The Refutation Of Libertarianism

Translations: Dutch, French 1, French 2, Slovak, Spanish

       

By Greg Johnson

Author’s Note:

The following text is the talk I delivered at the London Forum on October 3, 2015. I wish to thank Jez Turner, the London Forum team, and their faithful audience for making this talk possible.

Libertarianism is the politics of individualism. Individualism is both a metaphysical and a moral position.

Metaphysical individualism is the thesis that only particular men exist. Groups are just collections of individuals, with no independent reality or meaning.

Metaphysical individualism is connected to universalism, which is the idea that there is only one race, the human race, which is just a collection of individuals. Universalism implies that there is no meaningful distinction between ingroups and outgroups, between us and them.

Universalism has two important implications.

First, since politics as Carl Schmitt defines it arises from the distinction between us and them, universalism implies that politics is merely a temporary phenomenon, based on the waning illusion of meaningful distinctions between ingroups and outgroups. When these distinctions disappear, politics will as well.

Second, nationalism, patriotism, and any other form of partiality for one’s ingroup over an outgroup is morally illegitimate, since there is really no us and them, just me and you. This leads us to the ethical dimension of individualism. How do you and I get on together? If groups are just collections of individuals, there are no group values, just individual values. The purpose of social institutions, therefore, is to facilitate individuals pursuing their own aims.

The great facilitator of individuals pursuing their aims is capitalism. If you and I have something to offer each other, we might trade. If we have nothing to offer each other, we just walk on by. The marketplace requires only a minimal “nightwatchman” state to protect us against force, fraud, breach of contract, and the like.

Ethical individualism requires us to treat individuals as individuals, not as members of various morally unimportant groups handed to us by history or nature. We must be “blind” to race. We must be “blind” to class. We must be “blind” to sex. We must be “blind” to religion. We must be “blind” to nationality. We must be “blind” to all things that divide us. The only thing we must see are individual merits.

The individualism game is highly advantageous for all players. Individualism unleashes creativity in science, technology, and business. But paradoxically, the greatest strength of individualism is the form of cooperation it fosters. Each individualist comports himself as a member of a potentially global society. This means that social cooperation can scale up to the global limit as well, making possible the wholesale transformation of the world we call modernity.

Collectivist societies, however, are hampered by ingroup/outgroup splits. If people behave as members of groups, trust and cooperation are confined to ingroups, which severely constricts the scale of social institutions and corrupts their functioning with favoritism toward ingroups and discrimination toward outgroups.

In honest contests, the individualist game can outcompete the collectivist game, which is why individualistic European societies conquered virtually the entire globe with superior technologies and forms of social cooperation.

But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.

How does one cheat an individualist? By pretending to be an individualist while working as a member of a group. You demand that individualists give you a fair shake in every transaction. But whenever possible, you give preferences to members of your own tribe, and they give preferences to you.

Imagine playing a game of cards in which your opponent can play a wild card but you can’t. That wild card is their tribal membership. It does not matter how great an advantage you might have over him in terms of chips at the start, because the rules give him a systematic advantage, and as long as you play the game, you will lose. But individualists are slow to catch on to the scam, because they are blind to groups.

It is interesting that the most important founder of modern race- and nation-blind individualism was Ayn Rand, born Alissa Rosenbaum, and the leadership of her Objectivist movement just happened to be overwhelmingly Jewish, including a number of first cousins and married couples. Obviously, this was not individualist meritocracy in action. Yet Rand’s followers were blind to this fact as a matter of high moral principle.

There will never be a libertarian society. But libertarian ideology still performs a function within the existing system. And although libertarianism is superficially opposed to the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, both are Jewish intellectual movements that perform the same function: they break down the resistance of high-trust, European individualist societies to duplicitous tribal groups—what John Robb calls “parasite tribes”—preeminently Jews. Libertarians preach individualism, whereas the Frankfurt school stigmatizes white ethnocentrism and extols “inclusiveness” toward “marginalized” groups. But the result is the same. Both doctrines promote Jewish upward mobility and collective power while blinding the rest of society to what is happening.

What kind of people preach blindness as a virtue? People who are up to no good.

Ultimately, I would argue, individualism is a product of the biological and cultural evolution of European man. Individualism goes hand in hand with low ethnocentrism, i.e., openness to strangers, the universalist idea that ultimately there just one group, humanity, to which we all belong. The European mentality was beautifully encapsulated in a saying of Will Rogers: “A stranger is just a friend you haven’t met.” I doubt very much that an equivalent phrase can be found in Hebrew or Arabic. In other words, there is fundamentally no us and them. There is just knowledge and ignorance, friends we know and friends we don’t.

This openness is highly advantageous because it allows us to increase the number of people with whom trust and cooperation are possible. But openness to strangers is also risky, of course, because they might not reciprocate. Thus taking the risk of sociability—extending the hand of friendship—is deeply engrained in our sense of moral high-mindedness. But when we meet people who do not reciprocate our openness, but instead regard it as a weakness to be exploited, then our virtues are no longer advantageous, and if our elites persist in high-minded openness to such enemies, they must be relieved of their powers and responsibilities.

Individualism blinds its followers to collectivist cheats. Thus the only way to save individualism is to become aware of groups. But that sounds like collectivism. Once we become aware of parasite tribes, we have to exclude them. But that sounds like statism. If individualism is ultimately a European ethos, then individualism requires that we preserve European societies and exclude non-Europeans, which sounds like racial nationalism.

This is the refutation of libertarianism. It is a form of self-refutation. To save individualism, we have to repudiate universalism, reintroduce the distinction between us and them, and start acting collectively. Individualism only works as part of a collective of like-minded people who must exclude collectives that don’t play by the same rules. This is how some people start out as libertarian individualists and become racists, anti-Semites, and fascists in the end.

The Heresy Of Christian Zionism: Israel, Christianity, & Genesis 12.2-3

               Rembrandt, Abraham and Issac, 1634

By Irmin Vinson

The name “Israel” denotes today a small mideast nation-state which came into existence as a state in 1948 after a war of independence. About 70% of this nation-state’s citizens are Jews, and Israel identifies itself as a Jewish state. It won a significant military victory over its Arab neighbors in 1967.

If someone today says “Israel,” he is likely referring to this modern state in the Middle East, just as if someone speaks of “France” he means a state in Europe.

“Israel” once meant something significantly different. In the Old Testament “Israel” is at once a spiritual term describing the people of God and a largely racial term naming the physical descendants of Abraham and Sarah (Judges 5.11; Genesis 17.7-19). The spiritual history of this Israel, the sole people of God, began with Jehovah’s call to the mythical patriarch Abraham to remove his family from Haran and journey to Canaan, the promised land, where they would form a great nation devoted to his worship (Genesis 12.1-3).

In biblical myth Israel received its name from a wrestling match between Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, and Jehovah (YHWH): “Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32.28). The twelve sons of Jacob/Israel would subsequently father twelve tribes, the children of Israel.

“Israel” was the name of this people whether they occupied the land that Jehovah selected for them or not; Israel was defined by heredity, not geography. For example, a slave held in captivity outside the land of Israel remained part of Israel (II Maccabees 1.24-27), and Israel could still exist even when many of the former inhabitants of the land of Israel were living in exile in Babylon. In fact, most modern historians believe that the religious identity of Israel was largely shaped, and many of its scriptures written or restructured, during or immediately after its Babylonian captivity (586-538 BC).

Through his calling of Abraham Jehovah had selected Israel as his preferred folk and had set Israelites apart from all other peoples. Israel would subsequently be bound to him by the unique covenant made at Mount Sinai and would eventually be entitled, by virtue of its worship of the sole God, to subjugate and dispossess polytheist infidels (Isaiah 45.14-25; 61:5-6). Israel would remain God’s preferred folk and his personal possession so long as the Israelites kept the covenant between him and them (Exodus 19.5-6). All other peoples, ignorant of the truth and excluded from the covenant, were left “to walk in their own ways” (Acts 14.16). Even a public reading of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, was incompatible with the physical presence of non-Israelites (Nehemiah 13.1-3). Jehovah’s scriptures existed for the instruction and edification of Israel alone.

Only “the holy race” (Ezra 9.2) received Jehovah’s special attention, and only the holy race could properly serve him with animal sacrifices at the Jerusalem Temple, where the one true deity often dwelt. All gentiles were prohibited, under pain of death, from contaminating the temple’s inner precincts, which were reserved for Jews. Just as the angels worshiped Jehovah in heaven, so the Jews, divinely chosen as the earthly equivalents of angels, worshiped him in Jerusalem (Jubilees 15.27, 31.14).

There is, as Savitri Devi observed, a remarkable racial audacity in these various religious claims. The strict form of Old Testament monotheism denies the existence of other gods (Deuteronomy 4.35), yet confines knowledge of this important truth to a single people. Jehovah, though the creator of the universe and its owner, nevertheless selected one small part of mankind as his special folk, leaving the vast majority of the human race, in whose lives he shows only minimal interest, to worship lifeless celestial objects or worthless idols (Deuteronomy 4.18; Psalm 115.2-8). The latter they vainly imagine are images of actual deities, unaware that they are merely “broken cisterns that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2.13). Only one people knows and serves the one true God. All others are mistaken. Nor could they enter the ranks of Jehovah’s preferred folk, the people of God, even if they recognized their errors and abandoned their belief in false gods.

This radically ethnocentric religious structure, which reflected the high value Israel placed on racial purity (Joshua 23.12-13; Ezra 9-10), is poorly suited to proselytizing, and conversions to the religion of ancient Israel were consequently rare. No monotheist Israelite king or patriarch sent out legions of missionaries to convert disbelievers, even though, if we trust the Old Testament, all of them were confident that the bulk of their fellow men were living in spiritual darkness. Non-Israelites were born in darkness and in darkness they would perish. They were, by an accident of birth, doomed to idolatry and impurity, and insofar as the God of the universe showed any interest in their doings, it was only because he wanted to mock them or frustrate their crude ambitions (Psalm 33.10, 59.8).

The world’s spiritual geography was divided between Israel and everyone else, and Jehovah had chosen the side of Israel and had rejected all the other nations, though they too were populated by men and women created in the image of Elohim (Genesis 1.26-27). Our creator’s only ethical restrictions on all of us outside the covenant were that we refrain from homicide and the ingestion of blood (Genesis 9.4-6), and in the later Talmudic tradition even our humanity would be exegetically removed from us: through our worship of idols and other abominations we had marred the divine likeness once within us and were no longer the adam (“man”) that God had fashioned after his own image (Yevamot 61a; Bava Metzia 114b). So impure and inhuman had we become that sexual relations between Jews and gentiles could, through a process apparently akin to black magic, physically defile the temple from afar and make the atoning sacrifices that the priests offered there unacceptable to Jehovah (Jubilees 30.11-16).

Seen in this light, Christianity, history’s most successful proselytizing religion, is clearly discontinuous with its Old Testament antecedents. It marks a radical break with the past, for in the New Testament the people of God, the true Israel, become all those who believe in the Messiah’s resurrection, accept him as Lord, and adjust their lives accordingly.

This break with the Israelite past is an important subject in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, which recounts the early history of the apostolic church. The evangelist Philip converts an Ethiopian eunuch by explaining a scriptural prophecy of the Messiah (Acts 8.26-38). Peter, in response to an inspired trance-vision, recognizes that his old Jewish ethnocentrism must now be discarded, and he therefore welcomes Cornelius the Centurion into the new body of Christ, though he had previously shared the view of other Jews that contact with gentiles was contaminating (Acts 10.1-35). Soon thereafter faithful gentiles receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10.44-48). Frequent beatings and stonings at the hands of Jews convince Paul that a more valuable harvest of souls should be found away from his own people (Acts 13.44-52, 28.28; cf. II Corinthians 11.24-25).

In the new religious movement created by the followers of Jesus, originally called the Way, all men could, if they embraced the truth, find salvation and be united in the church, whether bond or free, male or female, Jew or Greek (Galatians 3.28). Under Jehovah’s old system Jews by nature (physei) were categorically distinct from gentile sinners; now through Christian faith even non-Jews could be purified and redeemed (Galatians 2.15-16; Ephesians 2.12-13). The Messiah could ransom “men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5.9).

There is a universalist moral logic in this message, which helps account for its success among non-Jews and its failure among the people it was first aimed at. If Jehovah is the only god, then he must, if he is just, be the god of everyone. The same Lord must be the Lord of all (Romans 10.12). Any redeemer he might care to send would act for the benefit of humanity as a whole.

The early Christians convinced themselves, despite some strong evidence to the contrary, that the God of the Pentateuch had always planned to become the God for all mankind, not merely the jealous tribal god of one misanthropic people. His intention eventually to welcome gentiles into his church was “the mystery of Christ,” concealed from earlier generations but now revealed through the Holy Spirit to the apostles (Ephesians 3.1-6).

An important consequence of this mystery was that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants” (Romans 9.6-8). Peter and Paul still belonged to Israel, as did all of the first apostles and all of the Jews who experienced the fiery descent of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues along with non-Jews; but most of their fellow Jews no longer belonged to the true Israel, despite their own opinion of the matter. They had put themselves at odds with God’s more recent design, and since no one can save himself through the old Law of Moses, they had also jeopardized their immortal souls.

The New Testament eliminated the idea that the people of God were the physical descendants of Abraham and Sarah. No longer would “all Israelites have a share in the World to Come” (Sanhedrin 90a) simply because all Israel had once been chosen. There was now an old Israel of the flesh on the one hand, namely Jews who rejected God’s Son and were pleased with his crucifixion, and on the other the followers of Jesus, gentiles and Jews who accepted him as their savior. The latter had become, under a new and better covenant (Luke 22.20; Hebrews 8.6), the real “Israel of God” (Galatians 6.16). As Jesus had predicted, “many [non-Jews] will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8.11).

God’s Israel had become as distinct from Judaism as faith is distinct from genealogy. Whereas Jehovah had once schemed to prevent non-Jews from learning the truth, even causing demonic “spirits to rule [their nations] so that they might lead them astray from following him” (Jubilees 15.31), the God of the New Testament had sent his Son to offer redemption to all of humanity and to transform Christian believers into a spiritual kingdom of priests (Revelation 1.6). In Christianity’s prophetic record of the end-time, John of Patmos pointedly notes the absence of a temple in the heavenly city of the Christian faithful, “for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (21.22). The material accouterments of old Israel’s religion, along with old Israel’s belief in its permanent election, were no longer valuable in the new economy of salvation (Matthew 27:51; Hebrews 9-10).

With thoughts of a spiritual Israel in mind, early Christians had no difficulty finding in the Old Testament numerous allegories and prophetic predictions of the moment when Jehovah would, much more generously, set non-genealogical criteria for admission into his preferred people (e.g. Acts 15.13-18). That most Jews were unwilling or unable to see these allegories and prophecies was an indication of their hardened hearts and their spiritual blindness.

In the early second century the Epistle of Barnabas, purportedly written by Paul’s evangelical co-worker in Antioch, would argue that Jews had lost the ability to read the scriptures and had in fact lost their covenant soon after they received it. In medieval Christendom the myopia of the Jews would be expressed in the contrasting allegorical images of Ecclesia and Synagoga, the former beautiful and crowned in triumph, the latter holding a broken staff and the broken tablets of the old Law, with her eyes covered to indicate her willed blindness.

This set of ideas is now decried as replacement theology or supersessionism. Some helpful Jews have written books documenting supersessionist errors among unenlightened Christians, so that they can avoid them in the future. Dutifully enlightened Christians, like Pastor John Hagee, are careful to avoid, and at times even openly reject, traditional Christian teachings on the subject.

Yet there can be no doubt that as a whole the New Testament is a supersessionist document. The old Law had been fulfilled in Christ, and the old covenant had been superseded and rendered “obsolete” by the new (Hebrews 8.13). Because most of old carnal Israel — Israel by physical descent, “Israel according to the flesh” — wrongly rejected Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men” (I Timothy 2.5), the promises God made to the faithful patriarchs were transferred to the new spiritual Israel (Matthew 21.43).

Through the trespasses of the Jews, including a deicide that the apostles spoke about often and unambiguously (e.g. Acts 7.52-53), salvation had come to the gentiles; the old branches of Israel had been broken off as the penalty for disbelief, and new branches had been grafted into the stem (Romans 11.11-20). Christians had become “Abraham’s offspring” (Galatians 3.29). Peter called them “God’s own people” and his new “holy nation” (I Peter 2.9). To the claim of the Jews that they were the descendants of Abraham, Jesus himself replied that their real (spiritual) father was the devil (John 8.39-44; cf. Revelation 2.9).

Although in the fullness of time many Jews would recognize their errors and would be welcomed into the church as Christians (Romans 11.25-26), for the moment most were outside of salvation, consigned by their own self-willed blindness to spiritual ignorance and damnation. These former “sons of the kingdom,” trusting in their physical descent, would find themselves “thrown into the outer darkness,” since they had rejected the promise of eternal life (Matthew 8.12; Acts 13.46).

The traditional Catholic prayer for the conversion (and therefore the salvation) of the Jews reflects this idea; the analogous Jewish prayer, added to the synagogue service around AD 85 and directed against Christians in Palestine, asks that “the Nazarenes and the heretics be suddenly destroyed and removed from the Book of Life.”

In the fourth century St. Augustine, the great patriarch of the Latin Church, would declare as a simple matter of fact what had become the consensus opinion of Christianity: “the people of the gentile nations themselves are spiritually among the children of Abraham and for that reason are correctly called Israel” (City of God 18.28). Augustine, who was himself addressed by fellow Christians as “the blessed teacher of Israel,” would likely have understood the English word “supersession,” which derives from Latin; he would not have understood how it could possibly be considered a theological error. His supersessionism was merely a restatement in his own words of the divinely inspired words stated plainly in the New Testament and prophesied obliquely in the Old.

The mideast nation-state of Israel embodies, some Christian traditionalists have argued, a rejection of New Testament Christianity and of an Israel in which Christ is the acknowledged king (John 1.49). It is, on this view, a material perversion of what had become, after the resurrection, a spiritual concept. The Jewish state locates Israel in a physical territory, and it is governed by people who do not belong to the new Israel. The true people of spiritual Israel who have the misfortune to live in this Jewish state, the Palestinian Christians, often find their holy places desecrated. Pious Jews spit on their priests in the streets of Jerusalem. In opposition to alleged Christian idolatry Israeli fundamentalists intend eventually, as acts of strict monotheist principle, to destroy all their churches.

It is therefore surprising that the most committed Christians today are also often the most fervent supporters of modern Israel and are among the strongest opponents of supersessionism. Some of these Christian Zionists even provide assistance to fundamentalist Jews who want to reinstitute the sacrifice of animals in the Jerusalem Temple, which, in addition to the rejection of New Testament teachings on the Law and on sacrifice that this plan implies, would require the destruction of the Muslim Dome of the Rock that happens to be located there. Many Christian Zionists also deny that Jews require Christian salvation, which is tantamount to a repudiation of the most crucial doctrine of the religion they profess (John 3.16-18, 36), as well as a repudiation of Christ’s command that his disciples preach the gospel to the ends of the earth, beginning in Jerusalem (Luke 24.47). Whether we identify ourselves as Christians or not, Christianity’s basic ideas of salvation, punishment, and evangelism are not difficult to understand.

The striking rise of Jewish political power during the twentieth century, which led to the adage that Jesus is the one Jew modern Christians do not fear, may provide an obvious explanation for this strange phenomenon. Abandonment of contentious Christian ideas in favor of a philo-Semitic theology is the easiest way for Christians to avoid Jewish anger and punishment.

As well, in an era when traditional religious beliefs appear increasingly irrelevant to many occidentals, modern Israel’s ongoing troubles perhaps make Christianity, rooted as it is in the ancient history of the Near East, seem vividly topical. The biblical Holy Land has become, thanks at least in part to modern Israel, an arena of constant violence and turmoil. The fundamentalist practice of ferreting out obscure biblical prophecies of the end-times, and connecting them to modern events surrounding the state of Israel, brings the world of the increasingly post-Christian present back in contact with the world of Christianity’s foundational scriptures, seeming to validate their contemporary significance in the process. A bible-believing Christian’s religious texts become keys to opening the secrets of important current events, keys unavailable to the sneering disbelievers who disdain his literalist faith. The existence of the troubled and troublesome state of Israel helps make the scriptures seem relevant.

Whatever the reason for the preference today of many Christian fundamentalists for modern Israel over the New Testament, there can be no doubt that the most important text for Christian Zionism is Jehovah’s pledge to Abraham in Genesis 12.2-3, part of what is often called the Abrahamic promise or covenant (Genesis 12-17 passim). I quote here from the King James translation:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Modern fundamentalists, like Pastor Hagee, interpret this as a condemnation of anti-Semitism and an admonition that Christians must unconditionally support the Jewish state in physical Israel. Our nations will be blessed if we do and may be cursed if we do not. America is wealthy and strong and safe from earthquakes because it has often blessed the Jewish state and has received Jehovah’s blessings in return. Zimbabwe would also be wealthy and strong if its leaders would wisely embrace the Abrahamic covenant. A nation gets rich by supporting Israel; it risks divine judgment if it does not.

The standard Christian interpretation of the verses is much different. Genesis 12.2-3 is, according to traditional Christian exegesis, an anticipation of the new Israel and the universal church of God. Augustine had no doubt that the Abrahamic covenant was “a promise now fulfilled in Christ” (City of God 16.28).

The key clause for most traditional commentators is “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed,” which suggests that the calling of Abraham somehow involved God’s intention eventually to bless, through him, all the non-preferred nations excluded from the covenant. At some moment in the future, the text seems to say, the people Israel would become a source of important benefits for the rest of the world.

For Christians the meaning was obvious: all of humanity would be blessed in Abraham’s physical and spiritual posterity. The Son of God, sent into the world as a blessing for us all, would be born from his line (Matthew 1.1-16). We could now be saved and hope to arrive one day in heaven. The promise of land and the possibility of salvation were related. God had promised a material homeland in Canaan to Abraham and his descendants, John Calvin argued, “not that it might be the limit of their hopes, but that the view of it might train and confirm them in the hope of that true inheritance,” namely “the true country, the heavenly city of believers” (Institutes 2.11.2)

Christian bible scholars once did that: they delved into the Old Testament, following Christ’s own advice (John 5.39-46), looking for anticipations and prefigurings of the New, not for buried hints of modern Iran’s role in the imminent end-times, or for biblical reasons to support the Jewish state. They were Christians, so they interpreted Old Testament texts as Christian messages.

In its bitter conflict with Pharisaic Judaism one of early Christianity’s most important claims was its ability to correctly interpret the spirit of the scriptures, thereby preserving and illuminating God’s true intentions. Until our own era, most Christians maintained that traditional belief in their special mastery of the Old Testament. Whereas Jews might be capable of understanding the fleshly or carnal meaning of Old Testament texts, only Christians could understand their spiritual meaning, which was much more important.

In Christian eyes Abraham is the spiritual father of the true Israel. The Latin poet Prudentius, in the opening line of his Psychomachia, would call him “the faithful patriarch who first showed the way of believing,” because, like Christian believers, Abraham believed and was accounted righteous without the Mosaic Law and without the rituals of temple-based Judaism (Romans 4.3), both of which arrived centuries after his death.

This Abraham was an early witness of the Christian Trinity (Genesis 18.1-2), and in his encounter with Melchizedek, the mysterious gentile priest-king of Salem, he met a type of Christ (Genesis 14.17-18; Hebrews 7). Since Melchizedek presented him with bread and wine, he encountered also a prefiguration of the eucharist. His willingness to sacrifice his son was an imprecise but important prefiguration of Christ’s Passion (Genesis 22). In other words, for readers who examine the Old Testament with genuinely Christian eyes, Abraham’s life as it appears in scripture is a crucial part of the Christian story.

Abraham’s Christian faith was in a divine promise that had yet to be fulfilled, a promise of a heavenly home and of a universal redeemer, whose coming he expected (John 8.56). His numerous physical and spiritual progeny — including Jesus, the most important “son of Abraham” (Matthew 1.1) — were heirs to the same Christian promise of “a city . . . whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11.8-16). This Abraham was the forefather of all the Christian faithful, both Jews and gentiles, not because he was by race an Israelite, but because of his faith (Romans 4.10-12).

In their commentaries on Genesis 12.2-3 Catholics and Protestants alike over the centuries arrived at similar interpretations of the verses. They did not interpret them as a divine command to bless and support Jews. They looked instead at the line of descent from Abraham that culminated in Jesus and interpreted the text accordingly. In the Abrahamic covenant and its promise of blessings for all families of the earth they saw the gift of salvation for everyone.

They did not arrive at the same conclusion through a miraculous meeting of minds across time and across denominations, but because the verses had already been authoritatively interpreted for them by Paul and Peter. They therefore based their own interpretations on the Christian interpretation found in the New Testament.

Neither Paul nor Peter saw Genesis 12.2-3 as a divine promise for the specific benefit of their first-century Jewish adversaries. On the contrary, the beneficiaries of God’s promise to Abraham would not, Paul made clear, be Jewish followers of the carnal Mosaic Law, which would deny the necessity of faith and the purpose of the redeemer, but faithful Christians, believers in Christ and in his resurrection. “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” was scriptural proof that God had always intended to justify the gentiles by faith and had announced, in a pre-gospel long ago, his intention to Abraham (Galatians 3.6-18). This opportunity to believe and be saved was offered first to the Jews, in the forlorn hope that they could be turned, as Peter put it, from their wickedness, but it was offered soon thereafter to everyone else (Acts 3.25-26, cf. Romans 1.16). All of us therefore have been blessed in the posterity of Abraham, though only Christians have taken practical advantage of the blessing.

Belief in this interpretation of Genesis 12.2-3 implies belief in Christianity. Since I do not believe in Jehovah and do not believe that Jesus was his son, I am confident that this Christian interpretation of an Old Testament text is false. The authors and scribal editors of Genesis had no suspicion of an expected Messiah for the gentiles and would have been horrified by the prospect that a redeemer might eventually lead their enemies out of idolatrous darkness. Pastor Hagee’s interpretation of the verses is, in my opinion, closer to the truth than St. Paul’s. It is also much more consistent with Israel’s history and peculiar national psychology.

The people Israel, contrary to the fictional ethnogenesis reported in the Old Testament, emerged from among indigenous Palestinians as a result of the widespread crisis of the Late Bronze Age that afflicted most of the Near East. Amidst the chaos of war and cultural collapse pastoral nomads gradually coalesced to form a small nation called Israel in the sparsely populated highlands of Canaan. Located between Egypt and Mesopotamia, this small nation was always at the mercy of its much more powerful neighbors. It had, despite its often vaulting ambitions, a consciousness of its smallness (Deuteronomy 7.7).

Its first entry into extra-biblical history appears, in the late thirteenth century BC, on a victory stele of the Pharaoh Merneptah, which contains his boastful report of Israel’s defeat in Canaan: “Israel is laid waste and its seed no longer exists.” Around 720 the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel, removing ten of Israel’s twelve tribes from Canaan and sending them into permanent exile (II Kings 17.6). In another of ancient Israel’s many defeats, recorded in the Old Testament and corroborated by an extra-biblical source, the Pharaoh Shishak captured Jerusalem in 925 and despoiled the temple (I Kings 14.25-26). In 586 the Babylonians burned the temple, blinded the last Davidic king, and took him and the bulk of the elite population into exile (Jeremiah 52). It is often conjectured that the Old Testament took shape during Israel’s captivity in Babylon.

Genesis 12.2-3 should be understood with this historical background in mind. The Israelites dreamed, as many mistreated peoples do, of the day when they would no longer be weak and insignificant but strong and powerful, no longer at the mercy of the belligerent empires of the ancient Near East. Since they were a literate people, unlike other insignificant ancient peoples mistreated by the powerful, their scribes left an extensive written record of their yearnings and their fantasies of revenge, which, through an unfortunate turn of history that Savitri plausibly blamed on St. Paul, came to be regarded as a body of religious texts within our Western civilization.

A more positive analysis would be that, by creative misreading of the Old Testament, first-century Jewish Christians and our Christian forefathers succeeded in transforming this at times monstrous collection of ethnocentric tales, with its violent fanaticism (e.g. II Samuel 15.2–3) and its comically primitive laws (e.g. Deuteronomy 25.11), into a source of moral edification and artistic inspiration. This alchemical transformation could arguably be seen as one of the great cultural accomplishments of the West, though it came at the cost of the entanglement of our religious beliefs with the folklore and mythology of Jews. The early Christians assigned their successors the difficult interpretive task of extracting moral universalism and Christian altruism from the sacred ethnocentrism that physical Israel recorded in the Old Testament.

The oldest verses in the Pentateuch are likely found in the “Song of Moses,” an archaic poem recounting Israel’s escape from slavery in Egypt and the destruction of Pharaoh’s army, which through Jehovah’s terrifying power falls into the Red Sea (Exodus 15:1–18; Revelation 15.3-4). It is an imagined moment, entirely unhistorical, of triumph for Israel and defeat for its powerful Egyptian enemy. It relies on a deeply held but false belief, namely Israel’s liberation from four centuries of bondage in Egypt, the story of the exodus. This false historical memory, recalled frequently in scripture, served to demonstrate Jehovah’s special concern for Israel, while rationalizing Israel’s hostility to adversary nations in the Near East. It is a revealing myth: few peoples would choose to invent a history of lengthy enslavement by others as their most important national memory.

In Israel’s vision of the invasion and conquest of Canaan, which also never occurred, the Old Testament writers imagined their forefathers mercilessly eradicating their enemies and their heathen shrines in order to obliterate everything non-Israelite (Deuteronomy 7.1-5; Joshua 10.16-42). In Israel’s conflict with the neighboring Edomites they imagined Jehovah, with his garments stained in blood, vowing to destroy all non-Israelites in a terrible day of vengeance (Isaiah 34, 63.1-6). In their prophetic visions of acquiring overwhelming power in the future they imagined the kings and queens of the earth groveling at their feet and their warrior-messiah shattering the gentile kingdoms with a rod of iron (Isaiah 49.22–23; Psalm 2.8-9). In Israel’s captivity in Babylon they imagined themselves smashing the heads of their captors’ children on the rocks (Psalm 137.9). In the Essene community near the Dead Sea the fanatical Sons of Light imagined the day when Jehovah would “execute judgment on all the gentiles by the hands of his Elect” and “annihilate all the Sons of Darkness” (Habakkuk Commentary 5.4; War Scroll 13.16).

The Abrahamic covenant is a more subdued expression of the same yearnings. It is at its core the fantasy of a persecuted weakling who dreams of becoming, with the assistance of a magical helper, much more powerful than his tormentors. It imagines a time when, aided by Jehovah, Israel will dominate its neighbors. Those who oppose Israel will be cursed and punished by Jehovah, and since the gods of Israel’s enemies are nonexistent, their enemies will have no supernatural power that they can call upon in response. Prudent nations will therefore bless Israel to avoid the curses of its omnipotent tribal god.

We can think of Genesis 12.2-3 as a textual Rorschach test.

A disbeliever would look at the verses and see, as I do, one small ancient people’s optimistic vision of future power.

The supposedly key clause in verse 3 is, to disbelieving eyes, not an uplifting promise of blessings for all the families of the earth, but a trivial prediction, obscured by the KJV translation and by ambiguous grammar in the Hebrew text, that in future Israelites would invoke Abraham when they bless one another. When they utter a blessing, they will use his name, because he was especially favored by Jehovah (cf. Genesis 48.20). The Catholic Jerusalem Bible provides a convincing translation for skeptics inclined to doubt the altruism of the ancient Israelites: “. . . all clans on earth will bless themselves by you.” The evangelical NIV similarly suggests “will use your name in blessings” as an alternate reading.

On the other hand, later Jewish tradition accepted the universality implied in the apparent blessing of “all families of the earth,” but interpreted it to mean that the entire world was the birthright of Abraham’s physical descendants (Romans 4.13). The strongly ethnocentric rabbinical sages who wrote the Talmud accordingly interpret Jehovah’s ancient promise that all families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham to mean that the world revolves around the sacred existence of Jews: “Even the other families who live on the land are blessed only for Israel’s sake. . . . Even the ships that go from Gaul to Spain are blessed only for Israel’s sake” (Yevamot 63a). It is an important ethical principle in the Talmud that all gentile activity ideally should serve Israel and provide leisure for Jews to study the Torah (Avoda Zara 2b).

We also know what early Christians like Peter and Paul, both of whom likely died for their faith in the Neronian persecutions, saw when they looked at Genesis 12.2-3. They saw in God’s covenant with Abraham a Christian promise of salvation, recently fulfilled through the effects of an atoning crucifixion and now made available to everyone.

When looking at the same verses, Pastor Hagee and his fellow Judeo-Christians see something quite different. They see a divine command from the ancient Israelite past directing us in the present to provide material assistance to Jews. They read the text as a Jewish ethnocentrist would want them to read it.

They do not, as Christians once did, see in Abraham the proto-Christian patriarch who encountered the triune God under the oaks of Mamre. They do not see the universal church of Christ or the heavenly Jerusalem in the “great nation” that God promised Abraham’s descendants. Their Abraham is not the spiritual progenitor of the Christian faithful, as Peter and Paul believed, but the distant forefather of the modern Jewish state, yearning as he journeys to Canaan for the promised day his descendants will subjugate their enemies. This Abraham would be pleased to learn that in our era the world’s leading power annually sends billions in material blessings to the Jewish state.

Belief in the Jewish Abraham, the Hebrew patriarch who received from Jehovah material blessings for himself and for his physical descendants, is incompatible with belief in the Christian Abraham, the spiritual forefather of a morally universalist religion. Unfortunately for the religious coherence of Christianity, Abraham the ethnocentric Jew is a much more accurate interpretation of the Abraham of Old Testament scripture than his Christian counterpart, the spiritual ancestor of the raceless faithful. Abraham is only thought of as a pious holy man today because of the powerful Christian misreading that constructed his near antonym.

For many modern bible believers the Christian Abraham is now a troublesome distraction that they feel free to abandon, while they focus their Christian altruism on their religion’s former rival, with no expectation that their blessings will ever be reciprocated.

Pesos For Play: How a Mexican Robber Baron Turned the New York Times into his Personal Blog

Pesos for Play: How a Mexican Robber Baron Turned the New York Times into His Personal Blog

By Mike Cernovich and M.T. White

Foreign influence in U.S. politics and media is a hot topic at the New York Times, which fails to disclose its largest shareholder is a Mexican who oppresses his own people. Why did Carlos Slim purchase 16.8% of the New York Times, and what has he received from the deal?

Lest you dismiss this expose as a “right wing conspiracy theory,” consider that the most vocal critics of pay-for-play are left wing editors and commentators, including the New York Times’ own editor!

“Behind the Scenes, Billionaires’ Growing Control of News.”

New York Times editor Jim Rutenberg wrote an article covering the perils of allowing billionaires to control the news. While criticizing Peter Thiel for funding the Hulk Hogan litigation against Gawker, Rutenberg sets his sight on conservative Sheldon Aldeson:

Mr. Thiel’s campaign is in keeping with the pledge his favored candidate for president, Donald J. Trump, made to ease barriers to lawsuits against journalists. But it is actually the flip side of the media realm’s new coin. Many of his fellow billionaires have gained control of news organizations by buying them or starting them.

The most striking example can be found in Nevada, where the conservative casino magnate Sheldon Adelson bought The Las Vegas Review-Journal last year. Mr. Adelson is not shy about using his money to influence the politics of his state and country. And the sale was followed by reports of editors suddenly altering articles about Mr. Adelson’s business dealings to put them in a more flattering light, or holding from publication articles about him altogether.

Billionaires are a huge problem, Rutenberg notes, listing other examples:

Some in Utah voiced concern when a member of the wealthy and influential Huntsman family, Paul Huntsman, moved to buy one of the state’s two major dailies, the struggling Salt Lake Tribune. Mr. Huntsman’s brother, Jon, is the former Utah governor who ran for president in 2012. His father, Jon Sr. — the chief generator of the family fortune — has had a prominent role with the Mormon Church.

Fans of Sherlock Holmes who read Rutenberg will note one billionaire escaped criticism. Rutenberg’s article on billionaires in media didn’t bark at Carlos Slim.

How could an article claiming Thiel, Adelson, and Huntsman were using their billions to influence media coverage omit the New York Times’ largest shareholder? Slim has indeed received what he bargained for.

Brian Stelter is another critic of billionaires buying media outlets, and he indeed mentions Carlos Slim by name.

We should view Russia Today skeptically as the Russian government funds RT, media analysts point out. Indeed CNN’s Brian Stelter, in a hit piece on Larry King, falsely claimed King’s Ora TV was funded by Russia. (In fact, King’s show is distributed by RT, with King maintaining creative control.)

Yet in the same hit piece Stelter observed, “And that’s what the ensuing controversy is all about. King’s interview programs are produced by Ora, a media company owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. King owns a piece of the company.”

Will Stelter append a similar disclaimer on all references to the New York Times, given Slim’s considerable ownership interest in the Times?

What’s more is that Slim profits from immigration. Because of his cell phone monopoly, he receives exorbitant profits from calls made by America’s Mexican population to relatives in Mexico.

Should the Times be required to disclose, in every editorial about illegal immigration, that its largest shareholder profits from porous borders?

Although we can see that foreign influence on American media is insidious, what’s worse is how Slim gets a pass. He is a truly despicable man who has doomed millions of his fellow Mexicans to a life of poverty.

One question you might have is, “Who is Carlos Slim and why should we care?” That’s a great question. The American mainstream media has given Slim a pass, even though economists estimate that Mexico’s economy would be on par with the U.S.’s had Slims not rigged the system in his favor, stealing hundreds-of-billions for himself, thereby robbing poor Mexicans of the multiplying effect of money.

Mexican billionaire and crony capitalist Carlos Slim Helu exploited and assisted in the impoverishment of his own nation. Slim’s greed appears to know no bounds. Latin America and its 262 million subscribers to his telephone services isn’t enough. The 200 companies Slim controls — from telecom to tobacco, bicycles to banking, airlines, railways, hotels and printing — that occupy one third of Mexico’s leading stock market index?

Carlos Slim is the majority shareholder in the most powerful newspaper in the world: The New York Times. What’s wrong with a businessman like Slim investing in a so-called prestigious newspaper?

“The New York Times would never strike a deal with a U.S. tycoon of a similar profile, for fear of triggering real or apparent conflicts between the newspapers coverage and the investor’s interests,” wrote Andres Martinez of Slate.

“I started studying why the Mexican economy doesn’t grow,” said Mexican economist and journalist Denise Dresser in The New Yorker — a publication that isn’t known for printing right wing screed. “So much led me back to Carlos Slim.”

Words like “Robber Baron” and “Crony” have been used to describe Slim and his business practices. Who used these words? Anthony DePalma and Eduardo Porter — writer’s for The New York Times. However, that was before Slim bought in.

Just like the Mexican government did favors for him, it appears The New York Times is doing favors for Carlos Slim by creating barriers in its own archive, filtering out articles that cast him in a bad light. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the Publisher and Chairman of The Times, told CNBC that Slim was, “An excellent shareholder who fully respects boundaries regarding the independence of our journalism. He has never sought to influence what we report.” But the paper’s database of their godfather does not reflect that. It seems as rigged as the auction that got Slim his Telmex monopoly.

When Presidential Candidate Trump criticized Slim and The Times, suggesting the two were trying to influence the Presidential election, Arturo Elias, Slim’s son-in-law and spokesman told The Wall Street Journal, “Of course we aren’t interfering in the US election. We aren’t even active in Mexican politics.”

In response, Allan Wall, a former resident of Mexico who has written about Slim said “For Slim and company to say they are not involved in politics is really something, the guy hobnobs with any and all politicians that might be of use to him, and then to say he doesn’t involve himself with politics?”
In fact, if it wasn’t for political involvement, there’s a good chance Slim would not be the oligarch he is today. In the 80s, Slim became friends with Carlos Salinas de Gortari, the future President of Mexico. During the 80s, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico nationalized the banks — part of a 71 year pattern where the government would take hostage whole industries (like Telmex in the 1970s) and then later privatize them for cash. Slim benefitted from this cartel-like behavior of his government. The takeover of the banks caused many businessmen to flee and Slim went on a buying spree while buddying up to those in power.

Under Salinas, the Mexican government initiated its biggest round of privatization. “What Salinas did was broker and sale industries that had been in private hands in Mexico and then nationalized in previous regimes under the flag of socialism,” said Fernando Cortes, a Mexican Nationalist who has participated in the country’s politics but also comes from a family who lost their bank during the 1980s nationalization.

Telmex was the largest and most complex operation to be privatized and the biggest prize. Slim, through his company Grupo Carso, led a consortium to win the monopoly for $1.76 billion (it was estimated at being worth $8 billion) in an auction competitor’s denounced for being rigged. Cortes thinks Slim was a front man for Salinas. “He was part of the political business elite,” he said. “They didn’t want to give Telmex to international interests.”

Slim’s control of Telmex allowed him to hold the population of Mexico hostage by only maintaining the phone infrastructure at basic functionality, limiting modernization and then bilking the limited customer base for profits. “He kept it (the phone service) functional but his companies had some of the most complaints,” said Cortes. Since they were a monopoly, “Complaints would not be listened to.”

The data backs that up. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2012, Telmex had an 80% market share (compared to 65% average of a company in a European Union country) and a higher rate of profitability than other OECD countries DESPITE modernization of the phone system.

And the Mexican government was practically unresponsive to helping its populace. They were sycophants of their telecom godfather Slim. The OECD noted that regulatory decisions regarding telecommunications had either not been taken or delayed due to “regulatory capture” and abuse of amparos (legal injunctions). Over a four year period (2005–2009), the OECD estimated consumers lost $25 billion a year — $129 billion total — a net loss of 1.8% of Mexico’s GDP.

In the mid-90s the saying “Corruption is not a characteristic of the system. It is the system,” became popular in Mexico. And it seems no one mastered this system better than Slim. “He understands that politics — especially in Mexico — is just a tool to promote and control the regulations and industries of private businesses,” said Cortes.

This pertains to other industries besides telecom as well. Take for instance Slim’s involvement in the legalized drug trade of tobacco. With a seat on Philip Morris’ international board of directors (the tobacco giant bought shares in Slim’s Cigatam), he in effect became the chief lobbyist in Mexico for the Big Tobacco cartel.

As the country tried to march towards stricter controls on public smoking and advertising, Slim used his lobbying power, the courts and charitable donations to prevent it. Tobacco farmers were paid and bussed in to Mexico City to protest the new laws, his Sanborn’s retail/restaurant chains sued the government in attempt to tie the legislation up in the courts, and computers were given to school districts of certain politicians. The result was a country limping towards tobacco controls (with estimates of over 60,000 people dying per year due to tobacco related illnesses).

The farmers, who were used to protest the legislation, did not benefit from Slim’s assisting in this globalist racket. It became no longer profitable to produce the crop locally (mainly in Nayarit State), due to the importing of cheaper tobacco leaves. The transnational cartel also introduced higher quality standards on the local farmers, making it cost prohibitive to cultivate the crop locally. Javier Castellon, a Mexican Senator told journalist Alejandra Xanic von Bertrab: “In Mexico, the anti-tobacco campaigns didn’t hit farmers as hard as the companies’ global strategies have.” And who was the main Capo for the international tobacco cartel in Mexico?

Slim sold all his shares in Philip Morris in 2013 and left the board in 2015. “He was in the tobacco industry while it lasted,” said Cortes. Slim cashed out, but what of the farmers whose businesses were decimated, and the millions of lives destroyed by tobacco consumption?

A corrupt and heavily regulated system benefits the mega-rich like Slim because they can manipulate that system through lobbying efforts and legal wrangling while keeping competitors at bay. The barrier to entry is so high that only someone like the billionaire can afford to navigate the labyrinth of regulations and graft.

For an average middle class Mexican family, like Cortes’, starting a business is met with a series of challenges. In the case of importing tea from China (Cortes’ venture), it starts with 20% of the tea stolen at customs…then a fine due to “incorrect labelling”…then a specific lawyer — recommended by customs — hired to assist in getting the product released from customs…then every box of tea needing to be relabeled individually — all before the product ever hits store shelves. “They (the Mexican government) make it so impossible…How do you expect a people in a country to get ahead when the government just trips you? It’s just very, very hard,” Cortes said. “And then when you’re someone like Carlos Slim, you just make a call, and say ‘I’m going to be bend this law. I don’t care what you do, you just make it happen,’ and it’s so corrupt, people just [comply].”

So what is the average Mexican to do in a crippled economy where starting a business is as hard as finding a legit donkey show in Tijuana? If you’re like Cortes or a tobacco farmer you legally migrate to the United States. Those who are too poor to legally migrate or start a business, either come here illegally or seek their fortunes in a trade lacking regulatory hurdles — like illicit narcotics. Is a corrupt government system, captured by its rich elite that fosters economic inertia one of the causes of drug violence in Mexico? Why aren’t news outlets like The New York Times asking this question?

Also, why aren’t they asking with all the illegal immigration in to the US, who benefits from said immigration?

Maybe because Slim is expanding his operations stateside with properties such as Ora TV, TracFone and long distance connection fees. “The more Spanish speakers in the US, the more possible subscribers,” said Wall. “I think he thinks it (emigration) is inevitable,” said Cortes. “He wants to prepare to profit from the Latino community in the US.”

And who better to help his expansion of operations than The New York Times? Apparently they’ve embraced the mafia code of omerta when it comes to questionable practices of their godfather Slim. So, stories such as 250 small merchants suing after being kicked out to make way for a commercial development next to the Virgin of Guadalupe Shrine — a business partnership between Slim and the Archbishop of Mexico — gets short shrift stateside. The Times got criticized for its (lack of) coverage of the “Panama Papers” story. Possibly anything to do with revelations of Slim’s business dealings revealed in the Mossack-Fonseca document dump?

“In my experience, oligarchs will also have newspapers as a sign of prestige and as a general tool of power — like having your own law firm or PR company,” said Johannes Wahlstrom, a Swedish investigative journalist, who has dealt with the paper in the past (assisting Julian Assange with Wikileaks release of the “Cablegate” documents).

Even before Slim purchased an interest, The Times was known for withholding information in order to curry favor with those in power (like outsourcing the decisions of which Wikileaks cables to publish to the U.S. government). As Wahlstrom said in an email, “The newspaper had long dealt with political power play rather than simply news reporting.”

A newspaper enamored with the organs of power, with a majority share held by a powerful Mexican oligarch. A match made in Heaven…for them. Potential Hell for everyone else.

After 2008, when Slim started investing in the paper, critical coverage became muted. In February 2009, less than a month after his announced loan, the paper published a slightly critical article by Marc Lacey. However, the word “crony” was never used and “robber baron” was only used to note how Slim was “stung” by Eduardo Porter’s usage of the term to describe him.

After that, the paper rarely mentioned their godfather, except in articles about his business dealings, or his visiting a museum with Shakira. It wasn’t until May 2011 that another story appeared slightly critical of Slim but with a headline reminiscent of Ayn Rand: “Mexico Takes Aim at a Titan in Telecom”.

It appears the paper has, at the very least, become a stateside propaganda blog for the oligarch. With the election of Enrique Pena Nieto in 2012, Slim’s hold on telecommunications became a target of the Mexican government. The next story to heavily feature Slim was in March 2013 that portrayed Nieto’s government going after him to deflect from the ongoing drug violence in the country. In August 2016, another story appeared with the headline: “Mexico’s Richest Man Confronts a New Foe: The State That Helped Make Him Rich”. The article, once again portrays Slim as a man against the system with paragraphs like: “Determined to bring his dominance to an end, leaders from Mexico’s three biggest political parties have put aside their own animosities in recent years, meeting in secret sessions to chip away at Mr. Slim’s domain.” All the articles mentioned above do mention Slim’s ownership stake in the paper and do quote those critical of him, but they do not feature the strong language once used by the likes of Eduardo Porter and Anthony DePalma before Slim bought an interest.

It’s easy to criticize a major and prestigious outlet like The Times, and write it off as a struggling rag who is blunting criticism of its benefactor. But the business practices of Slim have caused real-life struggle for his fellow Mexican citizens. Numbers, like costing Mexican customers $129 billion in phone fees are just that — numbers. Fact is, Mexico has a crippled economy that has been abused by the likes of Slim. It’s a situation so dire that people feel the need to risk their lives to come here.

They get on a bus headed for our border, but that bus might be going through Northern Mexico, towards Texas. It might get met by members of Los Zetas cartel. The women are either immediately raped or taken for use as sex slaves, the men are either shot or forced to fight one another in duel-to-the-death style combat, the survivors drafted in to the Zetas army. This isn’t a nightmare scenario dreamed up by a Hollywood screenwriter. It really happened (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_San_Fernando_massacre). Mexicans take these risks to make a better life for themselves, because the situation is so dire at home. And if they make it here, they still pay Carlos Slim a few bucks every time they make a long distance call to relatives back home.

Where is The New York Times in all this? At best, the reporters act like hostages in those cartel snuff films: On their knees, a proverbial knife to their throat, at the mercy of their captors. At worst, they are the masked bandit holding the knife, the USA its hostage, printing a glut of stories about foreign election influence, quoting undisclosed “sources” in the intelligence community alleging our government has been compromised. But it’s The Times that has been compromised and weaponized.

With the recent and contentious presidential election, where the President-elect himself loudly criticized the paper and its largest shareholder, did they in turn disclose this possible conflict of interest when talking about foreign involvement in elections? No.

In fact, the only time Slim’s name was mentioned in regards to possible influence was to snark. “It sure does get exhausting working for the global corporate media conspiracy” Jim Rutenberg wrote in a piece about criticism of the paper’s bias. “You never know what the puppet masters are going to order up next. (I wish that guy from Mexico, what’s-his-face-Slim would get off my back.)”

When David Sanger writes, “It is the first time that a foreign power (Russia) has unleashed cyberweapons to disrupt, or perhaps, influence a United States election,” is Slim’s ownership interest mentioned? No.
What about a post-election op-ed about possible Russian influence in Germany’s upcoming elections? When Jochen Bittner opines, “No doubt similar marching orders have been given to the armies of hackers who were sent to attack the Democrats (in the U.S.), and who are now plotting attacks on Germany,” is Slim’s ownership stake disclosed? Of course not.

The Times didn’t even break the story about Slim having dinner with President-elect Trump (The Washington Post did). Why wouldn’t they be first to report a story about their godfather meeting with the future President of the United States? Could it be due to it being reminiscent of Slim’s normal operating procedure of courting politicians regardless of ideologies? Could it be that it might open questions about Slim’s corrupt business dealings in his host country and attempts to mimic those practices here? Or could it raise the ultimate question: Why does a powerful newspaper — that has no scruples in attacking our President and accusing him of being compromised by Russians — take money from and provide cover for a billionaire who has left his own trail of coercing governments to enrich himself while leaving a trail of economic wreckage?

— — —

Mike Cernovich is documentary filmmaker, journalist, and author. His debut book Gorilla Mindset has received over 1,000 reviews across the Amazon domestic and international stores.

M.T. White is a novelist and journalist. You can find him on Twitter here.

The Most Cogent Definition of "The Occult War."

The most cogent definition of "The Occult War."

                       

"The occult war is the war which the forces of global subversion wage behind the scenes, by means which are almost always invisible to ordinary methods of investigation. The notion of occult war belongs, so to speak, to a three-dimensional vision of history, in which history is not considered superficially, according to two dimensions, those of the apparent causes, events, and leaders, but in depth, according to its third, underground, dimension, which contains decisive forces and influences often irreducible to the simple human element, be it individual or collective" -- Julius Evola.

Mind Control is Real

Mind Control is Real: United States Patent 6506148 B2 Confirms Human Nervous System Can be Manipulated Through Electromagnetic Fields from Monitors

By Amando Flavio

 March 13, 2017

  

The subject of mind control has been keenly contested for some time now. Mind or thought control is broadly defined as human subjects being indoctrinated in a way that causes an impairment of autonomy – the inability to think independently, and a disruption of beliefs and affiliations.

Mind control was initially considered a mere conspiracy theory. During the early days of the term, its adherents believed a human’s mind could be controlled through the dissemination of propaganda messages to suit the person disseminating the message. Even media theories such as Agenda Setting, Framing and Priming supported the notion that the human mind could be controlled to think in a certain direction the media wanted. This, in theory, becomes possible through the messages the media disseminate to the public. As the media constantly bombard people with a specific message or idea, over time, people become addicted to it, adopting it as a reality. Of course, if this happens, it means the thinking faculties of people have been altered.

However, mind control moved from mere communication messages of the media to something deeper after a shocking revelation. In 1999, the forensic psychologist Dick Anthony revealed that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) invented damning brainwashing techniques against communism during the Korean War.

Anthony’s revelation led to further scrutiny of the CIA. It later emerged that the United States government had been experimenting on how to control the human mind immediately after the end of the Second World War.  In 1945, the government secretly recruited many Nazi scientists, some of whom had been identified and prosecuted as war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials. The recruitment was code-named Operation Paperclip. The objective of Operation Paperclip was to tap into the knowledge of these Nazi criminal scientists. The Nazis were told that if they would agree and work for the United States government, the government would protect them from prosecution. The Nazis agreed rather than being sent to the gallows.

After recruiting them into the United States, the government used the Nazis in many highly clandestine experiments. One of such experiments was how to control the human mind through technology and science. With the help of the Nazis, in the 1950s, the CIA and the Defense Department conducted secret research codenamed MKULTRA. The project was later renamed Project ARTICHOKE. The purpose was to study mind control, interrogation, behavior modification and related topics.

When these secrets were made public, the CIA never contested them, except to say it discontinued the programs. But the big question here is: can we trust the CIA? What if they succeeded in inventing a technology to control the human mind with which we are unaware of?

In 2013, the BBC published an article titled “Are we close to making human ‘mind control’ a reality?” In the article, it was said that Rajesh Raoa, a researcher at the University of Washington, had succeeded in playing a computer game with his mind without using any physical controllers.

Mr Raoa’s invention convinced many researchers that mind control is no longer a conspiracy theory, that it is real. Some researchers expressed grave concerns about the invention of Raoa, saying it could lead to a Zombie apocalypse.

“When we have full links into the brain directly and you can control someone like a robot then we might have problems,” said Dr Ian Pearson, a futurologist with a background in science and engineering.

To further prove to you without any ambiguity that mind control is real, and that the technology to do the highly immoral, unethical and corrupt job is available, we look at something we have chanced upon on the internet.

We’ve come across scientific research published on the internet with patent number US 6506148 B2. It is titled “Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors.”

The Abstract of the work reads: “Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance. Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal. The image displayed on a computer monitor may be pulsed effectively by a simple computer program. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensity.”

According to the publication on Google, Hendricus G. Loos is the owner of the work. He filed the work in June 2001, but was published in January 2003.  When we attempted to find more details on Mr Loos, we realized he isn’t popular on the internet, not even mentioned in Wikipedia. Few articles have been written about him. What we did find, however, is his work on the manipulation of the nervous system with electronic devices started in 1978, publishing nine works since.

Now, to put the work in a simple context, let’s consider a simple definition of the nervous system. According to neuroscientists, the human nervous system controls everything from breathing and producing digestive enzymes, to memory and intelligence. In fact, the central part of the nervous system is the brain.

If patent number US 6506148 B2 says that the nervous system can be manipulated by electromagnetic fields from monitors, need we not tell you that Your Mind is Being Manipulated with Monitors?

Especially televisions, they have become deadly weapons to us. From the recent WikiLeaks Vault 7 disclosure, it emerged how the CIA used Samsung smart TVs to spy on people.

From all indications, the United States government has secret technologies. The secret technologies are increasingly becoming embedded in most of the technology we use every day. This helps the United States government to maintain its hegemony over every being on this planet. The secret knowledge the Nazis had under Adolf Hitler is now in the hands of the United States, and is being put to use.

Our goal is to raise awareness. When we were investigating this issue, somebody told us it’s time to get rid of our TV sets. The person said the evidence is overwhelming. Truly, we are shocked by the available evidence. One important question we should be asking now is why is the mainstream media still silent on this issue? This tells you that the end goal of the media is never to educate and raise awareness. It is created and controlled by the elite to put us in the dark, so they can continue to profit from us.

From now on, never dismiss any conspiracy theory. Take your time to read about the theory and do a little research about it first. Research on such topics shouldn’t be difficult since we are in the Information Age.

As we end the write-up, Google US 6506148 B2. Spend some minutes to think. Tell us your thoughts below in the comment box. How can we free ourselves from this slavery and bondage?

This article (Mind Control is Real: United States Patent 6506148 B2 Confirms Human Nervous System can be Manipulated Through Electromagnetic Fields from Monitors) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.

Taking Our Own Side

     

Translations: French, German

This is the title essay of Michael Polignano’s book Taking Our Own Side, available for pre-order here.

We all have natural partialities: for family over non-kin, friends over strangers, fellow countrymen over foreigners, racial brethren over members of other races. Philosophers from Aristotle to Carl Schmitt have recognized that these partialities are the heart of political life.

But most moralists eye these partialities with suspicion. Moral laws, they claim, apply to everyone, regardless of his relationship to us. Murder is wrong, whether we kill a stranger or a friend. Fairness requires that we judge a stranger by the same standards by which we judge a friend. Moral laws are universal, and universality means that we must be impartial in all our moral judgments and dealings.

For the sake of argument I am willing to grant that moral laws are universal. But I don’t think that implies that all of our judgments and dealings must be impartial. Yes, when we have a case before a judge or arbitrator, we want him to be impartial. But do you want your parents to be impartial when deciding whether to send you or the class valedictorian to college? The most impartial judges are strangers to us. But we do not spend all our time with strangers, and kinship, friendship, and other natural bonds of affection do matter.

I grant that it is wrong to murder both strangers and friends, but surely it is worse to murder a friend. We are saddened to hear of the murder of a child. But we are horrified when we learn that the killer was the mother. We react this way, because we think that mothers should be partial to their children, and a crime that violates such natural partialities seems particularly bad. A moral philosophy that holds all murders equally heinous, regardless of these partialities, is simply absurd.

I look at ethics through a biological lens. A proposed moral principle cannot conflict with the survival of the race. Principles incompatible with survival die out along with their adherents. But there is another consideration beyond survival. There are plenty of bad ideas, foolish principles, and destructive lifestyles whose harm falls far short of killing their practitioners, or impeding their reproductive success. The only way to weed these out is to adopt as one’s standard not mere racial survival, but racial perfection. And from the point of view of racial survival and perfection, impartiality is folly.

   

Why is my standard the survival and flourishing of the race, not the individual? I am not an individualist, because individualism ignores the fact that we are all parts and products of biological groups: breeding populations. A race is simply a breeding population that has taken on a distinct identity because it has been geographically isolated, endogamous, and subject to unique environmental conditions for a sufficient length of time.

If the individual, not the group, is the highest value, then under no condition is it right for him to risk or sacrifice his life for the group. This means that the Spartans who fought to the last man at Thermopylae were suckers, but the man who would buy a few more years for himself by condemning the whole race to extinction is a paragon of virtue. The individual who lives only for himself, oblivious to the race that produced him and endowed him with the talents he cultivates or squanders, is a mean little creature, ungrateful to those who came before, improvident of those who will come after, if any. The isolated individual has but one life and one death. But the racially conscious individual realizes that countless forebears live on in him, and he seeks a kind of immortality for himself and them in his own posterity.

But why is the standard the survival of one’s own race and not the human race in general? If the races of man lived in harmony and had no conflicts of interest, then of course we should think of the interests of the whole human race. But we are a long way from that point, and haven’t gotten any closer during the past 50 years, despite the claims of the mass media.

The reality is: the races are at war with one another. The different human races are distinct subspecies, with distinct temperaments and talents, some of which conflict dramatically. It is an iron biological law that when two distinct subspecies try to occupy the same ecological niche in the same geographical region, there will be group conflict.

This conflict can be terminated in three ways. First, through interbreeding, which homogenizes the two subspecies into a new, distinct breed. Second, through the extermination of one group by other. Third, through the domination of one group by another.

In the case of humans, all three natural options are highly undesirable. The first two involve the destruction of one or more unique races shaped over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The last results in a system prone to instability over the long run, as history repeatedly demonstrates.

But since we’re rational creatures, humans also have a fourth option: voluntary separation. This last option preserves racial uniqueness and eliminates interracial competition, allowing each race to shape the course of its own future.

No matter what the outcome, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson about Blacks and Whites in America: “two races, free and equal, cannot share the same country.” This biological law dooms all experiments in multiracial egalitarianism. The only practicable multiracial societies have been hierarchical segregated ones like Vedic India, South Africa, and the American South. But in the end, even these proved unworkable. The Indian caste system did not prevent racial admixture, while Apartheid and Southern slavery and segregation are long gone.

                 

Everything we have seen since desegregation indicates the futility of multiracialism. Desegregation has not created the harmonious mixing of the races in freedom and equality. It has simply robbed Whites of the ability to legally protect our living spaces from the incursions of other races. When these incursions occur, there is racial tension and conflict, which terminates only when Whites flee and the neighborhood becomes predominantly Black, or Mexican, or Asian. Those Whites who remain are slowly destroyed by miscegenation or outright murder—both forms of genocide. Racial warfare will end only when groups separate from one another, or when the groups self-destruct due to miscegenation, or one group exterminates the others, or one group dominates and segregates itself from the others.

And make no mistake: America is in a state of racial war. It is no less a race war because, so far, Whites are not fighting back but are in full retreat. They retreat from neighborhood to neighborhood, as one after another reaches the “tipping point” and becomes unlivable for Whites. They retreat from cities to suburbs, from suburbs to exurbs, from states like California to states like Idaho and Montana. But at a certain point, there will be no place left to hide. The whole nation will reach the tipping point, and Whites will finally have to stand and fight for our survival.

I hope that we stand and fight while we are still more than 60% of the population. Our odds of winning would be a lot higher than if we wait until our numbers slip below 50%.

In the midst of a race war, there can be no greater folly than impartiality, than the pious rot that “there is only one race, the human race.” Robert Frost once brilliantly described a liberal as a man who will not take his own side in a fight. In a fight to the death, such a policy is suicide.

In every transaction between a partial man and an impartial man, the impartial man is at a disadvantage. When the impartial man has a benefit to confer, the partial man appeals to the other’s impartiality and often walks off with the prize. But when the impartial man needs something from the partial man, his appeals to impartiality fall on deaf ears. As social interactions multiply, so do the partial man’s advantages at the expense of the impartial man. (The essence of the Jewish strategy of dominance is to practice ruthless partiality while urging their victims to be free of prejudice and partiality.)

Once the impartial man has nothing left to bargain with, once he has been reduced to powerlessness and penury, to what will he appeal to preserve his life and freedom? Impartiality? Universal notions of freedom and justice and rights? These are just pleading words unless one has the power to force others to respect them. But the impartial man has bargained all his power away. Pleading alone will not prevent him from being reduced to a slave or a corpse, and that is what we Whites will become unless we start taking our own side, and quickly.

Reflections On Carl Schmitt’s The Concept Of The Political

                 

Carl Schmitt, 1888–1985

By Greg Johnson  

Translations: Estonian, French, Polish

“Why can’t we all get along?”–Rodney King

Carl Schmitt’s short book The Concept of the Political(1932) is one of the most important works of 20th century political philosophy.

The aim of The Concept of the Political is the defense of politics from utopian aspirations to abolish politics. Anti-political utopianism includes all forms of liberalism as well as international socialism, global capitalism, anarchism, and pacifism: in short, all social philosophies that aim at a universal order in which conflict is abolished.

In ordinary speech, of course, liberalism, international socialism, etc. are political movements, not anti-political ones. So it is clear that Schmitt is using “political” in a particular way. For Schmitt, the political is founded on the distinction between friend and enemy. Utopianism is anti-political insofar as it attempts to abolish that distinction, to root out all enmity and conflict in the world.

Schmitt’s defense of the political is not a defense of enmity and conflict as good things. Schmitt fully recognizes their destructiveness and the necessity of managing and mitigating them. But Schmitt believes that enmity is best controlled by adopting a realistic understanding of its nature. So Schmitt does not defend conflict, but realism about conflict. Indeed, Schmitt believes that the best way to contain conflict is first to abandon all unrealistic notions that one can do away with it entirely.

Furthermore, Schmitt believes that utopian attempts to completely abolish conflict actually increase its scope and intensity. There is no war more universal in scope and fanatical in prosecution than wars to end all war and establish perpetual peace.

Us and Them

What does the distinction between friend and enemy mean?

First, for Schmitt, the distinction between friend and enemy is collective. He is talking about “us versus them” not “one individual versus another.”

Schmitt introduces the Latin distinction between hostis (a collective or public enemy, the root of “hostile”) and inimicus (an individual and private adversary, the root of “inimical”). The political is founded on the distinction between friend (those on one’s side) and hostis (those on the other side). Private adversaries are not public enemies.

Second, the distinction between friend and enemy is polemical. The friend/enemy distinction is always connected with the abiding potential for violence. One does not need to actually fight one’s enemy, but the potential must always be there. The sole purpose of politics is not group conflict; the sole content of politics is not group conflict; but the abiding possibility of group conflict is what creates the political dimension of human social existence.

Third, the distinction between friend and enemy is existentially serious. Violent conflict is more serious than other forms of conflict, because when things get violent people die.

Fourth, the distinction between friend and enemy is not reducible to any other distinction. For instance, it is not reducible to the distinction between good and evil. The “good guys” are just as much enemies to the “bad guys” as the “bad guys” are enemies to the “good guys.” Enmity is relative, but morality—we hope—is not.

Fifth, although the friend/enemy distinction is not reducible to other distinctions and differences—religious, economic, philosophical, etc.—all differences can become political if they generate the friend/enemy opposition.

In sum, the ultimate root of the political is the capacity of human groups to take their differences so seriously that they will kill or die for them.

It is important to note that Schmitt’s concept of the political does not apply to ordinary domestic politics. The rivalries of politicians and parties, provided they stay within legal parameters, do not constitute enmity in Schmitt’s sense. Schmitt’s notion of politics applies primarily to foreign relations — the relations between sovereign states and peoples — rather than domestic relations within a society. The only time when domestic relations become political in Schmitt’s sense is during a revolution or a civil war.

Sovereignty

If the political arises from the abiding possibility of collective life or death conflict, the political rules over all other areas of social life because of its existential seriousness, the fact that it has recourse to the ultimate sanction.

For Schmitt, political sovereignty is the power to determine the enemy and declare war. The sovereign is the person who makes that decision.

If a sovereign declares an enemy, and individuals or groups within his society reject that declaration, the society is in a state of undeclared civil war or revolution. To refuse the sovereign’s choice of enemy is one step away from the sovereign act of choosing one’s own enemies. Thus Schmitt’s analysis supports the saying that, “War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.”

Philosophical Parallels

The root of the political as Schmitt understands it is what Plato and Aristotle call “thumos,” the middle part of the soul that is neither theoretical reason nor physical desire, but is rather the capacity for passionate attachment. Thumos is the root of the political because it is the source of attachments to (a) groups, and politics is collective, and (b) life-transcending and life-negating values, i.e., things that are worth killing and dying for, like the defense of personal or collective honor, one’s culture or way of life, religious and philosophical convictions, etc. Such values make possible mortal conflict between groups.

     

The abolition of the political, therefore, requires the abolition of the human capacity for passionate, existentially serious, life and death attachments. The apolitical man is, therefore, the apathetic man, the man who lacks commitment and intensity. He is what Nietzsche called “the last man,” the man for whom there is nothing higher than himself, nothing that might require that he risk the continuation of his physical existence. The apolitical utopia is a spiritual “boneless chicken ranch” of doped up, dumbed down, self-absorbed producer-consumers.

Schmitt’s notion of the political is consistent with Hegel’s notion of history. For Hegel, history is a record of individual and collective struggles to the death over images or interpretations of who we are. These interpretations consist of the whole realm of culture: worldviews and the ways of life that are their concrete manifestations.

There are, of course, many interpretations of who we are. But there is only one truth, and according to Hegel the truth is that man is free. Just as philosophical dialectic works through a plurality of conflicting viewpoints to get to the one truth, so the dialectic of history is a war of conflicting worldviews and ways of life that will come to an end when the correct worldview and way of life are established. The concept of human freedom must become concretely realized in a way of life that recognizes freedom. Then history as Hegel understands it—and politics as Schmitt understands it—will come to an end.

Hegel’s notion of the ideal post-historical state is pretty much everything a 20th (or 21st) century fascist could desire. But later interpreters of Hegel like Alexandre Kojèveand his follower Francis Fukuyama, interpret the end of history as a “universal homogeneous state” that sounds a lot like the globalist utopianism that Schmitt wished to combat.

Why the Political Cannot be Abolished

If the political is rooted in human nature, then it cannot be abolished. Even if the entire planet could be turned into a boneless chicken ranch, all it would take is two serious men to start politics—and history—all over again.

But the utopians will never even get that far. Politics cannot be abolished by universal declarations of peace, love, and tolerance, for such attempts to transcend politics actually just reinstitute it on another plane. After all, utopian peace- and love-mongers have enemies too, namely “haters” like us.

Thus the abolition of politics is really only the abolition of honesty about politics. But dishonesty is the least of the utopians’ vices. For in the name of peace and love, they persecute us with a fanaticism and wanton destructiveness that make good, old-fashioned war seem wholesome by comparison.

Two peoples occupying adjacent valleys might, for strategic reasons, covet the high ground between them. This may lead to conflict. But such conflicts have finite, definable aims. Thus they tend to be limited in scope and duration. And since it is a mere conflict of interest—in which both sides, really, are right—rather than a moral or religious crusade between good and evil, light and darkness, ultimately both sides can strike a deal with each other to cease hostilities.

But when war is wedded to a universalist utopianism—global communism or democracy, the end of “terror” or, more risibly, “evil”—it becomes universal in scope and endless in duration. It is universal, because it proposes to represent all of humanity. It is endless, of course, because it is a war with human nature itself.

Furthermore, when war is declared in the name of “humanity,” its prosecution becomes maximally inhuman, since anything is fair against the enemies of humanity, who deserve nothing short of unconditional surrender or annihilation, since one cannot strike a bargain with evil incarnate. The road to Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was paved with love: universalistic, utopian, humanistic, liberal love.

Liberalism

Liberalism seeks to reduce the friend/enemy distinction to differences of opinion or economic interests. The liberal utopia is one in which all disputes can be resolved bloodlessly by reasoning or bargaining. But the opposition between liberalism and anti-liberalism cannot be resolved by liberal means. It is perforce political. Liberal anti-politics cannot triumph, therefore, without the political elimination of anti-liberalism.

The abolition of the political requires the abolition of all differences, so there is nothing to fight over, or the abolition of all seriousness, so that differences make no difference. The abolition of difference is accomplished by violence and cultural assimilation. The abolition of seriousness is accomplished by the promotion of spiritual apathy through consumerism and indoctrination in relativism, individualism, tolerance, and diversity worship—the multicult.

Violence, of course, is generally associated with frankly totalitarian forms of anti-political utopianism like Communism, but the Second World War shows that liberal universalists are as capable of violence as Communists, they are just less capable of honesty.

Liberalism, however, generally prefers to kill us softly. The old-fashioned version of liberalism prefers the soft dissolution of differences through cultural assimilation, but that preference was reversed when the unassimilable Jewish minority rose to power in the United States, at which time multiculturalism and diversity became the watchwords, and the potential conflicts between different groups were to be managed through spiritual corruption. Today’s liberals make a fetish of the preservation of pluralism and diversity, as long as none of it is taken seriously.

Multicultural utopianism is doomed, because multiculturalism is very successful at increasing diversity, but, in the long run, it cannot manage the conflicts that come with it.

The drug of consumerism cannot be relied upon because economic crises cannot be eliminated. Furthermore, there are absolute ecological limits to the globalization of consumerism.

As for the drugs of relativism, individualism, tolerance, and the multi-cult: only whites are susceptible to their effects, and since these ideas systematically disadvantage whites in ethnic competition, ultimately those whites who accept them will be destroyed (which is the point, really) and those whites who survive will reject them. Then whites will start taking our own side, ethnic competition will get political, and, one way or another, racially and ethnically homogeneous states will emerge.

Lessons for White Nationalists

To become a White Nationalist is to choose one’s friends and one’s enemies for oneself. To choose new friends means to choose a new nation. Our nation is our race. Our enemies are the enemies of our race, of whatever race they may be. By choosing our friends and enemies for ourselves, White Nationalists have constituted ourselves as a sovereign people—a sovereign people that does not have a sovereign homeland, yet—and rejected the sovereignty of those who rule us. This puts us in an implicitly revolutionary position vis-à-vis all existing regimes.

The conservatives among us do not see it yet. They still wish to cling to America’s corpse and suckle from her poisoned tit. But the enemy understands us better than some of us understand ourselves. We may not wish to choose an enemy, but sometimes the enemy chooses us. Thus “mainstreamers” will be denied entry and forced to choose either to abandon White Nationalism or to explicitly embrace its revolutionary destiny.

It may be too late for mainstream politics, but it is still too early for White Nationalist politics. We simply do not have the power to win a political struggle. We lack manpower, money, and leadership. But the present system, like all things old and dissolute, will pass. And our community, like all things young and healthy, will grow in size and strength. Thus today our task is metapolitical: to raise consciousness and cultivate the community from which our kingdom—or republic—will come.

When that day comes, Carl Schmitt will be numbered among our spiritual Founding Fathers.