Thursday, December 10, 2015

The Rage and the Pride and the Patou

Perhaps the most important media event of 2015 for me was witnessing the fall of Gawker, who were instrumental in popularizing the brand of shallow, sarcastic, morally demonstrative witch-hunt leftism that has, barring a paradigm shift of massive proportions, spelled the death of my generation. They received intense backlash from the mainstream media earlier this year for outing a CFO of Conde Nast without first thinking through how the story fit into the leftist agenda.
What eventually resulted was that Gawker laid off many employees, drastically increased the amount and pervasiveness of advertising on the site, and shifted focus from pop culture to politics exclusively. By politics, I mean becoming so openly partisan, irresponsible, and mean-spirited that coverage of mass murders is rendered in an excess of Garofalo-sarcastic scare quotes if the perpetrators are Muslim, and anyone that has concerns for national security or their own well-being, anyone disturbed, anyone grieving too openly, is mocked and derided as a wimpy, sentimental Islamophobe.
To Gawker, even mentioning that the perpetrators of the San Bernardino shooting were Muslim is utterly irrelevant, though they love prizing out and displaying any links to Confederate flags, pro-life politics, the NRA, American Sniper, or Rush Limbaugh in white criminals.
In the slow, secretive process of my total divorce from liberalism, the most unsolvable mystery of millennial liberal orthodoxy was the rapturous, ubiquitous multicultural defense of Islam, the Religion of Peace, a far-right totalitarian religious ideology that, among other things, requires the legal subjugation and imprisonment of women and punishes homosexuality with prison sentences and death. This paradox, even more than the virulent campaigning against free speech, the censorship, the anti-man anti-white sneering, the 19th century teetotaler campaigns against a phantasmagoric made-up rape culture, was what made me realize that liberalism was a self-defeating, masochistic, and authoritarian ourobouros eating its own tail.
How anyone can still think of Democrats as the benevolent saviors of mankind in the current climate is beyond me. Liberal orthodoxy dictates that those who insult Islam deserve to die, that they are asking for it. You think I'm kidding? The liberal take on the Charlie Hebdo shooting was that they were asking for it because they did not insult "white people"--I put "white people" in scare quotes because I so detest the way this term is contemptuously bandied around by them--and Christians exclusively. The liberal take on the later Paris shootings was who cares, it was "white people," the same thing happened in Beirut and didn't get enough attention. The liberal take on the San Bernardino shooting is who cares, we have to shelter the precious Muslim community that, every time this happens, does absolutely fucking nothing to condemn it.
There is some mechanism in the liberal brain that latches onto manufactured, patently fake controversies that make Christians look absurd like the alleged Starbucks holiday cup controversy or the various gay wedding cake debacles of earlier this year, yet remains willfully oblivious of homosexuals getting thrown off buildings by Islamic extremists,female genital mutilation, and the realities of Sharia law. Anti-Christian blasphemy is so ubiquitous that it looks dated and out of fashion; Austin is overrun with uncreative post-Drag Race queens that adorn themselves with inverted crosses and pentagrams, and American Horror Story (which was, I'll admit, pretty brilliant for two seasons when it had no redemptive message) seems to exist solely to propagate trendy occultism and exact teenage revenge on square Christian parents. Liberals will scoff condescendingly about creationism and maintain that they are atheists and everything should be secular, but they run for cover when faced with inconvenient truths about any of their beloved It's A Small World of "POCs" (pronounced "pock") and "WOCs" (pronounced "wok"). In short, they have no principles, and will crumble and regenerate according to trends. Their bourgeois anti-white ethno-masochism has reached dangerous levels.
Mull this over as you read Oriana Fallaci's The Rage and the Pride and The Force of Reason. She was a brazen, ballsy figure who embodied a particular kind of 20th century journalistic boldness that we won't likely see again. She was willing to make herself an international scourge by sticking to her principles. She was also extremely stylish, and wore Patou 1000, a dry, bitter, and opulent 70s chypre.


  1. How do you know that she wore that?
    I'm with you, btw, in your analysis of
    liberals crumbling to latest trends,
    or however you put it better.

    1. It says it in a book called "The Unmasking of Oriana Fallaci." The excerpt will pop up if you search "Oriana Fallaci perfume."

  2. You lost me on this one. Camille Paglia mentioned this in Sexual Personae in re Jean Michel Foucault. But that was 25 years ago. My father actually believes that radical Islam is the same as the mainstream Islam practiced by a billion plus people and has actually said that Muslims want to kill non-Muslims. Not true. Some do: maybe even a million, which is still less than one tenth of a percent. There's a small chance that a Hitler-like figure will rise up and guide his people to found a New World Caliphate but if that's the case why did a majority of Syria's population flee the country? The answer to the absurdity of what Foucault said is not Rush Limbaugh paranoia. Don't you think there's a possibility that "the media", or anyone, including myself, have genuine empathy for Muslims who never did anything ugly to anybody and never will, and want to avoid stirring up more Rush Limbaugh poison gas from his vile ass? Calumny is always wrong no matter what is behind it. I live in San Francisco so I know that it's possible for a person to see terrorist Organizations as expressions of ethnicity and legitimate protest of American Imperialism; but I don't know anybody who would say that in real life except actual Communist Party members. Communist party headquarters are are around the corner (truly) and I still can't remember anybody taking that extreme view in open conversation. On blogs I have read it but people will write anything on a blog. I don't hold it against my father for listening to Rush so maybe you shouldn't hold it against cooler heads for expecting a more measured response that doesn't include reducing a billion people to a vile cultural stereotype. Especially since there is no practical solution to the risk of mass shootings like the San Bernardino one that don't violate the constitution. Most similar shootings have not been committed by Muslims. I agree with you and that it is somehow less-bad when natural citizens do it but I don't see see how it's so much more vile because it was Islamic terrorism. It was as vile as it can possibly be! Unless your argument is that since we have so much homegrown of that kind of thing already that we don't need any more. To be alive is to risk dying: dying by terrorist attack is an infinitesimally small risk. On the other hand I'm guessing the risk of being harassed for being Arab is 100% since I'm white and have been stopped by police twice because I look like I could be. Ok, once was in France because I looked like a known terrorist so that shouldn't count but still. And a vast majority of Arab-Americans are Christian...
    Anyhow I have a strong feeling Camille Paglia would rather eat bees than be associated with Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure she's as liberal as anybody, just not in the doctrinaire French theory academic way taught in the Ivy League, and maybe the world over, I don't know. Like Luis Buñuel who said he laughed hysterically when he read les Cahiers du Cinéma but was also exactly the opposite of reactionary. Republicans, at least the ones who make money from it, are as vile and hateful as anything out there. And Rush Limbaugh is the Worst. Doesn't your vanity interfere with this? Isn't it like wearing one of the perfume "suggestions" you get from somebody working at a discount perfume counter in a mall? You know that he's ugly, right?

  3. Actually, Camille loves Rush Limbaugh and has said so numerous times since the early 90s. Rush frequently refers positively to her writing as well. From Salon, 2003:

    "Look, I am a longtime listener of Rush Limbaugh because I'm a fan of AM radio. [...] Now, I do not agree with Rush on most political issues -- I voted for Ralph Nader! And I definitely don't agree with him on Iraq. But Rush transformed the media landscape in America. He resurrected AM radio. From coast to coast, AM radio is buzzing and vibrant because of what Rush did. He is a master broadcaster, a master of the microphone. Anyone who is a true student of media should respect his achievements."

    Most recently, the introduction to Glittering Images is basically her extolling the greatness of conservative AM talk radio for featuring "lower-middle-class voices heard nowhere else in American society." This, along with the allure of partaking in forbidden media, is what got me listening to it. As a teenager I would screech at my parents for listening to Rush; as an adult I found the left-wing media depiction of him pieced together with inflammatory quotes is nothing like actually listening to his program. He is erudite, articulate, and principled in an old-fashioned way I see nowhere else in media. His ability to monologue compellingly for three hours every day is astonishing. I consume news from all sides of the political spectrum, but I instinctively tend to agree more with Rush's sweeping vision of a once-great America degraded by cultural Marxism, political correctness, and corrupt academia than the leftist "'white people' are responsible for all the word's ills" narrative. I feel nothing but contempt for my generation and in the last decade have felt progressively more alienated from my robotic peers because of--and it took me some time to admit it--the excesses of left-wing politics. I know people my age who seem similarly dissatisfied and confused, but they would prefer not to name the problem.
    As for radical Islam, I don't know what to say except that I don't see things the way you (and most people) do. Every time there is an Islamist terrorist attack, I witness the same reactions in media and in people my age: a jocular and dismissive attitude about victims and concern only for the public perception of Muslims. Islam must be respected but Christianity trashed. Consider the hysterical bleeding heart media reaction to the Ahmed Mohamed incident, and how the story mysteriously evaporated from news sources when it turned out it was all a ruse to sue for $15 million. Younger people and 7/8 of the media are overwhelmingly sympathetic to Muslims in all instances, so I think it is untrue that they are constantly persecuted.
    It's a tiresome trope for millennials, stand-up comedians, movie actresses et al to snidely comment on how homosexuals and blacks cannot be conservative. The liberal view of Islam is far more blatantly contradictory to me--the purveyors of transgender propaganda, feminism, "queer" whatever will refrain from comment on or, more commonly, leap to the defense of an anti-woman anti-homosexual medieval totalitarian religion, all while depicting lower-middle-class whites and Chik-Fil-A as the axis of evil. No one on the left has been able to provide me with a satisfactory explanation for this.

  4. It was the wrong moment for me to read because of Donald Trump. And, honestly, hypocritical of me since I have complained about it to my friend often in the past or at least the absurdity of defending Islam because it's the enemy (like that's impressive) of American hegemony. But noblesse oblige: my concern for American Muslims is far stronger than my indignation. And if if things do get ugly à la Trump for Muslims and Mexicans and then get better you'll be on the wrong side of history, just like Henry James in The Bostonians.
    Here's something I find more infuriating: when people take it to the extreme of our culture being defective because it's American rather than inherently interesting same as any and every culture. Like the word soccer. We can call it that if we like. Or that we drink pop or coffee with food just like in Mexico but there it's Mexicanidad and here it's boorish. Right. I love pop; it is really A Dream of Beauty, like dyed-red Angel.

  5. Oriana is the one who got shot in Mexico City?