Monday, June 12, 2017

Sarah Pulliam Bailey Postulates Nonexistent Jewish Underrepresentation

This article from Blog Bezos concerning the successful new Wonder Woman feature, its theatrical ban in Lebanon, lovely star Gal Gadot and her martial career in the IDF commences with remarkable jejunity considering its subject matter:

How the Jewish identity of 'Wonder Woman's' star is causing a stir
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey


In the Washington Post's inimitable style, an imbecile is quoted in the (typically brief) fifth paragraph:

In a piece at, Matthew Mueller argued that "Gal Gadot is not actually Caucasian, but is in fact Israeli," Mueller wrote.

This must be the dumbest false dichotomy I'll read this month, especially for those of us who regard Ashkenazim as white. Moreover, there's some charming attributive redundancy: who would have guessed that Mueller's argument was written?

Looking white doesn't mean you are white, Mueller writes, pointing to a column this year from the Times of Israel that said, "conceptualizing Jews as either 'white' or just a religion,' as many of our detractors are wont to do, helps to perpetuate a culture of antisemitism on the anti-racist left."

"Look upon our luxuriant cake of double standards! We'll nosh on it indefinitely, you Hitler!"


There is a historic range of Jewish subgroups, including Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ethiopian and more,

This topic's in no way abstruse: Ashkenazic, Sephardic and Mizrahic "subgroups" are Semitic ethnicities whose religion is usually Jewish; other Israeli citizens came late to the faith, if at all.

which raises the question, "So, is Gal Gadot white?" asks Joel Finkelstein in the Forward.

If the Post inattentively employs newswriters who disregard proper syntax, their opiners really oughtn't whine so often in defense of their depleted prestige or credibility.

"Is she North African/Middle Eastern and Israeli and Jewish and European and white? Is she all six of these things? Or perhaps something else? Who decides whether Jews are white, and what forces guides those decisions? The ambiguity of Jewish ethnicity serves as a perverse weapon in hands hostile to Jewish identity."

How many goys are sufficiently nescient and confiding to fall for this sloppy, fifth-rate claptrap? Here's an article wherein Philip Weiss facetiously posits a decrement of American Jewish IQs predicated on the quality of the U.S. commentariat's bullshit -- by quoting outrageous neoconservative codswallop in The Washington Post! If such a reduction is occurring, I expect Weiss and Horowitz would agree that its prevalence is concentrated in mainstream journalism, where relatively dopey Jews imagine that Gentiles are dumber still.
Anyhow, this bunk persists for several paragraphs until we come to this piece's gamiest turd:

Gadot defies some of the stereotypes of women, especially as many Jewish women were portrayed on film as unattractive or the funny sidekick, said Emily Shire, politics editor at Bustle.

"It's a landmark film for women for so many reasons, and this takes it to another level," Shire said. "There is a history of Jews making movies and Jews loving movies, but who was on screen?"

Here's an incomplete list of prominent Jewish actresses who've enjoyed fandom and lead roles in many televised and cinematic productions:

  • Fanny Brice
  • Lauren Bacall
  • Bea Arthur
  • Elaine May
  • Charlotte Rae
  • Piper Laurie
  • Suzanne Pleshette
  • Lainie Kazan
  • Lee Grant
  • Bette Midler
  • Shelley Winters
  • Zohra Lampert
  • Carol Kane
  • Barbra Streisand
  • Janet Margolin
  • Tovah Feldshuh
  • Lesley Ann Warren
  • Jill St. John
  • Goldie Hawn
  • Roseanne Barr
  • Michele Lee
  • Isabelle Huppert
  • Ellen Barkin
  • Carrie Fisher
  • Rachel Ticotin
  • Fran Drescher
  • Bebe Neuwirth
  • Rachel Weisz
  • Ione Skye
  • Ally Sheedy
  • Jennifer Jason Leigh
  • Phoebe Cates
  • Camryn Manheim
  • Rosanna Arquette
  • Patricia Arquette
  • Lisa Kudrow
  • Jami Gertz
  • Winona Ryder
  • Elizabeth Berkley
  • Selma Blair
  • Tori Spelling
  • Gwyneth Paltrow
  • Danielle Harris
  • Natasha Lyonne
  • Natalie Portman

All of these ladies (save for Portman, Streisand and Berkley) have performed well in various histrionic capacities; faith, many of them are among the most eminent screen actresses of their respective generations. As a corollary of the film industry's Jewish domination and Ashkenazic aptitude for performance, they constitute an inevitable overrepresentation in their industry of an ethnoreligious group whose presence never exceeded 3% of the population. By plying a policy of improbity intended to exploit the appalling cultural and scientific ignorance of their millennial audiences, the commentariat are slighting by deliberate disregard the impressive accomplishments of these women to push the flagrant falsity that women and Jews were ever underrepresented in the Anglosphere's cinema.

"Wonder Woman" follows a long line of Jewish ties to comic book characters. Many superheroes were created by Jews, according to Haaretz, including Superman, Captain America, Batman, Spider-Man, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Ironman, the X-Men, Thor and the Avengers.

Therewithal, most of the popular superheroes were produced or adapted by Jews. Diana's creators, William Moulton Marston and H. G. Peter, are exceptions to this trend.

Since daily newspapers in the 1930s would not accept illustrations by Jews,

--save for those which did. These instances of Jewish disenfranchisement were regional, not widespread.

many Jews found a home in comic book publishing.

"Could Gal Gadot become the biggest Israeli superstar ever?" the Jewish Telegraphic Agency asked, noting that actress Natalie Portman was born in Israel but left at age 2.

I'm dumbfounded that Portman was mentioned so late in this article; she's a cynosure of idiots ignorant of motion pictures.


While they share a Jewish identity, American Jews and Israeli Jews have many cultural differences, said Dan Lainer-Vos, a sociology professor at University of California at Los Angeles, who is Israeli.

Aren't we fortunate to enjoy the counsel of academics and journalists who patronize us with such overwhelming understatement?

"American Jews integrate themselves remarkably successfully and they don't think of themselves as a separate tribe that is somehow chosen," he said.

--save for those who do. The cultural and social schisms between legitimately integrated Jews and Jewish elites is perhaps the most underreported subject of the U.S. at present.


People will politicize anything connected to Israel, said Deborah Lauter, Anti-Defamation League's senior vice president of policy and programs,

There's the pot calling the kettle bigoted.

but the timing of the film comes during the anniversary of Israel's Six-Day War, which tripled the land under Israeli control.

"Anti-Semites will exploit a current event like this," she said. "They latch onto the popular trend and try to gain legitimacy by talking about it."

All of them are nebulous and unspecified until they fulfill this prophecy, but especially if they don't.

Some people who want to support the film were conflicted because of Gadot's casting, Amal Matan wrote on Medium's NerdyPOC blog.

Gadot raised the issue of "intersectionality," which refers to a call for diversity and inclusion when working for human rights. Intersectionality focuses on how overlapping identities, such as race, class, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation, affect the way people face discrimination.

"So where does that leave Wonder Woman fans, intersectional feminists and those in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle?" Matan said. "As the world will see the movie, there will be a solid chunk of individuals who will choose not to support Gal Gadot."

Translation: Muslim Arabs (esp. Palestinians) who execrate Jews and particularly Israel exploit inane, propagandist, academic sociological theories to impotently oppose Israelis. Ooooh.

The film comes just months after the Women's March highlighted issues related to human rights and put feminism under the spotlight. Tension between supporters of Israel and the Women's March surfaced after one of the movement's co-chairs, Linda Sarsour, who is a Palestinian activist, argued that feminists could not also be pro-Israel.

"It just doesn't make any sense for someone to say, 'Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?'" Sarsour told the Nation. "There can't be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There's just no way around it."

Everyone who isn't an utterly cretinous ideologue is waiting to observe which of the many fault lines internally demarcating The Coalition of the Fringes will be the first ruptured to sunder it. Personally, I'm staking my bet on conflict between misogynistic, maniacal (mostly Arabic) Muslims and impinging and entrenched Mestizos, but I'm seldom prescient...

"Wonder Woman" resurfaced debates over Jews and intersectionality, said Yair Rosenberg, senior writer for Tablet Magazine. Jews have been the only white people white supremacists target,

Publication date: June 7, 2017.

but Jews are seen as white privileged and part of the problem, he said.

What's precious is that for all their pandering, Jewish elites have far more to fear and lose from the "anti"-racist left -- where their position is progressively tenuous -- than they do white supremacy, a rightly and categorically marginalized movement nigh as innocuous as The Shriners, and consequentially as relevant as Sambo's. As Hans wrest control of academic and STEM berths by virtue of intellectual excellence and plurality, and Latinos and mohammedans democratically assume political posts where Jews were once assured their security, they're going to realize that slumming and specious posturing as a minority of the underclass won't save them from the sociopolitical irrelevance that dispossessed whites, Native Americans, Latinos, et al. have suffered for decades.
They may as well celebrate what their predecessors built before or until it's gone. Everyone else has.

Monday, June 5, 2017

George Will Whines About the Populist Right by Crushing on Bill Buckley's Corse

His little bow tie aflutter over the ascendency of populism among the legitimate right in the U.S., perennial cornball nebbish George Will boldly writes instead about a subject with which he's familiar, conservatism's crown prince of intellectual prostitution:

Conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives
By George F. Will | Opinion writer | May 31

In 1950, the year before William F. Buckley burst into the national conversation, the literary critic Lionel Trilling revealed why the nation was ripe for Buckley's high-spirited romp through its political and cultural controversies. Liberalism, Trilling declared, was "not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition" in mid-century America because conservatism was expressed merely in "irritable mental gestures." Buckley would change that by infusing conservatism with brio, bringing elegance to its advocacy and altering the nation's trajectory while having a grand time.

In a reality light-years removed from Will's hagiographic fiction, Buckley merely endued to his brand of conservatism a sophisticated veneer to divert attention from his situation as chief evangelist of American imperial ambition, the abusive and destructive collusion of governmental and corporate entities and the subversion of anti-Communism from a principled opposition to Marxist atrocities to a vehicle by which rivers of blood were shed for industrial profit. Ever voluble and invariably grandiloquent onscreen, Buckley was in actuality a passive-aggressive churl whose choler revolted no few among his acquaintances and cognates.

Today, conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives whose irritable gestures lack mental ingredients.

Something's to be said of or against an adult who feels such a lightweight conceit's worth ingemination.

America needs a reminder of conservatism before vulgarians hijacked it, and a hint of how it became susceptible to hijacking.

It certainly doesn't, esp. when the likes of Will are still syndicated, and lightweight, dupable clots like Kasich or Romney were prominent just last year...

Both are in Alvin S. Felzenberg's "A Man and His Presidents: The Political Odyssey of William F. Buckley Jr." Yale University Press published this biography of the man who first challenged the liberal consensus in 1951 with an excoriation of his alma mater, "God and Man at Yale."

To be fair, who else cares to peddle this pap?

Influenced by his isolationist father,

To controvert a lie purveyed by corrupt historians and tools like Will that the American public has stupidly accepted, I'll reiterate this verity as often as I must: neutrality/non-interventionism is not isolationism. The peaceful, sane foreign policy of Sweden, Switzerland and the U.S. as Washington envisioned it isn't analogous, much less identical to China during the Ming and Qing dynasties or Mao's cultural revolution, Paraguay under Francia or Japan when ruled by the Tokugawa shogunate.

Buckley was precociously opinionated. He named his first sailboat "Sweet Isolation." While at school in England in September 1938, the 12-year-old Buckley saw Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain deplane from the Munich Conference proclaiming "peace for our time." On May 23, 1941, Buckley, then 15, attended an America First rally in Madison Square Garden addressed by Charles Lindbergh. As a soldier stationed in Georgia in April 1945, Buckley was a young officer selected for the honor guard for Franklin D. Roosevelt's casket en route to the train from Warm Springs to Washington.

This genus of historiography by personal witness was never more syrupy or obnoxious as when fictionalized in Forrest Gump, but Boomers are addicted to the mawkish archetype of The Good American present at historical events. Had the nation any sense, Roosevelt's rancid casket would've been interred in a landfill, and young Buckley designated its gravedigger.

In the Yale Daily News, Buckley inveighed against the 1948 presidential campaign of leftist Henry Wallace because, Felzenberg writes, Buckley's "reading of history persuaded him that ideas advanced in the course of elections could outlast losing campaigns, capture the imagination of budding intellectuals and, under the right circumstances, gain acceptance over time."

If Buckley hadn't purged every personality employed by National Review who postulated a contention that incensed his supposed opponents, mayhap a few of whatever these "ideas" were might've been preserved.

So, National Review, founded by Buckley in 1955, functioned, Felzenberg says, as Barry Goldwater's "unofficial headquarters and policy shop" during the 1964 presidential campaign.

Could Will have possibly punctuated that sentence with more commas without committing a solecism? Is he innovating some mindless new syntactic experiment to maximize punctuation?

Goldwater lost 44 states but put the Republican Party on the path to Ronald Reagan.

However one may adjudge Goldwater, he only ever disavowed the endorsement of the KKK rather than that of every prospective supporter and ally who ever voiced an uncomfortable indelicacy: the modus operandi of Buckley that Will never mentions in the scant substance of this advertisement.

Some Buckley judgments were dotty (Goldwater should offer the vice presidential nomination to the retired Dwight Eisenhower),

I Like Ike. I was born in 1979, but unlike Buckley, I can clearly discern Eisenhower's retirement nigh a score antedating my birth as unequivocal.

puerile (Eisenhower was "a miserable president"; Douglas MacArthur was "the last of the great Americans") or worse (the name of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People conceded that its constituents were "less advanced").

Yet Buckley routinely disenfranchised and disclaimed any conservative who uttered a racial sentiment far less inflammatory.

But Buckley's ebullience, decency and enthusiasm for learning propelled him up from sectarianism.

I'll play exegete: dissidence and schismatic fortuity were never a problem at National Review while Buckley was about to jettison anyone who didn't play by the left's rules as stringently as he.

He had the courage of his convictions, which were costly. Although one of National Review's staunchest benefactors was Roger Milliken, a protectionist textile magnate, Buckley supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, urging conservatives "to stand steady, joyful in our faith in the basic propositions of a free society."

How can one esteem a man so blatant in his globalist venality to support the immiseration that NAFTA guaranteed for so many working-class families in the United States and Mexico? Of course, Will's cut from the same putrid sackcloth: decades before his trifling output was published under the auspices of the odious Jeff Bezos, the online mogul's predecessor Donald Graham expressed no scruples regarding conflict of interest whilst surreptitiously lobbying for the security of his holdings enumerated in the GATT pact. As usual, Will was preoccupied with his precious baseball.

Said the novelist Edna Buchanan, "Friends are the family we choose for ourselves." Buckley, with his talent for friendship, had an extraordinarily extended family that included Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who in the 1970s wrote that something momentous had happened: The Republican Party had become the party of ideas. Some, however, were incompatible, producing the dissonance that currently is crippling conservatism.

"Some" are herein unmentioned, of course; many among them were repudiated and often axed by Buckley, always more concerned about perceived opprobrium than credibility or anything resembling actual principle. In the interest of perspective, erstwhile contributors terminated or disowned by National Review for irreverence, dissent, patriotism and populism include Pat Buchanan, Jared Taylor, Samuel T. Francis, Ann Coulter, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, and most famously John Derbyshire, all of whom have demonstrated greater prescience and accuracy, and exercised superior influence than any of the risible neoconservatives constituting a present majority of National Review's newswriters and pundits. Indeed, Francis astutely observed in Shots Fired:

Well, many of them needed to be turned away, but in the process, the "movement" spit out just about anyone who was interesting, different, or creative [who can argue that the list of people booted from National Review isn't wildly more interesting than those now writing for the magazine?]. The result was a movement all right -- of apparatchiks, enlivened by the occasional con artist and outright crook.

It also purged anyone who wasn't acceptable to the standards of liberalism -- that seems to be the common denominator of the types "turned away." If there was anything the "conservative movement" dreaded more than "kooks," it was being attacked by the liberals they claimed to oppose.

The "dissonance" to which Will glibly adverts was generated by the failure of Buckley's Burkean conservatism to conserve anything at all -- certainly not jobs, rights, or any semblance of public security -- and aggravated by the disaffected messengers of populism and reality renounced for affronts of honesty. Will's likely too busy mixing Metamucil while his grandchildren configure The YouTube for his daily consumption of a video (perhaps two!), but the right is now populated by actual conservatives who detest the neoconservatives' grand contribution to the erosion of sovereignty, societal requisites and governmental probity, alt-right populists prepared to burn our political edifice to the ground to secure their society and culture, and racial and ethnic nationalists who'd thrill to a racial holy war during which this trite milksop and his fellow elitists would be gibbeted or guillotined as a serial sideshow. Trump's election merely marks a climacteric of trends engendered by impoverishment, frustration and estrangement that the snide elites of an entrenched political class couldn't be bothered to notice. Conservatism was crippled not by "dissonance" but an absence of noblesse oblige, and the disposition of Buckley and his ilk to reject anyone not in step with a game wherein they played the role of controlled opposition to great lucre.

Buckley famously said he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by Harvard's faculty, but he briskly defended the Council on Foreign Relations from "those American right-wingers who specialize in ignorance."

One can only infer that globalists always represent fealty to one another as virtue because they've no genuine principles.

"All his life," Felzenberg writes, "Buckley walked a tightrope between elitism and populism," never resolving the tension between them. If only he had.

He did no such thing. Buckley was a congenital elitist who could scarcely conceal his contempt for the third estate, or his disregard for their welfare.

He, to his credit, befriended Whittaker Chambers, whose autobiography "Witness" became a canonical text of conservatism. Unfortunately, it injected conservatism with a sour, whiney, complaining, crybaby populism.

How uncouth of the little people to bemoan their gradual destitution and demographic replacement! Why, their presumption rumples our every ascot!

It is the screechy and dominant tone of the loutish faux conservatism that today is erasing Buckley's legacy of infectious cheerfulness and unapologetic embrace of high culture.

No: Buckley's legacy is dissipating in contact with the solvent of reality. Moreover, conservatism was never compelled to embrace erudition by Buckley's example any more than Libertarianism by Harry Browne's. Most of Buckley's logophilic conception of erudition was superficial: tumescent verbiage of a gilt sheen over a shortfall of insight and elegance, sesquipedalian indulgences infusing otherwise clunky and convoluted prose. This same dynamic could be observed in his performance of the harpsichord, characterized by stilted competence sans depth. He possessed the lexicon of a Waugh or Burgess without their sprachgefuehl, the dexterity of a Landowska or Hantaï minus the sensitivity that assured virtuosity.

Chambers wallowed in cloying sentimentality and curdled resentment about "the plain men and women" — "my people, humble people, strong in common sense, in common goodness" — enduring the "musk of snobbism" emanating from the "socially formidable circles" of the "nicest people" produced by "certain collegiate eyries." Buckley, a Bach aficionado from Yale and ocean mariner from the New York Yacht Club, was unembarrassed about having good taste and without guilt about savoring the good life.

His naysayers? Well, who could possibly know of their opinions? This impuissant nerd's only remarkable attribute isn't an inability to relate to any beneath his stratum, but an antipathy to try. His obtusity and facileness actually complement one another in the most insular manner.

"His true ideal," Felzenberg writes, "was governance by a new conservative elite in which he played a prominent role." And for which he would play the harpsichord.

Personally, I can't conceive of a more effete image. Neoconservatism won't enjoy an epitaph. At best, it may be remembered as a curious symptom of SCALE tinged with an evanescent ideological pretense. Fortunately for those most mundane among the commentariat like Will or Ken Burns, baseball is likely to endure.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Time's Bryan Walsh can't even

One among Time's phalanx of huffy mythomaniacs attempts to append a footnote to Milo Y's whammy replete with predictable falsities and puerile sophism:

The right to speech vs. the right to censor
by Bryan Walsh

Milo Yiannopoulos is many things: a onetime editor at the alt-right website Breitbart,

If I've learned anything from leftist journalists, "alt-right" is whatever they execrate at any given moment. Breitbart -- not the converged, effete and ostentatious National Review or the greater, corrupt Republican Party -- is a legitimate mouthpiece of mainstream conservatism.

a gay and partly Jewish man who regularly disparaged gays and Jews,

Milo's certainly reviled lesbians -- not all gays -- but Jews?! Granted, Yiannopoulos has denounced individual Jews, such as Ben "is Israel's nationalist double-standard our summum bonum, or are you Hitler?" Shapiro or Morris "the skinheads will flay us alive if you can't sustain my gauche lifestyle" Dees, but the pro-Jewish, pro-Zionist tenor of his disquisitional engagements is unequivocal. Are we to assume that Walsh believes any contention with a Jewish polemic constitutes anti-Semitism?

the self-described "most fabulous supervillain of the Internet" and, in his own words, a "free-speech warrior."

This is actually true.

Yiannopoulos' expert trolling earned him prominence on the far right,

To speculate that Milo's appeal is limited to "the far right" is to grossly misapprehend the present state of the right.

proof to many on that side that theirs was the true party of free speech -- not politically correct liberals more worried about people's feelings than about the First Amendment.

Oh, but never mind the latter!

As it turns out, free speech has limits, even among the party of free speech. Shortly before he was set to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, video resurfaced of Yiannopoulos defending the idea of "13-year-olds" having sex with "older men,"

--in jest; minutes later, he attests that 16 is a sensible age of consent.

and although he apologized,

He only tendered an apology to individuals sexually exploited in their teens, as he was, who might've been offended. Of course, Yiannopoulos' own experiences aren't to be mentioned here.

Yiannopoulos was swiftly disinvited, resigned from Breitbart under pressure

This is a lie. Yiannopoulos' departure was wholly volitional, as Breitbart's staff have confirmed.

and had a book deal with Simon & Schuster canceled. The left cheered at Yiannopoulos' fall, while noting that it took praising pedophilia

Conflation of ephebophilia and pedophilia is the reliable hallmark distinguishing a cretin of any political persuasion.

-- not his long rap sheet of racist and sexist statements --

Would that anyone on the left could actually enumerate this mythical catalog! Some of Yiannopoulos' facetiae might be interpreted as sexist, but I've not read or heard from him one racist utterance.

before conservatives turned their backs.

No, they didn't. CPAC is infested with neocons and varied venal degenerates. Craven swine like Shapiro, Erick Erickson or Bill Kristol speak neither for most Americans, nor conservatives among them.

The country won't miss Yiannopoulos.

This is why Milo's title is so perfectly apposite: every leftist or pseudo-conservative hack imagines himself or herself triumphantly akimbo, cape undulating in the crepuscular wind and loudly proclaiming, "That's the last we've heard from that dastardly fag!" But...meanwhile!

But his rise and fall shows that speech in America has been weaponized and privatized.

Presently, contributors to leftist fishwrap rely crucially upon their readership's ignorance, but this has been true since circa 370 B.C., and certainly the history of the United States in toto.

Finding the proper balance between civil liberty and civility is going to prove increasingly elusive.

No, it isn't: when in doubt, err on the side of truth. It's that simple. Of course, SJWs seek to disenfranchise and pauperize anyone who disaffirms them, but when anyone to the right of Mao enjoys an audience, courtesy is to disingenuous detestations like Walsh a sudden concern.

In some ways, free speech is more robust than ever. Whatever the feelings of the current occupant of the White House,

"(Drumpf is not my president!)"

the courts have proved to be a reliable protector of First Amendment rights.

To the chagrin of the social justice maniacs who Walsh sedulously ignores, this is so. Any retail publication that actually prints a phrase as clumsily ill-conceived as "have proved to be" really deserves its twilight.

The growth of social media has amplified the voices of average Americans -- including voices that are critical of the government.

Okay, hon. Trump wasn't president in 2006. Duly noted.

At a moment when free speech is very much under assault in authoritarian countries like China, where the government controls the press and the Internet,

To what "moment" is Walsh referring? Freedom of expression in China's been legally suppressed for over seventy years! Of course, the left's tabula rasa is absterged every five minutes, but authors of this drivel enjoy carte blanche because they're read by so few -- among whom dissenters constitute a minuscule minority -- that they imagine nobody will ever take issue with such inanities.

Americans are practically drowning in spoken thought.

Blarney like this is a corollary of the elderly who feel inundated by the sheer volume of online opinion.

But look closer.

No, not there! Here! Look!

The speech being amplified by Facebook or Twitter -- Yiannopoulos' favorite venue before he was banned last year -- isn't happening in town halls. These are corporations answerable not to the public but to their shareholders. The First Amendment may prohibit Congress from passing any law that forbids the expression of free speech, but it has given wide latitude to digital companies to censor voices at will.

No, it doesn't. Though private censorship is incontestably legal, the First Amendment doesn't address that topic in the slightest. This is more likely just sloppy rhetoric than improbity, but it illustrates how the latter conduces the former.

And given how dominant those platforms are, the decisions they make about what is allowable can be absolute.

Sure, for as long as a week before someone produces an alternative.

Free speech is also under pressure on college campuses, where some groups have sought to block speakers whose views they find offensive.

It's been "under pressure" since speech codes were broadly instituted in the '80s.

That happened to Yiannopoulos himself, whose talk last month at Berkeley was scratched,

Obscurantism is clearly Walsh's M.O., but that he can omit mention of the disgusting leftist riot in response to Milo's appearance prompts the question of whether he can order take-out with sincerity.

but also to more mainstream speakers like former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who canceled her commencement address at Rutgers University in 2014 in the face of student protests.

So, Rice's scuttled speech three years ago is to be deemed more noteworthy than that of Charles Murray two months ere...?

In his commencement speech at Howard University last spring, President Obama

"(former, nothing: Obama's still my president!!)"

reminded graduates of the importance of "listening to those with whom you disagree."

Obammy's platitudinous hypocrisy is an enduring wonder.

There is some evidence that younger people may be less protective of free speech. A 2015 Pew survey found that 40% of millennials believe the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive things about minority groups, compared with 24% of baby boomers. As l'affaire Yiannopoulos demonstrates, we're all a little hypocritical.

Who is this "we?" That bloated, fretful, demented, dyscivic 40% is aligned with Walsh, not authentic Americans.

While Americans don't want the government telling them what they can and cannot say, they've been happy enough to accept some limitations for the sake of basic civility.

No, they haven't. Limitations were only legislated to prevent bodily, not emotional injury.

But that's changing -- we now live in an increasingly polarized and tribal country.

This only became so when the rotten, dysfunctional status quo was challenged -- not since 1776.

We've sorted ourselves digitally, which makes us less likely to encounter opposing viewpoints and less worried about offending our like-minded pals. Instead of fueling a marketplace of ideas, as the founders envisioned, speech becomes a way for groups to police their own boundaries while lobbing rhetorical bombs against opponents. The aim is not to debate but to dominate.

This exclusively describes the conduct of social justice warriors. Nobody else acquits themselves so.

There was no debating Yiannopoulos -- his was a one-way instrument, and that's why conservatives embraced him.

Here's yet another falsehood; Yiannopoulos eagerly exploited and savored every opportunity for debate.

But as soon as he became toxic to his own group, he was dropped.

"His own group" didn't repudiate him; his presence at CPAC would've been an embarrassing anomaly, which is why the video in question was dredged and misrepresented to the delight of unscrupulous muckrakers like Walsh.

Absolute principles mattered less than winning.

To be fair, that does describe the posture of the shrinking, increasingly impuissant Republican right. Here's the mendacious cherry atop Walsh's cake of bullshit:

In America today, speech is everywhere. It's the listening that has gone missing.


Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.

--Sun Tzu

Bryan Walsh could learn something from Sun Tzu's famous adage. Oh, I tease.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Roger Ebert Reviews (Without Viewing) Hellbound

Assessors of motion pictures who are adversely prejudiced against a genre ought to oblige their audiences by excusing themselves from appraisal of movies in said genre. Notwithstanding his jejune dudgeon against horror flicks because they're mean and all the blood therein perturbs him, petulant, celebrated, overfed hack Roger Ebert ineptly professed to viewing Hellbound: Hellraiser II, for yet another review garners more cash, more cash purchases provender, and fat boy must glut.

Hellbound: Hellraiser II

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of nightmares: the kind that you actually have, and the kind they make into movies. Real nightmares usually involve frustration or public embarrassment. In the frustrating ones, a loved one is trying to tell you something and you can't understand them, or they're in danger and you can't help them. In the embarrassing ones, it's the day of the final exam and you forgot to attend the classes, or you're in front of a crowd and can't think of anything to say, or you wandered into the hotel lobby without any clothes on and nobody has noticed you yet - but they're about to.

As I'm a cult hero and nonesuch of my trades, most of my oneiric experiences involve erotic, gastronomic, and auctorial indulgences of Caligulan proportions, but Ebert's dreams are to be expected for a petty, corpulent changeling.

Those are scary nightmares, all right, and sometimes they turn up in the movies. But "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" contains the kinds of nightmares that occur only in movies, because our real dreams have low budgets and we can't afford expensive special effects.

Ebert's abject absence of imagination is no revelation.

The movie begins a few hours after the original "Hellbound" ended.

This isn't a puzzler: Hellbound is the sequel to Hellraiser. Even New World Pictures issued press kits to professional reviewers; those with IQs exceeding room temperature could infer this titular detail.

A young girl named Kirsty has been placed in a hospital after a night in which she was tortured by the flayed corpses of her parents, who were under the supervision of the demons of hell.

In a sane world, any reviewer paid for his output who can't or won't synopsize a film accurately would be called to the carpet by his readership and employers alike.

What this girl needs is a lot of rest and a set of those positive-thinking cassettes they advertise late at night on cable TV.

Has she also need of a regale?

But no such luck. The hospital is simply another manifestation of the underworld, hell is all around us, we are powerless in its grip, and before long Kristy and a newfound friend named Tiffany are hurtling down the corridors of the damned. Give or take a detail or two, that's the story.

It isn't at all, but this is what proceeds in a review indited from hearsay, because Roger Ebert didn't watch Hellbound ere he reviewed it, as he'll promptly evidence.

"Hellbound: Hellraiser II" is like some kind of avant-garde film strip in which there is no beginning, no middle, no end, but simply a series of gruesome images that can be watched in any order.

One can envision Ebert stamping his pudgy foot whilst typing this surmisal. Hellbound's plot is quite commonplace.

The images have been constructed with a certain amount of care and craftsmanship; the technical credits on this movie run to four single-spaced pages.

I'm almost surprised that Ebert deferred from his engorgement for perchance a minute to riffle through his press kit.

We see lots of bodies that have been skinned alive, so that the blood still glistens on the exposed muscles. We see creatures who have been burned and mutilated and twisted into grotesque shapes and condemned for eternity to unspeakable and hopeless tortures.

So, the reviewer images what he's heard of the production for the benefit of teenagers and concerned parents whose regard for it's expected to be antipodal.

We hear deep, rasping laughter as the denizens of hell chortle over the plight of the terrified girls. And we hear their desperate voices calling to each other.

"Kirsty!" we hear. And "Tiffany!" And "Kirsty!!!" and "Tiffany!!!" And "Kirstiyyyyyyy!!!!!" And "Tiffanyyyyyyy!!!!!" I'm afraid this is another one of those movies that violates the First Rule of Repetition of Names, which states that when the same names are repeated in a movie more than four times a minute for more than three minutes in a row, the audience breaks out into sarcastic laughter, and some of the ruder members are likely to start shouting "Kirsty!" and "Tiffany!" at the screen.

This never transpires in the picture; Imogen Boorman's character couldn't call to Ashley Laurence's repeatedly because she's mute for the nigh-totality of the film. She literally utters not a dozen lines, all of which are vocalized in the movie's last fifteen minutes, and not one of which is a vociferation bespeaking her co-star. Ebert substituted pettish conjecture for actual evaluation because he indiscriminately hates horror movies and didn't even watch this one.

But this movie violates more rules than the First Rule of Repetition.

How did anyone countenance this little imbecile's "rules?" Nothing's as evidential of impotence than the compulsion to propound arbitrary rules pertaining to a medium rather than simply assessing a work's quality and idiom its own terms.

It also violates a basic convention of story construction, which suggests that we should get at least a vague idea of where the story began and where it might be headed. This movie has no plot in a conventional sense.

As those of us who've actually watched this movie know, it was written in particular abidance by narrative convention.

It is simply a series of ugly and bloody episodes strung together one after another like a demo tape by a perverted special-effects man. There is nothing the heroines can do to understand or change their plight and no way we can get involved in their story.

During this movie's second and third acts, its heroines are entirely preoccupied with opposition to preternatural antagonists and phenomena, upon which they prevail with the exercise of some ingenuity. An especially heinous critic wouldn't know this and couldn't be engaged by the movie if he hadn't seen it.

That makes "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" an ideal movie for audiences with little taste

Ebert lauded The Women, Home Alone 3, Clash of the Titans, Cars 2, Escape From L.A. and Knowing, and famously panned A Clockwork Orange, Blue Velvet, The Flower of My Secret, The Tenant, Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Taste of Cherry.

and atrophied attention spans who want to glance at the screen occasionally and ascertain that something is still happening up there.

That would connote more attention than that demonstrated in this review, which represents an egregious dereliction of occupational responsibility.

If you fit that description, you have probably not read this far, but what the heck, we believe in full-service reviews around here.

You're welcome.

Which is most appalling: Ebert's blatant contumely for his audience, fatuous self-satisfaction or knavery disclosed in penning a review of a picture he clearly hadn't seen, for which he was paid?

Personally, I love Hellbound, but can't deny that it's a deeply flawed picture: its continuity is a shambles (especially in severalty from its predecessor); production design and effects alike are inspired but fashioned and executed with slipshod inconsistency; good performances are squandered on dialogue of equally varied quality, and the entire undertaking was obviously festinated to capitalize on Barker's hit. Ebert didn't advert to one of these glaring faults because he didn't even watch the movie. How does a professional, syndicated reviewer get away with this sort of stupid dupery?

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Peter Maass on Ignorance and Paranoia

Hideous veteran hack Peter Maass has indited an impossibly maladroit article wherein he slings calumny and discloses his own inscience in an attempt to vilify Breitbart contributor Julia Hahn for The Intercept, First Look Media's perpetual exercise in impotence:

Birth of a Radical
White Fear in the White House: Young Bannon Disciple Julia Hahn Is a Case Study in Extremism

Naturally, Maass is compelled to interlard his sophomoric prose with denigratory phases such as "White Fear"...exhibiting his own unbalanced paranoia in address of someone who shares his specific ethnicity.

Steve Bannon, who is no stranger to controversy, faced a torrent of reproval when it was revealed not long ago that he had praised a detestable novel envisioning France invaded by an armada of brown-skinned migrants from India. The French novel is called "The Camp of the Saints," and Bannon recommended it on several occasions when he was executive chairman of Breitbart News, to justify what he perceived as a mortal threat that whites face from immigration.

Note that Maass sedulously ignores the constant prescience of Raspail's book, most recently manifest in the mayhem ensuing Merkel's torrential intromission of Muslim doggeries in urban Germany.

The book, published in the 1970s, had existed for decades as an obscure cornerstone of the utmost fringes of white racism.

Here's the first of many lies concerning a perennial bestseller that Maass essays to feed his ignorant audience. Its enduring popularity in France isn't the sole distinction The Camp of the Saints has enjoyed; it's also one of too few French political novels to accrue widespread readership in the Anglosphere.

The Indian children in the novel were referred to as "little monsters,"

That's often an apt description.

and the adults were described as sexual maniacs who filled their ships with "rivers of sperm, streaming over bodies, oozing between breasts, and buttocks, and thighs, and lips, and fingers."

To be fair (and desultory), this excerpt reads like an account of my sexual exploits during my late teens and early twenties.

The novel ended with hundreds of thousands of them taking over France and, by extension, the West.

That's an example of allegorical hyperbole, one of many concepts Haass doesn't grasp.

When it came out in the United States, Kirkus Reviews noted that "the publishers are presenting 'The Camp of the Saints' as a major event, and it probably is, in much the same sense that Mein Kampf was a major event."

Ah, to what does the laudation of Jean Anouilh and Michel Déon amount when Kirkus Reviews is at our disposal to compare anything heterodox (authored by an avowed anti-Nazi) to the literature of National Socialism?

Bannon, now a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, made his glowing comments during radio programs he hosted in 2015 and 2016. But his comments were brief and in passing.

That's unfortunate; everyone should read and deliberate on The Camp of the Saints.

The most enthusiastic endorsement of the book from anyone at Breitbart, and certainly the longest endorsement, came from a young reporter who wrote a gushing 4,000-word article that said "all around the world, events seem to be lining up with the predictions of the book." The article, which neglected to mention that "The Camp of the Saints" is widely regarded as utterly racist, merely described it as controversial, and made conspiratorial parallels between its fictional characters and Pope Francis, Marco Rubio, and even Glenn Beck.

Hahn's fine, incisive panegyry of the novel confutes most of Maass's subsequent falsehoods and speculation.

The Breitbart reporter was Julia Hahn, a Bannon protégé who followed him into the White House as a special assistant to President Trump. Bannon and other alt-right figures in the West Wing, including Sebastian Gorka, have received enormous amounts of criticism for espousing ideas that are seen as racist or ridiculous.

Most of said reprehension has been penned by propagandists like Maass, to whom all dissent in opposition to globalism and its imperatives is intrinsically racist, sexist, ageist, etc.

Gorka is reported to be leaving the White House, and there have been reports that Bannon might be edged out, too. But Hahn has gotten almost no notice for writing what appears to be the longest and most laudatory article about "The Camp of the Saints" that has appeared in the American media in recent years. The few in-depth stories about her getting a job at the White House have mostly focused on her lashing criticism of Paul Ryan, the House speaker whose conservative positions on immigration were far too permissive for Bannon, Hahn, and the rest of Breitbart.

Paul Ryan's positions on immigration (determined at the behest of his donors) are clearly "too permissive" for most of America, and any sane country.

At a glance, Hahn is an outlier among outliers. She was raised in Beverly Hills, attended a private high school, and the only wisp of political activity in her adolescence was a decidedly liberal, pro-immigration gesture: She raised money for a group that brought foreign orphans to the United States.

I thrice voted Libertarian, and was once a registered member and campaign contributor in the ranks of the LP; none among us are beyond reclamation.

She majored in philosophy at the University of Chicago, and the sole public trace of her time there is a video of a panel discussion in which she discussed Michael Foucault's idea that psychoanalysis stigmatizes human sexuality.

Ah yes, famed philosopher and historian Michael Foucault.

Look, I don't expect much from a petty hack who's spent his trifling career authoring sloppy, tendentious drivel (especially his risible journalism in treatment of the petrodollar) for fading relics like The New Yorker and footling fishwrap such as The Washington Post, but one does expect a minimal standard of competence. How the christ is Maass ignorant of an intellectual cynosure of Michel Foucault's stature, a figure whose output defined a French ethos and furnished two generations with a sensibly innovative and askant critical context for historical analysis? That's an astounding feat of nescience.*

Not long after she was appointed to the White House at the age of just 25, one of her college friends reacted by writing on Facebook, "It's weird because she was always very nice and it's disappointing when seemingly nice people turn out to be Nazis/Nazi-adjacent." Another friend asked, "WTF happened???"

This isn't journalism. It couldn't be favorably charactered as mudraking. This is cheap, creepy cyber-stalking frauduently presented as journalism. Of course, the aforementioned, apocryphal quote isn't sourced with a link; mayhap Maass imagines that he's protecting a source.

Do recall Maass' mention of neglect above, for Julia Aviva Hahn is Jewish, a glaring fact that he pretermits as he quotes some dingbat who declares an obvious moderate an NSDAP sympathizer. Christ.

The question of what happened offers an opportunity of sorts.

Faith: it's an opportunity for Maass to stultify himself before his readers.

There has been a lot of discussion about countering extremism and identifying extremists before they do something that harms themselves or the nation. How do young people become radicalized? The preferred means for answering these questions are not mysterious — find out the ideas that young people are exposed to, find out the social environment they are raised in, and work from there. This framework has been applied mostly to Islamic extremism, with the goal of figuring out why some Muslims become terrorists.

So in Maass' estimation, newswriter Julia Hahn is analogous to a violent Muslim terrorist.

But the tools of "countering violent extremism," as it's known, work extremely well for figuring out the riddle of rich white kids who turn to the fringes of the right.

How is Hahn on "the fringes of the right?" Breitbart's readership exceeds that of Time magazine's, and it's certainly far more popular than The Intercept. Curiously, globalist extremists adjudge everyone else in parallax from their position.

How does someone who raised money for foreign orphans write, a few years later, a screed for Breitbart headlined "Muslim Immigration Puts Half a Million U.S. Girls at Risk of Genital Mutilation"?

By virtue of integrity, obviously. Maass is the worst sort of cur: he who tries to incite outrage against a reporter for mentioning a revolting phenomenon rather than bespeak its threat. In saner societies, his ilk were pilloried.

One of the first things you would seek to do, in the effort to understand the creation of this extremist, is to investigate the place where she was raised. It turned out that I didn't need to search far, because I grew up less than a mile from Hahn's home, and attended the same high school.

No, that's among the first steps you would take, you scurrile swine. I'd infer what's objectively patent about her.

In a way, Julia Hahn is the Patty Hearst of the far right, a daughter of privilege who veered wildly off the expected course.

"Veered," indeed: this is the point at which Maass deviates from all reason to unconvincingly paint Hahn as a seething deviant.

While she has said almost nothing about her journey to the virulent corners of white nationalism, and has not granted any interviews since starting in the White House (she turned down a request from The Intercept), the puzzle of her journey to the alt right can be assembled.

Alas, Maass can adduce no actual evidence of any affiliation between Hahn and any white nationalist group. This is progressively adorable:

Hahn comes from fabulous wealth. Her grandfather Harold Honickman presided over a soft-drink bottling company that became one of the largest in the nation; in 2002, his net worth was estimated at $850 million. Honickman has used his wealth to support liberal causes, including organizations that help the homeless and efforts to tighten gun control. His family foundation has even provided funding for a poetry prize, and his wife wrote a genteel letter on the foundation website that said, "Our personal belief, at the end of the day, is that we are here to take care of one another."

Ah, there's the thorn: Hahn's a perceived turncoat from her class.

One of the Honickman children, Shirley, is the mother of Hahn, who was born on April Fools' Day in 1991. Hahn was raised in a house that's not far from Rodeo Drive and is valued at more than $5 million by Zillow. (Hahn's White House financial disclosure form shows she owns bank and stock funds worth as much as $2 million.) The private school she attended (as I did, a generation earlier) is Harvard-Westlake. It's hard to imagine a class of people who benefit more from immigrant and undocumented workers — who clean their homes, mow their lawns, maintain their pools, and cook their meals — than Hahn and other children of privilege in Los Angeles. The comfortable life she enjoyed was due, in no small part, to the immigrants she demeaned as a writer for Breitbart.

This is the kernel of Maass's hit piece. Angelean nabobs have long disenfranchised working-class American citizens whilst employing cheaper laborers of undocumented and thusly illegal status, all while denouncing all those who criticize their racist and grossly exploitative M.O. as racist: a textbook example of mass projection. Maass can't for a moment countenance that someone of his provenance and privilege has dared to extravagate either to call attention to a revolting condition that immiserates illegal aliens and working Americans for the luxuriant benefit of a miniscule stratum.

The dissonance appears to widen when you look at her secondary education. Harvard-Westlake is a model of West Coast liberalism. It is generally regarded as the most competitive school in Los Angeles, its student body drawing on the city's entertainment and business worlds. When Hahn was named to the White House, the flummoxed student newspaper at Harvard-Westlake published a story in which her history teacher wondered aloud, "She was rather soft-spoken as I recall, so I guess no, I didn't really see her headed to work for an organization like Breitbart or a person like Bannon."

I adore iconoclasts like Hahn, if only because illiberal and pseudo-leftist globalists are incenced by her very existence in a bewilderment bespeaking only the delusion immanent to their worldview and facile perspectives.

Paradoxically, a clue to Hahn's radicalization is located at Harvard-Westlake. The school has a surplus of famous alumni, from Shirley Temple to Sally Ride, Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Matthew Weiner (the creator of "Mad Men" who named one of his show's characters for a popular teacher at Harvard). But the school has another alum who is more infamous than famous: Alex Marlow, the editor-in-chief of Breitbart.

Oh, no! NO!!

Marlow graduated from Harvard-Westlake in 2004, before Hahn, and for a long time nobody at the school seemed to know or care where he had ended up.

How would Maass know this? It's perforce insulting, but if he didn't interview anyone at the school, how would he be aware that its faculty and Marlow's quondam classmates has such disregard for him? It doesn't really make any sense, does it? Why, it's almost as though Maass is channelling his disdain as asinine speculation!

The school took notice in 2016, when Marlow was quoted in a New York Times profile of Bannon. A school official posted the story on Facebook. Parents and alumni of Harvard-Westlake were aghast. "This is an embarrassment to our school, and to our fantastic community," read one of the comments on the post.

Facebook comments are investigative necessaries of hard-hitting journalism.

The controversy was duly reported by the school's student newspaper, which published a story on Marlow and quoted some of his teachers who remembered him as a smart and polite student — just like Hahn. "I would never have imagined that he would get involved with an organization as deplorable as Breitbart News," said his history teacher Dave Waterhouse.

So deplorable, that controversy! If anything, Marlow ought be mortified to graduate from a school so politically petty that they've castigated him in absentia for the impertinence of his contribution to a moderate right-wing news outlet!!

The upshot is that a single school in Los Angeles was the breeding ground for two of the youngest and most vehement stars of the Trump movement. This raises the prospect of what is known, among experts who study extremism, as a cluster. It goes beyond Hahn and Marlow.

Note that Maass never thinks to correlate the school's outrageous response to its former students' occupations and their present orientation.

Where do America's far-right leaders come from? Hahn and Marlow, who grew up 5 miles apart, are clues to an intriguing fact of political epidemiology. A surprising number of alt-right leaders come from a single wealthy liberal enclave: the west side of Los Angeles.

Well, naturally: that locality affords a choice outlook of North America's most hypocritical and abusive socioeconomic elites.

Andrew Breitbart, who founded the site that bears his name, was raised in Brentwood, at the center of the west side, and was living there when he died in 2012. Bannon, before becoming famous as the chairman of Breitbart and then Trump's ideologue, was a Hollywood producer who sent his daughters to a private school in Brentwood. Stephen Miller, the 31-year-old presidential adviser who has been wildly provocative on immigration issues, was raised in neighboring Santa Monica, also known as the People's Republic of Santa Monica because of its liberal politics.

Trump has no ideologue, especially not in Breitbart, who execrated him.

This might seem weird. California voted in a landslide for Hillary Clinton. All of the state's elected officials are Democrats, from the governor on down. Since 1961, only one Republican has been elected mayor of Los Angeles. But look again. While Trump got far fewer votes than Clinton, California's population is so large that the only other state where Trump got more votes was Texas (which he won).

Breaking news from The Intercept!

According to a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, California has more far-right conspiratorial "Patriot" groups, 81, than any other state in the country (Texas, the runner-up, has 79).

Look, I know Morris Dees has an ostentatious lifestyle to maintain, but how much chaos, destruction and death have been credibly imputed to these "Patriot groups" in comparison to that committed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, which the SPLC resolutely refuses to address as terrorist organizations? Are any among them remotely criminal or violent?

California may be the "Left Coast," but it is also the beating heart of the far-right coast.

Yes, yes: to globalist extremists, everyone offboard is on the fringes.

This is not an accident. People don't like to be told what to think, so it shouldn't be a surprise that an atmosphere of doctrinaire liberalism might produce reactionaries who delight in defying the dogmas that seemed so repressive when they were growing up.

No! Look, a moment of insight--

For instance, Miller, a key advocate of Trump's Muslim travel ban, chafed at the multiculturalism of his high school and its tolerance of gays.

--has passed. So according to Maass, Miller was disaffected by "tolerance of gays" rather than constant and oppressive inculcation of multicultural and neoliberal propaganda, eh?

Social progress always seems to trigger a backlash.

No, it usually doesn't. No significant backlash opposed suffragettes. Homosexual marriage is a thorny issue, but one that's provoked scant violence. Moreover, Maass is an exponent of plutocracy, not progress.

It's a paradox that makes sense — environments that are constructed to stop extremism can, instead, provoke it.

What makes still more sense is reality: that the insidious and baneful extremism of globalist social, economic and political policies have inspired a sensible opposition.

Trump's whole rise cannot be viewed through this single lens, of course. But the dynamic is crucial to understanding how and where some extremists are born: when people feel the privileges of their race, gender, language, or religion are threatened.

Which religion, Maass? Hahn isn't an apostate, is she?

In the popular telling, a common scenario of Muslim extremism occurs when a susceptible mind falls under the spell of a charismatic leader at a mosque or madrassa, though sometimes the contact occurs online (this happened with followers of Anwar al-Awlaki, for instance).

This is as likely to transpire in many prisons.

I have reported on this dynamic in Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries that were like emotional depots for the unformed zeal of drifting youths. The spiritual leaders were spellbinding, their warnings were often apocalyptic, and the devotion of their youthful followers was complete, even if the logic of their maximalist ideologies was flawed and inhuman. Young minds, unshaped, were tinder for an ideological spark.

So, why is Maass comparing to these fanatics someone oppugnant to their immigration?

This scenario isn't true only for Islamic extremists. When Hahn arrived in Washington, D.C., as another just-out-of-college aspirant,

We adults may employ the phrase "immediate post-collegial."

she was not political, according to every account of her that I've read and heard (I talked with more than a half dozen people who knew her at the University of Chicago).

Wow! To glean these essential apercus, Maass may have interviewed as many as seven of Hahn's acquaintances! Some among them may have conversed with her twice!

According to the Washington Post, Hahn jolted to ideological life in the first job she landed — as a producer for right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham. "It sparked her evolution," the Post stated. "She moved quickly to the right." A short article in the New Yorker reported much the same, that an apolitical Hahn moved to Washington to get a media job and turned to the far right after she started working for Ingraham. The Post quoted a former Ingraham employee as saying, "Laura will do that to people. She can be very convincing."

At her most bilious, Ingraham's more charismatic than Maddow, or anyone in her social compass.

This evokes a strange parallel between far-right radio and television empires presided over by the likes of Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, and Steve Bannon, and fundamentalist mosques and madrassas that manufacture the extremists of the Islamic world.

According to Maass, Sean Hannity and Steve Bannon are "far-right," and somehow parallel to the sort of Mohammedan extremists to whom all of them are unequivocally opposed. Naturally, Maass supports immigration policies in which the latter would pullulate in American metropolises, because he's a logical man.

Radical ideologies presented to impressionable minds in these locations are totalistic and comforting in an unsteady world. They offer simplistic antagonists — such as the infidels and the immigrants — and provide simplistic answers to social or economic problems (shut down immigration, eliminate education for girls, and so on). These spellbinding leaders, and the infrastructures around them, are vectors of youthful extremism.

Anyone confiding of this comparison should contact me posthase; I've a fabulous opportunity for you involving some choice Floridian parcels. They won't wait!

Hahn worked for Ingraham for about a year, then became a spokesperson for David Brat, an insurgent Republican who used the issue of immigration to defeat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Brat, a total outsider, raised just $200,000 for his challenge to Cantor, and part of his upset victory was due to strong support from Ingraham as well as other right-wing media figures, including Mark Levin and Ann Coulter. Whether by design or chance, Hahn was at the center of the alt-right rebellion against not just the Democratic Party but the Republican establishment, too.

One needn't be affiliated with the alt-right to oppose those entrenched, bloated, corrupt, colluding parties. Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos have an audience in the alt-right without total alignment to its movement.

Her next step took her to the forefront — as one of the most prolific and strident reporters for the norm-pulverizing machine at Breitbart. Bannon was the dominant figure at Breitbart at the time, "prone to surrounding himself with like-minded young acolytes," as the New York Times later noted. In an unusual look inside Bannon's life before he joined Trump's campaign, a Bloomberg reporter visited Bannon's townhouse-turned-newsroom and wrote that he had a "group of young, female Breitbart News reporters whom he's dubbed the Valkyries." The Bloomberg story had a photo of Bannon at his Capitol Hill home with nine young reporters, including Hahn. After Politico published a story that criticized Bannon, Hahn rose to his defense and described him as "one of the most supportive, kind, inspiring and selfless bosses a reporter could ask for."

One can't help but wonder if Maass is motivated by envy to pen and publish such preposterous piffle. After all, Hahn's basking in the sort of notoriety and acclaim that he hasn't experienced since he clung to Salam Pax's coattails in the natural action of the well as a freedom and editorial support of which he could only dream.

Under Bannon, Hahn produced a torrent of articles that mimicked his incendiary ideas on immigration, Muslims, and Democrats.

Now I'm wondering whether Maass is crushing on Hahn, or whether they're friends and this is a subversive advertisement for her work. She's an able, engaging presswoman, but she's not this exciting.

Her stories were perfectly attuned to the extremist ideas for which Bannon has become celebrated and despised; Bannon and Hahn even co-wrote a story that flayed Paul Ryan.

A dyslogy against Paul Ryan? Why, it must have been only the thousandth published! Save for his benefactors, everyone contemns Paul Ryan. He's one of the few anathemas on whom everyone can accord.

One of Hahn's stories accused Hillary Clinton of planning to resettle a million Muslims in America, and another article warned ominously that under Clinton the number of Muslims in America would exceed the number in Germany — an irrelevant comparison because Germany's population is several times smaller. One of Hahn's anti-immigration articles was headlined "Clinton Releases Plan to Dissolve U.S. Border Within 100 Days."

As usual, links to none of these are provided for verification, but Maass isn't the hack in question, is he?

That was the usual alt-right noise from Breitbart.

For Maass and his colleagues, the alt-right may be defined as anything or anyone remotely rightist with which they take exception.

But in 2015, when Bannon started talking about "The Camp of the Saints," Hahn wrote about it too. Her story argued that the book was prophetic because it warned that "the liberalism of the West would cause Western nations to throw open their doors to so many migrants that it would spell the doom of liberal society itself." Hahn's story used the book to warn that, as she wrote, immigrants from failed countries will "remake the West in the image of those failed countries."

Well, that is the novel's burden.

The book, however, is widely regarded as a racist fever dream.

That's actually an accurate description of a novel that's natheless proven more revelatory than the whole of the Anglophone commentariat in its oracular apprehension of unchecked and indiscriminate immigration.

One of its most enthusiastic supporters is Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front in France, who has a copy of it in her office and has tweeted out her endorsement of it.

I can't wait to read this again after a few years of Macron's mismanagement! If Marine or Marion Le Pen were to govern France for decades, deranged globalists would still be bleating about their "extremism."

Even in the conservative world, Hahn went too far for the comfort of some people. At the end of 2015, when she asked a panel of Republican legislators to raise their hands to indicate whether they would suspend or reduce Muslim immigration, Rep. Raul Labrador, a conservative from Idaho, lashed out at her. "I don't answer questions from you," he told Hahn, "because you are not a truthful reporter."

That's how representatives of the cheap labor cabal's fifth column react after panicking when a sane person questions their fealty to law.

The handful of published stories about Hahn have tended to focus on a seeming paucity of information that would explain who she is or how she ended up on the far right. "Hahn's increasingly watched byline was all the more extraordinary for her utter anonymity," the Washington Post reported. "Not only did she never appear on TV, she had no public social media presence whatsoever. Photos of her were hard to come by — and conspiracy theories about her true identity were beginning to circulate." This makes for a good mystery story, but it misses the point. It took little effort for The Intercept to find photos of Hahn (there are some on Facebook, and Bloomberg had published a series of photos that included Hahn and listed her by name). While she does not appear to have been on television, Hahn was frequently on Breitbart radio and other right-wing radio shows.

Perhaps Hahn's private life is none of anyone else's concern, leastwise that of weird inquisitors like Maass. Photos of her are abundantly available via any major search engine.

The mysterious thing about Julia Hahn is that there is any mystery at all.

Hahn isn't enigmatic. She's a typically bright, enterprising Jewish girl from a well-heeled family who's opposed to the potential immigration of insane, outrageous religious fanatics particularly prone to target her for her gender, faith, ethnicity and class (inter alia).

Washington is bursting with strivers in their 20s just like her, eager to find their spot on the terrain of political power, while unsure of what their own attitudes about power really are.

This trite, inept armchair psychoanalysis only really elicits questions regarding Maass: isn't he just projecting his own insecurities onto someone who's likely indifferent to them?**

The lack of a political center in the young creatures of Washington is the stuff of parody; just watch an episode of "Veep."

Reality is in your TV, prole! View!

Long ago, I was one of these creatures — as a student at Georgetown University, I applied for internships on Capitol Hill and took the first one I was offered, from a Republican representative famous for one thing — his father was Barry Goldwater, the iconic senator from Arizona. The son had little of his father's charisma and his politics were vague, though he was kind to me and let me drive his Aston Martin. He was no Laura Ingraham.

**Well, this substantiates that surmisal. I do love Maass's jejune temporal perspective: how "long ago" was a quinquagenarian a budding collegial intern? Did Maass matriculate at Georgetown in that dark and distant epoch of the nineteen-eighties?

Karachi and Kabul are a long ways from Capitol Hill but the hydraulics of youthful extremism are remarkably similar in all of them. Julia Hahn's opposites are not the young and impressionable Muslims who adopt hate-filled ideas about infidels. They are her mirror image.

When Hahn precipitates queers from rooftops, contributes to the lapidation of a rape victim and murders innocent people with abandon, remember the prospicience of Peter Maass: Witchfinder General!

*In the published article, "Michael" has since been redacted to Michel. Ha!