The Murder of Little Mary Phagan

Phagan-Kean, Mary

Buy Now

by Ann Hendon

WITH OVER 500 pages, more than twice the length of the first (1987) edition, the newly-revised and expanded second edition of The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is now available for purchase.

The author, Mary Phagan-Kean, states: “This book is the great work of my lifetime, a compelling personal journey, a tale of the shocking sex murder and abuse of my great-aunt, 13-year-old Mary Phagan — and it’s the story that the ADL and other shadowy forces don’t want you to read.”

This is the book that finally and definitively brings the truth about the murder of Mary Phagan by her killer, sweatshop boss and B’nai B’rith official Leo Frank, to light. It’s available now! Click the link or scan the QR code to get your copy at a discount price today.

Why is it that the family of Mary Phagan, the victim of rapist and murderer Leo Frank, are given no voice at all as the Jewish lobby pressures Georgia to exonerate the killer — who was also a high B’nai B’rith official? The following Phagan Family Position Paper was originally published at littlemaryphagan.com.

MY NAME is Mary Phagan-Kean and I am the great-niece and namesake of “Little Mary Phagan,” the thirteen-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by Leo Max Frank, the president of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith Lodge No. 144, on April 26, 1913.

Leo Frank was the manager of the National Pencil Company – a sweatshop factory where over a hundred children labored, and where the Sam Nunn federal building stands today. Little Mary Phagan was 12 years old when she started working there in 1912, and Frank admitted he was the last person to see Mary alive.

In fact, the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming and on August 25, 1913, after a month-long trial in the Fulton County Superior Court, Leo Frank was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and on the next day, he was sentenced to hang for the murder of Mary Phagan.

What followed was an unprecedented effort by Leo Frank and his legal team and supporters to pin this horrific crime on everyone but himself. It is an effort that continues to this very day. The Leo Frank case is no “cold case.” It is obvious to anyone who objectively considers the case evidence that Leo Frank was rightly convicted for this heinous crime.

Today, his supporters have targeted a black man named James Conley who worked as a janitor at the factory. Evidence shows that after Frank beat and strangled Mary he was unable to move the body. He called on Conley and ordered him to help him conceal the crime and swore him to secrecy. After initially concealing Frank’s crime Conley ultimately revealed to authorities the true events of that day. The detail he gave was so shocking and so convincing that he became the state’s star witness against Leo Frank. Frank and his legal team’s response was to accuse Conley of the murder, and that has been their story for a century.

But Mary’s killer was not James Conley, and the state of Georgia proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Leo Frank alone murdered Little Mary Phagan.

The Phagan family has no objection to anyone expressing their opinions about the Leo Frank case, but we do insist that organizations and personal campaigns not distort the truth and facts to use this case for their own political purposes. For over 100 years, each passing decade brought with it dubious revelations of “new historical evidence” falsely claiming to exonerate Leo Frank. The Phagan family has stated since 1982 that if there were clear-cut evidence to clear Leo Frank of this heinous crime, we would be the first to ask for an exoneration. However, such historical evidence has never come to light. Rather, there are considerable data, extensive documentation, revealing archival material, and legal, court, and government records that only support and even strengthen the guilty verdict.

Phagan Family’s Statement on the Latest Attempt to Exonerate Leo Frank

It was reported in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution that on April 26, 2019 [ironically 106 years to the day after Mary Phagan’s murder] that the Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard [defeated by Fani Willis on November 6, 2020] had established a “Conviction Integrity Unit” that he said would review the Leo Frank conviction of 1913. Those named as participants in this move were the following:

• Former Governor Roy Barnes
• Rabbi Steven Lebow
• Attorney Dale Schwartz
• Melissa D. Redmon, director of the University of Georgia Law School
• Former Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears
• Former Court Chief Justice Norman Fletcher
• Former Cobb County Superior Court Chief Judge J. Stephen Schuster
• Assistant District Attorney Van Pearlberg

The Family of Mary Phagan believes that these individuals have colluded since August of 2018 to find a way to vacate the murder conviction. ADL attorney Dale Schwartz was quoted thus: “we’re still trying to get a new trial that would, in effect, exonerate him.” [In 1914, several attempts were made to “exonerate” Leo Frank using “new evidence” that included witness affidavits later found to have been forged or obtained by bribery and other illegal means. See the Atlanta Constitution of May 5, 1914, p. 1.]

Clearly, the new agency was a blatantly political scheme that had nothing to do with justice. It was set up, it appears, at the behest of the above-mentioned Frank advocates for one purpose only – to help Leo Frank escape culpability for his crime. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 7, 2019), Fulton County D.A. Paul Howard stated, “The Frank Case helped inspire the creation of the new unit” and that former Gov. Roy Barnes “will serve as a consultant.” Barnes admitted that he “had lobbied the district attorney [Howard] to re-examine Frank’s case.”

Let us be clear what that means. Those statements alone convince us that the Conviction Integrity Unit has already determined the outcome of the Leo Frank case. According to the article, “Barnes said he is convinced that this will happen. ‘There is no doubt in my mind, and we’ll [Who is “we?” — Ed.] prove it at the appropriate time, that Frank was not guilty.'”

For years Roy Barnes has been promoting a fraudulent narrative about the Frank case, and in particular that the 1913 trial was illegitimate because it was “mob-dominated.” He said that “there were just mobs of people. And as the jury would go [to] the courthouse every day, the mob would scream, “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you!”¹

This charge is a blatant lie that has been disproven by the scholars of the case. It was made up long after the trial by an overzealous writer trying to make a name for himself. Only Barnes continues to repeat it.² For this and many other reasons Governor Roy Barnes is simply unfit to participate in any serious inquiry into the Leo Frank case.

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard (with former Governor Roy Barnes) announces “Conviction Integrity Unit” to re-open Leo Frank case. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 7, 2019. Once again, most advocates and so-called experts who determine Leo Frank is not guilty have relied on blatantly false information and politically biased propaganda. Frank’s conviction was upheld by thirteen separate courts and judges in his thirteen appeals from Fulton County to the United States Supreme Court. Every court affirmed the trial was fair and the jury was not “mob terrorized.”

What’s more, driven by the need to exonerate a Jewish leader, they intend to convict an innocent African American man, James Conley – Frank’s employee that he ordered to help move the body. They ignore the 20 young girls and women who testified under oath that Frank sexually harassed them at the factory. Frank’s attorneys refused to cross-examine ANY of them, and later admitted that they were all telling the truth.³

Nonetheless, Frank’s advocates spread fabrications, propagandize falsehoods, distort the facts and change headlines of original newspapers to promote the hoax of not guilty. The real miscarriage of justice is that in this time of the #MeToo movement, they seek to override a duly convicted child rapist and murderer’s conviction.

The Evidence Points to Leo Frank’s Guilt

Most people are not aware that there was blood and hair evidence at the murder scene, that Frank changed his alibi several times and lied to police, and that he sexually harassed his young girl employees. Most people are unaware that Leo Frank hired private detectives who planted evidence and bribed and intimidated witnesses to change their testimony. They even hatched a plot to murder the African American James Conley who became a key witness against Leo Frank.⁴

Most people are not aware that the two detective firms Leo Frank hired; the Pinkertons’ National Detective Agency and the Burns Detective Agency concluded Leo Frank was guilty of the murder!

At his own trial Leo Frank refused to be sworn on the Bible and be cross-examined. A lot has been covered up about the case, including Leo Frank playing the race card to play to the white jurors’ prejudices about black men.

In 1915 and under intense political pressure Gov. John M. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life imprisonment. But even as he signed that commutation order he also wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court “found in the trial no error in law” and had “correctly in my judgment [found] that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.”

The fact is that Leo M. Frank was found guilty under Georgia law with facts and evidence, not with political bullying. The good people of Georgia can make up their own minds about Leo Frank’s innocence or guilt by delving into the historical records themselves. Having researched the Leo Frank/Mary Phagan murder case, including spending thousands of hours examining court records, newspaper reports, and private and public archives, I ask you to please consider the following facts:

Sexual harassment by Leo Frank: the Harvey Weinstein of his era

On Saturday April 26, 1913, Leo Frank used the opportunity of a deserted factory and his power as the company boss to lure Little Mary Phagan to a back area of the factory and attempt to rape her. Mary resisted and, and in the struggle Frank struck her and knocked her unconscious, and then strangled her to death. He left a trail of clues leading to himself, so within a few days of the murder he was arrested.

Evidence showed that the murder was sexually motivated, and many of Leo Frank’s own female employees testified to Leo Frank’s history of sexual harassment. They testified that he “got too familiar,” “put his hands on” them, tried to corner them, and proposed sexual acts to them for money.

These teenagers bravely took the witness stand and spoke of Leo Frank’s lewd behavior. Sixteen-year-old Nellie Wood told the court how Frank had pushed himself against her and touched her breast. Fourteen-year-old Nellie Pettis–a witness for the defense–recounted how Leo Frank had propositioned her for sex. Twenty girls in all gave similar testimony about Frank’s improprieties. Several male employees described how they had witnessed Leo Frank “rub up against” young female workers “a little too much.” The testimony was so explicit that the judge had to clear the courtroom of women.

The defense attorneys did not even attempt to cross-examine any of the girls who testified at trial about Leo Frank’s lewd behavior. Instead, Leo Frank’s lawyers argued that his improper behavior was not wrong–that it was a sign of more liberal times! One even said in his closing argument, “Deliver me from one of these prudish fellows that never looks at a girl and never puts his hands on her…”

In the South the LOVE of Jews reigned supreme – not anti-Semitism!

“Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.” – Leo M. Frank, interviewed by Abraham Cahan of the Forward newspaper

Most people are unaware that the prosecutor Hugh Dorsey first brought his case against Leo Frank before a 23-member grand jury that included five prominent members of the Jewish community (including at least two from Frank’s own synagogue), and all the grand jurors signed the bill of indictment against Leo Frank.

The trial judge, Leonard Roan, was once a law partner of one of Frank’s defense attorneys, Luther Rosser and, according to a confidential ADL memo: “In general, the rulings of the trial Judge had been favorable to the defense.” Leo Frank’s defense attorney even declared after the trial: “[W]e do not make the least criticism of Judge Roan, who presided [over the trial]. Judge Roan is one of the best men in Georgia and is an able and conscientious judge.”

The false claims of anti-Semitism before, during, and after the trial of Leo Frank are simply unfounded and untrue. The detailed daily accounts by the three Atlanta newspapers – the Constitution, the Georgian, and the Journal, each of which had Jewish editors – reflected no anti-Jewish bias at all. Leo Frank’s religion is only alluded to when it is reported that he is the president of ‘B’nai B’rith, and he is written of with the utmost respect for his prominence in the community. In fact, a University of Georgia study showed that the reportage by Atlanta’s three dailies was openly pro-Leo Frank and exhibited a pronounced pro-Frank bias.

Author Steve Oney, listed by the Anti-Defamation League as an expert on the Leo Frank case, reported: “To the extent that there was bias in the coverage, it was mostly in Frank’s favor…” He goes on to state that Atlanta’s newspapers, “evincing the prejudices of the time, ridiculed the state’s star witness–a black factory janitor named Jim Conley…”

It has been claimed that “anti-Semitism” and the “hatred of Jews” motivated Leo Frank’s conviction and lynching. And yet, incredibly, there was no anti-Semitism expressed by police, detectives, prosecutors, jurors, judge, or reporters! There was no “prejudicial trial” or “mob rule” or anti-Jewish bigotry of any kind.

Mr. Oney refutes the claim that there were anti-Semitic mobs shouting “Hang the Jew!” He told the Jewish Journal:

“[I]t didn’t happen. It was something that someone wrote a couple [of] years after the crime, and then it got stuck into subsequent recountings of the story….Jews were accepted in the city, and the record does not substantiate subsequent reports that the crowd outside the courtroom shouted at the jurors: ‘Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you.'” Though there is no record of “anti-Semitism” on the part of the crowd, the courtroom audience, the press, or the prosecutors, that doesn’t mean it was non-existent. As the evidence of his guilt became overwhelming, Leo Frank and his lawyers tried desperately to insert “anti-Semitism” into the trial as a diversionary tactic. They actually staged a courtroom confrontation with a prosecution witness over his alleged previous “anti-Semitic” statements. This officially brought “anti-Semitism” into the trial for the first time. Turns out that witness was working for the Leo Frank defense and was planted to promote their “anti-Semitism” agenda. It was yet another trick by the Leo Frank defense to undermine the court proceeding and to neutralize the evidence of his guilt.

The ADL has been promoting a lie for over a century!

“HANG THE JEW, HANG THE JEW” is what the Anti-Defamation League says was chanted during the month-long trial, but its own expert Steve Oney says it NEVER OCCURRED!

According to Steve Oney, at the time of Mary Phagan’s murder, “Atlanta was a philo-Semitic city. Its assimilated, German-Jewish elite were part of the financial and legal power structure…” Gov. John Slaton in his commutation order also addressed the false claim of an “anti-Semitic mob” surrounding the courtroom pressing to lynch Leo Frank: “No such attack was made and…none was contemplated.” Gov. John Slaton countered the false claim of an “anti-Semitic” atmosphere by reminding Leo Frank supporters that Jews were highly respected and appreciated in Georgia because they had been “conspicuous” contributors to the history and development of the state.⁵

Frank’s Jewish defenders believed he was guilty

By the time of his lynching in 1915 many people – including his Jewish supporters – not only were repelled by Leo Frank’s abrasive personality but also believed he was in fact the murderer of Mary Phagan. Chicago icon Albert Lasker, a Jewish philanthropist and the “father of modern advertising,” paid millions (in today’s money) for Leo Frank’s defense, but he privately admitted that he was not even convinced that Leo Frank was innocent.

Lasker financed all of Frank’s post-conviction appeals and orchestrated his international public-relations campaign that involved media outlets across the nation, including the New York Times. Albert Lasker recalled the meeting in Frank’s jail cell:

“It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he impressed us as a sexual pervert. Now, he may not have been–or rather a homosexual or something like that…”

According to Lasker’s biographer, the men with him during that encounter took “a violent dislike to him.” Lasker “hated him,” and said, “I hope he [Leo Frank] gets out…and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.”

Leo Frank’s Trial Defense was one of the most RACIST in American History

Though “anti-Semitism” was not a factor in his trial, Leo Frank’s racism certainly was: Frank’s defense attorneys used the word “nigger” and other racist slurs dozens of times in court. His main attorney told the jury: “If you put a nigger in a hopper, he’ll drip lies.”

Leo Frank argued in court that the many black witnesses that testified against him should not be believed – simply because they were black – and that “negro testimony” – as they referred to it – was by definition inferior and unreliable. At trial Leo Frank’s attorney castigated the white jurors for even considering the testimony of the black witnesses:

“They would rather believe the negro’s word….Oh, how times have changed. I hope to God I die before they change any worse than this…”

Leo Frank’s lawyers argued to the jury of twelve white men that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus Leo Frank, “a white man,” could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan. One defense attorney said that “the murder was the unreasoning crime of a negro,” that “It isn’t a white man’s crime.”

Leo Frank’s own racist thinking is reflected in an Atlanta Constitution front-page headline on May 31, 1913: “Mary Phagan’s Murder Was Work of a Negro Declares Leo M. Frank.” The newspaper quoted Leo Frank:

“Here is a negro [James Conley], not alone with the shiftless and lying habits of an element of his race, that is common to the South….No white man killed Mary Phagan. It’s a negro’s crime, through and through. No man with common sense would even suspect I did it.”

Leo Frank tried to pin his crime on two innocent black men

Leo Frank’s supporters then and now have played the race card and falsely represent an African-American man as the “real killer.” For over 100 years James “Jim” Conley has been scapegoated in nearly all the literature on the case. He was a sweeper in the factory on the day of the murder who was ordered by his boss Leo Frank to help move the dead body of Mary Phagan. When James Conley confessed to his accessory-after-the-fact role, Frank and his supporters tried to pin his crime on Conley. Leo Frank’s supporters continue to this day to smear James Conley as a devious criminal who got away with murder, but Conley’s very detailed statement–corroborated by the physical evidence at the crime scene – was so convincing that it became central to the prosecution’s case. (At trial, Leo Frank refused to be cross-examined by prosecutors, but James Conley withstood 16 hours of cross-examination–under oath.)

In 1914, Leo Frank supporters tried to hire a black woman named Annie Maude Carter to slip James Conley some poison while he was in jail waiting to testify at Frank’s hearing for a new trial. She identified the would-be assassins in open court as prominent members of the Jewish community. The plot was exposed in the May 6, 1914 edition of the New York Times.

Before he accused James Conley of the crime, Leo Frank worked overtime to pin the murder on another factory employee – the African-American night watchman who found Mary Phagan’s body, Newt Lee.Leo Frank hired private detectives who planted a blood-soaked shirt in the innocent black man’s home, and then Leo Frank’s attorney hinted to the police where they might find that damning “evidence.” When the newspapers reported that a bloody shirt was found at Newt Lee’s home, it almost caused an innocent man to be lynched. Luckily for Newt Lee, Leo Frank’s private detectives did such a sloppy job at planting the shirt that the police were not fooled at all, and it only increased their suspicion of Leo Frank. That is the point when the people of Atlanta came to believe–and rightly so–that Leo Frank was the murderer of Little Mary Phagan.

Alonzo Mann – the man that is supposed to have exonerated Frank in 1982 – would have CONVICTED him in 1913.

I, Mary Phagan-Kean, examined in detail the dubious claims of Alonzo Mann, who came forward in 1982 – after 69 years of silence – to say he saw Conley with the body of Mary Phagan. It turns out that his new statements hurt Leo Frank far more than they help him.

– Alonzo Mann (who died in 1985) was Frank’s “office boy” in 1913 and from the very start he gave many conflicting stories that are irreconcilable with the known facts: In May 1913 as a young teenager, Alonzo Mann told detectives 3 different stories in 3 separate interviews and gave yet another story in his sworn testimony at trial in August. In those interviews and in his trial testimony Alonzo Mann never mentioned seeing James Conley at all on the day of the murder. At age 83, in his 1982 videotaped session before the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, he gave still more conflicting versions that contradict the testimony of Leo Frank himself!

– What motivated Alonzo Mann to break his 69-year silence on the Leo Frank case by pinning the crime on James Conley? The answer was disclosed at the videotaped private hearing in 1982: behind Alonzo Mann’s obviously scripted, wavering “testimony” was a book and movie deal executed by the Tennessean newspaper–the same Tennessean that abandoned the truth and the facts of the case and any trace of journalistic ethics just to exonerate Leo Frank. So Alonzo Mann was induced to come forward for fame and fortune.

Alonzo Mann in 1913: Tells 4 different versions, and 2 more in 1982. The Phagan family was consulted by the Board in the run-up to the 1983 pardon decision, since the surviving members of the family had a great deal of personal knowledge of and documentation about the case and would be directly and profoundly affected by any decision. It was our Little Mary who had been strangled and very likely raped, after all. And the Board denied that pardon application.

The Jewish organizations tried again in 1986, but this time the Phagan family was not consulted. They were told about the upcoming pardon decision after the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) and its well-heeled allies: Atlanta Jewish Federation and American Jewish Committee had been meeting with and lobbying the Board for six months or more. Why the secrecy? Obviously, the Jewish groups – led by Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith board member and attorney Dale Schwartz – didn’t want the victim’s family to have any say on the matter or any time to alert the public as to what was afoot.

Thus, in 1986 the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles issued a posthumous “pardon” to Leo Frank on the basis of the state’s failure to protect him while in custody, but it did not absolve him of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan and Frank’s conviction remained intact.

The state’s 1986 “pardon” did not overturn the guilty verdict

Believe it or not, there are still documents from the Leo Frank case that are being hidden from the public because they have been classified as “GEORGIA STATE SECRETS”! Our repeated attempts to obtain them from the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles were denied again in December 2020. What could they be hiding? What could be so secret about a case that is 106 years old!? And why aren’t the media pursuing this extraordinary government action?

My book, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is available free at: http://www.littlemaryphagan.com

Sources Banned and Censored

On the 100th Anniversary (April 26, 2013) of Mary Phagan’s rape and murder, the trial Brief of Evidence and appeals records of the Leo Frank case were digitized as well as the voluminous Atlanta newspaper reports about the crime.

These sources – and many, many more like them – use to be available on the internet until very recently. Indeed, the books, videos, articles, and court documents that provide a balanced view of the case have been systematical­ly removed from the internet SINCE THE Fulton County CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT WAS ANNOUNCED!

No Longer Available

• Original articles from the three major dailies covering the day-by-day progress of the case (removed from archive.org)
• Videos from YouTube that challenge the false idea that Leo Frank was “wrongly convicted.
• Official case documents like the Brief of Evidence, the appeals filings, and the pub­lished trial records have been scrubbed from the internet.
• Books that prove Leo Frank’s guilt and provide a serious case analysis have been banned and censored. My 1987 book titled The Murder of Little Mary Phagan has been removed from some websites where it was previ­ously available for years. The Nation of Islam’s recent book Leo Frank: The Lynching of a Guilty Man has been myste­riously banned from sale on Amazon.com.
• Google searches EXCLUDE articles and documents that show evidence of Frank’s guilt.
• When we made an Open Records Request to the Uni­versity of Georgia, they first said 70 records match the request. When we paid to have them mailed to us, all of a sudden, all 70 records vanished with no explanation!

Fortunately for the Fulton County Conviction Integrity Unit, the public and the media will still be able to ac­cess those critical official documents that the Leo Frank crusaders are trying to hide. We have made them available at LittleMaryPhagan.com where we believe they will be safe from the Leo Frank censors and their internet cleansing campaign.

Fulton County District Attorney, Paul Howard was defeated in the last election but the Conviction Integrity Unit he set up is still operating under the new District Attorney Fani Willis. Ms. Fani Willis might do well to ask why the original documents in the case all of a sud­den have been removed from the internet, and who had the power to remove them and why. How can the case be carefully reviewed without them? Indeed, the books, videos, articles, and court documents that provide a full and balanced view of the case have been systematical­ly removed SINCE THE CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT WAS ANNOUNCED!!! Obviously, Truth has become offensive or objectionable and has been deemed “hate speech” in order to impose censorship. But FACTS ARE NOT HATEFUL!

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis inherited this corrupt process, but will she bow to the same pressure that was put on her former boss to exonerate a man who raped and murdered our family member?

As of today, no word from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on whether her office will finally give long overdue justice to the victim, Mary Phagan. Can we expect that she will stand by her own words?: “Cases won’t be for sale under my administration. Not for an endorsement, not for money, not for anything.” “You have my word, during my tenure as district attorney in Fulton County, we will become a beacon for justice and ethics in Georgia and across the nation.” “[D.A.] Willis vowed to bring ‘transparency and accountability’ to the DA’s office,” reported the Atlanta Journal and Constitution.

She would be the first to do so. We’ll see.

Notes

1 Watch this video at 1:40 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tgKcqOXyhc

2 See https://littlemaryphagan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/FINAL-Barnes.pdf

3 https://littlemaryphagan.com/the-murder-trial-testimony-brief-of-evidence/

4 Atlanta Journal, May 5, 1914, 2. Atlanta Constitution May 6, 1914, 1, 5. New York Times, May 6, 1914, 3.

5 https://littlemaryphagan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Steve-Oney-Says-No-New-Evidence-to-Exonerate-Leo-Frank-for-Murder-of-Little-Mary-Phagan.pdf

* * *

Source: Mary Phagan-Kean

by Alison Weir (pictured)

I HADN’T originally meant to write a book.

For over a dozen years I had been reading excellent books containing facts about the history of US-Israel relations that very few people seemed to know — even individuals highly knowledgeable about the history of the Middle East.

Because so few people are aware of this information, inaccurate narratives have frequently dominated discussions of the US-Israel relationship, contributing to highly flawed U.S. policies. Such policies have fueled tragedy in the region and damage to Americans.

I finally decided to write an article that would set the record straight.

My article, however, grew longer and longer, as I realized how much there was to explain. Plus, I continued to find more information that I felt people needed to know. I would research a point to confirm the information I had, and would often stumble across additional facts of significance, often ones that were extremely surprising to me. The article became a book.

I am often asked how and why I became so intensely interested in Israel-Palestine.

This was certainly unexpected; earlier in my life I would not have predicted that I would write a book on this topic. Like most Americans I felt this region had little to do with me. I had never paid much attention to this issue, and my information about it was largely influenced by the movie Exodus and mainstream U.S. news headlines.

In the fall of 2000 that changed.

What is now known as the “Second Intifada” (Palestinian uprising) was in the news, and I grew curious about it. I decided to follow the news coverage to learn what this conflict was all about, and I fairly quickly noticed how one-sided the coverage was. My background was in journalism (I was at that time the editor of a very small weekly community newspaper), so I was aware that reporters are supposed to give the full picture in a more complete way than I felt was going on.

Because the Internet was available, making information on remote daily events far more accessible than previously, I began to research the news further. In doing so I discovered a far more drastic pattern of Israeli violence against Palestinians than mainstream U.S. news organizations were revealing.

For example, I discovered that large numbers of Palestinian children were being killed by Israeli forces, many of them through gunfire to the head — and that they had been killed before the far smaller number of Israeli children who eventually began also to be tragically killed.

Similarly, I found that over 140 Palestinians of all ages had been killed before any Israelis in Israel, even though the media consistently were referring to Israeli violence as retaliatory.

After a few months of looking into this issue, becoming more and more disturbed by what I was finding in the region — and what began to appear to me to be a cover-up in the American media — I finally decided I needed to see for myself what was going on. I quit my job and went to the region as a freelance reporter, traveling independently throughout Gaza and the West Bank during the height of the uprising.

When I returned, I began an organization called “If Americans Knew.” The purpose was to create a nonpartisan, journalistic organization that would provide the facts on this extremely important issue to the American public, and on our connection to it.

Americans have given far more of our tax money to Israel than to any other nation, and to the region in general. In addition, the U.S. government frequently vetoes international initiatives on Israel that virtually all other nations endorse. As a result, our support for Israel has created growing hostility against the United States, placing our citizens in increasing risk.

I began to read voraciously on the subject. I was particularly curious about the history of the conflict, and of how the United States became so involved, since I felt that to understand a current situation, it is essential to understand what created it.

In the course of my reading, I discovered a great many startling facts and a history of my own nation of which I had been almost entirely unaware. I suspect that others will share my considerable surprise.

After nearly a decade and a half of researching this issue, including a number of trips to the region, I have come to view the U.S. connection to Israel as one of the most critical issues in the world today, and one of the most urgent for Americans to understand.

The lack of engagement by people such as myself fourteen years ago has allowed fanatics to drive U.S. policies. I feel it is essential, both for other nations and for our own, that the rest of us become involved.

_______

While many people are led to believe that U.S. support for Israel is driven by the American establishment and U.S. national interests, the facts don’t support this theory. The reality is that for decades U.S. foreign policy and defense experts opposed supporting the creation of Israel. They then similarly opposed the massive American funding and diplomatic support that sustained the forcibly established state and that provided a blank check for its aggressive expansion. They were simply outmaneuvered and eventually replaced.

Like many American policies, U.S. Middle East policies are driven by a special interest lobby. However, the Israel Lobby, as it is called today in the U.S., consists of vastly more than what most people envision in the word “lobby.”

As this book will demonstrate, the Israel Lobby is considerably more powerful and pervasive than other lobbies. Components of it, both individuals and groups, have worked underground, secretly and even illegally throughout its history, as documented by scholars and participants.

And even though the movement for Israel has been operating in the U.S. for over a hundred years, most Americans are completely unaware of this movement and its attendant ideology — a measure of its unique influence over public knowledge.

The success of this movement to achieve its goals, partly due to the hidden nature of much of its activity, has been staggering. It has also come at an almost unimaginable cost.

It has led to massive tragedy in the Middle East: a hundred-year war of violence and loss; sacred land soaked in sorrow.

In addition, this movement has been profoundly damaging to the United States itself.

As we will see in this two-part examination of the pro-Israel movement, it has targeted virtually every significant sector of American society; worked to involve Americans in tragic, unnecessary, and profoundly costly wars; dominated Congress for decades; increasingly determined which candidates could become serious contenders for the U.S. presidency; and promoted bigotry toward an entire population, religion and culture.

It has promoted policies that have exposed Americans to growing danger, and then exaggerated this danger (while disguising its cause), fueling actions that dismember some of our nation’s most fundamental freedoms and cherished principles.

All this for a population that is considerably smaller than New Jersey’s.

* * *

This article is an excerpt from Alison Weir’s excellent book, Against Our Better Judgment. To read the book, just go to https://againstourbetterjudgment.com/

Here’s an excerpt from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution‘s take on tomorrow’s event:

Friday makes 103 years since 20 men broke into a prison and hanged a Jewish man in Cobb County.

For the past four years, the Georgia Historical Society marker commemorating the lynching of Leo Frank has safely been in a Georgia Department of Transportation warehouse due to construction along the road where it was located, said Rabbi Steve Lebow of Temple Kol Emeth in Marietta.

The marker is already back on the northwest corner of Roswell and Freys Gin roads, said GDOT spokeswoman Natalie Dale. At 10 a.m. on Aug. 23, there will be a ceremony to rededicate the marker, which was first placed there in 2008.

The AJC flatly states that Frank was “wrongfully accused,” as if it was an established fact — very close to a complete inversion of the truth. Controlled media “journalism” doesn’t get much sleazier than this:

Frank had been wrongfully accused of killing 13-year-old Mary Phagan, who worked at the pencil factory Frank ran. Gov. John M. Slaton commuted Frank two days before the execution. People rioted.

They ran the governor off, and he didn’t return for a decade.

The state’s main witness was Jim Conley, a janitor at the National Pencil Company. He said he helped Frank dispose of the girl’s body. . . .

Lebow, the Marietta rabbi, said the Anti-Defamation League and other Frank scholars will be at the Aug. 23 event.

Let’s have a few of our own scholars there, too.

It will be interesting to see if the wording on the marker has been in any way altered.

Agents of the crime-linked Jewish group, the ADL (“Anti-Defamation League”), which has been known to corrupt law enforcement officers, and other covert operatives, are expected to be in attendance.

FOR ANY political movement that seeks eventual ascendancy, it is incumbent to engage in regular bouts of self-analysis. As a casual but sympathetic observer of the so-called far-right, I have compiled a list of what I believe to be some of the tactical errors and misconceptions made and held respectively by many racialists, white nationalists, devotees of the European New Right, paleoconservatives, and other like-minded defenders of what remains of the beleaguered Western world and its people. Not all of these errors in judgment are common. Neither are they necessarily held by the same people all at the same time; it is only natural that a given individual’s political beliefs will change and develop with time and experience, and his opinion on a particular issue may vacillate often, especially in regard to those things that he deems to be non-essential.

The goal here is not to present some ironclad ideology from which no one may dare to deviate. Indeed, experience suggests this only leads to the kind of fruitless sectarianism that has historically plagued us. It is my earnest conviction that most everyone outside of the mainstream right, when it really comes down to it, is on the same page. That is, they seek to live in a world that would be worthy of their ancestors’ many sacrifices–what G.K. Chesterton (pictured) famously referred to as the “democracy of the dead”–and eschew the abstractions of universalism and egalitarianism for the concrete realities of their own lived experience. Above all, they believe in the furtherance of those things tending toward the survival and benefit of their descendants.

This list makes no claim at being exhaustive. As already suggested, is intended to be constructive rather than defeatist or accusatory. And while some of those things listed may seem obvious or merely fundamental, in our age of confusion and outright deception it is sometimes the obvious that is in most dire need of being stated unequivocally.

– Citing the UN Convention on Genocide as support for the white genocide argument:

While this strategy is not entirely without its place, neither is it ideal in that it tends to shine the light of legitimacy on a globalist, universalist organization that is profoundly hostile to the survival of European peoples and historic Western civilization. It would prove a great challenge to find anyone of consequence at the United Nations who sincerely believes that European-derived peoples have a right not to be displaced from their homelands by culturally and/or racially incompatible immigrants. While international NGOs and the various UN agencies may rightly stand up for the welfare of some primitive indigenous groups (though we should have serious reservations about the ultimate aims of such organizations as arbiters of dispute) they will never extend the same assistance to us.

The mainstream right has tried to employ a similar rhetorical strategy for years by pointing out the double standards regarding race and gender displayed by leftists in direct contradiction of their own professed strictures. But the left, being in complete control of the culture, is entirely immune to such charges of hypocrisy, and the end result has only been to solidify the proposition that racial and gender issues (framed of course in terms favorable to the left) should be central to political discourse.

Appealing to our enemies to abide by the rules they have laid down can at best reap only limited gains and must be done selectively; it should not form the central thrust of our efforts. It must always be remembered that “human rights,” like “multiculturalism,” “anti-racism,” and other liberal discourses, is mostly a sham that serves to disarm the opponents of the global liberal order. As such, it can be bent or ignored by its proponents whenever convenience requires them to do so.

– Believing that it is us against the world:

Although it is true that Western nations alone have been marked for demographic replacement by the powers that be, and these powers reserve a special animosity for European peoples (indeed, the destruction of what remains of the historic West is key to their triumph), liberalism is currently being foisted upon nations throughout the world by a variety of means. Most often non-white, non-Western peoples do not fully comprehend the true nature of what is being done to them in the name of development by USAID or UN agencies like UNESCO. Instead, they tend to unsuspectingly assume that radical feminism (euphemistically labeled as “gender equality”) and the Marxist subversion of traditional institutions (packaged as “democracy building”) are integral to modernization and joining “the community of nations.”

Sadly, this worldwide coup is being accomplished with little effective resistance. Unprincipled third-world elites, who have either internalized liberal values or are willing to pay them lip service, are all too happy to accept the resources and plaudits showered on them by their globalist patrons–resources often transferred at the expense of the working and middle classes of first-world nations. Under the influence of Jewish/white-liberal international development specialists and their own Western-educated politicians, the non-European peoples of the world come to associate the West, not with anything it has historically stood for, but with degenerate liberal values, a sentimental humanism traditional peoples view as weakness, and financial handouts that always work to inspire resentment and envy rather than gratitude. The result is the average citizen of the Third World, whether educated or illiterate, now holds a highly skewed vision of Western societies.

It is not the legacy of colonialism that sets the world against us–as we are constantly led to believe by our media and academic establishments–so much as it is the machinations of today’s globalists who seek to transform the world.

– Maintaining an hysterical fear of ‘contamination’ from association with non-European peoples and things:

Given the reality of modern communication and travel, it is almost inescapable that one, at some point in their lives, will come into contact with non-Europeans peoples or cultures. Familiarizing oneself with foreign peoples and things does not, in itself, make one a globalist, multiculturalist, or otherwise fawning devotee of all things non-Western. After all, it is only in contrast to the alien Other that one can come to fully realize, in their entirety, the uniqueness of European man and his achievements.

Much leftist harping on the virtues of diversity is superficial and comes without serious study of the non-Western peoples, cultures, languages, and religions they so uncritically extol. Actual knowledge of the relative strengths and weaknesses of foreign peoples–their virtues as well as their vices–provides ammunition and opportunity to embarrass the left (insofar as this is an effective tactic) and gives the lie to those who would dismiss us as merely provincial ignoramuses. More importantly, the advent of an alternative globalism, replete with strategic alliances with certain non-white groups, may in the future prove integral to the survival of European peoples. Former Croatian diplomat Tomislav Sunic, who is no stranger to dealing with the foreign, has expressed a similar sentiment, one many may find surprising to find in a defender of the West:

“American and European traditionalists and racialists make a mistake when advocating Sameness as a precondition for their ethnic and cultural survival. Often it is the Otherness in its geographic or racial expression that helps a person discover his own national and racial uniqueness. No traditionalist, no white spokesman of his in-group identity can ever deny the fact that in his lifetime he has more than once been victimized by his fellow tribesman and in his homeland. Sometimes, meeting a distant alien or moving to a far away country becomes the only solace.”[1]

Indeed, incorrigible white ethnomasochists, especially those with the power to shape public opinion, probably represent a far greater danger to the survival of European peoples than do those reasonable nationalists who may be found among other peoples.

– Maintaining unrealistic notions of isolationism:

In relation to the points above, I am continually astonished that many on the right–right-wing libertarians, paleoconservatives, and white nationalists among them–seem to believe that our ultimate goal should merely be to attain a comfortable nest for ourselves where we can develop alone while the rest of the word goes to hell. Many apparently consider foreign policy and international diplomacy to be superfluous issues that can be addressed at some indefinite point in the future–if at all. For now they seem content to allow these things to remain the exclusive domain of our enemies: neoconservatives and liberal internationalists with perhaps the odd foreign policy realist in evidence. Likewise, the dominant sentiment among us seems to be that imperialism and colonialism are absolute evils that lead only to unwanted mixing of peoples and cultures. That the drive to explore and conquer might have anything to do with the nature of Western man or, indeed, his very existence outside the European continent goes largely unconsidered.

Though I understand their reticence to engage with international issues, I would humbly submit that those who hold too tightly to such views are engaged in a fantasy. Even an ethnostate would require a corps of diplomats trained to engage and negotiate with other peoples, if only for the purpose of keeping them on their side of the border. After all, force and threats of force are, by themselves, blunt instruments that are more often than not insufficient to maintain international order. And though we should rightly eschew all avoidable wars, we will always have interests (a necessarily ambiguous term in the context of foreign policy) to pursue abroad, which at the very least would take the form of needed material resources.

In regard to the impulse to liberal universalism that has grown out of the West and is currently wreaking havoc in the world, it is less a continuation of historical imperialist tendencies than it is a distorted and cancerous form of them–one characterized by the substitution of self-loathing for a healthy ethnocentrism and further confused by the mostly pernicious influence of the Diaspora. But we are not alone in the world, and there are other peoples who aspire to displace us, even if they currently lack the means, with systems and ideologies we would find no less distasteful–Islamic fundamentalists and the nationalistic Chinese among them. This is a dispassionate statement of fact, one that stands apart from the alarmism and warmongering (which come of course in conjunction with a naive or insincere “humanitarianism”) of our globalist elites, who would have us responsible for the entire world.

But this demands qualification: None of the above is meant as a rationalization for a rapacious and unsustainable empire or a justification for the subjugation of other peoples who, like ourselves, seek their own autonomy. Instead it is a positive affirmation of Western man and his very real attributes. In contrast to what critics like Jared Diamond argue, it is these inherent qualities, and not just accidents of history or geography, which have allowed us to straddle the world for the past 500 years or so. In truth, we have given other peoples much more than we have taken, and often to our own detriment.

As might already have been guessed, I wish to be counted among those, few as they may be in our circles, who are not yet ready to abandon the idea of America or the broader West for what comes after it, be it an isolated ethnostate of necessarily limited geographic size or something else not yet imaginable. A defensive retreat from the world is unbefitting European peoples and seems indicative of a terminal decrepitness rather than a rising vitality. It is not anti-globalism that we should seek so much as it is a sane global order–one that is not predicated on our destruction or, for that matter, that of any other people.

– Engaging liberals and mainstream pseudo-conservatives on issues of public policy:

Turning from the international to primarily domestic concerns, when dealing with the average citizen, rather than becoming embroiled in arguments over the specifics of public policy, a more fruitful tactic is to challenge the essential premises of the liberal system. If anything might cause some of these people to see the light, it is not the realization that they have been wrong on a particular issue (e.g. immigration or multiculturalism) but that they have been working from an unsound basis all along. It may come as a surprise to some that even the average leftist PhD is unlikely prepared to intelligently defend, on the spur of the moment, the absurd and self-contradictory assumptions upon which he bases his claims. Equality as an absolute good and the incontrovertibly Western provenance of the supposedly universal values they espouse, are among the most obviously flimsy of the tenets they cling to. As the politically ill-fated Joseph Sobran wrote in other contexts but whose advice is nevertheless helpful here:

“What is effective is to place the opposition, to localize it, to point out that its own slogans are not emanations of pure reason, but rather proceed from a specific–and, in its own way, provincial–set of presuppositions which are themselves controversial….[T]he habit of social deference toward the intellectual classes has allowed theses notions to hover in the air unchallenged, and, in time, unnoticed.”[2]

“Eventually a certain attitude comes to prevail by sheer attrition. One gathers not so much that it is true as that there is nothing to be gained (and maybe much to be lost) by contradicting it. And today a good many perverse views have seized command of public discussion by claiming to monopolize sophisticated opinion. The devil’s favorite phrase must be ‘of course.'”[3]

One should choose one’s battles carefully though, and from there proceed with caution. I would never recommend revealing one’s real political beliefs to, or for that matter even directly challenging on any contentious issue, a college professor, employer, or anyone else with the power to retaliate. This is simply impossible to do safely in the current political environment, as Sobran himself was to eventually discover.

– Cultivating negativity and discord:

Whenever I read certain authors, Chesterton and Russell Kirk come to mind immediately, I’m struck by the quality of hope and joyfulness, even in describing disappointment and adversity, that pervades their work and makes them a pleasure to read. I suspect this comes from their convictions as Christians, which some might look upon as delusional and as having contributed in no small part to the present state of things. But whatever one’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof), the importance of keeping a positive attitude and engaging in civil discourse, even with those with whom we disagree, is not the stuff of pop psychology or a Sunday school nicety. Wherever I turn, and even in spaces of high intellectual debate, I am struck by the negativity and discord that pervades our movement. If we mean to attract people to us, and even to maintain our own personal mental well-being, it will not do to waste countless hours denigrating and blaming other peoples for their offenses against us, either real and imagined, or arguing amongst ourselves. Ideally, we should each be able to calmly articulate why our concerns are legitimate, even to those who are hostile to us (so far as they are willing to civilly listen), without lapsing into histrionics or name calling and without unrealistic expectations that they will immediately come to see things our way. Many decent people of perfectly adequate education and intelligence, busy with raising families and earning a living, have not, even at this late hour, awoken to the increasingly perilous position that they and their posterity inhabit. They will not snap out of their slumber instantaneously, and growing frustrated with or berating them will do little good in the delicate task of persuading them of the legitimacy of our cause.

– Believing we might be able to capture the moral high ground or win significant numbers of converts by expressing our sympathy for the Palestinians or similar leftist pet causes:

It is really nothing to criticize Israel these days on a college campus or in any other space frequented by the hard left for that matter. However, discussing Zionism apart from shallow and pedestrian expressions of moral outrage at injustices perpetrated by Israel will quickly raise eyebrows. For the left to maintain any semblance of internal coherence it can hardly go about attacking a group of people who even now maintain enormous capital when it comes to playing the role of the victim, and the “anti-Semitism” exhibited by the Occupy Wall Street crowd is mostly an anomaly, existing primarily in the hyperactive imaginations of Fox News pundits. Few of these sorts of leftists, who are often followers rather than the independent thinkers they pride themselves on being, really understand the issue at hand, and their tendency to be fanatically self-loathing, middle-class whites bent on tearing down what remains of their own civilizational inheritance makes them difficult to approach on most other issues. Moderate liberals and mainstream conservatives who, despite the latter’s stubborn philo-Semitism, actually tend to have some economic and emotional investment in their society and its future, tend to be a more fertile ground for sowing the seeds of common sense.

– Investing too heavily in historical revisionism:

Thinkers such as Santayana and Orwell were certainly correct in their assessment of the importance of historical knowledge and interpretation. However, attempts to rehabilitate the Nazis or the Old South are wrongheaded and lead only to a never-ending path of meager returns. Most Americans are not receptive to looking upon their nation’s history as a series of frauds and debacles, and I would tend to sympathize with them in this regard. It is all too easy to level criticism upon our forefathers from our position of historical hindsight, forgetting that most men and women, even those of genius and vision, are not in a position to alter the course of events as they unfold–at least not on their own. It may well be productive to dispassionately discuss how figures associated with, say, the Conservative Revolution shared some of the concerns that American patriots do today, but presenting Hitler as would-be savior of the Western world is a poisonous nonstarter for those concerned with the defense of our heritage, not to mention a too-simplistic inversion of history. Proving the veracity, or lack thereof, of historical accounts accomplishes little, since simply by virtue of raising the questions one is immediately discredited in the eyes of the average citizen who will tend to listen no further, a judgment reinforced by the established powers. Extreme erudition or a charming demeanor can do little to counteract this reality.

It is enough for most people to know, at least initially, that behind the Civil Rights Movement, and every related movement in demand of “equality,” are the forces of Marxist subversion. Most conservative Americans feel this instinctively anyway even if they cannot articulate it. Neither do I think that helping them to further understand that Israel (and by extension the Diaspora) is something less than our “greatest ally” should require bringing down the entire mythological edifice of America and the West.

– Putting too much stock in the idea that white liberals and mainstream conservatives will eventually see the error of their ways:

In moderation of the previous points, although Western survival demands our best efforts, we should not spend too many sleepless nights contemplating why it is that others cannot seem to grasp the obvious. The human capacity for self-deception can hardly be overestimated. People will believe what they want to believe, and unfortunately many people desperately want to believe that the fact America’s founding stock were of European extraction has nothing to do with the character of their country’s culture or its material prosperity. This they will maintain even as liberals send their children to schools conspicuously devoid of black and mestizo students, and conservatives complain unceasingly about immigration whilst claiming the issue has nothing to do with race. America, for these people, is a creed or an idea. To them a culture is, curiously enough, anything but an expression of the biology of the people it arises from. Geographic and historical factors or the Protestant work ethic are responsible for the success of the United States, we are meant to believe, but not its white majority.

Even the average Tea Party enthusiast, regardless of how “implicitly white” he and his associates may be, is very rarely able to make the important distinctions that would really serve him, such as between the divergent interests of America and Israel and the naturally different abilities and proclivities of blacks and whites. Some of this is attributable to the propaganda they have imbibed all their lives and some to the desire, perhaps especially pronounced in European peoples, to think the best of others and behave with altruism. The sad reality is that many of these people will maintain these unfortunate attitudes until it is too late, and they find themselves fighting from a position of weakness from which there is no return. For them denial is a sickness unto death; let it not be so for us.

– Claiming we’re ‘beyond left and right,’ third-positionists, etc:

Is it really true that in today’s world the left-right spectrum has come to lack validity? Even if that is in fact the case, does hastening to discard this paradigm give us any real political advantage? In a related vein, do following laissez-faire principals to the extremes of outsourcing work to foreign countries and importing incompatible immigrants to the point one’s own existence is imperiled make one a conservative or “right-winger”? Conversely, does not wanting one’s hometown given over to ugly corporate chain stores peddling cheap junk from China place one on the political left?

I would venture to suggest that the answer to these and similar questions is an emphatic “no.” Furthermore, I would contend that embracing the morally barren philosophy of self-interest of the Jewess Ayn Rand, who was rightly sneered at by many of her contemporaries and yet remains inexplicably popular, makes one less an archetypical rightist than it does an average citizen of our times.

Hierarchy and social and economic inequality are certainly necessary, but not because the poor and less capable are peons we wish to trample upon. Instead, it is because inequality is integral to the functioning and overall well-being of an ordered society in which men receive their just due, whether it is inherited from family or earned through their own efforts.

Setting aside associated delusions about the necessity of endless development and the primacy of technology, a market economy works provided people maintain the proper understanding of money and material things: that they are not the ends of existence, and one’s loyalty belongs to one’s own nation and not the global marketplace. It is the realization of this sacred trust that necessitates sane limits on efforts to cut costs and increase efficiency and demands serious–that is, more than symbolic–charity to those beneath us. The mainstream right’s abandonment of nation and race for short-term material gains reveals them, not as men of the right, but as proponents of left-wing chaos and nihilism.

We are not fooling anyone; no one outside our immediate circles would describe us as anything but the far-right. However, this is not to let our enemies define us, for a correction is necessary: There is nothing marginal or extreme about us. We are not the far-right but the real right, as we should boldly proclaim.

The old fascists, whose legacy I for one do not embrace, were undoubtedly not, as some disingenuous or misguided people (usually mainstream conservatives) have claimed, a phenomenon of the left or the center. Their opposition to both Bolshevism and its more insidious twin, predatory capitalism, sprang from a concern for the maintenance of a decent social order and the defense of the eternal virtues, hallmarks of any authentic right-wing. This holds true no matter what their failings may have been–and they were many–in terms of theory and practice, as well as fascist hostility to conservative elements of their time. Not that such clarifications matter a great deal given that the notion of fascism as an absolute evil has long ago solidified in the minds of most Americans, probably irrevocably.

– Taking the arguments of Traditionalist and esotericist writers too seriously:

The writings of figures like Rene Guenon and Julius Evola have become, I believe, unduly influential in certain circles. But as rarified and removed from day-to-day concerns as they are (and were intended to be), I wouldn’t venture to claim that they are without any practical value to us whatsoever. The Traditionalists understood, perhaps more acutely than anyone, the ills of the modern world and the ultimate futility of many a superficially conservative campaign to renew civilization simply through the reinstitution of what is itself only a less advanced form of decay. Far from being engaged in mere quasi-historical fantasy, the Traditionalists provide an emotionally, if not rationally, satisfying answer to the search for meaning in history. Myth, I think most would agree, can sometimes provide a more beautifully concise and, indeed, “truthful” explanation of the world than empirical science, and certainly the picture painted by Traditionalism in many ways parallels actual human experience of alienation in the post-modern world. Personally, I’ve never felt that there is anything wrong with simultaneously entertaining several competing explanations of reality alongside one another. Nor do I believe that the embrace of scientific and historical fact necessitates rejecting all the claims of religion or vice versa.

That said, if one takes the claims of Traditionalism too literally it leads, I sense, to an outlook that I can only describe as pathological, not to mention dangerously Utopian. Every age has its challenges and ours is no different; it is not at all an exaggeration to say that our future existence hangs in the balance. But the world proposed by people like Evola never really existed and probably never can exist, and there is much to love about the Enlightenment values and bourgeois existence he despised. I fail to see how embracing the notion that this age is the Kali Yuga is anything but a recipe for a rejection of life as severe as that represented by the strictest of Christian sects. Similar criticism can, I think, be fairly leveled at the other partisans of the Aryan occult such as Miguel Serrano and Savitri Devi. I cannot shake the instinctive feeling about this stuff that, when taken to heart, it only leads one toward discontentedness and misanthropy and even, perhaps, to the truly demonic, if such can be said to exist.

– Believing Russian neo-Eurasianist Aleksandr Dugin is a potential ally:

Dugin, taking after his French associate and mentor Alain de Benoist, has offered much valid criticism of the liberal international order and appears to aim to construct an alternative model that would serve the interests of white Westerners, among other peoples. However, behind his seductive talk of the necessity of a “multipolar world,” Dugin seems to be little more than a typically chauvinistic Russian nationalist. When one closely exams his theories, they reveal themselves to be a thinly veiled plan of Russian expansionism in radical contrast to the world of ethnostates he purports to advocate. As his liberal critics have noted, neither is it at all clear how his desire to radically reshape the present world order could be practically implemented without inciting general chaos and perhaps even world war.

Dugin is much influenced by the overly idealistic anti-modernism of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, an inauspicious point of intellectual departure in my view. As is characteristic of some Russians, he is prone to bouts of irrationality and self-contradiction, and his early Traditionalist-influenced writings sound at times like the ramblings of a delusional mystic. Not unironically, the geopolitics-obsessed Dugin seems to have developed into a mirror opposite of the Neoconservatives he rightly despises, offering what amounts to a peculiar variant of their ideas in which ethnic Russians replace the Jews as the world’s indispensable people, a fact which, like the Neocons, he seeks to obscure.

In considering the various critics of global liberalism, be they Russia, Iran, China, or Islamic fundamentalists, it is wise to keep in mind that, more often than not, the enemy of our enemies is not our friend. That stated, Dugin’s ideas might prove to be of selective use to us even if he has his own ulterior motives for proposing them.

– Believing the Jewish Question might somehow resolve itself given enough time:

It may be true that increasing rates of intermarriage and the self-embrace of the decadent values Jews have long promoted for gentiles are working through a process of slow attrition to diminish Jewish power, but this is not something it would be wise to place stakes on. If the post-modern environment might act upon them in such a way as to eventually significantly dilute their influence, it will not be until far into the future–by definition uncertain–that the affects of this may make themselves felt.

It must be remembered that among these people, the nominally religious and the ethnically mixed have often been at the forefront of attacks on Western civilization. As ever, this eternal problematic remains in need of being addressed objectively and dispassionately by the best of men without lapses into irrational hatred or undue ascription of influence and ability to the Jews. Regrettably, whereas at one time famous and respected men were able to more or less honestly address the issue publicly, present realities allow for this to be done only circumspectly by way of discussion of the State of Israel.

Yet there are some among us who are all too happy to embrace self-censorship in the misguided pursuit of mainstream credibility. To them I caution that we only fool ourselves when we believe that by downplaying or never mentioning the issue, while harping on the problems created by other minority groups, we are being sophisticated or discreet. If Carl Schmitt is to be believed about what constitutes the very essence of politics, then we are lost when we begin to lose sight of the distinction between friend and enemy.

– Rejecting cultural concerns for a purely biological worldview:

In truth the nature-nurture debate probably represents a false dichotomy, at least in part, for just as culture is an expression of biology so, too, does the environment we place ourselves in and create for ourselves act upon us. This is not to deny the primacy of genetics: It would be ludicrous to blame dysgenic trends among European populations solely or even primarily on our increasingly vulgar popular culture–but it certainly must have a reinforcing effect. Hollywood aside, mindless entertainments like NASCAR and contemporary country music, to name but two of the least objectionable, seem to be more a reflection of an inherent white pathology, whether cultural or biological, rather than any pernicious outside influence.

The reality that white trash exists, and always has in one form or another, does not in any way diminish the fact that Western man is a unique creature with a special mission, one that is readily evident from just about any standpoint he may be viewed from. But one has to question the developmental trajectory of a people when their majority holds the viewing of professional sports and the addictive abuse of various entertainment technologies to be among their highest values. Neither am I completely comforted by the notion that only an elite minority can be expected to carry us forward in the future while the rest are left to their own devices. Our interest exists in seeing the largest possible number of European-derived people reach for high ideals. There must be some middle ground, or better yet a synthesis, between the ineffectual culturism of traditionalist conservatives and the reductionist absolutism of some racialists, who remind me at times of Marxist ideologues, so simplistic are their beliefs, and who often steep themselves in a world of substance abuse and vulgarity. The celebration of high culture may be the most readily attainable and ennobling, not to mention the most humane, eugenics program imaginable.

– Unreflectively embracing positions, extreme or otherwise, simply because they strike one as ‘anti-egalitarian,’ ‘rightist,’ or because they were held at some point in time by such-and-such an admirable organization or individual:

We are not in a contest to create the world’s most pitiless and hierarchal society. Rather we ought to set our sights on restoring and maintaining a tolerable civil social order that serves our interests. Believing, as some seem to, that one is a part of a natural aristocracy or intellectual elite that is bound to come out on top in an eventual struggle for power is foolish conceit. No matter how well prepared, we will all be very vulnerable when the liberal order starts to finally unravel, whenever that may be. Nothing is guaranteed to us, and we cannot take our own eventual success for granted.

– Embracing homosexuals as “culture bearers” integral to the cause of Western survival:

The claim, recently revived with enthusiasm in some fashionable quarters, that intolerance of such practices is rooted entirely in a Judeo-Christian monotheism that ought to be discarded, should not go unscrutinized. So too the claim that such intolerance has greatly stifled relationships of platonic affection between men, which, so far as I can tell, are alive in many a military unit and sports team. Those with a vested interest in the acceptance of these sort of specious ideas are usually the ones who put them forward, I believe it is safe to assume. And while I think it can be conceded that homosexuals tend to posses disproportionate levels of creative talent beneficial to society as a whole, in the interest of disease prevention and the general welfare of society, their worst impulses need to be discouraged and channeled. The normalization of homosexuality and other non-reproductive sexual practices–especially in combination with readily available abortion and massive third-world immigration–amounts to nothing less than a cult(ure) of death.

(Part 1 of 2)

***

Notes:

[1] Tomislav Sunic, Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (Lexington,
KY: BookSurge Publishing, 2007), 162.

[2] Joseph Sobran, Single Issues: Essays on the Crucial Social Questions. (New
York: The Human Life Press, 1983), 15.

[3] Ibid., 101.

by Dean Vandruff

“LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT AN INCREDIBLE ground-level business opportunity…” someone says, and you are invited to a house or to lunch for “a discussion.” Funny enough, you feel in your gut that there is some hidden agenda or deception. “Probably a multi-level marketing (MLM) organization,” you think. Suppose it is? Should you trust your instincts? Is there anything wrong with MLM?

This article will analyze four problem areas with MLM. Specifically, it will focus on problems of I) Market Saturation, II) Pyramid Structure, III) Morality and Ethics, and IV) Relationship Issues associated with MLMs. Thus, you can properly assess your “instincts.”

I. Market Saturation: An Inherent Problem

Back to the Basics

A tutorial on market saturation hardly seems necessary in most business discussions, but with MLM, unfortunately, it is. Common sense seems to get suspended when considering if MLMs are viable, even theoretically, as a profitable means of distribution for all parties involved. This suspension is created by a heightened expectation of “easy money,” but more on that later.

New, Innovative?

MLM can no longer claim to be new and, thus, exempt from the normal rules of the market and the way goods and services are sold. They have been tried and, for the most part, have failed. Some have been miserable failures in spite of offering excellent products.

Marketing innovations are not rare in the modern world, as evidenced by the success of Wal-Mart, which found a more efficient and profitable way to distribute goods and services than the status quo, providing lasting value to stockholders, employees, distributors, and consumers. But this is not the case with any MLM to date, and after 25 years of failed attempts, it is time to point out the reasons why.

Don’t Some People Make Money in MLM?

First, we will analyze the “driving mechanism” of MLMs. We will detail how they are intrinsically unstable, guaranteed by design to oversaturate the market with no one noticing. We will look at why MLMs can never equalize into profitability the way companies in the real world can, so that the result will be that the organization as a whole cannot, even in theory, be profitable. When this inevitable destiny occurs, the only money to be made is not from the product or service but from the losses of people lower down in the organization.

Thus the MLM organization becomes exploitative, and many high-level MLM promoters have been shut down, the “executives” incarcerated, for selling the fraud of impossible success to others. Other, larger, MLMs have survived by hiring large batteries of attorneys to ward off federal prosecutors, even bragging about the funds they have in reserve for this purpose.

The unfortunate “distributor” at the bottom is the loser, and once this becomes apparent beyond all the slick videos and motivational pep-talks, good people start to get a bad taste in their mouths about the whole situation.

So, yes, money can be made with MLM. The question is whether the money being made is legitimate or “made” via a sophisticated con scheme. And if MLM is “doomed by design” to fail, then the answer is, unfortunately, the latter.

But how exactly does this happen, and must it always?

Doomed by Design?

The first question is this: Is any company choosing this marketing strategy destined to fail, to degenerate into an exploitative venture, regardless of how good the product is?

To see this clearly we must go through an, otherwise, obvious and elementary discussion of how any business must be careful not to overhire, overextend, or oversupply a market.

The Real World

Any business must carefully consider supply and demand. For example, if the ReVo Corporation thinks that it will have a full-fledged fad on their ovoid sunglasses next summer, perhaps they should plan to build and distribute, say, 10M units. This involves gearing up factories, setting up distribution and dealer networks, and carefully managing the inventories at each level so that ReVo will still have credibility with their distributors, retail outlets, and the public the following year.

If it turns out that there is a “run” on ReVo products, and they sell out in mid-June, then they have miscalculated demand and will miss out on profits they could have made. The more serious problem, however, is overestimating the saturation point for the product. If they make 10M units, and sell only 2M units, this may be the end of ReVo as a company.

The all-too-obvious point here is that management of supply and demand, and keen insight into realistic market penetration and saturation are crucial to any business, for any product or service. Mismanagement of this aspect of a business will eclipse good market access, excellent product design, human resource assets, production quality, and so on. Simply stated, a failure to “hit the target” of supply and demand can ruin a company if the market is oversaturated.

Market Dynamics and the End of the Cold War

Interestingly, the issue of supply and demand is what brought the USSR to its knees. By design, the Soviet government tried to macro-manage supply, where bureaucrats would decide how many potatoes were needed, how much toilet paper, etc. Assuming these bureaucrats did the best they could, unfortunately their efforts to deliberately manipulate the control “knob” of supply and demand was not good enough. Notwithstanding their good intentions, they were usually wrong, which created huge shortages and surpluses, and led to a massive economic collapse.

Seeing the disastrous end of market naiveté in Russia should help clarify the fundamental problem with the MLM approach. In the real world, the profit of a company is directly related to the skill and prescience of the “hand” on the “supply knob,” so to speak. In the USSR, that “hand” could not react fast or accurately enough to market realities through the best efforts of the bureaucrats.

With MLMs, the situation is much worse. Nobody is home. Even the Soviets had someone thinking about how much was enough! If the bureaucrat in Russia was having a hard time trying to play Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in setting the supply level in the Soviet Union, then an MLM “executive” is in a truly unfortunate position. Not only is there no one assigned to make the decision of how much is enough, the MLM is set up by design to blindly go past the saturation point and keep on going. It will grow until it collapses under its own weight, without even a bureaucrat noticing.

MLM is like a train with no brakes and no engineer headed full-throttle towards a terminal.

“Everyone Will Want to Buy This Product!”

All products and services have partial market penetration. For example, only so many people wish to use a discount broker, as evidenced by the very successful but only partial market penetration of Charles Schwab. Not everyone wishes to join a particular discount club, or buy gold, or drink filtered water, or wear a particular style of shoe, or use any product or service. No one in the real world of business would seriously consider the thin arguments of the MLMers when they flippantly mention the infinite market need for their product or services.

The Demand Problem: Of Widgets and MLMs

Imagine a neat new product called a Widget that will sell for $100 (a fixed price, to keep it simple). Now, while everyone could use a Widget, not everyone will. Some will be afraid of anything new. Some will be loyal to existing brands. Some will want to buy an inferior product for less money. Some will want a more expensive product for prestige, regardless of quality. The reasons go on and on, and the fact is that only “X” Widgets will sell at $100.

The question for would-be marketers is: What is the quantity “X,” and how can it be predicted to maximize profits? The fact that “X” is hard to pin down does not mean that it does not exist, and every Widget built beyond “X” will end up producing a problem for the organization. The market only wants “X” Widgets at $100. What are you going to do with your extra inventory of Widgets beyond “X” that no one wants — and the sales people you hired to sell them?

No one can perfectly predict “X,” and the situation is not nearly as simple as considered here, but the objective for marketers is to forecast “X” as closely as possible in order to provide lasting value to all parties involved: to avoid missed opportunities as well as waste, loss, or failure.

The MLM Forecasting Approach: Ignoring the Target

Who has an eye on “X,” the point of market saturation at a given price, in an MLM? Well, the funny thing, or perhaps the tragic thing, is that “X” will be reached and exceeded without anyone noticing or caring.

Let’s just suppose that “X” has been reached today in a particular MLM; the number of possible units sold at this price has just been exceeded, and you happen to be a starry-eyed prospect sitting in an MLM meeting listening to the pitch. Now consider: Does anyone in this company know about “X”? Does anyone care? Is the issue being suppressed on purpose for some other motive? Since we are supposing that the market saturation number “X” has been reached, everyone joining the MLM from now on is buying into a false hope. But that is not what the speaker will be saying. He will be telling you, “Now is the time to join. Get in on the ‘ground floor’.” But it is all a lie, even though the speaker may not know it. The total available market “X” has been reached and nobody noticed. All the distributors will lose from here on out. Could this be you? How could you possibly know at what point you will become the liar in an MLM?

Pop or Drop

Perhaps a better paradigm than the runaway train analogy offered earlier of how MLMs perform over time is this: a helium balloon let loose in an empty room with a spiked ceiling, where product quality is analogous to the amount of helium. The better the product, the faster the balloon will rise, accelerating unhindered, towards disaster. The other option would be the case of a lousy product, in which case the balloon will sink of its own accord, never getting off the ground. To be sure, equilibrium is not in the cards, except perhaps as an accident, and then only temporarily. MLMs are intrinsically unstable. For any company that chooses an MLM approach, it’s pop or drop.

MLMs vs. the Real World

The basic question that needs to be asked is this: If this product or service is so great, then why isn’t it being sold through the customary marketing system that has served human society for thousands of years? Why does it need to resort to a “special marketing” scheme like an MLM? Why does everyone need to be so inexperienced at marketing this? Is the product just a thin cover for what is really a pyramid scheme of exploiting others? But more on that later.

From Contracted, Protected Distribution… to Mayhem

Imagine that Wendy’s became suddenly possessed by the idea that “everyone needs to eat,” and opened four Wendy’s franchises on the four corners of an intersection in your neighborhood. Who would benefit from this folly? The consumer? Certainly not the franchises; they would all lose. Wendy’s corporate? Perhaps temporarily, by speculative inventory sales while the unfortunate franchises were under the delusion that they could all make money. But in the end, the negative image of four outlets dying a slow death would likely offset the temporary inventory sales bubble. Even the most unreflective of the hapless franchisees would think twice about doing business in such a manner again. This is why real-world distributorships and franchises are contractually protected by territory and/or market.

Again, the simple fact is that even the most successful products will have partial market penetration. The same is true for services. Demand and “market share” are finite, and to overestimate either is catastrophic.

So why are MLM promoters obscuring this? Who is in control of the supply “knob,” carefully and skillfully managing the size of the distribution channels, number of salespeople, inventory, etc., to insure the success of all involved in the business? The truth is chilling: nobody.

Imagine trying to write a computer model of how MLMs work, and you will see this point most vividly. An MLM could never work, even in theory. Think about it.

The People Machine

Chernobyl had a control system that failed. MLMs have no control mechanisms at all.

Where is the “switch” that can be flipped in an MLM when enough sales people are hired? In a normal company a manager says, “We have enough, let’s stop hiring people at this point.” But in an MLM, there is no way to do this. An MLM is a human churning machine with no “off” button. Out of control by design, its gears will grind up the money, time, credibility, and entrepreneurial energy of well-meaning people who joined merely to supplement their income. Better to just steer clear of this monster to begin with.

There is simply no way to avoid the built-in failure mechanism of MLMs. If a company chooses to market this way, it will eventually “hire” (with no base pay — and charging to join) far too many people.

Thus, the only “control system” will be the inevitable losses and subsequent bad image the MLM company will gain after it does what it was designed to do: fail. And sooner or later we have got to stop blaming this particular MLM company or that, and admit that the MLM technique itself is fundamentally flawed.

Read more of this article at Dean Vandruff’s page

Deism was the religion of America’s Founding Fathers, and their wisdom in embracing it should not be forgotten today.

DEISM VS. REVEALED RELIGION

REVELATION, or revealed religion, is defined in Webster’s New World Dictionary as: “God’s disclosure to man of Himself.” This should read, “God’s alleged disclosure to man of himself.” For unless God reveals to each of us individually that a particular religion is truly His disclosure to us of Himself, then, by believing that religion, we are not taking His word for it, but we are instead putting our belief in the person or institution telling us it is so. This is what we are doing when we believe in any revealed religion, and that’s all Christianity is. It’s a revealed religion like many others such as Islam and Judaism. Revealed religion gets dangerous however, when it crosses over the line into politics. This is the admitted goal of the Christian Coalition. God allegedly revealed to Pat Robertson and his Coalition, that He wants them to take over America and eventually the world with “His Word,” so the laws of the nations will mirror the laws in the Bible, which, if you know what’s in the Bible, is terrifying. This, too, is what the Ayatollah’s goal was, only his “revealed word of God” was the Koran, an other revelation. Are we to believe Pat when he says the Bible is revelation of God’s Word?…

Thomas Paine, the man who elucidated Deism for the masses and who is the primary personal impetus for  the World Union of Deists, wrote:

“The Calvinist, who damns children of a span long to hell to burn forever for the glory of God (and this is called Christianity), and the Universalist who preaches that all shall be saved and none shall be damned (and this also is called Christianity), boasts alike of their holy [reveled] religion and their Christian faith.

“Something more therefore is necessary than mere cry and wholesale assertion, and that something is TRUTH; and as inquiry is the road to truth, he that is opposed to inquiry is not a friend to truth. “The God of truth is not the God of fable; when, therefore, any book is introduced into the world as the Word of God, and made a groundwork for religion, it ought to be scrutinized more than other books to see if it bear evidence of being what it is called. Our reverence to God demands that we do this, lest we ascribe to God what is not His, and our duty to ourselves demands it lest we take fable for fact, and rest our hope of salvation on a false foundation.

“It is not our calling a book holy that makes it so, any more than our calling a religion holy that entitles it to the name. Inquiry therefore is necessary in order to arrive at truth. But inquiry must have some principle to proceed on, some standard to judge by, superior to human authority.

“When we survey the works of creation, the revolutions of the planetary system, and the whole economy of what is called nature, which is no other than the laws the Creator has prescribed to matter, we see unerring order and universal harmony reigning throughout the whole. No one part contradicts another. The sun does not run against the moon, nor the moon against the sun, nor the planets against each other. Everything keeps its appointed time and place.

“This harmony in the works of God is so obvious, that the farmer of the field, though he cannot calculate eclipses, is as sensible of it as the philosophical astronomer. He sees the God of order in every part of the visible universe.”

“Here, then, is the standard to which everything must be brought that pretends to be the work or Word of God, and by this standard it must be judged, independently of anything and everything that man can say or do. His opinion is like a feather in the scale compared with the standard that God Himself has set up.”

Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with revealed religion. In fact, all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security. And the power elites have no use for Deism because they can’t use Deism to “inspire” mankind to wage war against itself for the elitists’ own selfish purposes. In fact, Deism, by focusing on the first creed of all religions, belief in God, could frustrate the war/money machine permanently.

The following quote from Thomas Jefferson points us in a direction free of the confusion of priest-craft and revealed religion:

“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of the Earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator, while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order.”

Because Deism is based on nature, the laws of nature, and the creation, it is a natural religion as opposed to revealed or man-made artificial religion.

DEISM VS. ATHEISM

In George H. Smith’s book ATHEISM – THE CASE AGAINST GOD, it is stated that rationality will not lead to God. That instead, God can only be brought about by rationalization. The book describes rationality as first finding evidence, then arriving at the idea, like Newton seeing the apple fall to the ground and then discovering the law of gravity. It then describes rationalization as first accepting an idea and then searching for evidence to support it, like someone inventing the idea of God and then saying God created the universe. Deism says it is rationality and reason that leads to God. To the Deist, the evidence is the creation and the idea of what brought about the evidence is the Creator. There is absolutely nothing known to man that created itself. For example, if someone shows us a computer, and tells us that all the individual parts that make up the computer just came about by chance, that they somehow just formed into a perfectly working computer system all by themselves, we would be foolish to believe that person. Reason, if we use it, won’t let us believe a statement like that. Likewise, if someone tells us the ever growing creation and its perfect order “happened” by pure chance, we are under no obligation to believe them. From our own experience we know everything created has a creator. Why then should the creation itself be different? There is, however, one quality the creation has that makes leaving its existence to chance even more remote. That quality is motion.

Turning again to Thomas Paine we find the following pertinent observation he made regarding atheism in a speech to the Society of Theophilanthropists in Paris, France, shortly after the French Revolution:

“In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer, that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is as impossible of proof as to assert it.

“It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say – if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy.

“I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is.

“The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.

“It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.

“The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion.

“Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion.

“But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the Earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies.

“But the motion that upholds the solar system, is of an entirely different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entirely different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system.

“Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it.

“When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance, that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD.

“As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature’s God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them.

“God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon.”

In addition to motion acting as a perpetual preserver, it also acts as a continual source for the universe’s constant expansion. Every second the universe is expanding at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second). According to Astronomy Magazine, 2/14/92, page 49, “Astronomers presently believe there isn’t enough mass in the universe, even with dark matter, to stop its expansion.” This exciting realization should fill everyone with unlimited appreciation when we realize we are a part of this amazing and spectacular universe! The Creator is immeasurably generous!

In ATHEISM – THE CASE AGAINST GOD, the author writes, ” . . .when I claim not to believe in a god, I mean that I do not believe in anything “above” or “beyond” the natural, knowable universe.” Deism teaches that the Creator is knowable and discoverable through the creation itself. It is very understandable how people could be turned off by man-made religions and superstitions with their bombings and financial beg-a-thons, and confuse artificial or revealed religion with God. However, the atheist attitude of accepting things simply as not knowable is dangerous to the progress of humanity. Many things were not knowable in the past that are knowable today. At one time Europeans believed it was impossible to know what was on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: but they were wrong. As we learn more about the sciences, we are learning more about the Power that put those principles in place. An eternal Being, as Thomas Paine said, “whose power is equal to His will.”

DEISM AND DEATH

Revealed religions all teach different opinions on death. Even the different denominations of the same umbrella religion preach different dogmas. A good example is Christianity. Some of the Christian denominations say an essential qualification to get into heaven (of course they all agree dying is a key requirement) is that you have to be baptized “by submersion,” while others say just a “sprinkling” is fine. Which is it? Sprinkling or submersion??

The fear of death is a big motivator for many people to support a particular religion. We all know, without the possibility of doubt, that a day will come for absolutely all of us when we will die. This realization brings fear to many people. It also brings money to religious charlatans who aren’t ashamed to prey on this fear. In fact, it can be truthfully said that the revealed religions of the world all use the fear of death to put cash in their own pockets.

Contrary to this self-serving attitude of the revealed religions, Deism teaches that no one knows for certain what happens after death, if anything at all. It teaches that, based on the creation we are all a part of, we shouldn’t worry about it. That instead, we should be concerned for the present and future of planet Earth and humanity. That we should work hard to improve life and also enjoy it here and now. Why should we worry about death when we have so much to do in life? And do we think so little of Nature’s God that we don’t trust Him with our future? Ethan Allen, a Deist from America’s Revolutionary War era, wrote, “Ungrateful and foolish it must be for rational beings in the possession of existence, and surrounded with a kind and almighty Providence, to distrust the author thereof concerning their futurity, because they cannot comprehend the mode or manner of their succeeding and progressive existence.”

Another Deist that had interesting thoughts on death was Benjamin Franklin. One quote of Franklin’s was, “Take courage mortal, death cannot banish you from the universe.”

Ben Franklin’s epitaph on himself provides a look at his belief that our life on earth is not the beginning and end of a personality. He, like Ethan Allen above, seems to have believed that the state of our spirits or souls is of an evolutionary nature. Franklin’s epitaph reads, “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and gilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”

In Thomas Paine’s The Age Of Reason, we read on pages 177 and 178 the following: “But all other arguments apart, the consciousness of existence is the only conceivable idea we have of another life, and the continuance of that consciousness is immortality. The consciousness of existence, of the knowing that we exist, is not necessarily confined to the same form, nor to the same matter, even in this life.

“We have not in all cases the same form, nor in any case the same matter that composed our bodies twenty or thirty years ago; and yet we are conscious of being the same persons. . .

“That the consciousness of existence is not dependent on the same form or the same matter is demonstrated to our senses in the works of the creation, as far as our senses are capable of receiving that demonstration. A very numerous part of the animal creation preaches to us, far better than Paul, the belief of a life hereafter. Their little life resembles an Earth and a heaven – a present and a future state, and comprises, if it may be so expressed, immortality in miniature.

“The most beautiful parts of the creation to our eye are the winged insects, and they are not so originally. They acquire that form and that inimitable brilliancy by progressive changes. The slow and creeping caterpillar-worm of today passes in a few days to a torpid figure and a state resembling death; and in the next change comes forth in all the miniature magnificence of life, a splendid butterfly.”

In an essay Mr. Paine wrote the following short and to the point passage:

“I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with His justice and goodness. I leave all these matters to Him, as my Creator and friend, and I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter.”

Read the original article at Deism.com

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another… a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” –The Declaration of Independence

INCREASINGLY, I have no fealty to the U.S. government. This has nothing to do with George Bush, bogeyman of the Left, the war in Iraq, or Halliburton, and everything to do with the reasonable assessment that the United States is too big for its own good. Too big in its 300 million people to be represented by 550 mostly millionaire men (not women) in a far-off swamp called Washington, D.C. I therefore have stopped calling myself a U.S. citizen.

I prefer to be called a Brooklynite or a Moabite, after the two places I call home– Brooklyn, New York, and Moab, Utah–which to me are part of the same nation only in name and only by the force of outmoded institutions. In each there are unities of language and custom, sure, but the fundamental interests of the citizens are not the same. My loyalties to each place will last as long the place lasts, but the fealty is local, my interest zoned within a hundred-mile radius and certainly not tied to the abstraction known as the national interest. “There is no national interest,” the historian Howard Zinn once said. Which brings me to the question of secession–the breaking-off of smaller countries from bigger countries. I am for it in the case of the United States. I am for it because I think we need to rejigger our loyalties to the needs of localities. And I am not alone in this thinking.

What happened in Chattanooga was an American moment, certainly, and not the least of its charms was the irony of the old Left of the North and the old Right of the South standing united in their opposition to the Union. The Associated Press, The New York Times, New York Newsday, The Washington Post, and USA Today carried the story, which traveled to newsrooms in Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium, and India, and thence to the ubiquity of eyes on YouTube, and across the airwaves of at least 50 radio stations that ran interviews with the leaders of the convention. By the evening of October 4, the convention had settled on a list of principles they called the Chattanooga Declaration. “The deepest questions of human liberty and government facing our time go beyond right and left, and in fact have made the old left-right split meaningless and dead,” said the declaration. “The privileges, monopolies, and powers that private corporations have won from government threaten everyone’s health, prosperity, and liberty, and have already killed American self-government by the people.” The answer, it went on, was that the American states ought to be “free and self-governing.” Two hundred and fifty years earlier, the Declaration of Independence asked for a similar dedication to self-governance: “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

Indeed, it could be argued that secession is the primal American act, the founding event as old as the concept of the states themselves. What else did our founders accomplish in 1776 but secession from the tyranny of England?

Here’s how it will be with Vermont: The leaders of its secessionist movement, the Second Vermont Republic, want to feed, shelter, clothe, and fuel a free republic broken from the empire. This doesn’t mean the little country will sink into Albanian isolation, its citizens ceasing to trade with China or refusing to watch the rot beamed on DirecTV satellites. It will continue to be a tourist destination, its slopes welcoming New Yorkers and Quebecois equally. But the state’s secesh want to keep their tax dollars at home and put them toward localized food economies (calling it “food sovereignty”), energy supplies based on wind and water, and credit lines out of community lenders freed from the distant tyrannical rate controls of central banks.

One day two years ago, I heard Kirkpatrick Sale speak before 1,500 attendees at a meeting of the SVR. Sale, who has the build and mien of a terrier on methamphetamine, reasoned out the desire for separation from the behemoth. “It is intolerable,” he said, “for a citizen to succumb to a government that is in favor of unjust and unjustified warfare, brutal torture in defiance of all conventions, illegal detentions, the fostering of terrorism, war profiteering, sky-high trade deficits. … It is intolerable, I say, for a citizen to live under such a government, in such a country.”

“But,” Sale went on, “I have no intention of going to Canada, or France. I love my home, and I want to leave this country without leaving home. And the only way to do that, ladies and gentlemen, is … secession.” The crowd exploded, but gently. They were young and old, hippies and farmers, old Right and new Progressive, college educated and tenth-grade educated. The room where they gathered, the great hall of the Vermont State Legislature, was hung with purple velvet, and built of fine wood and marble, and smelled clean. The rebels were not of the type to shame the solemnity of the place.

As Sale slapped out his peroration at the podium, nearby sat the foremost organizer of the secessionist cause in Vermont, the softer-spoken but no less radical Thomas Naylor, 72, a former Duke University economist and social critic, co-author of the bitterly funny Affluenza, a diagnosis of the American consumerist condition as political pathology. Naylor, who knows his history, christened the movement under the title “Second Vermont Republic” because there was once a first Vermont republic–it was no mere colony or state–that ceded its independence and voted on March 4, 1791, to join the nascent American union. Each year, Naylor and his Second Vermonters like to memorialize the event by walking in a mock funeral procession through Montpelier playing a dirge and carrying a casket marked “Vermont.”

Now he took to the podium, looking tall, if a little aged, with white hair, and answered questions from skeptics who wondered if Vermont could indeed go it alone as a political and economic unit, or, more important, if perhaps the secession urge was just a hotheaded reaction to the injuries of the Bush administration. What Thomas Naylor will tell you in answer when you sit him down at his little house in the Vermont village of Charlotte–what he tells every crowd he addresses–is that the problem of the United States as it stands has no solution in the current framework….

“The nation is not sustainable,” Naylor tells me. He thinks the United States is a political and economic monster, stumbling and out of control, a land where bigness in all things has led to military overstretch, runaway debt, mass inequalities, and a government by and for the few. He draws a causal connection with the dire social effects on the ground: Of all the western democracies, the United States stands near dead last in voter turnout, last in health care, last in education, highest in homicide rates, mortality, STDs among juveniles, youth pregnancy, abortion, and divorce–a society which, in keeping with its degenerate morals, wreaks one-quarter of the environmental damage on the planet every day.

“It comes down to the problems of the human condition: separation, meaninglessness, powerlessness, fear of death,” he says. “The human condition is not being dealt with in the United States. It is our inability to deal with this human condition that leads to a sickness that I call affluenza.” Affluenza, he says, can be recognized by key symptoms: technomania and e-mania–obsession with technology and the Internet–rampant consumerism, megalomania, narcissism, “robotism,” and “affluenza’s concomitant: imperialism and national aggression.” Consumerism and megalomania and narcissism I get–I grew up in New York City. But “robotism”? As Naylor puts it, all Americans “watch the same TV programs, listen to the same radio programs, subscribe to the same political viewpoints”–the limited amplitude of opinion afforded in the two-party system–”claiming to be a country of individualists while in truth we are the nation of conformists.”

So what to do? “You can commit suicide,” offers Naylor. “You can deny the human condition through megalomania and the pathology of having, owning, possessing, which requires an empire that stomps around the planet stealing resources. Or you can say ‘hell no’ and rebel and confront the human condition and, as Camus says, die happy. Secession is fundamentally an act of rebellion driven by a combination of fear and anger and hope. It’s the ultimate destructive rejection of the system, the strongest possible way you can say to someone like George Bush, ‘Go fuck yourself.’ The creative element is Vermont. A state of small towns, small farms, small churches, small businesses–this is the alternative we’re offering to America.”

Here’s the way it is with Vermont: At the border with New York State, the billboards disappear. They just go, as if aliens had hoovered them away. Vermont, you see, is already a separate country. It is the most radical state in the Union in terms of the number and kind of town meetings–direct democracy in action. Its constitution of 1777 made it the first state to outlaw slavery, it was the first to mandate universal suffrage for all men, and is currently one of only two states that allow incarcerated felons to vote. It has no death penalty and virtually no gun-control laws, yet remains one of the least violent jurisdictions in America. It has no big cities, no big businesses, no military bases, no strategic resources, few military contractors. All three members of its Congressional delegation voted against the Iraq War resolution. It is rural and wild, with the highest percentage of unpaved roads in the nation. And those billboards? It was the first state to ban them along its roads. With its strict environmental-impact laws, Vermont fended off the predations of Wal-Mart superstores longer than any other state, and Montpelier today remains the only state capital in America without a McDonald’s restaurant. Economically, though, Vermont has the smallest gross state product. And the SVR concedes it is still unclear how secession would play out–legally, economically, and logistically.

The idea of it coming to pass in Vermont today is not entirely quixotic: Following mock secession debates during the 1990s in seven Vermont towns, all seven voted in favor of the idea. Statewide, this peculiar contrarianism would need to be harnessed in a legislative vote (the method employed by Confederate states in the 1861 secession), a popular referendum, or a constitutional convention. In each of these cases, a supermajority would be required. Vermont’s governor would then be empowered to present the state’s exit declaration to the U.S. secretary of state. As it stands, a 2007 poll found that just 13 percent of Vermonters say they would opt for it.

The movement’s detractors, of course, have a valid set of concerns, too. Some have expressed discomfort with conferences like the one in Chattanooga, seeing a dire development in the far Left working in tandem with the far Right….

Another concern is that the understanding of the U.S. Constitution today allows no other recourse but armed revolt for a state wishing to go its own way. “Secession is not possible today without violence,” Pauline Maier, a professor of American history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…. “It’s to follow the example of the Southern secessionists who thought that they could just leave the Union peacefully, and, nuttier still, get a part of the unsettled territory as a parting gift. … Isn’t it time that Americans began learning something from history? Or must we again bleed ourselves into wisdom?”

In her 1936 book, Give Me Liberty, Rose Wilder Lane, [once] an avowed Leninist, described her travels to the Soviet Union, where she found that the workers “liberated” into the “communal” life of the state were pretty unhappy. One peasant she spoke to said of the new country: “It’s too big.… At the top, it is too small. It will not work.” History bore out the lowly peasant’s judgment, not Lenin’s.

George Kennan, the architect of Cold War containment and the national-security state that arose in answer to the Soviet Union, came to the same conclusion about the United States. “There is a real question,” Kennan warned, “as to whether bigness in a body politic is not an evil in itself.” Years later, when Thomas Naylor wrote to the old Cold Warrior outlining a New England secession uniting Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, Kennan personally responded with a letter dictated from his sickbed: “I write to say that in the idea of the three American states’ ultimate independence, whether separately or in union, I see nothing fanciful. [Such] are at present the dominating trends in the U.S. that I see no other means of ultimate preservation of cultural and societal values that will not only be endangered but eventually destroyed by an endlessly prolonged association … with the remainder of what is now the U.S.A.”

It was the stratagems of George Kennan, who died in 2005, that ultimately defeated the Soviet Union. Naylor sees this as historical irony, and he takes pleasure in drawing a dark comparison between the Soviet Union and the United States: There is the same far-flung geography. The same corporate socialism that defies free markets. The same spread of influence worldwide through violence, murder, and pillage. The same stunted public discourse. The same electoral sclerosis in the legislature (Congress is almost as stable in membership as the Politburo). “No one in the Soviet Union in 1960 or 1970 or even 1980 found it imaginable that someday it would collapse,” says Naylor. So, too, he says, is our certainty today in the stability of the United States of America.

Read the full article at Good Is

THE National Longitudinal Study indicates that the impact of Affirmative Action laws and diversity-enhancing public policy is far different from that imagined by most Americans. Instead of being over-represented (which equality advocates often view as something in need of “correction”), European-Americans of both sexes and all IQ groups are increasingly under-represented in the economy and are discriminated against in terms of income and higher education. Jewish-Americans are dramatically over-represented.

Most white Americans believe that the vast array of race preferences only effect those whites in lower socioeconomic levels — those in the bottom 20% by IQ and income. Most Whites at the highest socioeconomic levels believe that only the proverbial six or seven Whites denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School because of their race — or others whose stories make it into the media — are adversely affected.

We are going to test those typical thoughts and attitudes against data maintained by the United States Department of Labor, which maintains an elaborate census based on statistical sampling called the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY ’79). Over 155,000 youths were surveyed by telephone and 12,686 were finally selected as representative samples to be given an IQ test and then interviewed annually or bi-annually for the rest of their lives to track their progress.

Comparing outcomes for the entire population is misleading because of significant differences in average age (income increases with age) and significant differences in average IQ or ability. Only by comparing racial groups at the same age and ability level can you determine whether race preferences created by the “Civil Rights” laws produce distributive justice, or whether they produce subordination and exploitation.

All of the NLSY’79 interviewees grew up after the racial preferences were put in place by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, and after implementation of massive school redistricting, school bussing, and massive Federal expenditure on Operation Head Start designed to eliminate racially unequal educational outcomes. Thus, we have the ability to test the relative education and incomes of the races at the same age and IQ level after massive Federal intervention and remediation for the supposed purpose of reducing the inequality of the races. So let us compare our attitudes and assumptions with the data.

Median Income – Males

Above we see the income results for the top 2% of the population by IQ for males. The top 2% includes all those who have an IQ of 130 or above. As you can see, white males do significantly worse than their competitors. Jews are the only ethnic group which has benefited from or escaped the consequences of the racial preference schemes enacted by our Federal Government. All other white ethnic origins are grouped together in a very narrow range with outcomes very similar to the overall white average. So where are the undeserved privileges we hear so much about ??

Above we see the same pattern (in incomes for the 90-97% IQ range) but with somewhat less dramatic differences between races. Once again, whites are at the bottom.

Above we see very dramatic differences in median income for the remainder of the top quarter of the population by IQ. Where are the undeserved privileges we hear so much about?

Below the top 25%, the pattern for males shifts, with white males doing better than blacks but not as well as Hispanics or Jews. Contrary to popular opinion, race preferences have the greatest impact on white males in the top quarter of the population IQ range — at the highest socioeconomic levels.

Here we see the same pattern, with Hispanic males (the largest minority group) doing significantly better than white males, but with black males doing marginally worse. We are beginning to see “small sample” effects here as there are only a few Jews in the sample (and relatively few in the Jewish population at large) below the population median IQ.

Same pattern for the bottom quartile of the population by IQ. But note that Hispanic males earn substantially more income at every IQ level than do white males of the same IQ.

Median Income – Females

Here we see a familiar pattern for females in the top 2% by IQ. The income differences between racial groups for females are much larger than for males, with white women at the top of the IQ spectrum earning only 30% of what Hispanic females earn at the same IQ level. In a very large sample of over 3000 blacks, there were no black females who scored in the top 2% of the population.

Here we see the same dramatic occupational and pay discrimination against white females in the top 10% of the IQ spectrum. Is the statutory inclusion of “women” as a protected class under “civil rights” laws just eyewash and a diversion intended to focus white female anger at white males rather than upon real threats to their economic well being?

We get the same pattern for the remainder of the top quarter, but with a “small sample” effect for the Jewish females in that IQ group.

Here, the experience for white females begins to deviate dramatically from those of white males, as white females in the lower IQ groups earn significantly less than their racial competitors at the same IQ levels.

While white men in this IQ category do reasonably well compared with their racial counterparts at the same IQ level, white females do dramatically worse. Ironically, opinion polls show that white females generally support the race preference schemes called “Affirmative Action,” perhaps because white females are entirely unaware of these data.

Again, the same pattern (but with only one Jewish woman in the sample with an IQ in the bottom 24% of the population). If we were to deduce the purpose of the race preference system in the United States based on outcomes — as opposed to wishful thinking and proclaimed intentions — it would be to exploit white females from top to bottom. A secondary purpose of the race preference system in the United States would be to disadvantage and displace white males at the top of the ability and IQ spectrum.

Those of you who are awake and alert may have noticed in the above series of income slides that median income for white women is less than for white men at the same age and IQ level. However, most of the white females in the NLSY ’79 sample marry, and as you will note from this chart, when the husband and wife’s incomes are added together (R+S), white females do better than white males at all IQ levels except the top 2%. A comparison of the black with violet bars gives you a comparison of male and female only income, while a comparison of the yellow bars with the red bars gives you a comparison of male and female family income. This chart shows that a prudent marriage is just as important in the 21st century as it was back in 1815 when Jane Austen wrote her famous novels such as Pride and Prejudice. “R” stands for “respondent” or survey participant, while R+S stands for respondent and spouse. The median income for R+S includes those who never married and those now divorced, thus lowering the difference between single and family incomes in the slide.

Education – A mind is a terrible thing to waste

A complex society needs high IQ people to administer its activities and to solve its problems. Thus, everyone in the top 2% IQ group should go college and receive at least a four-year degree, and the overwhelming majority should receive graduate and professional degrees. As you can see, in contrast to their racial competitors, nearly 15% of whites in this top IQ group fail to get a four-year degree. Again, whites in this top IQ group do worse than those in competing racial groups. So much for white over-representation on campuses.

Drilling down into the nearly 15% of whites in the top 2% IQ group who do not get four-year degrees, we see that nearly 9% of whites at that IQ get a high school diploma only, with no college. A bright mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste, and the study indicates it is the bright white gentile minds that are being denied educational opportunities, at significant costs to our country. This chart, and the preceding one, suggest that there would be no need for the H-1b visas for foreign engineers, programmers, and doctors if the abilities of so many talented, high IQ whites were not being overlooked or excluded from appropriate educational opportunities. Indeed, it is only the existence of the H-1b visas that limits the horrific costs of this waste of high IQ talent and permits its continuance. H-1b visas are necessary to the scheme which you so clearly see in these charts to displace and subordinate high IQ white males.

With the exception of the above chart, all charts in this section on four-year degrees include all those who go on and receive graduate and professional degrees.

Here we begin to see evidence of genuine undeserved privilege in terms of admissions and grading that lead to four-year degrees for those in the 75th to 89th percentile IQ group. Notice how much better Jews do than those groups entitled to explicit racial preference.

Still more evidence of genuine undeserved privilege is seen here, despite it being the opposite of “conventional wisdom” on the subject.

In this chart we see compelling evidence of actual undeserved privilege as opposed to the propaganda version that is so widely preached in our Universities. We also see compelling evidence of a “back door” to college admission which must be operating for those who, while not entitled to explicit preferences, nevertheless seem to do much better at these lower IQs than the racial groups that are entitled to explicit preferences. There is, at best, only marginal utility for society in having people from this IQ group receive a college education. However, there may be significant individual benefit if a degree is required for a job in government or the non-profit sector of the economy — but only if the individuals know in advance that they will have connections in those bureaucracies willing to prefer them for such jobs.

Graduate and Professional

No surprises in this top IQ group. The chart merely continues a pattern seen in the charts for undergraduate degrees.

Again, no surprises in this IQ group that rounds out the top 10%.

As expected, the greatest preferences are going to show up in the IQ group which can only provide marginal candidates for PhD degrees. The surprise is the percentage of Jews in what, for them, is a lower IQ group — more than double the percentage of white gentiles.

We switch now to professional degrees — doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc. — and, as you can see, Jews receive more than double the percentage of professional degrees awarded to Hispanics and whites.

In the remainder of the top 10% of our population by IQ a lower percentage of whites attain professional degrees than do Hispanics, blacks and Jews — a clear consequence of race preferences — explicit preferences in the case of Blacks and Hispanics and possibly preferences by administrators exercising their administrative discretion in the case of Jews, who do not fall under explicit preferential laws or policies.

It is in the remainder of the top quartile below the top ten percent mark that we see dramatic evidence of discrimination in favor of the constituent groups within the “Affirmative Action” coalition and against white gentiles.

And once again, the big surprise is that Jews in this IQ range attain three times the percentage of professional degrees as white gentiles in the same IQ range.

In the previous slides in this section on education no distinction has been made as to the quality of the degrees or credentials received. We shift gears now and examine an “Ivy League” school, Harvard University. As you can see, the chart excludes a very large group of Asians, Arabs, North Africans, and North American Indians. The table sets forth data from reliable sources published prior the first Internet exposure of this under-representation. Since that time, Harvard’s racial and ethnic reports have fallen victim to a variant of the Heisenberg principle, namely that reports of politically sensitive demographic data seem to change rapidly once the data are observed. Harvard is now reporting much higher percentages of “whites” but steadfastly refuses to define precisely what that term means — and why their definition has changed recently. Does Harvard’s notion of who is “white” include students from India, Iran, Pakistan and Turkey, for example? For purposes of this slide we took Harvard’s 1996 report of whites and subtracted Hillel’s report of Jews in attendance to determine the number of European-descended students.

It is clear that Jewish birth rates are so low that the numbers of Jews admitted to Harvard must be in decline in the 21st Century. However, until Harvard stops hiding the ball, their new data can only be greeted with continuing suspicion.

We see a similar pattern of under-representation in the top 15 universities as ranked by U.S. News and World Report using data from Hillel and Princeton Review.

Finally we see that the NLSY ’79 made the mistake of asking about financial aid received in 1984. The results were so embarrassing that they never asked that survey question again. The chart shows scholarship grants or tuition reductions only, and does not include loans or work study (which really is no aid at all). The chart includes only those in the top 10% IQ group — where the case for financial aid is most compelling. As you can see, on average American colleges are lying when they say that they provide more aid to students in poverty than to those from middle and upper income families. It is only Hispanics and Blacks in poverty status who get more than middle class students of the same race. The discrepancy for Jews may be attributable to the level of support available from the very well funded Jewish charities.

Regarding the above chart on financial aid, high IQ among the poor is overwhelmingly a white gentile phenomenon, and it is these students who get less financial aid than middle class white gentiles. It is a huge and highly destructive waste of talent. Percents on the Y axis are expressed as decimal fractions of the number one.

Wealth Accumulation

The slide above shows the average net worth of survey participants in each racial group in the top 2% by IQ. There is a data field in which survey participants report their net worth, and a data field for each type of asset — stocks, bonds, houses, rental real estate, business interests, etc., as well as a field for each type of debt — mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, margin, and business debts. An overwhelming number of participants seriously under-report their net worth, and so the slides in this section were prepared by summing the individual asset data fields and then summing and subtracting the debt data fields for each participant for each interview year, and then taking the highest year’s net worth for each individual. Note that the data ends with the 1996 interview year in which the oldest participants were 41 years old, before the effects of inheritance would become significant and before the stock market boom of the late nineties made it easy for those in the right place at the right time to become wealthy. Thus, the income and wealth charts reflect early career rewards for individual effort and “connections,” the latter possibly being very important among members of highly ethnocentric and wealthy groups.

It is in the remainder of this top 10% that we see the real potential power of the previously-mentioned “connections” — and also a source of significant political power, and power to influence admission to private universities. Members of the wealthiest ethnic group are far more likely to become important, prosperous alumni and contribute generously to the university endowment. Note that Hispanics have a higher net worth than whites in this IQ category.

Outside of the top 10% by IQ, the difference between Jews and other racial groups — while still substantial — decreases. Note in particular the relatively low wealth accumulation by blacks at this IQ level, a level at which the most strenuous effects of preferences in their favor are seen in the charts above. Could this lack of savings be caused by a sense that saving is unnecessary because of the safety net that preferences provide?

At this second quartile IQ level, wealth most probably consists mostly of housing rather than savings. But we may also be witnessing lower wealth levels as a measure of “present-orientation” rather than future orientation. You will notice that the average net worth for whites is remarkably similar from the top down to the 50th percentile by IQ.  High IQ does not seem to confer the same wealth accumulation advantage to whites as it does to Jews. When contrasted with the advantage that high IQ confers upon white median income, this suggests that whites are motivated by visible status markers and only to a much lesser degree by the power of savings and wealth — which is largely invisible to their neighbors and co-workers. If you look carefully, you will notice that high IQ does confer a significant advantage in wealth accumulation on Hispanics.

The Big Picture

Above is a chart showing the distribution of the Jewish, Black, Hispanic and White survey populations arrayed by percentage of that population in each 5% IQ decrement beginning with the top 5% at the front left of the slide and the bottom 5% at the right rear. Looking at this chart, is is obvious that only one group within the racial preferences coalition has the capacity to strategize, finance, lead and administer that system. However, such a conclusion would not be obvious absent the preceding slides which show how well that group has prospered under the system they created. In addition you can see reasons that racial harmony and assimilation might be well-nigh impossible to achieve in the United States, as the black and Hispanic populations are overwhelmingly concentrated in the bottom half of the IQ spectrum.

In this slide, the Y axis is the average number of children, and as you can see from the completed black fertility rates, blacks in the top half of the IQ spectrum are way below replacement averaging around 1.3 children per woman. It is only in the bottom quartile, those with IQs below 85 that the black population is slightly above replacement. Thus, the black population in the U.S. is facing demographic catastrophe as differential birth rates by IQ render that population less and less competent with every generation. This fertility pattern guarantees ever escalating demands for more preferences and more wealth transfers from the white population. Racial harmony may be doomed.

Above is a chart which shows that white gentiles who are unaware of their European ethnic origins have lower median incomes than do all whites in the IQ category. NLSY ’79 does not poll participants for their views on race, but this data suggests that caring enough about ones ethnic origins to be aware of them is a marker of high status relative to atomized individuals who do not care enough to know about their roots. The chart strongly suggests that racial awareness is a marker of high status — another indicator that current public policies of enforcing preferences and insisting on “racial harmony” are doomed.

Here we see that white fertility in all IQ groups is below replacement and that birthrates of white women in the top half of the IQ spectrum are at catastrophic levels. With far fewer high IQ whites available in future generations, the slide of the U.S., into Third World status will be rapid by historical standards, but slow and painful for the individuals involved. An increasing danger will be the prospect of high IQ white youth leaving the U.S. and emigrating to those countries in Europe with the highest birthrates at the upper end of the IQ spectrum, the lowest support costs for low-IQ minorities, and a governing elite that shares racial kinship (and hence empathy) with its native population.

Even if one tried, it would be hard to design a more socially and politically unstable society than the one illustrated in the above slide and in this study generally. The elites who control the media and what Rasmussen calls the “political class” are well aware of the potential for volatility and conflict within this unfortunate racial and ethnic construct. That is why the elite enforces its semi-cryptic system of censorship on racial matters so vigorously in the U.S., and desperately pounds into our heads the “moral imperative” of tolerance toward this volatile and ultimately doomed mix.

Thus far, the founding population of the United States has been willing to concede substantial economic and educational advantages to minorities in order to buy temporary peace, while remaining largely oblivious to the costs and the escalating burdens as they themselves fall into minority status. Is the nascent Tea Party movement partly a consequence of the rising discontent of this population group? Is the gradual shift in attitude of minority populations from one of desiring assimilation (the “melting pot”) to one of demanding recognition of unique cultures (bilingualism, Afrocentrism, etc.) a sign of the ultimate breakup of America into its component peoples? Only time will tell.

The National Longitudinal Studies

(photo by simmbarb)

THERE IS a way out of the ever-increasing tax spiral.

Today, the big need is broadband to outlying areas. The fastest growing Census bureau demographic is the “X-urb”: upper middle class, entrepreneurial, and well-educated people who are moving to rural areas. Maybe they see multi-ethnic cities as powder kegs. Katrina was a wake-up call to those concerned about law and order, and many of us recall how the cops just gave up on it and went home to protect their own families.

Just like during the Great Depression, use the unemployed to build the infrastructure. Urbanites are blissfully ignorant, but the REA (Rural Electrification Administration), in bringing electricity to family farms, allowed agribusiness to develop — and with that came dramatic increases in production at far lower costs. The GOP bitched about “socialized energy,” thinking it would only benefit the small farmers, but they were wrong.

If we don’t find a way out, then the economy will crash — and the people with any foresight do not want be invested, much less live, in multi-ethnic cities during such a scenario.

But this X-urban class of entrepreneurial spirits with access to venture capital needs broadband to support their business plans.

If you further add up the infrastructure support needed by trucking, such as the constant repair to the roadway surface, there is a real niche available for a new generation of heavy freight aircraft — that would go point-to-point unimpeded by traffic jams, road work, road taxes, weigh stations, truck stops, or speed limits. Using state-of-the-art NASA aeronautics software,these  aircraft would get similar tonnage per mile fuel consumption — but move faster than — high speed rail, and do so without the need for roadway right of way and all its attendant problems. They just need airports. If it flies at just 300 mph, it can land at 60mph — on short runways.If that sort of infrastructure isn’t already there, it can be added for minimal expense.

We don’t need to be moving people around, just goods and information. So what we need to empower the X-urbs and their intelligence and productivity is broadband and freight.

By the way, if the Democrats want to do “the poor” any good, they should use FEMA trailers to move moms and kids out of the drug-infested cities onto the farmland where they can be taught to grow their own food rather than have them eat at taxpayer expense with food stamps. The kids would be much healthier. But that would remove Democratic voters from urban polls. And the Republicans do not want Democratic voters moving into their rural districts. So we can’t have that, even though it’d be good for everyone but the major parties.