Leadership and the Vital Order: Selected Aphorisms by Hans Prinzhorn, Ph.D., M.D.

/in /by

Translated and edited by Joseph D. Pryce

Hans Prinzhorn

The enduring fame of German psychotherapist Hans Prinzhorn (1886–1933) is based almost entirely upon one book, Bildnerei der Geisteskranken (Artistry of the mentally ill), that brilliant and quite unprecedented monograph on the artistic productions of the mentally ill, which appeared in 1922. Sadly, it is too often forgotten that Hans Prinzhorn was the most brilliant and independent disciple of Germany’s greatest 20th-Century philosopher, Ludwig Klages (1872–1956).

Although Prinzhorn himself would have protested against the oblivion into which his mentor’s life’s work has fallen, it is a fact that Prinzhorn is still a major presence in the technical literature, whilst his hero, paradoxically, has been “killed by silence.” One should be thankful for even the smallest mercies.

Prinzhorn is even now a not inconsiderable presence in the field that he made his own, and he will remain a major figure, albeit a controversial one, in the field of psychology, as long as his discoveries are cherished and his insights developed as a living heritage by those who recognize, and are willing to repay, at least some small portion of the debt that scholarship still owes to his memory.

Humanitarian Demagogues, Egalitarian Rabble.  Whether today’s mechanistic and atomistic experiments with human beings originated in the Orient or in the Occident, the result is always the same: the tyranny of a clique in the name of the equality of all. And it is from this very tendency that the fantastic pipe dream of human individuals being reduced to the status of mere numbers arises. This wishful thinking is a symptom of the nihilistic Will to Power that conceals its true nature behind the cloak of such humanitarian ideals as humility, solicitude for the weak, the awakening of the oppressed masses, the plans for universal happiness, and the fever-swamp vision of perpetual progress. All of these lunatic projects invariably result in a demagogic assault on the part of the inferior rabble against the nobler type of human being. These mad projects, it need hardly be said, are always concocted in the name of “humanity,” in spite of the fact that decades earlier Nietzsche had conclusively demonstrated that it was the ressentiment, or “life-envy,” of those who feel themselves to be oppressed by fate that was at the root of all such tendencies. Indeed, it is even now quite difficult for the select few who have no wish to enroll themselves among the oppressed mob to understand the realities of their situation!

The Goals of Socialism.  When we set our goals in the direction of socialism, whether in the sphere of politics, of welfare work, or of the ideal community, the fanaticism that inspires the socialist is customarily tinged with Christianity. Thus the socialist urges the citizen to progress from wicked egoism to a more social attitude. Even when we ignore the social, religious, or political nature of the ideologue’s desiderata, there is one positive aspect to this development, for socialism at least directs our attention away from the tyrannical ego and towards the world that surrounds us, thus calling upon the only one of socialism’s fundamental motives that we can regard as positive and biologically sensible.

Characterological Truth vs. Psychoanalytical Error. The most extensive, pleasant, and (one might even say) amusing effects wrought by the application of the psychoanalytic treatment depended on the fact that the most wretched and feeble blockhead was now able to convince himself that he was equal to Goethe in that the instincts that played so decisive a role in the cretin’s development were identical with those that were operative in the case of Goethe, and it was only a malicious practical joke on the part of Destiny that permitted Goethe to find in poetry a congenial sublimation of his sexuality. 

The Psychopath and the Revolution.  We can hold out no hope whatever for the successful creation of the sort of community that is constructed by ideologists on the basis of purely rational considerations, for the projects that are hatched out in the mind of the rationalist are most definitely not analogous to the development of living forms in nature, no matter how often the contrary position has been proclaimed by false prophets. Thus, the delusive hopes that are cherished for the successful implementation of the simple-minded schemes of our socialist and humanitarian ideologists must fail in the future as they have always failed in the past. The only tangible result of these schemes has been to intoxicate the isolated psychopath with an egalitarian frenzy, from which his tormented ego awakens, more desperate than ever, in order to plunge once again, with ever-increasing violence, into his political ecstasies, into bellowing his eulogies to those nameless “masses” who are so dear to the ideologue that he has appointed them to be the sole beneficiaries of his activism, now that he has been made sufficiently mad by a nebulous and insatiable longing for “liberation.” But the “sham” anonymity, which functions effectively as the cloak for politicians who pretend to act in the name of “the masses,” can only benefit clever, robust, and willful politicians, such as those who rule the Soviet Union; the real psychopath, on the other hand, who often possesses a taste for novel sensations and who, perhaps, may also be seeking personal publicity, will never be able to conform to the prescriptions of such an icy, strict self-discipline.  As a result, he “breaks out,” and is soon overwhelmed by calamities from which he thinks he can only escape by resorting to even more violent attempts to achieve “liberation.” From the standpoint of psychology, the history of revolutions is very helpful to those who wish to increase their understanding of the “everyday” behavior—as well as the political actions—of his fellow human beings, not least to the physician who seeks enlightenment as to the nature of the motivations that drive men to perform violent deeds in situations to which they lend the halo of freedom, equality, and fraternity.

Heredity as Destiny (and Tabula Rasa as Sheer Nonsense).  The life-curve of an individual’s development is a single event, which arrays itself along the lines of irrevocable changes. Strictly speaking, therefore, every occurrence, no matter how insignificant, involves an irrevocable change: in life nothing can be reversed, nothing repudiated, nothing ventured without an attendant responsibility, nothing can be annihilated: that formula constitutes the biological basis of destiny. Just as the individual must accept his biological heritage as a whole, whether he likes it or not, in precisely the same fashion must he accept the pre-ordained pattern of obscure rhythms transpiring within him.

Today we have become tragically unconcerned with our biological destiny, to say nothing of the fact that we refuse to feel the slightest reverence to the sphere of life, to which we owe everything. …That very attitude accounts for the success that has greeted the claims advanced by Alfred Adler and his followers, who advance the dogma that the hitherto customary views on heredity are fundamentally false, since man is born as a tabula rasa whereon his environment makes impressions that, by means of education, one can direct at will, and according to the capacity of that will, toward any desired goal. Adler compounds his felony by claiming that there is no such thing as inborn talent or traits of disposition. …

It would be impossible to reject the principles of biological theory more absolutely than Adler and his cohorts have done. Even that which we understand by the old, almost obsolescent name of “temperament”—that which represents the sum-total of the somatically connected, permanent tendencies of an individual—even this link between the purely psychological and the purely somatic view is repudiated by Adler in his grotesquely teleological and hyper-rationalist construction. … Since there is no biological basis whatsoever for his stupendous assertions, one must seek for such a basis in another sphere, viz., the author’s ideology. Sure enough, we learn that Adler is a fanatical believer in the coming Utopia of socialism, and, as we all recognize, no Utopia can prosper until a faceless equality of disposition has been forced upon every individual by the ideological zealots who will run the show. Therefore I denounce the politically tendentious World-View that Adler and his apostles put forward as “science,” for it is a perfect example of nihilism passing itself off as scholarship, and no cloak of pedantic and prudent caution can hide the fact.

Genetic Endowment and Environmental Conditioning.  Upon his entry into individual existence, the human being’s development as a psychosomatic creature is determined as regards substance, capacity for expansion, and direction, in the first place by his genetic endowment as a whole; in the second place by his pre-natal environment; and lastly by the circumstances of his birth. That almost all the active factors rise and fall in varying phases, makes a rational interpretation and estimate of the state of things at any given moment impossible in the strictest sense of that word.

But the fact that such an admission of the difficulties that arise due to methodological limitations is exploited by false prophets in order to deceive the world as to the real nature of biological facts—usually in order to breathe some life into the defunct heresy of the infant born as a tabula rasa—is either a sad indication of their childish mentality or additional evidence that they are indulging their ideological proclivities in the wrong place. What Goethe described as “the law under which you entered the world,” what Kant, Schopenhauer, and others called the “intelligible character,” is the first unavoidable actuality that we must accept as the destiny of our being, and as the starting-point of all investigation and thinking that relates to the human being. All experience and all reasonable thinking drives us back to this basic fact.

Joseph Pryce (email him) is a writer and poet and translator from New York. He is author of the collection of mystical poems Mansions of Irkalla. His translation of the German philosopher Ludwig Klages’ work will be published shortly.

Gregory Rodriguez on White Racial Anxiety

/38 Comments/in , /by

There are signs that the left is beginning to realize that White dispossession is not going to happen without a few bumps in the road. Recently Gregory Rodriguez wrote in the LA Times:

I believe that white racial anxiety, not immigration, will be the most significant and potentially dangerous socio-demographic trend of the coming decade. The combination of changing demographics and symbolic political victories on the part of nonwhites will inspire in whites a greater racial consciousness, a growing sense of beleagurement and louder calls to end affirmative action or to be included in it.

He’s right, except for the ridiculous implication that immigration is not the fundamental issue. After all, it was immigration that has resulted in the affirmative action crisis–along with  a host of other costs to White America, including the very real prospect that a hostile non-White coalition will be able to shape public policy against the interests of Whites. Even without affirmative action, Whites will suffer as all the other costs of ethnic diversity escalate–increasing ethnic conflict, less civic mindedness, greater psychological alienation.

Rodriguez proposes that Whites will be happy if affirmative action is ended:

I am so convinced of [impending White racial consciousness] that I think to avoid a destructive white backlash in the face of a rapidly diversifying society, the president should call for an end to affirmative action. In a “Nixon goes to China” sort of way, Obama — by virtue of his racial background, party affiliation and political temperament — is better poised to pull off such a difficult task more gracefully than any other politician.

Whites would indeed like to see an end to affirmative action, but that won’t be enough to save them from all the other costs of immigration noted above. Predictably, Rodriguez asserts (with no supporting data) that Whites have not suffered from affirmative action. (For some real data, see the National Policy Institute’s report, “The Costs of Diversity“; see also “Jewish Qverrepresentation at Elite Universities Explained” showing that already Whites are vastly underrepresented at elite institutions on the basis of IQ.) And the reality is that elites have been able to preserve affirmative action even in the face of laws that forbid it, as in California where there has been endless tinkering with university admissions criteria aimed at increasing Black and Latino admissions to the University of California.

Quite simply, because of lower average IQ, Blacks and Latinos can’t do without affirmative action; their percentage representation in elite institutions based on intellectual merit would be nil. (See “End Affirmative Action, End the Black Upper Class: The Case of Law“) So the pressure for affirmative action will continue far into the future, with the result that Whites will be increasingly caught between affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos on the low end, and Asians and Jews on the high end–all exacerbated by the exploding non-White population and ethnic networking by highly ethnocentric minority groups.

For the left, there’s no going back. The only solution is to continue to pathologize White racial consciousness and keep the costs to Whites of our multi-racial future out of the media.

Bookmark and Share

Hans Prinzhorn’s Aphorisms

/10 Comments/in , /by

The current TOO article is an introduction to the thought of Hans Prinzhorn, a German (“Leadership and the Vital Order: Selected Aphorisms by Hans Prinzhorn,” translated by Joseph D. Pryce). Quite a few of his ideas resonate with recent essays here. Perhaps most central is this:

We can hold out no hope whatever for the successful creation of the sort of community that is constructed by ideologists on the basis of purely rational considerations, for the projects that are hatched out in the mind of the rationalist are most definitely not analogous to the development of living forms in nature, no matter how often the contrary position has been proclaimed by false prophets.

Prinzhorn is warning about the creation of blueprints for society without any concern for human nature. In the language of current psychology, intellectuals have constructed various utopian scenarios, taking advantage of explicit processing and often ignoring our evolved psychology (my academic version is here; see particularly the Discussion section).

Prinzhorn is also quite aware that these blueprints for utopian societies are typically couched in moral terms, historically often with a large flavor of Christianity–“the nihilistic Will to Power that conceals its true nature behind the cloak of such humanitarian ideals as humility, solicitude for the weak, the awakening of the oppressed masses, the plans for universal happiness, and the fever-swamp vision of perpetual progress.” As noted especially with the Puritans and their descendants, these moral prescriptions have a unique appeal to Western peoples–an aspect of Western individualism and concomitant moral universalism.

Reflecting the concerns of his time, Prinzhorn is most concerned with socialism, seeing it as “demagogic assault on the part of the inferior rabble against the nobler type of human being.” In our time, the greatest concern is the invasion of traditionally White nations by massive numbers of non-Whites.

This raises an interesting issue:  White advocates tend to gloss over social class and  IQ differences among Whites, seeing Whites as having interests in common as Whites. National Socialism bridged this gap, seeing the society as an organic whole based ultimately on a long cultural tradition and shared biological kinship, while nevertheless preserving a hierarchical structure of inclusiveness for all social classes. Because of the appeal of National Socialism to the German working class, the left shifted gears: In the post-World War II era, the most influential intellectual movements (e.g., the Frankfurt School, the New York Intellectuals, and pretty much the entire intellectual left) have championed mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the dispossession of Whites.

It is no accident that the  White working class has suffered the most from these changes–or that they are the most angered by the current regime. Nor is it an accident that this shift toward White dispossession by the left was championed mainly by Jewish intellectual movements given the very strong overtones of anti-Semitism characteristic of National Socialism and its conception of society based on blood kinship with roots in traditional German culture.

The result is a new elite, substantially Jewish but with a considerable component of deracinated Whites–many of them people like the sociopathic Morris Dees whose championing of  “oppressed” non-Whites has paid off handsomely for himself (see Steve Sailer’s “Morris Dees’ Poverty Palace“).

The question now is whether this new utopia of multiculturalism premised on White dispossession will ultimately fail because of the lack of fit with our evolved psychology–as Prinzhorn suggests. The research strongly suggests that multi-ethnic societies have a number of built-in costs–particularly greater conflict, greater psychological alienation from the society as a whole, and less willingness to contribute to public goods like health care.

There are signs that the left is beginning to be aware that the utopian transformations they have in mind are not going to be easily achieved in the long run and that there is a backlash brewing from dispossessed Whites. Nevertheless, for the left there is no going back–only an increasing commitment to manage these tensions, by force if need be.

Bookmark and Share

The Tribe, the Outsider and the Scapegoat

/in /by

The leftist Mommy State now growing like a cancer in the U.S. wants to force all the boys and girls to share and get along. That may sort of work with five-year-olds, although not very well as any parent will attest, but it doesn’t work at all with adults.

These days, forcing the boys and girls to “share” and “get along” is called “multiculturalism.” It has never worked in the past, anywhere. It doesn’t work now, anywhere, and it won’t in the future, ever. There are many reasons why it doesn’t work, but I think the simplest is what I call the Tribe, the Outsider and the Scapegoat.

Human nature is such that people instinctively gather into tribes. Every living creature, from ants to elephants, does it; why should people be any different?

This tribalism will never go away, so there is no way around accepting it, although many try not to. People want community, and that community involves being with people like them, or who they like. This has to be dealt with, which is something libertarians rarely do because of their obsession with “the individual.”

“Tribes” may be a primitive term, but it was applicable not only in the past but also certainly today. You might want to call them “ethnic groups” or “nations” instead. It doesn’t matter. They’re still tribes, whether they’re big or little, powerful or weak.

Problems arise because every tribe in the past has, with monotonous regularity, because of our inborn narcissism, grandiosely called itself “the People” or “the Humans.” Anyone outside the tribe was, obviously, devalued into being non-People and non-Human. That gives a foot in the door to murdering them.

All tribes today still consider themselves “the Humans,” even though they use different words. No country today is going to call itself “the United States of All Humans” or “The Union of All People, and Everyone Outside Isn’t,” but all countries will say God has chosen them and is on their side, which logically means the Other Guy is on the other tribe’s side. That’s saying the same thing as “We’re human, and you ain’t.”

During World War II, for example, the Russians spoke of “Holy Mother Russia,” which implied that God had chosen Russia. Their opponents, necessarily, had to have the Devil on theirs. We’re the People; you’re the Unpeople!

Their opponents, the Germans, did the same thing the Russians did, when they talked of the “Fatherland” (and today, for us, ominously, it’s the “Homeland”).

German soldiers used to march into battle with “Gott mit uns” on their belt buckles, I suppose as a magic talisman to stop bullets. The question is: on whose side was God during the battle of Stalingrad, where both sides lost, combined, more soldiers than America has lost in all of its wars? The answer: neither.

It’s painfully obvious that a grandiose certainty that God is on your side does not equal God being on your side, even if Jerry Falwell believes it. Neither does it mean your tribe is human and the other is not, even if you think God told you that. A movie example that comes to mind: I remember watching a Japanese officer, in The Last Emperor, exclaim, “The Japanese are the only divine race!” Later, when Russian soldiers closed in on him, he scrambled his brains with a pistol bullet. Self-proclaimed divinity always has a price, never a good one.

People in the U.S., cultural differences aside, are in some essential ways no different than people anywhere else. All people have a shared human nature, and in some ways it’s not such a good one.

People say, “God bless America.” It’s never, God bless another country; it’s always, God bless America. God should keep America’s soldiers safe, but never any other country’s. Our soldiers should be saved by God; their soldiers should die. Is that any different than those German soldiers with their talismans? Why should God bless America if America does not follow God’s laws? It should be so simply because we, in our magical thinking, believe it should be so?

It’s all pretty grandiose. It’s assuming Americans are the Chosen, just as every tribe in the past has thought it was the Chosen. They weren’t, and neither are we. Other tribes are full of humans, even if we pretend they aren’t and act as if their deaths mean nothing and are just the “collateral damage” that always happens in war.

The biggest problem, though, is that every tribe projects its problems onto the outsider. There are, not surprisingly, two archetypes in literature called the Scapegoat and the Outsider. Often — maybe always — they are the one and the same.

The most famous, or maybe infamous, story about the Outsider and the Scapegoat is Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery, which everyone in the recent past had to read in middle school. Every year, someone was chosen as a scapegoat, which made them an outsider to be stoned to death. It was an example of scapegoating always leading to human sacrifice, of projecting “badness” on someone and then killing them, in order to “save” the tribe.

The human sacrifice in Jackson’s story is also a fertility rite, which scapegoating and sacrifice always are: once we kill them, our culture will be renewed and reborn, since the “evil ones” will have been eradicated. This is why to the Greeks Dionysius was a fertility god, and why the Aztecs ripped the hearts out of hundreds of thousands of people. They thought it made their crops grow.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The well-known novel that best illustrates the Tribe, the Outsider and the Scapegoat (and fertility rites) is that psychopathology textbook known as Atlas Shrugged. Rand’s grandiose and god-like heroes withdraw into their retreat and, being perfect, have to project their unacknowledged flaws onto the Outsiders and Scapegoats — her “looters” and “parasites.”

These Outsiders/Scapegoats then collapse into a Dionysian frenzy of self-destruction, and after it’s over, Rand’s heroes come out into a plowed-under world where they can plant their seeds of reason, selfishness and capitalism.

Since every tribe grandiosely considers itself “good,” all “evil” must be projected elsewhere. If one tribe considers itself human and good and chosen by God, then the other tribe, the outsider, must necessarily be evil, sub-human, and of the Devil.

Maybe we don’t consciously believe it, but emotionally we do. It’s why many people don’t care — indeed sometimes even cheer — if foreigners die in wars. Then we act shocked when foreigners cheer when we die, the way some cheered about 9-11. How dare they act like us! Since we are good, they must be evil!

It was horrible that nearly 3000 innocent people were murdered on 9-11, but was it was a good thing the federal government murdered all those people in Vietnam, Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq? But since they were outside our tribe, they don’t really count, and sacrificing and killing them doesn’t matter because it was to “liberate” them.

Today in the U.S. you can see our tribe projecting certain of its problems on the outsider. The U.S. attacked Iraq twice when it didn’t attack us, then blockaded the country and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It then placed troops in Saudi Arabia, and supported Israel uncritically no matter what it did. We did this because we are “good,” at least in our tribe’s collective groupthink mind, if not in the mind of other tribes.

And since scapegoating and human sacrifice are always fertility rites, bombing and destroying other countries is of course supposed to make them be reborn and “grow” right — usually by trying to seed them with democracy and feminism.

When resentment, envy, anger and hate sent blowback our way on 9-11, we denied the bad things we had done to others, and instead claimed our attackers had to be “evil,” and attacked us because we are “good.” Maybe things are that simple in the childish, Black-and-White fantasy of Bizarro World, but certainly not in reality.

It’s bad enough to have different tribes in different countries get into wars, but when tribes in the same country fight, that is a prescription for national suicide. And multiculturalism, if it is anything, is several ethnically-different tribes warring over the same land and for political power, which is power over others. It is therefore an attempt at national suicide.

Each tribe is going to grandiosely call itself “the Humans” in some form, then deny its flaws and instead project them onto the devalued other, which it will want to remove or murder. Each tribe will also try to use other tribes as fertilizer, to make their own tribe and its culture grow and prosper.

Every empire in the past has fallen not because of attacks from the outside, but because of attacks from the inside. Once the barbarians are inside the gate it’s harder to remove them. They may claim they’re not barbarians, but apparently the Greek story of the Trojan Horse isn’t taught to Americans in school anymore.

Some examples of tribal warfare? How about “Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan,” whose motto is “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” It translates as, “Everything for the race. Everything outside the race, nothing.” That’s clearly grandiose, and fits exactly the idea of one tribe denying its flaws and projecting them onto a devalued other. It is projection/scapegoating leading to human sacrifice. They’re the cause of our problems, not us. Remove them or rub them out!

Another example in the U.S.? In the original teachings of the Nation of Islam (related to Islam in name only) Blacks are gods, the original men, and Whites are devils. Guess who’s completely to blame for the problems of the former? You’ve got it. It’s just another example of “Since we are good, you must be evil and the cause of our problems, so we must eradicate you.” Denial and projection. Lies (to oneself and to others) followed by scapegoating and human sacrifice.

People will always define themselves not just as individuals but as part of family, nation, religion. If large enough different groups of people try to share the same land and vie for political power, each is going to define itself as good, the others as bad, then deny its own flaws and instead project their problems on those defined as outsiders. Leftists who support multiculturalism don’t merely misunderstand human nature but instead don’t understand it at all, not when they believe several large tribes can co-exist peacefully on the same land.

The only way that different tribes can occupy the same land is if one is tribe is 95% of the population, and the other tribe is five percent. But four tribes that are each one-fourth of the population – say, Black, White, Yellow and Brown? There has never been a society in the history of the world that has survived such an attempt.

The problem is made far worse when the State gets involved, because each group will fight for political power to protect itself and hurt the other. Each group will try to capture the State to use for its own purposes, which involves removing the others, or, ultimately, killing them.

State-sponsored “multiculturalism,” a misguided attempt to force different tribes to get along on the same land, will, as it always does when the State gets involved, have the exact opposite effect: it will make them fight even more, to the detriment of those involved, and, ultimately, the nation. Not only are the boys and girls not going to share and get along, they’re going to get into constant vicious, bloody, murderous brawls.

Bob Wallace (email him) has a degree in Mass Communications and is a former newspaper reporter and editor. He writes occasionally about economics and cultural issues.

Christoper Donovan: Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as 'Disgruntled Man' by Media

/98 Comments/in /by
In Connecticut the other day, a black employee of a beer distributorship shot and killed 8 presumably white employees.  I say “presumably”, because his quip was “I killed the five racists that was there bothering me.”
 
Yet the majority of the MSM totally underplayed the racial angle, for reasons everyone by now understands:  the killer was black, and the victims were white.  My own local newspaper made absolutely no mention of the racial element in the small brief it ran.  But given that race was what (rightly or wrongly) drove the entire incident, the media’s censorship of this is a gross dereliction of duty. 
 
Here’s the AP’s take.
 
(As usual, the commenters inject the common sense that the media won’t give on its own.  Just look at the first five comments alone:  all of them note the double standard against whites and the underplaying of the story.  They don’t differ much from the comments on American Renaissance or this website.)
 
Readers are deprived of any understanding of what happened.  Importantly for whites, what would have been a story that balanced the “whites are bad, blacks are good” media line is kept away from them, thus rendering them poorly equipped in the policy debates and ultimately, less physically safe.  In other words, the media, through its unfair treatment of whites, is actually contributing to whites’ exposure to physical danger. 
 
Worse than underplaying it, some media outlets even attempted to spin the black murderer as a hero for having cut down “racists” in the workplace.  From CBS news,  Manchester, Conn. (CBS/WFSB/AP) (Omar Thornton: “I Killed the Five Racists“):
Family members say Omar Thornton, the man suspected in the Tuesday morning massacre at Hartford Distributors, was a quiet, hard-working man who wasn’t a violent person, but was pushed to the breaking point by harassment at work. 
Nobody, of course, is questioning the “racism” of these Connecticut workers (yes, Connecticut, home of so many bloodthirsty white racists).  Yet we do get the trickle of information that the killer was videotaped stealing beer, and had been confronted over it.  I can tell you that plenty of blacks are so steeped in racial entitlement that they would consider someone who merely confronted them over a crime they actually committed to be a “racist”, i.e., anyone who dares challenge their right to steal.  It’s a safe bet the killer fit this category.  Given how difficult it is to fire a black worker (lawsuits come quick), he must have been an inveterate troublemaker.
 
I also doubt that he would have found a hanging noose, given that this type of incident is frequently faked or claimed in order to engender sympathy.  There also doesn’t seem to be an prior reporting of this incident.
 
By now it should go without saying that a white employee who targeted 8 blacks for killing would be automatically termed a “white supremacist.”
 
Whites need to understand that media can spin any set of facts to fit its anti-white agenda — even the horrific killing of 8 whites by a black supremacist.  The bigger picture, of course, is a society in which most of the elite institutions — the media, government, academia — is populated by Jews, non-whites and liberal whites who seek the total submission of whites.  As the Connecticut shooting shows, whites face more than political or cultural dispossession and displacement — they face literal death.

Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly: American Government versus the People

/17 Comments/in , /by

Edmund Connelly:  Five or six years ago, I saw some kind of film purportedly showing the mass execution of scores of Eastern Europeans by a cadre of cold-blooded murderers. I didn’t know about YouTube then, so I can’t say if that was the source.

In the film clip, lines of naked Whites, mostly blond haired, were brought into a cellar in pairs and threes, lined up against a wall, and given bullets to the back of the skull. The floor was, needless to say, awash in blood. It was a singularly chilling image, and I wish I had never seen it.

What was truly shocking was the fact that the victims behaved in such a sheep-like manner. It seemed obvious what their fate was, yet these young men and women meekly awaited their turn to die. Only one White, a young woman, even protested while being lined up against the wall in the cellar.

The way it was shown, the Whites were generally tall and lanky, while the dark-clad executioners were short, stocky, and looked stereotypically Jewish. One executioner seemed to find his job almost amusing.

The point of the film clip was to “prove” that Bolsheviks had without compunction systematically massacred untold numbers of Eastern Europeans. Again, I have no idea whatsoever of the veracity of the film, so I would never claim it proves anything.

Thus it was with the shock of recognition when I finally read Yuri Slezkine’s powerful 2004 book The Jewish Century. In it, Slezkine unabashedly paints a picture of Jewish killers nearly as vivid as in the above film.

We read that during the Red Terror in Russia, some expressed shock that seemingly pacifistic Jews changed almost overnight: “We were amazed by what we had least expected to encounter among the Jews: cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical, warlike activity; those who yesterday did not know how to use a gun are now found among the executioners and cutthroats.” 

Slezkine also describes a “formerly oppressed lover of liberty [who] had turned into a tyrant of ‘unheard-of despotic arbitrariness.’” He had been “transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness.” He could now be pictured as “standing in a Cheka basement doing ‘bloody but honorable revolutionary work.’”    

Most succinctly, Slezkine writes, “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.” Estimates are that up to twenty million non-Jews died during that horrendous period.  

It is with this as a background that I read a recent comment by an acquaintance whom I respect. In the course of discussing how even the even American military is pushing “diversity” at the expense of getting the absolute best recruits, she wrote, “Since one of my nightmares is that the US Army will one day be ordered to gun down Americans, I am not too distressed to learn that incompetence is selected.” 

That took me by surprise because this person is not the excitable type and doesn’t relish hyperbole. Chillingly, it also resonated with a thread I found among last week’s VDARE columnists. 

For example, Pat Buchanan wrote that “In communist countries in the Cold War, all understood that the government did not represent the people. The state was at war with the nation. That idea is taking root in America — the idea that our government no longer seeks to represent us.” 

That’s probably putting it mildly. Paul Craig Roberts, back at the keyboard he had sworn to abandon, wrote more ominously about America’s likely future:

The Roman Empire lasted for centuries. The American one collapsed overnight. Rome’s corruption became the strength of her enemies, and the Western Empire was overrun. America’s collapse occurred when government ceased to represent the people and became the instrument of a private oligarchy. Decisions were made in behalf of short-term profits for the few at the expense of unmanageable liabilities for the many. Overwhelmed by liabilities, the government collapsed. 

Robertson added elsewhere, “On July 12, Niall Ferguson, an historian of empire, warned that the American empire could collapse suddenly from weakness brought on by its massive debts and that such a collapse could be closer than we think.”

Finally, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, Ph.D., quoted this comment on VDARE:

Skousen also chides the Post report for failing “to show how connected certain companies are to the mercenary contractor explosion that is growing into a force that will eventually be used to threaten individual liberties at home. The Powers That Be don’t need to hire foreign armies to clamp down on American dissidents. They are training hundreds of thousands of mercenary Americans to do it and using foreign wars to sort out who is ruthless enough or unprincipled enough to take orders without questions—similar to the way the Nazis sorted and selected those who would form the Brownshirt and SS brigades.”

I mostly certainly hope all these observers are wrong and that life may continue in America without state-sponsored terror. Unfortunately, evidence is appearing that makes more than a few of us nervous.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: What Can't The Media Spin Into a Story on 'Hate Groups'?

/10 Comments/in , /by
In Central Pennsylvania recently, a white attorney was shot and killed at a public rifle range, and his customized weapon taken.  Two white men were arrested and charged, and one said he was helping an “unnamed group” that sought to overthrow the government. (See here.)
 
I was personally amazed that the local newspaper took a whole 24 hours before reaching out the Southern Poverty Law Center — and then didn’t even get a call back.  With all their millions, you’d think they’d have a 24-hour media hotline set up for a quick quote.
 
The story is depressingly rote, with the reporters following the tight script of American journalism:  any incident involving white men and guns is tied to the KKK, the neo-Nazis and Timothy McVeigh. 
 
What if the media took a similar tack with blacks, Hispanics or Jews?
 
A black man is charged with robbing a white couple.  This comes just days after the NAACP called for America to treat blacks with more fairness.  Experts are convinced the two are related.  ‘When you create an atmosphere of that much hate, that much intolerance, and that much grievance, things like this are bound to happen’, said the expert.  “We even have a black president who said that the civil rights movement didn’t go far enough.  With those kinds of messages coming from the top, whites are just sitting ducks for black violence.” …
 
Three Hispanics entered the country illegally the other day.  Meanwhile, a supremacist group called ‘La Raza‘ has been loudly agitating for amnesty for illegal aliens.  Experts think there’s a connection, and the potential for violence grows every day. …
 
Nationally, hate experts have traced the rise of Israel, a supremacist state in the Middle East, to an active network of lobbyists and fundraisers — almost all of them Jewish, and many in the United States. 
Sigh.  I’m not holding my breath.

Bookmark and Share