On Reinventing a Ruling Class, Part 1

/14 Comments/in /by

This essay serves as the Introduction to a book which has just appeared, entitled Reinventing Aristocracy in the Age of Woke Capital (London: Arktos, 2022); it is available at Arktos and Amazon.

The proudest boast of the transnational corporate welfare state is that it has rendered obsolete the political hegemony of traditional ruling classes. Achievement, not ascribed or hereditary status, is said to be the key to material success and political influence. The open society promoted by transnational corporate capitalism has become the template of social progress. Accordingly, in the USA, only a few decades ago, a complacent WASP establishment was sidelined by a new class of brash outsiders. At the highest levels of American society, WASPs simply ceased to dominate.[i] In the media and entertainment industries, in banking, the law and academia, they were replaced, most visibly and dramatically, by Jewish parvenus.

Harvard University, America’s oldest university and long-time gateway to the ruling class, is emblematic of that transformation. Founded as ‘a schoale or colledge’ in 1636 by the first wave of Puritan settlers in New England, Harvard received its corporate charter from the Massachusetts General Court in 1650. By the nineteenth century, the college had become the intellectual bastion of an increasingly secularized, or, perhaps more precisely, deracinated, WASP Ascendancy.[ii] To all appearances, it remained a predominantly WASP institution until the mid-twentieth century.

Since then, however, Harvard has been almost completely detached from its ancestral ethno-religious identity. The once Anglocentric college was rebranded by cosmopolitan managers and well-connected overseers as a globalist multiversity. As a consequence, American ‘whites’ (a statistical category which includes Jews and non-WASP, European-descended, ethnicities) presently account for only about 42% of the entering class each year. In a striking sign of the times, there are now more Jews than WASPs among Harvard undergraduates.[iii]

In the received narrative of capitalist modernization, the rags-to-riches story of American Jewry is not about ethnic rivalry. Rather, the astonishing upward social mobility enjoyed, inter alia, by American Jews is typically attributed to the economic dynamism, technological prowess, and managerial and professional opportunities created by the modern American business corporation. In industry, education, the law and government, the rise of the managerial class was grounded in the progressive principle of careers open to the talents.

Orthodox Marxist historians emphasized the revolutionary role played by the bourgeoisie in undercutting the authority of established aristocracies.[iv] But the social character of the bourgeoisie was very different from the professional and managerial class spawned by the expansion of corporate capitalism. The eighteenth and nineteenth century bourgeoisie was, formally or informally, an estate of the realm. Unlike the relentlessly materialistic, performance-driven, goal-oriented managerial class, the bourgeoisie remained grounded in the status hierarchy of traditionally, and still predominantly Christian societies. In late nineteenth century, England, its Empire, and Europe, generally, authority could be justified credibly, if not exclusively, by reference to its origins. The genetic legitimacy of traditional ruling classes was based upon custom and social convention or in a presumptive divine right. Apart from any other justification, the right of conquest could be invoked. Like slaves captured in war, conquered peoples were fortunate to be allowed to live under the thumb of a victorious ruler.

The old, landed nobilities of Europe did not simply fade into the background amidst the satanic mills of bourgeois capitalist society. They continued to play a prominent role in social and political life until the Great War of the early twentieth century. In fact, ‘it was the rising national bourgeoisies that were obliged to adapt themselves to the nobilities.’ Even the most successful bourgeois merchants, bankers, and industrialists aspired to positions on ‘the high social, cultural, and political terrain’ occupied and controlled by the nobility.[v]

Even so, Anglo-American society provided fertile soil for the growth of a free market society. The English jurisprudence of liberty had deep roots. Britons had long vowed that they never, never, would be slaves. The ancient British constitution married the authority of both the king and patrician parliamentarians to primordial notions of popular consent. The Protestant Reformation rocked the foundations of ecclesiastical authority by licensing the freedom of every individual conscience. Then, in the mid-seventeenth century, the simmering resentment of English commoners towards their aristocratic and ecclesiastical rulers boiled over as Puritan revolutionaries executed the king in the name of parliament and the people. The Puritan struggle for religious liberty not only produced a civil war which upset the traditional balance of the ancient constitution; it also gave great impetus to the rise of capitalism in both England and colonial America.[vi]

By the 19th century, Anglo-American political authority was no longer justified primarily by reference to its origins. Leading legal thinkers came to scorn the Lockean obsession with social contract no less than the common lawyer’s veneration of musty precedents. A new ruling class appeared, basing its title to political power on its ability to achieve results. From then on, the source of constitutional legitimacy ceased to be genetic; it became goal-oriented or telic instead. Utilitarianism became the political leitmotif of an erstwhile bourgeois, now professionally managed corporate capitalist regime promising to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

Corporations in the Early American Republic

Just as the rise of the bourgeoisie did not entirely eliminate aristocratic élites, the mental shift toward a goal-oriented view of politics overshadowed but did not entirely eviscerate traditional forms of genetic legitimacy. Indeed, in England, the aristocracy and landed gentry actually performed the economic role of the bourgeoisie as they pioneered new forms of agrarian capitalism. By the early nineteenth century, the result was ‘an open aristocracy based on property and patronage.’[vii] While the aristocracy and gentry classes were open to new forms of enterprise and political organization, the English bourgeoisie tempered its progressive ethos with a respect for traditional social, political, and legal institutions. The culmination of every truly successful business career was the acquisition of a substantial landed estate and, ideally, a hereditary title of nobility, both of which were then passed on to heirs expected to carry on the erstwhile bourgeois, family’s newly-invented traditions.

In both England and the American republic of the early national period, a patrician ruling class emerged which owed its wealth and social standing to the productive use of property. English common law had developed uniquely extensive and concentrated forms of individual proprietorship over land, which facilitated private, purely economic, ‘capitalist’ modes of appropriation. Elsewhere, in France for example, the state was much more important as a means of appropriating surplus labour from direct producers, as were other forms of politically constituted property, such as corporate privileges. Agrarian capitalism on the Anglo-American model helped to consolidate the distinctively bourgeois hegemony of civil society over the state. It came as no surprise, therefore, when foreign observers characterized the early American republic—sometimes even England—as ‘stateless societies.’[viii]

As a matter of constitutional form, early nineteenth century England was a monarchy. In reality, however, like the newly independent USA, it was a patrician republic in which a rising bourgeoisie made up of merchants, professionals and manufacturers constituted a natural aristocracy. By comparison with the continental regimes familiar to Alexis de Tocqueville, the patrician élites in Anglo-American societies favoured a minimalist state, confident that they could deliver the greatest good for the greatest number through the productive use of their private property. This view presumed that the people-at-large would continue to defer to their betters among a natural aristocracy, respecting the constitutional liberty of the latter to do as they chose with their property.

Tocqueville was among the first to warn that radical democratic disdain for aristocratic privilege was bound to give greater weight to popular demands for equality than to inherited traditions of constitutional liberty, much less the political prerogatives of property ownership.[ix] It was not long before the rising tide of democratic politics in America displaced the patrician Standing Order that had ruled colonial New England. In Britain and the American South, where the aristocratic ethos of the gentry was more solidly rooted than in New England, the process took longer, but there, too, the writing was on the wall.

The democratic radicalism spawned by the American Revolution trans- formed American society and politics, extending the principle of equality into every aspect of public, and eventually even into private life. Every branch of government now owed its existence to ‘the people.’[x] As they began to lose control over the newly constituted state and federal governments, patrician élites, especially in New England, began to experiment with new forms of politically constituted property intended to restore their traditional hegemony. They sought and obtained a massive expansion in the number of special corporate charters granted by state legislatures, not just to business enterprises, but to schools, colleges, hospitals, and churches.

For a time, the creative deployment of chartered corporations helped to shore up the sagging social prestige of the old patriciate. But that defensive strategy could be sustained only so long as corporations retained their traditional legal identity as ‘civil bodies politic.’ This concept seems altogether alien to the modern mind, accustomed as it is to think of the corporation as little more than a legal and organizational form designed to facilitate the pursuit of private profit. We take for granted the separation of ownership and control. But, for a patrician élite, the classical republican concept of property was understood as the material foundation of civic virtue. It applied not just to landed property but was embodied as well in the personal rights and responsibilities of the corporate shareholder.

At common law, property, especially landed property, had been conceived as ‘that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual.’[xi] Possession of a landed estate ensured not only the economic autonomy of the household but its political independence as well. With the property owner as its head, every household became a little school of self-government. Property was thus directly linked to the responsibilities of rulership. Something like the same result was achieved by the special charter regime that effectively constituted the corporation as a ‘little republic.’

Corporate charters were granted by state legislatures, on a case-by-case basis, to achieve both public and private purposes. The constitutional principle of ultra vires operated to prevent any corporate enterprise from acting to achieve objects not authorized by its charter. Moreover, shareholders were responsible for the uses to which their common property was put. Consequently, limited liability was not an automatic and universal corporate privilege. Shares in a joint-stock enterprise therefore carried an associational element along with a proprietary interest. Shareowners were members of the corporate body politic; in effect, they were citizens of their own little republic. If the corporate charter did not specify the voting rights attached to share ownership, judges sometimes held that, prima facie, the rule should be: ‘one voice, one vote’ (i.e., not ‘one share, one vote’). Such civic concern for the integrity of the corporate body politic also led many to take a dim view of proxy voting. The practice was widely condemned as an abdication of shareholders’ political responsibilities.

It was not long, however, before the corporation as a civil body politic came under sustained attack as a bastion of ‘aristocratic privilege.’ A radical anti-charter movement arose, most notably in New York and Pennsylvania, to demand general incorporation laws and the extension of limited liability to all shareholders. The ‘democratization’ of the corporation did widen investment opportunities for small shareholders, encouraging widespread use of the corporate device as a means of securing firm central direction over the enterprising use of assets.

But precisely because small investors were least likely to value the associational element of share ownership, corporations ceased to be conceived as bodies politic. Soon the law began to treat corporations as private, economic instruments of capital accumulation. Republican resistance to the ‘one share, one vote’ rule became pointless. For the same reason, from being a sign of civic corruption within the corporate body politic, proxy voting became a simple convenience. Both developments may have owed their origins to the democratic rhetoric of the anti-charter movement, but their most important consequence was to entrench the plutocratic principle in corporate governance.

The Managerial Revolution and Corporate Plutocracy

Ironically but logically, the rise of corporate plutocracy signalled the imminent decline of the bourgeoisie. By the end of the American Civil War, the collapse of the corporation as a civil body politic was pretty much complete. Consequently, the patrician bourgeoisie could no longer function as an informal third estate within the civil constitution of Anglo-American society; it was displaced by an increasingly impersonal system of corporate capitalism. Membership in the body corporate became little more than a legal fossil, altogether divorced from patrician norms of honour and responsibility.

Such a change implied a fundamental transformation in property ownership. Marx was among the first to realize that the joint-stock company effectively abolished private property. Share ownership created a novel form of collective or social capital. From being a form of absolute dominion exercised over an autonomous landed household, proprietary interests were disaggregated into a variable bundle of claims to a share of the wealth or income generated within a complex, interdependent process of production, distribution, and exchange. Property ownership lost its civic significance; it no longer served as a school of self-government. Stripped of its patrician role within the body politic, the civic role of the corporate bourgeoisie was replaced by the self-interested avarice of fickle investors, ever on the lookout for the chance to buy on the dip and sell at the peak.

The moral decline and civic irrelevance of corporate shareholders as a class was a consequence of both the democratic and the managerial revolutions. Even a putatively natural aristocracy was ill-placed to compete with organized political machines employing the rhetoric of egalitarian democracy to license the growth of an impersonal public administration. Nor could wealth alone provide its owners with the managerial skills necessary to run a complex, multi-unit, modern business enterprise.

But the haute bourgeoisie in America and elsewhere in the Western world was not forcibly deprived of decision-making authority in the corporate realm. Rather, given the opportunity, moneyed interests were more than willing to abandon the notion that property ownership should carry with it the sort of public responsibility and civic obligation associated with the aristocratic ideal of noblesse oblige. By and large, the bourgeoisie simply abdicated the responsibilities of rulership.

The public burdens of property ownership came to count for much less than its private benefits, nowhere more obviously than in the sphere of corporate governance. Once the ‘one voice, one vote’ principle was replaced by the ‘one share, one vote’ rule, share ownership became a means of systematically negating the civic significance of property ownership. All shares, not all persons, were created equal. Not surprisingly, wealthy investors soon became quite comfortable with that interpretation of democratic equality. The voice of a shareholder with one hundred or one million shares now carried one hundred or one million times the weight of a member holding but one share in a common corporate enterprise. Votes came to be valued, not as an incident of membership in a corporate body politic, but rather for their tactical importance in securing effective control over a valuable bundle of economic and financial assets.

So long as their business was organized as a family firm, a partnership or a close corporation, an entrepreneurial capitalist could remain in control of his own enterprise. But, having chosen homo economicus as their role model, capitalist entrepreneurs became hostages to fortune in the public realm, where a new class of professional politicians and bureaucrats was expanding the state’s administrative capacities. Indeed, even in the economic sphere, the spectacular success of entrepreneurial capitalism spawned a vast network of hugely complex business enterprises organized and run by professional managers with highly specialized technical and administrative skills. More often than not, the most successful enterprises became public corporations whose shares and bonds were traded in national financial markets. Before long, entrepreneurial capitalists lost control over the corporate sector to a rising class of professional managers. By the early twentieth century, the separation of ownership and control had become the default position in the modern business corporation.

Managerial élites are now in the driver’s seat, not just the corporate sector, but in the state as well. Democracy no longer implies that the government will be ‘owned,’ much less ‘controlled,’ by the people of any given nation. The only legitimate form of democracy, according to the multiculturalist mullahs of the managerial state, is cosmopolitan democracy. The state may still claim to act in the name of the people, but the demos has expanded to include the whole of humanity. By virtue of their presumptive enlightenment, the managerial and professional classes now present themselves, or, rather, the global system which they administer, as the virtual representatives of humanity at large.

Corporate capitalism has expanded to become a global system of organized irresponsibility. Precisely because it is a system, it has become a form of no-man rule. No-one can be held responsible for the operation of the system; it has a life and logic of its own. At most, individuals can be held accountable for a failure to behave in accordance with the norms governing the effective management and orderly administration of sub-systems. Entrepreneurial activity, capital investment and managerial oversight have all become specialized functions, no longer united in a single figure responsible for the uses to which property is put. Those who variously own, manage, or regulate the corporate economy generally escape political responsibility for its social costs, much less for the moral hazards and spiritual emptiness that are among its most obvious by-products. Within a global economy detached from and destructive of local communities, the ruling class has disappeared behind the corporate veil.

In these circumstances, the restoration of a ruling class prepared to accept responsibility for the fate of the common world would be a welcome relief. Unfortunately, political, economic, and cultural élites throughout the Anglosphere are steeped in dishonour; they have privatised the privileges of high social status while socialising the public burdens of responsible rulership. The ideology of ‘democratic capitalism’ allows them to dissimulate their actual role as a ruling class, thereby evading personal liability for the adverse consequences (described antiseptically as ‘negative externalities’) of their corporate decisions. Political imagination is surplus to requirements in a bureaucratic corporate hierarchy. Behind the corporate veil, the civic virtues of honourable conduct and personal responsibility have been translated into impersonal standards of accountability for results achieved. The managerial overclass presents, successfully so far, its globalist program of perpetual economic growth as humanity’s highest achievement. In the absence of a noble ruling class, old-fashioned notions of noblesse oblige lose their functional significance.

Resurrecting the Corporation as a Civil Body Politic

Denunciation of the managerial regime serves no useful purpose unless it arises out of a movement aiming to create a new ruling class. This is not an impossible dream. Indeed, given the accelerating crisis of confidence in the corporate sector, it is becoming an urgent practical necessity. In principle, the goal of such a movement is clear: those who nominally own the corporate sector must recover a measure of control over the uses to which their property is put. To make that possible, the public corporation must be reconstituted as a civil body politic. The best citizens among substantial shareholders in public corporations must be allowed, indeed encouraged to become a civic élite within those corporate bodies politic. Reinventing the aristocratic principle of rule by the best and applying it to the governance of the public corporation could help to cope with the multiplying risks generated by a global society of perpetual growth.

When the major task of capitalist development was the conquest of scarcity, it made good sense to privilege the private benefits of corporate share ownership over the public burdens and civic challenges associated with membership in a corporate body politic. It is now high time to tilt the constitutional balance within the corporation away from civic privatism by creating a political role for the active investor. A new emphasis on the political character of membership in the corporate body politic would re-attach civic responsibilities to the proprietary rights of share ownership.

This would mean an end to the plutocratic principle of ‘one share, one vote,’ which did so much to hollow out the civic significance of corporate governance. Only under conditions of political equality can any significant number of share- holders hope to overcome the formidable collective action problems facing activists within the realm of corporate governance. For that reason, all shareholders who hold a substantial threshold stake in an enterprise should be entitled to participate in a process of deliberative decision-making based on one voice, one vote. Property ownership could, once again, serve as a school of self-government.

It may well be that only a relatively few individuals among millions of widely dispersed investors in thousands of firms are ever likely to enrol in such a course in practical civics. Not everyone is moved by the joys of public happiness. But all those who do take up that civic challenge should stand on an equal footing in the corporate body politic. Those who demonstrate by their actions that they value the privileges of membership should bear final responsibility for the good governance of their joint enterprise.

The problem with the governance of corporations as they are presently constituted is that only money talks. At a general meeting, those who hold a majority of the (voting or proxy) shares, even if they are only a small minority of those present, have no need to either to speak or to listen to their fellow members. Even the best corporate citizen is bound to be discouraged by a voting regime that systematically devalues the power of reasoned speech in favour of the sheer dumb weight of proprietary interest. This would not amount to a constitutional issue if corporate decision-making affected only private economic interests. But corporations now exercise powers that are governmental and political in nature.

The constitution of the public corporation must be reconceived as a novel sort of mixed polity in which private ownership interests are balanced against the public responsibilities of governing a body corporate that creates both economic wealth and political power. Corporate governance should be reconstituted to provide a political theatre in which bourgeois investors keeping a sharp eye on their financial interests can also take on the role of citizens striving to distinguish themselves in the service of the common good (and vice versa).

By treating a senatorial élite of shareholders as political equals in fundamental corporate decisions, a reformed constitutional law enables the bourgeois and the citizen to learn the art of corporate governance from each other. If the public corporation is to survive and prosper while doing business in an enlightened and responsible manner, a coalition of interests must learn to balance the economic imperatives which call the business corporation into being against the responsible exercise of its inherent governmental powers. The consequence would be the re-emergence of a patrician bourgeoisie, the very model of a modern natural aristocracy.

[i] See, e.g., E.Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy & Caste in America (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1987); and Eric P. Kaufmann, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

[ii] Ronald Story, The Forging of an Aristocracy: Harvard & the Boston Upper Class (Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press, 1980)

[iii] https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvarduniversity/#enrollment_race; see also, Ron Unz, ‘The Myth of American Meritocracy,’ at: https://www.unz.com/runz/meritocracy-appendices/#3 .

[iv] Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Revolution:1789-1848 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962).

[v] Arno J. Mayer, The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War (New York: Pantheon, 1981), 80-81.

[vi] R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (New York: Mentor, 1946 [orig pub. 1926]), 164.

[vii] Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 17.

[viii] See, especially, Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 3-8.

[ix] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 2 Vols [original edition, 1835 and 1840] (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945).

[x] Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Vintage, 1993).

[xi] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England, Vol II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979 [orig. pub. 1766]), 2.

The Kremlin at a Crossroads: What Happens Next Will Determine Whether Russia Continues to Exist as a Sovereign State

/19 Comments/in /by

Chances are, you started paying attention to Russia right around the time that the Euromaidan coup was pulled off and the rebellion in the East began. Or, you came in around the time that the Syria intervention kicked off.

During this period, people on the internet began looking for explanations to understand what was occurring. They started asking questions like: what does Russia stand for? What is Russia’s plan? Is Russia back on the world stage as a serious player? And, what alternative can Russia offer the world?

They quickly found that Russia’s government was as murky and opaque as their own, and they had little choice but to fall back on the tea-leaf analyses of self-styled Russia experts on the internet. Without any exception, the big name pro-Russia bloggers of this period did not live in Russia, had no real insight into Russian politics, and used the informational vacuum on the topic to get away with saying whatever they wanted.

But we’ve learned so much in recent months. The war has put so much of the bullshit that we’ve been hearing about Russia, the Kremlin, the 5D plans to test. So many truths have surfaced now that can give us some hindsight perspective on what was really going on in the lead-up to this war.

These revelations are worth jotting down here, now.

Also, I realize that I’ve been a rather dour blogger over the last couple of months. If its any justification, believe me, I’ve been far more measured in my doom-posting than a large chunk of Russia’s Telegram analyst community. Right-wingers, in particular, like to get together on livestreams to ritually tear their hair out and throw accusations of treason at government officials, despite the inherent risk of engaging in such behavior. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see the FSB make an example out of one of them soon.

But I don’t want to constantly dwell on Russia’s past mistakes obsessively. I want to learn from them and use them to inform my view of the internal political situation in Russia, nothing more. Furthermore, I don’t have a personal axe to grind against the kleptocrats that run Russia, and, hopefully after this post, I will simply put a bookmark on the long string of past failures of the Russian government leading up to the current situation and focus instead on what will come next.

This ought to at least make my writing a bit more upbeat. And, frankly, it just isn’t in my nature to constantly repeat the same talking points over and over again. I quickly get tired of doing that. If I were a propagandist trying to convince people to think a certain way and adopt a new worldview, then repetition, repetition, and yet more repetition would be the most powerful tool in my arsenal. But I realize now that I’m not really trying to convince anybody of anything when I write. I can’t even say that I’m working to hone my craft. My non-fiction writing serves the simple function for which it is intended: to inform and entertain somewhat. And that is enough for me. Most importantly, it is simply a tool for me to organize my own thoughts and keep track of my own progress in understanding the world and the hidden power processes that govern it.

With this post, I hope to provide a short and concise overview of what really was happening in Russia to get us where we are today that doesn’t rely on 5D chess theories and explains why it has been difficult to figure out just what exactly Russia stands for, what they were aiming to achieve, and why things worked out the way that they did so far in Ukraine. Once that’s done, we will be able to move on, together, to new topics with this general understanding under our belts.

Anyway, with that long preamble out of the way, we really should start our narrative in the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union to understand how we got to where we are today.

Convergence

A sizable faction of the Soviet elite was well and truly working towards rapprochement with the West towards the end of the Soviet Union. As far as I am aware, it was Comrade Andropov who first said what had been left unsaid up until that point. He characterized the convergence of the elites as an inevitable and favorable goal for both the USSR and the USA. If effected, the world would converge into a new world order somewhat similar to the NWO that we see coming into shape now, but with the East and the West as equal partners in it.

Gorbachev continued with efforts to bring the West and the East into alignment with his reforms. Needless to say, they were disastrous. Often unmentioned by anyone except Western conspiracy theorists, the other part of the bargain was that the West would also begin reforming to become more compatible with the East. Seeing as the West went into steep cultural decline from the 60s onwards, it appears that as the East was Westernizing, the West was Easternizing as well.

By the time that Boris Yeltsin and his gang of Jewish gangsters came to power, the terms of the deal had well and truly been changed, even if many elites in Russia still clung to the false hope that the West would treat them as equals. By the time that Putin succeeds Boris, it becomes clear that the West will not treat the Eastern elites equally and will not give them a seat at the big boys’ table. Putin starts off his presidency with the same positions as Yeltsin — he wanted rapprochement with the West and did what he could to curry favor by playing nice. And it seems that he well and truly hit it off with George W. Bush — the two enjoyed amicable relations.

But around the time of the Obama presidency, we begin to see changes occur in Russia’s attitudes towards the West. NATO expansion East was almost certainly the largest determining factor in the newfound pessimistic viewpoint that the Kremlin adopted. Furthermore, it was becoming clearer and clearer that the neocons in the West were serious about implementing the American century-of-hegemony project. In the aftermath of the fall of Ghadaffi, Putin decided to start doing what he can to bring the West to the negotiation table. Russia began looking for cards to play and took a more active role in resisting the West.

The Euromaidan

Despite numerous warnings and all the tell-tale signs of a brewing CIA color coup, Russia still managed to lose Kiev to Western-backed revolutionaries. Worse, the Kremlin forbade Yanukovich from calling in the army or cracking down on the coup. The only ones left holding the line against the terrorists were police cadets, who got brutally savaged by armed thugs and left to fend for themselves while the actual Berkut was largely kept back.

Thankfully, not even the most hopeless 5D chess theorists can spin the loss of Kiev to Victoria Nuland’s cookie-coup as a clever Judo move by Putin.

The Kremlin most likely also prevented Yanukovich from heading to his strongholds in the East to raise support there. Chances are, he probably stole too much from Moscow’s oligarchs, and they were content to see him ousted. In time, the Kremlin no doubt surmised, Kiev would hold new elections and yet another Eastern Ukrainian mafia don would take power again. In the meantime, the oil and gas continued to flow across the territory, so the situation was by and large acceptable to the oligarchs interests.

So, for them, so long as the profits continued to flow, and Ukraine remained dominated by networks of Jewish oligarchs that had shown themselves to be open to accepting Moscow’s bribes in exchange for neutrality towards Russia, the new status quo could be tolerated. Plans for drastic and decisive action were tabled and such talk was vigorously clamped down on by Russia’s liberal private and state-run media. Only certain segments of the patriot blog sounded the alarm on their various blogs and social media accounts.

The Rebellion

Concurrently with Euromaidan, the government of Lvov had been taken in a Maidan-type coup and the region proceeded to declare its intent to become independent of Kiev. When Kiev was taken, this was all forgotten. But, just as one separatist movement fizzled out, another one began. Furthermore, a precedent had been set in both Lvov and Kiev. Despite the Kremlin’s laissez-faire attitude to the events occurring in Ukraine, patriotic Russian nationalists like, most famously, Igor “Strelkov” Girkin, organized a populist uprising in the East. Rebels tried to take the government buildings in much the same way as was done in Kiev. In some regions, this action was successful, but in others, armed gangs and the SBU prevented the separatist coups. Regardless, these actions triggered a response from Kiev and the situation began to spiral out of control shortly after the Ukrainian army was sent in. Kiev’s ATO (anti-terrorist operation) began shortly after and bedlam ensued.

The separatist rebels enjoyed early successes against the unmotivated, disorganized and poorly-equipped Ukrainian army. But volunteer gangs of mercenaries sent in by Kiev and on the pay of the various Jewish oligarchs began to turn the tide against the rebellion. At long last, with defeat of the rebels imminent, Russia did a partial intervention in Debaltseve which got Kiev to back off. From then on, the Kremlin committed to providing a lifeline to the separatists, but also did everything in its power to prevent further escalation. No advances against Ukrainian positions were allowed. Volunteers, funds, equipment and weapons were routinely arrested at the border. Charismatic separatist militia commanders who were disliked by either Ukraine’s or Moscow’s oligarchs suddenly began dropping like flies. For 8 years, Kiev shelled the separatist cities while NATO re-armed and re-trained the Ukrainian army. As we now know, Russia largely did nothing during this time in way of military preparation. If anything, they downplayed the significance of Kiev’s attacks and provocations because it would jeopardize their precious Minsk I and II deals. These agreements were never honored by the Ukrainian side and never achieved the stated goals of the Kremlin.

Putin, in a moment of candor, ended up admitting that waiting for 8 years to do something was a bloody and costly mistake.

The Special Military Operation

For reasons that are still not readily apparent, possibly an imminent Ukrainian attack on Donetsk, Putin ordered a strike force to invade Ukraine on the 24th of February in an attempt to effect a coup d’etat in Kiev. This operation was almost certainly prepared based on intelligence provided by the so-called “5th Service” of the FSB and the network that they had set up in the country. With a few exceptions, this plan failed everywhere it was attempted. When the lightly-armed Russian soldiers reached Kiev, they found that there was no plan for the taking of the city, and that the gates of the city hadn’t been opened from within as was almost certainly what they had been led to expect would happen. The surrender of Kharkov then turned out to be a fake-out and it almost led to a repeat of Grozny i.e., an ambush of Russian columns entering the city along the main road. Cities like Mariuple that had been largely undefended 8 years ago, had been turned into fortresses. Operations to liberate them would prove to be costly and time-consuming.

Russia was forced to retreat soon after the initial strike to regroup and then launch a more conventional operation against entrenched Ukrainian positions in the East. Months of deadlock and grinding ensued. Eventually, it became clear that the Russians had committed far too few men and that, having failed to knock out Kiev, Ukraine’s army, equipped by the West, had time to mobilize and could now go on the counterattack against Russia. In quick succession, Russia lost Kharkov and then Kherson. During this time, the Kremlin finally  accepted reality and gives the green light to begin mobilizing more men. Problems ensued as it became clear that the military had largely been gutted by previous defense ministers leading to a deficit in officers, equipment and infrastructure. Furthermore, a growing awareness of the need to have a second and possibly a third wave of mobilization began to dawn on many analysts. This conclusion, however, at the time of my writing up this summary is vociferously denied by the Kremlin and their various mouthpieces. It is unclear why.

We now wait to see if the first wave is enough to hold back the Ukrainian counterattack or whether more territories will have to be abandoned. Zaporozhiye is the most likely domino to fall next.

Then, having had time to reinforce, we wait to see if Russia will be able to stabilize the contact line. No serious commentator or analyst believes that a Russian advance is possible with the paltry numbers of soldiers that Russia is able to field now. The serious debate is about a) where exactly the Russians will try to hold a defensive line against Kiev’s larger army, and b) when exactly the second mobilization will be announced and how slow and effective it will be compared to the first one.

Should Russia be able to mobilize 1.5–2 million men quickly, then a counteroffensive becomes possible again. But, again, this depends largely on the political will of the Kremlin. It also depends on the power balance within the Kremlin. Finally, it depends, to a lesser extent, on the goodwill and trust of the Russian peasants in their own government. The prevailing sentiment in Russia is what you would expect: discounting the urban Liberal elite, the Russian people are far more patriotic than their own government.

The Great Russian Restoration

The beginning of the SMO caused a great convulsion in Russian society. The Liberal Opposition began to array itself for battle in the media and the streets against the “Fascist” Putinist government.

They found themselves pre-empted and swiftly shut down by the police.

It was a breathtaking spectacle to behold. The shutdown was so smooth and well-organized and uncompromising that the Liberal Opposition suffered the worst defeat it had ever experienced in the country’s history. Within a few weeks, major flagship liberal media projects were shut down and large media personalities and political figures found themselves fleeing for Israel, Latvia, Georgia and Turkey.

I wrote extensively and enthusiastically about all of this at the time.

You really should take the time to read my “Great Russian Restoration” series of essays if you haven’t already. I’ve reread them myself for this post and I think they hold up, even months later. Some of them are downright prescient, frankly.

I also gave an overview of the general state of the military. As well as the kvetching of the oligarchs. And how even the Orthodox Church was forced to clean up the subversives within its own ranks.

However, I had to abandon that series of essays, even though it was by far the most popular and widely-circulated writings that I produced. The series came to a premature end, but not because I lost steam or interest in the topic or anything like that though. I had to stop writing about it because there was simply nothing new to report by the start of summer. It seems that the changes were happening too fast and were too alarming for the Kremlin, so they dialed it all back. Or, perhaps, they themselves were surprised by the extent of the shake-up that had occurred and so decided to rein things in.

No prominent government officials lost their positions or their heads as was hoped for by many patriots in Russia. The same rogue’s gallery of crooks and cretins who seized power in the 90s and 00s occupy the same positions as before.

Furthermore, it seems that we have reached the limit of what the Kremlin is willing to consider in terms of internal reforms for now. Either the situation drastically worsens in some way, necessitating a swift reaction from the Kremlin, or internal forces like the largely unorganized, but massive patriot bloc does something to shake things up internally again. Many Russian bloggers, myself included, have come to believe that the Kremlin is largely bereft of any larger vision, strategic plan or any new ideas at all for the country. The only silver lining is that the old plan — integration with the globalist one world government — has been sabotaged. But if the positive process of “sovereignization” is to continue, the driver for it has to likely be forces within the country that are outside of the Kremlin or further pressure must be brought to bear on the country from external enemies. Barring that, the Kremlin will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo as best they can. For people who want to see a revanchist, re-militarized and re-invigorated Russia retaking her place on the world stage and taking the fight to the globalist new world order, the current status quo is simply unacceptable.

In the meantime, Russia’s elites continue to make deals with the West on the sidelines and continue to try and prevent any further escalation in rhetoric or measures taken to combat the NWO. This is largely because most of Russia’s elites still desperately hope for a convergence of one kind or another. It’s one thing if Putin forces the West to come to the table to offer better terms for Russia’s elites with his brinkmanship. It’s quite another matter if an actual open conflict between the West and Russia begins, dashing plans for integration with the West for the foreseeable future.

The Russian Idea

We have seen a drastic escalation in rhetoric coming from people like President Putin, who now refers to the West as Satanic and fundamentally opposed to the continued existence of Russia as a sovereign state. Furthermore, pundits and even generals refer to the current conflict as an existential war against NATO and the NWO. Despite this, few measures are being taken domestically to reflect this new reality. There is no great economic mobilization going on. There is no “New Russia” idea being promoted by patriotic thinkers. No large populist movements take to the streets to wave flags and show their patriotic support for their troops and so on.

It appears that the Kremlin is afraid and wary of the very people that it rules over. It seems quite clear that they fear unleashing a patriot-populist movement because they know that the populace is far to the right of them on almost every social, political and economic issue. As a result, despite popular support for the war, the government has discouraged large-scale marches and other citizens’ initiatives to support the effort. In many ways, the situation is indeed comparable to the state of affairs in pre-Revolutionary Russia where the secret police spent most of its time rounding up Black Hundreds populist-patriots and turning a blind eye to organized Jewish terrorist cells in the country.

We are left asking the same questions that we began with almost a decade ago.

What does Russia stand for? What does Russia fight for? Why should Russians lay down their lives in the current war and the wars to come?

The government has provided no real answer to these questions. And, again, it appears that a large part of the nomenklatura is dragging its heels or actively in denial of the new reality that Russia faces. More effort is expended by the state media and the government on trying to mollify and calm the Russian people down than in trying to provide a coherent plan of action going forward. This is largely due to the fact that the Russian government is flying by the seat of its pants and has no plans whatsoever for what to do next or how to prevent further escalation. As a result, they cannot announce that an offensive will begin before Christmas or that a new 5-year plan to put the country on a solid military footing is being put into effect. All they can repeat over and over again is that everything is fine, that there is no cause for concern, and that there’s nothing to see here or there.

Now, my analysis flies in the face of what you have been hearing from all the large pro-Russia bloggers. This is because these other writers are simply dogmatic propagandists for a certain party line. Furthermore, they get their information from Russian government sources, which they trust blindly. Me, I am not a propagandist for any standing government anywhere. Instead, I see myself as an advocate for the Russia of the past that we lost and the Russia of the future that we must become again.

With all of this committed to virtual paper, I hope to be able to move on with my writing and my analyses. I don’t want to keep rehashing the same talking points over and over, and, going forward, I will simply link this post as my executive background primer on Russia and just move forward, whether people are ready to follow or not. We’re actually in uncharted territory now, and the only thing preventing us from boldly launching an expedition to explore it are these lingering preconceptions and narratives that blind us to the reality that we now face. In other words, a person who is still waiting for the other shoe to fall on Putin’s 5D Eurasian Judo-flip to checkmate NATO is not capable of soberly analyzing the fateful crossroads that Russia is standing at now.

Decisions are being made in key areas now that will determine the fate of Russia in the coming years.

Specifically, these are:

The scale and pace of the ongoing military mobilization;

The economic model going forward;

The adoption of a so-called “Russian Idea”;

The attitude of the authorities to the patriotic bloc;

The roster of the cadres of the Kremlin elite;

The expansion of the scope of the conflict.

Much depends on the developments in these key areas. It is my position that without drastic reforms, Russia simply won’t be able to hold out against NATO. It is also my position that the Kremlin won’t take the necessary measures unless forced at gunpoint to do so either by external or internal pressure. Furthermore, I assert that there is no 5D chess plan, only prevailing and countervailing forces exerting pressure on the Kremlin and the country at large. These forces and the pressure that they apply are only growing in intensity and you can almost hear the government apparatus groaning from the strain.

Russia is once again facing an existential threat to its continued survival as a sovereign state.

Either the country becomes strong enough to stand on its own two feet and put up a serious fight, or we will live to see a repeat of the 90s and another iteration of the Time of Troubles occur all over again.

Flight is White: Aviation is a Creation of the Pale Stale Nation

/21 Comments/in /by

Will I ever stop hating on the Catholic Church and become a believer? Maybe. But if I do, it won’t just be Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Father Leonard Feeney who will have helped me kneel before the Queen of Heaven. It will also be Professor Richard Dawkins. Belloc, Chesterton, and Feeney have set me a positive example of Christian wisdom, insight, and intelligence. Dawkins has done the opposite. He’s set me a negative example of anti-Christian foolishness, blindness, and stupidity. With the able assistance of Christopher Hitchens, he’s taught me to regard atheism as uncouth, adolescent, and autistic.

Top White thinkers

Yes, I think Vox Day is right to connect atheism and autism. Like autism, atheism is a kind of color-blindness: an inability to perceive, understand and appreciate an essential — and extraordinarily beautiful — aspect of reality. Autistic people don’t perceive social relationships; atheists don’t perceive the most important “social relationship” of all, that between God and His Creation. Or so theists like Day would argue. I’m not with those theists yet, but Richard Dawkins is one of those who have helped me away from atheism and towards theism. I look back with shame on the days when I was a fully fledged fan of his. Now I’m only a partly fledged fan. I still admire his scientific knowledge and the quality of his prose. Unlike the polysyllabicizing gasbag Hitchens, Dawkins is a clear and careful writer who is more interested in describing biology than in demonstrating his own cleverness.

Richard Dawkins’ recent book Flights of Fancy (2021)

Not that Dawkins could demonstrate much cleverness if he tried. He’s made solid contributions to evolutionary biology, but he isn’t particularly clever. He himself has said that he doesn’t score well on IQ tests and I think Greg Cochran has called him a “pinhead.” That would be hyperbole, but Dawkins is certainly not “the world’s top thinker,” as a poll in Prospect Magazine once proclaimed him to be. Dawkins himself wouldn’t accept the title: one of his positive qualities is his ability to recognize and honor intellectual excellence in others. He is a staunch admirer of John Maynard Smith (1920–2004) and William D. Hamilton (1936–2000), for example. Those two really were top thinkers, able to bring the immense power of mathematics to bear on problems in evolutionary biology, but they aren’t familiar to millions in the way that Dawkins himself is. Dawkins has done his best to correct that imbalance. He wrote an introduction to an updated edition of Smith’s magisterial The Theory of Evolution (1958) and has often referred to Smith and Hamilton in his books. He did that again in his recent Flights of Fancy (2021), a slight but seductive book about “defying gravity by design and evolution.” It has beautiful illustrations by the Slovakian artist Jana Lenzová and is an excellent short guide to the facts and fancies of flight, all the way from falcons and flying fish to parachutes and patagiums.

Jettisoning material

In chapter 11 of the book, Dawkins pays graceful tribute to Hamilton and describes Hamilton’s “mathematical theory” showing how “an animal (or plant) that takes steps to send at least some of its offspring a long way away will spread more of its genes, in the long run, than a rival that drops all of its offspring right next door to the parent.” (p. 206) This is true, Hamilton showed, “even if ‘right next door’ is (at present) the best place in the world and ‘a long way away’ is on average worse.” That idea is only one of what Dawkins rightly calls Hamilton’s “brilliant contributions to Darwinian theory,” but it sheds light on the central theme of the book: flight in all its forms. Flights of Fancy is about the conquest of the air, whether accomplished by birds, bats, bees or Blanchard’s balloons. Jean-Pierre Blanchard (1753–1806) was a pioneering French inventor who made the “first balloon crossing of the English Channel” in 1785. En route, he and his American companion “were obliged to jettison everything in their beautiful boat-shaped car, including even their own clothes.” (p. 179)

Birds, Bats, Bees, Balloons

Otherwise the balloon would have hit the water and never reached its destination. You could say that, metaphorically speaking, Richard Dawkins has followed the same strategy as Jean-Pierre Blanchard. He had to jettison certain material from Flights of Fancy or it too would have failed to reach its destination. The material that’s missing from the book is about race, because one thing is very clear from the history of mankind’s conquest of the air. Flight is White and aviation is a creation of the stale pale nation. In other words, it was European Whites who invented or perfected all the amazing ways in which human beings can imitate birds and take to the air. The airplane, the helicopter, the rocket, the balloon, the glider, the jet-pack and more — all of these are the product of White ingenuity and effort. And also of White audacity. Many White men have died or been horribly injured in the quest to conquer the air, just as many White men have died or been horribly injured in the quest to conquer mountains like Everest and the Eiger.

The Whiteness of Flight

In essence, flight and mountaineering are the same quest — a Faustian quest to ascend, overcome and go beyond the boundaries imposed on mankind by nature. There was hubris in the early attempts on the air and Nemesis often punished that hubris. But now flight is one of the safest forms of transport and human beings can cross the Atlantic with less risk than they cross a city-street. We owe all of that to White men like Jean-Pierre Blanchard and the Wright Brothers. But suppose Richard Dawkins had written about the Whiteness of human flight in his book and had drawn on the work of Kevin MacDonald to explain why and how it was Whites who pioneered and perfected aviation. If Dawkins had done that, his book would never have taken wing itself. It wouldn’t have been published by a mainstream company or been praised by mainstream reviewers.

Instead, it would have been condemned as vile, racist and “White-supremacist.” In the modern West, two leftist dogmas are absolute and unassailable. The first dogma states that “There is Only One Race — the Human Race.” The second dogma states that Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites are innately virtuous. The two dogmas contradict each other, of course, but that’s the doublethink of leftism. As Orwell described in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), leftists have the ability “to hold simultaneously two opinions which [cancel] out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” By proclaiming the equality of all human groups, leftists feed the self-regard that powers their lust for power and punishment. The power will be for themselves and the punishment will be for their enemies. They want to wreck the West and rule the ruins.

Noxious and nonsensical

The enemies of leftism therefore include all those who recognize racial reality, like everyone who writes for the Occidental Observer and most of those who write for the Unz Review. We race-realists know that the dogma of human equality is both noxious and nonsensical. Human races are not all equal and Whites have achieved exceptional things. Aviation is one soaring example: it’s a true creation of the pale stale nation. But leftism hates the truth and Dawkins couldn’t have talked about the Whiteness of flight in his book. If he’d done that, he would have contradicted the leftist dogma of White villainy and non-White virtue. According to leftism, all apparent White achievements and inventions were in fact stolen or “appropriated” from geniuses of color. That’s why the article on the “History of aviation” at leftist Wikipedia makes sure to refer right away to Chinese kites as “the earliest example of man-made flight.” Some of those kites could lift a grown man into the air. In other words, non-Whites were there first, as always. But the article can’t deny that White men were the pioneers of flight in its truest and fullest forms. From the Montgolfier Brothers to the Moon-landings and beyond, Flight has been White.

And so has the understanding of flight in all its forms, as Dawkins’ book describes. White scientists have elucidated the physics of flight and explained how flight has evolved again and again among animals and plants. It’s a fascinating story excellently told in Flights of Fancy by the words of Richard Dawkins and the pictures of Jana Lenzová. That’s why I enjoyed the book so much. And I couldn’t help contrasting Flights of Fancy with another book that has recently made a strong impression on me. The other book is very different in content and style. And it makes explicit what is only implicit in Flights of Fancy: the importance of race and racial difference in all parts of human existence.

Blackety-Blackety Yack

What is the other book called? It’s called Black British Lives Matter: A Clarion Call for Equality (2021) and is an entry in the ever-fascinating and ever-essential field of what John Derbyshire would call Blackety Blackety Black Black Black Blackety-Blackness Studies. Derbyshire captures the full intellectual richness and profundity of the book in that formulation. In other words, the book has no intellectual richness or profundity whatsoever. It’s a collection of essays by nineteen self-obsessed and self-righteous Blacks living in Britain. The essays have titles like “Black British Architecture Matters” and “Black British Mothers Matter.” If the book as a whole had been given an honest subtitle rather than a dishonest one, that subtitle would have been “A Clarion Call for Black Narcissism and Anti-White Grievance.” And I’ll be honest myself: I’m not Hercules and I couldn’t have tackled Hercules’ Fifth Labor of cleaning the Augean Stables, which were heaped high with decades of bullshit. In a similar way, I can’t tackle the bullshit heaped high in Black British Lives Matter. There’s too much of it and I didn’t have the time or the masochistic inclination to even read the book, let alone attempt to dissect all its distortions and dim-wittedness.

Black Bullshit Masters: nineteen melanin-enriched dim-wits issue a Clarion Call for Black Narcissism and Anti-White Grievance

But you won’t be surprised to learn that the book rests firmly on the second great dogma of leftism, namely, that Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites are innately virtuous. Blacks especially are innately virtuous and social outcomes that disfavor Blacks must always be attributed to White wickedness, never to Black imperfection or immorality. For example, one essay in the book adduces this irrefutable proof of White wickedness: that “Black women [in Britain] die in pregnancy or childbirth at four times the rate of White women.” After all, what else could explain such a glaring “inequality” but White wickedness? To leftists, nothing else. To thought-criminals like me, other explanations are obvious: for example, the different biology and reproductive strategies of Black women, as evolved in the distinct environments of sub-Saharan Africa, and their higher, self-inflicted rates of venereal disease and ill-health.

“B” is for Black

Black British Lives Matter is full of similar proclamations of Black suffering and White villainy. It’s a self-righteous and self-obsessed book. That’s part of why it’s also an ugly book. Another part of its ugliness is the poor quality of its prose and its reasoning. That’s why I found it such a contrast with Flights of Fancy, which is a beautiful book, well-written, well-reasoned, and well-illustrated, and most certainly not self-obsessed. As I noted above, Whites like Richard Dawkins are interested in birds, bats, bees, balloons and lots of other things starting with “B.” Blacks, by contrast, are interested in only one thing starting with “B,” namely, Blacks. In other words, Whites are exotropic, directed towards what’s outside themselves. Blacks are endotropic, directed towards themselves and their own concerns. That’s why Whites have been inventors, innovators and explorers of the Universe. And why Blacks have been none of those things.

You can see that stark difference between Whites and Blacks by comparing Flights of Fancy with Black British Lives Matter. Books in their modern form were also a White invention, but in the 21st century books are part of the leftist war on the White West. On their own, Blacks never even invented writing, let alone the arts of paper-manufacture and printing. And on their own they wouldn’t have been able to use books to attack Whites and express their self-righteous self-obsession. Blacks are not intelligent, literate or well-organised enough to have created the modern cult of minority-worship and to have set themselves at the heart of leftist ideology. Instead, minority-worship was created and Blacks were sacralized by the highly intelligent, literate and well-organized group known as Jews, who were trying to fight anti-Semitism by remote control. As I’ve pointed out before, if birds had language, then cuckoos would be the loudest exponents of the Brotherhood of Birds. They would coo seductively that “There Is Only One Species — the Avian Species.”

Predators and parasites

But birds aren’t in fact brothers, and different species most certainly may well have conflicts of interest. Although birds have a common ancestor and their similarities are far greater than their differences, those differences are literally a matter of life and death. Some birds prey on other birds and some birds, like cuckoos, parasitize other birds. As biologists like Richard Dawkins are well-aware, predation and parasitism are strategies that have evolved independently again and again among animals. I don’t think human beings are an exception. What is exceptional among humans is the way that our predators and parasites often operate. A cuckoo doesn’t use language to fool its hosts into working against their own interests and spreading alien genes. The human cuckoo Stephen Jay Gould used nothing but language to fool gullible Whites into doing the same thing.

Black British Lives Matter is a Gouldean book, but Flights of Fancy is a golden book. And I hope that Richard Dawkins one day uses his undoubted literary ability to champion the race to which he belongs and to which the world owes so much artistic beauty and scientific knowledge. Dawkins already knows about the existence of race and is fast learning about the malignancy of leftism. If he abandons atheism and embraces race-realism, I think he’ll earn his angel’s wings.

What to do. Some modest proposals

/27 Comments/in /by

So as the partly Jewish Vladimir Lenin asked “What is to be done?”

A direct and explicit attack on Jewish power — at this point — would be no more likely to succeed than a frontal attack on Verdun in 1918.  However admirable this direct approach is, it is unlikely alone to make a significant change.

Is there any indirect approach which could significantly weaken the power of the Jewish nation over the US?

To analyze this, we need to examine the environment the Jewish Nation creates for itself in order to effectuate its goals.

First, some underlying principles:

(a)        Jews hate democracy.  They feel that the vast majority of people hate them (generally wrongly at first, correctly at the end) .  So, from the days of the favorite Jewish King of Spain — Pedro the Cruel — they have LOVED the most vicious, tyrannical, and worthless dictators; in contrast, they have hated popular control unless they felt they could control the people through media.  This gives you an idea of what they want to do with our country.  We are not even close to the end-game.

(b)        Jews do business everywhere, even in the most unlikely goy-centered places.  Accordingly, they need “protection” from democracy everywhere, not just in the locations (NYC and LA) where most of them live.  So having Jew-friendly policies in two cities and nowhere else does them no good.  They have to control everything, everywhere to feel secure.  For example, in “wild west” bastion, Dallas, Texas, in 1963, hardly a center of US Jewry, there were a number of extremely powerful and rich Jews, who composed a substantial part of the Dallas business leadership.

(c)        Because of (a) and (b), Jews love centralization and hate local self government, since they are unable to  influence a multiplicity of governmental units as easily as one central unit.  If they can have a federal agency mandate, backed up by the FBI, once that agency — as it has been — becomes indirectly controlled by them through congressional and presidential campaign contributions over many years, to prevent local, small town businesses, governments, or schools from so much as saying “boo” to a local Jew, that is much easier than trying to  construct safe zones in each of 100,000 separate dinky towns where only 7 Jews live but where those 7 own the department store and most of the office buildings.  Ditto the schools; ditto the media (Jews love media chains, since one or two timely purchases can put hundreds of local town newspapers and TV stations under their editorial control.)

The basic rule is that what Jews centralize, they will buy, bribe and/or infiltrate.  What they buy, bribe and infiltrate, they will control.

So the basic countermeasure is to deprive the Jewish Nation of the tools it needs to succeed, much like the indirect military operation of destroying rail lines through which front-line troops received materiel and food.

The main indirect attack would be decentralization or, where that is impossible due to technological factors (such as the natural monopolies of Google and Facebook), neutralization.

In this light, the following neutral-sounding, counter measures suggest themselves.

Decentralize All Levels of Government.  First, massively decentralize government.  Both at the Federal and at the State level.  This will involve the elimination of laws that, by their very nature, demand centralized control of ordinary citizens and small institutions.

Repeal the all Civil Rights including and those enacted after the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Eliminate the Department of Education and virtually all of the Department of Justice.

Massively restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.  Likewise the state courts.

Eliminate all federal and state law enforcement agencies.  They are not needed for the crimes most people care about, and they will always be used against White interests.  As part of this, eliminate all federal and state criminal laws except those in existence, say, in 1800.

Eliminate all state or federal control over education.  Control should be at the local school board level and the school boards should encompass no more than say, 1,000 students at a crack.  All school funding should be local.  At the local level, revise zoning and other codes to permit anyone to start a school in their house.  End mandatory education in the sense that towns would still be required to provide schools for those who wished to attend, but no one would be required to go to school.  At that point all regulatory pressure on private schools would end.

Eliminate almost all state-level executive officers, except the Governor himself; any significant law enforcement or school officer(s) should be local only and elected at the local level.

Eliminate any credentialing requirements for law, school teaching, medicine that are not done at the local level; and permit very few professions to require credentialing at all.

Decentralize Other Institutions.   Decentralize as many institutions as possible, even if not governments.

Media.  Decentralize — to the extent possible — media.  Go back to the original Federal Communications Act of 1924 and massively reduce the permitted power of broadcasting devices, so that each broadcast station reaches only a truly miniscule areas.  Prohibit any cross ownership.  Require that at least one station be owned by the relevant town.  Prohibit any “network” — make any such arrangements a per-se anti trust violation.

Amend the antitrust laws to prevent the ownership of more than one newspaper by any set of related parties.

Massively shorten copyright times.  Copyright, through its centralized ownership, is a massive tool of central control, permitting “unwanted” narratives to be removed from public dissemination on copyright and purported “financial” grounds.  Thus, for entertainment copyrights, shorten terms to perhaps 10 years.  And copyrights owned by any news outlets, visual or written, permit only a two-day copyright period; thereafter any news organization’s product is public material with, at most, an ASCAP-like fee to the writers (not the News organizations).  Re-use where the re-user gets no monetary compensation would in  be royalty free.

Banking.  Repeal all laws permitting branch banking.  One branch per bank please, and no related ownership.  Forget about interstate banking.

Currency.  Permit local commodity based currencies and permit gold, silver, and diamonds to act as currencies in any local areas if desired.  (This goes to Anonymity as well (see below))

Neutralize; If Possible, Decentralize.

Media.  Where media cannot be decentralized, regulate it so as to make its application as neutral as the “Ma Bell” telephone lines of yore.  Require that any internet company, bank, airline, train, bus system, or other business with a greater than a 20% market share nationally (or in a local community) may not discriminate in the provision of service based on the speech or ideology of the customer or up-loader.  Put in rules demanding all media outlets permit free speech; no hate speech or “group libel” laws.

Banking.  Force all credit card consortia or businesses — think Visa or American Express — which in a sense need a nationwide scale to be useful at all — to operate like AT&T:  each must serve all without any regard to the political views or speech of customers — card users or card takers.

Currency.  No restrictions may be put on the use of currency; to the extent it is not anonymous, use must be without regard to the political views of the user.

Anonymity (a form of neutralization).  Wherever possible promote the ability to operate — online and offline — with anonymity.

Banking.  Permit anonymous bank accounts to be established without personal identifying information.

Internet.  Work on a regulatory regime for the internet demanding that all platforms permit use of their services anonymously, without giving one’s name or other identifying information.  Make taking a plane like taking an NYC cab in 1965.  Work with DARPA and institutions like Cal Tech to develop an anonymous internet — one in which the user of a site could not be tracked or even recorded.

Money: promote the use of cash.  Permit local and commodity-based (e.g., gold-based) currencies in localities.  Commission the US Treasury to develop anonymous cash cards to be used on the internet.  Bring back bearer securities, both for government issues and private debt, so that income can be received simply by clipping coupons.  Require all corporations to have a certification option and a bearer certificate option.  Require all employers to pay in dollars or in gold if so requested by their employees.

Tax.  Repeal all the information reporting requirements enacted since 1940, including wage withholding.

Campaign Financing.  Limiting spending simply will not work. Instead, eliminate most of the things on which campaign media is spent, which almost uniformly is television.  How?  Require that every broadcast media go to C-span mode, such that for the three months before every election, primary and general, each of, say, the top 6 candidates by polling or other interim data have their speeches broadcast continuously, with no third party commentary, and no advertisements.  The flood of primary data via broadcast will crowd out any ads and will overwhelm the effect of advertising by any other media, as well as prejudiced mainstream media on-air editorials and “talking heads.”

If possible by statute or constitutional amendment, prohibit any funding by any person not resident in the relevant political district or state where the elections are being held.  No more field trips to New York where pledges to Israel must be taken, please.

Politics.  Limit by statute if possible or constitutional amendment if necessary the holding of elective or appointive office by any person not resident in the relevant district and/or state for at least ten years.  No interlopers from Goldman Sachs, please.

Borders.  Suspension of All Undesirable Immigration.  Ideally, all immigration by persons other than Christian Whites would be suspended for a period of, say, 20 years, with very limited or no such immigration thereafter.  Since Jews will be more likely to see this as an attack on them, start with simply a suspension of all immigration for 20 years.  Phrase this as a neutral protection for the hard-pressed working class, a purported favorite of left-wing Jews everywhere.  Quote the previous statements of Jewish politicians — such as Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders, each of whom had pretty good statements on this back in the day —  to defuse charges of anti-Semitism.  In this regard, permit state and local governments, as well as private citizen groups, to protect the border without federal involvement, all exempt from any civil or criminal liability for any damage caused.

Military.   Jews hate serving in the military, hate the outdoors, hate farm and wild animals, and hate camping.  Thus the main infantry will never be overrun with Jews.  However, just as with the FBI, the military can be — and is now being — corrupted from above to serve Jewish interests.  The solution is to essentially disband the federal Army except for a training force of 50,000 or so men, prohibited by statute from engaging in force anywhere in the U.S. without a two-thirds vote of Congress and a two-thirds vote of the State legislature in any state where the US Army intends to operate..  Instead require towns to field and pay for local militia.  The militia can be centrally trained to high and uniform standards, but they cannot be called out except by vote of the local towns or, perhaps, the State legislature by a two-thirds vote which would lapse automatically at the end of each six month period.  Every male would have military training, so that this reserve force would constitute, say, 12 million men.  These men would be fully armed with the most modern Army equipment, which each would keep in special storage lockers in their homes, essentially like the Swiss, or, for the largest weapons, at local town armories.  So much for attempts to get rid of the Second Amendment.  Militia would have legal precedence over (a) local police and (b) any state or federal police, armed agents, or army personnel.  They would thus be entitled to defend their own and neighboring towns from state or federal incursion with lethal force without any legal ramifications.  Jews will hate this.  But, on its face, it is neutral.

Foreign Relations.

Eliminate.  Eliminate foreign relations.  Given its recent track record, it is not clear that the US should be allowed to have a foreign policy, given that it has done so much damage to itself and the rest of the world in the last 30 years.  Of course the reason is that our foreign policy has been delegated to the Jewish Nation.  It would be better to have no foreign policy at all than one controlled by enemies of our country, enemies that undercut our interests at every turn.

Bricker Amendment.  At long last, pass the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, reversing an ill-advised Supreme Court decision effectively holding any international treaty will override the Constitution.  If the power to override the Constitution via treaties is left in the hands of the Senate, it will defeat every proposal set forth above simply by way of a web of nefarious treaties.  This has been, and is being, done at every turn.

Treaties.  A massive withdrawal from most US treaties is in order.  Top of the list:

(a) Every extradition treaty.  Under these treaties US citizens can be extradited to barbarous foreign judicial systems.  This treaty network is the product of our police elites — read the FBI and DEA — that feel more comfortable with their “cop-counterparts” in foreign nations than they do with the American people and that, in any case are now fully controlled by the Jewish nation.

(b) NATO, SEATO, and the defense treaties with Japan and South Korea.  Recognize North Korea and Iran and be done with it.

(c)  Selected trade treaties, including possibly the WTO.  In essence get out of every treaty that puts restrictions on the on-shoring of our manufacturing capacity.

(d)   All human rights treaties.

(e)   All asylum or other treaties compelling us to accept immigrants, temporary or otherwise.  These treaties were a Jewish thing from the beginning.  End it.

Adopt a policy of peace and non-involvement, along with a massive draw down of our international armed forces deployments.  The more toys a centralized government has to play with, the more toys for the Jewish National toy box.  Not good.

It will not have escaped the reader’s attention that most of these measures — though not all, e.g., campaign financing — are libertarian and De Toqueville-esque.  The beauty of this is that libertarianism is effectively a Jewish movement!  Think Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and Murray Rothbard.  Thus, the bulk of these proposals use Jewish momentum against itself.  Much like a Judo throw.  In any case, at least initially, if skillfully presented, they will not immediately attract the combined rage of the Jewish establishment.

John B. Connolly, World War II combat veteran, confidante of Lyndon Baines Johnson, former Governor of Texas (remember Dealy Plaza?) and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury — no inexperienced student of power — stated that if he were to take over a country he would go immediately to control three institutions:  the banks, the media, and the military.

Funny how our proposals above puts each of these institutions back to the local level, effectively under local control.  Under the control, that is, of the people of the United States.

So that we may, at long last, have a government by, for, and of the people, which may not perish from the earth.

Here’s to John Bricker.  May his soul rest in peace.

Notes:

1/  The fall off in numbers when one travels up the bell curve is nothing short of astounding.  Non-Ashkenazi whites have a mean IQ of 100.  On this basis, a standard deviation is about 15 IQ points.  Only 2% of the population has an IQ 2 standard deviations above the mean (IQ 130 or above);  Only 1% has in IQ of 135 or above; and, only 0.13% of the population has an IQ at or above 3 standard deviations above the mean (an IQ of 145 or higher).  Since the Ashkenazim have a mean IQ of about 111, the entire Ashkenazi bell curve is shifted up by close to a standard deviation as compared to goyim Whites.  Accordingly, while only 0.13% of non-Ashkenazi whites have an IQ at or above 145, about 2% of Ashkenazi do.  Applied to estimated population numbers in the United States of 5 million for Ashkenazy Jews and 200 million for non-Ashkenazi whites, the result is that about 100,000 Ashkenazim should have an IQ at or above 145, and about 260,000 non-Ashkenazi whites would be expected to have an IQ of 145 or greater.  Of this total of 360,000, therefore, the Ashkenazie constitute almost 30% of the “top end” intellects in the country.  Accordingly, they are overrepresented by almost a factor of 6 compared to their actual numbers in the population. And then, there’s ethnic networking and concentrating in particular sectors, like media, law, social sciences….

 

Os nacionalistas brancos não querem a onda vermelha

/in /by

Até o momento em que escrevo, neste dia 11 de novembro de 2022, os Estados Unidos, tidos como a maior nação da Terra, ainda não foram capazes de dar por encerrado o escrutínio. Não conhecemos exatamente, pois, o resultado final das eleições de meio mandato deste ano. Mas…

Mas já podemos depreender, com clareza, duas coisas a respeito da disputa.

A primeira é que, mesmo participando das eleições, tínhamos consciência de que a definição do vencedor era questão irrelevante, porque os perdedores negariam legitimidade ao resultado, pois cada metade do eleitorado considera a outra metade perigosa demais para assumir o poder. Isto significa que o povo americano deixou de existir. Há, ao contrário, duas nações hostis — ou melhor, muitas nações hostis alinhadas umas contra as outras em dois blocos — compartilhando o mesmo território e governo, que se vão arrastando na direção da compreensão do que o futuro lhes reserva, ou seja, a alternativa entre a separação ou o conflito sangrento.

A segunda é que, como sabemos agora, não existiu nenhuma “onda vermelha”. Em vez disso, ambos os partidos emergiram da luta em condições de equilíbrio. E isto significa a continuação do impasse.

Essa situação nos parece muito ruim para os republicanos. Por outro lado, para os nacionalistas brancos, esse se mostra como o melhor resultado. Nosso parecer decorre das três razões de que tratamos a seguir.

Em primeiro lutar, os republicanos esperavam que pudessem ser levados de volta ao poder pela simples intenção retaliatória do eleitorado. Eles contavam com o voto contra os democratas motivado pela pravidade dos próprios democratas e, confiantes nesse voto negativo, não se interessaram em propor nada pelo voto positivo em favor de si mesmos.  Isto exigiria a coragem que lhes faltou para ir além dos limites da discussão “legítima” fixados pelo estabilismo politicamente correto, fora dos quais está o “escândalo”. Isto exigiria, também, assumir compromissos que eles não cumpririam depois. Ora, por que procurar sarna pra coçar, quando bastava esperar os votos da desforra, o poder e o cheque em branco com que fazer as coisas conforme a vontade dos financiadores? Por isso os republicanos escolheram candidatos do centro, gente moderada, que nem fede nem cheira. Concorreram pelos republicanos muitos não brancos, muitas mulheres e outros representantes da “diversidade”. Quem é que teria a santa paciência de ir a uma convenção republicana para assistir à escolha de um debiloide tatibitate do tipo de Herschel Walker [ex-jogador de futebol americano, negro] como candidato? Em resumo, a onda vermelha foi só mais um imbecil esquema partidário de suposta conveniência eleitoral. Isso não iria merecer o voto dos eleitores e não mereceu.

Em segundo lugar, o que os nacionalistas brancos exigimos de um candidato é que sirva os nossos interesses, que defenda o padrão branco em todas as áreas da política e da cultura, principalmente para deter e reverter o declínio demográfico branco. Um candidato nosso deve, no mínimo, ser capaz de introduzir as nossas questões no debate político, a exemplo do que fez Trump, ao questionar o valor da imigração e da globalização econômica. Será nosso representante o parlamentar que aprovar leis para frear a Grande Substituição, particularmente pelo controle da imigração.

Nestas eleições, eu apoiei alguns poucos candidatos de apelo populista mais alinhados ao nacionalismo do que o político médio do estabilismo republicano. Ajudei Ron DeSantis e J. D. Vance, que venceram, como também Blake Masters e Joe Kent, estes ainda em situação incerta. Eu iria saudar uma onda vermelha de republicanos desse tipo. Eles merecem vencer. Talvez tenhamos mais candidatos dessa tendência mais afinada conosco nas eleições do ano que vem. Oxalá!

Em terceiro lugar, um tipo errado de onda vermelha seria ruim para os brancos. Sob Joe Biden, o dado positivo é que milhões de brancos foram levados à radicalização. Eles tomaram consciência de que a esquerda é um inimigo implacável buscando degradar, despojar e, finalmente, destruir a América branca. Ocorre, porém, que ainda não atinaram completamente no caráter traiçoeiro da fraca oposição republicana. Então, uma onda vermelha faria a nossa gente se sentir segura novamente. Seria como uma canção de ninar para que todos fôssemos dormir novamente. Com isso, o massivo processo de Transfusão Racial seguiria forte, mas agora sob uma nova direção republicana. Por outro lado, o fiasco da onda vermelha e a continuação do impasse partidário manterão a raiva dos eleitores brancos, conservando-os agitados e receptivos à nossa mensagem. Para os nacionalistas brancos, este é o melhor resultado possível no atual contexto.

A mais plausível objeção à minha posição sustenta que até os republicanos de que não gostamos podem ser úteis para nós no campo das guerras culturais, em relação ao aborto, por exemplo. Assim, se diz que, sem Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland ainda estaria na Suprema Corte, e Roe vs. Wade [caso judicial da decisão que legalizou o aborto nos EE.UU. em 1973] não teria sido derrubado. Pois é… se bem que Garland possa parecer menos perigoso na Suprema Corte do que no Departamento de Justiça; além disso, não sabemos se a vitória de Roe foi positiva ou negativa para os republicanos nas urnas. De qualquer forma, esse tipo de discussão pode ser deixado de lado. Confesso que não ligo muito para a guerra cultural dos conservadores nas questões do aborto, dos travestis, das drag queens em bibliotecas… Os conservadores de cabecinha mais emoldurada combatem nessas frentes da guerra. Deixemos que invistam nisso seus recursos políticos. Nós devemos atacar problemas mais sérios. E um problema bem sério é a extinção da raça branca. Que diferença faria para nós, se houvesse ou não houvesse orações escolares e aborto legal no meio das raças escuras, legatárias do mundo de que teríamos desaparecido? Inversamente, mas pela mesma razão, no caso de os brancos se salvarem, suas lutas por causa de questões culturais como a do aborto continuariam de somenos importância, ainda que durassem cem anos.

O meu maior medo não é ser governado por malucos esquerdistas, que só podem precipitar o fim do sistema. Em vez disso, no pior dos meus pesadelos, os republicanos reprimem a criminalidade, logram sucesso na condução econômica, engajam-se nas batalhas culturais dos conservadores e convertem dissidentes em obedientes moleques de recado de fidelidade canina. Em consequência disso, na pior parte desse mesmo mau sonho e pressentimento, os republicanos dão continuidade à invasão migratória, consolidando o processo da Transfusão Racial, que se torna irreversível. A única coisa pior do que o caótico multiculturalismo da esquerda consiste no ordenado e estável multiculturalismo da direita. Este é o perigo que vemos na tendência cívica dos nacionalistas.

Até os melhores ou “menos piores” dos republicanos participam dessa tendência. Nossa posição em relação a eles deve estar clara. Nosso eventual apoio a este ou aquele dessa gente não decorre de nenhuma identidade de propósitos. Só os podemos apoiar na medida em que sirvam à consecução de nossos objetivos, não por causa do que eles são, mas apesar do que eles são, e sabemos que são pedra no nosso caminho. Não obstante, nossa voz recebe mais atenção deles nos debates políticos, podendo ser que contemplem nossas políticas contra o declínio demográfico branco. Estes seriam passos dados para a frente, vitórias genuínas e, ao contrário dos aceleracionistas, que apostam no caos como forma de “queimar etapas”, não acreditamos que ganhemos alguma coisa perdendo eleições. Só é ganhando que ganhamos. Em última instância, no entanto, nós nunca venceremos com os republicanos, por esta razão muito simples e vulgar: esses caras estão cagando e andando para os brancos. Eles nunca iriam criar territórios brancos ou recuperar as pátrias brancas. Esta tarefa compete aos nacionalistas brancos.

Se os americanos brancos tivessem um país que pudessem chamar de seu, é claro que iríamos defender a lei e a ordem, o patriotismo, políticas econômicas racionais, famílias e normas sexuais sadias — porquanto isso tudo faz um país mais forte. Quando alguém advogar esses valores, mesmo um republicano, deverá contar com a nossa aprovação verbal, é claro. Às vezes, merecerá até que votemos nele. Entretanto, não nos esqueçamos jamais de que os Estados Unidos se encontram submetidos à dominação antibranca. Nossos inimigos controlam o sistema agora. Até que possamos tomar o poder deles, tudo o que fortalecer o sistema irá nos enfraquecer.

Fonte: Counter-Currents. Autor: Greg Johnson. Título original: Why white nationalists don’t want a red wave. Data de publicação: 11 de novembro de 2022. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

 

Adventures in Jewish Sexology: Norman Haire, the Australian Prophet

/18 Comments/in /by

Wigmore Hall is not a place that one would typically expect to find out is intimately connected with the subversion of the sexual morals of the West. If you aren’t a fan of classical music, then its name probably means little to you, but since 1901 this concert hall located in central London has been one of the world’s premier chamber music and recital venues, a space specially designed for the exhibition of Europe’s unmatched musical achievements. Sadly, even places such as this have not been spared from the modern forms of “enrichment” that are becoming all too common within our cultural institutions. In-between performances of Schubert or Beethoven, the venue now hosts things like an “African Concert Series” and refugee art installations, and the hall is regularly used for music lessons for London’s depressingly multiracial youth. The sight of an ensemble of British primary school students—where almost not a single child is white—singing about diversity on a stage that should be reserved for the celebration of White people and not their denigration and replacement, is a particularly egregious example of our predicament.

As this writer recently discovered, such hostile acts are not a new occurrence at Wigmore Hall, as nearly 100 years ago it was being defiled in an altogether different sort of way. The year was 1929, and between the 8th and 14th of September the chamber hall was rented out for a congress that attracted almost 350 delegates. Present were luminaries from around the world, academics and experts in their field, seated alongside famous activists and British cultural figures. On the opening day they sat to listen not to a musical performance but to an opening speech about sexology. For this was no ordinary gathering of people, they were delegates of the Third International Congress of the World League for Sexual Reform (WLSR) and the opening speaker was none other than Magnus Hirschfeld, the president of the league.        Readers of The Occidental Observer will need no introduction to Magnus Hirschfeld, a man once described by Hitler as “the most dangerous Jew in Germany,” but the name of Australian-born sexologist Norman Haire—the subject of this essay and the man who organized the London congress—has been largely forgotten to history. His exploits are now only known to a handful of writers and historians, but during the 1920s and 1930s, Haire was one of Hirschfeld’s more prominent disciples in the world of sexology and at one point the co-president of the WLSR, an organization that played more than a passing role in seeding the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the modern toleration for every form of sexual depravity imaginable. Haire’s works widely circulated in the elite and socialist circles of pre-war anglosphere, with Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm claiming in 1939 that he was one of the few people of his generation that did not read Haire.[1]

When it comes to “sexology” or the study of human sexuality and behaviour, Andrew Joyce has previously identified[2] the two distinct strains within the modern discipline as it emerged in the early years of the twentieth century, noting that it was never proclaimed as an explicitly Jewish discipline. One was the gentile strain, a forensic study of the “sex question” that medicalized sinful behavior, gaining prominence with the writings of Richard von Krafft-Ebing and was pioneered in the anglosphere by Havelock Ellis. The other was the now-dominant Jewish strain, the one to which “the modern toleration and promotion of sexual delinquency owes its most significant debt.”[3] This came out of the German-speaking world, originating with Albert Moll, Iwan Bloch, Magnus Hirschfeld and Albert Eulenberg, and was strongly supplemented by Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis.

Both strains sought to extract inquiries on sexual behavior from the constraints of religious discourse, but where gentile sexology largely contextualized sexual deviance within theories of degeneration and came to dovetail closely with the birth control and eugenics movements (which directed inquires on sex through the lens of demographic issues as they related to the health of the race), Joyce notes that:

these Jewish sexologists and social commentators were united in advancing theories of sexual inversion [homosexuality] that moved away from interpretations involving themes like degeneration, demographic decline and biological reality, and instead towards Talmudic abstractions involving the nature of romantic love and the allegedly fluid nature of gender and sex. As one might predict, running through all of their works is a clear preoccupation with the need for “tolerance” and social pluralism, the denial of human difference, and a fanatical opposition towards non-Jewish attempts to develop racial science.[4]

Bloch in particular can be credited with originating the critique of the “degenerative theory” that defined the gentile strain, arguing instead that sexual deviance was an isolated anthropological phenomenon that had no capacity to undermine civilization and result in cultural decline.[5]

Haire’s origins in the anglosphere saw him begin his career in the former strain, which imbued his writings with a degree of rhetoric on race improvement. But driven by his own Jewish background and homosexuality, as well as an underlying desire for sexual tolerance, it is obvious to which side he spiritually belonged to from the start. In a statement on the aims of the WLSR, Haire himself clearly articulated the ultimate point of Jewish sexology as a weapon of cultural warfare, namely to

establish sexual ethics and sociology on a scientific, biological and psychological basis instead of the present theological basis. … The Stronger our organisation [the WLSR] and the greater our resources, the sooner we shall attain our object, which is freedom of humanity from the sexual persecution and sexual starvation which ignorance and intolerance have imposed upon it.[6]

Though he was only of secondary importance in the history of sexology and twentieth-century sexual reform, Haire—as apologist and enabler—bridged the gap between the trailblazers of Jewish sexology and the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Following in Hirschfeld’s wake were people such as Haire, who worked diligently to mould public opinion and popularize the sexual ideals that achieved dominance by the end of the twentieth century. According to Diana Wyndham, the author of his biography, Haire exemplified the Jewish virtue of Tikkun Olam (“healing the world”),[7] by which she means he dedicated his life’s work to the dissolution of Western, Christian norms on sexual morality and the aggressive promotion of the use of contraception. The following critical review of the contours of his life illustrates the poisonous influence that even a secondary player like Haire had, as a prophet of sexual reform and a prominent contributor to the sexually radical climate of pre-war intelligentsia, in bringing about the current sexual perversion of the West.

Australian Origins

Norman Haire was born Norman Zions in Sydney in 1892, the youngest of 11 children in a non-observant Jewish family. The Zions family (originally Zajac) originated from Poland and were one of the many thousands of Jews that migrated to London during the nineteenth century to escape the Tsar’s failed attempts at turning them into Russian citizens. Sexual deviance to some degree or another was common to the major proponents of sexology, leading to the obvious hypothesis that sexology became, at least in-part, the vehicle for legitimizing their own sexual deviance, and Haire was no exception to this rule. There was Alfred Kinsey the sado-masochist who physically abused his genitals, Hirschfeld the nudist homosexual, and Havelock Ellis’ private life was far from conventional, being in an “open marriage” with a lesbian. Haire’s own homosexuality was a matter of conjecture to even his colleagues within the sex reform movement, known only to or suspected by close confidants—one can theorize that Haire, who regularly interacted with the general public, felt the level of secrecy was necessary to avoid him and his clinic being ostracised. It was at the Sydney Library that an 18-year-old Haire encountered the first two volumes of Havelock Ellis’s Studies in the Psychology of Sex. Within he discovered a discussion on sexual inversion (homosexuality) that, whilst still describing it as a disorder, was absent from guilt-inducing religious rhetoric that located the origins of the behaviour solely in sin. This apparently relieved his youthful sexual anxieties and sparked a lifelong desire to study sex and reform the views of Christian society that he felt caused unnecessary suffering.[8]

In 1915, Haire graduated from the University of Sydney with a medical degree and he relocated to work at a hospital in London in 1919, whereupon he made contact with Havelock Ellis. Ellis had spent a number of his formative years in Australia—of which he had fond memories—and even taught at the same Sydney high school Haire attended, and accordingly accepted his Australian admirer with open arms. With introductions from Ellis, Haire ingratiated himself and soon became a leading member of Britain’s birth control movement, moving in the circles of all the prominent figures—Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Stella Browne and C.V. Drysdale. Within three years he was on the executive committee of the British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology (BSSSP) and a medical officer of the Malthusian League, and his pioneering articles on birth control methods were being published in The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, both prominent medical journals. However, he was an ethnic outsider within the country’s birth control scene; Jews had entered into prominent roles in birth control endeavors elsewhere, such as Gregory Pincus and Abraham and Hannah Stone in America or Hans Lehfeldt in Germany, but in Britain, Haire took a backseat to what was primarily a gentile venture. Haire quickly moved on from hospital duties and set up a gynaecology practice on Harley Street and provided birth control advice to the poor at a free clinic he set up with the Malthusian League called the Walworth Women’s Welfare Centre—among the earliest such clinics in the world. A number of foreign contraceptives made their way to England through promotion by Haire, such as the Dutch-designed rubber pessary and the Gräfenberg Ring (designed by Jewish researcher Ernst Gräfenberg) a precursor to the IUD.

Haire’s most well-known and accessible book was Hymen, or the Future of Marriage (1927) wherein he outlined his predictions (or more accurately his desires) about the nature of marriage and sexual relations in the future. Alongside his defenses for no-fault divorce, euthanasia, pre-marital sex and sterilization, Haire predicted that every city in the world would have an Institute for Sexual Research like Hirschfeld’s, and he promoted the benefits of polygamy.

Lifelong monogamous marriage is, I believe, the ideal to aim at; but it is an ideal that is at present suitable to, and attainable by, only a very small minority of people. Most men are polygamous, in their desires at least: a large number are polygamous in practice; and, of those who remain physically faithful to one woman, the majority do so only because of the fear of consequences in this life, or punishment in that after-life which has been invented and exploited by theologians.[9]

At the heart of his book is the now-ubiquitous rhetoric of “live and let live” and the toleration of sexual difference, namely that unless a deviant sexual behaviour directly harms another individual, it should be left undisturbed:

But so long as the sexual rights of others are not interfered with…the sexual relations of two mutually consenting adults will probably be considered the private concern of the two individuals involved. We shall cease to persecute the unfortunate abnormals; and instead, we shall endeavour to cure them. Where cure is impossible, we shall not interfere with their rights as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.[10]

The integration of homosexual toleration within the wider discourse of sexual reform, particularly through association with popular endeavors such as sex equality, was a longstanding Hirschfeld tactic of legitimization that Haire was more than happy to also utilize.

Rejuvenation and Conflict with the BSSSP

Other than his support for a form of compulsory sterilization, one of the more embarrassing aspects of Haire’s career for his modern-day defenders is his involvement with the Jewish-instigated medical quackery known as “rejuvenation therapy,” invented by Eugen Steinach and Serge Voronoff. Steinach, an endocrinologist born to an Austrian Jewish family, and Voronoff, a surgeon born to a Russian Jewish family, both purported to have discovered, through experimentation on the endocrine systems of animals, the medical answer to the “fountain of youth.” Through surgical alterations to the endocrine and reproductive systems, they claimed that mankind could be “rejuvenated” from old age, with the operations allegedly increasing the vigor and sexual potency of the subject. The Vonoroff method involved surgically grafting slices of monkey testicles to the scrotum of the patient, a procedure which earned him the moniker of the “monkey gland man.” Steinach’s method was more mundane, being essentially a partial vasectomy.                                                                                                                                         Haire learnt of the procedures from a lecture given by his colleague Eden Paul[11] to the BSSSP and opted for the Steinach method, earning a small fortune “rejuvenating” famous elderly clients like W.B Yeats and H.G Wells by charging exorbitant surgical fees. In 1924, he published Rejuvenation:Tthe Work of Steinach, Voronoff, and Others which popularised the fad. Needless to say, none of these operations resulted in anything more than a placebo effect, but what they did do is provide the perfect guinea pigs for experimentation on Steinach’s more enduring achievement—sex-reassignment surgery. Steinach’s experiments on the function of sex hormones guided Hirschfeld and two Jewish doctors (Ludwig Levy-Lenz and Felix Abraham) at the Institute for Sexual Research in 1931 in performing the world’s first full sex-transition surgery on a German man called Rudolph Richter.

Though originally founded under the chairmanship of Hirschfeld, the BSSSP was little more than a lacklustre discussion forum for upper-class sexual radicals,[12] and the majority of its members were not interested in the goal Haire aspired to, namely bold, public sexual reform. Haire, now a prominent figure in the society and the British birth control scene, was not impressed by the BSSSP and its low membership numbers, and described other prominent members as “unbalanced,” “timid,” and “carries discretion to the extreme.”[13] By mid-1923, a minor power struggle over the direction of the society had resulted, but Haire backed down after Ellis reprimanded him in January 1924 after giving a speech at a BSSSP meeting that took the case for homosexual liberation a little too far, telling him that “the usefulness of the society will be largely destroyed if it comes to be regarded as simply a homo club.”[14] Alongside his flair for self-promotion, Haire’s abrasive personality and chutzpah had previously caused friction and interpersonal disputes with prominent members of the British birth control movement,[15] but the conflict over the direction of the BSSSP saw Haire begin to gravitate away from his childhood idol[16] and into the orbit of Magnus Hirschfeld and the Jewish strain of sexology in the German-speaking world—a place Haire would later call his spiritual home.

Hirschfeld and the Third Sexual Congress

First contact with Hirschfeld was made on a trip to Berlin in 1923 with a letter of introduction from Ellis. Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Research (ISR) made a strong impression on Haire, as did the “openness of homosexuality” that he encountered in the Berlin bars Hirschfeld invited him along to.[17] In Hirschfeld and the ISR, Haire found an outwardly confident movement that since 1897 already had a trailblazing track record of strong public support for the cause of sexual reform and homosexual liberation. Haire was present at the 1928 Copenhagen conference which founded the World League for Sexual Reform and also attended Albert Moll’s rival Berlin sexology congress in 1926, the International Congress for Sex Research.

Norman Haire (on the left) standing outside a WLSR meeting with Hirschfeld and his lover Karl Giese.   

Haire took up leadership roles in the WLSR, including as co-president with Hirschfeld from 1930 onwards, and he proved particularly influential in the transmission of the currents of Jewish sexology into the anglosphere. Proficient in both French and German, he put his language skills to use not only in attending conferences that were out of reach to most English speakers, but also in personally translating and editing German-language sexology books. From 1929, Haire edited The International Library of Sexology and Psychology series, which provided cheap translations and reprints of all the major sexology works, and edited and contributed to the English editions of Arthur Koestler’s bestseller The Encyclopaedia of Sexual Knowledge (1934). Translations of Wilhelm Aldor’s[18] Encyclopedia of Sex Practice (1934) and Wilhelm Stekel’s Sadism and Masochism (1929) brought Haire into legal trouble as they were being sold as titillating works alongside pornographic books and were considered “unlikely to be read in a scientific manner.”[19]

Haire’s role at the junction between Jewish sexology and the English-speaking world became most evident when he organized the aforementioned Third Congress of the WLSR in London, the first outside continental Europe and a high point for sexual reform in Britain. In total, the congress drew 350 delegates, a mixture of prominent sexologists and birth control activists from around the world and liberal reformers in Britain. Papers from prominent names such as Julian and Aldous Huxley, Bertrand Russell (Russell’s 2nd wife Dora assisted Haire in organising the congress) and George Bernard Shaw were presented. Havelock Ellis, now dealing with Haire at arm’s length, did not support the London congress and refused to attend, and Margaret Sanger abruptly defected, apparently for fear of her birth control endeavours being tainted with the accusation of involvement with communism and homosexual activism.[20]

The Planks of the WLSR

The topic of homosexuality did not in-fact receive much discussion at the London WLSR, struck from the agenda by Haire in order to align the congress with the more conservative English sensibility, and despite him bemoaning the “conspiracy of silence” against homosexuals.[21] Sex censorship on the other hand received particular attention (as did psychoanalysis), an issue on the minds of British participants given that many of them had recently come to the defense of Raclyffe Hall’s The Well of Loneliness (1928), charged with obscenity due to its presentation of lesbianism. Haire gave evidence in support of the book during the trial, invited by the publisher’s solicitor Harold Rubinstein,[22] and Rubinstein returned the favor by presenting a paper on censorship at the congress. The “planks”
of the WLSR platform, as re-drawn (and somewhat watered down[23]) by Haire for the London congress, read as follows:

  1. Political, economic and sexual equality of men and women.
  2. The liberation of marriage (and especially divorce) from the present Church and State tyranny.
  3. Control of conception, so that procreation may be undertaken only deliberately and with a due sense of responsibility.
  4. Race betterment by the application of the knowledge of Eugenics.
  5. Protection of the unmarried mother and illegitimate child.
  6. A rational attitude towards sexually abnormal persons, and especially towards homosexuals, both male and female.
  7. Prevention of prostitution and venereal disease
  8. Disturbances of the sexual impulse to be regarded as more or less pathological phenomena, and not, as in the past, merely as crimes, vices, or sins.
  9. Only those sexual acts to be considered criminal which infringe the sexual rights of another person. Sexual acts between responsible adults, undertaken by mutual consent, to be regarded as the private concern of those adults.
  10. Systematic sexual education.[24]

Minus some changes to the language, and with the notable exception of the eugenics plank, it stands as almost a complete ideological framing of the sexual revolution that was still nearly 40 years away, with all the suggested reforms having now been implemented throughout the Western world.

Following the 1929 London congress came the Vienna congress in 1930, which attracted 1,000 delegates. However, a subsequent congress held in Brno prior to Hirschfeld’s death failed to attract as much publicity, and sexual reform was overshadowed by the worsening political and economic situation. Haire was in London when he heard of the burning of the archives of the ISR by the National Socialists in May 1933 (which included Haire’s works) and sent a frantic letter to Hirschfeld’s lover Karl Giese to inquire if any of the more precious books and papers had been spared from consignment to the flames.[25]

Haire and Race

A more difficult aspect of Haire’s career to parse out is how he approached the question of race. Haire did not (to this writer’s knowledge, based on his publicly available works) make any outwardly hostile statements on racialism or race science and his writings express a broad support for sterilization for reasons of “race improvement.” For example, in Hymen Haire critiques a funding appeal in a newspaper for a family suffering a case of hereditary blindness:

Such an appeal is possible only because Society has a false standard of values—a standard which is hurrying us to national and racial disaster.[26]

His rhetoric on race is nevertheless highly generalized and medicalized and can be seen far more as the desires of a utopian (Haire considered himself a socialist) seeking to eradicate physical and mental deformities in all peoples of the world, utilizing the linguistic rhetoric popular in Britain at the time, rather than as a manifestation of a commitment to the health of the race derived from a wider worldview of racial nationalism.

Degenerative theory is absent from his writings on sexuality and it is difficult to see Haire, the “world citizen” equally at home in London as he was in Berlin and Paris, offering support to racial nationalism or engaging in rhetoric against miscegenation. Furthermore, Haire was concerned about rising anti-Semitism and “jew baiting” in Germany, and he helped a number of his fellow Jewish sexologists who came to England as refugees after 1933. The most generous interpretation is that the issue was largely not of interest to him, a distraction from his pet topic of birth control, but his idol Magnus Hirschfeld’s position on race offers us a clue as to what Haire’s view most likely was (see Andrew Joyce’s Magnus Hirschfeld’s Racism” (1934)).

Wykeham Terriss and the Population Debate

Haire continued his medical practice and involvement with the WLSR and Sanger’s birth control conferences throughout the 1930s, but war and poor health saw him decide to return to Australia in 1940, setting up a clinic in Macquarie Street, Sydney. When it came to movements for sexual reform, not much had changed in the country of his birth since he had left it nearly 20 years prior. There were only two operating birth control clinics, set up by Australia’s small but dedicated birth control movement (one by the Racial Hygiene Association in New South Wales (NSW) and another by the Eugenics Society of Victoria), local condom manufactures like Ansell Rubber (founded by London-born Jew Eric Ansell) still operated discreetly, and little of the currents of Jewish sexology had reached Australia’s shores other than isolated eccentrics who ran afoul of obscenity laws.[27]

After experiencing the liberated scenes of Weimar Germany, Australia was still stuck in what Haire considered to be a sexual dark age, wracked with sexual ignorance and religious dogma,[28] and before long he was at war with Australia’s even more conservative standards on sex, though public discussion of homosexuality was still out of the question. Churches and Christian societies targeted his sex education seminars held at universities and Haire penned a series of articles for The World News on “Sex and Censorship” where he decried Australia’s international reputation on the censorship of sexual publications, arguing that “the present method of censorship is very imperfect, harmful to the public interest and an unwarranted interference with the liberty of the individual.”[29]

In March 1941, Haire scored a major coup in the promotion of sexual reform in Australia when he was appointed to write a series of sex advice articles for a popular weekly magazine (Woman) using the pseudonym “Wykeham Terriss.” Australian women’s magazines of the day were still respectable affairs that catered to the middle-aged woman as the enforcer of morality in society—it would be another 50 years before Jewish editor Nene King turned Australia’s most popular women’s magazines into trashy gossip rags, filled with sex and scandal. Until it ceased publication in 1951, Haire contributed more than 400 articles, which were taboo-breaking endeavours guaranteed to provoke and enrage. Haire refused to use “code words” or religious rhetoric for describing behaviours and body parts, and provided he avoided the obscene, the only topics forbidden in his “freethinking” articles were masturbation and homosexuality. Highlights include Haire blaming the spread of venereal disease on the closing of shops and entertainment on Sundays. Haire’s claim that his articles were the first mass presentations of sex advice in Australia is difficult to quantify,[30] but there is no doubt that they had a wide readership that moulded public opinion in the direction of openness in talking about sex and sexual reform.

Alongside the Wykeham Terriss articles, Haire’s most notorious contribution to Australia was a radio debate in August 1944 which brought him wide censure from Australian politicians. Held as part of the Nations Forum of the Air series, which presented topics that looked towards post-war reconstruction, the debate asked the question “Population Unlimited?” and invited four participants for an unscripted hour-long debate. For the affirmative were two Catholics, Dame Enid Lions, member for parliament and wife of the former prime minister, and the economist Colin Clark, who later advised on the 1967 papal encyclical Populorum Progressio. The feminist Jessie Street took the negative alongside Haire. Whilst he conceded the need for Australia to “cautiously” grow (unlike in Europe, where he felt it best to decrease growth due to “over-population”), Haire presented a staunch defense of birth control methods of the sort that was almost never articulated on national radio, let alone in public discourse. During the debate, Haire referred to his mother as little more than a “prize cow” stuck in a cycle of fertility and child-rearing. The comment was taken as a broadside against Australian motherhood, and the outcry resulted in a government ban being imposed on both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial radio from broadcasting talks on sexual matters and venereal disease.[31]

The Legacy of Haire

“Norman Haire became a sort of hero. … Since then his followers have spread out, infiltrating not only the medical profession, but universities, schools, churches.”[32]

Haire returned to London in August 1946 to find that sexual reform had run out of steam due to the war, and that the fervor over birth control had subsided. As Haire no doubt understood from the radio debate in Australia and its vituperative aftermath, promotion of birth control strongly conflicted with the goal of using population growth as a form of economic stimulation to counter wartime death and destruction, and the field of eugenics had been rendered morally reprehensible by association with the National Socialist regime and its sterilization policies.

Haire kept pre-war sexual reform alive by establishing the Sex Education Society and its accompanying journal, and he became more public in support of abortion and reform of homosexual law, but he continued to be plagued by ill health. His last venture was a speaking tour in the US in 1952, where he met all the Jewish leading lights of American sexology and gay rights activism—Edward Sagarin, Albert Ellis, Hugo Gernsback and Edwin W. Hirsch—and received a visit from Harry Benjamin and Alfred Kinsey whilst resting in a New York hospital.[33] The trip was interrupted by intermittent hospital visits due to heart failure and he died in the UK a few months later. Haire’s papers, which contained many intimate details about well-known English and Australian political and cultural figures, were burned, but his sexology library was donated to the University of Sydney, which in 2020 established the Norman Haire Fund for Sexology Studies.

The legacy of Norman Haire was not immediately apparent in Australia after his departure, as the local sexology scene continued along the gentile strain for a number of years, i.e., it was concerned primarily with family and racial health to the exclusion of radical sexual reform.[34] By the mid-1950s however, the world that he had prophesized back in 1927 was beginning to emerge, a radical world of sexual license and the “toleration of difference”(as a proxy for the toleration of Jews) driven by Jewish ethno-political activism that was intrinsically hostile to any notion of race or racial improvement. The spirit of Hirschfeld, Haire, and the WLSR lived on in the form of Freudianism, Wilhelm Reich and the Frankfurt School, championing the subversive cause of sexual liberation and cultural pluralism throughout the West, and the trickle of pornography and sexual publications turned into a flood. As a sign of the times, the NSW Racial Hygiene Association renamed itself the Family Planning Association in 1960 to align with the new goal of sexual liberation and remove any pretext that it was interested in the biological strengthening of White Australia. The strongly Jewish nature of this endeavour in the Australian context, particularly in the war on obscenity laws and Australia’s conservative sexual morality, has previously been discussed in detail by this writer; see his four-part series The Plot Against Australia (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4).

Once all the legal and cultural prohibitions on open discissions of sex had been dismantled, the field of sexology itself emerged in Australia in full bloom during the 1970s, and as one would expect with Jews playing leading roles. The first professional organization for sexology, the Australian Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists (ASSERT), was founded under the leadership of Greta Goldberg as its convener and first president. Jewish doctors Jules Black (also a founding director of ASSERT) and Elsie Koadlow later jockeyed amongst themselves for the accolade of who set up Australia’s first sex-therapy clinic,[35] and Viennese-born doctor Herbert Bower pioneered a gender-dysphoria clinic at a Melbourne hospital, later graduating to an in-house psychiatrist at the first sex-reassignment surgery clinic in Australia at Monash University—in 1999 he was called the man who “approves every sex change operation in Australia.”[36] Sexologists like Bettina Arndt[37] began appearing on mainstream radio and television networks and Dennis Altman’s Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation (1971) was a worthy successor to Haire and Hirschfeld’s quest for sexual reform.

Once the love that dare not speak its name, now the love one dare not oppose – Current prime minister Anthony Albanese and leading members of the Australian Labor Party celebrating the passing of the gay marriage bill at the Labor caucus.

Around the world, Jews abound in the history of the sexual revolution and its precursors, but like Norman Haire, most of them are now hidden away in the margins of books and journal articles (or uncritical Wikipedia entries), their lives which brim with subversion and intrigue unknown to all but the most esoteric readers. Perhaps someday writers on the Jewish Question will uncover them all, but for now this writer leaves you with the Australian piece in this puzzle, an individual that Australian patriots would prefer to forget was produced on our shores.

Select Bibliography

  • Bongiorno, F 2012, The Sex Lives of Australians: A History, Black Inc, Australia.
  • Grosskurth, P 1985, Havelock Ellis: A Biography, New York University Press, USA.
  • Haire, N 1927, Hymen: Or the Future of Marriage, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd, London, UK.
  • Haire, N 1943, Sex Problems of To-day, Angus & Robertson Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
  • Leck, R.M 2016, Vita Sexualis: Karl Ulrichs and the Origins of Sexual Science, University of Illinois Press, USA.
  • Mancini, E 2010, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement, Palgrave Macmillan, USA.
  • Wyndham, D 2012, Norman Haire and the study of sex, Sydney University Press, Australia.

[1]Munster, G 1983 ‘Only shadowy clues left by a reviled prophet of sexual liberation’, The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 24 September, p.38.

[2] Joyce, A 2015 ‘The Assault on Gender and the Family Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part 1, The Occidental Observer, retrieved from: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/12/26/the-assault-on-gender-and-the-family-jewish-sexology-and-the-legacy-of-the-frankfurt-school-part-one/

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Leck, R.M 2016, Vita Sexualis: Karl Ulrichs and the Origins of Sexual Science, University of Illinois Press, USA, p.185.

[6] Wyndham, D 2012, Norman Haire and the study of sex, Sydney University Press, Australia, p.184

[7] Ibid., p.425.

[8] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.35.

[9] Haire, N 1927, Hymen or The Future of Marriage, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Lt. London, p.95. Retrieved from: 04.us.archive.org/26/items/dli.ministry.14394/E09677_Hymen_Or_The_Future_Of_Marriage_text.pdf

[10] Ibid., p.59.

[11] A member of the Communist Party, Paul was another prominent translator of Jewish sexology books from Germany.

[12] “The Society’s contemporary impact in terms of reform of laws, or even moderating more than a small corner of public opinion, was apparently minimal.”- See Hall, L.A 1995, ‘’Disinterested Enthusiasm for Sexual Misconduct’: The British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology, 1913-47’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.8(4), pp.665-686.

[13] Crozier, I 2003, ‘“All the World’s a Stage”: Dora Russell, Norman Haire and the 1929 London World League for Sexual Reform Congress’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol.12(1), pp16-37, p.21-22

[14] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.116.

[15] See Crozier, I 2001 ‘Becoming a Sexologist: Norman Haire, the 1929 London World League for Sexual Reform Congress, and Organizing Medical Knowledge about Sex in Interwar England’, History of Science, Vol.39, pp.299-329.

[16] Wyndham’s account of the correspondence between Ellis and Haire from this point up until Ellis’ death in 1939 give the impression of a tense but still professional relationship, with Ellis less than pleased by Haire’s manoeuvrings with the WLSR.

[17] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.112.

[18] The cousin of Arthur Koestler.

[19] Cocks, H.G 2004, ‘Saucy stories: Pornography, sexology and the marketing of sexual knowledge in Britain, c. 1918-70’, Social History, Vol.29(4), pp.465-484, p.481.

[20] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.183

[21] Ibid., p.184.

[22] Rubinstein’s son Michael was the defence solicitor for Penguin Books in the landmark 1960 obscenity trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

[23] Haire for example removed the plank, originally written by Hirschfeld, on the “tolerance of free sexual relations” and re-wrote the eugenics plank with more racialist language. See Dose, R 2003, ‘The World League for Sexual Reform: Some Possible Approaches’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol.12(1), pp.1-15.

[24] Crozier 2003, Op. Cit., p.28-29

[25]Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.228

[26] Haire, Op. Cit., p.32.

[27] Notably George Southern, the only Australian-based member of the WLSR.

[28] Wyndham Op. Cit. p.320-321.

[29] Haire, N 1941, ‘Sex and Censorship’, The World’s News Sydney, Saturday 25 October, p.2, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/139906663/16086749.

[30] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.412 – The NSW Racial Hygiene Association had in fact produced sex education pamphlets during the 1930s. The guarded religious language used within these pamphlets about the spiritual uplift of marriage and sexual relations and the opposition to masturbation are a world apart from Haire’s writings on the topic.

[31] Inglis, K.S 1983, This is the ABC: The Australian Broadcasting Commission 1932-1983, 2nd Edition, Black Inc., Australia, p.188.

[32] Buckley, B 1966, ‘Morals: The Sexual Revolution’, The Bulletin, p.19, retrieved from: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-674029485/view?partId=nla.obj-674142795

[33] Wyndham, Op.Cit., p.391-392

[34] This came in the form of contemporary practitioners such as Victor Hugo Wallace, the Australian editor of the journal Marriage Hygiene (later the International Journal of Sexology) from 1947 to 1955 and a leading member of the Eugenics Society of Victoria.

[35] See https://john.curtin.edu.au/julesblack/launch.html

[36] Bock, A 1999, ‘Gender Bender’, The Age, Saturday 9 October, p.113.

[37] Not Jewish, but with a Jewish background; her family were Lutheran converts.

Sam Bankman-Fried and the FTX Collapse: A Family Affair

/56 Comments/in /by

In almost every state in the union there is a government agency or department with the name “Child Protective Services”. Its purported mission is to act as the long arm of a responsible community to protect children from their own parents or guardians when children are being mis-treated. Although vastly abusive in many, if not most, situations, there is, at least, a good faith argument for the existence of such agencies for extreme cases. Its aim is in part to protect the children; but it also aims to ensure that the children develop into adults that hopefully will not be as anti-social as their parents – in other words, to prevent the perpetuation of anti-social behaviour over multiple generations. Good luck! But, at least, the aim is sensible, even if not, in the main, achievable.

Usually, the targets are lower class blacks and white goyim families, where lack of money exacerbates what mainstream “upper middles” would view as an anti-social lifestyle.

However, given the rise to prominence of a new kind of upper class over the last 50 years, the need for a new kind of child protective services – one might call it “goyim protective services” suggests itself. That upper class, of course, is the new Jewish elite that now rules the United States. And if you doubt me, make a couple of quick calls to “Ye”, yeah, who, until a few days ago, used to be worth over a billion dollars, or a certain Mr. Irving, who, until a couple of days ago, used to play professional basketball.

Anti-social upbringing in a “super-class,” like the ruling Jews, would of course be far more damaging to society than the alcoholism and wife-beating typically passed from generation to generation by the “untermenschen” of our society. The latter affects only the immediate and unfortunate households and perhaps neighborhoods of such persons. The former, however, can have huge and devastating consequences to the entire nation.

The need for such an agency raises its ugly head in what presumably was the completely anti-social upbringing of Sam Bankman-Fried, a child of enormous intellectual privilege, brought up in the most intellectually dominant of Jewish households. His case, sad to say, is simply a poster child for the upbringing of the children of powerful Jews who currently run our country, and whose children are presumably being prepared to continue to run – some might say ruin – our country. Sam’s shenanigans with FTX (a crypto exchange) and its related entity, Alemada Research, apparently a major crypto trader, may have resulted in hundreds of millions, and likely billions, of dollars of losses to FTX account holders and others, including left-wing charities and the Democrat Party, recipient of $40 million in the last election cycle. (As the poster boy for “effective altruism” said, “I wanted to get rich, not because I like money but because I wanted to give that money to charity.”)

No one knows for sure yet how much the losses are, but it looks really big. Huge.

If one were not attentive to family backgrounds, one might assume that ol’ “Sam” – a disheveled heap of negroid curled hair, hideously ugly face, slum-like, deliberately insulting attire, and typical Ashkenazi nasal whiny girlie-type voice – might have been the mis-named son of Eddie Antar, of “Crazy Eddie” fame, perhaps brought up in an atmosphere of switch-and bait retailing, where the collected and unpermitted sales tax is your profit margin and the “yakety yak” crap add-on products turn your normal profit margin into high finance. Eddie Antar brought to the next level. But without the self-depreciating humor of vibrating little Christmas trees accompanied by the intonation “Crazie Eddie – where the prices are insane!!!” (1)

In such an upbringing, however, young Sammy, one might presume, would be taught at the dinner table how to cheat the customer, the government, the investing public, and everyone else, whenever possible. In other words, to continue the family “tradition” into the next generation.

But no. His Royal Highness, Prince Sam, was not brought up in such a household. He was brought up in the upperest class of upper-class households, at which the Eddie Antars of the Brooklyn Jewish world could only gape in intimidated awe. Both Sam’s father, Joseph Bankman, and his mother, Barbara Fried, are professors at Stanford Law (incredibly, Barbara is also on the Board of Advisors of the Stanford Ethics in Society Program). On any given day Stanford Law may be viewed as the most prestigious or second-most prestigious law school in the country. Sammy’s mom co-founded Mind the Gap, which is a Democrat Party fundraising organization centered in Silicon Valley that spent millions on the 2020 election. As if that wasn’t enough, his aunt is Linda Fried, the Dean of the Columbia University School of Public Health. All are presumably at some not so distant point descended from a long line of intellectually distinguished Rabbis whose children married into wealth and business acumen.  No “Odessa bootleg liquor” in that background. Please. More like upper class Vienna Jews living in 18-room apartments on the most elegant of boulevards.

So, WHAT THE HELL WENT WRONG?

He was a Jew, that’s what went wrong.

Non-Jewish Americans simply have no comprehension of the cynicism and hatred in which most Jewish children, including – especially – upper class Jewish children, are raised. Cynicism about “whatever it takes” to separate goyim from their cash. Hatred and contempt for the dumb goyim, who are regarded in most Jewish households – secular or religious – as not much more than preternaturally stupid, though potentially dangerous, talking beasts. And, to be fair, most Jews have no clue as to how their goyim next-door neighbors are raising their children – to believe in moral principles, to tell the truth, to respect others. Very few concentrate first and foremost on how to make money – let alone work to separate Jews from their cash and power. In their world, it’s never brought up. If Jews actually saw how goyim are brought up, they would see what, from their point of view, was only a breeding ground for “suckers” – and of course would never believe that was what was really going on. The admonitions to honesty, fair dealing, morality that most of us goyim associate with proper upbringing are present in Jewish households – but only in respect of other human beings – i.e., other Jews. Not, not, not with respect to the goyim, except in the limiting case where to do otherwise might damage the Jews.

To continue. From a Jewish point of view, how absolutely unfair and contrary to the underlying principles of the universe that mere beasts should have money, cars, houses – anything. An abomination. (“So, Sammy, our job is to correct that, Sammy.” ) This Jewish attitude is accompanied by mass paranoia, verging on psychosis, which educates Jewish children that everyone around them outside their Schul is secretly forming plans to kill them, and that, of course, the history, traditions, culture of such people is nothing more than revolting or meaningless crap – crap that is “taken on” or assumed temporarily solely as a way to worm one’s way up, but certainly not for its own sake. Whether that culture be manner of dress, table manners, music, art, journalism, history, or, most crucially, the laws of the goyim. Or (of course) religion, mainly the hated and despised Christianity.

We come now to goyim law, inherited in this country primarily from 1,000 years of English constitutional development and the Common Law, originating itself from the Roman Law, viewed with veneration in pre-Jewish America as the source and wellspring of our liberties and of ordered government. But by Jews? They have their own law – the Talmud – virulently anti-Christian and anti goyim. Our law? Jews view it with contempt, except to the extent it can be used – or twisted – to help the Jews. (Obviously this attitude is for internal consumption only – not for goyim to hear.) And why shouldn’t they, they think. After all, Jews hated the Roman Empire – remember Titus’s destruction of the Second Temple? The Jews hate the English, probably much more than they hate Germans (look at the cars they drive). Remember the Jews’ expulsion from England under Edward I in 1290? You may not, but Jews do. And their use of the goyisch law evidences this. Any disruptive revolutionary use that can be made of it to up-end cultural and moral norms of the goyim, and thereby promote the interest of the Jews. And don’t think Jewish professors at pre-eminent law schools are any different. In fact, they – and their odious brethren that lead the major, now almost all Jewish-controlled, whatever their “name” – law firms in New York City, Chicago, and L.A. And the accompanying bar associations – lead the charge. A very dangerous and increasingly powerful element indeed.

So what kind of “Jewish” upbringing must young Prince Sam have received even in a household consisting of “distinguished” Jewish law professors and a host of eminent collateral Jewish relatives?

Interlude: Some data points from other prominent Jews.

Mark Rudd initiated a violent takeover of the administrative offices of Columbia University in New York over what was nominally an issue of Columbia’s involvement with the Vietnam War, through its work for the Institute of Defense Analysis. Rudd became a high priest of the Students for Democratic Society (“SDS”) and, later, the criminal terrorist organization known as the Weathermen. After the fact, after he himself incredibly had been given a college teaching position, Rudd described in a speech about Jewish dominance of both the SDS and the Weatherman:

I lived a Philip Roth existence in which the distinction between Jews and gentiles was present in all things: having dogs and cats was goyish. … What outraged me and my comrades so much about Columbia [University, which he famously attended and disrupted], along with its hypocrisy, was the air of genteel civility. Or should I say gentile? Despite the presence of so many Jews in the faculty and among the students—geographical distribution in the admissions process had not been effective at filtering us out, our SAT’s and class-rank being so high—the place was dripping with goyishness. When I got there freshmen still wore blue blazers and ties and drank sherry at afternoon socials with the deans. At the top of the Columbia heap sat President Grayson Kirk and Vice-President David Truman, two consummate liberal WASP’s who privately claimed to oppose the war but maintained the institution’s support of it. Mark Rudd — “Why were there so many Jews in SDS? (or, The Ordeal of Civility“

Well, there’s undoubtedly no risk of blue blazers, ties, and sherry in the Rudd – or in the Blankman – household!

During the SDS Columbia riots, Rudd recounts how his own father – a Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, no less – called Kirk “an intellectual mediocrity.” In fact, Kirk was a distinguished academic, who, according to Wikipedia, “graduated from Miami University in 1924, earned an M.A. in political science from Clark University in 1925, and studied at the École Libre des Sciences Politiques in 1929 before completing a Ph.D. in the discipline at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1930.” The École Libre des Sciences Politique, commonly referred to as “Science Po,” was then and is now one of the most difficult schools in the world to get into, being one of the famous “grande ecoles” that dominate the top tier of French intellectual life. Rudd’s father in contrast to Kirk, and in contrast, in fact, to many immigrant Jews of the day, could hardly be described as an intellectual. He was, according to Wikileaks, Jacob S. Rudd (1909–1995), was born Jacob Shmuel Rudnitsky in Stanislower (Yiddish for Stanisławów), Poland; he was a former Army officer who sold real estate in Maplewood, New Jersey. A real estate salesman. Hardly the stuff of which an intellectual elite is made. In fact, an obvious “intellectual mediocrity” if there ever was one.

Rudd goes on. Although, as noted, he was the son of a Lt. Colonel in the US Air Force, he states:

As a child I never fell for the seduction of patriotism. It seemed so arbitrary, who’s an American and who’s not. If my relatives hadn’t emigrated, who would I be? Since I was also at core an idealist and a utopian—another Jewish tradition?—I wanted to skip all that obviously stupid and dangerous stuff that gave rise to wars and racism. In 1965 I began to identify myself as a socialist and an internationalist. I still am an internationalist since old religions die hard.

One can only assume his father felt the same way. One question that pops into the mind is what in the hell was the Army thinking when they allowed a person like this hold a high rank in its own intelligence arm. Another that pops up is that it’s too bad that the officer at Ellis Island allowed this odious family into the country.

Rudd goes on:

Imagine an idealistic Jewish kid growing up in a suburban New Jersey town, always knowing that the world consisted of two kinds of people: Us and Them, the Jews and the goyim. Crossing the river[3] to the big city and taking a place as a student in a world-class Ivy League institution run by Them, I found at the top, much to my surprise, rather slow-witted, Wizard of Oz-like characters who ran things really badly, violated their own principles, lied, put into effect both pro-war and racist policies. My reaction? In my speeches at rallies, I had taken to referring to President Kirk as “that shithead.” Morris V. de Camp, “Punching Left: The Weather Underground, the Haymarket Anarchists, the Kennedys, and the 1960s“

Here again the arrogant disparagement of all things non-Jewish. Kirk, a “slow witted Wizard-of-Oz-like character”? Bullshit. Maybe Rudd was “projecting” as the Jewish psychiatrists like to say. The Wizard of Oz-like character seems much more like Rudd himself – and quite possibly his mediocre, arrogant father.

Then we come to the essential Jew, Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter, serving for decades as the dual cerebral cortices of the New York’s intellectual and literary elite. One day, he and his wife decided to take a vacation out of New York and decided – at least for a while – to visit one of the most important historical sites of their adopted country. But, just like young Mark Rudd, we must assume they both came to the realization that he should not “fall for the seduction of patriotism…[because] it seem[s] so arbitrary”. Or even any interest in the history of their host country. We shall let Mr. Podheretz tell his own charming story:

I could never quite get over the feeling that I was not as ‘real’ an American as someone whose people had come here earlier than mine. Sometimes I would joke about this, as when, in the early days of our marriage, my wife, who wrote (and still does) under the name Midge Decter, and I drove one summer to Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York to visit what we thought of as an American shrine. But as we approached the gate, the first thing we saw was a sign informing the public that this was the site of several major battles in the French and Indian wars of the 1750s. “The French and Indian wars?” I burst out in mock indignation, “what’s that got to do with me?” At this, in our ignorance, both giggled, and in an antic gesture of protest I turned the car around without ever entering the fort.  James Fulford, “Ramesh Ponnuru Wrong, Again, (Guess Why) On Civil Rights“

Can you imagine driving all the way up to a significant historic site – probably about a 5-hour drive north of New York City – even an historical site of a foreign country you were visiting for a couple of weeks – reaching the gate and turning around to drive 5 hours back, all because the sign did not indicate anything you had been brought up with? Presumably he would have toured the fort had the sign been in Yiddish. The paucity of interest in history, particularly of the country whose passport he carried, is breathtaking. In fact, it is highly disturbing. It actually indicates an intense hatred for the country in which he lived and, perforce, for the people of that country – other than the small segment of that people located on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. One can only imagine the kind of parochial, hate filled upbringing both the Podhoretz and Decter family provided their young prodigies. And one shudders to think of the upbringing of their odious son, John Podhoretz, now a big muckety muck at the New York Post.

The third data point is told by a non-Jewish acquaintance who was sitting in the living room of a conservative Jewish family. The husband, an American by birth (?), had made big money in a series of investment banking jobs. His wife was European Jewish, naturalized to U.S. citizenship, and the holder of a high-paying job in the U.S. branch of a foreign bank, whose family had lived through the Nazi occupation and whose asses were saved by 400,000 U.S. infantrymen, airmen, and seamen who died defeating Hitler in the European Theatre of World War II. Her son, it happened, had vocalized a heretical interest in joining the U.S. Army – the same force that had saved her whole family less than 50 years before. The wife immediately said “I would never want [Nathan] to join the U.S. Army. If he is going to join any army it should join the IDF [i.e., the Israeli Defense Forces]”. The husband uttered not a contrary word. Clearly, he agreed.

What kind of upbringing does a Jewish family whose lives have been saved by U.S. soldiers, who have scooped out a literal fortune in the U.S. over 20 years, give their children? My God. Why did we ever let either of them in the country? Sammy Blankman, frankly, sounds mild stuff compared to this.

Back to SBF. With young Sammy Blankman-Fried coming from this kind of fetid – not to say, almost treasonous – environment, should we be surprised at anything he cooks up?

But the story gets worse. This is clearly not simply the story of bad upbringing. It looks like his parents, his professor at MIT, and their contacts have been material facilitators (and for a while beneficiaries) of Sammy’s rise. For starters, apparently Blankman pater is a noted expert in crypto-currency tax law, at least that’s what it said before it was scrubbed from Stanford Professorial web page. But Blankman by his own admission has been “studying” Crypto tax, Hmm…, could that mean that he was fully appraised of what was going on so he could give his son free tax or legal advice in the crypto area in which FTX operated? For Daddy’s sake, hope not.

However, this dispiriting report indicates Blankman pater was in the middle of it, and not just with Crypto tax advice:

Bankman was involved in FTX, including raising funds for the firm before its bankruptcy. Via a connection to his former Stanford Law School student Orlando Bravo, Bankman made an introduction which led to a $125 million investment in FTX from private equity firm Thoma Bravo in June 2021.  He and his wife were signatories to a luxury Bahamas residence in Old Fort Bay that is part of the FTX bankruptcy. While it isn’t known what funds were used to purchase this vacation home, Bankman and his wife are trying to return the property to FTX.”

See also: Joseph Bankman – Wikipedia ;  “How Sam Bankman-Fried seduced blue-chip investors”. Financial Times. 2022-11-11. Retrieved 2022-11-12;  “Exclusive: Bankman-Fried’s FTX, parents bought Bahamas property worth $121 million”. Reuters. Retrieved 2022-11-22.

Wow!  Exciting lives for a couple of humble “law” professors!

Glenn Ellison is a Jewish economics professor at MIT, where Sam went to college. Professor Ellison’s daughter, incredibly, is (or was) the CEO of Alemeda Research, which, notwithstanding its name, was a huge crypto trader that apparently was partly owned by Sammy. Part of the enveloping scandal apparently is that FTX funds (read customer deposits) appear to have been used to fund Alameda, which, word has it, is now caput. Not reassuringly she sounds about as ditzy and clueless as Bari Weiss. Except instead of writing articles complaining about antisemitism, she was handling millions (billions?) of dollars in trades, apparently not very well. She went to – take a guess – Stanford, where Sammy’s parents are professors! And apparently not overly interested in studies there either. As Eviamagazine wrote: “Can you guess what Caroline’s advice is for college students? (She was a math major.) She actually says that classes don’t matter that much, and that “friends and networking are really important.” Yeah, right. In her case, at least. Why bother with “studies” when you have contacts like she had. She apparently met Sammy at a proprietary high frequency trading firm and market maker named Jane Street Capital (2), and then went with him to Alemada/FTX along with rumors of personal involvement.

And unsurprisingly, FTX/Alameda and Ellison appear to have had a close relationship with Jewish-run Goldman Sachs.

Sam kept expanding his “family.” In the 2022 election cycle, it appears Sammy was the fourth largest donor, at $39.9 million, almost all to the very Democrats who oversee Gensler’s SEC. That made him second largest Democrat donor to George Soros ($140 million).

As JFK once said in an interview: “I believe in large families.” Its nice to know that Sammy did too, so much so that he kept expanding his to include econ professors, folks at Goldman Sachs, and, finally, a bunch of Congressmen. However, JFK did note in the next breath “of course, there needs to be a father imposing discipline…” Oops. That’s where “Blankman dad” appears to have fallen flat on his face.

Or maybe he didn’t. In fact, the deeper one digs into the FTX scandal, the conclusion becomes obvious: this is simply the Jewish ultra upper-class family writ large – intellectual and financial – fucking the rest of us. Could it be that the result of HRH Sammy’s upbringing is not a defect – but, instead, an intended attribute? He’s still apparently respectable enough to be invited to an elite New York Times-sponsored panel along with the likes of Janet Yellen, Mark Zuckerberg, Bibi Netanyahu, and Volodymyr Zelensky.

If so, “Double Mitzva!” 16 candles this Hanukah season!

So, perhaps, we need a new government agency, a “Goyim Protection Agency,” to effectuate early intervention in such families, to inform the “little ones” that, no, cheating and otherwise screwing goyim is NOT acceptable. Perhaps, in extremis, the child could be removed to a large non-Jewish working class family in, say, South Boston or Cleveland (if there are any of those left in those de-industrialized cities), where he could learn some humility and, perhaps, against all odds, some decency.

I think you are thinking what I’m thinking. A cold day in Hell when that happens.

_________
1. In fairness to “Crazy Eddie”, the consumers did quite well. Even if not quite so well as they thought. Unlike the FTX situation, they certainly stood at no risk of losing their entire net worth, even when buying too much “yakety yak,” by patronizing Eddie’s store on King’s Highway, Brooklyn.

2. Jane Street Capital, located in offices worldwide: (NEW YORK, LONDON, AMSTERDAM, HONG KONG, SINGAPORE) describes its activities as follows: “We are a global liquidity provider and trading firm, using sophisticated quantitative analysis and a deep understanding of market mechanics to help keep prices consistent and reliable. At Jane Street our trading blends human intuition—earned through more than twenty years of experience—with cutting-edge research. Our style is both rigorous and pragmatic. Depending on the problem, we might draw on large-scale machine learning models, domain expertise, or pen-and-paper mathematics. We’re a firm of puzzle solvers on and off the clock.” What We Do :: Jane Street .