A response to Jeffrey Imm and R.E.A.L.
Growing up in the 1990s, I found myself pondering all sorts of mysteries as a teenager: why did my black classmates consistently receive lower test scores; why were black students always in the lower track courses; why did people on television claim that blacks were as smart as Whites; why did blacks act in such a peculiar way; why were the smart White kids herded into the same schools with black thugs and drug dealers. I didn’t get it. Something didn’t feel right.
The inclusion of blacks at my school always bothered me. It struck me as an obstacle to my education. Blacks often assaulted the White kids in the school cafeteria. They sold drugs in school. They disrupted the classroom. They didn’t show any interest in their studies. Their sordid underclass culture rubbed off on the poorer Whites. My teachers were constantly forced to waste their time catering to the lowest common denominator. It was one long farce from kindergarten to graduation.
When I arrived at college, I was catapulted into a whole different world. Suddenly, there were lots of bright people around me with similar interests. A magic filter whisked away all the troublesome blacks who took up space in high school. In their place, I had an enormous college library to mine with thousands of books that interested me. I had a slew of courses that I could take to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. There was no comparison between my new segregated environment and my old integrated one.
I plunged in head first. When I emerged five years later, I was a different person. I had come to realize that my generation was the subject of a cruel liberal experiment in social engineering. In the name of “equality,” a small group of federal judges and ideologues had overthrown Alabama’s segregated school system and forced raw negroes into the White schools. This was done solely to uplift the negro, not to improve the White schools. Integration was based on the flawed premise that segregated schools were the cause of black academic underperformance.
Fifty years later, the segregationists have yet to be vindicated. The racial gap in average test scores failed to disappear in the integrated schools. It has stubbornly persisted into the Obama presidency. The traditional social problems of the black underclass (illegitimacy, vulgarity, drug abuse, violence, indolence, teen pregnancy) were imported into the White schools where they became a common problem. America’s public schools once inspired envy throughout the Western world. Thanks to our growing black and mestizo population, they now rank near the bottom.
The segregationists were right about other things. Theodore Bilbo had predicted that the end of segregation would unleash a tidal wave of black-on-white violent crime. Even Bilbo though couldn’t imagine that the day would come when negroes would rape over 35,000 white women per year in the United States. This was unknown in the Jim Crow South. Interracial crime is a one way street. Whites are overwhelmingly the victims of murders, thefts, rapes, and assaults by negroes, not the other way around. Even when blacks murder, rape, and steal from other blacks, White taxpayers incur the costs of their incarceration. This is another unsavory aspect of Martin Luther King’s so-called “dream” that is deliberately ignored in the mainstream.
Why do Whites accept inferior schools? Why do they endure unbearable levels of interracial violent crime? Why do they put up with racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action? Why do Whites accept an immigration policy which displaces them from their neighborhoods and reduces their political power? Why do Whites accept the redistribution of their wealth to non-Whites?
Let’s travel further in this vein: Why do Whites accept the degeneration of their culture? Why do Whites accept the spread of poverty, disease, filth, and ignorance in their midst? Why do Whites accept economic underdevelopment? Why do Whites accept the surrender of their culture and identity to placate hostile minorities? Why do Whites think their displacement in their native lands is a good thing? Why do Whites confuse decline with progress?
From a perspective of self interest, White racial suicide doesn’t make any sense. It becomes explicable though in the light of ideology and altruism. Our enemies have twisted Christianity and republicanism to justify our demise as a people. The intellectual fraud they have perpetrated doesn’t stand up to close historical scrutiny. The real impulse to annihilate Whites comes from outside both of these traditions.
Two centuries ago, Whites didn’t have these debates. Republicanism and Christianity flourished alongside a vigorous racial nationalism. Slavery was a contentious issue, but Whiteness itself wasn’t attacked by even the most radical egalitarians. No one believed that “liberty” and “equality” mandated or required the demographic submersion of America’s White majority. If a Christian minister or priest had invoked “love” to justify the racial displacement of his flock, they would have laughed him out of church. They probably would have tarred and feathered him to boot.
The attack on Whiteness began in the twentieth century. It came from three primary sources: Jewish academics, black intellectuals, and Marxists. More often that not, blacks and Jews mingled in the same radical fringe. It was an extremely secular milieu. Collectively, they dreamed of overthrowing the bourgeoisie republican order and replacing it with a classless Marxist utopia in which all racial and social distinctions would be abolished.
The Soviet Union was the first European nation to permanently incorporate this revolutionary ideal into law. In the 1920s, the USSR became a mecca for radical black intellectuals alienated from America. In the United States, the Communist Party USA was the only political party that fully championed the colorblind ideal that gradually triumphed after the Second World War. It was instructed to unfurl the banner of racial equality by the Comintern. Within the CPUSA, the Moscow party line was controversial, as it tended to alienate White working class voters.
This is a rich story that no one has completely told. The term “racism” made its debut on the Marxist fringe in the 1920s, entered American public discourse in the 1930s, and penetrated the mainstream in the 1940s. The Civil Rights Movement had close ties to communism in its earliest years. The U.S. dismantled Jim Crow largely because of the appeal of communism in the Third World. The ruling class neutralized the racial threat of Soviet communism (the possibility of a black fifth column) by mainstreaming the Soviet racial ideal here in America.
The spearhead of anti-racism hasn’t changed in our own times. It is still composed of Jewish academics, black intellectuals, and Marxists. The common thread uniting them is communism, atheism, and hatred of Whites. They have since moved on to creating a new radical discourse about “white privilege” and new forms of subversion like “critical race theory.” These ideals are then smuggled into the mainstream through left-wing front groups as the newest form of Christianity and republicanism.
This is where Comrade Jeffrey enters the picture. His apparent role is to put words into the mouth of Jesus Christ or Thomas Jefferson that were never spoken. The true progenitors of his ideal can trace their footsteps back to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. He doesn’t want you to find that out though.
Andrew,
“Good summary up to this point – but my sense of the “ultimate design” involves global anarchy rather than empire. Though it is evident that a *non-sectarian* expectation of one-world-government is held by the goyische paladins involved.” (NN)
Well, it would have saved us some time and trouble if you had provided this summary at the beginning, but for some reason you appear to enjoy seeing people bump their head and stub their toe in the dark before finding the light switch and figuring out what you believe. (Andrew)
I was puzzled by this remark, now supposedly to be taken tongue-in-cheek, but which reflection suggested to me was significant of the popular confusion of government form with government agenda.
So it appears that, in speculating as to the *organization* of the black-box guidance of Greater Judea, we were, for you, thus characterizing its *agenda*.
Which means that if I say the organization is oligarchic, for *you* the point and agenda of the organization, to the extent that there *is* such organization, is simply to *be* an oligarchy.
Thus, if I freshly introduce discussion of the (ultimately anarchistic) *agenda* of the organization, I have “found the light switch,” in your terms, and finally made up my mind with a characterization of its *organizational* form.
Now I think I understand your remark. So let me explain why the distinction between organization and agenda, means and ends, form and function, is vitally important under our present regime:
Maurice Samuel long ago instructed us that Jewry demands a “God World”.
Thus, as Oligarchs, they are not content just to be normal oligarchs in an imperfect world. They seek to perfect it (thus wrecking it) by means of Communism or Zionism or a combination of both.
So, young Andrew, your mission – should you decide to accept it – is to stop the tikkun olam fanatics, wherever they are to be found – before they can manage to deceive every goy, such as yourself, as to the simultaneity of the organizational form and functional agenda of governments – and so facilitate the perfecting of us all – to the point of a miserable death that we do not deserve.
NeoNietzsche,
I see what you are saying about the long term goal of rigorous Marxism.
However, I think the “withering away of the State” is something Marxists always conceptualize as being carried out by future generations of Marxists.
I doubt very much that Chinese Marxists will have the clear eyed fanaticism to carry such a scheme out to its final stages.
Even with the madmen of the Bolsheviks, only the Jew Trotsky actually wanted to move in a meaningful way toward the destruction of all Western Political Entities.
And guess what? His foreign policy idea along those lines were shot down, so to speak (!), by Joseph Stalin.
What reason is there to think that a Chinese Trotsky won’t have his foreign policy ideas shot down by a Chinese Stalin?
“I mentioned hundreds of millions to make a point about the Greater Judean circumstance, in particular.
The population-size requirement for franchise-free oligarchy in general would be in the tens of millions, for any polity (other than Switzerland) that was significant to its neighbors. Thus a great many such entities are available for examination.”
I will have to think about some possible exceptions. Our time window would seem to be generally between the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries perhaps, the era where there were densely populated democracies but before the alleged Jewish Oligarchy had been established world-wide. What is your estimate of when the Oligarchy would have achieved its nation-dominating strength?
“However, let me mention that the basis of the Iron Law is largely logical, in the recognition that formalities (especially legal) become increasingly and necessarily the basis of human interaction, with increasing population. And formalities and legalities and political agendas cannot be codified in a complete and coherent fashion. Thus a transcendent stratum of society, the Platonic “Guardians,” *must* exist to referee, regulate, and arbitrate that which cannot be thorough rationalized. As I said before, the alternative is civil war and dissolution, logically and historically.”
Your description reminded me strongly of Asimov’s “Foundation Series”. In this science fiction scenario, there are quadrillions of humans across the galaxy, and with such a large size, human events can be mathematically forecast. A secret oligarchy uses these forecasting techniques to oversee the dismemberment of a large empire, and the creation of a new polity. Also in the series is a military figure (known as “the mule”), who almost succeeds in a military coup, overthrowing that unseen ruling class.
The idea that an oligarchy must exist is an interesting and intriguing one. I can see how the Iron Law of Oligarchy is a central key to your theory (in that view, a large polity must absolutely have this glue to prevent disintegration). My intuition tells me that the theorist, Robert Michels, did not discuss secret oligarchies though. Do you believe there have been other secret Oligarchies in the past as well? For example, do you think that Masons worked behind the scenes in early America or after the Civil War (before the Jews arrived)? (The recent film, “Sherlock Holmes”, which shows a secret organization similar to the Masons managing late 19th Century England from behind the scenes). My intuition tells me you would say that the hated National Bank was part of such an organization.
I think the explanatory value of a “hidden hand” theory makes it attractive, because it allows an individual to conceptualize and comprehend what is otherwise an incredibly complex system that otherwise defies one’s ability to really grasp or predict it. It’s a little bit interesting that this is the way I feel about the universe; its complexity defies my ability to comprehend, both in the numbers of objects it contains and the bizarre phenomena it exhibits like string theory and dark matter. Its much more comforting for me to believe in an unseen intelligence controlling everything. At the same time, I have a very difficult time imagining an unseen group managing worldly affairs. But for you, it’s the reverse. We are probably opposites. I have green eyes, you probably have brown. I have brown hair, you probably have green hair. I say potato you say potahtoe. Its very ironic.
“So, young Andrew, your mission – should you decide to accept it – is to stop the tikkun olam fanatics, wherever they are to be found – before they can manage to deceive every goy, such as yourself, as to the simultaneity of the organizational form and functional agenda of governments – and so facilitate the perfecting of us all – to the point of a miserable death that we do not deserve.”
My personal strategy for fighting against the Bolshevik menace is even nuttier than yours. And I am actually serious about undertaking this, or at least giving it my best shot. In a nutshell, I plan to try to assemble a group of polygamists, to gather as many women of child-bearing age as possible. They will then be impregnated with “genius seed” (there used to be a “genius sperm bank” up until the early 1990s, this is a similar idea). The high-IQ children will then be homeschooled and raised to become leaders, to help lead the awakening. I sent a more detailed proposal to Wikitopian, who thought I should go for it. So as you can see, I am just as crazy as you are – only more so.
Reginald,
Click on “NeoNietzsche,” immediately above.
I will have to think about some possible exceptions. Our time window would seem to be generally between the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries perhaps, the era where there were densely populated democracies but before the alleged Jewish Oligarchy had been established world-wide. What is your estimate of when the Oligarchy would have achieved its nation-dominating strength?
According to Disraeli’s remarks, we may take the “democracies” of your “window” to have been merely cosmetically so – just as is the case today. Fundamental policy was not subject to popular review.
Only the Weimar Republic, naively imposed by the Allied Powers in a fit of idealism, was an authentic vehicle for the expression of the will of the masses, allowing thus the extraordinary regime of “Adolf Legalite’ ” and the National Socialists. “Fascism” *elsewhere* had to be established by irregular means (the “March on Rome” that Hitler himself tried).
As to reckoning *when* the boast of the Protocols had been realized is, again, to wish to examine the contents of the black box.
Do you believe there have been other secret Oligarchies in the past as well? For example, do you think that Masons worked behind the scenes in early America or after the Civil War (before the Jews arrived)? (The recent film, “Sherlock Holmes”, which shows a secret organization similar to the Masons managing late 19th Century England from behind the scenes). My intuition tells me you would say that the hated National Bank was part of such an organization.
Cults and Secret Societies have long existed and some may have been influential. I do not believe, however, that any of these have constituted a nation- or cultural-wide oligarchy. The problem is that cults and secret societies are artificial “conspiracies” of otherwise unattached individuals. Oligarchies are *natural* phenomena derived from tribal and national affiliations. The latter are thus much stronger in their cohesiveness – the essential quality of the ruling stratum of a society – a stratum that, as I strongly emphasize, *cannot* be guided altogether by legal formalities and artifices, and so must rely upon a natural, *implicit* agreement as to the policies and agendas to be pursued. Hence there can be no other identity to the present regime than that of Jewry, following the passing of the WASP.
@Reginald
NeoNietzsche,
I see what you are saying about the long term goal of rigorous Marxism.
However, I think the “withering away of the State” is something Marxists always conceptualize as being carried out by future generations of Marxists.
I doubt very much that Chinese Marxists will have the clear eyed fanaticism to carry such a scheme out to its final stages.
Even with the madmen of the Bolsheviks, only the Jew Trotsky actually wanted to move in a meaningful way toward the destruction of all Western Political Entities.
And guess what? His foreign policy ideas along these lines were shot down, so to speak (!), by Joseph Stalin.
What reason is there to think that a Chinese Trotsky won’t have his foreign policy ideas shot down by a Chinese Stalin?
[NN:]
It has already happened.
Just as Trotsky was followed by Stalin, then followed by Kruschev,
So Mao was followed by Deng, and now Mao is being revived.
And apostolic Christianity, failing to deliver the promised Advent, was replaced by institutional Catholic Christianity, which was rejected by puritanical Protestantism, in a return to the roots of the faith.
See the pattern?
“Hence there can be no other identity to the present regime than that of Jewry, following the passing of the WASP.”
And the principle, briefly mentioned above, is illustrated by this and other examples.
The WASP oligarchy was weak and easily displaced because it was, in part, the coming together, artificially, of otherwise unattached plutocrats who happened to be largely of common ethnic origin but not of long-established natural community. And the modern regimes of the USSR and NS Germany had to make do with oligarchies merely aborning in the KGB (Andropov) and the SS (Himmler), thus having to be firmly disciplined by the active pursuit of ideological goals as the “glue” holding a regime together. Hannah Arendt, in one of her few valid appreciations of Totalitarianism, recognized this element in ideologically-based “movements” – in that they must constantly *move* in order to maintain themselves.
And this is why the Russian and Chinese regimes have not retained the rigid police-states of the past. They must evolve toward a globally catastrophic attempt at the immantization of the eschaton, as we have seen them doing, or they will devolve into civil war, as has *not* happened and as would confirm a *genuine* “collapse” of Communism in either of these regimes.
I think the explanatory value of a “hidden hand” theory makes it attractive, because it allows an individual to conceptualize and comprehend what is otherwise an incredibly complex system that otherwise defies one’s ability to really grasp or predict it.
The essence of the administrative challenge to which oligarchy, hidden or otherwise, is the answer is not one of complexity, however.
It is one of the exclusivity, as with “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem,” of coherence and completeness (all coherent formulations of number theory are incomplete).
Likewise, and pretenses to the contrary, there has not been, and there cannot be, a complete and coherent formulation of law such as will be adhered to under the constraint of universal attendance to “Rightly Understood Interest”. Thus the necessity of authoritative oligarchy to deal with societal conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily addressed by formalities.
Also, it must be mentioned that an essential part of the governance of settled populations is the service provided by theologues (priests) and ideologues (“intellectuals”) in the mis-guidance of dominated populations as to their “Rightly Understood Interests” – since, as said, there is no formula for its achievement, in law or in adherence thereto.
And note that the Marxist concept of “false consciousness” is instructive in this regard.
[BTW, is OldFart around? I rather expect to hear the bellowing of his priestly judgment that now I’m a Jew thrice over.]
Sometimes I think that’s completely useless. We just observe a new round of “out of Africa”. The Neanderthals were white and read haired and had bigger brains than we have. But this didn’t save them from Africa newcomers. A tiny bit of hope is in that demographic explosion in Africa 100,000 years ago was caused by inner reasons, whereas now it is whites-inspired, for example by the green revolution.
The Soviet threads in creating “multicultural (anti-whites) society” is a very deep idea. But external causes are always not enough in the history. The Roman Empire first divided by itself. Cortes gave only the last stroke to the self-destructing Inka Empire. The armament race helped to destroy The Soviet Union economically. But Communism was self destroyed due to perverse economic stimuli.
The USA itself established slavery and brought in the Africans.
Russians doesn’t invented Marxism. Germans financed Lenin just to force Russia into separate peace during WWI. Lenin buncoed the Germans and helped to launch the (failed) revolution in Germany. The Russian Jews were one of the leading forces in Russian Revolution. F. D. Roosevelt helped fantastic Stalin industrialization by supplying the USSR the cutting edge technologies and the best engineers. Then Stalin buncoed the both, starting antisemitism in the USSR and the Cold War…
The Americans helped to create Taliban against the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan…
The Soviets sinked billions of dollars in supporting African tribe chiefs, pinning Lenin badges to their loincloth…
It was very easy to be “anti-racists” in a country without African population. Now the Russian skin-heads kills Africans only for being Africans. Now Russians laugh at Americans for electing a black President. But Nowadays the Russian Conservators are only 50% similar to their US colleagues. The other half is hatred to America for being “a hotbed of the liberal plague”.
Just one question. Who are the winners from this face-off?
Personally, I failed to identify its main causes, but a deep inner crisis of European/American civilization is a sad fact. May be, we have some time, and somebody more creative would invent what to do till it be too late.
P.S. How did you managed to elect Bush with IQ of 54 as is average number for Kalahari Bushmen? Amidst Bushes even Bantu Obama is a genius.
Dear moderator,
How long shall I be weighting for moderation?
I have a little experience with segregation in the South, having grown up in the 50s and 60s in the South. Much of what Jeffrey says is true. I started school in perhaps the best county school system in the SE US in the late 1950s when it was segregated.
My high school had the Star Pupil for the entire country (my high school was 1/4 Jewish with a good amount of Greeek-Orthodox, as temples for both faiths were nearby ). Today, the same school system is one of the worst in the country, with all standardized tests scores dropping every year as more and more tax money is thrown away on this failed desegregated school system. Desegregation is definetely a failure for blacks and whites. People laugh today at the segregationist phrase “separate, but equal” when referring to segregated schools. Today we have “not seperate and equally miserable” schools. I am sure there will be those that will give evidence to the contrary by pointing to some anecdotal exception, but desegregation in public schools is a disaster. There were, however, injustices during segregation that needed to be set right. We had a brown maid whom I loved and who loved me dearly. My mother asked her if she would like to go with us to the zoo. My mother was shocked to find that browns were not allowed at the zoo except on certain days and hours. Then there were the signs labled “Men, Women, Colored”. Another problem with segregation was that, although exceptional, there were some browns that were as intelligent (or more intelligent) and well-behaved as their biege counterparts.
In conclusion, although the facts bear out a better educational system during segregation in the South, a return to segregation is not the answer. If schools in states that never had segregation have declined in academic standards, it must be something other than race we have to blame. The answer is to segregate by intelligence and good behavior, not race. Academic opportunity must be color-blind. No preferences should be given because of one’s ethinicity. It was politicians that decided to make this a racial issue instead of a capability issue. The politicians wanted to appear to be great saviours of the downtrodden, while in reality they had ambitious and selfish reasons for their acitons (as usual). If anyone is to blame for the decline in academics, it is these architects of the “Great Society” (a “paradise” of mediocrity and stagnation) and welfare state. Yes, these politicians, whether they know it or not, are socialist at heart. They wish us to be government slaves from the cradle to the grave.