As Clarke notes, one implication of Blüher’s work is to render the whole issue of whether homosexuality is “natural” otiose; as I point out in my review of Neill, it is merely a Judaic misunderstanding of Stoic cosmology along the lines of monotheistic “laws.”
[←82]
The failure to recognize this dichotomy, as if all sexual relations were between unequals, leads to such smugly ignorant attitudes as “proud, free, and virile Aryan men would never have sex with each other,” rendering the widespread evidence of elite warrior cults and blood-brotherhood inexplicable.
[←83]
See my End of an Era: Mad Men & the Ordeal of Civility (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015).
[←84]
See my essay on De Palma’s The Untouchables in The Homo & the Negro.
[←85]
Dennis illustrates the point by looking at the peculiar relationship of Superman and Jimmy Olsen, who is less an object of romance or sidekick than a sad sack and fall guy in one of the Man of Steel’s plans, often near death while Superman chuckles nearby, waiting to “save the day” at the last minute. I immediately thought of Superdickery, the website devoted entirely to illustrating, with vintage DC covers, the thesis that Superman is, in fact, a smug dick.
[←86]
The Enemy of Europe.
[←87]
Op. cit.
[←88]
See Andy Nowicki’s “Manning Down” (http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/p/manning-down.html) as well as his Counter-Currents article “In Defense of ‘Squares’” (http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/in-defense-of-squaresa-response-to-jack-donovan/%20/%20_blank) which prompted a reply from Ferdinand Bardamu, “Can You See the Real Me?” (http://www.inmalafide.com/
blog/2012/04/02/can-you-see-the-real-me-a-response-to-andy-nowicki/%20/%20_blank) as well as Greg Johnson’s “Be Yourself?” (http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/04/be-yourself/).
[←89]
Neill notes with some wry amusement that William Davenport, who studied the sexual practices of the Santa Cruz Islanders in the 1960s, discovered 20 years later that “both government and church had worked hard” to replace traditional sanctions against heterosexual permissiveness, resulting in an explosion of same (op. cit., Loc. 1038).
[←90]
See Evola, Men Among the Ruins, p. 164.
[←91]
It is within the Männerbund that spiritual initiation is conducted; this is what creates the true aristocracy, not mere blood, race, or ethnicity. In Evola’s political theory, the aristocrat is the differentiated man, that is, the man who has differentiated himself from the mass, whatever his supposed race or genetics. See Gwendolyn von Taunton, “The Once and Future King: The Political Philosophy of Julius Evola” in Aristokratia II, esp. pp. 82–85. The idea of a nation or ruling class defined by mere biology is a Judaic notion, despite its popularity in European racist circles from Gobineau to Hitler to today.
[←92]
By contrast, in aristocratic Rome, the patrician family was more than a group of related genes: “the rite . . . enjoyed primacy over all other elements . . . that were related to nature . . . ‘The cult shaped the family into a united body . . . the ancient family was more a religious than a natural association’ [de Coulanges]” (Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, p. 39).
[←93]
Evola, as usual, seems to be unique on “the Right” for understanding that the modern “population crisis” is both quantitative—too many Untermenschen—as well as qualitative—too few of the elite. The answer to the first is abortion and birth control, to the second, homoromantic Männerbund (Evola calls them “celibate”). (See Paul Furlong, Social and Political Thought of Julius Evola [New York: Routledge, 2011], p. 84, and Gwendolyn von Taunton, op. cit., p. 112). Needless to say, both are anathema to the “conservative” who counsels instead: more girl-craziness!
[←94]
The Enemy of Europe by Francis Parker Yockey, “Introductory Note.” “White” America is the key here. Just as America has been feminized, it has also been Negrofied. The Negro manifests hysterical hyper-heterosexuality in both his out-of-control sexuality and his inability to form true Männerbünde and hence create and sustain culture. As a commenter at Stuff Black People Don’t Like observes: “I have often heard that negroes gestate faster, mature faster and die faster, but this is really an eye-opener. PDK often opines on the fast reproductive strategy but here it is out in the open. While Whites and their minds are still growing (and will continue to grow till 25) negroes seem to be completely “done” by 18. After that, they get coarser and uglier till 35 and then they begin to die off. The average life span of a negroid is 69 years. Probably the natural life span of a groid is 35, but their lives are extended by White man’s medicine, White man’s laws and White man’s technology, like Water Purification and food tech. Astonishingly, negroes lives are extended by prison (!) due to their large amount of leisure time, [the basis of culture, as Josef Pieper observed] while you stupid Whites are out there slaving away to pay your taxes [like good family-valuers],” http://stuffblack
peopledontlike.blogspot.com/2014/03/two-of-marshall-coulters-black-14-year.html
[←95]
Michael O’Meara, “2009: Crisis or Opportunity?” in Towards the White Republic (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2010).
[←96]
How to Stay Well (Los Angeles: The New Literature Publishing Co., 1912), pp. 85–86.
[←97]
Greg Johnson, New Right vs. Old Right, p. 29.
[←98]
As this goes to press, looks like Hagel, for one, is out.
[←99]
Jack Donovan figures that “the percentage of exclusive male homosexuals within the mainstream male population [is probably less than 3-5 . . . So everyone is talking about “expanding” the institution of marriage to benefit 50% of 5% of the male population. With some insanely generous rounding, that’s what—maybe 200,000 dudes, including male children and senior citizens”; hardly the biggest “problem” facing White America, especially since “Every day American culture is a little more like a Black Mass against nature and manhood and anything decent or beautiful or noble or worth saving. Western Civilization has become a Black Mass for Western Civilization. Everything our better fathers believed in has been spit on and placed like a tainted Host between the yeasty thighs of a giggling whore.” See “Gay Marriage: ‘What-The-Fuck-Ever’” by Jack Donovan, April 9, 2013, http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/04/gay-marriage-
what-the-fuck-ever/
[←100]
Here, if nowhere else, Watts agrees with Evola: “Some people have sought to favor a watered-down idea of Tradition, marked by moralizing and religious [i.e., exoteric dogmas and ritualism] concerns” (The Path of Cinnabar [London: Arktos, 2013], p. 234); “As for the character of official Catholicism today—a parochial, moralistic, socialistic, politicizing, and frankly paternalistic Catholicism which abhors all ‘medieval-isms’ in its attempt to prove itself up-to-date—there is little to be said” (op. cit., p. 133). And of course, there was nothing to be said about Protestantism. See, for example, Guénon’s “The Origins of Mormonism” in Miscellanea (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004), and then try and take Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck seriously. While Guénon, for example, spent decades trying—rather like Breton with psychoanalysis, Marxism, occultism, etc.—to create a rapprochement with Catholicism, Evola simply dismissed Christianity as having been a pseudo-tradition from the get-go.
[←101]
Audio lecture, “Beyond Theology.”
[←102]
While Atzmon is no more than a pseudo-ally, Greg Johnson notes that “Atzmon’s first argument, of course, is correct: Jews are guilty of deception when they preach universalism to us and practice partiality among themselves.” See Greg Johnson’s review “The Self-Exterminating Jew: Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who?,” http://
www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/the-self-exterminat
ing-jew-gilad-atzmons-the-wandering-who/
[←103]
Atzmon writes: “Israel has always been the Jewish State, it has never been a liberal place nor has it been committed to justice or equality. The deepest truth is that universal humanism and ethical culture is [sic] foreign to Judaic thinking that is tribal and legalistic.”—“I Support Israel’s National Bill,” November 25, 2014, http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2014/11/25/i-support-israels-national-bill0
[←104]
“Rabbis quite literally rule the life of their congregants (this is particularly true in the case of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Judaism) as halakhah literally has thousands of rules based off of the 613 Mitzvot (‘Commandments’) derived from the (Written) Torah. Thus it is necessary for the rabbi’s congregation to materially support him so that he can provide ‘expert guidance’ at a moment’s notice for his flock in all matters of religious law (halakhah) and custom (minhag).” See “Blogging the Jerusalem Talmud: Tractate Bikkurim” http://
semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/11/blogging-jerusalem-talmud-tractate.html
[←105]
As well as “our proud Viking heritage”—MST3k Episode 810: The Giant Spider Invasion.
[←106]
It should be remembered that Eliot, Anglo-Catholic that he was, played a not inconsiderable role in the presentation of Traditionalism to the Anglosphere. His publishing house, Faber & Faber, produced both the first English translation of Schuon’s The Transcendent Unity of Religion, trans. Peter Townsend (London: Faber & Faber, 1953), with a cover blurb from Eliot, and Watts’ The Supreme Identity: An Essay on Oriental Metaphysic and the Christian Religion (London: Faber & Faber, 1950); as well as Josef Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture, trans. Alexander Dru, with an introduction by T. S. Eliot (London: Faber & Faber, 1952), which just happened to be the text of my Intro Philosophy class at Assumption.
[←107]
Though of course it’s on the internet, such as at archive.org.
[←108]
Benjamin Ivry, “T.S. Eliot’s On-Again, Off-Again Anti-Semitism: Letters to Friends and Colleagues Repeatedly Denigrate Jews,” Forward, September 23, 2011, http://forward.com/articles/142722/
ts-eliots-on-again-off-again-anti-semitism/#ixzz3Kf6Jzua7
[←109]
As Joe Sobran said, “anti-Semite” no longer means “someone who hates all Jews” but “someone some Jew dislikes.”
[←110]
After writing this, I discovered (through idly searching new Kindle releases on Amazon) a similar reading: “The notorious passage in After Strange Gods is capable of the interpretation that a community of orthodox Jews would be socially desirable because of the strong social bonds established by Jewish solidarity.” Roger Kojecky, T. S. Eliot’s Social Criticism (London: Faber, 1971; Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing, 2014), “Introduction.” Of course, it all depends on what the aims of that “solidarity” (i.e., “ethnic networking”) are. Michael A. Hoffman, II—whose otherwise invaluable researches into Judaic subversion are vitiated by a typically Protestant insistence on stubbornly distinguishing evil Talmud Jews from God’s Chosen Ones of the Old Testament—would insist that Eliot “naively” accepts the claims of Rabbinic Judaism to be kosher.
[←111]
Similarly, editor Leslie Klinger seems puzzled by H. P. Lovecraft’s virulent antipathy to “the Jews” and other swarthy foreigners, while nevertheless enjoying trips to Chinatown and the Lower East Side and admiring the colorful native dress. See my “Notes on The New Edited Lovecraft,” http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/
notes-on-the-new-annotated-h-p-lovecraft/
[←112]
I discussed this before in “The Eternal Outsider: Veblen on the Gentleman and the Jew,” reprinted in The Eldritch Evola.
[←113]
I’ve frequently described this “culture of critique” (Kevin MacDonald) as producing “cockroach literature” due to the iconic role Kafka plays in it; however, recent a biography has led me to think the icon of Kafka himself, ironically, has been faked; see my review “Kafka, Our Folk-Comrade,” below.
[←114]
“The graying professor from Canada’s western hinterlands . . .”—From “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan,” Playboy Magazine, March 1969, http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan/
[←115]
While avoiding the excesses of Prohibition—though Quebecois Jews like Joseph Seagram were happy to sell whisky to Irish gangsters like Joe Kennedy—Canada, like England, enjoyed the restriction of drinking through a network of arcane rules and regulations (government-run stores, separate rooms for men without women, curtains on all windows to prevent ladies fainting after catching a sight of the debauchery, etc.). To see, in cultural terms, what McLuhan was up against, see Wyndham Lewis’ fictionalized memoir of the same period in the same cities, Toronto and Windsor, Self Condemned (Methuen, 1954; Voyageur Classics, Toronto: Dundurn, 2010). A generation later, Joyce Carol Oates wrote a series of inter-connected stories satirizing the desperate lives of her colleagues at the fictionalized “Hilberry College” where “everyone felt superior to the college, even to the country, Canada itself!” See Crossing the Border (New York: Vanguard Press, 1976) and The Hungry Ghosts: Seven Allusive Comedies (San Francisco: Black Sparrow, 1974). Significantly, two stories were published in Playboy Magazine and never collected by Oates, despite award-winning acclaim: “Saul Bird Says: Relate! Communicate! Liberate!” (Oct., 1971; Playboy Editorial Award, 1971; O Henry Award, 197; reprinted in Playboy Stories: The Best of Forty Years of Short Fiction 2, New York: Dutton, 1991), which portrays the destructive influence of what Kevin MacDonald would call a typical Jewish guru-type; and “Gay” (Playboy, Dec. 1976, reprinted only in The Best American Short Stories 1977), which details the self-destructive career arc of an English professor who seems to be the only person who “doesn’t realize he’s gay”: “Harvard, Oxford . . . somewhere in Canada? Impossible!” Both stories are relevant to our concerns here, of course.
[←116]
Philip Marchand, Marshall McLuhan: The Medium and the Messenger: A Biography (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998), p. 82.
[←117]
De Tocqueville already noted that behind the much vaunted “individualism” the lack of social stratification actually produced socially sanctioned conformity. In Kafka’s novel (usually known as) America, “What seems like popular democracy merely disguises the authoritarian rule of the political and economic elite.” Ritchie Robertson, “Introduction” to The Man Who Disappeared (America) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
[←118]
“How odd of God/To choose the Jews” wrote William Norman Ewer; interestingly, though he began as a Chestertonian sort of “guild socialist” he eventually became a Communist and a Soviet spy, according to Wikipedia, http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan/
[←119]
Documented by Israel Shahak, in his Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994). Shahak notes that Jews have simply recently colonized arts and sciences established by non-Jews: “Except for a purely religious learning, which was itself in a debased and degenerate state, the Jews of Europe (and to a somewhat lesser extent also of the Arab countries) were dominated, before about 1780, by a supreme contempt and hate for all learning (excluding the Talmud and Jewish mysticism). . . . Study of all languages was strictly forbidden, as was the study of mathematics and science. Geography, history—even Jewish history—were completely unknown. The critical sense, which is supposedly so characteristic of Jews, was totally absent, and nothing was so forbidden, feared and therefore persecuted as the most modest innovation or the most innocent criticism.” Even the much vaunted “Jewish sense of humor” is an even more recent construct; there are no jokes anywhere in classical Jewish writings: “Not only is humor very rare in Hebrew literature before the 19th century . . . but hu
mor and jokes are strictly forbidden by the Jewish religion—except, significantly, jokes against other religions. Satire against rabbis and leaders of the community was never internalized by Judaism, not even to a small extent, as it was in Latin Christianity. There were no Jewish comedies, just as there were no comedies in Sparta, and for a similar reason.” Op. cit., Chapter Two: “Prejudice and Prevarication.”
[←120]
On the role of entheogens in culture, see the extensive research of Michael Hoffman (not Michael A. Hoffman, II, though the fact that two Hoffmans, one of which is “II,” are involved in these areas is rather amusing) collected at his website, egodeath.com; for the role of drugs and drug-inspired Mysteries in creating classical culture, see D. C. A. Hillman, The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2008); for the Germanic tradition, see Christian Rätsch on “The Sacred Plants of our Ancestors,” TYR 2.
Green Nazis in Space: New Essays in Literature, Art, and Culture Page 21
