The Citadel and The Swamp: A Study of East and West: Silence Film Review Part 3

“While some characters like Durand and Inoue employ the swamp to emphasize cultural incongruities of Christian moral teaching, Ferreira’s swamp bespeaks an intellectual dissonance between Christian and Japanese traditions of metaphysics.”[i]

”Contrary to the view, whether philosophical or religious, which ascribes to some moral rules an intrinsic autonomous value (a typical instance of this is the so-called “absolute morality” of Kant’s categorical imperative) the Buddha ascribed to the several attitudes of right conduct that he pointed out, a purely instrumental value, the value of means justified only in view of a certain aim and therefore only sub conditione. But this end, just as the higher grades of Buddhistic ascesis and contemplation, is beyond morality, nor can it be measured by the religious conception of ‘holiness.’ As Milarepa was to say: ‘In my youth I committed some black deeds, in my maturity some white ones; but now I have rejected all distinctions of black and white.’”[ii]

Your Own Personal Logos

Thus, “The idea of personality is, of course, very vague in the Orient, and especially is the oriental mind slow in thinking of the ultimate reality in terms of personality.”[iii] At once both parties (West and East) are affirming “same, same…” but in radically different ways, likewise in the metaphysics of the Logos.

“The idea of the logos as a unique incarnation in a historical personality is not altogether absent, but it differs rather sharply from the Christian conception in that the clean cut theistic background is wanting, and further in that the historical personality in which the logos is incarnate lacks the marks of reality. Hozo Biku, the incarnate logos of the Orient, has not a shred of historical reality about him. And herein lies the great superiority of Christianity over Buddhism: not simply in its system of a theistic philosophy, but in its flesh-and-blood reality of the incarnate Logos, the Jesus of the New Testament.”[iv]

This “flesh-and-blood” reality of the personal savior however effectively makes the Christian-Logos, qualitatively different from Buddhist interpretations and grants the Christ-Logos a uniquely dispositional approach towards the reconciliation of the transcendent and immanent views of God (and reality –hence broadening the Western mind to a nuanced metaphysical complexity). Christ as the vesica piscis encompasses both principles of human (material) and divine (transcendent) a perfectly balanced (venn diagram). The passion of Christ, the bloody violence of his ascension, the fanaticism of the blood of the martyrs all point towards a radical activism; with a worldly concerned liberationist core, a being-in-the-world-ness that perhaps even functions to undermine Christianity and bring about the rationalizing secularism of modernity, Buddhism at its core rejects such passions as merely self-indulgent illusionary sufferings. The Christian looks out at the world in pain seeking justice; the Buddhist looks within for peace; ultimately seeking transcendence – essentially Buddhism is world-denying and escapist ideology and Christianity though containing that element is ultimately activist and world-immersing. The prolonged existence of these core divergent logos and ontological-ideas has created different character-types. At worst the Christian pushes liberationist theology to the point of undermining Christian institutions and theology itself – leading also to the undermining of European particularity. This process was so gradual and prolonged in Europe, that the Japanese shogunate showed tremendous foresight in banishing the egalitarianizing doctrine in order to preserve their social positioning, as well as their culture. However, the prolonged rejection of the Christian Logos and the metaphysics of personal salvation and liberation by the East and its overextension in the West has indeed created character and system-types that could be labeled “Oriental despotism,” in opposition to the liberationist-individualism-Faustian-Prometheanism of the West – perhaps shortened to “Occidental humanism.” As countervailing opposites however they are unequal, the unique dynamism of the essence of the West, may well preside in the balancing of these two poles within its own structure, almost to the unnecessary existence of the East as merely a backwards recrudescence. That is to say that the West contains a layer of “Oriental despotism,” and inward contemplation, but the Orient does not contain a layer of Occidental humanism or liberationist activism. If the postmodern imposition of human rights is counted it is only a mutated post-modern form of Occidental humanism that is itself morphing into its opposite – being dragged down into the swamp. The West is large spiritually, it contains multitudes, the East is large geographically, and it contains similitudes. That is to say that even the inwardness of Christian monastic, meditative and spiritual life has a radically different and personal dimension than the Eastern variants, “that sense of ‘inwardness’ which has already been defined as an important element in individuality,”[v] such that the Christian “spirit of world-rejection coexisted with a positive affirmation of individual and humane values,”[vi] that was lacking in the East. Furthermore the gold of its perfection is qualitatively reflective of this difference, in so far as the love of Christianity is not the same as the compassion of Buddhism, Christianity’s love is Agape, through which Zizek identifies a revolutionary potentiality, “the all-encompassing compassion of Buddhism (or Hinduism, for that matter) has to be opposed by Christianity’s intolerant, violent love.”[vii]

Furthermore, the Japanese and Eastern rejection of the truth claims of Christianity entails a rejection of the notions of justice, truth, beauty and the form of the good – as transcendental “objective” principles. The dialogues between the interpreter and Ft. Rodrigues and those between the Inquisitor and Ft. Rodrigues illuminate this denial of the objective and the affirmation of the subjective, culturally specific, particularism:


Father, the doctrine you bring with you may be true in Spain and Portugal. But we have studied it carefully…thought about it over much time…and find it’s of no use and no value in Japan. We have concluded that it is a danger.


But we believe we brought you the truth, and the truth is universal.

It’s common to all countries at all times, that’s why we call it the truth. If a doctrine weren’t as true in Japan as it is in Portugal, we couldn’t call it the truth.


“I see you do not work with your hands, Father. But everyone knows a tree which flourishes in one kind of earth may decay and die in another. It is the same with the tree of Christianity. The leaves decay here. The buds die.”



It is not the soil that has killed the buds. There were three hundred thousand Christians in Japan before the soil was…





It is clear from conversations with Fr Ferriera that the poisoning of the Christian doctrine by the authorities was not necessary since the Japanese Burakumin who were converted to the faith understood Christ to be a manifestation of the material sun rather than the mystery of incarnation. Nietzsche’s shrewd insight saw into the heart of Buddhism as “passive nihilism” – “the weary nihilism that no longer attacks… passive nihilism, weakness,”[viii] that which sustains an immoral social order. Nietzsche was beyond prescient when he ascribed to this form of nihilism that was enrapturing the European soul as a “new Buddhism,” presenting “‘the greatest danger.-How are truthfulness, love, and justice related to the actual world?’ Not at all!-”[ix] Nietzsche then saw the ushering in of the postmodern world as one imbued with Buddhist values, in which objective values no longer determine the social order, which like individual personality, is driven by sheer contingencies subservient to power relations. In this gross materialism of sameness, in which individuality is reduced to a hierarchicalization of functionary status, “Oriental despotism” assumes its place as the pragmatic component in an arbitrary social order based primarily on cohesion, violence and the senseless but ritualized routinization of the procedures of worship and administration – Western nihilism. The West had entered a stage analogous to the East philosophically and onto-theologically, but it did so through a Hellenization of Judaism. philosophically, the East never attained towards the “metaxological” balance of Aristotelian (Marxist historical-materialism) and Platonic (Hegelian-teleological) notions of what I will term ‘investigative transcentalism’ that defined Christianity – but remains as in Hegel’s reading of Oriental religions; stuck in the quagmire of the ‘emergent sphere of the spirit.’ The East, especially the far-East, also lacks ‘thumos’ or spiritedness above all, which results in an underdeveloped sense of self.

Indeed, only Christianity ascends to the tripartite functions of interrelation and dialectic, which contains the seeds for an advanced metaphysical structure (investigative transcentalism) that encompasses all others:

Father – Grammar – Mind – Reason – objective – Logos – Nous – Yahweh

Son – Logic –Heart – Emotion – subjective – Pathos – Thumos – Christ

Holy Spirit – Rhetoric – Hands – Action – communal – EthosEpithumia – Allah

At this point a distinction between the Logos of the Greeks and the Logos of the Christians should be explored to pontificate upon their divergences and similarities. If as “In Voltaire’s theory of Western culture neither the Jews nor Biblical history nor even Christianity is ‘central.’ Rather the normative culture of the West had been disseminated by classical Greece and Rome, which are Europe’s authentic foundations, and whose Golden Age of paganism the Enlightenment would restore,” one could assume a distinct Logos of Hellenic conception as opposed to the Christian. Ezra Pound for his measure was overtly attracted to Confucianism akin to the Japanese feudalism witnessed in Silence. However, rather than Christ coming to fulfill the messianic covenant of the Torah, a position which Jews reject, Christ from a Hellenic perspective could also be said to have bastardized, rather than fulfill, the Logos of Greek metaphysics. It is a matter requiring exploration, beyond the scope of this review that I suggest that the Greeks were moving towards compatible truths with the Christian revelation, which because of it’s Oriental-Jewish elements caused a sort of disfigurement.

In each movement of Logos (both Hellenic and Christian) unanswerable questions are regulated to “Mystery” or “Myth” – designated by Plato in The Republic as “the noble lie.” If the story of Christ is compatible with such a social utility then the Myth of Er corresponds to the election of salvation and the promise of the afterlife in Christian theology as well. For the Greeks alone one could discuss the Logos of Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Plato, Philo, Plotinus or the Stoics – the noetic or spermatic Logos, or the Logoi. The Greeks could not agree beyond a kind of metaphysics of reason at times interacting within the world through form and manifestation and at times wholly Other. Less still could one conceive of a pure Logos-Idea between civilizational forms; and one can speak of the Hebrew, the Persian, Greco-Jewish logos of Philo, the Christian, and even the Oriental conceptual theories of the Logos-Idea. Thus, “We realize of course that there is no such thing as a definite logos-doctrine, or rather that it was held under various forms.”[x] Such a nebulous idea could be molded to any platform.[xi] However, “There was perhaps no passage of Scripture which caused the translators of the Bible into Japanese so much trouble as the opening verses of the Gospel according to John. The controversy was not over the meaning of the Logos, but rather over the oriental equivalent and word to be chosen as the best translation… In the Chinese version Logos had been translated by the word T’ao…” The Japanese translate logos by the Japanese term for ‘word,’ kotoba. Within this loose schema, Reischauer wrongfully concludes “Thus the oriental mind is not at all unprepared to understand the logos-doctrine of Christianity, or any form of it,” forgetting that the Orientals lacked Hellenic roots although, Reischauer adds the caveat of the superiority of the Logos-Doctrine of Christianity to its oriental manifestations.


[i] John T. From Cultural Alterity to the Habitations of Grace: The Evolving Moral Topography of Endo’s Mudswamp Trope Netland Christianity & Literature Vol 59, Issue 1, pp. 27 – 48 First Published December 1, 2009.


[iii] Reischauer, A. K. “Japanese Buddhism and the Doctrine of the Logos.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 4, 1913, pp. 245–251.

[iv] Reischauer, A. K. “Japanese Buddhism and the Doctrine of the Logos.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 4, 1913, pp. 245–251. JSTOR, JSTOR,

[v] Morris, Colin. The discovery of the individual, 1050-1200. Toronto: University of Toronto Press in association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1987. Print. 32.

[vi] Morris, Colin. The discovery of the individual, 1050-1200. Toronto: University of Toronto Press in association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1987. Print. 29.

[vii] Žižek, Slavoj. Living in the end times. London New York: Verso, 2011. Print. 99.

[viii] Nietzsche, Friedrich W., Walter Kaufmann, and R. J. Hollingdale. The will to power. New York: Random House, 1967. Print. 18

[ix] Nietzsche, Friedrich W., Walter Kaufmann, and R. J. Hollingdale. The will to power. New York: Random House, 1967. Print.

[x] Reischauer, A. K. “Japanese Buddhism and the Doctrine of the Logos.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 4, 1913, pp. 245–251.

[xi] A summary simplification of the strains of the Logos-Idea – In general… the logos doctrine stands for theory that there is a rational principle in things. 1. Regarded as ultimate and absolute principle, superior to all other principles (Greek – Stoic). 2. Regarded as one of two principles i.e., co-ordinate with another and opposing principle (Persian Dualism though early Greek philosophy has tendency and Philo himself is not free from it). 3. Regarded as subordinate principle, subject to higher and more ultimate reality. (Hebraic thought, in which logos-principle subordinated to ultimate reality, God). Reischauer, A. K. “Japanese Buddhism and the Doctrine of the Logos.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 4, 1913, pp. 245–251.


Vampyres: Poètes Maudits

Blood – the taste of the sea
Blue-green eyes of algae
Drink in remembrance of me
I am your fatal man
your sacrificial lamb
Urging your ruinous obsession
your pallid deathbed confession
nothing more beautiful
than the flame
licking itself in exuberance
to expire in the gossamer pyre
of the untamed
smoke plume
dancing to its doom
the proud curl of her upper lip
bit, and trembling in excitation
the wicked currents of inebriation
electrified by a torrent of kisses
an undertow of sorrow
cuts an ocean of bliss’es
touching everything, everywhere,
through medusa-tresses of flaxen hair
submissive yet knifelike
lying on her back
my tongue lost in tact
the sordid night passes
amidst florid flashes – flushed and nubile
now, behind the curtain of her smile
a coy murderer stalks, tiptoe in garden lushness
the thorny rose
prickly, the prose
droplet of life’s ascent moving sweetly
discretely, down her graceful neck
with one peck
her world is dead
and I extend
the invitation to drink of me next
a bastion of voluptuousness
skilled in her art
a tremor most tumultuous
coming apart
rivulet of descent
arching pearl of argent
curling into her navel
an image worthy of Marvell
there to meet
coalescing convalescents
burning through the heat
exhausted rejuvenescence
the quill-scripted admixture
the red and the white
a charnel house tincture
a fuchsia of delight
Proclus and Aphrodite
starburst; and death’s bloom, brightly
the three of the loom, spun tightly
the cloth of Babylon, nightly

The Plight of the Toxophilite

Driftwood courted by archipelagos

Many moons change the nature of the night

Rage waxes, Hope wanes

Immaterial substances

Less than diaphanous

The archer finds the anchor point

upon pregnant lips

with nothing to say

I talked to her as a boy

A sign of precociousness or merely the foreshadowing of lunacy?

Or nothing but a sentimental vignette?

The indifference of the high mountain pass to the dale

Stars twinkle in obsidian

Bring me libations worthy of her luminous opal mysterium

Her heart is the huntress in nocturnal vision

Restless, ruthless, wild

She darted past many suitors

and found her golden horned god

reclining in his woodland oasis

He had been calling out to her with his instrument

for millennia ;

Stregheria Sparagmos, Stergheria Sparagmos, Stergheria Sparagmos

The bush rustle as the reed sing
eyes cast down and cast out of the clearing
spellbound drunk
parched mouth
lurid sneer,
“show me your nakedness, the time for bashfulness has past”
and he with his stars fixed and his ruling house under the centaur
lurched in his hunger with rapine eyes and held her in primordial ownership
hirsute flower within porcelain, rosewood burning in ivory, shedding animal skins, she twisted and flexed, writhing snakelike

Escaping not,

as the night and their movements grew rhythmic


Storm of Feel: The PMership of the Boy Blunder

Originally published on in 2015 but removed for thought-crime during a purge of far-right domain names that occurred in 2017 when internet censorship meant curtailing free speech.

This Wednesday, November 4, 2015, Justin Trudeau will become the Canada’s 23rd Prime Minister, replacing the Cuckservative Stephen Harper, with a landslide majority government. The win puts the Liberal Party, which has dominated Canadian politics (they’ve governed Canada roughly 70 percent of the last century) as the prevailing political force, as the move into majority leadership was the largest-ever numerical increase in Canadian election history as the Liberals moved up from third with 36 seats to first 184 seats.


Trudeau, has already been labeled the “prime minister of hugs”[1] known for his omnipresent photogenic smile, which draws from the corners of his mouth, and confers a sense of bumpkin-like wonderment, rather than the marks of a piercing intellect – a modern ‘positive’ politician imbued with the essence of goofy boyishness that makes it awkward to call him ‘Mr. Trudeau’ and not just ‘Justin’ – which, in gleeful derision, I shall now commence to do. Justin no doubt inherited that breezy continence – the end result of a life served with a sliver spoon, and that’s not all folks, for Trudeau can also thank daddy dearest for his leadership role: as name recognition and branding had more to do with this election than sheer force of charisma or merit or policy. “Sunny ways my friends. Sunny ways,” Trudeau told his enthusiastic supporters in Montreal. “This is what positive politics can do.”[2] What a dunce.

But Trudeau stood in sharp contrast to PM Stephen Harper, whose general snide demeanor and free market fixation, gave him the popular appeal of a tax consultant working to fix the mob’s books – which is essentially what Harper was. An article at had it right, “Stephen Harper has moved beyond being the prime minister of Canada. He’s its CEO, making Canada the first democracy to tacitly embrace global corporate governance.” Harper is as much to blame for the election results as any real policy. Duverger’s Law, was being applied to Canadian politics by political science majors and newspaper columnists prior to the elections sweeping results, detailing the eminent demise of the Liberal Party, to be replaced by the more left-of-center NDP. Harper himself is said to ascribe to this polarizing position:

“Duverger’s law is not merely a matter of academic theory. The leading believer in Duverger’s Law is none other Stephen Harper. Harper’s deepest political goal was not just to defeat the Liberals politically but to eliminate them as a party. Gerry Nicholls, who worked with Harper in the 1990s in the right-wing lobby group the National Citizens Coalition, wrote in a 2011 Globe and Mail column that Harper’s  ‘desire to eliminate the Liberals is something he and I discussed way back in the days when we worked together at the National Citizens Coalition. His theory, as explained to me, was that conservatism would be better served in this country if Canada had a two-party system, one that pitted right against left, free enterprise against socialism, Conservatives against New Democrats. He believed that, in such a polarized political environment, a conservative-oriented party would have a huge advantage over its left-wing rival.’”[3]

two rival organized attempts, each trying to concentrate votes on a single candidate. Conversely, parliamentary systems using proportional representation in large districts tend to produce and sustain multi-party systems. In part, Duverger’s Law is driven by strategic (or tactical) voting by ordinary voters who are reluctant to waste their votes by voting for third candidates/parties that have no real chance of winning.

What this also tells us is that Harper himself saw no real distinction between the Liberals and the Conservatives, both sitting too firmly in the center to become polarizing forces of the other. When it comes to the major issues, the keystone pipe line, the controversial national security measure Bill C-51, the TPP and other free trade agreements, both the Liberals and the Conservatives are in widespread agreement. In fact the NDP was the only party which expressed any opposition to these positions, but you would never know it by listening to the empty-headed rhetoric of Justin, “Canadians, he said, had sent a clear message that it’s ‘time for change in this country my friends. Real change.’”[4]

But the NDP, Canada’s so-called third option, has never really held considerable political power and has floundered since the death of former Party leader Jack Layton, survived by his Chinese-Canadian wife and fellow MP Olivia Chow, a vacuous and vain ethnic-vote-politician riding in Toronto’s Trinity-Spadina ‘Chinese’ ward, with a tenuous grasp on the English language, who attempted to capitalize upon the widespread sympathy for Layton’s death in an unsuccessful bid to become Toronto’s mayor cast. Meanwhile the NDP’s leadership role had been filled by Thomas Mulcair, who had actually been imported to fill the vacant role from the Liberal Party, and last year, possibly as a response to charges of ‘extremism’ in regards to international trade, the NDP had voted to take ‘socialism’ out of its party’s constitution,[5] making it little more than a Liberal mirror, moving the party to the center and cancelling out the polarization of Duverger’s law, with Muclair at the helm spouting liberal dogma: “I’ve always felt that social democracy was about removing inequalities in our society, so if those battles in past generations have mostly been about working conditions and on the economic, and some on the social side, I think that one of the biggest inequalities in our society today is between generations, and that’s going to be a prime battle for the next election campaign.”[6]

Harper was, if anything, a member of a specific interest group, born into the affluent WASP enclave of Leaside, Toronto, his father worked for Imperial Oil (Exxon), and when Harper moved to Alberta he worked for the major oil companies, whereby his oil links continued well into his administration wherein he basically lobbied for oil interests such as the Keystone pipeline and the tar sands. Harper, in keeping with this Anglo-Franco bourgeois counter-tradition of the Right, represented by the conservation of the most heterodox and volatile dynamism of the free market but sugarcoating it with restoring pictures of the Queen Mother in government buildings and making slide reference to ‘Old Stock.’[7] How the Right came to be regarded as the party of free market economics i.e. classical liberalism is one of those historically situated non sequiturs. The Tories, of merry old England, who became Peel and Disraeli’s ‘Conservatives,’ have forever tarnished the Right with the dishonor of Anglo-Franco laissez fare capitalism. By way of Malthus’ population theorizing, the social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer, the free market profit motive/operant conditioning economics of individualist competition of Adam Smith, all coalescence into a putrid caldron of corporatist free market global capitalism or ‘survival of the Jewiest.’


In a kind of fitting twist of fate, which reveals the selfishness and pragmatism of political ideology and discourse – Alberta in the 1930s had been the only province, or place in the world, to elect a party based on C.H. Douglas’ system of Social Credit, which had greatly influenced the fascist poet Ezra Pound. Social Credit in Alberta, like the Saskatchewan based Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), which would later become the NDP, ran on a platform critiquing capitalism and regional domination, made by a populist agrarian based petit-bourgeois – that is small independent farmers.  However, when Alberta struck it rich with oil, they all but abandoned the platform of the Alberta Social Credit Party for a pro-business laissez faire government, which itself retained some degree of regional populism – after all why should oil rich Alberta pay for welfare deficits of central Canada? The tables had turned and the beggar had become the lender and their politics had changed with their material status in the world. No one will be surprised when Harper goes to work for an oil subsidiary in the next year or so.

Harper prorogated parliament twice, radically undermining parliamentary democracy and snubbing his nose at the people, his contempt was palpable, but what was it for exactly? “The government’s single objective: pursuing the extraction and export of tar sand oil”[8] while that and increasing the conditions for international trade for the 1-2% of Canadians involved in foreign investment in the first place.

Homo economicus cum laude Harper pushed through a highly criticized Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with the Chinese last year, without Parliamentary oversight – now not only are our goods being produced by China, and our housing market inflated with their speculation, but now our assets will be theirs in our own country.

An apologetic article on the agreement written by Macleans, which would give Chinese companies the right to sue Canadians if their business interest is jeopardized, makes the point, “It makes no sense to claim to be in favour of international trade but against international flows of capital.”[9] But what if we are for neither, what if we support limited balanced trade, and stress self-sufficiency and autarky instead of offshoring and foreign debt accumulation? “Canada runs a fairly large trade deficit with China: roughly $30 Billion per year. This means that as far as China is concerned, trade with Canada is essentially a matter of them accumulating large amounts of Canadian assets… Once you realize that capital flows are essentially the same thing as trade flows, the logic behind FIPAs become clear. Countries that are exporting goods in return for assets can reasonably expect to ask that these assets won’t be effectively expropriated by governments pandering to anti-foreign bias.”[10] God forbid a nation should have ‘anti-foreign bias’ – yuck nationalism, who are you Hitler? Those “Excitable nationalists and their wild imaginations,” except that capital flows and trade flows are not “essentially the same thing,” when a country like first world Canada ostensibly runs a large trade deficit with a country like China, the responsible thing to do would be to balance the trade – no one ever thought they were getting out ahead by incurring debt and giving away their homes and businesses!

Justin with his “positive politics” and Keynesian deficit spending are just going to increase the debt spiral. While James J. O’Meara, writing for Counter-Currents draws parallels between Justin and Donald Trump; from their hair down to their privilege and suggests somewhat teasingly that “One suspects the word has gone out to the Canuck Cucks from their controllers in New York – Get Justin, he’s our worst nightmare: a non-aligned Kennedy.”[11] But Mr. O’Meara himself knows that this is simply not true, one look at the biggest donors of the Liberal Party will convince you otherwise, but there’s always that breezy smile and all manner of hugs.














Rick and Morty: A Nihilism for Infantilized Adults

With some downtime to kill I became aware of the cultural phenomena of Adult Swim’s cartoon Rick and Morty and decided to check out the hype. Some general first impressions I had:

  1. Leftist heroes – intelligent degenerates.
  2. Humor arrived at through ‘pushing the envelop’ – transgression

I was mildly entertained with season 1 and thought that certain far-Right groups were being too hard on the show. But then I gradually realized what a pernicious product-of-the-times this seemingly innocuous show really was. The summation of which can be pointed to by a scene that seems to encapsulate the philosophy (or lack thereof) of the show. In the scene the character of Morty explains his nihilistic worldview as a liberating doctrine that allows one to enjoy the cultural industry’s plethora of nonsense.  He explains:

“Nobody belongs anywhere, nobody exists on purpose, everybody’s going to die. Come watch TV.”

Link to the scene in question.

This perspective on the pointlessness of existence is indeed a grim and troubling one; and perhaps should not be taken so lightly. Reflecting upon the ramifications of nihilistic thinking Nietzsche wrote “that only the most mediocre, who have no feeling at all for this conflict, flourish while the higher kind miscarries and, as a product of degeneration, invites antipathy–that the mediocre on the other hand, when they pose as the goal and meaning, arouse indignation (that nobody is able any more to answer any ‘for what or who?'”

No longer able to answer a ‘for what or who’ our societies labour on in the Hobbesian war of all against all – profit for profit’s sake, growth for growth’s sake. Indeed it is the mediocre, the mass, the superficial who can both proliferate within such a state of affairs and also articulate such an existential predicament and answer it with the invitation to indulge in the profusion of the spectacle of meaninglessness as purpose itself – “come watch TV.” This is what Rick and Morty represents – the nihilistic nothingness of our civilization and the overcoming of it through more nihilism.

The delight in absurdity is the domain of the clown, humanity deserves more.

Adult you, isn’t an adult.

Benjamin Barber’s book Consumed has a whole chapter on the infantilization of adults.

rick and morty tattoo   Google Search.jpg
Rick and Morty Tattoos… sad.

Zizek describes this predicament in psychoanalytic terms:

“How do we account for this paradox that the absence of Law universalizes prohibition … The psychoanalytic name for this obscene injunction for this obscene call, ENJOY, is superego. The problem today is not how to get rid of your inhibitions and to be able to spontaneously enjoy. The problem is how to get rid of this injunction to enjoy.”

― Slavoj Žižek

God is dead. Enjoy hedonism.



Manspreading for Lebensraum, Part 1 and 2

Originally Published but removed at:

Bill the Buther

by Alex Fontana

“Integration is the time between the first black family moving in and the last white family moving out” — Saul Alinsky

As is the Microcosm, so is the Macrocosm

THE FEMINIST ‘social justice’ campaign first launched on Twitter against “manspreading” has made the male practice of sitting a little too comfortably in a public space into a criminal offense. The arrests that have resulted from this criminalization of public posture represent a fundamental attack upon our personal freedoms and on our own ability to govern ourselves in social situations without resorting to overarching laws and policing. John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle has taken a modern, politically correct turn for the worse. (ILLUSTRATION: Localized ethnic unity, a threat to the system.)

This also represents an attack on males, but even more so on White males, who have literally had their living spaces invaded and have been forced to squeeze aside for the ‘leg room’ of hordes of non-Whites.

The eunuch mandarins of the Liberal Left of course seem unaware that men’s genitals hang outside the body thus necessitating a spreading of the lower limbs for basic comfort. As of now, detachable penises are still not widely enough available on the market to necessitate a one-size-fits-all posture. Bruce Jenner’s hermaphroditic transformation is being so publicly lauded precisely because it symbolically represents the castration of the White male as patriarchal master signifier.

As every White country becomes flooded with non-White hordes, as our countries become increasingly not our own, as even our communities are no longer our own, why should our personal space be exempted from the general trend? This continuum of dispossession is not an accident. It is no mere coincidence that many ‘caught-on-video’ racist outbursts occur while on public transportation.

The experience of public transportation in diversified metropolises can often have the jarring effect of revealing the emptiness at the heart of our social order. The tram itself functions as a kind of metaphor for the modern world, a constantly moving, deracinated conglomerate — machines dragging the masses of humanity to their destinations, all atomized and automated, a world far removed from the rootedness of blood and soil.

Dindu NY Subway
An overly social space is inevitably an antisocial space.

The general experience of shuffling multiracial crowds onto a packed, one-size-fits-all transport system, for the sole purpose of atomized economic competition and relentless movement, reduces the city to a brutal machine. Each person is further reduced to representing the soullessness of the theory of perfect competition — unrestrained self-interest supposedly leading to the “maximization” of all participants, but in reality leading to their alienation and anomie.

When a marginalized White, finds himself a waif in his own country and looks around the bus or train — possibly he is standing because non-Whites are occupying all the available seats — he gets a sense of these non-Whites pushing him out and perhaps stealing his job through “equal opportunity employment” or leeching off his taxes.

This, along with the “leveling” of the global economic playing field, means the creation of an underclass of dispossessed Whites, psychologically unable to fight back due to disempowering ideas like “white privilege.”


The latest attempt to encroach on the living space of Whites is coming from the Obama administration:

“The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, a proposal from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is aimed at ending segregation found in communities across the nation.”

This mandate follows a Supreme Court decision that the 1968 Fair Housing Act aimed to prevent more than just intentional discrimination, and that the federal government has the right to use HUD to enforce integration on areas it deems to be too White. This new legislation would require cities and towns to scrutinize their racial makeup and report every three to five years on unintended racial bias in housing.

Closely monitored by the social engineers
Closely monitored by the social engineers

The National Housing Act of 1934 created the Federal Housing Administration as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Also called the Wagner-Steagall Act, it set up the United States Housing Authority to provide subsidies from the federal government to local public housing agencies, to improve the conditions of low-income families.

Catherine Bauer, who co-authored the Housing Act, was not Jewish but was a close friend of Bob Marshall whose father Louis had founded the American Jewish Committee. As such, Bauer had close links to Jewish groups, which would also explain why she was interested in studying the “recent achievements and policies in housing and city and regional planning in the U.S.S.R.” She was also an advocate of ‘sexual liberty,’ and a disciple of the Bauhaus architect Walter Gropius, who, unable to find accommodation with the Nazis, finally emigrated to the States after flirting with the Soviet Union.

In his book The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing, E.M. Jones quotes a revealing speech Gropius gave in the Soviet Union:

“Without the liberation of the land out of this private slavery, it is impossible to create a healthy, development-capable urban renewal that is economic in terms of society in general. Only the Soviet Union has fulfilled this most important requirement without reservation, and thereby opened the way for a truly modern urban planning.” (Page 83)

Shortly after this speech, Gropius became the chairman of the architecture department at Harvard. From then on, he refrained from using phrases like the “immoral right of private ownership.” Instead, he talked about things like “our belief in democratic government.”

While Bauhaus is routinely praised as a forward-looking and disinterested modernist architectural movement, the truth is quite different. In his book From Bauhaus to Our House (1986), Tom Wolfe criticizes Bauhaus as creating buildings that resemble “a duplicating-machine replacement parts wholesale distribution warehouse,” and likening their model for houses to an “insecticide refinery.” For Wolfe such architecture was a “reprimand for the fat on one’s bourgeois soul.”


The “vision” of replacing the humble row house with Bauhaus architecture was interlaced with notions of social engineering. Bauhaus, also known as the “international style,” was in Jones’ words “the architectural expression of social engineering.” Gropius was head of the school of architecture at Harvard, while László Moholy-Nagy, a Hungarian Jew, opened the New Bauhaus that would become the Chicago School of Design.

Given Bauhaus’s radical leftism and obvious Jewish elements, you may not be surprised to learn that Tel Aviv has the largest collection of buildings built in the “international style” anywhere in the world:

“Bauhaus architecture flourished in Tel Aviv (as elsewhere in the country) in the 1930s due in great part to the fact that 17 former Bauhaus students, worked locally as architects.”

Housing, however, did not truly become a social justice issue until the Fair Housing Act, a corollary of Lyndon Johnson’s 1968 Civil Rights Act. When Johnson inaugurated the act he thanked “the public housing experiments of the 1930s and 1940s, led by that great adventurer, Nathan Strauss, in the Roosevelt administration.” Strauss was the son of a wealthy Jewish merchant who co-owned Macy’s department store.

Persistance of SegFrom its inception through to its realization, integrated urban planning has had a strong Jewish influence, raising the suspicion that one of its aims was to create a form of social engineering that could break the bonds of kinship that would otherwise naturally form amongst European Americans.

As we see from the infographic (right), “integration” and “desegregation” are code words for taking away White living space. By contrast, there is no talk of forcefully integrating areas with high concentrations of Blacks. As you can see, Black neighborhoods have grown and spread, strongly White areas have become negligible, and gray areas, neither entirely White nor Black, have proliferated. This urban level of integration is a micro manifestation of the macro process of global multiculturalism, in which only white countries are forced to integrate.

In The Slaughter of Cities, Jones tells us that “the Quakers and the Jews were allies in the housing struggles in post-war Chicago.” From this image (below) we see that violent crimes are predominately in areas with high concentrations of Blacks, while those areas with the least violent crimes have fewer Blacks.


We also see from this graphic of Palestine that what is occurring on both a macro and micro level in the US and in Europe is analogous to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. While blacks and Jews both prefer to view themselves as the victims, it is plain to see that they are the ones gaining new ground. Diversity really does mean chasing down the last white person.



There is a long precedence of the federal government dangling the carrot of funds and the stick of criminal conviction in order to implement “integration” in US cities. The first time this strategy was implemented, it was, as now, a bi-partisan effort. As E. Michael Jones explains in The Slaughter of Cities:

“Upper-class WASPs, largely Episcopalian and Quaker, united politically with the blacks they brought up from the South to work in their factories during World War II to defeat the group in the middle, namely, the largely Catholic ethnics who lived in neighborhoods like Kensington.”

The World Wars facilitated the process wherein unprecedented levels of social engineering could occur through the implementation of federal government centralization under wartime provisions, that bypassed local lawmakers and normal democratic processes.

We can identify a three-pronged process, in which Obama’s “Fair Housing” campaign is but the latest stage. The first stage corresponds to the shaping of ‘public opinion’ through the growth of the mass media. The second stage arrives with the Roosevelt New Deal, which gave the Federal government increased powers over housing, and removed the right of eminent domain from property owners. The third stage can be linked with the reformulation of civil rights as a housing issue, which then sought to take away White spaces from White ethics.

The First World War facilitated the formation of something akin to a socially-engineered national consciousness. A supposed democracy like America ostensibly required a majority consensus to get into the war on the side of Britain. The Committee on Public Information was formed in order to overcome the historical neutrality of American opinion and its anti-interventionist nature.

Not good for White spaces
Not good for White spaces

The sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat, resulting in the deaths of 114 Americans, greatly helped, even though the ship had been smuggling American munitions and contraband for the British war effort. As the influential Jewish journalist Walter Lippmann explained: “While the war continued it very largely succeeded, I believe, in creating something that might almost be called one public opinion all over America.”

The forging of this public opinion was in answer to the psychological requirements of the war, as Lippmann was well aware. His experience as a Captain in army intelligence during WWI shaped his perception of journalism as “intelligence work” serving as a go-between between policymakers and the public. Lippmann believed that “a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality” had to decide the public’s beliefs for them.

 Over time this process would take on an increasingly Jewish character, with Jewish elites exerting more influence through their ability to frame public opinion. The radical effects of this on American public opinion can be seen in issues like miscegenation, where the 4% approval rate in 1958 has been changed to 87% today.

Lippmann and Edward Bernays, someone else who worked in intelligence and propaganda during WWI, and later Louis Wirth, who worked for the OSS in WWII, were Jews who were able to rise within elitist circles, because:

“Unlike nativists and people like Henry Ford, the East Coast WASP elite was perfectly willing to adopt Jews into their class if the adoptee was willing to espouse the same Enlightenment environmentalist philosophy they espoused…” (The Slaughter of Cities, p.106)

Thus a strange assortment of bedfellows — Jewish brains, East WASP elitist ethnocentrism, and Negro numbers — converged to dismantle and destroy the cohesion of ‘ethnic’ neighborhoods, mostly directed at Southern and Eastern Europeans, like Poles, Czechs and Italians, but also Irish and Germans, whose Catholicism threatened the WASP establishment.

White ethnic America
White ethnic America

Jones points to Paul Blandshard’s anti-Catholic bestseller, American freedom and Catholic power, as expressing the idea that Catholicism represented an “impassible barrier to democratization” and a danger to WASP power.


Blandshard was a liberal protestant minister who dropped out of the ministry in favor of socialism, sexual liberation, and the WASP positivist school of Bertrand Russell and John Dewey. His views of cultural anthropology were seeped in heavy doses of materialism and atheism derived from Comte, leading to his belief that man was a product of his environment who could be molded — i.e. socially engineered. Both the WASP elite and the Jews shared this view as well as suspicions about Catholicism, which was seen as inherently fascistic:

“In fact both Blanshard and Bertrand Russell would claim that Catholicism and fascism were politically indistinguishable” (The Slaughter of Cities, p.101).

Jones points to the WASP fear that Catholics were taking over the country numerically, because unlike the WASPs who had embraced birth control, they procreated. As Blandshard put it, “in the name of religion, the hierarchy fights birth control and divorce laws in all states… and censors the cultural diet of these children.” The last part can be read as Catholics rejecting the propaganda of WASPs and their Jewish coconspirators like Lippmann and Wirth.

The threat that ethnic whites presented was therefore both numerical and cultural, but as Jones tells us, these Catholics lacked a cohesive group consciousness — i.e. as a shared Catholic ‘ethnic group’ — that could protect their interests, unlike the enemies who conspired against them.

Bertrand Russell, the influential British philosopher who helped shape American WASP opinion was a driving force. E.M Jones refers to his program for social reform:

“Many observers are astonished at how pervasive its provisions are today. To illustrate, we will look at four of his key tenets: sexual liberation and the destruction of the nuclear family; social control through the means of psychology and the use of addictive and psycho-tropic drugs; one-world government; and population control.”

In case anyone is wondering where Aldous Huxley got his ideas for Brave New

World from, look no further.


Manspreading for Lebensraum, Part 2

Moving Out

by Alex Fontana


“We must work superficially and in large groups, altering the conditions of life and improving the rules of the game.” — Louis Wirth

Integration — the attempt to place large numbers of Blacks in White living space — is typically and naively seen as an issue that just concerned Blacks and Whites, but the dirty little secret of integration is that it was mainly about Jews.

Like ‘racism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ the word ‘integration’ shares similar origins as a code word for obscuring the reality of ethnic warfare. All these terms were popularized through academia and the media, two areas where Jewish influence has predominated. It is well known that “racism” was first popularized by the Jewish communist, Leon Trotsky. The key moment came when he was writing his History of the Russian Revolution (1930) and reacted to a comment he picked up in the writings of Karl Marx:

“In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilized slaves to train them.” This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the ‘Racists.’ (History of the Russian Revolution)

Both Marx and Trotsky were Jewish racists, faced with the Jewish problem in a much more intense form than Jews face it today. This is the problem of asserting ethnic interests and entering into ethnic conflicts when the perception of such behaviour by other groups raises the danger of mobilizing overwhelming forces against them. The solution to the Jewish problem usually involves an interesting degree of subterfuge. For example, Marx and Trotsky despised their host nations but transformed their Jewish resentment into an assertion of the inferiority of all those who rejected the ‘vision’ of these progressives, in touch with the inviolable grand historical forces and universal verities.

In a similar vein, ‘integration’ — a supposedly ‘positive’ idea about uplifting Blacks by integrating them into White America — was actually about destroying certain ethnic groups and undermining the dominance of the White race, in order to make society safer for the Jews. Both ‘racism’ and ‘integration,’ therefore, are revealed as code words for cloaking a specific type of domination and social engineering by Jewish progressives.

For What it’s Wirth

Much of the intellectual weaponry behind the policy of integration and the attack on the communities of White ethnics in the 20th century can be attributed to the work of Louis Wirth (1897-1952), a Jewish sociologist and member of the Chicago School of urban sociology. He was a devoted Marxist and Communist supporter in his youth, who channeled his ethnic interests through the class politics of his time. At university, just like Trotsky and Robert Moses, the Jewish urban planner who enacted the destruction of New York’s traditional neighbourhoods, Wirth framed the issue in class terms rather than ethnic one, but in a way that served and shielded his ethnic interests:

“In the United States, membership in the ‘middle class’ would serve the same purpose that absorption into the proletariat would serve in the Soviet Union.”
(E.M. Jones: The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing, p.106)

Wirth represented the next generation of ‘psychological warriors’ after Lippmann, those who would socially engineer not only American attitudes, opinions, and modes of behavior, but also alter their very environments, by promoting and overseeing the ‘integration’ of their neighborhoods.

Louis Wirth
Louis Wirth

During the war Wirth worked for the OSS, the predecessor of the CIA, and the Office of War Information. He was involved in monitoring the dismantling of the America First Committee offices in Chicago and then monitoring ethnic newspapers in that city too.

The Chicago School, of which he was a member, was known for its idea of symbolic interactionism. This emphasized human behavior as determined by social structures and physical environmental factors, rather than genetic, cultural, or group characteristics. This meant, so they believed, that if you changed the environment you could change the man.

There are parallels between Wirth using the idea of ‘integration’ as a solution to the ‘Jewish problem’ and the positions that Trotsky adopted in the Russian Socialist Democratic Labor Party, one of the immediate precursors of the Communist Party:

“[Trotsky was] opposed to the separatist and nationalist program of the Russian Jewish Bund… these assimilationist socialists consciously conceptualized a post-revolutionary society in which Judaism would exist, but with a lessened social salience: ‘for them the ultimate solution of the Jewish problem would be an internationalist socialist society that paid no heed to distinctions between Jews and non-Jews… Similarly, after the revolution, ‘having abandoned their own origins and identity… the Jewish Bolsheviks found their ideological home in revolutionary universalism… the result was that the veneer of universalism covered up a continued separatism of radical Jewish intellectuals and political organizers.”
(Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, p. 92)

Wirth, as we shall see, is the American equivalent to this strategy of solving the ‘minorities problem.’ In the Soviet Union, Stalin, after defeating the Trotskyists, managed to co-opt this intellectual strategy and implement it with characteristic ruthlessness. This manifested itself in the mass deportations of what were considered troublesome populations:

“In 1941 he deported the Volga Germans to Siberia, and in 1943 he deported the Kalmyks from their home just west of Astrakhan to Kazakstan.”
(The Slaughter of Cities, p.125)

Furthermore, in 1937 Soviet Koreans had been deported to Central Asia, and in 1944 the Chechen and Ingush peoples were displaced, as well as Balkars. Khrushchev pointed out: “The Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there were too many of them.”

Breaking the link between blood and soil
Breaking the link between blood and soil

These ethnic displacements corresponded to the abolition of the semi-autonomous ethnic Soviet Republics and the rise of the Soviet Empire. The Soviet solution to the ‘minorities problem’ was to try to ‘integrate’ them into different parts of the empire.


Wirth attempted to apply this model to American society, making “urban renewal” a euphemism for ethnic cleansing and displacement. As the other pole in the bi-polar world that emerged after WWII, America too sought to internally transform itself into an internationalist empire through local integration efforts, all the better to project itself as a universal empire.

Leftists and academics like Walter Benn Michaels, who wrote The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality, claim that race obscures class warfare. The reality is actually the opposite: class warfare obscures racial warfare, seeking instead to redefine natural racial warfare in unnatural Marxist terms of class consciousness. This is the major contention of E.M. Jones’s The Slaughter of Cities, which is why it is so vital and dangerous. Jones makes the point that integration was actually the result of ethnic affiliations and prejudices, rather than the opposite.

A remnant of White ethnic America
A remnant of White ethnic America

According to Jones, integration was “part of an undeclared war on ethnicity.” Integrated housing in Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, New York, and other places meant the cooperation of liberal WASPs and Jews, who dominated boards, like the Metropolitan Housing and Planning Council (MPHC) and the Chicago Housing Association (CHA). When the Polish Roman Catholic Unionrequested that the Polish community be represented on the board of the MHPC, the MHPC simply replied that it did not “recognize national groups as such, but only individuals or groups having an interest in housing.”

As Jones comments, one would think that people whose neighborhoods were threatened with destruction would have a very real interest in housing. By the time White ethnics adopted the Marxist terminology of class to describe their plight, they had already lost the struggle because they were playing by the left’s rules:

“In effect, the class struggle of the ’30s was being superseded by the ethnic struggle of the ’50s, but it was still being portrayed in the political terms of a bygone era”
(The Slaughter of Cities, p.223)

While the First World War facilitated the centralization of the flow of information and the creation of a national culture under the aegis of what would become the psychological-warfare establishment, the Second World War created the conditions in which the Federal Government could socially engineer consent through WASP foundations, the psychological-warfare establishment, and urban planners.

The Federal Government viewed German-Americans and Italian-Americans, whose nations of origin were then at war with the USA, as potential fifth columnists in the war against fascism, but unlike the comparatively small population of Japanese-Americans — but just like the Ukrainians in the Soviet Union — they were simply too numerous to put into camps.

Wirth viewed these groups, as well as Polish-Americans and Irish-American, as those whose ethnic identity posed a threat to “American interests.” It is noticeable that what all the groups had in common was their Catholicism.

“The solution, in other words, to the threat ethnic communities posed was to break them up by inducing in them a desire to move up the economic ladder into the middle-class, where the organs of the dominant culture — public education, advertising, and the mass media — and not foreign language newspapers and customs associated with religion and family and country of origin determined the group’s norms”
(The Slaughter of Cities, p.223)

Jones points out that incentivizing ethnic Whites to move to the suburbs and become “white middle-class Americans” was just another form of social engineering aimed at breaking up ethnic enclaves and assimilate these ethnics into the suburban culture in which the television and the automobile would come to shape their lives and beliefs.

Suburbia: 'Auschwitz' for White ethnic America
Suburbia: ‘Auschwitz’ for White ethnic America

Louis Wirth and his Trotskyist assimilationist policy directed at ethnic enclaves, also found an echo in those liberal progressive Jews who yearned to rid themselves of their own despised historical identity. The catch-22 is that Jews are also subject to that same force of deracination as David Mamet, the Hollywood screenwriter, commented, describing what happens when Jews abandon their loyalty to their religion and tradition:

“It is the sin of the spies, a coward generation with a lack of belief in God. People have a drive to worship something, and will fill the void left by rejecting God by worshipping sports, celebrities, wealth, fame, state, sex, physical fitness, good works, human perfectibility.”

While Soviet Communists advanced collective universalism under the banner of comrades and workers, American liberal-democrat Jews like Wirth advanced it as an individualized condition under the formal legality of citizen. Each strategy undermined group affiliations, ridding the individual members of their historical baggage, and universalizing society into a state that ultimately benefited a certain kind of Jewish upward mobility.

According to Jones, it is also telling that the White ethnics effected by this strategy were mainly Catholic, as Catholicism was a definite obstacle to Jewish Marxist and Crypto-Marxist strategies.

“Wirth’s view was much closer to [Wilhelm] Reich’s sense that the Catholic Church was the main competitor to Marxism for the mind of modern man, primarily because both systems were more all-encompassing than the essentially laissez-faire English ideology”
(The Slaughter of Cities, p.105)

Paul Blandshard, the liberal protestant minister who wrote the anti-Catholic bestseller, American Freedom and Catholic Power, wrote that “the capacity to defend American democracy against a communist dictatorship must be based upon a free culture,” rather than the ‘authoritarianism’ of Catholicism. This liberal ‘free culture,’ however, seems to offer little by way of spiritual or social nourishment for a community; instead fixating on pleasure, abstract intellectualism, and a belief in technology.

WASP preppies on the rampage
WASP preppies on the rampage

Anglos supported the idea of laissez-faire ‘free culture’ because at the time it meant that they could dominate and manipulate the ethnics, while condescendingly enforcing upon them their liberal ideologies. It did not concern them overmuch that they permitted a few Jews to enter their ranks as lackeys and fellow manipulators, because the Jews simply did not have the numbers of the Catholics to constitute a threat to WASP domination.

Those Jews participating in this process and wishing to be emancipated from their own ethnic identity and to be conceived of as “individuals” or “comrades,” rather than as Jews, were quite prepared to destroy the culture and identity of others to achieve this leveling process. Wirth was no exception. Karl Marx commented on this type in On the Jewish Question (1844):

“By its very nature the Christian state is incapable of emancipating the Jew; but, adds Bauer, by his very nature the Jew cannot be emancipated. So long as the state is Christian and the Jew is Jewish, the one is as incapable of granting emancipation as the other is of receiving it.”

Marx and Trotsky found the solution to the Jewish problem in rejecting their own Jewish identity in order to enable them to transform the identity of the Christian “Other” by radically changing Christian society: “We must emancipate ourselves before we can emancipate others.”

This messianic tendency to be the liberator of others — to free the ignorant Goyim from their mental and political impoverishment — is a particularly Jewish characteristic, but one that is also self-serving in so far as it accomplishes the task of political emancipation for the Jews as Marx makes clear:

“The most rigid form of the opposition between the Jew and the Christian is the religious opposition. How is an opposition resolved? By making it impossible. How is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion.”
(On the Jewish Question)

Thus when La Civilta Cattolica published their thesis on The Jewish Question in Europe in 1890, it was rather easy to see where the Jesuits found the notion that the Jews were chiefly responsible for the liberal revolutions, and their belief that “Europe finds itself mired, and to a great extent no longer Christian, but Jewish or Judaizing.”


The plot of The Melting-Pot (1908), a play by Israel Zangwill, best illustrates this Jewish desire for individual liberation. The story tells of a Russian-Jewish immigrant who survives a pogrom and looks forward to a society free of ethnic divisions and hatred proclaiming:

“America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming… Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians — into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.”

The writer of The Melting Pot
The writer of The Melting Pot

Zangwill, while championing melting pot assimilation for America, was a committed Zionist and hence a Jewish ethnonationist. Jewish doublethink and black/white thinking is part of a long history of hypocrisy. Louis Wirth, like Zangwill’s protagonist, married outside his own ethnic group, to an Anglo Baptist named Mary Bolton. This was a reflection of his dual nature, but a dual nature that hinged on a unitary purpose. Louis Wirth the assimilationist was also the same Louis Wirth who worked for the Anti-Defamation League and B’nai B’rith, and who would always, “stand up and be counted where there were questions that we were Jews.”

Wirth was either suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance or what Kevin MacDonald calls self-deception as a mechanism for Jewish continuity via crypsis or semi-crypsis. Wirth’s solution of his own Jewish problem mirrors the experience of the traditional Jewish Ghetto, which was the subject of his graduating thesis:

Step one: The Jews insulate themselves in their ghettoes and built up massive reserves of wealth and in-group cohesion.

Step two: During the Haskalah (Jewish enlightenment), they spring forth into society as cosmopolitan members of the wider community, thereby changing the values of those communities to reflect a civic form of nationalism in which they could not only participate but dominate. While outwardly expressing “democratic” or “communist” principles they nevertheless inwardly pursue specific Jewish interests — “dress British, think Yiddish,” in other words.

The cosmopolitan aspect of this solution, involving the fragmentation of ethnic enclaves and ‘integration,’ is rife with problems for those subjected to it, including the “substitution of secondary for primary contacts, the weakening of bonds of kinship, the declining social significance of the family, the disappearance of neighborhood and the undermining of traditional basis of social solidarity.” (Abeje Berhanu: The Rural-Urban Nexus in Migration and Livelihoods Diversification, p.58.)

Wirth, predicted that within the new cosmopolitan rationalized order, the impersonal corporation would come to dominate:

“The advantage that the corporation has over the individual entrepreneur and the partnership in the urban-industrial world derives not only from the possibility it affords of centralizing resources of thousands of individuals or from the legal privilege of limited liability and perpetual succession, but from the fact that the corporation has no soul.”

This is essentially the endgame of destroying folk society and replacing it with a one-size-fits-all society of Hobbes “the war of all against all” overseen by exploitative corporations.

Wirth’s solution mirrors his own group’s experience of the Jewish Ghetto, and his recognition that the ghetto was dangerous to the Jews because it fostered “suspicions about the civic and national loyalty of the Jews.” His graduate thesis in sociology evolved into a 1928 book called The Ghetto (Studies in Ethnicity), which described the Jewish ghetto in Europe and America.

The ghetto reinforced ideas of dual civic or nationalist loyalties, as well as fears of an international Jewish community that was threatening the world. Jewish cosmopolitanism, political emancipation, and integration was designed to dispel these notions. Temporary segregation of ethnic groups on a separate but equal basis would be replaced with top-down, regulated, intergroup contact in order to facilitate trait-sharing and ‘cosmopolitanization.’

When Nazism became powerful in the 1930s, Wirth was appalled by the rise of the ‘myth of race.’ Influenced by Karl Mannheim’s Ideology And Utopia, he concluded that ‘integration’ would not happen naturally, and that cultural-group pluralism had created conditions which would lead to clashes and the annihilation of certain groups. Mannheim believed that intellectuals, because of their rationalized detachment, could undermine these forces and foster integration.

To nullify the threat of group pluralism Wirth decided to support a new social dynamic of individual pluralism of choice, in which cultures were accretions of individual tastes, not expressive of cultural and ethnic groups. As a corollary of this, he also advocated world government, cryptically stating:

“We must work superficially and in large groups, altering the conditions of life and improving the rules of the game.”

This phrase is essentially code for replacing the rooted community with the shallow and malleable individual through ‘improving’ or more accurately degrading society’s values by creating atomized individuals who could be controlled by public opinion and a mass cultural machine.


A great example of these machinations in action is provided by the recent HBO miniseries Show Me a Hero, which both looks back to an attack on White ethnic communities in Yonkers, a city to the north of New York City in Westchester County, and forward to future waves of Section 8 invasion. The TV series is based on a book by the New York Times writer Lisa Belkin that tells the story of enforced integration in Yonkers between 1987 and 1994. Here we see the strategies born out of the ghetto experience and gestated in the minds of Marx, Trotsky, and Wirth applied to modern (and future) America.

Like her Jewish precursors, Belkin seeks to frame the issue of integration in terms of a progressive Jewish solution to the Jewish problem, while fully retaining her Jewishness. When asked about the overtly Jewish role in integration, Belkin neither denies nor downplays the Jewish role. Instead she invokes the Jewish religious principle of Tiklun Olam, a Hebrew phrase meaning “repairing the world.” Tiklun Olam, was described by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in terms of a Kehilla (community) of Jews in galut (diaspora) successfully influencing their non-Jewish neighbors.

By her own admission, Belkin views integration as a Jewish social engineering strategy designed to make us Goyim better neighbors — thanks Jews! This element of Jewish imposition on non-Jews is reiterated by the details of the actual case and its cultural presentation as a template for further corrosion of White spaces.

Jewish actor Jon Bernthal as NAACP lawyer Michael Sussman
Jewish actor Jon Bernthal as NAACP lawyer Michael Sussman

In the actual case, the U.S. district judge who ruled against the city of Yonkers and who issued fines to bankrupt the city was a Jew. The architect and urban planner who oversaw the planning and construction of the first 200 affordable housing units for Blacks in White middle-class neighborhoods, followed by an additional 800, was Oscar Newman, another Jew. The lawyer who represented the NAACP against the city of Yonkers and who also served as assistant general counsel to the national office was Michael Sussman — yes, a Jew. The Secretary of the State of New York, who enforced Judge Sand’s ruling, Gail S. Shaffer, was…wait for it…also Jewish. I don’t see a pattern, do you? Nothing to see here. Kindly move on…

As for the TV show: the main writer and executive producer is David Simon and the CEO of HBO Richard Plepler. Both are, yes, you guessed it, Jews.

The presence of so many Jews working to “ethnically enrich” the White Catholic neighborhoods of Yonkers is mockingly admitted in Episode 2. The NAACP lawyer Michael Sussman (played by Jon Bernthal) cynically makes fun of the locals protesting against the social engineering of their neighborhoods. Sussman chides them, “Be courageous, stand up to those Blacks, those Jew lawyers, goddamn liberal judges.” Later when a character tells Judge Sand in Sussman’s presence that the housing is being perceived as “anti-Catholic” Sussman sneers, “Another Hebrew plot exposed!” Indeed.


Total Gesellschaft: Towards an AltRight Sociology Part 1

“The contrast here was between an ‘organic’ Community (Gemeinschaft), bound together by ties of kinship, fellowship, custom, history and communal ownership over primary goods; and a ‘mechanical’ Society (Gesellschaft), where free-standing individuals interacted with each other through self-interest, commercial contracts, a ‘spatial’ rather than ‘historical’ sense of mutual awareness, and the external constraints of formally enacted laws. In Community individuals developed their identities within the wider, co-existing, whole, whereas in civil and commercial Society individual identity was ontologically prior to that of the wider group, attachment to which was merely secondary and instrumental.”

Sociology has long been considered a leftist or Jewish social discourse. “In the post-World War II period, sociology ‘became populated by Jews to such a degree that jokes abounded: one did not need the synagogue, the minyan [i.e. the minimum number of Jews required for a communal religious service] was to be found in sociology departments; or, one did not need a sociology of Jewish life, since the two had become synonymous.”[i] Indeed, within the field is a predominance of both progressive and Jewish perspectives often combined in that unholy combination of a Trotskyist professor, very often a racial minority and/or a sexual non-conformist. Amongst the early sociologists, “According to Ronald Fernandez’s study Mappers of Society: The Lives, Times, and Legacies of the Great Sociologists,1 Durkheim, Marx, and Simmel constitute three of the four individuals ‘indisputably at the core of sociology’s birth and growth.’  (The fourth of these individuals, according to Fernandez, was Max Weber.)”[ii] Set against these ‘big Jewish three’; concerned with alienation, communism, and fragmentation, are their lesser known and lesser studied non-Jewish counterparts, Ferdinand Tonnies, Werner Sombart, and Robert Michels. As Jung discerned a vast difference between Jewish and gentile psychology, one is herein tempted to do likewise with the field of sociology and a limited comparative analysis would be beneficial. Superficially one could say that psychologically the Jewish concern in these fields was always one of a marginal perspective looking to better its own sense of placement while ignoring the very conditions of its marginality – was an acute sense or even subconscious Jewishness responsible for ‘alienation,’ ‘fragmentation’ and the radical overturning of the social order through communism? Versus a gentile approach of critique which was more concerned with ‘togetherness,’ ‘material-metaphysical typology,’ and ‘hierarchy.’

Unlike psychology, which has tended to focus narrowly on the individual without reference to the wider society, sociology from its formation was always concerned with the grander picture: the individual placed within the communal as a part and product and participant of the social order — man as a social being inside of a community, and how that community shapes man, why that community functions, and how it came to exist.

It is interesting to note that the relative disappearance of Tonnies, Sombart, and Michels and their collective ideas, from both the social as well as disciplinary discourse, ultimately marks the eradication of a whole mode of thought. An entire Weltanschauung was expunged given that their theories were intricately connected and formed a part of the patchwork of a volksgeist.

Briefly and superficially then let us plot out the major contribution of these three theorists.

  • Ferdinand Tonnies essentially lamented the death of community (Gemeinschaft) as a result of the emergence of society (Gesellschaft). The National Socialists appeals to the restoration of a Volksgemeinschaft (“people’s community”) was a direct descendent of this line of thought, which sought to base society on a model of organic community through bloodlines and birth.
  • Werner Sombart’s theories, especially those outlined in Heroes and Merchants (Händler und Helden, 1915), provided another piece of fabric which would become part of the ideological patchwork of the Third Reich. Sombart’s main contention was that World War I was being fought by two conflicting worldviews rather than just nations vying for dominance. Western Europe, England in particular, was ruled by commercial values and produced a nation of merchants; Sombart identified the corresponding spiritual element as the Jewish spirit, contrasted to the ‘heroic’ culture of Germany that was ruled by the Prussian spirit.
  • The least well-known among these three, Robert Michels developed a truly remarkable postulate. Simply stated, Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy affirms the inevitable rule of an elite within the very fabric of the principles of organization: “who says organization says oligarchy.” Michels essentially affirmed that democracy is a lie and every form of government rests on the organization of the masses by a vanguard that essentially forms an oligarchic class. Disenchantment with Weimar Germany led Michels to abandon Germany in 1924 and join the fascist movement in Italy.

One can distinctly understand how each of these major theories provided an ideological current into the far-right ocean of ideas. For Tonnies the emphasis on anti-capitalistic and strong communitarian trust of the organic community meant a shift away from the purely utilitarian and positivist schools of Anglo-American liberalism. For Sombart the values of a warrior ethic versus the values of merchant capitalism meant a contention of metaphysical forces struggling over the soul of mankind and the social order itself. For Michels it was about honest rule – authoritas versus the pandering democratic lies spun by elites to control the masses.

Arthur Mitzman, a noted Jewish sociologist and biographer of Max Weber, provides us with a study of these three thinkers in Sociology and Estrangement which outlines the evolution of their thinking while providing philosophical and historical context.

Mitzman places these three sociologists in a particular position within the complex social hierarchy of Wilhemian Germany. Each theorist bore the mantle of a maverick, an intellectual pariah, neither wholly identifying with the orthodox mandarins of the Prussian academy who sided with the Second Reich as a bulwark against ‘modernity’ nor with the liberal bourgeois who attempted to ‘Manchesterize’ Prussian Germany, nor even with the extra-university volkish ideologists. That being said Tonnies’ sympathies ultimately lie with socialism and morph into volkish thought.

Considering and understanding the social complexity of Wilhemian Germany in which these theorists operated is paramount to understanding their perspectives. Broadly each class contained a corresponding ideological component:

Social Class Characteristics and Composition Representation
Aristocracy Feudal, Militaristic, Bureaucratic, established state power Orthodox social scientists — Conservatism
Prussian Junkers (academic insiders: Gierke, Schmoller, Wagner)
Liberal Bourgeois New Upper Middle class property owners, Social Democrats — “Jewish-Socialism”
bankers and professionals, Jews and Lutherans (Ferdinand Lassalle, August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht)
Mittelstand Old Middle Class of artisans, shopkeepers Volkish Ideologists — Volk-Socialism
and free peasants, ethnic Germans, Catholics and proto-neopagans (Lagarde, Meyer, Stocker)


The ‘mittelstand’ group herein represents both the proletariat and the remnants of the old peasant and artisan status and social groups, which might all be lumped together as the mass of the ‘volk.’ There is considerable overlap in this rough outline of the class and group struggles of the time, thus members of the aristocracy may have volkish or socialist sympathies for example. Tonnies, Sombart and Michels, each operated as pariah in-betweens — they were not part of the academic establishment upholding the Prussian state, nor were they part of the liberal politicians or mittelstand volkish ideologists. However, progressively each of these rogue theorists gravitated to one or the other of the broader social zeitgeists that they had once warned or warred against, but the initial creative burst of their intellectual criticisms occurred primarily from a marginalized position of the outsider; “Tonnies lacking any stake in things as they were, used his intellectual arsenal to equip his personal experiences with a shattering firepower of radical critique.”[iii]

It is extremely revealing that these three theorists each correspond to Gramsci’s notion of the ‘organic intellectual.’ That is, they existed on the outside, on the fringes and the periphery of the official academic institutions; this allowed their theorizing to be especially and radically critical of the status quo and other areas of acceptable dissent. Each theorist can be said to encompass an ‘antimodernist and anti-progressive’ perspective referred to as ‘cultural pessimism’ – that is approximately defined by the belief that the rationalization of life leads towards cultural and social decline. These were men of upper bourgeois backgrounds that often sacrificed their privilege and the possibility for advancement through their commitment to their ideas and beliefs; these were men who governed themselves according to their own will, intellectual investigation, passion and law.

Basic Concepts of Tonnies’ Theory

“Protect our people from the godless servants of Mammon who want to rule it, and to rescue it from the dirt and dishonor of the proletarian life on the one side and the oriental luxurious life on the other, in which it sinks deeper and deeper, and, as we fear, without hope of rescue.”[iv]


The quote above points to a kind of Aristotelian golden mean between two poles of extremity which Tonnies hoped to achieve theoretically first then to be later applied in praxis. The notion of community (Gemeinschaft) for Tonnies originates in primitive human groupings based on kinship ties and motivated by a pattern of action driven by natural impulse (wesenwille) regulated by customary law rather than the calculation of advantage regulated by positive law as contrasted in society (Gesellschaft). Traces of Gemeinschaft survive in the modern world – generally within the bond of affection and interaction of the immediate family.

These notions are not to be understood purely as an historical phases – that is locked forever in the present or the past, but instead as ideal types, “against which the individual phenomena of any society might be measured for the purpose of determining to what extent Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft relations prevailed.”[v] Tonnies’ theory then is similar to that of Otto Weininger’s later notion of sex as archetypal poles, ‘ideal types,’ rather than actually existing rigid social realities in so far as degrees of each pole are said to be present in every existing embodiment. Furthermore, “Max Weber’s term the ideal type was a fiction… from which hypothetical consequences could be deduced which could then be compared with actual outcomes.”[vi]

However, Tonnies arrived at opposing conclusions from Weininger in regard to the value judgments based on sex in this polarity. For Tonnies men are driven by calculation and effort, women by conscience and sentiment. Tonnies’ sympathies lie with the feminine delineation “woman is the natural human being”;[vii] thus he concluded that it was necessary for men to become more ‘feminine’ in order to create new, ethical communities. This notion is, however, is vastly different from the modern world in which women have become more like men producing less ‘ethical’ societies, thus it could be said in modernity that women replicate the male qualities of Gesellschaft within themselves — no doubt to the disastrous end of failed reproduction.

Tonnies returned to the theme of women and ethical concerns in the small volume Die Sitte (1909). After Tonnies had read Swiss anthropologist Johann Jacob Bachofen’s Mutterrecht (1861) he made a connection between Gemeinschaft and matriarchy which, according to Bachofen, represented an early phase of human culture. Friedrich Engles’ On the Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884) was also influenced by Bachofen.  Engles argued that women’s subordination is not a result of her biological disposition but of social relations, and that men’s efforts to achieve their demands for control of women’s labor and sexual faculties gradually became institutionalized in the nuclear family. Tonnies in contrast however lionizes the patriarchal nuclear family. And one major critique made of his work by Leftists, is that the division of labor culminates in inequality of the sexes, “In this community, the charge continues, the men are strong and the women are weak: the men take part in the operation of the community, while the women remain at home.”[viii]

The influences of Bachofen and Engles are hardly surprising given that the first edition of Tonnies book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft had the subtitle “An essay on Communism and Socialism as Historical Social Systems” (1887). But communism herein refers to the primitive variety – that is archaic tribalism, not the Marxian variant. However, the second and subsequent editions held the subtitle “Fundamental Concepts in Pure Sociology.” This change in title signified the evolution of Tonnies’ thinking from one of historical consideration to a more nuanced and complex one, based upon the relationships between the wills comprising social aggregates, which were no longer dependent on a rigid historiography. The historical and communistic interpretation of the first edition rested on the innocence of Gemeinschaft and the fall of Gesellschaft somewhat analogous to Marx’s early writings also perpetrating the Judeo-Christian ‘fall’ motif. But in the later editions the possibility, if ever so slight, was open to overcoming reason by reason. “Finally and above all, the theory of Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft reconciled and brought to a synthesis the rationalistic natural law theory and the historic-organic theory of society.”[ix] Since rationalism, the industrial revolution, and centralized bureaucracy had captured Germany, Tonnies remained largely pessimistic that Gesellschaft could be out rightly overcome and it is suggested that it may not have been entirely positive even if it could be – more on this evolution of thought and ultimate synthesis later.

In Gesellschaft, a way of life characterized by modern commercial society, “no ties exist between individuals except those consciously created for the attainment of agreed goals, including such fundamental ones as the maximization of pleasure and profit. … [T]he volitional pattern, then, is one of ceaseless calculation of advantage.” While Gemeinschaft ordering of life is based on the organic family, Gesellschaft is based on the artificial construction of “vulgar liberalism, the Manchester school, and the doctrine of laissez-faire.”[x]

Tonnies’ largely held an anti-progressive view of society, feeling that better forms of human interaction were locked in the past. He viewed the modern state as an aspect of the atomization of a bourgeois competitive society, of individualistic utilitarianism, and the split between the classes creating the basis for the Hobbesian war of all against all. The main problem for Tonnies is the spiritual isolation of the individual from the local community and the breakdown of a mode of charitable good will. His findings anticipated the tendencies which the deracinating alienation of globalization and multiculturalism would deepen while giving a viable philosophical framework for a more Traditionalist critique, useful even now.

Tonnies modeled his social aggregates on the relationship between the wills composing them. This model can be illustrated in the relationship between peasants and landowners. Very simply stated, Gemeinschaft is more closely related to friendship, whereas Gesellschaft is more closely related to hostility. Tonnies condenses his argument down to a function of Wesenwille (organic or essential will) vs. Willkur (arbitrariness or capricious will). Arbitrary will is defined as “A group or relationship can be willed either because it is desired to attain through it a definite end (with complete indifference toward or even antipathy against the partners e.g. a business co-operation) … or from sympathy with the partners… [in which] the relationship is valuable in itself (e.g. friendship).”[xi] Furthermore organic will:

“The friendly basis of social interaction means that ‘inside a group of men, abstention from (certain) hostilities and carrying out of (certain) services occur for the sake of particular lasting relationships which prevail between the wills of men in such a ways that, as a result of this carrying out and that abstention, they have a permanent even course. … And it approaches community to the extent that custom of similarly disposed wills [in gleicher Willensrichtung] and the feeling of mutual obligation enter into the motivation.”[xii]

Willkur is close to the goal-rational type of Max Weber; the individual who can steer himself in the mists of bureaucratic regimentation and base emotional impulses – a compartmentalized, atomistic, last man. It is interesting to note that the modern type that Weber identifies with as the leader of tomorrow’s social order has what can be termed ‘Asiatic qualities’ – that is a kind of servility and passivity without depth – essentially English – “highly tasteless prescriptions for cult and manners.”[xiii] In societies expressing willkur relationships of a purely rational type “established on the basis of rational calculation of use and convenience,”[xiv] the underlying relationship remains one of hostility – in other words the world of the market is inauthentic and disfiguring to the nobility of the human will and spirit and the pursuit of authenticity that liberty relies upon to be meaningful.

Wesenwille —(Gemeinschaft) Willkur (Kurwille) — (Gesellschaft)
Nationality (Volkstum) Statehood (Staatstum)
Organic Structures Mechanical Structures
Family Spirit, Morality, Religion Economic-Political-Scientific
Rousseau’s Amour de soi Weber’s Zweckrationale

Tonnies “retained the fundamental concepts of Gemeinschaft/Wesenwille and Gesellschaft/Kirwille[xv] as the basis of his dichotomy.

The psychological distinction between Wesenwille; the ‘essential will’ to act on behalf of other members of one’s community) and Willkur; ‘arbitrary will’ or free choice — the unencumbered and essentially dispossessed self of liberal theory, which “provides no essential basis for the exercise of moral deliberations is central to Tonnies’ theory. The dichotomy of wills is the central axis around which the rest of his dichotomized intellectual gyroscope rotates: “To which I shall attach that of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, of nationality [volksstum] and statehood [staatstum], of organic and mechanical structures of family spirit, morality and religion on the one hand and the economic-political-scientific powers that dissolve them on the other.”[xvi] For Tonnies the increasing collectivization of production and the increasing individualization of consumption were producing an asocial character type that was antithetical to community, by being both anti-volk and anti-nation the modern world was fashioning an essentially soulless social order. This dichotomy of thought is echoed in the distinction of Culture and Civilization made by Spengler, in which culture has a soul, whereas Civilization is “the most external and artificial state of which humanity is capable.”[xvii]


Role of the State

Because the commercial classes were less powerfully ‘developed’ in Germany compared to France and England, Germany retained a strong centralized state, while almost contradictory, maintaining local traditions even after unification under the Prussian Monarchy. “In Germany, in particular, the tradition of state regulation and intervention was a powerful one, going back to the days of eighteenth-century Enlightened Absolutism…”[xviii] Thus the merchant class had a better base in both England and France in which to ferment their ideas and spread the ‘the economic-political-scientific powers that dissolve’ Gemeinschaft relations by dictating and shaping the state. Germany maintained a position of critical distance from the new modes of life being fostered upon it from aboard. The Young Romantic movement can be viewed as such a reaction against the ‘formula of Anglo-Franco capitalism:’

“desired the construction of a new German state that would respect, encourage and revive the earlier corporate forms of German life. The general thesis was that the new forms of economic life, based on the rational pursuit of profit, would, if no expression of the common national will were able to bridle them, lead to a continuation of the destruction… [T]he new German state must create a new spiritual-political Gemeinschaft … . [It  must] cherish and protect the old folkways and put a sharp brake on socially disruptive economic practices.”[xix]

The notion of a powerfully centralized state acting against the interests of the capitalist class as a particularly German modern phenomenon was accompanied by a socialism of thought that tended to view “poverty and intensifying class conflict as pathologies calling for scientific assessment and application of policy, not just as inevitable consequences of market laws.”[xx] The German mode of thinking is to be held in sharp contrast to the laissez faire doctrines of England and France, that is to say that it is fair to speak of an intellectual tradition of German distinctiveness that shaped the contours of political thought through philosophy, sociology and even anthropology, what Herder “spoke of the informing spirit embodied in a people and expressed in its culture as Kraft, best translated here as ‘vital force’.”[xxi] It can be argued that German distinctiveness was especially pronounced in the notion of community and a social consciousness. Such that Hegelian idealism “offered itself as the synthesis of both modernity and community, of the universal, rational will to the highest good, as in Kant’s ethics, with the concrete, historical community cherished by the Romantics and also, it may be added, with what Hegel calls ‘the system of needs’: the world of production and private property.”[xxii] Thus Germany uniquely found an Aristotelian balance between Tonnies’ dichotomies in its intellectual traditions that was largely missing from many other modernizing states of Europe at the time and even now from the prevailing contemporary ‘total gesellschaft’ conditions affected by globalization and postmodernism.

However, initially for Tonnies the state was indissolubly connected with Gesellschaft. He did not give in to the neo-romantic notion of the ‘state community’ what might be called the Hegelian dialectic of German idealism. Up until 1914, Tonnies’ viewpoint was separated from the folk ideologists’ belief that some kind of “tribal nationalism” merger with the state was possible. For Tonnies, “The state is a capitalist’s institution, and remains so when it declares its identity with society,”[xxiii] this view of the state is as a simple and rational abstract structure that replaces and violates the complicated living concrete relationships of the organic community in which it imposes its own will and ends.[xxiv]

For Tonnies, the Prussian state of Bismarck, was viewed as neither moral nor approaching the spirit of Gemeinschaft – “political unification had not brought with it that national self-awareness which many Germans had always desired. Instead the newly unified people engaged in material pursuits – money making and building up cities – and thus were destroying those ancient German traditions which to many minds had been the real driving force behind the movement for unification.”[xxv] Herein a parallel may be drawn with the contemporary state of the European Union, conceived in terms primarily of an economic neoliberalism; it has however and despite itself fostered a sense of European unity (brotherhood) for various pan-European and Identitarian movements.

Following World War I however Tonnies accepted “[Paul] Lagarde’s notion that the state, though like a machine, could receive, in Stern’s words, ‘the guidance of a spiritual entity that could give it purpose and direction … It was here that Tonnies reread Lagarde volkish thought with ‘the greatest sympathy.’” Tonnies began to accept Lagarde’s cultural criticism that directly confronted the competition as being among vying groups at war within the new Germany, “discovering in turn that the Jews, the liberals, the academicians, were the cause, and a new religion, a new body politic, a new nobility, and a new education system the cure.”[xxvi] Herein could be drawn out a parallel with the Alt-Right, whereby the spiritual reality of a heterogeneous European population comprising White-American identity never self-actualized due to the materialism of Anglo liberal capitalism that both fueled the need for the ‘melting pot’ and also simultaneously undermined it. The Alt-Right like the Volkish pan-Germans before them desire the spiritual unity of brotherhood for Pan-Europeans that American identity historically could only superficially and materially awarded them with because it is imbued with the Gesellschaft qualities of the Anglosphere. Likewise, the Volkish movement was able to penetrate “one important wing of conservatism” and then come to become the conservative position itself ‘we the GOP now,’[xxvii] – “the strength of their position was reflected in the eventual character of conservative thought, which, by 1933, was far more Volkish in nation than it was classical Wilhelmine.”[xxviii]

During World War I, Tonnies wrote comparative studies of the German and English state. He came to view the German state, of Lorenz von Stein, as the bearer of Gemeinschaft – Stein also influenced Marx “the concepts of the ‘proletariat’ and of ‘class’ – and the historical role assigned to them in the development of capitalism – were originally Stein’s contribution.”[xxix]  For Stein, “The essential function of both state and society is to further the individual’s interest in his self-fulfillment.”[xxx] For Tonnies, Stein’s self-fulfillment was conflated with the notion of wesenwille connected to conditions of Gemeinschaft. Community and the modern state — once seen as irreconcilable — became possible; a change from an historical to a conceptual opposition opened this possibility of reconciliation. Tonnies began to theorize that the state could ascend from its Hobbesian contractual status of the English liberal capitalist system, as merely a representative of the sellers of goods — the “night watchman state” dedicated to neutrality – whose function was to performing the social role of administering the nation’s economy:

“Also, because the artificial foundation of Gesellschaft is commerce, Tonnies quotes Adam Smith’s comment that everyone is a merchant. In keeping with his socialistic leanings, he decries the impact of capitalism on society: because it fosters competition, it cuts us off from each other, from the community, and even from nature. Because of the ruthless competition in the Gesellschaft, Tonnies believes that this state of commerce resembles Hobbes’ state of war… Tonnies also believes that the notion of Kirwille resembles the arbitrary will of Hobbes’ Sovereign; the difference is that because modern man lacks the Sovereign’s power, he cannot choose arbitrarily but must be calculating in making his decisions… Again he follows Hobbes, who believes that people strive after power and want other people to envy them. Thus self-interest and vanity are the prime movers in the search for individual happiness.”[xxxi]

For Tonnies the English state failed to “fulfill its promise,” found within the lie of voluntary labour because of “the great inequality of means” between owners and workers culminated in misery, displacement and inevitable class conflict. Tonnies saw an overcoming of this in the various working class movements, namely syndicalism — the revolutionary wing of which was expressed by George Sorrel and later amalgamated into Italian Fascism.

Syndicalism, Fascism and National Socialism in general represented political movements towards “community” and away from “society,” regardless of ‘reactionary’ degree, that generally corresponded to Tonnies’ social aims. Tonnies’ “concept of socialism represented a synthesis of community and society, while modern capitalism represented the cultural pattern of society in its purest form. Socialism, in Tonnies’ sense is society-like because it has to be a planned, purposive order; the community-like element in socialism consists in the basic conception of the nature and function of its economy which is seen not as a system of competitive enterprises but as one large household.”[xxxii] These social movements combined with a sense of growing nationalism could but only increase the Gemeinschaft qualities of the coming regimes. This marriage of the nationalist state and syndicalism was wedded to fascist doctrine and aims: “Nationalism, going beyond the economic conceptions of a now superseded liberalism, has pinned its colours firmly to the mast of syndicalism… nationalism believes that the syndicate must become the basis of economic life and wants to bring this about…”[xxxiii] An opposition between the state and Geselleschaft appeared to open the possibility of a reconciliation of the state and Gemeinschaft — only if the state took an active role in the national economy and recognized the historic-organic conception of its peoples – that is if Culture was placed over Civilization in Spengerlian terms life would flourish. Herein again Tonnies aligned himself with Volkish thought whereby the purely material socialist-Marxist and Left radicals could not reconcile the dilemma. “The socialist conception of Fritz Stern or Rudolf Gneist stripped of all qualities of gemeinschaftliche qualities”[xxxiv] remained essentially soulless for Tonnies and fragmented the state along pluralist lines.

Like Sombart, Tonnies located the dislocation of the modern world with the ascendancy of the merchant caste and their spirit although he expressed it differently, “The Gesellschaft originated in the trading practices of the medieval merchants, who took calculated risks to secure profit. These men lived rationally but arbitrarily.”[xxxv]

Scholar-Priest Caste/Brahmans
Warrior Caste/Kshatriya
Merchant Caste/Vaisyas

Tonnies came to accept the state as necessary and capable of being a bearer of Gemeinschaft: “The Volksgemeinschaft is a fact. It is bound together by speech, custom, and law, by art and science, by tradition and history, but also by the life of the state.”[xxxvi] Tonnies mused, “Perhaps only the Reich — much though it is conditioned by capitalism, indeed, like every state is dependent on it — can after long struggling become stronger than capitalism, and separate from it,”[xxxvii] as he moved politically Rightward and closer to Otto von Gierke’s stated goal of “the reconciliation of the cooperative basis and the authoritarian top in the contemporary state.”[xxxviii] Gierke’s major work, The German Law of Association (1868-81) was an explication and exhalation of the medieval guild, which Tonnies spoke of as “the last and highest expression of which the idea of Gemeinschaft is capable,”[xxxix] the guild was a great inspiration and foundation to syndicalism and the Fascist state:

“The Fascist State is not a night watchman, solicitous only of the personal safety of the citizens; not is it organized exclusively for the purpose of guarantying a certain degree of material prosperity and relatively peaceful conditions of life, a board of directors would do as much. Neither is it exclusively political, divorced from practical realities and holding itself aloof from the multifarious activities of the citizens and the nation. The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit. The State guarantees the internal and external safety of the country, but it also safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith.”



[i] MacDonald, Kevin B. The culture of critique : an evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century intellectual and political movements. Bloomington, IN: 1stBooks, 2002. Print. 20.


[iii] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 61.


[iv] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973,  88.


[v] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 83.


[vi] Burrow, J. W. The crisis of reason : European thought, 1848-1914. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Print. 63.

[vii] Ferdinand Tonnies: Utopian Visionary Author(s): Christopher Adair-Toteff Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 58-65 Published by: American Sociological Association

[viii] Adair-Toteff, Christopher. “Ferdinand Tonnies: Utopian Visionary.” Sociological Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, 1995, pp. 58–65.

[ix] Rudolf Heberle. “Ferdinand Tonnies’ Contributions to the Sociology of Political Parties”. American Journal of Sociology 61.3 (1955): 213—220. Web…


[x] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 46.

[xi] Heberle, Rudolf. “The Sociology of Ferdinand Tönnies.” American Sociological Review 2.1 (1937): 9-25. Web.

[xii] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 77.


[xiii] Kim, Young Kun. “Hegel’s Criticism of Chinese Philosophy.” Philosophy East and West 28.2 (1978): 173-80. Web.


[xiv] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 77.


[xv] Adair-Toteff, Christopher. “Ferdinand Tonnies: Utopian Visionary.” Sociological Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, 1995, pp. 58–65

[xvi] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 67.


[xvii] Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. New York, 1926, Vol. I, 356.


[xviii] Burrow, J. W. The crisis of reason : European thought, 1848-1914. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Print. 124.


[xix] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 22.


[xx] Burrow, J. W. The crisis of reason : European thought, 1848-1914. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Print. 125.

[xxi] Burrow, J. W. The crisis of reason : European thought, 1848-1914. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Print. 88.

[xxii] Burrow, J. W. The crisis of reason : European thought, 1848-1914. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Print. 130.

[xxiii] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 113.


[xxiv] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 103.


[xxv] Mosse, L. George. The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich. Grosset and Dunlap. New York. 1964. 3.


[xxvi] Stern Fritz, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. 33.



[xxviii] Mosse, L. George. The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich. Grosset and Dunlap. New York. 1964. 7.

[xxix] Mengelberg, Kaethe. “Lorenz Von Stein and His Contribution to Historical Sociology.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 22, no. 2, 1961, pp. 267–274

[xxx] Mengelberg, Kaethe. “Lorenz Von Stein and His Contribution to Historical Sociology.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 22, no. 2, 1961, pp. 267–274

[xxxi] Adair-Toteff, Christopher. “Ferdinand Tonnies: Utopian Visionary.” Sociological Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, 1995, pp. 58–65

[xxxii] Rudolf Heberle. “Ferdinand Tonnies’ Contributions to the Sociology of Political Parties”. American Journal of Sociology 61.3 (1955): 213—220. Web…


[xxxiii] Griffin, Roger. Fascism. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print. 38


[xxxiv] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 113.


[xxxv] Adair-Toteff, Christopher. “Ferdinand Tonnies: Utopian Visionary.” Sociological Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, 1995, pp. 58–65


[xxxvi] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 130.


[xxxvii] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 127.


[xxxviii] Mitzman Arthur. Sociology and Estrangment: Three Sociologists of Imperial Germany. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 1973, 128.


[xxxix] Burrow, J. W. The crisis of reason : European thought, 1848-1914. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Print. 120.