Aug 14, 2015

On Cities and Community

via traditionalRIGHT

I presume to believe that I am not alone among traditionalists and conservatives in having a distaste for the modern city. Not only are they dirty, loud, obnoxious, crime-ridden, vice-infested, and often have the sanitary rating of a septic tank, but they tend to be places that bring out the worst in their residents. The larger the city, the worse they seem to be. It is almost as if cities act as focal lenses for the innate sinful nature of mankind, taking it and amplifying it synergistically whenever huge numbers of people are aggregated together in such close proximity.

Yet, as a classically-minded student of Western history and civilization (I would classify myself as a “Neo-Ciceronian” if I absolutely had to identify with an “ideology”), I find this view to be at odds with how our forbearers thought of cities.

For instance, in his oft-quoted but ill-translated dictum, Aristotle said that “man is a political animal.” This translation is unfortunate because it gives the modern observer, especially Americans who are often and unfortunately ignorant of classical thought, an incorrect sense of what Aristotle meant. He did not mean that man is at his fullest when he’s arguing about abortion on an internet forum or voting for which candidate from the Republicrat Party will (mis)represent him in Congress. A more correct translation of Aristotle’s statement would be that “man is a creature of the polis.” The polis, often called the “city-state,” was the focal point of classical Greek life. As such, it was more than just a location in which people aggregated to live their separate lives. Instead, the polis was a living, breathing organism. It was a community in which man not only lived his private life, but in which he was practically compelled to lead a public existence as well. In classical Greece, a man who refused public participation and led an exclusively private life was looked down upon. He was an idios, from which we derive our own term “idiot.” People who did not have a poleis culture, which included many of the peoples that the Greeks thought of as barbarians, and even rustic Greeks like the Thessalians, were viewed as being malformed and incomplete.

The Romans had a similar view of things. Cicero (and surely his opinion must count for a lot!) lauded cities as beneficial and fulfilling for mankind, for much the same reasons as did Aristotle and other Greek thinkers. To be a citizen of a city of free men (municipia) made you a fuller person than the rustic provincial non-entity. And ultimately, this was why the highest aspiration for the upward-mover in the Empire was to be able to participate in the legal fiction of being a citizen of the city of Rome, even if one never actually laid eyes on it during one’s lifetime.

This dichotomy in my own mind – a distaste for the cities I see around me, but the reverence for “the city” in our classical heritage – has gnawed at the back of my mind for quite a while. But then the resolution of these contradictory impulses came to me. The difference between the two lies in their differing aspects of “community”, the one being based upon our Traditional sense of community and identity, the other being directly opposed to it.

As should be inferred from the comments above, classically-speaking, cities were not simply large aggregations of people. They were viewed as communities. They shared a commonality not only of culture and language and religion, but of purpose and direction and will. Or at least that was the idealized view of them, even if ancient cities departed from this to varying degrees in practice. What one person did for the community affected everyone else. The heroes like Pericles provided benefits to all the citizens of Athens. The traitors like Alcibiades caused great harm to them all.

As Jeff Culbreath said (even if in a bit different context), “The nature of tradition is that it is lived in community.” Traditional life requires community because that is what allows individuals to live together without resorting to become wards of the external state or becoming competing elements within a society that only serve to rip it apart from the inside out. Community is what allows the family to prosper. Community engenders bonds of loyalty, purpose, and reciprocity. Community is what allows society to enjoin the “gentle persuasion” of stigma and social pressure against those who deviate too grossly from traditional modes and patterns, instead of using the “violent persuasion” of the force and power of the state. Community is what allows each member to work with and persuade others towards a common end without falling either into dictatorship of ochlocracy. It is not surprising that the most successful genuine republics (among which the United States would not be included, for we ceased to be a genuine republic by 1865) have been those with a strong sense of community and common purpose.

It is exactly this that is missing from the modern American city. Think about what our cities are today, even the relatively well-functioning ones. They are simple aggregations of large numbers of people who are yet largely disconnected from each other. The people of Boston or San Francisco or Atlanta have no commonality of purpose. They have no unspoken yet very real bonds of loyalty and affection uniting them. They are the very essence of the idiotes of classical Greece, men and women whose sole loyalties are to themselves and their immediate families and the instant gratification of their desires, with no thought of their communities as a whole. Even in cases where ethnic enclaves may exist which create a small semblance of community, this extends only so far as the ethnic boundaries lay – they certainly do not unite these cities into “political” wholes in the Aristotlean sense.

As such, it is little surprise that such cities are riven with crime (after all, you don’t rob or murder people you feel bonds of love and loyalty toward). No wonder these cities need the heavy hands of militarized police to keep their denizens in check. Are we surprised that they’re dens of iniquity and vice, when there are no social pressures from any community of Tradition to govern the baser impulses of these people?

How did this aberrant style of city come about? It occurred as a result of the Industrial Revolution and the social upheavals in labor and the movement of populations from the countryside to the cities that happened as a result. People left their traditional communities – places where their grandparents had lived where their grandparents had lived – to become atomized cogs in the industrial machinery that drove the rise of automated, bank-financed corporatism. Cities in the classical era and the Middle Ages existed, and many were quite large, but within them, everyone who was not a criminal or an outcast had a place of dignity and relevance and respect and worth. In the industrial city, man became an expendable gear; if one breaks, replace him with another one who just floated in from the countryside. Ultimately, the problem is not the advance of the technology itself, but of the failure of social man to guard against the commoditization of human beings in a way that never could and never did occur in traditional society.

The question then is, what can we do about this, if anything? Really, there’s nothing we could do about the state of our cities, short of nuking them and starting over. But as Traditionalists, we can seek to regenerate outlets for traditional society within the machine, at a demotic level. Start with the family, not just the nuclear, but the extended family. Work to create a sense of community with your neighbors. Seek to drive toward common purpose with those of a common culture. Build this around the churches, which in addition to meeting the spiritual needs of the people, have also served the practical roles of transmitters of social purpose and organizers of traditional society. Understand that, unlike what many of the libertarian “rugged individualists” may say, “community” does not mean “communism”. Community is not a dirty word. Community is the heart of our traditional culture. We can recover that culture when we recover that community.

Examine the QUESTION

via BUGS

As you know by now, if anyone has problems dealing with an anti-white statement, I usually have at least a handful devastating replies ready almost immediately. Obviously I don’t do this by a careful examination of the details of the debate.

The first thing I do is examine the argument they are having trouble with.


Then I TRY to drive through their armor-plated skulls into what serves them for brains.

If I had the formula for that plating, I could sell it for a fortune.

For over fifty years I could not get a single pro-white Great to notice that anti-whites always talked about a “single brown race of mankind” while never saying anything about any other group but WHITE people.

People keep looking for my sudden discovery of that since 2000, but a thirteen-year-old who had read The Cry and the Covenant several times thought of that point fifty years ago.

Who would listen to a kid?

By age thirty, I was reacting to no one ever mentioning that every Communist country killed escapees with a mind already long prepared for armor which protects my side from thinking.

Another Sub-Basic I thought long ago was about “Whites stole America.”

As usual when I EXAMINE the QUESTION, I immediately have not one but two devastating answers. Only BUGSERS realize that when an anti-white throws charges against whites, he is JUSTIFYING genocide.

But like white genocide, another term no pro-white would allow through the armor plating, people assume I came up with it recently.

I had a brain free of armor plating SIXTY YEARS AGO.

We hit them with white genocide when they start on the Guilt Trip.

But if you READ THE QUESTION before you start answering it, you see what theft is.

If I find that I have money in my bank account that I FEEL is stolen by me and a group of others, what is my FIRST obligation?

Is it my obligation to keep the money and loudly condemn the OTHER thieves?

No. My first obligation is to RETURN MY SHARE.

In fact, if the others honestly do not feel that their money is stolen, they have no obligation to return. But the minute I declare the money I have is stolen, I am morally obliged to return MY SHARE immediately.

In the case of a “stolen” America, which I always thought silly because I knew enough history by age thirteen to believe that any country has any “native population.” All humans took what they have.

But if you LOOK AT THE QUESTION, it is the person who is speaking who is obligated to leave America immediately.

I do not believe that my being here is receiving stolen property.

He is saying that HIS being here means he is receiving stolen property, which is as much a felony as stealing.

And yes, I was saying that in the 1950s.

Mike Judge, Idiocracy, and the Jew-Imposed Dysgenics

via The End of Zion

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain
Dew Herbert Camacho. This is what
the leader of the dysgenic future of
America will most likely look like
One of the rare examples of a Hollywood movie that is genuinely good and actually has a powerful, positive message that touches on an important social issue is the 2006 movie Idiocracy, written and directed by the brilliant satirist Mike Judge of Beavis and Butthead, Office Space, and King of the Hill fame.

The plot is that two people volunteer to be cryogenically frozen in a military hibernation experiment, and the experiment goes wrong, causing them to not be released until well into the future, in 2505. The future is populated by a coffee-colored mass of, well, idiots, due to hundreds of years of dysgenic down-breeding.

Below is the first two minutes of the movie, which shows a hilarious contrast between an intelligent couple that keeps putting off having children until it’s too late, and a White trash moron who impregnates women left and right and pops out dozens of them. It begins with the following voice-over narration:
As the twenty-first century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits.
Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction — a dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

That is, basically, the traditional argument for eugenics, originally derived from Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton. Whether Judge was versed in the theory of eugenics when he wrote the movie, or whether he had just happened to independently come to the same conclusion as the eugenicists through observing current trends in society, is hard to tell.

If he was aware of eugenics, and the content of the movie suggests that as a good possibility, he must’ve either not been aware of the stigma associated with eugenics, which has become a dirty word in our current world due to the association it has with the so-called Jewish Holocaust, or unaware of the extent of that stigma, or else he just didn’t care.

Eugenics is a dirty word because the Third Reich practiced eugenics, and it led to the mass extermination of millions of Jews and other “undesirables,” so the story goes. This association was cemented into the mind of the public following the highly organized Jewish campaign for promoting the Holocaust in 1967, primarily as a deterrent to anti-Jewish sentiment following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. John Glad, in his book Jewish Eugenics, explains how
Subsequent to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the Holocaust Memorial Movement is launched, with eugenics targeted as the ideology of genocide. So effective is the campaign that polls show that many more Americans can identify the Holocaust than Pearl Harbor or the atomic bombing of Japan. Those who are familiar with the term “eugenics” begin to associate it with “Holocaust” and “racism.”
Glad could hardly be called an anti-Semite, as he is a Jew himself. Ideologically he is pro-eugenics and a universalist, rather than ethnocentric, and, in that eye-opening, thoroughly researched book of his he puts the blame for the suppression of eugenics – in great detail – squarely on his fellow Jews, who have themselves, he writes, “practiced eugenics for millennia.” This is a fact. Eugenics are actually embedded in Talmudic, Jewish religious law. (For more on this see A People That Shall Dwell Alone by Dr. Kevin MacDonald. Also see here and here)

So I guess it should come as no surprise to find out that the Jews in Hollywood did all they could to suppress Idiocracy, to the point where it almost didn’t even get released theatrically, and, when it did, there was virtually no promotion – no trailers, ads, etc. – and it was to a very limited amount of theaters.

Mike Judge spoke to VICE about this controversy in a video interview in 2013. Beginning at around 8:40 he says:
But Idiocracy though, that was, like, really ditching a movie, I mean they, I think it was like maybe 11 theaters they put it in. We locked, finished the movie, put it in the can and it was over a year after that that it came out, so I, by the time they got around to marketing, I was completely out of touch with them.

The Myth of Equality

Idiocracy also inherently challenges another sacred cow of Hollywood propaganda: the myth of equality. The movie puts a strong emphasis on the importance of IQ differences and their relation to biological inheritance. A taboo topic, to be sure. Because, as we know, everyone – Blacks and Whites, men and women, rich and poor – must always be considered exactly equal to everybody else, without exception. Any suggestion to the contrary, no matter how scientifically or logically sound, is simply unfit for polite society. Yet Judge courageously smashes through this silly myth by the deployment of unflinching satire – the most powerful weapon of all in combating the lies of the left – with devastating effectiveness.

If anyone hasn’t seen the movie, I recommend doing so. I can almost guarantee you will like it, as it is very witty and funny (though it may be a bit too silly and over-the-top for some, depending on your taste). The entire movie is on YouTube here.

Eugenics and Conspiracy Theories

Ironically, Judge was also interviewed by the pro-Jew, anti-eugenics conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and they also touched on this topic.

Beginning at 27:40:

Conspiracy types use the word “eugenics” to refer to their theory of a secret plan by Satan-worshipping Nazis that want to depopulate 90% of the earth, using poisonous airplane exhaust and other super secret evil methods. This issue has been dealt with already, so I will not rehash the arguments against it, but needless to say it is utter nonsense.

Their conspiratorial version of eugenics is basically the same as the fantasy, mainstream Jewish version, where it’s claimed that the Nazis herded defectives into buses and gassed them with diesel fumes (an impossibility) and then conducted all kinds of evil and weird medical experiments, eventually killing 6 million Jews in gas chambers and turning their remains into lampshades, soap and fertilizer. The conspiracy movement is kosher to the core, and does nothing but serve Jewish interests by pushing stupid gibberish such as this. They claim to be against the system, yet at the same time push the exact same narrative as the mainstream, except taking it even farther by claiming that Nazis are somehow still running the show.

Why the Nazis would promote anti-Nazi propaganda 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, while they are running things behind the scenes, is never explained. Also, if there’s a Nazi conspiracy, why the New World Order powers coalesced during World War II to absolutely destroy Nazi Germany is also never explained.
Fortunately, not many who follow alternative media are still dumb enough to believe that our enemies are actually Nazis, rather than Jews.

Eugenics….Are They Really Bad?

Like many other topics in today’s world, one is left scratching their head while studying eugenics and seeing the disconnect between what we are told and what actually is.
Eugenics was designed as a system for the betterment of society, the minimizing of suffering, the lowering of crime, and the strengthening of living standards for future generations, and is based upon objective science. Yet what we are led to believe in our post-WWII society is that it is nothing but a slippery slope to evil and genocide, and those who advance and promote it are seen as hate-crazed racists at worst and misguided at best. Reality has been inverted.

This seeming anomaly makes much more sense once you add in the Jew factor though, as what strengthens the White race – and eugenics surely would – is bad for Jews, and what weakens the White race – as dysgenics surely does – is good for Jews. This is a fact that simply can’t be denied by anyone with any intelligence who takes an objective look at Jewish behavior and how the world really works.

As far as Hitler and the National Socialists, the Jews had already absolutely destroyed their country and taken over many of its top institutions before Hitler had come to power, so conflict between the two was inevitable, and it was initially instigated by the Jews.

In the years leading up to 1933 the Jews had been using their media influence to divide and poison the minds of the Germans with anti-German and Marxist propaganda; they had been leading the Communist party which was trying to incite a violent revolution paralleling the Jewish Bolsheviks who took over Russia in 1917 and then brutally tortured, murdered and starved millions of the elites in the name of “equalizing” the Russian people; it was Jews who had disseminated the demoralizing propaganda and led the workers’ strikes on munition factories that caused Germany to lose World War I – a war that Hitler fought valiantly in from start to finish – and it was Jewish bankers who had plundered the German economy, causing hyper-inflation that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths of German civilians from starvation and suicide.

Hitler, like any honorable man, was wholeheartedly opposed to all of this, so he fought tooth and nail to defend his people and return his beloved nation to its former glory, free of the Jewish parasite that had proven itself to be hostile and disloyal to Germany and the German people.

Because of his open anti-Semitism, the Jews declared war on Germany as soon as Hitler took power, before any anti-Jewish policies had even been enacted. Hitler then began systematically passing laws to force the Jews out of positions of power and influence and he dismantled usurious Jewish banking houses such as the Rothschild dynasty and others. This obviously made the Jews feel very unwelcome – as it was meant to – and so they were leaving Germany in droves. Many went to America, and many went to Palestine and elsewhere.

Needless to say, this treatment was a great embarrassment for the Jews and caused them to develop a deep, burning hatred toward Germany and as a result they were – and still are – willing to make up any lie necessary to have the Third Reich, and its memory – and anyone else who would resist their tyranny – demonized and destroyed. The lies told about eugenics have little to nothing to do with the German-Jewish conflict of the 30s and 40s and, as we have seen, weren’t even invented until 20+ years after the end of the war. They are an outgrowth of the ongoing Jewish hatred of White gentiles, who they view as all potential Nazis that must be destroyed.

Historian and Eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard visited Hitler’s Germany in 1939 and reported on what he saw in the book Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today. In that book, he gives the reasons for Germany’s eugenics policies, and their aims, through firsthand knowledge:
When the Nazis came to power, Germany was biologically in a bad way. Much of her best stock had perished on the battlefields of the Great War. But those war losses were surpassed by others during the post-war period, due to the falling birth-rate. Economic depression, mass-unemployment, hopelessness for the future, had combined to produce a state of mind in which Germans were refusing to have children. The birth-rate dropped so fast that the nation was no longer reproducing itself. Furthermore, the lowest birth-rates were among those elements of highest social value. The learned and professional classes were having so few children that, at this rate, they would rapidly die out. At the other end of the scale, the opposite was true. Morons, criminals, and other anti-social elements were reproducing themselves at a rate nine times as great as that of the general population. And those lowest elements were favored in their breeding by the welfare measures of the Weimar regime. Statistics indicate that it cost far more to support Germany‟s defectives than it did to run the whole administrative side of Government—national, provincial, and local. As the Nazis saw it, they had a two-fold task: to increase both the size and the quality of the population. Indiscriminate incentives to big families would result largely in more criminals and morons. So they coupled their encouragements to sound citizens with a drastic curb on the defective elements.
To stand in opposition to the implementation of eugenics policies, such as those described above, is obviously insane, and literally suicidal for a nation. The only reason our society frowns upon eugenics is because our society is controlled by Jews, and as such the basis of our negative perception of the science is not driven by rationality – as most have no idea what it actually even is – it is driven by Jewish lies. Like everything that the Jews don’t like because it is good for Whites, they just claim it inevitably leads to lampshades and Holocausts, and is therefore off limits to even contemplate.

The main reason people don’t know what eugenics really is and are therefore unable to come to a rational opinion in regard to it, is because the other side of the debate over them is ruthlessly suppressed by the liberal Jew media, just as innumerable other big lies. Whatever is good for Whites and bad for Jews – from eugenics, all the way to the belief that White people should not be wiped off of the face of the planet – is simply shouted down as being “Nazi.”

Yes, if you simply care about the future of White children, you will be labeled a “Nazi.” You have to roll over and let your race perish to avoid that label. You have to let your race be degraded into a disgusting cesspool of fat Walmart shoppers that ride around in little carts so they don’t break their ankles trying to get at a tub of Ice Cream, and you must not object to having our borders wide open to hordes of violent subhumans who hate our guts and will slaughter every single one of us wholesale as soon as they’re given half a chance, if you want to avoid that label.

Therefore, unless you are on board with the White genocide program led by the Jews, being called a Nazi is clearly a compliment, and fighting to have every policy associated with Nazism implemented ASAP, virtually a sacred duty.


The logic in favor of eugenics requires only very basic, common sense. Not practicing it is insane and apocalyptic for any people, anywhere
Are the Jews Right in Suppressing Eugenics?
Suppressing eugenics is clearly evil, but is this a logical strategy from the Jewish point of view?

It can be argued that it is. Eugenics is about rejuvenating the health of your nation, which can only be bad for Jews, since they function as parasites on the body of their host peoples.

Eugenics is rooted in science, and, excluding the leftist versions of it which ignore racial sub-groups and focus only on its IQ and hereditary disease aspects, it emphasizes the need to separate the races geographically due to their differing levels of achievement. The study of civilizations through a racial lens – a key factor in the foundation of racial eugenics – leads to the overwhelming historical evidence which shows that all great ones were built by White people, with the Nordic element at the forefront.

Madison Grant, the most famous early American anthropologist/eugenicist, in his highly influential 1916 book The Passing of the Great Race, characterized the Jew as one whose “dwarf stature, peculiar mentality, and ruthless concentration on self-interest are being engrafted upon the stock of the nation,” and warned against the dangers of race-mixing:
It must be borne in mind that the specializations which characterize the higher races are of relatively recent development, are highly unstable and when mixed with generalized or primitive characters, tend to disappear. Whether we like to admit it or not, the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting to the more ancient, generalized and lower type. The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a negro is a negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.
Thus we see that physical anthropology and race science, of which eugenics grew out of, also leads to the recognition of the Jews as a distinctive and separate race (actually a mixed race), which leaves no room for their trick of blending in by pretending they are White when it suits them and pretending they are just a religion when that suits them. That trick has served them very well, and indeed serves them very well to this day, with most White people having no clue what a Jew actually is, to the detriment of us all.

So yes, eugenics for Whites is bad for Jews, necessarily. Therefore, keeping in mind that they are our deadly racial enemy with separate interests and an entirely different value system, and indeed live off of us as parasites, then it becomes obvious that discouraging us from practicing eugenics is the logical way for them to behave.

Equally obvious, with the simple facts above in mind, is that the logical way for us to behave is to be unashamedly and unapologetically anti-Semitic and pro-eugenics, without fear of the Jews genocidal smear terms, because it is the right thing to do from our perspective.


Why is eugenics evil again? Oh yeah, lampshades and soap. We must feel guilty and give all our wealth and power to Jews and just roll over, rot, and die as a race, right?

Deliberate Genocide

What the Jews are doing to us by suppressing eugenics is conscious, deliberate, premeditated genocide, provably. First off, they are highly conscious of the fact that race-mixing is genocide, and always have been. Secondly, they are also conscious that low birth-rates lead to genocide. Eugenics takes both of these problematic issues into account, and seeks to rectify them.

All leading Jewish groups actively work toward preventing Jews from marrying outside of their race. Alan Dershowitz, one of the top Jewish leaders in America, even wrote an entire book about this, The Vanishing of the American Jew. For Israel, they regard a low Jewish birth-rate vs. a high Palestinian birth-rate as tantamount to Jewish genocide – and rightly so – and thus they are alarmed by and fight against that trend. Israel is, for all intents and purposes, a national socialist, eugenics state.

Meanwhile, they promote the opposite for Whites in White countries: race-mixing, multiculturalism, open borders, and dysgenics; and they brainwash our people into believing that national socialism, White race consciousness and eugenics are the ultimate in evil.

They cannot fallback on the excuse that they are just true-believing “liberals,” because there is ample evidence – stretching back thousands of years – that they are aware that what they are promoting inevitably leads to race destruction.

Therefore, they are guilty of White genocide, with malice aforethought, and it could be proven in court.

Let that sink in for a moment.


Ad encouraging Jews not to intermarry or miscegenate
Running Out of White People

The President of the future United States in Idiocracy is a hilarious, Black professional wrestler/porn star named Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. A few years ago Mike Judge brought him back from the future for a series of webcasts, wherein he issued a dire warning in the form of the most politically incorrect statements I’ve ever seen coming from anyone who is anywhere near the mainstream.

Apparently, the future doesn’t run so smooth once White people have, for the most part, disappeared from the face of the earth, and this is a great concern for President Camacho.

Take heed, White man:
“Seeing as I’m from the future and I’ve seen it all, and I see how the shit came out. Listen. Y’all don’t need to worry about climate change. What you need to worry about is we running out of White people. We running out.
“Let me tell you something. In about 500 years. Y’all done went to bonkers. Y’all done got on planes, you flew to different places. The White Flight. There ain’t nowhere else to go! You done head out in the mountaintops, you done went underground. We, let me tell you something: there’s a White people shortage. That’s gonna happen.
“You White people been worrying so much about what’s in danger to spotted owls…the fucking…the fucking deer and the last bit of rabbit that’s running around, the jack rabbits. Can’t let us shoot the coyotes. And y’all didn’t realize yo ass was in danger. Check it out right now. Look, you used to be blonde, family was blonde, now you running around the family looking like…like…like Chico!
Let me tell you something. It’s all getting mixed together player. We all one family, come on out of hiding. Man, we got to save the White people, that’s why I have a 5% stake in the Washington Whiteskins. That’s right.”
“What I’m trying to say is: preserve yourself White people. You special. I’m getting choked up over this shit.”
“So, I came back, from the future, to let you know that this shit is happening. You’re running out of time.

Major General J. F. C. Fuller (1878–1966)

via Counter-Currents

Major General J. F. C. Fuller
Our modern media like to depict military men as trigger-happy simpletons whose throwback minds are still laboriously progressing from the 18th to the 19th century. Unfortunately, at least within the Western democracies, the rewards and the constraints have been such as to drive creative intellects from the military ranks at Mach 1 speed. Nevertheless, occasional bright intellectual lights have remained in uniform, despite all the obstacles. By far the brightest such light (a veritable supernova) was Major General John Frederick Charles Fuller. The treatment accorded General Fuller by British politicians and the British high brass rivaled that given to Galileo by the Inquisition.

Early Life

Fuller was born in Chichester, England, in 1878. As a child, he showed few signs of academic brilliance. Ignoring the tedious school curriculum, he preferred reading books of his own choosing and taking long walks through the country. Although his father was a man of the cloth, young Fuller lost his traditional faith at an early age. He would remain an agnostic, but an agnostic who maintained an enduring, life-long interest in questions of morality and metaphysics. It was not what he learned or would learn in schools, military or academic, but his early internal theological conflicts which would help make Fuller the great military prophet of his times. At an early age he did not merely reject dogma (despite tremendous social and familial pressure against nonconformism), but picked up the habit of evaluating arguments, testing theories and building alternative systems.

In 1897 Fuller entered the Royal Military College and in the next year was sent to garrison duty in Ireland. While he enjoyed fencing and shooting, the budding militarist showed no interest in the social activities of the officer corps. When his classmates went riding to the hounds, Fuller secluded himself in his study, reading, of all things, philosophy. Another young officer noted that Fuller’s conversations and caustic humor generally led to “the complete confounding and obfuscation of the mess.” From the start he was, as he described himself, “a most unconventional soldier.”

Africa and India

The Boer War resulted in Fuller’s being posted to Africa as an intelligence officer. A near fatal illness prevented his assignment to combat. Instead he was given a grab-bag of tasks which included the inspection of garrisons and fortresses, and the training of native scouts. Among all these duties, he still found time to read over 150 books.

Fuller’s unusual assignment allowed him to view the Boer War from a broader perspective than obtained by front-line officers. He gained an appreciation for the value of fortifications, as well as their limitations. He was aware of the tendency of “set piece” engagements to become stalemates. He understood the influence of genetic and cultural factors on morale. The mind which had been honed and rehoned by theological disputes now turned to questions of strategy and tactics. But, unfortunately, the military establishment quickly returned to drills and ceremonies upon cessation of hostilities. What little the commanders had learned, Fuller noted, they quickly forgot.

Fuller’s next overseas tour was the usual one to India, where his inquiring mind was fascinated by Oriental religions and philosophers. He would later write two books on these subjects, Yoga (1925) and The Secret Wisdom of The Qabalah (1937), in which he compared the thoughts of the Eastern sages with Herbert Spencer, T. H. Huxley, and W. E. H. Lecky. Years before such thoughts would occur to social scientists, Fuller realized that what men believed was a prime determinant of what they did. Despite his agnosticism Fuller was struck by the concepts of the absolute unknowable and of the interconnection of all life. It is not surprising that his fellow officers considered him somewhat odd.

It was in India that Fuller acquired his nickname “Boney,” because of his resemblance to the young Bonaparte both in appearance and in mental outlook. “Give me the power and limitations of any weapon,” he told his seniors, “and in half an hour I will give you a reasonable tactical answer.”

Returning to England in 1906, he was assigned to training duties. Within a year he led his battalion to first place in musketry among the territorial units. At this time he also began writing training manuals. In these highly readable documents (few military manuals can be so described), his suggestions ran from the seemingly obvious (using terrain rather than parade grounds for training exercises) to the abstruse (preventing a military formation from degenerating into a crowd, as defined by Gustave Le Bon).

World War I

In 1914 Fuller was appointed deputy assistant director of railway transport because of an earlier article he had written on troop entrainment. During this assignment he found time to write two books dealing with the tactics of Sir John Moore and of Moore’s training of raw recruits during the Napoleonic Wars. Posted to France, Fuller served in a number of staff posts. Initially he supported the policies of Haig and the War Office, but after studying the results of the Somme offensive he argued for a tactical change from advance in line to advance in files in the hope of reducing losses. In December 1916 he was assigned as senior general staff officer to the Machine Gun Corps—soon to become the Tank Corps. Here Fuller had a chance to come up with the “tactical answers” he had boasted about in India. He saw in the tank a means of overcoming the tremendous defensive advantage of entrenched troops firing rifles and machine guns. Fuller believed a concentrated tank assault could easily puncture such a defense. A deep tactical penetration would then break the stalemate of trench warfare, greatly reducing casualties on both sides. Before he could sell his idea, however, he first had to win a long argument with the military old guard epitomized by Sir Douglas Haig. In his usual fashion Fuller dubbed his superior “The Stone Age General.”

In November 1917 Fuller’s tactics were at last employed. For the first time tanks were massed rather than committed to action piecemeal. At the cost of only 4,000 casualties (ridiculously low by World War I standards), a penetration at Cambrai of one of the most intensely defended sectors of the Hindenburg Line was effected. Within twelve hours British tanks had advanced five miles. It had taken three months to gain this same amount of ground at the third battle of Ypres. On the Somme, it had never been accomplished. Eight thousand prisoners were taken at Cambrai along with 100 captured guns. Unfortunately, mechanical failures of the tanks, the lack of an adequate mechanized reserve and the stupidity of the conventionally minded infantry and cavalry commanders prevented full exploitation of the situation. The Germans regrouped, counterattacked and eventually regained most of what they had lost. But Fuller’s point had been made.

Based upon the Cambrai offensive, Fuller proposed a more radical project called Plan 1919. Eventually approved by Foch for use in the year specified, it called for a penetration of the enemy lines by two inner pincers on a fifty-mile front and two outer pincers on a ninety-mile front. The inner pincers were to be composed of 2,500 heavy tanks supported by motorized infantry and cavalry, while the outer pincers would comprise 2,400 medium tanks. Aircraft would interdict supply and communications of enemy headquarters, provide close support of tank formations and serve as reconnaissance. Tank commanders would be in radio contact with each other and with the aerial units. The outer pincers were to be launched first, their target enemy headquarters twenty miles behind the front line. The purpose was to decapitate the enemy, leaving the front-line German troops without any chain of command. The forward troops would then be overwhelmed by the inner pincers. Subsequent pursuit of at least twenty miles per day was to be carried out for five to seven days. By aiming at the enemy’s command and control centers, Fuller believed he could obtain a decisive and yet humane victory. But victory came in 1918, so Plan 1919 was filed away in the military archives.

The Mechanized Army

The close of World War I found Fuller assigned to the War Office, which he dubbed “the tower of Babel,” as a staff officer with primary responsibility for tanks. At the time two thoughts were foremost in his mind: (1) the Treaty of Versailles made another war almost inevitable; (2) armored formations using the methods of Plan 1919 would prove decisive in that conflict. Consequently, he pushed hard for the development of a highly professional, highly mechanized army which would allow Britain to intervene in the continent in a decisive manner at minimal human cost. Fuller’s recommendations were opposed by an unusual coalition. First, there were the pacifists who were convinced that World War I had been the war to end all wars and that military expenditures should now be trimmed to the bone. Second, there were the Colonel Blimps, whose military strategy had not changed in 100 years. Only mechanization, Fuller warned, would permit a return to cavalry methods, since the horse had gone the way of the dodo. Colonel Commandant Neil Haig (cousin of Sir Douglas) served as unofficial spokesman for the Blimps. Replacing the horse with the tank, he argued, was as farfetched as the thought of replacing “our railway systems with lines of airships.”

In 1919 Fuller submitted the winning essay to the Royal United Service Institute’s army competition. His Gold Medal paper argued not only for mechanization, but for training officers in the social and physical sciences so that they could better understand the purpose of modern war and the technological weapons that would dominate the fighting. In 1920 he won that same Institute’s naval prize for the essay “Future Naval Tactics.” As all essays were submitted anonymously, the Admiralty Lords were somewhat embarrassed when they discovered a soldier had won. Fuller, who could never resist the opportunity to unnerve the establishment, claimed that he had in fact only written the essay on a dare, taking but a single weekend to compose it and encountering no difficulty in mastering naval tactics beyond the question of whether a ship was properly referred to as “she” or “it.” The Admiralty was now outraged. Fuller received his monetary prize, but his was the only prize essay never published by the Institute. Eventually he wrote a similar article for the Naval Review contending that the submarine and aircraft carrier had altered naval strategy. The capital ship, he asserted, was headed for the same future as the horse. The lesson Fuller couldn’t teach the Admiralty Lords in London, the Japanese taught them in Malaya.

Fuller produced mountains of books, manuals and articles stressing familiar military themes. His most ambitious work was The Foundation of the Science of War (1926). In it he sought to develop a military science grounded in what he termed “the threefold order.” Any organization or system, he argued, consisted of structure, control and maintenance. This was true of the human body, an army or a nation. Each of the three elements possessed the properties of stability, action and cooperation. Despite the protests of his critics, Fuller never reified the threefold order. He saw it as a heuristic device for concentrating attention on the purpose of a military engagement and the most expedient means to achieve that purpose, given the resources at hand. Today, systems analysis serves a similar purpose, if in a less Hegelian manner.

In 1927 it appeared as if Fuller had finally won the begrudging acceptance of the higher-ups. He was assigned the command of an experimental mechanized force to be employed in the Salisbury Plain exercises. At the same time he was given command of an infantry brigade and a garrison. Fuller saw this as a not unsubtle attempt to spread him so thin as to sabotage the performance of the mechanized force, thus discrediting his theories. His response was to resign from the army, which he reconsidered after receiving a pledge of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that mechanization would be supported. But the command of the experimental force went to an infantry officer with no interest or background in tanks. So ended the short-lived experiment.

Fuller’s remaining military assignments were mostly uninteresting and unimportant ones which took him far afield from mechanized warfare. He continued his writing, however, and two manuals dealt with the training and utilization of mechanized forces. The second manual was endorsed by Heinz Guderian for use in the development of German armored units, and Russia printed 100,000 copies of it. In England less than 500 copies were sold as late as 1935. In 1930 Fuller was promoted to Major General and placed on half pay. Late in 1932 he published Generalship: Its Diseases and Their Cure. The tone of the volume, in which the author pointed out that the average age of the world’s greatest generals was forty, while that of his British contemporaries was sixty, proved too abrasive. On refusing command of a second-rate Bombay garrison, he was retired in 1933.

By this time Fuller had described the main elements of the German Blitzkrieg, which was to stun Europe a few years later. He predicted a fast war of movement based upon destruction of the enemy’s will to fight, rather than a war of annihilation. He said highly trained professional forces would replace the massive armies of World War I. Linear defense would give way to area defense, lines would become erratic, battles would take place in the neutral zones between armored “hedgehogs.” Tanks would be employed in reconnaissance and amphibious operations, as would aircraft. While battles would often be fought with lightning speed, prolonged guerrilla warfare might break out in occupied areas. His article on “Tactics” in the 1929 Encyclopaedia Britannica can easily be mistaken for an historical account of the 1939 Polish or 1940 French campaigns.

Anti-Democratic Writings

Freed from the duties and restrictions of military life, Fuller turned to the study of military history and the causes and consequences of war. At the same time he became involved with Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. He saw the leaders of democratic Britain and France as tired old men living in bygone days. Leaders in the totalitarian nations, on the other hand, he found to be quick to grasp the impact of technological advance upon society and warfare. Hitler, Mussolini and Communist Karl Radek were all familiar with Fuller’s works and could discuss them intelligently with him. Perceiving the national will to be stronger in the totalitarian nations, he hoped Mosley’s proposal for conscription would galvanize the British spirit. Fuller also believed the democratic, capitalist nations had proved incapable of solving the cyclic booms and busts that plague them to this day, cycles he felt could be eliminated by basing national wealth on production rather than on gold. He attacked Jewish plutocracy in an article in the Fascist Quarterly entitled “The Cancer of Europe,” so ending any chance of his being accepted back into the government fold. He favored Mussolini’s system of vocational representation on the ground that the only thing the average man knew anything about was his job. Finally, Mosley was the only British politician to give full support to a mechanized army. Fuller felt Mosley was wrong, however, in styling his movement, uniforms and salutes after continental Fascism. He would have preferred a traditional British political party, Fascist in content, not style.

Fuller covered both the Italo-Abyssinian and the Spanish Civil Wars as a news correspondent with the Italians and the Spanish Nationalists, respectively. In both cases he was impressed by Fascist morale. In Spain he got a firsthand view of the anarchist wing of the Communist movement whose doctrine formed “a kind of political jazz that could be danced but not marched to . . . a surrealism . . . not even rational” (Decisive Battles, 1940, p. 1011). The experience of Spain and Abyssinia also convinced Fuller that air bombardment was not as powerful in destroying morale as he had himself once believed. He became a critic of the Douhet-Trenchard doctrine. He would repeat this analysis even more forcefully in his writings on World War II. This has made him persona non grata with the U.S. Air Force. Despite Korea and Vietnam, Air Force journals still take swipes at Fuller.

Fuller’s Decisive Battles (1940) is a brilliant military, diplomatic and economic history of the Western world. Like his other writings of the 1930s, its tone is basically anti-democratic and anti-liberal. He deplored the “insane world where the highest statesmanship depends upon the vocal unthinking masses” (The Dragon’s Teeth, 1932, p. 181). By 1936 Fuller openly predicted France and Poland would be overrun by mechanized forces in a fortnight (The First of the League Wars, 1936).

Military Historian

Fuller’s The Second World War (1949) still contains a heavy, self-serving, anti-Churchillian revisionist accent. From a distance (which includes Vietnam) his criticism reads better than it did originally, particularly his attack on “strategic bombing” and his conclusion that “should you when waging war lack a politically sane and strategically possible aim, you are likely to be thrown back on an insane moral one, such as attempting to eliminate ideas with bullets or political beliefs with bombs” (p. 402). Decisive Battles reappeared in three volumes as A Military History of the Western World (1954–56). In addition to expanding the coverage to include World War II, some earlier material is included. The overall tone is markedly less pro-Fascist, though still revisionist, and the chapter on the Italo-Abyssinian and Spanish Civil Wars has been removed. His short Armament and History (1945) also employs a less polemical tone. Along with Carleton Coon’s Story of Man and Darlington’s Evolution of Man and Society it could serve as an excellent text for a college survey of Western civilization.

The Conduct Of War (1961) represents the culmination of Fuller’s thinking. It is not a history, but rather a long essay on the impact of the French, industrial and Russian revolutions on warfare. Fuller’s primary point is that, contrary to “learned” opinion, democratic wars are the most brutal of all. Further, he notes, that while democratic nations in theory win their wars they have proven singularly incapable of establishing lasting peaces. Fuller attributes these shortcomings to: (1) the failure of moral (or behavioral) science to keep pace with physical science; (2) the economic failures of capitalism; (3) the tendency of democracies to treat wars as “jihads” in which there is “no substitute for victory” rather than accepting Clausewitz’s view of war as a logical extension of foreign policy, in which the means must be adjusted to future ends and future costs. The third point is also capably made by Mr. George Kennan in his American Diplomacy 1900–1950 (1951). Fuller goes beyond Kennan, however, in attempting to explain the irrational behavior of democracies. Taking his cue from Spencer, W. G. Sumner and Sir Arthur Keith, Fuller argues that democracy has produced a reversion to tribal morality, overturning the chivalric system of aristocracy. Like the tribe, democracy is founded on ingroup amity and outgroup enmity. Fuller’s arguments received recent support from Edward Wilson’s Sociobiology (1976).

Fuller concludes The Conduct of War with a statement that modern technology, especially nuclear weaponry, has made all-out war between major powers an obsolete concept. In 1956 he was already predicting that only proxy wars and “police” engagements would take place in the future. In The Conduct of War he argued that the problem of the Western nations was economic, with all of them moving toward a planned economy and the elimination of tariff boundaries. He saw the Soviet sphere as becoming more consumer-oriented as its overall wealth increased and predicted a Russian “bourgeois renaissance.” Both camps would become more alike in that each would move toward the Fascistic system he had advocated in the 1930s, though no one (including Fuller in 1960) would dare to call it that.

One of Fuller’s chief concerns was China. In the 1930s he had seen that nation as a potential power, in that it possessed in addition to its natural and human resources “an essential unity which is totally wanting in India.” Unless China solved the problem of industrialization without the overpopulation that usually goes with it, Fuller saw the possibility of war with either Russia in the north or Western interests in the Pacific. Fuller’s message to the Western nations was to get their houses in order.

Fuller is important as an historian because he understood not only the importance of technology, as well as genetic and cultural factors, but also the importance of ideas. In discussing the Spanish Inquisition he deplores its cruelty, but notes that without the unifying power of its ideology Spain would be “only a mosaic not a nation.” Though nonreligious himself, Fuller felt Franco was correct in supporting the established church as a means of reunifying Spain. Hitler, he believed, became powerful not only by his economic programs and technology, but because he had an idea of “heroic man” with which he could rouse people against the Marxist concept of “economic man.”

In 1963 the Royal United Service Institute awarded Fuller its Chesney medal, first presented to the American, Alfred Thayer Mahan. On February 10, 1966, General Fuller died. Although long married to the daughter of a Polish doctor, he, like Arthur Keith, Francis Galton and Madison Grant, left no offspring. In The Dragon’s Teeth (1932) he provided his own best epitaph: “If my dislikes are pronounced, it nevertheless will be found that one and all are based on principle. I cannot tolerate cowardice, untruthfulness, and sentimentality.”

The War against Change

via The Archdruid Report

Last week’s post explored the way that the Democratic party over the last four decades has abandoned any claim to offer voters a better future, and has settled for offering them a future that’s not quite as bad as the one the Republicans have in mind. That momentous shift can be described in many ways, but the most useful of them, to my mind, is one that I didn’t bring up last week: the Democrats have become America’s conservative party.
Yes, I know. That’s not something you’re supposed to say in today’s America, where “conservative” and “liberal” have become meaningless vocal sounds linked with the greedy demands of each party’s assortment of pressure groups and the plaintive cries of its own flotilla of captive constituencies. Still, back in the day when those words still meant something, “conservative” meant exactly what the word sounds like: a political stance that focuses on conserving some existing state of affairs, which liberals and radicals want to replace with some different state of affairs. Conservative politicians and parties—again, back when the word meant something—used to defend existing political arrangements against attempts to change them.
That’s exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing for decades now. What it’s trying to preserve, of course, is the welfare-state system of the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society programs of the 1960s—or, more precisely, the fragments of that system that still survive. That’s the status quo that the Democrats are attempting to hold in place. The consequences of that conservative mission are unfolding around us in any number of ways, but the one that comes to mind just now is the current status of presidential candidate Bernard Sanders as a lightning rod for an all too familiar delusion of the wing of the Democratic party that still considers itself to be on the left.
The reason Sanders comes to mind so readily just now is that last week’s post attracted an odd response from some of its readers. In the course of that post—which was not, by the way, on the subject of the American presidential race—I happened to mention three out of the twenty-odd candidates currently in the running. Somehow I didn’t get taken to task by supporters of Michael O’Malley, Ted Cruz, Jesse Ventura, or any of the other candidates I didn’t mention, with one exception: supporters of Sanders came out of the woodwork to denounce me for not discussing their candidate, as though he had some kind of inalienable right to air time in a blog post that, again, was not about the election.
I found the whole business a source of wry amusement, but it also made two points that are relevant to this week’s post. On the one hand, what makes Sanders’ talking points stand out among those of his rivals is that he isn’t simply talking about maintaining the status quo; his proposals include steps that would restore a few of the elements of the welfare state that have been dismantled over the last four decades. That’s the extent of his radicalism—and of course it speaks reams about the state of the Democratic party more generally that so modest, even timid, a proposal is fielding shrieks of outrage from the political establishment just now.
The second point, and to my mind the more interesting of the two, is the way that Sanders’ campaign has rekindled the same messianic fantasies that clustered around Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in their first presidential runs. I remember rather too clearly the vehement proclamations by diehard liberals in 1992 that putting Clinton in office would surely undo all the wrongs of the Reagan and Bush I eras; I hope none of my readers have forgotten the identical fantasies that gathered around Barack Obama in 2008. We can apparently expect another helping of them this time around, with Sanders as the beneficiary, and no doubt those of us who respond to them with anything short of blind enthusiasm will be denounced just as heatedly this time, too.
It bears remembering that despite those fantasies, Bill Clinton spent eight years in the White House following Ronald Reagan’s playbook nearly to the letter, and Barack Obama has so far spent his two terms doing a really inspired imitation of the third and fourth terms of George W. Bush. If by some combination of sheer luck and hard campaigning, Bernie Sanders becomes the next president of the United States, it’s a safe bet that the starry-eyed leftists who helped put him into office will once again get to spend four or eight years trying to pretend that their candidate isn’t busy betraying all of the overheated expectations that helped put him into office. As Karl Marx suggested in one of his essays, if history repeats itself, the first time is tragedy but the second is generally farce; he didn’t mention what the third time around was like, but we may just get to find out.
The fact that this particular fantasy has so tight a grip on the imagination of the Democratic party’s leftward wing is also worth studying. There are many ways that a faction whose interests are being ignored by the rest of its party, and by the political system in general, can change that state of affairs. Unquestioning faith that this or that leader will do the job for them is not generally a useful strategy under such conditions, though, especially when that faith takes the place of any more practical activity. History has some very unwelcome things to say, for that matter, about the dream of political salvation by some great leader; so far it seems limited to certain groups on the notional left of the electorate, but if it spreads more widely, we could be looking at the first stirrings of the passions and fantasies that could bring about a new American fascism.
Meanwhile, just as the Democratic party in recent decades has morphed into America’s conservative party, the Republicans have become its progressive party. That’s another thing you’re not supposed to say in today’s America, because of the bizarre paralogic that surrounds the concept of progress in our collective discourse. What the word “progress” means, as I hope at least some of my readers happen to remember, is continuing further in the direction we’re already going—and that’s all it means. To most Americans today, though, the actual meaning of the word has long since been obscured behind a burden of vague emotion that treats “progressive” as a synonym for “good.” Notice that this implies the very odd belief that the direction in which we’re going is good, and can never be anything other than good.
For the last forty years, mind you, America has been moving steadily along an easily defined trajectory. We’ve moved step by step toward more political and economic inequality, more political corruption, more impoverishment for those outside the narrowing circles of wealth and privilege, more malign neglect toward the national infrastructure, and more environmental disruption, along with a steady decline in literacy and a rolling collapse in public health, among other grim trends. These are the ways in which we’ve been progressing, and that’s the sense in which the GOP counts as America’s current progressive party: the policies being proposed by GOP candidates will push those same changes even further than they’ve already gone, resulting in more inequality, corruption, impoverishment, and so on.
So the 2016 election is shaping up to be a contest between one set of candidates who basically want to maintain the wretchedly unsatisfactory conditions facing the American people today, and another set who want to make those conditions worse, with one outlier on the Democratic side who says he wants to turn the clock back to 1976 or so, and one outlier on the Republican side who apparently wants to fast forward things to the era of charismatic dictators we can probably expect in the not too distant future. It’s not too hard to see why so many people looking at this spectacle aren’t exactly seized with enthusiasm for any of the options being presented to them by the existing political order.
The question that interests me most about all this is the one I tried to raise last week—why, in the face of so many obvious dysfunctions, are so many people in and out of the political arena frozen into a set of beliefs that convince them that the only possibilities available to us involve either staying exactly where we are or going further along the route that’s landed us in this mess? No doubt a good many things have contributed to that bizarre mental fixation, but there’s one factor that may not have received the attention it deserves: the remarkable dominance of a particular narrative in the most imaginative fiction and mass media of our time. As far as I know, nobody’s given that narrative a name yet, so I’ll exercise that prerogative and call it The War Against Change.
You know that story inside and out. There’s a place called Middle-Earth, or the Hogwarts School of Wizardry, or what have you—the name doesn’t matter, the story’s the same in every case. All of a sudden this place is threatened by an evil being named Sauron, or Voldemort, or—well, you can fill in the blanks for yourself. Did I mention that this evil being is evil? Yes, in fact, he’s evilly evil out of sheer evil evilness, without any motive other than the one just named.  What that evilness amounts to in practice, though, is that he wants to change things. Of course the change is inevitably portrayed in the worst possible light, but what it usually comes down to is that the people who currently run things will lose their positions of power, and will be replaced by the bad guy and his minions—any resemblance to the rhetoric surrounding US presidential elections is doubtless coincidental.
But wait!  Before the bad guy and his evil minions can change things, a plucky band of heroes goes swinging into action to stop his evil scheme, and of course they succeed in the nick of time. The bad guy gets the stuffing pounded out of him, the people who are supposed to run things keep running things, everything settles down just the way it was before he showed up. Change is stopped in its tracks, and all of the characters who matter breathe a big sigh of relief and live happily ever after, or until filming starts on the sequel, take your pick.
Now of course that’s a very simplified version of The War Against Change. In the hands of a really capable author, and we’ll get to one of those in a minute, that story can quite readily yield great literature. Even so, it’s a very curious sort of narrative to be as popular as it is, especially for a society that claims to be in love with change and novelty. The War Against Change takes place in a world in which everything’s going along just the way things are supposed to be.  The bad guy shows up and tries to change things, he gets clobbered by the good guys, and then everything goes on just the way it was. Are there, ahem, problems with the way things are run? Might changing things be a good idea, if the right things are changed?  Does the bad guy and his evil minions possibly even have motives other than sheer evilly evil evilness for wanting to change things?  That’s not part of the narrative. At most, one or more of the individuals who are running things may be problematic, and have to be pushed aside by our plucky band of heroes so they can get on with the business of bashing the bad guy.
It happens now and then, in fact, that authors telling the story of The War Against Change go out of their way to make fun of the possibility that anyone might reasonably object to the established order of things. Did anyone else among my readers feel vaguely sick while reading the Harry Potter saga, when they encountered Rowling’s rather shrill mockery of Hermione whatsername’s campaign on behalf of the house elves? To me, at least, it was rather too reminiscent of “No, no, our darkies love their Massa!”
That’s actually a side issue, though. The core of the narrative is that the goal of the good guys, the goal that defines them as good guys, is to make sure that nothing changes. That becomes a source of tremendous if unintentional irony in the kind of imaginative fiction that brings imagery from mythology and legend into a contemporary setting. I’m thinking here, as one example out of many, of a series of five children’s novels—The Dark Is Rising sequence by Susan Cooper—the first four of which were among the delights of my childhood. You have two groups of magical beings, the Light and the Dark—yes, it’s pretty Manichean—who are duking it out in present-day Britain.
The Dark, as you’ve all probably figured out already, is trying to change things, and the Light is doing the plucky hero routine and trying to stop them. That’s all the Light does; it doesn’t, heaven help us, do anything about the many other things that a bunch of magical beings might conceivably want to fix in 1970s Britain. The Light has no agenda of its own at all; it’s there to stop the Dark from changing things, and that’s it. Mind you, the stories are packed full of splendid, magical stuff, the sort of thing that’s guaranteed to win the heart and feed the imagination of any child stuck in the dark heart of American suburbia, as I was at the time.
Then came the fifth book, Silver on the Tree, which was published in 1977.  The Light and the Dark finally had their ultimate cataclysmic showdown, the Dark is prevented from changing things...and once that’s settled, the Light packs its bags and heads off into the sunset, leaving the protagonists sitting there in present-day Britain with all the magic gone for good. I loathed the book. So did a lot of other people—I’ve never yet heard it discussed without terms like “wretchedly disappointing” being bandied around—but I suspect the miserable ending was inescapable, given the frame into which the story had already been fixed. Cooper had committed herself to telling the story of The War Against Change, and it was probably impossible for her to imagine any other ending.
Now of course there’s a reason why this particular narrative took on so overwhelming a role in the imaginative fiction and media of the late twentieth century, and that reason is the force of nature known as J.R.R. Tolkien. I’m by no means sure how many of my readers who weren’t alive in the 1960s and 1970s have any idea how immense an impact Tolkien’s sprawling trilogy The Lord of the Rings had on the popular imagination of that era, at a time when buttons saying "Frodo Lives!" and "Go Go Gandalf" were everywhere and every reasonably hip bookstore sold posters with the vaguely psychedelic front cover art of the first Ballantine paperback edition of The Fellowship of the Ring. In the formative years of the Boomer generation, Tolkien’s was a name to conjure with.
What makes this really odd, all things considered, is that Tolkien himself was a political reactionary who opposed nearly everything his youthful fans supported. The Boomers who were out there trying to change the system in the Sixties were simultaneously glorifying a novel that celebrates war, monarchy, feudal hierarchy, and traditional gender roles, and includes an irritable swipe at the social welfare program of post-World War Two Britain—that’s what Lotho Sackville-Baggins’ government of the Shire amounts to, with its “gatherers” and “sharers.” When Tolkien put together his grand epic of The War Against Change, he knew exactly what he was doing; when the youth culture of the Sixties adopted him as their patron saint—much to his horror, by the way—I’m not at all sure the same thing could be said about them.
What sets The Lord of the Rings apart from common or garden variety versions of The War Against Change, in fact, is precisely Tolkien’s own remarkably clear understanding of what he was trying to do, and how that strategy tends to play out in the real world. The Lord of the Rings gets much of its power and pathos precisely because its heroes fought The War Against Change knowing that even if they won, they would lose; the best they could do is put a brake on the pace of change and keep the last dim legacies of the Elder Days for a little longer before they faded away forever. Tolkien nourished his literary sense on Beowulf and the Norse sagas, with their brooding sense of doom’s inevitability, and on traditional Christian theology, with its promise of hope beyond the circles of the world, and managed to play these two against each other brilliantly—but then Tolkien, as a reactionary, understood what it was like to keep fighting for something even though he knew that the entire momentum of history was against him.
Does all this seem galaxies away from the crass political realities with which this week’s post began? Think again, dear reader. Listen to the rhetoric of the candidates as they scramble for their party’s nomination—well, except for Hillary Clinton, who’s too busy declaiming “I am so ready to lead!” at the nearest available mirror—and you’ll hear The War Against Change endlessly rehashed. What do the Republican candidates promise? Why, to save America from the evil Democrats, who want to change things. What do the Democratic candidates promise? To save America from the evil Republicans, ditto. Pick a pressure group, any pressure group, and the further in from the fringes they are, the more likely they are to frame their rhetoric in terms of The War Against Change, too.
I’ve noted before, for that matter, the weird divergence between the eagerness of the mainstream to talk about anthropogenic global warming and their utter unwillingness to talk about peak oil and other forms of resource depletion. There are several massive factors behind that, but I’ve come to think that one of the most important is that you can frame the climate change narrative in terms of The War Against Change—we must keep the evil polluters from changing things!—but you can’t do that with peak oil. The end of the age of cheap abundant energy means that things have to change, not because the motiveless malignity of some cackling villain would have it so, but because the world no longer contains the resources that would be needed to keep things going the way they’ve gone so far.That said, if it’s going to be necessary to change things—and it is—then it’s time to start thinking about options for the future that don’t consist of maintaining a miserably unsatisfactory status quo or continuing along a trajectory that’s clearly headed toward something even worse. The first step in making change is imagining change, and the first step in imagining change is recognizing that “more of the same” isn’t going to cut it. Next week, I plan on taking some of the ideas I’ve floated here in recent months, and putting them together in a deliberately unconventional way.

July Employment Data again Suggests Illegal Immigration Surging—When Will MSM Notice?


Immigrant displacement of American workers seems in remission for the second straight month—but there’s more disturbing evidence that illegal immigration is surging again.

The economy pumped out another 215,000 new jobs in July, about in line with expectations. While the unemployment remained at 5.3% —the lowest level in more than seven years—wages remain stuck on a slow treadmill.

The average hourly wage paid to American workers rose 0.2% in July; over the past 12 months wages have risen a mediocre 2.1% versus the 3% to 4% typical at this stage in previous recoveries. Chamber of Commerce types love this, of course, and love the surge of foreign-born workers that keeps wages low. Immigration-related wage stagnation arguably hurts more native-born American workers than immigration-related unemployment. Except for academic treatises (think George Borjas) the data aren’t available.

Job growth as reported by the “other” employment survey, of households rather than businesses, was a dismal 101,000.

Unusually, and for the second month in a row, all the new jobs went to native-born American workers

In July:
  • Total employment rose by 101,000 – up by 0.1%
  • Native-born American employment rose by 202,000 – up by 0.2%
  • Immigrant employment fell by 101,000 – down by 0.4%
There are no straight lines in nature, and anomalies happen occasionally—for example, December 2013—January 2014 and December 2014-January 2015. It may just be statistical noise. But the underlying trend has remained intact: native-born American workers have lost ground to their immigrant competitors throughout the Obama years. This is made clear in our New American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI) graphic. . . .

. . . The index starts at 100.0 for both immigrants and native-born Americans in January 2009, and tracks their employment growth since then.

From January 2009 to July 2015:
  • Foreign-born employment rose by 2.918 million, up 13.5%. The immigrant employment index rose from 100.0 to 113.5.
  • Native-born American employment rose by 3.499 million or by 2.9%. The native-born American employment index rose from 100.0 to 103.1.
  • NVDAWDI (the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment growth indexes) rose from 100.0 to 110.1. (100X(113.5/103.1)
July’s New American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI) level—110.1—was the lowest in 12 months.

The key displacement metric is the immigrant share of total U.S. employment. In Barack Obama’s first full month in office (February 2009) 14.97% of all persons working in the U.S. were foreign-born, according to that month’s Household Employment Survey. Since then the foreign-born share has risen steadily, albeit erratically:

The foreign-born share of U.S. employment fell to 16.50% in July, down from 16.58% in June and 16.81% in May. But in only 14 of the 79 months of Obama’s Presidency have immigrant workers accounted for a greater share of U.S. employment than they did last month.

July’s immigrant employment share was 1.53 percentage points above the level recorded at the start of Mr. Obama’s administration—i.e. it has risen by 10.2 percent.

(This of course does not take account of the immigrants’ American-born children, who are increasingly entering the workforce. I will look at this issue in a future National Data).

With total employment at 148.84 million, every one percentage point rise in the foreign-born employment share translates to as many as 1,488,400 displaced native-born American workers. This means that Obama-era immigration may have pushed as many as 2.28 million (1.53 times 1,488,400) native-born Americans onto the unemployment rolls.

A detailed snapshot of American worker displacement over the past year is seen in the “Employment Status of the civilian population by nativity” table published in the monthly BLS report:

Employment Status by Nativity, July 2014-July 2015(numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted)
Jul-14 Jul-15 Change % Change
Foreign born, 16 years and older
Civilian population 38,475 40,135 1,660 4.3%
Civilian labor force 25,411 26,079 668 2.6%
     Participation rate (%) 66.0% 65.0% -1.0% -1.5%
Employed 24,082 24,710 628 2.6%
Employment/population % 62.6% 61.6% -1.0% -1.6%
Unemployed 1,329 1,369 40 3.0%
Unemployment rate (%) 5.2% 5.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Not in labor force 13,064 14,056 992 7.6%

Native born, 16 years and older
Civilian population 209,549 210,742 1,193 0.6%
Civilian labor force 132,162 132,448 286 0.2%
     Participation rate (%) 63.1% 62.8% -0.3% -0.5%
Employed 123,183 125,012 1,829 1.5%
Employment/population % 58.8% 59.3% 0.5% 0.9%
Unemployed 8,978 7,436 -1,542 -17.2%
Unemployment rate (%) 6.8% 5.6% -1.2% -17.6%
Not in labor force 77,387 78,293 906 1.2%
Source: BLS, The Employment Situation – July 2015, Table A-7, August 7, 2015.PDF

From July 2014 to July 2015:
  • The foreign-born labor force – the number of immigrants working or looking for work – rose by 2.6%, while the corresponding native-born labor force rose by 0.2%. The immigrant labor force grew 13 times faster than the native-born American workforce.
  • Immigrant employment rose by 628,000 million, or 2.8%; native-born employment rose by 1.8295 million, or 1.5%. In percentage terms, immigrant job growth was nearly twice native-born American job growth.
  • The Labor Force Participation rate, a sign of worker confidence, declined for both native-born Americans and immigrants. In percentage terms, the foreign-born decline (1.5%) was three-times that of the native-born (0.5%).
  • The native-born American unemployment rate fell by 1.2 percentage points, a drop of 17.6%, while the immigrant unemployment rates remained unchanged. Despite the drop, the native-born American unemployment rate, 5.6%, remains above the immigrant rate, 5.2%.
It’s bad enough that conventional commentary on the employment data almost never considers immigrant displacement of American workers. It’s even worse that it is failing to notice the disturbing evidence I’ve been reporting for months that a new illegal immigration surge is apparently underway. Thus once again, the July report estimates that the working-age immigrant population (16 and over) rose by 1.660 million over the past 12 months. That is well above the number of legal immigrants of all ages Homeland Security claims is entering.

Increased illegal immigration seems to be the only explanation.

Joel Pollak and Bill Kristol on Obama’s Rabid 'Anti-Semitism'

via The Occidental Observer

Anti-Semite? -- Or Shabbos goy?
Not to be outdone by the Tablet article labeling Obama a “Jew baiter,” Joel Pollak writing in Breitbart came out with “Barack Obama’s Anti-Semitic Rant on the Iran Deal: President Barack Obama is using anti-Jewish language to sell the Iran deal.”
On Thursday, Obama led a conference call with left-wing activists in which he repeatedly railed against his political opponents by using the old canard of rich Jews using their money to exert control.
Accusing critics of the deal of being “opposed to any deal with Iran”–i.e. of advocating war–Obama railed against “well-financed” lobbyists, as well as the “big check writers to political campaigns,” and  “billionaires who happily finance super-PACs.” He complained about “$20 million” being spent on ads against the deal—a subtle reference to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC–whose support he had repeatedly courted when running for office).
Some of Obama’s references were thinly-veiled attacks on specific (Jewish) individuals—columnist Bill Kristol, for example, the Weekly Standard publisher and former New York Times resident conservative who served in the George H.W. Bush administration, and also helps run the Emergency Committee for Israel, which opposes the Iran deal; or billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who is a prodigious Republican benefactor, super PAC donor, and well-known hawk on Israel issues.
So now merely referring to the fact that the opposition to the Iran deal is well-funded makes Obama’s statements into an “anti-Semitic rant.” Calling attention to the deep pockets of political opponents is fair game with a long history in American politics. But if Jews are the ones with the deep pockets, suddenly, it’s “anti-Semitism” — defined I guess as “something Jews dislike because it brings attention to their actions.” 

Pollak also brings up Obama’s claim that the same people opposing the Iran deal supported the war in Iraq, claiming against all evidence that such a claim is “largely false.”
On the call, Obama twice accused his opponents of being the same people “responsible for us getting into the Iraq war.“ That sweeping, and largely false, characterization of the opponents of the Iran deal repeats the sensational accusations of The Israel Lobby, a widely discredited 2007 book that accused a group of pro-Israel, and largely Jewish, individuals and organizations of pushing the U.S. into war with Iraq, and seeking to drag America into a new war with Iran.
Nathan Guttman, of the left-leaning Forward, which covers Jewish issues, wrote of the call that “what many liberals hear as a powerful rallying call to avoid entering another military quagmire in the Middle East could seem tone deaf to some in the organized Jewish community.” Obama’s claims about the Iraq War, he added, were “likely to make many in the community feel uneasy.”
Uneasy because they are essentially true and everyone who is paying attention knows it. It’s okay to call attention to Jewish accomplishments and their influence on culture, as Joe Biden did (although even that was less than welcomed by the ADL), but there must never be any suggestion that Jews have used their power to advance their interests in a way that ends up being a disaster for America while at the same time benefiting Israel. Again, activist Jews essentially want a situation where Jews can act as Jews in the political process, supporting Jewish causes that are not necessarily in anyone else’s interests, but where it is illegitimate to ever talk about this. The fact that they have largely succeeded in this goal is an excellent marker of Jewish power.

And isn’t it amazing that simply calling attention to how well funded the effort is amounts to anti-Semitism. And yes, it’s amazing even if the other side has some funding as well, as Pollak tries to argue. (According to JTA in a July 23 article, AIPAC has raised $30 million for the effort and is flying in hundreds of activists to Washington, compared to a $2 million campaign for J Street, aided by prominent Israelis who endorse the deal).

None other than Bill Kristol picked up the theme on Twitter in a reference to the Tablet article:
Obama the incipient Nazi!

The problem the Lobby now has is mainly the left. On the cuckservative right, there is nothing but unanimity in opposition to the deal. And yes, you are far more likely to hear the truth about Jewish power at a White power rally than from anywhere else on the political spectrum.

Pollak (and Kristol would doubtless agree) goes on to label J Street a “radical group” and writes that Thomas Friedman’s use of the term “Israel lobby” (even without a capital L) is a “vicious slur” by linking to an article in an ultra-nationalist Israeli news service that “argues” against the existence of an Israel Lobby simply by saying that any such thought is simply “conjured up” and therefore nothing more than a figment of the fevered imagination of “anti-Semites.”
This is not the first time Friedman has conjured up the ugly, anti-Semitic specter of a nefarious “lobby” that uses Jewish money and votes to corrupt American lawmakers in order to mold U.S. policy to Israel’s benefit and  American harm. Two years ago, the columnist aroused the ire of elected U.S. representatives with similar offensive charges that denigrated those expressing support for the Jewish state as having been “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.” 
It’s so easy to argue when you can simply throw out accusations with no need to deal with what actually is happening. No need to go patiently deal with the evidence on where the Israel Lobby money actually goes as writers like Mearsheimer and Walt and many other critics of the Lobby do.

The effort to scuttle the Iran deal is an example of what happens when a powerful segment of the Jewish community becomes aroused to activism. The already very strong, everyday pressure on policy exerted by the Lobby has been ticked up a few notches, now including wild charges of “anti-Semitism” against the “first Jewish president.” This seems to me to be a risky strategy unless they think that the US is completely immune to a serious public examination of Jewish power — which it probably is given Jewish power in the media and the ability of the ADL to punish those who start to publicly connect the dots.

Right now Congress is beset by armies of Jewish lobbyists and thousands of phone calls from Jews opposed to the deal. It’s a full court press, not unlike that which occurred in 1992 when George H. W. Bush attempted to withhold loan guarantees for

Israeli housing over the West Bank Settlement issue — merely confirming policy that every US government since Carter has paid lip service to. Bush eventually backed down after famously saying “I’m one lonely little guy” up against “some powerful political forces” made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.”

Obama probably feels the same way right now, but, unlike Bush (who seems to believe that his defeat in the 1992 election stemmed from this action), he needn’t fear that this uproar will prevent his reelection.

But win or lose (and most observers think the effort against the deal will fail to override Obama’s veto), after this battle, the lobby will move on to the presidential election. The fact that Hillary Clinton has endorsed the deal must worry the Lobby, even if she seems less dovish than Obama and has fanatically Zionist supporters like Haim Saban who would love to bomb Iran. The Republicans seem a much surer bet for the Lobby. At this point, they’re probably thinking that anyone would be better than Obama.