Jan 11, 2016

A Critical Analysis of Jewish Identity

via The Right Stuff

What is the Jewish Identity? To many Jews, it’s a general sense of belonging. While this sounds nice, it is exclusionary, and thus must be critiqued. One cannot be part of a special club and reject the title of bigot. In this current year, being a bigot is simply unacceptable.

How does the Jewish Identity (the JI for future reference) manifest itself? One strong aspect is within the media. As many respected and well established but unspecified people within well respected but unspecified fields people have remarked, the JI results in non-Jews being discriminated against in the field of media. This exclusionary feeling is likely due to Jewish people being raised in an ignorant and bigoted environment. Child abuse may or may not (probably may) be involved.

Just how damaging is the the JI to the diversity so integral to the current culture? Frankly, the JI is a threat to all modern cultures. How can we expect to move forward while an entrenched monoculture (which results from the JI) is stuck in the past? Progress has been held back by the JI. Why do members of the JI behave in such a regressive manner? This is mostly caused by sexual repression within their ranks. The sexual repression results in a stodgy culture of monogamy. We must fix this by pushing free love on the Jewish community, in order to dismantle this repressive patriarchal system of almost puritanical morality.

At the core of the JI is a malevolent supremacy. This is the manifest in their rejection of outgroups who wish to participate and innovate traditional Jewish cultural activities. Why reject diversity and progress within your community if not a false feeling of “betterness”? The root of this problem is, of course, a sexual feeling of inferiority. Mighty psychosexual urges must not be downplayed within group dynamics. As a remedy to this, the JI must be infiltrated with foreign members to procreate with their men and women. That way, the deep psychological psychosis can be treated at the root. This works for reasons.

In summary, the analytical community has come to a consensus. The science is settled. The Jewish Identity is harmful to both those who practice Judaism and those who don’t. As such, it is of the utmost importance to dismantle the harmful ideas that the JI propagates.

The government must subsidize mandatory psychoanalysis sessions for young children. Within those meetings, the youths must be shown that their work within culture is inferior and oppressive to countless outgroups. After that, they must be remedied of their oppressive faith. No longer can the young ones be led astray. Education for Jewish children must push the idea that traditional ideas of “one mate and many children” are outmoded and oppressive. Lastly, we must be sure to push opposite sex members of traditionally marginalized ethnic groups (Africans and Latinos) as desirable mates. Only then can the harmful hegemonic nature of the JI be stomped out, lovingly, from history forever.

A Quote from Hitler on the Tragedy of the US-German War

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

"This war against America is a tragedy... It is illogical and devoid of any foundation of reality. It is one of those queer twists of history that just as I was assuming power in Germany, Roosevelt, the elect of the Jews, was taking command in the United States. Without the Jews and without this lackey of theirs, things could have been quite different. From every point of view Germany and the United States should have been able, if not to understand each other and sympathize with each other, then at least to support each other without undue strain on either of them."

-Adolf Hitler, to Martin Bormann, 1941; quote in Toland's Adolf Hitler

The Circle of Life

via Radix

I had the opportunity to re-watch the The Lion King recently, and I was astounded at how secretly rightist and traditionalist the film is. (Granted, the mainstream media did complain about this when the film was first released.)

For starters, Disney’s most popular film about Africa doesn’t feature any Black people (unless you count the voices of James Earl Jones and Whoopi Goldberg). Much more important than that is the fact that film depicts a certain longing for a kingly, pre- or un-democratic realm. The audience is encouraged to identify with Simba, a little lion prince before whom the entire animal kingdom is made to bow. As in Star Wars, the common man never dreams about democratic mediocrity, but aristocratic destiny.

And it gets better. Not only is the pride a monarchy, but the lions rule as a kind of brutal Herrenarten (master-species) over the entire savannah. All other animals kneel before their natural superiors. The lions, naturally, hunt down, slaughter, and consume their subjects (though this is never portrayed). But with great power comes social responsibility, and Simba’s father, King Mufasa, explains that the lions must hunt in moderation to preserve the balance of nature. They are part of the “Circle of Life,” with all the world’s creatures being, in a sense, united in their diversity.1

All is well under Mufasa’s rule—a large, muscular lion incarnating the traditional Aryan virtues. His brother, Scar, as is common in fairy tales, is visibly evil and could even be said to embody anti-Semitic stereotypes. Scar is lanky and dark-furred, if not exactly grotesque. Though apparently related (half-brothers?), the two look and act quite differently. “Well, as far as brains go, I got the lion’s share,” Scar explains. “But, when it comes to brute strength … I’m afraid I’m at the shallow end of the gene pool.”

Mufasa rules through strength and candor, the former enabling the latter. Scar, on the other hand, is both weak and selfish; thus he can only attain power by using his intelligence for deceit. There are indications that he may have acquired his facial scar (and name) during a revolt against authority.

Scar’s Revolution

Scar thus plots to overthrow Mufasa and murder Simba. Specifically, he exploits their virtues (which is arguably the highest evil). Namely, Scar takes advantage of Simba’s courage when he goads the young lion to prove himself by going into dangerous hyena territory (where Simba is almost killed); Simba’s credulity, by persuading him he is responsible for Mufasa’s death; Mufasa’s love, by getting him killed during an attempt to save Simba from harm; and finally Simba’s generosity, when Scar exploits a moment of magnanimity…

Scar achieves each success through lies and deceit, emotional manipulation, and pushiness. This is especially so in what might seem to be the least plausible moment of the film—when Scar convinces Simba, through sheer brazenness, that he is responsible for the death of his father and pushes the guilt-ridden, impressionable young lion to run away. (We could understand the rash actions of Simba as a kind of unconscious analogy to the extreme White guilt so prevalent in our society.)

Having eliminated the pride’s legitimate ruling elites, Scar organizes a political revolution through an alliance with a physically and morally inferior species—the hyenas. The hyenas are uglier, weaker, more stupid, more selfish, and more vicious than the lions. The Scar-Hyena alliance can fairly be compared with Bolshevism and Social Democracy in general: the lessers are cynically rabble-roused and viciously organized to overthrow their betters in the name of handouts, “equality,” and democratic lies, leading to a yet worse tyranny.2

This is all fairly explicit, as Scar brilliantly sings:
It’s clear from your [the hyena’s] vacant expressions
The lights are not all on upstairs […]
I know it sounds sordid
But you’ll be rewarded […]
The future is littered with prizes
And though I’m the main addressee
The point that I must emphasize is
You won’t get a sniff without me!
The nature of Scar’s revolution is also evident from his exchange with the hyenas after he presents his plan to kill Mufasa and Simba:
Female hyena: Great idea! Who needs a king?
Hyenas: No king! No king! La-la-la-la-laa-laa!
Scar: Idiots! There will be a king!
Male hyena: Hey, but you said, uh…
Scar: I will be king! Stick with me, and you’ll never go hungry again!
Hyenas: Yaay! All right! Long live the King!
After Mufasa’s death and Simba’s flight, Scar explicitly justifies his takeover of power in the name of inter-species reconciliation and unity:
Yet, out of the ashes of this tragedy, we shall rise to greet the dawning of a new era … in which lion and hyena come together, in a great and glorious future!
Diversity, Scar implies, is our greatest strength!

This setup however proves immediately disastrous. The cackling hyenas exploit the lionesses, who hunt animals on their behalf. The pridelands’ ecology is overtaxed by the lion-hyena wealth transfer, and soon all is turned black and desolate; indeed, all life disappears due to this parasitic relationship. The state of the realm reflects the King’s black heart and flouting of Nature’s law:
One law for the lion and ox is oppression.

Simba’s Awakening

Meanwhile, Simba runs away into the wild, meeting the meerkat-warthog duo, Timon and Pumbaa. The two introduce the princeling to fecklessness, individualism, and abandonment of family. This is summed up in the famous song “Hakuna Matata,” by which Timon and Pumbaa convert Simba:
Hakuna Matata!
What a wonderful phrase
Hakuna Matata!
Ain’t no passing craze
It means no worries
For the rest of your days
It’s our problem-free
Simba grows to adulthood in this undignified bachelorhood, living on a diet of insects; he forgets his pride. As Pumbaa explains: “Home is where your rump rests.” Yet Simba is unfulfilled. One night, the three look up to the stars and speak:
Simba: Well, somebody [Mufasa] once told me that the great kings of the past are up there, watching over us.
Pumbaa: Really?
Timon: You mean a bunch of royal dead guys are watching us? [Laughs] Who told you something like that? What mook made that up?
Simba: Yeah. Pretty dumb, huh?
Timon: Aw, you’re killing me, Simba.
Is this not a perfect metaphor for the Sixties? Simba, who had been taught that his life had a meaning as part of a chain of family links reflected even in the heavens, finds his father, ancestors, and faith mocked and discredited. He walks off to descend into nihilism and depression.

Simba is found, however, first by his childhood sweetheart, Nala, and then by the baboon mystic Rafiki. Rafiki takes Simba before a vision of his father:
Mufasa: Simba …
Simba: Father?
Mufasa: Simba, you have forgotten me.
Simba: No. How could I?
Mufasa: You have forgotten who you are, and so have forgotten me. Look inside yourself, Simba. You are more than what you have become. You must take your place in the Circle of Life.
Simba: How can I go back? I’m not who I used to be.
Mufasa: Remember who you are. You are my son, and the one true king.
Simba thus rediscovers his forgotten roots, his identity, his place in the cosmic order; relearning these, he knows what he must do, what his destiny is. This was not magic. Mufasa was not resurrected. Rather, Rafiki explains, “He lives in you.” Our forefathers live on in us, in the flame of memory we maintain, and in our blood. A man’s descendants are but refracted, endlessly reshuffled reflections of himself. Simba’s awakening is painful, but as Rafiki explains, fecklessness is no solution: “Oh yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it, or … learn from it.”

Having rediscovered his identity, Simba embraces his duty. Then it is a short matter of returning to the pridelands and overthrowing Scar through manly force, although the evil king does try one last time to manipulate Simba emotionally into incriminating himself for Mufasa’s death. In the end, Scar falls among the hyenas … where he is brutally devoured alive as kind of immanent justice.3

Politically Incorrect Pop Culture

The Lion King is, thus, a racial, identitarian Bildungsroman and political parable, and, in its way, a deeply anti-democratic and anti-leftist one. On another level, many of the themes could be understood as spiritual and ecological.

This raises the question: How was such a politically incorrect film like The Lion King ever produced? Why did it—does it—resonate with the public?4
I doubt the film executives Jeffrey Katzenberg, Peter Schneider, or even Roy Disney, consciously set out to make a film about racial identity and national duty.

That said, children’s films are quite often fairly wholesome (with some obvious exceptions and The Lion King’s key issue—of a youth looking for independence and then being reconciled to responsibility—is a common and healthy one. But then, The Lion King goes beyond this.

Firstly, there is the subject matter of Nature itself—with both its hierarchical “balance” ever-present and the struggle for survival—is completely at odds with liberal political correctness. Darwinian realities are incompatible with bourgeois niceties and “Blank-Slate-ism.” That said, most likely the writers did not think too much on this subject, with all politically incorrect themes safely quarantined in a fantastical tale about talking lions.

Secondly, producers of popular culture necessarily make films that, if they are to be successful, resonate with their time and with the deeper soul of their viewers.5 And, despite mass media and ideological brainwashing, every viewer will experience some politically incorrect realities in the world and his soul will be defined more by genetic characteristics molded by millions of years of evolutionary history than Marxist professors. This explains the traditional gender norms in the extremely popular Twilight trilogy and the aristocratic ethos of epic fantasy and science fiction films such as The Lord of the Rings. The soul and dreams of man are anything but democratic (even if, for opportunistic reasons, a majority may be flattered into embracing egalitarianism).

I can only speculate that The Lion King’s themes were informed by and resonated with the fears and hopes of the American public of the early 1990s. The world had just come out of the half-century-long Cold War and from under the specter of Communism and totalitarianism. Both of these forces had sprung from Bolshevism, a political phenomenon that has many parallels with Scar’s revolution.

No doubt, too, the film had parallels with the 20th century history of the United States, where a traditional WASP elite, basically favorable to White America, was replaced by a hostile elite bent on “multiculturalism.” The film was released during the Clinton years, those heady days of “the End of History” having effectively solved all our political questions: there is no higher form than a consumerist social democracy, we were told—“Hakuna Matata!” And the United States was explicitly being put on the path to becoming a “minority-majority” land, as expounded by the president himself. Many White Americans, as continuous Hispanic settlement in particular became an accepted part of national life6, could sense that their nation and culture were slipping away from them,7 and that their wealth and commonweal was being siphoned off to an ungrateful emerging “new majority.”

Simba’s tale then has much relevance to our situation. Let us listen again to Mufasa, notwithstanding the kitsch:
You have forgotten who you are, and so have forgotten me. Look inside yourself… . You are more than what you have become. You must take your place in the Circle of Life.
Across the Western world, egged on by hostile or feckless elites, the Baby Boomers sang “hakuna matata” without a thought for the long-term consequences of such selfishness and narcissism. Only now, thanks to experience, the passing of generations, and the freedom of the Internet, we are beginning to rediscover our identity … and our duty.

  1. These are themes that will be familiar to National Socialists and deep ecologists. As in National Socialist ideology, there is the idea that some life is superior to and rightly rules over other life, but that ultimately all is united in the same family and that one must rule responsibly, ecologically. There is explicit rejection of the Judeo-Christian conceit that there is a kind of mystical break between completely equal featherless biped and the rest of life, considered ripe only for exploitation by the “equals.” ↩︎
  2. The song parodist Uncuck The Right has done a song on the similarities between the Scar-Hyenas relationship and that between the financial speculator George Soros and the #BlackLivesMatter moves. Uncuck The Right, “Fall in Line,” YouTube, September 10, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN3FUmPN1mY. ↩︎
  3. I believe Sam Dickson has said African-Americans should be given Manhattan to form a Black Republic. ↩︎
  4. The only piece of egalitarian propaganda I could identify was when the lioness Nala is shown to be able to pin down Simba in a fight … twice. ↩︎
  5. Black comedians often provide the most staggeringly politically incorrect material, such as Richard Pryor on Black criminals, Dave Chapelle on welfare and reparations for Blacks, Chris Rock on instinctive Black racial pride, or Aaron McGruder’s entire oeuvre, from commentary on Black violence (“nigga moments”) and the paradoxes of combined-and-uneven development between high technology and dysgenics (“nigga tech”). ↩︎
  6. The only Hispanic reference in the film is a hyena asking once. “¿Qué _pasa?” But I am no doubt reading too much into this. ↩︎
  7. On this, it is worth re-watching King of the Hill, where issues of alienation between rural Texans and New York elites is explicitly alluded to and all the characters are, in effect, alienated, impotent, flailing conservatives (be he the stoic Hank, the literal cuckold and Right-wing conspiracy theorist Dale/Rusty Shackleford, or the pathetic Bill, whose compensatory and patriotic “inarticulate yelling” lives on meme form. ↩︎

Jewish Hypocrisy: An Idle Speculation

via Counter-Currents

A hypocrite is someone who professes specific moral convictions, while violating his professions by his actual behavior. A hypocrite resembles, as Charles Dickens tells us, “a direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there.”

A preacher who condemns prostitution but patronizes prostitutes is a hypocrite, as is a bank president who embezzles from his bank but rages against bank robbers. Both are hypocrites because they fail to practice what they preach. They say one thing and do another, which is the commonly understood meaning of “hypocrisy.”

Hypocrisy can, however, include a variety of significantly different psychologies.

The banker may genuinely abhor theft but find the temptation of easy money too strong to resist. He believes it is wrong to steal but steals anyway. His public professions in this case are sincere, and his beliefs on the subject of theft are essentially the same as the beliefs of an honest man. He acknowledges, both publically and inwardly, the moral and legal rules prohibiting theft, while guiltily violating them.

Or, alternatively, a larcenous banker may pretend in public to abhor theft, though privately he sees nothing wrong with thievery and guiltlessly steals whenever the opportunity arises. His outward professions in this hypothetical case are insincere. His concealed beliefs are much different from the beliefs of an honest man. This banker, since he is amoral in financial matters, does not inwardly acknowledge the moral rule prohibiting theft, whereas the honest man does. Female characters in Restoration comedies are often humorously hypocritical in this sense. They do not believe that there is any real offense in extra-marital sex, but they also know that it is wise to profess much different opinions on the subject in public.

There are other possibilities. For instance, a hypocrite may firmly believe that moral rules should apply to others, but also believe that, because his needs are so crucial and his virtue so great, they should not apply to him. He can urge moral rules on others while breaking them himself, with no feeling of guilt and with complete moral confidence. One of Western literature’s most famous hypocrites, Seth Pecksniff in Dickens’ Martin Chuzzlewit, falls into this category. He has fabricated for himself a virtuous persona clearly at odds with his actual behavior and his selfish motives, yet his public performance as a paragon of virtue is so superficially convincing that he appears to have convinced himself of its truth, along with the more gullible characters he encounters.

Hypocrisy has traditionally been defined as “the simulation of virtue or piety.” It derives from Greek hypocrisis, the acting of a dramatic part, and it often retains from its Greek source that sense of a performance on the stage. All of my hypothetical and literary examples above require some public simulation of virtue. Hypocrites, regardless of the differing psychologies that underlie their various hypocrisies, can be thought of as dissembling actors playing roles that proclaim virtues they do not actually practice.

Jews are, of course, deeply hypocritical in their political behavior. A Jew who advocates open borders for Western nations while supporting the preservation of a Jewish state in Israel is clearly guilty of failing to practice what he preaches. Since the vast majority of Diaspora Jews and all major Jewish organizations both support Israel as an apartheid ethnostate and also favor the dissolution of their host nations through massive non-White immigration, we can justly call Jews a hypocritical race on this important subject. They say one thing and do another on a regular basis. Anti-racialism is the virtue they demand of us, but they refuse to apply its dictates to themselves.

To borrow from Roissy, the multiracialist formula “Diversity + Proximity = Peace” is false, and all of Israel’s supporters know it is false, witness their support for Israel’s separation wall and for Israel’s Jews-only immigration policy; but they nevertheless demand that we accept the formula and reshape our nations as though it were true, while openly asserting their own special right to reject it. They will angrily call us “racists” if we dare to assert the same right.

Israel does not have a sterling reputation for kindness toward minorities. Norman Finkelstein, relying on the 2005 Israeli Democracy Index, reports that “among 27 countries with vulnerable minority populations Israel ranked 27th (worst) in economic discrimination and 26th in political discrimination.” With those facts in mind someone unfamiliar with Jewish character traits might predict that Jewish supporters of Israel would carefully refrain from deploying charges of “racism” against others. On the other hand, those of us familiar with Jewish character traits know that they often do so without hesitation.

Implicit in this double-standard is what Hitler called the “great lie” of the Jews, “namely that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race.” He could have added that they are also a racial group that long ago shaped a religion based on the survival and flourishing of its own physical lineage, religiously defined as a holy people distinct from unholy peoples in the eyes of their tribal god (Deuteronomy 30.19-20; Ezra 9.2). The enduring legacy of this curious religion likely informs the often distinctive character of Jewish hypocrisy. It may have encouraged the belief that the selfish interests of the Jews are somehow imbedded in the moral order of the universe. It may also have encouraged the belief that racial self-assertion on the part of their transnational folk community is different from other forms of racial self-assertion.

The historian Simon Schama claims that he and his fellow Jews are linked together by “irrational bonds of memory.” It is a fine-sounding phrase, but in practical terms it is indistinguishable from Hitler’s belief that all Jews belong to a single race, or the belief of White nationalists that all people of European descent are bound together by shared history, shared culture, and shared blood. Hitler and Schama would both agree on the physical referents of the word “Jew”; the only difference between them on this topic is that Hitler spoke clearly and Schama prefers eloquent obfuscation.

In many cases what we call Jewish hypocrisy is so different from normal hypocrisy that it seems to require a special word to describe it. The editor of the New Observer has come up with “hyper-hypocrisy” as a possible lexical solution to the problem. Just as normal ethnocentrism differs from what Kevin MacDonald calls Jewish hyperethnocentrism as a sapling differs from a towering oak, so an important variety of Jewish hypocrisy differs substantially from normal hypocrisy. Specifically, many Jewish hypocrites, despite conspicuously failing to practice what they preach, evidently see no reason to conceal their hypocrisy. If we think of consciously dishonest acting as a defining feature of hypocrisy, then these Jews are not really hypocrites.

If I condemn theft even though I rob banks, or visit prostitutes despite condemning prostitution, the preservation of my public respectability demands that I keep the discrepancy between my professions and my practices a secret. I have to hide my hypocrisy from others. I don’t want them to know about it. Yet much Jewish hypocrisy is so blatant that it is hard to believe that its practitioners have any real desire to conceal their hypocrisy. They make no serious attempt to conceal from others the discrepancy between their professions and their political behavior. They do not seem to be acting a part.


Some Jews pass through life with personal names that do not announce their group membership; Menachem Rosensaft, a second-generation Holocaust survivor, is not among them. When Menachem Rosensaft denounces the moderate immigration reformer Peter Brimelow, who believes that the United States should remain a Western nation with a White majority, he is writing as a Jew and realizes that everyone knows he is writing as a Jew, and when the same Menachem Rosensaft demands that there be “a permanent, eternal Jewish sovereignty” in Israel, he is writing as a Jew and realizes that everyone knows he is writing as a Jew. If Menachem Rosensaft, a self-professed antiracist, were a dishonest Jewish actor trying to conceal his self-interested racialist beliefs, he would, it seems to me, do a better job of concealment.

The double-standard so visible here is far from exceptional. The outcry in Israel over Donald Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration is another case in point. An entire nation seems intent on displaying its hypocrisy.

The preservation of Israel’s Jewish character has been the explicit justification for the refusal of successive Israeli governments to allow Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their homes, a right which is mandated by international law. Every Jew in Israel knows that. Israel’s peace negotiations with the representatives of Palestine normally have devoted some pro forma effort to arrive at a symbolic acknowledgement of the Palestinian Right of Return, while ensuring that few (if any) Palestinian Arabs actually do return. A week ago Benjamin Netanyahu stated his nation’s position on the issue more bluntly: “I want to make clear that I will not accept an agreement that does not cancel the Right of Return.” No Israeli politician is therefore in any moral position to condemn Donald Trump, yet a large number of them have done exactly that, with great fervor, as though their objections were sincere.

This bold hypocrisy is too common to require repetition, but for its entertainment value I will provide another example, which was discussed recently by MacDonald. The Jewish Telegraph Agency, in an article on Jewish support for bringing bogus Syrian refugees into America, reports that “Rabbi Steve Gutow, a Reconstructionist who is the outgoing president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said sympathy for the refugee was written into the Jewish cultural genetic code” (emphasis added).

This is a falsifiable proposition, and it could only be considered plausible if we removed from the category “Jew,” and from the Jewish gene pool, all those Jews in Israel who show not the tiniest sympathy for the millions of Arab refugees claiming entrance, their claims based solidly on international law, into the Jewish state. Since Israeli Jews have been consistently refusing them entrance for over sixty years, with vocal support from most American Jews, we can conclude with complete confidence that “sympathy for the refugee” does not inhere in Jewish DNA.

“Sympathy for the refugee” should be the last quality that a Jewish supporter of Israel publicly ascribes to his cultural genetic code. Rabbi Gutow, if he were a hypocritical actor, would be doing his best to ensure that the word “refugee” never passes across his lips. Yet instead he announces, in the presence of reporters, “sympathy for the refugee” as a defining cultural trait of his people.

Gutow, needless to say, also believes that his host country should legalize all illegal immigrants, since “a great nation is vibrant and dynamic.” He speaks as an American patriot: if the American “ethos of openness” is abandoned “we will doom our nation to stagnation. Those nations which built walls became containers for the status quo.” Borders should be eliminated and the construction of walls should be avoided, except in Israel.

The Jewish double-standard on the subject of immigration is not difficult to understand, if we analyze it logically in terms of interests and practical objectives. Jews want non-White immigration into the West because they want to damage us and hope to profit from fragmented multiracial demographics; they do not want non-Jewish immigration into Israel because they know that it would damage their Jewish state. We can therefore easily account for the hypocrisy of broad Jewish support for Muslim refugees, given their dislike for us and their affection for themselves.

My idle speculation is that, despite their visible double-standard on racial matters, Jews like Menachem Rosensaft and Steve Gutow are honest men. They are not concealing their hypocrisy, because they cannot see it.

I imagine, very unscientifically, ethnocentrism as a physical substance: the more of it physically present in your brain, the more ethnocentric you become. If your head is filled to the brim with ethnocentrism, you can honestly fail to notice obvious contradictions, which would be apparent to any dispassionate observer, if those contradictions serve your interests.

Many Jews, I suspect, elevate Pecksniffian hypocrisy to a group level: they have convinced themselves of their own group virtue and expect others to see it as well. Unlike the amoral banker, who knows his public opposition to theft is a hypocritical act of deception, their belief in their own racial entitlement is so strong that they do not see any inconsistency between campaigning for the importation of Muslims into our country, while defending the exclusion of Muslims from their own. Hence the passion that Jewish hypocrites so often display. They sound like they believe what they are saying, because many of them do.

In early English the wolf in sheep’s clothing was a common figure of the hypocrite. In the case of Jewish hyper-hypocrisy we must, I suspect, imagine a wolf in sheep’s clothing who doesn’t believe he is a wolf and doesn’t believe he is engaged in an act of deception.

Another implausible scenario: a businessman manufactures poison and markets it as health food, while sincerely believing nevertheless that he is a moral man helping his customers, despite his decision to refrain from consuming the poison himself.

Such moral incoherence seems impossible to us, but my idle speculation is that hyperethnocentric Jews can often sincerely reconcile obvious moral contradictions if they are linked together by racial self-interest. They know that the importation of culturally incompatible immigrants damages our nations, but they not only believe that they are morally justified in campaigning for it and that we are morally compromised if we object, but also that they are morally entitled to refuse the same cultural poison, while telling us that the poison will enrich our lives and ensure our social dynamism.

My speculation is idle because, obviously, we have no choice but to use the language at our disposal. Jews say one thing on racial subjects and do another; therefore they are hypocrites. We don’t need to know anything else, and there is no pressing reason to speculate about the unusual features of their hypocrisy.

But if Jews like Menachem Rosensaft and Rabbi Steve Gutow really are honest men, and if they sincerely believe that they are sheep rather than wolves, we can conclude that the group characteristics of their race encourage, in addition to racial aggression focused against us, a strange variety of moral insanity.

"The Hateful Eight:" The MSM from a Pro-White Perspective

via Alternative Right

I hate to say this about The Hateful Eight, but my initial response to Quentin Tarantino’s latest offering is that it's just OK. I should say upfront that I am usually a fan and supporter of QT’s work. Maybe it's his weakest film, barring the self acknowledged failure of Death Proof.

It's a bit like John Carpenter’s The Thing transposed to a cabin setting. No monsters, just a villains, say. Tarantino even uses some of The Thing soundtrack by Morricone to make the point. The movie is over two-and-a-half hours of people in one room, basically like a play, which is what it is really. It's seems over-long given that. And did it really need to be shot entirely in 70mm as only the intro, outro, and some connecting scenes are fully cinematic?

It feels a bit like a vanity piece as some have pointed out, but, hey, if he wants to do it that way, let him, in my view. More of a problem is his treatment of race. In the past his films, like Django, have riffed on race hatred, but it sort of worked there, counter-intuitively, as a slavery revenge piece.

There is also a lot of race hatred in The Hateful Eight. That's most of the hate that is in it. But it feels purely sadistic here, as if QT simply enjoys riling up race hatred on both sides – both Black and White. There's lots of anti-White talk, anti-Black talk; there's even some very colourful anti-Mexican talk in this one. But strangely – or not so strangely – there is no anti-Jewish talk! Given his recent political statements, this "appetite for destruction," to borrow a Gunner’s phrase, may also be true of him as a person.

Weinstein brothers, rubbing their hands
This all makes this work seem far more trite and nasty, which it certainly can be, at times, and also willfully destructive in a social and artistic sense; all with the Weinstein Brothers smiling on approvingly, while rubbing their hands at the box office receipts.

There is also some rather explicit misogyny, where poor ol’ Jennifer Jason Leigh is beat on endlessly and cruelly by Kurt Russell and others in a rather vile display of female hatred. This is something that the story dynamic does not exactly require.

So, QT’s eighth film is as hateful as its title suggests – and a bit of a mixed bag overall. The performances admittedly are all great to very good, and for about two hours it fully holds you, but again it could have been edited a bit, and you can't help but feel that QT needs to be given a talking to by someone he respects.

I will see it in 70mm – just to see how it looks that way. But I'll be in no mad rush to do so, as, on some level, this is a truly nasty and hateful piece of work. Especially noteworthy is the monologue, where Sam Jackson describes the homosexual rape and murder of his son to Bruce Dern’s character, a retired Confederate General. That will certainly rile a few people on this site and on the Alt-Right in general. No doubt that’s the intention. So, you have been warned.

An African Planet? Part 2: Africa Could Collapse into Malthusian Catastrophe

via American Renaissance

Part 1

In the first part of this essay, I cited forecasts by UN demographers who predict that there will be more than four billion Africans by the end of this century. Such a colossal population increase could result in a huge exodus of Africans from the continent. I noted that Africans are already colonizing–not yet politically and militarily but demographically–the richer parts of the globe, whose resources and “instant wealth” they covet. I wrote about what we can expect from this large, hungry population as it spreads to developed countries. Islam and the political capitulation of whites are part of the drive into Europe, but African overpopulation and poverty are what most fuel migration.

Black Africans are the first group in history who could take control of other continents, not through military or technological prowess, but through demography alone. Since the end of the Second World War, the European and American doctrine of “self-determination” has enabled a disparate collection of African states to come into being. Those states–many of which cannot even pay their own bureaucrats without billions of dollars in “development aid”–are in the midst of a population explosion that is changing the world in our lifetime.

Racially aware South African whites use the word “locust” (sprinkaan in Afrikaans) as a term for blacks. At the risk of stooping to such “hate speech,” one could compare several billion hungry Africans migrating to Europe and North America to a swarm of locusts consuming everything in their path. This is the “politics of the belly” of which the French expert on Africa Jean-François Bayart writes.

In this second part of my essay, I would like to examine another possible outcome, a different African “planet” from the previous one. Several factors could halt the rise of Africa. Epidemics and an inability to master modern commercial farming could result in demographic collapse. This could also be accompanied by an ideological revolution among whites who begin to see an increasingly African planet as a threat to their own survival.

Malthusian catastrophe

In An Essay on the Principle of Population, the English cleric Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) wrote that population growth is limited by nature: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.”

In 2008, the Afrikaner mathematician Buks van Rensburg published a column in which he argued that a Malthusian catastrophe is unpredictable because even the very last generation in a population explosion would not know of the impending disaster. He used the example of bacteria multiplying in a bottle. Assuming that there were enough nutrients, the bacteria could double in number every minute, increasing from just one to a billion in 30 minutes. After about 50 minutes, a one-liter bottle would be half-full of bacteria. In the final minute, the bacteria would outgrow the bottle’s volume and would start dying off by the billions in a Malthusian catastrophe.

Until Africa’s population reaches a level that is no longer sustainable, we will not know what that level is. The same, of course, goes for the population of the planet.
A lot of research has been done on the issue of food security in Africa, notably by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization. The FAO is fairly upbeat on Sub-Saharan Africa, mainly because of improvements in food supply in West Africa. Nevertheless, it warns that “[The rest of Africa] is still challenged with rapid population growth which affects the ability of countries to assure stable supply of, and access to food.”

As the following table shows, the number of malnourished Sub-Saharan Africans (SS-Africa) has risen from 175.7 to 220 million, despite the improvement in West Africa.


It seems that the progress in West Africa is mainly due to more food imports. The World Bank in a recent report worries that “although 60 percent of West Africans work in agriculture, these countries still depend heavily on food imports which have tripled over the past 10 years.” Nigeria’s oil wealth is fuelling food imports, but the recent drop in global oil prices could end the bonanza.

Another study done by the African Food Security Urban Network (AFSUN), a South African NGO, sees food insecurity all over Southern Africa, despite the fact that it is arguably the richest part of the continent and enjoys South African capital and expertise to help sustain its 210 million people. The authors argue that urbanization contributes to food insecurity.

Indeed, in South Africa, over 60 percent of the population is urban, a higher rate than the world average of 49.4 percent. One may see this for oneself by driving into the countryside which is almost empty, while all the major cities are surrounded by so-called “black townships” and “informal settlements,” which are nothing more than shanty towns. This has led to white flight, with many whites going back to small-scale farming, cottage industries, and attempting to create “rural white utopias” far from the African masses in the cities.

Shanty town in Soweto, South Africa.

AFSUN finds malnutrition even in Johannesburg, which is the richest city on the continent and is dense with shopping centers where you can buy anything from a dollar bag of corn meal to imported Italian cheeses. The four South African supermarket groups, Shopright/Checkers, Pick ‘n Pay, Woolworths, and Spar are among the most competitive in the world, and some of them literally give samples of food away in their more upmarket stores. The Shopright brand is tailored to the poorer, black market and has expanded all over Africa to become one of the biggest supermarket groups in the world by turnover.

How can someone go without food in Johannesburg? According to AFSUN, it is because in South Africa, “the proportion of urbanites below the $2/day poverty line is greater (76 percent) than the mean national $2/day poverty levels (59 percent).” It notes also that food costs 30 percent more in cities than in the country, so the urban poor are especially likely to go hungry.

One of the effects of Africa’s rapidly rising population is that economic growth lags behind population growth. At the same time, the worldwide drop in commodity prices tightens the vise on Africa, preventing the poor from getting enough to eat even when surrounded by plenty, as in Johannesburg.

Dependent on foreign food

Despite having some of the best agricultural land in the world, in the 2005 to 2009 period, no fewer than 43 of the 46 black African countries were net importers of food. From 2000 to 2009, eight African countries, including Somalia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, switched from being net agriculture exporters to net importers.

This graph shows just how drastic the situation has become. As late as the mid-1970s, Africa’s food imports and exports were in balance. Now, imports are well over double the volume of exports, and are increasing alarmingly. Imports, of course, must be paid for with exports, but most African countries produce little–aside from raw materials and some agricultural products–that is of interest to the rest of the world.


An 85-page FAO report called Why Has Africa Become a Net Food Importer? offers explanations: “The core finding is that population growth, low and stagnating agricultural productivity, policy distortions, weak institutions and poor infrastructure are the main reasons.” This bureaucratic language can be translated as follows: Africa’s problem is that it is inhabited by Africans.

However, the continent will probably not face mass starvation in the near future, given the aid still pouring in from the West, Japan and, these days, even China. The British charity Oxfam and others saved Zimbabwe from starvation in the mid-2000s after Robert Mugabe’s catastrophic “land reform,” in which white-owned farms were invaded and confiscated. Oxfam and the Nordic countries would probably step in to ease any immediate food shortages. The long-term prospect, however, is one of great uncertainty.


Africa’s population explosion since 1950–the number of Africans has more than quadrupled–has not (yet) resulted in Malthusian collapse, but diseases such as malaria, HIV/AIDS and Ebola may portend a more sinister future. Deaths from Ebola have so far numbered only in the tens of thousands, but due to the disease’s high death rate and rapid incubation, the virus caused a global panic in 2014. For several months that year, we were treated to the sight of Europeans in white hazmat suits parading on television, saving Africa. Western countries and NGOs mobilized to contain Ebola in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia; there could have been a very serious epidemic without their help.

One of the few black African countries that do not have a rapidly increasing population–apart from immigration–is South Africa. This is entirely due to AIDS. An estimated 6.8 million people are carriers, according to the 2012 South African National HIV Survey, which was partially funded by the Gates Foundation.


As the table shows, in the most sexually active group–ages 25 to 49–a quarter of the South African population has HIV. Almost 19 percent of the adult population between the ages of 15 and 49 is infected, with rates especially high for young black women. “Coloreds” are mixed-race people or descendants of aboriginal hunter-gatherers.

The table also shows that a South African black is 50 times more likely than a white to have HIV. Interestingly, the infection rate among whites (0.3 percent) is exactly the same as in Europe and North America, and is probably concentrated among male homosexuals.

It is a miracle that the white rate is so low, given the prevalence of rape, and advertising and media encouragement of whites to take black lovers or spouses. In many commercials, a white woman is embracing a black man and looking lovingly into his eyes.

Shortly after the turn of the millennium, there were fears that AIDS could devastate black populations. Many South African whites thought the diesease might restore the demographic balance, and some experts even predicted that by 2010 people would be collapsing in the streets. This has not happened. Anti-retroviral treatment, mainly funded by the US government, does not cure AIDS but it means South African blacks can live much longer with HIV, and go on to infect others.

AIDS will continue to kill, however, and even apart from millions of premature deaths, the disease tends to overwhelm a country’s health system because patients are admitted for all of the secondary diseases associated with HIV. South Africa used to have one of the best health systems in the world, but it has deteriorated to a Third-World level, largely because of AIDS.


Other, more traditional diseases have become more common, thanks to South Africa’s liberal immigration policy. Since 1994, South Africa’s government has virtually opened its borders. The result has been a torrent of people from the north: from Zimbabwe, especially, but also from Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique and Nigeria. Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country, and is destined to overtake the United States within a few decades. An estimated 10 to 15 million foreign Africans have poured into South Africa, swelling the shanty towns around all the major cities and towns.

Because they lack infrastructure and sanitation, shanty towns are ideal breeding grounds for disease. Kinshasa and Nairobi are projected to double in size over the next 30 years. An outbreak of Ebola in such a dense area would be devastating, but more conventional diseases also spread rapidly.

Our northern neighbor Zimbabwe may be an example of things to come. Because Robert Mugabe drove out the white farmers who had been the backbone of a very successful economy, Zimbabwe now needs regular food aid, and death and disease stalk the country. In 2008, a cholera epidemic that broke out in Zimbabwe spread to South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, and Mozambique. The Red Cross reported that there had been 98,309 cholera cases and 4,283 deaths in Zimbabwe. Fifteen percent of Zimbabweans are HIV positive.

The chances of a Malthusian catastrophe in Africa are increased by the fact that many Africans do not believe in Western science and medicine. Even educated Africans with postgraduate science degrees still go to witchdoctors, euphemistically called “traditional healers.” As the African population grows, the official response to outbreaks of disease may become increasingly “traditional,” involving occult lore and rituals. There will still be someone in a white coat at the hospital, but he may be a black man practicing ancient arts.

Many black intellectuals believe that AIDS was invented by white scientists who wanted to keep down the black population. In South Africa, there is an obsession with a cardiologist from Cape Town, Dr. Wouter Basson, who was the head of the pre-1994 biological and chemical weapons research unit, known as “Project Coast.” Some black columnists call him “Doctor Death,” and accuse him of designing AIDS in a laboratory. Though probably no whites believe this, his liberal colleagues have still conducted a campaign to have his physician’s license revoked, and he has been involved in a number of public hearings and court cases. Most recently, complaints from liberal academics led to his being banned from training students in cardiology at the University of Stellenbosch.

Wouter Basson
Wouter Basson

Although part of Dr. Basson’s record as a biological-weapons expert is still shrouded in secrecy, he has maintained that he worked only on defensive weapons for the Angolan war of the 1970s and ’80s. They were being developed to counter the use of biological and chemical weapons by the Cubans and Soviets against Angolan UNITA soldiers, who were supported by South Africa.

In 2005, two academics spent 28 months interviewing South African blacks about their views of AIDS. They found that black women tended to accept the Western, scientific view but men believed in conspiracies: “These conspiracy theories variously identified right-wing whites, Dr. Wouter Basson, South Africa’s government, Americans, businesspeople, and the military as the sources of the epidemic.”
Their view of Dr. Basson was that:
He did research and manufactured AIDS in his laboratory. He wanted to kill blacks with his theory. He first tested the virus on animals and then injected humans with the virus.
Elsewhere in Africa and in Soweto–the sprawling black ghetto south of Johannesburg–researchers have found that people believe witches can give them AIDS. The witch inserts a poison into the victim’s throat and afterwards his body wastes away until he dies. Eccentric views of AIDS are not uncommon among South African leaders. Former president Thabo Mbeki argued repeatedly that the HIV virus did not cause AIDS. The current president, Jacob Zuma, once famously explained that after unprotected sex with an HIV positive woman he had avoided infection by taking a shower.

The Western response

Africa has a rapidly growing population faced with poverty, hunger, and disease. This explains why millions of Africans already want to escape their own continent and live in the West. In the coming decades these pressures will become more intense.

It is entirely up to us whether Africa overruns the West in the way I described in the first part of this article. We have the power to keep Africans out; the only question is whether we have the will to use that power.

At some stage, the elite white view of Africa could change. Western analysts have surely looked into their crystal balls and seen the threat of a huge African population. They cannot be ignorant of what massive black immigration would mean for their nations’ economies, finances, health systems, stability, and everything else.

Either the West will be held to ransom by Africans or there will be resistance. The current influx from Africa and the Middle East into Europe is not only the result of war in Syria, but also of the African population explosion. Chancellor Angela Merkel initially adopted a laissez-faire attitude to the migrant problem, but after the influx of over a million so-called “migrants,” there are signs of great discomfort in Germany. In liberal Sweden, over 60 refugee centers have been burnt down, a sign of resistance to the unbridled immigration preached by elites.

Burning migrant shelter in Sweden.

Immigration is now the number-one political issue in the European Union, fuelling the rise of nationalist parties such as the Dutch Freedom Party, the French National Front, the Danish People’s Party and the Sweden Democrats. All of these parties enjoy significant electoral support, on the order of 30 percent or more. They are an encouraging sign that Europeans may refuse to surrender their continent.
During a recent session of the Dutch parliament, Martin Bosma of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party even criticized the very notion of development aid for the Third World, accusing his left-wing colleagues of “funding genocide and dictators” in Africa. With Europe assailed from across the Mediterranean, it is likely that attitudes on both immigration and aid will harden.

Katie Hopkins, the maverick British columnist, caused a scandal in Great Britain when she published a column in The Sun newspaper earlier this year in which she compared the trans-Mediterranean migrants to “cockroaches.” Entitled, “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants,” Miss Hopkins made a case for sealing off Africa from Europe completely, saying:
No, I don’t care. Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad. I still don’t care. . . . What we need are gunships sending these boats back to their own country. You want to make a better life for yourself? Then you had better get creative in Northern Africa.
Within days, 200,000 people had signed a petition calling on the Sun to fire Miss Hopkins, but she persevered, and switched to one of the largest global websites, Mailonline, which is affiliated with the Daily Mail.

All over the West, there is a reawakening of common sense. Marine Le Pen, Victor Orban, and Geert Wilders increasingly defend the rights of Europeans to maintain their culture and identity in nations of their own. Donald Trump has famously said that he would build a wall on the southern border of the United States and deport all illegal immigrants.

Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders
Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders

Liberals suggest that with enough aid and investment, Africa could become more attractive and Africans would stay home. This has been tried before and is bound to fail. Once they fully understand the implications of Africa’s massive population explosion, people will support tough measures like those advocated by Katie Hopkins. If they are to survive, Europeans and Americans have no other option but to seal off the large continent straddling the equator and leave it to its own devices, with or without aid money.

The phrase “Fortress Europe” will mean literally fortifying the Old Continent against invasion. The “influx control” of apartheid South Africa, denounced by liberals worldwide during the 1960s and ’70s, will become standard practice in both Europe and North America during the 21st century–if our civilization is to survive.

Left without emigration options and cut off from aid that donors increasingly recognize as futile, Africa could begin to look like a science-fiction drama, with disease and poverty, along with advanced weapons and communications, fuelling a war for survival. The anarchy of Eastern Congo, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, South Sudan, Mali, and the Central African Republic could spread. The fate of South African whites will depend on how well they can shield themselves from the collapsing countries to the north, while “xenophobic violence” committed by South African blacks against immigrants from the north will increase in ferocity.

When Joseph Conrad wrote the famous phrase “The horror! The horror!” in his Afropessimistic novella Heart of Darkness, he could never have imagined just how widely it would one day resonate. Europe must decide: Will it remain in the light or succumb to darkness?

Introduction to “Germany Abolishes Itself: How We Are Gambling with Our Country”

Thilo Sarrazin
TOO Editor's Note: Translated from the German by Gregory Ritter. Mr Ritter’s website, Atavistic Intelligentsia, covers a variety of topics, especially those that receive less attention in the Alt-Right, namely Russian and Near Eastern affairs. He writes that “we strive to make our articles and podcasts original, fast-paced and thought-provoking.”

All political pusillanimity consists of concealing and veiling that which is. -Ferdinand Lassalle
Due to the economic and socio-political success of the post-war decades, a certain sense of pride has emerged in Germany. This pride is based on the diligence and efficiency of German citizens, in the steadily increasing standard of living, and the ever more developed welfare state. The four great economic crises — 1966/7, 1974/5, 1981/2 and 2008/9 — have hardly harmed this pride and Germans’ trust in the soundness of their economic and social model. Even the effects of globalization, the shifting balances of power, the environmental pollution and the feared effects of climate change have so far not had a lasting effect. This basic optimism has, after decades of almost undiluted success, clouded Germans’ view of the process of social decay and its hazards.

“Germany abolishes itself” might seem an absurd fear. Here is a country with a population of 80 million in the heart of Europe: with all its cities, industry, cars, trade and commerce, hustle and bustle … But a country is what its inhabitants make of it through their living traditions, both spiritual and cultural. Without its people, Germany would be merely a geographic expression. The Germans however are gradually abolishing themselves. A net reproduction rate of 0.7 or less, as we have had for the last 40 years, means that every generation will be half as big as that of its grandparents. The annual birth-rate in Germany fell between the early 1960s and 2009 from 1.3 million to 650,000. If this continues — and why should it change, when this trend has already persisted for four decades? — then after three more generations, in ~ 90 years, the number of births in Germany will be between 200,000 and 250,000 a year. At most, half of these will be descendants of the pre-1965 population.

The Germans have, in a sense, already abolished themselves. Many are glad to imagine this as a righteous punishment for the people whose sons once filled the ranks of the SS. Perhaps this perception explains why, when discussing the decline of the German population, some speak with barely concealed joy. Other, less self-loathing, people console themselves by looking at small peoples who manage to survive as a group, for example Denmark, with its 5 million inhabitants. Germany could become a somewhat bigger version of Denmark. What would be so bad about that? Could that not work for Germany? Perhaps it would, if Germany did not face qualitative demographic shifts, a declining birthrate and population pressure brought on by poor immigrants.

Reason has not guided our discussion of demographic change in Germany for 45 years. Whoever strayed from the flock of appeasers and apologists, whoever expressed any concern for what might happen was forced to recognize, to his frustration, that he stood alone, and often found himself stuck in the racialist (völkisch) corner. What’s more, there is a strange contradiction in our social discourse: Public discourse is dominated by a craving for entertainment and scandals, while serious issues are increasingly sidelined by euphemistic political terminology:
  • For decades it was impossible to discuss the consequences of the declining birth-rate. Anyone who tried was automatically suspected of being a racialist. That has changed recently, now that post-war generation (The “Sixty-Eighters”) has become worried about its pensions. But it is 40 years too late.
  • There is a long-standing taboo on discussing the social burdens of unrestricted immigration. Even more unthinkable was noting that people differ in innate abilities — especially if one mentioned intelligence, industry or morals — or if one noted that no amount of education or equal opportunity would change anything. Since these basic circumstances were denied, there was no common ground on which to discuss the numerous dysfunctions of the welfare state.[1] The following topics became taboo:
    • that you can send 90% of a high-school class to college, but still less than 10% are qualified;
    • that, as a people, our average intelligence is declining, because the more intelligent women are having fewer and fewer children;
    • that the individual is responsible for his behavior and not society at large.
“Whoever does not learn, remains ignorant. Whoever eats too much, gets fat.” To pronounce such truths is regarded as politically incorrect, or even spiteful and immoral — but at the very least, it is unwise to speak bluntly if you want to be elected to political office. It is a tendency of political correctness to release people from responsibility for their behavior, by pointing out the circumstances that put them at a disadvantage or caused them to fail:
  • If a student cannot pass a test, it is because of his parents’ educational underachievement.
  • If poor children suffer from obesity due to lack of exercise, it is not because of parental neglect, but the family’s social disadvantage.
  • If children of single mothers cause problems in school, society is to blame because it did not provide enough support. This should raise the question of what social conditions and individual dispositions lead to the prevalence of single parents, and what can be done about it.
  • If third-generation Turkish immigrants do not speak German, it must be because of the environment of antipathy toward their acceptance. But why, one might ask, do we not observe this problem among almost any other immigrant groups?
It is a sociological fact, albeit a banal one, that everything depends on everything else. Recognizing this fact has led to a tendency of ascribing everything to sociological relations, relieving the individual of any moral responsibility (and, to a large extent, actual responsibility). Like an infection, political correctness has spread throughout our ailing body politic. On questions of social organization and control, it hinders both diagnosis and treatment.

When I was a Berlin Finance Senator, I released a report that concluded that the state’s minimum subsidy was sufficient for maintaining a healthy and varied diet. A firestorm of outrage followed. The report suggested that being overweight is not due to an individual’s station in life. Rather, it is due to poor nutrition, and is thus the result of an individual’s behavior, for which he is responsible. But that was not what anyone wanted to hear. Many of those aggrieved wrote letters to the editor to express their outrage, which I could understand. What I could not understand was why the so-called Good People pounced on me when I made a casual remark about wearing a sweater to save energy.

In managing political, economic and social development, we should take into account what people want to achieve. But we must also take stock of the actual causal relationships. Granted, everyone has to work in a normative context, whether one only reflects on social issues or wants to solve them. Both thinkers and doers need normative models to analyze reality. But the model will distort reality if it ignores or misunderstands human nature or sociological and psychological causation. Social engineers who proceed in this manner do more harm than good. Unfortunately such social engineers exist, and many of them harm our society and diminish our prospects for the future. For too long, they have overlooked our demographic problems. Our population is not only aging and shrinking, but its composition has undergone qualitative changes. Besides the sheer decline in numbers, our population has suffered a rise in less stable, less intelligent and less capable people, who endanger the future of Germany. Proving that this is the case, explaining why it is, and figuring out what to do about it — that is what this book is about.
My statements rely on empirical research, but I have tried to keep my presentation direct and to the point. I am concerned primarily with clarity and accuracy, thus the argumentation is direct, without indecision or flourish. I have refrained from using flowery language to tiptoe around difficult issues, and while I tried to present a realistic picture — the results are shocking enough without any embellishment.

Germany is, economically, in the last stage of a golden age that began around 1950 and is slowly drawing to a close. Individual workers’ real income has not risen in 20 years, and it will begin to fall by the end of the decade. The decline will continue because of demographic changes. Such a grim prognosis appears to contradict the seeming strength of the German economy — the export surplus, the Initiative for Excellence in Higher Education,[2] and the many good reports, about which we congratulate ourselves every day. But all this will be to no avail if we squander our potential for increasing prosperity, and that is exactly what we are doing, quantitatively and qualitatively:
  • Quantitatively, because for the last 45 years, every generation has been about a third smaller than the one before it, and at the same time life expectancy has increased;
  • Qualitatively because educational potential and standards seem to be deteriorating with every passing generation, and an ever shrinking number of people have a productive, innovative mentality.
As a professional economist, top official and politician, I have had plenty of opportunity to subject each one of my theories to the most rigorous scrutiny, to all conceivable counterarguments. With these counterarguments I have filled thousands of pages with outlines, memoranda, speaking notes and essays over my 35-year career. My bosses had to survive politically, and I had to give them the means to do so. This prevarication had a price. Oftentimes truths, subjectively felt, could only be presented in small doses. In positions of political responsibility it is not impossible to express unpleasant truths, but again and again I have found it very difficult. Indeed there is a certain wisdom in the politician who focuses on solvable problems and proposals that will appeal to the majority. But doing so can hinder both diagnosis and treatment of the underlying issues, and if the politician is not careful, his brain will be clouded by loss of judgment. But unfortunately, that is how it goes with all top politicians; they find refuge in superficial thinking. As a result, there is a huge demand for unvarnished Truth. But whoever satisfies this demand exposes himself to the media’s power and its exercise of political correctness.

My 39-year career, has given me broad experience in crafting financial-policy. I spent seven years as an active politician in the Berlin state-government, six years as a state secretary in Rhineland-Palatinate and 16 years in various functions and at different levels of the old West-German government bureaucracy in Bonn. Towards the end of my career, I had acquired a reputation for formulating successful fiscal policy. Only then did I dare to make a couple offensive remarks, and these concerned matters outside the narrow purview of high finance — about how to reform the welfare system and how to save energy. Despite all my practical experience, I was dumbfounded at the reaction my remarks unleashed. It was as if no one had ever heard a public figure use common sense to make a point. What really scared me was the flood of hate-filled mail I received as soon as I showed concretely the possibility — and necessity — of personal responsibility and self-reliance. My remarks about eating healthy and wearing a sweater were especially unpopular. However, it seems there is an ever increasing group of people who want to take responsibility for themselves and their lives. This development is in no way limited to people of a certain income-level or social stratum, and it is in no way new. In hindsight, the trend is discernible through the second half of the last century.

The German Federal Republic of the last 50 years was a very modern polity. After the two lost wars, Germany suffered catastrophic consequences: The state’s institutions were destroyed, traditions called into question, and the population was thrown into turmoil through flight and expulsion, especially from the formerly German lands in Eastern Europe. Amazingly, Germany came through it all with little damage to its specific strengths — its high standard of research, education and technical training, a high-performance economy and a competent bureaucracy. And despite the fact that around 90% of the ruling class and the bureaucracy were willing accomplices of the Nazi dictatorship, their efficacy in leading the country’s reconstruction was in no way affected.

The traditional German industriousness made it through the wars unchanged. And even the opportunity to rebuild kindled the German penchant for innovation and improvement. The refugees and displaced persons distinguished themselves in particular. They found themselves in the same position as immigrants to the United States in the 19th century — destitute and in a foreign land. Only through hard work could they make headway. And they were very industrious, so much so that their example compelled the long-established inhabitants to get busy.

All this made possible the German economic miracle (Wirtschaftswunder). Some other contributing factors should be borne in mind:
  • the East-West conflict, which, all of the sudden, made the defeated country a desirable partner, whom it was valuable to support;
  • the turbulent recovery of the West after 20 years of war and world-wide economic crisis;
  • the rapid liberation of the West German economy from the numerous administrative restrictions between 1948 and 1951, the great and lasting legacy of Ludwig Erhard (post-war Minister of Economics, later Chancellor).
Ultimately, the great promise of a “Social market economy” united the whole nation behind the re-construction effort. A fair share of the general prosperity would be available to all, and everyone would be protected from hunger, cold and grinding poverty. Whoever wanted to work would be able to. This promise would be fulfilled, and marvelously so!
  • From 1950 to 1960 the West German economy grew at a yearly rate of 8%.
  • Unemployment fell from 11 % to 1.3% between 1950 and 1960.
  • The real income per capita of the population grew in 10 years by almost 70%. In 1955 West Germany generated a per capita GDP as high as France’s. In per capita GNP it had surpassed the victorious Great Britain as early as 1952.
By around 1960, the political and social order in West Germany had achieved a degree of legitimacy and acceptance unlike any other in the preceding 150 years, and unlike any since. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) rejected socialism and moved toward a muted form of capitalism by adopting the Godesberg Program in 1959, which aimed to establish a “Social market economy.” Still, the ideal did not last long:
  • In 1966/67 for the first time since the war, doubts emerged about whether the economic growth and full employment had been more or less permanently assured. These were quickly put to rest thanks to the glorious growth rates from 1968 to 1971.
  • In 1968 a segment of the post-war generation began to protest the social model, whose essential basis and main objective seemed to be nothing more than raising manufacturing output.
  • In 1972 The Club of Rome pointed out the finite nature of the World’s resources when it released its first report, entitled “The Limits of Growth.” This was the impetus for the environmental movement. A direct path leads from this report to the present-day discussion of the effects of uncontrolled global warming (“die Klimakatastrophe”).
  • In 1973 the first oil crisis set off a recession, Germany’s second largest since the war. The full employment of the 1960s has never been reached since.
  • In 1979, the second oil crisis followed the Iranian Revolution. The crisis led to the third post-war recession and to the overthrow of Helmut Schmidt’s social-liberal (SPD-FDP) coalition.
  • In the 1980s the world-economy was successfully stabilized. After a world-wide shake up of monetary policy, inflation was brought to a tolerable and sustainable level. The German economy grew further, if substantially slower than in the 60s and 70s. Unemployment fell, but generally remained higher than before.
  • From 1989 to 1991 the world map was changed radically by the breakup of the Eastern Bloc and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The distribution of world economic power underwent a major transformation with the acceptance of the market-economy in the former Eastern Bloc, and above all in China and Southeast Asia. This transformation is still in progress. Like no previous development, the spread of capitalism has raised doubts about whether the promise of the “social market economy” can be kept. Indeed, its very survival is in question.
Ultimately, globalization means that equal work gets equal pay in free-market countries, because they are able to allot the necessary public resources to education and infrastructure. To put that in economic terms: labor’s marginal cost and its marginal product tend to align everywhere there is a free economy.[3] Just as marginal capital compensation acts as a world-wide interest rate, labor-compensation also tends to level out. It makes complete sense that in Germany the real wages of young people today are no higher than in 1990. The same situation prevails in, for example, the US and Italy. Real wages will not start to climb again until wages in countries like China, India and Thailand have reached Western levels. This development — another theme of this book — comes at a time when German economic power is waning due to factors totally unrelated to globalization.

The seed of all these undesirable developments, which darken our future, was already planted in the triumphant late fifties. At that time a chain of institutional reforms began, every one of which was well-intentioned and certainly did a lot of good individually. But the combined effect of these reforms was to erode social trust, thereby threatening our future. In the seed there are four thematic complexes, which depend on one another and influence each other reciprocally:
  • The 40-year ongoing demographic shifts and changes in reproductive behavior, as well as their continuing influence in the future;
  • The incentives in our social system to lead a self-reliant life — or not;
  • The socialization, education and lifeworld[4] motivations of people;
  • The quality, the structure and the cultural background of immigrants in Germany.
For me it is an open question, whether and to what extent it is even possible to impose reforms that run counter to the structural changes of our economy, our society and their ever changing conditions. Nothing stays the same forever, and no social condition is able to be preserved indefinitely. On the other hand, it is impossible to make judgments, to evaluate conditions and to formulate necessary changes without a normative picture of society. But why, one might ask, should we bother thinking about the future and its implications at all? Should not each generation concern itself with its own problems and let later generations deal with theirs?

In all these questions, we are virtually surrounded by paradoxes that are basically unsolvable: We assume that only individuals have a personality and an identity. On the other hand, there is no intrinsic value in all forms of social organization — communities, societies and peoples — according to the prevailing view. Moreover, groups only matter insofar as they consist of individuals, for the prevailing view rejects the idea of a divine world-order and similar philosophies of history. It is paradoxical then, that we think so much about the future of the environment. We accept as inevitable that Germany will become smaller and dumber. We do not want to reflect on it, let alone talk about it. But we do think about the world climate in 100 or 500 years. It is totally illogical to overlook the condition of the German polity, because if the current demographic trend continues, in 100 years Germany will have 25 million inhabitants, in 200 years 8 million and in 300 years 3 million. Why should we interest ourselves with the world-climate of 2500 AD, if the German social program amounts to the abolition of the Germans.

In a world without God, the condition of nature has no value of its own. It is no more than the living environment of mankind. Therefore only the individual’s well-being provides any justification for the upkeep of nature. This justification is eliminated along with the individuals themselves. But in fact, contrary to all logic, most of us ascribe an intrinsic value to social organizations just as we do to the individual: Many employees love their company, in which they have worked for decades, others love their soccer team, and still others love their city, its land, its people. When we attribute value to the entities that transcend us, it motivates us, lifts us, makes us proud, gives us driving force and lets us forget our own petty pains and our great sorrows. Only when it comes to Germany, do many censor their own thoughts (lit. have a scissors in their head).
  • Do you love your home? Yes!
  • Are you a local patriot? Naturally!
  • A European? Of course!
  • A citizen of the world? Clearly, it’s only fitting.
  • A German? Only for the national soccer team.
Otherwise it’s rather embarrassing. To worry about Germany as the land of the Germans is considered politically incorrect. That self-censorship explains the existence of so many taboos and the completely garbled discussion of topics like demography, family policy and immigration. I believe that we will not solve our social problems without a healthy dose of national self-assertion.

In 100 years, there will still be a Europe that is economically united and capable of acting in concert in its foreign affairs. But it will still comprise national states that are decidedly Polish, Danish, French, Dutch or British. Only on the level of the nation is there democratic legitimacy, and only there can one find the power for social renewal — or maybe not. The hope that the national states will dissolve into a united Europe is a late product of German escapism. Quite an ambivalent hope, because it ultimately projects the memory of a European-wide empire — not totally devoid of historical overtones: The borders of the EU’s founding members (West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg) corresponded almost exactly to the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne.

But lamenting the course of history is a dead end. As soon as anyone tries to reverse trends that seem unfavorable, he is in danger of thinking ahistorically, falling into nostalgia, and misjudging the influence that should be afforded key moments. Like a river, the stream of history is constant and never returns to its old course. Still, nostalgia is tempting for all those who want to preserve the good and do not condone change for its own sake.

The realist accepts that every historical position is a two-sided coin: The traditional idyll of country life is incompatible with modern agriculture. The sureness of tradition and a clear set of values is incompatible with the tempo of technological change. The well-being[5] of our regional and national peculiarities are incompatible with the many follow-on effects of mass-immigration. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. But if realism is totally devoid of both nostalgia and a forward-looking creative drive, it is scarcely distinguishable from fatalism and indifference. It is flat and banal. Of course, it is easy to project one’s own problems onto the world. As the shadows grow longer in our lives, we tend to take a darker view of the world. But I do not think that age has distorted my view of the aforementioned social problems, because I have been intensively occupied with these questions continuously for the last 30 years.

Anyone who finds the existing historical trends lamentable should make sure his position is grounded in a solid philosophy of history. Does he lament the changing times simply because he feels alienated, being dependent on the values and conditions of the past? Yet it is by no means true that nostalgia is the only explanation for why someone might feel discomfort about the direction and potential consequences of social change.

A social order depends on a specific set of conditions. No matter how long it lasts, any social order arises from a particular amalgam of factors, be they environmental, geographic, technological, cultural, political or demographic. If this set of conditions changes, the society must also change. The end of the Middle Ages, for example, accelerated the pace of change in technological development and increased the amount of interaction within societies and among them.

The conditions of social existence change incessantly, rarely remaining as they are. The changes are not always for the best, as the horrific errors of the twentieth century show. But there are also elements of stability, which defy change for long periods. Such are the regional and national identities of peoples. When ten Sicilians and ten Friesians do something, the results are just not the same. Further examples of enduring elements stem from the influence of religion, tradition, the bonds of family and the respect for elders. These elements form the glue that stabilizes society against the tendency toward alienation not only of the individual, but also of greater social groups — of entire societies and entire peoples. So when these elements break down, a critical situation arises, making conditions that are ideal for political turmoil and armed conflict. The alienation is more pronounced in times of stark change or catastrophic upheaval, which includes war, natural disaster and epidemics like the Black Death.

Besides times of stark change, there are again and again ages of stability. People can live in peace and security for several generations in a well-ordered and seemingly unchanging world. Only disease and death threaten their lives. Whoever lived in such circumstances considered himself safe, for he belonged to a natural order. It was the best possible world, a high point, from which society could only go downhill. Those were the golden ages, which history relates again and again. There were many of them, lasting two, or sometimes as many as ten generations — epochs in which history, at least in one area, seemed to stand still. For man had created something perfect.

Variation and persistence determine how and to what extent society will change. External influences also play a role, but they do not determine a society’s trajectory forever. An extreme example is the totally different paths taken by English and Russian society. Both were founded by Viking tribes (the Varangians in Russia, the Normans in England), and still each society went its own way.

The renowned “golden ages” have always distinguished themselves by displaying the right mix of stability and elasticity. Without stability, continuity is impossible. Without elasticity, survival is impossible. But nothing remains exactly as it is. Under the most beautiful tree, the worm already gnaws on the roots. As the late Willy Brandt put it well, “Nothing comes from nothing, and only little will endure.” In the long run, all human activity is in vain. Even so, we are not entirely helpless before historical destiny.

Like most of life, the contents of this book are ambivalent: The trends described herein gnaw at the roots of material wellbeing and social stability. But there is always a starting point, from which you can change much for the better. You just have to do it!

[1] “Sozialstaat,” which emphasizes protecting its citizens from undeserved hardship. German also has the broader concept of “Wohlfahrsstaat,” which denotes a government that promotes the wellbeing of its citizens. While “Wohlfahrsstat” literally means “welfare-state,” the usage of English “welfare state” seems to correspond better to “Sozialstaat.” “Wohlfahrsstaat” has no English equivalent in common use. Perhaps we could say “nanny state,” but without the negative connotation.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Universities_Excellence_Initiative
[3] Marginal cost is the total cost from producing one more unit of output. Marginal product is the growth in output resulting from one more unit of input.
[4] “lebensweltlich” referring to a philosophical concept of Husserl, applied to sociology by Habermas
[5] “Aufgehobensein,” from the verb “aufheben,” this verb has multiple and contradictory meanings including “pick up,” “lift up,” “abolish” and “preserve.” What is more, Hegel used it to describe the interaction of the thesis and the synthesis. In this philosophical sense, it is often rendered “sublate.”