by Neil Vodavzny

Should Australian Aborigines employ marketing devices in the same way as coca cola does? This almost unheard of question was prompted by this piece which almost reads like a joke:

Australia’s inaugural professor of poetry has been suspended for his racist and sexist language after a bizarre series of emails in which he called Nelson Mandela a “darky”, Tony Abbott an “Abo-lover” and referred to Aboriginal people as “human rubbish tips”.

Earning the label “nutty professor” in the local media, Professor Barry Spurr, an Oxford-educated academic and expert on T S Eliot who became the first ever professor of Australian poetry at Sydney University in 2011, was indefinitely suspended after his incendiary emails became public.

In the emails, sent from 2012 until earlier this year, Professor Spurr referred to women as “whores”, described South Africa’s anti-apartheid campaigner Desmond Tutu as a “witch doctor” and claimed that the “modern Brit” was “the scum of the earth”.

Lamenting that Australian society was now less white than in the 1950s, he wrote: “One day the Western world will wake up, when the Mussies [Muslims] and the chinky-poos [Chinese] have taken over.”

Although Spurr insists his comments were mockery, some of them, such as BCP and obesity, are close to the mark. The problem is that, nowadays, any style of mockery which has a tribalistic bias is seen as a transgression and therefore not mockery (see prev Lavigne). Spurr’s comments could be construed as a bit unfair, but such bias is part and parcel of human history.

What if tribalism, as Robert E Howard believed, is the natural state of mankind? By this token, human societies develop as variations on a tribal template; after that they proceed to stagnate. Let me proceed by giving some examples. Australian Evonne Goolagong, of the Wiradjuri, a supreme natural talent, played in 17 grand slam finals, a period record for man or woman. Most unbelievable of all, Goolagong is all woman!

Is it conceivable such a phenomenal prodigy has some basis in tribalism? Let’s assume so. Then liberalism, by seeking to banish tribalism from the face of the earth, is the most lethal danger ever to afflict or disfigure humanity.

Walking down the street I overheard this immigration argument with the proposer saying, “They’re not Asian any more”. Like the force of several thunderbolts it hit me; in a nutshell you have the liberal proposition, entirely negative, a state of non-being. The liberal can only think in terms of negatives, so compiles a list of positives (race, status) to negate.

Here’s a useful comment:

What I find most counter-conventional about the information in this post is that so many “diverse” individuals enjoyed such strong success and popularity in the atmosphere of oppressive white (or Anglo-Saxon) racism of America’s past. In addition to the Sullivan guy Steve has written about, there is this aborigine, Pancho Gonzales, Arthur Ashe, Babe Ruth ...

Consider further that European aristocracy is relatively inbred. Vita Sackville-West’s father married his first cousin, a Spanish mistress. Such inbreeding can lead to astonishing results, often sexually ambivalent. This is a classical facet of tribalism. Byron was also infatuated with his half-sister Augusta, and the whole principle of destiny and bloodlines is bound up in the Byronic myth. Along with Horace Walpole they brought the gothic to literature – The Castle of Otranto, Frankenstein (Mary Shelley from a suggestion by Byron).

Gothic is essentially a revival of medieval romance, and feudalism is a classic example of a society developed from tribal origins, dynastic and land-locked. Classical European culture is vastly interlocked with feudal and tribal lore. I’m not just talking Wagner, something of an acquired taste, but actually the more baroque elements. Mozart is certainly not yet writing in the romantic era, yet The Magic Flute harks back to Egypt and the mystical ceremonies of the guild of freemasons.

Anything tribalistic has an innate bias to it so that, for instance, the freemasons are seen in some quarters as a world-domineering sect. Actually, in much the same tenor as the Jews. If liberals have something against innate bias, they are doing a great disservice to their fellow-man. Spurr’s comments are unhelpful, but to deny their provenance is to meekly acquiesce to liberal disfiguring of the human race.

You think I jest? There is a prototype for the nouveau human to be found in spokespeople for the igoogle future. It’s not that I’m against technology as a useful adjunct to feudal-society. It’s that this technology is designed to replace the human type with a mock-human prototype who lives for the next fix.

In other words, feudalism fosters admirable attributes which are literally bred-in, and can be bred-out. The quasi-tribal state ties Man to the land via dynastic power and wealth. Guilds are also a product of this type of society with its rural bias. In order to be specifically human we have to be concerned with breeding. The fact that this concerns bias means that liberalism is the enemy of humankind as previously known. The new prototype is the mock-human interested in the techno-gimmicks sold by Warman and his friends. Pay attention. We should be more concerned with breeding than with the niceties of intellectual feuding.

One might further ask what, in art, are the foundations of symbolism? The destinies of individuals within the twin poles of life and death are signposted by symbolic artefacts. Say, a sword, a sundial, a peacock. Symbols are thereby related to the facts of fertility and death. It’s conceivable they lose their force in the absence of a society based on such aspects of existence. I would tend to suppose such symbolism is not represented by Freud, who is purely a modern capitalist syndrome.