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.”
BAUHAUS VS. ROW HOUSE
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.
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.
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.
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
World from, look no further.
Manspreading for Lebensraum, Part 2
by Alex Fontana
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:
“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.
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.