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.

The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy by Gil Anidjar Book Review


Gil Anidjar is a bit of a mysterious figure; in so far as his biographical information is at best sketchy and difficult to come by. What is repeated enough to constitute being ‘known’ about Anidjar is that he is a Professor of Comparative Literature at Columbia University. Otherwise he was born in France in 1964 and trained under famed Jewish deconstructionist Jacques Derrida.


Lore Waldvogel in reviewing Anidjar’s book Blood: A Critique On Christianity has speculated that his surname “would seem to be Jewish and his work fits well into the common pattern of Jewish involvement in the culture of critique.” Whether Jewish or Arab or Jewish-Arab or Arabic-Jew or Muslim-Jewish or any other such configuration that Anidjar strings together in the book, perhaps one ethnically and the other culturally – Anidjar is certainly a member of what he himself would term an “Enemy” group of Europe and by extension of Europeans. But one of the ways we can infer about who and what he is by looking at those who have avowed themselves his enemies. Foremost amongst them is Jewish neocon David Horowitz who has included Anidjar in his The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Horowitz’ think tank The David Horowitz Freedom Center’s pro-Trump neocon publication Frontpage Magazine has also run an article denouncing Anidjar as a ‘teacher of hate.’ The article begins by painting Anidjar’s in a manner entirely of an Occidental Observer perspective: “The course on “Hate” is not really about the history or literature of the Middle East at all. It is an extended rumination upon two matters. The first is the evil of Europe, which has for its own purposes not merely created “the Other” (or rather, being especially awful, as Europe will be, creating two “the Others” – “Arab” and “Jew”), and subjecting both of them to identical diabolical persecution.”

Although I think this is a slight misreading, the comparisons of a Jewish Neocon and AltRight (European Identitarian) perspective stop there. What Frontpage Magazine has a problem with is Anidjar’s supposed aim is “the business of symmetrically reducing ‘Jew’ and ‘Arab’ to the identical status of victims.” Because for them the only eternal victim group who incidentally never wronged anyone in the history of their existence is the Jews and how dare Anidjar try to morally guilt Europeans vis a vis the Muslims that’s ‘the business’ of the Jews. It’s worth quoting the two paragraphs at length in order to observe the outright chutzpah:

“Unfortunately, it bears no relation to reality. The Jews of Europe were in fact (see Leon Poliakoff, see Malcolm Hay, see Gavin Langmuir) subjected, first out of theological hatreds, and then out of racism directed at Jews even if they ceased to be Jews, over more than a millennium. They were inoffensive; they had no political or military power. Yet they were driven from country after country, their goods stolen, many of them killed. The history of charges of ritual murder, of massacres, could fill up a book, and indeed, do fill up a book – Simon Wiesenthal’s Every Day Remembrance Day, in which murder after murder, massacre after massacre, expulsion after expulsion, is listed.

But the Arabs? The Arabs, or rather the Muslims, though stopped by Charles Martel and the Franks at Poitiers in the West in 732, continued to fight in Spain until finally Muslim power came to an end in 1492; in the East, the Muslims seized much of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and were besieging Vienna as late as 1683. And meanwhile, for a thousand years, Arab raiders went up and down the coasts, not only on the Mediterranean, but as far north as Ireland and Iceland, and razed and looted whole villages, and kidnapped, historians estimate, about 1 million white Europeans (and killed many more) who were taken back to North Africa, enslaved, and forcibly converted. The historian Giles Milton has just written White Gold about this forgotten part of European history, focusing on one Thomas Pellow.”

Gil Anidjar

What is striking about The Jew, the Arab is that what Anidjar is attempting is more complicated and obscured than such tactless remonstrations attest. Indeed, the central pivot of the book revolves around the concept of the ‘enemy’ as devised by Carl Schmitt as a necessary prerequisite for the political and it does so without the excessive moral pandering implied in such readings. “Schmitt offers a radical addition to the distinctions made ‘in the realm of morality’ (good and evil) or in the aesthetic realm (beautiful and ugly). As to the political sphere, Schmitt writes, ‘the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” Almost Despite itself and its intellectual obscurantist style there are certain statements and modes of inquiry that are helpful for European Identitarians – not least one of the major foundations of the book contends that Europe and Europeans have two major historical enemies – the internal enemy of the Jew which Anidjar attaches to the “theological” and the external enemy of the Arab-Muslim which Anidjar attaches to the “political” and racial. Thus the former is essentially a spiritual enemy while the latter is a materialist one. Although one could infer given Anidjar’s Other status that his purpose in deconstructing the notion of the enemy entirely in relation to Europe, “It should become clear that The Jew, the Arab is about Europe: Europe is its limit and its limitations,” (xi) is to carry on the secular academic tradition of Jewish and following Edward Said’s Orientalism, of which this work shares similar weaknesses of “undeniable ahistoricism,” – critiques of Europe, “white people,” Christianity and Western Civilization generally. This was indeed Waldvogel’s understanding of Anidjar’s purpose in Blood and it may well be so in that case. But indeed in the case of The Jew, the Arab the opaque quality of the work does indicate that something dishonest is occurring throughout, but it is difficult to exactly categorize this is a work of anti-white, anti-European, anti-Christian bias spurious as it seems – rather it feels like a collection of erudite musings from an anti-imperialist leftist humanist who is part of the anti-Israel divestment campaign.

Like Waldvogel and Frontpage Magazine, I found Anidjar’s style overtly abstruse, purportedly purposefully, so as to obscure a lack of a solid line of reasoning – in so far as ‘comparative literature’ is valued over historio-sociological research the thesis is often somewhat submerged and tangential in places – while the text remains interesting if sesquipedalian throughout. I found the

style similar to Zizek’s in so far as it showcased both an intense overabundance of eurition and reference combined with perhaps specious anecdotals, well still remaining refreshingly creative – almost a kind of arabesque-feeling quality to it. Waldvogel again, “Instead, (of a clear line of argument) we encounter a string of household names such as Carl Schmitt, Giorgio Agamben, Walter Benjamin, Sigmund Freud and Jacques Derrida,” hits on Anidjar’s and by extension a great mass of contemporary liberal arts academia’s weaknesses expertly – the overwhelming intersectional name-dropping of ideas and thinkers – litterae nihil sanantes. I encountered the same feeling as Waldvogel, “It feels a bit as if Anidjar had used his research grants for harvesting quotes from world literature and philosophy related to the semantic field of blood…” but in the place of blood in this case it was harvesting instances of the “enemy” that was peppered often without incorporation or extrapolation throughout the text. To Anidjar’s credit he does offer at various times what can be called a somewhat evolving critique of his subject. For instance he traces a movement of the enemy category through what he calls the “theological enemy” into the “political enemy” – as a kind of dialectical synthesis of a theological-political dichotomy. Anidjar attests this is at the base of a schism in Western ontology, generally. Wherein the Jew became the basis of the theological half and Muslims-Arabs became the basis of the political half.

The opening chapter ‘The Theological Enemy’ traces the movement from Judaism’s law “love thy neighbour” (often interpreted as love thy fellow Jew) to Christ’s “impossible” (according to St Aquinas and Freud) commandment to “love thy enemies.” It traces in this the paradox of the Christian message as exemplified by Paul for whom both sinners and Jews are both, at the same time and in the same place, enemies and brothers – “As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Rom. 11:28-29).

keep-calm-and-love-your-enemiesHerein the Christian idealism of a universal brotherhood of mankind is at war with the identitarian pretensions of the Jews but also the emerging political spheres of nations, city-states, kings, princes and other sovereignties as well as later racial identitarian movements such as Nazism, as Anidjar writes, “the subject of Paul’s letter is at war with itself, making it impossible to sustain the division suggested by Schmitt… the theological enemy as both personal and political and as neither personal nor political.” (9). A section on Freud’s Jesus, which echoes or acts as a synecdochic symbol for whole of the Jewish communities rejection of the new covenant, follows.

Anidjar then traces the movement of the ‘practicalizing’ of the idealism within Christendom proper, from St. Augustine’s notion of just war. The idea of Christian love than is juxtaposed and made complicated by the political obligations of the Church to community and the threats of its real existing enemies – the Jews and the Arabs and other heretics. This movement of the theological towards the political is expressed as the triumph of Aquinas, “enemies are contrary to us precisely as enemies…” Anidjar qualifies, “Aquinas thus turns Augustine on his head and restores differences that had been all but dismissed, abstracted.”

The second chapter examines Derrida, Anidjar’s mentor, from whose notes the title of the book is taken. If Anidjar is truly his master’s student than he would be following Derrida’s life work as the

father of deconstruction – the stated aim of which is to destroy European identity, as Zizek quotes in an essay attempting to disprove Kevin Macdonald’s thesis of Jewish subversion in Culture of Critique:

“The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants…”

Incidentally passages like this seem to unequivocally prove MacDonald’s thesis, broadly that Jews are attracted and spearhead political and intellectual movements which seek to weaken and destroy the natural bonds of their host societies while benefitting Jews themselves; “Jews have been the main motivating force behind several highly influential intellectual movements that have simultaneously subjected gentile culture to radical criticism and allowed for the continuity of Jewish identification.”
Zizek’s response to MacDonald’s thesis is a typical leftist Marxian-Freudian word salad analysis, which effectively devolves into name calling; “We should have no illusions here: measured by the standards of the great Enlightenment tradition, we are effectively dealing with something for which the best designation is the old orthodox Marxist term for “bourgeois irrationalists”: the self-destruction of Reason. The only thing to bear in mind is that this new barbarism is a strictly post-modern phenomenon, the obverse of the highly reflexive self-ironical attitude—no wonder that, reading authors like MacDonald, one often cannot decide if one is reading a satire or a “serious” line of argumentation.”

Derrida, who speaks as a sort of “Judeo-Algerian” and “uprooted African” and also as a “little black and very arab Jew” casts “the name Derrida become double at least.” Indeed the majority of this section is perhaps a mirror for Anidjar’s own sense of “doubleness” of marginality, of what sociologist Robert Park calls being “a marginal man.” Park writes that the effect of mass migration of various groups into relatively close proximity to each other in cosmopolitan areas produces “an unstable character, a personality type with characteristic forms of behavior.” That a person “who may or may not be a mixed blood – finds himself striving to live in two diverse cultural groups.” Park then identifies this dualism most prominently, lastingly, and historically within the psyche of the emancipated European Jew. Thus, “the emancipated Jew was, and is, historically and typically the marginal man, the first cosmopolite and citizen of the world.” Rather than consciously evaluate himself and Derrida his mentor and “marginal man” mirror, Anidjar plays a kind of game reminiscent of Zizek, calling both Judaism and Islam, and the Jew and the Arab and the hyphenated Arab-Jew; the “Abrahamic” including but also set against the middle stage or antithesis of Christianity and the Christian community.

Chapter three De Inimicitia, offering an interesting reading of Hobbes’ Leviathan above all and the movement of the “enemy” as category as set against the emerging modern state, which sees “the translation of every man into the enemy, the translation of the neighbor into the enemy.”

This begins an intriguing dialogue primarily between Hobbes, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche and Schmitt.

The closing of the first half of the book is with an Appendix on Franz Rosenzweig’s The Star of Redemption, a work that I am not very familiar. “The enemy it attacks is the philosophy of German idealism, the home it defends is the individual.” This section is really a maddening display of Jewish subversion and supremacy; which makes claims of Christian inadequacy: “While the Jewish people knows no war because, for the Jewish people, for God’s people, the distinction between self and other has been abolished, and while Christendom maintains that distinction, what Christian peoples cannot maintain, what they have abolished, is the distinction between others, the difference between one neighbor and the next, and therefore the difference between God and world.” Beyond this there are some interesting ideas floating within that have worked their way from the beginning of the first half of the book: “At the theological pole, Judaism experiences only political war. At the political pole, Islam spreads only holy war. And in between lies Christendom, undecidably theological-political.”

Part II or the book’s second half, opens with a very interesting discussion of Shakespeare’s two Venice plays, The Merchant of Venice and Othello (so-called The Moor of Venice). This section attempts to reaffirm one of his central thesis – “The Moor of Venice is located within the sphere of politics… whereas the Merchant of Venice clearly stages a struggle over metaphysical truths.”

Finally the Fifth chapter Muslims (Hegel, Freud, Auschwitz), does an account of Hegel’s theories regarding religion, it also revisits Freud but the more interesting account was the usage of the term “Musselman” as an Auschwitz slang term for Jews who listlessly gave up hope within the camps – seemingly resembling praying Arabs. This account was contrasted to Israeli literary depictions of Arabs in Palestine – the accounts were eerily similar.

In totum the book is interesting and useful for European Identitarians who wish to identify and understand their “enemies.” If it is the intention of Anidjar to “deconstruct” Europe in the manner of his master Derrida, it appears he succeeded instead in convoluting the matter to the point of achieving almost an opposite. That is my reading gleaned some understanding of the cultural-racial edifice of Europe while acknowledging that “enemies” are essential to its own understanding of itself and of the Other. Whether it was Anidjar’s intention to reveal the ‘substanceless,’ or at least contingent component to “Othering” and making an Enemy out of the Other, it seems he only succeeded in reaffirming the necessity.

Damnatio Memoriae: Against the Eraser of Collective Historical Reality

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”  – George Orwell

“…scientists view narrative statements as ‘belonging to a different mentality: savage, primitive, underdeveloped, backward, alienated, composed of opinions, customs, authority, prejudice, ignorance, ideology. Narratives are fables, myths, legends, fit only for women and children’” – Jean Lyotard

The movement towards a post-historical era in which we remove from the gown of history all the girdles and gnarled knots that upset anyone is a movement towards falsification, historical illiteracy but also towards a kind of ideological-historical totalitarianism, as Orwell wrote through Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four although he does not know “with any certainty that this was 1984,” that “those who control the past, control the present and those that control the present control the future.” While 1984 is a novel about many things it is largely about the techniques and procedures of a totalitarian regime. One technique brilliantly examined explores how regimes attempt to fully control the historical narrative, they do so by taking symbols, signs, events and people and assign to them a fixed meaning of their choosing or simply erase them from the record altogether, ‘The Civil War then becomes primarily and absolutely about slavery,’ which only occurred late in the proceedings when Lincoln delivered his Emancipation Proclamation. This revisionist tendency often means aligning the ‘varieties of history’ into a congestible orthodox ‘whig narrative’ which betrays the knotted contours of historical fashioning. To superimpose a singular reading according to the whig narrative means to treat all historical events through “a theory of history that sees the slow and gradual march of progress in a free society as the dominant force not only in Anglo-American history but in the wider world as well.” Thus, the American Civil War’s dominant theme becomes “muh freedom vs muh slavery” in the popular imagination and in the ordering of the historical record. Herein the ideas of the post-modernists about the death of grand narratives is proven to be both naive and premature. However, one could make allowance for the illiteracy of the grand narrative itself; functioning nearly subconsciously in the manner of pure ideology, thereby producing ahistorical subjects who nevertheless are conditioned on the a priori assumptions of the whig narrative. Oswald Spengler, that metaphysician of the historical process, gives an excellent summation of the two positions an individual can take in regards to what Hegel famously referred to as the ‘slaughterbench’: “History is that from which (man’s) imagination seeks comprehension of the living existence of the world in relation to his own life, which he thereby invests with a deeper reality.” Thus, Spengler goes on to conclude in his opening general remarks about history that there are two possible ways of regarding the world. The first is through the historical lens, the other is as a being outside of history, untouched by its many complexes a post-historical being, Spengler writes: “But it makes a great difference whether anyone lives under the constant impression that his life is an element in a far wider life-course that goes on for hundreds and thousands of years, or conceives of himself as something rounded off and self-contained.”

The post-historical subject -“rounded off and self-contained”

This post-historical, “rounded off and self-contained” phenomenological-existential approach to history somewhat unconsciously conditioned by the whig narrative despite the individual’s historical illiteracy; is furnished by the panem et circenses of the ceaseless avaricious activity of capitalism, itself purporting its own pseudo-histories; sports history, music history, and the miscellaneous histories of numerous sub-cultural groups – ersatz “last men” derivatives of the Real.   

The process of damnatio memoriae, that is erasing the memory of someone or something that has fallen out of favour of the ruling regime from the historical record involves the iconoclastic destruction of the contentious thing itself. Hence Isis destroying Ancient sites such as Palmyra simply because they predate or offer an ‘outside’ of the parameters of Allah’s inception is no different from the progressives removing Confederate statutes simply because they predate or ‘exist outside’ the parameters of contemporary political correctness.’ Both are attempts to wipe the historical record clean of heterodoxical elements from the prevailing ideological bent in their respective spheres of influence. No different from the Israeli occupation destroying monuments, town, signposts; any vestiges of Palestinian existence, even going so far as to uproot thousand year old olive trees – what greater metaphor could there be for forceful deracination by an enemy regime?  


The struggle of the Palestinians is the selfsame struggle we Europeans face – Yankee, Confederate, Canadian, Italian or Brit; we are being racially eroded in our own lands by a regime that denies the reality of its policies while simultaneously labelling resistance as “terrorism” under a narrative of whig progress (“love”). While no friend of mine, we should heed the warning of Edward Said, “Perhaps the greatest battle Palestinians have waged as a people has been over the right to a remembered presence, and with that presence, the right to possess and reclaim a collective historical reality.”

A united front of European Nationalists protesting the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue at Charlotteville, while shouting, “You will not replace us!” and even more accurately “Jews will not replace us,” cannot but issue some parallel to those Palestinians who struggle against the “Zionist agenda and to erase all traces of Palestinian presence from space and time.


Throughout Nineteen Eighty-Four Winston Smith is grappling with his memory to recall the nursery rhyme “Oranges and Lemons” which refers to the bells of several “erased” churches of the City of London which itself has now been renamed Airstrip One by the Party. Throughout the novel this leitmotif of his memory connected to monuments of a shared ‘collective historical reality’ is under assault by the totalitarian dictates of the Party, which seeks to destroy any heterodox elements within its sphere of influence (Oceania) from diverging from its ideology – either past, present or future. When Winston Smith is being questioned by O’Brien, “… does the past exist concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects where the past is still happening?” In this case no because the Party has removed the Churches, the inquisition goes further:

“In records. It is written down.”

“In records. And – ?”

“In the mind. In human memories.”

“In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?”

Memory and identity are intricately connected and the surest way to preserve both for us European idolaters is through idols – monuments. As Milan Kundera wrote, “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” That is what we Europeans face.

Although all signs and symbols, including the confederate flag, including Robert E Lee are polysemous and deictic; that is to say that they contain multiple meanings and can be interpreted with corresponding emotions by different people in different ways, according to different contexts – they carry with them historical significance. Totalitarian regimes, however, attempt to fix meaning according to their own understanding of what the thing represents.  

I recall wasting some breath discussing the importance of the Confederate flag with a liberal history graduate during the hysteria to remove it from the sight of offended parties; my interlocker retorted that I was ‘living in the past’ and that ‘we must think about today.’ I found such statements almost ironic coming from someone who makes a point of studying the past, but it bespoke of the modern fetishism with the intensity of the present and the moment, of ‘living for today’ with throwing off the shackles of tradition and history and ‘being here now’ as Ram Das put it – the problem with this is that we are a product of historical evolution, not just our own personal ones but our collective histories as extended personal genealogies; as groups, as tribes as civilizational-racial blocs and only lastly and most removed from the self; as humanity. Cireco’s quote needs be remembered: “To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?”


Winston Smith, working for the Ministry of Truth, understood the power of the historical record in allowing people’s unique and rooted identities which is the basis of collective political action. Winston Smith acted, like Orwell himself, in the capacity of a kind of journalist-historian who revises and creates histories and narratives – destroying the collective historical reality of a people to render them pliable and manipulable atomistic members of an impersonal leviathan. As all people who dabble in the annals of the historical record know: there is no fixed consensus.

Populism in America, for example, has generally held two distinct and contradictory perspectives. The revisionist historical perspective on American populism, was begun by Jewish historian Richard Hofstadter, in The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R., Hofstadter holds that “American Populism was narrow and provincial, deeply nostalgic, for a permanently lost past, and racist and bigoted in its response to the ethnically diverse flow of immigration into the United States.”

Richard Hofstadter

Hofstadter was revising the “Almost unanimous in their sympathetic portrayal of the movement, they saw it was a lineal descendant of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracy.”  While, historians such as John D. Hick and Roscoe C. Martian, viewed populism as “a movement of mass, popular resistance to the worst features of American capitalism and to the rampant corruption and dishonesty in American politics.” Following in response to Hofstadter’s revisionism of this view, was a school of counter-revisionism led by Norman Pollack and so the contention over history is always a matter of perspective and often of agenda and ruling ideology. Similarly following the Civil War there were two primary schools of thought, the William Dunning School and that of the Revisionists, many of whom were black historians. Of course once the Confederate flag is suspect, what of Jefferson and Jackson?  As the two foremost Presidents who battled the centralizing process of the Federal Banking system, the system which would eventuate in the Federal Reserve and the infinite debt-ceiling of a crumbling empire. Both Jefferson and Jackson after all have shady historical records thus they too should be removed from the historical record – regulated to the ‘memory hole.’ Jefferson’s debates against Alexander Hamilton over the creation of the America’s first central bank were legendary, while Jackson’s fight against the banksters was heroic. The campaign to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill, most notably under the “Women on the 20s campaign” could have him replaced by a cohort of female progressives such as Margaret Sanger or Rosa Parks. President Trump’s concession to the Charlottesville protester’s right to fight against the removal of “what is to them a very, very important statue” and furthermore asking if George Washington or Thomas Jefferson iconoclasm and damnatio memoriae were next was the proudest moment of his entire Presidency thus far. President Trump displayed the kind of sympathetic identification with marginal narratives and people in this instance that one wonders if his pre-election anti-interventionist rhetoric amounts to the recognition that ‘one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.’ While the (((MSM))) pretends to make Trump’s insightful and balanced comments into a false equivalence; ‘Robert E Lee is not the same as Jefferson or Washington,’ however, the de facto reality of the progressive Left already targeting Jefferson as a symbol of white supremacy, and the ongoing agenda to erase the past based on retroactively moralization is pushing a never-ending iconoclasm mostly upon European achievement: Aboriginals in Australia protest the removal of Captain James Cook statues, the Guardian pines for the removal of Admiral Horatio Nelson, Leftists take it upon themselves to destroy the oldest Christopher Columbus statue in America, Ontario teachers push to rename John A Macdonald schools, and when Ghana will remove statue of Ghandi over his racist views – the progressives wolfs begin to eat their own.

I imagine Southerners who, after the War and Reconstruction, and now the removal of their symbols, are not unlike Winston Smith, who wandering around what used to be the city of London, cannot remember the nursery rhyme about the churches. The monuments have all been removed, as the people of London have been replaced, as London does not exist only Airstrip One exists – likewise the South does not exist only America, while race does not exist, only humanity – and other such totalitarianisms:

Winston Smith: “Does Big Brother exist?”

O’Brien: “Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party.”

Winston Smith: “Does he exist in the same way that I exist?”

O’Brien: “You do not exist.”