Monday, March 21, 2011

The Right Wing and Culture

By Larry Gambone
Thursday, March 10, 2011

green beret movie Pictures, Images and Photos

The right both promotes and despises corporate culture. They promote it for obvious reasons – profitability and social control, but their more literate members despise it because they think they are above it. They idolize a “high culture”, but have little understanding of it.

I will use culture with a capital “C” to separate what could be called “high culture”, “serious culture” or “folk culture” from the mass of corporatist mind control twaddle.

To be a consistent reactionary, one must reject the whole of Modernity, for Culture after the late 19th Century is hostile to bourgeois society in both its traditional and managerial forms. The writers and artists are all rebels in one manner or another, even if they espouse no overt politics. How unfortunate for the racists that jazz is Black music!

How can any winger honestly claim to love Neruda, Picasso, Bob Dylan, or Miles Davis?

Ayn Rand (1) and Adolph Hitler were consistent cultural reactionaries. Both rejected 20th Century Culture in its entirety and saw it as some kind of nefarious plot to undermine white capitalist society.)

The right winger is forced to be a philistine or live in a state of denial. For if you examine the great cultural figures too closely, they were all opposed to the reactionaries of their day. Rightists who claim to appreciate contemporary Culture, love what they ought to hate and do so by pretending it isn't what it is. Or they live in complete and unrecognized contradiction like Eva Braun dancing to swing music.

Thus to be a reactionary is to be tormented by Culture. One's self-image is one of superiority over the bohemians, leftists, and people of color, but these are the very people who made that Culture. If the philistine option is chosen, one cannot help but feel culturally inferior, no matter how much the “intelektuls” and “crazy artists” are sneered at.

Artists are both the shamans and mine canaries of our society. Creating something new means going beyond the old, means breaking barriers. Creation is thus an act of rebellion and thus in its very essence is in stark contradiction to the reactionary who wishes to turn the clock back. Artists are society's mine canaries in that they warn, often decades in advance, of serious problems within the system.

1. Early in the twentieth century... works purporting to be art were created that were not, in fact, art at all... In many respects, it was more akin to madness, or to fraud, than to art.



Larry Gambone said...

It should also be pointed out that the small minority of artists who are right wing are still rebels. They are in essence anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois. Think of Celine and "Journey to the End of the Night" or Eliot's "Wasteland". No one except third raters and hacks celebrates capitalism. An excellent work on the radicalism hidden within ostensibly conservative writers is "Culture and Society" by Raymond Williams.

Thanks for posting this, Ren!

Anonymous said...

Well, we all know that it was famously attributed to the Nazi Luftwaffe chief Hermann Göring that he stated: "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver."

While this quote may in fact be apocryphal, it's something he might well have said. The Nazis may have taken great pride in the purity of their Germanic Kultur, but many of the leaders of the fascist Right were themselves extremely uncultured.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Oh good lord what a load of shit. I love the music of Dylan, and the films of David Lynch, to just touch the surface, so does that make me some kind of secret left-winger?

What utter tripe. Artists create art, duh! The only trick to enjoying it is appreciating the quality of the work while recognizing it as somebody's fantasy in the form of artistic vision. Just because you appreciate the talent inherent in someones artistic vision doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with the vision itself.

And Gambone, what is this nonsense about third rate hacks celebrating capitalism? What utter rubbish.

But of course, no left-wing artists could possibly be hacks, right? We all know they all get their lucky break solely on the merits of their abilities, right?

Good God you people should listen to yourselves sometime.

Larry Gambone said...

It doesn't make you a closet lefty, Pagan - what it does show is that you live a contradictory existence. Appreciating only the quality of someone's work while rejecting the work itself is rather superficial, albeit superior to the Randist or Nazi that would chuck it in the garbage.

Furthermore, this article was a critique of ideological reactionaries. Strange that you would see yourself in that company.

Most people are not particularly ideological, taking progressive stances on some things and rightist stances on others. Their cultural attitudes tend to reflect this.

Yes, there have been hack leftists - think only of "socialist realism", but can you think of a single writer or artist of worth who has celebrated capitalism and bourgeois existence? I can't.

Speedy G said...

The Left certainly does have a monopoly on the "corporate art" of Disney, Pixar and Hollywood...

...but none DARE call it "culture".


Anonymous said...

Hey Ren, I just posted the first part of an entry on a Marxist approach to environmentalism that I originally intended to cross-post over here at Renegade Eye. The first part is mostly just a setup for the eventual analysis and criticism, providing an historical overview of humanity's conception of nature. I know you mentioned having me as a contributor to this blog, and I think that this topic will provide for some good discussion as it develops.

Ross Wolfe said...

Though I agree with much of what this post expresses, I believe there are a few notable exceptions to the idea that reactionaries can't be artists. Ezra Pound, the famous poet, was an outspoken supporter of Mussolini, Hitler, and fascism in general. F.T. Marinetti, founder of the radical avant-garde futurist movement, was among the first to join up with Mussolini's fascist party. And even Salvador Dali, whose surrealist works exploited the human unconscious in revolutionary ways, was sympathetic later in life to the Franco regime.

Another problem is that not all anti-capitalism is revolutionary anti-capitalism. There have been through the ages many reactionary responses opposed to capitalism, many of which Marx and Engels critiqued. Even though in fact fascism relied on a number of state capitalist mechanisms to build and solidify their base of power, they were explicitly anti-capitalist in terms of their ideology. They associated capitalism with Jewry, with unproductive finance capital leaching off the honest, hard-working German factory worker.

But I would agree with the premise that the mainstream bourgeoisie has produced very few cultural figures of note, especially in the twentieth century. They usually had some sort of leftish or genuinely radical political disposition, or oppositely, held an ultrareactionary political stance that allowed them to view society in a critical fashion, however misguided. I can't think of a single artist or major cultural figure who has blithely affirmed the status quo.

The Sentinel said...

Well Larry, I think in order for any of this to be taken at all seriously, at the very least you should give us your definition of what constitutes “left” and” right”.

You seem confused on that point, when, for example, citing the Nazis as examples of the “right” when they were in fact anti-capitalist, socialist policy-implementing, environmentalist, pan-Europeans.

It would also be very useful to define what you think the word ‘racist’ means: Is it hate? Is it the biological acceptance of race as a reality? Is it concluding from the evidence that the races have differing traits? Is it the assumption of superiority of one race over another? Or is it something else?

I must say Larry that this seems to be quite an odd baseless delusional rant – effectively dividing all the worlds’ people into just two camps, and then claiming that their political opinions somehow dominant everything about them as sentient beings and that if they prove you wrong by their actions it is not because you are in fact wrong, it is because they are “in denial”

(Rather like the old canard that meat-eaters are more aggressive then vegetarians. Except of course Hitler was a vegetarian. And a non-smoker And a tee-totaller – must have been in serious denial.)

And of course, ultimately it all culminates in the implication that anyone on the other side of your political bent is inherently evil.

Very prejudicial. Very stereotypical. Very intolerant. Very wrong.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I just disagree with you Gambone. You can appreciate art based on its own merits, artistically speaking, without having to believe in what the artist actually believes.

The logical extreme would be saying that somebody that enjoys Star Trek must by definition believe in the possibility of warp speed travel, or the potential for matter transmission. Or that you absolutely must believe in the socialistic, communist vision Gene Roddenberry had for the world, a world in which no one had money, nor any need for it, because they lived based on their talents and abilities, and capacity for gaining knowledge and personal growth.

Of course, you don't have to believe any of that to enjoy the show. All it requires is suspension of disbelief. A mere temporary disregard for reality.

Your way of thinking is precisely the reason these Hollywood jackasses think everybody should support leftist causes just on their say-so. Oh wow, Alec Baldwin believes in Global Warming and he's my favorite actor comedian, therefore I must believe in Global Warming.

That kind of shit gives logic and rationality a bad name. It also assumes that most people are sheep.

And those of us who are not, of course, are "living a contradictory existence".

Frank Partisan said...

Larry G: Thank you for the post.

I'm like Pagan in a sense. I liked the Death Wish and Dirty Harry movies. I found revenge films thrilling. I like much of John Wayne's movie, excluding The Green Berets.

Speedy G: Walt Disney was a rightist. He was extremely anti-communist and anti-union.

Hollywood going left goes back to Upton Sinclair running for governor.

Ross: Trotsky tore apart the idea of proletarian art. All art has bourgeois aspects, as long as there is class society.

It will be ok to post on environmentalism. I position myself between the extremist environmentalists and the deniers. Actual scientific consensus is very cautious about their predictions. You'd like Spiked Online, an ex-Trotskyist group, funded by nuclear interests. I believe there is an environmental crisis, but not what most of the left think. I'm pro-nuclear.

There will be less rightist art of note in this period, since all art is in decline, in this age of postmodernism, post history etc.

Frank Partisan said...

Sentinel: Instead of trying to solve, what is left and what is right, which isn't a simple question. I would ask you about what are your tastes, and we can agree agree we are influenced by our period of history, talk about your taste in aesthetics and politics together.

Pagan: I'm with you on this one.

What can I say? I like pro wrestling.

Trotsky wrote about art is judged first in its own language, secondly politically. He liked many conservative writers.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info, Ren. And feel free to cross-post the first part that I just posted, if you'd like to. The payoff will come more in the second and third parts.

And yeah, Proletkult and all that Bogdanov-inspired nonsense was the precursor to the workerist socialist realism that came under Stalin. Trotsky was much more accepting of the avant-garde and new ideas. He was sympathetic to the discoveries of Freud and Surrealism in art. I mean, he co-authored a manifesto with Andre Breton.

Anonymous said...

I think there is some truth in this article, but I think the issue is more complex than it acknowledges. It's true that Hitler hated modern art, but Mussolini patronized the Futurists. Trotsky was sympathetic to modernism, but Lenin wasn't. I think there may be deeper issues involved here.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

I am not trying to solve the problem of what is ‘left’ and ‘right’ – I don’t really believe that the terms have much relevance or even reality, beyond defining broad strokes of polarity.

It is Larry’s bold statements here contending the vast and tangible differences between ‘left’ and ‘right’ – so given that, and the fact that he feels so strongly about it, surely it shouldn’t be an issue for him to tell us the defining characteristics of the worlds only two groups of people?

As for me, I don’t have any set tastes – I must be in extreme denial – for instance, when I was a young, the music I most liked was hardcore, which had a heavy dose of Caribbean influence as well as influence from everywhere else, as it was usually based on plagiarised samples.

Now I listen to anything that’s good, regardless of where it comes from. Same for books, same for art, same for films, same for shows.

As for politics, well again, no set parameters. On the one hand I fully agree with free enterprise, encouraging private business and tax breaks for high employers and on the other hand I agree with more stringent employment protection, workers cooperatives where they can form themselves and the nationalisation of key infrastructure.


Some more questions for you.

When did humanity first enter into this all-pervading ‘left” and ‘right’ divide? What defining moment occurred? Were the Romans ‘left’ or ‘right’? What about Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes? What about the Native Americans?

Who are “people of colour”? Are they everyone who is non-white? Is there another two tiered sub-division of humanity? “Left” and “right” – “white” and “people of colour?”

You are claiming that only the ‘left’ and ‘people of colour’ created culture - so after answering my first question perhaps you can answer with some examples of the culture that ‘people of colour’ have provided for modern western society? Because I do believe that the foundations of the modern west rested mainly on the Greeks, refined by the Romans and propagated by the English.

Again you make reference to Hitler as the ‘right’ – wrong for reasons above – but don’t seem to realise that Hitler was very much interested in culture. Do you know he was a failed artist and a fairly competent self-taught architect with an avid interest in paintings, sculpture, design and music?

And as to Eva Braun, all the evidence suggests she was a simple, average and apolitical girl – what evidence do you have that she was actually an epitome of the ‘right’?

SecondComingOfBast said...

If Atlas Shrugged had been written as a bunch of labor, teachers, and government workers going on strike, as opposed to business leaders and captains of industry, etc., Larry would be one of its biggest fans. Then it would be an example of creative and artistic literature of a highly advanced caliber. Ain't that right, Larry.

Larry Gambone said...

Rosswolfe, Pound and Marinetti were both anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois - like Celine and Eliot, they were both right wing rebels.

Sentinel, the point is, no worthwhile art celebrates either capitalism or bourgeois "virtues". This does not mean all good artists are left wing, it just means they are anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois. Your own tastes mirror your own political complexity - why do you think I am referring to you when writing this piece? The article refers to "reactionaries", is that how you see yourself?

People of color gave us jazz, blues, reggae etc as well as had a major influence on painting and sculpture.

Hitler was a philistine as were the Nazis generally.

Pagan, if Rand was a "socialist realist" her novel would still be third rate. (My preference is for surrealism, not art as propaganda - see Breton's Surrealist Manifesto))

The Sentinel said...

Well thanks for not answering one single question, Larry. Not one.

Therefore it is impossible to take this at all seriously, Larry . And you’re article is about what you label as the ‘right’ quite clearly, not just ‘reactionaries’ – i.e. anyone who doesn’t think like you.

Hitler and the Nazis were more to the ‘left’ then the ‘right’ – but in any case, whatever else he was, Hitler was far more a man of culture then Obama or Bush for certain. He revelled in art, music, literature and architecture – and viewed himself to his dying breath as a frustrated artist.

But all in all, aside from not being able to provide one single answer to perfectly reasonable questions, you also reveal that you really do believe that a person’s politics determines everything about them.

That us sentient beings are dominated by their preference for governance - more often then not with many people a very vague and rudimentary idea of that preference too – to the point that it compels us to behave in a pre-defined way, to listen to certain types of music, like certain paintings, like certain films and of course, for many, be unable to produce anything ‘good.’

This is essentiality a biological view – a genetic compulsion - of the two camps that you cannot define, but have placed the whole of humanity.

And politics is logical abstract, not a genetic construct.

I’d rethink this if I were you, Larry - it is, to say the least, extremely bizarre.

Larry Gambone said...

By "right" or "reactionaries" I am not referring to people who share both progressive and regressive trends - like most of the population. I am referring to people who are consistently opposed to social progress, and who uphold authority, the capitalist system and bourgeois values in a consistent manner. The Tory Right in the 1920's and 30's are one example. The US far right today is another.

As for Nazis being somehow left, Ren dealt with this canard in an earlier posting.

As for reducing everything to politics, I plainly do not. "The writers and artists are all rebels in one manner or another, even if they espouse no overt politics" What is plainer than that? It is the act of rebellion, that is important, not politics.

The Sentinel said...

Again Larry, you are unable to answer even one of the simple questions above in defence or in clarification of your post. Why is that? Not even one answer?

Renegade Eye didn’t ‘deal’ with any 'canard' at all. He merely trotted out the same one word excuse of ‘Keynesian that I predicted at the very start of my comment.

But the reality is that the Nazi's instituted socialist polices that went further then the USSR and many so-called socialist countries since; they even carried them out in occupied territories and in the middle of a world war – and I conclusively proved that.

You now appear to be back-tracking in your scope of the ‘right’ but bizarrely assign traits that belong equally to the far-left as they do to the far right: “Opposed to social progress, and who uphold authority…” Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot?

And as for capitalism – well Stalin played that card when he needed to, along with nationalism and patriotism – and China does a raging trade. And bourgeois? Well we are all equal comrade, except some of us revolutionary leaders and members of the revolutionary councils are more equal then others, no?

Bourgeois values. Don’t make me laugh. All that has ever happened is that one ruling class has been replaced with another, with all of the trappings that go with it and a different name.

Anyway, back to your ‘right’ and ‘left’ theme:

Where for instance would Wagner and Nietzsche, stand on your scale? Have they contributed to culture? Or how about, say Eric Clapton and even David Bowie – where do they stand on your scale? Is their music not noted in popular culture?

"All artists are aristocrats in a sense," says Clive Bell, "since no artist believes honestly in human equality; in any other sense to call an artist an aristocrat or a democrat is to call him something irrelevant or insulting."

Both Picasso and Warhol were tireless self-promoters and reapers of capitalist rewards.

There is an old anecdote about Picasso whereby a well known collector and acquaintance visited his studio. He saw a painting he liked. He asked Picasso what the painting represented. Picasso answered "about one hundred twenty five thousand dollars American."

Gert said...

I agree with Larry almost completely. Those here who don’t get it are those who don’t know what ‘reactionary’ really means. Pagan seems to want to pass off his own (claimed) exception as the rule.

I’ll answer one of Sentinel’s questions:

”It would also be very useful to define what you think the word ‘racist’ means: Is it hate? Is it the biological acceptance of race as a reality? Is it concluding from the evidence that the races have differing traits? Is it the assumption of superiority of one race over another? Or is it something else?”

In Sentinel’s case it is all the four first descriptions rolled into one (he knows his stuff when it comes to racism!)

From the ‘biological [yet erroneous, my edit] acceptance of race as a reality’ flows the belief in one’s own ‘race’ as superior, thus also specially ‘entitled’ (name me a racist who concluded that ’his race’ was inferior!) The assumption of ‘superiority of one race over another’ leads inevitably to condescension, not much later followed by accusations of wrong doing by ‘alleged inferior races’, followed often by scapegoating (and of course hatred) of said ‘inferior race’, with all the intended/unintended consequences in attendance. We’ve been there so many times it’s hard to believe it keeps happening over and over again.

Also, I must berate Sentinel on his ‘Hitler was a Socialist’ stance: whenever of late I’ve met neo-Nazis, BNPers, EDLers and all their fellow travellers, I’ve decided to enter into dialogue to bring them the jolly tidings that really they too are Socialists. So far I sport two black eyes, a broken nose and an arm twisted out of joint!

The Sentinel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

You really are censoring a response again. I thought it was a technical problem, I guess I should know better by now.

You allow this idiot to come here just to blatantly attack me and others and censor any response to it.

It took you a while to get into the swing of being underhanded, but you are quite the enthusiast now.

Go on then, at least have the decency to comment on why his comment is acceptable but my response is not…

David K Wayne said...

David Lynch is deeply reactionary:

So was Howard Hawks, Sam Peckinpah, Salvador Dali, Joseph Conrad, Rudyard Kipling, James Elroy, Frank Capra, HP Lovecraft, John Ford, John Updike, Jack Kerouac, Saul Bellow, Whyndam Lewis, Franks Sinatra, Elvis, Jimi, Ray Charles and nearly every country singer you could mention.

I happen to admire most of the above, despite my left-wing convictions.

They may all highlight the contradictions of capitalism, but they're very anti-left (from pro-imperialist to outright fascism). They also had varying degrees of sanity, and often offered little more than nihilism or poorly-thought through 'traditionalism' as an alternative. But then so do the majority of right-wingers even now.

Anonymous said...

Ahh Sentinel, dont take it personal man. These jackoffs thrive on going down like that.

You aint seen no real argument have you? You won here, man.

This Gert troll is just the hatchet man for the blogger and you dont get r2r, and thats it my friend.

SecondComingOfBast said...


I'm glad you stopped by, I think maybe there's a chance you might be able to come around to seeing my point.

Now let's take just for example the kind of artists that appeal to you. Yes, they are probably leftists, but be honest now, Gert.

If you found out they were conservatives, wouldn't you still enjoy the music of, for example, Sir Elton John, or Boy George, or Freddie Mercury? Would you not still get enjoyment from the singing of Barbra Streisand? Would you still not derive great pleasure in playing albums of Broadway show tunes for your friends while you sipped fine wines and nibbled on Brie (among other things)?

I submit you probably would, and would not let the fact that they were conservatives deprive you of the deep, electrifying, pulsating thrill you get from their music and the creativity that went into producing it.

Now admit it Gert. You know I'm right.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Ren, would it be all right if I cross-posted my recent blog entries on nature? I remember you welcomed me as a contributor to the site and I was wondering if it'd be cool if I put it up on the site. If you'd like me to hold off for a while, that's fine. Up to you.

Frank Partisan said...

The Spanish Prisoner: I'm sure Larry G agrees.

Sentinel: I didn't censor anything yet, this post. If I did you'd know.

I think left/right meant more, before the fall of Stalinism. However bad Stalinism was, their was a moral compass.

I liked the Picasso comment.

Dealt with the Nazis and socialism 1000x here.

Gert: It was uncalled for, to personally attack Sentinel, particularly at this blog.

Ross: I want to wait until it's all published. For this blog, the fighting words part is best.

W. Kasper: Thank you for visiting.

Which blog is your primary one?

I agree with your comment.

Pagan: Nothing can save Atlas Shrugged.

Larry G: The Ayn Rand post will be fun.

David K Wayne said...

Hi Ren -

The primary one is:

The other ones are group efforts dealing with the 70s, 80s, 90s respectively (no right-wingers allowed!).

I thought I was a crank til read some of the krazy konservatives in this comments box...

David K Wayne said...

Re: Ayn (vomit) Rand:

Frank Partisan said...

W. Kasper: The Jennifer Anniston/Angylina Jolie quotes hurt. I thought they were smarter.

In another post I'll go into this idea. I think that rightist libertarians couldn't carry out their program without a dictatorship. The whip of reaction, would bring a response, that would be chaos.

Governor Walker in Wisconsin, when he saw the mass protests, first responded by wanting to call the National Guard.

David K Wayne said...

It wasn't Aniston - it was a quote from Vince Vaughn.

'Objectivism' is basically fascism, with a twist of American 'glamour'. Watch any interview with Rand, and she's clearly a hate-filled nutcase. The disturbing part is how revered she is - and not just by the super-rich.

Gert said...


”Gert: It was uncalled for, to personally attack Sentinel, particularly at this blog.”

You’re being ridiculous. I doubt if you've actually read my comment properly. No personal attack was launched here. I answered Sentinel’s question truthfully, no ad hom intended or implied. If Larry had answered the questions, the answers would have been similar. Sentinel wants to have his cake and eat it too: when Larry doesn’t provide answers he complains, when someone else does that gets called a ‘personal attack’. Bit of a primadonna, inne, for such a ‘macho, macho man’?

Sentinel IS a ‘biological racist’, DOES believe in the superiority of the ‘British race’ (or the ‘Nordic race’ (or what ever they call it now), HAS shown both hatred and contempt for the ‘inferior races’ and does scapegoat entire such groups. In the past he’s also shown willingness to contemplate ‘polygenesis’ (the idea that the ‘human races’ sprang up in different places in the world more or less simultaneously, very du jour with supremacist groups). If he’s changed his opinion on these matter he can simply say so. He DOESN’T.

Ren, these are objective FACTS! Deal with it, as they say.


I’ll address your points later on.

David K Wayne said...

Sentinel's avatar looks pretty iffy too (Atlas Saluted?). He's fixated on the whole "Hitler was a socialist" bullshit. Like Glenn Beck and any number of history-mangling crypto-fascists.

Fascism arises in times of social/economic crisis, to protect corporate interests with extreme force - initially to supress reformist/worker's movements. Trade unionists are usually first to be executed, as in Europe, as in South America (racial pogroms usually follow after that). Mussollini was explicit about strengthening the 'corporate state'. One of Hitler's main accusations against Jews (along with his 'biological' patholologies) was that they were 'infecting' Europe with 'bolshevism' (he claimed to be 'protecting' the Czechs, Poles etc. from communism - as neo-Nazis still believe). Even when it's not explicitly racist, its main aim is to trample working-class dissent. Militarisation is one method (like extending conscription and aggresion to neighbouring countries), which is why nearly all fascist coups are led by military interests working with corporate interests. You get business and military (sometimes the church, as in Spain etc) working towards extreme patriotism because the military extends its domestic power, while providing corporate opportunities and strong-arm protection from labour interests. A war economy isn't 'socialist' - nationalism isn't nationalisation. Indeed, fascism is mainly an 'emergency' reaction to socialist measures, whether it was the failed German/Spanish revolutions, or the relatively modest wealth redistribution that Allende tried to implement before he was assassinated.

But this thread is very entertaining...

Frank Partisan said...

Make last comments. I'm going on to new post.

W.Kasper: Fascism is a term too loosely thrown around.

It's a last resort, due to the gangs of thugs, are hard to control.

Chile had a dictatorship, not fascism. You need the lumpen thugs to have fascism.

Fascism never occurs when the working class is in the majority.

Fascist Germany had a Keynesian economy, not a Ayn Rand libertarian. I'm not ready to call Rand fascist.

Historically a defeated working class is a prerequisite, as the German Revolution.

It was VV not JA.

Gert: When Larry G was replying to Sentinel, it didn't bring out yahoos like Anonymous.

This will lead to a long thread that will go nowhere.

SecondComingOfBast said...

What's wrong with thinking the human races might have sprang up in different places? All that's required is to acknowledge that they all had a common, pre-human ancestor, which by definition would have itself originated in one area, which would more than likely be Africa. I admit its unlikely, but its not impossible.

Gert said...


I believe all you’re criticising is that Larry’s piece is too generalising, too broad brush. I’m inclined to agree with that but it can be said about so much that is written here. By and large though, he’s on the money, IMHO.

I like neither Streisand (the singer), nor Elton, nor Boy George as musicians but I wouldn’t claim that’s because they’re reactionary (I don’t know they are or not). I liked Streisand a lot in ‘Meet the Fokkers’, but don’t really know where she stands politically. Sometimes it’s very obvious (where an artists stands) and sometimes it’s not. But very often great art is made by progressives and despised by conservatives. That reflects very well in pop music too, although there’s a large slice that’s a-political.

For every example you can give (of an ‘exception’) so can I: I didn’t see many conservative British people pogo to The Clash, if any. See also Rudy Giuliani’s despicable attempts to have David Hirsh’s work removed from a New York gallery on the grounds that it was ‘filth’ (or a descriptor to that effect).


”All that's required is to acknowledge that they all had a common, pre-human ancestor, which by definition would have itself originated in one area, which would more than likely be Africa. I admit its unlikely, but its not impossible.”

But that’s precisely what these numpties don’t want to acknowledge, can’t you see that?! The idea that in a sense (and only in a sense) we’re all Africans galls them to the bone. And the belief that White Man sprang into being separately further reinforces the idea of ‘separateness’ (‘we have nothing to do with those barbarians!’), ‘uniqueness’ and of course, the racist’s ultimate goal: to prove ‘White Man’s Innate Superiority’. Much easier to “prove” innateness if you can claim complete separateness…

Ren: your last comment directed at me is cryptical to me. So be it…

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

In that case I apologise, it must have been a technical error with the links as I first suspected.

The Sentinel said...


Just let it go. For God’s sake. It is completely see through and entirely gratuitous – people are here for debate not for ad hom and years long vendettas. It’s nasty, its petty and its childish. Every time.

You didn’t provide any ‘answers’ you used an excuse to make the same groundless defamations you usually do which, as we all know, is extremely ironic coming from someone widely regarded to be a virulent anti-Semite, banned from blog’s because of it and unwelcome on many others because of it.

I believe in race because it is a proven scientific reality – if that makes me a ‘racist’ then it makes all the genetic scientists producing the proof ‘racist’ too, along with the pharmaceutical scientists who produce race specific drugs and so on and so forth.

"12 % of the DNA Differs Amongst Human Races and Populations: Till now, humans of different races were thought almost identical

The Human Genome Project found all humans to have a 99.9 % similar genetic content and identity, but this is challenged by a new more detailed research suggesting a higher genetic diversity, with further medical and evolutionary implications..."

"The genetic makeup of the human race is much more varied than previously believed, new research shows.

Scientists say that surprisingly many large chunks of human DNA differ among individuals and ethnic groups..."

The Sentinel said...

In fact this independent medical site sums up how this neo-religious zealousness works in practice:

“Publishing the ethnic differences in Blood type and the racial differences in Blood type is not, in the present-day world, considered to be politically correct. We compile and maintain this database through often times confidential sources. Every Blood gathering entity in the world must gather this information to stay in business, but almost every one of them is afraid to publish the racial and ethnic differences in Blood type, given the emotionally charged political climate."

I have never once espoused any superiority of any race, nor shown any hatred or contempt. It’s all in your mind; it’s the way you think. It’s the mindset of the latter day witch finder who sees witches everywhere – what I call the self-appointed PC commissar.

You accuse just about everyone of racism or some kind of ‘ist or ‘ophobia at some point – you are renowned for it and I have produced dozens of examples of other people calling you out on it on this blog to illustrate I am far from your only target.

The mindset you employ against the heretic of your religion is evident in the comment:

“In the past he’s also shown willingness to contemplate ‘polygenesis’”

As if it is some heinous thought crime, perpetrated only by the criminally evil and insane when the reality is that the MR theory has some heavy scientific backing and some heavy scientific proof:

The Sentinel said...

“The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind. Scientists have found a handful of ancient human skulls at an archaeological site two hours from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, that suggest a Eurasian chapter in the long evolutionary story of man.”

The Sentinel said...

“Chinese archaeologists have uncovered a 100,000- year-old fossilized human skull in central China which may throw new light on the origins of the human race, national media said on Thursday.

The well-preserved skull was found in the central Chinese province of Henan, and Chinese scientists say it could disprove the widely-held theory that all races originated in Africa.

The majority of Chinese scientists share the multiregional theory of human origin, which says that humans evolved separately in different regions.”

The Sentinel said...

And as for:

“If he’s changed his opinion on these matter he can simply say so. He DOESN’T”

Is the old witch finder renouncing trick. I have nothing to defend to you, I have nothing to justify to you, I have nothing to ‘deny’ to you or anyone else.

You interpret things the way you want to because that’s the way you think – not me.

A prime example being the line you trot out that I hate aboriginals – when the truth that you don’t bother to tell people is that I employed aboriginals in place where no one else was.

What you have extracted from this is that I choose guys from a tribe (the only one I know of) that doesn’t drink because alcohol abuse is rampant amongst aboriginals, and they usually become violent with it and cannot work because of it.

These are facts. Pure and simple. If you had ever been to Australia you would know this from first hand experience, and it is not something that aboriginals themselves would deny.

I employed aboriginals – what have you ever done for them? In fact have you ever even met one?

That is really it in a nutshell.

I dare to speak non-PC truths, you say:

“We’ve been there so many times it’s hard to believe it keeps happening over and over again”

And I say what has happened so many times it is hard to believe it keeps happening is the tribal, ethnic and cultural violence that occurs when peoples of differing tribes, ethnicity and cultures are congregated together in one place – the vast majority of the wars on this earth have sprang from these factors.

I have seen the results, I know from bitter experience having served in places like Bosnia, Rwanda (and even NI to some extent.)

You don’t agree me with me? Fine. But for crying out loud stop this bizarre vendetta that has been going on for how long? At least 6 years I reckon.

If there is a debate to be had, do it within the rules of this blog, on topic and without ad hom. It really is that simple.

The Sentinel said...

W. Kasper

So my avatar ‘looks pretty iffy’ and on that basis – a small picture of which you know nothing of – you now want to imply that I am the one that is prejudiced? Really?!

Again, not that I have to explain anything to you, but I choose it many years ago because it resembled my appearance, and was looking away which I fancied as symbolising my choice of anonymity. Nothing more, nothing less. You believe what you want, the truth remains the truth.

As for Hitler and the Nazis, I didn’t call them socialists so you are wrong there too. Never have. I said they implemented some socialist polices.

Larry Gambone said...

A lot of you seem to have missed one very important sentence “The writers and artists are all rebels in one manner or another, even if they espouse no overt politics” It is not about “left vs. right”, but rebellious cultural creativity (and I am being redundant here) vs. adulation and conformity to bourgeois society and its economic underpinning. (reaction) Even if like Celine and Lovecraft, artists are racists and anti-Semites, what they write is critical, ironic, hostile or subversive of bourgeois society and capitalism. (This is the reason Surrealists admire Lovecraft.)

Where indeed, are the odes to real estate speculators or paintings that romanticize those cathedrals of commerce, the shopping mall? Why is there no contemporary Faery Queen written about one of our illustrious psychopathic politicians? Previous societies produced a Culture that extolled its way of being, and even though borrowing, as all Cultures do, was a Culture that was largely self-produced. Culture under capitalism is produced by people who look down upon it, regard it as philistine and corrupt. Capitalism also produces a mass culture that is parasitic upon cultures outside of it, such as racial and ethnic minorities, counter-cultures and working people.

Larry Gambone said...

Ren, Pere Lebrun has preempted my Rand article. Good stuff. But I will go ahead with it anyway

Frank Partisan said...

Larry G: I laughed when I read Pere's article.

Pagan: At this point unlikely.

Sentinel: Don't work so hard. There are times to let things slide.

David K Wayne said...

Larry - good Rand post. She was also rabidly racist (disguising it as violent 'meritocracy').