Saturday, October 31, 2015

Why all the Hating on Trump?

It's pretty simple, really. Our betters, who run everything, want whoever is president to be beholden to them, and certainly not economically independent. Trump fails that test. And they also want millions and millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, to drive wages down and be reliably dependent on government largesse, to keep them in power forever. All the candidates, Democrat and Republican, pass this test except, that's right, Trump.

And as for Jewish hostility to Trump in particular, this from The Occidental Observer [link]

Why so much Jewish fear and loathing of Donald Trump?

Kevin MacDonald

Also at

There is some anxiety among Jews about Donald Trump’s candidacy. In fathoming why this might be, one could perhaps start by asking how Trump departs from the ideal presidential candidate. For Jews, the ideal candidate is (1) predictably and fanatically pro-Israel; (2) predictably liberal/left on social issues, particularly anything related to immigration and multiculturalism; and (3) in need of big campaign money contingent on satisfying (1) and (2). There can be little doubt that Jeb Bush, who was the early favorite of Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition, filled the bill quite well. But Bush now seems to be fading, with Adelson leaning toward Marco Rubio — he of the Gang of Eight immigration amnesty/surge bill and saying all the right things about Israel and the Middle East.

Trump would seem to be acceptable on Israel given his statement that “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever.” On the other hand, he does not come across as an ideal neocon candidate, having stated that he would not have invaded Iraq (a triumph of Israel, the neocons, and the Israel Lobby), opposes using US force for “nation-building” (another favorite neocon policy and one of the rationales for the Iraq invasion), and for his recent statements on Syria— that Putin’s support for Assad makes more sense than the US policy (“we don’t even know who we’re backing“).


And of course, Trump has long-term business connection with Jews, Jews have highly visible positions in his campaign, and his daughter has converted to Judaism. But despite all that, there have been several examples where well-connected, high-profile Jews have expressed anxiety about Trump precisely because of their Jewish identity, and it seems to me that the common denominator here is nothing less than that they see Trump as undermining elite consensus on immigration and the moral imperative of the end of White America. Or to put it less delicately, they see Trump as potentially leading to a fascist counter-revolution that would spell the end of the project, very muchpromoted by the Jewish community, of creating a multi-cultural, non-White America completely cut off from its pre-1965 moorings.

As often noted here, mainstream Jewish political attitudes and behavior in the US from the far left to the neoconservative right — as exemplified by thesuccessful campaign to enact the 1965 immigration law and continued support for high levels of immigration by the entire organized Jewish community — has always been directed at lessening the demographic, political, and cultural power of White America. There are two main reasons for this — concerns that a homogeneous White America could ultimately rise up against Jews as occurred in Hitler’s Germany (see here for discussion of a recent example), and antipathy toward Christian Europeans as an outgroup seen through Jewish perceptions of historical anti-Semitism.

Indeed, Republican Jewish activists have an uphill battle getting Jews to vote Republican despite the rabid pro-Israel rhetoric emanating from the GOP and assurances from Republican Jewish activists that the Republican Party has become a party of tolerance and pluralism. The basic problem is fear and loathing of the serious Christians among the White Republican base. As Kenneth Wald, a political science professor and the Samuel R. “Bud” Shorstein professor of American Jewish Culture & Society at the University of Florida, notes,

Apart from getting rid of their base — evangelicals — I don’t see a way for Republicans to make really deep inroads in the Jewish vote. … They’ve essentially got the Jewish voters who they’re going to get, and it’s essentially the same group they’ve had for a long time, probably about a fifth to a quarter of the [Jewish] population. (“Florida’s Jewish voters a target for Republicans, but a near lock for Democrats,” Tampa Bay Times, May 22, 2015.

This recalls the comment of Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams acknowledging that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” Serious Christians tap into primal Jewish fears.

Obviously, these attitudes on immigration do not apply to all American Jews, but they do represent the thrust of Jewish power in the U.S. We know this is not a principled stance but rather is a form of ethnic strategizing in the diaspora because the organized Jewish community also supports Israel as a Jewish state that restricts immigration of non-Jews and is actively involved in the dispossession of the Palestinians.

Donald Trump’s candidacy plugs into some of these fundamental Jewish attitudes about America as a White, Christian society. Some quotes:

“There are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump,” said Nathan Wurtzel, a Republican political consultant and principal at The Catalyst Group, who is Jewish. “It’s very off-putting and disturbing.” (“Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans“)

The concern that “White racists” support Trump is the focus of several articles, including Evan Osnos’ “The fearful and the frustrated” (the title is yet another example of psychoanalyzing away legitimate White interests) and Donald Perlstein’s “Donald Trump, American hustler: The frightening fascist tendencies of his GOP rise.” But why be concerned about the support of a tiny part of the electorate that explicitly voices White identities and interests? It is actually a guilt-by-association argument where the real concern is that Trump will do something on immigration, legal and illegal, that would slow White dispossession (policies that are obviously supported by White advocates but also by most Americans). This could then perhaps snowball into something far greater, with unknown consequences. Once rhetoric and policies opposed to immigration becomes legitimized, there is no telling where it will lead, and that is a huge concern for these Jewish activists. The fact is that Trump’s statements on immigration have tapped into a groundswell of popular sentiment, propelling him to a lead in all the polls. As Peter Brimelow noted, “objectively, Trump’s historical function is clearly to break the Washington Cartel and to bring the immigration issue into politics.”

Until Trump came along, there really was no mainstream politician and almost no media voices (Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan are exceptions) that were mentioning birthright citizenship, immigrant crime, or the effects of legal immigration on the labor market. White Americans are a sleeping giant, lulled to sleep by the media, by cuckolded politicians, and by the creation an atmosphere of fear where discordant opinions are severely punished by job loss, ostracism, etc., while there are huge rewards for going along with the status quo. Jewish academic and media activists have spent the last centurypromoting the idea that White racial/ethnic interests do not exist, but they are well aware that this is a spark that can be lit quite easily with consequences that are impossible to predict. Even with all the propaganda, all the punishments for deviation, and all the incentives for going along with the system, politics are increasingly racialized in the U.S. (implying that racial identity rather than social class is now critical for explaining voting behavior), and there is clearly a significant segment of the White electorate that is disaffected with the Republican establishment but certainly does not see salvation with the Democrats.

When neocon Ben Wattenberg famously asserted that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality” [The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong, p. 84.], he was speaking for the great majority of American Jews and certainly for the organized Jewish community. But America has not yet been non-Europeanized — at least not completely and not irreversibly. The possibility that Donald Trump could begin the process of re-Europeanizing America is horrifying to these Republican Jewish activists.

Another example of Jewish Republican angst, from “Trump, Carson have Republican Jewish establishment worried: Longtime GOP Jewish donors and activists look on in dismay as the two presidential hopefuls lead the polls“:

[Support for Trump is] a disorienting experience for longtime Republican Jewish donors and activists, who have made

inroads into the party’s establishment over the last two decades, and who have been at the forefront of advocacy for tolerance and pluralism within the party.

“The tone of what they’re saying, we get painted as a party of intolerance,” said [fundraiser Fred] Zeidman, who practices law in the Houston area and backs Bush’s candidacy. …

[Op-Ed editor of the New York Post Seth] Mandel said online that white supremacist backing for Trump — who has suggested immigrants from Mexico are predominantly criminals — has been unsettling. “That will always make Jews uncomfortable, that’s why there’s so much pushback” among some Jewish conservatives against the Trump candidacy

For the last 35 years or so, the neocons have been pushing the GOP to the left on social issues — and yes, neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. But notice that, as is so often the case, Jewish interests in a non-European America are presented as fulfilling the loftiest of moral sentiments. It’s all about pluralism and tolerance — virtues that the great majority of Americans agree with (but are completely absent from Jewish rhetoric on Israeli policies). Whites are portrayed as having a moral imperative to become a minority. This is a rhetoric that is uniquely effective in the West, with devastating results. We must understand such claims for what they are: expressions of Jewish ethnic interests that conflict with the legitimate ethnic interests of Whites in preserving their demographic and cultural dominance in societies they founded and have dominated for hundreds and, in the case of Europe, thousands of years.

Given this deep concern that Trump may imperil the project of dispossessing White America, it is not surprising that for some Jewish activists, even the most benign statements by Trump conjure up images of Hitler and National Socialism. An example also noted in Peter Brimlow’s article cited above is the statement by Ross Kaminsky writing in American Spectator that again focuses on Trump’s immigration plan:

His plan to require businesses to “hire American workers first” has the stench of xenophobia backed up by the fist of government. Perhaps as a Jew I’m overly sensitive, but when I hear Trump speak I can’t help but think of “Germany for the Germans.”

This is certainly outrageous on its face — isn’t it obvious that US immigration policy should be about the interests of Americans? But actually, it’s not obvious at all. Indeed, it reflects a deep reality—that Jewish attitudes on immigration have a long history of being explicitly unconcerned with the interests of America or its traditional majority population. Rather, the Jewish view is that immigration policy should be based on moral principles, not the interests of Americans. Immigration of all races is a sacred value, far more important than the qualities of the immigrants or what they can contribute to America.

In 1948 the [American Jewish] Committee submitted to a Senate subcommittee a statement simultaneously denying the importance of the material interests of the United States and affirming its commitment to immigration of all races: “Americanism is not to be measured by conformity to law, or zeal for education, or literacy, or any of these qualities in which immigrants may excel the nativeborn. Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities” [stated at a time when the 1924 immigration law biasing immigration to Northwest Europe was still in force] (see here, p. 274; see also pp. 277-278).

Again reflecting the low threshold for linking Trump with National Socialism, Bethany Mandel, also writing in The Forward finds that, as with Kaminsky, Trump conjures up images of Germany in the 1930s:

Since his campaign has taken off, Trump has spent a good deal of energy playing dumb when it comes to the overwhelming nature of the support for his candidacy from white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Worse than Trump’s willful blindness is the rhetoric he uses to stoke racial unrest with a slogan — “Make America Great Again” — reminiscent of the Nazi Party of the 1930s.

Finally, at the most hyperbolic end of the spectrum is Donald Perlstein’s article “Donald Trump, American hustler: The frightening fascist tendencies of his GOP rise,” originally posted at the Washington Spectator but deemed so important that it was re-posted by Salon. Perlstein’s intellectual roots can be seen in his quoting Philip Rahv, “a founding editor of the marquee intellectual journal Partisan Review.” PR was the flagship journal of the New York Intellectuals, an influential Jewish intellectual movement that was an early proponent of the the idea that American democracy required a commitment, as Sidney Hook phrased it in 1948, to “a maximum of cultural [and ethnic] diversity” (see previous link, p. 220) — a good example of Jewish intellectuals promoting the transcendent value of ethnic and cultural diversity as far more important than any material interests of the United States much less the ethnic interests of White Americans.

(Likewise, Evan Osnos, in his New Yorker article on Trump and the White nationalists, cites another famous New York Intellectual who pathologized legitimate White interests, pointing to “the crude tribalism that Richard Hofstadter [see here, p. 195) named “the paranoid style”—and, over the summer, it replicated like a runaway mutation.” These are good examples of how Jewish media figures can easily and confidently plug into Jewish intellectual traditions that are fundamentally hostile to the legitimate interests of the traditional American majority.)

Perlstein all but accuses Trump of being the second coming of Hitler:

Donald Trump is not a fascist––probably.

His ex-wife Ivana once claimed he kept a volume of Hitler’s collected speeches in a cabinet by his bed, and read from time to time the fuhrer’s vision of human life as a pitiless war of all against all. “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them,” he toldVanity Fair in 1990. But consider something the architect of Trump Tower, Der Scutt, once said on how to evaluate the truth value of Donald Trump claims: “divide by two, then divide by four, and you’re closer to the answer.”

Again, the crux of the issue is Trump’s immigration plan:

Trump has now provided more “specifics” about his immigration plan: a forced population transfer greater than any attempted in history, greater than the French and Spanish expulsions of the Jews in 1308 and 1492; greater than the Nabka of approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from British-mandate Palestine; greater than the 1.5 million Stalin consigned to Siberia and the Central Asian republics; greater than Pol Pot’s exile of 2.5 million city-dwellers to the Cambodian countryside, or the scattering of Turkey’s Assyrian Christians, which the scholar Mordechai Zaken says numbers in the millions and required 180 years to complete. Trump has promised to move 12 million Mexicans in under two years––“so fast your head will spin.”

For some reason, Perlstein ignores the expulsion of 12 million Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II — by some estimates the same as the number of illegals in the US now. I suspect that Perlstein sees the German expulsions as just fine even if they resulted in an estimated 2 million deaths and untold suffering. No need to complicate his simple narrative of moral righteousness with the horror of what actually happened to German civilians during and after the war, often with active Jewish complicity (see previous link).

Other signs of incipient American fascism noted by Perlstein:

Last fall, the Public Religion Research Institute found that a majority of whites believe “discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.”

Shouldn’t we at least link to a discussion of why this belief is wrongheaded, given the rather hostile attitudes towards Whites pursuing their legitimate interests that are so apparent among the Donald Perlsteins of the world and appearing in elite media outlets like Salon?

A brand new Washington Post/ABC poll finds 57 percent of Republicans support the most massive ethnic cleansing in the annals of humanity (or, what The Washington Post blandly calls “Trump’s tough positions on immigration”).
Actually, most Americans support Trump’s immigration plan. But for Perlstein, Trump and most Americans are incipient fascists for wanting an immigration policy that serves their interests.

Since I can’t really take seriously the notion that Donald Trump would actually attempt, much less succeed, in rolling back the last 50 years, I see these expressions of Jewish angst more as a sign of Jewish political neurosis than anything rooted in reality. These writers and political operatives have an incredibly low threshold for detecting incipient fascism. But make no mistake, this political neurosis is having and will continue to have very real effects on the 2016 race. One can only imagine the deluge of propaganda if indeed Trump was seen as having a very real chance of winning. The 1964 ads predicting nuclear Armageddon if Barry Goldwater was elected would be small potatoes by comparison.
Quibcag illustrated by SakuraChan776

Joke Time

From Danny Waddell:

Bill Clinton was driving past the White House when he accidentally ran over the Obama’s dog, Sunny, crushing it flat as a fritter. He climbed out of his Caddie and sat down on the grass totally distraught. He knew Michelle would go ballistic. Then he noticed a lamp half-buried in the ground. He dug it up, brushed it off and immediately a Genie popped out.

"You have freed me from thousands of years of imprisonment," said the Genie, "And, as your reward, I shall grant you one wish."

“Well," said Bill, "I have all the material things I need, but let me show you this dog."

They walk over to the splattered remains of Sunny. "Do you think you could bring this dog back to life for me?" Bill asked.

The Genie looked at the remains and shook his head. "This critter is too far gone for even me to bring it back to life. Maybe there's something else you'd like?"

Bill thought for a minute, reached into his pocket and pulled out two photos. "I had an affair with this beautiful young girl called Monica," said Bill, showing the genie the first photo. "But I’m married to this woman, called Hillary," and he showed the genie the second photo. "You see Hillary isn't at all beautiful, so do you think you can make her look like Monica?"

The Genie studied the two photographs and after a few minutes said, "Let's have another look at the dog!"

The Gospel of Loki

I'm surprised nobody thought of this before. I'm surprised I didn't think of it. A novel retelling the story of the Norse gods from beginning to Ragnarok from Loki's point of view. I don't know much about Joanne M. Harris — I happened across this book at the library — except that she's also the author of Chocolat. And it turns out that she's written other novels with a Norse god theme. And I will hunt those up and read them, too.

I read all about the Norse gods when I was a kid, and Harris seems to have included everything I can remember in this book, but since the stories are told by Loki the trickster, the gods come across as much less admirable than usual. Odin is duplicitous, Thor is unimaginative and violent, Freyja is vain and greedy — that sort of thing. But in the back of your mind, as you read it, you have the feeling that Loki's version is of course self-serving and somewhat misleading.

Very much a worthwhile read if you're interested in Norse mythology. You can get it from Amazon here [link]. And I think this qualifies as a Halloween post.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Willis Carto, R.I.P.

Some people are very important but nobody's ever heard of them.  Willis Carto is a good example of that. If you've been around the right wing — the real right wing — as long as I have, well over fifty years, though, you've probably heard of Willis Carto. He was the moving force behind a lot of the resistance to the left over the last few decades, notably the Liberty Lobby. He was also behind the Institute for Historical Review, the American Mercury, and Noontide press.

Indeed, if you've ever had anything to do with movements to the right of moderate Republicanism, you've probably read or dealt with material for which Carto was directly or indirectly responsible.

It's safe to say that , if there had been no Willis Carto, the right wing in America would be much smaller and less influential than it is.

Well, he's just died on us, at the age of 89, and here's a memoir from

Remembering Willis Carto:
July 17, 1926–October 26, 2015

carto19602,000 words
Willis Allison Carto died Monday night in Virginia, full of years (89), achievements, and honors. But this memorial tribute is nevertheless way overdue. If you know the broad outlines of Mr. Carto’s life (biography review here) you know that he was, for well over a half-century, the founder and patron of those political movements we now variously call Paleoconservatism, Race-Realism, White Nationalism . . . or Alt Right.
Pause and consider. When you imbibe the heady sophistication and philosophical analyses here at Counter-Currents—or laugh at the mordant humor of Mike Enoch’s The Right Stuff; or addictively check out The Occidental Observer and Radix Journal every day; or appreciate the rich, deep lore available at such sites as Inconvenient History and Euro-Synergies—then you must give a tip of your mental hat to Willis Allison Carto, the old pioneering strategist who made this Alt Right possible.
Lest we forget, Mr. Carto himself had quite a few titles, imprints, websites, in his long life. RightWestern Destiny. The American Mercury (which he owned in the ’60s and ’70s).The Washington ObserverThe SpotlightThe Journal of Historical ReviewThe Barnes Review, American Free Press. The Noontide Press. Independent Publishers.
The Anti-Buckley
Back in the Fifties, when Bill Buckley and his National Review crew were trying to reinvent American conservatism by casting it as something cutesy and sanitized andnice-to-the-Jews, Mr. Carto, a Purple Heart recipient (once shot by a Jap sniper on Cibu Island, May 1945) looked the enemy in the face and did not flinch. He did not balk or cringe when they called him an anti-semite, a racist, a crypto-nazi.
Nicey-nicey folks of the National Review stripe get shirty when you call them names. So it’s appropriate that in 2015 we now have a fine snide name to call them.Cuckservatives! I don’t know if Willis Carto paid attention to that word when it was making sound and fury in the political blogosphere this summer, but I like to think that he did.
Of course he did. He must have heard about it. And must have had a great big triumphal end-of-life belly-laugh. Bwah-hah-hah!
The comeuppance of the cucks! National Review goes down hard. Willis Carto lives to see it. Oh what a world! What a world!
William F. Buckley, Jr. and Willis A. Carto sparred continuously, in print and in the courts, for much of their adult lives. Initially, in the early- and mid-Fifties, they swam in the same waters, along with such luminary confederates as G. L. RockwellRussell Maguire, and Revilo Oliver. After National Review got launched in 1955, however, Bill Buckley began to disavow his old associates, along with the teachings of his upbringing and religion. Willis Carto founded Liberty Lobby the same year, but unlike Buckley built his enterprise into a sturdy multi-million-dollar organization, with a townhouse a block from the Capitol.
National Review assiduously ignored Carto until September 1971. Then it published a “hit” piece on him, bylined by one C. H. Simonds and full of formulaic denunciations about “anti-Semitism” and Carto’s deep sympathy for the American Fascist philosopher Francis Parker Yockey. Where did this come from? Well, it appears that the rising popularity of Yockey’s Imperium (published by Carto’s Noontide Press) and bearing an Introduction signed by Carto, was the probable trigger for this smear job. Imperium was then being widely distributed by the National Youth Alliance—formerly Youth for Wallace, later National Alliance. (((Someone))), presumably the ADL, decided this new Danger on the Right was both fearsome and—better yet!—a attractive fundraising opportunity.
Thereafter Willis Carto and Liberty Lobby made regular appearances in the mainstream press—National Review, the New York Times, and a strange, short-lived 1981magazine backed by political journalist Jack Anderson, called The Investigator. Carto and Liberty Lobby immediately sued for libel on the grounds that they were therein described as “neo-Nazi, fascist, anti-Semitic, and racist,” and these allegations were based entirely on one-sided reports from biased sources. Antonin Scalia of the US Circuit Court eventually found for Carto and Liberty Lobby in 1984.[1] Meantime, The Investigator was long gone from the newsstands, having folded after that first unfortunate issue.
In an even more protracted case, 1971-85, Carto and Liberty Lobby sued Buckley for the hit piece by “C. H. Simonds.” The court agreed that the Simonds article was “a muddled smear,” but agreed with Buckley that Liberty Lobby should not have reported Buckley’s “close working relationship” with George Lincoln Rockwell in the 1950s.[2]
Meantime, from 1978 to 1983, there was a libel suit between Buckley pal (and Watergate co-conspirator) E. Howard Hunt and the Liberty Lobby. A Wilmington, Delaware newspaper and The Spotlight (then published by Liberty Lobby) both claimed that CIA operative Hunt had been present in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. Hunt decided to sue Liberty Lobby but not the Delaware paper. Carto’s attorney Mark Lane was able to show that Hunt had indeed been in Dallas at the time of the assassination; and was almost certainly one of the suspect “tramps” arrested (and swiftly released) by Dallas Police on November 22, 1963.
Operational Security
Willis Carto and his wife Elisabeth were friends of mine. We first met at a Liberty Lobby function on Capitol Hill in 1985. Thereafter I saw them frequently for about ten years, first in DC, then in Southern California. I wrote occasionally for The Spotlight, and worked freelance for book-editing projects at the Institute for Historical Review in Costa Mesa.
In March of this year, 2015, I decided to look up my old friends. I hadn’t seen them since their Christmas party in Escondido in 1995. (I remember I brought a bottle of pinot noir, and that I had a dangling tailpipe and dented muffler. Willis advised me I really ought to get that muffler replaced. Which I promptly did.) Then I moved out of the country[3] and the Cartos lost their mountaintop house through the actions of some very erratic, ungrateful employees.
I knew that Willis and Elisabeth had recently (February 2015) moved their editorial headquarters (The Barnes Review and American Free Press) from Capitol Hill in DC to a spacious office-park suite in the wilds of Prince Georges County, Maryland. From California I remembered Willis’s fondness for cheap, anonymous business estates with lots of room to store shippable books and back issues of magazines. The Cartos’ enterprises in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa had been set up this way. Neverthless I was quite unprepared for the long, almost impossible trek it was from Largo Station at the end of the Washington DC Metro, to their offices many miles to the north.
The Largo end of Prince Georges County is almost entirely negro. There is a Metro station and a bad shopping mall; otherwise, not much there there. You get out at Largo station and discover there is virtually no public transportation beyond. I had to pay an Guinean cabbie $50 to drive me to the Cartos’ office park some ten miles away. Once I got there, it took them a while to remember me (we were all twenty years older) but when they did they were full of useful information, such as Elisabeth’s recommendation that I rent a car from Enterprise next time I come up from Washington—much cheaper than Metro and taxi. They told me how they now had a home in Orange County, Virginia (over an hour’s drive away), and how they, and most of the editorial staff, came into the office only once each fortnight.
I gathered that these new, remote offices were taken in consideration of Operational Security. Back in California, they had once lost a warehouse of books through (Jewish) terrorist bombings, and some years later they got forced out of their premises at gunpoint by greedy, disgruntled employees.
But that kind of swindle was Willis’s Achilles heel. Like King Lear, Willis Carto was repeatedly done in by deceitful “heirs” and underlings. He never went mad on the Blasted Heath, and he always sprang back with new enterprises, but still it was disconcerting to watch him make the same mistakes over and over.
Tragicomedy and Hope
The classic, central saga about Carto in this respect is l’affaire IHR: the mind-numbing, seemingly endless lawsuits between him and his former employees at the Institute for Historical Review (roughly 1993-2000). This is a tale that the ADL, SPLC and Antifa groups never tire of recounting with gleeful Schadenfreude.
Briefly, an heir of Thomas Edison had left Willis Carto (or one of his enterprises) alegacy of about seven million dollars. Some senior employees at the IHR discovered this, declared that part of the legacy had been siphoned to Carto’s other enterprises, and proceeded to evict him from the organization’s board as well as from the premises of the IHR.[4] Later on, the IHR employees obtained a court judgment against the Cartos and seized their Escondido house (which the Cartos supposedly made semi-inhabitable by disconnecting all the mains and filling the bathroom commodes with cement).[5]
aceNone of this should have been a surprise to Willis. His first director of the IHR, 1978-81, William David McCalden (aka “Lewis Brandon”) was also the first to turn traitor. Very energetic but egotistical, David took his personal contacts and mailing lists from the IHR, and set up a sort of rival, one-man, operation called Truth Missions, which consisted of little more than a monthly newsletter making fun of Willis Carto and his successive employees. David’s young successor, Keith Stimely, came aboard at age 23 and helped turn the Journal of Historical Review into a serious, scholarly publication; while also helping Willis amass a devastating “dirt file” on McCalden (distributed c. 1984 as Dossier on a “Revisionist” Crank). Then Keith too turned against Willis, and wrote up his own dirt-file: Willis was an opportunist, a huckster like Kirk Douglas in Billy Wilder’s Ace in the Hole. Someone who signed his name to the Introduction to Imperium, even though Revilo Oliver wrote it! A philistine, someone who couldn’t sit through a Bruckner symphony without squirming![6]
What always baffled me about Willis is that he did not spot this repeating pattern, and thereby foresee the 1993 IHR “coup,” when his four senior employees, with the assistance of the IHR’s outside counsel, seized control of the premises and forced Willis and Elisabeth out of the offices at gunpoint. This time the situation snowballed to the point where the Cartos and their other organizations (Liberty Lobby, The Spotlight) were forced into bankruptcy.
The Cartos were amazingly resilient, and recovered even from this disaster. But it still beggars belief how Willis got himself into this tragicomic predicament again and again.
Perhaps you just can’t build a successful nationalist, racialist organization, unless you are able to maintain a high-trust mentality, the kind of trust Willis took for granted growing up in Fort Wayne, Indiana. If this is the case, then we’re just all going to have to take our risks and take our knocks. Trust everyone but cut the cards. In the meantime. . .
Farewell then, Willis, comrade. Many lessons learned!
1. Carto and Liberty Lobby sued, won a judgment. The case was appealed. Judge Antonin Scalia of the US Circuit Court upheld the findings that Carto and LL had been defamed and that Anderson and his writers had acted with malice.
2. The one finding against Liberty Lobby has a very contemporary ring: ‘On two counts of the magazine’s charges, Judge [Joyce Hens] Green ruled that Liberty Lobby committed libel by saying National Review favored allowing ”militant sex deviates” the right ”to molest your children,” and that the magazine was a ”mouthpiece” of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.’ NY Times, Oct. 26, 1985.
3. Willis was disappointed when I moved to London for some years on business. He was a real old-fashioned Midwestern Anglophobe.
4. Some employees would stay with or visit me while plotting with IHR board members. Like Mrs. Surratt, I “kept the nest where the plot was hatched.” Except in this case I really did believe that this nice Mr. Booth was merely a charming young actor.
5. Personal anecdote.
6. Keith Stimely, 1986 memoir about the IHR and Willis Carto.
Quibcag: Illustrated by "nations" of Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powersヘタリア).

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Wodehouse in Exile

I just heard that the City of New York is honoring traitorous communist spy Ethel Rosenberg [link]. When you're on the left, all is forgiven, sooner or later. Just look at Bill Ayers and his wife [link]. The right is another matter. Even being erroneously associated with the right is unforgivable, or at least you need twenty years or so to be forgiven for something you didn't do. And that's the case with P. G. Wodehouse.

Wodehouse was of course the author of a heap of hilarious novel, the most well-known of which are the Jeeves and Wooster stories, which I'd recommend to anybody. Hugh Laurie, years before "House," portrayed Bertie Wooster opposite Stephen Fry as Jeeves in a series based on the books. I recommend that, as well.

And now there's a film about Wodehouse. Wodehouse in Exile [link] tells the story about what happened to him during the war. In summary, he was living in France, oblivious to what was going on, when the
Germans invaded and interned him as an enemy alien. Cleverly, they treated him well and released him, though they didn't let him leave Germany. They jollied him along, and he ended up doing some comic broadcasts to the United States, mainly to thank Americans for their support and to assure them that he was well. He was a naif, politically, and had no idea his broadcasts could benefit the Germans in any way. But the Brits flew into a fury. As George Orwell put it many years ago:
Tim Piggott-Smith

In the desperate circumstances of the time, it was excusable to be angry at what Wodehouse did, but to go on denouncing him three or four years later — and more, to let an impression remain that he acted with conscious treachery — is not excusable. (Read Orwell's whole piece on the subject here [link].)

As near as I can tell, the film is historically correct —though I understand that they got Malcolm Muggeridge's rank wrong. Muggeridge is portrayed by a rather remarkable actor, Julian Rhind-Tutt ,who pops up now and then. Also, Zoe Wanamaker gives a delightful performance as Wodehouse's wife. And last of all, Tim Piggott-Smith does a remarkable job portraying Wodehouse himself. You may know Piggott-Smith from his performance years ago as Ronald Merrick in The Jewel in the Crown, in which he portrays a character who is the complete opposite of Wodehouse.

You can get the movie from Amazon here:

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Greg Johnson Puts LIbertarianism in its Place

I've been flailing around for some time now, trying to put into words just why libertarianism, which sound so good on paper, just doesn't seem to work in practice. Or, it's not so much that it doesn't work as that it works only under controlled conditions. And "control" seems to be a bad word to a lot of self-proclaimed libertarians, especially those from the left in America, who can best be described, in many cases, as "hippies with guns." This is because they retain almost all the damn foolishness of hippiedom, leavened with a sort of feel for gun rights and maybe a little free market economic knowledge.

In any case, libertarianism taken past its natural limits has fatal flaws, the most salient described below by Greg Johnson. BTW, it most definitely refutes libertarianism as it manifests in America at this time, but it only serves to buttress my version of the movement, which I choose to call "Libertarian Nationalism," which is purged of the flaw pointed out, among others. This is from

The Refutation of Libertarianism

The following text is the talk I delivered at the London Forum on October 3, 2015. I wish to thank Jez Turner, the London Forum team, and their faithful audience for making this talk possible.
Libertarianism is the politics of individualism. Individualism is both a metaphysical and a moral position.
Metaphysical individualism is the thesis that only particular men exist. Groups are just collections of individuals, with no independent reality or meaning.
Metaphysical individualism is connected to universalism, which is the idea that there is only one race, the human race, which is just a collection of individuals. Universalism implies that there is no meaningful distinction between ingroups and outgroups, between us and them.
Universalism has two important implications.
First, since politics as Carl Schmitt defines it arises from the distinction between us and them, universalism implies that politics is merely a temporary phenomenon, based on the waning illusion of meaningful distinctions between ingroups and outgroups. When these distinctions disappear, politics will as well.
Second, nationalism, patriotism, and any other form of partiality for one’s ingroup over an outgroup is morally illegitimate, since there is really no us and them, just me and you. This leads us to the ethical dimension of individualism. How do you and I get on together? If groups are just collections of individuals, there are no group values, just individual values. The purpose of social institutions, therefore, is to facilitate individuals pursuing their own aims.
The great facilitator of individuals pursuing their aims is capitalism. If you and I have something to offer each other, we might trade. If we have nothing to offer each other, we just walk on by. The marketplace requires only a minimal “nightwatchman” state to protect us against force, fraud, breach of contract, and the like.
Ethical individualism requires us to treat individuals as individuals, not as members of various morally unimportant groups handed to us by history or nature. We must be “blind” to race. We must be “blind” to class. We must be “blind” to sex. We must be “blind” to religion. We must be “blind” to nationality. We must be “blind” to all things that divide us. The only thing we must see are individual merits.
The individualism game is highly advantageous for all players. Individualism unleashes creativity in science, technology, and business. But paradoxically, the greatest strength of individualism is the form of cooperation it fosters. Each individualist comports himself as a member of a potentially global society. This means that social cooperation can scale up to the global limit as well, making possible the wholesale transformation of the world we call modernity.
Collectivist societies, however, are hampered by ingroup/outgroup splits. If people behave as members of groups, trust and cooperation are confined to ingroups, which severely constricts the scale of social institutions and corrupts their functioning with favoritism toward ingroups and discrimination toward outgroups.
In honest contests, the individualist game can outcompete the collectivist game, which is why individualistic European societies conquered virtually the entire globe with superior technologies and forms of social cooperation.
But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.
How does one cheat an individualist? By pretending to be an individualist while working as a member of a group. You demand that individualists give you a fair shake in every transaction. But whenever possible, you give preferences to members of your own tribe, and they give preferences to you.
Imagine playing a game of cards in which your opponent can play a wild card but you can’t. That wild card is their tribal membership. It does not matter how great an advantage you might have over him in terms of chips at the start, because the rules give him a systematic advantage, and as long as you play the game, you will lose. But individualists are slow to catch on to the scam, because they are blind to groups.
It is interesting that the most important founder of modern race- and nation-blind individualism was Ayn Rand, born Alissa Rosenbaum, and the leadership of her Objectivist movement just happened to be overwhelmingly Jewish, including a number of first cousins and married couples. Obviously, this was not individualist meritocracy in action. Yet Rand’s followers were blind to this fact as a matter of high moral principle.
There will never be a libertarian society. But libertarian ideology still performs a function within the existing system. And although libertarianism is superficially opposed to the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, both are Jewish intellectual movements that perform the same function: they break down the resistance of high-trust, European individualist societies to duplicitous tribal groups—what John Robb calls “parasite tribes”—preeminently Jews. Libertarians preach individualism, whereas the Frankfurt school stigmatizes white ethnocentrism and extols “inclusiveness” toward “marginalized” groups. But the result is the same. Both doctrines promote Jewish upward mobility and collective power while blinding the rest of society to what is happening.
What kind of people preach blindness as a virtue? People who are up to no good.
Ultimately, I would argue, individualism is a product of the biological and cultural evolution of European man. Individualism goes hand in hand with low ethnocentrism, i.e., openness to strangers, the universalist idea that ultimately there just one group, humanity, to which we all belong. The European mentality was beautifully encapsulated in a saying of Will Rogers: “A stranger is just a friend you haven’t met.” I doubt very much that an equivalent phrase can be found in Hebrew or Arabic. In other words, there is fundamentally no us and them. There is just knowledge and ignorance, friends we know and friends we don’t.
This openness is highly advantageous because it allows us to increase the number of people with whom trust and cooperation are possible. But openness to strangers is also risky, of course, because they might not reciprocate. Thus taking the risk of sociability—extending the hand of friendship—is deeply engrained in our sense of moral high-mindedness. But when we meet people who do not reciprocate our openness, but instead regard it as a weakness to be exploited, then our virtues are no longer advantageous, and if our elites persist in high-minded openness to such enemies, they must be relieved of their powers and responsibilities.
Individualism blinds its followers to collectivist cheats. Thus the only way to save individualism is to become aware of groups. But that sounds like collectivism. Once we become aware of parasite tribes, we have to exclude them. But that sounds like statism. If individualism is ultimately a European ethos, then individualism requires that we preserve European societies and exclude non-Europeans, which sounds like racial nationalism.
This is the refutation of libertarianism. It is a form of self-refutation. To save individualism, we have to repudiate universalism, reintroduce the distinction between us and them, and start acting collectively. Individualism only works as part of a collective of like-minded people who must exclude collectives that don’t play by the same rules. This is how some people start out as libertarian individualists and become racists, anti-Semites, and fascists in the end.
Quibcag: Here we have the crew of the Benten Maru, from the delightful anime,  Bodacious Space Pirates (モーレツ宇宙海賊パイレーツ Mōretsu Pairētsu), illustrating the fact that for many purposes, you can't beat well-developed individuals acting collectively. Just try running a ship any other way. Anyhow, the anime has a libertarian streak in it in the best possible sense, and here's the trailer to show you what I mean: