Apr 8, 2016

The Real Pain of Racial Displacement for Working-Class Whites Is Ignored by the Establishment


The 1960s and 1970s saw tens of thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims flood the London Borough of Camden in North London.

The areas of Somers Town, King's Cross, and Regent's Park Estate were the worst affected areas in the Borough.

This destructive policy displaced the local working class indigenous population out of the council estates. There are many community centres, youth clubs and charities in this area of London which are specifically for the Bangladeshi community.

There is not, and has never been, any such specific help for the native British community.

Camden is just one of the many areas in the UK now colonised by Third-World immigrants. Many schools in this Labour-controlled area of London are entirely non-white British.

Hollow Men

via Radix

April has been a cruel month for Conservatism, Inc. They’ve increasingly had to come to terms with the fact that what has come to be termed the “alt-right” is a movement they can’t ignore, nor explain away using typical(and leftist) smears such as “racist!”, “Nazi!”, und so weiter.

Those that bother to engage us at all accuse us either of being evil and of not really defending “Western civilization”. Ian Tuttle writing at National Review perfectly encapsulates this view. Tuttle writes:
Furthermore, it’s entirely plausible that, where conservatives have endorsed policies — high levels of immigration, for example — that have ended up undermining certain “core Western values” (the importance of the rule of law, say), it was out of a commitment to other high-minded principles also in keeping with the Western tradition.
Tuttle and Robby Soave, who writes at Reason both betray a narrow view of the West. It’s one confined to “Classical Liberalism”, and confuses the ideological peccadilloes of its heroes as universal. Soave writes:
This is a terrible reason to support Trump, but not because the values of the West aren't worth protecting—they are. The sad! fact is that Trump adamantly rejects two of the most important legacies of the Enlightenment and Western society: free markets and freedom of the press.
Western Civilization, of course, did not start in the eighteenth century. Its foundations are in the Homeric epics which served as the fires that lit the mind of Western man from the pre-Socratics to the end of the Classical epoch. Western man has always defined himself in opposition to an other, the barbarian of Graeco-Roman times, the Saracen of the Middle Ages, and so on. Politics, as Carl Schmitt taught us is a never ending struggle around the friend/enemy distinction.

For our literal Whig historians over at Reason and National Review however, it is the “Liberalism” above all else that constitutes the tradition of the West. Speaking for myself, I do indeed reject Liberalism and its universalist and egalitarian strains that have, in part, led to the problems of our age. The reason we see “cuckservatives” as cuckolds is not because they haven’t defended “liberalism”, or “real rights”, or “Judeo-Christian values”, it's because they’ve failed to defend our, European people.

Classical Liberalism as defined and defended by Conservatism, Inc. holds within the seeds of its own undoing. As a cosmopolitan ideology, it cannot stop until it spreads its universalism from sea to shining sea. But here, it faces resistance. It must make an other, it must confront an enemy. Once it does, however, it takes on a new character.

Liberalism, however, cannot defend itself in such a conflict. It provides no identity for its adherents other than the sort of camaraderie one finds in the waiting line for the newest iPhone. It’s, by definition, an ideology for everyone, and therefore no one.

The question for the West and European man today is if he will survive. The “conservatives” who are only interested in conserving the liberal hegemony are no friend to European man. They might be friends to a stream, albiet a destructive one, in our history but they defend a dead end.

For us, we must choose a new way. As we grow we must be conscious of the new world we hope to build. Their eyes are not here, but to their shopping malls, ours should be to the future.

One of their Swamis once wrote a book “Up From Liberalism”, unlike him, though, we actually mean it.

Medicine as Pseudoscience

via West Hunter

I’ve mentioned before that Western medicine was, on the whole, useless for more than two thousand years after Hippocrates. A malignant pseudoscience, really, worse then useless. I’ve seen some suggest that I must be wrong, that medicine can’t have been that bad – but it was. Name your syndrome – the odds are very high that they couldn’t do anything for it. Worse yet, they’d try anyhow. It wasn’t just knowing nothing: they knew things that weren’t so. Sheesh, I didn’t think Harvard went that far back….

The idea that venesection was a good thing, or at least not so bad, on the grounds that one in a few hundred people have hemochromatosis (in Northern Europe) reminds me of the people who don’t wear a seatbelt, since it would keep them from being thrown out of their convertible into a waiting haystack, complete with nubile farmer’s daughter. Daughters. It could happen. But it’s not the way to bet.

Back in the good old days, Charles II, age 53, had a fit one Sunday evening, while fondling two of his mistresses.

Monday they bled him (cupping and scarifying) of eight ounces of blood. Followed by an antimony emetic, vitriol in peony water, purgative pills, and a clyster. Followed by another clyster after two hours. Then syrup of blackthorn, more antimony, and rock salt. Next, more laxatives, white hellebore root up the nostrils. Powdered cowslip flowers. More purgatives. Then Spanish Fly. They shaved his head and stuck blistering plasters all over it, plastered the soles of his feet with tar and pigeon-dung, then said good-night.

Tuesday. ten more ounces of blood, a gargle of elm in syrup of mallow, and a julep of black cherry, peony, crushed pearls, and white sugar candy.

Wednesday. Things looked good:: only senna pods infused in spring water, along with white wine and nutmeg.

Thursday. More fits. They gave him a spirituous draft made from the skull of a man who had died a violent death. Peruvian bark, repeatedly, interspersed with more human skull. Didn’t work.

Friday. The king was worse. He tells them not to let poor Nelly starve. They try the Oriental Bezoar Stone, and more bleeding. Dies at noon.

Most people didn’t suffer this kind of problem with doctors, since they never saw one. Charles had six. Now Bach and Handel saw the same eye surgeon, John Taylor – who blinded both of them. Not everyone can put that on his resume!

You may wonder how medicine continued to exist, if it had a negative effect, on the whole. There’s always the placebo effect – at least there would be, if it existed. Any real placebo effect is very small: I’d guess exactly zero. But there is regression to the mean. You see the doctor when you’re feeling worse than average – and afterwards, if he doesn’t kill you outright, you’re likely to feel better. Which would have happened whether you’d seen him or not, but they didn’t often do RCTs back in the day – I think James Lind was the first (1747).

Back in the late 19th century, Christian Scientists did better than others when sick, because they didn’t believe in medicine. For reasons I think mistaken, because Mary Baker Eddy rejected the reality of the entire material world, but hey, it worked. Parenthetically, what triggered all that New Age nonsense in 19th century New England? Hash?

This did not change until fairly recently. Sometime in the early 20th medicine, clinical medicine, what doctors do, hit break-even. Now we can’t do without it. I wonder if there are, or will be, other examples of such a pile of crap turning (mostly) into a real science.

Terminology: White "Genocide" or White "Dispossession"

via The Occidental Observer

I am aware of the troubling issues surrounding the ongoing White dispossession in the USA and EU. I also understand Bob Whitaker’s concern about my/AFP suggestion to drop the expression “White genocide” and replace it with “White dispossession” instead.  I am also saddened at Mr. Whitaker’s disapproval with our current support of Donald Trump’s campaign.

I did indicate to HuffPo that the expression “White genocide” sounds too strong. This is because for many people ‘genocide’ connotes an organized campaign of murder rather than the gradual replacement and disempowerment which is actually occurring. It is unquestionably true that the current process will indeed result in White genocide in the long run as Whites become an ever decreasing percentage of the population. This genocidal process is being facilitated by the fact that Whites are persecuted if they publicize any sense of White identity and interests. It is also true that miscegenation rates have risen in recent decades, and these trends will likely increase in the future if current trends continue and as Whites become an embattled, hated minority. This is genocide by any reasonable definition.

The prospect of White genocide is staring us in the face and motivates our actions, and this vision also motivates our enemies for whom a dwindling, disempowered White population holds infinite appeal. But as a political party, we have to sell our ideas to the public, and this is a non-starter for most people. They look around and see White politicians with great power (e.g., all of the current presidential candidates and very large majorities in both Houses of Congress), and they see that there are many Whites among corporate and professional leaders. Whites are still very much part of the establishment. We don’t see White people being marched off to concentration camps.

The term ‘genocide’ is therefore problematic in the current cultural context. I also note that in all European languages, the word “genocide” is a verbal construct that first appeared in the wake of World War II. It was coined by the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944 and subsequently became an important pivot in UN legislation. As a result of its origins in Jewish ethnic activism, the word ‘genocide’ often has strong, subjective, ethnocentric and frequently self-serving goals. Over the last 70 years it has given birth to an array of numerous, often mutually competing (often exaggerated) victimhoods and commemorations.

Given these competing ethnic interests, it is not surprising that there is often little agreement on what genocide is. Legal quarrelling about the definition of ‘genocide’ seems endless. This can be seen in the decades-long Hague proceedings on the events following the break-up of ex-Yugoslavia in 1991 — the investigations into mass murder and the many trials and acquittals. The Hague Tribunal has had hard time defining/labeling as “genocide” a single large-scale mass murder that took place in Bosnia in 1993 — as the prosecution often demands — without however sounding partial in the eyes and the ears of  the defence or the warring party that carried out a specific mass murder.

At this stage, I think it is more appropriate for the AFP, including friendly, patriotic- minded Americans of European heritage to use the locutions “White advocates” to describe ourselves and “White dispossession” to describe the process we are fighting against.

$26 Billion: The Jewish "Charity" Industry Exposed

via Solar General

The American Jewish community’s network of charity organizations is a font of Jewish power, a source of communal pride and a huge mystery.

We know that the network exists. We know that its federations, social service groups and advocacy organizations influence America’s domestic and foreign policy, care for the old, educate the young and send more than a billion dollars a year to Israel.

Yet until now we’ve had no idea what the network looks like.

Individual organizations file tax returns. Some umbrella groups offer information on their members’ work. But no one has measured the network as a whole: how much it spends, how much it raises, how it prioritizes causes, how much it gets from the government.

Now, the Forward has identified and reviewed tax documents filed by more than 3,600 Jewish organizations in the most comprehensive survey ever of the financial workings of this Jewish tax-exempt ecosystem. And the results are striking.

Where the Money Goes

The Forward’s investigation has uncovered a tax-exempt Jewish communal apparatus that operates on the scale of a Fortune 500 company and focuses the largest share of its donor dollars on Israel.

This analysis doesn’t include synagogues and other groups that avoid revealing their financial information by claiming a religious exemption. But even without this substantial sector, the Jewish community’s federations, schools, health care and social service organizations, Israel aid groups, cultural and communal organizations, and advocacy groups report net assets of $26 billion.

Israel: Contributions to the functional agencies of the Jewish charitable network, broken down by category. Israel-related groups get the most.

Israel: Contributions to the functional agencies of the Jewish charitable network, broken down by category. Israel-related groups get the most.

That’s more than the Las Vegas Sands Corp., which owns casinos all over the world. It’s about the same as the CBS Corp. which owns 29 TV stations, 126 radio stations, the CBS Television Network and Simon & Schuster. The Jewish communal network of tax-exempt groups employs as many people as the Ford Motor Co.

And its $12 billion to $14 billion in annual revenue is more than the federal government’s 2014 appropriation to the U.S. Department of the Interior, which manages a fifth of all the land in the United States, runs the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the national parks, and administers Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

“What exists out there is a lot of guessing,” said Eric Fleisch, a postdoctoral fellow at Brandeis University who recently completed a thesis on American Jewish giving to Israel. “Not very much has been written about this at all.”

In the coming weeks, the Forward will publish a series of articles reporting the results of its investigation. The Forward can now describe a Jewish apparatus that, despite extensive rhetoric about the importance of Jewish education, still dedicates the largest share of its donor dollars to Israel-related causes. It’s an apparatus that benefits massively from the U.S. federal government and many state and local governments, in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants, billions in tax-deductible donations and billions more in program fees paid for with government funds. And it’s an apparatus that requires vast resources to support itself, spending $2.3 billion a year on management and fundraising — and $93 million on galas alone.

The Forward’s database is based on files the IRS made available in 2013 that consist of figures from all the Form 990s and Form 990-EZs — the forms the IRS requires of all nonreligious charities — that were submitted in the 2012 calendar year. The findings in these stories reflect mostly tax periods ending in the 2011 calendar year. A more detailed explanation of the Forward’s methodology in constructing its database is included in an accompanying story.

The Contours

The Jewish not-for-profit network is shaped like a daisy.

The white petals are the functional agencies, offering concrete services like education and counseling, or public advocacy on various issues. They run the nursing homes and food banks, and advocate in Washington. At the yellow center are the communal grant makers, organizations like the Jewish federations and the large communally sponsored donor-advised funds that exist largely to finance the functional agencies.

All told, the whole daisy reports $14.6 billion in revenue in a year. Given the likelihood that a large proportion of the $2 billion that these groups report giving out in grants to organizations goes to other Jewish tax-exempt groups and is thereby counted twice, the actual revenue is probably between $12 billion and $14 billion.

This daisy structure has existed for well over a century in the United States. The Boston Jewish community founded the first federation in the country in 1895; similar groups soon followed in other cities. In 1902, the American Jewish Year Book counted thousands of Jewish organizations across the United States, including schools, clubs and fraternal lodges.

Since then, the network has grown enormously larger and more complex. “In many ways, we had a better sense of Jewish giving back then than we do today,” said Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University.
Learn About Tableau

Jewish charity experts have warned in recent years that the old daisy structure is disintegrating — that major givers are abandoning the federation system in favor of giving directly to the functional organizations. Yet the Forward’s investigation shows that the communal grant-making groups in the center of the daisy still play a dominant financial role in the Jewish not-for-profit network.

Taken together, these communal grant makers have $11.6 billion in net assets, 43% of the network’s total. They also control a huge portion of the flow of donated cash.

They make $1.7 billion in grants to charities in the United States each year, while the functional agencies take in $3.6 billion in contributions. It’s fair to assume that the vast majority of the $1.7 billion is granted to other Jewish groups, and therefore that roughly half of the $3.6 billion raised by the functional agencies comes through the communal fundraisers.

Cash for Israel

The largest share of donor dollars ends up with organizations that focus on Israel.
Of the $3.7 billion in donations that the functional agencies of the communal apparatus receive in a year, 38% goes to Israel-focused groups. That’s more than any other category, including education, which gets just 20% of donations.

Education groups’ cut drops to 16% if Brandeis and Yeshiva universities are excluded from the count. The remaining groups, mostly Hillels, day schools and summer camps that focus primarily on Jewish, rather than secular, education, receive $617 million in donations per year — $807 million less than Israel-focused groups.

“It is quite striking that donor contributions to Jewish education… appear to be quite small, relative to other sectors,” said Theodore Sasson, senior research scientist at the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies and the Steinhardt Social Research Institute, at Brandeis.

The high proportion going to Israel-related groups, Sasson said, is “further evidence… that American Jews are deeply interested in Israel even as they take a variety of different positions with regard to contentious political issues.”

The 619 Israel-focused organizations include advocacy agencies, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee; groups that send money to Israel, like American Friends of The Hebrew University, and hybrids, like Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America.

American Jews give other money to Jewish institutions that isn’t reflected in this breakdown: dues and donations to synagogues, tuition fees to Jewish day schools. But the $3.7 billion represents the philanthropic discretionary spending of American Jews, the money that they choose to give after their obligations to synagogues and other fees are met.

Health care and social service groups receive 20% of this pot, while culture and community groups get 12% and education groups get 20%.

The tilt toward Israel-related causes is also reflected in the grants that the network makes overseas.

All told, Jewish groups make $1.9 billion a year in grants overseas. Charities no longer need to report the specific destination of their overseas grants, so it’s impossible to say what proportion of these dollars went to Israel. Still, half the overseas grants come from Israel-focused organizations, and it’s fair to assume that a significant proportion of the money granted overseas by communal fundraising groups goes to Israel, as well.

Those overseas grants make up 15% of the total program expenses of the network. The Jewish communal fundraising groups, meanwhile, report spending 25% of their total program expenses on overseas grants.

Money in New York

The financial center of the Jewish communal network is located firmly and disproportionately in New York. New York State is home to just a quarter of America’s Jewish population, but $7.2 billion of the $14.6 billion in annual revenues reported by the network go to organizations based there.

The second-largest state by revenue is California, with just $1.2 billion a year, while Massachusetts comes in third, with $930 million. The network is totally absent from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and North Dakota.

Groups located in Chicago have net assets of $1.6 billion, more than any city but New York City. San Francisco comes in third, with $1.1 billion, followed by Waltham, Mass., where Brandeis University is located.

Most of the largest organizations in the network by any measure are located in New York City.

Yeshiva University spends the most in a year of any Jewish group, followed by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, which distributes funds from the German government to Jewish individuals and charities. Other top spenders include Brandeis, the New York-based American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and Beth Abraham Health Services, a Bronx-based health care organization that is a network agency of UJA-Federation of New York.

The Rest of the Iceberg

There’s still a lot missing from the sketch of the Jewish not-for-profit network offered by the Forward’s new analysis. If the 3,600 Jewish organizations that filed with the IRS are a snowy iceberg, the Jewish groups that claim a religious exemption and don’t file are the mountain hiding underwater.

The IRS doesn’t require synagogues to file tax returns. Synagogue umbrella groups aren’t required to file either, nor are elementary or high schools that are affiliated with a synagogue. Most rabbinical seminaries qualify as an “integrated auxiliary” of a synagogue or group of synagogues, meaning that they don’t file either.

It’s impossible to say how many such Jewish groups there are, or how much money they raise and spend. In 2010, a University of Washington professor named Paul Burstein published an analysis of a different IRS database that counted 3,495 Jewish religious organizations.

Burstein’s findings suggest that the total number of organizations in the Jewish network may actually be more than twice the number of those that file tax returns. Some of those religious groups may be small congregations with tiny budgets. But others are large: The Jewish Theological Seminary, which is affiliated with the Conservative movement, has a busy campus on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion has three campuses in the United States and one in Israel.

The $12 billion to $14 billion in annual revenue, the Forward’s best estimate based on tax filings, is probably billions of dollars short of the network’s actual size.

Comparisons Difficult

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to compare the Jewish communal network with networks of charities built by other ethnic and religious groups.

In his 2010 paper, Burstein wrote that no one had conducted a comprehensive review of the charities surrounding any American religious or ethnic group. This appears to continue to be the case. Compounding the problem is that other religious and ethnic groups don’t organize their charities in the same way that the Jewish community does.

Mainline Protestant denominations, for example, conduct their charitable work through their denominational organizations, which in turn receive much of their revenue from their member churches. All these entities claim religious exemptions from the IRS’s filing requirements, so their financial data are opaque. Evangelical Protestant denominations do have large networks of affiliated nonreligious charitable groups. But no estimates appear to exist of the size of the network of these so-called para-church organizations.

What we can say is that the Jewish organizations make up a tiny fraction of the total not-for-profit sphere. All told, the groups that filed Form 990s and Form 990-EZs in 2012 reported receiving $365 billion in contributions, gifts, grants and dues after duplicate filings were excluded. Jewish groups reported getting $7.5 billion — roughly 2% of the total.

Which, fittingly, is roughly the Jewish percentage of the U.S. population.

Conservatism Inc.'s Last Stand

via Alternative Right

Conservatism Inc notices something hurtling
towards it
Lately, I stumbled upon an article on a site called The Federalist which—if the countless comments are any indication—is a popular purveyor of mainstream conservatism. Along with attacking Dota's old post on National Capitalism, this tirade of an article trots out all the hackneyed Conservatism 101 talking points. In order to illustrate the increasing irrelevancy of Conservatism Inc's platitudes, I'm going to go through this post bit by bit.

For starters, the author seems to accept the left's notion that racism is a capital crime; but it's okay, because he has at last found the actual racists:
"Hey, lefties, we finally found your racists for you. For as long as I can remember, people like me—by which I mean advocates of capitalism and free markets and freedom of speech—have been accused by the left of being secret racists who pine for the gold old days of the antebellum South. Tiresome stuff like this. Then along comes a group of actual, declared racists who really do pine for the antebellum South, and who is one of the main targets of their invective? People like me."
"Look, we're so not racist."
I honestly cannot fathom what's going on in the heads of conservatives who make a big show of denouncing racism. Do they believe that they'll be able to win over large numbers of non-whites with their disavowals of white nationalism? Why, despite all evidence to the contrary, do they think that sounding compassionate on race and immigration while composing paeans to the "free market" will make any inroads among Latinos or other non-whites?

Then again, perhaps fiscally conservative but socially moderate whites are their real audience. But of course, the author would be appalled if one thought in such tribal terms:

"If you think that your most important cultural and political priority is to defend the supposed interests of white people in opposition to the interests of other racial groups, then you are a white supremacist, because that’s what 'supremacy' means. Dress it up however you like, but that’s what you stand for."
What a fatuous argument. Since when does supporting one's group interests qualify as "supremacist?" It's one thing to disparage other groups and insist that your people are superior to them. However, simply looking out for your own is human nature. In fact, given that conservatives like him extol the virtues of free markets and competition, I find it interesting that he condemns tribal competition. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, life is a zero-sum game—something every successful group understands.

The esteemed writer, however, thinks that "collectivism" is the bane of the West:

"This 'alt-right' agenda is not really part of the 'right' because it is thoroughly collectivist in a vile and personal way. It says that your most personal, individual, deeply meaningful decisions—such as whom you marry and have children with—should be determined by some larger social program based on group identity."
The horror! It may come as a shocker, but for most of world history—even in the US—marriage was largely determined by practical considerations. Yet again, the writer is subconsciously endorsing the cultural left's post-1960s beliefs. Free love! Marry whomever you want! Just to be clear, I'm mostly indifferent to interracial marriage—I think that low white birthrates are the main problem—but this just goes to show how much the left has dominated the culture war.

After giving Dota some free advertising, he goes on to fulminate against the especially evil menace known as tribalism:

"The central theme of the Western intellectual tradition is about rising above tribalism to arrive at universal values. That’s a common theme that connects both secular and Christian traditions in the West. It was the whole distinctive idea behind the Ancient Greek revolution in thought. Philosophers like Socrates launched the Western tradition by asking probing questions that were meant to sort out which ideas and practices are based merely on historical accident and social convention, versus those that are based on universal laws of human nature. Tribalism, by contrast, is the default state of every culture and can be found among every people in every corner of the world. There is nothing distinctively Western about it, and it runs against the whole grain of the Western intellectual tradition. So by reverting to tribalism, the alt-right is saying that they had to destroy Western Civilization in order to save it."
Not at all. At this point, however, certain aspects of Western culture must be tempered—if not jettisoned—in order to save Western civilization. Like I once said, individualism in Western countries is all fine and dandy when those nations are mostly homogeneous. Unfortunately, once multiculturalism becomes a way of life, then individualism amounts to a major liability. That's why the author, while condemning the Alternative Right as a cesspool of racism, unknowingly displays his own chauvinism; it's as if he thinks that white culture is so omnipotent that non-whites will imbibe ways Western soon after reaching our shores.

But of course, we all know better.

Ultimately, I think that the reason why Conservatism Inc's acolytes are lashing out so hard against Donald Trump and the Alternative Right is because they know that their days are numbered. Irrespective of my views on Trump as a person, the Donald has done us a great service by revealing just how isolated Randroid Republicans truly are. It turns out that at the end of the day, regular white Republicans don't care all that much about "limited government," "balanced budgets," "free markets," "standing with Israel" (though Democrats are also bad offenders in this regard), or other trite conservative platforms.

In conclusion, lofty ideals do not save a people from demographic displacement and economic ruin. Don't let increasingly irrelevant Conservatism Inc propaganda tell you otherwise.

The Republican Establishment’s Theft of the Word “Conservative”

via traditionalRIGHT

From Washington a panicked Republican Establishment is denouncing Donald Trump as “not a conservative”. The Establishment claims custody of the word “conservative” and with it the right to pronounce who is one and who isn’t. But in fact, it is the Establishment’s definition of “conservatism” that is not conservative.

The Republican Establishment’s platform has three main elements: Jacobinism, globalism, and cultural Marxism. Not one of the three is conservative, in terms of what the word “conservatism” has traditionally meant. On the contrary, all three, seen historically, are anti-conservative. They represent forces conservatism has struggled against.

Jacobinism originated in the French Revolution, one of the two great catastrophes the West has suffered in modern times (the other is World War I, which saw Jacobinism re-emerge as Wilsonianism). The Jacobins were the most radical element in Revolutionary France, the origin of the Terror. They believed in democracy and equality, both to be forced down everyone’s throat at home and abroad. France murdered thousands of her own people and brought war to much of Europe in that quest. In the end, even Robespierre, perhaps the best-known Jacobin, admitted that missionaries with bayonets are seldom welcome.

Conservatism first reached a large public (it was emerging before the French Revolution, in the work of people like Ernst Brandes in Hannover) when it attacked Jacobinism, especially in Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France. So powerful was Burke’s critique that it established Jacobinism and conservatism as opposite poles on the left and right ends of the political spectrum. It is impossible to be both Jacobin and conservative.

Yet the Washington Republican Establishment is four-square in favor of forcing “democratic capitalism” on every people on Earth, in the name of “human rights” as the Jacobins defined them. This Jacobinism/Wilsonianism is what lies behind the Establishment’s anti-conservative demand for a huge and expensive military and equally anti-conservative insistence on American world hegemony. American conservatives in particular have always been suspicious of large standing armies and playing the Great Power game, which our country’s Founders warned would cost us our liberties if we got into it. Earlier generations of conservatives, men like Senator Robert A. Taft, would have fought the National Security State tooth and nail. Today’s “conservatives” on Capitol Hill want to give it still more money.

Globalism is the second leg of the Establishment’s stool, and it is equally problematic. Starting with Burke, conservatives have always valued the local, small-scale, and real over the international, vast, and amorphous. In the eyes of Washington Republicans, globalism means giving Wall Street whatever it wants, including free trade that has destroyed our once strong blue-collar middle class. The fact that the corporations and banks the Republican Party leadership serves (in return for lots of money) care nothing about this country does not bother them. Patriotism is atavistic and obsolete in their view; they have far more in common with foreign elites than with the people who live in the Heartland. Those people only exist to provide them tax money to play with and votes. They get nothing in return but contempt.

Unlike the Democrats, Washington Republicans don’t really believe in cultural Marxism, a.k.a. political correctness and multiculturalism. But they are afraid of it, and when someone like Donald Trump dares defy it they quickly denounce him using its vocabulary, i.e., “racist”, “sexist”, etc. Moral cowards that they are, the Establishment “conservatives” are willing to go along with this hideous ideology in order to get along.

But no one can be a real conservative and not fight cultural Marxism at every turn. Its goals remain what they were when they were established by Lukacs and Gramsci in 1919: destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion. Conservatives’ main goals are preserving both. Again, we find polar opposites. Much of Trump’s popularity comes from his repeated defiance of cultural Marxism.

So on all points we find the Republican Establishment anti-conservative and Mr. Trump saying things that are much closer to traditional conservatism. The problem, it seems, is not Donald Trump. As usual, the problem lies in Washington.

De Gaulle’s Failure

via Counter-Currents

Charles de Gaulle in February 1943
Charles de Gaulle is a central figure for the legitimacy of the current French regime, being considered “the most illustrious of Frenchmen” in the twentieth century. He earned this for his role in putting France among the victors of the Second World War and in being the founding father of the Fifth Republic, a semi-presidential regime reputed to be more stable and effective than its parliamentary predecessors.

At least in the postwar era, France was never so prosperous, prestigious, and powerful as under De Gaulle’s reign. Today, many of France’s flagship projects bear the General’s name, from Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport to the French Navy’s sole nuclear aircraft carrier.

De Gaulle is however a complex and divisive figure for French patriots and men of the Right, attracting both reverence and loathing. He was opposed and often detested for siding with the liberal-communist Allies in the Second World War and purging the French Right for a generation. As postwar president, he is faulted for abandoning French Algeria and leaving its 1 million European settlers no other choice but to ethnically-cleanse themselves, so to speak, by fleeing the country.

The younger generation of French nationalists however tends to have a more favorable view of De Gaulle. He is ostentatiously embraced by the Front National’s new leaders, such as Marine Le Pen’s controversial spin doctor and civic nationalist Florian Philippot, who makes a show of placing wreaths on the General’s tomb in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises. Alain Soral, the renowned civic nationalist and gentile rights activist, has also contributed to the De Gaulle cult, although adding that his role as postwar president was “more respectable” than that during the Second World War. President de Gaulle achieved some successes in emancipating France from the American Empire and instituted an almost non-aligned foreign policy, for which he enjoyed considerable prestige and attracted considerable praise, sometimes from unlikely quarters (e.g. National Socialists such as Francis Parker Yockey).

De Gaulle is also a rather awkward figure for mainstream political correctness, given the culture’s drift ever-further to the Left since the Second World War. Only men of rather extreme personal ethnocentrism and authoritarianism, such as Winston Churchill and De Gaulle, could have the resolve and will to defeat Adolf Hitler. Thus, these men were recruited by those forces in Great Britain and America which were opposed to the Third Reich. Yet, by the same token, Churchill and De Gaulle were therefore, by the standards of today, vicious nationalists, imperialists, and racists. Both had a rather callous attitude towards human life, believing mass deaths in war were justified by reasons of state. Theirs was the harsh imperial morality of the Victorian era, implying politically-incorrect views they would keep until the end of their lives. The young De Gaulle was adamant that the loss of life of the First World War, which struck France particularly harshly, was no reason for too much soul-searching, loss of martial spirit, or withdrawal from great power politics. This is rather jarring for a soft postwar European raised in the solemn cult of self-abnegating peace above all (“never again”).

De Gaulle’s theory and practice of government were rather authoritarian (instituting an astonishing seven-year presidential term, for instance), opposing parliamentary politics and founding his legitimacy not so much on elections as on an epic national narrative. De Gaulle famously believed that France was racially white (“otherwise France would no longer be France”), that Arabs could not be assimilated en masse, and that Europe herself was defined by whiteness, this common ancestry and genetic heritage being one of the rationales for a European community of nations. He also, notoriously, publicly called the Jews “an elite people, self-confident and dominating.”

There is something compelling about De Gaulle’s personality, at least by the standards of the mainstream politicians we are allowed to revere today, and yet something vainglorious too. When I look upon his life, thought, and works, I almost feel as though at the foot of a mountain, something very great to be scaled. Yet the numerous works on De Gaulle tend towards hagiography – a typically unenlightening and downright boring genre – and there is a distinct tendency to overlook the more prosaic (though if anything more interesting) realities of the man, let alone his failings. And what failings? We could ask: What, in the grand scheme of things, did he ultimately accomplish? What remains?

That is what I would like to examine in this article. I believe this can be understood by looking at the two sides of De Gaulle’s personality and career: De Gaulle has been considered both the greatest democratic politician of the twentieth century (e.g., Richard Nixon’s boyish admiration for the young De Gaulle’s powerful Nietzschean essay The Edge of the Sword) and the world’s pettiest would-be dictator (e.g., the parliamentary politician François Mitterrand’s scathing critique in Le Coup d’État permanent). Perhaps that distinction gets to the heart of the matter: even a moderate and temporary dictator appears a titan besides the worms that are our current “democratic politicians,” but a democratic politician, ultimately, can only be a slave of wider cultural and sociological forces.

An Exorbitant Cost: France in the Second World War


De Gaulle’s historic career begins rather late in his life, in 1940, as an almost 50-year-old recently-promoted French general, who has somewhat mysteriously fled to England. He had ghostwritten for Marshal Philippe Pétain, that hero of the First World War, before falling out with him. De Gaulle had otherwise had a generally unremarkable career as a military officer. In London, De Gaulle rejected the prospect of a broken France under German hegemony, prophesying an Allied victory through the aid of the United States. Few Frenchmen joined him, most respecting Pétain’s legal leadership of the French State.

Yet by his stubbornness and irascibility, “Charles the Landless” managed to eventually be recognized as France’s leader and his nation was considered a “victor” among the Allies: The colonial empire was safeguarded (but only partially in Indochina), occupation zones in Germany were secured, and France was recognized as a leading member of the United Nations with a diplomatically important permanent seat and veto at the Security Council.

In the liberal-communist postwar order – founded on a kind of civil religion of anti-fascism and egalitarianism – France was thus in a better position than that entitled to the French State of Vichy, that of a neutral (semi-)occupied country and a moderately anti-Semitic conservative dictatorship. France’s “honor” was saved.

Yet the cost of De Gaulle’s victory however was exorbitant. There was the terrible “Franco-French civil war” between the London French and the Resistance, and the French State of Vichy. This entailed bloodshed which we forget today, for lack of commemoration. It meant fratricidal Franco-French fighting and spilled blood at Dakar, in Syria, and in metropolitan France. It meant accepting Anglo-American aggression against France, such as the treacherous British bombing of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir killing 1,300 French sailors and the general Anglo-American bombing of France, which killed around 60,000 Frenchmen (which appears to be somewhat more than the number of French gentiles killed by the German occupier, mostly in the struggle against the Resistance).[1]

More traumatic still however was making France conform to the egalitarian and anti-fascist civil religion, which over time would acquire increasingly Judeocentric overtones. Put simply, the Second World War was also a kind of religious-ideological war, in which all those who thought or acted outside certain ideological bounds would be persecuted and eliminated as heretics (and that is why the Western Allies claims of defending “free speech” rang hollow concerning Right-wing thinkers and politicians, for rights were not the matter, but civil religion, and no truly believed religion can tolerate heretics). De Gaulle’s pretense of representing “free France” among the Allies required condemning the entire ruling class of the French State not merely as misguided politicians in a supremely difficult geopolitical and historical context, but simply as traitors.

Thus were men jailed, dishonored, or even executed for their political beliefs and actions: Marshal Philippe Pétain was jailed for life for having headed the French State itself in these difficult times. Prime Minister Pierre Laval was executed for preferring Hitler to Stalin (his death had a great cathartic symbolism, his execution in a sense also symbolically killed all of French society’s “Collaboration”). Admiral François Darlan was assassinated for his opportunistic Realpolitik, cozying-up first with the Germans and then the Allies. And Charles Maurras, the great reactionary intellectual, was jailed for life on grounds of his Judeophobic beliefs (not being saved by his similarly Germanophobic ones).

Most unjust was perhaps the jailing and miserable death in prison of General Henri Dentz, guilty of no more than doing his duty as a French officer in defending Syria from Anglo-Gaullist attack in 1941. Most ambiguous and tragic is perhaps the case of Joseph Darnand, a hero of the First World War and Germanophobe, he served the French State at the head of the Milice, an unarmed paramilitary group charged with maintaining order. Victim of attack from the Resistance, he sought to join it repeatedly, but being rejected, joined the Waffen-SS and was executed after the war. De Gaulle is reported to have said at the time: “Tell Darnand that I must have him executed for reasons of state, but that, soldier to soldier, he still has all my respect.”[2]

Then there was the wider Épuration, with perhaps 40,000 Frenchmen being extra-judicially executed and 50,000 dishonored and banned from their profession. Many of the greatest writers of that generation were thus persecuted and ostracized, including Céline, Lucien Rebatet, and Abel Bonnard.

All these punishments and persecutions were justified by reason of state, given France’s submission to the liberal-communist new order. In private, De Gaulle could be more nuanced, according to the testimony of General Pierre Billotte, his chief of staff. He conceded that those arguing for alliance with Germany could also be French patriots, working for France to have the best possible place in Hitler’s New Order. Billotte reports that De Gaulle told him in autumn 1941, during the stunning early successes of Operation Barbarossa: “If the Germans win, it will have been Pétain, Laval, and Déat who will have been right, and I will have undermined France.”[3] In 1942, he even added that if anything Vichy’s policies were too moderate to receive Hitler’s favor: “Only two policies are possible: That of Free France and that of [Marcel] Déat [founding a French Waffen-SS division to fight on the Eastern front]. Vichy is senseless.”[4]

Postwar France was thus, under the Fourth Republic, handed back over to the politicians (who themselves had often gone from opportunistically supporting Jewish organizations before the war to supporting the anti-Semitic French State during the war, but all that was forgotten . . .). The cultural and ideological sphere, of supreme importance, was violently purged of Right-wing thinkers and effectively placed under liberal-communist hegemony. Two thinkers are most representative of that era: The Marxoid opportunist Jean-Paul Sartre and the Jewish liberal-conservative Raymond Aron. De Gaulle thus safeguarded the French state and empire, but had her rest on the most unsound and unstable social and cultural foundations.

1. Also noteworthy is that an estimated 3,500 French women were raped by Anglo-American forces during the Liberation. I have seen no evidence of comparable sexual misconduct by German forces in France during the war.
2. Dominique Venner, La Collaboration (Paris: Pygmalion/Gérard Watelet, Paris), 496.
3. Ibid., 524.
4. Ibid., 498.

Ship of State

via Gornahoor

Propaganda must become as natural as air or food. It must proceed by psychological inhibition and the least possible shock. The individual is then able to declare in all honesty that no such thing as propaganda exists. In fact, however, he has been so absorbed by it that he is literally no longer able to see the truth. The natures of man and propaganda have become so inextricably mixed that everything depends not on choice or on free will, but on reflex and myth. The prolonged and hypnotic repetition of the same complex of ideas, the same images, and the same rumors condition man for the assimilation of his nature to propaganda. ~ Jacques Ellul
Those who fail to govern risk being governed by their inferiors. ~ Plato, The Republic
In the Republic, Socrates compares the democratic system to a ship. The shipowner needs to his ship to a destination. All the sailors quarrel among each other, all claiming to know how to navigate the ship safely. The even resort to currying favor with the owner. Meanwhile, the navigator, who gets his skill from gazing at the stars and is therefore the only one who really knows how to direct the ship, is ignored.


Julius Evola believed that physiognomy, the study of the meaning of the human face, has an important role in the study of race: not biological race, but rather as a window into the race of the soul. In its crude form, physiognomy is a pseudoscience since it claims to determine permanent character traits from static facial features.
However, by observing facial features dynamically, they give a clue to the inner soul life of a person; this is one aspect of the Hermetic teaching on “external considering” (see Note). Evola includes an Appendix to his Summary of the Doctrine of Race which includes photographs of different types. Rather than posed pictures, he would have preferred photos taken during “one of those moments in which the deepest and most expressive elements” are revealed. Keep in mind that 80 years ago, photos were hard to come by and certainly were not as easily accessible as they are now.

There is some actual science behind this. Although there are about 43 muscles in the face, only 5 are necessary to express the six universal facial expressions: happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, disgust. However, the remaining “assisting muscles” actually add the personal character to the facial expression. That is why training is required for actors. Consciously making those basic expression looks artificial and forced; that is why, for example, people can see through a fake smile. However, controlling all those other muscles is not easy. In method acting, which study I would recommend to Hermetists, the actor tries to recall a personal incident, analogous to the role he is playing, in order to relive it. In that way, the facial expression should be more natural and expressive.

NOTE: Besides facial expression, careful observation of posture, nervous movements, voice intonations, etc., are used to become attuned to another’s inner state. Beyond that, the responses to certain probing questions may be taken into consideration.

Identifying Caste Membership

One of the traditional teachings is that few of us are in our natural castes in this age. Evola had this to say about the selection of his photographic material:
The great part of the photographic material is affected by a democratic prejudice: in most cases, they are photos of people of the lower or middle classes. While it would be more important and interesting to consider the highest exponents of a people: its nobility, military and political leaders, priests, and intellectuals.
Although it takes some practice to become skilled in the art and science of physiognomy, it may be worthwhile to practice with available images. Specifically, take a look at the leaders of a nation, or a political party, or an intellectual movement, even the priests or religious leaders? Do they reflect nobility or a sense of transcendence? What do they reveal about the people who accept them? Of course, in our democratic age, the populace will gravitate towards those who look most like them.

The Purpose of Political Parties

In the USA, which is dominated by two parties, people complain about the lack of choice. In other nations, too many parties prevent governance. Suppose political parties actually stood for something. For example, a party would be committed to a particular and well-articulated intellectual tradition. Its leaders would be trained in that tradition. Office seekers would be vetted by the party before being allowed to run for a political office. That might include health records, psychological profiles, IQ or aptitude test scores, and so on. Or on the other hand, we could just keep the Ship of Fools going as is as long as possible.

That is probably not possible in a democracy. However, the situation in Tradition is different; it is similar as far as intellectual integrity goes, but there is no need for multiple parties. For Tradition, according to Rene Guenon, the spiritual leaders follow an unbroken chain and the originary spiritual impulse is passed down from generation to generation.

Similarly, the political class was based on an aristocracy of merit that embodied the highest and noblest ideals of a people.

Perhaps the many alternative movements around today could follow this pattern. They would follow a consistent philosophical, scientific, metaphysical, or political tradition. Its leaders would have to demonstrate competence in that tradition. They would post photographs exhibiting their noble bearing, as well as their qualifications. We need to identify the stargazer, not the sailors.

Polish Thought Police

Once upon a time, at a conference of Evangelical theologians, a small group went out to dinner at a nice restaurant. The pretty waitress came to the table and asked, “Would you gentlemen like a cocktail first?” The theologians looked at each other awkwardly until one of them finally spoke up. “Uhh,” he said, “we don’t drink … at least not in front of each other.”
Years ago, I had the pleasure of knowing a Polish gentleman, a physicist, who had gotten onto a train to Austria without money or possession, disembarked in Vienna, and sought asylum. Over bottles of vodka, we would discuss life behind the Iron Curtain.

The most difficult thing was the pretense. By the late 1970s, the illusion of Marxism could no longer be maintained. Nevertheless, in a university setting, no one wanted to be the first to speak up for fear of the possible repercussions. Hence, for show, they would study Marx and shout, “Power to the People”.

Paradoxically, that seems to be the situation in the West. If you are among those who are convinced that 2+2=5, then you feel no discomfort.

Gaslighting and the Authoritarian Personality

Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which a sociopath, for example, tries to convince the victim that he is insane. We see that at work in political discourse. Vague accusations of racism, homophobia, misogyny, and so on, are made willy-nilly, in order to impugn the mental stability of candidates or their supporters. Attitudes that well-bred men used to believe were healthy and normal—from the big bang to a couple of generations ago—are not anathemized. That is the price of progress.

A prime example of this is a recent study on the so-called “authoritarian personality” (which I saw on GPS this weekend). Now the original study was made some 70 years ago by the Frankfurt School, allegedly to identify potential fascists. The new study is even worse.

The professor claimed that the identifying mark is the desire for “Law and Order”. Now I don’t like these interview shows because the interrogators are seldom intelligent or quick-witted enough to ask the correct follow up questions. The alternative is illegality and disorder, isn’t it? That sounds absurd on its face, until you think it through and see that it is actually endemic to the modern world. The overlooking of the illegal and the use of disorder as a political tactic is abundantly clear.

Unfortunately for his case, the real authoritarian personality is not the one in favor of law and order. Under the rule of law (at least in its ideal), justice is blind and does not depend on the arbitrary whim of a “strong man”. The opposite case, however, can only be resolved by the strong man. For example, a while back Chris Rock compared the President and First Lady as the mom and dad of a country who should be obeyed.

The Leaked Panama Papers -- What You Need to Know

via Western Spring

As we all know, a huge leak of more than eleven-million confidential documents from a Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca has revealed how the rich and powerful use tax havens to hide their wealth. The documents allegedly show how Mossack Fonseca has helped clients launder money, dodge economic sanctions and avoid paying tax on their wealth.
Mossack Fonseca is the fourth largest offshore law firm in the world. The firm is Panamanian but runs a worldwide operation and its website boasts of a global network with 600 people working in 42 countries. It has franchises around the world, where separately owned affiliates sign up new customers and have exclusive rights to use its brand. Mossack Fonseca operates in tax havens including Switzerland, Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands, and in the British crown dependencies Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man.

The documents are alleged to expose how Mossack Fonseca has offered financial services designed to help business clients hide their wealth, by registering assets in the names of bogus nominees, although these charges are denied by the law firm who claim they have operated beyond reproach for 40 years and never been accused or charged with any criminal wrong-doing.

In a statement, Mossack Fonseca have stated: “Your allegations that we provide structures supposedly designed to hide the identity of the real owners, are completely unsupported and false.

“We do not provide beneficiary services to deceive banks. It is difficult, not to say impossible, not to provide banks with the identity of final beneficiaries and the origin of funds.”

The leaked documents show 12 current or former heads of state and at least 60 people linked to current or former world leaders in the data. They include the Icelandic Prime Minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugson, who had an undeclared interest linked to his wife’s assets, they include Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine, and the files also reveal a suspected billion-dollar money laundering ring involving close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The data also allegedly contains details of secret offshore companies linked to the families and associates of Egypt’s former President, Hosni Mubarak, former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

Using offshore structures can be entirely legal as there are legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people and wealthy individuals in less politically stable countries typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, to get around hard currency restrictions, and to protect them from politically motivated punitive sanctions by tax and regulatory authorities under the direction of their political enemies.

Wealthy individuals in stable Western countries also use offshore funds, trusts and companies for ostensibly legitimate tax avoidance and estate planning reasons, however tax havens are also used by criminal organisations and terrorist organisations in order to hide their ill-gotten gains, and they are used by individuals who wish to hide their wealth simply in order to illegally evade legitimate taxation.

Panama Papers 3Tax havens are jurisdictions that offer a very low or zero-rated tax environments, thereby allowing funds invested to grow either completely or very nearly tax-free. They also frequently offer secrecy in that the authorities within such jurisdictions do not require organisations operating within their jurisdictions to share financial information about companies, trusts and wealthy individuals with external tax authorities. This secrecy enables the rich and the powerful to hide their wealth and the Tax Justice Network defines ‘secrecy jurisdictions’ as countries which “use secrecy to attract illicit and illegitimate or abusive financial flows”.

Much of the western media interest has focused on alleged links to close friends and associates of Vladimir Putin and arrangements created in association with Bank Rossiya, but at a time when NWO sanctions are being applied by Western powers to countries such as Syria and Russia, it is only to be expected that those countries and their leaders will employ subterfuge in order to circumvent such measures.

What is of greater interest to us here in Britain are the revelations concerning major donors to establishment political parties the revelations alleging that David Cameron’s late father, Ian Cameron, a wealthy stock broker, had interests that were in part at least administered by Mossack Fonseca.

Blairmore Holdings, an offshore investment fund run by Ian Cameron apparently avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by allegedly hiring a small army of Bahamas residents to sign its paperwork. The fund is however believed to have been registered with HM Revenue and Customs since its inception and has filed detailed tax returns every year.

According to the Daily Mail, when Ian Cameron died in 2010 he left a UK estate valued at just £2.7m, although this is believed not to include the value of any offshore holdings he may have had which were outside the jurisdiction of HM Revenue and Customs. A copy of Ian Cameron’s Will and his Grant of probate were filed with the Royal Court in the tax haven of Jersey, a measure that would only be necessary if Ian Blair’s assets held in Jersey were worth more than £10,000. How much more than £10,000 they were worth cannot however be determined. The Grant of Probate names the late Mr Cameron’s wife Mary, his son Alex, and daughter Tania as executors, but significantly not his famous son, David.

Neither David Cameron nor Number 10 have disclosed whether David’s mother Mary continues to benefit from Blairmore Holdings, or any other offshore fund, and David has so far avoided addressing another aspect of the question put to him on Tuesday, namely whether he or his family ever benefited from his father’s offshore fund in the past. The reason for this omission is fairly obvious. Cameron enjoyed a privileged upbringing and an expensive education and, like many people, continued to receive money from his parents after leaving school. He received £300,000 from his father in his will; and it would be remarkable if there was no additional financial support provided while his father was alive.

David Cameron has responded to the revelations concerning his father by making a carefully worded statement, as follows:

“In terms of my own financial affairs, I own no shares, I have a salary as prime minister, and I have some savings which I get some interest from, and I have a house, which we used to live in, which we now let out while we’re living in Downing Street, and that’s all I have. I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that, and to that is I think a very clear description.

“The second thing I’m responsible for is of course our tax system and for international tax policy, and I would say that no government, no prime minister has done more to make sure we crack down on tax evasion, on aggressive tax avoidance, on aggressive tax planning, both here in the UK and internationally. So we have recovered billions of pounds in our country by changing tax regulations and rules in budget, after budget, billions of pounds, but we’ve also led the world in making sure we have, which we’ll have in June, an open register of beneficial ownership, so everyone can see who owns what in Britain”

In a subsequent press release from Number 10 yesterday, came the statement that: “There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future.”

Panama Papers 2In the statements Cameron has made regarding his financial position, the information he has provided indicates very modest and simple financial circumstances, which would be unusual for a man of his standing and his financially privileged background. Indeed, so modest and simple that considerable suspicion has been aroused in many quarters that he has not been completely frank and honest.

A man in Mr Cameron’s position should know full-well that his statement that he “… has no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds …”, and the subsequent statement by Number 10 that “There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future”, albeit technically correct, are not sufficiently explicit and do not go far enough to eliminate the possibility that he may yet prove to be a potential beneficiary of a secret offshore discretionary family trust set up by his father. The ownership and control of trust assets is a complex and for most people confusing matter.

Technically trust assets are legally owned by the trustees of any given trust, albeit that the trustees are required to hold those assets for the sole benefit of the beneficiaries concerned.

Where trust assets are held in trust for the benefit of named individual beneficiaries, those beneficiaries are regarded as having ‘an interest in possession’ and will legally be regarded as having ‘beneficial ownership’.

Discretionary trusts however, merely specify ‘classes’ of potential beneficiaries, who initially are not named or designated, and with regard to such trusts, the potential beneficiaries do not have ‘an interest in possession’ and therefore technically do not have ‘beneficial ownership’ of trust assets, even though at a later date they may indeed benefit from those assets.

If an individual proved to be among a ‘class’ of beneficiaries under a secret offshore trust, and that class could be: ‘the children of a now deceased wealthy donor’ for example, he could be a potential beneficiary of that trust, and potentially benefit at some future date from the assets of that trust, even though he would not have ‘an interest in possession’ and would therefore not in any strictly legal sense enjoy ‘beneficial ownership’.

Now, I am not suggesting that a secret family trust has been established or that Mr Cameron or any of his immediate family are the beneficiaries of such a trust, I am merely explaining why the statements so far issued by Mr Cameron and spokespeople at Number 10 are not yet specific enough or comprehensive enough for the public to have complete confidence in them.

Many people may argue that as long as any secret trusts effected in tax havens have been established legally, by exploiting loop-holes in the law, it would be wrong for the exposure of such trusts to bring down opprobrium upon the beneficiaries. However, as David Cameron has already stated, “… I’m responsible for … our tax system and for international tax policy …” and therefore if it was established that Conservative politicians were complicit in deliberately framing legislation in such a way that convenient loop-holes would remain available for fellow Conservatives, their friends and their party’s donors to exploit and illicitly benefit from, this would constitute a wholly unacceptable abuse of power and the public would have every right to expect heads to roll.

This morning there are fresh allegations that when EU rules and regulations were being reviewed in 2013, and there was the prospect that all offshore jurisdictions would be required to provide transparency regarding the assets held within their financial services centres, David Cameron intervened to limit this requirement to offshore companies and thereby allowed offshore trusts to continue to enjoy confidentiality regarding the names and other details of beneficiaries. It is therefore incumbent upon David Cameron and the Conservatives to act swiftly and decisively in closing the loopholes that have been exposed by the leaked Panama Papers and to create greater transparency regarding their own financial affairs and the financial affairs of government ministers, MPs and their party donors.

The End of Ordinary Politics

via The Archdruid Report

It’s not uncommon for a post of mine on a controversial subject to get picked up by other blogs and attract a fair amount of discussion and commentary. On the other hand, when something I write takes not much more than a week to become the most-read post in the history of The Archdruid Report, goes on to attract more than half again as many page views as the nearest runner-up, and gets nearly twice as many comments as the most comment-heavy previous post, it’s fair to say that something remarkable has happened. When a follow-up post, The Decline and Fall of Hillary Clinton, promptly became the second most-read post in this blog’s history and attracted even more comments—well, here again, it seems tolerably clear that I managed to hit an exquisitely sensitive nerve.

It may not be an accident, either, that starting about a week after that first post went up, two things relevant to it have started to percolate through the mass media. The first, and to my mind the most promising, is that a few journalists have managed to get past the usual crass stereotypes, and talk about the actual reasons why so many voters have decided to back Donald Trump’s aspirations this year. I was startled to see a thoughtful article by Peggy Noonan along those lines in the Wall Street Journal, and even more astonished to see pieces making similar points in other media outlets—here’s an example,, and here’s another.

Mind you, none of the articles that I saw quite managed to grapple with the raw reality of the situation that’s driving so many wage-earning Americans to place their last remaining hopes for the future on Donald Trump. Even Noonan’s piece, though it’s better than most and makes an important point we’ll examine later, falls short.  In her analysis, what’s wrong is that a privileged subset of Americans have been protected from the impacts of the last few decades of public policy, while the rest of us haven’t had that luxury.  This is true, of course, but it considerably understates things. The class she’s talking about—the more affluent half or so of the salary class, to use the taxonomy I suggested in my post—hasn’t simply been protected from the troubles affecting other Americans.  They’ve profited, directly and indirectly, from the policies that have plunged much of the wage class into impoverishment and misery, and their reliable response to any attempt to discuss that awkward detail shows tolerably clearly that a good many of them are well aware of it.

I’m thinking here, among many other examples along the same lines, of a revealing article earlier this year from a reporter who attended a feminist conference on sexism in the workplace. All the talk there was about how women in the salary class could improve their own prospects for promotion and the like. It so happened that the reporter’s sister works in a wage-class job, and she quite sensibly inquired whether the conference might spare a little time to discuss ways to improve prospects for women who don’t happen to belong to the salary class. Those of my readers who have seen discussions of this kind know exactly what happened next: a bit of visible discomfort, a few vaguely approving comments, and then a resumption of the previous subjects as though no one had made so embarrassing a suggestion.

It’s typical of the taboo that surrounds class prejudice in today’s industrial nations that not even the reporter mentioned the two most obvious points about this interchange. The first, of course, is that the line the feminists at the event drew between those women whose troubles with sexism were of interest to them, and those whose problems didn’t concern them in the least, was a class line. The second is that the women at the event had perfectly valid, if perfectly selfish, reasons for drawing that line. In order to improve the conditions of workers in those wage class industries that employ large numbers of women, after all, the women at the conference would themselves have had to pay more each month for daycare, hairstyling, fashionable clothing, and the like. Sisterhood may be powerful, as the slogans of an earlier era liked to claim, but it’s clearly not powerful enough to convince women in the salary class to inconvenience themselves for the benefit of women who don’t happen to share their privileged status.

To give the women at the conference credit, though, at least they didn’t start shouting about some other hot-button issue in the hope of distracting attention from an awkward question. That was the second thing relevant to my post that started happening the week after it went up. All at once, much of the American left responded to the rise of Donald Trump by insisting at the top of their lungs that the only reason, the only possible reason, that anyone at all supports the Trump campaign is that Trump is a racist and so are all his supporters.

It’s probably necessary to start by unpacking the dubious logic here, so that we can get past that and see what’s actually being said. Does Trump have racial prejudices? No doubt; most white Americans do. Do his followers share these same prejudices? Again, no doubt some of them do—not all his followers are white, after all, a point that the leftward end of the media has been desperately trying to obscure in recent weeks. Let’s assume for the sake of argument, though, that Trump and his followers do indeed share an assortment of racial bigotries. Does that fact, if it is a fact, prove that racism must by definition be the only thing that makes Trump appeal to his followers?

Of course it proves nothing of the kind. You could use the same flagrant illogic to insist that since Trump enjoys steak, and many of his followers share that taste, the people who follow him must be entirely motivated by hatred for vegetarians. Something that white Americans generally don’t discuss, though I’m told that most people of color are acutely aware of it, is that racial issues simply aren’t that important to white people in this country nowadays.  The frantic and passionate defense of racial bigotry that typified the Jim Crow era is rare these days outside of the white-supremacist fringe.  What has replaced it, by and large, are habits of thought and action that most white people consider to be no big deal—and you don’t get a mass movement going in the teeth of the political establishment by appealing to attitudes that the people who hold them consider to be no big deal.

Behind the shouts of “Racist!” directed at the Trump campaign by a great many affluent white liberals, rather, lies a rather different reality. Accusations of racism play a great many roles in contemporary American discourse—and of course the identification of actual racism is among these. When affluent white liberals make that accusation, on the other hand, far more often than not, it’s a dog whistle.

I should probably explain that last phrase for the benefit of those of my readers who don’t speak fluent Internet. A dog whistle, in online jargon, is a turn of phrase or a trope that expresses some form of bigotry while giving the bigot plausible deniability. During the civil rights movement, for example, the phrase “states’ rights” was a classic dog whistle; the rights actually under discussion amounted to the right of white Southerners to impose racial discrimination on their black neighbors, but the White Citizens Council spokesmen who waxed rhapsodic about states’ rights never had to say that in so many words. That there were, and are, serious issues about the balance of power between states and the federal government that have nothing do with race, and thus got roundly ignored by both sides of the struggle, is just one more irony in a situation that had no shortage of them already.

In the same way, the word “racist” in the mouths of the pundits and politicians who have been applying it so liberally to the Trump campaign is a dog whistle for something they don’t want to talk about in so many words. What they mean by it, of course, is “wage class American.”

That’s extremely common. Consider the recent standoff in Oregon between militia members and federal officials. While that was ongoing, wags in the blogosphere and the hip end of the media started referring to the militia members as “Y’all-Qaeda.” Attentive readers may have noted that none of the militia members came from the South—the only part of the United States where “y’all” is the usual second person plural pronoun. To the best of my knowledge, all of them came from the dryland West, where “y’all” is no more common than it is on the streets of Manhattan or Vancouver. Why, then, did the label catch on so quickly and get the predictable sneering laughter of the salary class?

It spread so quickly and got that laugh because most members of the salary class in the United States love to apply a specific stereotype to the entire American wage class. You know that stereotype as well as I do, dear reader. It’s a fat, pink-faced, gap-toothed Southern good ol’ boy in jeans and a greasy T-shirt, watching a NASCAR race on television from a broken-down sofa, with one hand stuffed elbow deep into a bag of Cheez Doodles, the other fondling a shotgun, a Confederate flag patch on his baseball cap and a Klan outfit in the bedroom closet. As a description of wage-earning Americans in general, that stereotype is as crass, as bigoted, and as politically motivated as any of the racial and sexual stereotypes that so many people these days are ready to denounce—but if you mention this, the kind of affluent white liberals who would sooner impale themselves on their own designer corkscrews than mention African-Americans and watermelons in the same paragraph will insist at the top of their lungs that it’s not a stereotype, it’s the way “those people” really are.

Those of my readers who don’t happen to know any people from the salary class, and so haven’t had the opportunity to hear the kind of hate speech they like to use for the wage class, might want to pick up the latest edition of the National Review, and read a really remarkable diatribe by Kevin Williamson—it’s behind a paywall, but here’s a sample.  The motive force behind this tantrum was the fact that many people in the Republican party’s grassroots base are voting in their own best interests, and thus for Trump, rather than falling into line and doing what they’re told by their soi-disant betters. The very idea!  It’s a fine display of over-the-top classist bigotry, as well as a first-rate example of the way that so many people in the salary class like to insist that poverty is always and only the fault of the poor.

May I please be frank? The reason that millions of Americans have had their standard of living hammered for forty years, while the most affluent twenty per cent have become even more affluent, is no mystery. What happened was that corporate interests in this country, aided and abetted by a bipartisan consensus in government and cheered on by the great majority of the salary class, stripped the US economy of living wage jobs by offshoring most of America’s industrial economy, on the one hand, and flooding the domestic job market with millions of legal and illegal immigrants on the other.

That’s why a family living on one average full-time wage in 1966 could afford a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other necessities and comforts of an ordinary American lifestyle, while a family with one average full time wage in most US cities today is living on the street. None of that happened by accident; no acts of God were responsible; no inexplicable moral collapse swept over the American wage class and made them incapable of embracing all those imaginary opportunities that salary class pundits like to babble about. That change was brought about, rather, by specific, easily identifiable policies. As a result, all things considered, blaming the American poor for the poverty that has been imposed on them by policies promoted by the affluent is the precise economic equivalent of blaming rape victims for the actions of rapists.

In both cases, please note, blaming the victim makes a convenient substitute for talking about who’s actually responsible, who benefits from the current state of affairs, and what the real issues are. When that conversation is one that people who have a privileged role in shaping public discourse desperately don’t want to have, blaming the victim is an effective diversionary tactic, and accordingly it gets much use in the US media these days. There are, after all, plenty of things that the people who shape public discourse in today’s America don’t want to talk about. The fact that the policies pushed by those same shapers of opinion have driven millions of American families into poverty and misery isn’t the most unmentionable of these things, as it happens. The most unmentionable of the things that don’t get discussed is the fact that those policies have failed.

It really is as simple as that. The policies we’re talking about—lavish handouts for corporations and the rich, punitive austerity schemes for the poor, endless wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, malign neglect of domestic infrastructure, and deer-in-the-headlights blank looks or vacuous sound bites in response to climate change and the other consequences of our frankly moronic maltreatment of the biosphere that keeps us all alive—were supposed to bring prosperity to the United States and its allies and stability to the world. They haven’t done that, they won’t do that, and with whatever respect is due to the supporters of Hillary Clinton, four more years of those same policies won’t change that fact. The difficulty here is simply that no one in the political establishment, and precious few in the salary class in general, are willing to recognize that failure, much less learn its obvious lessons or notice the ghastly burdens that those policies have imposed on the majorities who have been forced to carry the costs.

Here, though, we’re in territory that has been well mapped out in advance by one of the historians who have helped guide the project of this blog since its inception. In his magisterial twelve-volume A Study of History, Arnold Toynbee explored in unforgiving detail the processes by which societies fail. Some civilizations, he notes, are overwhelmed by forces outside their control, but this isn’t the usual cause of death marked on history’s obituaries. Far more often than not, rather, societies that go skidding down the well-worn route marked “Decline and Fall” still have plenty of resources available to meet the crises that overwhelm them and plenty of options that could have saved the day—but those resources aren’t put to constructive use and those options never get considered.

This happens, in turn, because the political elites of those failed societies lose the ability to notice that the policies they want to follow don’t happen to work. The leadership of a rising civilization pays close attention to the outcomes of its policies and discards those that don’t work.  The leadership of a falling civilization prefers to redefine “success” as “following the approved policies” rather than “yielding the preferred outcomes,” and concentrates on insulating itself from the consequences of its mistakes rather than recognizing the mistakes and dealing with their consequences. The lessons of failure are never learned, and so the costs of failure mount up until they can no longer be ignored.

This is where Peggy Noonan’s division of the current population into “protected” and “unprotected” classes has something useful to offer. Members of the protected class—in today’s America, as already noted, this is above all the more affluent half or so of the salary class—live within a bubble that screens them from any contact with the increasingly impoverished and immiserated majority. As far as they can see, everything’s fine; all their friends are prospering, and so are they; spin-doctored news stories and carefully massaged statistics churned out by government offices insist that nothing could possibly be wrong. They go from gated residential community to office tower to exclusive restaurant to high-end resort and back again, and the thought that it might be useful once in a while to step outside the bubble and go see what conditions are like in the rest of the country would scare the bejesus out of them if it ever occurred to them at all.

In a rising civilization, as Toynbee points out, the political elite wins the loyalty and respect of the rest of the population by recognizing problems and then solving them. In a falling civilization, by contrast, the political elite forfeits the loyalty and respect of the rest of the population by creating problems and then ignoring them. That’s what lies behind the crisis of legitimacy that occurs so often in the twilight years of a society in decline—and that, in turn, is the deeper phenomenon that lies behind the meteoric rise of Donald Trump.  If a society’s officially sanctioned leaders can’t lead, won’t follow, and aren’t willing to get out of the way, sooner or later people are going to start looking for a way to shove them through history’s exit turnstile, by whatever means turn out to be necessary.

Thus if Trump loses the election in November, that doesn’t mean that the threat to the status quo is over—far from it.  If Hillary Clinton becomes president, we can count on four more years of the same failed and feckless policies, which she’s backed to the hilt throughout her political career, and thus four more years in which millions of Americans outside the narrow circle of affluence will be driven deeper into poverty and misery, while being told by the grinning scarecrows of officialdom that everything is just fine. That’s not a recipe for social stability; those who make peaceful change impossible, it’s been pointed out, make violent change inevitable. What’s more, Trump has already shown every ambitious demagogue in the country exactly how to build a mass following, and he’s also shown a great many wage-earning Americans that there can be alternatives to an intolerable status quo.

No matter how loudly today’s establishment insists that the policies it favors are the only thinkable options, the spiraling failure of those policies, and the appalling costs they impose on people outside the bubble of privilege, guarantee that sooner or later the unthinkable will become the inescapable. That’s the real news of this election season:  the end of ordinary politics, and the first stirrings of an era of convulsive change that will leave little of today’s conventional wisdom intact.