Lenin’s Willing Industrialist: The Saga of Armand Hammer, Part 1 of 5

/41 Comments/in , /by

Oh, would some Power give us the gift
To see ourselves as others see us!
-Robert Burns

There are few things that provide quite as illuminating a contrast as comparing a man’s testament of his own life against those accounts given by others (friend and foe, alike). In that spirit, then, here is an account of the life of Armand Hammer, the Jewish businessman, oil magnate, concessionaire and art collector, who in his telling was a crusader for human rights and the scourge of cancer. The picture that emerges of Dr. Hammer in the eyes of others (and sometimes in declassified documents and secret recordings) is a quite different face than the one Hammer presented to the world. Here is Part One of a five-part series.

Lenin’s Willing Industrialist: The Saga of Armand Hammer, Part I: Roots and Russia

In public relations agent Carl Blumay’s account of his more than twenty years in service to Armand Hammer, The Dark Side of Power: The Real Armand Hammer, he  relates how carefully Hammer crafted his “disarming, grandfatherly public persona” (Blumay 363) and how the man behind the meteoric rise of Occidental Petroleum never missed an opportunity to disprove the darker rumors surrounding his empire. During his career at Occidental, Blumay himself had become a prop in this campaign, conscripted against his will at times. When, for instance, word of “Occidental’s revolving door” (363) hire-and-fire policy was making the rounds, Dr. Hammer made a constant routine of asking the PR man in public how long he had been working with Hammer. He did this to present an image to the world of “the eighty-one-year-old paterfamilias of one of the world’s great multinational corporations standing side-by-side with his devoted sixty-eight-year-old retainer of a quarter century” (Ibid.). Hammer performed this routine using Blumay so frequently that it eventually approached the level of vaudeville with Blumay gritting his teeth in a forced smile while replying with the requisite “twenty-five years” to the day’s audience, whether it was at a board meeting, fundraiser, or an art gallery.

One would be hard-pressed to find a more auto-hagiographic tale than the one related in Steve Weinberg’s Hammer: The Armand Hammer Story, which “told the entertaining story of a saintly but shrewd man whose life consisted of one triumph after another” (Blumay 437). The book’s coauthor put it mildly when he said that “a lot of sanitizing went on” (Ibid.) in the writing. He was being a bit more candid when he related that “[Hammer’s] character was my creation in a fictional enterprise.” Although the author was compensated to the tune of $500,000 plus another roughly $72,000 in expenses for casting his quarry in a nigh-on saintly light, he still walked away from the project feeling as if he had “flogged every atom of my soul.”

The steps that Armand Hammer took to exaggerate (or even invent) certain aspects of his business abroad (especially in Russia) while downplaying others, were sometimes undercut by his vanity and paranoia.

Hammer’s Nixonian obsession with recording and espionage, “what he called James Bond stuff” (Edward J. Epstein, Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer, 18), involved using moles, spies, and hidden surveillance techniques he’d picked up during his extensive stays in the Soviet Union to gain intelligence and leverage on others. “Hammer found this secret taping system especially useful for recording sensitive events, such as the disbursement of bribes to which he did not want even his confidential secretaries to be privy” (Ibid.). One of Hammer’s mistakes in this enterprise was to enlist his son Julian in the cloak-and-dagger. Julian Hammer was a quintessential case of affluenza, a princeling who seemed to be above the law. Armand Hammer’s son had been arrested for shooting and killing his friend at the age of 24. Numerous other violent and very public outbursts involving guns and drugs followed, but his police record eventually disappeared from the county files. (According to Armand Hammer, this was none of his doing and was probably attributable to poor clerical competency among California public sector employees.)

The main problem with Hammer’s bugging and surveillance operation, though, was not familial nepotism, but that he was unknowingly collecting a trove of evidence against himself that could be potentially damning one day, assuming it fell into the hands of a journalist who wasn’t a friend or on his payroll. Hammer counted the Sulzberger’s New York Times among his allies going back at least as far as when The Times’ notorious Walter Duranty (who won a Pulitzer for his work in covering up the Holodomor) helped him craft his first autobiography, The Quest of the Romanoff Treasure. This tight relationship with the Times might help explain why he initially let the Gray Lady’s own Edward J. Epstein into his orbit. The journalist who eventually defected from the standard effusive and glowing picture of Dr. Armand Hammer was able to gather enough information to write The Secret History of Armand Hammer, which forms a perfect tonic to the poisonous myths surrounding one of the most consummate sociopaths of the modern era. Carl Blumay claims that Epstein would have never gotten close to Armand Hammer during his tenure working PR for him. But Armand’s obsession with “the notion of using his friendship with Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger” (Blumay 392), along with an over-weaning desire for fame and attention, caused him to lower his guard. It also led to the first public revelations regarding just what Armand Hammer had been up to in Russia, and on behalf of the Communists in America.

***

To understand Armand Hammer, it is necessary to first know something about his father, Julius Hammer. Julius Hammer was a Jewish immigrant from Russia who came to New York ostensibly to practice medicine and thrive as a small businessman. He founded a pharmaceutical supplies concern called Allied Drug and Chemical Corporation. This company was created in “a secret partnership with the Bolshevik government” (Blumay 40). State Department files claim Armand’s father was “one of the first to establish one of the ‘front’ corporations and purchasing agencies” that were controlled by “Soviet-Jewish elements under the direction of the Soviet Government of Russia” (41).

The depth of Julius Hammer’s ideological zealotry is hardly disputed, even by Armand Hammer’s own account (though he soft-pedaled his father’s fanaticism as misguided, starry-eyed idealism – a standard (and largely false) account of Jewish involvement in Communism). Victor Hammer, Armand’s brother, said he got his name because it meant “victory over capitalism” (Blumay 38). Armand Hammer would sometimes claim his father named him after Armand Duval, a character in La Dame aux Camélias by Alexandre Dumas, fils, but later in life Hammer would admit that he was named in honor of the arm-and-hammer symbol of the Socialist Labor Party. “Decades later, Armand would use the arm-and-hammer-insignia as the flag on his yacht” (Epstein 35).

A Scotland Yard report confirmed the elder Hammer’s unalloyed ardor for Communism, and also that he worked in tandem with Ludwig Martens (a Russian-born communist appointed ambassador to the United States by Vladimir Lenin) to help grow the “Communist Party of the United States in America” (Blumay 36), especially in New York, alongside Jewish-American economist Isaac Hourwich.

Edward Epstein corroborates this report from across the pond, and also shows that Julius Hammer’s circle of fellow-travelers included not only intellectuals, but men of action, revolutionaries such as Boris Reinstein “who had been expelled first from Russia and then Germany, Switzerland, and France for his radical activities” (Epstein 34). Reinstein had done two years in prison for his involvement in a terrorist bombing, as well. He and Julius Hammer had both come “from Jewish ghettos in the same area of southern Russia” (34).

In later life Armand Hammer would try to downplay his father’s Jewish identity (and his own) to grease the wheels of his oil concessions in the Middle East, since Israel was not exactly enjoying popularity among the various pan-Arab revolutionaries when he made his successful wildcat play for Libya. Armand would even ridiculously claim that he and his family were Unitarians, but the record shows that Julius Hammer was a strongly-identified Jew. Like many Jews though, he yearned to have it both ways, to reap the benefits of assimilation while gaming the nepotistic perks that come with what John Derbyshire calls “absimilation” (sic). Although this attitude displayed by Julius Hammer (and inherited by his sons) may seem schizophrenic on the surface, it reveals itself as simply expedient when studied closer: When being Jewish proved an impediment to making money, the Hammers downplayed being Jewish. In those circumstances when it was advantageous to be Jewish, no such pains were taken.

Armand Hammer’s brother Victor claimed in his talks with Carl Blumay that his father was “violently anti-Semitic” (38),  but to say that he was extremely cautious would be more accurate. Armand Hammer was given toward a tendency to invoke the specter of pogroms at a moment’s notice in his memoirs, but according to Victor Hammer “Pop’s parents were merchants who prospered under the Czar and denied being Jewish” (Ibid.). Dr. Julius Hammer’s obscurantism extended to his medical practice (more on that later), with Victor claiming that “every time he delivered a baby, if Jewish parents gave their children what he considered a Jewish-sounding first name, he changed the name on the birth certificate.”

Screenwriter Michael Herr (whose credits include Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now) mentions in his book on Stanley Kubrick that Jews can comfortably be themselves (that is Jewish) only in the presence of other Jews. The phenomenon is repeatedly apparent in the lives of both Armand Hammer and his supposedly “violently anti-Semitic” father.  Epstein describes this cultural milieu in which the younger Hammers came of age, in New York neighborhoods “strictly divided between Jewish and Irish immigrants” (34):

The burning issue was assimilation: should Jews remain within their own culture and seek a Judaic form of socialism, or should they seek a nonsectarian form? The Jewish radicals subscribed to the latter position. They passionately rejected ghettoization. In doing so, as social critic Irving Howe points out, “the Jewish radicals … hoped to move from the yeshiva to modern culture, from shtetl to urban sophistication, from blessing the Sabbath wine to declaring the strategy of international revolution. They yearned to bleach away their past and become men without, or above, a country” (34–35)

Despite such pronouncements, it was very typical for Jewish radicals to retain a strong Jewish identity, quite often implicitly and involving a great deal of self-deception.

That his father subscribed to radical, violent political revolution does not necessarily imply that Armand Hammer was foreordained to become a Communist, a Communist sympathizer, or a subversive agent of some kind. But it seems that the apple did not fall far from the tree. Despite enjoying all the advantages of American capitalism while incurring none of the costs of Communist revolution, Armand remained Red at heart. These paradoxes made life quite hard for PR man Carl Blumay since he was charged with making sure that allegations against Armand Hammer rarely made it to intelligence agency archives, that nothing unsavory would hinder Hammer’s position in politics or business, or be leaked to the press where the charges could hurt Hammer’s reputation with the public. When Carl Blumay was acting as aide-de-camp to Armand Hammer against one such round of allegations (this time from a member of the Catholic War Veterans), he took the complaint to Armand’s brother Victor and asked him “how to temper his brother’s Soviet ardor” (Blumay 36). Victor’s response was to laugh and to say, “Armand has always looked to the Kremlin with the same kind of reverential regard a deeply devoted Moslem pays to Mecca” (Ibid.).

Revolution (first in Russia and then in Libya) was good to Armand Hammer. Revolution was a kind of religion for him. And even better, revolution made him rich.

When Armand Hammer was pressed regarding his loyalties or his ideology, his answer rarely wavered. In Hammer, he says “I always … tell the Russians that I am a capitalist, that I believe our system is better than theirs and that I want us to coexist peacefully” (159). The pretext of peace glosses much of Armand Hammer’s description of his own philosophy. A claim to be helping the effort toward détente, a thawing of relations between East and West during the Cold War, and a desire to avert nuclear war (for the sake of future generations, of course) allowed him to increase his fortune as well as the influence of Communism, all while shifting attention away from his activities or hiding his true intent behind a veil of philanthropy.

As a result, his jaunts in his Gulfstream jet, OXY 1, to visit characters like genocidal dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu were written off as attempts to find some common ground between two opposing political systems. Incidentally, before Ceausescu was found guilty of genocide and executed, Hammer related to Carl Blumay that the General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party was his “best friend” (251), not to mention “a great leader, a fine, warmhearted man, and a humanitarian who loves his people and has compassion for them” (Ibid.). The throwaway addendum that “he’s so easy to do business with” gets a little closer to the truth of why Hammer (as usual) was willing to look the other way to enrich himself while people were dying.

A memorandum from assistant director of domestic intelligence, William Sullivan, to J. Edgar Hoover classified “Hammer [as] a type who would do business with the devil if there was a profit in it” (Epstein 211). This was only slight hyperbole.

***

Although intelligence gathering had begun on the Communist activities of the Hammers since at least as early as 1921 (under the aegis of a young Justice Department assistant named J. Edgar Hoover), including “a tip from an informant alleging that Hammer was a courier for the newly-organized Communist International” (Epstein 22), it wouldn’t be the political activities of the Russian-Jewish émigré and his son that first exposed them to the light of the law. Rather it was the gross medical malfeasance of Dr. Julius Hammer and his son Armand, then still in medical school:

A woman had died after undergoing an abortion at the clinic at Hammer’s house. The dead woman was Marie Oganesoff, the 33-year-old wife of a Russian diplomat who had come to America from the Czarist regime. According to the testimony of her chauffeur, she had gone to the Hammer house for the abortion on July 5 and collapsed when she returned home later that day. … When questioned by prosecutors, Julius Hammer did not deny that an abortion had been performed, but he claimed that it was medically justified, and that he, as her doctor, had the right to make such a decision. Nevertheless, he was indicted (Epstein 42).

Julius Hammer had had earlier close calls with the law, having been surveilled in the belief that he may have been the one supplying material for bombs given to subversives and of furnishing dynamite to the radical Boris Reinstein. This suspicion was especially harbored by the NYC Red Squad formed initially “to counter a spate of anarchist bombings in Manhattan” (Epstein 36) and alluded to in an interview Victor Hammer gave to Carl Blumay, in which he admitted “Pop even gave dynamite to a young radical” (Blumay 39). Considering that Julius Hammer was a doctor involved in the pharmaceutical supply business, it would have been easy for him to amass precursors required to make explosives without arousing suspicion, although at this remove it is hard to say which violent crimes he either did or did not help facilitate.

But the law eventually caught up with him anyway.

On June 26, 1920, “the jury found Julius Hammer guilty of first-degree manslaughter. The judge then pronounced his sentence: three and one half to twelve years of hard labor at Sing-Sing” (Epstein 42).

The most provocative aspect of this whole morbid affair was that journalist Edward J. Epstein claims Armand Hammer knew that he had let his father go to prison as an innocent man (or at least one who wasn’t guilty of this specific crime in question):

He would keep his knowledge a secret for three decades. Then, afraid that he was dying, he explained to his longtime mistress that it was he, not his father, who had performed the illegal abortion in 1919. He was then only a first-year medical student, unlicensed to practice medicine, and would certainly have gone to prison if his father had not stepped in to take the blame. Ordinarily, doctors in New York State were permitted leeway in performing such abortions and were rarely prosecuted (46).

As with so many other aspects of Armand Hammer’s life (especially suspected crimes) there is an aura of mystery that remains, even after the files from the collapsed Soviet Union have been disgorged to prove Hammer’s guilt in other realms. Adding ‘back-alley abortionist’ and ‘manslaughter’ to his curriculum vitae would certainly run counter to the image Hammer yearned to project of himself, but it certainly rings truer than the implausible obstetrical escapades he describes in his autobiography. If Armand Hammer would have the reader believe that he “missed the lecture on breech deliveries” (Hammer 83) at Columbia College but was somehow able to skim through Cragin’s Obstetrics in the bathroom of an apartment, “memorize the illustrations on technique” (84) and then perform an emergency cesarean section on an imperiled woman giving birth, then one could be forgiven for thinking he was capable of killing a woman in a botched curetting, letting his father take the blame, and continuing on undeterred in his quest for money and power.

With the old radical warhorse Julius Hammer temporarily sidelined by his prison stint, his sons were ready to take up the mantle of world revolution. Armand was the older, more calculating, and ambitious of the two brothers, and it was while acting in his capacity as go-between for his father in prison and the Comintern on the outside that Armand Hammer would first execute his father’s wishes and then start to fulfill his own much grander schemes for power at any cost. Armand Hammer was about to become one of the most influential players on the global scene and would play no small part in shaping the twentieth century, mostly for the worse.

Go to Part 2.

Works Cited

Blumay, Carl. The Dark Side of Power: The Real Armand Hammer. Simon & Schuster, 1992

Epstein, Edward J. Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer. Random House, 1996.

Hammer, Armand and Neil Lydon. Hammer: The Armand Hammer Story. Perigee Trade, 1988.

A Shameless Shabbos-Shiksa: Priti Patel Shills for Israel

/52 Comments/in , /by

If you thought Harvey Weinstein looked creepy, take a look at Stuart Polak:

Stuart Polak of CFI

Lord Polak, as Stu became thanks to David Cameron, is currently receiving some unwelcome attention in the British media. For such a small minority, Jews certainly get involved in a lot of scandals, don’t they? However, Lord Polak hasn’t been molesting women or, as might seem more likely, molesting children and small animals. Instead, as a proud and patriotic British Jew, he’s been busy on behalf of the only nation that matters to him: Israel. He was director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) for twenty-six years. The Jewish Chronicle, no less, has described how “under his guidance, CFI became the biggest lobbying group in Westminster, holding lunches for 700 guests, making countless Downing Street visits, and developing contacts throughout Israel and the Middle East.”

Vibrant Vacation

The scandal he’s now in goes like this. In August this year, he was present at unauthorized and unrecorded meetings held between Israeli officials and the International Development Secretary Priti Patel, a high-testosterone female politician who had taken her prime-ministerial ambitions on holiday to Israel. Among others, she met the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Yuval Rotem of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, and Gilad Erdan, Minister for Public Security, Information and Strategic Affairs.

High-T fem-pol: the vibrant Priti Patel

Those are important people, but she didn’t bother to involve her own government in the meetings or to have any minutes taken. What was she up to? Well, inter alia she seems to have been discussing ways to send more British taxpayers’ money into Israeli bank accounts. And a lot of that money already heads there: “It’s a little known fact that over 20 per cent of the medicines that the NHS [National Health Service] uses come from Teva, an Israeli company, and it’s rising, heading towards 25 per cent.” Patel wanted to fund the Israeli army’s aid work in the occupied Golan Heights, which isn’t recognized as Israeli territory even by the very pro-Zionist Conservatives, and to give British aid money to Israeli organizations working in Africa.

Would all that have been good value for money? Who cares? What matters is that it would have been good for Israel and for Patel herself, who could then have relied on more help from Conservative Friends of Israel with her political ambitions. Read more

A Forgotten Revolutionary: John Jacobs, Founder of Weatherman

/57 Comments/in , /by

John Jacobs. From Columbia College Today, “Six Weeks That Shook Morningside: A Special Report.” Spring 1968, p. 31

Introduction

John Jacobs was the founding father of Weatherman, the late 1960s ultra-radical spinoff from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). While Weatherman has enjoyed remarkably positive coverage in recent years, Jacobs has been virtually forgotten. One reason for that is that his rivals in the organization have been able to shape present-day perceptions of Weatherman; another is that he vanished after his expulsion from the group, relatively early in Weather’s history, never to reappear. His life is an interesting case study in Jewish revolutionary activism. (For a complementary view of Weatherman, see my previous article on Ted Gold.)

John Jacobs represents a vicious but relatively minor Jewish assault against Whites. This attack erupted out of the larger American Jewish body, at a time when the Jewish group as a whole was oriented in the same direction as Weatherman, but working with nonviolent means. The Jews in America had worked long and patiently to increase their power and to delegitimize American society in moral terms, but were not working to launch a direct attack.

Then a small group of youthful Jews formed Weatherman. At their head was John Jacobs, who led them in a frenzied attack on Whites. Although this first, premature, terroristic offensive came to a dead end, Weatherman foreshadowed a potentially far greater Jewish assault on White America.

Early Life

John Jacobs, often called “JJ,” was born in September 1947, one of two sons born to wealthy leftist Jews. His father, a former journalist, sent him to prep school in Vermont. There, Jacobs read deeply on the Russian Revolution, Marx, and Lenin in his spare time. He also became captivated by the revolutionary of the hour, Che Guevara. Jacobs’ interest in this area reveals a strong alienation from mainstream American culture — an entirely mainstream orientation among American Jews. The sources on Jacobs are sparse, but it is virtually certain he gained this cast of mind from his parents and perhaps other relatives, not from feelings of any real inequity in American society, especially since he came from an affluent background. Unlike many other 1960s radicals, he was a revolutionary from the beginning, not a reformer. In the fall of 1965 he entered Columbia University.[1] Read more

The Opioid Crisis: Media Complicity and Political Inaction

/36 Comments/in /by

It is undeniable that President Donald J. Trump has been a steadfast advocate for many White working-class Americans.  His ability to connect with them is often cited in the analysis of his victory in traditionally Democratic stronghold states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and of course the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which put him over the top in terms of electoral votes on election night.  He was able to advocate for their specific interests such as the revival of the coal mining industry, the revival of manufacturing, the renegotiation of trade deals and international agreements in order to provide economic opportunity to White American blue-collar workers, and a crackdown on illegal aliens who are in competition with White American workers.

While Trump was great on many issues pertaining to the American working-class during the campaign, he never really put emphasis on the opioid crisis which has been particularly damaging to the White working class.  An academic study by Anne Case and her husband, Nobel Prize-wining Angus Deaton of Princeton titled Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife among White non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century examines how the average mid-life mortality rates of Americans have decreased over time for every demographic group except for Whites.  According to the study, “Midlife increases in suicides and drug poisonings have been previously noted. However, that these upward trends were persistent and large enough to drive up all-cause midlife mortality has, to our knowledge, been overlooked.”  While the opioid crisis certainly effects people of all backgrounds across all fifty states, it has had a particularly strong effect on White people in America.  The study goes on to say, “The increase in midlife morbidity and mortality among US white non-Hispanics is only partly understood. The increased availability of opioid prescriptions for pain that began in the late 1990s has been widely noted, as has the associated mortality.”  The study clearly asserts that the opioid crisis has influenced the increasing mortality rates among Whites.  A staggering finding:

If the white mortality rate for ages 45−54 had held at their 1998 value, 96,000 deaths would have been avoided from 1999–2013, 7,000 in 2013 alone. If it had continued to decline at its previous (1979‒1998) rate, half a million deaths would have been avoided in the period 1999‒2013, comparable to lives lost in the US AIDS epidemic through mid-2015. Concurrent declines in self-reported health, mental health, and ability to work, increased reports of pain, and deteriorating measures of liver function all point to increasing midlife distress.

While there are many factors at work here, the ongoing opioid crisis cannot be overlooked. Read more

Thoughts on “Decolonization” as an Anti-White Discourse

/57 Comments/in , , , /by

Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard

Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden

Along with ‘Whiteness Studies’ and ‘Black Lives Matter,’ the concept of ‘decolonization’ is currently rampant in Western institutions of higher education. In the most recent example, academics at England’s University of Cambridge are considering how to implement a call from a small group of Black and leftist undergraduates to “decolonize” its English literature syllabus by taking in more Black and ethnic minority writers and bringing ‘post-colonial thought’ (a branch of critical theory) to its existing curriculum. Seen in the context of similar agitation at Yale last year, ongoing “Rhodes Must Fall” agitation in South Africa, the removal of portraits of White founders from King’s College London, and attacks on statues of prominent White historical figures in the United States, the ‘decolonization’ effort is clearly part of an escalating craze for removing White presence and reducing White space throughout the West. This reduction of White space is occurring in demographic, cultural, and even historical areas; the latter involving a ludicrous ‘Blackwashing’ of periods of European history which were overwhelmingly monocultural, with gross exaggerations of non-White presence in places like Roman Britain.

Today, White nations are being demonstrably colonized by non-Whites, White culture is increasingly marginalized (or dismissed as non-existent), and White history is being rewritten to support and advance the agenda of contemporary multiculturalism. Whites are thus abused as colonizers while simultaneously being subjected to an unprecedented and multifaceted colonization. This jarring incongruence between rhetoric and reality requires an interrogation of what is meant by terms like “colonize,” “empire,” and even “genocide,” particularly in regard to the political uses they have come to acquire, and also an interrogation of what we understand by historical processes of colonization. It is argued here that the growing clamor for ‘decolonization,’ like Whiteness studies, exists only to encourage and facilitate an aggressive anti-White discourse.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to attend a conference on ‘genocide studies,’ during which I was introduced to the work of the leading academic in this field, the Australian scholar A. Dirk Moses. Despite his last name (which apparently is also English and Welsh as well as Jewish), Moses evidences no discernible Jewish ancestry, his father John Moses being a notable Anglican priest and his mother Ingrid a full-blooded German from Lower Saxony. Moses has built his career around broad explorations of the themes of colonialism and genocide, and the relationship between the two. Although he wasn’t present at this particular conference, I was very much interested in those presentations concerning his work, which I have since come to regard as being generally of a very high quality and, most importantly, wide-ranging and devoid of the mawkish (not to mention mendacious) moralism that often saturates Jewish academic treatments of these themes. To my mind Moses remains one of the most essential writers on colonialism, conquest and genocide as perennial features of the human existence, and I would have a difficult time engaging in discussion on these subjects with someone unfamiliar with his work. Importantly, Moses argues that terms like “colonization” have fluid rather than fixed definitions, especially in their discursive usage, and stresses that the meaning of such terms as “colonization” and “imperialism” have rather been adapted in recent decades in order to facilitate a political agenda — to condemn European nations and to question Western moral legitimacy. Read more

Addictions:  An Example of the Interplay of the Public and Private

/47 Comments/in , /by

Very often, the opposite of a good thing to do is also a good thing to do.   Loving is a good thing to do, obviously.  But despite what whites are admonished to condemn and repress in themselves (by people who don’t mean well by them), loving’s opposite, hating, is also a good thing to do.   Some things — injustice, abuse, attacks against us and those we care about — deserve our hating them and acting accordingly.

There is a Pete Seeger song from the 1950s called “Turn! Turn! Turn!” that gets at this value-of-opposites idea.

To everything
There is a season
And a time to every purpose, under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together

Almost exclusively, white racial discourse has focused on public concerns: white identity and culture, historical and current realities, philosophical and ideological concepts, and proposals and strategies for collective action.  And that’s all well and good, keep it going.   But the argument here is that at the same time we’re doing that, let’s give attention to the opposite of a public focus: let’s look at things from a private, or personal or individual, frame of reference; and take note of the interplay of the public and private, how each affects the other.

The private concern I shine a light on here is addiction.  Not addiction as a problem for the society and culture as a whole — though it is good to look at it from that angle — but rather as a problem for individual people: for him and her and you and me.   Read more

The Folly of Civic Nationalism

/26 Comments/in /by

Civic nationalism — the idea that a nation is little more than an abstract set of ideas and not a group of people bound by blood. The idea that anybody, anywhere, can one day become an American. The idea that America is a homeland for all, and that we are all immigrants. The idea that if you replace the founding stock of the US, or any Western nation for that matter, with alien migrants, so long as the ideas remain, so too will the nation.

Civic nationalism: perhaps the largest gamble of all time.

The principal fallacy of civic nationalism is that the American and European ideal can be taught to non-Europeans. The principles and ethics that made our civilization great arose from European DNA. It was no mistake and no magic dirt. There is a reason certain ideals and political forms appeared in the Occident and nowhere else through the world. There is a reason non-Whites do not accept the truths we hold to be self-evident.

We can look at hard data to support the idea that there are big differences between Whites and non-Whites on a wide range of issues, and in particular on the fundamental question of the proper role of government. Non-Whites are more likely to believe that government control is more important than individual rights. A 2015 study found that 50% of Hispanics and 62% of Blacks in the US support hate speech laws that would make it illegal to make offensive comments, compared to 36% of Whites that would support such legislation.

Pew Research asked the question “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns, OR to control gun ownership?” 75% of Hispanics and 66% of Blacks felt that gun control was more important than protecting the right to own firearms. On the other hand, the majority of White Americans — 54% — answered that gun rights were more important than gun control. Sorted by party we see that 70% of Republicans, compared to 30% of Democrats answered that protecting gun rights was more important than gun control.

From these surveys we see very clearly that the ideas put forward in our Bill of Rights are upheld far more by the White majority than by Blacks or Hispanics. It is thus quite reasonable to think that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights can survive a non-White majority. The Founders understood this type of high-trust nation that afforded individuals tremendous freedom was predicated upon a White society. The phrases “for ourselves and our posterity” of the Constitution and “free white persons of good moral character” from the Naturalization Act of 1790, are quite explicit in envisioning a White future for the U.S.

Non-Whites are also far more likely to favor a government that provides lots of free stuff. Pew asked if people would prefer “a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services.” The results were striking. Of Blacks, 68% reported they would prefer a larger government with more services, compared to 35% of Whites. First-generation Hispanics answered at a colossal 81%, second-generation Hispanics at 72%, third-generation and greater, 58%, thus showing continued divergence from White norms. Second-generation Hispanics are actually more likely to identify as Democrats than first-generation Hispanics — meaning that the Republican pipe dream that migrants will someday be just like them is not based in reality.

So it’s reasonable to think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will not survive a non-White majority. As it stands, the current greatest threat to fundamental liberties and our way of life as Americans is not an opposing ideology, but an unnatural shift in demography.

There is a common misunderstanding that policy, not population, determines the outcome of a city or of a nation. The neo-Marxists liberal policies of San Francisco are not all that different from Camden, New Jersey. The type of ideology that governs Portland, Oregon, is arguably quite similar to that of St. Louis. While San Francisco and Portland are relatively safe, clean, and functioning, Camden and St. Louis are among the most dangerous cities in the world. This is not a result of politics, but a result of population. Functioning societies, like the one our forefathers designed, were predicated upon a high-trust, high-IQ, and hard-working population.

The heart of civic nationalism is the idea that a nation is a proposition, that we as Americans, are nothing but a disparate group loosely bound by the Constitution is a laughable notion both in theory and in practice. In theory, it means that any of the world’s seven billion inhabitants are simply Americans that have not yet migrated here. It means so long as their paperwork is filled out properly and they “believe” in the same values the nation was founded upon, anybody can become an instant American. In practice, we see that the majority of non-Whites do not even meet the most minimal of standards of what it means to be an American. Per their own admission, most do not believe in some of our most foundational principles, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms. These very basic ideas are often ungraspable abstractions to the foreign mind. In a sense, this can be articulated to mean that the descendants of our nation’s founding stock are the only true Americans, all others are paper citizens, mere guests in a foreign land.

Expansive liberties and minimal government intervention are predicated upon a White population. The type of liberty we were granted requires a certain level of self-reliance and tenacity. These are things that cannot be taught to the global masses. Foreigners are never going to be all that interested in free speech, or limited taxation and limited governments, or in the right to own firearms, because none of these things are a part of their culture, as they are not part of their DNA. These Western values are not mere abstractions or propositions, they are things that only exist in the West because they come from the Western mind.

If we remove our shared culture, which stems from race, our shared history, and our shared traditions, we no longer have a nation. We are left with nothing but a multinational corporation inhabitant by deracinated, atomized, and amorphous proles, meandering through life without an identity except perhaps as the fan of a certain football team or the owner of a certain model of car.

***

My views are often confronted with questions such as, “what about minorities (non-Whites) that voted Trump?” and “what about migrants that do very well in the USA such as Indians and East Asians?” I always reply, “what about them?” Citing to Indians, East Asians, Blacks, or Hispanics that fall on the far end of the bell-curve in no way repudiates their collective ethnic groups, nor can they make amends for the significant drain their people pose to our nation.

“Based” Latinos that voted Trump and champion “legal” migration are not our our allies. Legal migration is a globalist fiction to convince the European peoples that so long as it was government-sanctioned, the invasion of our homelands is justified. If 200 million “legal” Mexicans come to the USA, does that somehow make it any better when we are forced to live in North Mexico? Not at all. The English became a minority in London through “legal” migration, mind you. What those “based” Latinos are really saying, is they want to come to our homeland, benefit from the society we created, and ensure the erasure is slow enough that they do not experience the detrimental effects.

The idea that “high-skilled” migrants should be allowed to come to the US or Europe to work or to get an education is equally as absurd both in theory and practice. Indians, Africans, and Asians coming to the US to obtain advanced degrees are seen by most as a wonderful thing, and it is far from it.

I was struck by the incredible irony when a friend of mine described her recent trip to Africa as a part of a Doctors Without Borders group, to provide humanitarian health care. I asked if the group that she went with was mostly White. She was at first struck by the question, as most people are when anybody speaks candidly about race. The truth is, the majority of people who travel to Africa, India, and Asia to provide humanitarian aid, are White. The irony is that the top African, Indian, and Asian students routinely flock to the US, leaving behind their own homeland, abandoning their own people, so they may earn more money in the states. The same people that are often used as examples of American “success stories” are not only displacing native-born White Americans in medical programs at universities thanks to diversity quotas, they are also exacerbating the problem in their home nations. They leave behind their own tribe, simply to make more money. Motivated by pure greed. And then, the shortage of medical professionals all over the third world is supplemented by altruistic Whites, when the people who should be offering free medical care in those nations left years before so they may enjoy the material trappings of a White nation, live in a White neighborhood, and send their children to White schools.

***

Civic nationalists believe in the Emma Lazarus-Israel Zangwill-Emmanuel Celler-Horace Kallen version of America — no surprise, because they and people like them created and promoted the idea throughout the twentieth century. They promote the image of America as a melting pot or, more recently the idea that non-Whites retain their ethnic identities. They have the bizarre idea that the Founding Fathers mutually pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to each other to create a “homeland for all”. By doing so, they explicitly reject the Founding Fathers view of what it means to be an American, as well as nearly 175 years of law that limited immigration to Europeans.

At best, civic nationalist are people who think that paying taxes, which most migrants do not do, and feigning belief in a set of values will make you an American. At worst these soft-globalists believe that the Mexican kid born in Texas after his 9-month pregnant mom jumped the border, is every bit as American as somebody whose family fought in the Revolution.

The end result of civic nationalism is White families, paying a third of their income in taxes, so they can feed, house, clothe, and educate a family of seven Somalis, which will have twice the voting power as the White family that funded them. Civic nationalism is an ideology that suggests Somalis that fly into JFK airport, are picked up by their HIAS representative, and driven to their newly furnished apartment, are just as American as the person whose family came here on a 50-day boat ride from England with a few pence in their pockets.

Nobody, not even the most ardent open-border, globalist, rootless Liberal, would honestly suggest that Japan or Israel is merely a set of ideas and beliefs. Japan is the homeland of the Japanese people and Israel is the Jewish state. This seems rather obvious. Yet the same axiomatic truism is entirely abandoned when it comes to European nations. Decades of multicultural propaganda, suicidal immigration policies, and a widespread cover-up by the media and political elites have convinced several generations of Europeans that our ancestral homelands, are in no way ours. We are being told that the nations our forefathers created, defended, and died for, belong just as much to us, as they do to any of the world’s seven billion people who manage to wash upon our shores.

So-called conservatives are still hopelessly holding onto Leftists platitudes, “we are a nation of immigrants” and “diversity is our greatest strength.” These platitudes claim that because Europeans once migrated to the US, after a nation was created specifically for Europeans, by Anglo-nationalists, that we should allow unlimited Third World migration.

Democrats understand very well that they will never convince Whites to pass “hate speech” laws. The only way is to import enough non-White voters to get their agenda in place. The Left understands this on a visceral level. They know with no doubt in their minds, that the way to recreate this nation in their image, is to alter the demographics and to eviscerate the founding stock. Anybody on the Right that believes in the idea of civic nationalism, or any other nationalism aside from ethnic-nationalism, is either willfully blind or at heart nothing but soft-globalists.

Everything in politics and policy — and I mean everything — falls in the end comes down to race. Everything else is really quite secondary. Nations can survive famine, communism, plagues, war, pestilence, but they cannot survive mass-migration.

Beliefs alone do not make up a nation. We are a people bound by history, culture, heritage, and blood. If we are replaced, if the founding stock of America, or any other European nation is replaced with those who are nothing but paper citizens, mere visitors, and welfare tourists, the nation dies alongside the founding stock.