“An Israeli attack on Iran would create a disaster.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski

“The entire lake will become a killing field…the Gulf will run red with American blood.” — Military specialist Mark Gaffney.

Bombing Iran could be the final nail in the coffin of America—a decaying and morally bankrupt superpower where torture has been normalized and where the President is now free to kill anyone he chooses, anywhere in the world, who he happens to suspect is a terrorist.

Right now, Iran appears to be the object of universal detestation, at least among those who control the mainstream media and who are anxious to persuade the easily duped masses that Iran is a major threat to civilization.

Iran is perfectly capable of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz if it wishes, doing immense damage to the US navy in the process. It possesses a vast array of anti-ship weapons called Sunburn missiles, which it has procured from Russia and China over the last decade. These are state-of-the-art weapons developed by the Russians as a low-cost challenge to the expensive, tech-heavy weaponry of the US. Specifically, they are designed to sink ships, including America’s titanic aircraft carriers.

The imminent conflict, which now belongs in the high probability spectrum, is a conflict into which Russia and China cannot fail to be drawn. Their interests are inextricably linked with those of Iran. You could say that Iran is their semi-independent protectorate and ally.

If Iran were attacked and if Russia and China stood by and did nothing, they would lose face forever. They would be signaling to the world that they are weaklings, only too ready to cower at the feet of the American superbully. Indeed, they would then be next on America’s hit list.

Russia has a new 100-ton monster of a ballistic missile in the pipeline. It is aptly named Satan. And it will be used to devastating effect against America if America gets too big for its boots and gets overly aggressive.

Chinese Major General Zhang Zhaozhong recently stated that if America or Israel attacked Iran, “China will not hesitate to protect Iran—even with a third world war.”

*          *          *

A few points need to be clarified.

The US Navy is an efficient and professional organization, at the cutting edge of modern warfare, but the Strait of Hormuz is not the kind of environment in which the American navy would be invulnerable.

The Iranians can be expected to have a field day in the narrow confines of the Persian Gulf, virtually drawing American ships into a series of ambushes.

If one samples the technical literature on various military websites, one finds there is a lively debate going on about American ship defense systems. Nobody claims that any such system offers full protection against ship missile strikes. Right now, most ships remain vulnerable to such strikes, including America’s leviathan aircraft carriers.

These impressive Nimitz-class aircraft carriers each come with a full complement of 7–8 supporting ships, 70 or more assorted aircraft, and up to 6000 marines on board. In a 2004 article, military specialist Mark Gaffney, author of Dimona: The Third Temple? (1989), opines:  “The US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps….In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible….The Gulf will run red with American blood.”

As for oil tankers, these are even more vulnerable than aircraft carriers. If attacked, these will sink easily, clogging up vital sea lanes and doing immense environmental damage to the entire Persian Gulf region.

It is of interest to note that the US is busy working on a new generation of laser defense to counter the sophisticated  anti-ship missiles possessed by Iran. However, these are still in process of development. This gives Iran a relative advantage if it is attacked now rather than later. Ironically, the longer America and Israel delay in attacking Iran, the better their chances of successfully countering the retaliatory measures they can expect from Iran.

Both America and Israel are unfortunately just not ready to wage the type of warfare they prefer to wage and at which they so excel: shooting fish in a barrel.

Unlike Iraq, which the warmonger neoconservatives told us would be a  “cakewalk”—easily conquered in six weeks—Iran is unlikely to offer its American and Israeli antagonists easy opportunities to indulge in their fish-in-a-barrel fantasies.

Our courageous remote control warriors, hunched over their keyboards far from the din of battle, may be able to rain down death and destruction on innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, meanwhile salving their consciences by calling their victims “terrorists”, but there is nothing they can do with their drones to stop Iran’s deadly missiles from blowing up American aircraft carriers or sinking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.

*          *          *

The Sunburn is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world (see also here), designed to fly as low as nine feet above groundwater level and at more than 1,500 miles per hour. The missile uses a jerky pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach. This enables it in effect to dodge, or jump out of the way, of the Phalanx and other anti-missile defense systems: in short, to hit its target bang-on without being intercepted en route.

Given their low cost, these ship missiles are perfectly suited for close quarter naval conflict in the pond like environment of the Persian Gulf.

The Sunburn is versatile and easy to use. It can be fired from practically any platform, including the back of a flatbed truck. It has a 100-mile range, which is all that is necessary in the narrow Persian Gulf, with its 40-mile width round the Strait of Hormuz.

Fired from shore, the Sunburn will punch a room-sized hole through  any ship in the Strait of Hormuz in a fraction of a second.

These missiles therefore present a serious threat to the US Navy. Their power to inflict horrendous damage on hostile intruders simply cannot be exaggerated.

Developed by the Russians, and made fully available to China and Iran, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, a supersonic anti-ship missile, has been described as “the most lethal missile in the world today.” (See also here for other anti-ship missiles designed, built, or operated by Iran. See here for a discussion of anti-ship missiles and US capability to defend against them.)

Compared to the Exocet, the Sunburn is a much larger and faster missile. It possesses a far greater range. Its guidance system is spot-on. The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload (a 750-pound conventional warhead) within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. It seems the missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system.

The Sunburn’s astonishing accuracy was demonstrated recently in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull’s eye. It succeeded in hitting the crosshairs of a large “X” mounted on the ship’s bridge.

Unlike America’s drones, the Sunburn is not in the business of creating “collateral damage.” It does not kill innocent civilians by the score. It kills only the enemy.

In a 2004 article, Mark Gaffney writes:

The Sunburn’s payload hit, with its 750-pound conventional warhead, is apparently insufficient to sink an aircraft carrier, but it is enough to sink most other ships and their crews. So it is generally opined in the technical literature.

No conclusive studies, however, have been carried out to determine the effect of a swarm of missiles attacking an aircraft carrier simultaneously. Perhaps there is no need for such a study. Common sense will tell you that a swarm of killer bees is much more dangerous than a single bee. One bee you can easily swat; a swarm of bees you cannot.

An astute observer of the military situation has offered this comment:

“You don’t have to be Hannibal preparing for the Battle of Cannae,” military observer Russ Winter writes, “to see that the Strait is a potential “shooting gallery”.

The Strait of Hormuz is in fact an ideal ambush location for large and cumbersome ships that offer such easy targets you would have to be blind to miss them.

Without a doubt, the Iranians have marked out every firing spot along the Persian Gulf coast. Locating these hiding holes with low-flying attack helicopters will not be easy. Helicopters can be shot down.

Equally impressive is Iran’s missile range: 1500 miles and growing.  Hostile Bahrain and Qatar can easily be hit by the longer-range versions of the Sunburn or Onyx. So can the Saudi oilfields.

Indeed Israel itself, though further away, could suddenly find itself under a shower of deadly missiles, not only from distant Iran, but from Hezbollah just across the Lebanese border.

“This is going to be the Big One,” says Justin Raimondo, “a war that will make the invasion of Iraq look like a dress rehearsal for Armageddon.”

*          *          *

It is commonly acknowledged that Israel cannot go it alone in fighting Iran. To wage a successful war against Iran, Israel needs American help. Israel would naturally prefer America to do its dirty work for it.

Should Israel act alone, it would face the extraordinary problem of needing to refuel its bombers en route to targets about 1,000 miles away and refueling them again on the way back.

It has been suggested that the United States should provide Israel with three KC-135 refueling tankers. Some of these Israeli supporters in America claim they do not themselves advocate an Israeli attack on Iran, but they are kindly disposed to Israel and wish to see it supplied with tankers that would “extend the effective range of Israeli aircraft” and “improve Israeli credibility.” (See here)

Israel has of course achieved a modest success in destroying the nuclear facilities of two other relatively primitive countries in the region: Iraq and Syria. These two past Israeli successes are not overly impressive. As achievements, they are small beer. That is, compared to the massive challenges Israel would have to face in Iran.

When Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981, it was one ground-level building it destroyed. That simple operation required 14 Israeli aircraft. Israel’s other success, demolishing a partially constructed Syrian facility in September 2007, involved targeting a rudimentary warehouse-like structure built on a single floor—an exceptionally easy ground-level target.

The potential targets in Iran are not only far more numerous: they are widely dispersed and buried deep underground. Many of them are probably secret facilities whose very existence is unknown.

There is the fuel-enrichment plant at Natanz, a collection of below-ground facilities used to produce enriched uranium. Then there is the newer Fordow fuel-enrichment plant near Qom, built into the side of a mountain and buried deep underground under several layers of reinforced concrete. It is generally acknowledged that to crack open Fordow, and destroy its alleged nuclear weaponry, would be a task beyond Israel’s modest capacity. At a pinch, America could do it, maybe; but certainly not Israel acting on its own.

There are two other Iranian nuclear sites Israel would need to attack: the heavy-water reactor at Arak and the yellowcake-conversion plant at Isfahan.

There are three possible routes to Iran: north over Turkey, south over Saudi Arabia, or a central route across Jordan and Iraq. The US, having officially withdrawn from Iraq in December, is no longer under obligation to defend Iraqi skies from Israeli planes. The Iraqis themselves are of course unable to do so.  (See here.)

The recent Robb-Wald Report tells us that Israel has enough GBU-28 bunker-busting bombs to “severely damage, though likely not completely destroy, Iran’s known underground nuclear sites in a single well-executed operation.”

Perhaps even this is no more than wishful thinking. Note the loaded phrase: “known underground nuclear sites.” Best not to mention the unknown ones.

To achieve victory in Iran, Israel would be stretched to the limit. It would have to deploy several B-2 stealth and B-52 bombers, fighter-bombers and helicopters, along with ship-launched cruise missiles. It would not only  need to take out Iran’s underground nuclear facilities—an impossible task—but it would have to destroy Iran’s communications systems, air defense and missile sites, Revolutionary Guard Corps living quarters, munitions storage depots, airfields, and ship and port facilities—not to mention missile boats, minelayers and midget submarines.

Given that Israel, for all its vaunted might, was unable to defeat valiant little Hezbollah in 20o6, the chances of it stealing an easy victory from Iran would seem to belong in the realms of fantasy.

Not all Americans are in favor of aiding and abetting Israel in yet another rampage of wanton destruction—not after the crimes of Gaza which have left an indelible stain on Israel’s already dubious reputation.

Destroying Iran’s infrastructure may make sense to some callous Americans, but to many others it would seem a cruel and vicious enterprise. To poison a population of 74 million people, most of them women and children, with tons of depleted uranium, while putting thousands of other innocents into wheelchairs, is not an achievement likely to bring honor or prestige to Israel.

Not all of us have forgotten the lessons of history. We are cognizant of the fact that Iran has not started a war for 30o years. That it simply wishes to be left alone. And that it is Israel, rather than Iran, that seems to suffer from a serious pathological problem—a “collective madness”—with more than enough blood on its hands.

Speaking on behalf of Israel’s countless critics, one political pundit writes:

Sound advice, it seems to me. Why support Israel? Cui bono? Iran has much more to offer America than Israel does.

Iran has oil in abundance, Israel has none. Iran does not hold America’s political class to ransom. Iran does not try to browbeat successive American administrations into putting Iranian interests before American ones. Iran’s dual citizens do not spy on America or sell American military secrets to Russia and China—there are no Iranian Rosenbergs or Jonathan Pollards. Iran does not coerce Americans into fighting and dying for it in foreign wars. Iran does not expect $3 billion a year in handouts, and even more in loan guarantees that never get repaid.

Iran would be a far greater asset to America than Israel could ever be. Israel is a liability and a burden.

More fool America for cuddling up to a “friend” who has stabbed it in the back in the past—the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty incident, the Jonathan Pollard betrayal—and is more than likely to stab it in the back again at some time in the foreseeable future.

Dump Israel. That’s my advice. Before Israel sets the world on fire, taking America with it.

*          *          *

Obama has in recent months begun to make it clear to Israel that the United States would not get involved in a war started by Benjamin Netanyahu without preliminary US approval.

Indeed, on January 20, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, informed Netanyahu that the US would not defend Israel if it launched an attack on Iran that had not been coordinated in advance with the US.

In May 2008, Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, had requested the approval of George W Bush for an air attack on Iran. To his credit, Bush had refused to countenance any such move.

Netanyahu has since defied the US administration by refusing to assure Washington that he would consult them before making a decision to attack Iran.

Other US officials have apparently made it clear to Netanyahu that the US, unless fully consulted, would refuse to come to Israel’s aid in the event of Israel declaring war on Iran unilaterally.

If Israel did that, it would be on its own.

It would be a mistake for Israel to assume that America is under obligation to protect it from the consequences of its own folly. (For more details, see here.)

Writing in the Huffington Post, political commentator MJ Rosenberg advances the audacious theory that Israel has no wish to go to war right now, but is more interested in flexing its muscles and playing cat-and-mouse games with America. It wants to show everyone that Israel is now the Cat and America the Mouse: “Netanyahu and his camp followers do not really want a war now. They just want it understood that they can dictate whether there is one or not. And when. In other words, they want to show who is boss.”

It’s time for a showdown.

The capital of America needs to be moved back to Washington. Tel Aviv is too far away.

*          *          *

When Zbigniew Brzezinski says, “An Israeli attack on Iran would create a disaster”, he must be taken seriously.  

An old hand, and an expert on Russia, Brzezinski is the acclaimed author of The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. One cannot help wondering what Brzezinski thinks of the controversial statement  made by Leonid Ivashov, former member of the Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff, which aired on Russia Today TV on February 1, 2012:

Later he adds, significantly, striking a chord with people like me who believe that America is now a crypto-fascist state masquerading as a democracy:

No need to ask who the New Fascists are.

Just turn on your television sets and you will see their smiling faces, telling you how much they love and cherish you—as long as you vote for them—and as long as you die for them in foreign wars for the aggrandizement of Israel.

*          *          *

It certainly needs to be asked: How much longer will America continue to fight Israel’s wars? What hold does Israel have over America? Is America prepared to sustain immense damage to its vital interests on behalf of an unstable and insolent ally that remains, if numerous polls are to be believed, the world’s most hated nation?

There are some indications that not all American operatives, especially in the armed forces and the CIA, are overly impressed with Israel’s increasingly irresponsible behavior. A significant rift in the friendship appears to be developing, a rift that will hopefully grow in time as America finally comes to its senses.

Relations could once again reach rockbottom, as when former US Secretary of State James Baker uttered his infamous remark about Israel’s Jewish American supporters: “Fuck the Jews, they don’t even vote for us.”

Former Centcom chief and retired Gen. Joe Hoar recently complained of a certain shady Israeli operation involving the terrorist group Jundullah, in which Mossad thugs had the impudence to masquerade as CIA agents: “Israel is playing with fire. It gets us involved in their covert war, whether we want to be involved or not.”

Israel's Covert War against Iran

The tension between longsuffering Iran and an insufferable Israel, goading it to frenzy, is now at fever pitch.

Here is part of an interview between journalist Eleanor Hall and Iran specialist Geneive Abdo who is director of the Iran program at the National Security Network in Washington. I have compressed drastically in the interests of economy, but the full version can be read here:

If Israel decides to launch an all-out attack on Iran, we can be sure of one thing: the towers of Tel Aviv will come toppling down. Not necessarily now, but one day in the distant future, when it is decided that vengeance is a dish best served cold.

The nuclear complex at Dimona could well be destroyed—if not now, later on, in the fullness of time—making Israel an uninhabitable wasteland.

Given its miniscule size, Israel could be destroyed in a single day, if not by Iran, then almost certainly by Russia or China.

Only a week ago, Alireza Forghani, head of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s strategic team, was quoted as saying: “It would only take nine minutes to wipe out Israel.”

No one seriously expects to see the annihilation of Israel right now, but Israel will have to take the consequences of its actions one day.

Israel will reap what it sows as Armageddon approaches.

The clock is ticking…

_______________________________________________________________________

Dr Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic with higher degrees in Classics. She is also a poet and translator. Her articles can be sampled here, her poems here.

Right, but the problem is that the people teaching these courses hate Whites. And they love their own people and the cultural Marxist rhetoric fomented by authors like Friere. The curriculum also included Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, by Rodolfo Acuña which emphasizes the evil that Whites have inflicted on Mexicans and Native Americans in the past (see discussion here).

Rodriguez carries on in the grievance tradition.

A new exhibition, “Beyond Geronimo: The Apache Experience,” includes the story of the Chiricahua band of Apache Indians, who were forced off their lands in Arizona in the 1870s and held by the government as prisoners of war from 1886 to 1913. Even more moving, however, was an exhibition about Indian boarding schools in the late 19th century. It documents with first-person immediacy the federal government’s late-19th century policy of forced assimilation, in which Indian children were removed from their homes to be transformed into Americans in the mold of Anglo Protestants. School officials began by cutting off the children’s long hair, and they drilled them in a curriculum that did all it could to destroy native language and culture.

Rodgriguez should be happy about the Anglo tendency to believe they could mold the Indians into good Anglo Protestants. Unfortunately, the fantasies of the 19th-century Anglos who think that immigrants from around the world would turn out to be just like them are still with us. This is the libertarian fantasy, and afflicts so many of those labeled conservative in the media. Here’s Sean Hannity deploring Pat Buchanan’s views on immigration and the end of White America. Eric Kaufmann emphasizes this trait in his The Rise and Fall of WASP America. It is a very large part of White pathology.

Rodriguez concludes: “Put bluntly, Arizona banned ethnic studies to protect the reputation of the white majority. … Whatever its faults, the program was not anywhere as dangerous as a white majority that simultaneously fights to protect its power and the purity of its reputation.”

Actually, there’s nothing anywhere as dangerous as a militant hostile minority that simultaneously fights to achieve power (using illegal aliens and a high birth rate as tactics) and the purity of its reputation. Somehow, Latinos gaining power is a moral imperative, but Whites trying to hang onto power is evil.

Such moral indictments of Whites are central to the our current malaise. We see them every day, whether from Blacks, Jews, Latinos, and even Asians. The White guilt trip is constantly paraded in the elite media, with devastating effect. Because ultimately people like Rodriguez dislike Whites having power and want to delegitimize any attempts by Whites to retain their power.

I agree with Rodriguez that Arizona Whites are probably trying to protect their reputation, although a very convincing rationale for the law was made in terms of emphasizing individualism as a basis for American citizenship rather than group-based grievances so loved by the diversity industry.

But if we are going to get into the reputation-protecting mode, the problem is that the only reputation-related issues that are presented in the elite media are those intended to induce White guilt, typically by groups that jealously protect their own reputation and are able to use the elite media to do so. The LATimes would never print anything that takes seriously research indicating the low IQ of Mexican immigrants. Nor would they print anything on Mexico as a failed state whose problems have to do with the capabilities of its people who then head north in order to trade the grinding poverty of Mexico for the largesse and affirmative action of the US.

Of course, it’s the same for other aggrieved groups. Jewish groups act aggressively against any suggestion of Jewish power, whether it’s media influence or Jewish involvement in promoting wars on behalf of Israel. The entire history of anti-Semitism is forced into remain within very narrow confines that are politically acceptable to Jewish interests. Truth is irrelevant.

Whites only rarely try to protect their reputation these days. The usual response from Whites is to beg forgiveness on bended knee rather than to think seriously about the shortcomings of other groups and to think about how these shortcomings will affect them when they lose control of their own destiny after Whites become a minority.

Arizona is a huge anomaly—a stick in the eye of the powers that be. The constitutionlity of the law is now under challenge. We can only assume that righteousness will be restored at a higher level in the justice system, as it so often has been.

America’s gonna look very much like California right now. And what does that mean?

California is bankrupt. It’s bond rating is the lowest of any place. Los Angeles, half the people there don’t speak English as — in their own homes — 5 million people. And you’ve got all the problems of crimes. You’ve got a black-brown war among the underclass, as one sheriff described it, in the prisons and in the gangs. And people are leaving California. And it’s the old tax consumers are coming in.

Now, these are not bad or evil people. Even the ones who are illegal. They’re coming to work, many of them. They’re coming for a better life. But the truth is they are bankrupting the state of California because of that divide you mentioned between taxpayers and tax consumers. And what happens when all of America is like that, when every American city is like LA?

What’s so great about being on the left is that you don’t have to rebut your enemies’ ideas. Truth and the interests of Whites are irrelevant when up against the interests and s8moral claims of non-Whites. Here Buchanan is committing the cardinal sin of the new dispensation: Implying that there  are real differences between peoples and that a very large percentage of the newcomers are not particularly talented and are prone to sucking up government services. And apart from the economic consequences of the Third World invasion, I think it’s going to be way worse for Whites when they become a minority because they will be increasingly victimized by the coalition of the left that hates them so much now.  Not to mention the findings of all the research that multicultural societies are prone to conflict, political alienation, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like government-sponsored healthcare. 

The leftist idea that all this can be decided on moral grounds and that people like Buchanan must be silenced in the mainstream media implies that the future of White America should not be discussed openly and honestly. Facts and an honest discussion of the legitimate interests of Whites are irrelevant.  The greatest question in the history of the republic—whether Whites should willingly become a minority—will be decided by elites in the media and their favorite activist organizations representing peoples who obviously see their interests coinciding with making Whites a minority as soon as possible. Those who oppose this agenda will find themselves out of work, excluded from positions of influence, and generally confronted with very diminished opportunities in life.

The really surprising thing is that Buchanan wasn’t fired a long time ago given that he has been on  the wrong side of the ADL for over 2o years. Buchanan has consistently called attention to the power of the Israel Lobby and its promotion of wars on behalf of Israel since the first war with Iraq in 1991. He also went against the Holocaust Industry by daring to defend John Demjanjuk in the mainstream media. In the VDARE article, he quotes Abe Foxman complaining that Buchanan ”bemoans the destruction of white Christian America.” As Buchanan says, why shouldn’t he complain about it? He’s a Christian. And he’s White.  Watch Foxman go into a rage at the thought that Israel doesn’t have a right to do everything it can to remain a Jewish state. And need I state the obvious—that Jewish money funds the left?

I remember well when Buchanan appeared as a regular columnist in major American newspapers. He used to have a regular column in the LATimes—inconceivable now. It’s been a steady slide from the mainstream.  His fall from grace is really an indication of the power of the enemies of White America. They are in charge now, and if we don’t change that soon,  the catastrophe will be upon us.

Marine Le Pen, the daughter of the founder French National Front Jean-Marie Le Pen is doing well in the polls. November last year she even scored higher than the sitting president Nicolas Sarkozy. Moreover, the National Front is doing very well among young voters and the workers. She is gaining momentum and she wants to change the edgy image of the National Front to appeal to a greater public by renouncing anti-Semitism and reaching out at Israel. In November 2011 she was in New York to visit the United Nations, where she had a meeting with the Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor, which later said it was based on a ‘misunderstanding’.

No matter how hard Marine Le Pen tries to reach out for Jewish approval she is not going to get it and never will. Richard Pasquier, the president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, recently expressed his dislike of Marine Le Pen: “Concerning her attempts to lure Jewish voters, pretending to have been far from anti-Semitism, I was never wrong. Her recent appearance at a party in Vienna alongside neo-Nazis reveals what it has always been. I hope this has opened the eyes of the most naive.”

What has happened? Has Marine Le Pen been spotted with streetfighters in army boots??

On 27th January Marine Le Pen attended the yearly debutante ball in the famous Hofburg in Vienna, which is organized by the ring of student corporations, which can trace their roots back to the 19th century. It was the 59th time the ball had been held, but in recent years radical-left organizations have been protesting against the ball being held in the Hofburg, and got their way: this year was the last time the ball will be held in the Hofburg. Marine Le Pen attended the ball at the invitation of  Heinz-Christian Strache of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO). However, this year the radical-left was supported by multi-millionaire and real estate mogul Ariel Muzicant, the president of the Jewish community in Vienna, because the ball was held on “Holocaust Memorial Day” which happened to coincide with the traditional time for the ball, the last Friday in January.

Supporting a ball of debutantes in the presence of tradition-minded young people and other European nationalist leaders is considered to be in the presence of “neo-Nazis”. The violent leftist howling crowds outside the Hofburg are supposed to be the “normal people,” because of their reverence for Holocaust Memorial Day. This is yet another proof that Jews always side up with the left against the bearers of European tradition.

There is no point in courting the Jews to support European nationalist parties. Besides, the greatest victories of the right were scored without Jewish support, like Jörg Haider’s landslide victory in Austria in 1999

Gottfried is of Hungarian Jewish origin and speaks quite candidly about events there past and present. His article, Viktor Orban And The National Question In Hungary, tells a familiar story. Viktor Orban is the current prime minister of Hungary, and like many other citizens of formerly Communist countries in Eastern Europe, he does not buy into the guilt-inducing stories about World War II, nor does he accept the kind of multiculturalism now ravaging Western Europe and the Anglosphere.

Because he is a nationalist, and because Hungarians are White, this has excited the usual suspects — and Gottfried names them:

Hungarian artists and writers, and most notably Jewish ones, easily made their peace with the Soviets and their agents. It is not surprising that a very intelligent Hungarian Jewish Marxist of my acquaintance, Agnes Heller, has been livid with rage against the “Victator,” as Orban is now contemptuously called by his opponents.

One Green member of the European Parliament in particular, the famous lifetime leftist Daniel Cohn-Bendit, flies into rage when Orban’s name is mentioned. Describing the Hungarian head of state as an “authoritarian lunatic” may be the nicest thing that Cohn-Bendit has said about him.

Cohn-Bendit’s anger is spreading. As the Austrian member of the European Parliament Andreas Mölzer notes in Junge Freiheit, every day the European Union is looking for new measures by which to “quarantine” what it regards as the incipiently fascist regime in Budapest.

Advertisement

---

---

Gottfried correctly notes the parallel to Jewish and multicultural howling about leading Austrian politician Jorg Haider, though he neglects to mention what happened to Haider:

Only two weeks after his triumph in the Austrian elections, with his party sporting the biggest proportionate vote gain, and combined with his former Freedom Party coming very close to being the largest political bloc in the country, Jorg Haider was killed in a car crash on Saturday. (See In Memoriam: Jorg Haider – Tomorrow Belongs To Him? By Patrick Cleburne.)

The Jewish  state was, of course, outraged—so much so that they withdrew their ambassador. Imagine their shock that a European country wanted to retain its White Christian identity.

In my essay Jews Instinctively Fear and Feel Threatened by Nationalistic, Particularistic Societies, I explored this phenomenon. Interestingly, in Part II of the essay, I extensively discussed the unsavory life of aforementioned Daniel Cohn-Bendit. I give Gottfried credit for coming close to saying that it is normative among some Jews to hate Whites. Notice the consequences Gottfried lists:

But among those protesting Orban’s vision of a resurrected Hungarian nation, beside the inflamed multiculturalists and open-borders enthusiasts, is another group on the left.

They are the older, predominantly Jewish population—numbering now perhaps 100,000 out of a total TK population —whose families had been persecuted and sometimes murdered during the Nazi occupation and sometimes by Hitler’s Hungarian collaborators. Hungarian Jews often viewed Stalin’s armies and the Soviet victory as a godsend.

Indeed, Jews, including family members of mine, were heavily involved in two brutal communist dictatorships in Hungary, the first under Bela Kun (Kohn) 1919-1920 and the second under the Stalinist dictatorship of Matyas Rakosi (né Rosenfeld) 1945-1956. Wikipedia refers to these murderers as “atheists,” but they were ethnically Jewish. In Hungary the involvement of Jews in Communist regimes has inevitably generated anti-Semitism, which was already apparent in the uprising in 1956. Although the Israeli historian Jacob Talmon and Richard Pipes discuss this problem in their books, Wikipedia tries to ignore it and dwells on Christian and fascist anti-Semitism among the Magyars

No doubt most TOQ and TOO readers know this history, at least in part due to the frequent writing on the topic done by our editor. (See, for example, here, here, here and here).

Hats off to Professor Gottfried.

David Cronenberg’s latest movie gives us his view of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his pupil, Carl Jung, and even more centrally it tells the story of the affair between Jung and his patient, Sabina Spielrein.  It is set in Vienna in the early years of the 20th century.

The battle between Freud and Jung is fairly well known.  Jung was the heir apparent of the psychoanalytic dynasty founded by Freud.  But he began to go astray because Freud demanded a strictly sexual explanation for all neurosis.  Jung wanted to incorporate more; he rejected the orthodoxy.

For Freud everything boiled down to sex.  All conflicts in the psyche were rooted in early sexual experiences.  Jung challenged this core concept, telling Sabina that there must be “another hinge to the universe.”  In the words of Sabina, Jung did not want his patients to simply understand why they were the way they were but to become whom they might have been.

Jung is an idealist but Freud sees him as a threat to psychoanalysis because of what he considers his mysticism and mumbo-jumbo.   He dismisses Jung’s approach as simply replacing one delusion with another.  You then have to ask yourself why he chose Jung to carry on his work.  The usual explanation is because he needed a non-Jew to cross the bridge to the European society in which he lived, as the world of psychoanalysis was understood at the time to be Jewish. 

Freud took great pains to ensure that a non-Jew, Jung, would be the head of his psychoanalytic movement—a move that infuriated his Jewish colleagues in Vienna, but one that was clearly intended to deemphasize the very large overrepresentation of Jews in the movement during this period. To persuade his Jewish colleagues of the need for Jung to head the society, he argued, “Most of you are Jews, and therefore you are incompetent to win friends for the new teaching. Jews must be content with the modest role of preparing the ground. It is absolutely essential that I should form ties in the world of science” (in Gay 1988, 218). As Yerushalmi (1991, 41) notes, “To put it very crudely, Freud needed a goy, and not just any goy but one of genuine intellectual stature and influence.” Later, when the movement was reconstituted after World War I, another gentile, the sycophantic and submissive Ernest Jones, became president of the International Psychoanalytic Association. (From Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique)

Jung is a very devout student of the father figure Freud, but when he goes in search of other theories and explanations, his very search is portrayed as part of his own psychopathology. Jung had the naïve belief that psychoanalysis was a real science where the idea was to keep searching for new ideas and honing old ones rather than simply accepting Freudian dogma. This idea plays throughout the film and though not landed on too heavily, it is developed as the underlying theme.  Jung, it is pointed out, is an Aryan.  From the standpoint of the film (and Freudian orthodoxy), the very fact that he cannot see what Freud considers the scientific basis of psychoanalytic theory is portrayed as a by-product of his repressed German Protestant culture.  His very search for an ideal is a flight from sex, or a flight from seeing life as it is, or a flight from the pragmatic.  His two antagonists are Jewish: Sabina is a Russian Jewess and Freud a German Jew.

At one point Jung counters Freud’s suggestion that Sabina had been arrested at the anal stage of development by saying that she was quite the opposite: disorganized, emotionally generous and quite idealistic.  Freud dismisses these characteristics as “a Russian thing” — as a German Jew he would have looked down on Russian culture.  We do seem to be seeing the world from Freud’s perspective in the film.  Freud is the watcher and so are we as we see the others through his eyes.  Psychoanalysis as the art of watching.

In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud theorized that those discontents arise from its suppression of sex.   In repressing your sexuality you become distorted and the family, particularly the patriarchal family inflicts this on the individual. But according to Freud, the Jews managed to avoid all this. The Jewish religion “formed their [the Jews’] character for good through the disdaining of magic and mysticism and encouraging them to progress in spirituality and sublimations. The people, happy in their conviction of possessing the truth, overcome by the consciousness of being the chosen, came to value highly all intellectual and ethical achievements” (Freud 1939, 109). In contrast, “The Christian religion did not keep to the lofty heights of spirituality to which the Jewish religion had soared” (Freud, 1939, 112).

Jung’s essential failure was that was that he was an Aryan, a Swiss one at that, and a product Christianity.  He has a perfectly lovely wife to whom he is loyal, a beautiful home provided by her money, and beautiful children.   Jung’s wealth is underscored while it is pointed out to the audience that Freud bears the financial burden of supporting a large family.  Jung’s  is a life without passion, an “inauthentic life,”  as it would be called in the psychobabble of the age to come.  He has the exterior wealth but not the interior richness, the latter seen as typical of Jews. This sense of psychological superiority is, of course, a favorite theme of the Jewish world view, which we have all seen depicted time and again.  What is interesting in the film is that although Jung will critique Freud’s theory, Freud criticizes Jung’s character. Freud’s character remains above reproach.

An interesting side character is Otto Gross, who exemplifies the socially destructive tendencies of psychoanalysis as a radical critique of European society. Gross was also a cocaine addict, possibly introduced to the drug by Freud, a user himself, though no mention is made of that in the film.  “Never repress anything”, Gross tells Jung.  Jung tries to counter this saying, “You don’t find it necessary to exercise some restraint in the interest of the smooth functioning of the society?” But you can see he is being swayed.  “And make myself ill?” Gross responds—a comment illustrating the psychoanalytic idea that repressing sexuality would lead to neurosis or worse.  “I should have thought that some form of sexual repression would be necessary in any rational society.” is Jung’s answer.

Gross is dismissive of patriarchy and obviously hates his own father who has had him committed to a psychiatric hospital for what today might be termed a lifestyle choice.  Gross is an addict of cocaine as well as sex, never passing up an opportunity for the latter.  At the end of the film we are told that he dies of starvation in 1920; apparently due to following his own advice too closely.  Cocaine can become a lot more compelling than food.

The film tells the story of Jung’s rebellion from his father-figure Freud, which would be interpreted by psychoanalysts as verifying Freud’s central thesis—the son wanting to murder the father and possess the mother.

But Jung wants to possess not his mother but the beautiful, fragile, neurasthenic Sabina.  Keira Knightly, who plays the role, looks as though she could be of Sephardic descent.  Sabina’s anxiety attacks make her seem almost birdlike as she arches her back to avoid her tormentor— her father who had beat her regularly.  Her catharsis comes when she blurts out that “It excited her.”  Her masochism is revealed.

Jung is her analyst and we are told that he cures her.  But we are also shown a few scenes where she gets aroused as Jung beats her. The image hits the bull’s-eye — the brutal Aryan beating the poor Jew.

He leaves her and goes back to his persona, that of Herr Doctor.  Only when she is safely out of the way, married and pregnant, does he admit to his feelings for her.  And he tells her that it was through their relationship that he really sees himself, presumably as an inauthentic and brutal Aryan.

Viggo Mortensen draws long and slowly on his pipe and says very little in the quintessential psychoanalytic style as Father Freud.  Occasionally sardonic, ever watchful, he is well aware of Jung’s affair, although of course, Jung, as a typical hypocritical Christian, denies it.  But the canny Jew sees through him.

Michael Fassbinder who plays Jung is German himself.  His character is not all bad.  The power of suggestion in the film is more subtle.  But you are still presented with the stereotypical racist depiction of a Germanic male.  There are several interesting things about his depiction of Jung.  He goes into a rant about Sabina at one point, saying that she had calculatedly gone about seducing him.  Does she feign an interest in opera, Wagner specifically, the German composer so favored by the Nazis?  Is he right to trust her or to distrust her?  How can we know?  She did in fact initiate the relationship so he is not completely wrong in his suspicions.  He does take an interest in her studies as a psychoanalyst. But then again, is he sincere?

Masochist that she may have been, she is strong enough to get even with him.  She sends out a series of letters about the relationship after he has ended it.  She forces him to confess to his Father Confessor, Sigmund Freud and admit to the relationship which he had tried to pass off as a friendship.  She knows him well enough to know he will do it.  Perhaps the Christian experience with the confessional predisposes him to confess all.

But it wins him no grace.

Jung is more than ready to share his dreams with Freud and have them analyzed.  In one scene on the boat going to America he does so, and sits patiently as Freud dissects what he sees in the dream. But when Jung asks Freud to discuss his dream of the night before, Freud says that he would not do so because he would lose his authority.  It’s a telling moment.  And the as they approach New York Harbor, Freud makes his famous remark, “Do you think they know, we’re on our way, bringing them the plague?”   The new religion as a plague of self-conscious destruction—which indeed it was.

In one of the last scenes of The Dangerous Method Sabina has come to see Freud.  She argues Jung’s position, although Freud points out that in general she agrees with him (Freud).  But in fact her view is quite the opposite.  She believes that “true sexuality” demands the destruction of the ego, the opposite of what Freud believes.  The following is the content of their conversation.

Freud:  I thought he (Jung) would be able to work and carry on after I was gone.  I didn’t bargain for all that second rate mysticism and self-aggrandizing shamanism.   Nor did I realize that he could be so brutal and sanctimonious.

Spielrein: He was trying to find some way forward so that we don’t have to tell our patients that this is why you are the way you are.  He wants to be able to say, ‘We can show you what it is you might become’.

F:  Playing God in other words.  We have no right to do that.  The world is as it is.  Understanding and accepting it is the way to survive.  What good can we do if our aim is simply to replace one delusion with another?

S:  Look, I agree with you.

F:  I see that in the major areas of dispute between him and myself, you agree with me.  Understanding the basic areas of dispute is not enough.

S:  I thought you had no dispute with him.

F. Are you still in love with him?

S:  That does not matter.  It is not why I took up his cause.  If you two do not find some way to co-exist, it will hold back the cause of psychoanalysis, perhaps indefinitely.

 F:  Scientific relations will be maintained, of course.  I will be seeing Jung at the editorial meeting in Munich in September. .  . . . I am afraid that your mystical union with the blond Siegfried was bound to be doomed.  Do not put your trust in Aryans.  What you and I are, Fraulein, are Jews and Jews we will always be.

As the credits roll at the end of the film, the audience is told what happened to each character. Sabina Spielrein returned to Russia and had a successful career as an analyst before being shot by the Germans. Freud had to leave Vienna and move to London because of the rise of National Socialism, and Jung became one of the most renowned psychologists of the 20th century, living a long life.  The evil Nazi theme is underscored here one last time by Director Cronenberg.  And are we to think that Jung’s success was due to the destruction of his former mentor and ultimate rival?

This is the same director that depicted the Russian mafia as composed of Christians, going so far as to show mafia hit men with tattoos of crosses on their backs in the film Eastern Promises.  And he would never mention that the Russia to which Sabina Spielrein returned was one in which Russian Christians were being systematically murdered by the largely Jewish Bolsheviks in power.  The bias is as predictable as heat in July.

The film appears to be a study of a conflict between the two titans of psychoanalysis.  But the conflict is more than between two individual points of view.  It is a conflict rooted in two cultures which do not view the world through the same lens.  No doubt we will continue to hear Jewish complaints and accusations about Christianity.   The following quote underscores even more clearly the culture war between Christianity and Judaism:

The Jew … is not content merely to destroy Christianity, but he preaches the gospel of Judaism; he not only assails the Catholic or the Protestant faith, but he incites to the unbelief, and then imposes on those whose faith he has undermined his own conception of the world, of morality and of life. He is engaged in his historic mission, the annihilation of the religion of Christ. (Benard Lazare, Antisemitism: It’s History and Causes, Translated by Britons Publishing Co., London (1967), p. 158; my emphasis)

It is well known that Freud was hostile to Christian civilization, seeing himself as Hannibal leading the Semitic armies against Rome.  As Lazare would doubtless agree, Freud’s theory was a way of undermining Christian conceptions of the world, of morality, and of life.

Psychoanalysis has been relegated to the intellectual fringes of academic psychology and psychiatry. Indeed, psychoanalysis is widely seen as the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century. But movies like this present psychoanalysis as emanating from brilliant Jews trying to make the world a better place for everyone. They function to reassure educated audiences that Jewish concerns and Jewish attitudes are at the very center of our culture.  And by that measure, they succeed admirably.

 The non-Jewish members of the money elite are also corrupted. After all, they accept the exploitation of the White middle class economically and ethnically. The non-Jewish elite has abandoned the nation. America would be a very different place if there was robust conflict within the elite concerning which constituency they serve. For decades Jewish interests are being well catered for in support for Israel and mass immigration. What has the elite done for White Christian America or even for components of it, e.g. Anglos? Any roll-back must involve the non-Jewish elite pulling its weight, fulfilling its responsibilities. They should take responsibility for the ongoing destruction of the United States as a Western nation. With power comes responsibility, first a foremost to one’s family and people.

There should be a politics of shaming the White elite, along the lines of Christopher Lasch’s book. [Was he Jewish? Wikipedia does not say.] He was critical of both collectivists and laissez-faire right.

Lasch, C. (1995). The revolt of the elites and the betrayal of democracy. London, W. W. Norton & Company.

As far as I can see, Lasch did not object to immigration. But see his attack on feminism and the elite intellectual left.

My point is that our elites need to be somehow shamed.

Insofar as acting without fear of reprisal, we need to remember that the end justifies the means. Let’s take two scenarios:

1. You wish to foster discord against globalism, so you write an exposé on international Jews, carefully distribute it, and set back and wait for the Red Sea pedestrians to get pilloried.
2. You wish to foster discord against globalism, so you write an exposé on international capitalists, carefully distribute it, and set back and wait for the Red Sea pedestrians to take the heat.
   Advertisement

   ---

   ---

Now, which of the two do we think has a better chance of success in appealing to the unconverted? I’d place my bet on #2, and I think you would, too! The targeted result is largely the same, but one has a much, much better chance of working. Let’s try another:

1. You wish to incite anger against the smut industry, so you compose an appealing diatribe against Jewish pornographers, carefully distribute it, and set back and wait for the apple of God’s eye to get castigated.
2. You wish to incite anger against the smut industry, so you compose an appealing diatribe against American pornographers, carefully distribute it, and set back and wait for good Christians to blacken the apple of God’s eye.

Again, which of the two do we think has a better chance of success? Once again the bets go to #2, for while the targeted result is substantially the same, #2 has a much better chance of success. OK, one more:

1. You want to promote the truth that the beauty of distinct races can only come about by keeping them separate, but the international Jew twists the meaning of diversity so he can promote race-mixing and the ultimate deracination of the White race which he has hated from the days of antiquity.
2. You want to promote the truth that real diversity means preserving the beauty of the distinct races by keeping them separate, but the international capitalists twist the meaning of diversity so they can proceed unhindered in genetically altering the proletariat into a new, docile, obedient serf class to serve their economic interests, destroying the heritage of Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, and others in the process.

Anyone want to place bets on which one has a better chance of working? Folks, if we do it right we can even enlist the support of the best of our Black friends — all races have everything to lose in the deracinated design for mankind, not just the Whites. Take the very last scenario above; you could probably get away with #2 even in an NAACP convention — might even get a standing ovation if there were enough of Farrakhan’s people there — not so with #1!

Some of our ‘back in the day’ old school die-hard comrades will insist that such subterfuge smacks of moral cowardice and that we must courageously discuss Jewish issues and not mince our words. But, let’s think for a moment — if your six-month old son is hungry, do you give him a steak? When your six year old daughter is ready for school, do you send her off immediately to college? Of course not! And so it is with our wonderful but, ahem, uninformed brothers and sisters — start off with the primers, with small bites, with baby food — they’ll then be ready for the post-graduate course sooner than you think.

Our people aren’t stupid. It’s not because they are ignorant of the Jewish problem that they will not attack it; it is because they are afraid. So, make the Jew a Capitalist Exploiter or an American Pornographer or an Oligarch or an International Banker or whatever, and the courage we thought absent will blossom forth. As Sun Tzu said, warfare is based on deception. Or, as one of my childhood TV characters (I think it was Charlie Chan but I can’t remember) said from time to time — softlee, softlee, catchee monkey.

I recall reading a story about a German General and tank commander who, at the beginning of the invasion of France in 1940, was confronted with the massive, impenetrable fortifications built by the French to withstand the mightiest Wehrmacht onslaught. (I think it was Heinz Guderian; if I have the wrong General, I’d appreciate someone correcting me). His solution was quite simple and completely effective — he simply bypassed the fortifications and went on to Paris, leaving the entrenched French quite bitter, for there is nothing more frustrating that having a war when nobody will come.

We can do the same, bypassing the Enemy’s fortifications. Those areas in which he has invested heavily, both politically and financially, can — on a local basis — be turned against him quite easily, with little or no investment and no fear of reprisal, in anything from the most casual of conversations to business luncheon chatter to radio talk-show call-ins. We know the Enemy considers most Aryans to be useful idiots. Well, let’s be dangerous idiots instead.

When the Enemy began his long march, did he ever make public mention of bringing harm to the White race? Did he ever publically mention he would encourage massive third world immigration? Did he ever openly state his goal to destroy Western culture? He did not — yet he accomplished all three. This is why the purported Jewish authorship of the Protocols has always been doubtful in my mind as well as many others — announcing your plans loudly and publicly beforehand is not the way to win, and it is not the way the Jew operates.

For those who are really serious about socialism, we can offer it — in its purest sense, yet also within a workable framework. We can show young people seeking answers how social welfare can indeed be put into practice so that no one is left behind, yet coupling compassion with personal responsibility, so that the stigma of indigence is replaced with personal pride. We can show the meaning of diversity in its truest sense, by preserving and perfecting each individual’s culture and ethnic group, rather than destroying them through multiculturalism and miscegenation in order that the international capitalists may breed us into a convenient, docile serf class.

Let us never forget that it has been capitalism bears a big part of the blame for Third-World immigration (legal and illegal) with resultant miscegenation and dispossession, exporting our manufacturing base overseas, taking jobs away from young White people thereby exacerbating the disintegration of the Aryan family unit and contributing to our low birth rate, causing Spanish to be shoved down our throats wherever we go or whatever we read or hear, and marginal quality and mediocre workmanship in everything we buy regardless of how much we are willing to pay.

We must address the needs of young people, for they are where our future lies. They might not know what they want, but they sure know what they don’t want, and that includes what is being offered to them now — a dismal future of capitalistic dispossession. The best kind of people to have on one’s side is young people with nothing to lose, and there is a growing abundance of them. We need to start building on a local level some working models that address their needs (we’ll talk a bit about that in a later installment of What Will Work).

We can show that true socialism is where the economy is based on production rather than consumption, where financing is done through equity (including sweat equity) rather than debt, and everyone who is willing to work will have a good job, with the pay commensurate with their efforts. Those who physically cannot work will not be abandoned. And, by the same token, under true socialism, people really can starve — but not because they can’t work, but rather because they won’t work. For under true socialism, Nature’s Laws trump man’s laws. And at the other end of the spectrum, under true socialism there will indeed be more than a few millionaires — but no billionaires, for while the former may use their wealth to shape their own destinies, the latter use their vast riches to shape the destinies of others — with alarming success.

We can demonstrate responsible custody of the environment — in deed and not just in word — putting cleanliness, health, and beauty before dividends, urban decadence and profit. And perhaps most importantly, we can bring about that day where our animal friends rejoice at the sight of human beings and their handiwork thereof, rather than shrinking in disgust and terror at a Divine Mandate gone wrong. That day will come, when the sacred link is re-forged between humankind and the rest of our animal friends, when Nature — once and for all — extinguishes the evil power that in millennia past raised the ugly face of the Urban Man in defiance to Her, uttering his plan for dominion and exploitation of all the good peoples of the world, our animal friends, and the precious earth we all call Home, to fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. (Gen. 1:28)

***

Winter is here. For several months now, while the temperatures have been quite cold, our snowfall has been negligible.  Country folk like seeing a good snowpack in the mountains — it’s better than money in the bank. Actually, when you are in farming, it is money in the bank!  So the specter of a winter with little snow does not bode well; not only does it translate into irrigation problems later in the summer, but it also increases the chances of forest fires. A scarcity of snow also creates hardships for our animal friends, for snow acts as a quilt to insulate those in hibernation. Attendant to a lack of snow are low temperatures (snow usually occurs at warmer temperatures between 26° and 32° Fahrenheit), which eventually lowers the frost line in the earth, forcing hibernating animals to wake up and excavate deeper into the ground, losing precious calories and fat in the process. But their prayers and ours were answered last week — Mother Nature sent the White Beauty, blanketing the mountains in many feet of snow. Our bear den we installed last fall is covered nicely now, although I have not yet been able to determine the ethnicity of the residents; I thought I smelled fox late in the season rather than bear, but fox remain active in winter and whoever is in there now is indeed dormant and shall remain undisturbed during their long sleep into April.

Farnham O’Reilly is the pen name of a businessman, farmer and investor. A family man, his home is in the Pacific Northwest. Information on Coming Home may be found at www.familyhomenorthwest.com

To attempt to maintain the status quo (stasis/conservatism) is to wither and die. Our window of opportunity is finite, but all such windows are, and we have a very unique opportunity if we just seek out those behemoths of inertia, those juggernauts launched at great expense many years ago by the Enemy, which now seem to be inexorably leading us down the path of self-destruction, and adopt them for our own purposes. Adapt and adopt — we cannot compete with the Enemy financially, but oddly enough we can do one better and get him to finance us, simply through philosophical piracy.

Part of pirating inertia is developing a win-win solution; we should not confront or fight other races (with one exception) for they are not our enemies; they have many of the same concerns that we do — retention of culture, preservation of genetic heritage, protecting the family unit to name a few, and we should work with them — all our strategies should allow for them to win, too. There is enough Mother Earth to go around.

Along the same line, shouldn’t we put an end to epithets against those ethnic groups who need not be our enemies, and would in fact make very good friends? I know name calling is tempting. I’ve done it countless times, and I admit that suggesting Obama is not too far from the Old Tree and that sort of thing gives me great satisfaction — a palpable, pleasant sensation. But, it does us harm rather than good, and we need friends, not enemies. For other races to respect us and our wishes, we need to respect them and their wishes too. And, we need to be sincere about it — there’s no reason why we can’t or shouldn’t. Just because someone is against mixing the races does not mean they hate other folk or want to create conflict among the races. United philosophically we can survive; divided we cannot. We know that; we’ve really known it all along.

If one remains stationary, one dies. This is Natural Law. If the mountain lion remains stationary, it starves. If the deer remains stationary, it gets eaten. This is why Conservatives have never achieved even one real victory — ever — none — never.  And this is why we in the Movement have never been able to energize them or receive help from them — ever — none — never. Quite frankly, the only thing that ever kept me sympathetically connected to the Right was that they upheld moral values. But that has changed now; the Right has jettisoned moral values and now rallies around their new gospel — selfish monetary and economic policies — morally they fell without firing a shot.

A good lesson on where our friends really are to be found may be learned from the recent OWS protests. Starting out as a purely Leftist, anti-Western movement, apparently some of the more erudite protesters were not as housebroken as the puppeteers would have liked; more than one independently thinking leftist sent shock waves through the nation when they channeled their anger — openly, loudly, and unambiguously — against the Jews. And lo and behold, it was not the Left that raised their hands in hyperbolic horror, but rather the Right, with Israel fawners like Glenn Beck being a good example.

Preservation requires resources, defense is expensive, rebuttal is exhausting, and the best that can come from any Conservative philosophy is you won’t lose anything — but you will never gain anything, either. This is why there is much, much more to be gained in finding common ground with the Left rather than the Right. And, if we look closely enough, we indeed have more philosophically in common with the Left rather than the Right. We are concerned about our people — all of our people, not just the most successful among us. We are also quite comfortable with sound environmental policies, animal rights, physical health, and preservation of endangered species — all these are hallmarks of the Left, not the Right.

The difference is that we want our socialism based on natural racial/ethnic groups, not an impossible internationalism. National Socialism is far more attractive to any ethnic group than the borderless, deracinated, cultureless globalized anthill dominated by Oligarchic hegemony. If people really want a taste of genuine socialism, we can deliver it; the international capitalists cannot.

We have a historical example demonstrating how well our version works; they only have a series of failures. We promote real diversity in which different groups remain apart to develop in their own ways, whereas they can and have only offered mongrelizing. We can and have shown how a healthy culture may blossom and develop; they can only offer degenerate Pop culture, Big Macs, rap music and a diet Pepsi.

It is perplexing that the post-war Movement has all but overlooked the total, all-encompassing gift of the National Socialist model, concentrating with tunnel vision on one facet only — race — and ignoring all other NS cornerstones such as the economic model, custody of the environment, family governance, farming, sexual virtue and modesty, encouraging sound dietary practices, physical fitness, conservancy laws, animal rights, and interaction with Nature. It’s all there, folks — the vision, the workable plan. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

At the same time it is with good reason we should more or less avoid using the term ‘National Socialism’. Aside from all our enemies, many potential allies have puppies over either of the words ‘National’ or ‘Socialism’. That’s OK — we can call it Natural Selectionism, Laws of Life, DICE (Derail the International Corporate Elite), Social Naturalism, Common Sense, NICE (No International Capitalist Exploiters), Primordial Progressivism, AGE (Against Globalist Elitism), Mammals against Urban Evil, POT (Prevent Oligarchy Triumph), Enviro-Naturalism, or Animals of the World Unite! The more labels we use the merrier — it keeps our enemies busy, while all along we are not hurting anything, since National Socialism is based on Nature and is absolute regardless of what one may call it.

To get things done, we need to act both effectively and without fear of reprisal. It’s really not that hard. First off, to work effectively, we need to come to an appreciation of the importance of doing our work locally. Local work may not seem that glamorous at first blush, but it’s where we can indeed make things happen, and we make it happen by disciplining ourselves to stay within our area of influence.

A nationally recognized expert in Personal Development as well as a fine family man, Stephen Covey, has developed a strategy for effective action in which he uses the concepts of the Circle of Influence and the Circle of Concern — a methodology that is simple, interesting, valuable, and extremely relevant to our work. The concept divides our concerns into two categories, 1: areas of influence (i.e. — concerns that are valid and for which we can work effectively; in other words, things we can actually fix) and 2: areas of concern (i.e. — concerns that are also valid but for which we are unable to work effectively; in other words, things we really can’t do anything about). Some examples of our Circle of Concern may include the U.S. Department of Education, Third World immigration, miscegenation, rampant homosexuality, globalism, cultural dispossession, the mendacious, and mass media and pornography used to destroy the family unit. These things we can change but little, as individuals or even as a group.

On the other hand, we can effect change within our Circle of Influence. Areas within one’s Circle of Influence may include the local school board (including the decision whether to homeschool),  your neighborhood, the health and vibrancy of your marriage, how you raise your kids to value their own ethnic heritage, the moral standards you teach your kids, deciding whether to have a TV in your home, supporting local businesses by spending your money with them (even if you have to pay more), making sure your kids learn real history, your hiring practices (for those of you who are business owners), and your reputation in your community.

Drawn pictorially, our circle of concern is larger than — and eclipses — our circle of influence. All those things in our circle of influence are also in our circle of concern, but not all those things in our circle of concern lie within our circle of influence. And here is the reason for unsuccessful activism — we always tend to concentrate on those items in our circle of concern, biting off more than we can chew, failing miserably, but then trying again and again with our efforts sincerely doubled and trebled, only to fail more miserably — forgetting all the while that the best definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results every time.

The wonderful news is that, if we limit our efforts to our circle of influence, that circle of influence will grow, eventually encapsulating our original circle of concern! This is Natural Law — it works. One way (in a negative sense) of seeing just how well this concept does work is to consider how the mass media reports only those items within most people’s circle of concern — all of the items reported are things you care about, but none of them are things you can do anything about, leaving you either despondent or bursting with ill-founded hope that the baleful events your children will shortly face will somehow be vicariously dealt with by some new politician.

(End of Installment I)

The New York Times runs a piece today on how the big money behind the push for sanctioning gay marriage in New York State is coming from Republicans.

The figures named are also Jewish….But I mean every name. Here’s what a quick Google search came up with:

–Paul Singer: on the boards of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and Commentary

–Daniel Loeb: Appeared at events for YIVO and the Jewish Enrichment Center.

–Clifford Asness: Likened Obama’s proposed tax policies to pogroms. (Yes, philanthropy would be nicer than name calling, but this is still a form of identification.)

–Steven A. Cohen: this excellent Tablet piece by Allison Hoffman exposes a rabbi who tried to use Cohen’s Jewishness in a scheme to extort money from him, but otherwise notes that Cohen’s philanthropy does not have much of a Jewish slant…

And then there’s former Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, who’s organizing the whole GOP push, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also backs the initiative (but is no longer a Republican.) Jewish, Republican, pro-gay rights by Ron Kampeas – May 14, 2011

“But I mean every name.” That’s exactly the sentiment I am feeling now as I read just the beginning of a YAHOO! FINANCE article titled “Living Very Large.” It is about Americans who are building massive houses despite the pronounced trend among average Americans to scale back on size.

Just in order of what I’ve read so far we find:

— Hyatt hotel heir Anthony Pritzker has a new 49,300-square-foot mansion. Wiki says that “The Pritzker family is one of America’s wealthiest families, and has been near the top of Forbes magazine’s “America’s Richest Families” list since the magazine began in 1982.”

— Hedge-fund manager Cliff Asness [mentioned above] is building a 25,900-square-foot, Colonial-style home with an indoor swimming pool and tennis court in Greenwich, Conn.

— Nearby, a 31,500-square-foot mansion is being built for Lee Weinstein, founder of data-center concern Xand, with 15 bathrooms (plus additional powder rooms), a 2,500-square-foot master suite and a basement with a theater, wine cellar, juice bar, dance studio and sauna.

— Twenty miles away, in Westport, Conn., Melissa and Doug Bernstein are creating a compound of more than 30,000 square feet with a stand-alone ice-cream parlor, plans show. The main house alone is 29,500 square feet and includes a gym partially covered by glass; there’s also a guest cottage, pool cabana and rec-room-and-garage building. The property also has a pool, tennis court and playground.

Only with number five on the list, Jim Ellis, “who co-founded a cellphone insurance provider,” do we find someone who might not be Jewish.  Sixth, however, is back to Jewish, as software mogul Larry Ellison (listed as America’s third richest man) is working on a 18,000-square-foot-plus compound.

Following Ellis is someone I can’t find much information about, Gene Pretti, who heads an investment-management firm.

The few remaining homeowners named include two non-Jews: New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady lives in a Los Angeles home that is an 18,300-square-foot limestone structure reached via bridge over a pond that separates it from the driveway. Another, whose “home” comes in at a whopping 70,000 square feet, is Prince Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz Al Saud, son of the king of Saudi Arabia.

So why did WSJ reporter Juliet Chung choose these particular individuals? Is this somehow representative of the American super rich? Or does it speak to conspicuous consumption, especially among Jews?

I’ve written about Jews who are famous for lavish displays of personal wealth: for throwing extravagant bar mitzvahs, birthday parties, weddings, and just regular parties. A prominent example is the story about the owner of a Long Island firm that specializes in making bulletproof vests for the U.S. military, vests which many critics claim are defective. CEO David Brooks has been in deep trouble, as ABC reports:

A class action lawsuit, which was recently settled for some $35 million, charged Brooks and his top executives with issuing misleading financial statements and then selling over 10 million of their own shares in the company and receiving over $200 million in illegal profits. . . . Following that stock sale, Brooks again raised eyebrows when he threw his daughter a lavish bat mitzvah, which reportedly cost $10 million. The party featured performances by Aerosmith and rapper 50 Cent and took place at the New York’s famed Rainbow Room.

To be sure, this situation is nowhere near as unjust as that recounted in Deuteronomy 6:10-11, where God brings ancient Jews “into the land that He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you — with great and good cities that you did not build, and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and cisterns that you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant . . .”

I guess what I take away from this Yahoo article is the fact that Jews are simply hugely prominent in our culture, yet so many non-Jews still fail to make note of it, let alone what it might mean.