The identification of Judeo-European slave morality (referred to as "Christianity") with morality per se was so universal in Nietzsche's day, that one could, to a general audience, write sensibly of its rejection only as amorality or immorality, as seemingly Nietzsche had to do despite his implicit endorsement of master morality, regarding which little could be said.

For the rules by which the masters, the nobility, live have mostly to due with honor and etiquette, personal and familial - and may be codified in a reasonably consistent and complete corpus of prescriptions and proscriptions. There tends to be little debate among such a class of people as to the dictates of honor and proper behavior in any given situation.

But the most important rules by which the common folk live, when they are torn away from tribal roots, have mostly to do with property, personal and public - and cannot be codified in a complete and consistent corpus of rules and regulations. Thus, where there is not the pretense of the existence of such a corpus, the debate is perpetual as to how to organize and govern society beyond the tribal level, since there are no answers to the ancient questions as to "who guards the guardians" or how to arrange perpetually collusion-free commerce and special-interest-free policy without so contrarily burdening commerce and society with corruptible and inefficient bureaucracy and internal security as to be societally non-competitive in international commerce and war-making capability.

For example:

The term “rightly understood interest” is used, in the discussion of the logic of political economy, to characterize an aspect of the behavior of homo oeconomicus, the hypothetical rational actor or entity engaged in commercial or “market” activity. The following illustration of its meaning will show it to be a rather obvious concept — though it nevertheless can be seen to have devastating implications:

If, for example, several individuals periodically derive a minimal level of nutrition from a “pie” created for them by one or several of their number, from materials supplied by others of the same, the “raw” interest, so-to-speak, of each of them might well be to take the whole pie for himself. As there is only one pie at a time and multiple individuals to be satisfied, the raw interest of all cannot be realized at once in this regard. If any one or few of them deprive or deceive others in regard to a share of the pie, violence may ensue with possible damage to pie creation. If the creators of the pie are not suitably rewarded, pie production may diminish or cease — likewise with the supply of materials and the persons responsible therefor. The group is confronted with a multi-dimensional challenge in trying to develop a formula (Laissez-faire?/Command economy?/Mixed economy?/Socialism?/Corporatism?/Syndicalism?/Anarchism?/Social Credit?/Marxism?/Leninism?/Stalinism?/Maoism?/Fascism?/National Socialism?/etc.) for dividing the pie to at least the minimal satisfaction of all, while deterring misbehavior and motivating pie production. If such a formula is successfully achieved and basically adhered to, it may be said to serve the “rightly understood,” as opposed to the elementary “raw” interest, of each of the participant individuals.

This is all rather commonsensical and obvious, but, again, this reality has devastating consequences, when we “scale-up” this challenge to encompass the requirements for satisfaction of millions or billions of individuals. On this scale it is literally impossible, as suggested by the multiplicity of alternatives and lack of officlal clarity as to principles, to develop a formula for attending to the rightly understood interests of this number of advanced organisms confronting inescapably scarce resources. If prevarication does not serve to pacify the victims of inevitable deficiency, violence and death will be the frequent alternatives. Thus is humankind governed, according to the Iron Law of Oligarchy - whereby the rightly understood interest of an organized minority is, rather, in exploiting a disorganized majority - by none other than lies and violence, priests and warriors, as the record of human experience so richly reveals. Utopian hopes, measures toward a “New World Order,” even durable national stability, are thus without foundation, excluded by the logic and experience of political economy, at least until Jesus brings the Second Advent to town or the day those “mysterious material forces of production” finally turn up.


As said, a formula for meeting these challenges does not exist in other than public pretense (for example and especially as to the existence of "human rights," the suitability of the moral Decalogue in this capacity, and the academic notion of a Platonic or etheric realm of legal principle). And this pretense and difficulty are particularly in evidence where indefinable considerations of equality/justice/fairness/freedom/liberty must be accommodated, as in the fatuous, but much exploited, impression that a coherent concept of universal, international "justice" exists such that "victims" of political or military events may be said to have "moral authority" and "rights" to "reparations" and that "guilt" must be imposed upon the so-called "criminals" involved. And yet another pernicious illusion prevails where public propaganda and popular ignorance sustain the idea that form-of-government ("democracy" versus "dictatorship") is a matter of morality rather than a matter of mere utility.

Nevertheless, the fate of polities depends vitally upon the successful management of these irresolvable problems. To fail to manage the unmanageable is to instigate class war and to inspire international war, the latter often resorted to by polities ancient and modern in order to palliate the former development. But this is all in order in Nietzsche's broad analysis of the nature of life - for life is exploitation - the feeding of one organism upon another. The exploitation of one class by another, and the subjugation of one people by another, is all according to the organic nature of society and its will to power and cannot be rectified by resort to intrinsically defective
legal/ethical/moral dictates and enforcement:

"Consequently, only with the setting up of the law is there a 'just' and 'unjust' (and not, as Dühring will have it, from the time of the injurious action). To talk of just and unjust in themselves has no sense whatsoever; it’s obvious that in themselves harming, oppressing, exploiting, destroying cannot be 'unjust,' inasmuch as life essentially works that way, that is, in its basic functions it harms, oppresses, exploits, and destroys, and cannot be conceived at all without this character. We have to acknowledge something even more disturbing: the fact that from the highest biological standpoint, conditions of justice must always be only exceptional conditions, partial restrictions on the basic will to live, which is set on power; they are subordinate to the total purpose of this will as individual means, that is, as means to create larger units of power. A legal system conceived of as sovereign and universal, not as a means in the struggle of power complexes, but as a means against all struggles in general, something along the lines of Dühring’s communist cliché in which each will must be considered as equal to every will, that would be a principle hostile to life, a destroyer and dissolver of human beings, an assassination attempt on the future of human beings, a sign of exhaustion, a secret path to nothingness.—" (Genealogy II 11)

Here we have the evidence of Nietzsche's rare genius in appreciating the moral dilemma with which man is instrinsically confronted in the context of any political activity. It is a supreme irony that the academic and popular impression of this quandary is so disgracefully uninformed, that moral pre-schoolers, as immediately below, may unashamedly offer the following ludicrous assessment of the seasoned philosopher for our consideration:

For example:

"In a world where liberalism and democracies are now increasingly in violent geopolitical conflict with Islâmic Fascism [a misnomer, NN], and trendy progressives despise liberal capitalism more than misogynistic Islâmic terrorists [rather, the Islamic Resistance, NN] the most surprising intellectual developments become possible. In such an ideological mix and ferment, one thing stands clear: Nietzsche's contribution, a morally infantile [emphasis mine, NN] fantasy of barbarism, will always be dangerous, destructive, and seductive to anyone whose moral maturity is no greater than his.

"Editorial Note:

"I should pay tribute to my former professor and advisor at UCLA and the University of Hawaii, Lenn Goodman (now at Vanderbilt University), who once made what I thought was the most acute observation about Nietzsche -- that he was simply not a morally mature person. I wonder if we can excuse Nietzsche because, after all, he was losing his mind. But this is not an excuse that will work for most Nietzsche enthuasiasts."


Resuming the thread of our thought (with indulgent smiles regarding such naivete) - the party of fanciful Good Intentions with which this Road to Hell is presently being paved is the meliorist liberal Left, classical and modern, which has facilitated the liberation of the "people," bourgeois and working-class, from their historic aristocratic masters. If we place the most charitable interpretation upon the motivation behind this contribution, we would say that the oppressed and exploited have thereby been relieved of such injustice, and have been granted the freedom and rights to which all are entitled by virtue of their humanity. Notions of Natural Law and Progress make self-evident the righteousness of this subversive enterprise — based, as it is believed to be, upon universal principles dictated by reason and compassion for one's fellow man. Thus, as is easily observed in the present instance, advocates of this "liberalism" find themselves to be the most compassionate, caring, concerned, and committed of us all in seeing to the welfare of humanity as a whole and of the planet upon which that humanity resides.

The problem with liberating the lower orders, however, is that the revolution means more suffering, exploitation, and death under the new masters than under the old. For example, maintaining order on a mutinous ship in the old days sometimes meant resorting to flogging miscreants even more often than did the martinet who induced the mutiny. More recently, the nascent Soviet Union had to take murderous Russian brutality and callousness to unprecedented heights (or depths) in conforming its much-reduced population of surviving peasants and workers to their lovely new Gulag-enhanced and Secret-Police-supervised "Worker's Paradise". And to date, the tally of Maoist Red Chinese domestic megacide, in pursuit of a pure Communist liberationist regime, has not even been approached in absolute numbers by any other polity.

That is the actual working-out of the brutal logic of political-economy in the history of events, as opposed to the sentimental theory and fable with which we are most familiar. The order created by centuries of aristocratic dominion is not a story of unbridled rapacity presiding over incessant misery, a'la the tales of Robin Hood and Uncle Tom's Cabin, but, in fact, of the progressive minimization of the unavoidable impositions that violent conflict make upon human society. It is when republican "citizenship" and revolutionary "comradeship" make their appearance on the scene that the suffering and killing really start - because the demands of the newly-elevated rabble multiply the demands that must be met. It was democratic Athenian imperialism, not monarchic Spartan conservatism, that provoked formation of the anti-Athenian coalition leading to the Peloponnesian War. It was the most "liberal" of the European powers, England, the World's Workshop, and not Prussian Militarist Germany, on whose empire the sun never set.

Liberalism is thus the logical and historical prelude to anarchy or despotism, by virtue of having unleashed demands, for the satisfaction of which no new formula exists in replacement of the accommodations reached in the course of centuries of aristocratic rule. Anglo-America has avoided this fate, to this date, first, by having long exploited the politico-economic virtues of global colonialism in which Laissez-faire works nicely according to theory - until a pioneering frontier closes - and by having thereafter been sold into another Faustian Pact with the Fifth-Column international theocrats of the day (elite Jewry having replaced the Church in this capacity).

This latter-day Deal with the Devil involved being rewarded in the historic short-term with manhood-affirming, mock-heroic martial "victory," and with long-awaited economic "recovery," and with transitory global pre-eminence in the aftermath of the Fifth Column's engineering of the War to Save Communism from Hitler and Tojo - plus the wide-spread off-shoring of otherwise class-warfare-producing wage-slavery and the additional extortions from global economic imperialism, as a bonus.

This comes, however, at the long-term expense of eliminating effective resistance to displacement of the native oligarchy by elite Jewry, of resistance to illegal immigration and eventual declension into Third-World decrepitude, and of preparedness for eventual attack by the irregular forces of the Asian (currently crypto-Communist Russian and Chinese Communist) revolutionary regimes, who are deceptively exploiting the ideologically-based delusions of their "objective enemy," Greater Judea (formerly "America") - the latter having been temporarily elevated beyond its place in the world (Hua Guofeng-wise) by the Fifth-Column-engineered WWII alliance with its Communist then-and-now mortal enemy, in a back-stabbing betrayal of its would-be natural and present ally, Germany.


  1. In the midst of a blinding snow storm, a short stocky man, bundled in a heavy overcoat, arrived at the American Embassy in Helsinki, Finland. He matter-of-factly identified himself as a consul at the Soviet Embassy, and then asked to see Frank Friberg. The request, coming from a Soviet stranger, immediately set off alarm bells; Friberg was the CIA station chief.

    The procedures for dealing with a potential defector were immediately put in effect. After escorting the Russian visitor to an isolated room, the marine guard alerted the desk officer at the embassy, who relayed the Mayday message to the CIA station. Within minutes, Friberg rushed down to meet this Soviet "walk in". The stranger came right to the point. He identified himself as Anatoli Golitsyn, a major in the KGB. To leave no doubt in the mind of his CIA counterpart, he handed over a sheath of secret documents from the files of the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki. He said he would make further information available about the Soviet espionage apparatus if the CIA immediately arrange his safe passage to the United States, along with that of his wife and daughter.

    It was an extraordinary offer. Friberg asked the Russian if he would consider returning to the Soviet Embassy and acting as an agent in place for the CIA.

    Golitsyn was adamant. He replied he would not survive if he returned. The KGB had means of identifying CIA agents in place-- and he could disclose them after he was safely in America.

    Friberg realized that he was suggesting that there was a serious leak in the CIA. Unable to persuade him to work as a mole, he asked how much time he had to organize his defection.

    Golitsyn replied that he had to be out by Christmas day. After that, his wife and daughter would be expected back in Moscow, and Soviet security personnel, who were being rotated over the holiday, would be back on active duty. This gave Friberg a maximum of forty-eight hours.

    In Washington, the frantic search through the CIA's central registry of records produced only a single "trace" on Golitsyn. Peter Derebian, a KGB officer who had been stationed in Vienna before defecting in 1954, had mentioned him to his CIA debriefers as a KGB officer who might be potentially disloyal to the Soviet Union. Before this lead could be followed up in Vienna, Golitsyn had been recalled to Moscow.

    The CIA had been given now a second chance. The Soviet Russia division authorized his immediate evacuation from Helsinki. No matter what diplomatic complications it would cause, it wanted to get this KGB officer in the palm of its hand, and use him to identify, and possible approach, other potential defectors in the Soviet diplomatic Corp.

    On Christmas day, a US air force courier plane landed at Helsinki's snow-covered airport. Servicing military attaches stationed abroad, such flights are routinely exempted from foreign customs and immigration inspection. This was, however, not a routine training mission. While the plane waited on the runway, a car pulled up beside it. Its passengers, who carried no luggage, quickly boarded the plane. Among them were Golitsyn, his wife and daughter. Minutes later, the plane was airborne again, en route to West Germany.

    The first round of interrogations took place at the US Army defector center outside of Frankfurt. Golitsyn was required to write out by hand his entire career in the KGB from the day he joined in 1948 to the day he defected-- listing all the positions he held, promotions he received and KGB officers with whom he came in contact. Unlike most previous defectors, who had field agents with limited knowledge about the central apparatus of the KGB, Golitsyn claimed to have been assigned to the KGB's headquarters in Moscow and also to its "think tank", the KGB institute, where intelligence operations were related to overall Soviet strategy.

    To determine if his story was true, Golitsyn was next strapped into a stress-analyzing machine, used by the CIA as a lie-detector , and relentlessly quizzed about various details of his story -- a process known in the CIA as "fluttering". After each session, counterintelligence experts also compared each bit of information he provided with what was already known. By the end of the first week, the CIA was fully persuaded that he was a bona fide defector who had indeed held the positions in the KGB he claimed. Arrangements were then made to bring him and with his family to the United States.

    In February 1962, in an isolated and heavy-guarded CIA compound overlooking the Choptank River in Talbot County, Maryland, he began an extensive debriefing. To the amazement of his debriefers, he not only revealed knowledge of a wide range of secret NATO documents -- but he identified them by their code numbers. He explained that for convenience the KGB used the NATO numbering system to request specific documents, which would than arrive from its source in France in 72 hours.

    President John F. Kennedy, apprized of the Golitsyn revelations, then dispatched a personal courier to Paris, with an "eyes only" letter for President Charles De Gaulle. In it, he warned that the KGB had penetrated French intelligence.

    A few weeks later, six French intelligence officers, handpicked by De Gaulle, arrived in Washington. They carried with them specially-devised ciphers that by passed the normal channels of French intelligence, and kept their very presence in the United States a secret from even their own embassy. Their tape-recorded interrogation of Golitsyn, who they code-named Martel, took 14 days, and left them in a paralyzing quandary.

    The French intelligence secrets Golitsyn had provided came from the highest echelon of the French government. When the list of those having access to them was narrowed down, suspicion was focused on both the head of French counterintelligence and De Gaulle's personal intelligence advisor.

    Golitsyn then dropped another bombshell. He told of a KGB plan he had help draft in Moscow to use the French intelligence service to spy on missile sites in the American Midwest. French intelligence officers would be ordered by Paris to use their contacts to gather data -- for the benefit of Moscow.

    De Vosjoli initially was openly incredulous of this allegation. It not only implied that the KGB controlled French intelligence, but that it would blatantly use its officers to spy on the United States. His first reaction was that Golitsyn was a "plant", dispatched by the KGB for the express purpose of disrupting US-French relations. Several months later, however, he had to abandon this theory. He received an order from Paris to begin organizing French spy networks in the United States. The mission would be to ferret out secret data about American missile bases. De Vosjoli could not believe his eyes: it was the very order that Golitsyn claimed he had seen a year earlier in Moscow. Since he knew that France itself had no need for such information about US bases, he queried Paris for further clarification. The answer instructed him to implement the plan without further delay-- or questions.

    At this point, he realized that Golitsyn's assertion , as implausible as it first seemed, was correct. The KGB had penetrated French intelligence. He refused the order. In Paris, a top official, who was identified through Golitsyn's leads as a member of a spy ring, code-named Sapphire, was thrown from a window-- and died. When well-connected friends in Paris then informed de Vosjoli that this was done on orders of French intelligence to protect others in the ring. He then attempted going out of his normal reporting channels to General De Gaulle himself, but to no avail. By November 1963, he realized his own life was in jeopardy and he sought the protection of the CIA.

    Golitsyn, the source who had caused all this turmoil, was becoming throughout this period increasingly more difficult to debrief. He was an angry, short-tempered man with no patience for matters that he considered trivial. He prided himself on being a historian of Soviet foreign policy. His interrogators, on the other hand, needed to test every petty detail in his story. This led to constant friction.

    The Soviet Bloc Division seemed mainly concerned in having Golitsyn identify the KGB officers working under cover as diplomats at each embassy. He was tediously shown over one thousand snapshots of Soviet diplomats, usually surreptitiously taken, and asked if he recognized them. Then Golitsyn refused to look at any more photographs, shouting at his debriefers, "What good is knowing all the names in the KGB. .. if you don't understand what they do?". He insisted that they should be debriefing him on strategy-- not personnel. The interrogators let him finish his tirade, then, returned to the snapshots. Their job was to identify officers of the KGB, not delineate its geopolitical strategies.

    Then, when these photo sessions were over, Golitsyn was asked whether he would be willing to go abroad and personally contact former KGB acquaintances on behalf of the CIA. He refused, explaining "The KGB knows all your operations in advance". To prove his point, he ticked off a number of examples of CIA attempts to recruit Soviet diplomats in Switzerland and Austria which the KGB had had advanced warnings.

    The debriefers showed little interested in this assertion; instead they implied his debriefings were coming to an end. Golitsyn then demanded to see the President of the United States. When informed that such an audience was impossible, he became even less cooperative, and asked permission to go to England..

    By the end of his first year, the CIA had concluded that they had "squeezed" Golitsyn of all the information he knew. In early 1963, it arranged to send him to England to be "resettled" under a new identity.

    Stephan De Mowbray handled his case there Before his defection, Golitsyn had worked at KGB headquarters in the northern European espionage division, which included England. He had prepared his defection by memorizing English as well as French documents. Many of these came directly from the files of MI-5, the British equivalent of the FBI. For example, he quoted verbatim from a secret report on the breaking of a Soviet code by British intelligence. As it turned out, one of his interrogators had written the report. When he rechecked the "bigot list"-- which identifies all those with access to the report, he found that it had been circulated is to only the top executives officers of MI5. How then could have Golitsyn seen it in Moscow?

    The only answer was that one of these executives had provided the KGB with the report. The search for that tainted executive, which would continue for over a decade, began with the setting up of a secret unit, called innocuously "The Fluency Committee". The members included De Mowbray and six other counterintelligence officers drawn from both MI-6 and MI-5. Their sole job was determining who was the mole. As these investigators evaluated the clues from Golitsyn and other sources, they gradually eliminated most of the names on the Bigot list. There remained two prime suspects-- Sir Roger Hollis, the Director of MI-5, and his deputy,Graham Mitchell. Both were put under surveillance.

    When the investigation then rules out Mitchell, Sir Roger, the head of MI-5, remained the sole candidate. Although the Fluency Committee had no direct evidence that Sir Roger ever was in contact with Soviet intelligence, De Mowbray went personally to the seat of the British government at 10 Downing Street, identified himself, and asked to see the Prime Minister. To his surprise, he received an immediate appointment. He came right to the point and told him that there was reason to believe Sir Roger was a traitor. This initiative was not "popular" with his superiors. Two years later, De Mowbray retired.

    Golitsyn's stay in England turned out to be unexpectedly brief. During his interrogation about the KGB agents in British intelligence, he alluded to a similar situation in the CIA.

    This possibility was of great concern to MI-5. It might explain the origin of some of its own untraced leaks. Arthur Martin, one of the most skilled interrogators in MI-5, quickly zeroed in on the CIA treatment of this charge. Had his leads been followed?

    Golitsyn insisted that they had not. Instead, the interrogators from the Soviet Russia Division persisted in asking the wrong questions. They wanted to know the names of case officer from the KGB, not the purpose behind their activities. They confused tactics, with strategy.

    He explained that the tactic was making contact with the "main enemy", the CIA, in order to compromise and recruit agents. The strategy was not merely to neutralize the CIA but to turn it into an instrument to serve Soviet objectives.

    Martin listened attentively. He already knew, from his experience with recruits the KGB had made in British intelligence, of the vulnerability of intelligence officers. He had also come to believe that the CIA had placed too much faith in security procedures, such as lie detector tests. He asked Golitsyn if he had any ideas about why his CIA interrogators had downplayed, if not entirely avoided this issue.

    Golitsyn said that he knew the KGB had been successful in recruiting at least one, and possibly more, CIA officers in the Soviet Russia Division. He assumed from the way he was treated that the mole (or moles) was still influential in the Division.

    It was clear to both Martin and De Mowbray that the CIA had badly mishandled Golitsyn's interrogation. While they did not the entirely buy his theory of an active mole in the Soviet Russia Division, they realized that it might have inhibited him from openly discussing this issue with the CIA. In any case, his allegation could not be lightly dismissed. If there was a penetration of this sensitive part of the CIA, it would affect all the allied intelligence services. Martin decided to go directly to his friend, James Angleton.

    Angleton had himself come to a similar conclusion about Golitsyn's original debriefing. Whatever was the reason, the Soviet Bloc Division had not got the full story out of Golitsyn. He thus went to Helms with an unprecedented request. He asked that responsibility for this defector be re-assigned to his counterintelligence staff.

    Helms found Angleton's case persuasive. He not only made the re-assignment but, as he explained to me, he gave Angleton "carte blanche" authority to use whatever resources were needed. In doing so, although he didn't realize it at the time, he set in motion the longest and most incredible debriefing in the history of the CIA.

    In July 1963, through a leak arranged by MI-5, a story appeared in the Daily Telegraph revealing that Golitsyn (under the purposely misspelled name "Dolitson" was in England. It had the calculated effect of persuading Golitsyn that his security could not be assured in England. Three weeks later, Golitsyn arrived back in the United States. Under Angleton's tutelage, there would be no more exhaustive grillings of him or repetitive showings of snapshots of Soviet diplomats. Angleton told him that his interest was not the KGB's staffing, or "order of battle", as it is called; but the "logic of Soviet penetration".

    As Angleton saw it, it was not a debriefing, but an "elicitation". Golitsyn became an intellectual partner in the process where their dinners would turn into discussion of Soviet politics that would continue into the early hours of the morning. Golitsyn was allowed to sift through sanitized copies of Angleton's "serials", searching for connections between these clues.

    To build his confidence, Angleton arranged for Golitsyn to brief Attorney-General Robert F. Kennedy on the KGB threat, and took him on trips to Europe and Israel to speak to allied intelligence executives. Golitsyn, encouraged by this attention, proposed organizing a new counterintelligence service which would be independent of the CIA. Angleton took it under consideration, although it had no chance of coming to fruition, to further drew out his ideas about the KGB.

    While this elicitation was proceeding, Angleton moved to plug the putative leak in the Soviet Russia Division. Golitsyn had insisted that it had to come from more than a single agent, and used the analogy of a growing "cancer" that the patient refused to recognize -- or cut out. With the assistance of the CIA's Office of Security, which has responsibility for ferreting out moles, he arranged a series of "marked cards" for the Soviet Russia Division. These were selected bits of information about planned CIA operations passed out, one at a time, to different units of the Division to see which, if any, leak to the enemy. The "marked card" in the initial test revealed that an effort would be made to recruit a particular Soviet diplomat in Canada. The Office of Security agents, watching the diplomat from a discreet distance, then observed the KGB putting its own survelliance on him on the day of the planned contact, realized that the "marked card" had gotten to the KGB. This test confirmed Golitsyn's suspicion that the mole was still active.

    Through a process of elimination, subsequent marked cards narrowed down the leak to the unit directly involved with recruiting REDTOPS. Since more than one individual was exposed to this marked information, and there was no way of knowing if there was more than one leak in that unit, the investigation could not weed out the mole (or moles) from the roster of suspects. Instead, beginning in 1966, the entire unit was cut off from sensitive cases until its personnel could be reshuffled. Murphy, Bagley and a dozen other officers were re-posted to Europe, Africa and Asia. This "prophylactic", as Angleton called it accounted for what appeared to the uninitiate be a "purge" over the Nosenko case. In any case, after the transfers, additional "marked cards" indicated that the penetration had been remedied.

    Angleton's interest, however, went well beyond the security problem arising from the recruitment of western case officers by the KGB. He wanted to know why the KGB had focussed its attention on particular units of the CIA, such as the operational side of the Soviet Russia Division. The real issue to Angleton was what purposes these penetrations advanced.

    Golitsyn explained that they were a necessary part of the deception machinery that had been out in place in 1959. Their job was to report back on how the CIA was evaluating material it was receiving from other KGB agents. These moles attempted to work their way into positions of access in the Soviet Russia Division or other parts of American intelligence that intercepted soviet data. With them in place, disinformation became a game of "show and tell" for the KGB. The dispatched defectors and other provocateurs, who could be anyone from a Soviet diplomat to a touring scientist, " showed" the CIA a Soviet secret, and then its moles told the KGB how the CIA had interpreted it. It was all coordinated from Moscow like an orchestra. This system was designed by the KGB, according to Golitsyn, to gradually convert the CIA into its own mechanism for manipulating the American government.

    Angleton wanted to know more about the Soviet apparatus foe deception. Why had the KGB moved from being a espionage to deception? Why had it been re-organized?

    Golitsyn suggested that it all began with a Politburo assessment in the mid 1950s that the Soviet Union would be unlikely to prevail in a nuclear war. It followed that if it was to win against the West, it would be by fraud rather than force. For this singular purpose, Soviet intelligence would have to undertake the tricky job of manipulating the information western leaders received.

    This sort of manipulation was not a new role for Soviet intelligence. After all,,under the leadership of Felix Dzerzhinskii in the 1920s, it had ran sustained disinformation campaigns, such as The Trust, against the West. Aleksandr Shelepin, a top executive of the Communist Party, was put in charge of the KGB in 1959, and given a mandate to return it to a mission of strategic deception.

    Under Shelepin, during this reorganization, Golitsyn worked on an analysis intended to demonstrate how convention spying could be subordinated to deception goals, without potentially compromising the secrecy of the latter. The intrinsic problem was that KGB officers had to be in contact with western intelligence officers either to recruit them or to pass them disinformation, and, this presented the opportunity to defect or otherwise be compromised.

    In fact, scores of Soviet intelligence officers had either defected or offered information to the CIA since the end of the war. While some of these sources could be assumed to be dispatched defectors from the KGB, a large number of the others turned out to be legitimate. How could the KGB sustain deceptions-- if it was probable that some of its officers would defect or otherwise betray its secret.

    Golitsyn explained that the KGB re-organization in 1958-9 was designed to avoid this vulnerability. It effectively separated the KGB into two distinct entities. An outer and inner KGB.

    The "outer" KGB was made up of personnel who, out of necessity, had to be in contact with foreigners, and were therefore vulnerable to being compromised. It included KGB recruiters and spotters posted to embassies and missions ,military attaches, disinformation and propaganda agents and illegal case officers who worked abroad. Since they had to be in touch with Westerners, if only to attempt to recruit them as spies, they were assumed to be "doomed spies". A certain percentage would, by the law of probability would be caught. These "doomed spies" were the equivalent of pilots sent on raids over enemy territory. They were not only restricted from knowing any state secrets (other than what was necessary for their mission), but they were purposefully briefed on what it was useful for the enemy to learn if they were captured.

    The "inner" KGB was the real repository of secrets. It was limited to a small number of trusted officers, under the direct supervision of the Politburo, who planned, orchestrated, controlled and analyzed the operations. ( According to Golitsyn, all potential security risks, which included most of the officers of Jewish descent, were transferred into the outer service in preparation for the reorganization).

    A "China wall" existed between these two levels. No personnel from the outer service would ever be transferred to the inner service, or vice versa. Nor would any personnel in the outer service ever be exposed to strategic secrets other than what had been prepared for them to divulge as disinformation.

    Angleton realized the implications of this reorganization. If Golitsyn was correct, it meant that the CIA knew virtually nothing about its adversary's capacity for orchestrated deception. To be sure, it had received fragmentary clues from other sources that Soviet intelligence was undergoing shifts in its personnel in 1959 but it had not been able fit these developments into any meaningful pattern. Seen through the new perspective provided by Golitsyn, the KGB turned out to be a different and much more dangerous instrument of Soviet policy. Its principle objective was to provide information to the CIA that would cause the United States to make the wrong decisions. Such information would appear to be credible because it would be fashioned to dovetail that U.S. intelligence received from other sources.

    It meant, moreover, that very targets the CIA was going after as recruits-- diplomats, military attaches, journalists, dissidents and intelligence officers-- were the carriers of this disinformation. They were all in the outer KGB. Even if they were persuaded to work in place as moles for the CIA, their information would be of dubious value. All they would have access to, aside from trivial details about their own espionage apparatus, was disinformation.

    Nor would any microphones the CIA planted in Soviet embassies be of any use. The chatter they would eavesdrop on would come from those excluded from the real strategic secrets of the inner KGB. They would thus only reinforce the disinformation.

    The Golitsyn thesis went further than invalidating the present tactics of the CIA and FBI. It impeached many of their past successes-- at least since the reorganization in 1959. This reassessment would be particularly damaging to double-agents and defectors who claimed to have access to strategic secrets. If they could not have had such access, as Golitsyn asserted, they had to be redefined as either frauds or dupes. In this new light, heroes became villains,and victories became defeats. It was the equivalent for the CIA of stepping through a looking glass.

    When Angleton presented the Golitsyn thesis to CIA and executives on the operational side, it aroused fierce resistance. Neither CIA nor FBI recruiters were willing to accept the idea that they were going after the wrong Soviet personnel. This would make them the accomplices, albeit unwitting, of Soviet deception-planners. They also were not receptive to a concept of the CIA that discredited valued sources, such as Oleg Penkovskiy, on whom many of them had built their careers. There was also the practical problem that the conclusions drawn from these sources had been forwarded over the years to the National Security Council and the President. The inference that this CIA product was based on KGB disinformation was not therefore not attractive to most of the executives of the CIA.

    At the FBI, the Golitsyn thesis was rejected out of hand by J. Edgar Hoover. He had a very powerful motive since FBI agents had recruited a number of Soviet diplomats at the U.N., such as Fedora and Tophat, as sources. They not only claimed that they had access to secrets from the decision-making level of the Politburo, but they furnished them on demand to the FBI. Hoover had personally passed some of this material directly to the President. He was not about to accept an interpretation that would render this data KGB disinformation.

    In 1967, he ended the issue, at least within the FBI, by branding Golitsyn a Soviet-controlled "provocateur and penetration agent" . He advanced the theory that the KGB had staged his defection to discredit the FBI. He then refused any further cooperation with the CIA aimed at substantiating Golitsyn's story. For example, he pointedly withdrew a FBI surveillance team which had been watching a suspect round-the clock on behalf of the CIA. And, as the tensions over this case increased, Hoover broke off all liaison relations with the CIA. (In 1978, after Hoover's death, the FBI acknowledged that Fedora and Tophat were KGB-controlled disinformation agents).

    By 1968, American intelligence was , as Helms described the situation, "a house divided against itself". Angleton's staff, and others executives who accepted Golitsyn's thesis, saw the need to take precautions against a reorganized KGB. Instead of targeting Soviet bloc embassy personnel, as it had done before, they wanted to find new ways of penetrating the heart of Soviet intelligence. They also had to make sure that their decisions were not being fed back to the KGB-- even if this meant disturbing careers paths in the CIA.

    Those involved in the gathering of intelligence saw the situation in very different terms. The attempt to validate the thesis of a Soviet defector had prevented the CIA's Soviet Russia Division from going after promising Soviet recruits. It had also led to defectors being held offshore to avoid another "Nosenko" incident. And it kept reports officers, whose job it was to extract information from agents' reports, from extracting valuable information from sources who had already been recruited. It had, from their point of view, all but paralyzed normal intelligence operations.

    The frustration of these officers was intensified by the secrecy surrounding the dispute. Few of them were briefed on the Golitsyn thesis. All they knew was that their work was being called into question by Angleton and his staff. As the years dragged on, the mysterious investigation appeared to them as nothing more than "sick think".

    What neither side in the CIA could see was the other's logic. It was like the celebrated experiment in Gestalt psychology in which one can either see two faces or a wine cup in a picture , but not both. Similarly, the CIA could not deal two mutually exclusive concepts of its enemy. What its operational officers and analysts looked at as valid information, furnished by Soviet sources who risked their lives to cooperate, counterintelligence officers saw as disinformation, provided by KGB dispatched and controlled sources.

    Finally, Helms decided that Gordian knot had to be cut. He suggested that the test of Golitsyn's thesis should be its utility. Could it be used to identify the deceptions of the Kremlin? If not, what good was it to the CIA? Helms asked, what had 7 years of debriefing Golitsyn produced in practical terms: " an elephant or a mouse?."

    Golitsyn had never claimed to have participated in any of the actual deceptions planning. He had only seen the mechanism for executing them being put in place.

    When pressed by Angleton's staff as to what these deceptions might be, Golitsyn could only extrapolate from clues a decade old. They were, at best, unproven theories. For example, he speculated that many of the apparent divisions in the eastern bloc, including the split between China and the Soviet Union, had been staged to throw the West off balance.

    When he presented them in 1968 to the special committee Helms had assembled, he was unable to convince its members, especially since they directly contradicted the CIA's picture of world events. When skeptic pressed him about his evidence, he became extremely defensive, and demanded their evidence for disputing his theories. The meeting ended acrimoniously, with Golitsyn shouting back at the CIA experts as they subjected him to a cross-fire of objections.

    Helms concluded that whatever the value of the "vintage" information that he supplied, Golitsyn's speculations about current KGB operations, to which he had no direct access, was worthless to the CIA. He had failed the test.

    Angleton, who had survived in the CIA bureaucracy for twenty years, understood that this meant that ~Golitsyn was to be "put on the shelf". A patient man, he was willing to wait to see if future evidence developed. In the meantime, he encouraged Golitsyn to set down all the details of the KGB reorganization in a manuscript.

    The issue of Soviet deception was not settled until 1973. While Helms was willing to tolerate the doubts of Angleton, the new Director William E. Colby, was not. Colby, the son of a Jesuit missionary, whose main experience in the CIA had been in paramilitary and political activities, rejected out of hand Angleton's complicated view of KGB strategic deception. He saw the job of the CIA as a straight forward one of gathering intelligence for the President. He considered "the KGB as something to be evaded" . It was not to be the "object of the CIA's operations". Whereas Angleton had encouraged a policy of suspecting "walk in" defectors and double-agents, he decided to encourage their recruitment. He explained:

    "We spent an inordinate amount of time worried about false defectors and false agents. I'm perfectly willing to accept if you try to go out and get ten agents you may get one or two that will be bad. You should be able to cross check your information so that you are not led very far down the garden path... at least you'll have eight good agents."

    This conceptual change was reflected in a top secret order that went out to all CIA stations in 1973. Rather than rejecting REDTOPS who made contact, until their bona fides could be established, it advised:

    " Analysis of REDTOP walk-ins in recent years clearly indicates that REDTOP services have not been seriously using sophisticated and serious walk-ins as a provocation technique. However, fear of provocations has been more responsible for bad handling than any other cause. We have concluded that we do ourselves a disservice if we shy away from promising cases because of fear of provocation... We are confident that we are confident of determining whether or not a producing agent is supplying bona fide information."

    Angleton had lost the battle. It was only a question of time before Colby formally got rid of him.
    (Through the Looking Glass by Edward Jay Epstein)

  2. Today's Matrix may be thought of in terms of a trinity of essential doctrinal elements:

    1) Egalitarianist propaganda and doctrine: As will be discussed in (3) below, there is a natural, intrinsic tribal distinctiveness about oligarchies first established, because implicit, informal, culture-based *unity* is their administrative strength against a much larger mass of subject peoples. The suppression of threatening *native* tribalism may be achieved through geographic homogenization (as did the Inca on a systematic basis) or through pseudo-scientific propaganda promoting ethno-cultural homogenization of the peoples subject to the oligarchic hegemony. In the modern day, the Boazian school of egalitarian cultural anthropology performs this promotion - as was done, for example, by Margaret Mead in perpetrating the "Samoan Fraud". As always, the "nurture" side of the familiar controversy is insisted upon in public discourse and indoctrination, and heresy is silenced with professional persecution where termination of discussion with resort to the "Six Million" fails to have the desired effect.

    2) Anti-racist propaganda and doctrine: As referred to above, all discussion counter to orthodoxy may be trumped, truncated, and terminated by reference to the venerated "Six Million" (an aspect of the general *Argumentum ad Hitlerum,* wherein if Hitler said it, thought it, did it, or was in any way associated with it - it is now to be execrated). So Adolf Hitler does service here as The Devil Incarnate, who presided over the installation and operation of an unprecedented Hell on Earth. The Morality Play implicit in the Hollywood History of the Second World War dramatizes the struggle between Good and Evil, the Darkness and the Light, concluding with the (show) "trial" of the minions who lit the fire under the their master's pot, within which perished the innocent "Six Million". The well-publicized depredations of racist morons and psychopaths in our modern context do excellent further service, where the diabolization of the historic Nazis grows somewhat tiresome, timeworn, and self-contradictory. Heresy in regard to this propaganda and doctrine is silenced with violence, prosecution, and imprisonment without cause.

    3) Political pseudo-science: From the logic and history of the administration of human affairs comes recognition (in the Iron Law of Oligarchy) that ordered power in the context of large populations will necessarily rest in the hands of, at most, a few hundred influential families in time of peace, and but a few lieutenants of an autocrat in time of war. Thus oligarchy is the universal form of government experienced by populous humanity, whether masked by universal franchise democracy or paraded by autocratic tyranny. The *unity* of the oligarchs amongst themselves is synonymous with their power - thus merely formal, contractual relations do not provide sufficient bond for this purpose. Ties of strong sentiment implicit in shared ideology, theology, or ancestry are indispensable at the summit of administrative power, for no explicit formula or law of "rightly understood interest" holds merit at this level of cooperation. The oligarchs of today's Greater Judea mediate the internal class war with pacifist, egalitarianist, environmentalist, social consciousness doctrine, which permits maintenance of the "mask" of peacetime "democracy" for their protection, but which is paid for by obliviousness and utter vulnerability to the designs and preparations of global class warriors, based securely on the Asian continent and now likewise masking themselves from public view. The doctrinal notion of "good" and "evil" *forms* of government facilitates obliviousness to the agendas behind the administrative arrangements that are appropriate for pursuing war and peace. So-called "police states" are essentially sensible arrangements for mediating and externalizing class war, and so-called "democracies" are a pretense of popular sovereignty masking the existence of a Permanent Secret Government.

  3. Fundamental Realities:

    1) There is no such thing as Set-it-and-Forget-it government. Constitutionalism and Libertarianism fatuously indulge in the notion that there can be a government adhering to a consistent code of law, to which code the originators, interpreters, and enforcers thereof can be held by suasion. We now understand that no such consistent code has been or can be devised, and, in the absence of such rigor, there is insufficient basis for restraining these fiduciary agencies from eventually falling prey to corruption by individual or utopian inclinations and from perpetually adjusting or violating this necessarily inconsistent and non-comprehensive code. Thus the only *good* government, Boys and Girls, is *your* government, whatever form it takes in war and peace. For *all* polities resort to dictatorship and police state in time of war, in the measure of the extant emergency, (and we do not make the mistake of believing that the mere good fortune of having experienced little in the way of emergency is also a measure of our wisdom and virtue in public administration). The autocrat, the God of War, that you will have in any case and by whatever term his function is disguised for cosmetic ideological purposes, must be yours and yours alone - otherwise he - and you - will be in the service of another people, who will make their own use of "your" government, whatever form it may take and despite *your* interest in its performance.

    2) And Sin-and-Salvation, like schizophrenia, is all in your heads, Boys and Girls. For the world of rational adults is one of actions-have-consequences, according to observed patterns in the external environment, and is not one of contrite answerability to a non-existent supervisory entity devised by aliens for their own purposes. We understand that some boys and girls have been made to feel supremely naughty for their nasty inclinations and unsatisfied appetites, and that their inward restraint of these impulses may well be desirable from the standpoint of the good order of society. But we now understand that one's answerability and responsible behavior is, rather, properly with regard to one's fellows, when the issue is placed in its proper and realistic perspective. For to believe that one's inward and outward misdemeanors are of cosmological import, apprehended by the imagined universal deity either directly or through the agency of a deputized confessor, is paranoiac - and clinically consistent with the witch-hunting hysteria which we observe periodically emerging to evidence the psychotropic character of this intoxicating ethical dualism, appearing among us as Good-and-Evil and Sin-and-Salvation. We understand that indulgence in this form of intoxication has seriously deleterious consequences for the exercise of good judgment in the regulation of public affairs, given the implicit tendency to sanctimoniously moralize and to irrationally crusade to no good end.

  4. >I'd like to get your [NeoNietzsche's] thoughts on the issue of 'labor' in the Marxist sense. It seems to me that the 'democratic' and 'republican' regimes of Athens and Rome were in fact as oligarchical as any other, when one takes into account the presence of slave labor in those societies. Like the Marxist, I see labor as a key to history, although unlike the Marxist, I do not distinguish between the labor of the automaton and the labor of a human being. What I am getting at is that provided there is enough 'surplus labor' available, a democracy or a republic is possible. However, there are other variables involved as well, such as the availability of the weaponry of revolt among the slave class.<

    First of all we have a bit of a terminological problem here, in that I am not sure of the meanings that you attach to "democracy" and "republic" when you speak of their being "possible" — or consistent with oligarchy — given certain of their circumstances.

    As a preliminary to our discussion, then, let me set out my own vocabulary and fundamental concepts, in order to facilitate your clarification of your remarks and concerns.

    I use the term "republic" (in what I understand to be the academic convention) to refer to a polity which lacks a king, monarch, or autocrat (though some would exclude the last from the list as being not inconsistent with republicanism). No reference to "labor" is implied in this definition, and it is not evident to me from the pattern of history that labor availability positively affects the durability of republicanism so defined. If anything, the importation of slaves and the consequent dispossession of the Roman lower orders, for example, aggravated pre-existing class and oligarchic conflicts in Roman society and so furthered the displacement of the Republic by the autocratic Principate and Empire. In fact, history generally displays a tendency toward tyranny/autocracy in response to rising demographic concentration, without regard to the distribution of that population increase among the various classes.

    Likewise, my use of the term "oligarchy" has little implication in terms of labor availability, specifically. Ordered societies with large populations are governed, and are only governable, by a relatively few influential and confluent families in times of peace, and by the lieutenants of a dictator/tyrant/autocrat in periods of intra- or inter-national conflict. A subordinate labor force is, indeed, the basis of a stratified society, and the larger the force the more stratified and oligarchic the society may become. Again, however, the more advanced a society becomes in this regard, the greater its requirement for administrative unity in the form of a supreme arbiter/enforcer of conflict resolution.

    And, finally, the authenticity of "democracy" seems related, again as a matter of administrative and communicational constraints, to the size of the population of a polity — this time with the "smallness" of the polity contributing to its realizability as the administration of, by, and for the people. Tribal and small-town (e.g., ancient Athens) democracies may well approach the ideal as posited, but a community in excess of tens of thousands cannot conduct its affairs on the basis of democracy as other than a sham disguising an oligarchy.

  5. >I will not have to suspend judgment, having read enough Pound to recognize in you [NeoNietzsche] his kindred spirit. Just as you have often stated of me, it is your education which is suspect here. Pound has the same anti-democratic, anti-socialist, pro-fascist views.<

    This remark has only now prompted me to reflect upon my preferences and dispositions, since I am basically oriented to questions of a positive rather than of a normative cast. I wish to know how things work in political economy as realized in history — and questions of policy proposals are, for me, formulated in terms of the propriety of given actions for the achievement of designated consequences. I do not bother to argue against what may be values opposed to my own, except to the extent that policies productive of consequences other than those touted are implicit in those "values."

    Contrary to the assertion, above, I am "pro-democratic" to the extent that democracy is authentically realizable. To the extent that what is touted as an instantiation of "democracy" is a sham, I am against the "sham" and cannot correctly be reproached as an anti-democrat.

    Likewise, I am "pro-socialist" where such a program may realize its aims, to wit, in the limited context of tribal nationalism. Thus I am, in that sense, a national socialist opposed to universalist, internationalist so-called socialism - as the latter variety is an historic recipe for perversely counter-productive social anarchy and megacide.

    Finally, in regard to "fascism," I am *against* such an enterprise where it incorporates hatreds and self-inflation that are not organizationally confined to the level of the masses that are to be coordinated by resort to such propaganda. I would be altogether against that use of propaganda as a betrayal of a commitment to speaking the truth, had the history of the past century not made political success inconceivable without its contribution to that coordination of the improvidently enfranchised.

    Thus, to the extent that "Pound" would have affirmed these principles and preferences to which I have pledged myself, we may justifiably and proudly speak of a propinquity of our spirits. With regard to "stupidities" for which recantations are called, Pound is his own man for whom I am not responsible or answerable.

  6. >I forgot one question for NN:


    [Quoting NN:]

    Elite Jewry took over the manipulative governance of what is now Greater Judea, at the end of the Nineteenth Century, when the American frontier closed and Laissez-faire “Capitalism” no longer worked, for the loss of that resource frontier (most critically in Land, amongst Labor and Capital) upon which its “virtue” depended in theory and in practice.


    >Could you elaborate what you mean when you say “virtue” depended on the resource frontier? You qualify “virtue” with “its”, but I am not clear as to what the “its” refers to.

    [NN responds:]

    "Laissez-faire"/"Free Enterprise"/"Free Trade" is a theory of commercial organization that justifies itself as an ethical/legal framework for industry and trade by postulating the continued existence of a "resource frontier" in Land, Labor, and Capital to which *independent* entrepreneurs can resort, and so serve the public at *competitive* prices, in the inevitable event of the development of self-interested onspiracies-in-restraint-of-trade and monopolistic pricing by *established* enterprises. Without this resort, the permission of unrestricted seeking of self-interest in commerce (laissez-faire) leads to collusion and coordination in the offering of products and services to the public, who are thus exploited - ultimately intolerably - when the demand for certain items is inelastic (cannot be done without, whatever the price). Thus Laisse-faire is productive, in theory and practice, of class-war, as it was in Antioch in Julian's days (4th Century CE, Roman Empire), and as it was at the end of the Nineteenth Century in America/Greater Judea, when oppressed and exploited Populists challenged the bloated Plutocrats, and when governmental "Trust-busting" emerged in response to the inevitable monopolization of major enterprises.

  7. >I reread NN’s posts with ever-increasing surprise. I have some questions:


    [Quoting NN:]

    Elite Jewry took over the manipulative governance of what is now Greater Judea, at the end of the Nineteenth Century, when the American frontier closed and Laissez-faire “Capitalism” no longer worked, for the loss of that resource frontier (most critically in Land, amongst Labor and Capital) upon which its “virtue” depended in theory and in practice.


    >When you [NN] say Greater Judea, are you referring to America? Was the date really that early? I had always heard/read insinuated 1920 or 1930 as a date of their real ascendancy to power.

    [NN responds:]

    "America" became Greater Judea when the individualistic WASP upper class, unable and unwilling to deal with the Populist class-war assault that their laissez-faire depredations had induced, turned us over to international elite Jewry, a well-organized and giftedly manipulative oligarchy, for which the polity is now appropriately named, after the familiar practice of doing so according to the name of the ascendant tribe/nation (z.B., Angle-terre, Frank-reich, Rome, Chin-a, Mexic-o, Belgi-um, Rus-sia, et al.). The nice piece of political Jiu-jitsu that Jewry first performed on the stupid goyische Populists was in letting them have the central bank that the Populists wanted for controlling the bankers and economic cyclicality. Since Jewry does not stupidly adhere to the bourgeois notion that form-of-government is a matter of morality, they merely staffed the bank with their own personnel and burdened its fiat money with debt, so as to control it for their own purposes.

    Yes, the date was that early, if we note the manipulation of the election contest into which the clown, Teddy Roosevelt of the "Bullmoose Party," was introduced, so as to divide the vote against Wilson, manipulated by agents of international Jewry, crypto-Marxist advisor, Edward Mandel House, and "poodle"-trainer, Justice Louis Brandeis.

  8. ======================

    [Quoting NN:]

    I maintain that the claims to political virtue were attached to a mere manifestation of differing degrees of cultural evolution in common, as the subsequent history I cited fully illustrated.


    >You [NN] are referring to the example you gave of Antioch, correct? Could you please explain what you mean when you say “mere manifestation of cultural evolution in common”. - I don’t follow you.

    [NN responds:]

    I mean that putatively virtuous republicanism is merely the "youth," so-to-speak, of putatively evil empire. There is no durable republicanism outside of the special case of Switzerland, because of intrinsic limitations on the administration of human affairs in terms of its legal/moral/ethical framework. Republics naturally evolve into autocracies/empires, as I well illustrated with the examples of Roman Republic>Empire and Greek City-States>Macedonian/Alexandrian Empire(s). More recently, the American republic ended with the "Federal" imperial victory in the War of Northern Aggression, though Jewry has since managed to maintain, until the recent emergence of the forthright Bush Dictatorship, the illusion in the stockyard of the absence of Cowboy control of the Cattle.

  9. ======================

    [Quoting NN:]

    We no longer live, as slave-owning aristocrats, in a community of the size of the Rousseauist ideal, on a highly-defensible “rocky peninsula,” bordering culturally more mature peoples, having been spared rustication amidst the Dorian invasion. But few of us will note these exceptional contributory circumstances, freeing others to imagine the general distribution of luminescent Hellenism, ripped from its roots.

    Alexander knew better.


    >Hear, hear for breaking down nebulous concepts!

    >Two points I fail to grasp: what is rustication and how were the Greeks spared it during the Dorian invasion? I have studied a little this period, hence the specific interest.

    >Also, you say Alexander knew better than to speak of Hellenism, how so?

    [NN responds:]

    Rustication is personal or cultural reduction to the rural and primitive. Students sent home to a country dwelling were said to have been "rusticated". The Atticans were spared the worst of the Dorian invasion of the Greek peninsula, having been mostly by-passed on the barbarians' way to the Peloponnesus to become Lacedaemonians/Spartans. Thus the prior domestication of Attica was relatively preserved, giving the Athenians a temporal advantage in the further evolution of Greek culture.

    Alexander knew better than to try to Hellenize the culturally more mature Persians, whom he had conquered and imperially occupied . He sought, more reasonably and against "youthful" resistance, to adapt Greeks to Persian ways, since imperial forms were more appropriate to the occasion and the future.

  10. (Dysgenics of a Communist Killing Field: The Croatian Bleiburg
    Tom Sunic
    March 15, 2009)

    In the study of communist terror different methods from different fields have been applied, ranging from the fields of political science, historiography, philosophy, to international justice. An impressive number of books about communist crimes have enabled observers to grasp this unique phenomenon of the twentieth century, which inevitably brings about a large and emotional outcry, followed by constant haggling about different body counts. Whether it is former communist Cambodia, or former communist Poland, in the minds of many citizens of former communist countries, communism is a synonym for an inhumane political system.

    Despite the fall of communism as an ideological and political-legal system, the communist ideas of egalitarianism and the belief in permanent economic progress are still alive, albeit in other forms and under different names, and even amidst people who describe themselves as anticommunists. Perhaps the reason for that lies in the fact that the ideas of equality, internationalism (‘globalism’) and economic growth may be more easily achievable, or at least appear to be more easily achievable, in the liberal, capitalist West than in the former ‘real-socialist’ countries in the East.

    Little effort has been made so far to analyze the communist system within the framework of modern genetics. As discussed below, communist terror was at least at times disproportionately directed at the upper classes. From a genetic perspective, this suggests that it had dysgenic effects on the gene pool of victim populations — that is, by removing the upper classes, there would be a general lowering of the genetic quality of the population.

    According to Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, the average IQ for European countries ranges from 90 to 100. They find that the average IQ for Croats is a meager 90. Why such a modest IQ for Croats?

    Besides possibly lowering IQ, one might also ask the question: Did communism in the former Soviet Union, or for that matter in the former communist Yugoslavia, gave birth to a unique subspecies of people predisposed to communism? Did it give rise to people who would fit into and feel comfortable in a largely bureaucratic regime with little scope for personal freedom?

    In fact, the description of communist lifestyle has already been well described by former Russian dissident and novelist, Alexander Zinoviev in his *Homo Sovieticus*, (1982). Zinoviev introduced the term homo sovieticus into the study of communist pathology, albeit more as a literary metaphor than as a term for a specific anthropological species. Seen from the perspective of sociobiology, Zinoviev’s homo sovieticus is not only a literary figure reflecting a distinctive life style or an allegory for communized masses in the former Soviet Union or the former Yugoslavia. It is a peculiar biological sub-creature of modern mass democracies.

    Zinoviev was well aware that communism directly appeals to the lowest instincts of each human being, and therefore that communism is an ideal system for future mass societies facing shrinking natural resources. Unlike the erratic free market system, communism provides workers with a complete sense of psychological security and economic predictability, however Spartan their living and working conditions may be. Only by deciphering such a communized mindset will Western observers be able to comprehend strange feelings of “Yugo-nostalgia” or fond memories of Stalin in post-communist Eastern Europe — even among former victims of communism and despite the terrible legacy of Gulag and Kolyma. The communist workers motto, so often analyzed by Zinoviev, summarizes it best: “Nobody can pay me as little as little I can work.”

    The Aristocide of Bleiburg and other communist killing fields:

    The Croatian Bleiburg (see also here and here) is a name of a mass killing field in southern Austria. In mid-May 1945 hundreds of thousands of fleeing ethnic German and Croatian civilians and soldiers surrendered to the British — only to be turned over promptly to the advancing and victorious Yugoslav communist troops. Subsequently, the term ‘Bleiburg’ became a metaphor for the Croatian holocaust and is widely used in contemporary Croatia by those who suffered under the communist rule, long after WWII. In the collective memory of Croats the word ‘Bleiburg’ means an absolute biological catastrophe whose historical, psychophysical and anthropological (and craniometrical?) consequences are yet to be evaluated. The word Bleiburg means to Croats what the word Katyn means to Poles, or what Auschwitz means to Jews. Although the true body count of Bleiburg is subject to emotional disputes, one thing remains certain: Bleiburg meant the violent disappearance of the Croat middle class in 1945.

    The word "aristocide” first entered into the English vocabulary thanks to Nathaniel Weyl, a former American Communist of Jewish origin, who became a celebrity in the fifties after converting to a radical anticommunist and a denouncer of his former communist comrades. In his essay “Envy and Aristocide,” Weyl describes how envy prompts less intelligent people to criminal behavior and malice.

    Weyl's concept of aristocide makes it easier to comprehend the real reasons for the sanguinary behavior of Yugoslav Communists, who, in the aftermath of WWII, carried out gigantic killings against civilians of the Croatian, Serbian and the ethnic German middle class. In their incessant purges the Yugoslav secret police, the OZNA and the UDBA, were not only motivated by ideological reasons, i.e., the famed ‘class struggle,’ but rather by primordial emotions of envy and knowledge that many anticommunist and nationalist Croat intellectuals, were more handsome, more intelligent, or had more moral integrity than themselves. A German general and intelligence officer, Lothar von Rendulic, who had a keen understanding of the communist guerilla mindset in the Balkans, describes cannibal-like practices of the Yugoslav partisans against German Wehrmacht soldiers, and how German soldiers begged him for transfers from the Balkan front to the Eastern Front. (*Gekämpft-gesiegt-geschlagen*, 1952). It is a great pity that many of such books have been translated neither into Croatian nor into English.

    In his important book Future Human Evolution, John Glad has pointed out that communist genocides had a direct impact on the decline of cultural and economic growth of the new nations of Eastern Europe because a large number of intelligent people were simply wiped out and could not pass on their genes to their offspring. One can say that all East European nations were subjected to considerable depletion of their gene pool.

    Here lies the trap of the tantalizing ideology of egalitarianism and its most glaring offshoot, communism: These ideologies teach that all people are equal, which logically entails a conclusion that anybody can be replaceable and expendable at will and that his or her replica can easily be reproduced in another social environment. There is an old Yugoslav communistic proverb, still alive in Croatia’s public life that says: "No one is indispensable!"

    Similar theses of ‘indispensability’ and ‘expendability’ had been earlier put forward by the Soviet pseudo-scientist, Trofim Lysenko, who argued that wheat can be grown in Antarctica and that intelligent citizens can be cranked out according to the communist party Five-Year Plan.

    This thesis, namely that the social-economic environment engenders miracles, is still widespread, albeit in its softer version in multiracial America. The liberal philosophy of the “nurture factor” seems to be an ideal tool for petty criminals, maladaptive individuals, and especially for people of lower intelligence, who, as a rule, for their own physical and moral shortcomings, always blame "somebody else." The formula for such procrustean ethics becomes transparent in the lexical and juridical fraud known as “affirmative action” in the USA, which is in essence a carbon copy of what multicultural communist Yugoslavia termed the “republican key quota.” This Yugoslavian version of affirmative action meant that each former Yugoslav constituent communist republic was obliged to furnish its own share of communist hacks to receive federal perks.

    From the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, communist revolutionaries targeted the pre-revolutionary elites — Russian aristocrats, the Christian clergy, the ethnically German middle class, and all those whose intelligence and knowledge were above average. Because of this, communism, with its teachings of equality, is still highly appreciated by large masses of dispossessed individuals, and particularly by frustrated intellectuals because it stresses the dogma of “equal opportunity with equal results."

    Studies should be made as to the exact number of the Croat urban population killed by the Yugoslav communists after 1945. Maybe forensic studies of the barren bones scattered in numerous unknown graves and pits all over southern Austria, Slovenia and Croatia could reveal interesting data on the decline in IQ among Croats today. A French author, Christopher Dolbeau, goes to great lengths to provide the names of countless Croatian artists and scientists who perished in Communist genocides in 1945 and after (writers: John Softa, Marijan Marijasevic, Marijan Blazic, Bonaventura Radonic, Kerubin Segvic, Yerko Skracic, Vladimir Jurcic; poets: Stanko Vitkovic, Branko Klaric, Vinko Kos, Gabriel Cvitan; journalists: Mijo Bzik, Agathe von Hausberger, John Maronic, Vilim Peros, Daniel Uvanovic, Tias Mortigjija, etc. If we add to these names the names of Croatian engineers, technicians, military officers, priests — all classes of people with higher than average IQs, the figure of human losses among Croat intellectuals in the aftermath of WWII is frightening indeed (*Croatie, Sentinelle de l'Occident*, 2005).

    By its nature communism, and to a large extent modern liberalism, encourage mediocrity and lack of initiative, because everyone who sticks out above the average is quickly castigated for “bourgeois, fascist deviation.” Based on the rough estimates of human losses in Yugoslavia, one could also speculate about subsequent political events in Yugoslavia, including the unnecessary war between two similar peoples the, Serbs and Croats in 1991 — which was to a large extent orchestrated by ex-communist Serb and Croat apparatchiks respectively. In addition, Croatia had also its "silent Bleiburg," — that is, the voluntary departure to Western countries of over one million Croats, from 1945 to 1990.

    Under the romantic assumption that this biological disaster had not occurred, Croatia may well have made today some significant achievements in certain fields of science — and not just in the field of sport or in the soccer field. The same goes for all East European countries, except for one detail: Croats, Estonians, Lithuanians are small peoples and the time needed to replenish their gene pool lasts historically longer.

    One can advance another hypothesis. The Yugoslav crisis in 1990 and the subsequent savage inter-ethnic killings would have probably not taken place with highly intelligent and highly educated non-communist and non-fascist politicians such as the late Serb Milan Stojadinovic (who left in 1945 for Argentina) and his Croat counterpart Vlatko Macek (who left the same year for America). Conversely, if one had a quick glance at the phenotype of the leaders in both in Croatia and Serbia in 1991 one is struck that they were all once avid participants of the same Yugoslav communist mindset.

    Murder and persecution of intelligent people leads to economic slowdown. Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) was once the main wheat-exporting country in Africa. Today it must import food, because of its inept government. Algeria was once the breadbasket of France; now, although being one of the main world exporters of natural gas and oil, it depends on huge food imports. It is no wonder that the so-called Soviet miracle — most notably the launching of the space rocket Sputnik into the orbit, was due to the work of captured German scientists. It is still an unspoken truth in Croatia today that the so-called "Yugoslav miracle of the 60’s,” was due to German slave workers (i.e., captured ethnic Germans and German POWs, 1945–50).

    Under the assumption that Croatia had preserved its genetic stock and that the tragedy of Bleiburg had not occurred, under the assumption that hundreds of thousands of Croats had not emigrated to Western countries, one cannot rule out that Croatia would be by now a dynamic country with 8 to 10 million people (approximately twice its current population), with completely different political elites and political values. Thus, even today, the framing of public opinion in Croatia remains the privilege of sons and daughters of former communist stalwarts whose past won’t pass away.

    Sociobiological analyses may be looked at with derision by the liberal media. However, each individual knows deadly well which tribe or ingroup he belongs to when “push comes to shove” — which one is his real in-group. Should he fail to acknowledge his racial or ethnic kinsmen or his “territorial imperative,” “the Other” won’t hesitate to remind him of it. It may sound cynical, but a significant number of Croats discovered their nationalist credo only in 1990 — when the perception of the communist and the Serb threat had begun looming large on the horizon. A discovery of such ‘negative identity’ may tomorrow await Americans, which could then make the ex-Yugoslav example look like a kindergarten brawl.

    Subconsciously, all races are aware of that old Latin proverb that “a man’s character lies in his face” (in facie legitur homo). And Friedrich Nietzsche was even blunter when he recalled the ancient European wisdom "monstrum in anime, monstrum in fronte" (monster by spirit, monster in head). Translated into English: a political crook is recognizable by his facial expression.

    Tom Sunic (see and is an author, translator, former US professor of political science, and a former Croat diplomat.

  11. >I would like some clarification on this:-

    > -"*William the Conqueror: His Norman Duchy relies upon a nucleus of three hundred ecclesiastical knights, granted in exchange for administrative and evangelical privileging of local episcopacies. The Conquest of England is otherwise impossible. The English crown is thus compromised administratively by its premature territorial unity while under feudal contracts and provokes an unwinnable, catastrophic Hundred Years' War over disputed cross-channel territories. The further maintenance of its primitive, premature administrative structure provokes it to, and dooms it in, a Civil War found serviceable by International Jewry."<

    Perhaps this will help:

    The Norman Duchy and the Holy Roman Empire were political anomalies in their administrative unity, during a time of feudal disintegration elsewhere in Europe. But for the Church's deals with the Duke and the Emperor, there would have been essentially no consolidated political power on the Continent in the 10th Century, thanks, in part, to the Viking incursions to which only local power was effective, in response.

    The reliance upon ecclesiastical knights meant the premature enabling of a monarch and a realm in military terms - but not in terms of civil administration and crown revenues. Going to war was facilitated - but consolidating territorial gains was not. The Norman Conquest imposed a superficially unified regime upon the Island, wherein, however, the King's financial resources were confined to those of his own Desmaines, by feudal law. Thus the King had constantly to trade royal power and privilege (Magna Carta, etc.) for money, from a very early date. This was in contrast to the more "normal" (in terms of the pattern of history and the logic of political economy and demogaphy) pattern of the evolution of the French Crown, wherein the King, lacking a Faustian Pact for ecclesiastical knights, had to campaign every season to marginally expand his realm from the Isle de France and progressively impose civil administration and taxation in maintenance of his regime (to which he was entitled, since his impositions were by right of conquest, not by that of infeudation). Therefore, at a much later date, Louis XIII/XIV could impose an authentic Absolutist State upon France, whereas Charles could only envy the French and in effect commit suicide by trying to imitate that model.

    Anyway, the 100 Years War and the Civil War were products of this "phase incoherence", wherein the Monarchy was enabled to initiate disastrous international and civil wars but was unable to sustain victory and consolidate and administer an expanded realm - for lack of the "coherent," evolutionarily-timely administrative and cultural aspects of regimes that possess such military unity. For example, Henry V "won" the 100, but his death immediately annulled the English victory. And there is no understanding of the pathological pattern of the evolution of "Faustian" Culture, in general, without noting the contribution of the Faustian Pacts to its distortion.


  12. The Judeo-Bolshevik Frankfurter regime, fronted by the class-traitor, FDR, was planning the bombing of its enemy, National Socialist Germany, well before Pearl Harbor and before Hitler's patience with the front man's provocative lies and acts of war ended with the success of the attempt "to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot" - the "Back Door to War":

    The genesis of the B-36 can be traced to early 1941, prior to the entry of the U.S. into World War II. At that time it appeared that there was a very real chance that Britain could fall, making a strategic bombing effort by the U.S. against Germany impossible. A new class of bomber would be needed to fill this role, one offering trans-Atlantic range so it could bomb targets in Europe from bases inside the continental USA. The United States Army Air Corps opened up a design competition for the very long-range bomber on 11 April 1941,...

  13. Yet it was, in reality, one of the shrewdest pieces of international hoodwinking in historical record . . . So the Comintern was dissolved [in 1943], and the misguided democratic world rejoiced . . . A glance at your newspaper will show that the former Comintern officers had little difficulty in finding new employment. The Comintern was never dissolved . . . Military Intelligence took over the old chores of the Comintern. It became an active part of the Soviet Fifth Column in democratic countries.

    -- Igor Gouzenko, This Was My Choice (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1948)

  14. from Occidental Dissent, September 12, 2009

    Libertarians tend to think in abstract terms. They have all sorts of theories about government, economics, and ethics. I’m impressed less by their abstractions and more persuaded by the empirical results that follow their implementation.,

    We’ve tried almost everything the libertarians recommend over the course of American history: the gold standard, multiple currencies, financial deregulation, private roads/railroads, absence of the Federal Reserve, absence of the income tax, cutting back government bureaucracy, legalization of drugs, laissez-faire capitalism, international free trade, federalism/small government, expansion of civil liberties, neutering the state, deunionization, no Social Security, no Medicare/Medicaid, no Earned Income Tax Credit, no welfare system, no minimum wage or collective bargaining, no workplace safety standards, dispensing with virtue ethics, private schools, etc. We have a vast well of experience with radical liberty to draw upon. Yet the libertarians always seem to prefer their abstract arguments and deductive reasoning to historical ones. Why is that?

    We know how free market laissez-faire capitalism ends: in vast concentrations of wealth (land and capital) in the hands of a privileged few, huge multinational corporations that tower over the remaining small businesses, monopolies and cartels, private transportation systems that suck every penny out of the common man, race replacement through ‘cheap labor’ immigration, a radicalized, uneducated and degraded proletariat constantly engaged in strikes and riots and infected with Marxism, environmental degradation, financial panics and depression, shortage of credit, depressed wages, a plutocratic elite that buys elections and corrupts the political system with its largess. It was a good system for the wealthiest few who didn’t use public services, at least for a while, until the top heavy economy periodically collapsed under its own weight in the inevitable cyclical depression.

    The system is inherently unstable for both labor and capital and gave rise to the very social forces which succeeded in undermining and overthrowing it. If by some chance we ever were to return to Gilded Age conditions, history would unfold again in much the same way. It is worth noting that this is the degenerate condition that millions of Jewish immigrants found Americans in when they arrived on our shores. Their arrival in the New World was part of the ‘cheap labor’ glut that flowed out of Eastern and Southern Europe into Northern industry at the time. The Jews would later climb the same ladder into the American plutocracy used by J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford.

    Aside from the small faction of libertarian ideologues, there is no constituency for returning to the days of the Robber Barons. The working class justifiably balks at surrendering the handful of concessions won from Capital over the past hundred years. The middle class, still reeling from ‘free trade,’ clamors for ever more public services (which Obama promises to deliver). Even the wealthy realize that a managed economy is ultimately in their interest. It stifles labor militancy and the growth of radical class-based redistributionist movements. The government is also useful (as in the Panic of ‘08) when it pulls their collective chestnuts out of the fire.

    [continued, next comment]

  15. [continued from previous comment]

    White Nationalists support ending non-White immigration and deporting the non-White labor force already in the United States. In doing so, we have earned the implacable hostility of the business community; both small businesses and multinational corporations alike depend on their non-White helots. We’re proposing a permanent and radical increase in the price of labor that will bankrupt any number of businesses. The only way forward to the White ethnostate is through a knife fight to the death with the pro-business lobby and the ethnic grievance organizations that are allied to them. That’s not a fight we can possibly win with a libertarian economic agenda that will alienate the working class and lower middle class.

    Once the beast is subdued (the cheap labor lobby and its hangers on), White Nationalists will have to be permanently on guard to ensure it never rises from the dead. As you note, this could involve constitutional measures, draconian penalties for racial treason, a permanent class or religious order of “Defenders” charged with the responsibility of overseeing the culture and economy, a national academy to train the “Defenders,” government control of the media, public schools that indoctrinate our youth in the racial ideal, or some combination the above. Whatever the case, the salient point is that a transition to a White Nationalist ethnostate (a process likely to take generations) will require authoritarian measures which run against the grain of libertarianism, and probably not solely on a temporary basis.

    Indeed, there is nothing “libertarian” at all about what we are proposing to do: overthrowing civic institutions and replacing them with a new Blut und Boden racial order, mass violations of sacrosanct individual rights and property rights, engaging in ‘aggression’ against sovereign individuals in the name of collectivism, engaging in racial and religious intolerance, imposing ethical and aesthetic standards on a libertine populace, etc. A true libertarian (whose mind is governed by universal abstractions) would never entertain such measures. In many ways, the White Nationalist worldview (based solely on collective self interest, not high-minded universal principles) is the polar opposite of libertarianism and the other species of liberalism.

    [continued, next comment]

  16. [continued from previous comment]

    If you really think about it, libertarianism has no future in a White Nationalist ethnostate. In selecting our form of government, our primary concern must be the nature of our elite, not the ‘rights’ of individuals. After a successful revolutionary struggle, I seriously doubt White Nationalists will want to go back to the days when America was governed by a shallow Judeo-Capitalist plutocracy whose primary qualification to rule was their ability to make money. Social mobility will have to be organized on some other basis than the Horatio Alger myth; perhaps along the lines of the “essentially religious civil servants” you described above. At a minimum, this would require a highly regulated economy, not the laissez-faire free market favored by libertarians.

    Most importantly, the status system will have to be forever severed from the market economy, which is another blow against libertarianism. We’ve seen the mischief the advertising industry has caused by creating artificial needs and instilling sick materialistic values in the masses. This is closely linked to the low White birthrate, racial nihilism, and popularity of contraception and abortion in the West. You’ve already mentioned that status must be linked to values like duty, honor, and self-sacrifice in the new system. I would go beyond that and argue for a return to virtue ethics in your Home School curriculum. We need to move beyond the silly expressivist notion that each child should be allowed to nurture his own individuality. From our perspective, some values are manifestly superior to others.

    In a White ethnostate, ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ would be knocked off the pedestal they now occupy in contemporary political discourse. More important considerations like community and the preservation of our genetic integrity would rise to the fore and take precedence. I seriously doubt we would break wholly with the tradition of individual rights or basic republican equality before the law. The old values would still have their place, but they would no longer be considered absolute, center stage, or universally applicable to all races. The market economy is also another likely survivor, albeit in a form unrecognizable to the one we are familiar with today.

    I will stop short of saying that pro-Whites need an entirely new political philosophy. We don’t need to establish a new set of (false) universal principles which could later be invoked to sabotage our racial interests. Instead, we should take our direction from art and literature that reflect our racial ideals, and adopt a critical posture towards all systemizers and their fetish for abstractions.

  17. So what is the morality of ethnic self interest? There are at least two ways to think about. One is that many of the people who are most eager to create moral panics about such ideas also have strong ethnic identities and interests of their own. This is one of the first things that struck me about Jewish political and intellectual rhetoric — that they managed to create a culture of critique in which only Whites had a moral obligation to disappear as a racial/ethnic entity while minority cultures such as their own were encouraged to hold on to their traditions and group cohesiveness.

    This way of thinking goes back to Horace Kallen, an important Jewish intellectual who was the first to develop a vision of multicultural America, combining this vision with a deep attachment to Zionism. Obviously, Kallen's prescription for America is quite the opposite of his vision of the Jewish state as a state for the Jews. The only thing these beliefs have in common is that they serve Jewish interests. This is an example of Jewish moral particularism — the age old "Is it good for the Jews?." Kallen appeals to the tradition of Western moral universalism to attain the interests of his ethnic group.

    Kallen had a major influence on Randolph Bourne who wrote a classic statement of a multicultural ideal for America in his famous "Trans-National America" that appeared in Atlantic Monthly in 1916. All other ethnic groups would be allowed to retain their identity and cohesion. It is only the Anglo-Saxon that is implored to be cosmopolitan.

    This is a prescription for racial/ethnic suicide. However, at the time he wrote it, Anglo-Saxons like Bourne may have been confident enough to believe that they could safely allow others to have an ethnic identity and retain their cultures while shedding their own. Bourne's implicit view of the world is that the ethnic identities of non-WASPs would make his world more colorful and interesting but not really threaten his basic interests. Like his mentor Kallen, he envisions of world of peaceful harmony amidst ethnic diversity:

    "America is already the world-federation in miniature, the continent where for the first time in history has been achieved that miracle of hope, the peaceful living side by side, with character substantially preserved, of the most heterogeneous peoples under the sun. Nowhere else has such contiguity been anything but the breeder of misery. Here, notwithstanding our tragic failures of adjustment, the outlines are already too clear not to give us a new vision and a new orientation of the American mind in the world."

    I rather doubt that Bourne would have written what he did if he was aware that carrying out his recommendations would ultimately mean that Anglo-Saxons would lose control of their culture and their political destiny — and that even basic institutions like democracy and constitutional government would be in jeopardy.

    What is the moral status of such a principled abdication of normal human strivings? Whites give up any claim to political and cultural control and hope that we will all enter a never-never land where we’ll all live happily ever after — White people expressing their individualism and everyone else advancing their ethnic interests.

  18. [continued from previous comment]

    The problem is that there is no way to rule out racial oppression and violence where Whites will be in a relatively powerless situation — at the mercy of people with festering historical grudges. Jewish historical memory about the 1924 immigration law and anti-Jewish attitudes, especially prior to World War II, is particularly bitter. The historical memory of Blacks in America is also especially bitter (Rev. Jeremiah Wright comes to mind), and Mexicans and Asians (see also here) have their own axes to grind.

    The fact that Jews are an elite in the US and throughout the West and the fact that Jews have been a hostile elite in other times and places, most notably in the Soviet Union until at least the end of World War II, does not give much confidence in a rosy multicultural future when Whites cease to have the power to assert their interests. The great tragedy of the Russians and Ukrainians in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution is that they came to be ruled by ethnic outsiders.

    Add to that the fact that Jewish political activism on behalf of a non-White America has often been accompanied by overt expressions of hostility toward White elites and toward Western civilization — even among Jewish "conservatives." There is no reason to think that such hostility will be eliminated when Whites have less power.

    In the multicultural America of the near future, gulags and anti-White totalitarian controls are at least as likely as the multicultural utopia envisioned by Bourne. And if they can’t be ruled out, there is a compelling moral case to be made that Whites should not enter willingly into such a world. If there is one thing we should have learned by thinking about the history of the 20th century, it's that we should not believe in utopias.

    I am reminded of the minister quoted in Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America who stated “Political optimism is one of the vices of the American people…. We deem ourselves a chosen people, and incline to the belief that the Almighty stands pledged to our prosperity. Until within a few years probably not one in a hundred of our population has ever questioned the security of our future. Such optimism is as senseless as pessimism is faithless” (pp. 68–69).

    The good minister wrote this in 1885 — definitely ahead of the curve. And he was quite right that the Anglo-Saxons should not have been too confident. That’s why the title of Kaufmann’s book refers to the fall of Anglo-America. Well-meaning White Americans who are not concerned that the future could turn out horribly for people like them are simply not paying attention to all the signs around them.

    The good news is that there does seem to be a growing anger and insecurity in White America. Spurred by the Obama presidency, large numbers of Whites seem to be questioning their future. But it’s far too early to guess whether this will lead to effective political action — much less a resurgence of White identity and explicit and confident assertions of White interests. The fact that this White anger will probably benefit Republicans scarcely gives one confidence that it will have a positive long term result.

    Another set of moral issues derives from biological differences among humans. If there is one common denominator to leftist activism throughout the last century, it is that biology doesn’t matter: Ethnicity is nothing more than culture. Unwelcome racial and ethnic differences in traits like IQ, academic achievement, and criminality are due to White evil. We are all familiar with this litany.