General

Slavoj Zizek e o seu “Manual pervertido do antissemita”

“A teoria de [Kevin] MacDonald representa uma nova fase do longo processo de destruição da razão.”
(SLAVOJ ZIZEK)

“Zizek é, na melhor das hipóteses, um charlatão pernóstico.”
(THOMAS MOLLER-NIELSEN)

Este é um ensaio sobre o antissemitismo, mas como trata também de Slavoj Zizek, nós teremos de começar abordando a questão das relações extraconjugais. Bem no começo da minha carreira acadêmica, fui chamado para participar de um seminário interdisciplinar, no qual estudantes de pós-doutorado iriam falar rapidamente de suas pesquisas. O esperado era que eu, como alguém que havia recentemente concluído o pós-doutorado, fosse arguir os estudantes de forma dura, mas sempre no sentido de favorecê-los, para não prejudicar o saudável clima das relações pessoais harmoniosas no meu departamento. Deram para mim o programa das apresentações, e na mesma hora já me senti aborrecido com o besteirol feminista e o nhenhenhém semimarxista de contempladores do próprio umbigo, não havendo nada ali relacionado com os campos de pesquisa de meu interesse. Entretanto, eu estava ansioso para cumprir acertadamente minha tarefa e acabei me enquadrando no esquema por dever de ofício. Eu nunca vou me esquecer da primeira apresentação, porque foi muito surreal, o expositor era um afro-americano efeminado, ele recitou um poema intitulado “Pele negra”, falando sobre… bem, o leitor já entendeu o espírito da coisa. Mas o mais memorável evento do dia viria mais tarde, quando uma jovem apresentou trabalho sobre como a questão do gênero era tratada na mídia, ou alguma coisa assim. Eu não gostei da atitude dela, fiquei irritado e, na hora das perguntas, dei uma prensada nela. Uma figura veterana do departamento notou a minha reação e, depois de terminado o seminário, quis voltar à vaca fria. Era um historiador inglês de modos delicados, sobre quem havia muita fofoca. Ele me chamou à sala dele para uma discussão sobre política sexual e de gênero.

Eu me tornei politicamente consciente desde a minha adolescência. Estudei profundamente o marxismo desde quando eu tinha 17 anos e conhecia muito bem esse culto. Apesar disso tudo, eu não estava preparado para a aventura que me esperava na sala do inglês. As paredes eram decoradas com bandeirinhas vermelhas e quadros como que de santos com imagens de Lênin e Trotsky. Então eu pensei que ali se encontrava um comunista de carteirinha. Eu estava em presença de um devotado marxista, de alguém que, diante de mim, representava solitariamente o exemplo concreto da longa marcha para a conquista das instituições. Ele preparou o chá, e nós nos sentamos. Ele começou a discorrer, eu fiquei escutando. No preâmbulo de seu monólogo, meu anfitrião começou externando sua perspectiva pessoal, explicando que, mesmo nas coisas pertinentes ao seu mundo particular, ele se empenhava por viver de acordo com as suas “convicções socialistas”. Antes de se casar, ele disse, ele e sua noiva acordaram entre si que não prestariam os tradicionais juramentos, que não seriam possessivos, que nenhum deles prometeria ser exclusivamente do outro. Eles poderiam “esperar” exclusividade, mas não a poderiam exigir. Eles acreditavam em “liberdade”, ele disse, acrescentando que o progressismo social e a moderna política sexual e de gênero se resumiam a isso. Ele deu a entender que não havia nenhuma razão para ninguém rir disso ou se sentir incomodado com isso.

Mas havia, sim. Eu tinha ouvido um zunzunzum no câmpus de que a mulher desse advogado do “amor livre” estivera cumprindo curto prazo de docência na Noruega e que recentemente tinha decidido ficar por lá mesmo com um namorado norueguês com quem ela tinha tido um caso durante um tempinho. Na Noruega ela vivia com as duas crianças de seu marido “oficial” e fazia de tudo para não deixar que o  chifrudo bonacheirão inglês e amante de Lênin pudesse ver os filhos. A casa da família acabou sendo-lhe tirada pela “ex”, e meu colega marxista passou a morar numa pensão. Trágico? Bem possivelmente. Risível? Com certeza. Tudo isso veio à minha lembrança enquanto o corno manso leninista sentado diante de mim falava dos frios votos de seu casamento, a xícara de chá na mão, olhos marejados de… lágrimas? Efeito do vapor do chá, ele disse, enquanto enxugava-os, rapidamente desviando seu olhar para a janela. Eu fiquei na minha, só olhando para a cara dele. O tempo passava, e aos poucos ele foi se aquietando, até silenciar. Então, agradeci protocolarmente e empreendi fuga dali, respirando fundo quando saí do prédio. Nunca mais na minha vida pus os pés naquele escritório.

O que isso tudo tem a ver com o antissemitismo? Da perspectiva da grande vedete intelectual marxista Slavoj Zizek, tem tudo a ver, porquanto, como iremos mostrar, a infidelidade e o antissemitismo estão irrefutavelmente ligados. Eu digo “irrefutavelmente’ com muita segurança, porque os argumentos dele são irrefutáveis — e são irrefutáveis porque não obedecem à lógica.

Vamos lá! Primeiramente, quem é Slavoj Zizek? Ostensivamente, ele é um respeitado filósofo da Eslovênia e professor em Nova Iorque e Londres, que se ocupa de campos variados do saber, como ciência política, cultura, psicanálise,  crítica de cinema, marxismo, teologia e as filosofias de Hegel e Jacques Lacan. Ele mesmo é o tema mais batido do seu The International Journal of Žižek Studies e já foi considerado “o Elvis [Presley] da teoria cultural” e “o mais perigoso filósofo do Ocidente”. Zizek goza de grande popularidade entre não acadêmicos e jovens esquerdistas, devido principalmente à técnica de comunicação que lhe é peculiar, às referências que faz à cultura de massa em suas palestras, às suas “piadas obscenas” e aos títulos de suas conferências e documentários, sempre contendo a expressão “Guia dos perversos…”. Em abril de 2019, Zizek e Jordan Peterson lotaram o Centro Cultural da Sony em Toronto para debater o tema “Felicidade: capitalismo versus marxismo”, que alguns chamaram de “o debate do século”, embora muitos dissessem depois que fora decepcionante. O importante aqui é levar em conta a grande audiência de Zizek e o fato de geralmente ser tido como pensador sério. Isto significa que suas manifestações são influentes, razão por que interessa examinar o que Zizek tem a dizer dos judeus e do antissemitismo.

As ideias de Zizek sobre temas específicos podem ser difíceis de determinar, porque ele esparrama suas perspectivas por diferentes livros, numerosos artigos e muitas palestras e entrevistas. Fica claro, entretanto, ao se comparar o número de visualizações de suas postagens no YouTube com a frequência à ciberteca dele chamada The Philosophical Salon, a qual serve de vitrina para seus escritos tópicos, que ele se destaca mais como animador audiovisual do que como um escritor sério. O antissemitismo não é assunto sobre que Zizek tenha se debruçado aturada e interessadamente, ainda assim, curiosamente, ele está sempre dando palpites sobre essa questão em algumas de suas palestras dedicadas ao tema. A partir daqui estudaremos as teorias de Zizek sobre o antissemitismo.

I. A patologia da paranoia invejosa

Como legatário da psicanálise de Freud e Jacques Lacan, Zizek recorre fortemente a teorias psicanalíticas do antissemitismo em suas publicações escritas e audiovisuais. Neste ponto voltamos ao assunto das relações extraconjugais, porque num ensaio de fevereiro de 2016 sobre a crise da imigração, publicado no New Statesman, Zizek dizia o seguinte:

Jacques Lacan alegava que, mesmo se a denúncia de um marido ciumento que acusasse a mulher de dormir com outros homens fosse verdadeira, o ciúme dele seria patológico. Por quê? Porque a verdadeira questão não está em saber se o ciúme do marido tem fundamento na traição real da mulher, antes importa saber a razão pela qual o marido precisa de seu ciúme para manter a própria identidade. Analogamente, pode-se dizer que mesmo se as falsas acusações dos nazistas que incriminavam os judeus de explorar os alemães e seduzir suas mulheres fossem verdadeiras, seu antissemitismo ainda seria (e era) patológico, porquanto recalcava a verdadeira razão pela qual os nazistas precisavam do antissemitismo, qual seja, sustentar sua posição ideológica. E não é isso, exatamente, o que ocorre hoje em relação ao medo crescente dos refugiados e imigrantes? Estendendo o raciocínio a um caso extremo, podemos concluir que, mesmo se os nossos preconceitos em relação a eles fossem verdadeiros, mesmo se eles fossem fundamentalistas, terroristas, assaltantes, estupradores, ainda assim as advertências paranoicas de uma ameaça imigratória seriam patologia ideológica. Essa nossa atitude enquanto europeus fala mais de nós do que dos imigrantes.

Há muito nisso daí para ser periciado, mas uma rápida leitura já causa espanto, porque o texto é um desastre da lógica e porque muitos consideram o seu autor um sério e celebrado filósofo da cultura contemporânea. O primeiro problema é, evidentemente, a citação do ridículo Lacan como se fosse uma autoridade, como se o que ele diz valesse alguma coisa. Se um homem tem provas suficientes para acreditar que sua mulher esteja sendo infiel, então seria difícil taxar o marido de ciumento ou, mais ainda, de patológico, porque ele estaria apenas reagindo para defender seus interesses (sexual, reprodutivo, financeiro, emocional, até religioso e profissional — o que não teria nada de surpreendente para um evolucionista). Também não procede dizer que ele precise do ciúme a fim de manter sua identidade. Na verdade, o que iria acabar com a identidade dele seria a traição mesma, pois o aspecto emocional e todos os outros constituintes de sua vida de homem e de marido estariam solapados no contexto da infidelidade. Kevin MacDonald observou que o ativismo intelectual judeu, especialmente aquele comprometido com a psicanálise, costuma se valer de interesses pessoais para escolher argumentos, os quais são formulados em linguagem universal. Jacques Lacan não era judeu, mas suas teorias sobre o ciúme e a infidelidade, incluindo sua famosa afirmação de que “Não existe essa coisa de relacionamento sexual”, sempre foram de um subjetivismo interessado, não há dúvida quanto a isso. Catherine Millot, uma de suas pacientes, rememorava em autobiografia de 2017, Life with Lacan, que “ele tinha casos com pacientes e ex-mulheres de seus mais chegados amigos” e a muitos deles propunha sexo grupal.

Voltando a Zizek, então, aquela declaração dele pode ser resumida nos seguintes termos: mesmo se os protestos contra a influência judia na sociedade ocidental correspondessem a razões de fato, à semelhança das acusações daquele marido desconfiado da mulher, “tais protestos continuariam a ser patologia ideológica” dos europeus de que depende a manutenção da identidade europeia. Nesta altura alguém deveria solicitar a Zizek que definisse exatamente como qualquer acusação contra qualquer coisa poderia não ser manifestação de uma doença. Por exemplo, mesmo se a crítica de Marx ao capitalismo se provasse verdadeira, como é que as acusações contra a burguesia enquanto classe poderiam ser menos patológicas do que as acusações contra os judeus enquanto classe? Será que Zizek acha que os marxistas são patológicos por precisarem da paranoia antiburguesa para manter a própria identidade? Duvido. Ele deve pensar, então, que só as acusações formuladas pela direita são patológicas, mas se é assim, é assim por quê? Como alguém pode acusar terroristas, estupradores e ladrões sem perder o pleno gozo de suas faculdades mentais? Será que o acusador deve estar sendo decapitado, estuprado ou roubado? Não, nesses casos talvez a acusação ainda decorresse de alguma perturbação mental. Deve ser presumido que o acusador sentir-se-á tentado a manter a própria identidade por meio da paranoia persecutória, enquanto não tiver sido esquartejado.

Deixando de lado o sarcasmo, não seria esse o caso de considerar que na vida, geralmente, as incriminações partem do mundo real das perspectivas e dos interesses de indivíduos ou grupos e que a medicalização das denúncias de um partido seja simplesmente uma forma de combater os interesses desse partido e deslegitimar sua perspectiva?[1] Não estará Zizek, simplesmente, por razões desconhecidas (que, apesar disso, certamente não prejudicaram sua carreira), oferecendo uma explicação do antissemitismo totalmente sem lógica no intento de coonestar a “verdade sem importância” do comportamento judeu? Eu não acredito em que Zizek seja um filossemita, conforme entendo esse termo. Classificação mais apropriada dele colocá-lo-ia nas categorias de “sincero e ingênuo seguidor do credo marxista” e de “charlatão pedante”. Isso se evidencia nas muitas declarações dele sobre o antissemitismo, as quais não passam de cruas e irrefletidas regurgitações de Jean-Paul Sartre, que foi um firme defensor da tese da “verdade sem importância”.

II. As tais contradições que não existem.

Enquanto a primeira entre as maiores características das interpretações psicanalíticas de viés marxista do antissemitismo consiste na negação de qualquer justificada denúncia como causa legítima da origem do fenômeno, a segunda dessas características consiste na indicação de supostas contradições da perspectiva antissemita. Numa palestra que proferiu em 2009 na European Graduate School sobre o tema Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semite and Jew [O antissemitismo, o antissemita e os judeus], Zizek argumentou que o antissemitismo coloca o judeu numa “impossível alteridade” e continuou dizendo o seguinte:

Uma das ironias da história do antissemitismo é que os judeus podem representar, na mundivisão antissemítica, os dois polos de uma oposição. Eles são estigmatizados como a classe superior, os ricos, os açambarcadores que nos exploram mas, por outro lado, são vistos como a classe inferior, os pobres e sujos. Eles são percebidos como muito intelectualizados ou muito mundanos, predadores sexuais e por aí vai. São os preguiçosos mas, também, os viciados em trabalho.

Na minha resenha de 2015 sobre o livro de Theodore Isaac Rubin (1923-2019) intitulado Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind [Antissemitismo: uma doença da mente], eu observei que Rubin, um psicanalista confesso, declarou que “o judeu” era quase que só um símbolo na mente do antissemita, e ainda que o antissemitismo contém uma lista quilométrica de contradições e “superlativos mutuamente excludentes”. A ideia de que o antissemitismo contém contradições lógicas é clichê das narrativas, histórias e apologética judias. Por exemplo, o historiador judeu Derek Penslar afirmou que “Os argumentos do antissemita são, pela própria natureza, ilógicos, imprecisos e indefensáveis.”[2] Jeffrey Herf prega que o antissemitismo é “eivado de contradições e altamente irracional.” [3] Esse tipo de resposta ao antissemitismo descende de poderosa linhagem. Kevin MacDonald já fez saber que boa parte do A personalidade autoritária, da Escola de Francforte, foi “uma tentativa de demonstrar a irracionalidade do antissemitismo pela indicação de que os antissemitas têm crenças contraditórias sobre os judeus. (…) A personalidade autoritária exagera a natureza autocontraditória das crenças antissemíticas para assim salientar a irracional, a subjetiva natureza do antissemitismo.”[4]

No trabalho de Rubin assim como no de Zizek, vemos acusações contra os judeus que são consistentes, se consideradas em seu contexto, ou que provavelmente nunca foram feitas por nenhum dos considerados antissemitas. Por exemplo, Rubin escreveu que todos os antissemitas atribuem aos judeus os seguintes predicados:

  1. estúpidos, brilhantes;
  2. todo-poderosos, fracos;
  3. cosmopolitas, provincianos;
  4. malandros, ingênuos;
  5. supersensíveis, insensíveis;
  6. negrofílicos, superpreconceituosos;
  7. os mais ricos, os mais pobres;
  8. artísticos, desartísticos;
  9. mamonistas, esnobes pedantes;
  10. exossociados, endossociados.

Mas as “contradições” oferecidas por Rubin e Zizek são simplificações extremas.  No seu Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald analisou os trabalhos de Levinson, Ackerman e Jahoda nos quais esses autores pretenderam denunciar o comportamento contraditório daqueles que têm os judeus na conta de tribalistas e evitadores despicientes, mesmo enquanto esperam que os judeus sofram segregação e restrições. Também pretenderam revelar outra atitude contraditória em relação aos judeus: a de que seriam tribalistas e socialmente invasivos.[5] De igual modo, Zizek oferece a formulação de que existe uma inerente contradição nas crenças antissemíticas do “particularismo” e do “cosmopolitismo” judeus. Mas, diz MacDonald:

A concordância entre os termos de cada um daqueles itens não é autocontraditória. Tais atitudes são provavelmente componente comum dos processos reativos discutidos em  Separation and Its Discontents. Os judeus são vistos por estes antissemitas como membros de um grupo fortemente coesivo, que tenta penetrar os círculos de poder e alta posição da sociedade inclusiva, talvez até mesmo solapando a coesão desses círculos, ao passo que conservam seu próprio separatismo e espírito tribal. A crença em que os judeus devam sofrer restrição é completamente consistente com essa atitude. Além disso, estereótipos contraditórios sobre os judeus, representando-os como capitalistas e comunistas podem ser aplicados pelos antissemitas a diferentes grupos de judeus.[6]

De igual modo, as “contradições” de Rubin podem ser resolvidas bem rapidamente, tão logo seja evitada toda simplificação excessiva. Nunca ou só raramente os judeus são retratados simplesmente como “negrófilos”, mas são frequentemente vistos como estando de maranha com os pretos em lugares como o Sul dos Estados Unidos e a África do Sul, juntos, neste último país, para derrubar o Apartaide.    Até onde sei, esse comportamento nunca foi pensado como decorrente do altruísmo amoroso dos judeus para com os pretos. Antes, essa é uma união incrivelmente desigual, cujo fim último é servir aos judeus interessados em solapar a estrutura do poder branco nos Estados Unidos. A NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People], por exemplo, apesar de declaradamente constituir organização antissegregacionista, esteve fundamentalmente dividida  entre os judeus, que a dirigiam, e os seus badamecos pretos. Como Hasia Diner registra no seu In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915–1935, muitos na direção judaica da NAACP “trabalhavam mais intensamente com outros judeus.”[7]

O enquadramento dos judeus como “os piores fanáticos” corresponde a esse caráter oportunístico e tutelar de sua relação com os negros e também à tradição da propriedade escravista entre populações judias, como ainda às referências talmúdicas extremamente negativas aos africanos. Por exemplo, em The Image of the Black in Jewish Culture, Abraham Melamed explica que os romanos tinham uma “teoria climática” da raça, na qual “atribuíam a inferior condição psicossocial dos negros ao sul e dos brancos ao norte à geografia e ao clima inóspitos de suas regiões”, mas também acreditavam na “possibilidade de mudança e melhoramento”. Em contrapartida, o magistério rabínico era muito mais determinista, doutrinando que os negros estariam “eternamente sujeitos à escravidão”.[8]

As outras “contradições” apontadas por Rubin e Zizek são igualmente frágeis. Por exemplo, a história mostra que a propaganda antijudaica representando o judeu como estúpido é extremamente rara. Ao invés disso, é generalizada a noção da extrema competência do judeu na luta pela vida, é notória a propensão dele para alcançar posições dominantes na economia, na cultura, na política. Existe, por outro lado, a subnoção de que a “genialidade do judeu” é exagerada e resultaria, na verdade, de suas redes étnicas de ajuda mútua, mas há pouca dúvida de que as tentativas de confrontar a influência judaica decorreram da necessidade de lidar com a ameaça real da inteligência judia e a consequente capacidade estratégica e organizativa do judeu. O judeu não tem nada de burro em nenhum lugar. Tampouco foi ele considerado extraordinariamente “artístico” em qualquer momento da literatura antissemítica. Na realidade, outra noção consensual do pensamento contra o judeu é que lhe falte genuíno talento artístico, e no passado isso foi ligado ao fato de lhes ter sido proibida a arte da escultura. A obra de Wagner Das Judenthum in der Musik pode ser vista como clássica a esse respeito.

Contrariamente ao que diz Zizek, os judeus nunca foram realmente retratados como pobres ou pertencentes à “classe inferior” da sociedade, tirante o breve período no começo do século XX, quando as primeiras massas de imigrantes judeus chegaram à Europa Ocidental e aos Estados Unidos, egressas do antigo Império Russo. Mas essa circunstância foi muito específica em termos de tempo e espaço, e mesmo então os contemporâneos observavam com frequência quão notável era a ascensão econômica dos imigrantes judeus. Outrossim, Zizek estabelece a oposição entre ser intelectual e ser um predador sexual, o que aparentemente desafia qualquer consistência lógica. Estaria Zizek sugerindo que intelectuais sentem menos desejo sexual? Nesse caso, então, como ele explica as vidas de alguns de seus heróis intelectuais, como Sartre e Lacan, que foram grandes predadores sexuais? Sartre vivia sob a obsessão da defecação e dos excrementos, como Freud, aliás, e Lacan deleitava-se de peidar e arrotar em público. Uma pergunta ainda mais importante: será que Zizek vê alguma contradição ou falta de lógica no fato comprovado da super-representação dos judeus tanto na academia quanto na indústria pornográfica? Outra: poderia Zizek apontar qualquer pensador antissemita que tenha atribuído ao judeu a dupla condição de “preguiçoso e labormaníaco”? Nesta altura cabe tomar de empréstimo as palavras da brilhante autodescrição do escritor Cormac McCarthy, ao dizer que o judeu “trabalha muito para não fazer nada”, ou seja, que os judeus se concentraram em negócios de não trabalho, especialmente aqueles relacionados com a circulação de dinheiro, nos quais eles se destacam como grandes inovadores, e outros setores econômicos que só podem ser chamados de parasitários.

Essas posições antijudaicas são todas muito consistentes. Entretanto, os acadêmicos judeus e seus aliados marxistas fogem conscientemente dessa realidade ou dela se protegem na inconsciência da autoilusão, persistindo na tese de que o antijudaísmo é, de alguma forma, inerentemente contraditório. Para Zizek, como para Rubin e inúmeros judeus, as “contradições” são reais e resultam da psique fraturada e dos desejos frustrados do “antissemita”. Rubin já opinou que “Os conflitos interiores têm grande poder e são vistos à luz do ódio de si mesmo ou à luz da simples idealização, do que resulta geralmente a polarização. Esta polarização faz com que seja necessário projetar características para englobar os extremos conflitantes.” Na realidade, esses pseudoacadêmicos estão carregando contra moinhos de vento — o alvo que eles imaginam atingir não existe.

III. O judeu como fetiche do fascismo antissemita

Num lance especialmente irônico, os marxistas também apresentam suas próprias contradições do antissemitismo e dos supostos aspectos psicossociais do antissemita. Além de dizerem que o antissemitismo é proposição ideológica contraditória, irracional e patológica, os marxistas também argumentam que há nele certa lógica, embora equivocada ou mal orientada. Este segundo argumento vem da teoria marxista de que o antissemitismo é manipulação pela qual a classe dominante oferece “o judeu” como distração ou “fetiche” para os trabalhadores explorados de modo que a exploração capitalista possa continuar. Zizek é um forte defensor dessa teoria.

Em sua conferência de 2009 na European Graduate School, intitulada O antissemitismo, o antissemita e o judeu, Zizek sugeriu que o antissemitismo começou quando

Predicados atribuídos aos judeus disseminaram-se por toda a sociedade. O comércio tornava-se hegemônico […]. Tudo isso não começou na Roma antiga, mas sim na Europa dos séculos XI e XII, que transitava do marasmo da chamada Idade das Trevas para a fase do rápido crescimento das trocas mercantis e da importância do dinheiro. Nesse preciso momento, o judeu emergiu como o inimigo, o intruso parasitário que perturbava o edifício da harmonia social.

Situar as origens do antissemitismo na cristandade medieval e não na Antiguidade é uma marca notória da apologética judia, uma tática para culpar os cristãos em ascensão pelo antissemitismo. A tendência alcançou seu apogeu no trabalho do historiador não judeu Gavin Langmuir (1924–2005), agora lembrado e celebrado pelos judeus e “psicanaliticoides” como uma “autoridade mundial em antissemitismo.” A explicação de Langmuir para o antissemitismo influenciou várias tendências que transformaram os estudos históricos das atitudes antijudaístas durante os anos sessentas e setentas. Estas décadas assistiram a certo abandono dos estudos focados nos indivíduos “preconceituosos” — trabalhos que predominaram nos anos quarentas e cinquentas, a exemplo da obra paradigmática A personalidade autoritária — e assistiram, paralelamente, à emergência de estudos nos quais culturas e épocas inteiras eram consideradas “doentes”. Nos estudos daquelas duas primeiras décadas já estavam fortemente implicadas condenações da cultura ocidental, com certeza, mas foi com trabalhos como Has Anti-Semitism Roots in Christianity? (1961), de Jules Isaac, e Anti-Semitism and the Christian Mind (1969), de Alan Davies, que as sentenças condenatórias ficaram mais explícitas. Langmuir aproveitou-se disso para pranchar a crista dessa onda.

Conforme esse novo paradigma das explicações psicológicas do “preconceito”, passou-se a considerar que grupos, sociedades e culturas, em sua totalidade (mas apenas grupos, sociedades e culturas do Ocidente, é claro), podiam sofrer processos psicológicos coletivos como a projeção e o narcisismo. A psicanálise teve decisiva influência no desenvolvimento dessa pseudo-historiografia. Na verdade, muitos desses trabalhos não foram escritos por historiadores ou cientistas sociais, mas sim por psicanalistas como Avner Falk. O trabalho de Langmuir seguiu o exemplo do que os judeus publicavam, negando que na Idade Média as populações judaicas tenham sido responsáveis pelas reações negativas da parte dos cristãos, como também imputando às sociedades cristãs do Ocidente  a profunda disfunção psicológica com sintomas de fantasia, repressão e sadismo.

Apesar de pouco saber de como evoluiu toda a legislação medieval, Langmuir houve por bem entregar-se rapidamente a pronunciamentos grandiloquentes sobre a natureza e as origens do sentimento antijudaico na Europa ao longo dos séculos.  Seus trabalhos, faltos de maiores leituras, o que miserandas evidências revelavam frequentemente, retratavam o antissemitismo como “basicamente um fenômeno ocidental”.[9] Arrogante, ele reclamava para si a glória de haver conseguido “definir o cristianismo e categorizar suas manifestações, inclusive o catolicismo, de forma objetiva”.[10] Descarado, ele confessou em seus livros que “não iria discutir as atitudes dos pagãos para com os judeus na Antiguidade”.[11] Censurador, ele dizia que as tentativas de formular explicações das relações intergrupais de judeus com não judeus em termos de racionalidade, interesse e conflito eram “esforços equivocados e pseudocientíficos de teoristas raciais”, e até mesmo que o tratamento do antissemitismo que levasse em conta as explicações dadas pelo senso comum seria “desastroso”.[12] Em vez disso, o antissemitismo consistiria, “tanto por sua origem quanto por suas recentes e mais horríveis manifestações … na hostilidade irracional do pensamento sobre os judeus”.[13] Langmuir parece ter situado sua discussão sobre as origens do antissemitismo no período medievo sobretudo pelo que ele mesmo disse: “Meus conhecimentos da história do Ocidente são respeitáveis, mas apenas a partir da queda do Império Romano, e eu me sinto mais à vontade ao tratar da Idade Média.”[14] Apesar do pretenso recorte temporal, as recentes teorias de Langmuir são generalizantes, e seu trabalho, tal quais os de uma série de teóricos judeus da psicologia social, como Norman Cohn e Joshua Trachtenberg, sofre ataque de considerável intensidade de Hannah Johnson, medievalista inglesa formada em Princeton, especialmente por seu Blood libel: the ritual murder accusation at the limit of jewish history (2012).

A única coisa que Zizek fez com a sua própria teoria é o quase plágio das teorias psicossociais já existentes, como aquelas de Langmuir, simplesmente substituindo o cristianismo pelo capital e deixando intacto tudo o mais no modelo interpretativo. A teoria de Zizek parte da mesma base, tem o mesmo viés da medicalização (patologização), as mesmas simplificações extremas e a mesma atenuação ou negação do antagonismo no comportamento judeu.

Quem quiser acreditar que alguma coisa nova teve lugar nas relações entre judeus e europeus no século XI deverá atribuí-la ao aumento e à expansão radicais da população judaica nesse período, não ao aumento do capital.[15] Em outras palavras, “os judeus emergiram como inimigos” na Europa Ocidental simplesmente porque “os judeus emergiram” na Europa Ocidental, e a animosidade terá sido produto do comportamento associado ao judeu emergente.

O aspecto problemático da datação que Zizek estabelece, entretanto, reside em que o antissemitismo na Europa Ocidental, se é que tenha algo de singular, originou-se no século X, com a formação de relacionamentos entre os judeus e a elite, sob os carolíngios, e com a estratégia antijudaica de Agobard, o arcebispo espanhol de Lião. O interessante é que Zizek não especifica nenhum evento ou personalidade que possa ter começado “tudo isso”. Tampouco ele explica se tais eventos como, por exemplo, rebeliões antijudaicas, seguiram-se a supostas crises capitalistas e suas consequências: carência, fome, guerra. A esse respeito, deve ser notado que o período carolíngio não tem sido descrito pelos historiadores como de expansão capitalista, mas sim de “completo retrocesso econômico e social”.[16] Então, o antissemitismo acompanha a progressão ou a regressão econômica? O antissemitismo dimana da prosperidade e da competição pelo excedente econômico ou advém do declínio econômico e da fome? Se o antissemitismo for expressão das frustrações dos trabalhadores explorados sob o capitalismo, então por que ele reponta em momentos tão diferentes como a libertação dos servos e a decadente República de Weimar dos clangorosos anos vintes? Zizek não tem nenhuma resposta a dar porque ele não se coloca essas questões.

Na sua palestra da European Graduate School, Zizek observou que “O grande mistério do antissemitismo está na explicação da sua persistência. Por que ele persiste apesar de todas as mudanças históricas?”. Zizek omite a informação de que o antissemitismo também persistiu em todos os contextos econômicos, incluindo o comunismo, o que torna qualquer interpretação marxista do fenômeno completamente descabida. Não obstante, Zizek apresenta a seguinte elucubração:

[O antissemitismo] implica a falsa identificação do antagonismo de um inimigo. Como todos sabemos, a luta de classes ou qualquer outra luta social é deslocada para que se lhe substitua a animosidade contra os judeus, de sorte que a raiva do povo que geme sob a exploração seja desviada das relações capitalistas para o conspiracionismo judeu. […] quando o antissemita diz que “Os judeus são a causa da nossa miséria”, ele realmente refere que o Grande Capital é a causa da nossa miséria. Os trabalhadores têm o direito de se rebelarem contra a exploração, mas eles dirigem sua raiva contra o alvo errado. […] o judeu é o fetiche do fascista antissemita. […] o antissemitismo é só uma manipulação por parte da classe dominante, que assim fica livre para explorar [os trabalhadores].

Essa tese é profundamente problemática, devido principalmente aos pressupostos do argumento. Entre as mais salientes dessas suposições está a de que a grande maioria dos antissemitas (aqueles que reclamam do comportamento ou da influência dos judeus) seja cegamente acrítica relativamente ao grande capital e a de que o grande capital e o estabilismo da classe dominante não sejam significativamente judaicos. Sem a aceitação dessas hipóteses não poderiam apresentar o antissemitismo como grosseira e contraprodutiva manipulação. A par dessas questionáveis conjecturas, deve-se também considerar que Zizek escamoteia a questão das relações especiais que os judeus, indubitavelmente, sempre entretiveram com o capitalismo, particularmente com o capitalismo parasitário, não orgânico (por exemplo, a agiotagem extorsiva enquanto contrária ao princípio básico da propriedade privada). Esses problemas serão considerados individualmente a seguir.

IV. As críticas antissemíticas do capitalismo

A assertiva de que os antissemitas seriam cegamente acríticos em relação ao grande capital ou, por isso mesmo, em relação aos excessos de qualquer sistema financeiro vai bem contra o registro histórico. Antes de Marx e Engels, havia instâncias de verdade, autênticas, de forte sentido étnico ou nacional inspiradas no “socialismo”, nas quais as reclamações contra a atividade judaica eram comuns. Um excelente exemplo é William Cobbett (1763–1835), trabalhador rural, jardineiro, comerciário, soldado, jornalista e político inglês. Cobbett opôs-se às leis dos cereais Corn Laws, uma legislação imposta entre 1815 e 1846 contra a importação de grãos mais baratos, a qual manteve artificialmente elevado o preço dos alimentos no mercado interno. Cobbett culpou a aristocracia britânica, cada vez mais presumida e tacanha, e sua mentalidade mercantilista — formada na rolagem de dívida — pela queda na qualidade de vida da classe operária inglesa e pela Grande Fome na Irlanda. O seu jornal Political Register é frequentemente considerado o pioneiro do jornalismo popular radical e foi o jornal mais lido pelos trabalhadores. Sua ferrenha oposição à aristocracia britânica levou o governo a considerar sua prisão por sedição em 1817 — quando rumores nesse sentido forçaram Cobbett a se refugiar nos Estados Unidos, onde ficou até que a poeira baixasse dois anos depois. Quando ele voltou, bateu-se pela Reform Act, de 1832, que ampliou direitos eleitorais e abriu caminho para a expansão da democracia nas Ilhas Britânicas.

Cobbett foi também um oponente resoluto dos judeus. Ele foi um dos grandes campeões da emancipação política católica e, ao mesmo tempo, inimigo feroz e incansável da emancipação política judaica. Ele acusava o afastamento do judeu em relação às massas, rejeitando a ideia de que os judeus deveriam ter voz no governo, a menos que se lhe apontassem “um judeu que alguma vez na vida tivesse segurado o cabo de uma picareta, que tivesse feito seu próprio casaco ou seu sapato, que tivesse feito alguma coisa, enfim, que não fosse arrancar todo o dinheiro que podia do bolso do povo”.[17] “Os judeus”, dizia Cobbett, “não merecem nenhuma imunidade, nenhum privilégio, nenhuma propriedade de casa, terra ou água, nenhum direito civil ou político. (…) Eles devem ser considerados alienígenas em todo lugar, devem estar sempre ao dispor absoluto do poder soberano do Estado, tão completamente como se fossem substância inanimada”. Ele enaltecia, frequentemente, a expulsão dos judeus da Inglaterra sob Eduardo I. O ativista acadêmico judeu Anthony Julius cita Cobbett como tendo dito que “Os judeus estragaram a França e destruíram a Polônia” e que os judeus “Vivem chafurdando na lama podre da usura (…), são extorsionários por força do hábito e de um quase instinto”. Julius lamenta que “O antissemitismo de Cobbett tenha exercido certa influência difusa sobre os radicais no começo do século XIX, pelo menos quanto ao vocabulário. (…) Cobbett gozou de imensa popularidade no seu tempo e deixou sólida reputação póstuma”. Em 1830, Cobbett publicou Good Friday: or the Murder of Jesus Christ by the Jews [Sexta-feira Santa: ou o assassinato de Jesus Cristo pelos judeus], e aí escreveu o seguinte:

[Os judeus estão] do lado da extorsão em todo lugar, colaborando com a tirania na exploração fiscal; e, em todo lugar, são ferozes inimigos dos direitos e das liberdades populares. (…) A pletora da dívida e da miséria é o elemento em que prosperam, como aves de rapina e bestas carniceiras, os judeus engordam em tempos de pestilência. (…)Essa raça figura sempre como ferramenta nas mãos de tiranos para espoliar o povo; eles são os fazendeiros dos impostos cruéis; eles dão apoio ao despotismo, que de outra forma não se manteria.

Em Paper Against Gold [O papel contra o ouro] (1812), Cobbett expôs sua visão de que os conceitos de papel-moeda e dívida nacional eram essencialmente uma “fraude” dos judeus com a “conivência” de uma aristocracia gananciosa e incapaz. A princípio lealista, Cobbett depois passou a considerar que, embora o conceito de aristocracia não fosse de todo ruim ou ilegítimo, a aristocracia britânica houvera traído e parasitado o povo de que devia ser dirigente. O fato de a aristocracia haver aderido ao pensamento judeu, por laços de sangue e interesses financeiros, havia sido sugerido mais fortemente no Political Register, de 6 de dezembro de 1817:

Agora que eles cometem a insolência de se referirem a nós como “as ordens baixas”, devemos estar preparados, dispor de conhecimentos aplicáveis, deixemos que esses diabos pernósticos se casem uns com os outros, até que, como os judeus, eles tenham todos uma e mesma face, um e mesmo par de olhos, um e mesmo nariz. Se puderem impedir que seja melhorado o próprio sangue com a contribuição de seus mordomos, e que assim sejam fortalecidos os membros de sua fragilizada raça, deixemos que façam isso; e vamos nos preparar para quando chegar o dia da derrubada deles. Eles nos desafiaram para o combate. Eles declararam guerra contra nós.

As visões de Cobbett marcam-se pela oposição feroz ao capital financeiro e à classe dominante, como também aquelas de “infames antissemitas” tais como   Wilhelm Marr, Adolf Stoecker, Georg Ritter von Schonerer, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon e Alphonse Toussenel, que combinaram uma crítica radical do grande capital com a contestação do papel específico dos judeus nas finanças, na cultura, na política e na sociedade. De fato, muitas dessas figuras locucionaram as razões pelas quais uma crítica separada e distinta do “Semitismo” fazia-se necessária. A principal característica do socialismo do século XIX consistiu no seu forte antissemitismo, o qual rejeitou alegações judeo-marxistas que se diziam parte “do povo”, e muitos socialistas antijudeus retrataram tais alegações como estratégias oportunistas e ocultas dos judeus para reassegurar seu poder sob a nova forma de governo. Uma das mais memoráveis manifestações daquele tempo a esse respeito foi a observação do socialista francês Pierre-Joseph Proudhon de que Karl Marx nada tinha de legítimo, sendo antes “a tênia do socialismo”. Proudhon (1809–1865), por muitos considerado o pai do anarquismo, via os “aliados” judeus aparentemente socialistas, a exemplo de Heinrich Heine, “apenas como espiões disfarçados” cuja agenda secreta deveria garantir a continuação dos antigos privilégios e validismos judeus sob a camuflagem de suposta justiça social. À luz da trajetória histórica da crítica antijudaica e da biografia dos seus maiores proponentes, a afirmação de Zizek de que o antissemitismo seria só “fetiche” para desviar o olhar crítico focado no capitalismo não tem nenhuma sustentação.

V. Os judeus, o grande capital e a classe dominante

Outrossim, a sugestão de que o grande capital e o estabilismo da classe dominante não são e não têm sido significativamente judeus ao longo da história      não tem sustentação. Zizek simplifica e faz caricatura da Idade Média como tempo em que “O judeu emergiu como o inimigo, um intruso parasitário que perturba o harmonioso edifício social”. Obviamente, Zizek emprega a expressão “harmonioso edifício social” com cepticismo e desdém, vendo a ordem existente antes da chegada dos judeus como minada por exploração, tensões e contradições.  Segundo o enquadramento teórico de Zizek, os judeus podem ser a força capitalista caótica que penetrou a Europa, mas esta já era uma Europa sob a ação de forças capitalistas caóticas, e por isso seria irracional culpar os judeus por qualquer coisa que tenha acompanhado sua emergência e expansão na Europa. Nesta altura, o que deve ficar claro é a distinção entre isso que pode ser chamado de o desenvolvimento orgânico das finanças na Europa[18] e os exorbitantes e, com frequência, extremamente negativos desenvolvimentos suscitados pela chegada dos judeus e as subsequentes relações especiais que estabeleceram com as elites europeias e com o capitalismo em si mesmo.

O desenvolvimento orgânico das finanças e das divisões de classe na Europa está demonstrado na evolução do feudalismo como resultado da adoção da cavalaria pesada pelos francos no século VIII, enquanto outros aspectos não militares do feudalismo continental surgiram como repercussões sociais inevitáveis dessa mudança na organização militar.[19] Como os cavaleiros precisassem de dinheiro, cavalos e seus tratadores, pajens, escudeiros e demais servidores, como ainda de liberdade em relação a todas as outras ocupações não militares, lavrar a terra, por exemplo, a cavalaria tornou-se emprego da classe superior. A crescente sofisticação tecnológica da guerra montada encareceu-a cada vez mais, estabelecendo aguda distinção entre os cavaleiros e os campícolas comuns. Daí que os camponeses livres tenham ficado menos valiosos como soldados, decaindo para a simples servidão. Foi então, em certo sentido, inevitável que a nova classe dos cavaleiros se convertesse na aristocracia agrária e seus membros assumissem funções jurisdicionais de nível mais baixo sobre os servos da gleba. Em tal contexto, de certa forma, realmente existia “harmonioso edifício social”, na medida em que vigia lógica clara, a qual deu competitividade às comunidades e a seus territórios numa situação de rápidas mudanças militares e geopolíticas. A classe dominante obrigava-se ao paternalismo ante os servos, sendo rara a exploração desmedida, porquanto perigosa e contraprodutiva, já que poderia provocar levantamento massivo, com quebra da coesão social e perda de seu valor militar. Logo, o edifício social era mesmo “harmonioso”, por sua coordenação e equilíbrio e, de forma geral, foi benéfico para a comunidade nacional orgânica.

A chegada dos judeus à Europa, sem dúvida, desequilibrou essas relações de classe e aquelas entre a classe dominante e as ordens baixas. Encontramos evidência desse desequilíbrio na Europa medieval nos documentos e objetos remanescentes, como ainda nas situações modernas análogas, tais como a Grande Revolta Camponesa da Romênia de 1907, na qual a ingerência judia na ordem quase feudal da sociedade existente levou a exploração a tal extremo que provocou generalizada revolta ante o colapso societal que se produziu. A chegada dos judeus à Europa Ocidental como poder financial e geopolítico remonta à ascensão deles sob os carolíngios no século IX ou, possivelmente, a tempo ainda anterior, em Narbona, onde os judeus destacavam-se como classe detentora de extraordinária riqueza. Em tal circunstância, foram engendradas as relações formais e simbióticas dos judeus com as elites europeias autistas que abriram gravíssima fissura nas relações de classe europeias. Os financistas judeus adentraram o harmonioso edifício social na condição de forâneos protegidos e privilegiados cujo único propósito era o de distorcer e acelerar a transferência de recursos entre as classes europeias, quando então a divisão interna das classes perdeu o sentido da eficiência comunal para corresponder a interesses de ganhos particulares. Nesse sistema, o paternalismo deu lugar a situações como a autorização do comércio judeu de escravos cristãos (a principal razão das sublevações de Agobard de Lião) ou a disseminada, extorsiva tributação do campo.

Um dos maiores mitos modernos, uma mistificação produzida pelo gênio revisionista judeu, é aquela história de que os judeus teriam sido forçados a tais práticas em razão de leis restritivas da propriedade agrária e certos outros contextos locais. Isso aí é o pior do relativismo historicista, mas felizmente toda essa deturpação e falsidade explícitas vêm sendo erodidas lentamente pelos estudos acadêmicos atuais. Considere-se, por exemplo, a mais recente edição do The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion, que refere o “notável” fato de que os judeus

foram autorizados a adquirir terras, seja em Narbona (899), seja em Gerunda (922), seja em Tréveris (919), seja na Vormácia (1090), seja em Barcelona (1053), seja em Toledo (1222), seja na Inglaterra da Alta Idade Média, se o quisessem. Os judeus não só tinham permissão para ter terras, eles tinham terras de grande extensão (especialmente na Itália, no Sul da Espanha, no Sul e no Leste da França e na Alemanha); possuíam campos, jardins e vinhedos; tinham, transferiam e hipotecavam propriedades agrícolas. Mas preferiam contratar arrendatários, meeiros e assalariados agrícolas para trabalhar nas suas terras. Para si mesmos, eles escolheram misteres mais qualificados e rentáveis, sobretudo a agiotagem. [20]

Basicamente, então, vemos o rápido e deliberado ingresso dos judeus na sociedade europeia a título de cavaleiro, ou graduação ainda mais alta, mas sem  nada da lógica ou dos benefícios da posição de cavaleiro para o edifício social orgânico. Nessa nova ordem social, a presença do judeu não se explicava senão pelo interesse no enriquecimento pessoal de certas elites e no enriquecimento comunal dos próprios judeus. Isso pode ser considerado como a primeira perversão do capitalismo e a primeira verdadeira exploração (desmedido ou injusto emprego de trabalhadores por nenhuma razão senão a tacanhice) da classe mesteiral dentro desse sistema.

Mais uma vez, opondo-nos ao relativismo historicista, podemos demonstrar o padrão corrompedor que apresenta o comportamento judeu no capitalismo pela observação de condições análogas na modernidade. Por exemplo, o sistema da  arenda, do final do século XIX e começo do século XX na Europa Oriental (especialmente na Polônia, Ucrânia e Romênia), era bastante semelhante ao sistema feudal na Europa Ocidental mediévica.

O sistema da arenda podia ser considerado amplamente harmonioso até a chegada massiva dos judeus arendasi [arrendadores] durante os séculos XVI e XVII, quando esses judeus foram se impondo como cobradores de impostos, agentes imobiliários, despachantes alfandegários e agiotas. O monopólio judaico nessas atividades levou à rápida mercantilização da terra e à expansão do grande capital, processos pelos quais os judeus esperavam beneficiar exclusivamente a própria comunidade. Como a existência das comunidades judias em sua totalidade dependesse do capitalismo parasitário, os judeus disputavam com unhas e dentes o monopólio de setores mais importantes. Por example, o Va’ad Medinat Lita (Conselho Judaico da Lituânia) por duas vezes aprovou resolução defendendo a permanência da concessão dos serviços de alfândega e arrecadação para os judeus, afirmando que “Nós já percebemos claramente o grande perigo que surge quando a administração da alfândega e a cobrança de taxas ficam nas mãos dos gentios; porque a alfândega em mãos judias é o pivô em torno do qual tudo (no comércio) gira, por isso os judeus devem estar no controle”.

O mais notável nisso aí é que a alta posição dos judeus na hierarquia social não se fez acompanhar de nenhum tipo de paternalismo. Em verdade, ao longo da história, os judeus notabilizaram-se por comportamentos de hostilidade e parasitismo quase inacreditáveis para com os europeus não pertencentes à elite.  Philip Eidelberg, historiador da Grande Revolta Camponesa da Romênia de 1907, descreve como os judeus arendasi “exploravam as propriedades muito mais ferinamente do que os arendasi nativos da Romênia”. Ele explica ainda que os judeus não estavam interessados no desenvolvimento das propriedades ou na satisfação dos trabalhadores em longo prazo, antes buscavam, com frequência, encarecer ao máximo as locações, a ponto de quase inviabilizar as quintas, “mesmo sob o risco de eventualmente esgotar a terra e estragar os equipamentos”.[21] Na Romênia, os judeus desfrutavam dos monopólios, e Eidelberg demonstrou que os banqueiros judeus recusavam-se a emprestar dinheiro para qualquer goim (não judeu) interessado em se estabelecer como prestamista no mercado financial.[22] Destarte, os judeus reservavam a ganhuça apenas para si mesmos, sempre estreitando o garrote vil no campesinato europeu. Eidelberg escreve que “O resultado da extorsão financeira judaica foi que o camponês era sempre o perdedor. Na verdade, essa competição restrita entre duas das maiores famílias de judeus arendasi — os Fischers e os Justers — acabaria por favorecer que a revolta rebentasse em 1907”.[23]

Os judeus, é claro, continuam a desempenhar papéis destacados no que há de pior e mais parasitário no capitalismo. Os judeus também seguem adquirindo terra com intenção parasitária, exemplo mais interessante disso sendo as atividades argentinas do oligarca judeu-britânico Joe Lewis, sonegador fiscal e especulador financeiro que abiscoitou bilhões com George Soros quando ambos jogaram com a baixa da libra esterlina em 1992. Como explica um analista, “A aposta de Soros e Lewis contra a libra foi o que realmente levou essa moeda ao desastre, depois de Soros haver ordenado aos jogadores de seu fundo para “sangrar a jugular”, agressivamente operando contra a libra, e disso decorreu a forte desvalorização da moeda. Apesar de Soros ter ficado conhecido como “o homem que quebrou o Banco da Inglaterra”, em razão da ganhança bilionária naquela fatídica manobra, Lewis ganhou ainda mais dinheiro do que Soros”. Enquanto esses judeus acumulavam bilhões, os britânicos amargavam a recessão econômica que rapidamente se instaurou. Lewis nem estava aí para isso. Ele repetiu a operação no México, causando a crise mexicana do peso, que “disparou a pobreza, o desemprego e a desigualdade no México, deixando seu governo refém do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI), pelo empréstimo conseguido sob os auspícios do então presidente Bill Clinton.”

Nababescamente enriquecidos no jogo parasitário da especulação financeira, oligarcas judeus como Soros e Lewis, ao lado de seus patrícios e grandes capitalistas Eduardo Elsztain e Marcelo Mindlin, começaram a comprar grandes fazendas na Argentina, principalmente na Patagônia, onde assumiram os bancos locais, as águas, o óleo, o gás e a maior empresa de energia elétrica da região. Depois de comprar dezenas de milhares de hectares, Lewis manifestou o desejo de fundar “o seu próprio Estado na Patagônia”. Alguns moradores locais quiseram vender suas terras. Mas um dos moradores, Irineo Montero, não quis. Ele, sua mulher María Ortiz e o empregado José Matamala foram encontrados mortos sob circunstâncias misteriosas. Lewis então conseguiu completar a consolidação das terras, pavimentando o caminho para a formação de um enclave sionista, o qual explora a população da região de forma tal que massivos protestos (“Marcha pela Soberania”) são organizados contra essa nova classe dominante judaica, dos quais participa 80% da população local. Segundo o jornalista francês Thierry Meyssan, ex-agente da inteligência francesa, Lewis é muito mais obsequioso para com os seus pares judeus e tem convidado milhares de soldados de Israel ao seu território a cada ano. No final de 2017, o ex-agente Thierry Meyssan declarou: “Desde a Guerra das Malvinas, o exército de Israel vem organizando ‘colônias de férias’ na Patagônia para os seus soldados. De 8 mil a 10 mil militares judeus gozam duas semanas de férias todo ano nas terras de Joe Lewis”.

O que se mostra patente aqui é um exemplo muito moderno do milenar padrão comportamental judeu de promover operações de larga escala para extrair as riquezas de uma nação e explorar o seu povo. Devemos fazer a Slavoj Zizek a seguinte pergunta, com toda a franqueza: o grande capital e todo o estabilismo da classe dominante não foram e não continuam sendo judaicos em grande parte?

VI. Kevin MacDonald segundo Zizek

Uma possível explicação para a ignorância de Zizek sobre o antissemitismo, tirante a cegueira de seu fanatismo ideológico, é a extrema falta de leituras sérias sobre o assunto, valendo a mesma explicação para o finado Jean-Paul Sartre e intelectuais marxistas de forma geral. Em relação a essa questão, é interessante dar uma olhada no tratamento que Zizek dispensa ao trabalho de Kevin MacDonald. Em 2014, Zizek publicou um texto em que faz menções a Kevin MacDonald, considerando-o “proponente de novo barbarismo” e, antes disso, indelicadamente, comentando Cultura da crítica, disse que “o mais importante é saber que esse novo barbarismo consiste num fenômeno estritamente pós-moderno, trata-se do avesso do que seria uma atitude altamente reflexiva e autoirônica — ainda que, lendo autores como MacDonald, o leitor fique sem saber se o que lê é sátira ou alguma ‘séria’ argumentação”. Em outras palavras, Zizek não tem nenhum argumento substantivo. Entretanto, como depois reportaram revistas tais quais Newsweek, Inside HigherEd e outras organizações da mídia de referência, tinha ficado claro que Zizek não só não lera Kevin MacDonald como também tinha simplesmente plagiado o sumário de Cultura da crítica de uma resenha publicada na American Renaissance. O plágio de Zizek foi primeiramente suspeitado quando Steve Sailer, num texto para The Unz Review, referiu que Zizek “alcançou alto grau de clareza na exposição de MacDonald que nunca antes vi em tudo o que li dele”. Coube ao editor de uma ciberteca quase desconhecida descobrir que o “alto grau de clareza” era resultado de uma cópia que Zizek fizera, quase ípsis-lítteris, da resenha de um livro de MacDonald por parte de Stanley Hornbeck, a qual saiu na edição de março de 1999 da The American Renaissance. Apanhado em flagrante, Zizek saiu-se com uma esfarrapada desculpa, até reconhecer que não tinha lido o trabalho de MacDonald, e que a ideia de incluir MacDonald em seu trabalho surgiu quando “um amigo me falou das teorias de Kevin MacDonald, então pedi a ele para me mandar um resumo delas”. E assim, com base em alguns comentários de um compadre e numa rápida síntese, foi que Slavoj Zizek, tido como superastro acadêmico, houve por bem condenar Kevin MacDonald, um professor titular e autor de livros muito bem referenciados sobre os judeus e a história judaica, como “proponente de um novo barbarismo”. Zizek tem razão: existe uma sátira nisso aí, mas o satirista não é Kevin MacDonald.

VII. Conclusão: o antissemitismo é uma “ideologia”?

Marx and Engels, no seu famoso conceito de ideologia, que Slavoj Zizek deve conhecer muito bem, explicam que a ideologia tem origem na superestrutura da sociedade (ou seja, nas ideias predominantes difundidas pela classe dominante).  Já deveria estar claro, a esta altura, que o antissemitismo dificilmente pode hoje ser considerado parte da infraestrutura, porquanto nenhum intelectual da classe dominante defende ideias antissemíticas de qualquer tipo. Nessa categoria incluem-se Slavoj Zizek e Jordan Peterson, figuras situadas em lados diametralmente opostos quanto à ideologia, à política e à visão econômica, mas ambos têm em comum posições quase idênticas em relação aos judeus e ao antissemitismo. Em verdade, o antissemitismo pode ser singularmente pensado como alguma coisa que permanece fora da superestrutura, preconizado por intelectuais orgânicos e ativistas que restam como os últimos vestígios de uma forma orgânica de sociedade submetida à perversão e à exploração ao longo de muitos séculos. Enquanto expressão pensamental e política da reação defensiva da sociedade orgânica, o antissemitismo assoma de seu longo passado ainda como a crítica mais radical, coerente e perigosa da ordem social estabelecida. O antissemitismo é a última, e única, ideia verdadeiramente revolucionária de nosso tempo.

Se nas ideias de Slavoj Zizek existir alguma coisa que preste, poderá talvez estar, ironicamente, na analogia do marido desconfiado. Voltando ao caso do corno manso leninista, recordo o pensamento de que “Aquilo não reclamado como só nosso, deixa de ser nosso”. A figura patética que se sentou à mesa diante de mim não perdeu sua mulher quando ela foi para a Noruega — ele a perdeu quando renunciou a seus interesses, deixando aberta a porta por onde, no final das contas, ela passaria. Nós devemos zelosamente proteger nossos interesses, nossas famílias e nossa terra. Contra competidores. Contra exploradores. Contra judeus. O que temos, nós mantemos.

Fonte: The Occidental Observer. Autor: Andrews Joyce. Título original:Slavoj Žižek’s “Pervert’s Guide” to anti-Semitism. Data de publicação: 20 de novembro de 2019. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

_________________________

[1] Aqui, particularmente, causa preocupação que Zizek defenda a tese de que “A verdade não é defesa”, um princípio vigente na legislação censora da livre expressão no Canadá e no Reino Unido.

[2] PENSLAR, D. (ed.). Contemporary anti-semitism: Canada and the World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. p. 3.

[3] HERF, J. (ed.). Anti-semitism and anti-zionism in historical perspective: convergence and divergence. Routledge, 2007. p. 11.

[4] MACDONALD, Kevin. The culture of critique: an evolutionary analysis of jewish involvement in twentieth-century intellectual and political movements. 1St Books, 2002. p. 449 (nota 120).

[5] Ibidem.

[6] Ibidem.

[7] DINER, H. In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915-1935. The John Hopkins University Press, 1995. p. 123.

[8] MELADMED, A. Image of the Black in Jewish Culture: A History of the Other. RoutledgeCurzon, 2001. p. 114.

[9] LANGMUIR, G. History, Religion and Antisemitism. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990. p. 15.

[10] Ibidem, p. 13.

[11] Ibidem, p. 275.

[12] Ibidem, p.19,67.

[13] Ibidem, 275.

[14] Ibidem, 15.

[15] Cf. JOHNSON, P. A History of the Jews. 1987. p. 205.

[16] HILTON, R. H.; HILL, C. The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism.   Science & Society, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 340-351. (Fall, 1953).

[17] JULIUS, A. Trials of the Diaspora. p. 401.

[18] Para uma excelente síntese sobre esse processo no feudalismo, cf. R. Allen BROWN, Origins of English Feudalism. Nova Iorque: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973.

[19] Ibidem.

[20] McCLEARY, M. (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 68.

[21] EIDELBERG, P. G. The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie. p. 39.

[22] Ibidem, p. 120.

[23] Ibidem, p. 39.

 

 

 

A Dissident’s Guide to Cryptocurrency

With various tech and financial companies cracking down on dissident voices, it is becoming more important than ever to support the leaders and organizations who are working to save our people. They are making the necessary personal sacrifices that the rest of us cannot afford to make. They need our financial support.

Although there are many ways to donate, many of them face privacy hurdles, which is an important concern if you have a job and family to support. Thankfully, such giving does not require you to give up your anonymity. In this guide, I will explain one way to do so safely—by using cryptocurrency.

Alternative Ways of Giving

Before discussing cryptocurrency, it is worth mentioning other, simpler ways to give. The most obvious is to write a check and send it via regular mail or to use the bill paying feature from your bank. The downside is that this is not entirely anonymous, which is an important concern for many people.

Some old-school alternatives that can protect anonymity include money orders and cashier’s checks, which you can purchase with cash at a bank or the post office. Click here to learn more about the difference between the two. It is also legal to send cash through the mail, although that is risky. Patreon and Paypal are additional options, but both are hostile to Dissident Right organizations and leaders. Neither is recommended.

Obtaining Cryptocurrency

How do you use cryptocurrency? For most people, the first step is to create an account at an established cryptocurrency exchange. There are hundreds of exchanges to choose from, but since you will be sharing personal and bank information with them, you will want to use one that is established and trusted (here is a review of some of that are well known).

The largest exchange is Coinbase. Other established exchanges include Gemini, Kraken, and Coinmama.  I do not recommend Coinbase because they have a track record of blocking Dissident Right organizations (including TOO). Those blocking efforts are easy to avoid, which I explain below, but why give your personal and banking information to a hostile organization?

Exchanges must comply with a variety of regulatory requirements intended to minimize the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering and terrorism purposes. That means they will collect information on your real identity (often confirmed by taking a photo of your ID with your mobile phone) and a phone number. They will also collect bank information to purchase cryptocurrency. It does not take long to provide this information, but it may take a few days for them to review and approve your account and any bank deposits. Like foreign currency exchanges, they will take a small percentage when you convert money from cash to crypto.

There are other, more anonymous ways to buy cryptocurrency than using an exchange. These include using Bitcoin ATMs and prepaid credit cards that you can purchase at a convenience store. Lean more about those options here and here.

Bitcoin (ticker BTC or XBT) is the most widely used cryptocurrency, but there are others. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a widely used alternative that reportedly has lower fees (don’t confuse it with bitcoin itself). Privacy-focused cryptocurrencies include Monero, Dash, and Zcash. I recommend these privacy-oriented alternatives over bitcoin for reasons that are discussed below.

If you want to use an alternative currency, first check the “Donate” page of the organization you want to give to so you can be sure that they take it. If you do not see your preferred cryptocurrency, try emailing them to see if they can accommodate you. Often they can.

Wallets

Once you have purchased bitcoin or another cryptocurrency, you are free to transfer it to others. If you use an exchange, you could make donations directly from there, but I advise against doing this. In some cases (like Coinbase), they have blocked certain Dissident Right bitcoin addresses. Moreover, if you give money directly from the exchange, you will be doing so in an environment where they already have your personal and banking information, which is hardly an ideal choice if you value privacy and anonymity.

Fortunately, it is easy to get around these privacy concerns by setting up a “wallet” off site. Wallets are a mechanism for storing cryptocurrency and they come in various forms, including online platforms that can be accessed via the web or your mobile phone. Here is a review of some that are widely used.

I prefer desktop wallets because they allow you to avoid going through a third-party web site, which might track your activity. One of the most widely used for bitcoin is Electrum. I prefer Exodus because it has a nicer interface and can handle multiple currencies, including privacy coins. Both are free and easy to use. Here is a review of some desktop alternatives.

Control over your wallet is maintained with a secret code called a private key.  All wallets will give you this information and ask you to write it down somewhere. This is only a worry if you plan to keep money in your wallet for any length of time, which I advise against.  Do not transfer crypto from the exchange to your wallet until you are ready to make the donation. Send the donation from the wallet to your intended recipient the same day. If you somehow lose your private key and lose access to your wallet, it will matter less if there is no money in it.

Before you send money to anyone else, try sending a tiny amount of crypto back and forth between the exchange and your wallet to get the hang of it. As you will see, transfers take several minutes to be confirmed and there is a small financial charge. You cannot reverse these transactions, so double check the address before you send anything.

Once you feel comfortable and are ready to send a real donation, you can find the relevant cryptocurrency address by going to the web site of the recipient organization and checking their “Donate” or “Cryptocurrency” page. There will be a different address listed for each cryptocurrency, so make sure you choose the correct address for the currency you are using.

Privacy Coins

Up to this point, this guide has focused primarily on bitcoin, which is the most common form of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin has some important limitations, however, the most important of which is that it is not entirely anonymous. Although bitcoin transactions are not tied to any particular individual identity (they are just numbers), they are transparent and can be easily viewed by anyone who knows how to use a blockchain explorer. For example, look here to see the bitcoin donations to the TOR privacy browser project. Organizations like the SPLC have been known to monitor the bitcoin addresses of Dissident Right organizations.

In theory, if you are careful to never tie your real world identity to a given cryptocurrency address, bitcoin’s anonymity is probably still safe enough. This includes never posting your cryptocurrency address on the Internet or using it to purchase goods or services, where you give your real name or real-world address to some vendor. You can further reduce the danger by using a privacy-oriented wallet like Wasabi (here is a review).

Fortunately, there are safer alternatives, called privacy coins, that go a step further and conceal such transaction information (here is a primer). These include Monero (XMR), Dash (DASH), and Zcash (ZEC). Monero is the most commonly used. It can be purchased from a variety of vendors, including the Kraken exchange (here is a how-to guide). After you purchase Monero, you can then transfer it offsite to a Monero-enabled wallet (Exodus is one; here are others) and make donations from there. As always, check first to make sure the recipient organization takes your chosen currency.

Donation Acknowledgments

When I make a donation, I usually finish by asking for a confirmation of receipt from the recipient organization by email. For larger donations, I often start with a smaller donation of perhaps $20 and wait for a confirmation before sending the rest. (If you don’t have an anonymous email address, you should create one. I recommend Protonmail over services like Google’s Gmail, which has been overrun by SJWs.)

Asking for a confirmation may create a minor administrative headache at the other end, but: (a) it ensures that your donation got through to the intended recipient; and (b) it gives them a way to stay in touch with you via anonymous email. It may also give you access to member-only benefits, like a newsletter or access to private portions of a web site.

Tax exempt organizations may offer to give you a receipt, which allows you to write off a donation on your taxes. This may affect your anonymity, however. Since I do not itemize my taxes, I never ask for a receipt.

Unfortunately, Dissident Right organizations are not always good at responding to confirmation requests, even when you are making a significant financial donation. I understand that they are busy, but good donor relations should be one of their top priorities. If they will not confirm receipt of a donation within a few days after you have asked politely, send your money to someone else.

Do Your Part

Undoubtedly, there will be some readers who have additional advice. Please share those thoughts in the comments below.

For the rest of you, don’t let complacency get in the way of donating to your favorite leaders or organizations. Start today by setting up an account at one of the exchanges. If you can afford it, you should consider giving at least one percent of your income every year to dissident organizations (something that I try to do).

We all have a duty to do our part. Don’t forget to do yours.

Interview with Nikolai Nehring at Erkenbrand Conference, The Netherlands, November 12, 2019

https://volkslehrer.info/videoarchiv/meeting-kevin-macdonald-at-erkenbrand-conference-im-gesprch-english

 

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII (Finale): Get Woke, Shoah Invoke

It’s a sad state of affairs when charity becomes weaponized, but here we are. It certainly wasn’t always this way—it was once an integral part of the old WASP establishment’s noblesse oblige to those less fortunate than they. As Alison Powell, Willa Seldon, and Nidhi Sahni write:

Throughout the 20th century, large US institutional foundations such as the multiple Carnegie foundations, the Ford Foundation, and The Rockefeller Foundation played an outsize role in philanthropy. By virtue of their large share of the philanthropic marketplace, these institutions were able to shape the thinking of policymakers, attract social innovators, and exert influence to bring together the private sector, government, and civil society. As a result, they played a vital role in underwriting social change: They helped to eradicate polio in the United States and then across most of the world; they provided 96 percent of Americans with easy access to free libraries; they helped to reduce smoking in the United States by more than 60 percent; and they promoted a “green revolution” that dramatically increased agricultural production.[1]

Certainly these magnates were not without fault by any stretch of the imagination, and a strong executive such as Teddy Roosevelt proved necessary to rein them in. There’s a lesson in that, an essential one, in that strong and responsible governance on behalf of the people and the environment is an essential counter-point to the all-consuming profit motive.

Our current government hasn’t the spine to curtail the cravenness and grotesque gluttony, the likes of which would’ve made the robber barons blush—for they are bought and sold, for one, and the true power brokers are not of the same Anglo-Saxon stock, for another. We have a government run by financial institutions and corporations for financial institutions and corporations; when it no longer serves its purpose, it will be discarded along with the country itself. As it stands, we have watched America become little more than an economic zone, a gigantic market, its founding stock the target of ultimate erasure through a mixture of malice and greed.

In Revolution from Above, Kerry Bolton extensively documents the bankrolling of feminism, “civil rights,” and other causes that have proven corrosive to the moral foundations of this country by foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. As with virtually all of the philanthropic charities established by America’s old financial and industrial magnates, once the original benefactor had died, the foundation was co-opted to be re-fashioned in order to undermine the communities and society it was ostensibly there to help. These foundations are becoming obsolete in the 21st century, however, with the predominance of private equity and the private equity model.

The private equity model has actually been adopted by philanthropies to some degree, but what is far more prevalent is the treatment of philanthropic organizations as investments. Lobbying is such a dirty business and has such negative PR, but charity and philanthropy…well, that’s another story. That’s how big business can couch the importation of a new labor force in humanitarian terms. That’s how big capital and multi-nationals can super-charge their efforts to knock down borders, socially re-engineer entire populations, and even ethnically cleanse those populations proving to be reluctant or troublesome.

The rise of the private equity model is one way in which Jewish capital was able to effectively corral the old WASP establishment; the growth potential of private equity and its relative complexity could rapidly out-strip the resources of the extant American ruling class and first enfold and then subsume them into the burgeoning neo-liberal system. Not that the WASPs were entirely hoodwinked—they had plenty of willing collaborators to do their dirty work in the World Wars, transformative immigration, the erosion of civil liberties, et cetera. In terms of adapting to the new model, Jeffrey C. Walker catalogues:

Over time, larger, more professional private equity businesses emerged, with whom the wealthy families couldn’t compete. Instead, those families began to invest through the new PE funds. The PE industry then began offering funds specializing in particular industries (such as health care, tech, media, industrial, or consumer), geographies (including the United States, Europe, China, and Latin America), and deal sizes. Focused on pursuing higher rates of investment return, these specialized PE funds enjoyed [a] competitive advantage.[2]

Now here’s where things get interesting; returning to Walker:

Like PE funds, these philanthropic funds are focused on specific objectives—for example, the sustainable development goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations. Like PE funds, they are managed by experienced, knowledgeable leaders who can apply the most current knowledge of impactful program design to their investment decisions. And like PE funds, they allow wealthy families to channel their funds to a larger number of organizations than they could reach if they tried to seek out one well-run, effective nonprofit organization at a time.[3]

This is almost surely the primary reason that “social change” has accelerated so rapidly. Speaking at the 2017 Global Steering Group for Impact Investment Summit, Sir Ronald Cohen, an “impact investing innovator and advocate,” believes that the field’s rapid growth will reach a tipping point and “spark a chain reaction in impact creation,” touching investors, big business, foundations, and social organizations.[4] We are witnessing that already. Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Abe Grindle concur: “Many of today’s emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to…audacious successes… Steady, linear progress isn’t enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change—and in short order.” Recalling a number of sentiments discussed in the previous installment, from Bank of New York Mellon Wealth Management’s paper “From Philanthropy to Social Investment” (2018):

Demographic shifts are poised to bring about significant changes in the philanthropic market, and this evolution is being accelerated by the emergence of newer, more dynamic models for giving and changes to the U.S. tax code. It’s imperative for both institutions and the individuals they serve to recognize how these changes will affect their philanthropic endeavors and learn how to navigate them in the most efficient manner possible…The continued evolution of the philanthropic market…will have a profound effect on how we view giving—less as charity, and more as a social investment…As philanthropists come to think of themselves as social investors, non-profits must also redefine themselves as “for-purpose” institutions. This must be more than a rebranding. An effective for-purpose institution must…aid in identifying opportunities across the investment spectrum…A “social investor” will endeavor to compile a portfolio of solutions that draws from both the non- and for-profit worlds…According to the Global Impact Investing Network, measurable investments in impact vehicles reached $228 billion in 2016, equal to 55% of the traditional philanthropic market. These vehicles, which fall under the umbrella of “social finance,” do more than just pursue a positive societal or environmental impact; they also seek to offer a satisfactory financial return…To [younger givers], environmental, social and governance issues are intertwined with financial health and long-term, corporate sustainability.

To some degree, this last point may be a “life imitating art or art imitating life” question, but most likely these “younger givers” have been conditioned to hold this view and are simply reflecting the neo-liberal architecture back at itself. In any case, the ruling class has indeed made “environmental, social, and governance issues…intertwined with financial health and long-term, corporate sustainability.” This is precisely the problem, and it goes way beyond “Woke-washing” brands with the rainbow. It is social and political engineering on a global scale. The ability to “seed” money/investments globally has allowed for a synergistic effect which, provided the present architecture remains unchanged or worse is built upon and expanded, can only amplify the stated aims of globalization. Though Walker obviously believes this is a good thing, look past his glowing language to identify the strategy at play here, a strategy I’ve provided countless examples of regarding Maine in particular over previous pieces:

There are now philanthropic funds that focus on supporting great new ideas from top social and system entrepreneurs. This has been a core strategy of groups such as New Profit, Draper Richards KaplanAshoka, and Echoing Green. New Profit, in particular, has been investing in social change for 20 years, and has supported the growth of nonprofits like Teach for AmericaKipp Schools, and City Year. Much like venture capital funds, philanthropic funds like New Profit install staff members on the boards of the organizations they support, where they spend three to five years adding value through the counsel, management insights, and useful connections they provide.[5]

This is the essential framework of philanthropic capitalism. The vast network of organizations are linked by personnel, history, ideology, and financial aims and ties. The various charities and philanthropies do not view their works as good for its own sake—there is always an ulterior motive, and it always involves an economic component. Creating social disharmony among whites is also good, too. Regarding the former point, consider the Rise Fund’s calculations on social investment; their charity is filtered through an economic lens of GDP and return on investment: “In the malaria world…organizations can measure the return on dollars invested in mosquito bed nets against lowering health costs and increasing a country’s 10-year GDP. The result has been a 15-to-1 payback.” Saving lives is a nice by-product, but those lives translate into more workers and more consumers. As Chris Addy, Maya Chorengel, Mariah Collins, and Michael Etzel explicate:

The partnership between Rise Fund and Bridgespan Group has produced a forward-looking methodology to estimate…whether corporations or institutions can evaluate the projected return on an opportunity. We call our new metric the impact multiple of money (IMM). Once they have identified the target outcomes, social impact investors need to find an “anchor study” that robustly translates those outcomes into economic terms.[6]

As I discussed with Nestlé and SwissContact, this is not about “empowering women” or “marginalized communities,” it’s about training a semi-educated and compliant workforce who will readily buy from the company store. It really is that simple. The role of capital in this process is essential; Capital Impact Partners provides an illustrative example, in their own words (emphases are mine):

Capital Impact Partners has continued to invest in shared prosperity, equity, and inclusion for its communities nationwide. With income inequality, mass incarceration, wealth stripping, and other forms of structural discrimination continuing unabated, breaking barriers to success for underinvested communities has become ever more important. Capital Impact announced…financing and investment efforts…to serve more than 14,500 beneficiaries and create more than 515 permanent and construction-related jobs…Transforming marginalized communities into places of opportunity comes from disrupting structural racism and discrimination in order to expand economic and social justice…Capital Impact also took a leadership role in exploring how financial institutions can be more inclusive of individuals with criminal records…Capital Impact’s…financing…create[s] new educational opportunities and…safe spaces for immigrants to live in communities across the United States.[7]

Specific examples include:

  • In Bridgeport, CT, Great Oaks Charter School is bringing high-quality education to a census tract with a 71 percent poverty rate. Eighty-six percent of the students who will attend the school qualify for free and reduced-price lunch…Capital Impact supported the construction of a 70,000 sq. ft. facility that will become the permanent home of Great Oaks Charter School…The school will scale up from serving 400 students in grades 6-9 to 750 students in grades 6-12, 15 percent of whom are English language learners and 20 percent of whom have disabilities. Great Oaks has…a focus on professional development for local students.
  • Brooklyn Laboratory Charter Schools is creating a high school in Dumbo…The majority of the students are expected to be African American, 85 percent of whom will be eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, and 32 percent of the student population are going to receive special education at the school. Because of its proximity to technology companies in Dumbo, the school curriculum focuses heavily on technology. 
  • Creating schools that intentionally reflect the socioeconomic, racial, and cultural diversity of the communities in which they operate—diverse by design—is a promising practice within education that is showing results. Citizens of the World Charter Schools (CWC) is the first national school network to follow a diverse by design model, creating an environment in which all students thrive no matter their background, precisely because they are integrated. Diversity is a cornerstone of school leadership as well, with minorities making up 60 percent of the leadership team and 40 percent of the board.
  • Tacoma Community House (TCH) in Tacoma, Washington…has seen an increasing number of farmworkers and refugees, resulting in a significant need for social and legal services…TCH is the only center providing comprehensive services to immigrants and refugees in the region. TCH serves immigrants from 105 countries – approximately 4,000 individuals each year. The majority of their clients are of Latino and Asian descent, with the remainder hailing from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Through partnerships with regional community colleges, businesses, housing providers, local health centers, and government offices, the center provides access to education programs for children and adults and job placement, internships, and training for job seekers. TCH also offers immigration services and advocacy.

Dovetailing with capital and “social justice” are the supports for the architecture of philanthropic capitalism, from the advocacy groups to the law firms. Add to the multitudinous alphabet soup of advocacy organizations the Alliance for Justice (AFJ); Edward Labaton, co-founder and President of the Institute for Law and Economic Policy (ILEP—introduced in Volume V), was honored by the AFJ as its 2015 Champion of Justice; what said “justice” looks like is the usual sentimentalized dreck readers will no doubt be well-familiar with at this point:

Immigration is baked into our DNA as a country. People from all over the world seek refuge and opportunity in America, and how we treat those who are new to our country says a lot about us as humans.

In conjunction with AFJ, a number of organizations co-signed a 2018 letter protesting several judicial appointments of judges who believe a non-Israeli country should have the right to police its borders. Included on the list of co-signing organizations were: the NAACP, Bend the Arc Jewish Action, MoveOn.org, CAIR, Rwandese Community Association of Maine, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project (ILAP), Maine Business Immigration Coalition, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), whose mission is:

To protect and promote the rights and opportunities of low income immigrants and their family members.  NILC staff specialize in immigration law, and the employment and public benefits rights of immigrants. The Center conducts policy analysis and impact litigation and provides publications, technical advice, and trainings to a broad constituency of legal aid agencies, community groups, and pro bono attorneys.

All of this is designed to ensure that the influx of foreigners is not impeded; among their many uses to the neo-liberal order, Third World immigrants are a huge investment opportunity. Mission Investors Exchange says as much: “Venture capitalist investors, philanthropists, and businesses are looking at immigrants and refugees as opportunities for investment.” They then list some of the major players:

  • Nuveen: Nuveen is a private investment manager that recently made an investment in an online-based remittance provider that focuses on channels in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The goal is to invest in technology to lower the cost of remittance for migrant populations.
  • NeedsList: NeedsList addresses the need for massive innovation in the humanitarian sector with a marketplace connecting local NGOs with individual and corporate donors.
  • Refugee Investment Network (RIN): The RIN moves private capital from commitment to active investment by sourcing, structuring, and supporting the financing of projects and companies that benefit refugees and host communities. They are creating an investor-centered knowledge hub targeting business opportunities that support refugee self-reliance; building a pipeline of deals that will speed and scale private investment in communities of displaced people; and articulating investor needs to funders, governments, and the development community.
  • Tent Foundation, or The Tent Partnership for Refugees: This foundation was established by Hamdi Ulukaya, founder and CEO of Chobani. The initiative, a partnership of over 80 businesses in over 30 countries, grew out of the Obama Administration’s appeal for the business community to engage more deeply with global refugee crises. In addition to sparking a $500 million investment commitment from George Soros, the appeal built a coalition of businesses expressing measurable commitments. 
  • George Soros and Open Society Foundations: Open Society Foundations founder and chair George Soros announced a pledge to invest up to $500 million in startups, established companies, and other businesses founded by migrants and refugees. The assets will be managed by Open Society Foundation and is in addition to its existing grant and program-related investments of the Foundations.
  • Community Enterprise Development Services (CEDS): A nonprofit lender that provides business startup training and micro loans to immigrant and refugee entrepreneurs, as well as entrepreneurs who face barriers accessing traditional sources of capital.
  • OpenInvest: This financial analysis and investing platform developed an investment screen allowing its customers to invest in the companies helping refugees. The company’s #WithRefugees Impact Investment Screen identified 21 public American companies making significant contributions to refugee survival and welfare.[8]

Mission Investors Exchange is a massive network of community foundations, public charities, private foundations, “impact investors,” law firms, investment advisors, asset managers, consultants, and community development financial institutions (CDFIs). Their aim is “to build an infrastructure that assures the sustainability of impact investing and expands [its] ecosystem.” Partnering or affiliate organizations include: the Boston Foundation, AARP Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Deutsche Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the John T. Gorman Foundation, MetLife Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the Prudential Foundation, Nutter McClennan & Fish LLP, Community Development and Investment Group at Northern Trust, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, US Trust—Bank of America Private Wealth Management, Graystone Consulting, the Climate Trust, Bank of the West BNP Paribas Wealth Management, TD Bank, Solomon Hess Capital Management, Maycomb Capital, National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), Cornerstone Capital, and the Omidyar Network.

The name Cornerstone Capital should ring a bell from Volume VI. Self-described “Jewish lesbian” founder and CEO Erika Karp penned an op-ed for Forbes in 2012 where she explicitly ties capitalism, globalism, “social justice,” and her ventures to Judaism, opening with a quote from Hillel and using it as a through-line, along with her Jewish identity—two themes which are echoed in another article by Karp from 2016, this time featured on Cornerstone’s own website. She states:

As we once again approach the Jewish High Holidays — “The Days of Awe” — we return to a theme we have touched upon before: the importance of amplifying the voices of progress…“The Days of Awe” could bring lessons to leverage the power of capitalism towards its best and highest purpose…In reflecting on the future of capitalism, we draw from wisdom of the great scholar Hillel…“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, then when?” These questions posed at around 50 BC are incredibly timely in the context of today’s struggling global economy and threats to our system of capitalism…All the pieces are in place to move forward and leverage the extraordinary power of capitalism on behalf of the entire world. We have everything we need across the broad realms of technology, science, academia, economics, government and finance…There are one thousand asset management firms representing $30 trillion in assets…These firms [are] all signatories of the Principles for Responsible Investment.[9]

The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) was set in motion by then-United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.[10] It is an official UN-supported network of global capital, “based on the notion that environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, such as climate change and human rights, can affect the performance of investment portfolios and should therefore be considered alongside more traditional financial factors if investors are to properly fulfill their fiduciary duty. The six Principles provide a global framework for mainstream investors to consider these ESG issues.”[11] Just two years after Karp’s second piece, the PRI had swollen to almost $90 trillion in assets under management and rising.[12] For perspective, the annual global gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to be approximately $80 trillion, and the collective global wealth is about $300 trillion. In other words, closing in on one-third of the entire planet’s wealth is under the control of this particular international network of neo-liberal capitalists who are facilitating resource consolidation and speculation, mass migration into and erasure of white nations, moral and environmental degradation, and Jewish supremacy.

Karp has also been involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation “strengthened by a strategic partnership framework agreement with the United Nations.” David Wallace-Wells describes its annual summit as “an orgy of plutocratic comity.” Comprised of NGOs, supra-governmental organizations, venture capital firms, multi-national companies and banks, diplomats, academic institutions, and media figures, WEF is essentially the last word in neo-liberal globalism. Partner and affiliated organizations include: Nestlé, Soros Fund Management, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, Hess, Walmart, Visa, Verizon, Hewlett Packard, Deloitte, ING, Western Union, Tyson Foods, TD Bank, the Rise Fund, Toshiba, Coca-Cola, Silver Lake Partners, Pepsi, Prudential, Pfizer, S&P Global, Nasdaq, Nielsen, the New York Times, Polo Ralph Lauren, Procter & Gamble, NBC, the New York Stock Exchange, Novo Nordisk, Morgan Stanley, Nokia, MasterCard, Allianz, AIG, Alibaba, AT&T, Microsoft, Marriott International, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, Adobe, Advantage Partners, African Rainbow Minerals, Merck, Lloyds Banking Group, Kaiser Permanente, Liberty Global, State Grid Corporation of China, Saudi Telecom Group, Johnson & Johnson, Lockheed Martin, JP Morgan, LinkedIn, Hyundai, IBM, Infosys, Guggenheim Partners, Gulf International Bank, Hydro Quebec, Huawei Technologies, HSBC, Google, Facebook, Heineken, General Electric, Hitachi, London-Heathrow Airport, Humana, HP, Ericsson, eBay, Dow, Humana, Emirates Group, Deutsche Bank, European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Dell, Discovery, Chevron, BP, BBVA, Citi, Cisco, Barclays, Bayer, the American Heart Association, Amazon, Bank of America, BlackRock, the Blackstone Group, Santander, Boeing, Booking.com, Credit Suisse, McKinsey, LUKOIL, PayPal, Thomson Reuters, UPS, Unilever, Anglo American, Investment Corporation of Dubai, Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Bank Leumi Le-Israel, Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, Bloomberg, the LEGO Company, Volvo, Anheuser-Busch, Volkswagen, Airbus Defense and Space, AARP, African Development Bank Group, Bain & Company, Expedia, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Iron Mountain, Investec, Ingka Group (includes IKEA), Levi Strauss, the Mayo Clinic, Scotiabank, Royal Dutch Shell, Royal Bank of Scotland, Stanley Black & Decker, Swarovski, African Export-Import Bank, Banco do Brasil, Prudential, Discovery, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, the State Bank of India, and Quest Diagnostics.

The future these entities are planning for us in what WEF calls the Fourth Industrial Revolution / Globalization 4.0 is one of unlimited mobility—ie, the mass movements of cheap labor/consumers and goods in the service of the neo-liberal economy. Ultimately, WEF and its affiliates such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) desire to “maximize…foreign direct investment on the economy, society and the environment” and increase “global economic interdependence.” These are central planks of its E15 Initiative, a partnership between WEF, ICTSD, WTO, UN, OECD, the Center for International Development at Harvard University, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Evian Group, Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory (BRUEGEL), Chatham House, Climate Strategies, the Global Governance Programme, the European University Institute, the Graduate Institute of Geneva Centre for Trade and Economic Integration, the World Trade Institute, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (named after the first president of Germany’s Weimar Republic),[13] the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Peking University National School of Development, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, International Institute for Management Development (IMD) International Business School, Kommerskollegium National Board of Trade (a government agency in Sweden that answers to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs), Southern Voice (a network of over fifty think tanks from the Global South that actively supports the UN’s Agenda 2030), and the governments of Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Canada, and Switzerland. Major features of the E15 Initiative include:

  • An emphasis on multi-lateral trade agreements styled after the Trans-Pacific Partnership that undermine national sovereignty and enforce a kind of “trade egalitarianism”
  • An international appeals process to undermine existing bilateral trade agreements
  • The removal of all tariffs by “developed countries” for imports from the Third World; near-removal of all other tariffs
  • “Scale technical assistance from the International Monetary Fund or multilateral development banks to LDC sovereign debt issuers”
  • Increase foreign aid from “developed countries” to the Third World
  • “Mandate within the WTO the disclosure and phased prohibition of fossil fuel subsidies, according special and differential treatment to poorer developing countries”
  • Create a system of global food stamps
  • Emphasize blended finance or hybrid-model capitalism as the preferred method of development
  • “Streamline processes and procedures related to visas and work permits and establish a plurilateral but open ‘innovation zone’…within which skilled researchers and technical personnel would be able to migrate freely for up to ten years”
  • “Establish an Advisory Centre on International Investment Law to level the playing field for developing country governments that lack the legal expertise to defend themselves adequately in disputes, based on the model of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law” (read: standardize all economic systems to neo-liberalism)
  • “Enhance local capacity to conform to global standards”
  • “Develop norms for making regional and plurilateral agreements more inclusive”
  • “Combining improvements in infrastructure, investment climate institutions and workforce skills with openness to foreign direct investment…Emphasize the facilitation rather than restriction of imports and inward foreign investment”
  • Establish a global supply chain
  • Mandate compliance with the Paris Climate Accord
  • Institute export restrictions[14]

Despite using the usual wet cardboard euphemisms such as “sustainability” and “equity,” Karp’s brand of “social impact investing” is not predicated on making a positive impact or anything of the sort—it is about crippling the West and countries like Japan, exploiting the Third World, enforcing globalism, and putting a rainbow paintjob on the contemporary vehicle of Jewish supremacy while generating previously-unfathomable profits for a small coterie of oligarchs. Amy Bennett relates Karp’s rough outline of the Shape of Globalization to Come:

Far from simply catering to progressive individuals looking to “invest their values,” environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors provide critical insight into a company’s viability and long-term economic performance. It’s not ancillary analysis, it’s critical fundamentals. This realization…was a pivotal moment for Erika Karp and a key to success in developing a truly integrated research framework…“Economics is a wonderful way to think about, and put a framework around, social constructs,” says Erika…[Karp] established relationships in different areas of the capital markets—including corporations, non-governmental organizations, regulatory agencies, exchanges, wealth asset managers, investment banks, accountants and others (including the United Nations and the Clinton Global Initiative)… It all involves having a macro capital markets view. Erika notes it’s not about moving millions or even billions, but trillions of dollars towards impact, especially when considering ESG imperatives like climate change, women’s economic empowerment, animal welfare, education, ocean pollution, potable water and increasing broadband access. “To give you a sense, in 2017 maybe $400 billion of venture money was moved towards alternative energy. We need to move $1.5 trillion a year if we’re going to achieve anything like the COP 21 [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] objectives. And that’s just for alternative energy. If you can’t get the capital markets working and having money flow towards progress, we won’t be able to do it…We don’t think of ESG or impact investing as an asset class. We think it should be completely integral to the investing process.”…Donor advised funds and similar philanthropy-focused investment vehicles are critically important “portals” for wealth management clients to access impact investing, Karp adds. “We are seeing a transformation of traditional philanthropy strategies towards impact investing.”[15]

This transformation is all-encompassing and signals a full integration of disparate modes of investment with philanthropic endeavors and different modes of lobbying. Essentially, traditional notions of public versus private are out the window, with governments themselves part of the investment portfolio, so long as they serve as profitable vehicles and/or useful intermediaries. As it is, funneling huge funds through various philanthropic loopholes pads profits through tax exemptions and amplifies the ability of investors and big capital to influence the political process, as we will see below. The goal, as stated by Cornerstone Capital, is for “partnerships, integration of philanthropy into business strategies, and innovative types of investments, including impact-focused investments, [to] transform the traditional economy.”

The integrative approach promises mutual support and amplified profits, in addition to the financial interests and incentives already present in each sphere. For example, the VOLAGs (refugee re-settlement agencies) have already monetized migration through per-head payouts. For perspective, the smallest of those active in the United States, the Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC), received $16.3 million from government contracts in 2014 as well as donations from the Open Society Institute, Komen Foundation, the United Way, Tides Foundation, Citi Foundation (CitiBank), and others, per the Capital Research Center. Further:

ECDC testified before Congress last year that the Unaccompanied Alien Children crisis could “lead to the demise of the refugee resettlement program as we know it.” This was primarily a funding concern…ECDC provides a wide variety of services to refugees, and is involved in other contractual services as well, for example Small Business Administration microloans for new minority businesses.[16]

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) does all of this and more, and has gone one step further in profiting off mass migration into the US—HIAS has an agreement under which it collects on loans given out by the International Office of Migration (“IOM”) to refugees. HIAS keeps 25% of the total amounts collected, and recognizes it as migrant loan processing fees and repayments revenue in the accompanying consolidated statements of activities. HIAS’s corporate partners include Airbnb, 3M, Starbucks, Marriott, and Sodexo. Surely there is no vested interest in having cheap labor by these companies. HIAS also received over $21 million from the US State Department in 2016 and over $3 million from the US Department of Health and Human Services.[17]

The VOLAGs are reinforced by the plethora of law firms, advocacy groups, and other charities that either profit directly from their services or indirectly as covert lobbying organizations, fronts or conduits for illicit financial dealings, and/or social engineering vehicles. ILEP is a perfect case-in-point (incidentally, all five of ILEP’s principal figures are Jews, including Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling donor Marc Gross). While this 501(c)(3) generally stays within the lines of symposia on class action lawsuits and the like, its innocuousness camouflages a deeply subversive agenda. Consider that in 2018, ILEP partnered with Loyola University-Chicago for a symposium on consumer protection that featured Barney Frank as its keynote speaker. Yes, that would be the nipples-protruding (very, very disrespectful) Jewish homosexual Barney Frank who:

Accept[ed] as a gift a round trip fight on a luxury jet from S. Donald Sussman of Paloma Partners, a hedge-fund manager who had previously received a $200 million federal bailout as a subsidiary of AIG. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank oversaw the dispersion of the bailout funds. Frank reported the cost of the 2009 flight from Maine to the Virgin Islands, estimated to be worth $30,000 each way, to Congress as worth only $1,500…Scandal is nothing new to Barney Frank. The Boston Globe asked him to resign in 1989 after it was revealed that he had fixed parking tickets for a male prostitute who was running a brothel out of his Dupont Circle condominium…While serving on the House Financial Services Committee, Frank consistently supported the expansion of questionable mortgage loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while his partner, Herb Moses, was an assistant director of Fannie Mae responsible for relaxing mortgage standards. This policy, of which Frank was a prime mover, led to the largest credit implosion in the history of civilization…Frank, who continued to promote dangerous credit expansionary policies throughout the Bush years, subsequently partnered with Sergio Pombo, who was an employee of the World Bank…Frank consistently reaped campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as from various banks…As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank inserted a special provision into bailout legislation to grant $12 million in TARP funds for One United Bank, a bank connected to the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters.[18]

I’ve used the adjective “incestuous” to describe the ruling class before, and clearly with good reason.

Let’s consider one example of how an earlier version of the (still evolving/metastasizing) neo-liberal hybrid model was able to manufacture consensus for “gay rights issues,” which would prove the harbinger for the recent push toward “transgender rights” and the normalization of pedophilia and other disturbing trends no healthy society would ever tolerate:

After Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003, the following year 11 states enacted amendments banning same-sex marriage, often by sweeping vote margins. Eager to put substantial funds behind the fight for marriage equality, major funders led by the Gill Foundation and the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund brought together more than two dozen LGBTQ leaders in 2005 to devise a common strategy. What emerged from this gathering became known as the “road map to victory,” which would create an electoral and public opinion infrastructure capable of winning and maintaining support for same-sex marriage, one state at a time. It identified 100 tangible battlefields that could then be pursued in sequence as part of a coordinated field operation…Funders came together as the Civil Marriage Collaborative to support the road map. The Haas, Jr. Fund itself contributed $39 million. Marriage equality was a classic example of using a big bet to wage an advocacy campaign. Here, the role of philanthropy is to take a risk that no one else will take. Such a big bet can provide the critical infrastructure required for movements: materials, people, transportation, legal services, research, and more. It can also represent a vote of confidence, especially when the odds against progress are high. When the Haas, Jr. Fund made its first contributions in support of marriage equality, momentum seemed to be going in the opposite direction, with more and more states amending their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Big investments in advocacy offer leaders the time they need to weather defeats and press forward to create change.[19]

The authors then go on to state that this model is being applied to “gun control,” which I have written about elsewhere (side note: this “philanthropic endeavor” is currently being spearheaded by Michael Bloomberg). Gay marriage was a sustained, coordinated, and well-funded campaign to manufacture an issue, wear the traditional institutions down, and ultimately impose an agenda through a combination of dubious legislation, judicial activism, bureaucratic machinations, executive fiat, media manipulation, academic indoctrination, mass marketing, and social pressure. Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Abe Grindle expand on the methods used to institutionalize the objectionable:

Tim Gill and other philanthropists who support LGBTQ rights demonstrated the importance of setting milestones. In the early 2000s, at the urging of movement leaders including attorney Evan Wolfson,[20] they began devoting considerable resources to the very specific objective of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. For decades the movement had focused on the broad goal of “advancing LGBTQ rights,” and although that work continued, leaders hoped that a significant push on a concrete winnable milestone would more powerfully advance the larger cause. They further concentrated efforts on a targeted set of states in order to build momentum and lay the public and legal foundations for a national victory…The marriage equality movement struggled to connect with the general public as recently as 2008, even losing a well-funded ballot initiative in left-leaning California. In the aftermath of that and other setbacks, supportive philanthropists financed polling and focus groups to help movement leaders understand how to reframe the core message. The research revealed that many voters perceived the movement as driven primarily by same-sex couples’ desire for the government benefits and rights conferred by marriage—and they did not find that a gripping rationale. This insight was pivotal: The movement refocused its communications strategy on equality of love and commitment, arguing that “love is love”—a message that struck a chord. Victories piled up, culminating in the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.[21]

These 501(c)(3)s serve a vital role in subversion under the guise of charity, among their many other functions, as we’ve seen. Additionally, many of these 501(c)(3)s such as HIAS have diverse investment portfolios that include mutual funds (HIAS also invests in the State of Israel government bonds). As Wesley B. Truitt informs, “A number of mutual funds feature investments that are socially responsible according to criteria advertised by the fund…The Timothy Plan fund avoids investing in companies whose practices are considered contrary to Judeo-Christian principles.” The 501(c)(3)s are often a valuable conduit and/or cover for major profit-making ventures. The ability of the 501(c)(3)s to then invest tax-exempt money in donor-advised funds (DAFs) is one major reason for their increasing popularity among investors. From the Ropes & Gray LLP document, “Beyond the Private Foundation” (March 2018):

With the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, private foundations were required to contend with many new regulatory requirements and restrictions…Subsequent rulings…confirmed the advantages of the DAF model. In 1987, the Internal Revenue Service lost its attempt to deny tax-exempt status to a public charity that existed almost exclusively to maintain DAFs and other donor-recommended charitable projects. Several years later, the Internal Revenue Service granted tax-exempt status to a non-profit organization established to maintain DAFs and affiliated with Fidelity Investments, namely, the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. Since then, DAFs have flourished. In 2016, there were reported to be almost 285,000 DAF accounts holding assets worth nearly $85 billion.

Grants from donor-advised funds to charities increased almost 20 percent from 2016 to 2017, with the number of individual donor-advised funds growing a whopping 60.2 percent. Charitable assets increased 27.3 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 (S&P Index) rose by 18.4 percent, or over 400 points, in 2017.[22] Scholars have found that the “strongest predictor [of individual giving] is the S&P Index…a 100 point increase in the index is associated with a $1.7 billion increase in charitable deductions.” Roughly 60 percent of the contributions to donor-advised funds are non-cash assets such as publicly traded securities, closely held stock, real estate, and personal property.[23] Donor-advised funds are fast becoming the preferred method of choice for investors, though not the only one. More capital and other assets are also flowing through a variety of linked structures, such as LLCs and 501(c)(4)s in an increasingly inter-connected fashion. Alison Powell, Willa Seldon, and Nidhi Sahni explain:

Living donors are also increasingly willing to forgo the tax benefit of putting funds into a foundation and are embracing alternative legal structures that enable both for-profit investing and nonprofit giving, or giving to political donations and advocacy. These structures include limited-liability companies (LLCs, which allow for greater control of funds and stocks, diversity of investment options, and more privacy than a foundation) and the 501(c)(4) structure (which allows social welfare organizations to participate in political campaigns and lobbying while maintaining their nonprofit status). For example, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Omidyar Network, and the Emerson Collective (run by Laurene Powell Jobs) have all set up LLCs to allow for advocacy or impact investing. Even a more traditional institution, the Walton Family Foundation, has set up multiple 501(c)(4)s to support its focus areas.[24]

To tie these last few strands together, we must understand that from the destruction of social cohesion in Western countries to the swollen profits, the nexus of capital and control with philanthropy has triggered the exponential acceleration of globalization and is fast becoming the primary vehicle for a negative social and demographic sea change the likes of which we have never seen. The runaway worship of capital coupled with—and enabled by—the Judaization of society has produced these conditions, and only a radical reorientation back toward productive, substantive, sustainable, and ethnocentric values—not those built on speculation and the veneration of the alien and the dysgenic—can counter-act the destruction. One need look no further than Russia in the 1990s compared to Russia today. Imperfect, yes, but vastly improved.

The Jewishness of Karp and company is not incidental, nor is this some kind of novel outlier. The modern concept of DAFs can be traced back to the late nineteenth century, when the first federated charity, the Jewish Federation, was established in Boston. By the mid-1930s, donor-advised funds began to proliferate within the Jewish community and were usually housed at local Community Foundations and Jewish Federations. As previously evidenced, this remains central to the disbursal of funds, which inevitably come with strings attached. These Jewish Community Foundations are massively profitable in their own right, as Alyssa Ochs reports:

The year 2017 was yet another record-breaking year for the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles (JCFLA) because it gave the highest dollar amount in grants in the funder’s history—$100 million. Back in 2016, the funder gave $81 million, so this was a 23 percent increase. In 2015, the foundation and its donors made $96 million in grants, a 35 percent increase over $71 million the year before…We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Jewish giving is going strong and getting even stronger by the year. At the end of 2017, the foundation’s total charitable assets under management was $1.25 billion, which is a 14 percent increase from 2016. JCFLA opened 58 new donor advised funds just last year as well. Overall, the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles manages assets for over 1,300 families…Jewish donors who work through community foundations like this often have a very global perspective and give a lot of money to Israel and Jewish outreach areas in other parts of the world…Another trend that we’ve been noticing lately among Jewish foundations is an increasing willingness to support non-Jewish groups.[25]

We know this from our early investigation of Catholic Charities. There is also the matter of not just outsourced and internalized Jewishness, but the very essence of Judaism forming the back-bone of neo-liberal capital, as evidenced by Erika Karp’s own admission. What we are witnessing is the next stage in Judeo-neo-liberalism’s evolution; from “internationalism” and communism in the first half of the twentieth century—financed primarily by Jewish capitalists such as Olof Aschberg and Jacob Schiff in its early Soviet days and supported well into the 1950s as an extension of Judaism—to Cultural Bolshevism and the dawn of neo-liberalism in its second half, this third act is far more dangerous for its pervasiveness and intrusiveness, and the fact that an induced paralysis of government and consumer at best, an active facilitation of their own destruction at worst, gives the primary drivers carte blanche to act with impunity and steamroll what little resistance they presently encounter.

That said, the neo-liberal globalist system is also incredibly fragile and is largely built on a house of cards. If there’s a silver lining, it’s that the golden gilding of the neo-liberal age is one or two hard shoves away from crashing to pieces. It requires constant maintenance, policing, and expansion to work, and may well collapse under its own weight in the absence of any powerful external force. With a firm grasp of the methods, institutions, actors, and aims in hand, though, the right entity or coalition may well be able to put the shambolic corpse down for good sooner rather than later, and construct a far more fair and natural system. To my mind, the end goal must be to allow for the self-determination of all peoples, respecting the environment and human bio-diversity so that all may have a healthy and happy homeland to call their own.


[1] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining_institutional_philanthropy

[2] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/attracting_greater_philanthropic_funding_the_private_equity_model

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://hbr.org/2019/01/calculating-the-value-of-impact-investing

[5] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining_institutional_philanthropy

[6] https://hbr.org/2019/01/calculating-the-value-of-impact-investing

[7] https://www.capitalimpact.org/2018-third-quarter-financing/

[8] https://missioninvestors.org/resources/foundations-and-others-investing-immigrants-migrants-and-refugees

[9] https://cornerstonecapinc.com/hillels-voice/

[10] Yes, this Annan: “Annan’s real legacy was to continue the trend of morphing the secretary-general’s administrative responsibilities into a symbolic role to justify jet-setting across the globe. He continued that in his retirement, flailing hopelessly in Syria (despite his organization’s huge budget), and bankrupting his own Global Humanitarian Forum through gross mismanagement. His son Kojo first used his father’s credentials to make a quick buck, and then took corruption to a new level, as his prominent feature in the Panama Papers.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kofi-annan-represented-all-that-is-wrong-about-the-united-nations

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_for_Responsible_Investment

[12] https://www.unpri.org/annual-report-2018/how-we-work/the-pri-in-numbers

[13] “The FES was a section of the Social Democratic Education and Culture Organisation, and was banned along with the party itself in 1933 by the Nazis. In 1946, the FES was reinstituted at the founding assembly of the Socialist German Student Federation. In 1954, the FES was restructured into a charitable organisation ‘for the advancement of democratic education.’ This established the FES as an independent, self-contained institute. In addition to education programmes, the FES has also worked in the area of development aid since the 1960s. In this effort, it has supported democracy and freedom movements, for instance in the African National Congress (ANC), and played an important role in overcoming dictatorial regimes in Greece, Spain, and Portugal.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Ebert_Foundation

[14] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/E15/WEF_Full_Report_Strengthening_Global_Trade_Investment_System_21st_Century.pdf

[15] https://real-leaders.com/the-economics-of-sustainable-and-impact-investing/

[16] https://capitalresearch.org/article/refugee-resettlement-the-lucrative-business-of-serving-immigrants/

[17] https://www.hias.org/sites/default/files/hias_inc._12-31-2016_-_sf_fs_-_final_report.pdf

[18] https://www.wnd.com/2010/10/217209/

[19] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/becoming_big_bettable#sidebar1

[20] Jewish

[21] https://hbr.org/2017/09/audacious-philanthropy

[22] https://www.nptrust.org/reports/daf-report/

[23] Ibid.

[24] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining_institutional_philanthropy

[25] https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2018/9/14/two-jewish-foundation-trends-even-secular-groups-should-know-about

Sociology as Religion, Part 1

Christian Smith, The Sacred Project of American Sociology.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

The Left’s seizure of the academy has been manifest for some time. Christian Smith’s The Sacred Project is a case study of this phenomenon in a discipline where the Left’s grip is near total, analyzed from the perspective of his specialty — the sociology of religion.

Smith, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, believes academic sociology had an auspicious beginning as a scientific, secular, and naturalistic enterprise. Over time, however, it lost much of its scholarly objectivity. Today, “American sociology is, rightly understood, actually a profoundly sacred project” (X).  The author uses the term sacred in the Durkheimian sense of something holy, revered, and beyond question.[1]

To my mind the sacred project that Smith describes in Chapter 1 bears a striking similarity to the cultural Marxist or Social Justice ideologies, though he does not use those terms.  This sacred project (thenceforth, the Project) is a spiritual quest, a secular religion that seeks to end human inequality, human hierarchies, and constraints on humans by other humans, and even by nature. Such utopian and unobtainable goals have in the past, and will in the future, lead to frustration and fanaticism.

Political ideologies can, at times, be nebulous concepts, and some dislike using the Left-Right axis. But that model is useful here for contrast. The authentic Right believes that it is noble to be bound by duty and loyalty to one’s family, community, and ethny. Rather than equality they celebrate excellence — strength, beauty, and intelligence. Inequality and hierarchy are intrinsic to the human condition, and constraint upon individuals and groups is often a positive necessity. And while the Right, if in power, would seek to end injustice, exploitation, and poverty these efforts would not be global, but focused on their own ethnic communities.

In contrast, The Project is ultimately self-centered individualism. It seeks “the emancipation, equality, and moral affirmation of all human beings as autonomous self-directing individual agents . . . [who should] live their lives as they personally so desire by constructing their own favored identities, entering and existing relationships as them choose . . .” (7-8). Though he concedes that “the Marxist tradition” adds a “revolutionary and socially utopian edge,” and “a therapeutic outlook . . . received from the Freudian tradition,” has influenced it, Smith believes the Project is, at its core, simply Western individualism within the larger Enlightenment tradition (9). This is certainly one perspective, the Project as liberalism taken to its illogical extreme.  I disagree with this assessment, and the author returns to the Project’s origins in Chapter four, so more on this later.[2]

The author is certainly not on the dissident Right, and though he does seem to hold some traditional social views he claims he is not even a conservative. I would perhaps place him as a Christian centrist on the ideological spectrum. While highly critical of the Project, he has mixed feelings about its goals. He probably faults their means more than their ends. The Project’s current agenda is simply a bridge too far. But worse, it has hijacked sociology, “the queen of the social sciences,” to serve as its vehicle, compromising the discipline’s scientific impartiality and scholarly integrity in the process.[3]

Smith characterizes the Project as “transformational,” “radical,” even “revolutionary,” not remedial or reformist. This seems to contradict his above assertion that it is rooted in an earlier tradition. The Project is elitist because, “in the end most ordinary people cannot be trusted (because they do not ‘get it’)” (13).

One of a Project’s goals is the redefinition of the family. Half measures, such as civil unions for homosexual couples, are unacceptable. Only same-sex marriage can “ensure the kind of social and moral approval, validation, appreciation, and approbation that people are believed to need to feel good about themselves” (14). The Project believes that inherited and ascribed identities such as race and sex can be reconstructed if so desired. Thus Rachel Dolezal can become a Black activist, and Elizabeth Warren a Cherokee princess – well, at least for a while. This one remains an aspirational goal.

How hegemonic is the Project within academic sociology? Smith estimates between 30 to 40 percent of sociologists are hardcore true believers. Another 50 to 60 percent are adherents, but less zealous. That leaves, at most, 20 percent who might not be on board, but go along to get along.

In Chapter two, by far the longest chapter, Smith presents his evidence of the Project’s takeover of sociology. He starts by examining the titles displayed at the book exhibit during a recent American Sociology Association (ASA) annual conference. These included: The Price of Paradise: The Cost of Inequality and a Vision for a More Equitable America; Breaking Women: Gender, Race and the New Politics of Imprisonment; The Hip-Hop Generation Fights Back: Youth Activism and Post-Civil Rights Politics; and Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys (32). Many of the books explicitly supported the Project; none explicitly opposed it.

Next the author looks at the books reviewed in a recent issue of Contemporary Sociology, an official periodical of the ASA. Only a limited number of books are selected for review, so the ASA considers these works particularly important. The titles included: Equality with a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and the Antifeminist Backlash; and Creating a New Racial Oder: How Immigration, Multiracialism, Genomics, and the Young Can Remake Race in America (38).

The Project’s reach extends to journal articles as well as books and book reviews. Smith notes that while journal articles may appear to be “more scientific” than the sociological monographs mentioned above, many of these articles also have a bias. The author looks at some recent pieces from the American Sociology Review (ASR). Like Contemporary Sociology, ASR is an official publication of the ASA, and “is commonly regarded as American sociology’s best journal” (47). One area of research is an effort to discredit work, such as by Robert Putman, that points to a “loss of social capital,” and increasing social isolation in America. This is often done by claiming research errors, sloppy data collection, etc. Another area for damage control focuses on worries about “the breakdown of stable nuclear families” and “the loss of a shared cultural language of community and responsibility” (48).  Because such concerns are associated with conservatives, and because the Project “is implicated in the sociocultural changes that can be criticized for being socially destructive” it needs to be shown that “all of the sociocultural changes since the 1960s, that critics have associated with the decline of social capital, connectivity, and community are not, in fact, really problems at all” (49).

Next, Smith notes that the Project involves not just “scholarship,” but also activism. “The ASA has organized a number of ‘activist’ conference programs for its national meetings” to promote social change and inclusion while fighting oppression and inequality (60). “[T]he ASA is explicit that American sociology is not only about conducting and sharing scientific scholarship, but also promoting social-change activism” (62).

Another category of evidence is sociology textbooks. Introduction to Sociology courses are often part of a required core curriculum for undergrad college students. So each semester thousands of impressionable 18- to 21-year-olds take these courses. I can remember little about my “Intro to Soc” taken many years ago, but today these courses sound akin to cultural Marxist indoctrination classes. According to Smith the typical undergraduate sociology course: “disabuses [students of] their common-sense view of freedom and responsibility . . . ‘empowers’ students to set out with others to change society . . . and causes students to doubt the value of their own cultural ways of life, thus paving the way for a tolerant multiculturalism” (73).   The chapter on “Sex and Sexuality” in one widely used textbook includes topics such as “homophobia, queer theory, hooking up (which has advantages and disadvantages)” as well as extramarital sex (i.e., adultery) (84).

Leaving textbooks, Smith has a section of evidence he terms “revealing anecdotes.” Here he writes that tenure can depend on a candidate having the “correct perspective” on social and political issues. It should be mentioned that obtaining tenure is usually the last hurdle in achieving a full-time academic position. First a student must be admitted to a doctoral program, complete a dissertation under the direction of a tenured faculty member, and be hired for a tenure-track position. Each of these steps acts as a filter preventing dissident academics from moving forward.  It is a closed system with little or no outside accountability. And over the years this has led to Leftist hegemony in the liberal arts and social sciences.

One result of this groupthink is falsified research that takes years to uncover and decades to refute. An egregious example is Lenore Weitzman’s study on the economic consequences of divorce. Weitzman, a radical Jewish feminist, published a study that reported a 73 percent decline in women’s standard of living after a divorce while men’s standard of living increased by 42 percent.[4] “Her study won the ASA 1986 Book Award for ‘Distinguish Contribution to Scholarship.’ It was reviewed in at least 22 social science journals and 11 law reviews. Weitzman’s findings were cited in more than 170 newspapers and magazine articles, 348 social science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 state court cases, and one US Supreme Court decision” (100).

At least one sociologist, Richard Peterson, remained highly skeptical of Weitzman’s findings and wanted to review her data which she refused to make available. After nearly 10 years of stonewalling “the National Science Foundation, which had funded Weitzman’s research, finally threatened to list her as ineligible for future research funding  if she did not release her dataset to Peterson – so she did” (98). What Peterson found was a mess of ‘inaccuracies,” “inconsistencies,” and a large amount of missing data. He replicated the study as best he could and found only a 27 percent decrease in standard of living for women and only a 10 percent increase for men. Meanwhile, another larger, better designed study found that both women and men suffered economic decline after a divorce.

Smith points out that this research on divorce was not merely an academic debate. It had real-world consequences. Weitzman’s findings were used by courts and legislatures to rewrite divorce laws, and men suffered real financial losses as a result. “In the end, the admitted huge errors in her research – which helped shape major legal and cultural changes on divorce, including some that profoundly affected divorced men – have not hurt Weitzman’s career. She is currently the Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Sociology and Law at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia” (101). And here the final kicker, nearly twenty years after they were discredited, “Weitzman’s erroneous findings continue to be cited today in the best-selling Introduction to Sociology textbook on the market” (104).

The Weitzman scandal is a stark example of confirmation bias, and the double standard used to evaluate social science research. Often if the research reaches correct conclusions—i.e., if it supports the Project’s agenda, such as Weitzman’s startling report regarding divorce, it is accepted at face value. On the other hand, if research findings are at variance with the Project there are inevitably serious flaws in the study’s design and analysis. No amount of evidence is efficient to establish a conclusion.  Such scholarship can be dismissed (in that favorite Leftist term) as pseudo-science. This laudatory praise versus over-the-top criticism is an effective method for guiding future research.

In Chapter Three Smith shows how closely the practices of academic sociologists resemble those of a priesthood of the spiritual enlightened.  First, there is the requirement of “a long apprenticeship of demanding training in graduate school to learn the right ways of seeing the ultimate truth about reality [and to] learn to transcend ordinary understanding of lay men and women” (115). Once one has obtained priesthood there is the need to “recruit new convert neophytes to the sacred project from among the most promising young students, identifying those who are truly called” (116). Finally, the chosen must be “alert and ever vigilant against false sheep, heretics, and traitors within the fold who threaten to betray the project.” (118).

Go to Part 2.


[1] Taken from the French Jewish sociologist Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912).

[2] I agree with the dissident Canadian scholar Ricardo Duchesne that we should not blame the Enlightenment for cultural Marxism. See: Gregoire Canlorbe, “A Conservation with Ricardo Duchesne,” The Occidental Quarterly, 19 no. 2 (Summer 2019) 32-35.

[3] In a footnote on page nine Smith approvingly quotes Gordon Marshall: “Sociology is sometimes seen (at least by sociologists) as a queen of the social sciences, bring together and extending the knowledge and insights of all the (conceptually more restricted) adjacent disciplines.”

[4] Lenore Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America (New York: The Free Press, 1985).

TOQLive: Thursday, Sept. 12, 2:00 Eastern with Guillaume Durocher

We called it off for this week/last week because of technical issue. We’ll do/did it again on Thursday, Sept. 12, at 2:00 PM Eastern. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Here it is today, when you have the correct file showing from Youtube, it will be the full 1:25:30 in length.
youtube.com/watch?v=iUsDA_Io-JI&feature=youtu.be

Scandza Forum: Oslo, November 2

On 2 November 2019, the Scandza Forum returns to Oslo, Norway, with an impressive list of speakers:

Edward Dutton, PhD, is a British academic and writer based in northern in Finland. Editor-in-Chief on the scientific journal Mankind Quarterly, Dr Dutton is the author of numerous peer-reviewed articles and many scholarly books, most recently: At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future, Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, The Silent Rape Epidemic: How the Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers, and Churchill’s Headmaster: The ‘Sadist’ Who Nearly Saved the British Empire. Dr Dutton burst onto the vlogging scene in January 2019 with his growing YouTube channel, The Jolly Heretic. This will be his first appearance on the Scandza Forum stage.

Kevin MacDonald, Professor Emeritus at CSU-Long Beach. He is the author of more than 100 scholarly papers and reviews, and he is the author of Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (1988), A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994), Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998), and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). He has also edited three books, Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development (1988), Parent-Child Play: Descriptions and Implications (1994), and Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development (2004). Cultural Insurrections, a collection of essays, appeared in 2008. In April 2015, professor MacDonald spoke in Stockholm on the psychological mechanisms of pathological altruism, at an event organized by Fróði Midjord and Logik Förlag, and in the spring of 2017 he gave a speech at the first ever Scandza Forum.

Helmuth Nyborg, Professor Emeritus of psychology at the University of Aarhus. Among other things, professor Nyborg has done research on the genetic heredity of intelligence and behaviour and he has written on “collective fraud” regarding the nature/nurture debate in academia. One of his debate articles in Danish mainstream media, from 2016, is titled “Danishness – culture or biology?”. Professor Nyborg has previously spoken at AmRen and he appeared on an interview with Stephan Molyneux on the topic “Race, Genetics, and Intelligence.” This will be his second appearance at the Scandza Forum.

Greg Johnson, PhD in philosophy, founder and editor of Counter-Currents/North American New Right, former editor of The Occidental Quarterly, and author of numerous articles as well as ten books, including The White Nationalist Manifesto (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018). Dr. Johnson is one of the leading intellectuals of  White Nationalism and the Alternative Right, and he has spoken at every Scandza Forum.

Fróði Midjord, founder of the Scandza Forum, host of the Guide to Kulchur podcast and Youtube channel, regular participant on Counter-Currents Radio, and an internationally appreciated conference speaker. Last year, Mr. Midjord spoke at seven conferences in five different countries.

***

Our theme for this event is Human Biodiversity, the suggestion that the diversity found among and between human individuals and populations has a significant basis in biology. Although the theory of evolution is well established throughout the West, it has for decades been taboo to apply evolutionary/biological explanations to human behaviour, and especially to differences between human populations and races. Popular culture and the political mainstream today has implicitly assumed the “blank slate” theory as an axiom for what can be discussed in polite society.

One famous example of this is James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine 1962 for groundbreaking research on DNA. In 2007 he told a newspaper that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really,” which would be an uncontroversial statement for anyone who is actually familiar with the research on the subject. However, the statement ignited a mass media witch hunt which resulted in Watson selling his gold medal in 2014, because he had been ostracised from the scientific community.

During this event, we will break those taboos, speak freely on the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate and discuss human diversity from an evolutionary perspective.

***

If you want to know more about our events, please watch any of my several appearances on podcasts and live streams where I have been interviewed about the Scandza Forum, including:

***

If you want to attend, please send us an email for information on how to proceed with the registration: info@scandzaforum.com

Since we have two conferences coming up, remember to let us know which one you want to attend (you are also welcome to register for both events, of course).

Because we care about your safety, we have a vetting procedure to make sure that everyone attends with honest intentions. There are three ways you can get admission to the event, so remember to include the necessary information when you contact us:

  1. If you have attended one of our events previously. Make sure to make a note of this when you send us an email.
  2. Get a trusted person to vouch for you (i.e., vouch that you want to attend with honest intentions and that you will follow our security procedure). If you know someone who has attended a previous event, or otherwise knows us, let us know in your email. Remember to also ask that person to send me confirmation that he/she can vouch for you.
  3. Send us photo ID and some personal details (e.g., address/phone nr/social media) that will allow us to verify your identity, so that we can make an evaluation. No anonymous registration is accepted.

This will be an unforgettable event – so make sure to register now!

Finally, I want to thank our supporters and donors – you know who you are. It is with their help that the previous Scandza Forums have been made possible, and that we now are able to move forward!

I am looking forward to seeing you all in Oslo on 2 November.

Frodi M