May 8, 2015

Who Killed George Orwell? (’Twas Granny Gow, Evidence Suggests)

via Counter-Currents

George Orwell
There’s a story about George Orwell’s death that’s been bubbling up from the underground for the past 20 years or so. To the best of my knowledge it’s never been published anywhere. And this is odd indeed, because all the essential pieces have been out on public display for a long time—in biographies, memoirs, and newspaper headlines. Anyone, almost anyone who cares to, can connect the dots.

So here’s the story, as briefly as I can put it. The writer George Orwell, alias Eric Blair, is supposed to have died at age 46, quietly and suddenly, of a lung hemorrhage, on the night of January 21, 1950, at University College Hospital, London. But actually he did not go like that. One way or another, Orwell was murdered.

At the very least, there was foul play, inasmuch as he was permitted to die a lingering death for the hour or two it took him to suffocate. Because apart from those pre-midnight hours of January 21, 1950, Orwell had been getting round-the-clock care, with nurses and orderlies always in attendance. The nurses’ station was a short distance down the hall. But on this particular night the attendants all stayed away, and let Orwell—or made Orwell—choke to death on his own blood.

UCH
University College Hospital
Slightly before Orwell’s time
He’d been in UCH for four months, and he was the hospital’s celebrity patient. Visitors to his sickbed included David Astor [1] and novelist and school friend Anthony Powell; as well as Malcolm Muggeridge, Julian Symons, and Stephen Spender.[2]  Orwell was England’s, perhaps the world’s, most famous and successful living writer.  Nineteen Eighty-Four had been topping the bestseller lists throughout Britain and North America, having sold a half-million (hardbound) copies in its first six months of publication.[3] After decades of struggle, he was now rich and famous, with a beautiful young new wife named Sonia Brownell, a former assistant editor of Horizon.

Sonia Brownell Orwell, shortly before her marriage
Sonia Brownell Orwell, shortly
before her marriage
True enough, he was also frail and weak from tuberculosis. But he and Sonia and the doctors believed he was now sturdy enough to fly to a sanatorium in Switzerland on January 25th. A friend gave him a fishing rod as a going-away present. Orwell kept it at the foot of his bed, his mind full of thoughts of angling in the mountain streams around Gstaad. Sonia chartered a airplane for the flight on the 25th. On the night of the 21st, she was out at a private bar with her friends Ann Dunn and Lucian Freud, making last-minute plans for the trip (Freud was coming along to assist George). Next morning Sonia rang the hospital and learned that her husband was dead.[4]
Orwell’s sudden death, about three days before he was to fly out of the country—and when moreover he was thought healthy enough to do so—is just a little too pat, a little too fishy. And just a little too convenient for any Orwell ill-wishers, who, if not exactly legion, were nevertheless highly placed, and had a good motive for getting rid of Orwell.

Because Orwell had been “naming names” for an anti-Stalinist propaganda section of the Attlee government’s Foreign Office.  This covert propaganda office (blandly called “Information Research Department”) were hoping to enlist some liberal-minded writers to produce articles and books “to combat Communist propaganda, then engaged in a global and damaging campaign to undermine Western power and influence.”[5]

The Guardian, 11 July 1996
The Guardian, 11 July 1996
But which writers should they approach? Who in Ernie Bevin’s Foreign Office (then giving steady employment to the highly unsteady likes of Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean) could possibly distinguish between, say, a patriotic British socialist like Orwell, and a crypto-Communist or fellow-traveller?

Fortuitously there was an IRD official, Celia Paget Kirwan, who was a personal friend of Orwell himself. She proposed enlisting his aid. So in the Spring of 1949 Celia paid George a visit (he was then in a TB sanitorium in the Cotswolds). Orwell said he’d be delighted to help; he would draw up a list of filmmakers, actors, “journalists and writers who in my opinion are crypto-Communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as propagandists . . .”[6] [7]

The list of 35 “politically unreliable” names that Orwell sent to Kirwan was amusing, opinionated, and of dubious practical value. (“Paul Robeson—Very anti-white; John Steinbeck—Spurious writer, pseudo-naif; Bernard Shaw—Reliably pro-Russian on all major issues . . .”) Nevertheless the list, and the story of Orwell’s cooperation with the IRD, remained a state secret till 10 July 1996, when the Public Records Office declassified and released the IRD documents. The following day the story that Big Brother’s creator had himself “named names” was all over the front page of London broadsheets.

The newspapers never thought to draw a connection between Orwell’s bedridden anti-Communism of April 1949 and his sudden death nine months later. No one seemed to recall that one of Orwell’s last visitors was a fellow named Andrew S. F. Gow, Orwell’s onetime classics tutor at Eton, latterly a don at Trinity College, Cambridge.

In January 1950, “Granny” Gow (as the boys had called him at Eton) suddenly materialized at University College Hospital and paid Orwell a visit.[8] The visit is suspicious on several counts. Gow had been ensconced at Cambridge since 1925 and seldom travelled even to London. He and Orwell were not fast friends; Gow had not thought much of the young Eric Blair when the latter was a lazy student at Eton College in the early ’20s. Orwell did send Gow a copy of Animal Farm in 1946, but otherwise the old tutor and student had seldom communicated. They don’t seem to have laid eyes on each other since 1927.

So what was the old don doing at UCH that day? Gow offered Orwell the lame explanation that “he was in UCH to see a Trinity man and happened to hear that Blair was there too. Years afterwards,” writes biographer Bernard Crick,”[Gow] could not remember the name of that Trinity man, and was probably making an excuse . . .”[9]

That is putting it lightly. According to several espionage historians and at least one very prominent art critic,  Gow was Anthony Blunt’s controller within the Soviet spy apparatus, and probably his recruiter as well.[10] If this is true, Gow not only was the Soviet nexus to Blunt, he controlled the other, younger, “Cambridge Spies” too—Philby, Burgess, Maclean, Cairncross, the lot.

Dessicated, crusty old Granny Gow was a most unlikely candidate for spymaster. And this could be why he was so supremely successful. Gow died in 1978 (a year before Blunt was exposed in the press), leaving very little evidence that he had ever existed. Strangely for a scholar, he published next to nothing. There are books of Horace and Theocritus “edited” by Gow; a dusty anthology or two; and a thin collection of four extremely dull Christmas letters from the early 1940s, telling about how Trinity is getting on during wartime, that I once found in the Kensington Branch Library in London. And that’s pretty much it. When you go hunting Gow, he turns into the little don who wasn’t there.

Brian Sewell, c. 1970
Brian Sewell, c. 1970
For the past 35 years, racy memoirist and art critic Brian Sewell has been talking and writing about his decades-long friendship with Anthony Blunt, the disgraced ex-spy, art historian, and onetime Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures. Inevitably, in Sewell’s stories about Blunt, Andrew Gow always makes an appearance.[11]

Sewell first met Gow in 1970, when Blunt asked him to go to Cambridge and deliver a drawing that Gow wished to buy. Thereafter, till Gow died in 1978, Sewell served as a courier and go-between for the two old men. Indeed, it was Andrew Gow himself who first confided to Sewell the role Blunt had played as a Soviet spy.

But Sewell did not care for Gow at all:

Gow struck me as the coldest man I had ever encountered, a man of calculated silences, intimidating, and, beginning with “Anthony wishes you to know . . .” he told me the tale of communism and espionage that now everybody knows; he offered no other reason for doing so.[12]

In late 1979, following Sir Anthony Blunt’s public exposure as the “Fourth Man” (he had actually confessed to MI5 many years before), newspapers began to speculate about a Fifth Man. Brian Sewell wrote a letter to the Times, supporting the beleaguered Blunt, and finishing with the declaration that “the fifth man is dead.”

So Sewell long knew about Gow, and Anthony Blunt knew that he knew:

When, very shortly before his death, Anthony asked who my fifth man was, he did not demur when I said, “Andrew Gow”, but broke eye contact and stared out of the window.[13]

So where does this leave us? Andrew Gow—Cambridge don, Fifth Man, Soviet spy—was one of the last to see Orwell alive. It’s not necessary to wonder why or how Gow might have arranged Orwell’s demise. If we accept the idea as plausible, then the obvious answer is that Moscow gave Gow the order. Moscow had motive; Moscow had opportunity. Moscow had agents in the Foreign Office and knew that the author of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four was assisting anti-Communists in the IRD.

So Gow went up to London, dropped in at University College Hospital, visited Orwell (“Sheer coincidence, old boy!”), noted his room location, and discovered that this quarry was planning a move to Switzerland. This last bit of news made it imperative to dispose of Orwell while he was still near at hand and could be finished off discreetly.

If we reject this explanation, then we are left with the official, “received” version, a dubious tale with nothing to recommend it. We are asked to believe that Gow’s visit was pure happenstance, completely unconnected to his role as spymaster. Orwell hemorrhaged and died—just like that!—right there in his hospital bed, with his new fishing pole nearby. And as he gasped for breath for an hour or two, not a single orderly, nurse, or physician ever bothered to look in and check up on their most famous patient.

Notes

1. David Astor, 1912-2001, publisher of The Observer newspaper, and son of American expatriates Waldorf and Nancy Langhorne Astor. Astor was also best man at Orwell’s hospital-bed wedding at UCH in October 1949.
2. Bernard Crick, Orwell (1980), and Gordon Bowker, George Orwell (2003).
3. Bowker, Ibid.
4. There is disagreement among biographers about the time of Orwell’s death. Bowker, Crick, and Hilary Spurling (Sonia’s biographer) say it was late on the 21st, while Jeffrey Meyers (Orwell, 2000) makes it the wee hours of the 21st, nearly a full day earlier.
5. Jeffrey Meyers, Orwell (2000).
6. Meyers says the Cranham visit was in April; the Guardian article from July 1996 says it was in March.
7. One of the books promoted by the IRD was Orwell’s own Animal Farm, in many foreign-language editions. IRD papers include an amusing note from an embassy official in Cairo, praising the book’s usefulness: “The idea is particularly good for Arabic in view of the fact that both pigs and dogs are unclean animals to Muslims.” (Guardian, 11 July 1996.)
8. The story of Gow’s visit to UCH is recounted in several Orwell biographies, but as of 1996 it had appeared in only one, the “authorized” George Orwell by Bernard Crick.
9. Crick, George Orwell.
10. Barrie Penrose and Simon Freeman’s Conspiracy of Silence: The Secret Life of Anthony Blunt (1988) seems to be the first “Cambridge Spies” history to discuss the Blunt-Gow connection, but this had been rumored and discussed ever since Blunt’s exposure in 1979.
11. I interviewed Sewell in 1997 for a magazine article that touched upon Blunt, and got in a question or two about Gow. The story Brian related was essentially the same one recounted here.
12. Brian Sewell, Outsider II: Always Almost: Never Quite by Brian Sewell (2012), herein excerpted in The Australian, December 2012.
13. Ibid.

Why Millennials Are Awesome

via Radix

Now even the Washington Post hates millennials.

Five Really Good Reasons to Hate Millennials

By Christopher Ingraham

1. Millennials are the least patriotic generation

Less than a third of millennials say the United States is the greatest country in the world, according to the Pew Research Center. By contrast, 48 percent of Gen Xers, 50 percent of Boomers, and 64 percent of the Silent Generation said that America is Number 1. And only 70 percent of millennials identified as "patriotic," compared to 80 to 90 percent of people in other generations. […]

2. Millennials are just as racist as their elders

Whatever expectation that millennials' diverse racial makeup would spawn especially tolerant views has not yet come true, [Scott Clement] concludes.[…]

3. Millennials are the generation least informed about the news

Millennials performed the poorest in a recent Pew Research Center study of the public's knowledge of current events. […]

4. Millennials are the nation's leading vaccine skeptics

Millennials are twice as likely as seniors to say that parents should be able to opt out of giving their kids childhood vaccines.

5. Millennials care less about free speech than other generations

Just yesterday I reported on a Pew survey showing that 18- to 29-year-olds were the generation least likely to say it's okay for news outlets to publish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. […]
Reading articles like this, it becomes clear that the problem with millennials is that they threaten a certain American consensus, a certain script WaPo would like them to follow.

Let’s reformulate this list.

Five Really Good Reasons to Have Hope For Millennials

1. They’re not patriotards

Throughout the Dubya administration, there was a flurry of books and shrill NPR commentaries about the rise of “American Theocracy” or “Christian fascism,” and a dread that conservative Republicans were too powerful and ruthless, and that the Democrats were too weak-kneed to contain them. What really happened was that the hyper-patriotism of the Bush years was a last gasp or self-parody of the “American Century.” The least one can say is that Bush indelibly linked flag-waving and American nationalism with lunatic foreign wars and public displays of stupidity.

Not being patriotic simply means that millennials have taste. Also, in what way is America “#1”? Are we scoring this in bombs dropped by flying robots?

2. Millennials are becoming racially conscious, sort of

Believe it or not, having diversity forced upon you does not lead you to believe that race doesn’t exist.

3. Millennials are unplugged from the gatekeeper media

Who cares if millennials wouldn’t do well on Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! This is not a sign of their lack of intelligence or depth of knowledge; it’s a sign that we don’t live in a world in which everyone watches the Nightly News, or reads the Washington Post.

4. Millennials Are Skeptical and Searching for Authenticiy

I personally think the anti-vaccine movement is misguided; however, what lies behind it—as well as what lies behind the the organic, “slow food,” and environmentalist movements—is interesting. Millennials are seeking something real, something deep, and something traditional. Let’s see where this leads. . .

5. Millennials Are Not Classical Liberal Fags

No one on earth really believes in complete free speech. There is always a line to be drawn. But everyone likes to talk about their devotion to free speech (particularly, Classical Liberal Fags). There is no reason to believe that millennials are any more or less committed to free speech than their parents. They are simply not interested in flagrant and crude incitements of Muslims in a liberal culture war. Who could blame them?

Prospects for Black America

via American Renaissance

Jason Riley
Yesterday, AR staff attended a meeting held in Washington, DC, by the Manhattan Institute called “Prospects for Black America: The Moynihan Report Turns 50.” The Moynihan Report, of course, was Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 study in which he worried that an illegitimacy rate of 25 percent among blacks was such a serious problem it would keep many blacks from enjoying the benefits of the new civil rights legislation. The purpose of this meeting was to grapple with the implications of a black illegitimacy rate that is now over 70 percent and of a white rate–approaching 30 percent–that is already higher than the 25 percent that so shocked Moynihan in 1965.

The meeting was chaired by Jason Riley, Wall Street Journal columnist, Manhattan Institute fellow, and author of Please Stop Helping Us. In his introduction, he promised us panelists who would “challenge conventional wisdom,” are “not afraid to think outside the box,” and who “honestly evaluate what is working and what is not working.” With some exceptions, they came close–within the limits of conventional conservatism.

The first panel was called “Reducing Crime Rates in the Black Community,” which, as Mr. Riley noted, was a departure from conventional thinking even in admitting that black crime rates are high. The two most interesting panelists were Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute and John McWhorter, who is a professor of American Studies at Columbia.

Miss Mac Donald began by pointing out that the entire “black lives matter movement” is based on the crazy assumption that the biggest threat facing black men today is the police. “In fact,” she said, “no government agency is more dedicated to the proposition that blacks lives matter than the police.” She added that black homicide victimization in New York has declined largely because of data-based policing that tries to predict where and when crime will occur so that police can stop it. “If precinct commanders do not save black lives their jobs are in jeopardy,” she said.

Miss Mac Donald supports the “broken window” approach to crime control, according to which even petty criminality must be controlled if neighborhoods are to be made livable. She is dismayed by the increasingly common argument that this puts an unfair burden on non-whites, and that the solution is “depolicing.” This will only make things worse. She said that blacks want loiterers and dope smokers off the street, and are furious when they reappear the day after they are arrested. “Policing low-level offenses is a moral imperative,” she said, and is the only way to give poor people anything like the crime-free ambience the middle class takes for granted.

She concluded that rebuilding the black family–if it could be done–would be a huge step in the right direction. America has made no real, concerted effort to promote fatherhood, and part of the problem is feminism, with its refrain that “strong women” can rear children without men. “Fathers,” she said, “should not be seen as an optional add-on or frill.” Illegitimacy, she added, is such a disadvantage to children that we should come to grips with the idea that “it is not true that everybody has the right have a child.”

Mr. McWhorter agreed that it would be marvelous if blacks would marry each other, but noted that “after 50 years, there is no way to create a movement in black America to rebuild the family.” If even half the black leaders and columnists and preachers came out with a strong endorsement of fatherhood, the other half would call them vicious names for letting “institutional racism” off the hook. “Let’s imagine that Al Sharpton took the line that black men should be responsible fathers,” he said. “Michael Eric Dyson would write a 10,000-word piece saying Sharpton was a horrible person.” Mr. McWhorter concluded that the best we could hope for is a battle that would be fought to a draw, and that black behavior wouldn’t change.

Mr. McWhorter suggested that the single best thing we could do is legalize drugs. “Everything changes with the whole drug culture and context,” he said. There is a black market for drugs only because they are illegal, and young black dropouts who have dismal job prospects can make a living selling drugs. If drugs were legal, there would be no money in supplying the black market, and they would have to find jobs. Those who think they wouldn’t, said Mr. McWhorter, should recall the dire predictions that black women would freeze to death when President Clinton cut welfare benefits. They didn’t freeze; they got jobs. And if young blacks realized that they couldn’t get by selling drugs, a lot of them would stay in school.

Mr. McWhorter also argued that violence would go down sharply if drugs were legal, because most violence is gang related, and gangs exist to fight over turf. With no drug-selling turf to fight over, the main purpose for gangs would disappear. Finally, he argued, making drugs legal would improve relations between blacks and the police because “the cops and the Freddie Grays wouldn’t encounter each other so often.”

McWhorter and Mac Donald
John McWhorter and Heather MacDonald

Heather Mac Donald doubted that making drugs legal would solve the problem of black behavior. Many gang shootings, she said, had nothing to do with drugs, and she doubted that louts would take jobs at McDonald’s if they couldn’t make a living as dealers. She also argued that drug use and addiction would go up under legalization, and that we would be trading a crime problem for a public health problem. She urged that the question of legalization therefore be looked at in its own terms rather than as a solution to a race problem.

Mr. McWhorter replied that there are plenty of jobs–even if they are low-level jobs–and that dealers would have no choice but to work. In any case, “race is at a standstill,” he said, and even if there were an increase in drug addiction we might have to consider it “collateral damage” in the effort to improve black behavior.

A woman in the audience pointed out that although everyone blames men for single motherhood, women share the blame. She said that since so many of the fathers are lowlifes, mothers don’t want them having anything to do with their children.
The next panel, on education, was limp. The main contribution of Hugh Price of the Brookings Institution was to say that the next big effort in education should be for schools to give students “social and emotional development.”

There was considerable talk–and little data–about how charter schools and specialized academies dramatically improve student performance. Kevin Chavous of the American Federation of Children buried the audience in clichés: “We need to take the politics out of education,” “We need to develop a long-term plan and stop excluding creative and innovative ideas [whatever they are],” “We used to have a learning culture in America; we need to rebuild that culture,” “All the problems of the black community are traceable to education,” “We must give an opportunity to every child,” etc.

Kaya Henderson, who is the chancellor of the DC schools, bragged that her administration had “radically improved the quality of staff and teachers and of the curriculum.” She said that pre-kindergarten instruction is vital, as is making schools “attractive places for parents and teachers.” She claimed that we have now figured out how to make every teacher or administrator a gifted contributor to the education of children. “All this takes money,” she said, hinting broadly at the need for more.

No one pointed out that Washington, DC, spends more per pupil than any urban district except for New York City, that the black-white gap is the widest in the nation, and that poor black students score lower, on average, than poor blacks in other cities.
University of Missouri professor Craig Frisby vainly tried to steer the conversion in a useful direction. “The issue is that there are people who live in a world of ideology and whose eyes are not open to reality,” he said. “IQ is a fact of life and some children take more time to learn than others.” He said the solution for them is more time in school: longer school days, weekend instruction, and summer sessions.

Price Frisby Chavous Henderson
Hugh Price,  Craig Frisby, Kevin Chavous, Kaya Henderson

The next panel, “Restoring the family,” was much better. Robert Woodson, president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, noted that the people who have benefitted most from the civil rights movement and affirmative action are well-educated blacks, and that poor blacks are just as angry as they were 50 years ago. Solutions, however, will not come from white people. “We need self-examination in the black community to give us an opportunity to fight the enemy within,” he said adding, to much laughter and applause, “I’m calling for a one-year moratorium on whining about white folks.”
Poverty and racism did not destroy the black family, he said, because the black family was much stronger when those problems were worse. When welfare became a right, the result was “moral deregulation.”

If illegitimacy rates suggest that 70 percent of black families are dysfunctional, it means 30 percent are functional. “We should study them and find out what their coping mechanisms are,” he said. “We need to stop studying failure; you learn nothing by studying failure. Find out who has a job and why.”

Mr. Woodson also stressed the importance of faith. “Eighty percent of the success in the groups I work with is related to faith,” he said. “You don’t have to accept the content of a particular faith, but you can appreciate the secular consequences of faith and even evaluate the good that it does.”

Glenn Loury of Brown University pointed out that in any conversation about race, “facts don’t govern; the narrative governs,” and the narrative is one of white responsibility for the misbehavior of blacks.

“How do you rehabilitate marriage?” he asked. It is very difficult because it means “pushing against the zeitgeist” and because the “policy tools of the state–tax rates, welfare policies–are very crude.” Some people, he noted, are so desperate for allies in the fight to save marriage that they welcome homosexual marriage. “We desperately need leadership,” he said. The President of the United States should assume “countercultural leadership against the zeitgeist” and promote marriage.

Mr. Loury was dismayed by the widespread assumption among blacks in Baltimore that the city indicted police officers in the death of Freddie Gray only because there were riots. “Is this how we get justice,” he asked, “by rioting?”

Mr. Loury also wanted to know how society instills a commitment to be a good person. Why do some people refrain from crime only because they are afraid they will be caught while others think “our people just don’t do that”? “There is no substitute for reaching that spiritual place inside of a person,” he said, and religion should have a place in any discussion about improving black behavior.

Finally, he noted that “people get into leaky boats and come from all over the world to live in the United States, and they generally do pretty well.” This makes people turn to blacks and ask, “What’s up with you people?”

Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution said that there has been some success in a Colorado program to reduce the number of births to unmarried women. He said there was private funding for long-acting, reversible contraception such as IUDs for poor women, and many were glad to get it. Illegitimate births and abortions declined, but conservatives didn’t like the program, so the Colorado government won’t fund it.

Ron Haskins, Loury, Woodson
Ron Haskins, Glenn Loury, Robert Woodson

During the question period, an AR staffer referred to Mr. Loury’s question to blacks–“What’s up with you people?–and pointed out that Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray, and Richard Lynn have offered a partial answer: racial differences in heritable traits such as intelligence. Should we research this question or is it hopelessly taboo?
Mr. Loury said that any line of investigation should be open: “I don’t want to live in a society that prohibits research.” However, he pronounced himself “not persuaded” by the evidence for racial differences in IQ, adding “we don’t even need to get to that” because there are many ways to improve outcomes for people, regardless of individual or group differences in ability.

Ron Haskins said that genetic explanations are “crazy;” bad schools, dangerous neighborhoods, and poverty explain black behavior.

The final panel was a lively dialogue between Jason Riley and Johnny Taylor of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund. Mr. Taylor, who works closely with black colleges, noted that they account for 20 percent of black graduates. He said that spaces are going begging in some of them, and that tuition is low, so there is plenty of opportunity for blacks who want to go to college.

Mr. Taylor criticized the limits on what can be said on campus. He is involved with choosing commencement speakers, and the slightest deviation from conventional views is a disqualification. “We have a new generation of students who think that anyone who disagrees with you shouldn’t be allowed to speak,” he said.

Mr. Taylor said a producer had asked him about the Baltimore riots on television. During the pre-interview he mentioned that Baltimore spends more on each public school student than virtually any other city in America; he was not put on the program.

“Whites want us to be successful,” he said, adding “I’m convinced that the solution lies entirely in the African-American community. Only we can fix what’s wrong.” He noted that although everyone is accusing Silicon Valley of discriminating against black programmers, his organization just got $40 million from Apple to try to increase the number of black engineers. The problem is supply, he said, not discrimination.

Mr. Taylor echoed the view that when the facts conflict with the narrative, “it’s to hell with facts. The narrative takes on its own life and is what is talked about in the barbershops.”

Mr. Riley agreed, noting that we are all supposed to believe that there simply are no jobs for blacks, even though “there are always jobs for people who have a work ethic. The facts don’t matter.”

He pointed out that the big problem in Ferguson was supposed to be that a white-minority government was running a majority-black town. However, the results were the same in Baltimore even though it is run by blacks. “Maybe the problem is high black crime rates,” he said, “and police responding to where the 911 calls originate.”
“We don’t talk about crime rates,” said Mr. Riley. “We talk about incarceration rates, as if they had nothing to do with crime rates.” So long as blacks account for so much crime–13 percent of the population commits half the murders–“there will be tension between young black men and the police.” He added that “if the police are viewed as an occupying force and the result is less policing it will only mean a higher [black] body count.”

Today’s blacks, said Mr. Riley, “are taught to obsess over race and ‘microaggressions.’ I don’t know what Martin Luther King would have made of a term like ‘microaggression’.”

Mr. Riley also mocked the idea that Silicon Valley discriminates against blacks and was dismayed that tech companies let themselves be badgered by black “leaders.” “If Jesse Jackson were concerned about what’s good for black people,” he said, “he would go back to Chicago and tell black men to stop shooting each other. Pull up your pants. Finish school.”

Affirmative action, said Mr. Riley, has devalued the diplomas given to blacks because it is rational to assume that blacks were held to lower standards. Preferences also make it more likely black students will drop out or switch to mushy majors. When California banned race preferences, the black graduation rate jumped because “blacks went to schools that met their real needs and abilities.”

Mr. Riley made consistently good points–except for a silly crack at the very beginning of the conference. “You’re at the meeting on prospects for black America,” he said. “If you want to hear about prospects for white America you can go to any other room in the Press Club.”

Aside from the pabulum about education, there was almost nothing to disagree with at this conference. It is refreshing–and healthy–to hear blacks assert publicly that whites are not the problem, and that blacks will have to save themselves.

Unfortunately, there was no talk about the terrible, dysgenic fertility among blacks. So long as college-educated black women have few or no children while addicts have five or six, things will get worse. The Colorado contraception program was mentioned only in passing. Heather Mac Donald said that not everyone should have children but said nothing about how to stop them.

The only thing that will seriously reduce degeneracy–for blacks or anyone else–is to prevent reckless procreation by deadbeats. Sharp cutbacks in benefits for single mothers would help, as would serious financial incentives for tubal ligation. For only so long can the competent be taxed to support the proliferation of the incompetent. If we want more marriage we must produce more Americans who are capable of understanding why it is necessary.

[Update: Two days later, we note that other than this write up, there is only one media report on the Manhattan Institute conference. C-SPAN filmed the most pointless of all the panels: the one on education! The American media are not interested in hearing blacks explain that they must solve their own problems rather than blame white people.]

On Pan-Arab Nationalism, Part 2: Ba'athism in Practice

via TradYouth

Part 1

Though Ba’athism barely remains, it had a number of successes before collapsing.

First, it succeeded in liberating the Arab lands from Western occupation, for the most part. While Saudi Arabia remains a proxy of the Americans and Palestine is occupied by Israel, Arab nationalists largely succeeded in kicking the French out of Syria and Lebanon, and the British out of Iraq and Egypt.

Secondly, Ba’athism suffocated Salafism, Wahabism and other forms of jihadism in the Middle East. It was not until the Iranian Revolution that jihadism finally had a base to operate out of.

Thirdly, Ba’athism developed Arab societies that were on the path to industrialization and modern infrastructures and economies that were not agrarian, thereby launching the Arab world into the modern global economy.

Lastly, Ba’athism assisted in the preservation of Christianity in the Middle East. If Saddam Hussein or Hosni Mubarak were still in power, the slaughter of Christians in Iraq, Syria and Egypt would not be occurring. Ba’athism provided an ideological framework in the Middle East for Christians to coexist with Arab Muslims and also took away an impetus for Saddam or Mubarak to harass or persecute Christians. For Saddam, Assad and Mubarak, retaining control was the primary goal, and jihadists who caused strife by attacking Christians were made examples of.

Ba’athism failed to properly articulate the distinction between socialism and Marxism. Michel Aflaq rejected Communism and Marx’s dialectical materialism, yet that was never enough to stop the peasant orientation of the Syrian revolution and what became Syrian Ba’athism. Furthermore, the natural alliance of the Ba’athists in the beginning to draw close to the Soviet Union against the West and the US backed Persian Shah of Iran inevitably drew the Ba’athists to become more engrained in their ideological socialism, even if it was not prudent. Hence Saddam’s move to the right, working with the CIA in order to fight Kurdish Communists, Iranian jihadists and export petroleum to the West, cannot be condemned, as ultimately, a pan-Arab vision that unites around something as abstract as Socialism was doomed to failure from the beginning. Whether it was demagoguery, the realities of economics, or simply different visions of Ba’athism, ultimately its disunity was exacerbated by the various jihadist and secularist forces of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the West, that eventually turned in on the Ba’athists.

Ba’athism’s demise was due to its failure to fully unify the Arab identity and to stave off Israeli and American influence and attacks. Once Egypt was at peace with Israel and Syria and Iraq were irreconcilable, Ba’athism simply became a means for Mubarak, Assad and Saddam to retain power in their fading regimes, as Saudi Arabia and Iran began exporting various forms of jihadist thought that has now all but replaced Ba’athism.

The West determined that Ba’athism had to go. Though Fascism and crypto-Fascist movements served the West well in the post-Cold War world though such leaders as Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, General Suharto in Indonesia, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the post-Cold War supremacy of American liberalism demanded that all ideologies, states, entities, and forces that were not liberal must be destroyed and brought into the uni-polar new world order of American-liberal hegemony.

Though Russia is the center point of this new war by liberalism on everything else, the Middle East became the flashpoint of this conflict as the new world order needed to bring the Islamic world to heel, secure the energy resources, and isolate Russia. This is what the Syrian Civil War is about. The US instigating an insurgency against President Assad to remove him. It also explains why Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Kaddafi of Libya had to be removed. They were anti-jihadist, but they were also for forming an alternative regional order that would have stood against Western liberalism. Saddam Hussein was no doubt one of the best leaders in the Middle East for establishing regional stability and making Iraq the main counterweight to the jihadist-controlled nations of Saudi Arabia and Iran, yet his fall was ultimately his own undoing. Simply put, he should never have invaded Kuwait.

The absolute massacre of the Iraqi military in 1991 at the hands of the highly advanced US military was the final death knell in the heart of Ba’athism. It also consequently was the trumpet sounding the need for jihadism to replace nationalism as the ideological guiding force of the Arab world. This is why many of the Ba’athists who fought for Saddam or served in his government later joined the jihadist insurgency against the Americans or have even joined ISIS.

All ideologies need a tribal/national core to operate from and once that core is removed, the ideology will wither and die without the needed financial and political support along with the geographic legitimacy.

Looking back, Saddam should have found ways to build a new economic-military axis with Assad, the PLO, Mubarak and Kaddafi in order to begin providing for a secure network that could hopefully peaceably resist the influence and take over of the West. However, this probably would have proven futile. The West would have eventually succeeded in launching the Arab Spring or some sort of color revolution against Ba’athism because by 1991, Ba’athism was already bankrupt, financially, political and even spiritually. Ba’athism only existed by 1991 inside the personality cults of Saddam, Assad and Mubarak. It no longer served a realistic purpose in the world.

Islamism is providing a better means of resistance to modernity/liberalism, because it is explicitly anti-modern. Ba’athism, though very identitarian and even fascistic, was still operating in a modernist paradigm. It still believed in social progress, the benefits of socialism, and that there is such a thing as utopia that can be built upon an artificial idea. ISIS, Revolutionary Iran and orthodox Islam reject all of this and only believe in their own version of “the Kingdom of Heaven” which is transcendent in nature. Ba’athism ultimately copies liberalism, in refusing to assert a dominant religious creed and thereby denying itself access to the supernatural. Obviously Islam, especially Sunni Islam prevailed in applying Ba’athist ideology, yet if you are going to be a Muslim, you might as well be the best Muslim possible. Plus one day you are going to die and is it worth the risk of being a loyal servant of Allah, or a pure nationalist who is cozy with kafirs?

Christine Helms, a scholar on Arab nationalism wrote on the decline of Ba’athism that…
“Declaring Arab nationalism “bankrupt,” the political “disinherited” are not rationalizing the failure of Arabism, dissociating its ideology from graceless excesses of its proponents, or reformulating it. Alternative solutions are not contemplated. They [the youth] have simply opted for the political paradigm at the other end of the political spectrum with which they are familiar–Islam.”
Ba’athism existed in the fight for ethnic liberation but once that liberation was achieved, the Arab world found it much more convicting and even internally liberating to get back to the creed of Muhammad, rather than Aflaq. With Socialism discredited in the USSR’s collapse, and no longer being able to financially and militarily support the Ba’athist regimes, the paradigm of Ba’athism eventually collapsed just like Maoism, Marxism-Leninism and eventually will liberalism because it failed to meet its objectives and the internal needs of the masses it was supposed to be appealing to. Eventually being pan-Arab is just as silly as being pan-white.

There are too many sub-cultures and cliques that people adhere too. The rivalries between Christians, Sunnis and Shiites is too powerful to put aside in the face of ancient rivalries that go back to the 600s. Pan-Arabism was ultimately just as futile as advocating for the global proletariat and the Jews were simply not enough motivation for Arabs to unite against, just as Capitalists were not a convicting enough force for Russians, Chinese, Koreans and Germans to remain in lockstep with one another. Ba’athism, in its defeat, much like Communism’s ultimately leads us back to the focal point of 21st Century anti-liberalism, which is in Eurasianism’s traditionalist orientation, that the locality and organic tribe are what matter. The Chinese and Vietnamese of the 1970s might both have been peasant societies, and Communist, yet they were ultimately more loyal to their respective national loyalties than to the higher ideology. Same is true for the Arabs, who live in nations that are even more artificially constructed than perhaps the United States is.

As well, there are and were massive demographic changes in Arab society that hindered the continued existence of Ba’athism.  As noted geostrategist Robert Kaplan has observed in his book The Coming Anarchy, “Seventy percent of the Arab population has been born since 1970—youths with little historical memory of anticolonial independence struggles, postcolonial attempts at nation-building, or any of the Arab-Israeli wars.” Therefore as jihadism rises against Americanization and American military involvement in the region, and Ba’athism failed in its regional objective, Ba’athism ceases to mean anything solid to the young Arab.

As ISIS rampages though the Middle East, it will only be defeated by an awkward coalition of pro-Western monarchies such as Jordan, working in tandem with Hezbollah, what’s left of Assad’s Syria and jihadist Iran that ultimately competing with ISIS over who gets to be the top jihadist dog. Hence, even if Assad wins, Ba’athism is still irrelevant and defeated. If Assad wins, Ba’athism will never be able to be exported outside of Syria and if it does live, it will be transformed into an ideology that serves to keep the Syrian state united, rather than unifying the greater Arab world, which is now more or less under the occupation of pro-Western puppets or jihadist regimes.

WSJ’s Bill McGurn Says 'Baltimore Is not about race' but Welfare -- Then Why Isn’t Kentucky Burning?

via VDARE

Yet another conservative ascribes Baltimore’s problems to liberalism. This time, it’s the normally sensible Bill McGurn, writing in The Wall Street Journal.

Baltimore Is Not About Race,” his main headline claims, with a subhead that reads thusly: “Government-induced dependency is the problem — and it’s one with a long history.” It’s illustrated with the picture, above, of LBJ bringing the Great Society to rural Kentucky.

As I conceded in my post about John Perazzo’s claims in Front Page, no one with any sense doubts that the socialism Democrats have imposed upon major cities has harmed the people who live in them. No one doubts that left-wing educational schemes aren’t much good, either.

And here, McGurn is right. Socialism is bad:
[T]he disaster of inner cities isn’t primarily about race at all. It’s about the consequences of 50 years of progressive misrule—which on race has proved an equal-opportunity failure.
Baltimore is but the latest liberal-blue city where government has failed to do the one thing it ought—i.e., put the cops on the side of the vulnerable and law-abiding—while pursuing “solutions” that in practice enfeeble families and social institutions and local economies.
These supposed solutions do this by substituting federal transfers for fathers and families. They do it by favoring community organizing and government projects over private investment. And they do it by propping up failing public-school systems that operate as jobs programs for the teachers unions instead of centers of learning.
If our inner-city African-American communities suffer disproportionately from crippling social pathologies that make upward mobility difficult—and they do—it is in large part because they have disproportionately been on the receiving end of this five-decade-long progressive experiment in government beneficence.
How do we know? Because when we look at a slice of white America that was showered with the same Great Society good intentions—Appalachia—we find the same dysfunctions: greater dependency, more single-parent families and the absence of the good, private-sector jobs that only a growing economy can create.
Remember, in the mid-1960s when President Johnson put a face on America’s “war on poverty,” he didn’t do it from an urban ghetto. He did it from the front porch of a shack in eastern Kentucky’s Martin County, where a white family of 10 eked out a subsistence living on an income of $400 a year.
In many ways, rural Martin County and urban Baltimore could not be more different. Martin County is 92% white while Baltimore is two-thirds black. Each has seen important sources of good-paying jobs dry up—Martin County in coal mining, Baltimore in manufacturing. In the last presidential election, Martin Country voted 6 to 1 for Mitt Romney while Baltimore went 9 to 1 for Barack Obama.
Yet the Great Society’s legacy has been depressingly similar. In a remarkable dispatch two years ago, the Lexington Herald-Leader’s John Cheves noted that the war on poverty sent $2.1 billion to Martin County alone (pop. 12,537) through programs including “welfare, food stamps, jobless benefits, disability compensation, school subsidies, affordable housing, worker training, economic development incentives, Head Start for poor children and expanded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”
The result? “The problem facing Appalachia today isn’t Third World poverty,” writes Mr. Cheves. “It’s dependence on government assistance.” Just one example: When Congress imposed work requirements and lifetime caps for welfare during the Clinton administration, claims of disability jumped.
Mr. Cheves quotes a former grade-school principal who says this of Martin County’s children: “Instead of talking about a future of work, or a profession, they talk about getting a check.”
McGurn’s point is correct. The government created a culture of dependency among blacks and Appalachian whites. Great Society welfare programs harmed the incentive to work among black men, and very likely fed the plague of fatherless black children. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote about the collapse of the black family 50 years ago. And those programs have done the same to Appalachian whites.

But those whites, with just as much reason to be unhappy as blacks, didn’t riot and burn down small towns or fire the hills. They didn’t kill sheriff’s deputies or burn down their neighbor’s businesses. Isn’t it likely that a few times in the past 15 years, a sheriff’s deputy in some small town unjustly shot and killed a white Appalachian teenager? Did the whites riot and loot and burn? Maybe we didn’t hear about it.

Baltimore’s blacks didn’t riot because they are deprived and because cops are bad, as the liberals claim. And they didn’t riot because socialism harmed them, as the conservatives claim. They rioted because they are a violent race.

Thoughts on Dugin's 'Eurasian Mission'

via Alternative Right

Ivan Grozny: part of the Eurasian tradition
Count Nikolai Trubetzkoy first established the theory of Eurasianism, and is thus considered the founder of the movement. He was also a friend of Claude Lévi-Strauss, the famous French anthropologist, from whom Eurasianism drew its idea of a pluralistic world. This is the first and most important position of the Eurasian philosophy, which can also be formulated negatively as the rejection of Western universalism.

This universalism also had French roots, growing out of 18th-century Enlightenment thought, the effective imperialism that emerged through the military and technological dominance of the European powers, and the resulting Eurocentrism.

In addition to rejecting these aspects of the West, Eurasianism also rejects the hypocrisy of modern democracy, the ideology of "human rights," and consumerist materialism. To counter Western universalism, Eurasianism proposes a multipolar world that is modulated by a sense of social responsibility and traditionalism.

The ideas of Eurasianism have evolved into what Alexander Dugin terms Neo-Eurasianism and the Fourth Political Theory, the latter also the name of Dugin's best known book in English. Recently published by Arktos, Eurasian Mission is Dugin's most recent summation and update of his theories to appear in English. This allows us to consider his theories and outlook in some detail.

Along with the more geopolitical aspects, the Fourth Political Theory lies at the heart of Eurasianism, and constitutes its philosophical core. Drawing its roots from France's New Right, the Third Way, the German Conservative Revolution, and thinkers as diverse as Heidegger, Boaz, Evola, and de Benoist, the Fourth Political Theory could be summed up by what Alain Soral calls "la gauche du travail et la droite des valeurs" ("the worker’s left and the moral right"). It is important to note that, just like Alain Soral, Dugin rejects ethnocentrism. The Fourth Political Theory rejects not only liberalism (capitalism), but also communism (socialism) and fascism, preferring a blend of the two non-capitalistic systems in order to prevent each one’s particular shortcomings.

Even though it believes in multipolarity, Russia is central to Eurasianism, as is the goal of creating a "European Space," encompassing both Europe and Russia. The objective is clearly to shift the balance of global power from Washington to Moscow, although Dugin denies this in an interview with Arktos published at the end of the book.

Time to dig Dugin?

If Eurasianism opposes the New World Order and American-led globalization, it does not reject the concept of globalization outright. Instead it could be claimed that it is simply offering an alternative way to do it; an alter-globalization.

According to Eurasianist philosophy, nations should disappear and should be grouped into "Great Spaces" that would themselves be grouped in blocs. There would be an Atlantic zone, a Euro-African zone, a Russian-Central Asian zone, and a Pacific zone. Dugin regards "the nation" as a mere bourgeois construct. Accordingly, in his vision, nations would lose all sovereignty and would be replaced by "autonomies." These entities would be free to adopt internal policies in the fields of economics, justice, education, health, etc., but would have no power whatsoever in terms of international politics. This would be the sole preserve of the Great Spaces and the power blocs.

For Quebec, it would mean more power than it already has, but, being in a super state with Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, its external policies would be dictated by an otherwise homogeneous Anglo-Saxon bloc. Needless to say, we would not have our voice heard and would have to follow Ottawa, Washington, and London unconditionally. History has proven to us countless times that their international policies seldom benefit French Canadians. Also, it is clear that a population of 8 million in a great space encompassing more than 410 million Anglophones would jeopardize our survival as a people.

The fact that Russia is not a part of our Western civilization is also central to Eurasianism. Russia is a blend of Europe and Asia, from whence the term Eurasianism is derived. This defines its specific goals:

"Russia is called to counter the West, not only to safeguard its own path, but also to stand at the vanguard of the other peoples and countries of the Earth in order to defend their freedom as civilizations."
Because Russia is a multicultural state, Eurasianism does not reject multiculturalism. It actually encourages the building of autonomies that include different identities, ethnicities, and religions within them. This is a position in conflict with an ethno-nationalist worldview. Although not stated explicitly, this is clearly the model proposed by Putin for Russia’s allies: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Iran.

Lessening the ethnic tensions.
History suggests that such a model cannot function well without a charismatic, authoritarian, and even tyrannical leader. While that may lessen the ethnic tensions for a while, history also shows us that the downfall or even the loss of prestige of such a leader brings about a tragic unraveling of such unstable entities. But Russia is forced to support such a model by its very nature, as it is perhaps the best example in the world today.

According to Dugin, Eurasianism is a theory that is relevant to diverse fields such as sociology, anthropology, and history. However, looking at the many books he has written on the subject and bearing in mind that he was the “creator of the modern Russian school of geopolitics,” it becomes clear that the focus of that theory is first and foremost geopolitics.

In his essay "On White Nationalism and Other Potential Allies in the Global Revolution" (Eurasian Mission p.166-171) Dugin makes it quite clear that he is not an ethnic nationalist, as many people mistakenly presented him. Yet he claims that Western ethnic nationalists can be allies of Eurasianists in the struggle against American hegemony. His concept is that we must first overcome the Atlantist enemy, and then solve our own disputes.

In his "Manifesto of the Global Revolutionary Alliance," (Eurasian Mission p.129-165), he reiterates this idea of unity through action, because like Eurasianists, nationalists see the same problems, and reject the current world:
"Joint action does not require us to be fighting for the same ideals or to be in solidarity with particular standards that will replace the current catastrophe and pathology. These ideals may be different, and even, to some degree conflict with one another, but we all must realize that if we won’t be able to terminate the global oligarchy, all of these projects, whatever they are, will remain unrealized and we will perish in vain."
This unity in fighting a common enemy can be best illustrated by Greece. Eurasianits support far-right Golden Dawn, but support at the same time the far-left party Syriza. The politics defended by these groups do not matter; instead, it is their opposition to the current world political situation that matters. Dugin sends a warning to identitarians worldwide: if some rightfully defend their identity and roots, they may well fall into the "Islamophobia trap" and actually end up working for the system they despise. Perhaps the best example of this trend is the English Defense League.

Overall, Dugin's criticism of Western modernity is spot on. But, simply because the disease is diagnosed properly, does not mean the cure proposed is the most appropriate one. Changing one sphere of influence for another, even if the latter is more respectful of our values and identities, is still neo-imperialism. Wouldn't the true antithesis of American Imperialism be a neutrality or non-interventionist policy, like that advocated by Charles Lindbergh, rather than some oriental Neo-Imperialism?

Is Eurasianism's call for multipolarity genuine or is it only a transit station on the road to a new bipolar or even unipolar world, where Moscow would reign supreme as the Third and final Rome?

Wouldn't it be just as much a mistake for nationalists today to blindly follow Moscow in its anti-US struggle as those 20th-century nationalists who supported NATO and the US simply because of their anti-communist stance?

These questions remain open and must be pondered. Vladimir Putin appeals to many nationalists because of his style and his tone. However, we must look beyond such glamour and superficiality to the real interests of our various peoples.

EGI Notes: Odds and Ends on Race, Culture, Economics, and Politics

via EGI Notes

1. A Negro earns $100,000,000 for a single boxing match against an injured and ineffectual Filipino. Now, will the shills for free market predatory capitalism say that is a good thing?  Really, according to their dogma, there should not be a problem. The Negro has a "marketable skill" and the consumers made their preferences known in the marketplace.  If folks are willing to fork over big money for this nonsense because they value and desire the experience, then that's supply and demand in action!  The market has spoken!  Economic efficiency wins out!  And I'd like to point out this really isn't racial - White athletes and actors and singers, etc. also earn obscene paydays for contributing no more to society and to human progress than do these colored boxers. It's part and parcel of "free market capitalism."
Now, the shills can take two approaches to this.  One, they can assert that it's all good, they see no problem, and that human progress is well served by having boxers, ballplayers, actors, singers, and dancers earn more in a day than truly productive folks earn in a lifetime.  If they assert this, then they demonstrate that they have nothing in common with true racial nationalists; if you worship the free market above all, then you must accept the market choice if people choose racial dissolution over preservationism.  These capitalist shills expose themselves as Economic Man, valuing consumption and money over racial progress and over actualizing a High Culture.
The second approach is to admit the flaws of free market capitalism, but excuse its excesses by stating, "there is no better alternative," and giving examples of the "horrors" of alternative systems. Or, they may propose "reforms" to improve what we see as flaws in their beloved system. Here, we see some progress. Although I do not agree with this second mindset, we have at least elicited an admission that unfettered free market capitalism has serious flaws, it is not perfect, and there is also the implied assumption that if somehow a better system were to be devised, then this new system should replace "economics uber alles" as society's foundational structure.  Those of us who are critics of hyper-free marketism ad predatory capitalism should continue to try and elicit these admissions from those will take the second approach and who admit that the capitalist colossus has feet of clay.
3. And yet, one can argue that the Negro is objectively superior to the White.  Despite all the defects that the HBDers like to point out, the Negro has assembled an effective and organized racial nationalist organization, in existence for many decades, with tens of thousands of loyal adherents. One can compare that to the pathetic laughingstock which is the "American White nationalist movement" and discern clear indications of an objective Negro racial superiority. Facts are facts.
4. Here is another article asserting that "winning Hispanic voters" is the "path to victory" for the GOP in 2016.  Now, I've discussed this many times and hate repeating myself, but all such analyses for some reason miss the point that the White vote is absolutely essential for the GOP; that there is not some universal law that dictates that Whites automatically, without question, must vote Republican; and that pandering to minorities and the constant shift to the Left will alienate the conservative White Republican voting base.  Sure, it's true that many Whites do in fact reflexively vote Republican, and will in fact vote Republican if the GOP candidate was a Black militant who openly called for White extermination.  But, still, even with that cohort of "automatic votes," there are still some fraction of Whites who actually - amazing! - expect the candidates they vote for to, in some manner, however indirect, support their interests.  Fact is, Republicans find themselves "between a rock and a hard place," because, in the long run, they do need to appeal to non-Whites (the "Sailer strategy" can only take you so far, given that a fraction of Whites are open anti-White leftists); however, by doing so, they will turn off their base and so gain little or nothing. And as politics become more racialized, and as White folks become increasingly tired of GOP fraud (the "Tea Party" was a reaction to this, before becoming compromised by Conservatism, inc.), the GOP will find it increasingly impossible to satisfy both the colored fringe voters and at the same time also satisfy their White base.  The fact this happened is their own fault; the GOP could have resisted America's demographic changes, but instead they embraced and promoted it. And now they must pay the price, even if moronic "analysts" fail to realize it and take White votes for granted.

Evil Synergies

via Radix

Today's France is a place where two conflicting trends exist.

First, an ever-growing consciousness from the native White population that it is endangered by mass immigration. The arrival of the National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen into the second round of the presidential election of 2002 was an earthquake for the mainstream political class. For weeks, the media flooded the population with references to Nazism, the “darkest hours of our (?) history,” and other metapolitical memes. Le Pen was beaten by the incumbent president, Jacques Chirac, who won with more than 82% of the vote. Nonetheless, Le Pen's arrival at the second round and the panicked emotional reaction from the Left marked an important date.

After 2002, the abstention increased, new “youth” movements such as the Bloc Identitaire and Jeunesses Identitaires (Identitarian Youth) appeared. Think-tanks like Polémia, information websites like Fdesouche–an abbreviation for Français de souche (original French)–focusing on immigration, economy, demography and metapolitics, and symbolic public events like a 2012 meeting against Islamisation or the occupation of the top of a Mosque in Poitiers all denote a deeper trend of White awakening.

Indeed, since Le Pen's daughter Marine took the lead of the party, its electoral results kept steadily increasing. The last elections of 2014 and 2015 made the National Front the first party of France on the basis of sheer vote number. More than five million voters upheld the Front candidates. Only a game of alliances amongst the mainstream right, a so-called Union de la droite created for maintaining the bipartisanship system at all costs, was able to prevent Front applicants from being elected.

Second, while this trend is made visible and negatively presented by the mainstream media, there is another one in the background. Namely, a constant effort to empower people of “diversity”, give them an ever-growing number of privileges–from preference in employment to the moral high ground of the “oppressed”–at the expense of the original population. “Diversity” people are groomed and cherished while young Whites get out of school with no worthy diploma, no sense of inner identity, no sense of belonging.

Ironically, the pro-White trend is the only one that could genuinely be designated as “organic.” The other one bears all the signs of a top-down creation: it is funded by the corporate world, spread in the mainstream media, and produced by power networks. Rest in peace, Mr. Gramsci.

A recent book, newly edited, sheds light on how the second trend is quietly built. According to Claude Meunier-Berthelot, a long-time teacher, there are actually not one but two state-funded educational systems in France. Both work in synergy and their coupling is likely to bear dramatic consequences.


On the far left: capture of a Magic System clip. Magic System is a France-based Africanist group. They have been famous and well distributed in France since 2002. Their clip “Mamadou”, produced in 2014, features the picture of a group leader pushing away a White guy before picking up a White girl.

On the center: capture of a clip by Kaaris, an Ivorian rapper who enjoys a French passport. His song “By Gucci Mane”, produced in 2014, features multiple scenes where he claims a supremacy above France and the French–despite the fact that French army saved his life by repatriating him from an Ivory Coast torn by war between 2002 and 2007.

Both Magic System and Kaaris are mainstream musicians, lavishly produced and distributed.

On the far right: Christophe Guilluy, a brilliant geographer who showed in several books that the so-called neglected suburbs of France, mostly belonging to Blacks and North Africans, were developed and economically active zones, in contrast to the abandoned periphery where the majority of the original French population still lives.

The Schools as a Tool for our Replacement

Meunier-Berthelot's book is named C'est l'identité française qu'on assasine (roughly, The Assassination of French Identity), but it could have been titled The Enslavement of the French Children. Within the public education system, some schools are more funded than the others: they are categorized as Priority Education Areas (in French, ZEP). Most of them belong to suburbs where children of Black and North African immigrants are already a wide majority. ZEPs are the vanguard of “affirmative action” and the replacement of our people. They are lavished with funds, individual attention, new material–albeit most White young teachers working there quickly lose motivation.
The first system, designed as the common right of National Education, consists in a “reformation” of schools where classes disappear at the same time that any serious requirement. This system includes all schools, from elementary to college teaching... It has been made for our children, our sons. The other one, defined as “priority education”, has been tailored specifically for the “Priority Education Areas”, i.e. the suburbs. Those populations, the majority of them immigrants, benefit from a structured teaching, with “efficient” (sic) pedagogical methods, individual monitoring, a regular check of their work and set-up requirements. The second system is fed by enormous resources. Money from our taxes flows for specific education and welfare system. Nothing is held back to create an alien elite while turning our children into future lackeys. – [Claude Meunier-Berthelot(http://www.le-blog-de-claude-meunier-berthelot.com/component/k2/item/88-peut-on-d%C3%A9truire-lidentit%C3%A9-fran%C3%A7aise-?.html)
On the other side, the regular schools–where the proportion of White children is still much higher–are reformed in the exact opposite way. Educational curriculum is dumbed down, grades and formal evaluation are planned for removal. Of course, the funding is lower, too. Young White minds are shaped to not develop their potential, to remain ignorant of hard work and success, while their Black and North African counterparts benefit from increased funding, leniency, and positive attention.

A recent reform of the history curriculum unambiguously follows this plan. The study of kings Clovis and Charlemagne, of the empereur Napoléon Bonaparte, are removed. Interestingly, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are removed as well–a strange feature as the official text pretends to emphasize the “problematics required for forming new citizens.” Study of Islam and some African “empires” are mandatory. Medieval Christianity is an option the teacher can choose, however, he must treat it from a defaming point of view of “the Church’s grip on the minds of rural people.” Today's history curriculum presents fleeting moments, without any global view able to encompass them but only an underlying message–“our” roots come from the Middle Eastern Islam and sub-Saharan Africa; France and Europe have no glorious history; France and Europe should only be mentioned as an oppressive, shameful past. In short, history classes will be nothing else than a daily feeding of poisoned blue pills.

This educational policy is not merely the production of a sectarian Left. It has also been pursued by mainstream right governments. The former president Nicolas Sarkozy spoke of “Kärcher” to clean the suburbs, promised to reestablish the value of work and uphold a “chosen immigration.” After his election, he named personalities of the cultural Left, such as the former Culture minister Jack Lang, at high-responsibility government jobs. He was also a friend of the infamous Richard Descoings, director of the main political science school of France and initiator of “affirmative action” policies for creating “diversity” quotas.
Whereas the “reformation of schools” policy for everyone stresses how much the school is simply a place for living, the texts basing the “reformation of priority education” (ZEP) policy stress the importance of “structured teaching”, “regular work” and “explicitly taught knowledge.” At least in intentions, this special teaching is grounded on transmitting knowledge and looking for excellence, and it is geared exclusively to immigration suburb inhabitants.
The aim is quite clear, especially when it comes to eased qualifications examining for entering into the better schools: give to a growing number of “visible minorities” members to access high-responsibility jobs in the media, the administrations, the corporate world, through privileged paths. This policy consists in preparing the great replacement of the elites... to the detriment of the original French populations relegated to remote suburban areas.
One can observe here the exact mechanism described the geographer Christophe Guilluy : an iron alliance between the globalized oligarchy living in city centers and immigration suburbs against the outer France of middle-size cities, urbanized rural areas and provinces. – Jean-Yves Le Gallou
There is no real difference between the elites of the mainstream Right and the hegemonic Left. The former maintains the politics of the latter. Before Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac had mentioned “the noise and smell” from immigrant large families living close to French workers. He also rallied on the theme of insecurity for being reelected. Then, what did he do? The exact same thing than the former and latter governments since at least 1976 have done, when the president Giscard d'Estaing ordered a decree to allow families from immigrant workers to come and stay. Since that year, the trend has always remained the same. Correlatively, the media and official discourse are rationalizing it by attacking the “xenophobia”, “white privilege” and other metapolitical memes essentially forged by the Left.

A Silent War

Such a continuous, rigorously maintained political system can only be the result of deep intentions. Deep politics are real, and their war is waged against us, the White people, especially the Millennial generation where many of us are on the path to downward social mobility. As a whole, we are the most sacrificed generation since the two World Wars. We are not sent to outright death on the battlefield–but we are dispossessed of everything our parents and ancestors have worked for.

Based on IQ studies, historical track record and daily experience, one could see in this monumental but occult policy an uphill battle against nature. As they say, you don't turn a pigeon into an eagle, nor can you turn a 70 IQ guy into the next Einstein. However, you can turn an eagle into a pigeon. As wrote Plato (Republic, 377c), “tell the children and so shape their souls” by chosen stories in order to give them the mindset you want. It works for developing a child's particular potential or making him an adherent of a project. As a reversal, it also works on a negative mode. Intelligent, civilized children can be dumbed down, injected with a negative view about themselves, told an incredibly dark version of the history of their ancestors, then released hapless among an anonymous, downward-mobile crowd.

The French-American Foundation (FAF), a discrete NGO working with the American Council of Foreign Relations, has spent years networking to find “tomorrow's leaders.” Promising young French have been recruited in a “Young Leaders” program and sent to the US, all expenses paid, for networking sessions. The current French President François Hollande and the former one Nicolas Sarkozy are members of the FAF. Those last years, the FAF devoted important efforts to the immigrant-peopled suburbs, indicating how much they are considered as important and promising for the future. Of course, there are some White people there–and it is likely that there will always be–but those people will be part of the system and working at higher levels. Those few Whites may benefit for some time, at the expense of all the other Whites. For some time only, because even if they belong to the heart of the system, they are an important target for a growing parasitic class.

Jacques Attali, an important Jewish consultant, claimed at the 2014 meeting of the Jewish Global Congress that a Western “Muslim bourgeoisie” shall be created. Muslims lack serious leaders, Attali said, and the Jewish community should help them: “in England, the Jewish bourgeoisie already funds imams.”

Is that altruism? Yes, provided that one accepts Attali's own definition of altruism: “intelligent egoism.” His apparently pro-Muslim strategy aims at putting them under the higher patronage of the Jewish organized community and avoid violent anti-Semitic upheavals from them. Attali–as probably everyone else at the Global Jewish Congress–doesn't care at all about the integrity of European countries—they care about creating a balance of power where they will have the upper hand. That strategy includes the abandonment of a majority of young Whites by civil society. The organized community doesn't care at all–or more likely feels a certain schadenfreude while seeing the result of their policy.

The strategy of creating an alien “diversity” elite seems to combine two features: the creation of a new balance of power, with multiculturalism dividing the inhabitants of Western countries, and a deep revenge against the European man who dared to rebel against the oh-so-bright Chosen People.

Attali also created a micro-finance society designed to grant preferential loans to the immigrants. One of the administrators of this society is a young North African entrepreneur, Younes Bourimech. As an entrepreneur and a North African, Bourimech has the perfect profile, with the addition of a particular premium: he owns shares of Therapy Music, the label behind the star gangsta-rapper Kaaris. I am not sure that gangsta-rap is the better instrument for maintaining a stable balance of power, even one that favors Jews. Nonetheless, as a metapolitical revenge tool, it is perfect: it romanticizes crime, violence, and a general thug lifestyle, usually practiced by Black and Arabs–and a few whiggers–against Whites.

Many young Whites are accustomed to life in the suburbs. They have lived in a mixed racial environment since they were born. Many of them don't imagine getting back to a state of racial and cultural homogeneity. They can't imagine what a really sane society is. After all, they have been told at school that their past story was dark and shameful, that racial mixing and the disappearance of European people was “progress.”

Most of the elite Jews in France are Sephardic. Coming from North Africa–and having never “suffered” from the Germans as they were not in Europe during WW2–those people have always lived in a racial diverse environment. I remember reading about a Sephardi who went back to France after Algeria was abandoned: he was shocked that the school classes were uniformly White. However, just like other Jews, the Sephardis have a potent sense of cultural and ethnic identity, in stark contrast to the clueless Whites who keep defending “antiracism” and blaming their conscious peers, even if it means their own dispossession.

What to do?

So far, the lack of identity and positive views among Whites has paved the way to an evil synergy between the organized Jewish community, ambitious and resentful immigrants, and a tiny minority of urban Whites who don't suffer much from the new situation. This evil synergy is built on our very behalf as a people. It has started with White bosses favoring cheap labor over employing their peers and has been aggravated when the Left shifted from the defense of the White working class to immigrants and some bourgeois urban minorities like the LGBT.

For many young French, the only solution for having a meaningful future is expatriation. There is nothing for us on the very country of our ancestors–unless we join an alienating system and accept betraying our peers for money or the hope of a career. Even then, many of us are facing a bleak future of ingrate works that leave us poorer than our parents, a life as second-tier citizens behind aggressive immigrants, an alien political class, public debt, and a daily war led against us by the media.

The National Front's public presence since 2002 has been a metapolitical blow. While it can hardly be considered as a savior of the homo europeanus, its very persistence is a thorn in the foot of the elites. If Marine Le Pen was elected as President, it would be another metapolitical blow, regardless of what she would actually do. The electoral success of the NF is good news beyond a doubt. Indeed, an important indicator of its rise is the arrival of careerists and Freemasons in her movement–in other words, a serious betting on its future. Marine has also genuflected to the organized Jewish community by claiming that “the NF is the better shield for French Jews.”

But even then, the infamous B'nai Brith maintains an anti-NF “republican” pact it has made with the mainstream political parties: no alliances allowed with the NF, all the alliances allowed against it. Thus, we have seen an alliance game among the mainstream actors on the Right and a score of zero departments for the Front, the first French party in term of number of votes. No, the NF isn't part of the “Republic” or the mainstream, and no one but us–but who is that us?–has any decisional power on the matter. There is an ever-growing trend of pro-NF vote and White awakening, but the alien and bobo elite are firmly holding against it by their own synergies.

Another answer, less political but much subtler on the metapolitical side, comes from the essayist Alain Soral and his think-tank Égalité & Réconciliation (Equality and Reconciliation). Basically, his venture aims to conciliate the original French with Muslims against “Zionism.” Soral emphasizes how a project like Attali's patronizes Muslims, leading them to “replace Allah by Mammon,” and following Jewish-nominated imams. Instead, his own project is a kind of bottom-up anti-globalist front. Soral's think-tank has been influential in spreading a critical outlook on Jewish power and influence. Still, it can hardly be considered as sustainable in the long term. It is a solution tailored for struggling against the globalist, alien alliance, and it may help for undermining it, but Soral's pro-Muslim view is shameful when one compares the richness of our civilization compared to Muslim dimness and disdain for European culture. The White-Muslim synergy built by E&R might be unstable, but is still an interesting counter-synergy, tailored for us–to a certain extent–and against our adversary.