Category: Emigration / immigration

Auster on the Jewish Problem

Post author By C .T.
Post date March 14, 2013
3 Comments on Auster on the Jewish Problem

When I was a liberal Larry Auster was one of the few authors who helped me in changing my worldview… at fifty! Although Auster and I have had strong disagreements in the past regarding the Jewish Problem, the recent article by Kevin MacDonald, “Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America” merits reposting here. Keep always in mind that, although Auster converted to Christianity, he is ethnically Jewish.

At The Occidental Observer webzine MacDonald wrote:

Lawrence Auster is one of those rare Jews (Paul Gottfried is another) who seems to have an appreciation for the traditional people and culture of America and an understanding of the role of Jews in White dispossession—not that Auster and I haven’t had our disagreements (“Lawrence Auster gets unhinged”).

Auster recently posted a chapter originally written in 1998 on the role of Jews in the multicultural transformation of the U.S. and the decline of White America (“Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists”). He hits pretty much all the right notes. Auster often has a way of phrasing things and choosing quotations from prominent Jews that cut to the heart of the matter—almost like painting pictures that are worth a thousand words.

His dissection of Alan Dershowitz is classic—the supreme arrogance and hypocrisy of Dershowitz’s fanatic ethnocentrism that is entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. Dershowitz unabashedly gives Jews the right to alter America in the direction of multiculturalism to suit their interests, as well as to disregard the Constitution and the attitudes and interests of White America; Dershowitz simultaneously condemns the ethnocentrism and group feelings of non-Jewish Whites while supporting Jewish ethnocentrism, endogamy, and sense of group interests in America as well as the racialist, apartheid state of Israel. To say that Jews like Dershowitz have no respect for the traditional people and culture of America is a gross understatement; they see the world from a completely Jewish perspective in which the rights, culture, and traditions of non-Jews at best count for nothing. At worst, they are the appropriate target of hatred, scorn, and ultimately, one fears, far worse; indeed, Auster describes Dershowitz as “openly hostile to America’s historic civilization.”

Dershowitz is an example of extreme ethnocentrism where it is impossible to see the world except in terms of Jewish interests. Here’s Auster on Dershowitz excoriating WASP law firms for not hiring ethnically obsessed Jews like Desrhowitz:

He lived a life apart as a Jew, yet at the same time he expected high-society lawyers to staff their firms with people who couldn’t socialize with them. And he calls them bigots for not wanting to do this! [Auster’s emphasis]

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America. And because of the elite status of American Jews, this is very important indeed. Jews matter.

One thing that struck me is that nothing much has changed for the better since 1998. Despite the rather old references, Auster’s article is up to date because the processes he describes are ongoing. If anything, they have become more extreme. For any given example that he lists, there could be dozens more gleaned from the intervening 15 years. Nothing fundamental has changed.

“Jews re-made America”

Because of the Jews’ tragic history as a persecuted people, and because of their own ability, through their leading role in American intellectual life, to set the terms of permissible discourse, it is impossible in today’s society to have an honest discussion on the subject of Jewish cultural impact. While every other ethnic group can be spoken of in a critical light, if only to a very limited extent, nothing that is even implicitly critical is allowed to be said or inferred about Jews

One may wonder exactly what the Jews’ “tragic history as a persecuted people” has to do with this—one should at least phrase it as perceptions of persecution because Jewish historical memory is profoundly tinged by Jewish ethnocentrism (see, e.g., the work of Andrew Joyce on the Russian pogroms, the Limerick affair in Ireland, and Jewish writing on historical anti-Semitism). But it’s certainly true that 15 years later it’s still impossible to have an honest discussion of Jewish influence on culture (Joe Sobran’s classic statement on the subject dates from 1996). And, given the intellectual shoddiness of the Jewish intellectual movements that have dominated intellectual circles throughout the West (psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, critical theory, and Marxism) much more than talent is involved here. In fact, the limits on permissible discourse on Jews are maintained by exclusion from the mainstream media because of Jewish influence and by the threat of job loss and other negative repercussions for those who publicly criticize Jews.

In particular, Jews have used their power to disestablish the traditional idea of America as having a European ethnic and a cultural core based on Christianity.

The Jews also (as few people recognize, because the subject is forbidden) changed America in some profound and not always positive ways. In terms of national identity, Jews were instrumental in the reformulation of America as a universalist society based strictly on ideology rather than on peoplehood, a change that set the stage for mass Third-World immigration and the much more profound redefinition of America as a multicultural society. In terms of morality, many Jewish intellectuals, writers, and entertainers deliberately undermined the older Anglo-American Victorian ethos, a program of moral/cultural subversion that climaxed in the Sixties counterculture and the dominant nihilist culture of the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of politics, Jews were instrumental in replacing the old American order of Constitutional self-restraint with the statist politics of unrestrained compassion.

Auster highlights the chutzpah underlying Jewish activism in overturning public expressions of Christianity, beginning in the late 19th century—the topic of a recent academic book confirming Auster’s comments. He also cites David Hollinger’s important work showing the role of Jews in altering the attitudes of American intellectuals in the direction of secularism, universalism, and ethnic pluralism. The result of the ascent of the Jews was that

the elite universities had changed from guardian of the old Western order to its subverter. [See also here.] This transformation in the universities then reverberated through the rest of the culture, stripping America’s public institutions, entertainments, symbols, and manners of the Christian and bourgeois values they had once embodied. America’s transition from a Protestant culture whose public institutions, celebrations, and symbols reflected Christian belief, to a pluralist, secular society with no identity at all, was complete.

Auster cites Jews who unabashedly celebrate the Jewish role in the displacement of White America with no fear of anti-Semitism—yet further examples of the overt expressions by Jews of Jewish power tabulated in Andrew Joyce’s recent article. Auster mentions sociologist Earl Raab’s pride in the Jewish role in changing the bias toward Northwestern Europe in U.S. immigration laws, and he notes Rabbi Abram Goodman’s comments that “Now I witness a Harvard that has been thoroughly cleansed and Judaized.” Auster comments that “thus an American Jew in 1997 unselfconsciously boasts of eliminating America’s former Christian culture, describing this elimination in terms (“thoroughly cleansed and Judaized”) not unlike those once used by the Nazis about the Jews.” Indeed, as Ron Unz has shown, Jews are now vastly overrepresented at Harvard controlled for their academic achievement, while non-Jewish Whites are underrepresented by a factor of at least 15 compared to Jews, again based on academic achievement. I rather doubt that Goodman (or Dershowitz, for that matter) is shedding any tears for Harvard’s egregious discrimination against non-Jewish Whites—discrimination that is far greater than historical discrimination against Jews who, even before the end of WWII, were admitted to Harvard at levels far above their percentage of the population. Our new hostile elite is far more corrupt than the old elite—and far less representative of the population as a whole.

The Judaization trumpeted by Rabbi Goodman means the destruction of the European cultural heritage of America:

Now that their enemies have been scattered and silenced, the left and the minorities can admit that their real agenda all along was not simply inclusion, equality, justice, or tolerance toward Jews and other minorities, but the destruction of the Christian culture.

And, of course, it goes beyond the destruction of culture to the destruction of the political power of White America—a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly apparent in U.S. elections. The entire process has never been about the pursuit of moral ideals; it has always been about ethnic hard ball, and the end result is the displacement of White America, its culture and its people.

The Jewish Role in Unleashing Displacement-Level Immigration to the U.S.

Auster is quite aware of the role of Jews in the demographic displacement of White America (see also here), noting particularly that Jewish immigration reformers not only wanted to end the bias in favor of Northwestern Europe but to ease the immigration of as many non-Whites as possible (see also here, p. 291). He focuses (as do I; see previous link, p. 285ff) on an extraordinary article from 1952 in Commentary by Harvard historian Oscar Handlin in which Handlin essentially deplores the fact that non-Jewish immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe do not have the same hatred against the traditional people and culture of America that Jews have. Auster takes Handlin’s argument to its logical conclusion:

If an immigration law that is designed to preserve the nation’s ethnic majority is racist (because it implicitly puts down other groups), then the same must be true of any manifestation of the ethnic majority, including its very existence. After all, if a nation still has an ethnic majority, and a culture that reflects that majority, doesn’t that impute inferiority to all people not related by blood to that majority? Therefore the only way to procure real democracy is to turn the ethnic majority into a minority, which is to be accomplished (and since 1965 has largely been accomplished) by immigration…

The 1965 Immigration Act, the culmination of a forty-year, largely Jewish-led campaign, was not simply a piece of “liberal” legislation (i.e., an act aimed at formal equality) which later turned out to have unforeseen, radical consequences. As early as 1952, the liberal idea of equality before the law was already linked in the minds of Jewish immigrationists with the radical project of dispossessing America’s white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian majority.

The hatred of Jews extends also to other White cultures. Auster notes literary critic Leon Wieseltier’s rejoicing at the displacement of traditional English culture by the Muslim onslaught:

Wieseltier is not exactly shy in his hatred. He mocks an Englishmen’s fears about the survival of English culture. He rejoices at the thought of Englishmen being discomforted, disoriented, and displaced in their own country by Muslims. If anyone is driven by an ethnic animus, surely it is Wieseltier and the many Jews who think and feel as he does.

Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Of course there is a massive hypocrisy about all this: “The Jews feel that they have a right to homogeneity and collective survival. But, as we have seen, the Jews deny this same right to white gentiles” [Auster’s emphasis]. This desire to destroy and vilify the ethnic ties among non-Jewish Whites while maintaining their own is deeply rooted in Jewish tribalism. “It is a blind, unreasonable, unappeasable force.” Exactly. TOO has an archive of 39 articles related to Jewish double standards related to ethnocentrism and we repeatedly discuss the legitimacy of White identity and interests. But the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of American Jews are completely tone-deaf when it comes to a hypocrisy that is so obvious that a child could see through it.

Auster seems to adopt a cultural explanation of Jewish ethnocentrism, attributing the pervasive double standards to deep immersion over the centuries in a tribalistic culture represented by the Talmud and its very different ethical treatment of Jews and non-Jews. (My view is that Jewish culture reflects biological influences—the deep ethnocentrism and collectivism at the heart of Middle Eastern culture [see here, p. 24ff], abetted by selection within the Jewish community that effectively excluded less ethnocentric Jews [see here, passim].)

As a result, Jewish patriotism toward America is always contingent on whether America meets specifically Jewish interests. The interests of the nation as a whole, much less the interests of the descendants of the White Europeans who founded the country, are completely irrelevant. “Over and over, Jewish-American patriotism seems to be based on some factor extrinsic to America itself” such as America’s role in defeating Hitler or supporting Israel.

Jewish Subversion of Traditional American Culture Via Media Influence

Auster also highlights another theme of TOO—the Jewish role in the subversion of the traditional culture of America resulting from their control of Hollywood. In a comment on the movie Outbreak reminiscent of Edmund Connelly’s work on the “Jews to the rescue” theme of Hollywood movies like Independence Day, “the Jew now cast as action hero—and his brilliant black sidekick heroically foil the plot.” There is also the denigration of WASPs as stereotypically evil also documented by Connelly (see above link): “the anti-WASP animus in film and TV had evolved into a formalized demonology. The cold-hearted, inhuman WASP—the WASP as super-Nazi—has been a regular fixture in one suspense/action movie after another.” The bottom line is that

Eastern European Jews, with their discontented, irrepressible temperament, were admitted as equals into a culture that had been formed by Anglo-Saxons and other northern European-origin people, with their pacific, self-controlled temperament. The former outsiders then proceeded to make their own sensibility the center of the culture, while diminishing and demonizing the Anglo-Saxon.

Provoking Anti-Semitism

Auster acknowledges that the Jewish role in the dispossession of Whites and their culture will likely lead to anti-Semitism:

[Another prospect] will be an upsurge of anti-Semitism among marginalized whites, many of whom will blame the Jews (not without cause) for the ruin of white civilization. Having acted all along on the ludicrous and hostile assumption that the white American majority is a potential neo-Nazi force that must be dispossessed, Jews will hardly be in a position to complain about real anti-Semitism when it appears among whites who have actually been dispossessed.

Despite his awareness of the forces that have dispossessed White America, Auster is very concerned to deflect anti-Semitism, even though he understands that anti-Jewish attitudes are completely expectable.

To seek to transform America into a Messianic project, to identify with the Other (whoever the Other may be) at the expense of the native majority, to deny to the native majority its ethnic identity while indulging in one’s own ethnic identity—this is not just a bad agenda, it is a Jewish agenda, and it is entirely moral for citizens of a free country to criticize it as such.

Auster’s basic argument is that not all Jews have been involved in or support these transformations, and a certain percentage of Whites (such as David Hollinger, about whom Auster says “he barely conceals his pleasure at Christianity’s being pushed aside”) have welcomed or at least acquiesced in these transformations. (It remains to be seen how much pleasure White Americans will have in majority non-White America where a very large percentage of non-Whites, including Jews as described here, have historical grudges against them. I rather doubt that pleasure will be a majority opinion among Whites.)

Nevertheless, we should be clear. These transformations could not have occurred unless there was overwhelming support for them among the vast majority of Jews and within the organized Jewish community. Indeed, there is far higher consensus among Jews on issues related to White dispossession than even on Israel, where there are beginning to be cracks in the unified support among American Jews for whatever Israel does. While there is a certain analogy between Auster and Gottfried on one hand and Philip Weiss and Peter Beinart on the other as opponents of the mainstream Jewish community on issues related to White dispossession and Israel respectively, the letter have been far more active in trying to convert other Jews and they speak for far greater numbers of Jews on Israel-related issues than Auster or Gottfried do on issues related to White dispossession. And in any case, the mainstream Jewish community remains as staunchly anti-White and pro-whatever-the-government-of-Israel-wants as ever.

Auster cannot point to any significant Jewish organization that has dissented from the dispossession of White America. (To be sure, groups like ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews have played no role in the dispossession of White America, either in favor or in opposition, since they live in a hermetically sealed world completely cut off from the rest of the society.) Nor can he point to any other identifiable group that promoted these cultural changes. While it is true that Europeans are more prone to individualism and moral universalism than other groups and this made them more susceptible to dispossession (see here, p. 14ff), there can be little doubt that Jewish activism is ultimately responsible for the displacement of White Americans (see, e.g., here).

The fact that some Whites have greeted these changes is expected (although it is certainly short sighted and selfish), given the fact that in contemporary American society the media environment (the constant propaganda of Whites as evil noted by Auster; see also here) and the rewards (e.g., career opportunities for White university administrators or corporation CEO’s who promote multiculturalism) and punishments (e.g., job loss and ostracism resulting from opposing multiculturalism) overwhelmingly favor the changes wrought by the Jewish hostile elite. The power of the hostile elite is now institutionalized and strongly defended from attack, particularly against attacks by disaffected Whites. As noted above, a key marker of Jewish power is that Jewish power, unlike the power of any other group, has been successfully relegated to outside the boundaries of acceptable discussion.

Moreover, Jewish influence extends far beyond the organized Jewish community. The very large influence of Jews in the media, resulting in the invidious portraits of Whites and Christianity and positive portrayals of everything Jewish (see here, p. 53ff), has been the work of individual Jews and informal Jewish networks, not Jewish organizations.

The same can be said of the Jewish networks involved in the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique—movements that collectively undermined the concept of America as a White, Christian nation. Indeed, the crux of the issue, displacement-level non-White immigration, is a consensus issue among all Jewish organizations and among all Jews from the far left to the neoconservative right. As Auster says about neocon Norman Podhoretz, he “does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as ‘one nation, many peoples’—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.” And remember, Podhoretz, is what passes as a conservative among Jews. The hatred for the White establishment among neocons as they were climbing the ropes of power is legendary (see here, p. 4).

Righteous Anger

So what is the appropriate reaction to all this among White Americans? Recently Bill O’Reilly has been harping on “righteous anger” as an entirely appropriate response to the rather mundane issue of President Obama’s failure to propose specific budget-cutting measures. Given the cataclysmic consequences to White America, righteous anger at the Jewish community is an entirely appropriate response for Whites whose cultural and demographic displacement is well-advanced as a result of Jewish activism. This is, after all, the mirror image of the hatred that is such a prominent characteristic of the mainstream Jewish community, as noted here in the discussion of Dershowitz, Wieseltier, Handlin, and Rabbi Goodman and reflected in the theme of Jews as a hostile elite. (Whites expressing righteous anger at what Jews have done to America are likely to experience far more negative consequences than did these Jews for openly expressing their hatred toward White America—a telling indication of Jewish power.)

No one would think it unjustifiable if a people becomes angry when they are physically invaded, reduced to a minority, and their culture taken away from them. Although not the result of physical invasion, the end result of this Jewish onslaught is exactly the same.

There is no more grievous crime against a people than the crime being committed against White America. Righteous anger is an appropriate response indeed.

Tags Jewish problem (JP)

American civil war Americanism Egalitarianism Emigration / immigration Free speech / association Liberalism Tom Sunic

Review of Sunic’s book

by Mark Farrell

Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (BookSurge, 2007, with a foreword by Kevin MacDonald).

In today’s politically correct world, very few authors dare to criticize what is wrong with society. Despite the First Amendment, it is often political suicide to realistically recognize what is occurring, and may even cost one’s job in some cases, if not more. Dr. Tom Sunic is one of those brilliant and fearless individuals who defies the politically correct ban, and he has written an astounding book that all fans of freedom should take the time to read.

Who is Dr. Tom Sunic, you might ask? He is a man of many talents, whose credentials are impeccable. He obtained his doctorate in political science at the University of California. He is fluent in Croatian, French, and German, and has had articles published in various publications in these languages, as well as several books. He has worked as a US professor, and was also a diplomat for Croatia for some time. He is no lightweight in either the political or intellectual establishment. And yet he dares to speak the truth about the destruction of the West, and doesn’t cringe when mentioning the perpetrators largely responsible for America’s ongoing transition to third-world status. It should come as no surprise that America’s most brilliant psychologist, Professor Kevin MacDonald, has written the foreword of Dr. Sunic’s book, for Dr. Sunic is a man to be admired: He is one of those brave-hearted and brilliant souls who dares to stand up to be counted among those who recognize America’s reckless nature. He unapologetically speaks the truth of where this once mighty nation is heading: on a one-way, broken roller coaster—downhill and fast.

In Dr. Sunic’s most recent book, Homo Americanus, he tries to define just “who” is the American man, and what the American man believes. Dr. Sunic’s views are very interesting and somewhat refreshing, as he has lived under one of the former communist nations and knows firsthand how totalitarian governments infringe on personal liberties; and he doesn’t hesitate to point out what some Americans already realize—namely, that we too are having our rights torn asunder by the politically correct crowd who stop at nothing to destroy the last vestiges of liberty in America. In a chapter of Dr. Sunic’s book, “Americanism and Anti-Americanism,” he comments on America’s new fangled Orwellian Society in terms that describe its politically correct policies to limit free expression:

Admittedly, every epoch has its dominant ideas, and each ruling class in every country on earth is never too eager to discard its founding myths and replace them with other myths that may be seen as factors destabilizing for its political survival. Likewise, the dominant ideas at work in modern Americanism are often hailed by the ruling class and its court historians as “self-evident.” Questioning the veracity of that self-evidence can cause serious troubles for an intellectual heretic and can even lead to the signing of a death warrant to their intellectual career. For instance, challenging the principles of American democracy or probing critically into the legacy of antifascist victimology must be strictly avoided. These prohibitions are not officially on display in America; they just constitute a public no-entry zone. An author or a politician who ventures into one of these forbidden fields is at best shrugged off as a crank by the masters of modern American discourse or labeled as a “prejudiced” person. At worst, he can end up in prison. In most cases, however, he will find himself cut off from academic discourse and political debate, which in effect means that he is intellectually sentenced to death.

Indeed, an increasing number of Americans seem to suffer under the politically correct rules of debate. One needs only to look at such individuals as the Ph.D.-level chemist Germar Rudolf, who was deported from the U.S. and ripped from his American wife and child for having dared to write his doctoral dissertation on a politically incorrect topic in Germany years prior, where he was imprisoned after being deported. The same can be said of Ernst Zundel, another victim of thought crime who was also ripped away from his wife in the hills of Tennessee and shipped to Europe for having dared to venture into politically incorrect territory by questioning some of aspects of history. Of course, while it’s political taboo to discuss such things, it is unlikely either would have been deported if they weren’t white. In today’s Great Society, that is undoubtedly the greatest crime—being white—and trumps all others.

Sunic touches on the topic of white guilt that has plagued America for far too long. In his chapter, “E Pluribus Dissensus: Exit European Americans,” he describes some of the logic used to keep southern whites in a constant state of guilt and self-hate, and how similar actions have been used elsewhere as well:

The end of the antebellum South can serve as a laboratory for studying the guilty feelings that European people have been subject to in early postmodernity. The social malady consisting in self-hate started in America after the Civil War, only to be re-enacted a hundred years later all over Europe and postmodern America. In early postmodernity, Europe and America participated in the same joint guilt trip that can only be atoned by financial gifts and excuses to non-Europeans… Every opposing viewpoint was labeled by the liberal North as “hostile to freedom,” similar to the smear campaign of modern Northern successors against authors who criticize globalism and Americanism.

Dr. Sunic also breaks the social taboo of commenting on those people who call themselves the “Chosen Ones” for their involvement in changing the racial make-up of the US. For instance, after the Senate defeated the recent immigration bill, which would have changed the status of over 12 million illegal aliens, one of the first to cry about this was the exclusively Jewish organization known as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith. The ADL then put forth an article arguing on the illegal immigrants’ behalf. Such comments further prove Dr. Sunic’s many statements:

The process of Americanization seems to be enhanced by the rapid growth of multiracial society, which has always had strong supporters among Jewish intellectuals in America who have never hidden “that making of the US into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal from the beginning of the nineteenth century” [citing George Sunderland].

While Russia further distances itself from the Soviet apparatchik, we in America are slowly drifting that way, Dr. Sunic notes. If we in America are not too timid to take a hard look at reality, we must admit that America’s laws discriminate against whites in the name of “equality,” and America’s white citizens are often afraid to even voice dissent against such ridiculous policies for fear of being socially stigmatized, just as it was the old Soviet policy to stigmatize the families of those who criticized its similar policies. As a result of such policies in America that discriminate against whites, it is causing our universities and companies to significantly lower the bar in an effort to have a racial make-up that is reflective of the population. Testing and skills can no longer be used as the main criteria for entrance, as America’s educational institutions and companies become increasingly dysfunctional—similar to society itself in America.

As time progresses, such policies will undoubtedly put America further behind in the world, and will eventually lead to third-world status unless something is done. As the economy slowly withers, there is no real need to ask ourselves, “Why?” It is but a matter of time when wide-scale non-white riots like those that have occurred in all of America’s cities from time to time occur again; the real question remains whether America will be able to quell such riots. All it will take is a major, sudden drop in the economy, or perhaps the media’s focus of an isolated incident such as the Rodney King case of ’92. In the concluding chapter of Sunic’s book, he seems to point out this self-evident truth that all Americans see but most fail to openly recognize:

The egalitarian appetite, once observed in communist Homo sovieticus, is well under and under a new name in America and in Americanized Europe. American ideology will gain more prominence in the future, as egalitarian dynamics and wide-spread advocacy of permanent economic progress gain momentum. Once, when inequality was considered something natural, as it was in the antebellum South, or prior to the American Revolution, then even the crassest sign of inequality did not offend the observer’s eye. By contrast, when everybody is declared equal, even the smallest dose of inequality becomes unbearable. “The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases,” noted De Tocqueville. Consequently, as the American system becomes more and more economically opulent, even the slightest economic crisis, resulting in a small drop in living stands, is bound to cause social discord and political upheavals.

Dr. Sunic’s views are refreshing and well worth reading. His book should be required reading for all college students, and it is a tragic shame that it is not—yet, at least. Consider purchasing a copy of Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age for yourself, and ask your local librarian to order a copy as well.

Tags Europe, Jewish problem (JP), United States

Ancient Rome Catholic Church Celts Christendom Egalitarianism Emigration / immigration Hans F. K. Günther Islam Julius Caesar Kali Yuga Liberalism Miscegenation New Testament Oliver Cromwell St Paul Tom Sunic Universalism

Assisted suicide

“Mental AIDS” is the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of their enemies. Practically all whites throughout the West suffer from mental AIDS insofar as they are not defending their sacred lands against an invasion of millions of non-whites. However, some white nationalists get mad when hearing the expression “suicide” as a value judgment about the pathological passivity among present-day whites. Most nationalists speak, instead, of “homicide”: the Jews being the primary infection that infected the white soul.

But what if they are a secondary infection? After all, the white people contracted Christianity (HIV) in the 4th century, which after a long incubation period eventually developed into liberalism (AIDS) during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Liberalism, or Neochristianity as I like to call it, weakened the West’s immune system. After Napoleon, Neochristians opened the door to the subversive tribe throughout continental Europe—Jews—: a “mental AIDS”-related opportunistic infection, such as pneumonia is an infection of the somatic equivalent of AIDS.

See the HIV link above. If Christianity and its secular offshoots are massively involved in the West’s darkest hour, and I cannot conceive a biggest blunder than emancipating the Jew, why not start diagnosing the situation as “assisted suicide,” with the Jew only being too happy to comply the deranged Neochristian’s will to bring about his own death?

I am not alone in this apparently wild opinion. Below, my abridgment of Tom Sunic’s “Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man,” published in three parts at The Occidental Observer:

♣

Regardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political theologies start crumbling down—which may soon be the case—alternative views about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.

The historical irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself—both with his Christian atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt.

Alain de Benoist writes that liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21st century it preaches inclusive racism. By herding non European races from all over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds its undisputed role of a truth maker—of course, this time around under the auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.

It must be stated that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system lexically, conceptually, scientifically, ideologically, theologically, and last, but not least, judicially, forbids the slightest idea of race segregation—except when it evokes skin-deep exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?

Most American White nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yet the abstract words “all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.

Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that”—is a waste of time. The American Declaration bears witness to the classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which has become the subject of its own semantic sliding—with ominous consequences for Whites worldwide.

Contemporary geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.

Although the field of the former Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist residue of omnipotent inheritance of acquired characteristics is religiously pursued by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It is the law!

As in the ex-Soviet Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the culture of death.

European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is particularly true for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who, although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game.

[White suicide]

The pristine, pastoral and puerile picture of the White race, so dearly longed for by modern White nationalists, is daily belied by permanent religious bickering, jealousy and character smearing within the White rank and file. Add to that murderous intra-White wars that have rocked Europe and America for centuries, one wonders whether the proverbial and much vaunted Aryan, Promethean, and Faustian man, is worthy of a better future.

Surely, the White man saved Greco-Roman Europe from the Levantine Hannibal’s incursion, which nearly resulted in a catastrophe in 216 b.c. at Cannae, in southern Italy. The White man also stopped Attila’s Hunic hordes on the Catalaunian Fields in France in 451 a.d. The grandfather of Charlemagne, Charles Martel, defeated Arab predators near Tours, in France in 732. One thousand years later in 1717, a short and slim Italo-French Catholic hero, Prince Eugene of Savoy, finally removed the Islamic threat from the Balkans.

But… the power of the newly discovered universal religion and the expectancy of the “end of history,” later to be followed by bizarre beliefs in “global democracy,” often eclipsed racial awareness among Whites. As a rule, when White princes ran out of Muslim or Jewish infidels—they began whacking each other in the name of their Semitic deities or latter day democracies. The 6’4” tall Charlemagne, in the name of his anticipated Christian bliss, went on the killing spree against his fellow pagan Germans. In 782 a.d. he decapitated several thousand of the finest crop of Nordic Saxons, thereby earning himself a saintly name of the “butcher of the Saxons” (Sachsenschlächter).

[I wish that Sunic had mentioned how Julius Caesar ordered the massacre of the 40,000 inhabitants of Avaricum during the Gaul wars; how this monster destroyed 800 towns and enslaved millions of Celts; how “hundreds of thousands of blond, blue-eyed Celtic girls were marched south to be pawed by Semitic flesh merchants” in Rome’s slave markets. Also, in 408 a.d. the Romans, in all the Italian cities, butchered the wives and children of their German allies—60,000 of them.]

And on and on the story goes with true Christian or true democracy believers. No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves. The Thirty Years War (1617–1647) fought amidst European Christians with utmost savagery, wiped out two thirds of the finest German racial stock, over 6 million people. The crazed papist Croatian mercenaries, under Wallenstein’s command, considered it a Royal and Catholic duty to kill off Lutherans, a dark period so well described by the great German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller. Even today in Europe the words “Croat years” (Kroatenjahre) are associated with the years of hunger and pestilence.

Nor did Oliver Cromwell’s troops—his Ironsides—during the English civil war, fare much better. Surely, as brave Puritans they did not drink, they did not whore, they did not gamble—they only specialized in skinning Irish Catholic peasants alive. Not only did their chief, the Nordic looking fanatic Cromwell consider himself more Jewish than the Jews—he actually brought them back from continental Europe, with far-reaching consequence both for England and America.

A slim, intelligent, Nordic looking, yet emotionally unstable manic depressive, William Sherman, burnt down Atlanta in 1864—probably in the hopes of fostering a better brand of democracy for the South. We may also probe some day into the paleocortex of the Nordic skull of an airborne Midwest Christian ex-choir boy, who joyfully dropped firebombs on German civilians during WWII.

The faith or the sacred?

No subject is so dangerous to address among White nationalists as the Christian religion. It is commendable to lambast Muslims, who are on the respectable hit-parade of the Axis of Evil. Jews also come in handy in a wholesale package of evil, which needs to be expiated—at least occasionally. But any critical examination of Judeo-Christian intolerance is viewed with suspicion and usually attributed to distinct groups of White people, such as agnostics or modern day self-proclaimed pagans.

Why did the White man accept the Semitic spiritual baggage of Christianity even though it did not quite fit with his racial-spiritual endowments? The unavoidable racialist thinker Hans Günther—a man of staggering erudition and knowledgeable not only of the laws of heredity, but also of comparative religions—reminds us that the submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially characteristic of Semitic peoples. In his important little book, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, he teaches us about the main aspects of racial psychology of old Europeans. We also learn that Yahweh is a merciless totalitarian god who must be revered—and feared.

The messianic, chiliastic, or “communistic” mindset was unknown among ancient Europeans. They could not care less which gods other races, other tribes or other peoples believed in. Wars that they fought against the adversary were bloody, but they did not have the goal of converting the adversary and imposing on him the beliefs contrary to his racial heritage. Homer’s epic The Iliad is the best example. The self-serving, yet truly racist liberal-communistic endeavour, to wage “final and just war” in order to “make the world safe for democracy,” was something inconceivable for ancient Europeans.

A German-British racialist author of the early 20th century, Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century writes that “a final judgment shows the intellectual renaissance to be the work of Race in opposition to the universal Church which knows no Race” (p. 326). Unlike Christianity, which preaches individual salvation, for ancient Europeans life can only have a meaning within the in-group—their tribe, their polis, or their civitas. Outside those social structures, life means nothing.

In the 1st century, words of far-reaching consequence for all Whites were pronounced by a Jewish heretic, the Apostle St. Paul, to the people of Galatia, an area in Asia Minor once populated by the Gauls (i.e., Celts). Galatia was then well underway to become a case study of multicultural debauchery—similar to today’s Los Angeles:

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28).

Christianity became thus a Universalist religion with a special mission to transform the Other into the Same. The seeds of egalitarianism—albeit on the religious, not yet on the secular level—were sown.

Although Christian Churches never publicly endorsed racial miscegenation, they did not endorse racial segregation either. This was true for the Catholic Church and its flock, as observed by the early French sociologist and racialist Gustave Le Bon. Consequently, Catholic Spaniards of White racial stock in Latin America could not halt decadence and debauchery in their new homelands as WASPs in North America did.

Later, in 1938, in light of eugenic and racial laws adopted not only in Germany and Italy, but also in other European countries and many states in America, Pope Pius XI made his famous statement: “It is forgotten that mankind is one large and overwhelming Catholic race.” This statement was to become part of his planned encyclical under the name The Unity of the Human Race.

“The unity of the human race”, as noble as these words may sound, is a highly abstract concept. On a secular level communist and liberal intellectuals constantly toy with it—in order to suppress real tribes, real nations, real peoples and their real racial uniqueness.

The folly of the compound noun: “anti-Semitism”

Civil religions also have their holy shrines, their holy relics, their pontiffs, their canons, their promises and their menaces. Failure to believe in them—or failure to at least pretend to believe in them—results, as a legal scholar of Catholic persuasion, Carl Schmitt wrote, in a heretic’s removal from the category of human beings. Among new civil religions one could enumerate the religion of multiculturalism, the religion of antifascism, the religion of the Holocaust, and the religion of economic progress.

Many Whites make a fundamental mistake when they portray new civil religions as part of an organized conspiracy of a small number of wicked people. In essence, civil religions are just secular transpositions of the Judeo-Christian monotheist mindset which, when combined with an inborn sense of tolerance and congenial naïveté of the White people, makes them susceptible to their enchanting effects.

As a result of semantic sliding of political concepts, the Jewish-born thinker and the father of the secular religion of communism, Karl Marx, would likely be charged today with “anti-Semitism” or the “incitement to racial hatred.” Leftist scholars usually do not wish to subject his little booklet, On the Jewish Question (1844) to critical analysis. Consider the following:

The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

Of particular significance is Marx’ last sentence “insofar as the Christians have become Jews.” In fact the White man has “jewified” himself by embracing the fundaments of the Jewish belief system, which, paradoxically, he uses now in criticizing Jews.

Christian anti-Semitism can be described, therefore, as a peculiar form of neurosis. Christian anti-Semites resent the Jews while mimicking the framework of resentment borrowed from Jews. Accordingly, even the Jewish god Yahweh was destined to become the anti-Semitic God of White Christians! In the name of this God, persecutions against Jews were conducted by White non-Jews. Simply put, the White non-Jew has been denying for centuries to the Jew his self-appointed “otherness” i.e. his uniqueness and his self-chosenness, while desperately striving to re-appropriate that same Jewish otherness and that same uniqueness, be it in the acceptance of Biblical tales, be it the espousal of the concept of linear time, be it in the belief of the end of history.

To face up to the purported bad sides of Judaism by using Christian tools, is futile. This is the argument of the German philosopher Eugen Dühring, who notes that “Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism” and “a Christian, when he rightfully comprehends himself as such, cannot be a serious and complete anti-Semite.” (Die Judenfrage als Frage des Rassencharakters, 1901). Dühring was a prominent German socialist philosopher, contemporary, but also a foe of Marx. Like most German socialist thinkers of the late 19th century he was an anti-Semite, in so far as he saw in the Jewry the incarnation of capitalism. Dühring notes that “historical Christianity, when observed in its true spirit, and all things considered, has been a backlash within and against Judaism, but it has also emerged from it and to some extent in its fashion.” (p. 25-26).

What German geneticists and anthropologists, such as Fritz Lenz, Hans Günther, Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and thousands of other scholars wrote about Jews had already been written and discussed—albeit from a philosophical, artistic and literary point of view—by thousands of European writers, poets and artists. From the ancient Roman thinker Tacitus to the English writer William Shakespeare, from the ancient Roman thinker Seneca, to the French novelist and satirist, L. Ferdinand Céline, one encounters in the prose of countless European authors occasional and not so occasional critical remarks about the Jewish character—remarks that could easily be called today anti-Semitic. Should these “anti-Semitic” authors, novelists, or poets be called insane? If so, then the entire European cultural heritage must be banned and labeled insane.

Excluding the Jew, while using his theological and ideological concepts is a form of latent phobia among Whites, of which Jews are very well aware of. Criticizing a strong Jewish influence in Western societies on the one hand, while embracing Jewish religious and secular prophets on the other, will lead to further tensions and only enhance the Jewish sense of self-chosenness and their timeless victimhood. In turn, this will only give rise to more anti-Jewish hatred with tragic consequences for all. The prime culprits are not Jews or Whites, but rather a civil religion of egalitarianism with its postmodern offshoots of universalism and multiculturalism.

The issue that needs to be addressed is why Whites, for two thousand years, have adhered to an alien, out-group, non-European conceptualization of the world.

Tags Christian problem (CP), England, Europe, Jewish problem (JP), United States

American civil war Aryan beauty Blacks Demography Emigration / immigration Justice / revenge Lothrop Stoddard Madison Grant Metaphysics of race / sex Miscegenation Neanderthalism Racial studies Sexual "liberation" Winston Churchill

The Sin against the Holy Ghost

Post author By C .T.
Post date February 1, 2013
11 Comments on The Sin against the Holy Ghost

O splendour of the flesh! O ideal splendour!
O love renewed, triumphant dawn aurora,
Where, at their feet the Gods and Heroes,
Callipyge the white and her little Eros,
Drowned in the snow of rose-petals, press
Women and flowers beneath their feet’s caress!

—Rimbaud

Since English roses are the Crown of the Evolution, that Nature took unfathomable ages to create, when I lived in Manchester nothing shocked me more than the spectacle of watching snow-white women with Neanderthalesque partners on the streets: dysgenics to the maximum degree.

Below, paragraphs from Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans:

♣

The world today is dominated by technology as never before. It is impossible to travel anywhere without seeing some vestiges of or manifestations of technological wizardry which have shaped all life on the planet today, particularly those innovations developed at the time of the Industrial Revolution.

While this fact is commonly known and countless books and works have been written on the subject, all have ignored one crucial feature of this astonishing technological revolution: the plain facts are that the great technological innovations which have set the pace for the entire world are exclusively the product of a tiny minority of Whites.

This fact, like so many other unpalatable truths in history, is ignored because of the political implications it carries: it is possibly the most politically incorrect view which can be made, although the facts leave any objective observer with no other option but to arrive at this inescapable conclusion.

[Kemp goes on to explain the origins of technology and science. He sketches the lives of dozens of white inventors and scientists, a long list from the ancient Greeks to modern inventors: all whites. In other chapters he writes about immigration and eugenics in the US until 1945. He also writes about monstrous dysgenics: what I call the Sin against the Holy Ghost, non-white interbreeding with Aryan women:]

Having established itself as the second White heartland, a second Europe, North America immediately became the focus for massive development, advances—and a magnet for further immigration from all parts of the world. America’s rise to greatness depended to a great degree upon its large racial homogeneity.

Following the banning of further Black immigration in 1808 (when the further importation of slaves was outlawed) American immigration policy was specifically geared to ensuring that as few non-Whites as possible entered that country. As a result of this policy, the White population did indeed increase: great industries sprang up and America soon almost equaled Europe in terms of population numbers.

In the period immediately following the end of the American Civil War, the Republican Party dominated American politics, partly through the disenfranchisement of the Whites in the South and their replacement with Republican supporting Black voters. The Republicans remained in control of both houses of Congress until 1875, and of the presidency from 1869 until 1885, in the latter year losing it to the Democrats.

After 1900 the legislation enforcing segregation was carried to new heights:

• a 1914 Louisiana statute required separate entrances at circuses for Blacks and Whites;

• a 1915 Oklahoma law segregated telephone booths;

• a 1920 Mississippi law made it a crime to advocate or publish “arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between Whites and Negroes.”

• Arkansas provided for segregation at race tracks;

• Texas prohibited integrated boxing matches;

• All states had segregated schools; and

• All states prohibited mixed race marriages.

Segregation was not, as is commonly believed, restricted to the South. In 1910, the northern city of Baltimore in Maryland became the first city in America to officially delineate separate Black and White suburbs, and was followed by Dallas, Texas, Greensboro, North Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Norfolk, Virginia, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Richmond, Virginia, Roanoke, Virginia, and St. Louis, Missouri.

The policy of segregation was carried out at the highest level: when Woodrow Wilson became president in 1913, the first action he took upon arriving in Washington DC, was to order the segregation of all federal facilities in the American capital.

Eugenics

During the last part of the 19th Century and the early part of the 20th Century, America became the world’s center for racial science. By the time that Theodore Roosevelt became president of America in 1913, and lasting right until the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, explicitly racial policies were followed by virtually all American presidents.

When D.W. Griffith’s classic 1915 film, Birth of a Nation, which told the story of the Reconstruction period and the rise of the original Ku Klux Klan, was publicly praised by American president Woodrow Wilson, the film was an immediate hit, with audiences all over America flocking to see the epic.

Madison Grant

The chief racial theorist at the time in America was Madison Grant (1865-1937) who counted amongst his personal friends at least two American presidents. Grant wrote two of the most influential works of American racialism: The Passing of the Great Race (1916) and The Conquest of a Continent (1933). In both these books Grant expounded on racial anthropology and the need for eugenics—or racial improvement by selective breeding (in the same way that specific breeds of animals are reared).

In his book, The Passing of the Great Race, Grant called for a halt to non-White immigration into the United States. The book was an international best seller, being favorably reviewed by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other equally influential publications.

Lothrop Stoddard

American president Warren G. Harding publicly praised eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard’s book, The Rising Tide of Color, at a public speech on 26 October 1922; this was followed the same year by the appointment of one of Grant’s compatriots, Harry Laughlin, as an expert witness on eugenics and racial differences in IQ (as had been measured in the U.S. military) by the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Immigration.

1924 Immigration Law

A huge wave of immigrants to the United States occurred between the 1840s and the 1920s. During this era, approximately 37 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Census figures indicate that about 6 million Germans, 4.5 million Irish, 4.75 million Italians, 4.2 million people from England, Scotland and Wales, approximately the same number from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 2.3 million Scandinavians, and 3.3 million people from Russia and the Baltic states entered the United States. Between the 1840s and the 1870s, Germans and Irish groups predominated. Between 1854 and 1892, more Germans arrived in any given year than any other ethnic group, except for three years when the Irish predominated.

Starting in 1880 however, the waves of immigrants started to come increasingly from Eastern Europe: millions of Eastern European Jews and Southern Europeans, all considerably “darker” than the original White settlers in America who had all virtually exclusively come from the Nordic sub-racial dominated countries of Northern and Western Europe.

The influx of Southern Europeans, in particular, was opposed by the American eugenicists, and became the subject of much work and investigation. The end result of this work, combined with the earlier investigations and evidence by Harry Laughlin, produced the 1924 Immigration law. In 1924, the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion put before the Congress led to the Johnson Act of 1924, which cut down to little less than a tiny trickle the number of immigrants into America, limiting those who did enter to those of specific Northern and Western European ancestry only.

This law remained in force until 1965. Grant was acknowledged as the father of these immigration laws; and he went on to found the American Eugenics Society with Laughlin, the U.S. Congress appointed eugenics advisor.

The suppression of American eugenics

The science of eugenics became international: the First World Eugenics Congress was held in London in 1912. The later British prime minister, Winston Churchill, was one of the official sponsors, with the then British prime minister, Arthur Balfour, delivering the inaugural address.

The Second Eugenics Congress was hosted by the American Museum of Natural History in New York, with more than 300 delegates from all over the world—except Germany, as that country was still ostracized after the First World War. The guest list was impressive: including the future American President Herbert Hoover and the scientific genius Alexander Graham Bell, who was also the Congress’s honorary president, amongst many others.

The Third World Eugenics Congress—and the last—was held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York again in 1932, where prominent attendees included Dr. J. Harvey-Kellogg (from Kellogg’s cereals) and Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, the developer of the theory of evolution.

Grant’s second major work then appeared in 1933: The Conquest of a Continent, detailing the racial make-up of the United States and warning that racial integration would cause modern America to disappear. The book, published by the well-known Scribner and Sons publishing house, became the focus of a boycott organized mainly by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

This occurred despite Grant making no specific remarks about Jews in the book: but by this time the Nazi Party had come to power in Germany and the American racialist movement was to a large extent held responsible for helping to prepare the scientific background to Nazi policy, and as such the propaganda mills were turned against Grant as much as they were turned against the Nazis.

Finally the Jewish anthropologist, Franz Boas, launched an all out campaign against eugenics. Combined with the propaganda linking Grant’s work to the openly anti-Jewish Nazi government in Germany, fewer and fewer public figures were prepared to associate themselves with eugenics, and by the end of the Second World War the science had been successfully suppressed in America.

Non-white immigration into the white heartlands

The dominating theme of European history in the last quarter of the 20th Century has been the large-scale immigration of non-White peoples and races into the modern era White heartlands of Europe, Australia/New Zealand and North America. This process has taken place via two avenues: legal immigration and illegal immigration: it is difficult to formulate estimates on which has been the greater. Whatever the channel used, the reality of masses of non-Whites settling in these territories can quite rightly said to be changing the face of these continents.

According to Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities) in their publication Migration Statistics, 1996, there is not one of the 15 countries in Western Europe which, at the beginning of 1994, did not have less than 3 -10 per cent of what they euphemistically call “non-nationals resident”.

France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Scandinavia and England are all listed as having “non-nationals resident” of more than 10 per cent, with Germany in two regions registered figures of “more than 15 per cent.” An average of between 10 and 15 per cent of “non nationals resident” in Western Europe as of the mid 1990’s is therefore an accurate estimate, given that official figures are always behind actual statistics, as the number of illegal immigrants always closely shadows the number of legal immigrants.

Racial mixing has been extremely prevalent in Britain. According to the 1991 census, taken by the Office for National Statistics in London (ONS), 40 per cent of young Black men in Britain are married to, or live with, a White partner. The trend is less common on the other side of the sexual divide, where one in five young Black women has a partner who is White. Britain has, as a result of this large non-White influx, suffered a large number of Black riots, the most serious of which occurred in 1981, when countrywide riots saw large areas of many inner cities razed to the ground.

According to an article in the newspaper, USA Today of 17 June 1998, the number of mixed-race marriages in the USA was 150,000 in 1960. By 1998 it had increased to “over 1.5 million” and it estimated that the number of mixed-race children in America stood at “over 2 million.”

The 1960s will also go down in history as having introduced one of the most significant factors to affect White numbers in the entire history of the world: the development of the birth control pill, or oral contraceptive, which was first approved for use in the United States in 1965. Social demographic trends have shown that it is only in the Western, White, industrialized countries where contraception is used to any significant degree.

The reproduction rate in White countries (amongst their native populations) has, since the introduction of the pill, dropped to the point where in most White countries it is below the stable replacement rate of 2.4 children per female. In the non-White Third World however, no such restraints exist, and the population grows exponentially as fast as the White population declines in Europe and North America: this demographic time bomb will in the not to distant future have serious consequences for the entire earth.

The resultant massive overpopulation of the non-White lands of the earth provides the major driver for non-White immigration into the White heartlands of Europe, Australia and North America.

____________________________

I blame Christianity’s secular offshoots for this, and look forward to participate in the Day of the Rope…

Tags Australia, Europe, Jewish problem (JP), National Socialism, United Kingdom, United States

Emigration / immigration William Pierce

Seeing the Forest

Editor’s note: This article by William Pierce
is the best I have read on the Jewish Question:

Every week I receive a number of letters from listeners who believe that I blame the Jews too much for the destruction of our society. I’m not referring now to the letters from crazed Christian fundamentalists who rave at me about the Jews being “God’s chosen people” and therefore entitled to do whatever they want without criticism. These pitiful souls tell me, “God’ll get you if you say anything bad about the Jews. Don’t you know that Jesus was a Jew?”

And I also am not referring to the letters from lemmings, who simply parrot back the Politically Correct party line they’ve learned from watching television, to the effect that Jews are just like everybody else, except better, and that the only reason I speak critically of them in my broadcasts is that I’m jealous of their success. They tell me that I’m an embittered loser who lives in a trailer, has bad teeth, and never got an education, and that I spend most of my time getting drunk and doing intimate things with my female relatives, because the media have taught them that all people who live in West Virginia are like that.

Anyway, I never waste time arguing with people about their religion, whether it is Christian fundamentalism or Political Correctness. Unless people have a reasoned basis for their beliefs, a reasoned argument with them is pointless. The believers I want to argue with today are those who believe that I am incorrect in imputing bad motives to the Jews as a whole. Some of them tell me, it’s not the Jews per se who’re destroying our race and our civilization; it’s the rich people, Jewish and non-Jewish. It’s the greedy billionaires, who keep our borders open to the Third World because they want a steady supply of cheap labor. It’s the crooked lawyers, Jewish and non-Jewish, who run our legislatures and our courts to enrich themselves rather than to give us good laws and justice.

And of course, the people who tell me this are correct—up to a point. It is true that Gentile billionaires do tend to put their further enrichment at the top of their list, and they do tend to go along with the Jewish billionaires in many things. They seldom see any profit to themselves in opposing the Jews, even when they don’t agree ideologically with them. Billionaires are more inclined to go with existing trends and try to profit from them than to buck those trends and risk losing money. It has been truly said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to… do anything which might diminish his fortune. And it also is true that most lawyers chose their profession not with the aim of serving their people or because they are interested in law, but rather because they see it as a way to personal wealth and power. And it also is true that we have a lawyer-ridden society. We should have people other than lawyers setting policy.

More generally, it is true that if one looks into every destructive institution in our society, if one looks behind every destructive policy, one finds non-Jews as well as Jews. The ruinous immigration policy we have now in the United States is favored by some Gentiles as well as by virtually all Jews. The 1965 immigration law which shifted the flow of immigrants into this country from mostly European to mostly non-European was pushed primarily by Jews, but Senator Ted Kennedy was a co-sponsor of the law. The Jews may be taking over organized crime in America, but there still are some Italians involved in it. The most active legislators in the Congress pushing for the curtailment of our right to keep and bear arms are Jews, but many Gentiles also are involved. If we look into the destructive exploitation of our natural environment, the cutting down of our forests and the strip-mining of our land and the polluting of our rivers, we probably will find greedy and short-sighted Gentile profiteers more often than we will find Jews. And even in the mass media, one can still find some non-Jewish media bosses who promote essentially the same party line as the Jewish media bosses: Rupert Murdoch is an example.

All of that is true. So, then, why don’t I just complain about the plutocrats or the lawyers or the businessmen? Why do I single out the Jews? The answer to that is that if we don’t look at the Jews specifically, if we don’t try to understand them as Jews, then we can never really understand what is happening to our race and our civilization. And if we don’t understand what’s happening, we’re much less likely to be able to change things for the better. We need to understand the process, and in order to understand the process we need to understand the Jewish role in it—because it is the key role.

Let’s back off a bit and just ask ourselves, what is the single most powerful and influential institution in American life today? What institution, more than any other, is promoting the worst and most destructive trends in American life? Is it professional basketball? That’s certainly a noxious influence—but it’s not the most noxious. Is it the Internal Revenue Service? No. It isn’t even the Clinton government of which the Internal Revenue Service is a part, because the Clinton government itself is only a creature of the most powerful institution, and that most powerful institution is made up of the mass media of news and entertainment which together shape public opinion and control public policy. And these media in turn are dominated by Jews.

I won’t go into all of the names and organizational relationships today, because I’ve done that a number of times in past broadcasts, and the details are all in a pamphlet I publish and update regularly, it’s called Who Rules America?, and if you send $2 to the sponsors of this broadcast they’ll send you a copy. But just a quick summary: the three giants in the electronic media are Disney-ABC, headed by Michael Eisner; Time Warner-CNN, headed by Gerald Levin; and the new Viacom-CBS conglomerate, headed by Sumner Redstone. Eisner, Levin, and Redstone are all Jews, but it’s not just the men at the top who’re Jews; these media giants are staffed by Jews from top to bottom.

In the print media the country’s three most influential newspapers are the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. All three of them are owned or controlled by Jews. The only three widely read weekly news magazines in the United States are Time, which is owned by Gerald Levin’s Time Warner-CNN; Newsweek, which is owned by Katharine Meyer Graham’s Washington Post Company; and U.S. News & World Report, which is owned by Jewish real-estate developer Mort Zuckerman. The story is the same in the Hollywood film industry and throughout the rest of the mass media of news and entertainment.

Now, there are people who will tell you with a straight face that this almost total domination of the most powerful institution in our society by the Jewish minority, which makes up only 2.5 per cent of the U.S. population, is just a coincidence, that it has no sinister significance. It just as well could have been Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses who happened to rule the media. What difference does it make?

When grown men say something like that, you can safely bet that there’s something other than reason at work. Usually it’s fear: not so much a conscious fear as a conditioned avoidance reflex, the product of a long-term program of media conditioning of the public never to say or even think anything negative about Jews, lest one be labelled an “anti-Semite” or a “Nazi.” Really, the proper name for this sort of conditioning is “brainwashing.”

Think about it for a minute.

Imagine yourself in a group of yuppies, at a restaurant, say, or a cocktail party: a fairly sophisticated and irreverent sort of crowd. You can make a joke about the Pope, and even the Catholics in the crowd will laugh. You can say something smutty about Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King without objection. You can express your dislike for homosexuals or feminists. Some of those present may argue against you, but they are not likely to get uptight about it. But if you want to stop the conversation cold and give everyone present a bad case of heartburn, just say something unfriendly about the Jews: either about a specific Jew or the Jews as a whole. Say, for example, something like, “Well, now that that Jew Sumner Redstone has grabbed CBS, there’s hardly any part of the mass media that the Jews don’t own. I think that’s not good for America.” Say that, and then smell the fear in the air as your friends choke on their martinis.

Perhaps I exaggerate a bit, but not much. The Jews do get special treatment, and that is no more a coincidence than their control of the mass media. It has been planned. It is has been engineered.

Now, I am sure that, having said that, the minds of many of my listeners have just locked gears as the conditioned reflex forbidding them to think any unfriendly thought about Jews kicks in. But you know, it is possible to overcome this conditioning, this brainwashing—unless you’re a lemming, that is. Lemmings can’t overcome it because they don’t want to overcome it. They don’t want to think any disapproved thought, any thought that everyone else isn’t thinking. But if you’re a person who wants to think clearly about this matter, all you have to do is begin looking at the facts. Take your time. Study the facts carefully: not just the facts I offer to you, but also everything else you can dig up on the subject. Think about the implications. Reach your own conclusions. You can overcome the conditioned fear—and as a responsible adult, as a responsible American, as a responsible member of your race, you should.

And when you no longer are afraid and you finally are able to look the truth squarely in the face, you no longer will believe that it is a coincidence that the Jews have elbowed their way into virtually every position of control in the mass media. You no longer will believe that the Jews do not use the power consciously and collectively that this media control gives them. I’ll say that again: the Jews use their control over the mass media, not as individual capitalists, the way the few non-Jews in the media do, but they use it collectively and cooperatively to advance Jewish interests. That is why you can see a common propaganda agenda throughout all of the controlled media. They all promote the image of the Jew as a victim, never as a predator or aggressor; they all promote the image of the Jews as sensitive and creative and sympathetic, not as the sort to plan and organize a bloody Bolshevik revolution and butcher tens of millions of innocent Russians and Ukrainians or to run the White-slave business and force thousands of young European girls into a life of prostitution every year—or as the sort to elbow their way into the key positions of media control and then to help their fellow Jews do the same thing.

And they also all push interracial sex. They all push the lie that most interracial crime is White on Black. They all suppress any news which contradicts that lie. They all try to persuade us that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, just an alternative life-style. They all propagandize for multiculturalism and for more diversity and for keeping our borders open to the Third World and for scrapping the Second Amendment—all of them.

Now, let’s back up for a moment, because I’ve just said something extremely important, and I want to be sure that it sinks in: that I have convinced you. I think that most perceptive and responsible people, once they have made up their minds that they want to know the truth, can accept the fact of Jewish media control; that fact is really undeniable. I think that most of them can then take the next step and conclude that this Jewish media control is not just a coincidence: they can conclude that the Jews deliberately and cooperatively set out to achieve this control and then to use it to advance their collective interests.

People can understand that in terms of the sort of group behavior with which they already are familiar. The members of other groups also cooperate in order to achieve group power and then use this power to advance their group interests. And so it should not be surprising that the Jews in the media collaborate to create a favorable image of themselves in the public mind. Most people can persuade themselves that it’s not “anti-Semitic” to believe that Jews behave like many other groups do in order to advance their group interests.

It’s the next step that is difficult for many people: it is recognizing that the propaganda agenda of the Jewish media bosses goes far beyond promoting a favorable image of themselves; it also promotes everything which is unfavorable to the non-Jewish majority. And this destructive propaganda is not a coincidence either; it is the product of a planned, deliberate, collaborative effort.

Reaching this conclusion is a big step, a difficult step, for many people—even for people who want to understand, who want to know the truth. It’s a big step because it separates the Jews from every other special-interest group. It sets the Jews aside from the rest of humanity and identifies them as a uniquely hostile, destructive, and deceptive group. It identifies them as a group which is uniquely dangerous to our people. And it leaves anyone who takes this step open to the charge of “anti-Semitism.” Certainly, if you take this step—if you reach this conclusion—and you announce your conclusion publicly, you will be denounced as an “anti-Semite” by the media bosses—and probably by the lemmings too.

And so I don’t want you just to take my word for this very important conclusion about the nature of the Jews as a uniquely hostile and dangerous group. I want you to study the facts. I want you to think about the evidence and reach your own conclusion. But I don’t want you to stop short of a conclusion because of fear, because of brainwashing. I want you to overcome your fear and examine the evidence objectively.

I will make a few more observations about this conclusion and its implications now, however. Let me tell you, it really is the key to understanding many other things: the history of the Jews in Europe—and elsewhere—for example. Why were the Jews always picked on and persecuted far more than any other group? Why did everyone else always hate them? Why have they been kicked out of virtually every country in Europe during the past thousand years: out of England and Spain and Portugal and France and Sweden and Germany and a dozen other countries and told never to come back, only to sneak back in and then be kicked out again? The Jews will tell you that it was Christian bigotry. But Christian bigotry cannot explain why the Egyptians threw them out of Egypt more than a thousand years before Christ, and it cannot explain why the pagan Greeks and Romans hated them. I used to wonder about these things. And even after I began to suspect that the socially and racially destructive activities of the Jews were planned and deliberate, I didn’t know why. It didn’t make sense to me that the Jews would deliberately seek to destroy a society in which they were riding high—that they would deliberately drill holes in the bottom of a boat in which they were passengers. I couldn’t figure it out—until I understood the nature of the Jews.

And that nature really is unique. At some time far back in the prehistoric period, certainly more than 3,000 years ago, the Jews developed a unique mode of survival as predators and parasites. Whereas other races, other tribes, sought either to live alone among their own kind—or to conquer other tribes militarily and take their land or require them to pay tribute—the Jews sought to invade the territory of other races by stealth and then to subvert them, to undermine their morale, to break down the order and structure in their societies as a concomitant to controlling them and exploiting them.

In the beginning, thousands of years ago, this may have been only a novel plan for gaining control of a particular neighbor, but eventually it developed into a way of life. It became part of their religion, and eventually it got into their genes. I believe that today they really can’t help themselves. And as I said before, you do need to think carefully about this. You need to study the facts. It’s difficult for many people to understand the Jews because they really are different from every other ethnic group.

One aspect of the Jewish problem which adds to the difficulty many people have in coming to grips with it is that the Jews are not just a scheming and sinister kehillah of adult male media bosses. They are a complete community, with women and children and many members on the fringes: part-Jews, dissidents, and so on—even a few anti-Jewish Jews. There are approximately six million Jews in the United States, by their own count, and they can’t all be film studio owners or newspaper publishers or promoters of “rap” music or Hollywood scriptwriters. Most of them live and work in a way which gives them relatively little personal opportunity for damaging our society. They are simply teachers and businessmen and merchants and lawyers and doctors, earning a living more or less like everyone else—but not quite.

You must back off a bit in order to see the forest rather than just the trees. The essential thing about the forest is that it is destroying our world. It is a parasitic forest. It is injecting spiritual and cultural poison into our civilization and into the life of our people and sucking up nutrients to enrich itself and grow even more destructive. Perhaps only 10 per cent of the trees in this Jewish forest have roots deep enough to inject their poison into us, and the other 90 per cent play only supporting roles of one sort or another. It is still the whole forest which is our problem. If the forest were not here we would not have had to endure the curse of Bolshevism. If the forest were not here America would not be growing darker and more degenerate by the year. It is the whole forest, not just a few of the most poisonous trees in it, which must be uprooted and removed from our soil if we are to become healthy again.

The essential point again is this: not every Jew has a leading role in promoting the evils which are destroying us, and not every person is a Jew who is collaborating with the leading Jews who are promoting evil, but it is only because the Jews as a whole are among us that the evils they always promote are overwhelming us. If the Jews were not present we could overcome the evil men of our own race. The evil men of our own race may seek their own profit at the expense of the rest of us, but they do not seek to destroy our race. Only the Jews seek that.

_____________________________

Free Speech
October 1999
Volume V, Number 10

Tags Jewish problem (JP)

Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Demography Egypt Emigration / immigration Indo-European heritage Miscegenation Philosophy of history Racial studies Slavery

“March of the Titans” – prologue

Post author By C .T.
Post date December 6, 2012
8 Comments on “March of the Titans” – prologue

This post has been moved: here.

Tags Degeneracy, History, India, Materialism / capitalism

Catholic Church Christendom Deranged altruism Emigration / immigration Tom Sunic

Capitalism & the Church

Excerpted from Tom Sunic’s
recent article at The Occidental Observer:

We often confuse the causes of non-European immigration with its effects. We hunt after a wrong scapegoat. Let us try to clarify it…

The blame for non-European immigration and the decomposition of the European peoples must not be solely borne by the immigrants. It is in the interest of the local capitalists to get a million-strong reserve army of cheap labor to Europe and to the U.S.; in turn, they can lower the wages of their domestic workers. Furthermore, non-European immigrants have little social consciousness, a weak sense of the trade union adherence and practically no sense for the European destiny. Therefore, they can be better manipulated by the local capitalists. One should consider therefore the globalists, the plutocrats and the financial “superclass” as the main enemy of the European peoples. A German stockbroker, or a Croatian or a Russian ex-communist speculator turned now into a capitalist shark, does not care where his nation is—as long as he can rake in big money.

We are all witnessing a reemergence of the silent holy alliance today—an alliance between the ex-Commissar and the Merchant, i.e. the marriage between the left-winger and big business. The European Left is in favor of mass immigration, given that the exotic picture of the non-European immigrant represents for it now the ersatz symbol of its long gone proletariat. For the capitalist, it is beneficial to bring people from the Third World into Europe, because they can best serve the interests of anonymous capital. The capitalist strives towards the removal of his people, because his people are too expensive for his business transactions. A leftist “antifa” wants to erase his people because it will always remind him of the rising “fascist beast.”

But the Church also bears a heavy responsibility for the decomposing situation of the European nations, especially with its ecumenical parlance of “help thy neighbor.” Americans, Europeans and White Christians are nowadays more concerned about the welfare of non-European peoples than the welfare of their own. A rich Qatari, or an oil sheik from Saudi Arabia could not care less are about the young unemployed and destitute masses in Moldova, or the working poor in France of Spain. He does not feel much inclined to help his own kind in Palestine in the first place, let alone give a thought to the suffering of the millions of the unemployed in Europe. The influential American Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, also known “as the American Pope” openly preaches in the American media the necessity of the open borders and openly advocates the protection of illegal immigrants in the USA.

Therefore it is wrong to blame only stateless plutocrats, ethnic lobbies, or starry eyed leftists in their decomposition endeavors of the European peoples. Regarding the destructive equality doctrine by Christian savants, I’ will not discuss it here. I’ll refer you to my papers and books.

♣

From Hunter Wallace’s September 28, 2012 “OD’s Indictment”

In preparation for writing OD’s [Occidental Dissent] first book, Shattering The Golden Circle: The Failure of Free Society in Dixie, Haiti, and the Caribbean, I have spent months intensely researching the rise and fall of slavery in the Caribbean and American South.

I’ve been trying to understand why slavery was destroyed and why approximately four million free negroes were turned loose on our society.

I don’t have to tell you that the consequences of the abolition of slavery have haunted us to the present day. I’m getting to the stage where I am starting to draw some firm conclusions about how and why this happened:

(1) First, New World slavery was overthrown during “the long nineteenth century” from 1770 to 1890.

(2) Second, the decline of the West is not due to a Jewish conspiracy, although Jews have thrived as an effect of the moral decay, especially in the twentieth century. It is not due to any inherent biological predisposition on the part of Whites to embrace racial and cultural suicide either.

(3) Third, I am convinced that the decisive years in pushing the West down the present road to suicide are 1750 to 1850.

(4) Fourth, the culprit is a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview during this period that led to the creation of secular and religious versions of humanitarianism that have progressively undermined the foundations of our civilization.

(5) Finally, the twin doctrines that are to blame for our decline, which brought about this critical shift in moral outlook, are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity.

This is the ultimate source of the “black cloud” that hangs over our civilization. Discuss.

Note: I will also speculate that industrial capitalism created a middle class that was peculiarly receptive to this worldview – the perfect triumphalist bourgeois ideology – and that the spread of liberal democracy gradually empowered this class in the West which used its newfound power to “progressively” act out its utopian fantasies.

Why did the South and the Caribbean deviate so strongly from this general direction in the nineteenth century? In the South and the Caribbean there was a third cultural pole, race-based plantation slavery, which created a stronger cultural immune system.

Tags Christian problem (CP), Degeneracy, Europe, Jewish problem (JP), Materialism / capitalism

Currency crash Emigration / immigration Eschatology

Our crystal ball

Further to my previous post.

As der Schwerter has just translated to German an article by Edward S. May (“Baron Bodissey”) that explains beautifully why it is almost certain that economic Armageddon is around the corner.

Below “Chump Change,” the complete 2009 article by May that originally appeared at Gates of Vienna. Presently the situation in the US is far more compromised thanks to the ongoing (suicidal) efforts of chairman Ben Bernanke:

When I was seven years old I took up coin collecting as a hobby. Back in those days there were still a lot of interesting coins in circulation: the buffalo nickel, the Mercury dime, the Liberty Walking half dollar, and—if you were patient and went through enough rolls of coins—the occasional Indian head penny or “V” nickel.

The most exciting coin of all, however, was the silver dollar. The 1921 “Peace” dollar would do, but the Morgan dollar was preferable—it had a serious-looking 19th century design, and was the very same dollar that filled those heavy payroll bags heisted by stagecoach robbers in Westerns. It was a nice hefty piece of real American history, and it could fill the palm of a small boy’s hand.

Up until my tenth birthday my allowance was fifty cents a week, which I received in the form of a biweekly dollar bill. During my silver dollar craze I would take that bill down to the bank and ask for a silver dollar in exchange for it. The tellers all knew me, and would oblige me by picking through their selection of silver dollars until they found a date I didn’t have.

I was able to indulge myself in this manner because most of the dollar bills in circulation back then were still silver certificates.

The bank had no choice: under its charter, it was required by law to “pay the bearer on demand” a dollar in official United States silver coinage for every silver certificate presented to it.

No one has the same option today. Today all the paper money in circulation consists of Federal Reserve notes, which are not redeemable for anything in particular. You can go to the bank and exchange your dollar bill for four quarters, but those are no longer the shiny silver discs that rang so delightfully on the marble counter at the teller’s window. Nowadays the dimes, quarters, and half dollars are all “Johnson slugs”, the ugly nickel-copper sandwiches that were introduced in 1964 when silver coinage was abolished and the silver certificates were withdrawn from circulation. 1968 was the last year in which the law required that any paper dollar be redeemable in silver.

♣

The abolition of silver coinage was the culmination of an extended process that took most of a century to complete: the disconnection of American paper currency from any fixed standard of value as represented by precious metals.

By the time the Johnson slugs appeared, the abolition of the silver coinage was an absolute necessity. The price of silver had been allowed to float, and because of inflation the silver in a dollar coin was worth more than $1.25. Entrepreneurs could make a tidy profit buying up silver dollars in bulk, melting them down, and selling them as bullion to silver traders. The old coins had to go, which meant that the silver certificates had to go, too.

From then on the federal government was not required to give you anything for your dollar bill. If you had one, you could go out and buy something that other people were willing to give you in exchange for your piece of paper. But the Treasury was obliged to provide nothing of value in return for that piece of paper except the “full faith and credit of the United States government”, which was worth a lot more in 1964 than it is today.

In the 19th century, the United States adhered first to a “bi-metallic” standard—both silver and gold coinage—and then the gold standard. Under the pressure of the Great Depression, FDR initiated a gradual slide away from gold and into a silver standard for the paper currency, although the Treasury and the Federal Reserve adhered to the gold standard until 1971.

Since then the official currency of the United States has been anchored by nothing more than global confidence in the soundness of the dollar. As long as everybody believed in the same fantasy, then the system could operate. The dollars were printed, credit was extended, the financial markets functioned, and business enterprises were profitable. People went to work and got paid and bought stuff.

They also borrowed money and took out mortgages, which brings us to the mess we’re in today.

♣

Today’s system of commercial and consumer credit is made possible by the practice of fractional reserve banking. Until the late 18th or early 19th century, banks did not lend out their cash reserves of depositors’ money. The advent of fractional reserve banking made it legal for a bank to lend out a portion of its deposits, and required it to keep only a fraction of those deposits—in modern times, typically 20%—as an actual cash reserve.

This means that when Joe Consumer deposits $1000 into his bank account, the bank can lend up to $800 of it and keep $200 of the deposit as a fractional reserve, maintaining the loan on its books as an asset. At this point the initial $1000 in cash has morphed into $1800 in cash assets and credit—in effect, $800 worth of money has been created.

When the borrower deposits the $800 into another bank, that bank in turn can loan out $640. And so the process continues, forming a geometric progression of assets which cannot exceed $5000 (500% of the original deposit), $4000 of that in loans listed as assets on the books of the respective banks.

This practice seems bizarre and imprudent at first glance, but it was absolutely essential during the expansion of our industrial economies. Industrialization created wealth where none existed before, but without a way to extend the money supply to match the added wealth, the capitalization of industry would have lagged, and growth would have been much slower. Fractional reserve lending allowed credit to be extended to industrial entrepreneurs, and as long as loans were made prudently and repaid on time, and banks retained their depositors’ confidence, the system functioned well.

Maintaining a gold or silver standard imposed a natural limit on the inflation of the money supply via fractional reserve banking. As long as banks met their capitalization requirements and observed the rules for fractional reserves, the money supply could never expand past the implied mathematical limit.

During times of economic contraction the system sometimes foundered. Then there would be a run on the banks, and some banks would fail. Although the system always righted itself eventually, businesses were ruined and individuals impoverished in the process, so that the political pressure for a system of government controls was irresistible.

Right: At a distance looks like the White House but it is the “Fed” headquarters (Eccles Building)

Thus was the Federal Reserve born in 1913. The Fed is a consortium of private banks linked closely to the government, and functions more or less as a central bank would in many countries. Its job is to control the money supply by setting interest rates for government lending. By stabilizing swings in the money supply, the Fed’s mission is to prevent bank runs. It’s not always successful: witness the recent run on Washington Mutual and its subsequent collapse—the largest bank failure in history.

♣

The current gargantuan federal government, so far beyond the size and scope of what the Founding Fathers originally envisaged, owes its origins to the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. Using military means, Lincoln demonstrated that the government in Washington was the absolute master of the several States.

But the bloated bureaucracy didn’t really take off until Woodrow Wilson invoked his presidential authority during World War I to create federal powers and functions which had never existed before, and which just happened to fit into his Progressive framework.

Not all of these powers were scrapped after 1918, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt took everything a step further when he created the New Deal to fight the Great Depression—once again, an excuse for massive Progressive intervention—and then World War II.

By 1945 the federal government was simply “too big to fail”, and all the layers of emergency powers that had accreted over the previous thirty years became permanent bureaucratic institutions. Once initiated, a new federal program was virtually never abandoned. No cabinet office has ever been abolished—new ones can be created, but they cannot be destroyed; they may only persist and grow.

Decade after decade the government has continued to expand, adding agency upon agency and bureau upon bureau. It has sprawled out across the District of Columbia into satellite fiefdoms in Maryland and Northern Virginia and created nests of regional offices across the rest of the nation. Whenever a congressman or senator perceives an important “constituent need”, a new federal function is created and funded, and becomes a permanent fixture in the Washington ecosystem.

Needless to say, all of this is very expensive. For the first thirty years or so of the federal explosion, increased taxes were sufficient to fund the pet projects and Progressive fantasies of the federal mandarins. But then the post-war boom leveled off, even as the Great Society was mandating a thicker layer of lard on top of the government pudding.

Increased taxation was not good enough. Unfortunately for the feds, raising taxes much further had become politically impossible, yet the internal logic of government expansion required that more money be found.

That’s where the Johnson slugs came in.

♣

The uncoupling of the money supply from any reserve of precious metals did not automatically doom the country to inflation, indebtedness, profligacy, and ruin.

If the individual functionaries within the system did their jobs properly—if they acted with probity, prudence, fiduciary integrity, honesty, and in the interests of the people they purportedly served—the fractional reserve system could have continued indefinitely.

But there are too many perverse incentives built into a banking system that is not pegged to any external reserve of actual tangible value. By adding new rules, augmenting existing procedures, and tinkering with the arcana of accounting terminology, new wealth could be created where it didn’t exist before. The Treasury could keep issuing bonds, and as long as the price of milk and shoes didn’t rise too much, why then, everything must be fine, mustn’t it?

But it wasn’t fine. Decade after decade of deficit financing created the infamous national debt, which kept growing and growing. But, once again, as long as productivity increased and the economy kept on expanding, inflation could be kept at bay. The national debt, huge as it was, might theoretically be paid off—someday.

Unfortunately, during the last two decades or so, productivity hasn’t really been as high as it seemed. Our national wealth is now denominated at least partially in assets that are over-valued, with real estate as a notable example. Those California house prices—a million dollars for a tiny bungalow on a postage-stamp lot—might have looked good on the asset side of a balance sheet, but they weren’t real money.

That value was conjured out of thin air by cynical or short-sighted people who gamed the system to their own advantage—quite legally, in most cases. But the wealth thus generated was illusory, and could disappear as easily it was created—which it is even now in the process of doing.

The final stroke which broke the banking system—and caused it to collapse years or decades earlier than it would have otherwise—was meddling by the federal government for political reasons.

Meddling was irresistible. And, without a gold standard to enforce fiscal restraint, it was inevitable. Money could always be created out of nothing, so the federal government created it and ordered its agencies to force the private sector to do certain things with it, things that might otherwise be considered foolish or imprudent.

In the case of the subprime mortgage fiasco—the most visible and notorious example—the federal government created government-protected lending institutions and through them forced banks to loan money to homebuyers who would not otherwise have qualified for the loans, and who could not reasonably be expected to pay them back.

Beginning in the 1970s, and continuing until the whole house of cards collapsed last year, the government used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—two quasi-government lending institutions which were not bound by normal market constraints—to pump untold billions of dollars into the housing market. Mortgages were issued to people who were poor, or had vaginas, or spoke English badly, or had sufficient melanin in their skin—because they deserved them. Never mind whether they could afford them: it was unfair for them not to own houses, and so the mortgages were issued, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

The rules kept being eased, the system got more corrupt, more and more money flowed through more and more hands, creating an ever-increasing supply of perverse incentives for bureaucrats and businesses to lie, to manipulate the rules, and to line their own pockets.

In the process the demand for real estate increased, driving the price of housing far beyond what it would otherwise be, thus creating the real estate “boom”—which was actually a bubble, and which has now officially popped.

During this period baroque new rules emerged to facilitate the issuing of additional debt. Exotic new financial derivatives were designed. Accounting rules for valuing assets were loosened. Bond-rating agencies were corrupted by their dependence on the institutions whose debt they rated. The securitization of debt removed the traded derivatives ever farther from anything of tangible value. Debt instruments were used as collateral on new debt, which was in turn used as collateral on yet more debt, until the money supply became so attenuated and rarefied that it had almost no connection with anything real. The entire elaborate financial structure of the country’s banking system was spun out of the purest speculative gossamer.

And at every level of the process somebody took a cut, so everyone worked very hard to increase the size of the pie.

♣

In order to issue all those worthless mortgages, the ultimate guarantor—Uncle Sam—had to create the money by borrowing it himself. T-bills were issued, and buyers snapped them up.

Many of the customers for US Treasury paper were foreign governments, especially in Asia. The Chinese accumulated a large surplus of dollars, and recycled them by buying up more dollar-denominated debt. As long as China kept producing cheap products and exporting them to us, the process could continue. Our manufacturing capacity was diminished, and our money flowed out of the country to buy Chinese goods. But they kept loaning it back to us so that we could continue to fund the federal behemoth and its profligate habits.

The entire system depends on confidence in the dollar—as long as foreign countries continue to believe that real value lies behind the dollar, and that the American economy is strong enough to withstand this level of debt, they will continue to loan money to us, and pump liquidity into the system.

But confidence in the dollar won’t last. It can’t, because all those dollars in circulation, held in reserves in central banks all over the world, are not backed up by enough collateral. The last estimate I read—which was over a month ago, and real estate prices have presumably dropped even further since then—placed the number of dollars in circulation and held in reserves all over the world as thirteen times the amount of tangible assets in the U.S. financial institutions that back them up. That is, if all the holders of dollars across the globe decided to exchange them at the same time, the currency would have to be inflated at least 1,300% to redeem them.

With the addition of the recent stimulus package, American debt now exceeds the entire collective wealth of every man, woman, and child in the United States.

And this debt is almost entirely collateralized by confidence in the dollar. There’s nothing else backing up our currency.

♣

The national debt is even more alarming if our unfunded liabilities are taken into consideration. One of the ways that successive presidential administrations kept deficits to a theoretically manageable level was by putting the Social Security Trust Fund “off-budget”—i.e., outside of its fiscal calculations. The “Trust Fund”, of course, is a joke—there’s nothing in it but IOUs. The FICA money that is withheld from your paycheck and contributed by your employer disappears instantly into the insatiable maw of federal spending, leaving only a promise that your retirement fund will be available for you when you are ready to collect it. Your future Social Security, like all things federal, depends solely on the “full faith and credit of the United States Government”, a commodity whose value is dropping precipitously.

One recent estimate puts the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare—the money which the system will be statutorily required to provide for today’s citizens at some point in the future—at more than $100 trillion. And that’s just for the two biggest federal entitlements—add to them federal pensions, veterans’ benefits, and state, local, and private pensions, and the amount of unfunded liability is unimaginably huge.

All those hundreds of trillions of dollars are mandated by law and must someday be paid out. Yet the money is not there now—where will it come from?

And “someday” is drawing rapidly closer. Much of the unfunded liability will begin to come into play in the next few years as my generation, the Boomers, begins to retire and claim all its benefits. That’s why political leaders of both parties are so keen to get Pedro and Ahmed into the country—they’re looking for somebody, anybody, who will go to work and pay the FICA and income tax necessary to support the Beautiful People as they shuffle off into assisted living.

But it’s not going to work. Even if all the immigrants were skilled and ready to work, even if mass immigration were not doomed to destroy the culture and civil society that holds this entire Potemkin village together, even if the multicultural dream could be fully realized—even if everything else were ideal, the system would not be able to handle the load. The conclusion is inescapable: the persistence of our current political arrangements is fiscally and actuarially impossible.

♣

This is the broad context in which the current financial crisis has emerged.

The system is going to fail. Failure is unavoidable. The big questions are:

1. How soon will it fail?

2. What form will that failure take?

3. How much civil unrest, violence, deprivation, and destruction will accompany the changeover to whatever new system emerges?

The broad outlines of what is to come are already visible. The banking systems of the West are heading for insolvency, and no amount of bailout money is going to save all the major banks. Bailing them out will only serve to delay the catastrophe and make it worse when it finally arrives. Real value to match the newly-created bailout money does not exist, and at some point the market will mark everything down to its true worth, destroying roughly 90% of the system’s wealth in the process.

One of the first symptoms of the collapse will be a run on the dollar. When confidence finally erodes past a certain point, speculators will start to unload their dollars en masse, and the U.S. government will have to choose between inflating the currency or defaulting on its obligations.

The United States is at the epicenter of the banking crisis, but the European currencies are feeling the pinch first. With the Austrian banks facing the default of Eastern European debt, the euro may be in trouble, and sterling is also widely rumored to be near collapse. The dollar is maintaining its value relative to these currencies (and the yen), but all of them are in the same boat. It won’t be long before investors start unloading their reserves of currency and taking refuge in gold, silver, platinum, and other non-perishable commodities whose value is expected to outlast whatever unpleasantness lies ahead.

After that the major Western nations will experience an unprecedented fiscal and monetary crisis. Mass insolvency, bank failure, an inability to meet entitlement payments, and the suspension of normal commercial activity will be the result.

The modern global economy depends on mass consumption by the wealthy Western democracies of goods produced by the Third World and purchased by savings borrowed from the Third World. This part of the system is already in retreat—consumption in the West has dropped dramatically, Chinese exports have collapsed, and the Chinese are signaling their unwillingness to loan us more money unless we can guarantee that we won’t inflate our currency to pay off our debts. What sane person would believe such a guarantee, even if the Treasury were so foolish as to offer it? The inflation is coming, and the current system will grind to a halt.

We are, in a word, screwed.

♣

All of this will not just happen. None of the unfortunate consequences will occur in a vacuum, and there will be reactions and counter-reactions on the part of governments and the public, which will make the system chaotic and unpredictable.

Governments will continue to intervene to “fix” the market, and by doing so will generally make the problems worse. Riots, civil wars, insurrection, and revolution will be likely if the maintenance dose of government cash is withdrawn from recipients in the major welfare states. Many other negative consequences are probable, but no one knows when, where, and how much.

Even the wisest and most skilled political leadership would find it difficult to intervene in a way that would mitigate the worst effects. At some point the market will have to realistically revalue the system’s assets, and the results will be painful. The consequences can only be postponed, and thus made more severe; they cannot be avoided.

Unfortunately, wise and skilled political leadership is in short supply all across the West. Our social democracies—with their welfare systems and ideologically uniform media—do not reward risk-takers and visionaries. Cynical time-servers, technocrats, obedient functionaries, and corrupt fixers tend to rise to the top. This is the cohort who will be leading the charge with broom-handle and dustbin lid during the coming debacle.

So far Congress and the Obama administration seem determined to do the worst possible things, economically speaking. Pumping more debt into the system, bailing out inefficient and unprofitable private companies, increasing pork-barrel spending and patronage, nationalizing financial institutions, rewarding corrupt and incompetent administrators, raising taxes, increasing regulation… How much more perverse can they get?

Giving bankruptcy judges the right to “adjust” interest rates on individual mortgages will serve only to distort the credit markets further and make the crash much worse when it finally arrives. Appropriating vast quantities of public funds to force a restructuring of private mortgages is senseless when the market value of the mortgaged real estate is half the face value of those loans, and dropping fast.

Barack Obama has assumed the role of King Canute in the current farce, sitting on the foreshore with his hand raised, ordering the tide to stop. A pathetic and futile gesture, but one that he and all the other leaders must inevitably make. They have no other solutions.

“Tide, I command thee: turn back!”

♣

There are a few possible positive aspects of the current mess. As the crisis matures, supra-national institutions will fail and become irrelevant before nation-states do. Individual nations will reclaim their authority and sovereignty in an attempt to take care of their own.

Here in the United States, in the face of new unfunded mandates, trillions of dollars of federal largesse with strings attached, and volumes of new federal regulations, the several States have suddenly recalled the Tenth Amendment and are invoking their own sovereignty. This is all to the good, because for the last sixty years or so the federal government has extended its effective reach by dangling money before the states and making them dance for it. As the money disappears, the dance will come to an end. Without a bottomless cash drawer, the federal government is a pathetic weakling, and most power will eventually devolve to the states.

Another possible spinoff of the coming financial collapse is that the problem of Islam will solve itself. One of the consequences of the depression is that the demand for oil has dropped dramatically, and the price will be low for years. Not only will the sheikhs lose much of their income, but many of them are heavily leveraged and live on the margin, with their assets tied up in the Western financial markets. Like everyone else, they will see most of their wealth disappear.

And, unlike many other countries, the oil-dependent states of the Middle East have nothing else to fall back on. When the oil money disappears, that’s it. The entire population—millions of people on the Arabian peninsula and in Iran—subsists on state oil revenues, directly or indirectly.

The effects of this are already becoming evident. Hundreds of thousands of guest-workers in Saudi Arabia and the emirates are being sent home to Malaysia, Indonesia, Nepal, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. These latter countries will thus experience the unfortunate secondary effects of the collapse of oil prices. Given that most of the rest of their economy depends on the manufacture of cheap consumer goods for the West, they will be in serious trouble.

If this process is severe and goes on long enough, rioting, civil insurrection, and revolution may well give way to epidemics and actual mass starvation all across the long crescent of Islam’s bloody borders, from Marrakech to Mindanao.

♣

All of the above is pure speculation.

I’m a rank amateur when it comes to economics and finance. Over the past three months I have read and digested a huge volume of information in an attempt to understand the catastrophe that is unfolding in slow motion around us.

I don’t know if my prognostications are correct. Unfortunately, no one else can predict what’s going to happen, either. The current situation is unprecedented. It is inherently unstable, chaotic, and unpredictable. Don’t believe anyone who says he knows what will happen next year. No one does.

Preliminary indications are that the global economy has actually been a planet-wide Ponzi scheme since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Like any other Ponzi scheme, it depended on a constant infusion of new suckers. As long as the world’s population was expanding, and the efficiency of industrial production was increasing, the fiscal bubble could continue to inflate.

But the dream is over, and the bill is coming due. The bubble has popped. The scheme is collapsing. The entire finance system will soon become like 1997 Albania writ large.

When the fever has run its course, a new system will emerge. Eventually the market will reassert itself, and production and consumption will resume.

But how much trouble and sorrow lies ahead of us is hard to predict.

Given that the economy of the United States will take the biggest hit—and has the farthest to fall—the era of American hegemony will almost certainly come to an end within the next decade. On balance this will be a salutary thing for the rest of the world. Europe will learn to deal with Russia and Iran on its own. Third World dictatorships will have to extort protection money from a different client. The Japanese will rapidly discover the value of missile defense and a strong military. All the fires that have been prevented or contained by American military power will rage unchecked until their human fuel is fully consumed.

And America will persist in some form, perhaps in several pieces, or as a loose confederation that will warm the heart of Jefferson Davis’ ghost.

Or perhaps we will continue as a single nation, much poorer and unable to project power abroad, but ruled by a despotic central government wielding a citizens’ army of multicultural block wardens to keep the citizenry in line—a continent-wide Cuba from sea to shining sea.

Or perhaps some other currently unimaginable form of government and civil society will emerge.

The only thing that’s certain is that the system cannot continue for much longer in its present form. The laws of economics—which are nothing more than a mathematical model describing what must happen—tell us that a collapse of some sort is unavoidable.

You will know changes soon.

Tags Economy, United States

Egalitarianism Emigration / immigration

A modest proposal

by Hunter Wallace

We invite King George III to come back and resume the throne. He could dissolve the Union, arrest the negro in the White House, and round up our so-called “representatives” in Congress.

In exchange for an apology and a promise to never misbehave again, we get lower taxes, a less intrusive government, secure borders, and an end to all the madness that has flowed from the “self evident” idea that “all men are created equal.”

What do you say?

Tags United States

American civil war Audios Blacks Conservatism Emigration / immigration Mainstream media

“Once Obama amnesties those wetbacks…”

Post author By C .T.
Post date June 30, 2012
3 Comments on “Once Obama amnesties those wetbacks…”

Rarely do I follow the news in this blog. But the recent Supreme Court decisions against Arizona and for ObamaCare—the Old United States no longer exists: those decisions were the final nail in the coffin—remind me Harold Covington’s scolding of coward conservatives:

Note of May 12, 2015: The thoughtpolice at YouTube censored this clip.

Tags Feminized western males, Mexico, United States