's my concern. Say a guy has, in the classic example, an old newspaper announcing the moon landing--"
Genero looked at him with sly sympathy.
"Well, if this friend of yours had only that, and just that, while he'd be in clear violation, it's not like they're going to come busting down his door. As long as it doesn't circulate, he's not going to get into trouble."
"But he could be arrested."
"Yes. Of course. Look what they got that last fellow for, what was he, chairman of the national bank or something? It was a stack of old pornographic magazines. It wasn't even political stuff, they were more in the line of curiosities."
"Aren't they all really?"
"No. No. There's still some very dangerous stuff in there. Even the sort of stuff in the chairman's collection, there were to be found political articles expounding the most dangerous ideas. Something of a political nature would be a stew of toxic expression."
"Really?"
Herbert regretted the intrigue in his voice.
Genero continued.
"But I point him out only to note they had some reason to come after him and the collection was a pretext."
"They say everybody possessing any text is in violation."
"Any text older than sixty years, even the most banal. That's in there. But it it's not quite everything."
"And images?"
"Well there's no reason to worry about photographs, paintings or the like yet, of course, but you know President Feltyear He-Him said just the other night, the international direction is clearly toward the gradual cleaning up and elimination..."
"So, with the inclusion of imagery, it might become true that virtually everyone is in violation of the International Convention on Intolerance and Hate Communication?"
"That's an exaggeration. But it isn't such a bad thing. Everyone has something on them. Everyone has a stake in making things work--because everyone is on notice not to screw up or, worse, go over to the wreckers."
"What did he do, anyway?"
"Who?"
"The bank chairman."
"Who cares?"

Sliver of Poz

A friend I hadn't seen for a while related to me his recent experience with employer-mandated racial equity training. Eight hours of it, in fact. I asked him how they managed to fill the time.
"By repeating themselves over and over." He said. This was broken up by activities--for one, you sit in a group and answer loaded questions like "explain how you're enriched by diversity", etc.

They also showed cartoons:

 

My friend had recently abandoned the second-tier state school he was attending because of the ubiquity of political correctness and its fixation on denouncing white males and promoting transgenderism.
A lapsing SJW, he works for the sort of non-profit that foists this sort of thing on itself out of enthusiasm (and taxpayer subsidy) but says there's a push to make this training mandatory throughout the private sector.

That might not be such a bad thing. This guy is in the process of being rapidly deluded by a process of excess indoctrination. Cultural conditioning--television, film, music--works by drips of suggestion and disingenuous cues. It never has to present itself in full and it never has to defend itself.

But when it's brought out of subtext and to center stage for its big number, it's very hard for the good people who just want to get along to ignore the insanity of it. I think I'm a big proponent of this training, and the more exposed to it the better.

Faster, harder.

Torah Talk

Come for the analysis, leave for the guitar

Richard Spencer debates Jay Dyer on God, religion and the right.



It isn't my intention to do these sorts of videos, but I did this at someone's suggestion. What I am going to do is livestream every Monday at 5 PM Pacific. If I can draw enough viewers in I'll try to bring in guests or a co-host.

Noncast

I had intended on livestreaming at 5 PM today, but my employer has his own demands.
Tomorrow then, 5 PM Pacific, let's call it Tuesday Night Alt Right, at my YouTube channel.

Wahabbism is a Social Construct

Jeffrey Golberg interviews Saudi Arabian crown prince and ruler Mohammed bin Salman in the Atlantic

The prince, in my conversation with him, divided the Middle East into two warring camps: what he called the “triangle of evil,” consisting of Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sunni terror groups; and an alliance of self-described moderate states that includes Jordan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman. About his bête noir, the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Prince Mohammed said, “I believe the Iranian supreme leader makes Hitler look good. Hitler didn’t do what the supreme leader is trying to do. Hitler tried to conquer Europe. … The supreme leader is trying to conquer the world.”

 The triangle of evil intersects the axis of evil at Iran, which appears to be the juncture of Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests. Where the prince places the Muslim Brotherhood and Sunni terrorists George W Bush placed Iraq as their state sponsor, ignoring at the time Saudi Arabia could far more easily be described as just that.

The thirty two year-old MbS, as he's known, appears to be out to modernize Saudi Arabia as rapidly as he can get away with, in conjunction with a grand plan to move beyond an oil economy called Vision 2030. Combined with an abandonment of the Palestinians and an all-but-open alliance with Israel against the Shia represented by Iran, he comes as if ready-made for the global order. Liberalizing Saudi Arabia is to be open for business.

And that's Saudi Arabia's business, of course, but when the West is filling up with young male Sunnis who aren't bound for glory in their new homes, I worry any terrorist campaign against his government will operate out of and engulf Europe.

The prince cites the 1979 Iranian Revolution as the birth of Islamic extremism. This is a recent theme, tracing the seizure of the Grand Mosque by similarly radicalized Sunnis and the subsequent conservative period in which Saudi Arabia remains, including its appeasement and sponsorship of radical Islam all back to today's enemy, Iran.

Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia are now allied against Iran, and we're the only one among our "axis" or "triangle" (of stupid?) that hasn't a discernible national interest in countering Iran, outside of our alliance with the other two.

Goldberg asks the prince about Saudi Arabia's support for Wahabbism and the same Sunni extremism he cites in his triangle, and the prince shows a distinctly Western facility for evasion-by-definition:

Goldberg: Isn’t it true, though, that after 1979, but before 1979 as well, the more conservative factions in Saudi Arabia were taking oil money and using it to export a more intolerant, extremist version of Islam, Wahhabist ideology, which could be understood as a kind of companion ideology to Muslim Brotherhood thinking? 

MbS: First of all, this Wahhabism—please define it for us. We’re not familiar with it. We don’t know about it. 

Goldberg: What do you mean you don’t know about it? 

MbS: What is Wahhabism? 

Goldberg: You’re the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. You know what Wahhabism is. 

MbS: No one can define this Wahhabism. 

Goldberg: It’s a movement founded by Ibn abd al-Wahhab in the 1700s, very fundamentalist in nature, an austere Salafist-style interpretation— 

MbS: No one can define Wahhabism. There is no Wahhabism. We don’t believe we have Wahhabism. We believe we have, in Saudi Arabia, Sunni and Shiite. We believe we have within Sunni Islam four schools of thought, and we have the ulema [the religious authorities] and the Board of Fatwas [which issues religious rulings]. Yes, in Saudi Arabia it’s clear that our laws are coming from Islam and the Quran, but we have the four schools—Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki—and they argue about interpretation.

No drink of alcohol, no taste of bacon could Westernize him more than this mode of argument. The society of global bugmen have a Prince.

Easter Sunday 2018

Manik Bibler joins me for a bit in an informal discussion.