I had known about Rushkoff’s treatment of Judaism; Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism, for some time and had always meant to read and review it.[i]
A video of Rushkoff discussing his take on Judaism surfaced online reminiscent of the infamous ‘Barbara Spectre moment’ – that is a political gaffe from the tribe’s mouth. We can say these “Spectre moments” are when a Jewish cultural distorter candidly discusses Jewish cultural distortion on non-Jews and their nations as Rushkoff does:
“The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren’t true, we don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state, we don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people, these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that.In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force, we’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real and that’s very upsetting to people.”
The reason Jews like Rushkoff and Barbara Spectre allow themselves to speak candidly about Jewish social engineering, affirming what their ‘detractors’ accuse Jews of is because they believe that by manipulating gentile societies they are doing the world a service – that they are in fact doing God’s work. By undermining their host nations so as to bring about conditions of disunity, Jews, like Rushkoff and Spectre, believe that in performing this role of ‘a corrosive force;’ “breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people,” that they are performing a mitzvah as part of their god-ordained task of tikkun olam. A mitzvah is translated as a ‘commandment’ but more commonly means a good deed done from religious duty. Rushkoff describes tikkun olam as “a poetic way of expressing the responsibility Jews have to ‘heal the earth.’[ii] In my two part essay on integration Manspreading for Lebestrum, when I discuss the HBO series Show me a Hero, based on a book by Jewish New York Times writer Lisa Belkin about the integration struggle in Yonkers between the NAACP their Jewish lawyers and the ethnic whites of Yonkers, we can discern the same underlying self-justification:
“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.”[iii]
What Jews like Rushkoff, Specter and Belkin affirm is that what “anti-semites” claim; that Jewish manipulation is real and corrosive is true; they agree the “Jewish conspiracy” is real but it is a matter of interpretation and the “anti-semite” is simply a gentile with the wrong interpretation simply because Jews know better. “The Jews unique position as perpetual outsiders led them to adopt and promote a wide range of cosmopolitan and inclusive business strategies and ethical standards.”[iv] Thus, diaspora Jews living in host nations seeking to ‘influence’ their non-Jewish neighbors in a manner which is demonstrably detrimental to their hosts (by mudding the authentic bonds of organic society; Tonnies’ Total Gesellschaft) and beneficial to Jews, as Rushkoff acknowledges, “A fluid society with ever-changing boundaries served them better than a closed or static one in which outsiders and new ideas were feared,”[v] is interpreted by Jews as a gift or a service they are rendering onto their Gentile neighbours.
Rushkoff and Belkin make Jewish social engineering into a fundamental religious precept inherent in Judaism rather and sometimes partially acknowledged as a diaspora social-political strategy to weaken the host; “It is not only our tradition, but our explicit obligation to act as stewards for the greater society.”[vi] To this end Rushkoff discusses the widely known Jewish role in desegregation and integration; “In 1952, the American Jewish Congress worked with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) to target unfair housing policy. Through a series of legal battles, American Jewish Congress attorneys ended the whites-only policy of New York City’s Stuyvesant Town, setting an important legal precedent against discrimination in housing projects that received any amount of public aid.”[vii]
What is interesting is that Rushkoff subtly acknowledges the self-serving and contingent strategic basis of such practices, something Karl Popper, the Jewish philosopher of the ‘Open Society,’ never could. Popper in his The Open Society and its Enemies, expressed the same desires for a universalist, cosmopolitan, pluralist, liberal society yet Popper rightly concluded that these values were largely the opposite of the Jewish religion, which according to Popper,[viii] and most all scholars of comparative religions i.e. Hegel, is a tribal supremacist ‘closed society,’ whereas Rushkoff through his deconstructionist self-serving modern revisionist interpretation Judaism proper becomes the wellspring from which ‘open society’ values spring. While Popper denied the very Jewish strategic basis of his viewpoint, conservative Jew Malachi Haim Hacohen, who is a foremost Popper scholar and critic, points towards Popper’s assimilated Ashkenazi Jewishness as the main source of his political viewpoint: “Cosmopolitanism appealed to Popper and liberal Jews precisely because of their life in between cultures and their indeterminate identity. Claiming membership in an imagined cosmopolitan community, Popper rejected Jewish identity. “I do not consider myself ‘an assimilated German Jew,’” he told a critic of his Autobiography, “this is how ‘the Fuhrer would have considered me.”[ix]
Enlightenment philosophers often portrayed the Jew as the counter-universal, especially Voltaire.[x] Popper refused to see the Jewish basis for his commitment to Kant’s cosmopolitanism, instead he would have sided with Marx and declared, “the question is not the emancipation of the Jews, but, rather, emancipation from the Jews… The emancipation of the Jews . . . is the emancipation of humanity from Judaism.” In so far as Popper admonished Judaism as a tribalist cult of the ‘closed society,’ Rushkoff seeks to re-interpret and thus salvage Judaism by imagining that the social engineering that Jews have been engaged in during modernity is actually the philosophical and moral foundations of Judaism itself. But because Jews are able to successfully carry out radical changes in gentile society because of their internal cohesion; their sense of mission as Jews, the changes they bring about are specifically designed to fragment the internal cohesion, the sense of ‘we’ of their hosts. The very success of the Jews working as groups of Jews undermines their stated purpose towards tolerance and plurality as inherently beneficial. Thus, the changes they established in immigration, desegregation, and integration can only be viewed as acts of subversion.
The problem herein is that Jewish tribalism and secular universalism are antithetical, and hence the assimilated Jew, especially if they are conscious of maintaining their Jewishness, is involved in a kind of fraud and deception. Rushkoff in the face of all prevailing evidence, of which he himself acknowledges, “True enough, my entire premise is contradicted by the many ways our own myths and customs have always been profoundly steeped in racial and ethnic assumptions. There are as many warnings in the Torah to kill our tribal neighbors as there are encouragements to embrace them. A good number of our most observant members ground their faith and pride in the Torah’s plentiful admonitions not to mix with other, lesser people[xi] attempts to transform Judaism into a ‘social justice’ religion. Rushkoff explains the Jewish strategy; “Anti-semites are not entirely unfounded in their claim that Jews are behind a great media conspiracy… If there is an agenda underlying Jews’ dedication to expanding the role of media in people’s lives, it is to promote intellectual perspective and the value of pluralism.”[xii] ‘Intellectual perspective’ herein is a lighter euphemism for the values and perspectives of the Jews. “Media, then, at its best, is a form of mass education” meaning brainwashing. “The more interconnected a society, the more likely it was to engage in complex transactions requiring Jews’ service. And the more inclusive and tolerant a society, the more likely it was to include the Jews, too.” Is this not ‘diversity is good because it is good for the Jews?[xiii]
[i] It was some years ago that I first encountered Jewish author Douglas Rushkoff. I read his Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World, and How We Can Take it Back. This was a part of a resurgence of far-left anti-corporatism, such as Jewish author Naomi Klein’s No Logo, and the film The Corporation (2003) by Jewish-Canadian filmmaker Mark Achbar. Having never abandoned a belief in socialist leanings and the negative effects of unbridled capitalism there was something to glean out of these student day forays of mine.
I recall even now that the central problem with Rushkoff’s book was the superficial quality of it; he attempted to fill pages buttressing his specious arguments with name-dropping and platitudes instead of real critical analysis to give the book the illusion of weight rather than internal cohesion. It had the same kind of swindling fraudulent quality as Jonah Lehrer’s work.
[ii] ” Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 36.
[iv] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 06.
[v] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 07.
[vi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 04.
[vii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 41.
[viii] “Hearing as a young boy the biblical story of the Golden Calf, said Popper, he had recognized the roots of religious intolerance in Jewish monotheism. The Hebrew Bible was the fountainhead of tribal nationalism. Oppressed and persecuted, exilic Jews created the doctrine of the Chosen People, presaging modern visions of chosen class and race. Both Roman imperialism and early Christian humanitarianism threatened the Jews’ tribal exclusivism. Jewish orthodoxy reacted by reinforcing tribal bonds, shutting Jews off from the world for two millennia. The ghetto was the ultimate closed society, a “petrified form of Jewish tribalism.” 120 Its inhabitants lived in misery, ignorance, and superstition. Their separate existence evoked the suspicion and hatred of non-Jews and fueled antisemitism.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History,71(1), 105-149.
[ix] “The ambiguity of Austrian nationality gave Jews an opportunity missing elsewhere for negotiating Jewish and national identity. Jews were the only ethnic group to adopt enthusiastically the official Staatsgedanke.
The politics of Jewish identity was notoriously contentious, but poor Galician traditionalists and re-fined Viennese assimilationists, orthodox rabbis and liberal scholars, Zionists and socialists, all declared their loyalty to the dynasty and the supranational empire. “Jews are the standard-bearers of the Austrian idea of unity,” stated the liberal Viennese rabbi Adolf Jellinek.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History,71(1), 105-149.
[x] Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243.}
[xi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 176.
[xii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 8.
[xiii] If real unity comes from a shared sense of ‘we’ that is internal cohesion,Prior to the changes wrought about by special interests groups in the Anglosphere’s immigration policies (1965 US, 1967 Canada, 1972 Australia) collectively neologized as “globalized integration strategy,” (GIS) immigration was dictated in terms of racial-cultural preference. As such the idea of the melting pot was one based on shared culture, race and civilizational bloc. The idea was to create a melted European-American. As such the bio-politics of Europe have been left behind in favor of what I have elsewhere called “elective affinities.” Elective Affinities denote the linear and interconnected tradition of Western Civilization and peoples – we feel ourselves to be a part of European Civilization. As such the crude biological determinism of Nordic supremacy has betrayed the more rational argument of in-group preference ‘a shared sense of we’ as Charles Maurras put it “Jews threatened the integral nation not by their blood but by their own nonlinear history and alternative tradition, by the disruption to integral form their presence within the nation provoked in the nation-work. The Jew is the ultimate figure of the non-Greek or anti-Greek (and thus the non-French or anti-French…”) See:
Carroll, David. French literary fascism : nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the ideology of culture. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1995. Print. 88.
Maurras is essentially holding the same views held by Voltaire, “The nucleus of Voltaire’s view of the Jews, however, amounts to this: there is a cultural, philosophical, and ethnic tradition of Europe which descended, through the human stock of that continent, from the intellectual values that were taught by the Greeks. Those were in turn carried to all the reaches of the European world by the Romans. This is the normative culture of which Voltaire approved. The Jews are a different family, and their religion is rooted in their character.” See: Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243. It is now only with Rushkoff does the Jew have his cake and gets eat it to.
The Return of Authoritas at the Helm of Western Destiny
“No ‘enlightenment’ provides a purely rational, universal form. There is no such form.” – Michael Novak, Unmeltable Ethnics
“The bourgeois, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.” – Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
The major pillar of ‘Western repression’ identified by the Left begins within the basic unit of society, the family, and extends as a corruption of human nature itself, which it centers on the free conscience of the individual – thus making the individual the basic unit of society.
This is especially problematic for the family, originally conceived as the basic unit of society, now viewed as an instrument or remnant of oppression. The Left’s attacks against patriarchal authority, have morphed the symbol and function of the Father, as something at the very center of the evil ‘authoritarian society’ to be overcome:
“the fundamental shift from the sociological to the psychological level that occurred during the 1940s was motivated by the fact that in Germany the proletariat had succumbed to fascism and in the Soviet Union socialism had not prevented the development of an authoritarian government that failed to guarantee individual autonomy or Jewish group interests. Within the new perspective authoritarianism was viewed as the fundamental problem, its origin traceable to family interactions and ultimately to the suppression of human nature.”
Even at its onset, the primordial cry of the child for the freedom of the birds – the cry for individual freedom was heard loudest from men who owed their learning and subsequent indignation to the very forms of authoritarian government that had nourished their genius, Immanuel Kant referred to the Enlightenment as “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage”, tutelage being “man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another”. Of course Kant’s ideas were the result of studiously leaning from the knowledge of other men. Perhaps those men who learn to be shepherds can lead a flock, but not all men become shepherds and philosophers or poet-visionaries, or ‘dreamers of the day,’ like the shepherd, are useless without a flock, just as flocks are aimless without shepherds. One need not look to Milgram-like experimentation to confirm that the majority of people everywhere are sheep. Whether in NAZI Germany or under Maoist communism or within Anglo-American liberal-capitalism, supraindividualist systems, modes of interaction, interrelated recursive systems of symbolic interaction mean that most people just want to get along to get by, most accept the rules of the game, adopting coping mechanisms, and top-down ideologies, accepting that life is unfair while attempting to make the most of it. Thus, the dictation of our current social order, which knowingly and self-deludedly expects shepherds, priests and philosophers of ordinary men and women of no considerable inclination towards such vocation – the ultimate lie of democracy and equality is in attributing noble virtues to the ignoble masses.
“The first great affirmation of modern liberalism: religious freedom.” such injunctions justified its historic attacks against the Church; ‘bless me Father,’ became a form of oppression. Protestantism had broken the sacredness of authority by bestowing priesthood on all believers, the social order that rested on the idea of the Holy Family became a source of exploitation, which have since morphed into attacks upon the social role of men generally, but the European “white male,” in particular. That the crisis of the West has been conceived in terms as a crisis of authority, is most relevant, liberalism like Protestantism is merely a revolt against the sacred principle of authoritas; “Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative–it means in fact, freedom from authority.” To base the society on the abstract principle of freedom necessarily entails always looking to extend the remit, from men, to women, to Negroes, to homosexuals, to transgenders, to animals, etc. The progressive tendency is never satisfied because freedom is limitless in its abstraction and run from authoritas. To base a society on Reason, as the Enlightenment attempted, was to dream ineffectual. The sleep of Reason, produces monsters.
That Freud’s father figure had to be dislodged from the fall of 20th Century “totalitarianisms,” became a clarion call to dethrone the European man from atop the castle that he built, as Gertrude Stein once said of Hitler, Mussolini and Roosevelt; “There is too much fathering going on just now and there is no doubt about it fathers are depressing” (Blackner 1995). The father is ‘depressing’ because the father represents the Apollonian principle, a Nietzschean disciplined control of the unregulated Dionysian ego (Freud’s Id) through instilling social order – the father expects, the mother accepts.
The empty shell of nationalism usurped by the merchant religiosity of economic and social liberalism. Insofar as the guillotine performs its democratic function, with globalized finance underwriting both government debt and the illusion of sovereignty. In attempting to give form to modern man (and woman), the private individual endowed with the right to pursue his own happiness, who is nevertheless under the distrustful surveillance of the national security state, one should recall the figure of the Acephalic employed by that theoretician of ‘sacred sociology,’ George Bataille. The Acephalic is the figure of man and the body politic of his democratic-liberal dispensation = headless, which is Bataille and Andre Masson’s symbolic representation of modern man, as a being “unaware of prohibition” moving beyond god and himself, “made of innocence and crime” holding life in one hand and death in another, losing himself in the labyrinth of his intestines, “in which I discover myself as him, in other words as a monster.” His appetites are his only responsibility, the politics of the ‘free’ individual.
Bataille’s Acephalic, apparently giving form to the Leftist variant of the Nietzschean ‘Ubermensch’… as “an attempted harnessing of an aggressive libidinal energy to combat the violent ascendancy of Fascism… The community must serve no master, no minister, no Fuhrer, it must be headless.”
It was at one point common to speak of the father as the ‘head of the family’ but under the assault of ‘freedom’ and ‘happiness’ only rarely is that possible. The ascension of Trump at least symbolically reinstates such a positionality, as the homosexual-nigger-dick-sucking-Jew-Milo affectionately calls Trump “daddy” it is in fact representational of the primordial need for strong men in leadership positions, to concretize form in the shape of authority to battle the chaos monsters that threaten to relativize the world into the primordial swamp of its birthing.
RC – Sometime I throw Whitey a bone, like you pay now, but China own your bonds, just remember who gonna be first GDP…
AF – I’ve seen from your Twitter feed that you use the word “Baizuo” quite a bit, I see one Tweet you even referred to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau as a Baizuo, now I had to look it up, but for our audience what does it mean?
RC – Baizuo mean stupid white liberal cuck phaggots who sell out their own country and let foreigners take over. China have no respect for baizuo who morally try to make themselves look good by betraying their race and nation. China number one! Bitch.
AF – What about all the Chinese that are leaving China and investing their money in Western countries, doesn’t that worry you?
RC – China need aggressive expansion, the Fuedai go and buy, buy, buy, we rule in white country but dumb baizuo like Trudeau say whiteman who serve me food and cook me dinner and shine my car is privileged… lol… If he so stupid I fuck his mother like Castro and he call me daddy.
AF – Richie, that’s not nice.
RC – Fuck nice, nice for phaggot losers, CHINA NUMBER ONE, bitch. You be nice to China now. You see soyboy Trudeau have private dinners with China businessman who invest in his fake-daddy’s foundation and then he lift restrictions… lol… plus China now colonizer, we taking over Africa and niggers slave for us… stupid gweilo – we Faustians now! You never seen Rising Sun? We take over.
AF – I thought Rising Sun was about the Japs?
RC – Chick is chink.
AF – But not everyone who comes to places like Canada from China and elsewhere is fuedai, some are poor, I’ve seen them picking through trash at night to return bottles to the LCBO.
RC – That because Chinese very smart, high IQ, we come from high like fuedai and buy, buy, buy, but also low like starving Maoist peasant and we take shitty jobs from white people too… But we have communist/Confucius work ethic and we take over your universities, so dumb whites cannot even get in…lol… So everywhere you look Chinese take over… Like in Germany with Hitler, all the German Jews owned everything and the Germans were poor peasants and then the Jews from the East came over and they like the bottom feeders and they become communists because not like rich Jews who bankers, but everywhere they think ‘what is best for Jews’ that why Chinese like Great Jewish rats, you cannot stop us, Hitler no come back, too many soyboy baizuos…lol..
AF – That’s interesting, so you’re saying the Chinese are basically the new Jews? ‘Yellow Jews?’
RC – What you think dumb-dumb, China only care for money, we take skinny white buddha and we make him jolly fat Chinaman because we no suffer like stupid Christians, we do job, like Trump said ‘we make deal now.’ We don’t care about your Christian morality, we like Jews reject Christ as kike on stick, you fucking dumb gweilo, human rights are for white cucks. We use genetic modifications to make the great Han race superior.
AF – Trump said before he got in office that he was going to nationalize the American economy and he had a lot of bad things to say about China ‘ripping off the American people’ and was against globalism, but now he’s making historic business deals with China, what changed?
RC – Trump is businessman, his skin really yellow, he like Jew, he need China.
AF – How do you feel about North Korea?
RC – Chink is chink, but China number one! If Trump say we put more money in military its good for China… soon we turn on whole world… fuck you, China number one.
RC – Of course yellow peril real, we taking over, have you looked at our numbers? The great Han race will not perish from this earth, hail the great Han race, hail Mao, hail victory!
AF – Hail Mao?
RC – Why not, great leap forward, Mao wanted China to match British GDP, but soon we number one! We come to your country and your white youth all fucked up on MTV and ‘finding themselves’ with subculture crap, parents think like phaggot Kevin Spacey in American Beauty… they smoke pot think it cool… and we get good jobs become doctor and lawyer, we marry and fuck and buy your country and your women… we eat red meat now, not empty carb and soy, we drink finest European wine… You’re all fucked… Yellowman is future, even Nietzsche say…lol…
AF – Wow, are there closing remarks to the American AltRight maybe?
RC – Old Chinese proverb, ‘never interrupt baizuo when he make mistake,’ Confusion say.
It has only recently come to my attention that back in June, Amber Hikes, the black female Executive Director, of the Office of LGBT Affairs at City of Philadelphia, thought it appropriate to add black and brown stripes to the gay pride flag. Having myself longstanding reservations over the appropriation of the Rainbow for the purposes of promoting sodomy and the degenerate ‘lifestyle choices’ inherent to gay identity welcome Hike’s new additions as adding a touch of realism. The inclusivity of the new stripes, promoting black and brown LGBTQwhatevers, are more representative of the acts and reality of queer-as-folk ‘lifestyle choices’ – black signifying death by AIDS, and brown signifying the leaky prolapsed assholes of the gay community, generally. What’s more these additions highlight how counter-aesthetic black and brown actual are.
The sheer stupidity of the new additions are not lost on youtube commentators, who point out that the flag itself has nothing to do with race. This is of course symptomatic of how Blacks and PoC generally ruin everything.
That is because if something does not highlight them by focusing on race and their victimhood status, granting them special considerations, adulations and reparations the thing in question is deemed to be insensitive and racist and should be amended, revoked or abolished altogether. This ‘pride flag’ example highlights how Blacks hijack everything possible to put themselves at the fore, including other areas of Leftist progressive vanguardism whose ‘rainbow coalition‘ is presently or previously aligned, such as gay rights or women’s rights, and make it about ‘blacks and PoC gay rights’ or ‘blacks and PoC women’s rights,’ etc. Because through the metrics of ‘intersectionality‘ the academic code-word for ‘victimhood status points,’ blacks consider and are considered as the highest scoring representatives most deserved of special considerations, representation and privileges today. This ‘pride flag’ example highlights how what Blacks and other PoC truly want is to be foremost represented, to be sycophantically highlighted, until every last white person acknowledges what special snowflakes they are by licking their boots. The addition of the Black and Brown colours at the top of the flag rather than humbly placing them as new editions on the bottom can no doubt be read as another instance of the innate Black Supremacist tendency to privilege and place themselves as foremost deserving the spotlight and peoples consideration.
The hypocrisy and double-standard becomes apparent because they are imputing these racial signifiers into a flag that has no signifiers for Whites, which points to their future goal of either the eradication or exclusion of Whites from mention or consideration. Blacks complain that the Oscars are too white, while no one complains that the BET Awards are too black. What the politics of representation is really about is demographics and the struggle of races for survival, what Blacks and other PoC really want is to see themselves, or representations of themselves proliferate, which itself is about the proliferation of their genes and their race.
Thus when the millionaire basketball-American Lebron James holds a press conference declaring, while millions of White Americans live in near abject poverty, that race is still the real issue affecting America (notice this t-shirt he’s wearing below from the press conference – oh another representation of himself), we can all applaud him for his courageousness.
Only when we acknowledge who are enemies are and what our predicament is can we overcome and reign supreme in the real world struggle between races, only when we take our own side the same way everyone else does. Because our culture is poisoned by an alien elite we are losing the representation struggle, and if we do not fight back we will lose the demographic struggle as well.
Originally published on http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/ 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” 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.” 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 ipolitics.ca 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.’”
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.’”
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, 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.”
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.’ 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” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.
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:
Leftist heroes – intelligent degenerates.
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.”
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.
Benjamin Barber’s book Consumed has a whole chapter on the infantilization of adults.
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.”
Originally Published but removed at: http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/
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.
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 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.
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.
“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.
“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.
From 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.
FROM WASP TO “HOSTILE” ELITE — SOCIAL ENGINEERING THROUGH THE AGES
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.
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.
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.
BRAVE NEW WORLDS
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
INTEGRATION AND THE JEWISH SOLUTION TO THE ‘JEWISH PROBLEM’
“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:
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.
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.”
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.
CLASS WARFARE OBSCURES RACIAL WARFARE
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.
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.
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.
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.”
GOD’S CRUCIBLE OR SATAN’S?
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.”
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.
“ANOTHER HEBREW PLOT EXPOSED!”
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.
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.