Kevin MacDonald: Chapter 5 of 200 Years Together: “After the Murder of Alexander II”

/18 Comments/in , /by

Chapter 5 of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together: “After the Murder of Alexander II” has now been translated and is the topic of the current TOO article. Again, the project is worthy of financial support for the translators. (I am not involved except as publicizing and commenting on the chapters.) This is an important background chapter for thinking about the Jewish role leading up to and after the Bolshevik Revolution. I encourage comments here. Kevin M

Bookmark and Share

Chapter 5 of 200 Years Together: “After the Murder of Alexander II”

/1 Comment/in /by

Solzhenitsyn’s Chapter 5 (“After the Murder of Alexander II”) recounts the important period after the assassination of Tsar Alexandar II in 1881. (See here.Donations for the translators are much needed.) The assassination inaugurated a period of anti-Jewish pogroms, restrictions on Jews, and an upsurge of Jewish involvement in revolutionary activities. Solzhenitsyn’s treatment is highly reminiscent of Albert Lindemann’s treatment in Esau’s Tears and in his The Jew Accused in its dismissal of the apologetic accounts written by Jewish historians and in his portrayal of the very real difficulties faced by the Russian government in dealing with its Jewish population. In general, the tensions between Jews and non-Jews recounted here reflect traditional anti-Jewish themes, particularly Jewish economic domination, but there are also themes peculiar to the rise of the Jews as an educated elite that were widespread in Europe at the time. We also see here the theme of Jewish involvement in revolutionary political radicalism which culminated in the revolution of 1917.

Apologetic accounts of the period by Jewish activist historians and organizations have painted the Russian government as the epitome of evil. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration that the entire organized Jewish community in Western Europe and America acted to thwart Russian interests throughout the entire period from 1881 to 1917—most notably the role of Jacob Schiff in financing the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905.

Solzhenitsyn points out that there was no government complicity in the anti-Jewish actions, although the government response was limited by the small number of Russian police at the time. Indeed, the official government view was that pogroms were the result of agitators bent on revolution and therefore naturally viewed negatively by the government. Alexander III is quoted in reaction a report of leniency toward pogromists by the authorities that “This is inexcusable.” Records unearthed after 1917 revealed that Alexander III “demanded an energetic investigation.”

Nevertheless, the myth that the Russian government had organized the pogroms was propagated and can still be found in Jewish publications — along with the slander that Alexander personally hated the Jews.

Jewish sources also exaggerated the number of victims — one “frequently published” source claiming the “rape of women, murder, and maiming of thousands of men, women, and children.”  These sources claimed that “these riots were inspired … by the very government [that] had incited the pogromists and hindered the Jews in their self-defense.” Goldwin Smith, a prominent 19th-century historian with decidedly anti-Jewish views (not cited by Solzhenitsyn), noted that a publication distributed by the Jewish community in England contained claims of many atrocities for which there was no evidence. (The publication was influential in swaying British opinion.) These alleged crimes included roasting infants alive and mass rapes, including some in which Christian women held down Jewesses being raped by Christian men. The leaflet claimed that entire streets had been razed and entire Jewish quarters put to the torch. Smith states that based on reports of British consuls in the area, “though the riots were deplorable and criminal, the Jewish account was in most cases exaggerated, and in some to an extravagant extent. The damage to Jewish property at Odessa, rated in the Jewish account at 1,137,381 rubles, or according to their higher estimates, 3,000,000 rubles, was rated, Consul-General Stanley tells us, by a respectable Jew on the spot at 50,000 rubles, while the Consul-General himself rates it at 20,000” (Goldwyn Smith (1894). Essays on Questions of the Day, 1894, 2nd ed. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press; reprinted in 1972, p. 243).

The agitators were motivated by Jewish economic domination. A well-known leaflet from 1881 read:

Who seized the land, forests, and taverns?—The Yid—From whom, muzhik (peasant), do you have to ask for access to your land, at times hiding tears?…From yids.—Wherever you look, wherever you ask—the yids are everywhere. The Yid insults people and cheats them; drinks their blood”…and it concludes with the appeal: “Honest working people! Free yourselves!

Another leaflet explained that the pogroms were “not against the Jews as Jews, but against Yids; that is, exploiter peoples.” Rather than simply rejecting this explanation, Solzhenitsyn presents a sympathetic portrayal of I. S. Aksakov, a contemporary defender of the pogromists, who ascribed their actions as stemming from “a kind of simple-hearted conviction in the justness of their actions”; the question is “not about Jews enjoying equal rights with Christians, but about the equal rights of Christians with Jews, about abolishing factual inequality of the Russian population in the face of the Jews.”

A government minister, Nikolay Ignatyev, described the problem:

“Recognizing the harm to the Christian population from the Jewish economic activity, their tribal exclusivity and religious fanaticism, in the last 20 years the government has tried to blend the Jews with the rest of the population using a whole row of initiatives, and has almost made the Jews equal in rights with the native inhabitants.” However, the present anti-Jewish movement “incontrovertibly proves, that despite all the efforts of the government, the relations between the Jews and the native population of these regions remain abnormal as in the past,” because of the economic issues: after the easing of civil restrictions, the Jews have not only seized commerce and trade, but they have acquired significant landed property. “Moreover, because of their cohesion and solidarity, they have, with few exceptions, directed all their efforts not toward the increase of the productive strength of the state, but primarily toward the exploitation of the poorest classes of the surrounding population.” And now, after we have crushed the disorders and defended the Jews from violence, “it seems ‘just and urgent to adopt no less energetic measures for the elimination of these abnormal conditions…between the native inhabitants and the Jews, and to protect the population from that harmful activity of the Jews.’”

This is an excellent encapsulation of the traits of Jewish groups in traditional societies: Tribal exclusivity, religious fanaticism, and group cohesion (ethnic networking) resulting in economic domination, especially over the poorer classes and often in collusion with elites. Together these traits amount to a group evolutionary strategy. In this case, however, the Russian government refused to ally itself with the Jews and attempted “to protect the population from that harmful activity of the Jews.” Hence the conflict between the Russian government and the international Jewish community from 1881 to 1917.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Solzhenitsyn vigorously defends the claim that the motive of the government was to protect the rural population from the Jews. The May Regulations instituted in the wake of the pogroms prevented further settlement of Jews in non-Jewish towns (the ones already there could remain) and restricted Jewish economic activity, particularly the wine trade. The government’s protective motive is clear: “The government stood before a difficult choice: to expand the wine industry in the face of peasant proneness [to drunkeness] and thus to deepen the peasant poverty, or to restrict the free growth of this trade by letting the Jews already living in the villages to remain while stopping others from coming. And that choice—restriction—was deemed cruel.” Indeed, “today these May Regulations are portrayed as a decisive and irrevocably repressive boundary of Russian history.”

Notice particularly the claim by the minister (and supported by Solzhenitsyn) that Jews “directed all their efforts not toward the increase of the productive strength of the state, but primarily toward the exploitation of the poorest classes of the surrounding population.”Jewish economic activity was exploitative and destructive, resulting in impoverishing the peasants and exploiting their weakness for alcohol. A common Jewish attitude is that Jews made great contributions to the economic well-being of the society wherever there were large numbers of Jews. Whatever the plausibility of such a view in different times and places, it was certainly not the case here. As I noted elsewhere,

many examples of historical anti-Semitism involved animosity resulting from the oppressive nature of economic relationships between the ethnic groups—from a perceived need for greater reciprocity and less exploitation. Having merchants and moneylenders may be necessary, but lowering the fraction of total income of moneylenders and their aristocratic patrons would be in the interests of debtors and may also conform to normative notions of economic justice (especially if these are well-paid occupations). Historically, Jews were often concentrated in ethnic niches such as moneylending, tax farming, and estate management—occupations that were exploitative. In traditional societies these activities were not part of a market economy but an aspect of exploitation by elites. … In the Middle Ages and down to the twentieth century in much of Eastern Europe, the great majority of loans were made to people living at or near subsistence, and they were made at exorbitant rates. There was often no free market in moneylending; typically, moneylenders obtained the right to engage in these activities as a result of being granted a franchise by a nobleman or a city which received a portion of the profits. The moneylenders then charged whatever they thought they could obtain from their customers, with the exception that interest rates were sometimes capped because of complaints by ruined debtors.

Loans made at interest rates common in the Middle Ages (oftentimes 33%–65%) are simply exploitative, and there is little wonder that they caused hatred on the part of ruined debtors and deep concern on the part of the Church. Moneylending under these circumstances did indeed benefit moneylenders and their aristocratic backers, but, as with loan-sharking today, it simply resulted in destitution for the vast majority of the customers—especially the poorer classes—rather than economic growth for the society as a whole. Loans were made to the desperate, the unintelligent, and the profligate rather to people with good economic prospects who would invest their money to create economic growth; they were made “not to the prosperous farmer…but the farmer who could not make ends meet; not the successful squire, but the waster; the peasant, not when his crops were good, but when the failed; the artisan, not when he sold his wares, but when he could not find a market. Not unnaturally, a century of such a system was more than any community could stand, and the story of Jewish usury is a continuous alternation of invitation, protection, protestation and condemnation.”

Another exploitative Jewish economic niche was the arenda system in Eastern Europe, in which Jewish estate managers were motivated to exploit their subjects as much as possible during the period of the lease. In the arenda system, a Jewish agent would lease an estate from a nobleman. In return for a set fee, the leaseholder would have the right to all the economic production of the estate and would also retain control of the feudal rights (including onerous forced labor requirements) over its inhabitants:

In this way, the Jewish arendator became the master of life and death over the population of entire districts, and having nothing but a short-term and purely financial interest in the relationship, was faced with the irresistible temptation to pare his temporary subjects to the bone. On the noble estates he tended to put his relatives and co-religionists in charge of the flour-mill, the brewery, and in particular of the lord’s taverns where by custom the peasants were obliged to drink. On the church estates, he became the collector of all ecclesiastical dues, standing by the church door for his payment from tithe-payers, baptized infants, newly-weds, and mourners. On the [royal] estates…, he became in effect the Crown Agent, farming out the tolls, taxes, and courts, and adorning his oppressions with all the dignity of royal authority.20

Such a system approximates slavery, the only difference being that serfs are tied to the land while slaves can be freely bought and sold. In such systems, there is little motivation to work, and productivity is relatively low.21

The May Regulations resulted in Jewish hatred toward the government and an upsurge in Jewish revolutionary activity culminating in the Bolshevik Revolution. “Although the pogroms originated mainly with the Ukrainian population, the Russians have not been forgiven and the pogroms have always been tied with the name of Russia.” Jewish organizations in the rest of the world therefore opposed Russia, often resulting in charges of disloyalty because the Jewish desire to improve the treatment of Russian Jews conflicted with the national interests of several countries, particularly France, which was eager to develop an anti-German alliance in the wake of its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. In England during World War I, Jews who had immigrated from Russia often refused military service because England was allied with Russia (see here, p. 67). Loyalty issues, which in our own day are centered on the neocon push for wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel, are certainly not simply canards, as typically claimed by Jewish organizations.

Solzhenitsyn also points out that the government wanted more control over the Jewish population because of the “constant shortfall of Jewish conscripts for military service; it was particularly noticeable when compared to conscription of Christians.”

Although Jews avoided the draft, they were highly overrepresented in higher education, and the government was concerned about the rise of revolutionary sentiments among students, especially Jewish students. Quotas of 5–10% were established in universities, motivated partly by concern about Jewish revolutionary activity.

Finally, Solzhenitsyn correctly rejects the idea that the May Regulations were the main cause of mass emigration from Russia. More important was Jewish overpopulation. Jews had the highest rate of population growth of any European group in the 19th century, and they simply overshot their economic niche, resulting in a great deal of poverty among Jews.

This increasing economic domination went along with a great increase in the population of Jews. Jews not only made up large percentages of urban populations, they increasingly migrated to small towns and rural areas. [The May Regulations were designed to limit this.] In short, Jews had overshot their economic niche: The economy was unable to support this burgeoning Jewish population in the sorts of positions that Jews had traditionally filled, with the result that a large percentage of the Jewish population became mired in poverty. The result was a cauldron of ethnic hostility, with the government placing various restrictions on Jewish economic activity; rampant anti-Jewish attitudes; and increasing Jewish desperation.

The main Jewish response to this situation was an upsurge of fundamentalist extremism that coalesced in the Hasidic movement and, later in the nineteenth century, into political radicalism and Zionism as solutions to Jewish problems. Jewish populations in Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural increase of any European population in the nineteenth century, with a natural increase of 120,000 per year in the 1880s and an overall increase within the Russian Empire from one to six million in the course of the nineteenth century. Anti-Semitism and the exploding Jewish population, combined with economic adversity, were of critical importance for producing the sheer numbers of disaffected Jews who dreamed of deliverance in various messianic movements—the ethnocentric mysticism of the Kabbala, Zionism, or the dream of a Marxist political revolution. (See here.)

In conclusion, Solzhenitsyn’s views are well-documented and fit well with the work of historians like Albert Lindemann. There is definitely an edge to his views. He portrays Jews as an exploitative class over the peasantry, defends government actions, and notes that Jews presented invidious portraits of Russian actions which they used to rally their own people and influence Western governments against Russia. In taking on the biased statements by Jewish commentators, the emotion comes through, as in his reaction to the idea that Jews were forced to emigrate because of the May Regulations: 

Wait a second, how did they throw the Jews out and an entire million at that? Didn’t they apparently only prevent new arrivals? No, no! It was already picked up and sent rolling: that from 1882 the Jews were not only forbidden to live in the villages everywhere, but in all the cities, too, except in the 13 guberniyas; that they were moved back to the shtetls of “the Pale”—that is why the mass emigration of Jews from Russia began![i]

Well, set the record straight. …

Like his intellectual opponents, Solzhenitsyn is an ethnic nationalist — but one with the facts on his side.

[i] Yu. Larin. The Jews and Anti-Semitism in the USSR, p. 52-53.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Thomas Stewart: The Decline of Old American Names

/28 Comments/in /by

Thomas Stewart: Not too long ago I came across this shocking story on the Yahoo! home page. 

ELIZABETH, N.J. – A Salvadoran immigrant’s wad of payday cash proved irresistible for a group of teenagers charged in his videotaped beating death, as well as for the nurse who eventually managed to pocket it when the victim arrived at the hospital, authorities said.

The confrontation was not an instance of bias, Union County Prosecutor Theodore Romankow said Friday, but “a crime of opportunity.” But they chickened out, authorities said.

“If this man were a Caucasian, an African-American, or a Chinese person they would have done the same thing to him,” Romankow said.

Police were able to piece together the events, in part, from a cell phone video taken by one of the youths and circulated among friends. …

“Police say 18-year-old murder suspect Khayri Williams-Clark pulled Mazariego’s shirt over his face, while an unidentified 17-year-old juvenile and 19-year-old Nigel Dumas each punched him full-force in the jaw, Romankow said. Two other juveniles stood watch, authorities said.

The five teenagers ran away when they saw Mazariego slump, bloodied, onto the bench, according to Romankow. They forgot the victim’s cash and watch but returned a short while later to try to retrieve it. By the time they came back, Romankow said, the teens saw people coming to Mazariego’s aid and did not approach.”

Beating a man to death and sharing the video with friends? My first instinct was “that’s not the white race I know and believe in.” And sure enough, it’s not.

“Khayri Williams-Clark”? The kh- sound is a phoneme (distinct sound in linguistics) found in Semitic languages like Arabic and in a few Indo-European ones, though not English. But that last name is as “Old American” as you can get. To see what was going on here, I typed “Khayri” into MySpace and the results were as expected.

African American Vernacular English has been studied for its deviation from the standard form of the language in syntax, morphology and semantics, but much rarer for adding new phonemes to our mother tongue. About half of black American names seem to be made up out of thin air. Nevertheless, inventing new sounds or borrowing them from other languages is beyond what I would’ve expected from the African American community.

Of course, the third paragraph, where the prosecutor is already apologizing for the perpetrators and assuring us that although they may be murderers and sadists-oh no, they’re not racists!–should’ve been evidence enough that we’re not dealing with a white on minority crime here. The “forgetting” to rob the victim and coming back later to do so is another dead give away.

The nurse who stole from the victim afterwards is named Stephan Randolph, which means he’s probably of the same stock as the perpetrators. This got me thinking, every time in America someone in the news pops up named Robinson, Smith, Clark, Davis, Williams, Johnson or Randolph I automatically assume that the person is black. But these were apparently the names of the wealthiest slave-holding families of WASP descent. Where are their white descendants? They haven’t completely disappeared, as a Jackson or Johnson of clearly North European ancestry isn’t unheard of, but they are a minority among their namesakes.

The most common surname in the NBA is Williams, shared by twelve players. Of them, only one is white and he appears to be a blond tattooed freak who’s known for having drug problems. The league also claims three Wallaces, seven Johnsons, four Joneses, and three Youngs, all of whom are black. Obviously the NBA isn’t a representative sample of the population but from my experience I would bet the results would be around the same if one looked at the country as a whole, with a 7- or 8-1 or higher ratio of per capita old wealthy white names among American blacks compared to whites.

Perhaps it hasn’t been that the wealthiest WASPs were outbred by their former slaves but there were just fewer of them in the first place and they owned enough human chattels to create the illusion of a fall from grace of the most successful English, Welsh and Scottish surnames. Whatever the case may be, I still find it sad that the only times you’re likely to see a Lewis or Clark in the news these days is in a story like the one above. If this doesn’t indicate that the best white families haven’t replaced themselves, it does that they haven’t been able to maintain a society where the worst impulses of their ex-slaves are kept in line.

Bookmark and Share

Punched for Listening to Rap: Amy Biehl Syndrome Strikes Again

/39 Comments/in , /by

A  favorite theme of mine is “Amy Biehl Syndrome“, whereby whites who seek to prostrate themselves before non-white cultures end up getting physically hurt or killed in the process. The outcome is the opposite of what they expected: Amy Biehl, for instance, was hoping to be lauded as a liberal white hero who selflessly threw herself into the cause of black rights in South Africa. Instead, blacks killed her for being white. The reality of racial differences is a sharp rock that smashes the balsam-wood boats of racial equality and harmony fantasies. Another recent occurrence of “Amy Biehl Syndrome” took place in Florida, where a 14-year-old black male struck a 22-year-old white male for listening to rap music.

Whatever sincere enjoyment of rap music this white male had, it’s safe to presume that he also thought listening to rap would make him cool in the eyes of the world, especially blacks. He’s not one of those backward whites who listens to country music — oh no. He’s down with the brothas because he listens to rap. Of course, as Jared Taylor so eloquently notes, whites and blacks do not see these issues the same way. Other whites might admire this white male, but this black male obviously did not: he felt that the white male had invaded on his black turf. Rap “belongs” to blacks, not whites. So, he punched him. The lesson is that no matter what whites try, they’re not going to be appreciated by non-whites. Whether you’re Eugene Terreblanche or Amy Biehl, you stand a chance of getting hurt or killed by nothing more than proximity to non-whites. Does a move toward peaceful racial separation sound so radical by comparison?

Bookmark and Share

Oliver Stone

/40 Comments/in , , , /by

The only movie by Oliver Stone  I remember is Natural Born Killers which I thought was horrifyingly ugly–a crude attempt to shock people, much like his recent comments. Stone always struck me as mainly a controversialist, and his comments on Hitler and Jewish media domination are no exception. I suppose he thought it would be a great way to promote his soon-to-be-released documentary. “Any publicity is good publicity.” But it’s hard to believe he doesn’t now think that this was an unwise move. Even if you are half Jewish, you just can’t say such things. And of course now he has apologized–under a great deal of pressure.

But the apology isn’t enough. Jewish superpatriot Haim Saban called it “soooo transparently fake” and is trying to get Showtime to cancel an upcoming TV series of Stone’s by talking to Leslie Moonves, the President and CEO of CBS which is scheduled to air the series on its cable channel Showtime. Moonves is Jewish, as is Sumner Redstone who is the largest shareholder of CBS and Chairman of the Board. Ari Emanual, the Jewish superpatriot and premier Hollywood agent who has taken the lead in going after Mel Gibson, also made a call trying to get the series cancelled.

What Jewish media power? Obviously, Stone is way out of line. Even Jewish publications acknowledge the  Jews run Hollywood.

The ADL’s statement is pure Orwell:

Oliver Stone’s apology stops short and is therefore insufficient. While he now admits that Jews do not control Hollywood, the media and other industries, he ignores his assertion that Jews are ‘…the most powerful lobby in Washington’ and that ‘Israel has (expletive) up United States foreign policy.’ This is another conspiratorial anti-Semitic canard that Mr. Stone needs to repudiate.

And while he’s at it, he should declare that Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe that would be enough to get Stone back in the graces of Hollywood media elite.

Nah.

As if it couldn’t get any more Orwellian, Andy Nowicki’s curent TOO article describes an encounter between the ADL’s Abe Foxman and a delegation from the Ukraine eager to suck up to the ADL on Holocaust-related issues. (Foxman insists that the genocide of 7 to 10 million Ukrainians supervised and advocated by Lazar Kaganovich does not rise to the level of a Holocaust, a term that should be exclusively reserved for what the Germans did to the Jews.) The Ukranians act as if Foxman has some power which means, of course, that they are anti-Semites:

Following the meeting, Shamir asks Foxman why, if anti-Semitism is so potent a force in the world today, people care so much about pleasing the ADL and its sister organizations. Dishonest Abe then shows his flair at sophistry: it’s anti-Semitic in itself, he maintains, to even think that the Jews are so powerful as to be feared, so the fact that people like this pitiful delegation of yes-men are so eager to do his bidding just shows how anti-Semitic the world has become! Once more, Shamir dryly acknowledges this “logic,” letting its absurdity speak for itself.

The whole thing reminds me of Joe Sobran’s comment on Jewish media power:

Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (The Buchanan frenzy. Sobran’s (March):3–4.)

Sobran’s punch line is applicable here: “A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you.” Powerless people can’t destroy anyone. But Oliver Stone will soon enough find out that Jews are very powerful indeed.

Bookmark and Share

Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law

/25 Comments/in /by

Man, I didn’t see that one coming. Of course she did! The sensible SB 1070 law out of Arizona was scheduled to go into effect tonight. But not anymore.  Federal judges who legislate from the bench in order to circumvent the will of the voting public is nothing new. The regime has been using this playbook since the 1950′s and they’ll continue to do it until European Americans unite racially and put an end to it, politically speaking.

Enough of this Republican vs. Democrat nonsense. Race matters. Period. Until White people can understand that fact (as all minority ethnic groups know all too well) we’ll continue to go into battle with both hands tied behind our backs. And we’ll continue to lose.

PHOENIX – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.

Read the entire story here.

Let’s recap. The illegal alien malcontents, who have no rights as citizens of this country, get a U.S. Federal Judge to rule in their favor, while the taxpaying American citizens of Arizona, the vast majority of whom were in support of this law, get told to go to hell.

And my hunch is that the law-abiding citizens of Arizona will just suck their thumbs, lick their wounds, and go back to work tomorrow forgetting that this ever happened. I mean, that’s what our people have done ever since the “Civil Rights” era, right? That’s what we did when a Federal judge struck down California’s Proposition 187 that attempted to prevent  illegal aliens from receiving health care, education, and other social services. We have mortgages to pay and football games to watch. Sure, it’s too bad that Americans can’t control their own destiny anymore, but we have jobs and we don’t get paid to be career protesters.

Is that the way it’s going to be this time, Arizonans?

Now, you can keep donating to the Republican Party, or you can start supporting organizations that can help you build a movement that wins.

Reposted from The Political Cesspool.

Bookmark and Share

David Morris on the Pathology of Moral Universalism

/48 Comments/in /by

David Morris has a very nice article, “The Contemporary use of Philosophy and Ideas,” on the BNP website. Much of it reflects recent blogs on this site (here and here), with a British twist. A major theme is that the British have a strong attraction to universalist abstractions, often pursued with a moral fervor.

The orthodox views held by progressives encompass Liberalism to Marxism and they believe in universals, but we believe in “particulars.” Universals are abstract terms like humanity whereas a specific people is a particular. Universalist thinking leads to intervention in the internal policies of other sovereign states as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. We particularists are concerned with our own nation and if we were to do any invading it would be to sort out the conflict within our own nation.

The progressives erect a set of idealisations – what we are becoming, what we should think and how we should behave.

Whereas it’s natural to be concerned about family, kin, ethnic group, and race, the universalist embraces abstract ideas, with no concern with how they will affect his natural interest in preserving those closest to him.

The government planned drastic financial cuts for us, but increases in overseas aid! This perverse attitude grew from the Victorian middle class influenced by evangelical Christianity, which believed it had a duty to ‘save’ unchristian natives. It became a preference over the British working class which endures today. Characteristic of this is Mrs Jellyby in Dickens’s Bleak House, whose eyes ‘had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off, as if they could see nothing nearer than Africa’. Like the elites she neglected those around her, including notoriously her own children. Her thoughts were directed instead towards the fictitious African possession of Borrioboola Gha and her idealistic plans for its development.

This is the British equivalent of the moral fervor of their American offshoots, the Puritans,  who were intent on freeing Africans by waging a Holy War on their Southern cousins (see Kevin Phillips, Cousin’s Wars).  Morris sees these trends at work in contemporary British society: “the belief that we are progressing to a utopian future – The Brotherhood of Man, a classless society, etc.” It relates to ideas of “the ‘perfectibility of man’ and a supposed God-like ability to transcend nature including their own nature. It is this manifestation … that is destroying our way of life” [his emphasis].

The perfectibility of man was also fundamental to the Puritan tradition that has been so influential in American culture and politics.

The result is a failure to face reality:

Even though once luxuriant African states fall into crime and poverty, while once prosperous, economically successful Detroit descends in to crime and poverty, even hunger is there now, progressives pretend we are progressing. Even New Orleans didn’t penetrate their bubbles. They go on holiday to Jamaica where safe areas are sectioned off for tourists, but do not connect that reality with Brixton or other inner cities which are no-go areas for Whites. Even when Muslims blow up trains and there are almost weekly terror trials going on, they dream that we are all coming together. … Our cities are being colonized by people with Medieval mindsets and there are no spontaneous colonies of nice liberal progressives springing up in Nairobi and Beijing.

Exactly. While the West pursues its utopian fantasies with great moral fervor, the rest of the world continues as it has always been—except that they are now colonizing us. “Our cities are being colonized by people with Medieval mindsets and there are no spontaneous colonies of nice liberal progressives springing up in Nairobi and Beijing.”

When you invite people in, they will take territory, assert their interests, and ultimately displace you. But the utopian universalist is unable to consider the obvious practical consequences: “To think practically about this would be to reflect on what is really happening from examples and, not, like progressives and the Soviet Union, propagandise people into believing that what they wish would happen is happening. It is to consider the consequences of actions and not socially engineer people for a future utopia; it is not to pretend human nature is a social construct, but by accurate judgement of how people really behave in given situations to make wise judgements of others.”

Morris is a race realist: “Our Englishness is our essence as it is in our genes which created our culture which in turn moulds our descendants.” Unfortunately, one of the ethnic traits of a great many Englishmen and other Europeans is to be prone to moral universalism and utopian thinking. Morris is quite aware of the ability of culture to exert control over more natural emotions — a theme that fits well with contemporary psychology. Nevertheless, there are limits. Indeed, “The contemporary totalitarian elites are actively suppressing natural feelings and risking a mass break out of negative emotion” — exactly the sort of anger that is resulting in public furor over illegal immigration in America.

In other words, these attempts at erecting utopias will ultimately result in huge psychological tension as people are expected to swear allegiance to universalist abstractions even as they see their neighborhoods invaded by non-Whites, even as their jobs are outsourced to foreign countries or taken away by immigrants, and even as they see the political and cultural power of their own group declining — in a word, displacement. In these circumstances, the more selfish and particularlist emotions centered around family and ethnic group inevitably bubble to the surface to compete with the universalist abstractions. In the contemporary world these abstractions are being imposed on us by elites—including the Jewish component of the elite which manages to aggressively promote moral universalism in the Diaspora in the West while also aggressively supporting its neo-fascist ethnostate in the Middle East. Indeed, as noted previously, promoting multiculturalism as a moral imperative in Western societies (but not Israel) is reasonably seen as a Jewish ethnic strategy. No moral universalism there–just the facade.

By all accounts, particularlist anger is welling up in White Americans — especially among the middle and working class — outraged at the changes they see; they are also the ones are are more negatively affected by these upheavals. (It’s always easier for elites to pledge fealty to moral abstractions when there a no costs to them personally; they seem blissfully unaware of their ethnic costs.)

There are certainly legitimate doubts that this anger will be productively directed given the record of elites in the Republican Party. Part of what we need is an intellectual revolution that challenges the unique Western proclivity toward moral universalism and fratricidal aggression against morally defined outgroups. We’ve got to stop thinking like the Puritans and base our attitudes on a foundation that is in tune with biological reality. All the data show that multiethnic societies are prone to conflict and to less of a sense of civic responsibility, among other things.

The good news is that culture can trump biology (see also here). The conflict between the universalist strands and the particularlist strands of our ethnic nature as Westerners may be resolved if we realize the folly of a universalism that results in the dystopian nightmares we are seeing form before our eyes. Culture and our rational thought processes can indeed suppress biological urges — including our urge to wage holy war on behalf of abstract principles. And right now we have to realize that it is entirely rational to suppress our biological urge toward moral universalism. Our survival is at stake.

Bookmark and Share