Review of “Romancing Opiates”: Personal Agency Is Critical

/43 Comments/in /by

Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy
Theodore Dalrymple
Encounter Books, 2008; orig. pub.: 2006

“Man is the only creature capable of self-destruction, and only man decides in full consciousness to do what is bad, even fatal, for him.” – Theodore Dalrymple

Opiates and their synthetic cousins, opioids, have long been a major topic in the public consciousness, particularly affecting White men. But much of what most people believe they know about these substances is simply wrong. British author Theodore Dalrymple has dealt with hundreds of heroin addicts in his career as a doctor and in Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy he makes several observations from experience that will be surprising to most.

Dalrymple begins with an interesting criticism of the much-vaunted value of freedom. In his time working in a prison in a British slum, he often saw new inmates who looked “as if they had just been liberated from a concentration camp.” They were visibly starving, showed signs of vitamin B deficiency, and had many sores on their bodies. This condition is not caused directly by drug use, but rather by the total neglect of their own health which frequent intoxication facilitates. He would remark to them that “for them, freedom was a concentration camp; their own desires acted as the concentration camp guards.”

The addicts’ health improved dramatically while they were in prison, and often declined again shortly after their release. Many of them were aware of this pattern and even asked the judge to keep them in prison longer as a result. “Freedom was bad for them,” Dalrymple explains, “because they did not know what to do with it.”

The standard view today is that heroin addiction is a medical condition, but this is wrong in several ways. Firstly, a medical condition is a physical affliction from which a patient suffers, not simply a behavior. There are medical conditions clearly caused by behavior, such as lung cancer caused by smoking, but even in this case, it is the cancer which is the medical condition; smoking is simply a habit. The cancer can be treated by doctors, but the habit requires the patient’s own agency to break.

This distinction is widely denied with regard to heroin. Addicts tell their own stories in a manner which implies no personal responsibility, and authorities uncritically accept this. Dalrymple reports on how many claim to have begun their addiction by simply “falling in with the wrong crowd,” but notes that he has never met a single self-identifying member of that crowd. Many will similarly claim that they are “easily led,” but none have been easily led to study mathematics or foreign languages. People are most easily influenced by and likely to “fall in with” those they look up to or identify with. Neither their social connections nor their drug use was forced on the addicts, but came instead from their own desires.

Further, the common belief is that addiction happens easily by simply trying heroin, as if the user has little choice in the matter. But even opiate apologists such as nineteenty-century writer Thomas de Quincey in Confessions of an English Opium Eater admit that this is not the case. Opium is very similar to heroin, and de Quincey notes that he took opium hundreds of times over a period of years without becoming addicted. A similar thing can be observed in modern times; some still take heroin intermittently without becoming addicted, and the Encyclopedia of Drugs and Alcohol estimates that for future addicts, “from first use to daily use typically takes about one year, but it may take much longer.”

Heroin addiction is often described as a sort of horrible chemical slavery in which the threat of withdrawal overpowers the user’s will, forcing users to continue using even if they wish to quit. But Dalrymple notes that withdrawal from heroin is much less dangerous than withdrawal from alcohol; the latter can be fatal, while the former never is. The author has observed many heroin addicts going through withdrawal, and notes they have never displayed any symptoms that were severe or required hospitalization. The discomfort of withdrawal is greatly exaggerated by addicts, often in an attempt to pressure the doctor to prescribe more opiates, and the author finds that they quickly change their tune once he calls their bluff. Underlining how much of the condition is psychological, several experiments in the 1930s demonstrated that addicts can even be convinced that they are under the influence of heroin or morphine when in fact their supply has been cut off, or that they are not in withdrawal when in fact they are.

Interestingly, Dalrymple has also dealt with alcoholics facing withdrawal, and notes that their behavior is quite different. Heroin addicts claim that withdrawal is unbearable and will even make frivolous threats of murder or suicide to obtain more drugs. Alcoholics are in more serious danger, but never make threats, and if they speak of their suffering at all their complaints are much more in line with what the doctor can confirm. The author offers no explanation of this contrast, but presumably different types of people are drawn to heroin addiction than to alcoholism.

It is also widely believed that addicts are compelled to steal to fund their habits, but this is far from the case. Firstly, as withdrawal is not nearly so terrifying as often claimed, an addict who is short on cash can simply stop using temporarily. Faced with being uncomfortable for a few days, robbery would not enter most people’s minds. Secondly, the use of opiates in itself is not necessarily incapacitating, so some habitual users support their habits through legitimate employment. Dalrymple quotes Lawrence Kolb in 1928, at the time a prominent American expert on addiction, who wrote that out of 119 addicts, only 29 had poor employment records after their addiction began, and that

Twenty-two of them worked regularly while taking opium for twenty-five years or more; one of them, a woman aged 81 and still alert mentally, had taken 3 grains of morphine daily for 65 years. She gave birth to and raised 6 children, and managed her household affairs with more than average efficiency. A widow, aged 66, had taken 17 grains of morphine daily for most of 37 years. She is alert mentally … she does physical labor every day and makes her own living.

Third, if heroin addiction drove them to crime, the addicts would presumably have been law-abiding before they started using heroin. But the author interviewed 100 addicts and found that 67 of them had been to prison, meaning they had been convicted of numerous crimes, before they tried heroin for the first time. The connection between stealing and heroin addiction is instead that addiction is more attractive to people with antisocial tendencies. Rather than out of desperation, they often steal for the thrill.

Another falsehood of the standard model which Dalrymple refutes is that addicts must have medical assistance to quit. On the contrary, many have quit with no treatment at all. During the Vietnam War an estimated 20 percent of American service members were addicted to heroin. After returning home, most simply quit; “by two and three years after their return, the addiction rates among those who had served were no higher than among those who qualified for the draft but did not serve in Vietnam.” The author also quotes a major text on substance abuse which notes in passing that addicts can give up their habit through “detoxification only” in the case of “those who adopt a new religion or lifestyle.”

Due to their effects on vital functions, opiates are more likely to cause fatal overdoses than most drugs, but even this does not occur in the way one might expect in a genuine disease, with death coming to the patient despite their best efforts. Instead it is largely due to the recklessness of the users. Dalrymple notes that since most stop using while they are in prison, they have a much lower physical tolerance to the drug’s effects once they are released. They will thus be in more danger of an overdose upon beginning to use again unless they take a lower dose; he estimates that the death rate is thirty-four times higher in the first two weeks after release from prison than at any other time in their unincarcerated lives. He quotes his interaction with one addict who had started using again after his release from prison and took such a high dose that he needed artificial ventilation:

“Did you remember what I told you?” I asked.
“Yes.”
“Didn’t you believe me?”
“Yes, I believed you.”
“Then why did you take no notice?”
“I met up with my old friends.”

Lethal overdoses are also more common when opiates are used together with other drugs which have a similar depressant effect on the vital functions. These include alcohol and benzodiazepines, a class of anti-anxiety drugs which includes Valium, and which is found in the majority of deaths where the deceased has also taken methadone. Mixing drugs like this could be easily avoided by a modicum of self-discipline, but apparently this is in short supply for many users. Even doctors seem to share this carelessness, as they continue to prescribe both types of drugs together.

It is absurd to classify opiate addiction as a disease. It can only come about through the “patient’s” own repeated decisions, and can be cured in a matter of days with no medical intervention. This can hardly be said for a condition like multiple sclerosis. This is not to say that addiction is not a serious condition, but that it reflects a deeper issue which doctors cannot treat.

There are also popular claims in the opposite direction — that rather than a demon which possesses the user, opiates are actually a profound muse. Several prominent writers beginning in the Romantic era have made this claim, including Thomas de Quincey and the English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge. That great artistic ideas can spring from opium dreams more than from sober minds is a claim that cannot exactly be disproven, but neither is there any evidence for it beyond the artists’ own grandiloquent accounts of their experiences. Dalrymple also mentions that of the millions who have been addicted to opiates, only a small fraction have produced anything artistically notable.

What, then, is the nature of opiate addiction? Darlymple argues that it is a spiritual sickness. Partly this is the common sickness of the underclass from which addicts often come. Traditional sources of meaning in life such as religion are absent, as their betters saw fit to deconstruct them in favor of nihilism. Their family lives are chaotic, and their sexual relationships short-lived and violent. Uneducated and unskilled workers have little hope of a fulfilling career, and what work is available to them pays barely better than welfare. As the author puts it, “while a man might once have derived satisfaction from performing a menial task well, from leading a life of modest usefulness to others, this is not an age in which such humility is very common.”

Young people in this situation have no purpose. Daydreaming is the closest they can imagine coming to escaping their unsatisfying lives — the author notes that many addicts tell him they use the drug “to forget” — so there is not much incentive to avoid a habit which means spending much of their time in a dreamlike state. He argues that the life of an addict actually provides a degree of discipline and focus, since raising funds and finding his supply imposes demands on the addict, the reward for which is obvious. Further, the danger from rival drug gangs or the police provides more excitement than their lives might otherwise offer.

As Dalrymple puts it, it is easier to provide a prescription than a reason for living, so the establishment has provided plenty of the former and none of the latter. Indeed, mainstream interventions seem to further erode the latter by infantilizing the addict.

Assuming that his condition is a disease, authorities respond as if the addict is powerless to do anything about it. Rather than being a matter of his own decisions which he might be pressured to change, they take his behavior as a given, and its consequences as a technical problem for them to solve.

The most common “solution” for opiate addiction is to prescribe a synthetic opiate called methadone. This is a long-acting drug, with one dose producing its effects over a period of about 24 hours, as opposed to 4-6 hours for heroin. Theoretically this frees the addict from the “need” to find and consume heroin every few hours, as well as the “need” to finance the habit through crime.

In practice, though, the results are questionable. Despite dramatic increases in the number of methadone prescriptions in the 1980s and 90s, there was no corresponding decrease in the number of addicts. On the contrary, heroin addiction has become much more common. From 859 in 1978, the number of addicts in Britain increased to over 100,000 in the year 2000. Many users of methadone continue to use heroin, although they do so less when given particularly high doses of methadone. They often continue to use other drugs as well, and as mentioned above are even prescribed them.

They also continue to steal, although the number of thefts may be reduced. In one study in Sheffield the average number of “acquisitive” crimes committed by a heroin addict treated with methadone dropped from 13 a month to three, but this is was only among the minority of subjects who took the drug exactly as instructed, and it is still 36 offenses a year — hardly the law-abiding lifestyle that we would presumably prefer.

Methadone can also be dangerous in itself, generally when it is not taken under medical supervision but diverted to the black market. In Scotland in 1998 for instance there were 114 overdose deaths attributed to heroin and 64 attributed to methadone. In the City of Dublin from 1998–2000 there were 225 “drug-associated” deaths, of which 157 were associated with heroin and 144 with methadone — the numbers do not add up neatly because some deaths involved both drugs together.

The technical problem-solving mindset even extends to a policy which the author calls “retoxification.” Since addicts usually lose their tolerance to the drug while in prison and are at greater risk of overdose when they are released, the authorities respond by simply prescribing them opiates while in prison. This reinforces the idea in the addict’s mind as well as that of the authorities that he is not a human being responsible for his behavior, but a malfunctioning machine whose faulty programming must be taken for granted and routed around.

In this condition, why should he make any effort to improve himself? As the author puts it,

If consequences are removed from enough actions, then the very concept of human agency evaporates, life itself becomes meaningless, and is thenceforth a vacuum in which people oscillate between boredom and oblivion. They have nothing to hope for and nothing to fear; they are more likely to seek the intermittent oblivion of opiate addiction. (p. 41)

The author notes that doctors often realize that his observations on addiction are correct, but everyone continues as if they are not. This is for two reasons. First of all, there is now an established bureaucracy which has an interest in perpetuating addiction in order to perpetuate their funding. The book gives the example of a woman who had been using heroin for about twenty years, along with other drugs, and had been prescribed methadone for most of that time. When she told her drug counselor that she was sick of drugs and wanted to cut down on methadone, the counselor became frightened and angry, declaring that this would be “extremely dangerous.”

Dangerous for whom? It could be no worse than her current life, in which she had contracted hepatitis B and C, and had several children which had been removed from her care at birth as she was considered an unfit mother. The danger, although the counselor did not admit this, was that “if other addicts followed suit, what future would there be for drug clinics?”

Second, there is an attitude of moral superiority on the part of those who claim to understand the misunderstood. Many seem to enjoy framing certain groups of people as innocent victims so that they can make a virtue of displaying compassion for them. Many of those employed in the addiction industry even go so far as to dress and speak like addicts to demonstrate how “nonjudgmental” they are. This stance would be threatened by putting any pressure on the addicts to take responsibility for and change their behavior.

In the 15 years since Dalrymple’s book was first published things have gone along essentially as before. People still speak as if addiction is merely a medical condition which afflicts the addict. Although the author called for the closure of drug addiction clinics, they remain open and the “patients” are still treated in the same ineffective way. We can only hope that someday the authorities are replaced by a new group of people, one which cares about our population’s long-term well-being more than “fighting stigma” or maintaining funding.

Introduction to Two Treatises on Jews and Freemasonry: Édouard Drumont and Nicolae Paulescu

/49 Comments/in , /by

Jewish Freemasonry: Two Treatises by Éduard Frumont & Nicholae Paulescu
with an Introduction by Alexander Jacob

Contents

Introduction  — Alexander Jacob

I. “The Freemasons” (Jewish France, Book VI, Chapter 1) — Édouard Drumont

II. “Freemasonry,” from The Hospital, the Qur’an, the Talmud, the Kahal, and Freemasonry, Ch. V – Nicolae Paulescu

Introduction

Freemasonry and its goals have been the subject of innumerable studies seeking to investigate, or expose, this secretive and powerful organisation.  The Jesuit priest Abbé Augustin Barruel’s magisterial work Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme (1798), for instance, attempted to uncover the anti-Christian character of  Freemasonry by detailing the conspiratorial role played by the Enlightenment philosophes and the Freemasons and the Illuminati in the genesis and conduct  of the French Revolution.  The aims of the Revolution, according to Barruel, were primarily anti-Christian, anti-monarchical and Anarchical.  Barruel did not focus on the Jews in this work though his curiosity was aroused when he received a letter in 1806 from a certain  Giovanni-Battista Simonini who claimed to have infiltrated the Piedmont Jewish community and learnt from them about the Jewish origins of both  the Freemasons and the Illuminati.[1]

The two extracts presented in this edition shed more light on the Jewish origins and ambitions of the Freemasonic organization. More importantly, both authors place an emphasis on the remarkable contrast between the Jewish character of the Masonic ethos and the social doctrines of  the Catholic Church which it seeks to replace as the prime mover of politics in the West.  Whereas the Catholic Church has an avowed commitment to Christian charity and social harmony, Freemasonry is marked by a contempt of poverty and a singular desire to establish the supremacy of Israel in the world.

Édouard Drumont: “The Freemasons”

Of the two authors presented here, Édouard Drumont (1844–1917) was indeed one of the first to insist that the entire Masonic enterprise was Jewish  in origin even though he based his conviction on Masonic texts that had been available in France from the late eighteenth century. [2] Drumont was a French journalist who wrote many works on the Jews including La France juive: Essai d’histoire contemporain, 2 volumes (1886), Testament d’un antisémite (1891), Les Juifs et l’affaire Dreyfus (1899), La Tyrannie maçonnique (1899), Les Juifs contre la France (1899) and Le Peuple juif (1900).  Drumont also ran a newspaper La libre parole, which was markedly anti-Semitic. In 1899 he founded the ‘Ligue antisémitique de France’ and argued for the exclusion of Jews from society.

The last book of Drumont’s Jewish France contains three chapters devoted to the three Judeocentric groups portrayed to be persecuting Catholic France, the first chapter on the Freemasons, the second on the Protestants and the third on the Jews.  Drumont begins his chapter on Freemasonry by pointing out the peculiarly Jewish nature of Freemasonry.  Freemasonry is not a variety of Freethought since freethinkers like Lord Byron and Delacroix at least “do not attack our citizenship rights, our human rights, and our rights as Frenchmen. “ Rather, it is an essentially Jewish institution and imbued with a specially Jewish character.

The Jewish origin and constitution of the Masonic organization are evident from the various rituals it employs in its meetings and particularly in the dramatic  reenactments of Old Testament scenes depicting the revenge taken by Jews on their oppressors, such as that of Judith on Holofernes.  These rituals are all intended to impress on the candidates and members the principal goal of Masonry, which is to reunite the tribes of  Israel as a nation after their dispersal at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, a destruction that must also be avenged.  The particular focus of the Masonic revenge is Christianity since the great crime of the Christ in the view of the Jews is his usurpation of the supremacy of Jehovah.  The essence of Masonry therefore is, as Drumont puts it, “Sympathy and tenderness for Jerusalem and its representatives; hatred for Christ and Christians: all of Masonry is contained in this.”

The means whereby Masonry seeks to overthrow the Europeans is always a

politics of dissolution: whether it is a matter of financial companies or of secret societies, they are able to give an appearance of order and seriousness to appetites, to collective bad instincts.

The growing influence of Masonry on European politics has resulted in a steady dissolution of traditional European society.  Thus Republicanism is, in the nineteenth century, the culmination of the French Revolution with Napoleon and Bismarck contributing to the process of Jewish bourgeois supremacy.

In their enormous and far-sighted political task, the Jewish Masons have been aided through the centuries by ambitious mediocrities from among the European peoples who were the hosts of the Jews during the diaspora.  The second part of Drumont’s essay on Freemasonry includes several detailed examples of public figures in French Republican life who have duped the public through various nefarious dealings that have been disguised by the false honors that have been bestowed upon them by the Third Republic. [3] The entire Republican ethos is indeed marked not by a desire to liberate the oppressed French populace but rather by a hatred of society.  In fact, one particularly odious characteristic of Freemasonry is its contempt and hatred for the poor, which is in marked contrast to  the importance of charity in the Catholic Church.  And if the Masons seem occasionally to tolerate the social status quo, it is only because they wish to focus their mind more sharply on their inveterate religious enemy, the Christian Church:

Thus, many in Masonry are pseudo-scholars, pseudo-orators, they hate society with a hatred that is not at all the courageous revolt of Spartacus, the bitter anger of Vindex, but like  a venomous envy that smells of the[4] ante-chamber and the office; they do not intend to destroy the social edifice completely because they hope to make a place there through more or less correct procedures, but they attack the Church because it can give them only noble instructions, counsels of respect and devotion that they do not want.

Nicolae Paulescu: Freemasonry

The Jewish nature of Freemasonry and its hatred of Christianity are reinforced in the work of Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931). His chapter on Masonry in his work Philosophic Physiology: The Hospital, the Koran, the Talmud, the Kahal and Freemasonry pivots on the same contrast between the Christian concept of charity — exemplified in Paulescu’s own medical profession by ‘the hospital’ included in the title — and the sheer avarice for material possession and political domination of the Jews who conduct the Masonic organizations.

Paulescu was a Romanian physiologist and professor of medicine, as  well as a political activist.   In 1897 Paulescu graduated with a Doctor of Medicine degree from a medical school in Paris. He was appointed assistant surgeon at the Notre-Dame du Perpetuel-Secours Hospital but in 1900 he returned to Romania, where he remained until his death as Head of the Physiology Department of the University of Bucharest Medical School, as well as Professor of Clinical Medicine at the St Vincent de Paul Hospital in Bucharest. He is well-known for his work in extracting insulin for the treatment of diabetes and petitioned the Nobel Prize committee to object to the award given to two Canadian scientists. From Wikipedia:

Professor Ian Murray was particularly active in working to correct “the historical wrong” against Paulescu. Murray was a professor of physiology at the Anderson College of Medicine in Glasgow, Scotland, the head of the department of Metabolic Diseases at a leading Glasgow hospital, vice-president of the British Association of Diabetes, and a founding member of the International Diabetes Federation. In an article for a 1971 issue of the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Murray wrote:

“Insufficient recognition has been given to Paulesco, the distinguished Roumanian scientist, who at the time when the Toronto team were commencing their research had already succeeded in extracting the antidiabetic hormone of the pancreas and proving its efficacy in reducing the hyperglycaemia in diabetic dogs.“

“In a recent private communication Professor Tiselius, head of the Nobel Institute [and a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1948], has expressed his personal opinion that Paulesco was equally worthy of the award in 1923.“

Paulescu was also involved in Romanian political movements and influenced Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, the leader of the Iron Guard. In 1922, he partnered with Codreanu’s anti-Semitic friend, Prof. A.C. Cuza, to create a political group called the National Christian Union. In 1925, Paulescu joined Cuza’s later organization, the National Christian Defense League as well.

Nicolae Paulescu’s sociological writings include Philosophical Physiology: Instincts Social — Passions and Conflicts — Moral Remedies (1910), which advocated the regeneration of the population through Christian education.  Paulescu’s most famous book was the second volume of “philosophical physiology” which was entitled Philosophical Physiology: Hospital, Quran, Talmud, Cahal, Franc-Masonry (1913).  He later wrote more works on the Jewish Problem, including Philosophical Physiology: The Synagogue and the Church to the Pacification of Mankind, 2 vols, 1923; The Judeo-Masonic Plot against the Romanian People, 1924; The Degeneration of the Jewish Race, 1928, Jewish Debauchery, 1928; and Interpretation of Revelation, the future fate of the Jews, 1941.

In The Hospital, the Koran, the Talmud, the Kahal and Freemasonry, Paulescu first explains the duties of doctors and relates hospitals to the notion of Christian charity: “Hospitals are an inspiration of Christian charity.”  He then considers the two other religions that claim to cure the illnesses of mankind, Islam and Judaism, both of which he considers as opposed to Christian morality. Islam and Judaism are both characterised by a cruel desire for possessions and dominion but the Muslim Arabs are superior to the Jews in that they possess a real valor whereas the Jews “manifest themselves only through cowardice.”

Paulescu begins his study of Judaism with the principal legal text of the Jews, the Talmud, which uses usury, fraud and perjury to rob and enslave the Gentiles.  The development of the Jewish political ambition is accomplished through the “Kahal,” the Jewish governing body typical of Jewish communities well into the twentieth century. The Kahal conceives of the Jewish nation as one based on “the Talmudic dogma of the chosen people, a doctrine according to which the Jews must not merge with other nations, because God has promised them to possess the whole earth and to rule the world.” He demonstrates the financial and social depredations wrought by Jewish immigration into European lands and discusses Freemasonry too within the context of the resolute war that the Jews have been conducting against Christianity through the ages by means of the various religious heresies and political revolutions that they have fostered in Europe.

Paulescu’s section on Freemasonry, which constitutes the final chapter of his book, relies considerably on Drumont’s work but it is rather more comprehensive than it.  Paulescu here reveals the hatred that informs all of the Jewish involvement in European intellectual and political history.  The source of this hatred is evident most clearly in the Talmud but its enduring effects are manifest in the various Jewish-sponsored heretical movements that have sought to distort Christianity and Catholicism through the ages, beginning with the Ebionites in the first century A.D. and passing through Protestantism to Freemasonry.  The purported goal of the Freemasons to rebuild the Temple of Solomon is, according to Paulescu,  only a watchword that indicates the ambition of Israel to dominate the world.  Regarding the organization of Freemasonry, Paulescu points out that, in spite of its proclaimed philanthropy, the secretive nature of the  whole is a clear indication of its suspect character: “And to think that no one wonders why this society is hidden, when it has purposes  as sublime as the search for the truth.”

More carefully than Drumont, Paulescu — relying on the work of Paul Copin-Albancell’s Le drame maçonnique: le pouvoir occulte contre la France  (“The Masonic Drama: The Occult Power against France” ( 1908) — details the hierarchy within the Masonic organization where the lower degrees of Masons are mostly blindfolded followers of an uppermost elite that  is constituted of Jews alone. And the bizarre rituals that mark a Mason’s progress through the organization are all marked by sentiments of hatred and revenge for those responsible for the destruction of the Temple.  Among the various targets of the Masons’ hatred, the chief are undoubtedly the Christians.  Quoting Copin-Albancelli, Paulescu points out that Masons are instructed to the effect that “Freemasonry has one enemy – Christianity, and Catholicism in particular — that you need to hate and fight.”[5]

Further, Masonry constantly spawns various sub-groups that carry out its agenda,  as Copin-Albancelli had noted:

Examples of such tentacles are the Freethinking (Libre-Pensée) Leagues, those of human and civil rights, those of education, houses of schools, studying clubs, library societies, of conferences, of Popular Universities … even of unions.[6]

During the times of the French Revolution, the Masons were aided particularly by the Masonic sub-group that called itself the “Jacobins.”  Of the political effects that resulted from these several organizations, the French Revolution aimed simultaneously at emancipating the Jews and at persecuting the Christians.  Among the Catholics, the chief targets of the Masons are the Jesuits, whom they fear above all Christian orders.  The monasteries of the Jesuits were attacked in Portugal, Spain, France and Austria and the campaign against Jesuitry continued with constant vilifications of Jesuits among  the public so that the common people gradually came to believe that the term Jesuit could be used as a synonym for scoundrel.

According to Paulescu, The Jewish support of the revolutionaries was intended to bolster the third estate of the bourgeoisie, which at first supported Napoleon in spite of his imperialistic ambitions.  When the Masons found that Napoleon’s tyranny was becoming dangerous to their plans, they worked to bring him down.  All through this period they benefited from their gradual emancipation in several European states.  But their ultimate aim of total revolution was not manifest until the Revolution of 1848, which sought to impose bourgeois capitalist Liberalism as a major political movement that would lead to the institution of a socialist republic.  The latter goal was achieved after the Paris Commune of 1871 when the Third Republic was established, and French society was henceforth marked by the separation of Church and State.

The real aims of all Masonic republics were to destroy monarchies, abolish Christianity from the education of the public, and to convert the people into a proletariat that could easily be made to serve the ambitions of Judah.  Based on Bernard Lazare’s work L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes (Anti-Semitism: Its History and Its Causes) (1894), the religious subversion of the Masons is related by Paulescu also to the  Kulturkampf that Bismarck conducted against the Roman Catholic Church between 1872 and 1878 and to the Jules Ferry laws of 1882 that mandated secular education in France.

At the same time, Paulescu claims that “Jewish Socialism” works towards the dispossession of private property by a state that is essentially Jewish in its composition  and interests.  These false socialist movements were crystallized in the doctrines of the Jew Karl Marx. And they were bolstered in their subversive agenda by the Anarchists, who constituted the more murderous and iconoclastic elements of the several revolutions that sprang up in Europe from 1848 onwards.

Paulescu then goes on to examine the subversive socialist role of Masonry in various European countries such as their support of the Templars in Romania and the Young Turks in Turkey.  In France, they focused on the destruction of Christianity in the nation by eliminating it from public education and the military establishment.  This anti-clericalism was especially strong in the regime of the Jew Léon Gambetta, President of the Council of Ministers[7] between 1881 and 1882, who declared “Le cléricalisme, voilà l’ennem” (Clericalism is the  enemy).  Thus the attacks on the clergy were regularized and Christian education was replaced by a secular education which was made free and compulsory in the nation.  This in turn fostered atheistic doctrines, such as those of Darwin, and a general contempt for the Christian Church.  Even  the Latin language was deposed as a language of learning since it had been the language of the Church.

By positing a world constituted of matter and energy alone the Masonic-Marxist revolutions succeeded in repudiating the notions of the soul and of God on which Christian civilization had been based. As Drumont had already pointed out, whereas Christianity stresses love and charity, Masonry has a distinctive contempt for, and hatred of, poverty.  Thus, Paulescu is arguing that by steadily obliterating the Christian doctrines of compassion and charity and enlarging the worldly possessions and power of the Jews, Masonry has finally accomplished in post-Revolutionary Europe what the Talmud has striven to achieve from the very first centuries of the Christian era.

[1] See, for example, C. Oberhauser, ‘Simonini’s Letter or the Roots of the Alleged Jewish-Masonic World Conspiracy’, Jews in Central Europe, 2012, pp. 10-17.

[2] For instance, in pointing to the Judaic character of the Masonic rituals, he quotes from  The Most mysterious mysteries of the high ranks of Masonry revealed or the true Rosicrucian, which was published in 1766.

[3] He cites particularly the example of the shallow Charles Cousin (1822–1894), who was the administrator of the Northern Railway and president of the Council of the Grand Orient of France until 1885.

[4] The Gaulish leader who led a revolt against the Roman Emperor Nero in 68 A.D. He was defeated by the military legate Lucius Rufus and committed suicide.

[5] Cherry–Albancelli, The drama maçonnique, I. p. 31–32.

[6] Ibid., II, 195.

[7] Léon Gambetta was thus the Prime Minister.

The Cuckoo Cult: Mainstream Christianity Is Now an Implacable Enemy of the White West

/99 Comments/in , /by

Judaism isn’t about worshipping God. It’s about worshipping Jews. And it’s so good at its job that it’s persuaded some Christians to take up Judeolatry too. Thanks to Jewish subversion at the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church went from asking God to lift the “blindness” of the “perfidious Jews” to mandating smarmy prayers for “our elder brothers in the Faith.” And yes, Jews would indeed like to behave like brothers to Christians, in the same way as Cain did when he murdered his brother Abel.

Stonetoss demolishes the concept of “Judeo-Christianity”

Jews have tamed and corrupted American Protestantism too. They’ve convinced millions of Americans to accept the oxymoronic concept of Judeo-Christianity, which has all the coherence and honesty of “carnivorous vegetarianism” or “The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation for the Welfare of Under-Aged Shiksas.” Jews are also hoping to tame and corrupt Islam. The Jewish Chronicle recently ran an article headlined “British Muslims need ‘reform’ version of Islam,” which described the launch of a “new Oxford institute” that “aims to defeat the extremists and enable proper social integration.”

The seeds of race-blind liberalism

The article was written by a Muslim shabbos-goy called Taj Hargey, who earnestly explained to his fellow Muslims that the “philosophical evolution” of Islam “is theologically endorsed, since ijtihad (analytical thinking) is an intrinsic Qur’anic precept, as exemplified by the trailblazing 9th-century Mu’tazilah, who championed rationalism, justice and liberty.” And Hargey welcomed “support from anyone — including fellow Abrahamic adherents — committed to life-affirming and humane perspectives.”

Blatant blasphemy: The violent criminal George Floyd is portrayed as Christ at a Catholic university after his self-inflicted death

Muslims aren’t going to be fooled. Unlike Christianity, Islam resists subversion and doesn’t attack the interests of its own adherents. Hinduism and Buddhism resist subversion too, as we can see from the robust reaction of Hindus in India and Buddhists in Burma to Muslim misbehavior. Hinduism defends Hindu India and Buddhism defends Buddhist Burma. Modern Christianity, in complete contrast, seeks to destroy the Christian West. It’s now a cuckoo cult dedicated to filling the West with non-White predators and parasites. So what’s gone wrong with Christianity? Or was Christianity wrong from the beginning? These famous verses by the Jewish St Paul could be said to contain the seeds not just of race-blind liberalism but of biology-blind transgenderism too:

3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Letter to the Galatians) 3:11 There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. (Letter to the Colossians)

Traditionalist Christians deny, of course, that those verses encourage race-blindness and transgenderism. But they can’t deny that those verses from the Christian New Testament are much friendlier to such pernicious ideologies than these verses from the Jewish Old Testament:

20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. (Book of Deuteronomy) 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Book of Numbers)

In the Old Testament, the difference between Jews and non-Jews, between male and female, is literally a matter of life and death. In the New Testament, “Christ is all, and in all.” When you compare the Old and New Testaments, you shouldn’t be surprised that Jewish Israel is highly ethnocentric and has big fences on its borders to keep out non-Jewish “infiltrators.” Nor should you be surprised that historically Christian Britain is now heavily enriched with non-Whites and non-Christians. Even leftist newspapers like the Guardian sometimes report the pathologies caused by this ethnic enrichment:

Over 1,000 children in Telford were sexually exploited, inquiry finds

More than a thousand children in Telford were sexually exploited over decades amid the failure of authorities to investigate “emboldened offenders”, an independent inquiry into the scandal has concluded. The three-year independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation (IICSE) found that abuse was allowed to continue for years and children, rather than perpetrators, were often blamed. Issues were not investigated because of nervousness about race, the inquiry’s final report said, and teachers and youth workers were discouraged from reporting child sexual exploitation. (Over 1,000 children in Telford were sexually exploited, inquiry finds, The Guardian, 12th July 2022)

But the leftist Guardian didn’t mention the word “Muslim” or “Pakistani” in that article. It didn’t explain the phrase “nervousness about race.” How could it? If the Guardian were honest, it would have to admit that leftism has worked tirelessly to encourage “nervousness about race” and to deliver thousands of White girls, decade after decade, to non-White sexual predators. You can be sure that the feminists at the Guardian will not be writing hard-hitting articles about “rape-culture” in Telford.

Justin Welby, a perfect justification of Nietzsche’s contempt for Christianity

You can also be sure that no high-ranking cleric in the Church of England will be delivering a fiery sermon in condemnation of the Muslim rape-jihad in Telford. That would mean defending Whites and Christians, and the Church of England has no interest whatsoever in defending Whites and Christians. But the Church has reacted very noisily to the government’s heavily promoted — and worthless — plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda to have their asylum claims assessed. Justin Welby, the invertebrate Archbishop of Canterbury, contrasted “the weekend of Easter celebrations with his antipathy towards the government’s Rwandan asylum plans.” According to Welby: “Easter is a season of life and hope, of repentance and renewal. And this season is also why there are such serious ethical questions about sending asylum seekers overseas. The details are for politics. The principle must stand the judgment of God, and it cannot.”

Welby is not an aberration

So Welby speaks up loud and clear in support of non-White migrants, some of whom will undoubtedly go on to commit serious crimes against the White British. But what will he have to say about the latest development in the Telford scandal? Nothing, of course. As Andrew Joyce so rightly said of Welby at the Occidental Observer: “At the heart of this disease [of white guilt and globohomo] is the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, Justin Welby, a man who looks like ten minutes of manual labor would actually kill him. He is the definition of all that is wrong in modern Man.” However, I don’t think that Welby is an aberration. No, he’s the logical culmination of Christian universalism. And here’s an interesting example of that universalism from an Anglican book published in 1893:

Race-blind universalism from the Church of England in 1893

The book itself is called Home Words for Heart and Heath, and collects issues from the Parochial Magazine for St Paul’s in the university town of Cambridge. On the positive side, it’s a good example of how Victorians created even the simplest objects both for endurance and for beauty. I found it an aesthetic treat merely to pick the book up and begin leafing through it. But it wasn’t a treat to come across the engraving of “Little Jack and His Playmates” on a “Young Folks’ Page.” Anglicans in 1893 didn’t know where that kind of race-blind universalism would lead; in 2022, we can see its pernicious consequences all around us. The point of the engraving, taken “from a photograph,” is that the two little boys in the foreground look very similar apart from their clothing and skin-color. It’s a literal embodiment of “Ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” True, the little White boy is taller than the little Black boy, but that goes with his evangelism, as the accompanying text explains:

LITTLE JACK AND HIS PLAYMATES

“There’s not a child so small and weak
But has his little cross to take–
His little work of love and praise
That he may do for Jesus’ sake.”

One is reminded of the well-known children’s hymn in writing of Little Jack, the Boy Missionary. Jack was the son of Captain and Mrs E.C. Hore. He was only eleven weeks old when, in 1882, they started for Africa, in company with a number of other missionaries, including Bishop Hannington. The baby was carried in a wheelbarrow to Mamboia, then back to Zanzibar, and afterwards round a great portion of the African Continent: while he also accompanied his parents on many of their missionary journeys into the interior. He quickly became very popular with the natives, by whom he was known as the “little missionary,” and by his winning ways contributed much, it can hardly be doubted, to the success of his parents’ missionary endeavours. (Home Words for Heart and Heath, 1893, p. 95)

Whites are susceptible to sentimentality: a kitten from Home Words for Heart and Heath

Modern leftists would condemn the engraving and text for racism, paternalism and “white savior syndrome.” But if leftists were honest, they would recognize the Christian roots of a central leftist principle: “We’re all the same under the skin.” Of course, as I pointed out in my article “Rollock’s Bollocks,” the leftist insistence on the oneness of humanity contradicts the leftist insistence on the innate evil of Whites and the innate virtue of non-Whites.

Inversion = Evil

But that contradiction doesn’t weaken leftism: it’s simply an example of what George Orwell called doublethink, or the “power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Leftism is about power, not principle, and contradictions are a feature, not a bug, of its hunt for power. Leftism took the dogma of humanity’s oneness from Christianity in order to deny the clear truth that Whites are intellectually, morally and culturally superior to Blacks. After that truth was denied by the oneness dogma, leftism took the next step and began to preach the dogma of White evil and non-White virtue.

In other words, leftism has inverted the truth about Whites and Blacks. And that inversion of the truth is a very clear sign of the true nature of leftism. As Vox Day has said: “Notice how evil always inverts. ‘The Light of the World’ became ‘the Dark Ages’. The revival of satanic darkness became ‘the Enlightenment’. And the enslavement of women to sin and self-destruction became ‘Women’s Liberation’. If you want to discern if something has satanic roots, look for the inversion. Once you spot it, you’ll scent the sulphur soon enough.”

Vox Day is himself a Christian and says that Christianity is vital for the salvation of the West. I think he’s right. But that salvation won’t come from mainstream Christianity or from mainstream Christians like Justin Welby. They are part of what will need to be swept away. Vox Day knows that and writes perceptively about mainstream Christianity and Jewish subversion at his blog. If you’re a regular reader of the Occidental Observer and the Unz Review, I recommend that you become a regular reader of Vox Day too. Christianity is central to the sickness, but will also be central to the cure.

A Negative Review of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

/50 Comments/in , , /by

A rather negative review of my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future appeared by someone who calls himself thezman. I am not familiar with his blog, but he seems to be basically on the right side of things as indicated by its blogroll, which includes Vdare.com, AmRen, Steve Sailer, etc. Since most people are not going to wade through a 500+-page book, this is my version of the main ideas.

Thezman’s review will not be helpful to someone who isn’t familiar with the book because it leaves out critical information and basic ideas. The review begins by complaining that I don’t get around to defining individualism until Chapter 8. But a major point, ignored by the reviewer, is that there are two clearly spelled out definitions of individualism in Chapters 2 and 3 respectively, the aristocratic individualism of the Indo-Europeans, and the egalitarian individualism of the northern hunter-gatherers. Unless one discusses these concepts, the entire point of the book is missed because it’s essentially about how these two types of individualism played out in history, with the power of aristocratic individualism gradually decreasing after the English Civil War in the mid-seventeenth century. One would do better by reading some of the reviews on Amazon, such as this one; or even better, read Prof. Ricardo Duchesne’s 9-part review for the Council of European Canadians.

Re aristocratic individualism, from Chapter 2:

The novelty of Indo-European culture was that it was not based on a single king or a typical clan-type organization based on extended kinship groups but on an aristocratic elite that was egalitarian within the group. Critically, this elite was not tied together by kinship bonds as would occur in a clan-based society, but by individual pursuit of fame and fortune, particularly the former. The men who became leaders were not despots, but peers with other warriors—an egalitarianism among aristocrats. Successful warriors individuated themselves in dress, sporting beads, belts, etc., with a flair for ostentation. This resulted in a “vital, action-oriented, and linear picture of the world” [citing Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization]i.e., as moving forward in pursuit of the goal of increasing prestige. Leaders commanded by voluntary consent, not servitude, and being a successful leader meant having many clients who pledged their loyalty; often the clients were young unmarried men looking to make their way in the world. The leader was therefore a “first among equals.” …

Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships [not biological relatedness] were characteristic of [Proto-Indo-Europeans] and this practice continued with the various [Indo-European] groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree).

Thus aristocratic individualism is fundamentally about individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties as being at the heart of social organization while retaining a strongly hierarchical social structure. Chapter 3 describes Egalitarian Individualism:

As noted in Chapter 2, there were already strong strands of individualism in Indo-European-derived cultures. Thus the argument here is not that northern [hunter-gatherers; h-gs] are the only basis of Western individualism, but that Indo-European individualism dovetailed significantly with that of h-gs they encountered in northwest Europe. The major difference between these two strands is that I-E-derived cultures are strongly hierarchical and relatively egalitarian only within aristocratic peer groups (aristocratic individualism), while the h-g’s were strongly egalitarian without qualification. The burden of this chapter is to make the case for this.  The contrast and conflict between aristocratic (hierarchical) individualism and egalitarian individualism is of fundamental importance for my later argument.

I really don’t understand how a competent reviewer could miss this, or the material in the following paragraph on the evolutionary basis of egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer groups and the central importance of moral communities as the social glue binding hunter-gatherer communities rather than extensive kinship. This concept is critical for understanding Chapters 6–8. From Chapter 3:

Egalitarianism is a notable trait of hunter-gatherer groups around the world. Such groups have mechanisms that prevent despotism and ensure reciprocity, with punishment ranging from physical harm to shunning and ostracism.[1] Christopher Boehm describes hunter-gatherer societies as moral communities in which women have a major role,[2] and the idea that Western cultures, particularly since the seventeenth century, are moral communities based on a hunter-gatherer egalitarian ethic will play a major role here, particularly in Chapters 6-8. In such societies people are closely scrutinized to note deviations from social norms; violators are shunned, ridiculed, and ostracized. Decisions, including decisions to sanction a person, are by consensus. Adult males treat each other as equals.

Re climate, I certainly agree that climate is important, as emphasized in Chapter 3 on the northern hunter-gatherers, where the harsh climate of Scandinavia resulted in a general deemphasis on extended kinship in favor of nuclear families. The Indo-Europeans originated in what is now Ukraine but developed a very different culture than the hunter-gatherers. Their culture was completely militarized—likely needed to survive and prosper in the steppes where marauding groups were the norm (not the case in Scandinavia). Their individualism, whereby individual merit mattered more than kinship, was highly adaptive in getting the best leaders. I suppose this could have been simply a cultural invention enabled by domain-general processing (see below; the cultural invention approach is emphasized by Joseph Henrich in his The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous re the role of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages). Or it could have been due to a similar scenario as that sketched in Chapter 3 for the northern hunter-gatherers: Both of these groups lived in areas where one kinship group couldn’t control the basis of economic production. In the case of the northern hunter-gatherers, their source of food on the Scandinavian littoral was not available year-around, forcing them to retreat into small family-based bands where only very close kinship relationships mattered for part of the year (Chapter 3). On the other hand, the proto-Indo-Europeans periodically traveled for extended periods in their wagons in small family-based groups to grazing areas for their cattle and returned to the larger encampment. Again, no kinship group could control the vast steppe region, and relatively intensive kinship typical of hunter-gatherers rather than extensive kinship relations (e.g., in a Middle Eastern clan) would continue as the fundamental basis of social organization. I favor the ecological scenario, but the cultural innovation perspective is also possible. However, a purely cultural shift would have to entail strong social controls to prevent evolved predilections for kinship ties from dominating. Seems difficult and there is no evidence for it.

[thezman:] The first three chapters of the book cover the migration of people into Europe and what we know about the organizational structures. Europe was initially settled by hunter-gatherers with an egalitarian culture. Then nomadic people with an aristocratic warrior class came in from the east. MacDonald argues that the genetic basis for egalitarianism and meritocracy is in these original people. This is not an argument from science, but rather an argument from inference.

Thezman thus ignores the ecological argument of Chapter 3, the clear evidence for individualism in both of these groups, and the genetic cline from northern to southern Europe revealed by population genetic research discussed in Chapter 1.

[thezman:] It cannot be emphasized enough how marriage patterns and family formation helped define what we think of as the West. The rapid decline in cousin marriage, for example, is arguably the great leap forward for Western people. It naturally lead [sic] to the evolution of alternatives to narrow kinship in human cooperation. MacDonald does a good job summarizing how these mating patterns were brought to the West with the aristocratic people who migrated from the East.

But it’s not just the aristocratic peoples from the East that created the familial basis of individualism (i.e., a tendency toward nuclear families rather than, say, compound families common in Southern and Eastern Europe based on brothers living together with their wives). I argue in Chapter 4 that the nuclear family pattern is strongest in Scandinavia, a result I attribute to climate (monogamy is favored in harsh environments because of the difficulty of men provisioning the children of more than one woman) in conjunction with the ecological argument noted above.

[thezman:] In the next chapters the focus shifts to culture and history. Chapter four is about European family formation. The focus is entirely on Europe, so the reader is left to guess why this differs from the rest of the world.

But the arguments from Chapters 2 and 3 make it clear that the roots of individualism in both the Indo-Europeans and the northern hunter-gatherers are essentially primordial, as noted above.

[thezman:] Chapter eight is an interesting chapter in that he finally gets around to providing a definition of individualism. He states at the opening that individualist societies are based on the reputation of the individual. Group cohesion depends on the members judging other members on an individual basis. Each member also accepts that he will be judged by society as an individual. This contrasts with other societies where membership in a tribe or clan is the basis for judging people.

But the theme of the importance of reputation appears long before Chapter 8. Indeed the word ‘reputation’ appears around 80 times in the entire book, beginning with Chapter 1 and throughout the book. The stage is set for developing the importance of reputation in the emphasis on individual military reputation in Chapter 2 on the Indo-Europeans and the concept of moral communities in Chapter 3—individuals were trusted to the extent that they had a good reputation, and trust was not based on kinship distance. This chart contrasting northwestern European hunter-gathers with the Middle Old World culture  is from Chapter 3:

Northwestern

European H-G

Cultural Origins

 Middle Old-World

Cultural Origins
Evolutionary

History

 Hunting, gathering Pastoralism, agriculture
Kinship 

System

 Bilateral;
weakly patricentric		 Unilineal;
strongly patricentric
Family System Nuclear family;

simple household

 Extended family;
joint household
Marriage  Exogamous;

monogamous

 Endogamous,
consanguineous;
polygynous
Marriage

Psychology

 Individual choice based on personal characteristics of spouse Utilitarian; based on
family strategizing within kinship group
Position of

Women

 Relatively high Relatively low
Ethnocentrism Relatively low Relatively high
Social Status Mainly influenced by reputation Mainly influenced by status in kinship group
Trust Trust based on individual’s reputation Trust based mainly on kinship distance

Contrasts between European and Middle Old-World Cultural Forms

[thezman:] This gets to the major flaw in the book. It needs an editor. The parts are here for a straight line argument that individualism has genetic roots and that it was selected for in European people. As humans adapted to the harsh northern climates, they adopted social structures that rewarded the behaviors necessary to survive as a group in the areas we now call Europe. While we cannot locate an “individualism gene” we can infer it through things like marriage patterns and family formation.

I realize that at 511 pages, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition is something of a tome but I think there is in fact a straight-line—albeit complex—argument. The difficulty is that one is dealing with two different forms of individualism and how they play out in history. The primordial tendencies of all three groups (the Indo-Europeans, the northern hunter-gatherers and Early Farmers) and how they influence family structure (Ch. 4) must be integrated. But one must also include the argument on the role of the Church in accommodating to aristocratic individualism in the early Middle Ages (the Germanization of Christianity) and ultimately facilitating egalitarian individualism (e.g., the canon law of moral universalism, monogamy, exogamy. Canon law swept away the morality of the ancient world based on natural inequality characteristic of the aristocratic moral framework and substituted a morality based on moral egalitarianism and individual conscience, paving the way for outbreaks of Protestant-type individualist thinking about religion during the later Middle Ages) (Ch. 5). This culminated in the Protestant Reformation and the rise to dominance of egalitarian individualism, leading to the English Civil War and the gradual decline of aristocratic individualism (Ch. 6). And then Chapter 7 (which is completely unmentioned in the review) focuses on egalitarian individualism and how it figured in the movement to eradicate slavery by creating a moral community that abhorred slavery. In any case, its tomeishness is no reason to fail to comment on the central differences and the historical dynamic between aristocratic individualism and egalitarian individualism. There is an argument there, but I rather doubt that thezman read it carefully enough to get it.

[thezman:] This [a shorter book] would make for a nice, crisp two-hundred-page book. Instead, these bits are spread over five hundred pages, mixed with material that is highly debatable. People familiar with the history of the early church, for example, will scratch their head at the assertions made in chapter five. The section on Puritanism often seems to contradict what he said in early chapters about individualism. A professional editor could have pointed this out and forced a rethinking of these chapters.

It’s not professional to complain about the statements in Chapter 5 without saying what was puzzling. And the chapter on Puritanism shows that essentially it started out as what one might call a group of individualists (because of their evolutionary background as northern Europeans). This concatenation of individuals formed a cohesive group via powerful social controls embedded in Calvinism. In America, the Puritans originated with the intention of keeping non-Puritans out of Massachusetts (building “the proverbial city on a hill”), but this gradually gave way, mainly because of the colonial policies of the British government preventing the colony from restricting immigration and settlement. During the nineteenth century, several intellectual offshoots of Puritanism, having escaped the powerful social controls of Calvinism, revealed themselves to be radical individualists (e.g., the libertarian anarchists).

[thezman:] Another problem with the book is that it is not really about individualism so much as a way to support his theory of group evolutionary strategy. As a result, he reduces group behavior to individual motivations. This sort of reductionism is common among older right-wing writers for some reason. That generation has always had a fetish for assigning base human desires to the behavior of groups. For some reason, emergent behavior lies beyond their intellectual event horizon.

Sorry, but I don’t get this; I would like to see examples where I reduce group behavior to individual motivations or assign “base human desires to the behavior of groups.” The whole point of cultural group selection theory (which has gradually become eminently respectable) is that groups are a fundamental category of natural selection, that groups are far more than a concatenation of individuals—an idea I first developed regarding the ancient Spartans (Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (Plenum, 1988) and later applied to traditional Jewish groups (A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Praeger, 1994). Take a look at Chapter 1 of the latter; it’s a cultural group selection argument. Think of a military unit. Group behavior is not a simple function of individual motivations but of a hierarchical command structure enforced by rigid discipline; cheaters in the ranks are often forced to suffer severe penalties, thereby solving the fundamental problem of group selection: human groups, unlike the vast majority of animals, are able to develop social controls and  ideologies that prevent individual cheating detrimental to group interests. This is a major theme of A People That Shall Dwell Alone where I show that heretical Jews were dealt with harshly.

Moreover, my argument is definitely not biologically reductionist, since there is a major role for cultural innovation via human general intelligence and its control over the modular mechanisms of the lower brain (see here and here on the links between general intelligence and innovation, solving novel problems, and solving old problems in new ways). My view is that ideologies are not reducible to the deterministic output of evolved modules, and this should have been apparent from reading the book, especially Chapters 5 and 8. From Chapter 5:

Religious beliefs are able to motivate behavior because of the ability of explicit representations of religious thoughts (e.g., the traditional Catholic teaching of eternal punishment in Hell as a result of mortal sin) to control sub-cortical modular mechanisms (e.g., sexual desire). In other words, the affective states and action tendencies mediated by implicit [modular] processing are controllable by higher brain centers located in the cortex.[3] For example, people are able to effortfully suppress sexual thoughts, even though there is a strong evolutionary basis for males in particular becoming aroused by sexual imagery. Thus, under experimental conditions, male subjects who were instructed to distance themselves from sexually arousing imagery were able to suppress their sexual arousal. Imagine that instead of a psychologist giving instructions, people were subjected to religious ideas that such thoughts were sinful and would be punished by God.

Ideologies such as the Christian ideology of the sinfulness of sexual thoughts are a particularly important form of explicit processing [i.e., non-modular processing linked to general intelligence] that may result in top-down control over behavior. That is, explicit construals of the world may motivate behavior. For example, explicit construals of costs and benefits of religiously relevant actions mediated by human language and the ability of humans to create [emphasis added here] explicit representations of events may influence individuals to avoid religiously proscribed food or refrain from fornication or adultery in the belief that such actions would lead to punishments in the afterlife.

Ideologies, including religious ideologies, characterize a significant number of people and motivate their behavior in a top-down manner—i.e., the higher cognitive functions involving explicit processing located primarily in the prefrontal cortex are able to control the more primitive (modular, reflexive) parts of the brain such as structures underlying sexual desire. Ideologies are coherent sets of beliefs. These explicitly held beliefs are able to exert a control function over behavior and evolved predispositions.

There is no reason to suppose that ideologies are necessarily adaptive. Ideologies often characterize the vast majority of people who belong to voluntary subgroups within a society (e.g., a particular religious sect). Moreover, ideologies are often intimately intertwined with various social controls—rationalizing the controls but also benefitting from the power of social controls to enforce ideological conformity in schools or in religious institutions [e.g., Marxist control of the educational system in the USSR]. The next section illustrates these themes as applied to regulating monogamy in Western Europe.

Ideologies are cultural creations enabled by human general intelligence and language; they are not a deterministic outcome of evolved psychological mechanisms. In Chapter 8 I discuss the ability of ideologies such as racial egalitarianism created by elites throughout the West that dominate the media and academia to control evolved tendencies toward ethnocentrism—a major problem for White people now. Hence, I absolutely reject biological reductionionism. Thus the title of my book, The Culture of Critique. Culture is critical and underdetermined by our evolutionary history.

[thezman:] The final criticism of the book is that it fails to explain why individualism has led the West to the verge of self-extinction. It has become an article of faith in certain circles that Western individualism is the cause of decline. Some argue that it makes it possible for tribal minority groups to exert undue influence on society to the detriment of the majority population. If so, then why now and not a century ago or five centuries ago when the West was far more fragmented?

Again, I think the argument is quite clear: the rise of a substantially Jewish elite (i.e., thezman’s “tribal minority”) hostile to the traditional people and culture of the West discussed extensively in Chapters 6 and 8, and continued in Chapter 9. From Chapter 9:

So, what went wrong? Why, little more than a half century after the countercultural revolution, is the West on the verge of suicide, everywhere inundated by other peoples—peoples that are typically far more clannish, far more prone to corruption (an endemic problem in much of the Third World where relationships are based primarily on kinship rather than individual merit and trust of non-kin), and often of demonstrably lower intelligence. This has continued to the point that Western peoples are on the verge of becoming minorities in areas they have dominated for hundreds or, in Europe, thousands of years.  Ultimately, if present trends continue, their unique genetic heritage will be lost entirely. One need only look at the demographic trend lines in all Western countries, steady declines in the White percentage of the world population, and generally below-replacement White fertility in the context of massive immigration of non-Whites. Extinction, after all, is just as much a part of the story of life as the evolution of new life forms.

This ongoing disaster for the traditional people of America is the direct result of the rise of a new elite as a result of the 1960s countercultural revolution. This new elite despises the traditional people and culture of America.

The above is essentially a reference to the argument from Chapter 6 on the decline of the WASP elite and the rise of a substantially Jewish elite, culminating in the 1960s countercultural revolution and recounted in my book The Culture of Critique (especially Chapter 3). The above passage continues:

The intellectuals who came to dominate American intellectual discourse and academe were quite aware of the need to appeal to Western proclivities toward individualism, egalitarianism, and moral universalism discussed throughout this volume. A theme of The Culture of Critique is that moral indictments of their opponents have been prominent in the writings of these activist intellectuals, including political radicals and those opposing biological perspectives on individual and group differences in IQ. A sense of moral superiority was also prevalent in the psychoanalytic movement, and the Frankfurt School developed the view that social science was to be judged by moral criteria.

The triumph of these intellectual movements to the point of consensus in the West has created a moral community where people who do not subscribe to their beliefs are seen as not only intellectually deficient but as morally evil.

…

It was noted in Chapter 6 that during the period of ethnic defense in the 1920s, Darwinist thinking on race was common throughout Western culture and assumed prominence among many U.S. immigration restrictionists, energized by the changing ethnic balance of the United States. A theme of The Culture of Critique is that the intellectuals who became influential beginning in the 1930s (particularly the Boasian school of anthropology) targeted Darwinian theories of race as well as individual identities based on White racial group identity. For example, attacking racial identities in favor of atomized individualism for European-Americans was a central strategy of the Frankfurt School. Group identities based on race and even the family, were portrayed as an indication of psychopathology. Radical individualism was thus promoted by intellectuals who retained a strong allegiance to their own group and self-consciously promoted group interests.

These ideologies fell on particularly fertile soil because they dovetailed with Western European tendencies toward individualism. And whereas individualism has been the key characteristic of Western peoples in their rise to world dominance, these ideologies and their internalization by so many Europeans now play a major role in facilitating Western dispossession.

In particular, the ideology that White identity and having a sense of White interests are signs of psychopathology has made it impossible in mainstream media and academia to argue for the legitimate interests of White people in having homelands and in avoiding becoming minorities in societies they have dominated for hundreds, and in the case of Europe, thousands of years. Such ideologies are disseminated by the mainstream media—including conservative and libertarian media—and throughout the educational system, from elementary school through university.

They have in effect created a moral community that is radically opposed to the interests of Whites. And as with the Puritans, the new elite has been able to create a culture of altruistic punishment in which White people punish fellow Whites who deviate from the dogmas of the moral community created by the new elite, even at the cost of compromising the long-term interests of themselves and their descendants.

These ideologies have been increasingly buttressed by powerful social controls. As discussed in Chapter 8, in much of the West these controls include formal legislation punishing critics of immigration and Western dispossession. Because of the First Amendment, such statutory controls are in their infancy in the United States but are likely to gain traction in the coming years if the left gains power.

However, informal controls are also very effective in the United States and throughout the West. For example, many people have been fired from their jobs as a result of the actions of activist organizations simply phoning their employers. These organizations take advantage of the moral community created by media and academic elites over the last 50 years by limiting the influence of dissident individuals and exposing them to public scrutiny, thereby subjecting them to ostracism and job loss. The effectiveness of these tactics relies on elite consensus and conformist popular attitudes for their effectiveness. Scientifically based ideas that were entirely respectable less than a century ago now result in ostracism and job loss.

You can disagree with that (please do!), but it’s unprofessional to review this book without mentioning the book’s discussion of the role of the rise of the Jews in creating the culture of Western suicide. But once again, a critical piece of the argument is missing from the review. One wonders if thezman did anything more than thumb through the book.

[1] Christopher H. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).

[2] Ibid., 8.

[3] Kevin MacDonald, “Evolution and a Dual Processing Theory of Culture: Applications to Moral Idealism and Political Philosophy,” Politics and Culture (Issue, #1, April, 2010), unpaginated; see also K. MacDonald, K. (2009). Evolution, Psychology, and a Conflict Theory of Culture. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 208–233.

Cultural Hatred and Cyranic Illusion: There Is No Such Thing as President Biden 

/23 Comments/in /by

Cyranic Illusion: An empty mind and “Dead-Hand” control: Milgram’s experiment in Cyranoid projection: “A cyranoid is created by cooperatively joining in real-time the body of one person with speech generated by another via covert speech shadowing. The resulting hybrid persona can subsequently interact with third parties face-to-face. We show that naïve interlocutors perceive a cyranoid to be a unified, autonomously communicating person, evidence for a phenomenon Milgram termed the “cyranic illusion.” We also show that creating cyranoids composed of contrasting identities (a child speaking adult-generated words and vice versa) can be used to study how stereotyping and person perception are mediated by inner (dispositional) vs. outer (physical) identity. Our results establish the cyranoid method as a unique means of obtaining experimental control over inner and outer identities.”

THE CIVILIAN COMMAND AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DEACTIVATED, which means the entire chain of military command is a question, and a risk. Even the relatively conservative mainstream media at Fox, alternative Revolver News, and others, as well as numerous podcasts, continue to frame the Office of the President as containing someone named “President Biden” and that policy and actions stem from him. He is discussed as if he is actually a functional, though weak, president, carrying out his duties with the aid of note cards, a doting wife, chief of staff, and other handlers.

However, the president is clearly clinically disordered and physically unable to withstand even modest environmental challenges to his ambulatory stability (he falls over easily, has poor balance, and has psychological black outs in active cognition). His cartoonish behavior is covered as somehow newsworthy and is normalized as merely providing polling advantages to GOP candidates in upcoming elections. But there is nothing even remotely funny about it.  It is one of the most mendacious and dangerous black operations ever conducted in United States history, an operation that has resulted in the installation of a completely controlled—as opposed to merely advised and directed—ideological “doppelganger” — an agent of other political actors. But more, the operation is carried out for their backers, financiers, and owners—not all of them US citizens. It is not only a lethal risk to national security (the real kind) but a profound act of hatred, cynicism and pathology signaled against the American public, and deliberately against America itself, especially its European demographic, legal, and cultural traditions. Hence, American constitutionalism is merely notionally authoritative within the walls of the current administration. (Moreover, none of the White House Executive Orders carry legal authority, as contracts require principal capacity—they are not merely auto-signature robotic authorities of the Office).

Green light signals to the enemy?

Why are America’s even most conservative and keen political observers unwilling to recognize and report the reality of the unprecedented infiltration of a massive deception being carried out in the country’s executive office? There are several reasons. One involves the nature of the DNC as a corporation and how it advances its continuity through careful management of its candidates and actors, and their utter reliability to conform or be conformed by, the corporation. This includes nearly complete media control through various means of media infiltration. And as the Party itself is further infiltrated, this objective is made more acute, and the risks of any media independence and exposure, more intensely managed and preempted through several means of forced cooperation, mostly financial, reputational, or even by threat. This also explains the current administration’s (and the Obama Foundation’s) “Disinformation” project—using private institutions like the Obama Foundation, Twitter, and establishment media to suppress public speech, penalize dissent, and even assert “thought crimes.” The second reason involves the nature of the Obama administration’s shared power with the establishment, including Bush and Clinton, and the necessary cooperation involved in protecting their offices and their prior extra-legal actions from exposure by controlling Biden’s executive office—no dangerous outsiders can get in. (This is why Trump’s random if undisciplined threats of declassification and disclosure were deemed “existential” threats.) Protection also extends back to their offices, including careful SCOTUS nomination management (Kavanaugh is a Bush asset, and Brown-Jackson, straight from the Obama camp). Last, Obama himself is deemed, even (or especially) by the Left, as actually “in charge,” in an incredible presumption of extra-legal authority (and when this is called a “conspiracy theory,” it may be more likely a fact).

Since when does the Secret Service let the public get this close to a president, or even let him fall down?

Why the GOP and some Democrats cannot organize a 25th Amendment removal is interesting although the implications are equally, if more, unsettling, since the VP is very unpopular and she is disordered in other dimensions that pose even greater social and economic risk—and the current DNC and White House cabal is well aware of that fact: It is an old sales trick: show the buyer an inferior, consolation product first, before you unveil the real “prize” behind Door Number 3.

There is also a strong, mendacious racial element to Biden’s insertion as president—similar to how Hollywood will stereotype “dumb Whites” or “rednecks” as inferior. This underscores additionally Obama’s deep-seated (self-?) hatred for Whites with a racial identity — his wife’s anti-White hostility is arguably even more pronounced. In this regard, the current VP also serves as a “defect” candidate in order to facilitate a track for Michelle Obama’s 2024 election run: the population will be glad, it is thought, to extinguish the “Old White Man” along with the “Crazy Kackler (Harris)” and reinstall the “anointed couple.” Such deception is thought vital by the DNC, as both the candidates, and the party, cannot compete on substantive grounds of policy, knowledge or executive competence; therefore, their positioning must be cultural, symbolic, emotional, and based on media framing in order to make the public think that a “savior” has arrived as relief from the current occupants (this is also a reflection of the couple’s unbalanced self-regard, if megalomania).

Top: The drugged, controlled president in Patterns of Force. Bottom: Muzzled and controlled President Biden: why is his mask black? 

How deal with a senile, controlled president

In the meantime, the national risk posed every day by the current occupants of the White House, is far worse than the public generally realizes: the United States has been deliberately left open to attack from any number of sources (and at all borders), with no capable civilian leader.  Not only is there no such thing as “President Biden,” there is no such thing as Commander-in-Chief Biden: The civilian command authority has been deactivated, which means the entire chain of military command is a question, and a risk (and recall Obama’s previous presidential purge of the nuclear command and other military senior leadership).

When I was at the University of Texas at Austin back in the early 1980s, the former White House National Security Advisor to presidents Kennedy and Johnson, W.W. “Walt” Rostow, not infrequently mentioned in his graduate seminar, a statement made by JFK that “the most dangerous man in the White House is the president who can think for himself.” Rostow harbored a deep dislike, if contempt, for Kennedy, although he carefully concealed it.  Part of this stemmed from Kennedy banishing Rostow to an obscure lower-level position outside of the White House after his intransigence and obsession over the Viet Nam escalation, which was contrary to Kennedy’s view.  After Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson installed, Rostow suddenly reappeared as Johnson’s top advisor, or as LBJ called him, “my intellectual, and I have him by the short hairs.”   (Rostow’s brother Eugene, who was Dean of Yale Law and later made Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs by LBJ, pushed for the “Warren Commission” to quickly direct the standard narrative on the assassination.) Rostow became notorious for his incessant manipulation of Johnson to escalate the Vietnam War.  A University of East Anglia scholar, David Milne, later wrote an insightful book on Rostow, titled “America’s Rasputin.” Rostow was almost certainly the author of the quickly re-written Vietnam escalation memorandum, NSAM 273, released one day after Kennedy’s funeral (Rostow also authored the Great Society, as domestic cover and appeasement for Southeast Asia foreign policy, and to create a supposed LBJ legend).

In many ways, history has repeated itself, as the culture of back-door, behind-the-scenes manipulation of American presidents not only continues, but with Biden, has reach its apogee by removing entirely the risk of a chief executive thinking for himself in any dimension—indeed, it has reached down even into the current president’s incapacity in performing even the most basic tasks of the presidency.

Who plays today the role of Rasputin?  Well, it has grown into a “Team Rasputin” that seems to be a coordinated body.  Who, then, directs the coordinated body?  To some extent at a retail political level it is Obama and his team who have been re-assembled into the White House (called by some the “Obama reunion,” such as Susan Rice).  But in no way unprecedented today, it is an even more tightly knit network of directors and managers who steer the government. As those figures are fully discussed in the public domain, I will refrain from repeating it here, except to say that any semblance of Constitutional separation, has been nearly eradicated; moreover, as University of Colorado Law professor Robert Nagel additionally puts it, federalism architecture has imploded.

There are several remedies still within the authority of the other branches, but it is also important to point out that those are largely captured already, and moreover the Covid deception operation, managed in the previous election cycle through state judiciaries, in large part by the “Political Law” practice of Perkins Coie, is by no means now dormant. There is a glimmer of capability and resistance from the States—which in actual federalism there should be—and two recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions on absentee voting and ballot drop boxes are an important push-back. See the prior dissent opinion by the enlightened Wisconsin Justices Patience Roggensack, joined by Annette Kingsland Ziegler (who is now Chief Justice); in case, 2020AP2038, Trump v. Biden (December 14, 2020). At an operational election level, they explain with professional sourcing and data, many of the problems that led to the current White House infiltration by blatant circumvention of law (and why the January 6 Committee is desperate to cover up: in U.S. history, organized state crime is always immediately followed by “Commissions” and congressional committees). As the dissenting Wisconsin Justices state in their opening, “Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast. [We] respectfully dissent from that decision.”

ADL Audit Shows Anti-Semitism Rising

/28 Comments/in /by

On May 5, 2022, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith published its annual “Audit of AntiSemitic Incidents 2021.” This is an extensive document with graphs and charts, and seven sections including Executive Summary, Major Findings, Themes and Trends, Methodology, Policy Recommendations, Take Action, and Acknowledgements. The document does have demands for extensive action that must be taken on “whole-of-government” and “whole-of-society” levels to stop “incidents of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism and assault in the United States.”

Since this report has excessive influence on government and social policy, it is essential that we examine it for validity and relevance.

The report features a picture of what appears to be a phrase stenciled on a stone surface, perhaps a gravestone, in blue paint which reads “THE JEW IS GUILTY.” This is apparently meant to convey the absurdity and “extremism” of anti-Semitic incidents, and of those who would say such a thing. Yet when we consider the origins of the ADL in 1913 (which it describes under its About section) — to exonerate Leo Frank in the murder of little Mary Phagan—it’s a dubious claim at best.

We might be able to find the specific incident on the HEAT Map (hate, extremism, anti-Semitism, terrorism), where ADL catalogs the incidents in some detail by state, but it is not searchable in such a way as we can reasonably find where “THE JEW IS GUILTY” came from. Perhaps the incident refers to the Ghislaine Maxwell (Hoch), accomplice of the child-raping blackmail organizer Jeffrey Epstein who was found guilty late last year of several sex-trafficking charges (though many of her grotesque crimes were not prosecuted, and she never ratted on all the wealthy, politically connected individuals who willingly engaged in these crimes).

The ADL claims an increase of 34% in anti-Semitic incidents last year — the highest total since it started keeping count in 1979. A portion of this increase is admittedly due to new “partnerships” in reporting that joined the ADL in 2021:

Of the 2,717 incidents included in the 2021 Audit of AntiSemitic incidents, 494 were identified through newly established partnerships between ADL and several Jewish organizations, including the Community Security Initiative (CSI), Community Security Service (CSS), Hillel International, Secure Community Network (SCN), Union of Reform Judaism and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. This shared reporting represents 18% of the total number of incidents in 2021.

So a significant portion of the increase—~72 percent —is due not to an increase in incidents, but to expanded reporting. Factoring out the new reporting for 2021, we find a less than 10% increase in incidents, not the 34% ADL is claiming.

The incidents are divided into three categories: harassment, vandalism and assault. Starting with the most serious, assault:

The 88 incidents of anti-Semitic assault (a 167% increase from 33 in 2020), involved 131 victims; none of the assaults were deadly. In 2021, there were no assaults perpetrated against the Jewish community that resulted in mass causalities. Of the physical assaults against Jewish individuals, the vast majority (77 of 88) were perpetrated without the use of a deadly weapon.

This is in sharp contrast to assaults generally in the US. Official FBI crime statistics are always about a year behind, but looking back to 2020 for trends:

Per 2020 FBI final statistics released in late September 2021, the number of homicides increased nearly 30% from 2019, the largest single-year increase the agency has recorded since it began tracking these crimes in the 1960s.

Violent crime in general was up 5.6% in 2020, and aggravated assault up over 12%.

Preliminary data for 2021 is alarming:

According to the Gun Violence Archive, from January 1 to September 15, a total of 14,516 people died from gun violence in the US. That’s 1,300 more than during the same period in 2020, a 9% increase. Mass shootings are also on the rise. Through September 15, there have been 498 mass shootings across the US, or an average of about 1.92 per day. That’s 15% higher than last year, when there were a total of 611, a rate of 1.67 per day, according to data from the GVA.

The rapid rise in gun violence, however, might be slowing down. Richard Rosenfeld, a criminology professor at the University of Missouri–St. Louis and his colleagues found that in the first quarter of 2021, the number of homicides was 23% higher than in 2020. In the second quarter that number went down to 10%.

To be clear, in the second quarter of 2021, the increase went down to only 10% above 2020 levels.

Compared to these alarming statistics on violent crime, homicide, gun violence and mass shootings among the general population, during the same period of “anti-Semitic assault,” Jews experienced zero homicides, possibly zero gun violence (only 12.5 percent of assaults on Jews involved a deadly weapon, not necessarily a gun) and zero mass shootings. Jews were overwhelmingly safer from assault than other racial groups in 2021 in America, especially Blacks. The ADL shows no shame in hyping an increased threat to Jews however.

I was curious to see the ratio of assault against Jews compared to other racial groups. If we take not the number of incidents, but the number of individual Jews assaulted in 2021 as tallied by the ADL, 131, divided by the number of Jews in America, 5.8 million (at least, and possibly 2.8 million more). we see an incidence of at most .002%. Blacks for instance number about 45 million in the US today, according to Statista. The best Black violent crime statistics I could find come from 2018, so the comparison is not current, but we must suppose the data were worse in 2021. So this is conservative. Blacks experienced 563,940 violent incidents in 2018 (Over 70% of the perpetrators of this violence were Black themselves.). If blacks were about 42.5 million in 2018, then Blacks were a victim of violent crime at an incidence of .9%. Blacks were at least 450 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than Jews.

The ADL does not explain to us how many of the incidents of assault against Jews were perpetrated by other Jews. We are to assume that all the incidents are perpetrated by non-Jews, but history is filled with Jew-on-Jew violence, what we might call Jewish “Anti-Semitism.”. Some of it is deliberate false flag activity so certain Jews can use fears of anti-Semitism for various manipulative schemes. It appears the ADL is engaged in this audit with a deliberate attempt to inflame fears of anti-Semitism for various agendas, not the least of which is the ADL’s reason for existence.

Turning to the ADL’s “vandalism” category, we see that swastikas, “which are generally interpreted by Jews to be symbols of anti-Semitic hatred,” were present in 578 of 853 incidents, a staggering 68% of cases. Numerous incidents have been reported of swastika symbols being painted, scratched or otherwise displayed as symbols of anti-Semitism. In what seems a regular occurrence, too often the perpetrators are discovered to be Jews, which Jews themselves admit, such as this Times of Israel report of 2017, “Jewish suspects arrested over swastika graffiti on synagogues,” or this from only a couple months ago, “Jewish woman arrested for painting swastikas in Jewish neighborhood.” The ADL does not tell us how many of these swastika incidents are self-inflicted, and it does not tell us if the swastikas were displayed with absolutely no intention of “vandalizing” Jews. We can suppose the painting or scratching or otherwise drawing of a swastika somewhere visible is a form of vandalism (though not always; are all other cases of graffiti considered vandalism?), but it seems a rather mild form to me. Jews have been the targets of far worse forms of vandalism in history, probably Kristallnacht in Germany on November 10, 1938 the most well-known.

The ADL does qualify what it considers vandalism:

Incidents are defined as vandalism of property, or as harassment or assault on individuals and/or groups, where either 1) circumstances indicate anti-Jewish animus on the part of the perpetrator, or 2) a reasonable person could plausibly conclude they were being victimized due to their Jewish identity. Vandalism against Jewish religious institutions or cemeteries may also be included.

But not every case of painting a swastika is “anti-Jewish animus.” Jews have claimed the swastika as their own symbol of anti-Semitic hate and they cannot allow it to mean anything else. Traditionally the swastika is tens of thousands of years old, has been found all over the world wherever ancient Aryans traveled and raised civilizations, and was a symbol of cosmic order, alignment and prosperity.

We will look at one more statistical deception in the ADL Audit, though many more can be explored. The ADL assigns anti-Semitic incidence numbers by state, suggesting that some states are more anti-Semitic than others. What the ADL fails to do is rank the states by Jewish and non-Jewish population numbers, arriving at a per-capita incident number, not simply a total number.

The states with the highest number of incidents were New York (416), New Jersey (370), California (367), Florida (190), Michigan (112) and Texas (112). Combined, these states account for 58% of the total incidents.

New York has by far the highest percentage of Jews of any state at over 9 percent, amounting to almost 1.8 million Jews. At 416 incidents, this makes only .02 percent of the Jews in New York were likely to be victims of anti-Semitic incidents. For comparison, choosing a state such as Kansas with relatively few Jews, 17,425, we find the likelihood of Jews suffering anti-Semitic incidents (3) to be about .017%, almost identical. California had 367 incidents, but has a Jewish population of 1,188,000, giving a likelihood of an anti-Semitic incident in CA of .03%. Again for comparison, Idaho had only 5 anti-Semitic incidents, and a Jewish population of 2,125, delivering an incidence rate of .2%. This is 10 times worse than New York! Not that 5 cases of alleged anti-Semitism in Idaho including drawing swastikas is of any concern to anyone. The ADL features the relatively high numbers only in states where Jewish populations are largest, making the raw number of cases higher, but the per capita rate lower than in many other states.

A careful analysis of the ADL’s 2022 “Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents” reveals that there is no reason for Jews to be alarmed at these levels of harassment, vandalism and assault. The ADL uses various deceptive techniques to inflame fear of anti-Semitism on the rise in the U.S. in order to impose key aspects of their agenda for Jewish power in America.

The Audit makes extensive demands. Some of the ADL’s stated and unstated objectives in the report include continued and expanded lavish support of the US for the state of Israel; suppression of “white supremacist” groups; a 5 part program for online censorship and free speech control; increased funding at all levels for “security enhancements” at Jewish facilities (which already receive the vast majority of federal funds); beefed-up and re-educated law enforcement; fully implementing “the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act in 2021, which incorporated the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act,” the Hate Crime Statistics Act, the Emmet Till Antilynching Act, and the National Incident-Based Reporting System; and “teach the universal lessons of the Holocaust.”

If you are wondering at certain rhetoric concerned about Jews at official levels:

Public officials and civic leaders — from the President, to governors, attorneys general, mayors, other civic leaders, and law enforcement authorities — must use their bully pulpits to speak out against antiSemitism…

Such vague concepts as “Protect Democracy” and “Fight Extremism” are carefully detailed, and finally we are urged to “Speak Up” and rat out anti-Semites boldly, tell Congress to allocate more money to protect synagogues, and “Show Strength” by attending the ADL’s Never is Now conference in November, “the world’s largest annual summit on anti-Semitism and hate.”

The ADL also has six “More Ways to Take Action,” and those further inspired can learn about the “PROTECT Plan To Fight Domestic Terrorism.” This is an acronym which stands for:

Prioritize Preventing and Countering Domestic Terrorism
Resource According to the Threat
Oppose Extremists in Government Service
Take Domestic Terrorism Prevention Measures
End the Complicity of Social Media in Facilitating Extremism
Create an Independent Clearinghouse for Online Extremist Content
Target Foreign White Supremacist Terrorist Groups

Finally, let us not forget about that special resource for identifying anti-Semitism, the HEAT Map. It details every incident by state with a user-friendly graphic map of the US. Just click on any state and scroll down through the many anti-Semitic incidents by date in that state. Obviously a great deal of time and money was spent on this useful resource, so be sure to sample it and be amazed at how much anti-Semitism is afflicting all the states of the nation at this time.

I used to live in Oregon, so I sampled some of the incidents listed during the time I lived there. All I found in my former region was Patriot Front distributing literature which said such blasphemies as “Reclaim America” and “American is Not For Sale.” In the 20 years I lived in that part of Oregon, I never once saw a Patriot Front piece of literature. If I had, I certainly would not have identified it as anti-Semitic.

Much more analysis can be done on this Audit to discredit the ADL’s attempts to incite fear of increasing anti-Semitism in America at this time and to implement its policies and programs to further entrench Jewish power. Feel free to review other aspects of the Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, where you will surely find many other frauds, data distortions, false claims, irrational emotional appeals, exaggerations and paranoia. For myself, I’ve seen enough.

Jeffrey Sachs and Philip Giraldi: The Ukraine War Is Yet Another Neocon War

/21 Comments/in , /by

Jeffrey Sachs in Tikkun (a liberal-left Jewish publication):

The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons. As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle. If Europe has any insight, it will separate itself from these US foreign policy debacles.

…

The neocon outlook is based on an overriding false premise: that the US military, financial, technological, and economic superiority enables it to dictate terms in all regions of the world. It is a position of both remarkable hubris and remarkable disdain of evidence. Since the 1950s, the US has been stymied or defeated in nearly every regional conflict in which it has participated. Yet in the “battle for Ukraine,” the neocons were ready to provoke a military confrontation with Russia by expanding NATO over Russia’s vehement objections because they fervently believe that Russia will be defeated by US financial sanctions and NATO weaponry.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a neocon think-tank led by Kimberley Allen Kagan (and backed by a who’s who of defense contractors such as General Dynamics and Raytheon), continues to promise a Ukrainian victory. Regarding Russia’s advances, the ISW offered a typical comment: “[R]egardless of which side holds the city [of Sievierodonetsk], the Russian offensive at the operational and strategic levels will probably have culminated, giving Ukraine the chance to restart its operational-level counteroffensives to push Russian forces back.”

Notice that Sachs, writing in a Jewish publication, avoids any mention of advancing Israeli interests as the main motive of the neocons. However, Jewish motives and Israeli interests are always front and center for Jewish neocons, but to establish that, one needs to delve into biographical details (e.g., associational patterns, history of pro-Israel activism, family connections). (This 2014 article shows that Victoria Nuland, a central figure in both the 2014 coup and the current war, is enmeshed in a family dedicated to pro-Israel activism.)

These sorts of details are essentially missing on the Ukraine war in both the Sachs article as well as in Philip Giraldi’s article in The Unz Review (“How Jewish Is the War against Russia?”). However, as indicated below, Giraldi notes such details in his treatment of the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Giraldi:

Currently, the top three State Department officials (Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland) are all Zionist Jews. The head of the Department of Homeland Security, which is hot on the trail of domestic “terrorist” dissidents, is also Jewish as is the Attorney General and the president’s chief of staff. They and their boss Joe Biden do not seem concerned that their client Ukraine is no democracy. The nation’s current government came into power after the 2014 coup engineered by President Barack Obama’s State Department at an estimated cost of $5 billion. The regime change carried out under Barack Obama was driven by State Department Russophobe Victoria Nuland with a little help from international globalist George Soros. It removed the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych who was, unfortunately for him, a friend of Russia.

Ukraine is reputedly both the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, witness the Hunter Biden saga. The current President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish and claims to have holocaust victims in his family tree, is a former comedian who won election in 2019. He replaced another Jewish president Petro Poroshenko, after being heavily funded and promoted by yet another fellow Jew and Ukraine’s richest oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is also an Israeli citizen and now lives in Israel.

It all sounds like deja vu all over again, particularly as many of the perpetrators are still around, like Nuland, priming the pump to go to war yet again for no reason. And they are joined by journalists like Bret Stephens at the New York Times, Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper at CNN, and also Max Boot at the Washington Post, all of whom are Jewish and can be counted on to write regular pieces both damning and demonizing Russia and its head of state Vladimir Putin, which means it is not only about the Middle East anymore. It is also about weakening and even bringing about regime change in nuclear armed Russia while also drawing some lines in the sand for likewise nuclear armed China. And I might add that playing power games with Russia is a hell of a lot more dangerous that kicking Iraq around.

To put it bluntly, many US government and media Jews hate Russia and even though they benefited substantially as a group by virtue of their preeminent role in the looting of the former Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin and continue to be among the most prominent Russian oligarchs. Many of the oligarch billionaires, like Boris Berezovsky, self-exiled when Vladimir Putin obtained power and began to crack down on their tax avoidance and other illegal activity. Many moved to Western Europe where some bought up football teams while others went south and obtained Israeli citizenship. Their current grievances somewhat reflect their tribe’s demand for perpetual victimhood and the deference plus forgiveness of all sins that it conveys, with the self-promoted tales of persecution going back to the days of the Tsars, full of allegations about pogroms and Cossacks arriving in the night, stories that rival many of the holocaust fabrications in terms of their lack of credibility.

…

It has long been recognized by many that a particular antipathy directed against Russia permeates the so-called neoconservative world view. The neocons are hugely overrepresented at the top levels of government and, as noted above, a number of them are running the State Department while also holding high level positions elsewhere in the Biden Administration as well as in the foreign policy think tanks, including Richard Haass at the influential Council on Foreign Relations. Likewise, the intensely Russophobic US and Western media, foundations and social networking sites are disproportionately Jewish in their ownership and staffing.

And beyond that, Ukraine is to a certain extent a very Jewish-identified place. The Jewish media in the US and elsewhere has been showering Zelensky with praise, referring to him as a genuine “Jewish hero,” a modern Maccabee resisting oppression, a David versus Goliath. T-shirts bearing his image are being sold that read “Resisting tyrants since Pharaoh” while the largely Orthodox Jewish community in New York City has already been raising millions of dollars for Ukrainian aid.

…

As US-Russian negotiations leading up the current fighting were clearly designed to fail by the Biden Administration, one therefore has to wonder if this war against Russia is largely a product of a long enduring ethno-religious hatred coupled with a belief in the necessity for a strong American military applied as needed to dominate the world and thereby protect Israel. The neocons are most visible, but equally toxic are the Jews who would prefer to describe themselves as neoliberals or liberal interventionists, that is liberals who promote a strong, assertive American leadership role to support the basically phony catchwords “democracy” and “freedom.” Both neocons and neoliberals inevitably support the same policies so they have both ends of the political spectrum covered, particularly concerning the Middle East and against Russia. They currently dominate the foreign policy thinking of both major political parties as well as exercising control over media and entertainment industry coverage of the issues that concern them, largely leaving the American public with only their viewpoint to consider.

Alas, Giraldi presents the issue of Jewish motivation as a question: “One has to wonder….” Nevertheless, he is quite clear on Jewish motivations for the war in Iraq, with some of the same information presented in my “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement.”

There was considerable collusion between the Israeli government and the Jews in the Pentagon, White House, National Security Council and State Department in the wake of 9/11. Under President George W. Bush, Israeli Embassy staff uniquely had free access to the Pentagon office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, not being required to sign in or submit any security measures. It was a powerful indication of the special status that Israel enjoyed with top Jews in the Bush Administration. It should also be recalled that Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans was the source of the false WMD information used by the Administration to justify invading Iraq, while that information was also funneled directly to Vice President Dick Cheney without any submission to possibly critical analysts by his chief of Staff “Scooter” Libby. Wolfowitz, Feith and Libby were of course Jewish as were many on their staffs and Feith’s relationship with Israel was so close that he actually partnered in a law firm that had a branch in Jerusalem. Feith also served on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which is dedicated to nurturing the relationship between the US and Israel.

These issues are always complicated, since many American Jews (reportedly the majority in the  lead-up to the war in Iraq) have opposed these wars, and it’s depressingly easy to find non-Jews, particularly mainstream conservatives, who are also strong supporters of these wars. As always, one has to look at where the power and influence lie, and once again, it lies with strongly identified Jews in the Biden administration, the foreign policy establishment (both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists), and the media, as it was during the George W. Bush administration. Activist Jews promoting war can count on the mainstream media to never mention their Jewish identity or history of promoting Israel.

Non-Jews have many motives for supporting these ventures, from misguided patriotism to great career opportunities in politics, the media, and even the academic world. The reality is that a great many non-Jews gravitate to the power, money, and career opportunities available for those who do not rock the boat on Jewish influence, and they do so for self-interested reasons. Getting ahead in the mainstream requires an understanding that opposing the centers of the Jewish power results in marginalization at best or instant career death at worst. The rise of a Jewish elite in the U.S. has had far-ranging consequences, including policies on immigration, civil rights, the secularization of American culture, and the pathologization of White identity and collective White interests.

Jewish influence is indeed the 800-lb gorilla in the room. The lack of honest discussion of Jewish power and influence — or any discussion at all — among mainstream figures in the media, academia, and politics speaks volumes.