A Jewish 80-year old billionaire owner of a basketball team has been banned from the NBA for life and is being forced to sell the team. It all looks a set up, but the accusations are very serious. You see, he is a “racist”.

He has a half-black lover and owns a majority black team, and is said to have discriminated against white players, but that doesn’t matter. He is “racist” because he said that he doesn’t want his mistress to post pictures in Instagram together with black athletes she sleeps with.

It all is a farce. The lover who framed him by (illegally) recording a private conversation is a Black-Mexican-Filipino bimbo who attends by the pseudonym “V. Stiviano”. She was carefully oriented by her lawyer in order to obtain a few “racist” sound bites that could be sent to the media and crucify the old man, because everyone knows that there’s nothing worse in the world than “racism”.

The objective seems to have been obtained: Sterling will be forced to sell the team. It is likely that powerful groups who wanted to buy the L.A. Clippers from him were behind the whole scheme.

That is not the tragedy. A gold-digging bitch and a scheming billionaire deserve each other, and they might both die and end in Hell for all I care.

The tragedy is that:

a) America is no longer a free country. It is no longer possible for anyone to have a personal conversation that contradicts the tenets of modern liberalism (or goes against the sacredness of blacks, gays, etc.). In that sense, the recent resignation of Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla and co-creator of Firefox simply for having made a perfectly legal contribution to a campaign favoring traditional marriage (i.e. the only kind of “marriage” as it was understood for thousands of years) is a signal in the same direction; also the resignation of the CEO of Github, because of the complains of a pseudo-feminist who had a hormonal cat-fight against his wife).

b) Even so, even this been clearly a power-play between big sharks, the majority of Americans seem to take at face value the “racism” allegations, and the idea that “racists” have it coming. For the majority of Americans, if you are even slightly “racist” or “homophobic” or “sexist”, then you no longer have free speech, and you should die. It is interesting to observe that no one is recriminating the old billionaire for cheating on his wife, or for doing dubious business, or the black-mexican bimbo for being a gold-digger and illegally recording conversations. No, all that is perfectly fine in the new America. But being “racist”, ah, that’s the real trouble.

Marx said that history repeats itself as farce. America is becoming a farcical repetition of the Soviet State, where you can’t say anything against the status quo, and where an elite has all the power while promising “equality” for the poor schmucks below.

Racist.

Is life in the USA healthier for young people? The question arises because now yet another young man (seemingly of Italian origin, judging by the surname), someone who had more opportunities than most of us, has just shot some TSA agents in the airport, one fatally, and is currently in custody.

There is something about America today that feeds paranoia, rage, fear and violence. No, this is not about guns or gun laws. Other countries have guns but they do not have so many of such events. There is something about American contemporary life that breeds rage and frustration in lonely young men.

But what is it?

Apparently the shooter’s motive was that he was “disappointed with the government”, which is strange, because anyone with any sense would not put any hopes in government at all. I am a firm believer that the less government, the better (I am an anarchist of sorts). But it is true that, as the NSA spying scandal and the Obamacare fiasco show, Government in America is becoming increasingly totalitarian and invasive, and the country is losing its identity in the midst of massive illegal immigration. America is the new Rome, it is slowly falling, a decadent Empire.

A note found on the shooter seemed to mention the ‘New World Order‘. Hey, just because you are paranoid it doesn’t mean that your enemies don’t exist. There probably is an attempt by the global elite to create a world government, but killing unarmed TSA agents will do nothing to stop it.

Still, even the abusive and pointless behavior of TSA agents would not be in itself a motive for murder. Yes, the TSA spends millions to pat down and humiliate American citizens in the airports because they don’t want to ‘racially profile’, that is, to admit that a young Muslim man has more probability of being a terrorist than a 90-year old grandma or an 8-year old kid. But it is hard to get so worked up with that to the point of shooting someone, unless you have other more serious psychological problems. 

One of the possible explanations is ‘Beta male rage’ – i.e. he had no girlfriend and no friends, was introvert and possibly seen as a loser by his peers. In America, there is nothing worse than being seen as a loser. However, even that is not an adequate explanation. Years ago, people would accept their problems and move on, or perhaps, if things got really bad, kill themselves. But taking a gun and shooting innocent people is a more recent trend.

What is going on?

There is a story going on in the media that the Boston terrorists (two Chechen immigrants) were not well-adapted to America. One of them even, apparently, said that he had no American friends, “he couldn’t understand them”. (And who can blame him? Sometimes I can’t either)

In any case, I don’t think it is true. I think that they were perfectly adapted. What is America nowadays, after all? A “land of immigrants”, as they call it. But no longer a nation where immigrants are supposed to adapt and assimilate. On the contrary, it is the country that has to bend over backward to accommodate them. “Para Español, marque dos”. For the Multi-Prayer room, just turn Left.

The brothers were Muslim. Luckily, America is not a Christian country, it is a multicultural, multi-faith country. The older brother didn’t have to give up on his religion. In fact, he got married and it was his American wife the one who converted to Islam. It all seemed like a happy love story, until he started to watch too many jihadi videos, abused her, and then decide to blow up a marathon. Oh well, what won’t people do for fun, right?

Both were so assimilated that one had a Green Card and the other was a citizen faster than most people who work slavishly for years on a H1B Visa. They even got a scholarship to study in a prestigious university. “They loved the country”, said her mother. (She also said that they were “angels”, and that they were framed by the evil American government.)

Still, the poor kids felt oppressed. But that was also part of the assimilation process: the cult of victimization. Today in America, if you’re a minority, start complaining and sue someone. If nothing all works, you can always go out with a bang instead than with a whimper.

After all, today there’s no better way to call attention and become famous in America than with some of the good old ultra-violence, as Alex from the Clockwork Orange would say. It will appear on television or on the Internet 24/7. What’s not to like?

Unassimilated Chechens? Not really. They were as American as Major Hassan, as Adam Lanza, as Diebold and Harris. They assimilated all the lessons of contemporary culture.

Too bad that some people had to die because of that.

It is slowly dawning on some people that the transformation of the United States into Northern Mexico and of Europe into Eurabia is not necessarily a good thing. According to an interesting article published in the City Journal, the descendants of the Mexican underclass that cross and live illegally in the American territory, remain, what a surprise, an underclass in the new country. They lead in teenage pregnancies, school abandonment and gang affiliation. The Islamic immigrants in Europe tend to lead in rape and in welfare dependency.

In the US, Democrats tend to favor amnesty for illegals and increased immigration. It is only natural, since they are increasing their voter turnout. They are, however, very much against the patriarchy and against domestic violence. Unfortunately, the illegal Mexican immigrants and their descendants seem to be leaders in domestic violence. The more illegal immigration from Mexico there is, the more domestic violence there will be.

The same is true, incidentally, of the Muslim hordes that invade the European territory, either legally or illegally (doesn’t make that much difference in the end). There is probably no population in the world that is less concerned by “women’s rights” than Muslim populations, from their addiction to genital mutilation to the obligation to wearing veils or to being forced to marry their rapists. Rape, in fact, is also very common in this demographic group. In Norway, in a certain year, apparently 100% of rapes in the country were committed by immigrants, mostly of Muslim origin.

If the US was more like Canada, it could promote more qualified legal immigration instead of the illegal immigration of the underclass. But that’s not how the thing is seen by the authorities, who prefer cheap labor and lots of votes.

The progressive take on the matter seems to be that, by inviting these immigrants into America and Europe, they will be magically changed through education, and therefore they will eventually become progressive. It is a touching belief in the possibilities of changing the human mind. There is a risk, however, that exactly the opposite could happen, that the non-progressive view of the immigrants (at least in what regards women’s issues) could prevail and change society for the worse.

What makes a country is not its geography, not even its government or its institutions. What makes a country is its people. If you change the people through massive immigration, you cannot be surprised that the country changes too. That so many intelligent men are incapable of grasping such an obvious fact is one of the great mysteries of the contemporary age, one that will keep the Historians of the future occupied for decades.

“In America, you have the right to be stupid if you want to be”, said John Kerry, Obama’s new Secretary of State, in a recent speech to German students. It seems, however, that some are abusing the privilege, including members of the current American government. (The fiscal cliff comes to mind.)

Of course, Kerry was actually talking about the importance of free speech, and observing that even unpopular or wrong (“stupid”) views should be permitted, which is a valid point. (That is increasingly untrue, by the way — there are several politically incorrect facts that cannot be mentioned in contemporary discourse in America, and criticizing minorities in any way is strictly verboten, as the German students would say.)

Nevertheless, we can also take his words literally, and wonder up to what point American culture is promoting stupidity, in the phenomenon commonly known as “dumbing down”.  It is true that American pop culture has been leading the world in celebrating stupidity, and where American pop culture goes, global culture goes. We are all Americans now.

Be stupid“, orders us a recent international campaign for Diesel jeans — an Italian brand, but the ad was created by a New York agency. The message is clear: to be reckless and irrational in the search of cheap thrills is to be alive. This is pretty much the general message of the media, from reality shows to commercials.

There have been many American films celebrating stupidity, from “Dumb and Dumber” to “Jackass”. Even “Idiocracy”, while having an interesting opening that criticizes the demographic dumbing down of America, ends up becoming the same form of mindless entertainment that it purports to criticize.

“Forrest Gump” is perhaps a more interesting film. Here the dim-witted protagonist ends up as becoming a moral example, whereas the supposedly smart Jenny ends up joining hippies and dies of AIDS. The film can be seen as a criticism of the cultural revolution of the 60s, although it always bothered me a bit the fact that you’re supposed to see dumbness as the equivalent of moral good.

It is true that, in many cases, because of the leftism indoctrination in American Universities, to be “smart” and to have a diploma merely means to have a high degree of Marxist and progressive ideas inculcated in the brain. But it is also true that there is a stereotype in the USA that liberals are “smart” and culturally savvy, while conservatives are usually seen or portrayed as dumb hicks, clinging to guns and religion.

Of course, that is not really true. While conservatives might be less attuned to contemporary culture and many don’t “get” abstract art, liberals are in many cases just as ignorant of basic economics, such as the fact that money doesn’t grow in trees and you can’t just tax people to death to provide welfare for the non-productive. And, while progressives apparently seem to care a lot about Latino immigrants, their ignorance of Latin American culture and even geography is abysmal. They really see things through they parochial progressive eyes and think that everyone is the world is just like them.

However, what is is true is that there is a certain anti-intellectual bent in part of the American right, which is a pity. While this is understandable, since “intellectual” today in the U.S. usually means “leftist activist”, it seems to me that it is wrong to reject high culture and literacy, throwing the baby along with the water. What Americans should do is get rid of the politically correct claptrap that is currently being taught in the Humanities departments, and return to an education that values the Classics and the canonical works of Dead White Men, as Harold Bloom already argued in 1994 in “The Western Canon“.

We might have the right to be stupid, but it’s not an obligation.

“And this also”, said Marlowe, “has been one of the dark places of the Earth”.

So begins Marlowe’s narration in “Heart of Darkness”, referring to the fact that England, then at the top of its imperial powers, had centuries ago been a land of primitive barbarians, at least when compared to the lights of Rome.

I’m reminded of that because of the film “The Eagle”, which I just watched. The film is based in the novel “The Eagle of the Ninth”, which is a work of fiction, but inspired in historical events such as the rumoured disappearance of the Ninth Roman Legion in Northern Britain. Now the story in itself is a bit implausible, and apparently the Ninth didn’t even disappear, but that’s not the point right now.

I touched the question of verisimilitude in historical movies a couple of posts ago, when I discussed “300”. Now I am grappling with the question again after I watched Kevin MacDonald’s film. Yes, the film is much more realist than “300”, at least in appearance. The Romans look like Romans, and the Britons… Well, here he seems to have taken some liberties, specially in his portrayal of the “People of the Seal”, which I believe are supposed to represent the Picts or early Scottish tribes.

Still, we are not talking here about realism, but verisimilitude. It is not important if it’s really accurate, but if the audience believes it to be so. Since I am pretty much ignorant on the subject (what? someone admitting his ignorance in the Internet??), I cannot judge how realistic the portrayal of the local tribes is, and the “People of the Seal” look a bit too much like mohicans to my mind. But at least they are more believable than the Persians in “300”.

All the Briton tribes speak Gaelic in the film, which adds a touch of apparent authenticity, although they wouldn’t speak Gaelic at that time. The Romans in the film, however, strangely enough do not speak Latin but modern American English. This is understandable, as modern audiences would expect it, and no one is as crazy as Mel Gibson. Still, it feels strange. Which would be a better way?

Well, watching the TV version of “Persuasion” (see below) we believe that we are in 1816 because of the way the actors speak. Now, I don’t think all people in England at that time were as witty and articulate as Jane Austen’s characters, but it does the trick. The same is true of Shakespeare adaptations, by the way, even though his language is highly artificial.

So I think that if the Romans in the movie spoke with a British accent, and perhaps in the manner of Austen or Dickensian characters, it would have worked much better.

Why do we seem to think that people in the past were more articulate? Well, maybe because they were. For instance, I watched the other day this excerpt of the 50s TV game show “What’s my line”, with Salvador Dali as a guest, and it was amazing to see how all the guests in the television program were well dressed, articulate, witty and polite. They can even speak in complete sentences! Compare it with any, and I mean really any, reality or game show currently on American television, and the difference is abyssal. Not to mention that today no one would even know who Salvador Dali was.

But back to the film: it’s not bad, but the American accent almost ruins it, although of course that was probably the intention — a lame comparison with the American Empire and all that. Yes, the US is Rome today, and it is falling at the hands of barbarians, but we all knew that already.

I watched a BBC version of the novel “Persuasion” the other day. It was not a great version, with a few ham actors and an apparently low budget, but still pretty watchable. I came out with a few conclusions.

- Jane Austen invented romantic comedies. Unfortunately, I hate romantic comedies with a passion. (Really, I jut can’t stand them. They usually repeat over and over the same stories in exactly the same order.). While I am sure that Austen’s books are much better than the typical Hollywood fare, I haven’t taken the time to read them yet.

- Status was very important in the anglo world of those days. Almost as much as it is today.

- We think society has changed, but it really hasn’t changed that much. Women still want rich husbands and men still want young beautiful women. The difference is that now that became harder to achieve, except for a few. But the higher classes still behave very similarly to the higher classes of that period. And they still hate those with lower status with a passion.

- Being 27 in 1816 was like being 37 today. Which is a relief, in some ways.

- While the main purpose of women seems to be to find a rich husband, men actually do have a life. Feminism didn’t change that, it just delayed it (see point above) so women now usually wait to get married in their 30s. Unfortunately fertility decreases with age.

- There was no Muslim immigration in England in those days.

- It rains a lot in Bath.

Lawrence Auster is a traditionalist blogger and, agree or not with his ideology, a very clever man and extremely eloquent writer. He has recently been diagnosed with cancer and he may not survive. He has been very public about the whole issue, and seems in good spirits despite the terrible news. A sample of letters that he received, including one by me, show in how much he is esteemed by those who read him. Wish there was something to be done, but I’ll just post a poem by Yeats, a poet that he seems to love, and I do too.

The Four Ages of Man

He with body waged a fight,
But body won; it walks upright.

Then he struggled with the heart;
Innocence and peace depart.

Then he struggled with the mind;
His proud heart he left behind.

Now his wars on God begin;
At stroke of midnight God shall win.

(W.B Yeats)

However, I should add that he does not seem to be fighting God, but willfully accepting his destiny such as it is. And then again, some people have survived cancer, and some healthy people have died unexpectedly, so, we never know. May we all be able to use our short time down here more wisely now than ever.

There should be a special place in Hell reserved for Baby Boomers, the generation which came of age in the fateful year 1968, and which still acting out its last shenanigans.

Thanks to them, the world is a much worse place for us, their sons and grandsons. Today it is much harder to get married and have children, it is much harder to have a stable job that lasts for a lifetime, it is much harder get into a good University and not get indebted for life, it is much harder to buy a house, it is much harder to obtain all the things that people before 1968 took for granted. Yes, we have iPods and iPads and all forms of entertainment, and there was (they say) a lot of “social progress”, but is that really such a great deal?

TV series such as “Mad Men” focus on life in the pre-Boomer period, and while there is a superficial criticism of the “sexism” or “racism” of the period, what fuels the show is really nostalgia for a better world.

But we cannot blame exclusively the Boomers, for the following generations haven’t done much better, they just continued the deconstruction process that started to roll from the 60s onwards. Even today, new “fight for your rights” movements come and go, but in the end, they are just there to distract us from noticing that the situation is getting harder and harder for regular people.

Young people today fight for “gay marriage”, “immigration amnesty”, “pro-choice” and other irrelevant social issues, but, in the end, does any of that put food on the table? Does that change things that much for the rest of us? Not really. In fact, things such as illegal unchecked immigration only make things worse for the youth of today, reducing even more the opportunities of employment, and feminism has been bad for most men and women, except for a few. I mean, weren’t relationships much more stable back then?

Still, we mustn’t complain that much. Life is made of cycles, of ups and downs, and things one day will change back again, we will just have to pass through some social upheaval, economic crisis, war, or some other minor discomfort.

A recent study suggests that many people suffer from Facebook envy: they tend to feel more miserable after seeing pictures of their friends (or “friends”) in vacations or having fun with their loved ones. I can attest to this feeling because I also have felt it on occasions. Everybody has a perfect life but me, right?

Said H.W. Thoreau that “most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” That might be true, but still, most people want to pretend to their social circle, when not to complete strangers, that their lives are meaningful and interesting. It is a reinforcing illusion, because if the others believe it, you start to believe it too. And, let’s face it, there are even some freaks who really do have meaningful and interesting lives, far from the humdrum realities of mine or yours.

That would be just a minor inconvenience, were it not for the fact that I am starting to think that Facebook is a negative social phenomenon in many other aspects, promoting bad social behaviours, such as status mongering, consumerism, wasting of time that could be better used in interaction with actual human beings, and an increase in the sense of isolation of those who have 500 “friends” but few real friends.

Why do we have the need to flash our lives and our thoughts before others? I believe it is part of human nature, but, as I have learned the hard way, it is something best done in moderation. Now I like to use Facebook just to chat and to keep up with a few relevant news, but I haven’t posted pictures in a long time. It seems now that there is only a handful of people who matter to me, and I’d rather not bore them with unimportant details.

Another problem with Facebook is that it became full of irrelevant and obnoxious ads (by Facebook and its sponsors) and by political campaigns (by friends) in which I am not interested. It has become an echo chamber of stupidity more than a relevant space to keep in touch with friends, which, I like to think, was the original idea.

Still, I am not out yet. Plus, I’ve became addicted to online Scrabble.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: