The current TOO article is an introduction to the thought of Hans Prinzhorn, a German (“Leadership and the Vital Order: Selected Aphorisms by Hans Prinzhorn,” translated by Joseph D. Pryce). Quite a few of his ideas resonate with recent essays here. Perhaps most central is this:
We can hold out no hope whatever for the successful creation of the sort of community that is constructed by ideologists on the basis of purely rational considerations, for the projects that are hatched out in the mind of the rationalist are most definitely not analogous to the development of living forms in nature, no matter how often the contrary position has been proclaimed by false prophets.
Prinzhorn is warning about the creation of blueprints for society without any concern for human nature. In the language of current psychology, intellectuals have constructed various utopian scenarios, taking advantage of explicit processing and often ignoring our evolved psychology (my academic version is here; see particularly the Discussion section).
Prinzhorn is also quite aware that these blueprints for utopian societies are typically couched in moral terms, historically often with a large flavor of Christianity–”the nihilistic Will to Power that conceals its true nature behind the cloak of such humanitarian ideals as humility, solicitude for the weak, the awakening of the oppressed masses, the plans for universal happiness, and the fever-swamp vision of perpetual progress.” As noted especially with the Puritans and their descendants, these moral prescriptions have a unique appeal to Western peoples–an aspect of Western individualism and concomitant moral universalism.
Reflecting the concerns of his time, Prinzhorn is most concerned with socialism, seeing it as “demagogic assault on the part of the inferior rabble against the nobler type of human being.” In our time, the greatest concern is the invasion of traditionally White nations by massive numbers of non-Whites.
This raises an interesting issue: White advocates tend to gloss over social class and IQ differences among Whites, seeing Whites as having interests in common as Whites. National Socialism bridged this gap, seeing the society as an organic whole based ultimately on a long cultural tradition and shared biological kinship, while nevertheless preserving a hierarchical structure of inclusiveness for all social classes. Because of the appeal of National Socialism to the German working class, the left shifted gears: In the post-World War II era, the most influential intellectual movements (e.g., the Frankfurt School, the New York Intellectuals, and pretty much the entire intellectual left) have championed mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the dispossession of Whites.
It is no accident that the White working class has suffered the most from these changes–or that they are the most angered by the current regime. Nor is it an accident that this shift toward White dispossession by the left was championed mainly by Jewish intellectual movements given the very strong overtones of anti-Semitism characteristic of National Socialism and its conception of society based on blood kinship with roots in traditional German culture.
The result is a new elite, substantially Jewish but with a considerable component of deracinated Whites–many of them people like the sociopathic Morris Dees whose championing of ”oppressed” non-Whites has paid off handsomely for himself (see Steve Sailer’s “Morris Dees’ Poverty Palace“).
The question now is whether this new utopia of multiculturalism premised on White dispossession will ultimately fail because of the lack of fit with our evolved psychology–as Prinzhorn suggests. The research strongly suggests that multi-ethnic societies have a number of built-in costs–particularly greater conflict, greater psychological alienation from the society as a whole, and less willingness to contribute to public goods like health care.
There are signs that the left is beginning to be aware that the utopian transformations they have in mind are not going to be easily achieved in the long run and that there is a backlash brewing from dispossessed Whites. Nevertheless, for the left there is no going back–only an increasing commitment to manage these tensions, by force if need be.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
The “Left” is an amalgam of non-Whites and self-hating Whites, led by the group that was the focus of your trilogy.
The End Game is White genocide. They wanted not to merely dispossess Whites but rather to ELIMINATE Whites. A goal they are well on the road to achieving. Both you KM, and Edmund Connelly, as well as Patrick Cleburne, have warned about the Bolshevik style lust for White gentile blood, the inherent conclusion when the hate for the White is teamed with the power to effect their desires. Getting VERY close here, they will most likely wait until further eroding of White percentage of the population.
Yet the people who put a man on the moon, who are responsible for all of the tools and inventions that make life so wondrous, who is to say what Destiny may guide them to do? For surely Providence will provide a path for the Aryans to level the karma of their eternal foe.
“This shift toward White dispossession by the left was championed mainly by Jewish intellectual movements given the very strong overtones of anti-Semitism characteristic of National Socialism…”
In the American experience did not the Jewish drive to dispossess White Christians predate the rise of Nazism? Their opposition to restrictions on immigration may have intensified due to WWII, but it was already there. The foundations of the Frankfort School and the New York Intellectuals would have been advanced with or without Mr. Hitler. Jewish enmity to America’s White Christian majority status is rooted in the very nature of Judaism, it is not a reaction..
Or, have I been misreading the ongoing immigration debate?
There are no self-hating whites in the new elite. They are deracinated, possibly, but not self-hating.
It’s true. The left’s (even the “critical” left’s) main function today is helping to preserve the liberal-multicultural status quo. We shouldn’t be afraid to point this out. It’s not just the neocons who are offering themselves up as the Establishment’s kept opposition. The (now almost entirely gentile) far left is doing it too.
Here’s a clip of the popular Marxist intellectual Slavoj Zizek advocating this. Fast forward to 48:15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8LPn4irao
professorMCD
it is true that Nationalsocialism was a success in economic terms and more popular than we are told, but as an idea it was the one of the Strasser brothers and their movement Black Front (whose members were killed)
see https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.douglasreed.co.uk/prisoner.pdf
and some like Hess that left. Hitlerism was destructive seld-destructive and you make a mistake in presenting it in a positive light even in this contest
Hitler’s Table Talk, stenographic notes of Hitler’s private conversations that are recognized also by D Irving, show the ossession with the enslavemente of the slavic people of Eastern Europe and the dark primitive side of the nazi “avatar”
Hitler aroused powerful forces in the German people but his crass racist hate for white Eastern Europeans channeled them in a destructive direction, he destoyed Germany in attacking not so much jewish bolscevism but Poles, Ukrainians and Russians to be submitted as serfs of a chosen people. He was in a polar opposite way also a White hating other whites aside from the jewish issue and he was bound to poison and destroy Europe anyway
Regardless of the current climate in the USA and aside from the jewish focus it is a big mistake also in historical terms to be positve toward anything connected to Hitler
National Socialism is worth studying if only for the reason that the elites hate it so much. A red flag for me whenever I’m reading or listening to an author is if he uses *fascists* or *Nazis* in a pejorative sense because what it tells me is that he isn’t really informed.
Great article. The White working class will be the Vanguard of the coming Revolution.
So, here we go again. Is it Class or is it Race? The Left historically had a strong racial component. That was before the advent of communism and the deconstruction of Darwinian social science. Jewish assault on Darwinism has been well documented by KM and others. This occurred in the 1920s and 30s and was followed by the excesses of Hitler …to the liberal mind. (The excesses of Stalin to this day are suppressed by liberals, although when the USSR began to be not good for the Jews, Stalin began to get a bad Jewish press.) The anti-communism of the 50s was largely a conservative and Republican affair. Even today, the term “McCarthyism” enjoys liberal traction and points . That McCarthy was 100% correct about communist spies and infiltration of high Federal office, etc, does not seem to have made any difference to liberals, who , of course, by nature , are soft on communism, even a half-century on after the Verona papers, etc.
Then, we are all familiar with the hegemonic victory of Racial Equality …Jews, LIberals, commies, and the variety or race hustlers, black, brown, and white. We do not have to rehearse that victory, although it is important for us to be aware of the various factors, Jewish anthropology and sociology, white guilt , Black mau-mauing, White congenital do-gooding, and capitalist and now globalist intention to go equal-opportunity customer and worker…equality sells, or so they think. Then, racial equality was a “good idea”, even if it was untrue…and good ideas are attractive to Whites, anyway. Ethical conduct, fairness, etc. feel good to Whites, even if other races largely adhere to W.C. Field’s (was it?) “Never give a sucker an even break.”.
OK, back to class and race. Today, with the economy in lots of trouble, working and middle class Whites are also in trouble. If there were no Mexers and other coloreds present, they would still be in trouble, although not as much given the low productivity of stupid people and their welfare, crime, education, and health costs.
Globalization as well as simple catching-up with the U.S. after World War 2, has sharpened competition internationally and nationally. 1975 was about the high water mark of worker/middle income in the U.S. It has been downhill for the most part since then. The “Social Wage” (man at work and wife at home with kids) is long gone. (Historians have noted that the Social Wage was a construct developed to keep workers away from communism.)
All economists agree that about 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. 70% means simply that consumer spending is the critical component of a modern economy. Well, worker/middle class consumer spending is contracting because of these folks’ low income. A recent article in the WSJ showed that in the last 20 years, the top; 5% increased its share of consumer spending from about 25% to about 38%. The bottom 80% spends about the same as the top 5%. Logically, I guess that means that the other 15% spends the remainder…about 20-25%. This would be the upper -middle and semi-rich folks. What the WSJ article did not provide was a figure on what the bottom 80% used to contribute to consumer spending.
The next economic reality is: that which is not spent on consumer goods, and mortgage payments, is saved , presumably for Capital. Capital is what is invested , or, in uncertain times, left parked in banks.
This brings up another problematic which I do not see economists talking about: how much , roughly, should be spent on consumer goods and how much saved for investment for our or other economies? This is a technical question but it also has moral implications. If not enough money is spent in consumer spending and too much is saved for investment, then several things can happen. Too much Capital chasing too few good investments leads to speculation which often crashes. When Capital crashes in bubbles, bad investments, etc. it does not wind up in some crook’s pocket, it goes up to money heaven and is gone forever. The exception to this rule is when an investment bank creates a financial instrument which is sure to go bad, and sells it to an innocent. That money does not go up to money heaven, but goes into the pockets of the investment bankers. However, if the innocents are other financial outifits, and they go broke, then We, the People, step in and may or may not be repaid.
Then, Capital can be shipped overseas to another country, a country that did not produce it, and be put to private use to enrich a capitalist, but not necessarily to enrich the country in which it was produced. This is a source of overall reduction in income to the country that produced the Capital in the first place. Now, the economists will say that other countries do the same thing and that jobs, etc are thereby fostered in , say , our country. The problem with that position is that , assuming that Capitalists are making money in various places, what is happening to the money that this International Capital is making? Whom does it serve?
The Marxist economists and the “bourgeois” economists can agree that the whole world is going to become equalized. Well, that is true in the abstract and possibly in a couple hundred years the world will be equalized economically. Otoh, the stupid races will never come up to a first world standard, although it is possible that large money transfers to the Third World will become politically correct. Camp of the Saints sort of, with the future Obongos sandbagging Whites to keep Negroes, etc. from starving.
However, the theory does not take into consideration that the world may not want to be equalized. It especially does not consider that various peoples/races live where they live and more or less don’t like too much change, especially if it involves a reduced standard of living for workers, and having ethnic strangers in their midst. The social reality in this regard is that different races and ethnys start to fight.
So, Globalization works for the top 10 to 20%, but not for the rest of folks. In the sheer economic sphere, Capital is raised in one country, it is the product of
of the overall productivity of one people in one place. When that wealth is removed to another country, it is cause for alarm for the people who have created it, but have no control over what is done with it.
Regardless of the long-run, we all live in the short-run. Capitalists and their myriad professionals, lawyers, analyists, publicists, gov’t cronies, live high off the hog, at least for a while, and cut their ethnic ties with their own countries. They hang out together, manage to put aside ethnic differences (they don’t have to deal with very stupid races) for the higher ethic of making money, often lots of it. These are the true citizens of the world. They have no feelings for place, people, local history, tradition, religion.
OK…Class and Race are both going to become operational in a new Populism. As racial rightists, we cannot be country -club conservatives, libertarians, and worry too much about our investments, if any. Capitalism we can insist on but it is a competitive capitalism. Then, we must see that capitalism must be constrained when it comes to International investments. This is what we call National Socialism, or National Capitalism.
The next Order will not be liberal. Capital will be contolled in some measure.
In conclusion, we are going to be Populst, which means taking a few pages from the Left while maintaining our racialism as highly scientific, biologically correct and very moral. Charity begins at home, and extends outward to include one’s own race. We claim that for ourselves, and do not deny it to other races. What we do deny is other races’ aggression toward us.
Joe Webb
Thanks for the useful post! I wouldn’t have discovered this on my own!