Saving the White Race: The Problem and Solutions, Part 1 of 3

/56 Comments/in , /by

Note on usage: In this essay the racial designation “White” is capitalized when used to mean racial Europeans and not capitalized (i.e., “white”) when following common and official usage that includes non-European Caucasians, such as Middle Easterners and North Africans, and semi-European Caucasians, such as Ashkenazi Jews, in the “white” racial category.

Almost from the beginning of my thinking and writing about the existential crisis facing the White race I thought that the two most basic and essential pieces of knowledge that we needed to instill in our people were the enormous reality of the problem itself and the possible solutions to the problem, without which there can be no purpose to motivate constructive action and no goal to give us direction and guide us forward. Since the end of World War II, these two vital pieces of knowledge have been totally missing from the dominant, mainstream culture, which effectively censors or ignores them, or dismissively denies and condemns any rare mention of them that might emanate from the fringes, to sustain a general ignorance on the subject. This is not surprising, given that the dominant culture is intent on subjugating, dispossessing, replacing, and destroying the White race, not on saving it.

In brief, the problem is the ongoing dispossession and destruction of the White race. The cause of this problem is multiracialism, which is caused by non-White immigration which in turn causes racial intermixture, which is not possible without it. The solution to the problem is to replace multiracialism with racial separation—to restore the racial environment in which the White race existed in the many thousands of years prior to its settlement of the Americas—the environment that continued to exist in Europe until after World War II. The problem is existential in scale, with the continued existence of the White race at stake. A sufficient solution to an existential problem is one that effectively preserves and continues the existence of the White race—and not only a small fraction of it but the far greater part that can still be saved. This should be the purpose of any genuine racial preservation program.

I want my race to live. But it is being destroyed. How and why is this happening? The how and the why of the problem is one and the same as the cause given above: multiracialism, i.e., the inclusion of multiple races in the same political jurisdiction. Multiracialism is the direct and necessary condition of our racial apocalypse, the end of our existence. Multiracialism makes possible, enables, and indeed causes racial destruction through a combination of racial replacement and intermixture. Racial intermixture cannot occur without multiracialism, and with it can hardly not occur. It makes racial intermixture, and the racial destruction it causes, all but inevitable.

Multiracialism is the direct cause of White destruction, but why then do we have multiracialism? It is obvious why non-Whites support the multiracialization of White countries. It is in their racial group interest to do so because it secures their presence in White countries. But as their presence in White countries continues to grow, it is becoming more than presence. It is becoming power, control and dominance, and the White populations, in addition to racial disempowerment, increasingly suffer subjugation, and eventually persecution. But why have Whites supported, and continue to support, multiracialism and the consequent process of their racial dispossession? Why do they act against their ultimate existential interests? Why, in short, are so many Whites, literally or effectively, anti-White? Why is the White race so maladaptively and pathologically against itself and its existence?

There are two false premises or assumptions that help to sustain popular acquiescence and passive resignation to the anti-White status quo. One is the myth of stasis—the false premise or assumption that things will remain basically as they are with little or no significant change, so there is no problem, no need for a solution, and nothing needs to be done. This complacency-inducing premise had a certain credibility before World War II, or even before the 1960s, but the accelerating pace of racial and cultural change since then makes it increasingly difficult to sustain short of a delusional — and perhaps fearful or ideological — blindness that denies all the evidence of one’s own eyes. Yet the indications are that this myth is the operative worldview of the majority of Whites, rendering them effectively ignorant, with little or no awareness of the great changes happening to their race. Those few White politicians who have publicly acknowledged it have been those, like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, who welcome it as a positive development. The second false premise or assumption is the myth of inevitability, acknowledging that the process of White replacement and destruction by multiracialism is occurring but believing that there are no feasible and morally acceptable alternatives, so it is inevitable and nothing can be done to prevent it. Both of these false premises—static permanence or inexorable inevitability—can in large part be attributed to a failure of imagination and vision, the inability to conceive or see other alternatives. But the simple fact is that there are other possible alternatives and solutions. There is a pathway out of the darkness and toward the light, away from racial death and toward racial life, as many, including this author, have proposed.

People and movements are defined both by what they are for and what they are against. When a solution — the positive “what they are for” — is missing, the response to a problem — the negative “what they are against” — can have little meaningful effect. Sometimes what one is for and what one is against is a very simple matter of either-or. In the matter at issue, either one is for continued White racial existence and independence—a position the dominant anti-White culture condemns as “racism” and “hate” (its code words for pro-White), or one is against them, the dominant “politically correct” position described as “anti-racism” and “anti-hate” (its code words for anti-White). In such cases, when there are only two choices, knowing what someone is against should, if they are logically consistent, indicate what they are for; however they might refuse to acknowledge it. So either one is for the preservation and independence of the White race, or one is against them. If one is for them, if one wants the White race to live and be free, logical consistency dictates one also support racial separation as the required condition for both, and then it also follows that one be against multiracialism. If one is against White existence and independence and therefore wants the White race to be subjugated and destroyed, then logic dictates one be for multiracialism as the most effective means to realize this end. The label “White preservationist” describes people by what they are for, not what they are against. The crucial point is that preservationists are not just against something, but are for something—for White racial preservation, and should place as much or more emphasis on what they are for as on what they are against.

Part I. The Problem

“Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in history….if you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Ben J. Wattenberg, The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 84.

“In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.” President Bill Clinton Commencement Address at Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, June 13, 1998.

“[W]hen one population moves into a region occupied by another population with which it can interbreed, even a small rate of interbreeding is enough to produce high proportions of mixture in the descendants.” David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Vintage Books, 2019), 43.

“I think that the Dutch will in the long run disappear. The [non-White immigrant] ethnic groups’ population growth is much faster than that of the Dutch. It is obvious that this process will continue, even after the year 2100. This is the trend worldwide. The white race will in the long term become extinct. I don’t regard this as positive or negative. Apparently we are happy with this development.” Jozef Ritzen, Dutch Minister of Education and Sciences, interview in Algemeen Dagblad, Rotterdam, December 11, 1989, 1.

The crisis of White racial survival began with the colonization of the Americas and the resulting bringing together of previously separated races. But it was not the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of “Latin America” beginning in the sixteenth century that caused it. Even though it was the home of over 90% of the African slave trade and 90% of the aboriginal Amerindian population, it played little or no role in the development of the problem  now threatening the White race. What Harvard geneticist David Reich calls “The Great Mixing”[1] in Latin America was effectively completed by the beginning of the nineteenth century, forming the racial patterns of the region that persist to this day and didn’t really spread beyond those confines until the 1960s, when the racial problem had already started to metastasize through the Western World. The current racial problem began with the importation of African slaves into the English colonies of North America beginning in 1619. By the time of the first United States census in 1790 they numbered 757,208, or 19.3% of the total population of 3,929,214. The combination of their presence and the dispute over their status was the primary cause of the American Civil War of 1861–65, after which the racial situation restabilized into a White supremacist modus vivendi that lasted with little change, with one exception, until World War II. The exception was the mass immigration of Jews, beginning in the 1880s. Jews soon increased their power and used it to agitate against the pro-White status quo. Critical to their success was that they formed alliances in a campaign to promote unrestricted mass immigration, such as the “Black-Jewish Alliance”[2] which subsequently expanded into a broad coalition of anti-White elements as other groups achieved significant numbers.

This Anti-White Coalition, whose power increased after World War II, achieved cultural and political dominance in the 1960s. It consists of Jewish and non-White racial groups whose interests conflict with White interests in alliance with the varied White elements who are against their own race. It effectively dominates the entirety of the Democratic party, as well as the pro-immigration, globalist, anti-nationalist and “neo-conservative” establishment of the Republican party, the federal agencies and bureaucracies, the universities and educational system, most of the judiciary, and most of the  private business and corporate world, especially the financial sector and the communications, news, entertainment and social media. This anti-White power structure promotes multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture and thereby opposes the most important and fundamental interests of the White race: its continued existence and control of its own existence. This coalition more generally tends to support any policy — whether stemming from misnamed “liberalism” and “progressivism” or the more radically anti-White Racial Marxism — that is contrary to White interests.

The motivations and psychology of the Whites and non-Whites in the Anti-White Coalition are not the same. In fact, they could hardly be more opposite. The non-Whites are acting in the interests of their own racial groups, ruthlessly partisan and loyal to their own group in a manner as natural and healthy as it is intensely and primitively subjective. The Whites are acting against their own race and its most vital interests, their minds infected with a pathological and perverse disease that has overthrown and reversed the natural bonds of loyalty and affection, rejecting their ancestors, heritage, civilization, culture and history, expressing guilt and begging forgiveness for their ancestors’ alleged sins and their “white privilege,” something which — like “white supremacy” — could only exist in multiracial countries, since in monoracial White countries there are no non-Whites for Whites to have supremacy over or be privileged above.

Whoever supports multiracialization supports the cause of White racial destruction, if not actively then at least passively, whether admitting it to themselves and others or not. In the receding past, the Anti-White Coalition was too wary to admit this fact, hiding it behind layers of obfuscation, denial and outright lies. This is less-and-less the case, with the end results of its long-advocated policies more-and-more openly acknowledged as something totally positive to be joyfully welcomed and celebrated by all, even by the Whites whose race is being destroyed, and woe to those who see it otherwise.

In the aftermath of World War II, nationalist and pro-White elements were broadly associated or connected with “Nazism” and the Holocaust to discredit them and confine them to the disreputable political and cultural fringes. On the European continent they were officially purged, with hundreds of thousands killed (especially in France), imprisoned or removed from governmental, educational or business positions. In most European countries (later joined by Canada) the completion of the purge was followed by a ban — subject to fines, loss of position or imprisonment — of pro-White activity or dissent from the standard Holocaust narrative. Thus the elements that would have most strongly opposed the post-war multiracialization of Europe and the West generally, were removed from the scene, effectively clearing the path to White replacement and destruction.

Reductio ad Odium, Reductio ad Hitlerum and Reductio ad Holocaustum refer to three common reductionist responses to any pro-White position, policy or argument, dismissing it by equating it with one or more of the three “H’s” — Hate, Hitler or the Holocaust. According to this “logic,” Whites loving their own race and wanting it to continue to exist and be independent, is really hate for other races, on the grounds that non-Whites are the moral center of the universe so that any positive feelings toward the White race are illegitimate.

When I first began to express pro-White ideas during my university days, a common reaction was the equation of my position with “Nazism” and the Holocaust. When I visited Uppsala University in Sweden in 1989, I saw many posters around campus that read “Fight Nazism — Support Immigration,” advertising an upcoming rally in support of non-White immigration as the means to oppose and defeat Nazism. Leading Jewish activist Earl Raab, addressing a Jewish readership in 1993, wrote “We [i.e., Jews] have tipped [the population] beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan [i.e., pro-White] party will be able to prevail in this country.”

The above are just a few examples of the common identification of the White race and its most vital interests with “Nazism.” As they illustrate, since World War II, the Anti-White-Coalition’s never-ending and ever-expanding campaign against the White race and its interests has regularly been rationalized as a continuation of the war against “Nazism.” In this campaign, both “Nazism” and “Fascism” no longer refer to political or economic systems or philosophical ideas but exclusively to race, specifically to the White race, and particularly to any person or idea that is pro-White. Thus the label “Antifa,” short for Anti-Fascist, in practice actually means anti-White, and especially “anti” anything that is pro-White. The application of the “Nazi” label, and its connection to the Holocaust, has been expanded to include any who oppose the anti-White multiracialist agenda of White dispossession and destruction by non-White immigration and racial intermixture. The indoctrination in the Holocaust as a weapon in support of the anti-White agenda is perhaps the most pernicious aspect of this campaign, used to justify White racial replacement and the suppression of pro-White speech and activity.

The great majority of the U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought in World War II against “Nazism” had racial views which would today be labelled as “Nazi” or “Fascist” by the dominant Anti-White Coalition. The racial attitudes of the majority of White Americans were described by Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal in his very influential 1,500 page study, An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, published in 1944 as the war was nearing its climax, as follows:

There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of white Americans desire that there be as few Negroes as possible in America. If the Negroes could be eliminated from America or greatly decreased in numbers, this would meet the whites’ approval — provided that it could be accomplished by means which are also approved. Correspondingly, an increase of the proportion of Negroes in the American population is commonly looked upon as undesirable.[3]

The stability of the pre-war racial status quo, which proved to be more fragile than commonly assumed, ended after the war when the rising Anti-White Coalition — already closely associated with race-denialist Boasian anthropology and the Frankfurt School of subversive “Critical Theory” sociology, both based at Columbia University — took effective control of the ruling establishment through its dominance of academia and the communications media. The long-evaded great decision of racial separation and White racial preservation versus multiracialism was now in its power to decide.

Figure 1: Boasian disciples Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish and their 1943 pamphlet The Races of Mankind

The “internationalist” racial views commonly promoted during the war are most prominently linked to Ruth Benedict and Regina (“Gene”) Weltfish, two disciples of Franz Boas and his school of cultural relativist anthropology, in a 1943 pamphlet titled The Races of Mankind. (Another Boasian anthropologist, “Ashley Montagu,” born Israel Ehrenberg, was the instigator of the similarly motivated 1950 UNESCO “Statement on Race,” which declared the racial nihilist creed that race and racial differences are nihil, literally nothing.) The pamphlet was written for the U.S. Army in an effort to change the racial views (what Wikipedia terms “racist beliefs”) of servicemen by indoctrination with race denialist propaganda.

By 1945 over 750,000 copies had been printed. It employed the common tactic of discrediting the reality of race and the importance of racial preservationism, and so supposedly justifying racial intermixture, by claiming that Europeans are too racially mixed, and so not “racially pure” enough by their extreme standard of “racial purity,” to be worth preserving. As Benedict and Weltfish expressed it:

[N]o European is a pure anything. A country has a population. It does not have a race. If you go far enough back in the populations of Europe you are apt to find all kinds of ancestors: Cro-Magnons, Slavs, Mongols, Africans, Celts, Saxons, and Teutons.[4]

Since Slavs, Celts, Saxons and Teutons are all European groups, a person who was a mixture of these groups would be a pure European, although not a pure Slav or Celt, etc., and it is either ignorant or dishonest to claim otherwise. Fortunately, this argument for promoting racial intermixture and opposing racial preservation is finally being conclusively discredited by modern autosomal genetic population studies, such as the 2014 study by Bryc, et. al.,[5] which shows the average proportion of European genetic ancestry among non-Hispanic European-Americans as 98.6 percent (Figure 2), and with 94 percent of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. Regarding the pamphlet’s claimed African ancestry of Europeans, the Bryc study (p. 47) found that only 0.04% (i.e., 4 of 9,701 European individuals in the sample, or 1 in 2,425) of native Europeans in Europe carry 1% or more of African ancestry. Descent from Cro-Magnons is one of the distinguishing indicators of Europeans, and they are now referred to as “Early European modern humans” or “EEMH” in recognition of their at least proto-European bona fides. As for the claimed Mongol ancestry, the Mongol raids in the thirteenth century that reached as far west as Poland and Hungary withdrew as quickly as they came, and few of their rape victims would have survived to bear their children. So by any reasonable standard Europeans should be regarded as purely European.

Figure 2: Table 1 from Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Y. Durand, et. al., The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans,Latinos, and European Americans across the United States

The Races of Mankind caused something of a political furor that lasted through the 1950s, with Congress banning its use by the army as communist propaganda, and one of its authors, Gene Weltfish, was blacklisted and investigated by Congress for her communist connections and activities.

The pamphlet represented the Boasian way of thinking about race, which later became the standard view in anthropology and was endorsed with a 1948 UNESCO declaration. At the time, its contention that race was socially constructed was politically controversial…[6]

The pamphlet also provided the basis for the animated short The Brotherhood of Man (1946; available here), a very revealing early example of the anti-White genocidal campaign, sponsored by the UAW-CIO. The short was ostensibly intended to promote racial integration and harmony among automobile and other industrial workers, but is totally devoted to promoting the goal of “one-world, one-race” through mass non-White immigration into White countries. It begins with the lines: “Everybody has his own special dream of what the world is going to be like in the future.…[O]ne of these days we’re going to wake up and find that people and places we used to just read about are practically in our own backyard.” Sure enough, the White American wakes up to find his home surrounded by immigrants from all over the world, each with their own type of home and style of clothing. After an initial struggle against intolerance, hate and racism, it ends with the reconciled White American and various mostly non-White immigrants marching off to work together in interracial solidarity and brotherhood, dressed in the appropriate attire for their roles as raceless interchangeable cogs in the corporate system.[7]

The 1946 animated short The Brotherhood of Man based on The Races of Mankind pamphlet

In the early 1950s the short’s screenwriters Ring Lardner, Jr. and Maurice Rapf, and animation director John Hubley were, like Gene Weltfish, blacklisted and investigated by Congress for their communist connections. Unfortunately, in the mid-1960s the course it advocated was effectively enacted into law.

Figure 4: U.S. population by race as of December 6, 2020, as estimated by the author

Figure 4 shows the enormous changes in the racial proportions in the United States population resulting from the Immigration and Nationality (Hart-Cellar) Act of 1965 and the Immigration Act of 1990, which effected a racial transformation of the country that is still ongoing. The first opened the gate to massive non-White immigration and the second opened it wider, causing the non-White population to grow from 38.4 million or 18.9% of the population in 1970, to 65.2 million or 26.2% in 1990, to 135.8 million or 41.1% in 2020, an increase of 97.4 million in fifty years — 26.8 million in the twenty years 1970 to 1990, and 70.6 million in the thirty years from the 1990 Act to 2020. (The very large increase in the native Amerindian population during this period, which by definition could not have been caused by immigration and seems too large for natural increase alone, could be partly attributable to people changing their racial self-identification to Native American a la Elizabeth Warren, perhaps motivated by the declining status of White identity and the rewards of non-White identity.)

A similar racial transformation of the populations of the countries of Northwest Europe also began in the aftermath of World War II with much the same ethnic and ideological basis. In the United Kingdom, the 1939 Register counted 30,000 non-Europeans (i.e., persons of non-European racial type and ancestry, defined here as non-White) in England and Wales (i.e., not counting Scotland and Northern Ireland), about 0.073% of a population of 41 million. In the 1951 census there were 50,000 non-Europeans in the entire United Kingdom (i.e., including Scotland and Northern Ireland), about 0.104% of a population of 48 million. In the 1991 census there were over 4 million non-Europeans in the U.K., about 7% of the population of 57.4 million. By the 2011 census, two decades later, their number had more than doubled to 9 million (including about 900,000 non-European Caucasians who were counted as “white”) and their proportion of the population had doubled to 14% of 63.2 million. In that same year non-Europeans were 20% of the French population and both France and the U.K. were projected to be majority non-European by 2066, about one generation later than the projected date for the U.S.

A race can only exist in its full and complete form in a monoracial environment where its behavior, culture and institutions are not altered or distorted by the presence and influence of other races. When our countries are multiracialized, our existence as a race at the population level is destroyed. This is what has happened since the 1960s in all the countries of Northwest Europe and the New Europes founded and primarily settled by Northwest Europeans. Australia changed its laws to promote non-White immigration and multiracialism in 1973, Sweden in 1975, Canada in 1976. By the 1996 census, twenty years later, Canada had gone from less than 1% “visible (i.e., non-White) minorities” to 11.2%, or 3.2 million of a population of 28.5 million, and then in the 2016 census to 22.3% non-White, or 7.7 million of a population of 34.5 million, a 240% increase in twenty years. By 2020 Australia’s 3.2 million post-1973 non-indigenous non-Whites were 12.5% of its population. In the same year European Whites were already a minority of the U.S. population under the age of thirty, and the broader category of “whites” (i.e., including semi and non-European Caucasians) were projected to become a minority of the total population around 2043. By 2017 the non-European population of the eleven countries of Northwest Europe (Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Denmark and Sweden) had increased from less than 200,000 in 1945 to 41 million, or 14.5% of their total combined population.

So like the New Europe of the United States, the other New Europes of Canada and Australia, along with the populations of Western Europe can no longer be accurately described as racially English, Irish, etc., but as multiracial populations. Their governments no longer serve the interests of their native populations but those of the rapidly growing non-White populations that are replacing them.

The best means to counter the too common myth of stasis is to present statistics for changes over a period of time and then to project or extrapolate these trends forward into the future. With regard to demographic racial change this includes the rate of intermixture, changes in that rate, and their demographic effects. Phineas Eleazar, writing on this subject at the Counter-Currents website[8], has projected, based on his computer simulations allowing 28 years per generation, that in four generations or 112 years whites (defined as persons more than 95% genetically white) will be reduced to 8% of the U.S. population, and in six generations or 168 years to 0%. Persons who are “mainly” white (defined as at least 80% genetically white) will only be 33% of the population in four generations, 13% in six and 0% in eight generations or 224 years. The white proportion in the new mixed-race population will continue to be diluted so that in about 12 generations or 336 years “there will be virtually no people who have majority [over 50% genetically white] European ancestry.” Per this simulation, with whites reduced to 0% of the population in 168 years, in about 90 years virtually no more whites will be born in the U.S.

Until 2013 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) provided the statistics for interracial mixture from 1990 to the present. After 2013 the tables were removed and the information could only be accessed with specialized software. Fortunately, before this happened, I took screen captures of the tables for 1990 and 2013, seen in Figures 5 and 6. As in all government racial statistics, some information is incomplete or missing. European White Hispanics are not separated from non-White Hispanics and non-European or semi-European “whites” are not separated from European Whites. Also 8.4% in 1990, and 9% in 2013, of the fathers of the children born to Non-Hispanic white mothers were not racially identified (“not stated”) and so their race is unknown, and it would seem reasonable to suspect that the rate of intermixture would be higher in this group than where the father’s race is identified.

Figure 5: 1990 CDC (Centers for Disease Control) birth data by race of mothers (orange MRACEHISP column on right) and fathers (blue FRACESHISP line on top)

Figure 6: 2013 CDC birth data by race of mothers (orange MRACEHISP column on right) and fathers (blue FRACESHISP line on top)

In 1990 (Figure 5) Non-Hispanic white mothers had 2,626,500 children. The fathers of 221,855 of these children were not racially identified. Looking only at the 2,404,645 fathers who were racially identified, 2,279,870, or 94.8%, were Non-Hispanic white like the mothers, and 5.2% were of a different racial category than the mothers. In 2013 (Figure 6) Non-Hispanic white mothers had 2,129,126 children. Of the 1,937,590 fathers who were racially identified 1,709,863, or 88.24%, were Non-Hispanic white like the mothers, and 11.76% were of a different racial category than the mothers. In numbers of children, this would tally to White women having 136,578 mixed-race children in 1990 and 250,393 in 2013, while White men fathered 92,789 mixed-race children in 1990 and 167,506 in 2013.

The above rates of percentile increase are consistent with an approximate doubling of the racial intermixture rate every twenty years since 1950, which would extrapolate backward to a circa 2.6% rate in 1970 and 1.3% in 1950.[9] If this past rate of increase continued, it would reach 23.2% in 2030, 46.4% in 2050, and 92.8% in 2070. If the future rate of increase were reduced by 50% every twenty years, half of the historical postwar average, the rate would be 17.4% in 2030, 26.1% in 2050, 39.15% in 2070, 58.7% in 2090 and 88% in 2110.[10] This would be about the time the Eleazar simulation (see above) projects white births would virtually stop, indicating his simulation falls between these two rates of increase.

I have previously estimated, based on the above assumptions, that about 2.1 million mixed-race children were born to White mothers in the 20-year period 1970-89 and 5.8 million more in the 28-year period 1990-2017, totaling 7.9 million during those 48 years.[11] Based on the father vs. mother intermixture ratios for 1990 and 2013 we can estimate that White men fathered about 3.9 million mixed-race children in the 28-year period 1990–2017 and 5.37 million in the 48 year period 1970–2017. This would indicate circa 10.5 million mixed-race persons with one White parent born in the 30-year period 1990–2020 and 14.1 million in the 50-year period 1970–2020. At an average of two mixed-race children per parent, this would mean about 7 million Whites have mixed-race children under the age of 50 and circa 5.25 million have mixed-race children under the age of 30.

The information from these CDC tables can help us to project the future course of racial intermixture as a dynamic process and avoid the common temptation to assume an unchanging state of stasis. As the past has recorded a pattern of acceleration in the process of White racial replacement, all indications are that the Anti-White Coalition, if they are able (i.e., not prevented by rising White opposition), will continue to make every effort to accelerate this process in the future.

These numbers, whether past, present or projected, must be regarded as extremely disturbing to any White person who wants their race to live and continue to exist, or indeed for any racial preservationist. But those who are supporting the causes of this destruction, are — at least where the White race is concerned — the opposite of racial preservationists. They are in fact race destroyers.

Factors Determining the Rates of Racial Intermixture

Since World War II, all the causative factors of our replacement have been accelerating, including the terminal causative factor of intermixture. Racial changes in the population, the measure of our replacement and destruction, are primarily determined by three causative factors: birth rates, immigration rates, and the rate of intermixture between the different racial elements in the population. Studies that project demographic change often greatly underestimate the rate of intermixture between the different racial elements as a result of a crucial flaw in their methodology. They typically either do not allow for the effects of racial intermixture at all, assigning all projected births to the same race as their mother regardless of the race of their father and the child’s own actual racial identity; they don’t distinguish between different racial categories with sufficient accuracy (such as the U.S. Census Bureau counting 91.7% of Hispanics or Latinos as “white,” and therefore their children with European Whites as White rather than mixed, when probably only 10—15% of Hispanics are White by European standards); or they base their projections on the current rate of intermixture, not allowing for the continuous increase in the rate of intermixture since 1950. This is a critical omission, for although the increase in the rate of racial intermixture cannot be predicted with certainty, it is likely to be dramatic if past trends continue.

The rate of intermixture is itself determined by three causative factors: the relative proportions of different racial elements in the population; the extent of contact between the races; and the degree of racial discrimination in the selection of mates.

  1. The rate of intermixture is effectively limited by the proportions of different races in a population. In a monoracial society different races are not present, resulting in reproductive isolation and the effective prevention of intermixture. Multiracialism is the primary cause for intermixture and the precondition required for the others. If other races are present only as a very small minority the rate of intermixture is necessarily limited to a low level. When non-White races are present in numbers approaching, equal to, or exceeding the number of Whites the potential rate of intermixture for Whites is effectively unlimited. It is not coincidental that the rate of intermixture has increased along with increases in the proportion of non-Whites in the population.
  2. Within the given proportions of different races in a population, the actual rate of intermixture is determined by the extent of contact between the races and the degree of racial discrimination in the selection of mates. The practice of de jure (in the South) and de facto racial segregation before the 1960s significantly reduced racial intermixture.
  3. If contact between the races is extensive, there is no reproductive isolation and racial discrimination in the selection of mates becomes the only effective limit on the rate of intermixture. Without racial discrimination in the selection of mates, if two races are present in equal numbers, and contact between and within the races is equally extensive, so that 50% of the pool of potential mates are from each race, there should be a 50% rate of intermixture. If the degree of racial discrimination is 50%, the rate of intermixture would be 25%. This discrimination can be politically, religiously, socially and culturally sanctioned and even enforced, as it was before the 1960s, or morally prohibited as it has since the 1960s. In the latter case, without any external support, the continued practice of such discrimination is totally dependent on the racial sense of the individual.

The rate of intermixture has been increasing and is likely to continue to do so due to a number of interrelated and interacting trends, including increasing proportions of other races in the population and thus in the pool of potential mates, more extensive contact between the races, a decreasing level of racial discrimination in the selection of mates due to social, cultural and ideological influences, e.g., the social stigma attached to racial sexual discrimination as “racism,” as well as the “snowballing” effect — the increasing momentum in the rate of intermixture — caused by the increasing numbers of mixed-race persons themselves.

Without significant change that favors racial preservationism, projections must assume the present direction will continue, and it is just the speed that is less certain. But whether slower or faster, the result or endgame is the same, per the old adage, “If we don’t change direction we’ll end up where we’re headed.” All that differs is the time it takes us to get there. We can predict that whatever the speed of our destruction, as time passes the effects and consequences of multiracialism will increase and grow ever stronger. According to official projections, which do not take into account an estimated 20 million or more illegal immigrants, “whites” will become a minority in the U.S. soon after 2040. Official projections of when Whites will become minorities in their Northwest European homelands generally vary between 2060 and 2080.

Go to Part 2.

LARPing Towards Victory?

/22 Comments/in /by

Retroculture: Taking America Back
William S. Lind
London: Arktos Media, 2019.

One of the defining characteristics of the Dissident Right has been a scathing critique of American conservatism. The main charge is that mainstream conservatism has failed to conserve much of anything other than plutocratic wealth. For social analyst Brad Griffin of the website Occidental Dissent, “The price of admission [to conventional conservatism] is abandoning all of your beliefs and going along with this disastrous status quo.”  He notes that a 2019 Pew Research Center study found that traditional religious beliefs are declining at an accelerating rate further eroding the utility of a conservative approach to our problems. The conventional Right has been steamrolled in the culture wars to the point where transgender access to the public restroom of their choice is now the country’s cause célèbre.

Some argue that despite its deficiencies, conservatism serves as an ideological gateway to more substantive views. Many persons, including major thinkers of the post-1960s racial Right started out as conservatives before becoming radicals.

Revilo Oliver began his activism writing book reviews for William Buckley’s National Review and was a founding member of the John Birch Society. By the mid-1960s he had broken with conservatism. He describes his evolution in America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative (1981).

William Pierce also served a stint with the JBS during the 1960s. In his well-known essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win,” Piece writes, “Some of my best friends are conservatives,” but he goes on to state that conservatives do not understand the forces that oppose them, and only a revolutionary counter force can defeat the Left.

In 1960 Wilmot Robertson was a conservative business man. By the time he wrote The Dispossessed Majority (1972) he had come to realize that conservatism was part of the problem, not the solution.

But what about activists who have remained conservatives throughout their careers such as William S. Lind the author of Retroculture, the book under consideration here. Is he a different sort of conservative who deserves our attention?

Lind, a Baby Boomer (b. 1947) and self-described paleoconservative, graduated from Dartmouth and earned a master’s degree from Princeton. He began his career as a staffer for Senator Robert Taft Jr. He is probably best known for developing the concept of Fourth-Generation Warfare back in the 1980s.  The basic idea of 4GW is that future wars are likely to involve non-state actors either against states in asymmetrical conflict, or against each other. 4GW is rooted in the crisis of state legitimacy.

In the 1990s Lind helped popularize the term “cultural Marxism.” Lind is also somewhat of a race realist who discusses the issue of Black crime. The Great Replacement is considered an aspect of 4GW.

In 2009 Lind and the late Paul Weyrich co-authored The Next Conservatism, a highly critical look at neo-conservatism. The authors made a number of cogent points such as the primacy of culture over politics. Election victories by so-called conservatives have not stopped the Left’s cultural revolution, nor have they halted demographic replacement. Neoconservative economics favors Wall Street over Main Street, and its foreign policy supports costly military interventions. Unlike most conservatives Lind and Weyrich supported environmental protection and the New Urbanism. Presently Lind writes for the American Conservative and the online journal traditional Right.

More evidence that Lind’s Retroculture might embody a different sort of conservatism is that the book was released by Arktos Media. Founded in 2009, this company quickly established itself as the leading publisher of rightwing thought. With more than 170 titles and publishing in sixteen languages, they have issued works by Guillaume Faye, Alexander Dugin, and Pentti Linkola as well as older works by authors such as Julius Evola.

The theme of Retroculture is established early in a brief Forward by John J. Patrick, professor of education emeritus at Indiana University, who asks: “Why can’t we restore old lifestyles in the same way people are restoring gracious old houses? The answer is we can” (xi). Really?

In the first chapter, “Signs of Change,” Lind lists some indications of an emerging conservative cultural revolution: Old neighborhoods are being restored, new “old towns” such as Seaside, Florida are being built, admen are using the past to market all matter of goods and services, ignoring the displacement of Whites from advertising. “Young people, especially young families, are going to church again” (7). This last statement flies in the face of the Pew study mentioned above. Unfortunately, the author makes a number of unsubstantiated claims using anecdotal evidence at best.

At the end of the chapter Lind asks, “Is it all just nostalgia? Or is something more happening here — something big?” (10). First, this book is saturated with nostalgia, though several times Lind denies indulging in those sentiments. Yet if nostalgia is strong enough and widespread enough, it would indeed be something big. Nostalgia is a form of alienation, and collective alienation can be the first step towards fundamental change.

In Chapter Two Lind defines retroculture, a concept he and Weyrich touched on in The Next Conservatism. “Retroculture rejects the idea that ‘you can’t go back’” (11). Almost every student of history would disagree. As with many paleocons, the author sees the 1960s as the great watershed, so going back means pre 1960.

No matter how radical, all rightwing thought contains some elements of conservatism. Lind mentions that America should not reject its inheritance, but rekindle a healthy national identity. People should respect wisdom received from past ages — the basics of civil nationalism. He decries the “selfism,” the self-centered and self-indulgent ideology associated with the left that gained currency during the 1960s. One problem he does not mention: This selfishness has morphed on the Right into libertarianism, thus occupying two poles of the political spectrum, a two-headed monster.

In Chapter Three, “Getting Started,” Lind seeks historical examples of retrocultural revolutions. He points to the Renaissance as one case. Well, the Renaissance did use earlier classical civilizations as a source of inspiration, but Renaissance Italy was a far different place than ancient Rome. In an American context the author wants to reestablish traditional values, “civility, public spiritedness, charity, craftsmanship and stewardship among others” (27). He advocates for walkable cities. Hard to argue with any of this, especially walking. Walking is great exercise and a form of active meditation. Of course, integrated schools and housing helped create suburban sprawl, an environment not conducive to perambulation.

At this point Lind suddenly asks rhetorically: “But wasn’t the past bad?” A good question because throughout the book the author tends to idealize the past. He answers that retroculture captures the good and eliminates the bad. “No one seeks to return to Jim Crow laws” (32). Permit me to mix metaphors: One cannot cherry pick cultural practices. Culture is a whole loaf.  The traditional American way of life was only possible with a significant degree of racial separation.

Chapter Four is about retro-homes. The book is full of good ideas (a few silly ones also) for lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, these individual decisions are not going to bring about the fundamental social change we need. Lind advises buying an older house in an established neighborhood. They “are less expensive” and “have sidewalks and big trees” (40). My own house is 115 years old, so I agree with the author. The problem is that many of these old neighborhoods have changed so demographically as to be uninhabitable, especially for White families.

To his credit Lind is as close to being a renaissance man as you are likely to find these days. He is one of the few persons who can discuss military history and tactics, residential architecture, sartorial issues, as well as classical music with authority.

In Chapter Five Lind decries the decline of domesticity in American culture since the 1950s. Interestingly he does not explicitly criticize feminism, but does write that kids need a mom at home. Strong families produce well socialized children, a worthy goal, but how do you achieve it? That would definitely require a cultural revolution.

When Lind considers education, we see an example of a blanket statement idealizing the good old days. “In the past, parents were careful about what their young children learned. They saw to it that stories taught sound morals, that good conduct was rewarded and bad swiftly though fairly punished, and that manners were inculcated right from the outset” (73). Well, some parents in the past did not do those things, and some today still do. That more parents in the past successfully socialized their kids and fewer do today has less to do with individual parental efforts and more to do with a lack of societal support. Again, we need a cultural revolution.

Optics has been an issue for the Dissident Right, and in Chapter Six Lind offers some sound sartorial advice. The decline in American standards of dress has been precipitous across the board. He recommends buying fewer articles of quality conservative clothes. This will save you time and money in the long run because your apparel will look better and last longer. The author points out that men’s fashions have not changed much in the last three generations. “Lapels shrink and grow, shoulders fatten and thin, and the fashion trade tries to make a big deal of it all. In fact, its piffle” (94). Some shopping advice: “By needing fewer things, you can also frequent better shops when you buy, thus avoiding the degradation of the discount house and the silliness of the boutique.” In a decent men’s shop “you get real value, good American and British stuff, not some wog creation that makes you look like a pimp” (94).  One last fashion tip, leave Hawaiian shirts to Hawaiians in Hawaii.

Chapter Seven deals with entertainment. We can all agree that much of contemporary popular entertainment is crass, ugly, and downright offensive, but Lind goes ultra-reactionary when discussing music. Many on the Dissident Right, myself included, love the romantic classical genre of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century composers such, as Wagner and Sibelius. Lind, on the other hand, believes these are much inferior to the eighteenth-century greats such as Bach.

Other notes on entertainment: dinner parties are preferable to cocktail parties “where people surreptitiously try to make a meal of hors d’oeuvres while pretending to enjoy superficial conversation with persons they’ve never met” (109). Lind includes civic engagement as a form of retro entertainment. All too often people on the Dissident Right, especial young people, shun mainstream community involvement believing they will be stigmatized and rejected. This is usually not the case if they possess some people skills and live in a compatible community (i.e., one with few of Edward Dutton’s spiteful mutants). Lind recommends leisure reading to recapture lost worlds. Old National Geographic magazines are excellent in this regard.

Concerning the present lack of civility and good manners, “When did we go wrong? As usual, the answer is in the cultural revolution of the 1960s” (122). That decade was a turning point, and today our society is simply too diverse for a common etiquette. Lind’s solution: “don’t frighten the horses.”  Everyone should at least be discreet when engaging in behavior that may offend others. How likely is that to happen? A more practical suggestion by the author: boycott businesses whose practices or advertising is offensive. In the area of public behavior, Pandora’s Box has been opened and we would need a cultural revolution to set things right.

Lind has long been a supporter of train travel so it is no surprise that he advocates that mode of transport, after all. on the Chattanooga Choo Choo, “dinner in the diner, nothing could be finer.” If motoring, the author suggests taking the scenic routes rather than the interstates and having a picnic at a roadside park rather than eating at “fast food joints, those gustatory cesspools of the Interstate Era” (151).

In the chapter on retro business, Lind opines that there is an untapped market for retro furniture and clothing. “Publications are another major market where Retroculture could be good business” (160). Really? It seems as though print media are struggling. “What about the return of the great department stores of the 1920s and 1930s?” (162). Brick and mortar retail is another uphill battle these days. It appears the author’s acumen may not extend to business and economics.

The final chapter, “Retro-America,” sums up Lind’s view of our country: Where are we and where are we headed? He declares that we have lost our confidence. “Americans have become pessimistic. … people are not happy with the way things are or where they seem to be going.” (177). Well, he’s half right.  The traditional core demographic of America has lost its confidence. It has allowed its history to be rewritten, its heritage to be denigrated, and its monuments to be torn down with impunity by mobs of punks and thugs. Ethnic minorities, on the other hand, are empowered, culturally and politically ascendant.

Yet the author is sanguine about the future. He believes the counter-revolution has already begun, “it is already happening.”  This neo-reactionary movement will pick up steam during the 2020s and largely be accomplished by the late 2030s due to “a great national rediscovery of our past” (182). The end product will be “America as it was: quietly prosperous, well-tended, harmonious and at peace” (190).

Lind’s belief in a great restoration is an illusion. There is no returning to circa 1950. We are a vastly different country now, demographically and culturally. Moreover, what would be the impetus for such a restitution? Research suggests that a revival of fundamentalist faith is unlikely. And increasing numbers of diverse Americans do not share Lind’s reverence for our past. Indeed, the American past is routinely vilified in all the cultural high ground, from the mainstream media to the universities and throughout the educational system.

I began this review by asking what role paleo conservatism might play in our people’s instauration, offering that it may be a useful portal to more radical ideas. It’s certainly true that paleoconservatism can be an ideological halfway house. Unlike neo conservatives who embrace disembodied ideals of a universal propositional nation, paleocons appreciate the primacy of culture over politics in shaping a society. Culture informs politics rather than the other way around. But such an ideology can also be a dead end of wishful thinking and escapism. You can study the past, but you cannot live there. The old common culture America once possessed has been destroyed by the multi-cultural Left. There is no going back. History never moves in reverse.

What many paleo cons have trouble accepting is the racial foundation of culture. Ethnic change within a society will inevitably bring about profound cultural change.  You cannot preserve the constitution without preserving the ethnic group who conceived it, nor can you preserve the pre-1960s culture with the ascendant non-White majority. Paleoconservatives have a vision of what they want America to be. Lind lays out that vision at the last chapter, but he, and his ideological fellows, have no realistic route to arrive there. What is more critical — even if by some miracle we could reconstruct 1950s America, it would be insufficient for our project of promoting the welfare and progress of Western peoples and their civilization. We should aspire to do better than simply replicating the past. We can use our science and our aesthetic to create a better world.

Retroculture contains some pithy criticisms of contemporary culture along with a number of useful tips for individual and familial living while waxing nostalgic for times past. It might be a good suggested reading or gift for an older mainstream friend or relative.

Essays in Political Culture: A Review of Alexander Jacob’s “European Perspectives”

/16 Comments/in /by

Alexander Jacob
European Perspectives
Logik Publishing, 2020

Alexander Jacob is a bit of an oddity. An American-educated Anglo-Indian, he writes from a continental European orientation. His fourth book, European Perspectives, consists of six essay chapters written between 2000 and 2019. Three of the essays appeared online at Counter-Currents.com. The book’s back cover suggests that one purpose for this volume is to dissuade the European Right from adopting “vulgar populist ideologies” originating from America. Jacob makes his distaste for the Anglosphere, especially all things American, quite evident. To find an authentic European ideology one needs to go back one hundred years or so to the German Conservative Revolution of the 1920s.

One useful feature of European Perspectives is its assessment of a number of important European thinkers most of whom the reader will have at least a passing acquaintance, plus a few less familiar names: Werner Sombart (1863–1941), Oswald Spengler (1880–1936), Erik von Kuehnelt–Leddihn (1909–1999), Julius Evola (1898–1974), Theodor Adorno (1903–1969), Hans–Jürgen Syberberg (b. 1935), Max Weber (1864–1920), Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) and Theodor Herzl (1860–1904).

The first essay, “German Socialism as an Alternative to Marxism,” originally appeared in the print journal The Scorpion. It is interesting to note that the term “socialism” is now the bugaboo of the American Right. Thirty-five years ago, I think, it was the “L word” (liberal) that played that role. Jacob seeks to differentiate Jewish-derived Marxist socialism from the German-derived spiritual socialism.  Although “a professed anti-Semite,” Marx had a “Jewish mentality” that manifested itself in a “materialistic view of life” (8). This is in contrast to what might be called the communitarian ethos of Werner Sombart’s German socialism and Oswald Spengler’s Prussian socialism.

Sombart, one of Jacob’s favorite scholars, believed “that the modern system of commercial capitalism was due not mainly to English Protestantism as Max Weber had proclaimed . . . but to Judaism” (11). His German socialism was aligned with the Conservative Revolution of the Weimar period and thinkers such as Oswald Spengler. Jacob is an admirer of Prussian culture and Spengler’s Prussian socialism which does not seek to destroy capitalism. It is similar to corporatism, emphasizing the common weal, collective structures, and cooperative goals. Early on Spengler saw that “democracy, in general, is an unholy alliance of urban masses, cosmopolitan intellectuals, and finance capitalists. The masses themselves are manipulated by the latter two elements through their specific agencies: the press and the parties” (22).

Post-war developments have shown that both Sombart and Spengler underestimated the power of world Jewry which “is virulently opposed to national cultures and to the natural, hierarchical, and autarkical ordering of European society” (25). The author concludes that establishing an authentic version of European socialism is the only path to salvation for the continent.

The second essay looks at two books written in the early 1950s by two “authentic noblemen.” One is Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time and the other Julius Evola’s Men Among the Ruins. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, born into the Habsburg aristocracy of the early twentieth century, was a Catholic monarchist who opposed both democracy and capitalism. He believed there was an “inextricable connection between democracy and tyranny,” and that the “rule of money and technology . . . was culturally sterile” (29).  “Kuehnelt-Leddihn squarely places the blame for democratic degeneration on Protestantism” (35). The solution was not to be found in national socialism for he opposed a mass movement based on ethno-nationalism. K-L was a true reactionary who looked to the priest and the sovereign to restore the cultural integrity of Europe.

The Sicilian nobleman Julius Evola, who wrote the second book surveyed in this chapter, was critical of many of the same forces that troubled Kuehnelt-Leddihn — liberalism, individualism, materialism and utilitarianism — which he saw as originating from the bourgeoisie.  Yet he did see a role for mass politics, and he was sympathetic to fascism, especially as expressed by the philosopher and fellow Sicilian Giovanni Gentile. As do many on the European Right, Evola favored a corporate economy: “autarky should be encouraged rather than the internationalism of global commerce” (42).

Men Among the Ruins purposes a specific governmental structure with a bicameral legislature. The Lower House would deal with economic issues, while “the Upper House should be the sole representative of the political life of the nation” (44). Its members would be men with life-time appointments selected from a new elite based on the Männerbünde warrior ideal. “Nationalism . . . should be avoided if it is of the popular sort,” because, according to Evola, “nationalism has a leveling and anti-aristocratic function” (49). Rather than the nation state, Men Among the Ruins suggests an imperium perhaps similar to the medieval Holy Roman Empire. For Evola racialism is too naturalistic or material. He celebrates the sacred and the spiritual.

Unlike Kuehnelt-Leddihn, however, Evola does not believe that Catholicism can provide a political-religious foundation for society. He has even less regard for “another international sect, Judaism.” Jewry is largely responsible for “the disorder of recent times,” and for the “thorough economisation of modern life” (50–51). Evola also identifies Marxism, Darwinism, and Nietzsche’s nihilism as useful tools of the Jews.

Jacob’s ideology synthesizes Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Evola’s beliefs. He accepts Evola’s criticism of Jewry and the bourgeoisie, but appears to reject his disparagement of Catholicism. K-L plainly believed that the throne and pulpit were essential for a return of authentic European culture. Considering his ethnicity, it is not surprising that Jacob would concur with Evola that race is more of a spiritual than a physical attribute.

In the next chapter, Jacob discusses post-war German culture from two perspectives, that of Hans-Jürgen Syberberg a film director and cultural historian, and Theodore Adorno, the Jewish-Marxist co-founder of the Frankfurt School. Syberberg realizes that despite its “economic miracle,” Germany has not yet recovered from its defeat in 1945 because its culture is just a hollow shell.  One reason for this situation is that the nation has not been able to do the work of mourning — Trauerarbeit. “Germany had for too long been forbidden to grieve for its own losses, while the Jews, on the other hand, have been allowed to commemorate the massacre of their people as a turning point in world history” (58).

Much of the responsibility for the deplorable state of German culture can be traced to the efforts of Adorno and his colleague Max Horkheimer who returned to Germany after the war. They went to work for “the so-called ‘Congress for Cultural Freedom’ funded by the CIA to de-Nazify the post-war German educational system and cultural institutions” (63). Adorno is infamous for his statement that, “to write a poem after Auschwitz is barbaric.” Only the most insipid and discordant modern music and art would be permitted in post-war Germany. Everything else would be barbaric.

“According to Syberberg, art is virtually impossible without a nationalistic and aristocratic social system” (64). And the inspiration for art is found in nature, “blood and soil,” if you will. Modern art prohibits beauty because National Socialism “was considered as an ‘aestheticism of politics’” (64). Jacob concludes that Syberberg wanted to use “art as a redemptive influence on society,” while Adorno used it “as an instrument of revenge” (66).

In the fourth essay Jacob shifts gears to examine two books, both written in 2011, that analyze the success of Western civilization: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne and The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson.

Duchesne’s thesis is that the West has always been different, more creative, than other civilizations. The source of this creativity is the “aristocratic egalitarianism” of Indo-European societies. This unique aristocratic egalitarianism was made possible by a political arrangement that provided “relative freedom and autonomy from centralised authority” (79). According to Duchesne, Western individualism was not the product of Christianity, as conservative writer Charles Murray proposed,[1] rather it has its origins on the Pontic steppe culture of the fourth millennium BC. Jacob supports Murray’s position.

Jacob is dismissive of Duchesne’s thesis. Citing a lack of evidence from early Indo-European cultures, he characterizes the Pontic steppe theory “as an exercise in sociological fantasy” (80).  He sarcastically refers to Duchesne’s work as a “paean to Indo-European individualism” (85) and disdains “his romantic hypothesis about the migrations southward from the Pontic steppe” (86) — despite what is now overwhelming anthropological and historical evidence, much of which is reviewed by Duchesne (see also Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, Ch. 2). Jacob, who emphasizes the functions of the altar and the crown in Western civilization, criticizes Duchesne for neglecting the roles played by the priestly or religious caste and the monarchy in supporting an aristocracy.

It appears that Jacob also finds Ferguson’s explanation of Western ascendency unsatisfactory as well, though his criticism is less theoretical. For Ferguson, the West’s greatness can be found in: “competition, science, property rights, medicine, the consumer society, and the work ethic” (92). Like Duchesne, Ferguson sees a lack of centralized power as a Western asset as opposed to the centralized bureaucracy of China. He believes property rights are closely associated with “the rule of law and representative government” (93).

While Ferguson celebrates “the triumph of jeans and rock music — apparel and noise of the American proletariat,” Jacob contends that “all these tawdry American productions are precisely what a truly cultured person of the Old World — the real West — finds so repulsive in American society” (96). The consumer society that Ferguson applauds is the plebeian capitalism manifest in “the general vulgarity and lack of style of Americans” (96).

Ferguson is not, however, completely sanguine regarding the future of the Occident. He warns that the greatest threat to the West is “our own loss of faith in the civilization we inherited from our ancestors,” while Duchesne expresses similar concerns about the “nihilism, cultural relativism, [and] weariness” of the West (98).

Speaking of triumphalism, in the next chapter Jacob confronts Francis Fukuyuma’s The End of History and the Last Man (1992).  Writing at the end of the Cold War, Fukuyuma, the Japanese-American neo-conservatove, sees the final victory for a liberal-capitalist world order. To Jacob’s thinking, what Fukuyama considers the end of history is Jewish “economic utopianism which manifested itself in the twentieth century as totalitarian Communism . . . [and] was transformed in the new ‘promised land’ of the Jews into totalitarian liberalism of the ‘American Dream’” (102). Jacob concludes that Fukuyama’s neo-conservatism illustrates “the incompatibility of the American with genuinely European systems of political thought” (103).

In the remainder of this essay Jacob traces how the English, and later the Americans, deviated from traditional European values. In essence: the rise of Puritanism and its anti-monarchical ideas led to the English Civil War, the Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution. Puritans with their individualism and industry came to see “citizens as economic units of production not unlike those of the later Communist utopia of Marx” (106). Plus, according to Jacob, Puritanism has always been heavily influenced by Judaism. Then, increasingly during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Jews in America were able to transform the remnant of Puritanism into their own political/economic system. It was “the re-entry of the Jews into England during the Puritan revolution” that began the unraveling of European culture, with the end results that we see today (121).

The last essay in European Perspectives deals with Hannah Arendt and Zionism. Arendt was a German-Jewish political philosopher who studied under Martin Heidegger, among others, before eventually emigrating to the US in 1941. Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, saw Zionism as a solution to anti-Semitism. Arendt became a socialist Zionist which she saw as the joining of two of nineteenth-century Europe’s main ideologies — nationalism and socialism. Some might say nationalism + socialism = national socialism for Jews, but this is not what she had in mind.

Jacob writes that from the beginning Zionism was much more of a secular than a religious project, and there were, and are, some anti-Zionist Jews. Also, in the early years there was the idea of a one-state solution with an “Arab-Jewish bi-nationalism and [this proposal] was supported by Arendt herself” (134). Over the decades the left-wing socialist faction of Zionism has weakened while the far-right parties gained ascendency. “Arendt thus came to consider Israel as a capitalist and colonialist — and perhaps also imperialist — state” (138).

Arendt realized that without reconciliation and cooperation between Arabs and Jews continuing military and economic aid from the US would be necessary for Israel’s survival. Alternative renditions for a Jewish homeland, with or without a Jewish state, are suggested by Jacob and Arendt. As expected, America shares a large measure of blame for the present impasse. The neo-con/neo-liberal US political establishment gives carte blanche support to the Zionist rightwing. Jacob agrees with Arendt that if Jews would retain or resume “their peculiar ‘pariah’ status as Jews . . .  and not attempt to distort European culture with American-Jewish vulgarity . . . , it is possible that the Jewish Question may yet be resolved in a reasonable manner” (143).

So, what can the reader take away from Perspectives? First a couple of lesser criticisms: At this critical time, is it wise to accentuate the religious and national divisions among Westerners? Is there a need to refight the wars of religion? Jacob supports the Catholic Church, but today Protestants are not Catholics staunchest opponents. Plus, there is an inconsistency here as Jacob has a particular regard for Prussian culture, yet Prussia was a predominately Protestant nation. Second, as an American who has lived and worked in Europe, I do not minimize the cultural differences between these two branches of Western civilization. Nor will I defend the disgusting American political and cultural establishment. That said, there can be, and should be, more that binds us together than separates us.

As mentioned at the start, the author is an unusual person and the book has an unusual orientation. Though written in English, it appears to be addressed largely to the German and Italian Right. These two nations, losers in the tragic conflicts of the last century, are also the home of some of Jacob’s favorite thinkers: Sombart, Spengler, Gentile, and Evola. Jacob’s heart, if not his head, belongs to the Conservative Revolution and reaction. The back cover tells us that the author received a doctorate in Intellectual history from Penn State, and Perspectives will probably appeal most to students of European ideologies.

Jacob looks to the church and monarchy to save the West. But look at the present Pope and the current royal families of Europe. It is hard to see the practical application of Catholicism and monarchism to twenty-first century Europe’s existential crisis. Yet Jacob is an erudite analyst who makes some perceptive points.  There is a desperate need for a new aristocracy in Western societies. It is a truism that every society, except perhaps the most primitive, is ruled by one or more elite groups. In social science, this is sometimes referred to as the iron law of oligarchy. Not every elite, however, is aristocratic, and aristocracies take time to develop, time the West does not have. At present we are ruled by elites who are hostile to the interests of Western peoples. Before an aristocracy can develop, we need to create a revolutionary cadre from which a new elite will emerge.

Jacob is also certainly correct that a spiritual rebirth is an essential component for a Western renewal. Christianity, theologically speaking, appears to be a spent force. If this is not the case it is up to Christians to prove otherwise. The West is in dire want of a new religion that is naturalistic and science-based, yet still contains an element of faith that is part of all religions.[2]

I respect Jacob’s scholarship, but his ideological prescriptions will not suffice for the twenty-first century West. While we need guidance and inspiration from the past, mass migrations and globalized economies are rapidly and radically changing the cultural landscape of the Occident. The historical peoples of the West are now slated to become minorities in their own homelands. We need new elites to propagate a new ideology that will be part of a new spiritual awakening. That is a monumental task. Nothing could be more difficult, yet nothing less will do.

[1] Charles Murray, Human Accomplishments: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950 (New York: HarperCollins, 2003).

[2] I briefly discuss some possible avenues for spiritual development in: Nelson Rosit, “Ernst Haeckel Reconsidered,” The Occidental Quarterly, 15. 4 (Summer 2015) 30-42.

Black Saints, White Sinners: Slavery and the Contradictions of Leftist Moralism

/18 Comments/in /by

Who’s the greatest hero in popular English literature? I’d say it’s James Bond. And who’s the greatest anti-hero? I’d say it’s Flashman, the protagonist of a hugely entertaining mock-historical series written by George MacDonald Fraser (1925–2008).

Slave-trading, slave-stealing and murder

The character Flashman originally appeared as a coward, cad and bully in the Victorian novel Tom Brown’s Schooldays (1857). George MacDonald Fraser (GMF) decided to give him an after-life and treat him as a real historical figure, a Victorian war-hero whose secret and self-exposing memoirs had lain hidden until they were unearthed in the 1960s. And so GMF claimed to be merely the editor of “The Flashman Papers,” in which Flashman described how his illustrious military career had been built on deceit, cunning and the Devil’s own luck. Among many other adventures, he charged with the Light Brigade, was the sole survivor of Custer’s Last Stand, and won the Victoria Cross for gallantry during the Indian Mutiny.

Front cover of Flash for Freedom! (1971)

But while the world thought he had reveled in all that danger and violence, the truth was very different. As Flashman himself says: “I’m lucky, because while I don’t have [courage], I look as though I do, and worthy souls … never suspect that I’m running around with my bowels squirting, ready to decamp, squeal, or betray as occasion demands.” That’s from Flashman and the Redskins (1982), in which GMF’s anti-hero, with “charges of slave-trading, slave-stealing … and even murder hanging over his head,” escapes American justice by adopting a false identity and setting off for the California gold rush with a re-locating brothel from New Orleans. “Millions came after,” Flashman says, “but we were the Forty-Niners.”

“To the moon in chains”

As you can see, GMF was good at putting his anti-hero into farcical and entertaining predicaments at key moments in nineteenth-century history. But why does Flashman have “charges” of “slave-trading” and “slave-stealing” hanging over his head in 1849? That’s explained in a previous novel in the series, Flash for Freedom! (1971), which may be one of the most politically incorrect books ever written. It describes how Flashman is tricked into joining the trans-Atlantic slave trade by his Machiavellian Scottish father-in-law John Morrison. When Flashman discovers the truth aboard a ship en route to Africa, he is furious and frightened. Slaving has become a serious crime by then and he fears a long jail-sentence or even execution.

Of course, his concerns are entirely for himself, as he makes clear to his readers: “Not that I’d any qualms about slaving, mark you, from the holy-holy point of view; they could have transported every nigger in Africa to the moon in chains for all I cared.” That’s Flashman’s attitude, of course, not GMF’s, but you can see why Flash for Freedom! is politically incorrect. GMF wrote a comic novel about one of the greatest horrors in history: the enslavement of millions of Black Africans by cruel and hypocritical White Europeans.

Driven into hiding

But the comedy is in Flashman’s attitudes and behaviour, not in the history that he is reporting. It is precisely because slavery and the slave-trade were so horrible that Flashman’s callousness is so funny. After shipping a cargo of “black ivory” across the Atlantic, he finds himself hiding from American justice on a cotton plantation in Mississippi. Being Flashman, he hides in style, working as a slave-driver and venting his frustrations on his helpless charges:

Although I had a couple of black drivers to help me, I became quite expert with my hide — you could make a sleepy nigger jump his own height with a well-placed welt across his backside, squealing his head off, and if any of them were short-weighted at the end of the day, you gave them half a dozen cuts for luck. Mandeville [the plantation-owner] was delighted with the tally of cotton picked, and told me I was the best overseer he’d ever had, which didn’t surprise me. It was work I could take a hearty interest in. (Flash for Freedom!, chapter 10)

Flashman is, in fact, the White heterosexual male as leftist ideology falsely portrays him to be: cruel, bigoted and exploitative, caring nothing for anyone but himself. But because Flashman isn’t moralistic, GMF can use him to describe the slave-trade objectively. On the one hand, yes, it was a horror: even Flashman says that “when you’ve looked into the hold of a new-laden slaver for the first time, you know what hell is like.” On the other hand, it wasn’t a simple tale of White evil and Black victimhood. Flashman explodes the false history like this:

It’s always amused me to listen to the psalm-smiting hypocrisy of nigger-lovers at home and in the States who talk about white savages raping the Coast and carrying poor black innocents into bondage — why, without the help of the blacks themselves we’d not have been able to lift a single slave out of Africa. But I saw the Coast with my own eyes, you see, which the Holy Henriettas didn’t, and I know that this old wives’ tale of a handful of white pirates mastering the country and kidnapping as they chose, is all my eye. We couldn’t have stayed there five minutes if the nigger kings and warrior tribes hadn’t been all for it, and traded their captured enemies — aye, and their own folk, too — for guns and booze and Brummagem rubbish. (Flash for Freedom!, chapter 3 — “Brummagem rubbish” refers to cheap goods manufactured in the English city of Birmingham)

Slavery existed in Africa long before Whites arrived and exists there now in independent Black and Arab states. Because of slavery, there are roughly 45 million well-fed but economically unproductive Blacks in the United States, who consume billions of dollars from White tax-payers and respond by murdering, raping, beating and robbing Whites in large numbers, year in, year out. But Arab-Muslim nations that also had large numbers of Black slaves don’t have large numbers of Black citizens today, because Muslims castrated Black males and treated their slaves far more harshly than Whites did.

A drop of water compared to an ocean

However, while the European slave-trade is endlessly condemned and publicized by Western journalists, politicians, academics, film-makers and authors, the Muslim slave-trade, which was bigger and longer-lasting, is almost ignored. Even the liberal author Jeremy Black, in his book Slavery: A New Global History (2011), is struck by this contrast in attitudes: “[The] period of Mamluk rule [in Muslim Egypt] was roughly equivalent in length to that of slavery in the USA, and it is an interesting sign of relative concerns that the attention devoted to slavery in the Mamluk empire and the USA is as a drop of water compared to an ocean.” (ch. 1, p. 33)

But one reason that the Muslim slave-trade is almost ignored is that it reveals uncomfortable facts about the way Muslims behave towards all kaffirs, or non-Muslims, and not simply Blacks. The leftist elite do not want ordinary Whites to consider that some of their own ancestors and relatives might well, in centuries past, have been seized as slaves by Muslims:

The effect on the European coastal populations [of Muslim slave-raids] was dramatic. Entire areas were depopulated. The author even sketches out an argument that the culture of baroque Italy was determined in part by a turning inward from the terrors of coastal life — from the “fear of the horizon” that afflicted all the regions subject to slave raiding. [Robert C. Davis] tells us (he is Professor of Italian Social History at Ohio State University, by the way) that to this day there is an idiom in Sicilian dialect to express the general idea of being caught by surprise: pigliato dai turchi — “taken by the Turks.” The distress of those left behind, deprived of a husband or father, is painful to read about. (Review of Robert C. Davis’s Christian Slaves, 2006, by John Derbyshire)

And Flash for Freedom! describes how some Blacks willingly and even eagerly profited from the slave-trade. With the fearsome John Charity Spring, classics-quoting captain of a slave-ship called Balliol College, Flashman visits the even more fearsome tyrant of a Black slave-trading kingdom: “King Gezo of Dahomey was bitter ugly, even by nigger standards. He must have weighed twenty stone, with a massive belly hanging over his kilt of animal tails, and huge shoulders inside his scarlet cape. He had a kind of wicker hat on his head, and under it was a face that would have shamed a gorilla — huge flat nose, pocked cheeks, little yellow eyes and big yellow teeth.”

Mass killing of slaves by Black rulers

Flashman then sees Gezo order a horrific arbitrary execution in front of a reeking house built of human skulls. The Black king of Dahomey owned slaves, traded in slaves and casually murdered slaves. Elsewhere in Africa, “the [Black] Asante kingdom was … a slave-raiding, slave-owning and slave-trading regime, [where] mass killing of slaves was regularly practised both in funeral rituals — generally by burial alive — and to inspire terror.” Black rulers in Flashman’s day were not enlightened liberals terrorized into slave-trading by cruel and wicked Whites. They were quite capable of cruelty and wickedness on their own account, as were many others in pre-literate societies without the rule of law as Europeans had come to understand it. Even today witchcraft and human sacrifice are practised in Black Africa, as I described in “Whites As Witches.” For example, the leftist Independent newspaper reports that “People with albinism are often subjected to violent attacks in [Tanzania], where they are known as the ‘zeru zeru’ or ghosts [and are] a target for traditional healers, who harvest body parts to make potions for wealth, success and even election victories.”

Slavery is another ancient Black-African tradition that still flourishes in twenty-first-century Africa and the Black-African Diaspora, as this report from Britain reveals:

A respected gynaecologist and his wife enslaved a “houseboy” at their home for 24 years, forcing him to carry out menial tasks for 17 hours a day and monitoring his movements using a security camera. Dr Emmanuel Edet, 61, and his wife, Antan, 58, a senior NHS nurse at Ealing hospital, were convicted by a jury of bringing the teenage boy illegally into Britain at the age of 14 and putting him to work as an unpaid cleaner, cook, odd-job-man and carer for their two children. … Detectives investigating the case found 20 albums filled with 800 photographs of the family, but Ofonime featured in only four. One of them showed him pedalling a boat at Flamingo Land in North Yorkshire for other members of the family in his only known outing with them. … Dr Edet — who has written works on child welfare and has worked for Surrey County Council — and his wife were convicted of slavery, child cruelty and immigration offences. (Gynaecologist and nurse guilty of enslaving houseboy for 24 years, The Independent, 17th November 2015)

This “respected gynaecologist” and his wife were Nigerian and back home would never have got into trouble for practising authentic Nigerian culture. Nor would the Nigerian couple Chudy and Sandra Nsobundu, who were jailed in 2018 for enslaving a woman in Houston, Texas. And what about Eudocia Pulido, the slave kept for many years in America by the parents of the Filipino-American writer Alex Tizon? Tizon’s parents were practising authentic Filipino culture and never got in trouble for it. Indeed, the wider world would never have known about their crimes if their son hadn’t written a long essay about “My Family’s Slave” for The Atlantic in 2017, after the deaths of his parents and their slave.

Condemning Whites, excusing non-Whites

But were his parents truly committing a crime? Are they fully or even partly worthy of blame and condemnation? Those are two of the implicit questions raised by Alex Tizon’s fascinating and disturbing essay. They’re also two of the questions raised by Flash for Freedom!. When slavery is a long-established part of a culture, how much can one blame those who practise it and benefit from it? Many or even most leftists would excuse the Filipino Tizons because they were non-White, while maintaining the utmost horror and disgust for all Whites who enslaved Blacks. But some Blacks enslaved by Whites lived better and were less ill-treated than the Tizons’ female slave did and was in the twentieth century. Indeed, some Black slaves lived better lives than some so-called free Whites, then and now. Slavery and its supposed “legacy” are a much more complicated and morally ambiguous topic than leftists want to pretend.

Moreover, by leftist ideology, no special blame could attach to Whites even if Whites had been the only group on Earth ever to practise slavery and had never been the driving force behind its abolition. Leftists proclaim that “There is Only One Race — the Human Race.” According to leftists, we are all the same under the skin, therefore Whites cannot be innately evil and non-Whites cannot be innately virtuous. By fundamental leftist principles, it is merely an accident of history that Whites enslaved Blacks and not the reverse, as I pointed out in “Black Brains Shatter.”

BLM have caused thousands of extra murders

But leftism is not a consistent or rational ideology. Instead, it serves two main purposes: to win power for leftists and to meet their psychological needs. One of their needs is to feel the thrill of self-righteousness and moral superiority. As Fred Reed points out, the leftist elite in America explained the election of Donald Trump by seeing Trump-voters as subhuman: “They’re stupid. They’re ignorant. They’re racist. They’re sexist. They’re fascist. They’re… evil.” This Manichean thinking can have very bad consequences for groups whom leftists claim to be deeply concerned about. Steve Sailer has long chronicled the harm wrought by Black Lives Matter (BLM), whose self-righteous and statistically illiterate campaign against the police has caused thousands of unnecessary deaths among precisely the young Black men whom BLM are supposedly trying to protect.

Self-righteousness and anger are not good ways to understand the world or to correct its faults. And if human beings are all the same under the skin, as leftists insist, Blacks are getting angry about an accident of history. As victims of slavery, they were never morally better than Whites: they were simply less fortunate and less able to express their own capacity for exploitation and cruelty. The appropriate response to slavery is not self-righteous anger and vengefulness, but sorrow at the human condition.

Reason and logic are late arrivals

That’s what one must logically argue from the fundamental leftist principles of absolute human equality and the contingency of history. But reason and logic aren’t part of leftism. They would work against the ideology and drain it of its emotional energy. Human beings developed reason and logic late in their evolutionary history, but anger and indignation are pre-human and far more deeply rooted in the brain. We can see other mammals like apes and horses react angrily to what they see as unfair treatment or the thwarting of their will. Indeed, all animals above a certain level of intelligence, from crows to octopuses, may have analogues of these human emotions. After all, such emotions supply the impulse and energy to fight for one’s own interests — in Nietzschean terms, they are part of the will to power.

And the will to power is plainly at the heart of leftism. That is why leftists are so dedicated to cultivating anger, indignation and self-righteousness, both among themselves and among the groups they are exploiting. Leftists respond to their opponents’ ideas with “outrage” and censorship, not with reasoned argument and evidence. They don’t want debate: they want obedience. And you could say that they have two sets of principles, an explicit set and an implicit set that contradict each other. Leftism loudly proclaims the doctrine of absolute human equality, but implicitly acts on the assumption that Whites are innately evil and non-Whites innately virtuous.

Leftist arrogance will provoke White resistance

When the Jewish-controlled Biden presidency begins, that lie of innate White evil and innate non-White virtue will become less and less implicit. It will cease to be assumed and start to be insisted upon. But I see hope in that. In the past, leftists have hidden their hatred of Whites and Western civilization behind a pretended belief in equality and racial harmony.

Today, they’ve become arrogant enough to drop the pretence long before their victory is assured. Far from thinking that slavery is unacceptable and must never return, leftists want to impose slavery on ordinary Whites and oppress them in perpetuity. As that becomes more and more obvious, more and more Whites will begin to resist the premature imposition of leftist tyranny.

The Fifth-Generation War on White people: First They Came for White Southern Males…

/101 Comments/in /by

Many Americans woke up this week to the crystal-clear realization that we have entered a fifth generation (5G) civil war for control of this county – a culture war, yes, but much more than that. In this short essay, I draw from history to briefly reflect on what this means to me as a more or less normal White guy who is trying to find ways to do more to resist the organized deluge of anti-White propaganda and policies.

Historical Parallels

Perhaps because I have been studying the rise of communism in Europe during the early 1900s, the past week feels eerily similar to my understanding of what it might have felt like to be a German Austrian in the 1910s and 20s, with the obvious difference that we have not recently lost a world war after failing in our attempts to salvage a dying, multicultural empire that has become increasingly hostile to its traditional citizens in order to secure the loyalty of its minority citizens. I believe I have uncovered nuggets of understanding, nonetheless.

I was not present in Austria a century ago, and I cannot really know what my Austrian doppelganger self would have felt thought while experiencing this period. I read a fair amount of history, but even this does not ensure this sort of experiential knowledge, since we self-censor our own diaries and journals. This matters little, however, because with some historical distance, I might see the situation more clearly than I would have if I lived during the time. And if the media and education system were as biased at that time against German-Austrian interests as they are against White American interests in the US today, then it is very likely that my understanding of Austria in the 1920s is better informed than those living them.

Rereading Mein Kampf, for the second time ever and the first time in over 15 years (and the first time I neither understood it nor finished half of it), it seems to me that Hitler felt much the same way that I do now. He was trying to save the Germans in Germany and Austria. I found it strange to admit to my wife that I think the biggest personality difference between Hitler and me is that he seems to have been rather more empathetic than I am. While I have completely lost patience with White Americans who intentionally or ignorantly are willing their own demise, Hitler repeatedly made excuses for those in Austria who were doing the same. He was so soft. But I think I have come to understand that he was trying to organize and inspire a mass of people far less intelligent and knowledgeable than himself, and so he needed to be patient with them. So, I believe that reading Mein Kampf again has made me a nicer, more understanding guy. I would contrast this with the way the Trotsky secured the loyalty of the officers of the Red Army, but that would be too much of a digression.

To the point, which is to use history to inform present action, you might say that Hitler’s plan to secure the future of the German people involved retaking control of the media, which had become a propaganda machine that continually tried to undermine the interests of the German people.

I will pause here to say that I often read articles from the Jacobin – the socialist magazine. And although most socialists would scream at you until their head exploded before they would admit that Hitler was a socialist (but he was, albeit a nationalist, i.e., German, socialist rather than an internationalist socialist), I see them as potential future allies in the fight against globalism. The oligarchy has freaked out about Trump because they see him as a populist who, like Hitler, united working-class Germans from Left and the Right to fight their common extranational and international enemies.

It is clear, however, that we have media problems. I was astounded and enlightened to read Hitler’s discussion of the media and propaganda in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazi Party. The parallels to today are uncanny – even though the media have evolved. It seems to me, at least, that we are in fact closer to the propaganda age of the early 1900s in Europe than we have been at any time in my life. Looking back, it was the Summer of Antifa and the astonishing response of the media and the politicians that caused me, and likely many other Americans, to begin to see parallels to the Russian Revolution and the color revolutions. I then found myself reading about the rise of fascism, first so I might understand the parallels between the Brownshirts and antifa, but then so that I could understand how Germany successfully fended off the communist revolution that killed 12 million civilians – with perhaps 20 million more people during Stalin’s reign. To put that into perspective, that is about half as many people, military and civilian, as died in all of World War II. To take it even further, less than five million Germans are reported to have died during the war. That is, for me at least, an unimaginably large number of deaths and a terrible, terrible tragedy – but the number of Germans who died in WWII was less than one-sixth of the people who died in Russia as a result of the communist revolution and ensuing regime.

Although I am a registered libertarian (just to give you a sense of where I am coming from), I have never more fully appreciated the appeal of national socialism than now. Similarly, I did not vote for Trump in 2016, but I found him more appealing this time around – certainly not because of his rhetoric, or even of his actions, but because of what he came, in the second half of his term, to begin to resist. The ongoing coup has been in place because some people rightly interpreted that Trump was striking a Hitleresque chord among the White Americans who the international bankers and international socialists are trying to undermine politically, psychologically, and economically.

I am not a jackboot-wearing skinhead. I am a normal, middle-aged, gray haired man who, rising from working poverty to the middle class, has experienced something like the American dream. I am respected at work, loved by my family, affable, rational, well-educated, and White. And I am preparing for a war.

I am not preparing for war in the way that most Americans would (fail to) understand it. That is, I am not taking up arms to overthrow a government. I am not joining the military so that I can resist “regimes” that seek to rein in the Jewish oligarchs who pillaged their economy. I am not preparing to wage war against a duly-elected South American government that seeks to abandon the petrodollar so they can remove the yoke of vulture capitalism that has been imposed on a people. Surely not now.

No, I am not gearing up to drop multicultural democratic bombs from a B-2 Stealth bomber or to use a Predator drone to assassinate a scientist from another country because he is successfully resisting the implementation of Greater Israel. The war that I am preparing for is a defensive war to protect my people from an illegitimate government that is unduly influenced by foreign interests and is controlled by hidden oligarchs who use two-party democracy as a veil to pillage my people and others.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I am already fighting the war. As I said above, it is currently a fifth-generation war: an information and propaganda war against the traditional power structure in the US. It started as a war against the hegemony of White Anglo Saxon Protestant Southern Males. Then it evolved into a war against White Anglo Saxon (redundant, I know) Christian males. Once that was secured, it evolved into a war against White Males. As the recent Karen memes and a million articles, books, and television clips (speculation on the last one, since I no longer watch it) demonstrate, the war is now simply against all White people and other non-White people who do not hate White people and/or seek to undermine them at every opportunity.

It would seem, then, that we are fighting a fifth-generation Race War, but it is not that simple. First, there are many allies among Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and others who share in the struggle against a common, nation-destroying enemy. Secondly, there are even more – many more – White people who still believe that to criticize anti-White policies and propaganda is a form of psychopathology. These people, blinded by stupidity—or more likely by ideology—fail to see the true reasons for and consequences of labeling phrases such as all lives matter as racist. As dumb as cows being corralled for the slaughter, they readily proclaim that it is so wonderful for people of all races and ethnicities to celebrate their people and value their heritage – so long as the celebrants are not White. Natural selection demands that this insanity will end one day: one way or another.

The point is that this is definitely about race, but I for one would like people to be able to articulate an agenda that is far from “all Whites are good and everyone else is evil.” No one in this world believes this, and yet it is the mantra and the scarecrow constantly presented by elites in the media to those who lack the ability or desire to understand. Part of the goal of this essay is to help others better express this position that Whites need to do a much better job of defending ourselves against anti-White propaganda and policies.

From Academia to Media

I think it would be helpful for others to understand that the war that is being thrust on us has its origins in colleges and universities. Since the late 1970s, the influence of Critical Theory has been growing in academia. In college, smart young adults, most of whom have learned to do well in school by regurgitating what their teacher tells them, have for a couple of generations now been ingesting Frankfurt School ideology without being provided the opportunity to criticize it. To do so automatically gets one labeled as anti-Semitic or racist. This indoctrination has allowed critical theory to migrate from liberal arts and social science classrooms out into the rest of the world, where more people can see it.

Universities often get criticized because of all the liberal professors. My experience has been that there are far few liberal professors than people imagine – if liberal is taken in the classical sense, whereby professors introduce students to multiple perspectives and then allow the students to think for themselves. Liberal, in this sense, stands in opposition to both conservative and to leftist professors. There are and have been liberal professors in this sense (“I don’t care what you believe, I just want you to support it with evidence and reasons”), but their influence on young people has been increasingly overshadowed by leftist professors who take a very different approach. Rather than allow students to develop and apply their own moral sentiments, leftist professors profess that there is a right and a wrong; good and evil are real. And it sounds very much like it could have come from Jesus: blessed are the poor and oppressed; woe unto them that are wealthy. Coming primarily from a Jewish perspective rather than a Christian one, this has roughly been retranslated as Black people, Hispanics, and Jews are all oppressed and are therefore good. Non-Jewish White people, who have denigrated Jewish perfidy and parasitism, at least since Hellenistic times, are evil. That is the simple formula of Critical Theory in a nutshell (from someone who wrote a dissertation on the subject). People love their simple moral binaries, and the Left have been dishing it out under the mantra that “everything is political.” As such, universities have been evolving to the point that propaganda, rather than the pursuit of truth, has been the modus operandi. The result has been the creation of a Woke army who has very strong feelings, is very good at group think, but is not particularly knowledgeable or very good at reflecting on the limitations of their own beliefs. (This is, of course a gross overgeneralization, and I am sure there are many exceptions. These should be noted and celebrated.)

Now, however, this way of thinking – everything is political – has made its way into the mainstream media. The child of this view that everything is political is that we must all value social justice. There is no clear picture of what this term actually means or what its realization would look like, and this is intentional of course, because it is an unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific, religious doctrine that cannot be refuted. That is, it must be taken on faith that ours is an unjust society, that the fault lies with and only with White people, and that the remedy is for Whites to give up their positions of power (to Jews and their surrogates).

Several years ago, to make the news more interactive, the big media agencies adopted opened discussion boards. This did not last long, however, because the anti-White bias was constantly exposed. The comments sections all suddenly disappeared from those corporate news outlets whose larger mission was to subtly construct and maintain an anti-White narrative. This gap was filled by social media. Even more recently, however, censorship has reached formerly unimaginable levels. The case in point is that social media as well as corporate media have fully censored the president of the United States of America. I think this has jolted many people, even those who would never have read what the president said. More people are beginning to wake up.

All of this begs the question why the media would do something so risky. Although I am not privy to those sorts of conversations, a historically informed reading between the lines suggests to me that the media was directed to hazard this extreme censorship because those pulling the strings have concluded that President Trump, likely despite his initial intentions, had come to connect and identify with the one group of people that the Two-Headed Beast of international banking and international socialism needs to undermine if they want to gain full control over the country. That group currently seems to go by the name of American Patriots.

Although still largely hiding behind progressive, well-intentioned, polite and accommodating, but ultimately self-eradicating Whites, the enemy has shown itself a little more clearly in this latest offensive.

Because of this bold gambit, many Americans have, in just the last several weeks, come to believe that there is no political party that represents normal, thinking, middle- and working-class people. In fact, many of those who can trace ancestors back to the founding of this country are surprised to find themselves questioning or denying the legitimacy of our government. They wonder how this has happened so quickly in the United States. They stand in awe at the surrealism of the media’s depiction of “an attempted insurrection” by those who are most loyal to the principles and traditions of our country.  They stand, somewhere between dumbstruck and furious, over calls being made to “hold those in leadership positions accountable” who have in the past expressed any support for The President of our country. Has it really come to this? What should I do?

I woke up early this morning to the realization that I need to do more to resist anti-White and antipatriot propaganda and policies. But what can I do? I am not a politician. I am not super-wealthy.

We each have our strengths and weaknesses. I am a rural INTJ with a small social network, but I am somewhat skilled at research and writing. So, I decided to write this essay and send it to Professor MacDonald to see if he would be interested in publishing it.  If he does, I will publish it under a pen name because I would very likely lose my job if I published this under my real name. And I enjoy my job. What became clear to me this morning was that whether I want it or not, I am engaged in a 5G Civil War. I can hope that the bullies will stop picking on my people, or I can join the resistance and try to turn back anti-White propaganda and policies by raising awareness and helping others do the same. And I need to talk with people and read more to discover what others are doing. To make sure I can continue the fight, I need to make a backup plan in case I lose my job. I would love to read in the comments what others are doing to prepare themselves for what lies ahead.

 

 

The Sanctimony of Tyranny

/23 Comments/in /by

Twitter’s Gravedigger

We live in Orwellian times in which “the narrative” is everything, and all facts must be bent, twisted, or omitted to serve it.

This process has greatly accelerated in recent days, following the incident in Washington on January 6th, 2021, which is fast becoming the Reichstag Fire for the Big Tech leftists who are now making a major power grab over Western discourse and society.

Let’s have a closer look at what is being pushed. First of all an incident in which a mob burst into the Capitol Building and did comparatively little damage is being played up as an act of unbelievable horror on a par with 9-11 and Pearl Harbor, even though only 5 people died. Three of those people, by the way, died from heart attacks, one was a police officer who had a stroke hours after he had left the Capitol Building, and one was an unarmed woman who was needlessly gunned down by a jumpy Capitol Building Policeman whose identity is now a well-guarded secret.

If this is an outrage, the main outrage is against the protesters.

But here is Jack Dorsey’s Twitter justifying banning Trump from his 88 million followers:

“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action.”

Yes, the main “horrific event” was a Trump fan getting needlessly shot down and some guy running away with the Speaker’s lectern and smiling.

More specifically, Trump’s ban was in direct response to the following two tweets:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

And:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Yes, practically a Fascist coup d’etat right there!
But also, let’s compare and contrast.
Back in May there was that unfortunate George Floyd business. Everybody’s got a view on that. But, as we later found out, Floyd was a career criminal who died from drugs. Of course, the optics of a policeman kneeling on his back were not good, which is exactly the reason the mainsteam media and social media should have tried to downplay the story. But we knew they wouldn’t, and we also knew where this would go, which it then did.
It didn’t stop them trying

There is a 100% probability that the Democratic Party saw promoting this as something that would be very useful to them in an election year, regardless of who was hurt by all the looting, violence, arson, and spiraling crime rates that would ensue.

Here is what happened on the night of 27-28 May:

The protests are happening in response to the death of George Floyd, who was killed Monday night after an incident that involved Minneapolis Police officers. All four officers involved in the arrest were fired on Tuesday.

Protesters were seen on Chopper 5 footage throwing bottles and rocks at law enforcement, while officers responded with rubber bullets, flash bombs and tear gas to push them back.

Some looters at the East Lake Street Target location were seen walking out with televisions, rugs and other items from the store. Other looters were seen at a tobacco store, a Dollar Tree and a liquor store. Additionally, Cub Foods and an AutoZone is being looted as well.

The AutoZone was set on fire as of 9:30 p.m. It could be seen burning on Chopper 5 video.

A source has confirmed to KSTP that the city requested support from the National Guard late Wednesday night to combat the ongoing violent protests.

A few nights later on the 31st of May, it was Washington’s turn. Now this really did look like a violent insurrection, as opposed to using an unarmed Trump supporter for short-range target practice:
An area of a few blocks around the White House was thick with smoke. A fire was started in the basement of the parish house of St John’s church, which since 1816 has been the “Church of the Presidents”. Every president from James Madison on has worshipped there. The DC fire service got there quickly and are reported to have put it out.
Around the corner, however, a few protesters smashed the plate glass window front of the AFL-CIO Union federation headquarters and someone started a fire in the lobby. A couple of bystanders tried to dissuade them, shouting that the “unions are on our side” but to no avail. Fifty yards away, on I Street, a car was burning and a group of six young men were running down the street and smashing the windows of every car they came across with metal baseball bats.

Yes cities were aflame, mobs running rampant. And it wasn’t just buildings and cars that were bearing the brunt. Steve Sailer at Taki’s has conclusively proved that thousands died as a direct result of BLM:

The results are now in on The Establishment’s vast gamble of declaring 2020 to be the year of the Racial Reckoning. Did sacralizing Black Lives Matter as our culture’s highest value even succeed at saving black lives?

No.

My new data shows that elites’ frantic push since Memorial Day for Diversity-Inclusion-Equity (DIE) got thousands more Americans murdered in 2020 than in 2019.

America’s culturally influential have a lot of blood on their hands.

Yes, 2020 was the Ferguson Effect on turbo-drive, and it wasn’t just “unimportant, trivial” White people like Ashli Babbitt that were being thrown into pit, but those of our ever-so-precious Blacks. Sailer’s estimate of additional Black lives lost due to BLM activity runs into the thousands, making BLM 2020 equivalent to Pearl Harbor 1941 and Word Trade Center 2001, but almost entirely focused on Black Americans. Yet, we are supposed to hyperventilate and shut down freedom because one unarmed Trump supporter had the audacity to get herself gunned down by a Federal cop!

But what about Jack? Back in 2020, when cities were burning and the murder rate in Black neighborhoods skyrocketing, what was the Twitter CEO up to?

Answer: he was seeing how much “small change” he could give to promote the chaos and violence:

Colin Kaepernick used the word “fight” in the above tweet on the 28th of May, at the exact moment when it literally meant setting Minneapolis aflame and doing what you could to kill, maim, or injure cops. Then a few days later, after Kaepernick’s call to arms had played a major part in the riots spreading across the nation, Dorsey proudly announces that he is rewarding him by dropping $3 million into his lap. And this is the sanctimonious sh*t who is preaching to us and deplatforming a duly elected President for “incitement to violence” even though Trump (a) never told his supporters to storm the Capitol and (b) quickly denounced those who had committed crimes by doing so.

According to Dorsey and all the other deplatformers, Trump’s real “incitement to violence” is simply his unchanging belief that the 2020 US Election was carried out in an extremely dubious and underhanded way, which seems fair enough. That is exactly the thing they don’t want anyone to mention.

It couldn’t be that they are trying to hide something, could it? Possibly a collective crime that they are all implicated in, and which would lead to serious jail time?

Woke Big Tech has either committed the cardinal error of believing its own propaganda and engaging in an act of blind self-destruction by deplatforming Trump, or else it has made the fatal error of revealing that it has something extremely big to hide, like the stealing of an election. Already there have been interesting revelations from people like Michelle Malkin about the ways that Big Tech made its influence felt. That may be only the tip of the iceberg.

History will show that in 2021 tech giants like Twitter and Facebook were earnestly engaged in digging their own graves, while also laying the foundations for their free-speech competitors to overtake and supplant them.

Reposted with permission from Affirmative Right

Did Milton Friedman’s Libertarianism Seek to Advance Jewish Interests?

/63 Comments/in /by

This is an abridged version of the original article, “Did Milton Friedman’s Libertarianism “Defend U$SIsrael Interests” that was was posted on Holy Crusade News.

 

In his Culture of Critique trilogy Kevin MacDonald shows how many Jewish intellectual movements have developed a culture of critique that undermines those ideas and values that protect White group interests and cohesion.

These Jewish intellectual movements include the Frankfurt School (philosophy, sociology), Boazian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the New York Intellectuals (literature), Marxism and even neoconservatism.

Note the almost all encompassing nature of the Jewish critique that included everything from philosophy and psychology to literature, biology and politics. It is this culture of critique that has in many ways turned the White Western science and culture on its head.

But how about libertarianism? Is it also a part of the Jewish run culture of critique?

MacDonald gives us a three-step method to answer the question:

1 “find influential movements dominated by Jews, with no implication that all or most Jews are involved in these movements and no restrictions on what the movements are.”

2 “determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified as Jews

3. AND thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests.” (Kevin MacDonald. Culture of Critique, pp. 11-12.)

The first step is easy. After all, libertarianism has clearly been dominated by Jews. The four biggest names in libertarianism are all Jews: Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Furthermore, they all dominated specific sub-schools of the libertarian movement: the Chicago school, Classical Austrian school, Objectivism and the Radical Austrolibertarian school. Also one of the most famous popularizers of libertarianism, Walter Block is Jewish.

 

The second and third step are more difficult. Therefore we have to study deeper into their lives and identities. First Milton Friedman:

MILTON FRIEDMAN

Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 to Sara Ethel Landau and Jeno Saul Friedman, Jewish immigrants living in Brooklyn, New York. Milton was the youngest child and had three older sisters.

We do not know much about the Friedman family because all his life Milton Friedman was quite secretive about his family and ancestors—the only exception being in 1976 when he received the Nobel prize in economics and he had to write a short autobiography. But even then he did not tell much about his ancestors. He did not even mention that his ancestors were all Jews. In fact, the word Jew does not appear in this official autobiography.

My parents were born in Carpatho-Ruthenia (then a province of Austria-Hungary; later, part of inter-war Czechoslovakia, and, currently, of the Soviet Union). They emigrated to the U.S. in their teens, meeting in New York.

When I was a year old, my parents moved to Rahway, N.J., a small town about 20 miles from New York City. There, my mother ran a small retail “dry goods” store, while my father engaged in a succession of mostly unsuccessful “jobbing” ventures. The family income was small and highly uncertain; financial crisis was a constant companion. 

Strangely Milton does not even mention that the birthplace and hometown of both of his parents was Berehove, a Hungarian town. One would think that the Friedman family would be interested in their ancestral town especially since there seems to have been no significant “anti-Semitism.” In fact, the town even had a mikve, a place for Jewish ritual cleansing.

Jewish mikve in Berehove

Milton does mention that his parents came from Carpatho-Ruthenia but falsely claims it was a province of Austria-Hungary. Actually it was integral part of autonomous Hungary. The name Carpatho-Ruthenia is usually only used if one wants to emphasise that the area belonged not to Hungary but to “the forgotten people,” ruthenians/rusyns. In fact, only a very small part of the area was inhabited by them. For example, Berehove was majority Hungarian.

Carpatho-Ruthenia is a historic region in the border between Central and Eastern Europe claimed by Hungarians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Poles, Russians and Romanians. Before World War I, the area belonged to Austria-Hungary and contained many Jews, just like the neighboring Austro-Hungarian Galicia. Many of the most famous Jewish economists came from this area, which is now part of Western Ukraine.

It does not seem likely that Milton’s parents – two young immigrants from Berehove – would accidentally meet in New York. Quite possibly their marriage was arranged by their families.

Curiously, nothing is known of Jeno Friedman’s parents or siblings. Geni.com has no info, nor does any other genealogical service; and there’s nothing in Milton’s Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, Milton seems to never have written anything about his grandfather or possible paternal uncles, aunts or cousins. Nor has Milton’s son David Friedman though he is very interested in history.

This is most curious for two reasons. First, family and genealogy have always been very important in Jewish culture. Second, Milton Friedman was extremely intelligent and that runs in families because intelligence is heritable. Where did Milton inherit his intelligence? Neither of his parents seem to have been very intelligent. They had no higher education and ran a small dry goods store. Milton’s mother’s Landau–Hartman family was very large but seems not to have been very intelligent or otherwise notable unless they were related to the famous Galician Landau family and Joachim Landau who was a member of the Austrian parliament. The famous libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises‘ mother came from this Landau family (Mises bio, p. 9). However, Landau was a fairly common Jewish family name so any direct relation between Berehove and Galician Landaus seems unlikely.

Sarah Ethel Landau with children. 

Friedman’s mentor was Arthur Burns who also mentored Alan Greenspan. (In his memoirs p. 63 Greenspan explicitly refers to Burns as “my old mentor”.) Wikipedia reveals that Burns was originally Burnseig but does not tell his original first name. Neither does any other source.

Burns was born in Stanislau (now Ivano-Frankivsk), Austrian Poland (Galicia), a province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1904 to Polish-Jewish parents, Sarah Juran and Nathan Burnseig, who worked as a house painter. He showed aptitude early in his childhood, when he translated the Talmud into Polish and Russian by age six and debated socialism at age nine.[2] In 1914, he immigrated to Bayonne, New Jersey, with his parents.[1] (Wikipedia)

Arthur F. Burns. Link to Irwin Collier.com

Also the young Milton Friedman had a very Jewish upbringing:

As a child, Milton had very strong ties to Judaism, studying in a Hebrew school and, in his words, “obeying every Orthodox religious requirement.” After a stint of extreme piety during the years before his bar mitzvah, he lost his faith and ceased Jewish practice, but he still strongly identified as a Jew and took great pride in both Jewish tradition and his Jewish heritage.

After his father’s death [1927] he faithfully recited Kaddish for the full eleven months, even traveling to neighboring communities to find a minyan. And he was a devout Zionist who strongly identified with Israel and expressed pride in its achievements. (Jewish Press)

In 1929 Milton got a scholarship to Rutgers University and became more secularized but never abandoned his Jewish identity. He became a socialist probably because at the time social beliefs were very common in the Jewish community.  However, Milton’s political opinions started to change when at Rutgers university he became a student and protégé of Arthur Burns.

In economics, I had the good fortune to be exposed to two remarkable men: Arthur F. Burns, then teaching at Rutgers while completing his doctoral dissertation for Columbia; and Homer Jones, teaching between spells of graduate work at the University of Chicago. Arthur Burns shaped my understanding of economic research, introduced me to the highest scientific standards, and became a guiding influence on my subsequent career. … Arthur Burns and Homer Jones remain today among my closest and most valued friends. (Autobiography 1976)

Burns convinced Friedman that (relatively) free markets were even better for Jews than socialism.

In 1932 Milton got a scholarship to Chicago University where he met Rose Director who was two years his senior. The influence of Rose and the Director family on Milton has often been underestimated.

 

Rose Director and Milton Friedman in 1935. Link to Achievement.org

Rose Director was born in 1910 in Staryi Chortoryisk, Volhynia, Western Ukraine, Russian Empire. Wikipedia states: “The Directors were prominent members of the Jewish community in Staryi Chortoryisk.” Volhynian Jews were extremely bitter towards the Tsar because they had lost most of the ancient privileges they had enjoyed under Polish rule. However, with their capital and business networks they kept control of the economy. Jewish Virtual Library explains:

The Jews of Vladimir-Volynski (1570) and Lutsk (1579) were exempted from the payment of custom duties throughout the Polish kingdom. The Jews of Volhynia enjoyed the protection of the royal officials, who even defended their rights before the aristocracy and all the more so before other classes. With the weakening of royal authority at the close of the 16th and early 17th centuries, the Jews had the protection of the major landowners, mainly because they had become an important factor in the economy of Volhynia. 

At the close of the 16th century, the noblemen began to lease out their estates to Jews in exchange for a fixed sum which was generally paid in advance. All the incomes of the estate from the labor of the serfs, the payments of the townsmen and the Jews (who lived in the towns which belonged to the estate), innkeeping, the flour mills, and the other branches of the economy were handed over to the lessee. During the term of his lease, the Jew governed the estate and its inhabitants and was authorized to penalize the serfs at his discretion.

During that period, a Jew named Abraham who lived in the town of Turisk became renowned for his vast leases in Volhynia. However, with the exception of these large leases, which were naturally limited in number and on which there is no further information from the beginning of the 17th century, many Jews leased inns, one of the branches of the agricultural economy of the estates, or the incomes of one of the towns or townlets.

A lessee of this kind was actually the agent and confidant of the owner of the estate and the financial and administrative director of the economy of the aristocratic class. As a result of his functions, such a lessee exerted administrative authority and great economic influence, a situation which embittered the peasants, the townsmen, and the lower aristocracy. The lease of estates, together with the trade of agricultural produce derived from them, constituted the principal source of livelihood of the Jews of Volhynia. ..

The emancipation of the peasants in 1861 and the Polish rebellion of 1863 caused far-reaching changes in the economic and social development of Volhynia that affected the Jews. The decline of the estates of the Polish nobility, the construction of railways, and the creation of direct lines of communication with the large commercial centers deprived the Jewish masses of their traditional sources of livelihood and impoverished them. This prompted the Jews to develop industry. Of the 123 large factories situated in Volhynia in the late 1870s, 118 were owned by Jews.

One thing is certain. Most Jews hated the Czar and preferred Austria-Hungary because there Jews were allowed greater freedoms.

According to Wikipedia the Director family emigrated to America in 1913 just before the First World War. Did the Directors emigrate because they had collaborated with the Germans and organized communist resistance to the war? Perhaps. After all, in America Aaron Director became a communist agitator who preached that a communist world revolution was imminent. However, at the same time he went to Yale! This probably indicates that the Director family had a lot of money or at least important connections.

[Aaron] Director was born in Staryi Chortoryisk, Volhynian Governorate, Russian Empire (now in Ukraine) on September 21, 1901.[1] In 1913, he and his family immigrated to the United States, and settled in Portland, Oregon.[1] In Portland, Director attended Lincoln High School where he edited the yearbook.[1] 

Director had a difficult childhood in Portland, then a center of KKK and anti-communist hysteria in the wake of World War I. He encountered anti-Semitic slurs and was excluded from social circles.[2] He then moved east to attend Yale University in Connecticut, where his friend, artist Mark Rothko also attended. He graduated in 1924 after three years of study.[1] (Wikipedia)

It would be interesting to know the name of the Yale University dean of admissions who got the two immigrant communist Jews, Aaron and Mark into Yale.

Aaron graduated from Lincoln High in January 1921, and about that time the Yale University dean of admissions visited the school, with the result that Aaron and a slightly younger friend enrolled in Yale in the fall of 1921 as scholarship students. The younger friend was Mark Rothkowitz, later famous as an abstract painter under the name Mark Rothko. (ProMarket.org) 

Lincoln High School and Mark Rothko. Link to a.1.stdibscdn.com

Not surprisingly Aaron and Mark detested Yale as racist and anti-Semitic. They anonymously published a satirical newspaper that accused Yale of being full of stupid anti-Semitic racists.

While at Yale, Director was influenced by Thorstein Veblen and H.L. Mencken, both elitist academics who believed the public lacked the intelligence to make democracy successful, and he eventually came to hold these views as well.[2] He and Rothko[3] anonymously published a satirical newspaper called the Saturday Evening Pest in which he wrote “the definition of the United States shall eternally be H. L. Mencken surrounded by 112,000,000 morons” and called for an “aristocracy of the mentally alert and curious.[4](Wikipedia)

Rothko dropped out of the university but Aaron stayed and graduated.

Rothko received a scholarship to Yale. At the end of his freshman year in 1922, the scholarship was not renewed, and he worked as a waiter and delivery boy to support his studies. He found Yale elitist and racist. Rothko and a friend, Aaron Director, started a satirical magazine, The Saturday Evening Pest, that lampooned the school’s stuffy, bourgeois tone.[8]  (Wikipedia)

Link to The Yale Saturday Evening Pest

Mark and Rothko were especially irritated that sports played such a big role at Yale. They explained in their newspaper:

We believe

That in this age of smugness and self-satisfaction, destructive criticism is at least

as useful, if not more so, than constructive criticism.

That Yale is preparing men, not to live, but to make a living. …

That athletics hold a more prominent place at Yale than education, which is endured as a necessary evil. (ProMarket.org)

It is also probably safe to assume that they did not get an invitation to the elitist Skull and Bones. Nor did Yale administration look kindly at Aaron and Mark. Could it be that their antics helped uphold the Jewish quota at Yale? At the time Chicago had a reputation of being Jew-friendly while Yale and Harvard had a reputation of being “anti-Semitic”.

They evidently came under fire from the administration; their last issue contains a supporting letter solicited from Sinclair Lewis, a distinguished alumnus of Yale. Rothko did not return the next fall, and Aaron graduated in 1924 after only 3 years, probably to the relief of the Yale administration. (ProMarket.org)

After Yale, Aaron continued his socialist activism, became a teacher at a labor college and also traveled to Czechoslovakia.

He taught at a labor college in New Jersey, and he traveled to Europe, to England, and as far to the east as Czechoslovakia, before returning to Portland as an educational director at the Portland Labor College. (ProMarket.org)

Neoconservatism

After Lenin and Trotsky lost power to Stalin in the late 20’s Soviet Union, many Jews started to realize that capitalism could be better for the Jews than socialism. This realization and Stalin’s increasing anti-Semitism convinced many Jews not only to abandon socialism, but also to join conservatives in denouncing the Soviet Union. However, this did not mean that these Jews became conservatives. Instead they developed a cult around Trotsky that eventually morphed into neoconservatism that supported relatively free markets but allowed economic interventionism, modernist egalitarian values, secularism, philo-Semitism, open borders, and an interventionist foreign policy.

Like so many other socialist Jews, Aaron Director gradually became a neoconservative. He abandoned his promising career as a communist agitator and became a teacher of statistics at Chicago University. That in itself is quite amazing since he had been a high-profile communist agitator and only had an undergraduate degree even if it was from Yale. Obviously Aaron had powerful friends who kept helping him. One of those friends was the economist Paul Douglas whose wife was a wealthy Jewess, Dorothy Wolff.

In 1927, he [Aaron Director] decided to come to Chicago for graduate study in labor economics with Paul Douglas, then a member of our [Chicago] economics department and later a US Senator from Illinois. After 3 years as a student, Aaron joined the staff in 1930, teaching and assisting Douglas on a book on unemployment. (ProMarket.org)

Aaron also influenced the Jewish Paul Samuelson who would subsequently not only dominate economics education with his popular economics textbook but also win the Nobel Prize in economics. In fact, Aaron was Samuelson’s first teacher.

Aaron was evidently a very effective teacher— the Nobel economist Paul Samuelson recalls that it was a course of Aaron’s that introduced him to economics when he was a college student here and that course first excited his interest in the subject. (ProMarket.org)

Soon Aaron also helped Rose to become a student at the University of Chicago. It was also there in late 1932 that the Director family took Milton Friedman under their wing. Together with Arthur Burns they not only converted Milton to neoconservatism but also helped him in his career.

Paul Samuelson noted that it was Aaron Director and Milton Friedman who together created the second-generation Chicago school. Milton was the writer and Aaron the organizer who literally did not publish anything but used his network to organize an intellectual and political movement. (Samuelson interview, p. 528)

Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Aaron Director in 1947. Link to Achievement.org

This Second Chicago school was not only much more Jewish and interventionist but also placed a greater emphasis on mathematics. Milton’s Essays in Positive Economy created a methodological revolution in economics. Deductive reasoning from the logic of action was replaced with fancy mathematical formulas, statistics and econometrics. Statistics and mathematical economics were needed for economic interventionism, especially in banking. Mathematics has a certain prestige in academia. It gives whatever one does an air of rigor and intelligence.

This extreme empiricist-positivist methodology was a success in the sense that it made neoconservative interventionist policy recommendations sound more scientific. Gradually the Chicago school took over a large part of academia and many private policy institutes to the extent that the Chicago school became almost synonymous with free market economics. Competing approaches, i.e., those with that were less mathematics-oriented, more conservative and less interventionist free market schools such as the Austrian school, were pushed to the sidelines.

Link to Wikipedia

Professor MacDonald has shown how neoconservatism is basically a Jewish movement that is part of the culture of critique. However, he did not write about the economic aspect of neoconservatism and that such economists as Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Aaron Director and Alan Greenspan were also important neoconservative intellectuals. They all were also active in the Republican party. Friedman was famously a close confidant of the neoconservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, whose Jewish grandfather Michel Goldwasser had emigrated from Poland. It was Goldwater who destroyed the last vestiges of the Old Right paleoconservatism and turned republicans into neoconservatives. Later Friedman would also be an advisor to presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan who both had uneasy alliances with neoconservative Jews.

One reason why Friedman is not usually considered a neoconservative is because he often described himself as a libertarian. However, this is an example of deliberate confusion where Jewish intellectuals change the definitions of words. They needed to change the definitions of conservatism and libertarianism to include open borders (especially for Jews), a central bank-led banking cartel (often led by Jews) that finances an interventionist foreign policy that fights wars on behalf of Israel. This is why they needed to develop both neoconservatism and neolibertarianism. They were so successful that the true paleoversions of conservatism and libertarianism hardly even exist anymore. Now conservatism usually means neoconservatism.

Dynastic networks

Despite similar ideologies and backgrounds it took Milton Friedman and Rose Director six years to get married. Later Milton explained that they just had too little money.

Ludwig, Arthur, Richard, Adele (Landau) and Karl Mises. The leading Jewish family in Galicia. Link to Mises bio.

What is often forgotten is that the Jewish bankers, such as Jacob Schiff, and communists worked together to topple the Tsar because the Tsar was seen as anti-Jewish. It seems that there were international bankers even in Trotsky’s Jewish Bronstein-Zhivotovsky family.

In fact, Schiff was quite open about his mission to destroy the Tsar. It was Schiff who had financed Japanese to attack Russia in 1905. It was also then that Trotsky’s revolutionary activities almost managed to topple the Tsar. Fear of banker power would also explain why the Tsar was so lenient towards communist revolutionaries and terrorists. Instead of executions, they were sent to Siberia from where they often escaped to the West. For example, after the 1905 Russian revolution Trotsky was only sentenced to Siberia and so allowed to escape to West again!

Foreign policy interventionism

Milton and Rose Friedman’s family backgrounds makes it easy to understand why banking and economics were so personal for them. It was literally about life and death for their families. First they helped to topple the Tsar and then Hitler. Banking and the economy had to be manipulated so as to finance the battle against anti-Semitism. Therefore it is also not surprising that Milton believed America should do everything in its power to crush Nazi Germany. This often led to fights with other students and professors who believed that America should stay out of the World War II. Wikipedia turns this into an anti-Semitic incident.

During 1940, Friedman was appointed an assistant professor teaching Economics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but encountered antisemitism in the Economics department and decided to return to government service.[35][36] (Wikipedia)

However, later Wikipedia does note the pro-war attitude of Friedman.

In 1940, Friedman accepted a position at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but left because of differences with faculty regarding United States involvement in World War II. Friedman believed the United States should enter the war.[39] (Wikipedia)

When America did enter the war, Friedman did everything in his power to help crush Germany. Despite now being a member of the pro-free market Chicago school, Friedman helped create the withholding tax which libertarians consider the most destructive tax of all.

From 1941 to 1943 Friedman worked on wartime tax policy for the federal government, as an advisor to senior officials of the United States Department of the Treasury. As a Treasury spokesman during 1942 he advocated a Keynesian policy of taxation. He helped to invent the payroll withholding tax system, since the federal government badly needed money in order to fight the war.[37] (Wikipedia)

It was the withholding tax that made the warfare-welfare state possible but Milton never had any regrets. Anti-Semites had to be destroyed.

I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn’t found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.[38] (Wikipedia)

Banking interventionism

The original Chicago school was almost unique in defending the free market in banking. Many of the members of the school presented the Chicago plan which supported free banking and 100% reserves because money is the lifeblood of the economy. If you let the government control money and banking, it controls the whole economy. Milton agreed in principle that free market in money and banking is the best alternative, but in practice wanted the central bank to control the money supply and thus the whole economy.

Why this interventionist an exception to the rule of free market? Perhaps because banking is traditionally a Jewish business. Better bailouts than bankruptcies. Furthermore, without government bailouts gentiles might become upset during bank panics and blame the Jews. Better to have bailouts than anti-Semitism.

Friedman’s interventionist attitude was probably also encouraged by the fact that when he was studying at university, the chairman of the Fed was a Jew, Eugene Meyer. That was very important for Jews because it proved that they could also have powerful positions in the American economy like they had dominated the European economies.

Like his ancestors for over 2000 years, professor Arthur Burns taught his three top Jewish proteges— Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan and Murray Rothbard—that Jews could and should have an active role both in politics and banking. Alliances with elites in politics and banking are two sides of the same interventionist coin. Professor Benjamin Gingsberg calls this strategy the Fatal Embrace because throughout history it has led to pogroms and other manifestations of anti-Semitism.

Rothbard had chosen the Austrian school over the Chicago school. He believed in the free market, the gold standard, free banking and 100% bank reserves because that would keep the state totally away from money and banking. This would also be good for Jews because then they could not corrupt the economy the way they had done in Europe. In fact, Rothbard believed that one reason why there had been so little anti-Semitism in America was because the banking system and economy in general had been relatively free. He greatly admired the early nineteenth century Jeffersonian-Jacksonian anti-bank movement that fought for free markets and even abolished the early American central bank.

 

Link to Wikipedia

Arthur Burns was surprised and dismayed by Rothbard’s libertarianism. Burns had expected something very different because he had been the neighbor and close family friend of the Rothbard family. Burns had even promised Murray’s father, David Rothbard, that he would take care of Murray. Apparently the idea was to make Murray into a successful economist and banker like his ancestors.

Burns had already mentored Milton Friedman to become an economics professor in the University of Chicago. Now Burns was mentoring both Alan Greenspan and Murray Rothbard who were almost exactly the same age. Both had East European Jewish ancestors. Murray was not only the most talented of Burns’ proteges but also had an illustrious ancestry full of businessmen and bankers. For some reason Murray never spoke about his banker ancestors, but two years ago the Mises Institute came into possession of an autobiographical essay written while Murray was still a high school student.

With remarkable honesty notes Rothbard writes how Jews had refused to assimilate in Poland.

My father has a very interesting and complex character, combined with a vivid background. Born near Warsaw, in Poland, he was brought up in an environment of orthodox and often fanatical Jews who isolated themselves from the Poles around them, and steeped themselves and their children in Hebrew lore. ..

When my father immigrated to the United States, at the age of seventeen, he had only this spirit to urge him forward. He had a great handicap in that he did not know any established language, since he had spoken only Jewish [Yiddish?] in Poland. The isolation of the Jews precluded any possibility of their learning the Polish tongue.

Rothbard tells more about his mother’s family but again fails to name names. For some reason he took them to his grave and not one historian seems to have studied the subject.

My mother’s background, though different, is just as colorful. Her family abounded in the traditions and characteristics of the old Russian aristocracy. My grandmother’s family, especially, had reached the highest pinnacle that the Jews in Czarist Russia could have achieved, One ancestor founded the railroads in Russia, one was a brilliant lawyer, another was a prominent international banker; in short, my mother’s family was raised in luxury and wealth.

Murray Rothbard with parents. Link to Mises.org

So Burns had great expectations for Murray. Apparently Burns dreamed that together with Friedman, Rothbard and Greenspan, he would not only dominate academia but also American banking and thus the whole world economy. And now Rothbard refused to play ball!

Rothbard was appalled that the great Jacksonian anti-bank movement had been nullified by the creation of the Fed in 1913. Even worse, it was just a front for three mighty dynasties of the ruling elite: Morgans, Rockefellers and the Schiffs/Rothschilds. Rothbard saw history as a battle between liberty and the tyrannical ruling elite. He was totally against central banking that made the fraudulent and highly destructive fractional reserve banking possible. Bankers were literally the cancer of history. And Jacob Schiff with the help of Warburgs and Rothshilds was at the center of it. Rothbard wanted nothing to do with them!

The praxeological foundations of Murray Rothbard’s study of the ruling elite

Rothbard not only refused to embrace central banking and economic interventionism but also opposed the mainstream empiricist philosophy which used mathematics and statistics to manipulate the economy. Instead Rothbard embraced Aristotelian rationalist philosophy and Austrian School free market economics. Rothbard even started to think that all government statistical research bureaus should be eliminated so that it would be impossible for the government to regulate businesses and society in general!

Burns was not amused especially since he was director of research at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and a Fellow of the American Statistical Association. He soon started to sabotage Rothbard’s studies. Burns even blocked Rothbard’s PhD thesis The Panic of 1819 because it claimed that America’s first depression was the result of central bank overexpanding the money supply. Only many years later when Burns left Columbia University to government service did Rothbard finally get his PhD.

Download the book

But the intellectual war was only starting. For the rest of his life Rothbard would criticize Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan and all other interventionists as statists and socialists. Often when Friedman wrote a book, Rothbard answered with his own book that showed the errors of Friedman’s logic. The most dramatic episode of this intellectual war dealt fittingly with the monetary history of the United States.

In 1963, together with Anna Schwartz, Milton Friedman published his magnum opus, A Monetary History of the United States. It blamed the Fed for the Great Depression because it did not expand the money supply and so could not bail out enough banks.

In the very same year Murray Rothbard published his own book America´s Great Depression which had a diametrically opposite analysis. Rothbard blamed the Fed for expanding the money supply too much and bailing out banks!

Download the book

Rothbard believed that if you let banks fail the economy will soon recover like it did in 1921. Of course, some depositors and especially bankers would be wiped out, but that would teach them a lesson for trusting fractional reserve banking. Rothbard did not deny that such shock-therapy might create an anti-Semitic anti-bank movement, but he seemed to considered it a bonus! After all, what was needed was to destroy the fractional reserve banking altogether and reform the monetary system with pure gold standard and 100% reserve banking.

Burns and Friedman were enraged by Rothbard’s book. (According to rumors Greenspan was not enraged but rather amused and almost sided with Rothbard until Burns had a small chat with him.)  Instead of answering Rothbard’s arguments they did their best to stop Rothbard from gaining a position in any university. Finally, years later, Rothbard did manage to obtain a position as a professor but only in an obscure community college. However, in the end Rothbard did sort of win the battle of ideas because Paul Johnson cited Rothbard’s thesis in his international best seller, Modern Times.

Link to Wikipedia entry

On the other hand, Friedman won the political battle since Burns and Greenspan took over the Fed, destroyed the last vestiges of the gold standard, and started feverishly expanding the money supply to finance the American welfare-warfare state. Each time there was a threat of a depression they greatly expanded the money supply. This is now standard practice, and interest rates have been pushed down to zero with dangerous consequences. Now the whole world economy is at the brink of abyss of debt.

Milton Friedman (left) and Arthur Burns. Link to Blogs Library Duke.edu

Zionist interventionism

Considering their backgrounds it is not surprising that Milton and Rose were also fanatical Zionists. In practice libertarianism and Zionism are incompatible though for some reason there has lately been hardly any discussion about this obvious fact in (neo)libertarian circles. Indeed, they were not only Zionists but hard-core Likudniks. They often visited Israel and were very supportive of the extreme-right Likud party which has obvious terrorist roots. Milton even seems to have supported the annexation of the Palestinian West Bank. In his Newsweek column, he downplayed the occupation and even stated: “I had no feeling whatsoever of being in occupied territory.”

Perhaps the Palestinians had a different feeling.

Link to The Jerusalem Post

U$Srael

Friedman not only identified as a Jew but was ready to ignore his libertarian principles when the interests of Jews were threatened. This is why he helped to institute the most dangerous and anti-libertarian tax of all: the withholding tax. And after Germany was destroyed, he fully supported not only the creation of Israel but also its expansion as an occupying power. Friedman seems not to have strongly opposed the huge subsidies America sends to Israel every year.

Burns, Friedman and Greenspan seem to have been the brains and architects of the petrodollar system. The idea was to get off the gold standard which limited the expansion of the money supply and therefore the capacity to bail out banks and whole countries. America went off the gold standard in the early 70s when Arthur Burns was the chairman of the Fed. Milton had already laid the groundwork for this exit in his 1953 Essays in Positive Economics by claiming that flexible exchange rates have huge benefits. Ironically, it was Friedman who was the greatest foe of the gold standard despite admitting – only in principle, of course – the moral and economic superiority of the gold standard.

But how to maintain the value of mere paper dollars especially when their amount increases exponentially? Simple: Artificially increase the demand for dollars. Just make sure that international trade and especially oil trade takes place in dollars. All you need is US-Nato war machine that forces all countries to use dollars in the international oil trade. Naturally this suited well the old allies of Israel, the Saudi family. And if some countries like Iraq or Libya refuse to trade their oil in dollars, then it would be easy to either organize a color revolution or if that fails then just bomb them into submission.

All this also fitted very well with the Jewish neoconservative world view where Russia is the enemy. Russia certainly has been biggest obstacle of Israeli expansionist foreign policy. The Fed and the petrodollar system were especially needed to destroy the Russians who stubbornly continue to cling to their nationalism and “anti-Semitic” alliance with Arabs. The Russians even have the gall to support Syria and other opponents of Israel in the Middle East.

The Friedman-Director family had an impressive enemies list and track record: Tsar, Hitler, Soviet Union and finally Putin’s Russia.

With the support of the petrodollar system the Fed could expand the money supply as much as necessary to defend both American and Israeli interests.

Libertarianism vs. tyranny

Rothbard was right. Friedman was no supporter of free market. On the contrary. Friedman together with Burns and Greenspan continued the ancient Jewish tradition of court Jews creating monopoly state capitalists.

So it is easy to answer Kevin MacDonald’s three questions:

  1. Libertarianism and its Chicago subschool have been dominated by Jews such as Milton Friedman
  2. Milton Friedman strongly identified as a Jew
  3. Milton Friedman deliberately used the libertarian movement to advance specific Jewish interests

But why was Rothbard virtually alone in noticing all this? Because Friedman was a brilliant propagandist. He presented himself as a free market supporter even if he was only relatively more libertarian than socialists. But more importantly Friedman was a good liar. This could be seen in his famous article Capitalism and Jews where he claimed that Jews have usually not benefited from government-granted privileges.

To summarize: Except for the sporadic protection of individual monarchs to whom they were useful, Jews have seldom benefited from governmental intervention on their behalf. 

Link to FEE.org

How could Friedman be so mistaken? Or rather, such a brazen liar He must have known the truth. His own ancestors came from Eastern Europe where for many centuries Jews had been the king’s privileged state capitalists. For thousands of years Jews had been slave traders, tax-farmers and almost everywhere in Europe enjoyed state granted business and banking cartel privileges.